[boxedart]

Originally Posted by lordsmurf

Again, refer back to the last post, in its final version. The JVC DR-M100 DVD recorder is a higher-end device, and is therefore immune to much of the generic "don't use MPEG-2" warnings. The chispet in that machine not only transfers, but improves the digital version as compared to the analog source. However, it should be noted that good settings must still be selected -- don't pick SP mode, for example.

Speaking only for myself - if all you are doing is making a dub of something you want on DVD than it may be fine. But I would never take a tape that needs work, dub it to a stand alone DVD recorder and then run all over town saying I do the best work ever. I would not do that for a few reasons - the main one being if I have access to something other than a DVD encoded file to work with I would use that first. In the scenerio being laid out here the sources are not DVD's, they are tapes. Given that there is nothing grandiose about what sabkisscrue is doing - people take their old video to all sorts of places for a $25 dub to DVD...and they all use the same basic process - tape in > signal out > stand alone DVD recorder. But they call it what it is - they don't charge you $25 and than sit there for a month or more cleaning up each frame, cleaning up the audio, do multi pass encodes, making custom motion menus and authoring a DVD. The places that *do* do that charge a lot more and use more than a player feed and a recorder in the process.

So, again, for doing post production/restoration work I firmly believe dubbing from one source to a DVD recorder does not qualify as doing all that could be done to work on that source.

Now if you want to take the discussion into another direction - certianly there would be a huge difference between, say, a dub from VHS to SD-DVD and VHS to D1/D2/D3/D5, but I don't know of any hobbyists who have any of these decks laying around. Even their use on a Pro level was scarce - several years ago I was working on a project and the producers wanted it to be laid back to D3. When I called all of the network affilates not only did they not have any some of the head techs didn't have a clue what I was talking about. ("Um...do you mean Digi-Beta?" One of them asked). And my point is not that the "quality" would be "better", it is that it would be better to make a dub to a D1/D2/D3/D5 if your goal was to do more work on the footage *before* it was released.

Originally Posted by lordsmurf

...it can be hard to see improvements in videos, when you've never seen the far-worse source that it came from.

The problem with that comment is that, for me, my involvment came because of a supposed "upgrade" of a show that I *had* seen "far-worse" sources of. I also had seen what was (and still seems to be) considered to be a "massive" upgrade to those "far-worse" sources that were in circulation. So when a newer "upgrade" was put out to the community I was interested and I downloaded it. When I watched it I relized it was, in some ways, worse than the 2007 "upgrade" image wise. However I still made it a point to state that this "new" version was good as well and further pointed out that the 2007 version *and* this new version were the best out there. But the more people questioned sabkisscure/deuce8pro, the more issues arose. One of the biggest ones for me is the use of the term "master" and "1st gen" as it relates to an accurate lineage. The 2007 version is free of the glitches that the deuce8pro has. Matter of fact the deuce8pro version contains the same glitches, in the same locations, as the older, "far-worse", sources did...which is a clear indicator this "new" version was sourced from the same copy that those older, "far worse" versions were sourced from. And that is *not* that same version the 2007 upgrade was sourced from. (And neither version was sourced from the full source that the even older, "far-worse", copies had been made from) Whereas the 2007 verison was sourced from a Low gen" VHS this new version is claimed to have been sourced from the "master reels". However anyone who questions the post work done (or not done), lineage and deuce8pro's liberal use of the terms "master" and "1st gen" is met with comments such as this (The latest response to my question about linege):

Originally Posted by sabkisscrue

This is clearly someone who is on the brink of madness.

As I stated in the VH Largo thread - The quality of what sabkisscrue/deuce8pro feels is the best, and his attitude of being the best, would never be allowed in the real world of DVD production. But, if you understand some basic things - that this is a hobby and this is tape trading - than you understand there are flaws in source material that is almost 30 years old, you understand there are various ways to present these, and that most of the time we try to be a community. Had sabkisscrue/deuce8pro simply stated that there were flaws in his version and that he did his best on trying to present an upgrade from what he believes is a higher source than we would not be here. Instead he has told every single person who feels his verison is not as good as the 2007 version, both here and on other boards, that their opinions are wrong; the quality of not only this, but all his work, is great; that he is great; and that his method of dubbing/restoration/post is the best there is. Comments such as those cause the pros, such as myself, to step in more and question the things being said more. In my case, as I pointed out to sabkisscrue/deuce8pro in the VH Largo thread, I am going to be more questioning of someone who says they have a release from the "master" vs someone who says they have a release from a "low gen" - even more so when the "low gen" version has less flaws in it than the "master" version does.