Answers.Body: <p>I think that your choose are good.</p>
  
  <p>H264 will be a bit huge in compare with H265, but will be supportable for more devices at this moment.</p>
  
  <p>CRF you can get experimentally. Less CRF is better quality but bigger size of the file. </p>
  
  <p>Also you can use bitrate settings instead of CRF.
  You can Focus on data from video recommendations for YouTube - <a href="https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171?hl=en" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171?hl=en</a></p>
  
  <p>I use approx 8Mbit/s for 1080p, 5Mbit/s for 720p and 1-2 Mbit/s for 480p.</p>
  
  <p>If you need a good quality for video editing and all the videos were recorded on a good camera and you want to do color grading with your videos you can save them in Apple ProRes or Cinegy Daniel 2 or another losless or low compression codec.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-14T02:24:57.537Z
Answers.Text: Converting to ProRes or Daniel will take up as much room as just copying the DV stream, and won't improve the result. Buy a portable harddrive — even a cheap portable hard drive should be able to keep up with DV speeds these days, it's only 25Mbs
Answers.UserDisplayName: stib
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-05-10T10:18:25.303Z
Answers.Text: @stib you should turn this into an answer
Answers.UserDisplayName: tomh
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2021-11-11T04:18:56.500Z
Answers.Text: @stib Daniel2 codec is lossless, but it have compession and it will take less space on the drive, but work with uncompressed material will be good too, I agree with you. But it will work good for DV.
  1 minute of uncompressed 1920x1080 video will take as much space as 1 hour of NTSC DV video. Approx.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Viktor Liashenko
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-04-13T20:28:22.017Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-04-14T08:53:58.193Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-04-14T08:53:58.193Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Viktor Liashenko
Answers.Body: <p>4:3 25 fps interlaced rectangular pixel 720x576 PAL .dv to 50 fps progressive 768x576 square pixel H.265 .mp4 (bob deinterlace, scale 788x576, crop 768x576, H.265, CRF18, slow, timecode, hvc1, AAC):</p>
  <pre><code>ffmpeg -i input.dv -vf bwdif=1,scale=788:576,crop=768:576:10:0,setsar=sar=1/1 -c:v libx265 -crf 18 -preset slow -timecode 00:00:00:00 -tag:v hvc1 -c:a aac -b:a 128k output.mp4
  </code></pre>
  <p>The same as a batch:</p>
  <pre><code>for i in *.dv; do ffmpeg -i &quot;$i&quot; -vf bwdif=1,scale=788:576,crop=768:576:10:0,setsar=sar=1/1 -c:v libx265 -crf 18 -preset slow -timecode 00:00:00:00 -tag:v hvc1 -c:a aac -b:a 128k &quot;${i%.*}_converted.mp4&quot;; done
  </code></pre>
  <p>That is slightly too good quality for most input so you might do it somewhat faster with '-crf 28 -preset medium' defaults. But some of my source material needed that.</p>
  <p>Essentially the same for 4:3 NTSC .dv:</p>
  <pre><code>ffmpeg -i input.dv -vf bwdif=1,scale=648:480,crop=640:480:4:0,setsar=sar=1/1 -c:v libx265 -crf 18 -preset slow -timecode '00:00:00;00' -tag:v hvc1 -c:a aac -b:a 128k output.mp4
  </code></pre>
  <pre><code>for i in *.dv; do ffmpeg -i &quot;$i&quot; -vf bwdif=1,scale=648:480,crop=640:480:4:0,setsar=sar=1/1 -c:v libx265 -crf 18 -preset slow -timecode '00:00:00;00' -tag:v hvc1 -c:a aac -b:a 128k &quot;${i%.*}_converted.mp4&quot;; done
  </code></pre>
  <ul>
  <li>Matti</li>
  </ul>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-01-20T22:20:44.370Z
Answers.Text: Thanks for this detailed answer. Could you elaborate on how you derived these settings? Have you some feedback on the crf coefficient?
Answers.UserDisplayName: kFly
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-01-22T07:47:30.533Z
Answers.Text: I grabbed a few samples from my .dv footage and ran ffmpeg tests with different options. -crf 18 was needed for some poorly lit clips so I ran it for all footage. bwdif=1 was the best double frame rate bob deinterlacer filter. I wanted this to be a one-time project so I used -preset slow and let ffmpeg batch run for a few days and nights. Then edited output .mp4 metadata with exiftool. Rectangular to square pixel calculations from https://web.archive.org/web/20140218044518/http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~f76998/video/conversion/
Answers.UserDisplayName: wywh
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-12-25T16:34:53.530Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2023-12-26T18:43:07.117Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2023-12-26T18:43:07.117Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: wywh
Body: <p>I want to convert and archive movies captured with mini DV tapes. Videos are family movies.</p>
  
  <p>Native format in <em>dvvideo</em> is huge (about 220 MB/min).</p>
  
  <p>So I am willing to accept video compression but I want to keep the possibility of video montage afterwards.</p>
  
  <p>I am looking for a interoperable and durable video format.</p>
  
  <p>So far my searches have me led to :</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li><p>H264 (default crf:23 - typical values 18 to 28)</p></li>
  <li><p>H265 (default crf:28 - typical values ...)</p></li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>I am looking for recommandation for the video format and constant rate factor (crf) to use, and any return of experience.</p>
  
  <p>Thanks for your advices.</p>
  
  <p>Documentation:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li><p><a href="https://slhck.info/video/2017/02/24/crf-guide.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">A CRF Guide</a></p></li>
  <li><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_video_codecs" rel="nofollow noreferrer">WP: Comparison of video codecs</a></p></li>
  </ul>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-04-13T21:25:02.367Z
Comments.Text: Hard drives are cheap. I would not convert DV videos, but would store as is. If you insist on converting, I would at least deinterlace them using the best tools available running at the best quality setting, so as not to burden your editing system with deinterlacing and to achieve the best result possible.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Rusty Core
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-09-11T12:12:27.513Z
Comments.Text: The authoritative answer on this will be from museums, library sciences, and historic preservation societies.  You want something you'll be able to read in the future, so open standards are more reliable than proprietary ones.  Bit rot is real, so you'll need something that's resistant to errors.  Storage cost goes down over time, and compression algorithms get more advanced with time, it's best to archive in an uncompressed format.  Native formats always seem huge now, but you'll laugh at what seemed huge in just a few years.  H.26x is a bad choice.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Jason Conrad
Tags: <video-quality><conversion>
Title: What format should I use to archive video issued from mini DV tapes?
UserDisplayName: kFly
ThreadText: # What format should I use to archive video issued from mini DV tapes?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2020-04-13)
  
  I want to convert and archive movies captured with mini DV tapes. Videos are family movies.
  
  Native format in *dvvideo* is huge (about 220 MB/min).
  
  So I am willing to accept video compression but I want to keep the possibility of video montage afterwards.
  
  I am looking for a interoperable and durable video format.
  
  So far my searches have me led to :
  
  * H264 (default crf:23 - typical values 18 to 28)
  * H265 (default crf:28 - typical values ...)
  
  I am looking for recommandation for the video format and constant rate factor (crf) to use, and any return of experience.
  
  Thanks for your advices.
  
  Documentation:
  
  * [A CRF Guide](https://slhck.info/video/2017/02/24/crf-guide.html)
  * [WP: Comparison of video codecs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_video_codecs)
  
  **Tags:** video-quality, conversion
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Hard drives are cheap. I would not convert DV videos, but would store as is. If you insist on converting, I would at least deinterlace them using the best tools available running at the best quality setting, so as not to burden your editing system with deinterlacing and to achieve the best result possible.  
  > **username_2**: The authoritative answer on this will be from museums, library sciences, and historic preservation societies.  You want something you'll be able to read in the future, so open standards are more reliable than proprietary ones.  Bit rot is real, so you'll need something that's resistant to errors.  Storage cost goes down over time, and compression algorithms get more advanced with time, it's best to archive in an uncompressed format.  Native formats always seem huge now, but you'll laugh at what seemed huge in just a few years.  H.26x is a bad choice.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_6 on 2023-12-25. Score: 2 | Accepted answer
  
  4:3 25 fps interlaced rectangular pixel 720x576 PAL .dv to 50 fps progressive 768x576 square pixel H.265 .mp4 (bob deinterlace, scale 788x576, crop 768x576, H.265, CRF18, slow, timecode, hvc1, AAC):
  
  ```
  ffmpeg -i input.dv -vf bwdif=1,scale=788:576,crop=768:576:10:0,setsar=sar=1/1 -c:v libx265 -crf 18 -preset slow -timecode 00:00:00:00 -tag:v hvc1 -c:a aac -b:a 128k output.mp4
  
  ```
  
  The same as a batch:
  
  ```
  for i in *.dv; do ffmpeg -i "$i" -vf bwdif=1,scale=788:576,crop=768:576:10:0,setsar=sar=1/1 -c:v libx265 -crf 18 -preset slow -timecode 00:00:00:00 -tag:v hvc1 -c:a aac -b:a 128k "${i%.*}_converted.mp4"; done
  
  ```
  
  That is slightly too good quality for most input so you might do it somewhat faster with '-crf 28 -preset medium' defaults. But some of my source material needed that.
  
  Essentially the same for 4:3 NTSC .dv:
  
  ```
  ffmpeg -i input.dv -vf bwdif=1,scale=648:480,crop=640:480:4:0,setsar=sar=1/1 -c:v libx265 -crf 18 -preset slow -timecode '00:00:00;00' -tag:v hvc1 -c:a aac -b:a 128k output.mp4
  
  ```
  
  ```
  for i in *.dv; do ffmpeg -i "$i" -vf bwdif=1,scale=648:480,crop=640:480:4:0,setsar=sar=1/1 -c:v libx265 -crf 18 -preset slow -timecode '00:00:00;00' -tag:v hvc1 -c:a aac -b:a 128k "${i%.*}_converted.mp4"; done
  
  ```
  
  * Matti
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Thanks for this detailed answer. Could you elaborate on how you derived these settings? Have you some feedback on the crf coefficient?  
  > **username_6**: I grabbed a few samples from my .dv footage and ran ffmpeg tests with different options. -crf 18 was needed for some poorly lit clips so I ran it for all footage. bwdif=1 was the best double frame rate bob deinterlacer filter. I wanted this to be a one-time project so I used -preset slow and let ffmpeg batch run for a few days and nights. Then edited output .mp4 metadata with exiftool. Rectangular to square pixel calculations from https://web.archive.org/web/20140218044518/http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~f76998/video/conversion/  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2020-04-13. Score: -1
  
  I think that your choose are good.
  
  H264 will be a bit huge in compare with H265, but will be supportable for more devices at this moment.
  
  CRF you can get experimentally. Less CRF is better quality but bigger size of the file.
  
  Also you can use bitrate settings instead of CRF.
  You can Focus on data from video recommendations for YouTube - <https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1722171?hl=en>
  
  I use approx 8Mbit/s for 1080p, 5Mbit/s for 720p and 1-2 Mbit/s for 480p.
  
  If you need a good quality for video editing and all the videos were recorded on a good camera and you want to do color grading with your videos you can save them in Apple ProRes or Cinegy Daniel 2 or another losless or low compression codec.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_4**: Converting to ProRes or Daniel will take up as much room as just copying the DV stream, and won't improve the result. Buy a portable harddrive — even a cheap portable hard drive should be able to keep up with DV speeds these days, it's only 25Mbs  
  > **username_5**: @username_4 you should turn this into an answer  
  > **username_3**: @username_4 Daniel2 codec is lossless, but it have compession and it will take less space on the drive, but work with uncompressed material will be good too, I agree with you. But it will work good for DV. 1 minute of uncompressed 1920x1080 video will take as much space as 1 hour of NTSC DV video. Approx.  
  
  ---
  
  