As I wrote, VHS is an analog format. It has no 'pixels', no luma and no chroma quantization. Only when captured it gets sampled, quantized, converted into a digital format with pixels etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHS#Video_recording
In digital terminology, the resolutions of VHS sources are APPROXIMATELY:
- NTSC 333x480 luma and 40x480 chroma
- PAL 335x576 luma and 40x576 chroma
So in either case the chroma resolution of VHS is about 1/8 of the luma resolution only. Especially the horizontal chroma resolution is poor.
Capturing and converting to digital:
4:4:4 would have equal luma and chroma resolution
4:2:2 has 1/2 chroma/luma resolution
4:2:0 has 1/4 chroma/luma resolution
So even 4:2:0 still has a better chroma/luma ratio than VHS (which has 1/8 chroma/luma only due to poor horizontal chroma resolution).
Capturing to 4:2:2 would however preserve the full vertical chroma resolution of VHS. Going higher makes no sense, as the horizontal chroma resolution of VHS is poor.
One cannot recover what is NOT on the source. One cannot unbake the cake.
Quote:
|
… going for the signal and only taking 4:2:2 it would already compressed i might be wrong ?
|
Compressed by color subsampling yes, but you won't be loosing anything for the reasons given above.
Quote:
|
…. but even worse are the vhs tools 8000 kb/s maximum 4:2:0 or badder and again a compression (for example mp4)
|
If it comes out visibly worse than the original it is definitely NOT due to 4:2:0 subsampling, I would bet. I would look for other reasons. Real-time ('on-the-fly') encoders/compressors are often not very good, or one uses wrong settings.
Quote:
|
…. better would be a image of both (50 frames) and interlace them in high quality
|
Requires a good bob-deinterlacer like QTGMC for 50fps, and - if needed - re-interlace to 25 fps.
Post a sample of your captured VHS source and someone might help you.