Digital Frame Synchronizer v TBC

[david151]

I have the option of buying a Panasonic WJ-AVE5 for fairly cheap and was thinking I could use this in place of a Time base corrector. As you may know it is a mixer, however I believe it also has a feature to act in a similar way to a Time based corrector. From my research it appears there has already been a posting about this on videohelp:

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/210476-Does-the-Panasonic-WJ-AVE5-have-a-built-in-TBC

So the consensus seems to be that these units have a Digital Frame Synchronizer. I found this website comparing Digital Frame Synchronizers to a TBC:

http://www.studio1productions.com/Articles/TBC.htm

So in short I was wondering what people thought about using the Panasonic-WJ-AVE5 in place of a conventional TBC solution such as the Datavideo TBC-1000? Anyone know the pluses and minuses doing this?

I have been offered one of the Panasonic-WJ-AVE5 units for a very cheap price, so if this would work as a solution it would save me a lot of money compared to buying something such as the Datavideo TBC-1000, however I don't want to buy something that is a much inferior solution. What is peoples view on this?

[davideck]

The TBC-1000 is a nice frame synchronizer, but it doesn't do much in terms of actual timebase correction. My guess is that the Panasonic Mixer would provide similar or better performance, as the TBC-1000 is also known to soften the image a bit.

If Macrovision is an issue, then all bets are off. The TBC-1000 blanks out copy protection pretty well, but I cannot speak for the Panasonic.

[david151]

If Macrovision is an issue, then all bets are off. The TBC-1000 blanks out copy protection pretty well, but I cannot speak for the Panasonic

On the subject of Macrovision this is what another member said from the post I linked to on this forum

this Panasonic mixing table was a fine piece of equipment - fade in and fade out, mixing sources - adding titels etc... etc...
you could even use it to eliminate macrovision from commercial tapes but the latter is not recommendable: it tended to ruin the internal power unit after a couple of macrovision protected tapes

It seems a bit strange it would ruin the internal power unit?

As for my case Macrovision is not really an issue since I don't think I have any Macrovison tapes. I just want to make sure I get the best capture I can with the ATI all in Wonder card.

it is interesting what you say about the Panasonic WJ-AVE5 providing a decent solution, so I presume this would win hands down over using a DVD recorder for passthrough such as the ES10

[davideck]

Some DVD Recorders provide TBC performance that is much better than the TBC-1000. I would not presume that the Panasonic would win hands down against them. Mini-Me has posted some nice comparisons here recently.

[david151]

Some DVD Recorders provide TBC performance that is much better than the TBC-1000

I don't really know what to make of this as most of the postsI read from Lordsmurf seem to argue the opposite. Which models are you referring to?

[davideck]

Philips and Toshiba;
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/331681-s-video-artifacts?p=2141140&viewfull=1#post2141140

[david151]

From the threadit seems people highly rate the DVDR3475, however it is interesting to note that lordsmurf says he has not seen the same result on his model. As a TBC he also says that he considers the PanasonicES10 as better option. So really I am quite confused as you have some people saying one thing and others saying another.



So really I haveto make a decision on which way I go. Presumingthat I don't buy a dedicated TBC such as the Datavideo TBC-1000 should I buy the WJ-AVE5 mixer or is it better to go for something else? The Panasonic ES10 can be picked up extremely cheaply in the UK for about £10 on Ebay, however it seems the DVDR3475 machines are pretty rare?



Also in the real world I am not really sure how a Digital Frame Synchronizer (like the WJ-AVE5 mixer has)would compare to a conventional TBC in terms of performance? What differences should I expect to see in theory as obviously a Digital Frame Synchronizer is technically different to aTBC.



Anyfurther help would be much appreciated

[davideck]

IMHO, the post (#94) that I linked you to above provides an excellent and accurate real world discussion of the performance differences between various TBC devices and the functional differences between timebase correction and frame synchronization. Later in that same thread, Mini-Me and sanlyn provide images and video samples that demonstrate these differences.

Do you have questions about the details in those posts?

[lordsmurf]

I have two perfect candidate tapes here, and may look at putting them into a 3575 this weekend.
Expect no quality improvements.

[davideck]

If it doesn't work for you, but it does work for us, then it does work some of the time.