You were right. I didn't have the AV->DV turned on in the camcorder. I got the feed from the VCR through the camcorder with no problem into MEP, and could record. However, when I hooked up the ADVC300 between the VCR and the camcorder, MEP didn't recognize any device as being attached. I worked backwards - the ADVC300 showed the VHS video being received (as shown on the screenshot)(but MEP didn't recognize it when connected directly to the computer as before), but the ADVC was no longer recognized by its own software when I took the Firewire cable out of the ADVC300, and connected the Firewire to the camcorder. It would seem that it should just be a pass through via the camcorder. I can now digitize my tapes through the camcorder (thank you), but I would really like to get the benefits of the ADVC300. Any suggestions?

@Jim_H The ADVC-300 will be a much more capable DV converter than your camcorder. It has controls for adjusting many video variables such as contrast, saturation, hue. I would therefore remove your camcorder from the chain completely and just use the ADVC:

VCR>analogue connections (S-Video best, otherwise Composite) > ADVC-300 > firewire cable > computer/MEP.

I note in a manual I downloaded off the 'net that you can't connect DV cameras to both DV ports at the same time ("not supported"), so I suspect that is why your VCR>camcorder>ADVC-300>Computer workflow didn't work. In effect, it appears it's only DV in or out, not both, regardless of which DV ports your are using.

That ADVC-300 seems like a great piece of kit; I have the ADVC-100 which is pretty basic by comparison.

That's kind of what I figured. Now I can finally move forward and start saving my VHS tapes. (Do you know of any articles/howto's to help with the more technical settings on the ADVC-most of them don't mean anything to me.) Thanks so much for your help.

@Jim_H My pleasure, Jim. Can't help with the settings; it depends a lot on the source VHS eg if it's dark, increase the brightness/contrast. Washed-out colour, crank up the saturation (although a lot of this can be done in MEP after you have captured it). With the Canopus capture software, you can probably make adjustments as the video is playing. I'll tempt going down a rabbit hole with the purists arcing up and say I'd just tweak the settings until it "looks right" or leave it on Default to start with.

There's quite a bit on the web: do a search for "getting the best out of advc-300" and you'll get some stuff to ponder. Ignore any suggestions about trialling the output on DVDs; you can easily export small portions from MEP in MPEG 2 or MEPG 4 and check if it's what you want/like in VLC Player.

Now for the bad news. The general feeling amoungst the experts, especially at DigitalFAQ, is that, particularly with NTSC, DV is not the best for transferring VHS to digital. DV "converts" the VHS data into a relatively lossy format and then you have to convert again to the final output format (say MPEG 2/DVD or MPEG 4). The alternative, unfortunately, is problematic with driver issues with Windows 10, and the sometimes the need for an extra gizmo in the workflow. I will admit that I no longer use my ADVC-100/DV as a transfer format; I use a USB capture stick, DVD Recorder for passthrough stabilisation and Virtual Dub to capture into a lossless format. But for you, already with the ADVC-300, that will open up a can of worms (albeit manageable, depending on how serious you want to get 😂) as you've already invested. DV is much less mucking around though.

My advice: see how you go with the ADVC-300. If the output/capture looks pretty close to the original and you're happy, stick with it. DV is less hassle than the other method. It is "all in the eye of the beholder". 👍

@Jim_H Jim, to put your mind at ease, some pretty glowing reports here:

https://www.amazon.com/Canopus-ADVC300-Advanced-Digital-Converter/product-reviews/B0006UMGHE/ref=cm_cr_unknown?reviewerType=all_reviews&filterByStar=five_star&pageNumber=1

An issue with VHS transfers is tearing (caused by tape timing errors) and a couple of these writeups comment on the good performance of the ADVC-300 in that regard.

OK. I will play around with it (and learn more about the MEP editing capabilities to "finish" the end product. Thanks for all your help.

I have now been able to capture my VHS tapes to my satisfaction. I recently captured about 4 hours of programming I had on one tape, which I split into 2 sections (2 different programs, each with their own issues for cleaning up with Neat Video, and to be saved separately in the end). I decided to save them as individual AVI files, rather than as 2 sections in 1 project. The original 4 hours took about 51 GB of space. One 2 hour AVI file, after being saved separately (took 1 hour to render) took up 94 GB! (I didn't do the same with the 2nd file yet.) I am confused as to why the difference in the size of the files. When looking at both the original and "new" AVI files, the quality appears to be the same. Is there some benefit to the larger file, which would make the extra time and effort worthwhile? Will I have to separate into individual files anyway those parts that I want to burn to separate DVD's?

Thanks for help with these questions.

@Jim_H

Hi Jim.

When you start off with a source that has little fine detail in it to begin with you don't want any possible further loss of any detail left from the transfer or you would lose detail again at the end stage after editing. Most file formats are 'lossy'. You may not notice the differences in a one generation removed copy, but four generations away and you should. You should think of it as an archive file for possible future use as the tape it comes from degenerates further with age. There always seem to be advances in tech for regenerating / reviving old footage that gets better with time but your analogue recording could have got worse or unplayable in that time due to degeneration of the tape or no means left to play it or convert it any more. At least the digital copies, if you can keep them safe, are then there to use again at a later date.

Ray.

Ray.

Thanks for the quick response. However, I'm not sure I completely understand your answer. Do you mean that the new and larger AVI file is a benefit, in that it contains more data as a future archive for the original material? Or that I shouldn't render the original capture into the new and larger file, as this is a copy of a copy, and is further degrading the original capture?

Jim

@Jim_H

I wasn't aware you were talking about two files that were the same Jim. Sorry.

No, there is little point to having another file other than the original unless you plan some destructive editing. (not likely). The only advantage is if the original file is not able to be directly imported into MEP for editing. Or, do you mean the original material as in the DV tape? If so that will degenerate with time whereas the AVI file won't unless it gets corrupted or lost.

Ray.

@Jim_H

Hi,

First, do not export to AVI; this will just give you huge files and no benefit. If you need an intermediate, use Magix format, mxv. It will give you smooth editing in MEP.

Secondly, I am presently digitizing some VHS cassettes - directly to Magix format mxv, resolution 640x480. This is optimal. I can now start editing with a file format that will work well in MEP/VPX. This is the best way to go.

John CB

@Jim_H

Hi Jim

I think the confusion here is that you have captured to DV-AVI which is what the ADVC-300 converts to by default to send via Firewire to Magix and your My record folder. DV-AVI is a medium compressed format and is the same as your Canon DV camera records to tape. You appear however to have exported a section of this recording to .AVI from MEP(?) and this is an uncompressed file which as you have found is huge as @browj2 has indicated, and is different to DV-AVI. To minimise losses due to transcoding you should export the sections to DV-AVI for further editing

Or - capture to the .MXV format as John suggests. Although capturing to .MXV is still a transcoding step performed by MEP of the DV-AVI that is coming in over the firewire from the ADVC-300, the inherent low quality of the VHS would probably mean you would not even notice any losses.

Or - better still, do the work on both sections (using the whole original captured DV-AVI file) in the one project and export the individual sections to separate files thereby avoiding extra intermediate generations and losses.

Peter

@Jim_H

If you rendered them into an AVI format (as opposed to DV-AVI) they will be bigger. DV-AVI is 13gb/hour, whereas for example Lagarith (a lossless AVI format), is 30gb per hour. It will be better quality than a comparable DV-AVI export. In general, the bigger the file size, the better the quality because of less compression. You can go "uncompressed"; that's 90gb/hour if you're really after a lossless format! But with cheap whopper drives these days, video size no longer matters. Use the Advanced button on the AVI export screen to see the lossless AVI codecs available. Others (Lagarith and the popular HuffYUV) can be added.

DV-AVI > Lossless AVI (eg Lagarith or one of the other AVI codecs) will be better quality than DV-AVI > DV-AVI because of less compression.

Some heresy now: I would steer clear of MXV format. It can't be used in any other program if you decide to re-edit or process the video in some way (or change editors later). Even if you just want to have a quick look at it, it won't open in VLC Player or say Virtual Dub. In the past I digitised a heap of VHS tapes into MXV, and now I know more about video processing, I wanted to process them in Virtual Dub but can't. So I've recaptured them all into lossless Lagarith format (an AVI format) and will archive them in that format so I can use them with other programs.

MEP loves any of these large-size/lossless formats; while what John CB says is right about MXV being easy to use on the timeline (and that was important in the old days with slow computers and small hard drives), the AVIs such as Lagarith, are just as fast now.

Just saw Peter's post:

Or - capture to the .MXV format as John suggests. Although capturing to .MXV is still a transcoding step performed by MEP of the DV-AVI that is coming in over the firewire from the ADVC-300, the inherent low quality of the VHS would probably mean you would not even notice any losses.

I would recommend against this. Capturing high-quality DV into 640x480 MXV will definitely result worse quality. DV to DV-AVI capture is simply a firewire digital data transfer; DV to MXV is a complete transcode. Low quality originals require even more effort to preserve that low quality, ie less transcodes, than HD. And you have more options, outside of MEP, if you use DV-AVI as your archive format.

@AAProds@AAProds @browj2

"Low quality originals require even more effort to preserve that low quality"

That's verging on an oxymoron Al! 😆

Still, I think I know what you mean, but what ever Jim saves it as it is still a transcode because the ADVC300 only outputs DV-AVI and the transcode / decompression is happening in the capture software unless he chooses DV-AVI.

@Jim_H asked

Do you mean that the new and larger AVI file is a benefit, in that it contains more data as a future archive for the original material?

No, you can not improve picture quality purely by increasing the amount of data as you have already found, but if you could capture analogue directly to uncompressed without going thru the DV-AVI step then there would be benefit owing to the fact that low quality noisy VHS images do not compress well, so you you could do some better cleaning of the image before the inevitable MPEG compressed export stage.

Al said:-

what John CB says is right about MXV being easy to use on the timeline (and that was important in the old days with slow computers and small hard drives), the AVIs such as Lagarith, are just as fast now.

Well yes.....any uncompressed or lowly compressed (ie. intra frame codec) format is going to be easier to edit including DV-AVI.

Simple or no compression = little or no decoding during preview = happy editing. 😷

Peter

@Jim_H, @browj2, @Scenestealer, @AAProds

Hi

I have to agree with all Peter has said in his last comment, in particular

. . . . you can not improve picture quality . . . .

I would add that VHS has a digital equivalent resolution of 330 x 480 px (NTSC) and 330 x 576 px (PAL) ie. it is sub DVD (SD) quality, this is the limiter of the quality you get.

Converting DV-AVI to another format for editing and attempting upscaling eg to HD - 1280 x 720 or FullHD - 1920 x 1080 can accelerate the deterioration of visual quality quickly.

DV-AVI does have the advantage that the video and audio are in the same data stream whereas in a typical AVI they are separate streams with potential sync issues when editing/exporting.

John EB

All,

No, you can not improve picture quality purely by increasing the amount of data as you have already found,

but, if you render your edited DV-AVI to a lossless codec like Lagarith or Huffyuv for archiving, the quality will not get worse. It will if you render to back to DV-AVI or any other compressed codec (although either way should look better than the original because of the manipulation eg colour, denoise).

Hence my earlier general suggestion to capture VHS in lossless format with a good USB capture stick or internal card. I accept though that that method is not available to Jim.

Thank you all for your help and information. As a relative newbie, I didn't know much about the different formats. Before I got deeper into the DV-AVI format, I did try a USB capture stick (Elgato), but starting having OOS issues pretty soon into the capture. I then decided (after much reading) to go with what I thought would be a more accurate capture, with filtering capabilities, and I could finish the end result with MEP filters and Neat Video. I'm willing to give the USB capture method (or internal card) another try (despite my current investment in DV), if you know of a better device that I can use to get a better capture from my VHS tapes. Otherwise, from everything I'm reading, I would probably be better off with the original DV-AVI capture, both as an archive, and as a platform for cleaning up the files for transfer to DVD?