NOTE: A Canopus DV box does not replace a TBC!

[freebird73717]

I did not know that we could edit our posts.

Look at the top of your post where it says computer, profile, pm, qoute, edit.
Anyone can edit their own posts. Just click the Edit button.



And to B&H Photo. My comment is really off topic to this thread and may get me a strike for speaking about religious beliefs but I do applaud your owners decision to close on Jewish Sabbath. While you may lose some business, and yes it can be huge somes of money, I'm sure there are plenty out there that understand your owners decision.

[henryp]

And to B&H Photo. My comment is really off topic to this thread and may get me a strike for speaking about religious beliefs but I do applaud your owners decision to close on Jewish Sabbath. While you may lose some business, and yes it can be huge somes of money, I'm sure there are plenty out there that understand your owners decision.

Thank you. This is very gracious and much appreciated.

[neomaine]

...

="neomaine"]Looked at ordering a Black Magic Intensity and saw they had theirs at about $10 cheaper ($189) then other places. Howwwwwwwever, they take the analog dongle out of the package and sell it seperately for $42.

I will be happy to investigate this for you, but I cannot find a $42.00 Black Magic dongle on our web site or in our sales database. If you can point me to the product I will see what is what
... [/quote]

Search link from Bing:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&N=0&A=endecaSearch&Q=&Ntt=BLACK%20M...IC%20INTENSITY

The intensity pro card:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/495426-REG/Blackmagic_Design_BINTSPRO_Intensity_..._HDMI_and.html

The (usually included) dongle:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/513257-REG/Blackmagic_Design_CABLE_BINTSPRO_Brea...Intensity.html

You should at least say that this is not the retail package and that the dongle is sold seperately. Granted, some people may not *need* the dongle and a savings of $10 over your competitors (though I bought it through someone with free shipping so I'm not sure what the actuall total cost would be for ordering from you) *may* be attractive. But, I've seen more complaints about your deceptiveness then your savings potential. Actually, its more like a few dozen to zero.

Are you really selling the dongle to enough 'repeat' customers or those looking for it seperately to break up the retail pack into two seperate items?

However, I do give you kudos for coming here and checking things out...

[jagabo]

Are you sure the breakout cable isn't included? The only review I saw that mentioned a "missing" cable talked about an s-video adapter cable. The breakout cable doesn't appear to have an s-video input.

If people didn't need the breakout cable they would get the Intensity, not the Intensity Pro.

[neomaine]

I was referring to other forums outside of the reviews one th b&h website. And, if incorrect, I'm more then willing to drop my posts and provide a retraction. Its only fair. However, with more then one forum I visited I saw the same thing coming up. Could they be unaware of the difference between the intensity and the pro? Maybe, but why would they look for a dongle on a card that doesn't provide one?

[jagabo]

But if B&H didn't include the cable you'd think a lot of people would be complaining in the B&H reviews. Unless you want to suggest B&H removes all those reviews. The "What's in the box" section says the breakout cable is included.

[lordsmurf]

This may have been just a misunderstanding from the start between Lordsmurf and B&H? Did the B&H employee merely suggest that LS buy the Canopus ADVC first and see if that alone would work for him and that a TBC may not be need? .

No, it has nothing to do with me directly. I'm quite well versed in many areas of photo and video, I don't need advice from a salesman -- I am usually the one giving it! This is about people I have been helping, and how B&H has confused them.

This has been an issue for years now, when it comes to TBCs and B&H. When a person calls about a TBC, either to order or ask questions, it very often somehow ends up twisted into a conversation about replacing their capture device, with the added (and ridiculous) claim that the Canopus DV converter somehow removes need (or replaces) a full-frame TBC.

As I'm sure you know, the ADVC300 claims to have a line TBC - something which is also found in several VCRs.Re-timing each individual line from the adjacent sync pulses, whilst not as sexy as buffering an entire frame, is exactly what much VHS footage benefits from.

Line TBCs correct some aspects of VHS, but they are still very limited in what actually gets done. A good line TBC in conjunction with a strong frame synchronizer can sometimes get the job done. But a full-frame TBC tends to be unavoidable when dealing with VHS conversions, especially if you're doing a lot of them, with tapes from various recording sources.

Again, refer back to my earlier post about "What is a TBC?" and unfavorable observations of the Canopus devices. What's written on the box, and what people experience, don't always line up. And we're talking people with professional video backgrounds, not Joe Consumer.

but I've noted that some VideoHelp regulars seem to have almost a pathological hatred for these Canpus devices. It could be because they're expensive for what they are. It could be because (especially in the case of the ADVC110) they actually lack the features for effective VHS capture that were found on some DVD recorders. It could be because they offer less than a comparably priced DV camcorder. It could be because you only get DV from them, while an internal capture card would deliver uncompressed video.

I would compare suggestions of Canopus boxes in 2009, to suggestion of buying a Pentium III as a "new computer" or a VHS-C as a "new camera". It's old tech, that no longer really serves a purpose. Yes, you can use it, but why would you? With a 500GB+ hard drive, why compress to DV before editing? (use HuffYUV, uncompressed, etc.) With a DVD recorder, why use DV at all? Even cameras have abandoned the DV format.

At very least, it's not a TBC replacement. That's just silly.

[2Bdecided]

I would compare suggestions of Canopus boxes in 2009, to suggestion of buying a Pentium III as a "new computer" or a VHS-C as a "new camera". It's old tech, that no longer really serves a purpose. Yes, you can use it, but why would you? With a 500GB+ hard drive, why compress to DV before editing? (use HuffYUV, uncompressed, etc.) With a DVD recorder, why use DV at all? Even cameras have abandoned the DV format.

Yeah, but I can see a difference between VHS-C and HDV, so wouldn't shoot VHS-C in 2009. Whereas I can't see any difference between VHS>DV and VHS>lossless - except it eats far more disc space, is slower to process, and (for some) is unreliable to capture. So I'm quite happy to capture VHS to DV in 2009!

Not sure what kind of TBC my Panasonic VCRs have in them, but with it enabled, I can't trip up the ADVC110. I assume the Panasonic VCR doesn't have a full frame TBC - yet I can capture through blank and mangled sections of tape without a problem. I know other people report that capturing stops when this happens - I can't replicate that here. Using WinDV.

Cheers,
David.

[lordsmurf]

The AG-1980P has a full-field TBC in it. I believe these are referred to as "infinite window" type TBCs, a multi-line TBC.

Just note that it still won't always override anti-copy signals that have really screwed up the signal -- it's not "full frame". (Young Indiana Jones VHS tapes are a perfect example.)

VHS>DV chews up the color fidelity, and you still end up with compression artifacts before you even make the MPEG -- where more artifacts can easily be gained.

There's a good article on TBCs over at Studio1: http://www.studio1productions.com/Articles/TBC.htm
Also a quick overview at http://www.digitalfaq.com/guides/video/capture-playback-hardware.htm

Canopus boxes are decade-old tech.
More was written on this just today: https://forum.videohelp.com/topic376922.html#2033056

I really like how the wikipedia author defined it:

A variant of the timebase corrector is the frame synchronizer

"Variant". So not really a TBC by true definition, but apparently acceptable enough to be stamped on the side of a product box by companies looking to sell their wares. Some would consider a "frame sync" to be a TBC, but as Studio1 points out, it "synchronizes two separate video sources without necessarily correcting them".

And again, we come full circle: A Canopus DV box is not a TBC, it doesn't replace a TBC.

[davideck]

The DataVideo TBC100/1000/3000 is not a TBC by true definition either. It is a frame synchronizer. It is called a TBC, but it provides no significant timebase correction. IIRC, its Analog Video Decoder chip is the Philips SAA7114.

The actual timebase correction capability of the Canopus may exceed that of the DataVideo. And if the Canopus keeps audio and video in sync during capture, then it is also providing the same benefit as a frame synchronizer.

[Vidd]

I have been using the ADVC-100 for 8 years and must say it is a solid product. It works just as good today as it did the day I bought it. I have archived hundreds of VHS tapes to DV format for long term storage on external drives. I capture all my tapes twice, once on a JVC and once on a Panasonic. DV format is a good compromise between compression and lossless. It is easy to edit, 12 GB per hour is cheap to archive, I can convert DV to DVD today and DV to H.264 tomorrow. Even though drives are cheap and large, it is still difficult to store hundreds of tapes (twice) in lossless.

As for as quality, there are no digital compression artifacts or color issues that stand out to me. It is important which DV codec you use to decode the files. There are many that will do improper or unnecessary colorspace conversions that give the DV a fog effect or distorted black levels.

I know there are people who don't like Canopus and I agree there are better products available, but the ADVCs are a headache free product that many people use and are happy with.

[Slayer666]

has somebody ever made different captures comparing "to be seen by the public"?
i would be interested in those like....having 1min digital source material -> repeated multiple times -> VHS -> each 1min captured to harddisc with different equipment (vcrs, cables, different DV set-ups, lossless etc.) and then encoded to DVDR high quality for comparing on tv and freely given out to the public?

speaking of analog source material its really some stressy and ugly time consuming to do many different captures just to find out the one and only best version to work with.

[lordsmurf]

The DataVideo TBC100/1000/3000 is not a TBC by true definition either. It is a frame synchronizer. It is called a TBC, but it provides no significant timebase correction.

Nice to see you DD -- it's been a while.
How would you describe the CTB-100 / AVT-8710, then?
(I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the DataVideo comment, I just want to see what your thoughts on the other popular TBC are.) Hope to hear back from you. Thanks.

has somebody ever made different captures comparing "to be seen by the public"?.

Davideck made some images here a few years ago.
I'm currently collaborating on on article, working out the samples videos and images.

[davideck]

How would you describe the CTB-100 / AVT-8710, then?

I don't know how it performs. I haven't used one.

[danno78]

The actual timebase correction capability of the Canopus may exceed that of the DataVideo. And if the Canopus keeps audio and video in sync during capture, then it is also providing the same benefit as a frame synchronizer.

Canopus ADVC 50, 55, 100, 110 is driven by Philips SAA7111A. Canopus audio/video synch is a feature that belong to Philips ADC with audio ADC integrated. All Philips ADC with audio conversion have this feature to link and lock audio to video at frame or field level. This is not time base correction or frame synchronizer. All devices (external devices, tv tuners for PC, etc) built with Philips ADC that have also audio conversion have audio lock. A notable exception is the SAA7130 because has only video conversion.
So, Canopus ADVC 50, 55 100 and 110 have no time base correction or frame synchronizer.
Canopus ADVC300 has but, is not working as it should be, so in practice the TBC from ADVC300 is useless.

[lordsmurf]

"Audio lock" is a gimmick anyway. The usual reason for audio sync loss is dropped video frames. Smart software will drop the audio for that frame, too, as ATI MMC does. Other software (VirtualDub, for example) continuously maintains audio sync. In 2009, even on a system that's a few years old, it's not common to have dropped frames or a/v sync issues. This "feature" is a decade-old marketing buzz word that meant little then, and means zero now.

I sometimes think the ADVC-300 line TBC acts as a buffering system for the DNR, rather than act as a TBC. But the 300's DNR system processes the hell out of the video, often giving your temporal anomalies and banding issues. The JVC series VCRs use the line TBC as a TBC, but also as the buffer for DNR.

Thanks for that info Danno78. There may be some added circuitry that is considered a "TBC" by Canopus, but the inclusion of TBC gets to be more discounted as time goes by.

[davideck]

So, Canopus ADVC 50, 55 100 and 110 have no time base correction or frame synchronizer.
Canopus ADVC300 has but, is not working as it should be, so in practice the TBC from ADVC300 is useless.

The Canopus may not contain a frame synchronizer, but it may still eliminate the need for an external one. If the audio stays locked to the video during capture, then an external TBC/Frame Synchronizer may not be necessary.

Eliminating an external TBC/Frame Synchronizer has other potential advantages;

1) It eliminates any frame skipping caused by the TBC/Frame Synchronizer itself. These full-frame devices must occasionally drop or repeat a frame in order to synchronize the input rate to the output rate. This may or may not be noticeable. It depends on who is watching, the motion in the source material, and how often a skip occurs.

2) It provides a more transparent capture signal path. The A/D, D/A, analog filtering, and digital processing within the TBC/Frame Synchronizer can introduce luminance softening, chroma shifting, etc.

[lordsmurf]

Audio locking is not the same as the function of the TBC. You can have a signal corrected and in video sync lose its audio sync -- that happens at the A/D of the capture (or rather lack of capture).

As was shown in another thread, the Canopus box is usually the device most to blame for luminance and chroma errors!

[davideck]

Audio locking is not the same as the function of the TBC.

I agree. Audio/Video lock is not a function of timebase correction. It is a function of frame synchronization.

[lordsmurf]

I would still disagree. The frame sync will simply guarantee a steady stream of video frames are provided to the device. Most capture devices with a frame sync or similar circuits just halt on capture, so the frame sync is useless on anything but short bursts of frame loss. Continual capture, even on loss of input, can be done without a frame sync.

Audio sync is generally the reaction of lost frames. The audio continues without drops, while the video drops. This is nothing more than stupid detection on the part of the device. "Locking audio" is nothing special. Canopus just markets it to sound special. That's a big thing with Canopus -- marketing the ordinary to sound extraordinary.

I don't hate Canopus -- I just hate bullshit.

[davideck]

The Hauppauge PVR-250 is a good example of a capture device that can lose audio/video sync because it does not have a frame synchronizer. By adding a DataVideo (or DVD Recorder passthrough), the audio and video remain locked.

Guaranteeing that audio and video stay in sync under all input conditions is why DVD Recorders have an internal frame synchronizer. Even when the input is corrupted or removed, the frame synchronizer continues to provide a steady stream of video frames that stay locked to the audio until the input recovers.

Neither of these devices halt on capture.

[lordsmurf]

Most DVD recorders halt on lack of signal -- be it tuner-fed input or s-video/composite. I see it all the time, for years now. The frame sync on input is no guarantee.

[henryp]

But if B&H didn't include the cable you'd think a lot of people would be complaining in the B&H reviews. Unless you want to suggest B&H removes all those reviews. The "What's in the box" section says the breakout cable is included.

We checked with our buyer and with the manufacturer and we inspected several packages in our warehouse. The Blackmagic Design Breakout Cable for Intensity Pro is included with the Blackmagic Design Intensity Pro HDMI and Analog Editing Card - PCI Express. If anyone bought the card from us and did not receive a cable, please let us know.

[davideck]

Most DVD recorders halt on lack of signal -- be it tuner-fed input or s-video/composite. I see it all the time, for years now. The frame sync on input is no guarantee.

None of the DVD Recorders that I have used ever halted on capture (except for false MV detection). I'll agree that adding a frame synchronizer does not guarantee that a capture device won't halt, but that's different from audio/video sync.

[LightWeightProducer]

I have a Pioneer and a generic junker DVD recorder sitting beside me. The Pioneer has a set of 'auto' inputs that start / stop based on input of valid video. The other inputs on the Pioneer do not behave in this manner nor do any of the inputs on the generic junker.

[bogey219]

Like the one poster above, I have been using the ADVC 100 that I got years ago to transfer vhs tapes to dvd's and it has worked great everytime.

[mediabiz]

Afterall Canopus themselves do not exactly spell out the difference between a Line TBC (what this has) and as full-frame one. Ok, maybe they (Canopus) expect the buyer to know.

I think the bigger picture is What is a TBC? Unfortunately, not everybody defines it the same way. It's been discussed many times at this site, and others online.

What exactly does the Canopus box do that warrants it having an internal component that can be labeled as a line TBC? As discussed (search the forum, or search Google for those discussions), the Canopus box "TBC" tends to have no observable effects on the video input, neither in visual cleaning, nor in signal stability.

NOTE: This excludes the ADVC-300, which filters the snot out of video, often leaving it with temporal artifacts, banded/posterized image quality, and maybe even a surreal/fake/over-processed look.

The same can be said for many DVD recorders, captures cards, VCRs and even so-called standalone TBCs. What exactly qualifies these devices? What sort of actual corrections are being made? Without being a video engineer, with video analysis tools and the product spec sheets, it's hard to say. Non-engineer consumers and pros alike are just expected to believe what's written on the side of the box. As we've come to learn, the "TBC" function (as we expect it to work, to either stabilize our video or clean the visual quality) goes no deeper than the ink on the box.

It's easy to see why buyers and sellers alike are confused when it comes to TBCs.

Maybe my toaster has a TBC?

Being a relative newby with a fairly basic understanding of video, I'd still like to add my opinion. I originally started with a Canopus ADVC55 which did a reasonable jog of capturing VHS tapes as long as the tapes were in good to very good condition and were 1st generation copies. Unfortunately, most weren't and insead of capturing 1 continuous file, everytime the sync was lost from the VCR, a new file was created - one of my first wedding tape dubs was so bad, I ended up with over 200 fragmented AVI's to reconstruct with the associated lost few frames at the start of every new file. After doing a lot of Googling and speaking to people in the industry, I settled on a ADVC300 with it's built-in "TBC" (I was on a tight budget).
The same wedding tape cleaned up surprisingly well with no visible artifacts and the TBC did a fine job of making up for dropped frames and presented me with a good, usable (single) AVI. So I must disagree with lordsmurf's comment that the AVDC300 "has no observable effects on the video input". Without the AVDC300's inbuilt "TBC" the source material would have been un-viable to capture.
I know there are lots of better, more professional solutions available, but for my humble requirements, the ADVC300 has performed very well and done exactly what it says it would on the box as far as providing good, clean captures of less than perfect sources.

[nimco]

lordsmurf and others,
I would appreciate if you could help me to resolve my doubts regarding a right analog Canopus ADVC type capturing device selection. I was playing for several years with ADVC-100 converting VHS material to DV avi, experimenting with Avisynth and its filters, lately converting DV avi to H.264 m2ts files. I am using JVC VHS player with TBC/DNR. My old VHS tapes are in a quite good condition. I am not using TBC/DNR since the line sync is not bad without it and I do not like that DNR is over filtering video, making it too soft, I ratherhave a bit noisier but sharper video (ion JVC player no way/option to use only TBC, without DNR). For mpeg-2 conversion I amusing Canopus Procoder (it filters noice a bit too), for the m2ts conversion Igot a good results with Mainconcept HD encoder.

But now is the time to finally get serious, convert and archive my old VSH tapes. It is been a while last time I used ADVC-100, now even a newer model ADVC-300 is discontinued.

I am relying on your extensive experience with ADVC type of devices and all analog to digital related issues and topics.

My question and asking for help is:
Is my currently owned ADVC-100 is sufficient for this task or I need to buy/get ADVC-300, until is still possible to grab one on ebay or so? Would ADVC-300 bring better picture and its filtering and TBC is useful (since I am not using TBC on my JVC player anyway).

[amaipaipai]

I'm so happy to know that my ADVC-100 actually has a TBC.
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/390949-Canopus-ADVC-100-has-a-TBC-after-all

My question and asking for help is:
Is my currently owned ADVC-100 is sufficient for this task or I need to buy/get ADVC-300, until is still possible to grab one on ebay or so? Would ADVC-300 bring better picture and its filtering and TBC is useful (since I am not using TBC on my JVC player anyway).

You are fine with the ADVC-100.