<p>For VHS, the signal will be kept highest quality if you connect via s-video, so yes, you should use an s-video cable if your VCR has an s-video output.</p>

<p>Depending on how good your VCR is, you may get a significant improvement from a better deck.  Quality of the read heads on various VCRs can vary a fair bit and while the majority of the difference was in recording quality, there were difference in playback quality as well.  That said, finding a good VHS deck in good condition is probably difficult these days.</p>

<p>I'm not sure about the color correction, most likely it is something specific to your capture device.</p>

<p>The signal is most certainly interlaced.  Both NTSC and PAL were interlaced formats.  NTSC video should be 29.97 frames per second.  That is the NTSC standard.  The resolution should ideally be 720 by 480 using oval pixels with a .9 pixel compression.</p>

<p>You didn't ask about it specifically, but using a DV codec should give the maximum quality though it will also be quite large.  Once you have a DV codec capture of the VHS tape, then using a traditional 2 pass transcode to either h.264 (viewing on computer or blu-ray) or MPEG-2 (DVD) should work well.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-04T18:59:18.000Z
If your capture computer is fast and has plenty of storage space, capture with a lossless codec like UTvideo, or lossless x264.  I don't see how running your stuff through (lossy) DV compression is a good idea.  (better than trying to make the final encoded in realtime, though, if that's all you meant.  Because good deinterlacing is slow.  And then you can spend more CPU on the h.264 encode, too.)  For the final encode, x264 works just as well in one-pass mode, as long as you're using crf (target quality) instead of abr (target bitrate).
Peter Cordes
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-04T19:11:39.900Z
Also, NTSC VHS can have stereo audio.  Not all VHS decks play back stereo audio.
Peter Cordes
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-04T19:35:12.277Z
@PeterCordes that's a valid point. I was thinking that dv would be an ideal balance of size and quality as it is designed for that kind of video and very common, but if space and data rates are sufficient a pure lossless format is better.
AJ Henderson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-04T23:44:21.473Z
I've never heard the term "oval pixels" before. Do you have a reason for calling them oval instead of rectangular?
stib
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-05T01:00:49.610Z
Just that they were originally illuminating phosphors which tend to not be square.  Rectangular works too though.
AJ Henderson
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-11T15:51:44.443Z
VHS is composite video on the tape, so I don't see how you can gain anything from s-video out?
Prof. Falken
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-11T16:02:30.197Z
@Prof.Falken - it depends if they were originally S-VHS or not.
AJ Henderson
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-15T15:01:29.297Z
@AJHenderson, ah, yes that is true. I have never encounted an S-VHS tape, ever, in the wild, so I didn't think about this use case. And that would require the camcorder to have been S-VHS too, I guess.
Prof. Falken
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-15T16:17:32.053Z
@Prof.Falken yes, the camera would have had to be S-VHS as well.  I had one, but they weren't super common.  There might also be some signal stability gains depending on how long your cable run is, but mostly the advantage would be with an S-VHS tape.
AJ Henderson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-28T03:04:50.813Z
2014-03-28T03:04:50.813Z
AJ Henderson
<p>As far as deinterlacing: With a good deinterlacer (QTGMC, or at least ffmpeg's <code>yadif=3,mcdeint=2</code>), you can get smooth video at 60000/1001 (NTSC) fps.  If your source has quick motions that you'd like to look smooth, even in slo-mo, then deinterlace 640x480i60 -> 640x480p60.  If you really need small files, you can drop every other frame of the deinterlaced output to go 640x480i60 -> 640x480p30.  Check if your capture is top-field-first or bottom-field-first before deinterlacing, as yadif -> mcdeint needs to be told.</p>

<p>With a higher frame rate, each frame has more similarity with the previous frame, so it takes less than twice the bitrate to get the same image quality from a good lossy codec like x264.  I got very good results from deinterlacing a NTSC DV recording of a musical theatre show my brother was in, making the final output 720x480p60.  (actually 60/1.001, thanks NTSC...)  I used <code>ffmpeg -i vid.ts -vf yadif=3:1,mcdeint=3:1:10 -c:a copy -c:v libx264 -qp 0 -preset ultrafast deint.lossless.mkv</code> to do the slow deinterlace to a lossless scratch file, and from there I could play around with <code>-vf framestep=2</code> to go from 60p to 30p, and with various bitrates and encode settings to make a final encode.  I settled on a 60p encode at crf=25, nr=250.  (x264's built-in noise reduction is nothing fancy, but my source didn't need much since it wasn't an old VHS tape :P)</p>

<p>If you aren't 100% happy with the deinterlace, you could always keep the original capture as an archive, along with the command you used to deinterlace, so you can redo it again without change if you don't have any better ideas next time you want to work with it.  Something like x264 in interlaced mode (since you'll feed it 60i content packed as 2 fields per frame, 30fps).  crf = somewhere between 10 and 14 or something should be far enough beyond visually transparent that you'll still get good results deinterlacing that.  But still with a low enough bitrate that it's not too hard to keep forever.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-02-04T20:13:29.250Z
2015-02-04T20:13:29.250Z
Peter Cordes
<p>The 2020 and beyond answer:</p>
<p>for <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC5Zr3NC2PY" rel="nofollow noreferrer">whatever reason</a>, the &quot;SCART2HDMI&quot; adapters floating around on eBay and Amazon, include electronics that used to be included in professional VCRs and TV studio equipment.</p>
<p>To make a long story short, if you use one of these adapters, you will not only get better color saturation, but also the audio will not drift out of sync with the captured video.</p>
<p>Once you have the signal in HDMI, you can capture it with a regular HDMI capture device, either directly to memory card (SD) like in the linked video, or directly to a computer with an HDMI capture card.</p>
<p>The image will already have been de-interlaced, so you are working with progressive (&quot;normal&quot;) video from that point forward.</p>
<p>The only downside is that the deinterlacing is not always perfect. (Hardly ever noticeable in practice though.) The upside is that you will not get dropped frames, teared image, and out of sync sound, like you inevitably get with the composite to USB capture dongles and the like.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-17T01:24:54.523Z
Do you have a link to such products? I'm very wary of going out for myself searching for bleeding edge tech, so a direct link to a relatively cheap product would be a godsend.
Hashim Aziz
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-18T22:24:18.357Z
@Prometheus, this is the (sort-of-no-name-generic-brand) I bought. https://www.teknikmagasinet.se/produkter/hemteknik/kablar-kontakter/adaptrar/zap-scart-to-hdmi  Look for something that is visually the same, and you should be good. The other side of the equation, HDMI capture, there is more competition and many good products for you to choose from.
Prof. Falken
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-25T06:14:25.043Z
I would not want interlaced video deinterlaced without my desire. Is it deinterlaced into 25p or 50p?
Rusty Core
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-02-25T07:42:11.743Z
@RustyCore, 60p, and there's a button to switch to 50p. I agree I would prefer to not have deinterlacing at all, but this is the best consumer solution overall at this time. Since the deinterlacing keeps the temporal resolution (i.e. does not try to downgrade to 25p/30p) a second post-process pass in the computer can improve the results even more.)
Prof. Falken
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-12-15T15:13:19.317Z
2020-12-15T15:13:19.317Z
Prof. Falken
<p>Get the video into some kind of file (digitize) like avi or mpeg. Use DVD flick to burn it to dvd disk, its free and can convert NTSC and Pal playable disks. Honestech made a $10 box (Bought at BigLots) to usb converter that converts VHS to DVD it makes them fit a 4.7 gig single layer disk (new $79 USD). No brainer. Since VHS is 640 x 480 its low rez compared to most types today. I'm in the USA and convert to UK to send to relatives,never had an issue with either method.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-31T03:36:17.977Z
Hi Steve, welcome to Video Production on Stack Exchange.  It does seem like what you are suggesting may be a viable way to get from VHS to digital or even DVD, however it's rather difficult to follow your answer.  For example, you mention a $10 box but later comment about something being new $79.  If you could clarify what you are suggesting as to how to digitize files from a VHS tape to files on the computer, it would greatly increase the benefit of this answer.  Thanks.
AJ Henderson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-30T03:52:19.347Z
2014-03-30T03:52:19.347Z
Steve
<p>I have some old VHS home videos that I'd like to digitise to preserve them, and I'm looking for the "best" way to do that with my setup. The videos were recorded around 1990, in the USA. I'd say they are in NTSC format, but I've also heard that VHS don't have NTSC or PAL, so I'm not sure. They play on my PAL VHS device, even in color. I am guessing that it converts the video to PAL60 for playback. The colors are slightly dull, but I don't know whether this is a feature of the camera, the old tapes, or any conversion. Another issue is that there is a bit of clipping in very bright/dark areas, but I think nothing can be done about that.</p>

<p>What I have right now is the following: German (PAL) VHS with the old tapes, connected via SCART->white-red-yellow cables to  generic USB digitalization device, connected to the computer.</p>

<p>A couple of questions:</p>

<ul>
<li>The documentation of the USB device says that a S-Video cable will improve the quality, should I use one?</li>
<li>Would I get a big improvement from using a different VHS player? NTSC devices are hard to come by here and probably pretty expensive. I found that sometimes the USB device or its driver corrects the colors (that I assume suffer from the NTSC/PAL thing), but I'm not sure whats going on there.</li>
<li>While I'm at it: the signal seems interlaced. I was planning on recording it via VirtualDub, and then possibly deinterlacing it. A test worked pretty well, and removed any jaggy artifacts. I can generate 60Hz, but I've read that I should either not deinterlace it or convert it to 30 Hz.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-27T17:59:14.637Z
Slightly related... http://video.stackexchange.com/questions/8533/best-practice-recording-vhs-to-digital
AJ Henderson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-27T18:00:11.547Z
VCRs can play back whatever type of signal is on the tape as it just reproduces the signal on the tape on to the output line.  Your capture device is able to process the NTSC video that was recorded on the tape.
AJ Henderson
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-27T18:22:11.523Z
@AJHenderson: Ah OK, that makes sense, thanks. My recording software seems to recognize the signal as NTSC, but only *sometimes*. I think there is still some kind of conversion going on, as supposedly my VCR can play NTSC videos to a PAL TV. I wonder if the S-Video connection gives the "raw" signal, as opposed to the composite (yellow) connection...
jdm
<video-quality><conversion><digitisation>
How to digitise old NTSC home videos for highest quality (with PAL player)?
jdm
# How to digitise old NTSC home videos for highest quality (with PAL player)?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-03-27)

I have some old VHS home videos that I'd like to digitise to preserve them, and I'm looking for the "best" way to do that with my setup. The videos were recorded around 1990, in the USA. I'd say they are in NTSC format, but I've also heard that VHS don't have NTSC or PAL, so I'm not sure. They play on my PAL VHS device, even in color. I am guessing that it converts the video to PAL60 for playback. The colors are slightly dull, but I don't know whether this is a feature of the camera, the old tapes, or any conversion. Another issue is that there is a bit of clipping in very bright/dark areas, but I think nothing can be done about that.

What I have right now is the following: German (PAL) VHS with the old tapes, connected via SCART->white-red-yellow cables to generic USB digitalization device, connected to the computer.

A couple of questions:

* The documentation of the USB device says that a S-Video cable will improve the quality, should I use one?
* Would I get a big improvement from using a different VHS player? NTSC devices are hard to come by here and probably pretty expensive. I found that sometimes the USB device or its driver corrects the colors (that I assume suffer from the NTSC/PAL thing), but I'm not sure whats going on there.
* While I'm at it: the signal seems interlaced. I was planning on recording it via VirtualDub, and then possibly deinterlacing it. A test worked pretty well, and removed any jaggy artifacts. I can generate 60Hz, but I've read that I should either not deinterlace it or convert it to 30 Hz.

**Tags:** video-quality, conversion, digitisation

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Slightly related... http://video.stackexchange.com/questions/8533/best-practice-recording-vhs-to-digital  
> **username_1**: VCRs can play back whatever type of signal is on the tape as it just reproduces the signal on the tape on to the output line.  Your capture device is able to process the NTSC video that was recorded on the tape.  
> **username_0**: @AJHenderson: Ah OK, that makes sense, thanks. My recording software seems to recognize the signal as NTSC, but only *sometimes*. I think there is still some kind of conversion going on, as supposedly my VCR can play NTSC videos to a PAL TV. I wonder if the S-Video connection gives the "raw" signal, as opposed to the composite (yellow) connection...  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2014-03-28. Score: 5

For VHS, the signal will be kept highest quality if you connect via s-video, so yes, you should use an s-video cable if your VCR has an s-video output.

Depending on how good your VCR is, you may get a significant improvement from a better deck. Quality of the read heads on various VCRs can vary a fair bit and while the majority of the difference was in recording quality, there were difference in playback quality as well. That said, finding a good VHS deck in good condition is probably difficult these days.

I'm not sure about the color correction, most likely it is something specific to your capture device.

The signal is most certainly interlaced. Both NTSC and PAL were interlaced formats. NTSC video should be 29.97 frames per second. That is the NTSC standard. The resolution should ideally be 720 by 480 using oval pixels with a .9 pixel compression.

You didn't ask about it specifically, but using a DV codec should give the maximum quality though it will also be quite large. Once you have a DV codec capture of the VHS tape, then using a traditional 2 pass transcode to either h.264 (viewing on computer or blu-ray) or MPEG-2 (DVD) should work well.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: If your capture computer is fast and has plenty of storage space, capture with a lossless codec like UTvideo, or lossless x264.  I don't see how running your stuff through (lossy) DV compression is a good idea.  (better than trying to make the final encoded in realtime, though, if that's all you meant.  Because good deinterlacing is slow.  And then you can spend more CPU on the h.264 encode, too.)  For the final encode, x264 works just as well in one-pass mode, as long as you're using crf (target quality) instead of abr (target bitrate).  
> **username_2**: Also, NTSC VHS can have stereo audio.  Not all VHS decks play back stereo audio.  
> **username_1**: @PeterCordes that's a valid point. I was thinking that dv would be an ideal balance of size and quality as it is designed for that kind of video and very common, but if space and data rates are sufficient a pure lossless format is better.  
> **username_3**: I've never heard the term "oval pixels" before. Do you have a reason for calling them oval instead of rectangular?  
> **username_1**: Just that they were originally illuminating phosphors which tend to not be square.  Rectangular works too though.  
> **username_4**: VHS is composite video on the tape, so I don't see how you can gain anything from s-video out?  
> **username_1**: @Prof.Falken - it depends if they were originally S-VHS or not.  
> **username_4**: @AJHenderson, ah, yes that is true. I have never encounted an S-VHS tape, ever, in the wild, so I didn't think about this use case. And that would require the camcorder to have been S-VHS too, I guess.  
> **username_1**: @Prof.Falken yes, the camera would have had to be S-VHS as well.  I had one, but they weren't super common.  There might also be some signal stability gains depending on how long your cable run is, but mostly the advantage would be with an S-VHS tape.  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-02-04. Score: 4

As far as deinterlacing: With a good deinterlacer (QTGMC, or at least ffmpeg's `yadif=3,mcdeint=2`), you can get smooth video at 60000/1001 (NTSC) fps. If your source has quick motions that you'd like to look smooth, even in slo-mo, then deinterlace 640x480i60 -> 640x480p60. If you really need small files, you can drop every other frame of the deinterlaced output to go 640x480i60 -> 640x480p30. Check if your capture is top-field-first or bottom-field-first before deinterlacing, as yadif -> mcdeint needs to be told.

With a higher frame rate, each frame has more similarity with the previous frame, so it takes less than twice the bitrate to get the same image quality from a good lossy codec like x264. I got very good results from deinterlacing a NTSC DV recording of a musical theatre show my brother was in, making the final output 720x480p60. (actually 60/1.001, thanks NTSC...) I used `ffmpeg -i vid.ts -vf yadif=3:1,mcdeint=3:1:10 -c:a copy -c:v libx264 -qp 0 -preset ultrafast deint.lossless.mkv` to do the slow deinterlace to a lossless scratch file, and from there I could play around with `-vf framestep=2` to go from 60p to 30p, and with various bitrates and encode settings to make a final encode. I settled on a 60p encode at crf=25, nr=250. (x264's built-in noise reduction is nothing fancy, but my source didn't need much since it wasn't an old VHS tape :P)

If you aren't 100% happy with the deinterlace, you could always keep the original capture as an archive, along with the command you used to deinterlace, so you can redo it again without change if you don't have any better ideas next time you want to work with it. Something like x264 in interlaced mode (since you'll feed it 60i content packed as 2 fields per frame, 30fps). crf = somewhere between 10 and 14 or something should be far enough beyond visually transparent that you'll still get good results deinterlacing that. But still with a low enough bitrate that it's not too hard to keep forever.


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2020-12-15. Score: 2

The 2020 and beyond answer:

for [whatever reason](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC5Zr3NC2PY), the "SCART2HDMI" adapters floating around on eBay and Amazon, include electronics that used to be included in professional VCRs and TV studio equipment.

To make a long story short, if you use one of these adapters, you will not only get better color saturation, but also the audio will not drift out of sync with the captured video.

Once you have the signal in HDMI, you can capture it with a regular HDMI capture device, either directly to memory card (SD) like in the linked video, or directly to a computer with an HDMI capture card.

The image will already have been de-interlaced, so you are working with progressive ("normal") video from that point forward.

The only downside is that the deinterlacing is not always perfect. (Hardly ever noticeable in practice though.) The upside is that you will not get dropped frames, teared image, and out of sync sound, like you inevitably get with the composite to USB capture dongles and the like.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: Do you have a link to such products? I'm very wary of going out for myself searching for bleeding edge tech, so a direct link to a relatively cheap product would be a godsend.  
> **username_4**: @Prometheus, this is the (sort-of-no-name-generic-brand) I bought. https://www.teknikmagasinet.se/produkter/hemteknik/kablar-kontakter/adaptrar/zap-scart-to-hdmi  Look for something that is visually the same, and you should be good. The other side of the equation, HDMI capture, there is more competition and many good products for you to choose from.  
> **username_6**: I would not want interlaced video deinterlaced without my desire. Is it deinterlaced into 25p or 50p?  
> **username_4**: @RustyCore, 60p, and there's a button to switch to 50p. I agree I would prefer to not have deinterlacing at all, but this is the best consumer solution overall at this time. Since the deinterlacing keeps the temporal resolution (i.e. does not try to downgrade to 25p/30p) a second post-process pass in the computer can improve the results even more.)  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2014-03-30. Score: -1

Get the video into some kind of file (digitize) like avi or mpeg. Use DVD flick to burn it to dvd disk, its free and can convert NTSC and Pal playable disks. Honestech made a $10 box (Bought at BigLots) to usb converter that converts VHS to DVD it makes them fit a 4.7 gig single layer disk (new $79 USD). No brainer. Since VHS is 640 x 480 its low rez compared to most types today. I'm in the USA and convert to UK to send to relatives,never had an issue with either method.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Hi username_7, welcome to Video Production on Stack Exchange.  It does seem like what you are suggesting may be a viable way to get from VHS to digital or even DVD, however it's rather difficult to follow your answer.  For example, you mention a $10 box but later comment about something being new $79.  If you could clarify what you are suggesting as to how to digitize files from a VHS tape to files on the computer, it would greatly increase the benefit of this answer.  Thanks.  

---

