VHS to MPEG4 what captures better Marvel G400, Marvel G450eTV, RT2500

[2hank]

Hi,

I have about 8 VHS tapes that I want to convert over to MPEG4 and store for archival purposes. With the exception of converting the video to MPEG4, I’m more concerned about retaining the video quality of the VHS tapes as opposed to saving disk space.

This is basically a learning experience for me. It seems the workflow would be the following:
1) Capture the Video Playback
2) Convert the Captured file to MPEG2 (if necessary)
3) Use a program like Flask to convert the MPEG2 file to MPEG4.

So the question is, for step1, what is the best capture card to use for this project? The Marvel G400, Marvel G450eTV, or RT2500.
Again the goal is to retain the highest video quality… well… as high as possible going into the MPEG4 conversion stage.

Just as a note, I currently own a Marvel G400, however I’m not sure how much quality I will lose converting the captured video from MJPEG to MPEG2.

Thanks,
Hank

[AndrewDV]

Hi,

Your current G400-TV should be able to handle the job. Given the latest news that Matrox has issued 'final' releases for the G450-eTV, I'd avoid buying it. The RT2x00 is just overkill for what you need to do.

For the highest quality, you should capture in YUY2 + codec like PIC MJPEG (http://www.jpg.com) or Huffyuv (http://www.math.berkeley.edu/~benrg/huffyuv.html). If you are Win98se user, then look on this site (http://www.murc.ws) for the Flying Dutchman's YUY2 patch. That allows you to use YUY2 for capturing. You also need to download the appropriate vid tools and drivers.

If that seems too much trouble (which it can be), then just try out Matrox MJPEG. It has very good quality and transcodes into other formats well.

Avoid the step of converting to MPEG2. That would probably lower the quality (transcoding twice) as well as make the process more tedious. If you get a video editor, like Ulead Video Studio 5, then you can convert the original format into whatever format you want (as long as you have the codec).

[Sciascia]

Now granted I haven't done this for some time, but it would seem that it would be easier to just capture to MPEG4. There is a way to do it this way with the G400. It requires some hacked MPEG4 codecs, but they work very well. The only problem would be with the final file size, but you can experiment with the compression settings to get it right. Quality wise it looks pretty good. If you were to capture to uncompressed then encode to MPEG 4 using a multipass system, like NanDub, then it may look better, but that would not be a worthwhile endeavor.

As for capturing, then encoding to MPEG2 then Flasking (yuck) it, that is going to be a lot of extra time and introduce some artifacting. Instead of using Fask (yuck), try capturing to an avi format, probably MJPEG and then using Virtual Dub or NanDub and recompressing it. Either one will work fine, it just depends on whether you want use DivX or actual MPEG4 codecs.

Flask (yuck)

[truthseekers]

capturing to divx

I do this quite a bit. The trouble is interlace.

If you capture using the marvel at 704x576 and then divx it it can look trashy. You need to remove the interlace. Heres how.

Capture to MJPEG'd AVIs using either video tools, or avi_io or something else you enjoy using. Try and avoid getting dropped frames for audio sync reasons.

Get Nandub or Virtual DUB... check out www.doom9.org for tools like this and help files on how to use them. doom9 rocks!!!!

Now back to the capture bit again... if you capture at 704x576 then your file will have interlace. If you capture at 352x288 your file wont have interlace but itll be less resolution. Makre sure youve got your compression ratio set to highest for 352x288 to make the picture better. Capturing at 704x576 with compression mode to higest sometimes produces dropped frames.

Next step

Compress in Nandub or Virtual Dub. Nandub is best because it does SBC dual pass DIVX which is higher quality because it DIVXs your file with two passes - trust me its nicer to watch afterwards. However it takes twice as long, thats the tradeoff.

Now, if you capture at 704x576 and want to resize - use filters in nandub. Add resize filter and type in 640x480 or whatever you like. (divx video playback of 704x576 is very processor hungry... 640x480 is very good and hardly noticable the difference)

Next you need to add a SMART DEINTERLACE filter. It comes with nandub and virtualdub but isnt loaded as a standard filter file so in FILTERS select LOAD and go to the folder virtualk dub lives in and youll see SMART.vdf - this is it. Load it.. and add it to your filters list. It must be moved to the top of the list - ie must appear before RESIZE in order to work best.

What I tend to find is that 704x576 DIVX with smart deinterlace looks about as good as 352x288 anyhow... so youll have to try it and see what you think. It takes a lot longer to deinterlace a file when compressing to DIVX. The compression times on a 1.4 GIG machine can be like 15 fps to compress. Compressing DIVX with a input file of 352x288 however can get you 30fps compression speeds. A lot better!

Now, dont forget, export your WAV before leaving nandub. Compress the wav to MP3 and in NANDUB you can pull back in the new MP3 in place of the WAV audio. Make sure you put Interleaving as 200ms... apparently this helps.

WAV is bulky and can make your DIVX movie very large... ie 1 hour divx at 352x288 could be 900 megs with wav audio.. but only 350 megs with MP3 audio.

Dont forget to get your bitrate options in nandub to 600 or higher.. for best results. Its an option under SBC in Video menu.

Basically NANDUB was made for you and your Matrox MARVEL and DIVX... thank Mr Nandub.

[2hank]

Thank you!

Hi,

I wanted to say thank you for all of the information you all typed in. I definately have learned a ton, just by searching for the keywords alone.

Believe it or not I'm trying a little bit of everything from each post that was made. I'm kind of pulling my hair out trying to learn all the programs and how they work together, but I'm doing ok.

I currently have a ton (seriously) of questions, however I'm going to play around a bit more and see if I can answer them myself. If I get truly stumped I will be sure to post the question!

Thank you again for the help!
Hank