<p>If you want something pretty standard and with good quality with DV. The most important thin, whatever the codec you choose, configure it for an interlaced source (since VHS signal is interlaced). If you don't you will end up with a digitized file that will need more space and have much lower quality.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-15T06:10:00.933Z
2013-04-15T06:10:00.933Z
martjno
<p>VHS is already highly 'compressed', so capturing to an uncompressed format is likely overkill. For your purposes MJPEG with a reasonably high quality setting will preserve all your options and shouldn't degrade the images any further than VHS already has.</p>
<p>MJPEG goes by other names -- the idea is that it's all &quot;I-frames&quot;. It is a lossy codec, but there are no interframe artifacts since each video frame is encoded separately.
. . . . .
VHS is already highly 'compressed', so capturing to an uncompressed format is likely overkill. For your purposes MJPEG with a reasonably high quality setting will preserve all your options and shouldn't degrade the images any further than VHS already has.</p>
<p>MJPEG goes by other names -- the idea is that it's all &quot;I-frames&quot;. It is a lossy codec, but there are no interframe artifacts since each video frame is encoded separately.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-12T18:04:52.810Z
Could you provide some more info on MJPEG and what software is available for capture, encoding & playback? Can the audio be muxed with that?
Corey
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-13T17:41:46.697Z
MJPEG is just another codec. Any means you have of capturing, with audio, should honor the availability of any installed codec. Look at http://www.free-codecs.com/download/motion_jpeg_codec.htm for example. Any codec that allows you to use 'all I-frames', like DV or ProRes, will work as well, with different storage costs.
Jim Mack
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-15T09:51:42.760Z
Another point: if possible, find an encoder / video capture card or device that can handle S-video directly, and use an S-VHS deck for playback. The hope is that you can avoid a transition to composite and then to a digital format. Even if your original tapes are not S-VHS, the player would be able to deliver the chroma and luma directly, without re-encoding as composite video. Sorry, no specific products, but S-video input should be called out as a feature on any capture device that offers it.
Jim Mack
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-16T13:31:39.787Z
This may be an option. http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/data_usblive2.html
Corey
CC BY-SA 4.0
2013-04-09T21:02:20.930Z
2022-12-11T14:07:53.507Z
2022-12-11T14:07:53.507Z
Jim Mack
<p>With all due respect I believe this is a common misconception being promoted as an answer here:  i.e. &quot;its already low quality so a high quality copy isn't necessary&quot;.  In fact it is the fact that it is already encoded to the point of almost being humanly annoying which means you need to get it as good as possible.  If you don't do this, special effects (think star wars or smoke) come out pixelated or with harsh contrast/saturation zone lines between the gradients and fine details such as the nap of a jacket get homogenized in to one color/contrast/brightness and saturation which begin to make the video look like an animated paint by number piece.
This is a hotly debated topic, I expect lots of backlash so I urge you to do several trial runs and prove this to yourself rather than deciding based on who is most verbal in the forums with their advice.</p>
<p>&quot;Ya canno change the laws o physics.&quot;:
Montgomery Scott</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-11T18:40:57.717Z
This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient [reputation](https://video.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation) you will be able to [comment on any post](https://video.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment); instead, [provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/214173/why-do-i-need-50-reputation-to-comment-what-can-i-do-instead). - [From Review](/review/late-answers/22069)
Michael Liebman
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-11T07:30:07.307Z
2022-12-11T07:30:07.307Z
unifex
<p>DV can also work well as a format since it is designed to maintain pretty good quality in standard definition and is still fairly compressed.  That's the standard format used for capturing from miniDV cameras and should take around 1 gigabyte for every 4.7 minutes of video.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-09T22:36:15.343Z
2013-04-09T22:36:15.343Z
AJ Henderson
<p>I have VHS tapes that I want to digitize. I started this using something like Pinnacle's Dazzle. I notice that the only encoding options were for compressed video, which could lead to quality degradation, especially in reprocessing to improve the image quality (such as adjusting colors and contrast, noise reduction, and de-interlacing). </p>

<p>I was concerned whether I should continue such a time consuming process without first choosing an encoding wouldn't lead to unwanted limitations (e.g., a<a href="https://video.stackexchange.com/questions/4069/re-encoding-mp3-reduces-quality">s described here</a>) in the final product. </p>

<p>I would guess that I have on the order of 100 hours of video. In the past, cost of disk storage was a concern, hence encoding with compression was the norm. But I don't feel constrained that way anymore. </p>

<p>Can I get some recommendations on a range of consumer hardware and encoding choices and some ideas of what the benefits and limitations are?</p>

<p>(Sorry if this has already been answered, but I didn't see anything in the list of related questions. <a href="https://video.stackexchange.com/questions/3247/converting-from-8mm-video-tapes-to-digital-pc">This one</a> touches on the subject, but doesn't go into much detail.)</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-04-16T13:40:50.700Z
What software do you have in mind for your "Post Processing"? It would probably make sense to capture in the format that is best suited to that software.
Corey
<video><conversion><digital><encoding>
Recommended Encoding for VHS to Digital to be Followed by Post Processing
Jim
# Recommended Encoding for VHS to Digital to be Followed by Post Processing

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-04-09)

I have VHS tapes that I want to digitize. I started this using something like Pinnacle's Dazzle. I notice that the only encoding options were for compressed video, which could lead to quality degradation, especially in reprocessing to improve the image quality (such as adjusting colors and contrast, noise reduction, and de-interlacing).

I was concerned whether I should continue such a time consuming process without first choosing an encoding wouldn't lead to unwanted limitations (e.g., a[s described here](https://video.stackexchange.com/questions/4069/re-encoding-mp3-reduces-quality)) in the final product.

I would guess that I have on the order of 100 hours of video. In the past, cost of disk storage was a concern, hence encoding with compression was the norm. But I don't feel constrained that way anymore.

Can I get some recommendations on a range of consumer hardware and encoding choices and some ideas of what the benefits and limitations are?

(Sorry if this has already been answered, but I didn't see anything in the list of related questions. [This one](https://video.stackexchange.com/questions/3247/converting-from-8mm-video-tapes-to-digital-pc) touches on the subject, but doesn't go into much detail.)

**Tags:** video, conversion, digital, encoding

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: What software do you have in mind for your "Post Processing"? It would probably make sense to capture in the format that is best suited to that software.  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2013-04-15. Score: 1

If you want something pretty standard and with good quality with DV. The most important thin, whatever the codec you choose, configure it for an interlaced source (since VHS signal is interlaced). If you don't you will end up with a digitized file that will need more space and have much lower quality.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2013-04-09. Score: 1

VHS is already highly 'compressed', so capturing to an uncompressed format is likely overkill. For your purposes MJPEG with a reasonably high quality setting will preserve all your options and shouldn't degrade the images any further than VHS already has.

MJPEG goes by other names -- the idea is that it's all "I-frames". It is a lossy codec, but there are no interframe artifacts since each video frame is encoded separately.
. . . . .
VHS is already highly 'compressed', so capturing to an uncompressed format is likely overkill. For your purposes MJPEG with a reasonably high quality setting will preserve all your options and shouldn't degrade the images any further than VHS already has.

MJPEG goes by other names -- the idea is that it's all "I-frames". It is a lossy codec, but there are no interframe artifacts since each video frame is encoded separately.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Could you provide some more info on MJPEG and what software is available for capture, encoding & playback? Can the audio be muxed with that?  
> **username_3**: MJPEG is just another codec. Any means you have of capturing, with audio, should honor the availability of any installed codec. Look at http://www.free-codecs.com/download/motion_jpeg_codec.htm for example. Any codec that allows you to use 'all I-frames', like DV or ProRes, will work as well, with different storage costs.  
> **username_3**: Another point: if possible, find an encoder / video capture card or device that can handle S-video directly, and use an S-VHS deck for playback. The hope is that you can avoid a transition to composite and then to a digital format. Even if your original tapes are not S-VHS, the player would be able to deliver the chroma and luma directly, without re-encoding as composite video. Sorry, no specific products, but S-video input should be called out as a feature on any capture device that offers it.  
> **username_1**: This may be an option. http://www.hauppauge.com/site/products/data_usblive2.html  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2022-12-11. Score: 1

With all due respect I believe this is a common misconception being promoted as an answer here: i.e. "its already low quality so a high quality copy isn't necessary". In fact it is the fact that it is already encoded to the point of almost being humanly annoying which means you need to get it as good as possible. If you don't do this, special effects (think star wars or smoke) come out pixelated or with harsh contrast/saturation zone lines between the gradients and fine details such as the nap of a jacket get homogenized in to one color/contrast/brightness and saturation which begin to make the video look like an animated paint by number piece.
This is a hotly debated topic, I expect lots of backlash so I urge you to do several trial runs and prove this to yourself rather than deciding based on who is most verbal in the forums with their advice.

"Ya canno change the laws o physics.":
Montgomery Scott

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient [reputation](https://video.stackexchange.com/help/whats-reputation) you will be able to [comment on any post](https://video.stackexchange.com/help/privileges/comment); instead, [provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/214173/why-do-i-need-50-reputation-to-comment-what-can-i-do-instead). - [From Review](/review/late-answers/22069)  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2013-04-09. Score: 0

DV can also work well as a format since it is designed to maintain pretty good quality in standard definition and is still fairly compressed. That's the standard format used for capturing from miniDV cameras and should take around 1 gigabyte for every 4.7 minutes of video.


---

