user3800: 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., as described here) 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 touches on the subject, but doesn't go into much detail.)

user3908: 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.

user2756: 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.

user40002: 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

3800: <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>
 3908: <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>
 2756: <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>
 40002: <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>
