The Traders' Den  

  The Traders' Den > Where we go to learn ..... > Technobabble
 

Notices

Technobabble Post your general Need for Help questions here.
Lossy or Lossless?
Moderators

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 2010-02-23, 04:53 PM
boxedart boxedart is offline
130.02 GB/1.99 TB/15.69
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Re: VHS Transfers & Quality [moved from the Van Halen Largo thread]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner View Post
btw boxedart -- got some Super16 B&W Reversal stock in the freezer, leftovers from a shoot...some of my favorite stock of all time...always wanted to film part a live show with it...maybe if i hit the lottery, and it'd have to be a black metal show
Nice! I had a DP give me some old stock, wasn't neg or Super 16 though, he had in his freezer at one time. He loaned me his old bolex and we went and did a cheesy horror short. I say all the time - I miss film. But I have adapted to video.
  #17  
Old 2010-02-23, 05:07 PM
AAR.oner's Avatar
AAR.oner AAR.oner is offline
TTD Staff
1.11 TB/1.41 TB/1.27
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Appalachia
Re: VHS Transfers & Quality [moved from the Van Halen Largo thread]

Quote:
Originally Posted by awolfoutwest View Post

I can sense you video professionals cringing I cannot afford pro-grade equipment, and have concentrated on doing the best I can with the gear I have. I have done my share of botching the video stream, and have hopefully learned enough to avoid future mishaps. I am always trying to improve my capture process, and usually include a split-screen clip showing raw capture vs processed video. I take the "Occam's Razor" approach to video processing - the simplest strategy is the best. Capture, process once, encode once, author, release...
i hope i didn't come off as saying, "either buy the best gear available or don't transfer it at all", cuz thats not what i'm saying...my set up is by no means top-of-the-line, but delivers the best quality results while in our budget...if an analgue recording needs something more in order to get the best outta it, i'll shop it out to a large production house that has the high end gear


in my opinion, the important thing is that you a) don't pretend to know it all, b) are "always trying to improve yer capturing process", and c) are always willing to learn...no bullshit, no holier-than-thou attitude

attributes i find in most of the film/video professionals i've met in taping/trading circles, but rarely in yer amateur "basement authorers"...they're way is the best, stamp my name all over it, artwork please can i get a seeder????
__________________
TTD's Gear Lust Forum -- info & reviews on taping gear
The Basics of EQing
  #18  
Old 2010-02-23, 05:14 PM
AAR.oner's Avatar
AAR.oner AAR.oner is offline
TTD Staff
1.11 TB/1.41 TB/1.27
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Appalachia
Re: VHS Transfers & Quality [moved from the Van Halen Largo thread]

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxedart View Post
Nice! I had a DP give me some old stock, wasn't neg or Super 16 though, he had in his freezer at one time. He loaned me his old bolex and we went and did a cheesy horror short. I say all the time - I miss film. But I have adapted to video.
werd, but it is a whole lot easier and cost effective now...like location sound, carrying a small HDD-based recorder and boom is a LOT easier than it used to be, but damn if 2" reel doesn't sound better, even on dialogue!
__________________
TTD's Gear Lust Forum -- info & reviews on taping gear
The Basics of EQing
  #19  
Old 2010-02-23, 06:04 PM
awolfoutwest's Avatar
awolfoutwest awolfoutwest is offline
venga al país alto
TTD VIP
788.86 GB/2.75 TB/3.57
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Las Montañas
Re: VHS Transfers & Quality [moved from the Van Halen Largo thread]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner View Post
i hope i didn't come off as saying, "either buy the best gear available or don't transfer it at all", cuz thats not what i'm saying...
Nah, I never got that from your comments. However, I do feel a certain responsibility to transfer as best I can, hopefully improving the material from the source when possible. While it is not curing cancer, some of these transfers are archival until a better version comes along. If no better version surfaces, then what I put out had better be as good as I can get it.

As far as quality goes, I like to take my processed video and subtract it from the original video. Doing this shows flat grey when the video is unaltered, and shows clearly where noise has been reduced, edges sharpened, etc. For a while I was using a technique that required 3 captures of the source, then the AVIsynth script would take the 2 closest pixels of the 3 captures and pass on that information. It was an effective method of filtering out the noise generated in playback, but I have since found a more effective all-around filter for spatio-temporal noise reduction.

My cause celebre has been cascading compression. I have tried to impress on those that will listen how essential it is to avoid re-encoding previously encoded video. I have used MPEG2 video to patch a dropout in something I am working on, but that is on the order of a couple of seconds of video. There are those who don't think twice about re-encoding an entire video to employ color correction, noise reduction or even editing. When I suggest that they find an analog source instead, or employ a GOP-level editor if all frames are not being altered, they maintain that they have "improved" the MPEG2 source and it "looks better". I remain "skeptimistic"
  #20  
Old 2010-02-23, 10:58 PM
sabkisscrue sabkisscrue is offline
146.32 GB/192.48 GB/1.32
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Re: VHS Transfers & Quality [moved from the Van Halen Largo thread]

Quote:
Originally Posted by awolfoutwest View Post
Nah, I never got that from your comments. However, I do feel a certain responsibility to transfer as best I can, hopefully improving the material from the source when possible. While it is not curing cancer, some of these transfers are archival until a better version comes along. If no better version surfaces, then what I put out had better be as good as I can get it.

As far as quality goes, I like to take my processed video and subtract it from the original video. Doing this shows flat grey when the video is unaltered, and shows clearly where noise has been reduced, edges sharpened, etc. For a while I was using a technique that required 3 captures of the source, then the AVIsynth script would take the 2 closest pixels of the 3 captures and pass on that information. It was an effective method of filtering out the noise generated in playback, but I have since found a more effective all-around filter for spatio-temporal noise reduction.

My cause celebre has been cascading compression. I have tried to impress on those that will listen how essential it is to avoid re-encoding previously encoded video. I have used MPEG2 video to patch a dropout in something I am working on, but that is on the order of a couple of seconds of video. There are those who don't think twice about re-encoding an entire video to employ color correction, noise reduction or even editing. When I suggest that they find an analog source instead, or employ a GOP-level editor if all frames are not being altered, they maintain that they have "improved" the MPEG2 source and it "looks better". I remain "skeptimistic"
My kind of guy using words like "improve" and "filter".

This is my setup when it comes to transfering NTSC VHS:

JVC HRS-9800U S-VHS Deck > AR Pro II Series S-Video Cable > Panasonic ES-10 (Pass through tbc/frame synchronizer, Line in NR turned ON,
both in and output black levels set to darker) > AR Pro II Series S-Video Cable > Audio wires from vcr > Sony TR-740 Digital8 Camera (TBC/DNR Turned ON, used for temporal filtering) > firewire > JVC DRM-100 DVD Recorder

The JVC is one of the best consumer model vcrs ever produced.
Does an excellent job of playing back most tapes.
The AR Pro II series is a heavy duty cable that delivers a a very vivid looking picture, rich with colors and full of detail. The ES10 works with the JVC to help correct some of the jitter that JVC doesnt, it also corrects the black level. Theres also a Line IN NR that helps to further clean up the image. The Sony tr740, that AAR doesnt like, doesnt believe this has pass through filters but based on my experience, it does. As evident by the hundreds of transfers ive done and many of which were upgrades to circulated versions. I use a firewire from that camera into a JVC DRM100. Now I dont suggest the JVC DRM100 encodes EVERYTHING the best. Certainly to record a tv broadcast, I wouldnt use this. But as far as vhs is concerned, based on the experience I have and my eye, this is the way to go and you can quote me on that as a very important tool in encoding vhs. Why is that? Because one it has noise reduction filters that help to clean up the noise on vhs sources, especially multi gen tapes. The result is something that is often cleaner and better than the source.

I also use an Aiwa MX1 in transferring PAL tapes.
  #21  
Old 2010-02-23, 11:09 PM
sabkisscrue sabkisscrue is offline
146.32 GB/192.48 GB/1.32
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Re: VHS Transfers & Quality [moved from the Van Halen Largo thread]

Quote:
Originally Posted by awolfoutwest
JVC SRV10U S-VHS w/ Time Base Corrector & Digital NR engaged
Im sure youd agree with me as you been doing this since 2004, that not all tapes should have the tbc/dnr engaged. I use the 9800, and it works with some tapes and some it doesnt.


Quote:
Originally Posted by awolfoutwest
> s-video >
Which ones do you use? Id really suggest you try the very affordable Acoustic Research PRO II Series. Youd be very pleased.


Quote:
Originally Posted by awolfoutwest
I can sense you video professionals cringing I cannot afford pro-grade equipment
In my research, I dont believe pro equipment is the way to go, it was suggested pro svhs decks were the best, that turned out to be false. It should be about what works BEST, IMO.
  #22  
Old 2010-02-24, 01:47 AM
dmb2much dmb2much is offline
TTD VIP
896.24 GB/5.12 TB/5.85
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Utah
Re: VHS Transfers & Quality [moved from the Van Halen Largo thread]

I've had great results with my JVC HR-DVS3U. The stabilizer worked wonders on a VHS tape I had of DMB 1992-04-05 Afton, VA

  #23  
Old 2010-02-24, 11:36 AM
AAR.oner's Avatar
AAR.oner AAR.oner is offline
TTD Staff
1.11 TB/1.41 TB/1.27
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Appalachia
Re: VHS Transfers & Quality [moved from the Van Halen Largo thread]

i'm going to respond to you here and not in PM sabkisscrue...

reason being -- this is a discussion that needs to occur publicly so that others can chime in, and most importantly, those doing transfers in the future will know the various methods, pros and cons of each, and make decisions based on THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTPUT QUALITY

i think we all agree that best quality is the goal




Quote:
Originally Posted by sabkisscrue
Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner
i've got stacks of uncirculated live shows tho that i've been wanting to transfer, when i do yer more than welcome to d/l and see...but VHS is VHS, and gens/wear are a major factor...i simply have been telling you to ditch the pass-through & SA and opt for a quality SVHS deck & a decent A/D stage and you'll get better results...if you don't wanna believe that, hell fine by me
"Uncirculated"? As in these were filmed and never was circulated by the filmer? Thats very interesting.
I do use a "quality SVHS". The JVC HR-S9800U is considered one of the best consumer decks ever made, because it has the TBC/DNR circuitry. Does a fantastic job of transferring those uncirculated live shows.
yes "uncirculated" meaning never been circulated...not any bands that yer probly interested in tho, so don't get too excited

and i've never said the 9800 wasn't a good SVHS deck...never used one personally, but from what i've heard from associates and reviews i've read, its a great deck for the money...so no arguments there



Quote:
Originally Posted by sabkisscrue
Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner
yes, i've used them to transfer 8mm format tapes...but as far as using it as a "pass through" [more accurately an A/D conversion stage], no they are not an "excellent filter to clean up vhs noise"
Now I know what A/D means.
I disagree based on the experience ive had and the results ive gotten. Incorporating it into my setup, I did get a cleaner looking picture from vhs tapes in pass through and playing back 8mm/hi8 tapes.
Ive transferred many 8mm/hi8 tapes for old school filmers, so if those guys are happy with the results I know what im doing is right.

1. no where on Sony's site does it say that this camera employs a TBC or any sort of DNR filters...not saying 100% it doesn't -- but don't you think they'd mention those features in the specs or overview re: its A>D pass through capabilities? its something every manufacturer clearly touts *if* a piece of gear utilizes such features:
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/...uctId=11034705

also no mention of it on camcorderinfo.com -- by far one of the best online resources for in depth info and testing on cameras...they make no mention of these features either, something they wouldn't omit if it indeed had TBC or DNR:
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...der_review.htm


2. all that aside, lets just assume the camera does employ both TBC and DNR...

would using it as a pass through give you better results than not using any TBC/DNR in the chain? most of the time, sure

are there better resources out there [for not a lot of money] that'll give you far superior results than the cam? DEFINITELY [see next answer]



Quote:
Originally Posted by sabkisscrue
Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner
Also when it comes to noise reduction and other parameters, what controls do the JVC standalone offer? RGB, chroma & luminance, gain, etc?
Will get back to you on this.
whether the Digi8 cam or a standalone -- a filter such as DNR [digitial noise reduction] is a great asset and necessary for improving many/most VHS transfers...that we can agree on

but one that "is what it is" and applies the filters automatically is not nearly as desirable as one that allows you to control the various parameters individually, based on what that particular tape is needing

its like those audio "re-masterers" -- they get a copy of Audition or SoundForge, take an old cassette recording, see the "Noise Reduction" filter and think "that'll make it better"...to their untrained ear it *appears* to sound better cuz the hiss & noise floor have been lessened, however they've destroyed the frequency spectrum and overall sound...are there ways to apply "noise reduction" that doesn't destroy it all together? yes...does that occur with a one-stop-filter? NO! it takes multiple filters & countless hours by a trained engineer to do "nosie reduction" on an audio source

LESSON -- "automatic" is never as good as "manual"...and when dealing with multi-gen VHS sources, well worn tapes, etc -- manual control of each parameter is a NECESSITY for producing the BEST POSSIBLE OUTPUT QUALITY



Quote:
Originally Posted by sabkisscrue
Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner
oh and just a fwiw, but i tried googling that JVC DRM100 a little further, still can't find any info from any respected sites...but i did find this on videohelp.com that you might find interesting...i'm guessing lordsmurf would be one of those "professionals at the site you respect", i know he's been there for years...anyhow thought you might find it interesting:
http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/2...actly-the-same!
Lordsmurf is a big fan of that unit, as well.

[He] makes his living as a pro DVD transfer technician
i'm glad that Lordsmurf is a fan of that standalone DVD recorder and makes a living as a "DVD transfer technician"...good for him!

[despite the fact that pretty much anyone in the video field would laugh at quoting a site like videohelp.com for tech info, i linked to those Lordsmurf posts anyway cuz i know how you revere that site and its "pros" like senor smurf]

you have said repeatedly [including your description of yer set up a few posts above ^^] that you use the Sony DCR-TRV740 Digi8 camcorder, the JVC DRM100 standalone DVD recorder, & the Panasonic DMR-ES10 standalone DVD recorder all for their DNR & TBC functions, correct?


but according to Lordsmurf himself in this videohelp.com thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lordsmurf re: the JVC DRM100 standalone DVD recorder
I still remember how certain pamphlets said the JVC had a TBC, which it does not. None of these machines has a TBC. In fact, most machines that say they have a TBC have a "TBC-like circuit" at best. Only the pro-line JVC has a TBC, that I'm aware of to date, as part of the SR-series VCR inside.

Just a screw-up in documentation. Not unheard of.

"Super MPEG Post-Processor: Block Noise Reduction Circuit, Color DigiPure and Hadamard Noise Reduction System" is all just a bunch of crap fancy names anyway. All this really means is the unit has an advanced DNR system. Last time they marketed it, this time they're not.
so it seems there's no TBC used in the JVC DRM100 SA recorder, but it does use some sort of DNR

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lordsmurf re: the Panasonic DMR-ES10
DMR-ES10 does not have a TBC. The filters are for especial use only. General VHS improvements (grain reduction, chroma noise removal) are basically non-existant. Pass on this model for VHS work. The only valuable filter it has is for tearing, which many people never experience anyway.
no TBC or DNR in this model either

and we've already established that Sony DCR-TRV740 camcorder's TBC/DNR functions are seemingly non-existant as well...so we're left with absolutely no TBC in your transferring chain, and one stage of DNR being done at the end in the JVC standalone DVD recorder, with no control over "what" and "how much" is being processed/filtered



meanwhile, you could've bought a *brand new* entry-level A>D converter, such as the ADVC300, for less $ than two used pieces of equipment you've listed above [according to the average used prices you've quoted]...the ADVC300 definitively utilizes both TBC and DNR, will generate SMPTE color bars [necessary for color correction], and most importantly all parameters are manually adjustable by the user = a better quality capture
__________________
TTD's Gear Lust Forum -- info & reviews on taping gear
The Basics of EQing
  #24  
Old 2010-02-24, 12:13 PM
sabkisscrue sabkisscrue is offline
146.32 GB/192.48 GB/1.32
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Re: VHS Transfers & Quality [moved from the Van Halen Largo thread]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner
1. no where on Sony's site does it say that this camera employs a TBC or any sort of DNR filters
Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner
and we've already established that Sony DCR-TRV740 camcorder's TBC/DNR functions are seemingly non-existant as well..
Well, its unfortunate you didnt find that out in your research.
It should be pretty well documented.
But it does in fact employ tbc/dnr. Its in the menu.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner
so it seems there's no TBC used in the JVC DRM100 SA recorder, but it does use some sort of DNR
I agree with Lordsmurf but not with your cynical assessment "some sort of dnr".

Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner
so we're left with absolutely no TBC in your transferring chain
The svhs has a tbc. I see the one show you have uploaded that it appears you transferred from a vhs tape was done on an ag1980. Not a professional deck, I may add. But it does have a good line tbc. Although image wise, I prefer the 9800 over the AG1980. I even posted that on videohelp.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner
meanwhile, you could've bought a *brand new* entry-level A>D converter, such as the ADVC300, for less $ than two used pieces of equipment you've listed above [according to the average used prices you've quoted]...the ADVC300 definitively utilizes both TBC and DNR, will generate SMPTE color bars [necessary for color correction], and most importantly all parameters are manually adjustable by the user = a better quality capture
Until you mentioned this to me in PM I didnt know what this was, I thought it was a Canopus and that same model Canopus doesnt contain a tbc/dnr, from what ive heard/read.

As far as "better quality capture", that is subjective.

In my opinion, you as a pro would be pleased with the quality of my captures.
  #25  
Old 2010-02-24, 01:26 PM
AAR.oner's Avatar
AAR.oner AAR.oner is offline
TTD Staff
1.11 TB/1.41 TB/1.27
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Appalachia
Re: VHS Transfers & Quality [moved from the Van Halen Largo thread]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sabkisscrue
Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner
again, i'm not saying yer transfers are complete shit or unwatchable or anything personal -- i'm just saying that if yer doing VHS transfers of rare older footage and want the best quality transfer possible [within reason of course], using a digi8 as your A/D converter > SA DVD recorder is not gonna give you the best possible results -- especially when dealing with a non-perfect or high gen source

is that JVC model better than a lot of the other SA models that were on the market at that time? i don't know, but lets say yeah it was one of the best SAs...but is it as good as doing a direct capture from deck > dedicated A/D converter [such as the ADVC300] > Final Cut...sorry, but the answers no


there's numerous issues with SA recorders in general, and the JVC model yer referring to as well, when compared to a direct capture...i'd be more than happy list them if yer interested, but i'm thinkin this is all falling on deaf ears anyway
Im more than aware that there is the way of encoding it that I do it and firewire to pc/vbr encoding.

We're talking about VHS here though.

This requires a different way of doing things because
vhs is full of noise, full of off colors, and otherwise crappy. So it requires those filters, I use a JVC HRS-9800U svhs with a tbc/dnr, a panasonic es10 (as a pass through device, corrects the black level, helps to correct some vhs jitter), a sony tr740 digital8 to further clean up the image, and finally a jvc drm-100.

The final result is something that I really must tell you is often better than the source and thats because certain things are considered.
S-Video Wiring (AR Pro II Series). I want the seperation of the colors and the richness and brightness of them, that is absent from most dvds. Also, the s-video I use does get a lot of detail out of the image. Black level.
Cleanness. Nearly every piece of equipment I use works to help either clean up or correct something. The Sony which you dont like, actually does help to clean up the image. The JVC does has strong noise reduction filters that truely clean up the image even more and that "encoder" that is in that recorder is one of the best ever put into a SA recorder (more on that later). Believe me, even you as a pro would like this unit.
Clean, colorful, full of detail (even with all that filtering), and few compression artifacts. I use the hightest bitrates. But, I of course have stuff pc authored as well, in that case ill dub things to mini dv tape and have that person encode it over a computer.
does everything go over yer head completely??? or do you just ignore the point so you don't have to admit the truth

you touched on 3 separate topics which need to dealt with individually:

FILTERING:
i think we've pretty much cleared up the subject of DNR/TBC re: method/devices yer using...but even assuming it does improve picture quality over using nothing at all, are there other devices available that would improve picture quality even further while still staying within a low-end budget? yes

CABLING:
thats a whole nother discussion that everyone will have a differing opinion on and in all honesty, has a negligible effect at best and very little quantitative data supporting one way or the other...so to each their own on brands of cable

ENCODING:
an *extremely* important process that most people overlook...and no offense, but this is FACT -- a built-in encoder on a standalone DVD recorder is inferior to a program-based encoding program because:


1. its encoding on-the-fly...this means its capturing, processing the information, filtering/etc, and then compressing all at the same time...which leads to digital artifacts, dropped frames, "glitches", and many other issues


2. most standalone DVD recorders will only let you set bit rates according to approximate "quality levels" [i.e. XP/SP/LP]...what it doesn't allow you to control is how many passes it makes [2-pass vs 1-pass] or CBR vs VBR...i think everyone can agree that 2-pass encoding is a good idea all the time, but a necessity when it comes to non-master or aged/"imperfect" sources like we're talking about...

not to mention the audio aspect, with some recorders allowing you to choose between the desired lossless PCM stream or a compressed stream [AC3]...but many that simply compress the audio to AC3 automatically with no option otherwise


3. there are numerous encoding engines out there, all which use various methods and algorithms...they are not all the same, quality varies greatly...and there is no question here -- 99% of the standalone units use very basic, "low-end" encoders for compression when compared with software-based encoders


4. your standalone recorder [JVC DRM100] and most standalones out there capture at Half D1, which is a resolution of 352x480 (NTSC) and 352x576 (PAL)...note that this is half of the horizontal resolution of standard D1 [DVD specs]

some will bring up the fact that VHS itself only has a resolution of 350x480 (NTSC), so why would capturing at full D1 even matter? loooong story short -- i can say results vary, i've seen instances where you got better quality at Half D1, and others at full D1...also depends on what, if any, processing you are going to be doing in the editing process [color correction, etc]

either way, you want the options so you can get the best out of that particualr source


==============================================

again, i haven't spent all this time breaking all this shit down in order to make you look like an idiot or say yer transfers suck...and although it seems you've created quite a reputation for yerself across the online trading communities, i'm trying to ignore all that and keep this discussion technological in nature so that anyone wanting to get into or already doing VHS transfers will know the facts, the specs, the options, and how they all relate to output quality


there's really no arguing that standalone DVD recorders are an outdated technology, and 99.9% of the models they put on the market were designed for home-use and "basement dub houses"...that's why they were never used on any scale by the professional video industry, they produce an inferior "product" compared to other tools available...the tools available now in 2010 make this fact even more apparent



CLIFF NOTES:
you will get far more desirable results in your VHS transfers using a dedicated A>D converter, with manually adjustable filtering [DNR, TBC, etc], and capturing with a dedicated NLE [Final Cut, Adobe Premiere, Sony Vegas, etc]

once all editing/processing has been done in yer NLE, use a software-based encoder to compress down to yer desired format [DVD, DVD9, Blu-ray, or whatever]...if yer a Mac person like myself, i use a variety of encoders depending on output format -- Episode Pro, Sorensen Squeeze Pro, or Compressor

for PC users, i know Cinemacraft makes an excellent encoder, Grass Valley's Procoder also highly revered...and NLE's like Sony Vegas or Adobe Premiere come bundled with compression engines that will give far better results than any SA recorder
__________________
TTD's Gear Lust Forum -- info & reviews on taping gear
The Basics of EQing
  #26  
Old 2010-02-24, 02:26 PM
AAR.oner's Avatar
AAR.oner AAR.oner is offline
TTD Staff
1.11 TB/1.41 TB/1.27
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Appalachia
Re: VHS Transfers & Quality [moved from the Van Halen Largo thread]

its apparent that you skirt the factual parts of the discussion and instead like to stear it back to the subjective, your opinion

but by gones, i'll address them anyway

Quote:
Originally Posted by sabkisscrue View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner
1. no where on Sony's site does it say that this camera employs a TBC or any sort of DNR filters
Well, its unfortunate you didnt find that out in your research.
It should be pretty well documented.
But it does in fact employ tbc/dnr. Its in the menu.
"unfortunate i couldn't find it" and "should be pretty well documented"???? thats your response, really?!

well a Flip MinoHD shoots just as good a picture as the Sony EX3...and i've got a 2ft cock, which my woman will even confirm

FACTS my man, FACTS--specs, manufacturing documentation, etc...but even if it does have TBC/DNR, it still doesn't address the fact a dedicated TBC/DNR/ProcAmp that are *manually controllable* will provide far better results


Quote:
Originally Posted by sabkisscrue View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner
so it seems there's no TBC used in the JVC DRM100 SA recorder, but it does use some sort of DNR
I agree with Lordsmurf but not with your cynical assessment "some sort of dnr".
nothing cynical about, i meant that it employs DNR filtering whose specifics are unknown [which Senor Smurf pointed out also]




Quote:
Originally Posted by sabkisscrue View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner
so we're left with absolutely no TBC in your transferring chain
The svhs has a tbc. I see the one show you have uploaded that it appears you transferred from a vhs tape was done on an ag1980. Not a professional deck, I may add. But it does have a good line tbc. Although image wise, I prefer the 9800 over the AG1980. I even posted that on videohelp.
my apologies, yer JVC HRS-9800U SVHS deck does employ TBC...its the other 2 devices that don't

again with personal attacks & trying to demean others in order to skirt the issues!

as for the "one show i've u/led from a VHS transfer" -- yer research skills re: what people have u/led are lacking to say the least! but neither the # of shows i've u/led nor whether you *think* the AG1980P was a "professional deck" or not matters very little

[i guess a $2K SVHS desktop editor labeled "Pro Line" & used primarily in broadcast & production houses isn't a "pro deck" in yer estimation ...and btw, the TBC on the ADVC300 blows the built-in TBC on the 1980P away -- again, built-in can rarely compete with a dedicated hardware TBC]



what matters is image quality -- and when it comes to a particular VHS tape sometimes my Panasonic will better, sometimes another make/model like yer JVC will do better -- lots of factors, and its never a constant...which is why its best to have numerous decks available, and if you don't its best to have someone else with a different deck transfer for comparison...i myself have considered picking up that JVC deck you have as an extra option

i have transferred a number of tapes that i'm pretty sure would have done better on a different deck, but i didn't spend the time and i ended up with a product that coulda been better...some i'm planning on re-transferring, others i don't have the original tapes for...because of my choice to simply stick with the gear thats in front of me at the moment, and not try transferring on other decks, its now like Tupac said, "That's just the way it is"



Quote:
Originally Posted by sabkisscrue View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner
meanwhile, you could've bought a *brand new* entry-level A>D converter, such as the ADVC300, for less $ than two used pieces of equipment you've listed above [according to the average used prices you've quoted]...the ADVC300 definitively utilizes both TBC and DNR, will generate SMPTE color bars [necessary for color correction], and most importantly all parameters are manually adjustable by the user = a better quality capture
Until you mentioned this to me in PM I didnt know what this was, I thought it was a Canopus and that same model Canopus doesnt contain a tbc/dnr, from what ive heard/read.
[/quote]


it was made by Canopus, which was then bought by Green Valley...back when you first came to this site you tried to tell me in a thread about transferring that the ADVC300 didn't have TBC...i even posted a link to the manufacturer's site then, but here it is again:
http://www.grassvalley.com/products/advc300

is it the best out there? no...would a full frame 4:2:2 TBC give better results a lot of the time? sure...but from the A>D devices i've used and those that my associates have used that employ TBC & DNR, i can honestly say its the best unit out there in the <$2K range [its currently running around $375 New]


would i be pleased with yer DVD recorders built DNR & TBC? some of the times yeah, and others no...yer missin the fucking point!!! its about being able to control your DNR filter's various parameters versus as opposed to an automatic filter that does what it thinks is best...i'm sorry, but the hands-on approach wins every time
__________________
TTD's Gear Lust Forum -- info & reviews on taping gear
The Basics of EQing
  #27  
Old 2010-02-24, 06:32 PM
schmoe75's Avatar
schmoe75 schmoe75 is offline
VBT Mod
TTD Staff
0.00 KB/5.57 TB/Inf.
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: USA
Re: VHS Transfers & Quality [moved from the Van Halen Largo thread]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner
like Tupac said, "That's just the way it is"
Bruuuce wrote & said that
__________________
While we were all dancing these people were working & now freely sharing - Ray
We dont play black, we dont play white, we just play what we know & feel - Miles
  #28  
Old 2010-02-24, 07:06 PM
AAR.oner's Avatar
AAR.oner AAR.oner is offline
TTD Staff
1.11 TB/1.41 TB/1.27
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Appalachia
Re: VHS Transfers & Quality [moved from the Van Halen Largo thread]

Quote:
Originally Posted by schmoe75 View Post
Bruuuce wrote & said that
Porn Scene Investigator Bruuuce?



__________________
TTD's Gear Lust Forum -- info & reviews on taping gear
The Basics of EQing
  #29  
Old 2010-02-24, 07:33 PM
schmoe75's Avatar
schmoe75 schmoe75 is offline
VBT Mod
TTD Staff
0.00 KB/5.57 TB/Inf.
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: USA
Re: VHS Transfers & Quality [moved from the Van Halen Largo thread]

YouTube Video
__________________
While we were all dancing these people were working & now freely sharing - Ray
We dont play black, we dont play white, we just play what we know & feel - Miles
  #30  
Old 2010-02-24, 10:45 PM
sabkisscrue sabkisscrue is offline
146.32 GB/192.48 GB/1.32
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Re: VHS Transfers & Quality [moved from the Van Halen Largo thread]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner
"unfortunate i couldn't find it" and "should be pretty well documented"???? thats your response, really?!.
I guess you didnt try and download the manual then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner
" even if it does have TBC/DNR, it still doesn't address the fact a dedicated TBC/DNR/ProcAmp that are *manually controllable* will provide far better results
Im well aware of pro amps and other devices.

Heres the facts, AAR. Im getting the results im looking for WITHOUT having to use a professional proc amp. Now you might disagree with the way im going about doing it. What matters is im getting the results im looking for.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner
i guess a $2K SVHS desktop editor labeled "Pro Line" & used primarily in broadcast & production houses isn't a "pro deck" in yer estimation
No, its well documented that it isnt a professional deck. I own one of these. Its a prosumer deck. I admit that the 9800 is not a professional deck, but it is a consumer deck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner
and when it comes to a particular VHS tape sometimes my Panasonic will better, sometimes another make/model like yer JVC will do better
In terms of image quality, I prefer the JVC.
In terms of tbc stability, the panasonic is one of the best. I wish I could own a deck that had the image quality/dnr filters of the JVC with the tbc of the panasonic.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner
it was made by Canopus, which was then bought by Green Valley...back when you first came to this site you tried to tell me in a thread about transferring that the ADVC300 didn't have TBC...i even posted a link to the manufacturer's site then, but here it is again:
http://www.grassvalley.com/products/advc300
Check this out:

http://forum.videohelp.com/threads/3...hods?p=1961020

What do you think of Lordsmurf's opinion on the ADVC300?


Quote:
Originally Posted by AAR.oner
would i be pleased with yer DVD recorders built DNR & TBC? some of the times yeah, and others no...yer missin the fucking point!!! its about being able to control your DNR filter's various parameters versus as opposed to an automatic filter that does what it thinks is best...i'm sorry, but the hands-on approach wins every time
I understand the gripe. You cant control the DNR. You cant turn it on/off.
Does that mean this piece of equipment is a piece of garbage? No.
Would you benefit from using this unit?
Yes you would. Why? Because I see with multi generated tapes like the Blind Melon that you authored, the tape would benefit from being cleaned up with the DNR filters of that machine. I pretty much think any VHS no matter if its 1st gen or multi generated would benefit from the filters and encoding quality of this machine.
Closed Thread

The Traders' Den > Where we go to learn ..... > Technobabble

Similar Threads
Thread Forum Replies Last Post
VHS transfers...... - terapinfly Technobabble 0 2009-05-27 09:16 PM
Vinyl transfers - weedwacker Technobabble 2 2007-06-29 08:16 AM
um, moved file not showing in client - marmalade Technobabble 8 2007-02-06 08:50 PM
looking for minidisc transfers - Gizby Technobabble 1 2005-11-16 08:02 PM
transfers from hi-fi vhs tape - Steviebone Technobabble 4 2005-05-11 09:02 AM


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forums


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:40 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - , TheTradersDen.org - All Rights Reserved - Hosted at QuickPacket
no new posts