WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.720 --> 00:00:05.060
[sound of VHS cassette being inserted into
VCR and heads spinning up]

00:00:06.820 --> 00:00:11.260
As the world steadily moved from the realm
of analog signals to digital information,

00:00:11.260 --> 00:00:16.669
we kept facing the challenge of how to convert
our beloved and wholesome analog recordings

00:00:16.669 --> 00:00:21.370
into sterile, never-changing strings of ones
and zeroes.

00:00:21.370 --> 00:00:24.579
Remember kids, vinyl is better because it’s
imperfect!

00:00:24.579 --> 00:00:28.680
Anyway, converting analog *audio* to digital
audio was no big deal.

00:00:28.680 --> 00:00:33.160
I mean, technically it all starts as analog
signals from microphones anyway, so once we

00:00:33.160 --> 00:00:37.190
figured out how to record sound waves as a
series of instantaneous intensity samples

00:00:37.190 --> 00:00:40.980
taken at a frequency of at least twice the
highest sound frequency we’d like to capture

00:00:40.980 --> 00:00:44.760
and bandlimiting the input and output which
guarantees the sound will be reproduced exactly

00:00:44.760 --> 00:00:49.230
as it was captured because the Nyquist-Shannon
sampling theorem proves that to be the case…

00:00:49.230 --> 00:00:52.941
once we figured out how to Digital Sound it
was simply a matter of recording an analog

00:00:52.941 --> 00:00:58.390
source and then all your favorite artists
are now immortalized on Compact Disc!

00:00:58.390 --> 00:01:03.570
It is almost hilariously easy to get a decent
digital sound recording from an analog source.

00:01:03.570 --> 00:01:05.210
Need to digitize a cassette?

00:01:05.210 --> 00:01:10.200
Just plug a walkman into your laptop, download
everyone’s favorite open-source audio software,

00:01:10.200 --> 00:01:12.790
hit play, hit record, and look at that!

00:01:12.790 --> 00:01:16.360
Sound waves make samples, samples make soundwaves.

00:01:16.360 --> 00:01:22.110
Of course if you’re not using a $10,000
ADC and the latest in gold plated Oleum Anguis

00:01:22.110 --> 00:01:25.390
cables, you’re really not getting the true
experience.

00:01:25.390 --> 00:01:26.200
Pfft.

00:01:26.200 --> 00:01:28.580
People who listen to music for what it IS.

00:01:28.580 --> 00:01:33.910
But, converting analog video into digital
video has remained a frustrating process full

00:01:33.910 --> 00:01:38.810
of forum posts about which deinterlacing algorithm
is the best, which video capture cards work

00:01:38.810 --> 00:01:44.450
best and which don’t, dealing with audio
synchronization issues, and even once you’ve

00:01:44.450 --> 00:01:51.000
settled on something that works reliably,
it almost never looks like analog video actually looked.

00:01:51.000 --> 00:01:55.300
No one is pretending that captures from a
VHS tape should look as good as this gorgeous

00:01:55.310 --> 00:01:57.220
video you’re watching right now.

00:01:57.220 --> 00:02:02.689
But, I’d say a good 90% of the VHS captures
I’ve seen floating around the Interwebs

00:02:02.689 --> 00:02:09.090
look washed out, kinda blocky, and in general
just a lot worse than VHS actually was.

00:02:09.090 --> 00:02:11.159
[ upbeat music ]
It doesn’t have to be this way!

00:02:11.160 --> 00:02:16.260
With this one weird trick, you’ll find out
how to take your VHS captures from this

00:02:16.920 --> 00:02:17.840
-- to this.

00:02:18.600 --> 00:02:22.560
Now as is the usual case with this
channel, we’re gonna go into far more detail

00:02:22.560 --> 00:02:27.130
than a casual viewer may need so if you really
just want to know what I use to get captures

00:02:27.130 --> 00:02:33.200
like this go ahead and skip to here, but be
warned that in some ways this is very easy,

00:02:33.200 --> 00:02:37.470
and in other ways it’s frustrating and in
either case will likely require video editing

00:02:37.470 --> 00:02:42.550
software of some kind to produce an output
file worthy of publishing anywhere.

00:02:42.550 --> 00:02:43.760
But I mean.

00:02:43.760 --> 00:02:45.000
Those results.

00:02:45.000 --> 00:02:46.580
Mmmmm…

00:02:46.580 --> 00:02:51.980
Alright, so let’s start with what makes
the process of analog video capture so gnarly.

00:02:51.980 --> 00:02:56.819
An analog video signal is far more complicated
than simple audio signals.

00:02:56.819 --> 00:03:00.800
Since it’s designed to synchronize the raster
pattern of a television set and define the

00:03:00.800 --> 00:03:05.900
intensities of the red, green, and blue electron
guns in a CRT, all the while doing so with

00:03:05.900 --> 00:03:11.450
weird complicated math designed to produce
a color output from a single monochrome signal,

00:03:11.450 --> 00:03:15.860
it’s not as easy as taking some samples
of the signal’s intensity and reconstructing

00:03:15.860 --> 00:03:17.120
them later.

00:03:17.120 --> 00:03:21.680
Especially because digital video is nothing
like digital audio.

00:03:21.680 --> 00:03:26.370
Any video capture device has to take that
analog signal, actually build an image with

00:03:26.370 --> 00:03:31.209
it by approximating how a CRT would natively
draw it, break that image up into an array

00:03:31.209 --> 00:03:36.909
of logical pixels, take RGB values of each
one, and then encode that as digital video

00:03:36.909 --> 00:03:38.690
however you like.

00:03:38.690 --> 00:03:42.519
And because that’s not difficult enough,
it also has to decide whether to keep it as

00:03:42.519 --> 00:03:47.330
interlaced video and let whatever device will
play it back decide how to deal with that,

00:03:47.330 --> 00:03:52.490
or whether it should deinterlace the video
now and then be stuck with however good its native

00:03:52.490 --> 00:03:54.370
deinterlacing algorithm is.

00:03:54.370 --> 00:03:55.480
Oh right.

00:03:55.480 --> 00:03:56.600
Interlacing.

00:03:56.600 --> 00:04:01.120
That thing we did in the analog video space
because it was the 1940’s and bandwidth

00:04:01.129 --> 00:04:03.099
wasn’t just growing on trees.

00:04:03.099 --> 00:04:07.560
We needed the CRT to refresh fast enough to
make flicker imperceptible, so we drew the

00:04:07.560 --> 00:04:11.840
image in alternating lines called fields twice
as frequently as we could if we filled it

00:04:11.840 --> 00:04:13.159
all in at once.

00:04:13.159 --> 00:04:17.000
Said the engineers of the day, that won’t
ever cause a problem down the road, will it?

00:04:17.000 --> 00:04:20.340
Well here we are in the 21st century and it’s
a problem.

00:04:20.340 --> 00:04:23.780
Captain Disillusion just made a really greater
primer on interlacing if you want to know

00:04:23.780 --> 00:04:27.919
a little more about it, but now that we use
televisions, computers, and smartphones with

00:04:27.919 --> 00:04:29.380
LCD, OLED, and

00:04:29.380 --> 00:04:30.260
*future*

00:04:30.260 --> 00:04:33.270
displays that stay
constantly lit and thus don’t have to deal

00:04:33.270 --> 00:04:37.940
with flicker, deciding how to deal with an
image source that effectively is doing

00:04:37.940 --> 00:04:39.539
this

00:04:39.539 --> 00:04:41.259
can be a tricky thing.

00:04:41.259 --> 00:04:47.789
And yet, even now in 2019, new television
sets include a composite input, and they manage

00:04:47.789 --> 00:04:55.779
to spread those 480 interlaced lines into
1,080 or even 2,160 rows of progressive pixels

00:04:55.779 --> 00:04:57.810
with grace and dignity.

00:04:57.810 --> 00:05:02.440
And once you process that a little bit, you’ll
start to wonder why video captures tend to

00:05:02.440 --> 00:05:03.759
be so bad.

00:05:03.759 --> 00:05:08.020
See, this television doesn’t have an electron
gun blindly following orders from the little

00:05:08.020 --> 00:05:09.020
yellow cable.

00:05:09.020 --> 00:05:13.770
It’s got a giant grid of pixels, so just
like any capture device, it has to take this

00:05:13.770 --> 00:05:19.830
incoming signal, approximate how a CRT would
draw it, and then … draw it.

00:05:19.830 --> 00:05:24.300
And of course it also has to de-interlace
that signal because the panel runs at 60p

00:05:24.300 --> 00:05:30.479
not 60i, so it does everything an analog-to-digital
converting capture device does.

00:05:30.479 --> 00:05:32.189
But it doesn’t make blocky video.

00:05:32.189 --> 00:05:34.210
It’s not weirdly interlaced.

00:05:34.210 --> 00:05:35.399
And the colors are vibrant.

00:05:35.399 --> 00:05:36.800
It looks fine.

00:05:36.800 --> 00:05:39.659
Dare I say it, it looks GOOD.

00:05:39.659 --> 00:05:43.389
I bought this TV just a couple of weeks ago,
and I put some pictures of it up on Twitter

00:05:43.389 --> 00:05:46.259
praising how good its composite input is.

00:05:46.259 --> 00:05:50.180
And the responses to it (particularly this
one) got me thinking.

00:05:50.180 --> 00:05:54.909
See, almost by accident, I’ve been using
a pair of devices to capture analog video

00:05:54.909 --> 00:05:59.740
for various clips here on YouTube, and one
of them probably uses the same methods this

00:05:59.740 --> 00:06:04.809
TV does to get that analog signal turned into
digital video.

00:06:04.809 --> 00:06:09.429
And if my memory is right, this all got started
from a video Techmoan made about (or perhaps

00:06:09.429 --> 00:06:14.779
simply featuring) a new A/V receiver which
upscaled composite video and spat it out to

00:06:14.779 --> 00:06:16.719
the TV over HDMI.

00:06:16.719 --> 00:06:21.220
I’ve looked for that video and can’t figure
out which one it was but suffice to say I

00:06:21.220 --> 00:06:25.789
was intrigued by the prospect of a device
which could “upscale” composite video,

00:06:25.789 --> 00:06:28.150
but I wasn’t in the market for an A/V receiver.

00:06:28.150 --> 00:06:32.760
So I went to my friendly neighborhood Amazon
and spent a whole $30 on this thing.

00:06:32.760 --> 00:06:33.979
Tried it out.

00:06:33.979 --> 00:06:36.310
Wasn’t overly blown away by it.

00:06:36.310 --> 00:06:40.370
It seemed perhaps marginally better than what
my TV could do on its own, but nothing so

00:06:40.370 --> 00:06:42.849
extraordinary that I couldn’t live without.

00:06:42.849 --> 00:06:44.300
But then it hit me.

00:06:44.300 --> 00:06:49.460
If this thing is outputting to HDMI, that
means it’s done analog-to-digital conversion,

00:06:49.460 --> 00:06:52.830
and clearly it doesn’t suck because it’s
actually a little bit better than what my

00:06:52.830 --> 00:06:54.509
TV could do on its own.

00:06:54.509 --> 00:06:58.699
So, I went back to my friendly neighborhood
Amazon and looked for something which could

00:06:58.699 --> 00:07:02.580
capture HDMI and spit it onto something.

00:07:02.580 --> 00:07:06.379
These exist because gamers, and in my case
I wouldn’t have to worry about any sort

00:07:06.379 --> 00:07:11.189
of HDCP compliance because the signal it’s
getting isn’t copy protected, so I went

00:07:11.189 --> 00:07:12.439
with cheap.

00:07:12.439 --> 00:07:15.300
Even then it was around the $70 mark.

00:07:15.300 --> 00:07:19.539
These things in general just aren’t very
cheap, but all-in now we’re at $100.

00:07:19.539 --> 00:07:21.619
I tried it out, and whoa.

00:07:21.619 --> 00:07:22.619
This is it.

00:07:22.619 --> 00:07:26.639
This is how to capture analog video when quality
matters over all else.

00:07:26.639 --> 00:07:30.169
For those of you just joining us, here’s
how to capture analog video with the same

00:07:30.169 --> 00:07:32.560
quality that your TV displays it.

00:07:32.560 --> 00:07:35.379
Find yourself a composite to HDMI converter.

00:07:35.379 --> 00:07:37.860
You may want to use the search term “upscaler”.

00:07:37.860 --> 00:07:42.559
This $30 one works reasonably well enough,
though there might be --nay, certainly are

00:07:42.559 --> 00:07:43.849
better options.

00:07:43.849 --> 00:07:46.929
Next, get some sort of HDMI capture device.

00:07:46.929 --> 00:07:50.749
I’ve been using this cheap stand-alone thing
that records to a flash drive and while it

00:07:50.749 --> 00:07:54.589
presents some limitations, it’s perfectly
fine for my needs.

00:07:54.589 --> 00:07:58.899
If you want, you could get one that allows
your computer to directly record the source.

00:07:58.899 --> 00:08:00.319
Whatever floats your boat.

00:08:00.320 --> 00:08:04.680
Just make sure it can record whatever your
chosen digital-spitter-outer thing spits out.

00:08:04.680 --> 00:08:06.599
And that’s… it.

00:08:06.599 --> 00:08:09.629
Now for my use case, this is extremely hassle
free.

00:08:09.629 --> 00:08:14.559
I have my composite-to-HDMI converter attached
to the output of my A/V receiver, and the

00:08:14.559 --> 00:08:17.339
actual capture device sits atop this VCR.

00:08:17.339 --> 00:08:22.069
Now, anything that goes through the A/V receiver
can be captured just by plugging in a flash

00:08:22.069 --> 00:08:24.289
drive and hitting that button.

00:08:24.289 --> 00:08:27.919
And when I’m done, I hit the button again,
wait for the flash drive to stop writing,

00:08:27.919 --> 00:08:28.919
and boom.

00:08:28.919 --> 00:08:30.330
There’s my file.

00:08:30.330 --> 00:08:34.149
You might also be happy to know that Macrovision
doesn’t bother this thing.

00:08:34.149 --> 00:08:39.030
I of course don’t know why that might make
you happy, but if it does, well now you know.

00:08:39.030 --> 00:08:42.650
And now is where things may or may not get
a little weird.

00:08:42.650 --> 00:08:48.160
My capture thingy only records 60 frames per
second in 720p, so I have the output of my

00:08:48.160 --> 00:08:51.370
digital-spitter-outer thing set to 720p.

00:08:51.370 --> 00:08:55.740
Which honestly, we’re dealing with 480i
footage so that’s still capturing the whole

00:08:55.740 --> 00:08:57.170
thing and then some.

00:08:57.170 --> 00:09:03.800
But, the output file is stretched to 16:9
because one of these two devices isn’t smart enough.

00:09:03.800 --> 00:09:06.720
And that means you probably want to un-stretch
it.

00:09:06.720 --> 00:09:09.100
If you don’t want to we can’t be friends.

00:09:09.100 --> 00:09:13.120
Also of note is that, at least in my situation,
the audio level in the resulting recordings

00:09:13.120 --> 00:09:15.470
is really, really low.

00:09:15.470 --> 00:09:19.699
I can boost it well enough in Premiere but
noise does start to poke through.

00:09:19.699 --> 00:09:23.649
I haven’t tried running the audio separately
into the line-input of the capture device

00:09:23.649 --> 00:09:28.600
which I think would almost certainly fix that,
but I’m just warning you could run into this.

00:09:28.600 --> 00:09:32.620
The biggest inconvenience is that the files
do eventually get split.

00:09:32.630 --> 00:09:36.160
Depending on what you want to do this may
or may not be an issue, and for how I use

00:09:36.160 --> 00:09:37.790
this it’s no big deal at all.

00:09:37.790 --> 00:09:42.300
I’m typically just grabbing one or two minute
clips to put in a video, and then I’m only

00:09:42.300 --> 00:09:44.660
using 10 or so seconds at a time.

00:09:44.660 --> 00:09:48.399
But if you’re looking to backup home videos
or other longer content, you’ll have to

00:09:48.399 --> 00:09:50.449
stitch these files together.

00:09:50.449 --> 00:09:54.550
If you don’t have any experience with video
editing software this might seem daunting,

00:09:54.550 --> 00:09:56.089
but you’ll pick it up quick.

00:09:56.089 --> 00:10:01.430
Plus, other solutions such as USB devices
for your PC which capture HDMI may not do

00:10:01.430 --> 00:10:05.339
this, but I don’t have experience to comment
with authority on that matter.

00:10:05.339 --> 00:10:09.259
For me, if for instance there’s a home video
I want to back up, I’ll start a new Premiere

00:10:09.259 --> 00:10:11.910
project, and throw each file on the timeline.

00:10:11.910 --> 00:10:13.829
Now I want to un-stretch this.

00:10:13.829 --> 00:10:18.259
I personally am OK with them being rendered
as a widescreen video with black bars on the

00:10:18.259 --> 00:10:22.589
side, so I’m not going to bother resizing
the output file into a 4:3 aspect ratio and

00:10:22.589 --> 00:10:24.040
suitable resolution.

00:10:24.040 --> 00:10:29.660
Instead I’ll keep it at 720P widescreen,
but with the actual video source scaled correctly.

00:10:29.670 --> 00:10:33.320
In Premiere, you can save a preset so you
don’t have to keep doing this manually,

00:10:33.320 --> 00:10:35.639
and apply it to multiple clips at once.

00:10:35.639 --> 00:10:39.910
Another small wrinkle I deal with is the fact
that the image isn’t perfectly centered

00:10:39.910 --> 00:10:44.699
and there’s a black bar along one edge,
but if you’re placing it on a floating background

00:10:44.699 --> 00:10:47.170
of black that isn’t visible anyway.

00:10:47.170 --> 00:10:51.170
As it currently stands I put a big audio gain
on all of the clips so that they’re not

00:10:51.170 --> 00:10:54.180
super quiet, and now I’m done.

00:10:54.180 --> 00:10:57.290
I’ll re-render this into whatever video
format I like.

00:10:57.290 --> 00:11:00.200
If I’m just putting this as a clip into
an existing project

00:11:00.200 --> 00:11:02.520
(like I’m doing for this very video)

00:11:02.520 --> 00:11:05.480
I simply take the original
file and scale it accordingly.

00:11:05.480 --> 00:11:07.310
And that’s it.

00:11:07.310 --> 00:11:11.009
For me personally, this is the best situation
imaginable.

00:11:11.009 --> 00:11:15.220
The capture device stays as part of my video
equipment setup, always ready to capture from

00:11:15.220 --> 00:11:19.449
a Laserdisc, VHS tape, PS2, or whatever else
I may throw at it.

00:11:19.449 --> 00:11:21.019
All I need is a flash drive.

00:11:21.019 --> 00:11:24.579
And the output files are not only better than
any conventional capture method I’ve used

00:11:24.579 --> 00:11:27.750
so far, they’re more convenient.

00:11:27.750 --> 00:11:29.470
There are two small caveats, though.

00:11:29.470 --> 00:11:34.470
The first is that its deinterlacing is very
close to perfect, but not quite.

00:11:34.470 --> 00:11:37.629
Every once in a while there will be a frame
showing two fields at once.

00:11:37.629 --> 00:11:42.610
I’ll take that over bad deinterlacing any
day, especially because it’s only noticeable

00:11:42.610 --> 00:11:44.180
under certain circumstances.

00:11:44.180 --> 00:11:49.189
PLUS, and this is especially important, since
it produces a non-interlaced file, it’s

00:11:49.189 --> 00:11:54.300
easier to incorporate these into a progressive
video like everything we do today, so you’ll

00:11:54.300 --> 00:11:59.259
be sure that the output file isn’t deinterlaced
poorly upon being converted to 30 frames per

00:11:59.259 --> 00:12:03.980
second, or 60 frames per second should you
decide to preserve the analog smoothness we

00:12:03.980 --> 00:12:05.879
all know and love.

00:12:05.879 --> 00:12:09.680
And the other thing is that, on some occasions,
it’s produced output files that Premiere

00:12:09.680 --> 00:12:11.649
does NOT like.

00:12:11.649 --> 00:12:15.760
It hasn’t happened in a while, so it may
be that Premiere updates have fixed it, or

00:12:15.760 --> 00:12:20.629
perhaps it improved with time somehow, but
whatever the case, I was able to run the file

00:12:20.629 --> 00:12:25.610
through Media Encoder and get something out
that Premiere would import without crashing.

00:12:25.610 --> 00:12:29.949
Weirdly, Windows never had a problem playing
the files as they were.

00:12:29.949 --> 00:12:32.709
But, worst case scenario, just capture it
again.

00:12:32.709 --> 00:12:37.911
So, if you do a lot of video capturing and
are looking for quality above all else, you

00:12:37.911 --> 00:12:39.610
might want to consider trying this.

00:12:39.610 --> 00:12:43.639
I’ve been quite pleased with it, and while
it may seem a bit absurd compared to more

00:12:43.640 --> 00:12:49.720
conventional options, I really think this
is on the whole among the best options right now.

00:12:49.720 --> 00:12:55.140
My previous method for capturing analog video,
which you saw in the earlier comparison clip,

00:12:55.149 --> 00:12:59.899
involved recording onto a DVD-RAM disc at
the highest bitrate possible and then importing

00:12:59.899 --> 00:13:04.999
that into a video editor to be re-exported
as natively interlaced video.

00:13:04.999 --> 00:13:09.740
I had previously considered this to be the
best option for quality, (and it was used

00:13:09.740 --> 00:13:13.990
in some of my earlier videos) but I’m eating
my words now.

00:13:13.990 --> 00:13:19.170
And given the convenience advantage of my
admittedly kinda weird capture setup, I’ll

00:13:19.170 --> 00:13:21.149
deal with piecing clips together if I have
to.

00:13:21.149 --> 00:13:24.060
Now, is this night-and-day better?

00:13:24.060 --> 00:13:25.069
Not quite.

00:13:25.069 --> 00:13:30.100
I find it to be much less blocky, particularly
with scenes involving motion, but that’s

00:13:30.100 --> 00:13:35.360
mainly down to the fact that it’s encoding
these clips with more modern h.264 compression.

00:13:35.360 --> 00:13:39.850
You can still notice some blocks in areas
like the sky here or other almost-solid-color

00:13:39.850 --> 00:13:46.290
areas, but for my money, this looks far truer
to real analog video than does my old method

00:13:46.290 --> 00:13:49.720
of capturing, and many others I’ve seen.

00:13:49.720 --> 00:13:54.660
Since this method might very well be improved
with a better upscaler and/or a better recorder,

00:13:54.660 --> 00:13:58.079
I’m pretty confident in saying this is worth
a try.

00:13:58.079 --> 00:14:01.420
Thanks for watching, and I hope this video will be
helpful to some of you.

00:14:01.420 --> 00:14:06.540
There are a lot of dedicated people who are
archiving all sorts of analog video recordings,

00:14:06.540 --> 00:14:13.200
which is increasingly important as those old recordings
wear out or degrade and may be lost to time.

00:14:13.200 --> 00:14:17.920
While this solution may not be the best for
doing large amounts of archival work, I’d

00:14:17.920 --> 00:14:23.499
say for personal use (particularly for saving
home videos, etc) its added hassles make it

00:14:23.499 --> 00:14:24.499
worth it.

00:14:24.499 --> 00:14:26.939
I’ll be back with a full-on video soon.

00:14:26.939 --> 00:14:32.320
For now, enjoy a selection of VHS and Laserdisc
captures done with this device.

00:14:33.400 --> 00:14:36.320
♫ progressively smooth jazz ♫