Transferring a VHS.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Got a few VHS I'd like to digitise. Still have a working VHS player. But
no longer a PC with analogue video inputs.

Bought a CVBS and S-Video to USB convertor from Ebay. Seemed to be
hundreds of them advertised, but all looked the same, and remarkably
cheap. Under a tenner including software CD.

It does sort of work, but with a timing error in old money. Picture is
split into four and displace so the left is on the right etc and the
blanking in the middle.

The CD does say for Win10. but the generic USB driver Windows has
installed is likely the problem?

Don't mind spending more to get something that works.

--
*I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder *

Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[David Wade]

On 27/02/2021 13:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> Got a few VHS I'd like to digitise. Still have a working VHS player. But
> no longer a PC with analogue video inputs.
>
> Bought a CVBS and S-Video to USB convertor from Ebay. Seemed to be
> hundreds of them advertised, but all looked the same, and remarkably
> cheap. Under a tenner including software CD.
>
> It does sort of work, but with a timing error in old money. Picture is
> split into four and displace so the left is on the right etc and the
> blanking in the middle.
>
> The CD does say for Win10. but the generic USB driver Windows has
> installed is likely the problem?
>
> Don't mind spending more to get something that works.
>

I have found even the ones from Aldi to be virtually useless. I think
the Dazzle is a reasonable compromise. Not sure if this is the same as
the one I use:-

https://www.pinnaclesys.com/en/products/dazzle/dvd-recorder-hd/

but it looks similar...

Dave Wade

[Fredxx]

On 27/02/2021 13:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> Got a few VHS I'd like to digitise. Still have a working VHS player. But
> no longer a PC with analogue video inputs.
>
> Bought a CVBS and S-Video to USB convertor from Ebay. Seemed to be
> hundreds of them advertised, but all looked the same, and remarkably
> cheap. Under a tenner including software CD.
>
> It does sort of work, but with a timing error in old money. Picture is
> split into four and displace so the left is on the right etc and the
> blanking in the middle.
>
> The CD does say for Win10. but the generic USB driver Windows has
> installed is likely the problem?
>
> Don't mind spending more to get something that works.

With the various video formats I'm wondering if the official driver
might have some setup options missing in the generic Win10 driver.

However it is also possible that the packaged Win10 driver is in fact
the official driver supplied to Microsoft.

I'm with Mr Wade that it does pay to get a named USB device. There seem
to be many non-working clones.

[Adrian Caspersz]

On 27/02/2021 13:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> Got a few VHS I'd like to digitise. Still have a working VHS player. But
> no longer a PC with analogue video inputs.
>
> Bought a CVBS and S-Video to USB convertor from Ebay. Seemed to be
> hundreds of them advertised, but all looked the same, and remarkably
> cheap. Under a tenner including software CD.
>
> It does sort of work, but with a timing error in old money. Picture is
> split into four and displace so the left is on the right etc and the
> blanking in the middle.

Sync issue, it's free running.

Does "settings" which of CVBS or S-video you have selected. And 50Hz?

Might be worth chasing the right driver, or finding an older PC.

>
> The CD does say for Win10. but the generic USB driver Windows has
> installed is likely the problem?
>
> Don't mind spending more to get something that works.
>

Aim a mobile phone at a TV?

Depending on equipment, results may be as acceptable as anything more
complicated.

--
Adrian C

[Adrian Caspersz]

On 27/02/2021 15:01, Adrian Caspersz wrote:

Whoops

> Does "settings" *know* which of CVBS or S-video you have selected. And 50Hz?

--
Adrian C

[John Rumm]

On 27/02/2021 13:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> Got a few VHS I'd like to digitise. Still have a working VHS player. But
> no longer a PC with analogue video inputs.
>
> Bought a CVBS and S-Video to USB convertor from Ebay. Seemed to be
> hundreds of them advertised, but all looked the same, and remarkably
> cheap. Under a tenner including software CD.
>
> It does sort of work, but with a timing error in old money. Picture is
> split into four and displace so the left is on the right etc and the
> blanking in the middle.
>
> The CD does say for Win10. but the generic USB driver Windows has
> installed is likely the problem?
>
> Don't mind spending more to get something that works.

One option I have found that works ok, is using an old Canon "i" series
camcorder as a digitizer - feeding CVBS into the camera, and taking the
output via Firewire to the PC. Probably needs to be a desktop these days
to allow a firewire card to be installed, but I expect suitable cameras
could be had cheaply from ebay now.


--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

[Peter Johnson]

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:04:55 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

>Got a few VHS I'd like to digitise. Still have a working VHS player. But
>no longer a PC with analogue video inputs.
>
>Bought a CVBS and S-Video to USB convertor from Ebay. Seemed to be
>hundreds of them advertised, but all looked the same, and remarkably
>cheap. Under a tenner including software CD.
>
>It does sort of work, but with a timing error in old money. Picture is
>split into four and displace so the left is on the right etc and the
>blanking in the middle.
>
>The CD does say for Win10. but the generic USB driver Windows has
>installed is likely the problem?
>
>Don't mind spending more to get something that works.

I tried a cheap one from an eBay seller but it didn't work reliably.
I'm of the view that paying more for something is probably worthwhile
in this case but have yet to take the plunge. Google offers lots of
options to a search for usb video converter.

[Paul]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> Got a few VHS I'd like to digitise. Still have a working VHS player. But
> no longer a PC with analogue video inputs.
>
> Bought a CVBS and S-Video to USB convertor from Ebay. Seemed to be
> hundreds of them advertised, but all looked the same, and remarkably
> cheap. Under a tenner including software CD.
>
> It does sort of work, but with a timing error in old money. Picture is
> split into four and displace so the left is on the right etc and the
> blanking in the middle.
>
> The CD does say for Win10. but the generic USB driver Windows has
> installed is likely the problem?
>
> Don't mind spending more to get something that works.
>

The TV Capture market collapsed a few years back,
with KWorld going out of business. Generally, you could
get something working, but the capture
software always left something to be desired.

When retail for an item collapses, it reflects back
on chip manufacture. Companies stop making the
chips, if there's no way to get people to buy them.

I would start with Windows Device Manager, find the capture
device in the USB section, do Properties, HardwareID, and
get the VEN and DEV. Run the numbers through here.

http://www.linux-usb.org/usb.ids

eb1a eMPIA Technology, Inc.
2841 EM2840 Video Capture

https://empiatech.com/wp/video-capture/

Alternately, you can use Uwe's program for getting
info from the USB device. This is for Windows. It
will take a bit of slogging to find the two numbers there.

https://www.uwe-sieber.de/usbtreeview_e.html

The objective is to get an identifier which
can be used to track down alternate software.

If the drivers offered worked, they would deliver a
capture stream to a known OS interface, and then you
could look for something to save the output from there.

Baseband capture, would be around 20MB/sec or so. If
the content was MJPEG compressed, the bandwidth required
would be a lot lower, but the image might be a bit fuzzy
and need sharpening in post. Some of these devices
might even have an MPEG compressor in hardware.

*******

Startech are nice, in that they indicate what chip is
inside their product. They aren't always competitive on
price. I picked this one, just to see what companies
are still making chips. And to see if there are any
Chinese upstarts. There's really no incentive for new
market entrants for VHS capture.

https://www.startech.com/en-us/audio-video-products/svid2usb232

AV Input Composite, Audio RCA, S-Video

Industry Standards NTSC, PAL, SECAM

Video Encoding: MPEG 1, MPEG 2, and MPEG 4

DirectShow Compatible

Chipset ID EM28281 <===

Using that, I got a hit here.

https://www.linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/Easycap

"some chinese manufacturers use this label
for at least four completely different clones"

Syntek STK1160 (USB video bridge)
# lsusb
Bus 001 Device 003: ID 05e1:0408 Syntek

Empia EM2860 (EM2861 ?) (USB video bridge) # The new Startech might
# lsusb # be a problem...
Bus XXX Device XXX: ID eb1a:2861 eMPIA

Somagic SMI-2021CBE (USB video bridge)
# lsusb
Bus XXX Device XXX: ID 1c88:0007 Somagic, Inc. # Uses firmware

USB video capture QS702 SHENZHEN FUSHICAI ELECTRONIC
# lsusb
Bus XXX Device XXX: ID 1b71:3002

So it does seem the business is alive and well.
And means we don't know exactly what's in your
Easycap clone. The Empia was just a guess, based
on the last time the question came up.

There needs to be a control to select NTSC/PAL/SECAM etc
for the current problem to get fixed.

*******

Capture alternatives:

VLC ? Media : Open Capture Device [ https://www.videolan.org/ ]

Or perhaps AMCAP.

"Free AMCAP Alternate?"

http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/262469-Free-AMCAP-Alternate

I seem to have a copy of this. There is an option called
video capture filter, that if the driver exposes the NTSC/PAL
control, it will be visible in video capture filter. There is
another AMCAP which is more featured than this, but it
costs money (properties unknown).

http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/btwincap/wdmmiscutils2.73.zip?download

To do captures, I think it uses the olde "preallocate space please"
idea, where you somehow have to define a large file space for
it to use, in advance of doing a capture. Which is the height
of foolishness. But what are you going to do.

That's why VLC might be your first choice of third-party capture.

Don't throw the AMCAP away, as you will be trying it
again and again, as you acquire various pieces of hardware crap.
It's one of those "hope springs eternal" kind of things.

Paul

[Davey]

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:04:55 +0000 (GMT)

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

> Got a few VHS I'd like to digitise. Still have a working VHS player.
> But no longer a PC with analogue video inputs.
>
> Bought a CVBS and S-Video to USB convertor from Ebay. Seemed to be
> hundreds of them advertised, but all looked the same, and remarkably
> cheap. Under a tenner including software CD.
>
> It does sort of work, but with a timing error in old money. Picture is
> split into four and displace so the left is on the right etc and the
> blanking in the middle.
>
> The CD does say for Win10. but the generic USB driver Windows has
> installed is likely the problem?
>
> Don't mind spending more to get something that works.
>

When I was doing this, I had to find a VCR that sent its output in some
odd format, N4334 or something like that. It was because the normal
player does not send out the correct sync. signal. Most TV sets
interpret it ok, but the recorder has nothing to latch onto. Then I
used an EZ-something USB device to make the conversion. It only talks to
Windows (7 in my case), but does a perfectly acceptable job. This was
maybe 7 or 8 years ago now.

I can get more detail if needed.

--
Davey.

[Davey]

I have just remembered that some of those things were needed as I was
converting NTSC tapes to UK digital. The device is indeed an EZCap, and
it uses Arcsoft software.

I also have a Hauppauge device, which works fine as long as the
original tape is not NTSC.

Hope this helps in some small way.

--
Davey.

[Steve Walker]

I had a Dazzle, with Pinnacle, which worked pretty well. However, when I
moved to a newer version of Windows, the software was not supported and
I had to buy the later version. That worked okay, until the hardware was
no longer supported after a later update. At which point I bought a
Roxio unit, that still works after a number of years and afew more
upgrades to Windows.

[NY]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:59055bc...@davenoise.co.uk...

> Got a few VHS I'd like to digitise. Still have a working VHS player. But
> no longer a PC with analogue video inputs.
>
> Bought a CVBS and S-Video to USB convertor from Ebay. Seemed to be
> hundreds of them advertised, but all looked the same, and remarkably
> cheap. Under a tenner including software CD.
>
> It does sort of work, but with a timing error in old money. Picture is
> split into four and displace so the left is on the right etc and the
> blanking in the middle.
>
> The CD does say for Win10. but the generic USB driver Windows has
> installed is likely the problem?
>
> Don't mind spending more to get something that works.

My best "buy" was an old Windows XP PC with a video-capture card and
software. I got it second-hand, partly in lieu of payment from someone that
I had done some PC support work for. It does excellent quality captures from
any PAL source, whether VHS or a Sky box (when I wanted to copy things off
that we were about to lose when we cancelled our Sky subscription). OK,
that's "OK by composite video" - still a bit fuzzy and soft compared with
digital SD, but good in that the colours were solid and didn't flicker. The
only disadvantages were a) it couldn't handle copy-protected pre-recorded
VHS - and I had a couple of films that I'd bought on VHS and which weren't
available later on DVD; and b) the PC was big and cumbersome to get out and
take downstairs to the VHS/Sky.

So I bought a USB PAL-to-MPEG converter. I think it was Hauppauge - a
reasonably reputable brand. It can do copy-protected fine, but the picture
quality is not as good: some colours flicker or have pronounced
dot-patterning. And that was even the case with a Sky box, which you'd think
would produce good steady, standards-compliant PAL unlike VHS where there
could be timing problems. But it's allowed me to take copies of those films
so we can watch them on Plex etc.

I'm not sure if either of my devices can do NTSC. I have an NTSC VHS tape
that I recorded while I was staying with my sister in the US. If I can fin
it I'll have to try it as an academic exercise, as long as either of my
converters can handle NTSC-443: 525/30 but with the colour encoded as PAL at
4.43 MHz rather than as NTSC at 3.58 MHz. "Modern" TVs and VCRs (modern when
VHS and analogue TV was still used) could sync with NTSC-443 and display the
picture in colour. I remember my big Panasonic CRT TV would change a *very*
noisy relay to change the sync frequency, and the picture was smaller - less
wide to match it being less high because of the fewer lines.

[Dave W]

On Sat, 27 Feb 2021 13:04:55 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:

>Got a few VHS I'd like to digitise. Still have a working VHS player. But
>no longer a PC with analogue video inputs.
>
>Bought a CVBS and S-Video to USB convertor from Ebay. Seemed to be
>hundreds of them advertised, but all looked the same, and remarkably
>cheap. Under a tenner including software CD.
>
>It does sort of work, but with a timing error in old money. Picture is
>split into four and displace so the left is on the right etc and the
>blanking in the middle.
>
>The CD does say for Win10. but the generic USB driver Windows has
>installed is likely the problem?
>
>Don't mind spending more to get something that works.

I use the August VGB100 USB Video Capture Stick, which comes with
ArcSoft TotalMedia software.
--
Dave W

[JoeJoe]

On 27/02/2021 13:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> Got a few VHS I'd like to digitise. Still have a working VHS player. But
> no longer a PC with analogue video inputs.
>
> Bought a CVBS and S-Video to USB convertor from Ebay. Seemed to be
> hundreds of them advertised, but all looked the same, and remarkably
> cheap. Under a tenner including software CD.
>
> It does sort of work, but with a timing error in old money. Picture is
> split into four and displace so the left is on the right etc and the
> blanking in the middle.
>
> The CD does say for Win10. but the generic USB driver Windows has
> installed is likely the problem?
>
> Don't mind spending more to get something that works.
>

Bought this one a couple of years ago to convert a few old tapes with:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/292033167883?ul_noapp=true

It just worked without any problem (with 2 different VCRs and various
tapes).

I seem to remember that it insisted on you using the software that came
with it (EasyCap I think it was called) - I tried it with various other,
more safisticated ones, but without any luck, so converted first with
it, and edited later with another.

[JoeJoe]

PS: I am 100% certain that I used it on a Win7 machine.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <s1e9pf$a51$1...@dont-email.me>,

NY <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> My best "buy" was an old Windows XP PC with a video-capture card and
> software. I got it second-hand, partly in lieu of payment from someone
> that I had done some PC support work for. It does excellent quality
> captures from any PAL source, whether VHS or a Sky box (when I wanted to
> copy things off that we were about to lose when we cancelled our Sky
> subscription). OK, that's "OK by composite video" - still a bit fuzzy
> and soft compared with digital SD, but good in that the colours were
> solid and didn't flicker. The only disadvantages were a) it couldn't
> handle copy-protected pre-recorded VHS - and I had a couple of films
> that I'd bought on VHS and which weren't available later on DVD; and b)
> the PC was big and cumbersome to get out and take downstairs to the
> VHS/Sky.

Yes. I had Pinnacle Studio on XP which came with a video capture card, and
that worked very well indeed with tape based systems. Sadly, it wouldn't
work on later than XP.

--
*Plagiarism saves time *

[The Natural Philosopher]

Buy a VHS player that also is a DVD recorder. There are a few around on
ebay still sub £200



--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent
renewable energy.

[Brian Gaff (Sofa)]

Would that then not just make the issue how to read the dvd correctly
though?
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"The Natural Philosopher" <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:s1f22n$nut$1...@dont-email.me...

[Brian Gaff (Sofa)]

Its probably meant for the US vhs standard,not the European one perhaps?

Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

"Fredxx" <fre...@nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:s1dhov$an8$1...@dont-email.me...

[Brian Gaff (Sofa)]

I would not bank on that working very well, especially for sound.
I think it sounds like either it needs usb2 not three and a driver that is
designed for what is actually coming in. Looks like the synchronisation is
not being seen.
I'm sure some time ago there used to be a kit for this in the high street
shops but beware of commercial videos as the copy protection can cause it
to not work.

Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

"Adrian Caspersz" <em...@here.invalid> wrote in message
news:i9v56p...@mid.individual.net...

[Max Demian]

On 28/02/2021 03:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 27/02/2021 13:29, David Wade wrote:
>> On 27/02/2021 13:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> Got a few VHS I'd like to digitise. Still have a working VHS player. But
>>> no longer a PC with analogue video inputs.

> Buy a VHS player that also is a DVD recorder. There are a few around on
> ebay still sub £200

That's what I did and ripped the DVD on a laptop.

Then the DVD recorder broke and the replacement doesn't have any inputs
apart from Freeview RF.

--
Max Demian

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <s1fi75$n56$1...@dont-email.me>,

Brian Gaff \(Sofa\) <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Its probably meant for the US vhs standard,not the European one perhaps?
> Brian

No. You can select NTSC 30 frames or PAL 25 - as well as other variants.

--
*If they arrest the Energizer Bunny, would they charge it with battery? *

[Robin]

On 27/02/2021 13:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> Got a few VHS I'd like to digitise. Still have a working VHS player. But
> no longer a PC with analogue video inputs.
>

<snip>

If you still have a PC with a PCI slot there are cheap cards available
on eBay. (Many of the early TV cards included capture.)

If not I suppose it's not yet safe to recommend a visit to the tip to
see what's available.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Peter Able]

On 28/02/2021 14:01, Robin wrote:
> On 27/02/2021 13:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> Got a few VHS I'd like to digitise. Still have a working VHS player. But
>> no longer a PC with analogue video inputs.
>>
> <snip>
>
> If you still have a PC with a PCI slot there are cheap cards available
> on eBay. (Many of the early TV cards included capture.)
>
> If not I suppose it's not yet safe to recommend a visit to the tip to
> see what's available.
>
>

The Winfast DV2000 was/is an nice example of a PCI capture board.

It has a 10-bit video A-D converter - and those extra bits show.

PA

[Adrian Caspersz]

On 28/02/2021 12:10, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <s1fi75$n56$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Brian Gaff \(Sofa\) <bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Its probably meant for the US vhs standard,not the European one perhaps?
>> Brian
>
> No. You can select NTSC 30 frames or PAL 25 - as well as other variants.
>

Have you got the VEN and DEV?

(Paul's post)

"I would start with Windows Device Manager, find the capture
device in the USB section, do Properties, HardwareID, and
get the VEN and DEV. Run the numbers through here.

http://www.linux-usb.org/usb.ids "

--
Adrian C

[Paul]

Brian Gaff (Sofa) wrote:
> Would that then not just make the issue how to read the dvd correctly
> though?
> Brian
>

The VCR to DVD devices record in a standard format.

It's supposed to play in set top box players.

But the record quality of those, is so amazing,
that if a mate asked for your VCR to DVD recorder,
you'd just give it to him. That's how good they are.
"Give away good".

The only reason those sold at the store, is
because they'd stopped making proper VCRs at
that point. And that's all you could buy was
that rubbish.

Paul

[michael adams]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:59055bc...@davenoise.co.uk...

> Got a few VHS I'd like to digitise. Still have a working VHS player. But
> no longer a PC with analogue video inputs.
>

> Bought a CVBS and S-Video to USB convertor from Ebay. Seemed to be
> hundreds of them advertised, but all looked the same, and remarkably
> cheap. Under a tenner including software CD.
>
> It does sort of work, but with a timing error in old money. Picture is
> split into four and displace so the left is on the right etc and the
> blanking in the middle.
>

> The CD does say for Win10. but the generic USB driver Windows has
> installed is likely the problem?
>
> Don't mind spending more to get something that works.
>

It was after reading that, that out of curiosity I decided to check
out the secondnand prices of LG DRT389K DVD recorders. The completed
sales on eBay showed some quite low prices for working examples*,
So I may buy some spares These are now regarded as ancient tecnology
of course although they offer HDMI HD etc.

Depending on the connectors available its a simple matter of VHS
player to the telly and then telly to the DVD recorder choosing to
record AV or whatever it is, input.
Its possible to record off air. The last firmware update was around
8 years ago but the digital retune function works fine.

michael adams

* which could always be further followed up via the sellers feedback

now posting exclusively via GigaNews

...

[michael adams]

"michael adams" <mjad...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ZcydnSXI75v-Zab9...@brightview.co.uk...

>
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:59055bc...@davenoise.co.uk...
>> Got a few VHS I'd like to digitise. Still have a working VHS player. But
>> no longer a PC with analogue video inputs.
>>
>> Bought a CVBS and S-Video to USB convertor from Ebay. Seemed to be
>> hundreds of them advertised, but all looked the same, and remarkably
>> cheap. Under a tenner including software CD.
>>
>> It does sort of work, but with a timing error in old money. Picture is
>> split into four and displace so the left is on the right etc and the
>> blanking in the middle.
>>
>> The CD does say for Win10. but the generic USB driver Windows has
>> installed is likely the problem?
>>
>> Don't mind spending more to get something that works.
>>
>
> It was after reading that, that out of curiosity I decided to check
> out the secondnand prices of LG DRT389K DVD recorders. The completed
> sales on eBay showed some quite low prices for working examples*,
> So I may buy some spares These are now regarded as ancient tecnology
> of course although they offer HDMI HD etc.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&LH_Complete=1&_sop=13&_nkw=lg+drt389h+dvd+r&_blrs=spell_check

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <978a62cb-424e-328a...@outlook.com>,

Robin <r...@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 27/02/2021 13:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > Got a few VHS I'd like to digitise. Still have a working VHS player. But
> > no longer a PC with analogue video inputs.
> >
> <snip>

> If you still have a PC with a PCI slot there are cheap cards available
> on eBay. (Many of the early TV cards included capture.)

> If not I suppose it's not yet safe to recommend a visit to the tip to
> see what's available.

I had a look to see if I'd kept the old Pinnacle card - I had. S-Video and
CVBS both in and out. But of course no PCI slot on the MB. However, I's
use a PCIEx to PCI adaptor before with some success so tried it. And Win10
recognised the Pinnacle card.

Playing a VHS gives quite a reasonable picture through the software
supplied with the dongle that didn't work. But a recording made of it
breaks up rather a lot when replayed.

--
*Who are these kids and why are they calling me Mom?

[Robin]

On 01/03/2021 13:28, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <978a62cb-424e-328a...@outlook.com>,
> Robin <r...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 27/02/2021 13:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> Got a few VHS I'd like to digitise. Still have a working VHS player. But
>>> no longer a PC with analogue video inputs.
>>>
>> <snip>
>
>> If you still have a PC with a PCI slot there are cheap cards available
>> on eBay. (Many of the early TV cards included capture.)
>
>> If not I suppose it's not yet safe to recommend a visit to the tip to
>> see what's available.
>
> I had a look to see if I'd kept the old Pinnacle card - I had. S-Video and
> CVBS both in and out. But of course no PCI slot on the MB. However, I's
> use a PCIEx to PCI adaptor before with some success so tried it. And Win10
> recognised the Pinnacle card.
>
> Playing a VHS gives quite a reasonable picture through the software
> supplied with the dongle that didn't work. But a recording made of it
> breaks up rather a lot when replayed.
>

It's nigh on 15 years since I last captured VHS tapes but IIRC that
happened a lot in the early days when I used software which did the job
in one go. I found it better to have separate stages for capture,
editing and encoding. Names that come to mind are Avisynth, TMPGenc and
VideoReDo (the latter also to correct for missing frames). But I was so
much older then,...and I'm sure there's still a plethora of guides online.

[NY]

"Robin" <r...@outlook.com> wrote in message
news:f674d47d-d435-c929...@outlook.com...

> It's nigh on 15 years since I last captured VHS tapes but IIRC that
> happened a lot in the early days when I used software which did the job in
> one go. I found it better to have separate stages for capture, editing and
> encoding. Names that come to mind are Avisynth, TMPGenc and VideoReDo
> (the latter also to correct for missing frames). But I was so much older
> then,...and I'm sure there's still a plethora of guides online.

VideoReDo is intended for editing commercials etc from a recording -
omitting parts without changing the order of what you keep. It also
(automatically) omits isolated corrupted frames, in situations where it
might be better if it replicated the last good frame so as to avoid editing
out a bit of sound because of a video glitch or vice versa.

I don't think it can be used for capturing video from a capture card (eg
analogue to MPEG), though I may be wrong: I've never investigated that.

[Robin]

I did not intend to offer the 3 programmes as a match to the 3 functions
I listed. I used VideoReDo mainly for editing which, as you say, was
its main purpose. But I mentioned it in connection with missing frames
because I recalled it offered the options when meeting missing video
frames to maintain sync by (a) inserting extra video frames or (b)
removing audio frames.

I've not kept the software but the guide below tallies with my
recollection - see under Stream Parameters

https://www.afterdawn.com/guides/archive/vrd_config_page_3.cfm

[NY]

"Robin" <r...@outlook.com> wrote in message

news:ffe373a8-cd46-be53...@outlook.com...

> I used VideoReDo mainly for editing which, as you say, was its main
> purpose. But I mentioned it in connection with missing frames because I
> recalled it offered the options when meeting missing video frames to
> maintain sync by (a) inserting extra video frames or (b) removing audio
> frames.

Ah, I may have learned something! I didn't know there was an configuration
option to change the method by which sound and video are kept in sync if
there's a glitch.

But I've looked through the menus and there it is! For my version, V5, it's
Tools | Options | Stream Parameters, and then "Detect/resync missing frames"
which has options Ignore, Resync-Remove Audio, Resync-Insert Video.

Thanks for mentioning this feature.


I wonder if there's an option to set the minimum bit-rate when encoding
frames. Some low bit-rate channels seem to dissolve into blockiness at joins
in VRD, and the VRD support people said the solution was to set the minimum
bit-rate when saving:

File | Save
Profile Options
Advanced Options
Minimum MPEG-2 smart recording bit rate

But there seems to be no way to make the change permanent: it has to be done
for each saving.

[Robin]

On 02/03/2021 09:47, NY wrote:
>
> But there seems to be no way to make the change permanent: it has to be
> done for each saving.

Sorry, can't help you with that.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Decided to buy Diamond One Touch after a bit of Googling. Software and a
USB dongle at a reasonable price. And it does work well.

One niggle - the capture prog called Ez Grabber - the one I'll use most,
comes up on the screen in a tiny form. So small you can't really use the
control panel. The view window can be resized to what you want. You can
get round this by using the menu. Wondering if it doesn't like the ultra
high res monitor on the new PC?

The edit prog from the same installation disc is normal.

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

[michael adams]

"michael adams" <mjad...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message

news:z96dnZLjnpiNZKb9...@brightview.co.uk...

>
> "michael adams" <mjad...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ZcydnSXI75v-Zab9...@brightview.co.uk...
>>
>> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:59055bc...@davenoise.co.uk...
>>> Got a few VHS I'd like to digitise. Still have a working VHS player.
>>> But
>>> no longer a PC with analogue video inputs.
>>>
>>> Bought a CVBS and S-Video to USB convertor from Ebay. Seemed to be
>>> hundreds of them advertised, but all looked the same, and remarkably
>>> cheap. Under a tenner including software CD.
>>>
>>> It does sort of work, but with a timing error in old money. Picture is
>>> split into four and displace so the left is on the right etc and the
>>> blanking in the middle.
>>>
>>> The CD does say for Win10. but the generic USB driver Windows has
>>> installed is likely the problem?
>>>
>>> Don't mind spending more to get something that works.
>>>
>>
>> It was after reading that, that out of curiosity I decided to check
>> out the secondnand prices of LG DRT389K DVD recorders. The completed
>> sales on eBay showed some quite low prices for working examples*,
>> So I may buy some spares These are now regarded as ancient tecnology
>> of course although they offer HDMI HD etc.
>
> https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&LH_Complete=1&_sop=13&_nkw=lg+drt389h+dvd+r&_blrs=spell_check

https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_nkw=lg+drt389h+dvd+r

[rick]

On 27/02/2021 13:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

> Got a few VHS I'd like to digitise. Still have a working VHS player. But
> no longer a PC with analogue video inputs.
>
> Bought a CVBS and S-Video to USB convertor from Ebay. Seemed to be
> hundreds of them advertised, but all looked the same, and remarkably
> cheap. Under a tenner including software CD.
>
> It does sort of work, but with a timing error in old money. Picture is
> split into four and displace so the left is on the right etc and the
> blanking in the middle.
>
> The CD does say for Win10. but the generic USB driver Windows has
> installed is likely the problem?
>
> Don't mind spending more to get something that works.
>

I am not a fan of USB video converters the end result is poor.

I bought a Video converter to convert all my tapes .... it was superb,
uses FireWire connection to PC
It was a Grass Valley ADVC 110 (now rebadged as Canopus)
I sold after having done the job for more than I paid for it. (should
have kept it)

They are available on eBay as is the ADVC 55 (not sure of difference)
I also used a time base corrector to regenerate clean VHS sync, also
sold that for price paid for it. (worth adding to capture method)

I then used free software on-line to de-noise, de-interlace, stabilise,
resize, moire artefact removal etc. and adjust white balance, colours
etc. Some VERY powerful stuff for free.

For example I had a wedding video and colour cast was off, used program
to carry out exact colour change.

You just load routines into the free VirtualDub program (really is
powerful stuff)


The key thing is you want to get the highest quality avi file you can,
then you can post edit as much as you want, but if you have not done a
good capture, not possible to do as good a job.

[rick]

Forgot to add you can skip the ADVC is you have access to a Camcorder
with play-through functionality .... doesn't give the adjust and a
accurate levels as an ADVC but usable.

[Robin]

On 03/03/2021 17:31, rick wrote:
>>
>> You just load routines into the free VirtualDub program    (really is
>> powerful stuff)
>>
>>

+1 (I forgot that bit of the suite I used - though I'm not sure I'd
tackle the learning curve again)

[Peter Able]

On 27/02/2021 13:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> Got a few VHS I'd like to digitise. Still have a working VHS player. But
> no longer a PC with analogue video inputs.
>
> Bought a CVBS and S-Video to USB convertor from Ebay. Seemed to be
> hundreds of them advertised, but all looked the same, and remarkably
> cheap. Under a tenner including software CD.
>
> It does sort of work, but with a timing error in old money. Picture is
> split into four and displace so the left is on the right etc and the
> blanking in the middle.
>
> The CD does say for Win10. but the generic USB driver Windows has
> installed is likely the problem?
>
> Don't mind spending more to get something that works.
>

On the strength of this thread I've just bought an MS2100E-based Easycap.

It delivers de-interlaced video.

Any way to stop it de-interlacing?

TIA

[rick]

Never heard of that unit .... you can re-interlace using Virtualdub if
that is what format you want

[rick]

On 28/02/2021 20:09, michael adams wrote:
> "Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message

> Depending on the connectors available its a simple matter of VHS
> player to the telly and then telly to the DVD recorder choosing to
> record AV or whatever it is, input.
> Its possible to record off air. The last firmware update was around
> 8 years ago but the digital retune function works fine.
>
> michael adams
>
> * which could always be further followed up via the sellers feedback
>

A well used approach (apologies if already covered) is using PlayThrough
on a Camcorder .
Take video output from VHS recorder sVideo if possible, cable into
camcorder input then firewire output direct to PC ... Camcorder does no
recording it 'passes through' converted digital signal.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <5906de3...@davenoise.co.uk>,

Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
> Decided to buy Diamond One Touch after a bit of Googling. Software and a
> USB dongle at a reasonable price. And it does work well.

Or rather it doesn't. I was initially delighted to see a decent picture
from the VHS on the laptop screen.

Had been sorting through the tapes to see which I wanted to transfer.

So got stuck in. Decided to record to an external drive, USB connected. So
I can move it to where required easily.

Lots of unwanted judder on replay. Viewed on the Windows media player.
Basically, useless.

Years ago, I'd no problems making perfectly watchable DVDs from VHS using
Win XP.

Also tried recording direct to the laptop SSD. Same problem.

--
*I can see your point, but I still think you're full of shit.

[Peter Able]

Thanks. MS2100E is the chip inside:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/114361611065 - at least it was the day they
sent out mine !

It seems to be quite a common one - and works well, if you avoid using
the USB extension lead supplied with it.

I've tested it on an interlaced VHS commercial tape, that I had
previously captured with an old DV2000 capture card and there's nothing
like the amount of data in the new file - and it shows whenever a object
is moving - smooth edges in the old, interlaced version. Jagged motion
with the new unit.

Won't show with something like an old cinema film - which starts with
25fps, but the new capture thing degrades the 50 field per second videos.

I tried Virtualdub last night - a long re-learning curve after so long.
I don't want to re-interlace the new capture unit's output. The
damage has already been done by the MS2100E !

(See Block Diagram
http://en.macrosilicon.com/info.asp?base_id=2&third_id=31 )


I don't understand why everyone is so keen on progressive. Interlacing
was introduced for good reasons - most of which are still valid.

PA

[Paul]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <5906de3...@davenoise.co.uk>,
> Dave Plowman (News) <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>> Decided to buy Diamond One Touch after a bit of Googling. Software and a
>> USB dongle at a reasonable price. And it does work well.
>
> Or rather it doesn't. I was initially delighted to see a decent picture
> from the VHS on the laptop screen.
>
> Had been sorting through the tapes to see which I wanted to transfer.
>
> So got stuck in. Decided to record to an external drive, USB connected. So
> I can move it to where required easily.
>
> Lots of unwanted judder on replay. Viewed on the Windows media player.
> Basically, useless.
>
> Years ago, I'd no problems making perfectly watchable DVDs from VHS using
> Win XP.
>
> Also tried recording direct to the laptop SSD. Same problem.
>

Some device info here. It's a single chip, that it almost looks
like it is a USB composite of some sort, with two "portions" and
the driver may be offering two firmware files.

https://www.linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/OTG102#Diamond_VC500

I can find at least one comment that recommended using a
back USB2 port on a desktop and not a front USB2 point. The analog
electronics are noise sensitive to interference picked up
on front-port USB2 wiring.

I might try changing the power schema to "High Performance"
on the computer and keep the CPU clock pegged. This might
only be a tiny issue with an AMD system (the ACPI power reduction
can be too clever, and it drops the CPU speed 30 times a
second, which can wreak havoc with multimedia chores).

It could also be the device doing it (MPEG2 compressor gutless).

Given that DiamondMM has two designs, nothing prevents
them from spinning a third, which is not on the LinuxTV
site yet. They could keep the plastics and put something
else inside.

I could not find any comments (yet) about using the
Linux driver scheme. The availability of firmware
is a potential problem there (not in /lib/fw due to
unclear license). My TV tuner, which has capture
capability too, has the same problem - the firmware
for it, comes from the website of a private person
as no distro will carry it on their server.

You can switch the VCR to channel 3 output, and use
a tuner card to do capture, as an alternative interface.
I've found that my DVD STB, it works best if using
a separate Channel 3 modulator and having viewing
devices receive it that way. The picture actually
looks pretty good that way. With most of my other
Composite experiments here, I had varying degrees
of DC restoration problems. Like, sending a FreeBSD
screen to the TV set over Composite, the picture
was always too dark. The video card I was using,
is the last of its generation, and has plenty of
analog outputs, but I've got nothing to receive
the finer of the signals. It has YPrPb, which
could look great given a chance.

Paul

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <s1rshb$9lh$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,

Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:
> You can switch the VCR to channel 3 output, and use
> a tuner card to do capture, as an alternative interface.

Crikey. I'd say the chances of getting an analogue TV card to work in a
modern PC rather remote?

--
*When companies ship Styrofoam, what do they pack it in? *

[Paul]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <s1rshb$9lh$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:
>> You can switch the VCR to channel 3 output, and use
>> a tuner card to do capture, as an alternative interface.
>
> Crikey. I'd say the chances of getting an analogue TV card to work in a
> modern PC rather remote?
>

Well, you'd have to find one first :-)

Again, the tuner I got, has "one of everything".
It has analog, digital, and has an analog cable
for baseband capture from the VCR (or from my
"budget" DVD player).

The other tuner is older, and is just a BT878 and
tin can tuner. A so-called WinTV card. It's been
retired for a few years, sitting in the computer
unused. The tin can tuner is just an analog one,
so its days are over where I live. All we get here
is digital now. The newer tuner card can handle the
digital directly. But if I had to... the new card
can also tune channel 3 on a (F-series) coax.

I could get the WinTV card running again. I'd
probably flip over to Linux and try it there.

My newer card is no longer for sale, and at the time,
the other option was a digital quad, which I declined,
because I wanted the card with "one of everything" on it :-)
That's how I buy hardware here. The ancient video card
was also a "one of everything" card. I wanted that
so I could have a YPrPb, even if the odds were looking
slim of using that signal set. Probably a TV set today,
would be missing that on the back too, with my luck.

But you're right about the software side, you own the
hardware purely as an enabler, with no guarantee of
having software to use it.

The very first capture device I bought, cost 500 and
had a SCSI interface on it. At the time, I thought
SCSI "would last forever", and on the very next computer
with SCSI, my capture box would not work. Out 500, just like that.
Bad planning = full junk room...

But video capture has been this awful (unfriendly) for
years and years.

If these newer pieces of junk were in stock at my
store, I'd have probably bought a couple of them,
just for the morbid fun they offer. The Diamond one,
I can see it for sale, but it takes days to get here.
I don't think anyone has a VCR capture product sitting
on a store shelf that I could grab. It's all bazaar sellers
that stock them. And then you wait for delivery.

I live in a city, but you honestly couldn't tell.
I might as well be on a rural road in the middle of nowhere.
Shipping would take the same amount of time.

I've lost my only electronics store here, and that would
normally be a trigger to leave the city... Now I can't
even get an LM317 when I want one.

And we walked uphill, both ways, to school.

Paul

[John Rumm]

On 05/03/2021 00:35, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <s1rshb$9lh$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
> Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:
>> You can switch the VCR to channel 3 output, and use
>> a tuner card to do capture, as an alternative interface.
>
> Crikey. I'd say the chances of getting an analogue TV card to work in a
> modern PC rather remote?

So long as you have a proper PCI slot there is no reason why not. Just
because the TV tuner part has not signal to listen to, does not stop the
rest of it doing something.


--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

[NY]

"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message
news:zt2dnYjKK7jVtdP9...@brightview.co.uk...

> On 05/03/2021 00:35, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>> In article <s1rshb$9lh$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
>> Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>> You can switch the VCR to channel 3 output, and use
>>> a tuner card to do capture, as an alternative interface.
>>
>> Crikey. I'd say the chances of getting an analogue TV card to work in a
>> modern PC rather remote?
>
> So long as you have a proper PCI slot there is no reason why not. Just
> because the TV tuner part has not signal to listen to, does not stop the
> rest of it doing something.

True, but you *may* find that a modern version of Windows doesn't have
drivers for that PCI card and/or the capture software may not run on a
modern version of Windows.

I keep an old Windows XP PC with an analogue capture card and software (I
acquired it in part exchange for some PC repair work I was doing for a guy)
because I don't want to bugger up my more recent PC in case adding the
drivers from Windows Update doesn't work. I keep it off my network just in
case it is more vulnerable than more recent Windows, and transfer recorded
files by memory stick rather than network.

Apart from the fact that it refuses to record copy-protected pre-recorded
VHS tapes, it produces a much better picture than a much more recent USB
device that I bought which *does* copy copy-protected tapes: much less
banding and dot-patterning.

I judge that I am less guilty of copyright infringement if I have bought a
VHS copy (and therefore paid royalties on it) and I'm simply converting from
one format (analogue VHS) to another (digital MPEG), as opposed to borrowing
a friend's tape to make my copy and therefore not paying royalties on my
copy. As far as I know, the film (Shooting Fish) has not been released
*uncut* on DVD; the only DVD version has had a lot of UK-specific references
cut out for the US market, and that is the version that is sold even in the
UK.

There needs to be an exemption in copyright law which say that if a copy is
not / no longer available for sale, you are allowed to make an amateur copy
yourself, maybe with a mechanism for paying a nominal royalty fee to the
copyright holder. At present, the law seems to say "you cannot make you own
copy even if you are willing to pay a token amount for it to the author".

[Peter Able]

On 14/03/2021 15:34, NY wrote:
> I keep an old Windows XP PC with an analogue capture card and software
> (I acquired it in part exchange for some PC repair work I was doing for
> a guy) because I don't want to bugger up my more recent PC in case
> adding the drivers from Windows Update doesn't work. I keep it off my
> network just in case it is more vulnerable than more recent Windows, and
> transfer recorded files by memory stick rather than network.
>
> Apart from the fact that it refuses to record copy-protected
> pre-recorded VHS tapes, it produces a much better picture than a much
> more recent USB device that I bought which *does* copy copy-protected
> tapes: much less banding and dot-patterning.
>

I do that, too, by having a small Win2K partition. (XP uses more
processor capability than Win2K). The DV2000 analogue card beats the
EasyCap USB with a couple more bits of A2D conversion, plus it leaves
interlaced video as interlaced.

> I judge that I am less guilty of copyright infringement if I have bought
> a VHS copy (and therefore paid royalties on it) and I'm simply
> converting from one format (analogue VHS) to another (digital MPEG), as
> opposed to borrowing a friend's tape to make my copy and therefore not
> paying royalties on my copy. As far as I know, the film (Shooting Fish)
> has not been released *uncut* on DVD; the only DVD version has had a lot
> of UK-specific references cut out for the US market, and that is the
> version that is sold even in the UK.
>
> There needs to be an exemption in copyright law which say that if a copy
> is not / no longer available for sale, you are allowed to make an
> amateur copy yourself, maybe with a mechanism for paying a nominal
> royalty fee to the copyright holder. At present, the law seems to say
> "you cannot make you own copy even if you are willing to pay a token
> amount for it to the author".

Sssshhhh !

PA

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <zt2dnYjKK7jVtdP9...@brightview.co.uk>,

John Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote:
> On 05/03/2021 00:35, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> > In article <s1rshb$9lh$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
> > Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:
> >> You can switch the VCR to channel 3 output, and use
> >> a tuner card to do capture, as an alternative interface.
> >
> > Crikey. I'd say the chances of getting an analogue TV card to work in a
> > modern PC rather remote?

> So long as you have a proper PCI slot there is no reason why not. Just
> because the TV tuner part has not signal to listen to, does not stop the
> rest of it doing something.

How many laptops have a PCI slot?

And how many modern MBs one either?

I'm already using a PCIe to PCI adaptor to use a decent sound card with
analogue inputs. Which takes up more space than a single card.

--
*Lawyers believe a man is innocent until proven broke.

[John Rumm]

On 14/03/2021 15:34, NY wrote:

I have a little box of tricks you can insert into the CVBS video link
that sticks an adjustable black level luminance clamp on in the vertical
retrace - blanks the macrovision bars that fool the AGC on the capture
side...

> I judge that I am less guilty of copyright infringement if I have bought
> a VHS copy (and therefore paid royalties on it) and I'm simply
> converting from one format (analogue VHS) to another (digital MPEG), as
> opposed to borrowing a friend's tape to make my copy and therefore not
> paying royalties on my copy. As far as I know, the film (Shooting Fish)
> has not been released *uncut* on DVD; the only DVD version has had a lot
> of UK-specific references cut out for the US market, and that is the
> version that is sold even in the UK.

Sometimes by applying the same logic it easier to count the VHS copy as
a "license", and go find an already digitised torrent :-)

[John Rumm]

On 14/03/2021 17:00, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <zt2dnYjKK7jVtdP9...@brightview.co.uk>,
> John Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote:
>> On 05/03/2021 00:35, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
>>> In article <s1rshb$9lh$1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
>>> Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>>> You can switch the VCR to channel 3 output, and use
>>>> a tuner card to do capture, as an alternative interface.
>>>
>>> Crikey. I'd say the chances of getting an analogue TV card to work in a
>>> modern PC rather remote?
>
>> So long as you have a proper PCI slot there is no reason why not. Just
>> because the TV tuner part has not signal to listen to, does not stop the
>> rest of it doing something.
>
> How many laptops have a PCI slot?

None. But a laptop is not really really the place to start for this
application.

> And how many modern MBs one either?

Many still still have at least one - and more if you move away from just
Micro ATX boards.

(might have more difficulty if you wanted an ISA slot though!)

> I'm already using a PCIe to PCI adaptor to use a decent sound card with
> analogue inputs. Which takes up more space than a single card.

Yup, that is another way...

[John Rumm]

On 04/03/2021 15:06, Peter Able wrote:

> I don't understand why everyone is so keen on progressive.  Interlacing
> was introduced for good reasons - most of which are still valid.

Depends on what you mean by still valid. Interlaced video gave double
the perceived frame rate without the associated increase in bandwidth.

The main reason for using it was to overcome the short persistence of
the phosphors used on CRT displays, and thus reducing visible strobing
and flicker effects.

With most modern screen technologies (or real cinema!) the frame is
"illuminated" for the whole frame, and maintained on screen until the
next is shown. So interlace no longer has a direct benefit.

The trouble comes when you take a source that was originally interlaced
and want to render it on to a modern display. It's a difficult thing to
do well.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <pOSdnZI9afGw-9P9...@brightview.co.uk>,

John Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote:
> > How many laptops have a PCI slot?

> None. But a laptop is not really really the place to start for this
> application.

It surely isn't impossible to make an adaptor for analogue video over USB3
for VHS quality?

--
*Why is it that doctors call what they do "practice"?

[Rod Speed]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:590d568...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <pOSdnZI9afGw-9P9...@brightview.co.uk>,
> John Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote:
>> > How many laptops have a PCI slot?
>
>> None. But a laptop is not really really the place to start for this
>> application.
>
> It surely isn't impossible to make an adaptor for analogue video over USB3
> for VHS quality?

Corse it isnt, but its unlikely that the demand is great
enough for anyone to bother to do a high quality product.

[NY]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:590d2ad...@davenoise.co.uk...

>> So long as you have a proper PCI slot there is no reason why not. Just
>> because the TV tuner part has not signal to listen to, does not stop the
>> rest of it doing something.
>
> How many laptops have a PCI slot?

That's another reason that I bought a USB converter, so I could use it with
my laptop which is a damn sight easier to take downstairs when I was copying
things off the VHS (*): a big, heavy tower PC with a (flatscreen) monitor, a
keyboard and a mouse is a *tad* more difficult to move around!


(*) OK, I know it would have been easier to bring the VHS to the PC rather
than the other way round ;-)

[Peeler]

On Mon, 15 Mar 2021 14:29:36 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

>>> None. But a laptop is not really really the place to start for this
>>> application.
>>
>> It surely isn't impossible to make an adaptor for analogue video over USB3
>> for VHS quality?
>
> Corse it isnt, but its unlikely that the demand is great
> enough for anyone to bother to do a high quality product.

HOW "unlikely", senile know-it-all?

--
dennis@home to know-it-all Rodent Speed:
"You really should stop commenting on things you know nothing about."
Message-ID: <pCVTC.283711$%L2.2...@fx40.am4>

[Peter Able]

On 14/03/2021 19:53, John Rumm wrote:
> On 04/03/2021 15:06, Peter Able wrote:
>
>> I don't understand why everyone is so keen on progressive.
>> Interlacing was introduced for good reasons - most of which are still
>> valid.
>
> Depends on what you mean by still valid. Interlaced video gave double
> the perceived frame rate without the associated increase in bandwidth.
>
> The main reason for using it was to overcome the short persistence of
> the phosphors used on CRT displays, and thus reducing visible strobing
> and flicker effects.
>
> With most modern screen technologies (or real cinema!) the frame is
> "illuminated" for the whole frame, and maintained on screen until the
> next is shown. So interlace no longer has a direct benefit.
>
> The trouble comes when you take a source that was originally interlaced
> and want to render it on to a modern display. It's a difficult thing to
> do well.
>
>

That's just one aspect of - and not an argument against - interlacing.

An indisputable benefit of interlace is making motion appear less jerky.

I guess that the downside of interlace is that freezing the playback
produces a hybrid frame.

PA

[Peter Able]

On 15/03/2021 00:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
> In article <pOSdnZI9afGw-9P9...@brightview.co.uk>,
> John Rumm <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote:
>>> How many laptops have a PCI slot?
>
>> None. But a laptop is not really really the place to start for this
>> application.
>
> It surely isn't impossible to make an adaptor for analogue video over USB3
> for VHS quality?
>

Not for "Under a tenner including software CD".

Most of the cards I've had in the past haven't been better than the ebay
EasyCAP I got for £5.27 - after reading your OP.

The one exception has been the ~£30 DV2000. In the absence of detailed
specs, I believe that it has a few more bits of A2D resolution - and can
be made to transfer raw data - provided that the host can sustain about
75MByte/sec data transfer, card-to-storage.

PA

[John Rumm]

On 15/03/2021 09:56, Peter Able wrote:
> On 14/03/2021 19:53, John Rumm wrote:
>> On 04/03/2021 15:06, Peter Able wrote:
>>
>>> I don't understand why everyone is so keen on progressive.
>>> Interlacing was introduced for good reasons - most of which are still
>>> valid.
>>
>> Depends on what you mean by still valid. Interlaced video gave double
>> the perceived frame rate without the associated increase in bandwidth.
>>
>> The main reason for using it was to overcome the short persistence of
>> the phosphors used on CRT displays, and thus reducing visible strobing
>> and flicker effects.
>>
>> With most modern screen technologies (or real cinema!) the frame is
>> "illuminated" for the whole frame, and maintained on screen until the
>> next is shown. So interlace no longer has a direct benefit.
>>
>> The trouble comes when you take a source that was originally
>> interlaced and want to render it on to a modern display. It's a
>> difficult thing to do well.
>>
>>
> That's just one aspect of - and not an argument against - interlacing.

The main argument against, is that there is no real requirement for it
today (other than for backward compatibility with older display equipment).

> An indisputable benefit of interlace is making motion appear less jerky.

Depends on what you are watching. If it's a telecine converted film
originally playing at 24fps (or probably 25 with extra frame pull down)
interlacing can't rally get you anything extra that is not present in
the source material.

If it was shot on video originally in interlaced format, then yes it
will probably look smoother.

> I guess that the downside of interlace is that freezing the playback
> produces a hybrid frame.

Also what you get when you de-interlace if you are not careful...

[Peter Able]

On 15/03/2021 22:02, John Rumm wrote:
> On 15/03/2021 09:56, Peter Able wrote:
>> On 14/03/2021 19:53, John Rumm wrote:
>>> On 04/03/2021 15:06, Peter Able wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't understand why everyone is so keen on progressive.
>>>> Interlacing was introduced for good reasons - most of which are
>>>> still valid.
>>>
>>> Depends on what you mean by still valid. Interlaced video gave double
>>> the perceived frame rate without the associated increase in bandwidth.
>>>
>>> The main reason for using it was to overcome the short persistence of
>>> the phosphors used on CRT displays, and thus reducing visible
>>> strobing and flicker effects.
>>>
>>> With most modern screen technologies (or real cinema!) the frame is
>>> "illuminated" for the whole frame, and maintained on screen until the
>>> next is shown. So interlace no longer has a direct benefit.
>>>
>>> The trouble comes when you take a source that was originally
>>> interlaced and want to render it on to a modern display. It's a
>>> difficult thing to do well.
>>>
>>>
>> That's just one aspect of - and not an argument against - interlacing.
>
> The main argument against, is that there is no real requirement for it
> today (other than for backward compatibility with older display equipment).
>

25fps films are just played faster on UK TV - no pull-down.

>> An indisputable benefit of interlace is making motion appear less jerky.
>
> Depends on what you are watching. If it's a telecine converted film
> originally playing at 24fps (or probably 25 with extra frame pull down)
> interlacing can't rally get you anything extra that is not present in
> the source material.
>

25fps films are just played faster on UK TV - no pull-down.

Again though, this still means interlaced is not worse than non-interlace.

> If it was shot on video originally in interlaced format, then yes it
> will probably look smoother.
>

I have VHS tapes that are 50 fields per second. Motion looks pretty bad
when de-interlaced.

>> I guess that the downside of interlace is that freezing the playback
>> produces a hybrid frame.
>
> Also what you get when you de-interlace if you are not careful...
>

Quite - so yet another reason for keeping interlace.

Perhaps the hype around Progressive is just folk trying to look
informed. Perhaps the word "Progressive" makes them think that it is
intrinsically better - as against the purely technical meaning of
Progressive.

A bunch of bull-shitters !

PA

[Robin]

On 16/03/2021 09:38, Peter Able wrote:
<snip>

> Perhaps the hype around Progressive is just folk trying to look
> informed. Perhaps the word "Progressive" makes them think that it is
> intrinsically better - as against the purely technical meaning of
> Progressive.
>

I await with some trepidation the postmodern "critical scan theory".

[NY]

"John Rumm" <see.my.s...@nowhere.null> wrote in message

news:OfOdnevYdLXoRNL9...@brightview.co.uk...

>> An indisputable benefit of interlace is making motion appear less jerky.
>
> Depends on what you are watching. If it's a telecine converted film
> originally playing at 24fps (or probably 25 with extra frame pull down)
> interlacing can't rally get you anything extra that is not present in the
> source material.
>
> If it was shot on video originally in interlaced format, then yes it will
> probably look smoother.
>
>> I guess that the downside of interlace is that freezing the playback
>> produces a hybrid frame.
>
> Also what you get when you de-interlace if you are not careful...

Some DVDs of TV programmes made partially on film and partially on video can
look really *horrible* on a flat-screen monitor, if the video frame captured
digitally for display on the monitor has synchronised with the wrong field.

For film, the video frame *should* be two fields of the *same* film frame,
so no movement between them, just added spatial resolution. But if the video
frame consists of a field from one film frame and a field from the next
frame, then every single combined video frame is blurred, with ghosting. For
some reason, this is a lot more noticeable with film than with video where
there would still be mixing of two fields taken 1/50 second apart. Maybe
it's because the movement is greater: the fields are taken 1/25 rather than
1/50 second apart.

[John Rumm]

On 16/03/2021 09:38, Peter Able wrote:

Usually most stuff is, but not always...

You can normally see the effect on moving images, especially scrolling
credits, when you get a once per second brief "halt" in the movement as
the extra duplicate frame is inserted.

>>> An indisputable benefit of interlace is making motion appear less jerky.
>>
>> Depends on what you are watching. If it's a telecine converted film
>> originally playing at 24fps (or probably 25 with extra frame pull
>> down) interlacing can't rally get you anything extra that is not
>> present in the source material.

> Again though, this still means interlaced is not worse than non-interlace.

I was not suggesting it was.

The only time that interlace became particularly objectionable was when
it was used for sharp high res computer displays rather than much softer
continuos tone video content. Then the flicker became really quite
objectionable, since lots of display elements (horizontal lines, window
edges etc) were then only refreshed at 25Hz with short persistence
phosphors.

>> If it was shot on video originally in interlaced format, then yes it
>> will probably look smoother.
>>
>
> I have VHS tapes that are 50 fields per second.  Motion looks pretty bad
> when de-interlaced.

Pretty much any PAL VHS tape will be 50 fields/sec (i.e. 25 frames split
into two fields).

Motion can look bad de-interlaced, but does not necessarily have to. It
depends on how its done.

Years ago I have a fairly high end 100Hz Sony CRT (KVS2942U), that made
a very decent job of automatically de-interlacing with very little
visible artefact.

Sometimes these days when playing back material captured from broadcast
it can be worth manually switching de-interlace modes in VLC to get the
best results for the content in question.

>>> I guess that the downside of interlace is that freezing the playback
>>> produces a hybrid frame.
>>
>> Also what you get when you de-interlace if you are not careful...
>>
>
> Quite - so yet another reason for keeping interlace.

Alternatively, an equally good reason to ditch it altogether. If you
don't interlace material in the first place, there is no need to
de-interlace it later.

Interlacing made it possible to comfortably view content with limited
video bandwidth, on a line scanned CRT display. PAL then took additional
advantage of the temporal shift between fields to cancel out the effects
of the phase shifts experienced during transmission causing a visible on
screen colour shift (something noticeable on NTSC transmission systems).

(or more correctly, the colour shift still happened, but because of the
swinging colour burst, the shift was in opposite directions on each
field it could be averaged out (either by allowing the eye to
interpolate the "correct" colour on screen, or using a delay line and a
mixer to average it electronically).

> Perhaps the hype around Progressive is just folk trying to look
> informed. Perhaps the word "Progressive" makes them think that it is
> intrinsically better - as against the purely technical meaning of
> Progressive.
>
> A bunch of bull-shitters !

Alternatively, they have just observed that progressive displays of
material encoded for that format simply look better, with no line jitter.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <s2puar$b9b$1...@dont-email.me>,

Peter Able <st...@home.com> wrote:
> 25fps films are just played faster on UK TV - no pull-down.

That was once so. but modern telecine machines can run at any speed.

--
*The man who fell into an upholstery machine is fully recovered*

[NY]

"Dave Plowman (News)" <da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message

news:590e226...@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <s2puar$b9b$1...@dont-email.me>,
> Peter Able <st...@home.com> wrote:
>> 25fps films are just played faster on UK TV - no pull-down.
>
> That was once so. but modern telecine machines can run at any speed.

Are you saying that the film is run at 24 fps and scanned at 25 fps, without
there being any beating?

I thought films were still run at 25 fps, 4% fast. But nowadays the
(slightly speeded-up) sound is pitch-shifted downwards by about a semitone
to correct for this, so people with perfect pitch no longer complain about
it.

[Steve Walker]

They probably don't do it for such a slight difference, but modern
technology is surely capable of scanning a 24 fps film, comparing the
frames and interpolating to give a true 25 fps where only the first and
last frames are identical to the originals?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <s2qlh5$j5a$1...@dont-email.me>,

Think it all started when they fitted telecines with a frame store. And
dispensed with a mechanical shutter. Such a beast could be run from a
still frame and give a decent picture as it ran up to speed. But it's a
bit outside my field. ;-)

--
*No hand signals. Driver on Viagra*

[Peter Able]

This all begs the question - why don't the TV stations transmit films at
24fps?

Modern TVs aren't going to melt down, are they?

PA

[NY]

"Peter Able" <st...@home.com> wrote in message
news:s2qooj$q1b$1...@dont-email.me...

> This all begs the question - why don't the TV stations transmit films at
> 24fps?
>
> Modern TVs aren't going to melt down, are they?

It would seem very sensible to do this - providing all the equipment along
the way (including monitoring equipment) and all consumer TVs, PVR etc can
handle 24 fps as an alternative to 25 fps. A change from 25 to 24 would be
very small, but it might be enough for something to go "computer says NO".