<p>An uncompressed digitized VHS tape is like 60 gigs. Obviously way too big. I can compress it down using H.265 and get basically the same quality. But before I do that, is there any production techniques I can use on the uncompressed files to get a better image? </p>

<p>I've only ever dealt with raw photo images. I know that with raw photos I can do a ton more post processing because the bitdepth is deeper than the human eye can gather so there's a lot more information for the post processor to access. </p>

<p>Is this true of a digitized VHS video tape too? Is there any post processing I can do that will improve the image that I should do BEFORE I compress it?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-14T19:38:07.560Z
"Raw VHS" cannot be measured in GB because it is analog. So, you already have it encoded with some other codec. If you want to save space, not produce an edited watchable video, then don't. 60 GB is nothing. 4 TB HDD costs less than $100. Or you can split your data into three 25 GB Blu-ray discs for long-term preservation. Better do both: external HDD + Blu-ray if it is really important stuff. If you want to process the videos, I would mostly pay attention to correct interlacing, or deinterlacing into 50p/60p.
Rusty Core
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-14T19:52:53.507Z
Right, I guess I shouldn't say raw. I should say "uncompressed". But is the uncompressed digitization of the vhs have significantly enough information to allow it to be improved in post production? As it's a digitization of a VHS tape, I'm curious if it's actually got more useful information sense it's not like it's a raw file from the image sensors etc.
Aslan French
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-14T22:26:08.393Z
So it is about 1-hour video? https://toolstud.io/video/bitrate.php?imagewidth=704&imageheight=480&colordepth=24&framerate=29.97 If I were compressing it for further storage I would use H.264 @ about 3-5 Mbit/s. I personally do not use H.265, but is is gaining popularity. Again, I would pay most  attention to interlacing to avoid combing and ghosting.
Rusty Core
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-15T03:55:30.413Z
If you plan on doing any colour fixing or de-noising do that before compressing, just as you would with still images. Noise can be a problem with h.264/5 because it eats up bandwidth, but whether the improvement you can get with a de-noiser is worth it is for you to decide.
stib
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-15T22:40:03.577Z
because of decreased dynaimc range @stib ?  As far as I can tell that's not an issue with digitized vhs tapes, versus raw photograph has information directly from the sensors, giving it a higher bitdepth and therefore more dynamic range to play with.
Aslan French
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-16T12:45:23.450Z
Unless your uncompressed codec is 10 or more bit, you're right, it won't have greater dynamic range, but it will still have more information than the compressed copy, so you'll get better results when you process it
stib
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-03-11T15:32:51.740Z
I would keep the uncompressed files. If you do compress, but want to use the compressed data for reference, do not deinterlace. You will lose more information if you deinterlace. Keep the compressed video interlaced.
Prof. Falken
<video-quality><compression><vhs><digitisation>
Before I throw away these massive uncompressed VHS digitizations, what kind of post processing can I do to improve them?
Aslan French
# Before I throw away these massive uncompressed VHS digitizations, what kind of post processing can I do to improve them?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2019-02-14)

An uncompressed digitized VHS tape is like 60 gigs. Obviously way too big. I can compress it down using H.265 and get basically the same quality. But before I do that, is there any production techniques I can use on the uncompressed files to get a better image?

I've only ever dealt with raw photo images. I know that with raw photos I can do a ton more post processing because the bitdepth is deeper than the human eye can gather so there's a lot more information for the post processor to access.

Is this true of a digitized VHS video tape too? Is there any post processing I can do that will improve the image that I should do BEFORE I compress it?

**Tags:** video-quality, compression, vhs, digitisation

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: "Raw VHS" cannot be measured in GB because it is analog. So, you already have it encoded with some other codec. If you want to save space, not produce an edited watchable video, then don't. 60 GB is nothing. 4 TB HDD costs less than $100. Or you can split your data into three 25 GB Blu-ray discs for long-term preservation. Better do both: external HDD + Blu-ray if it is really important stuff. If you want to process the videos, I would mostly pay attention to correct interlacing, or deinterlacing into 50p/60p.  
> **username_0**: Right, I guess I shouldn't say raw. I should say "uncompressed". But is the uncompressed digitization of the vhs have significantly enough information to allow it to be improved in post production? As it's a digitization of a VHS tape, I'm curious if it's actually got more useful information sense it's not like it's a raw file from the image sensors etc.  
> **username_1**: So it is about 1-hour video? https://toolstud.io/video/bitrate.php?imagewidth=704&imageheight=480&colordepth=24&framerate=29.97 If I were compressing it for further storage I would use H.264 @ about 3-5 Mbit/s. I personally do not use H.265, but is is gaining popularity. Again, I would pay most  attention to interlacing to avoid combing and ghosting.  
> **username_2**: If you plan on doing any colour fixing or de-noising do that before compressing, just as you would with still images. Noise can be a problem with h.264/5 because it eats up bandwidth, but whether the improvement you can get with a de-noiser is worth it is for you to decide.  
> **username_0**: because of decreased dynaimc range @username_2 ?  As far as I can tell that's not an issue with digitized vhs tapes, versus raw photograph has information directly from the sensors, giving it a higher bitdepth and therefore more dynamic range to play with.  
> **username_2**: Unless your uncompressed codec is 10 or more bit, you're right, it won't have greater dynamic range, but it will still have more information than the compressed copy, so you'll get better results when you process it  
> **username_3**: I would keep the uncompressed files. If you do compress, but want to use the compressed data for reference, do not deinterlace. You will lose more information if you deinterlace. Keep the compressed video interlaced.  

---

## 0 answers

