Current status of ld-decode / vhs-decode (true "backup" of RF signals)

[lordsmurf]

We hit the end of the aqusition debate with the ADA4857 amplifyer setup and have 100+ users on it now without complaints, Im sure Brads next set of examples case and point mirror whats already on the internet archive

Everytime there is a modification of RF path you guys claim it's the final, When the real final comes?

The "everytime" is every few months, too. Literally, multiple times per year, for multiple years now.

Go back several years, in this very thread, where I wrote that hardware appliances will be required for this project to ever have any success. But at the time, the vhs-decode kiddies all jeered and whined, and claimed "the next software update will fix it", and that I was a stupid poopyhead.

And now, in 2025?
- They have multiple small hardware appliances (though there are still quality issues).
- They mostly dropped the nonsense claim that software is the end-all/be-all of the process.

So I was long ago vindicated here, but they'll never admit to it.

[harrypm]

It's dementia in your advanced age Kevin.

Because direct pin tapping I posted images of and added to the wiki as a workflow back in 2021, this was the direct tap and add in a cap method.

I did A/B tests against BMD SDI kit and internal Panasonic TBCs, and relised spending 100s to 1000s of USD or GBP more is just a joke.

Subsequently the DuPont 2.54mm Sony decks were noted, the pin push method and the FPC jigs for 8mm camcorders were added following.

We have had high impedance ADA4857 amplifiers since 2023, and 2024 it was integrated to official documentation.

In 2022 direct intervidual head tapping tests were done, however this is unnecessary when decks provide a headswitch'ed stream of fields to begin with, but the method is viable with 2x ADA4857 amplifyers and a 5 way clockgen setup.

In early 2023, the CX Card Clockgen workflow eliminated the multi channel sync issue, which was the only valid core failing of the acquisition workflow, in 2024 the MISRC also was developed and now in 2025 the HackDAC is a thing which does the opposite and produces video.

Aside from new heads and new electronics which lets be real won't come to mass market, this is the end the hardware is not changing the RF tap configurations are not changing.

It's hit the conceptual end and the practical deployment end.

Now will capture ADC platforms stop being developed and stop being improved upon, of course not that would be stupid not to do, but right now we have a position of indefinite capture availability due to the flexibility not being limited by legacy crap that's scalped and inflated.

Meanwhile I've been pouring time, energy and more money then I probably should have during a cost of living crisis into actually developing the FM RF Archival method.

When you Kevin and virtually all of your fan club who got suckered into your workflow, have been attacking it and ignoring it's advances every step of the way.

The outright attacking public forum posts and using alt accounts to spam report attack on r/vhsdecode, and resulting to personalised attacks when you have no technical grounds to stand on when backed into a corner it's comical.

And yet you still in 2025 have your audacity to try and sell people that know of the FM RF Archival workflow down the river of legacy crap, the memes just make themselves and the internet archive preserves them.

https://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/video-capture/14994-best-capture-device.html

Your outright incompetent and outright disrespectful to hard-working people that actually care about the subject matter.

[The 14th Doctor]

Feels like your just digging your own grave. These childish attacks don't look good on the community at large, how would somebody feel if they found out the guy who promotes decode is a rather rude person who sounds like they aggressively push this project? I think most of us can agree that decode is neat, has potential and we wish the best for the hard working developers who know and understand the shortcomings of the project.

It almost feels like you're becoming the person you hate. Prancing around like decode is the best thing since sliced bread and that "guys it is totally ready for prime time!", along with saying that all legacy methods are crap. Yes a lot of methods are crap, but there are others that aren't crap (S-VHS VCR + TBC + Recommended Capture Card)

You dismissing Brad's fair comparison (that Lollo did a great job looking into) in the sea of unfair, cherry picked comparisons shows me everything. It feels like you can't accept criticism, or the truth that decode is a massive undertaking for those people who don't know how to do electronic work. We just want equipment that works at what it's suppose to do, which is what properly refurbished VCRs, Time Base Correctors and recommended capture cards do.

Time or money, which is more important for people.. seems like you have unlimited time, most of us don't. Or for somebody like myself, I just don't want to deal with the headache of needing to solder stuff. Sure when I got my workflow there was trial and error, some frustration, etc. But I bet with decode my brain would be fried trying to understand a huge essay length wiki page before I even convert my first tape. Even if I did, I would have most certainly got something wrong and need to redo it over and over again. I only need to do for a conventional capture if I ever accidentally override the captured file

No wonder the users of r/VHS and r/Camcorders were sick of your crap and banned you. It's funny how you attack DigitalFAQ but they don't attack back, feels very one sided... and to think you attacked a fellow redditor who worked at the Richard Nixon Archive Museum.

Lordsmurf ain't the only one to see that VHS Decode ain't worth it for most people who aren't turbo hacker nerds. Or for people who have preserved tapes with conventional equipment, the improvements aren't worth the hassle, there might even be noticeable drawbacks as well.

If national archives ain't using it, then I rest my case that this is just for select people who have way too much time on their hands. If they want to stick with decode, so be it. I and other users here will stick with traditional captures for the time being thank you very much.

I don't hate decode, but I do dislike how Harry is promoting it. Feels a bit aggressive, like you're bugging somebody to buy cookies. Not everybody will say yes, such as myself.

Sorry to most people reading this, I'm usually not this angry. But reading Harry's posts (here and on Reddit) made me vent a bit

[lollo]

Nice post, The 14th Doctor!

I am not a fan of one method or the other, and I do not like insane crusades (VHS-Decode versus "standard" approach, lossless versus DV, and so on).

I have great expectation on VHS-Decode, but so far I do not see any evidence that is superior to the standard approach we use. Even because when I compare the results of the standard approach versus a reference (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVRkQQxODf8&list=PLCvrZEXO1laEwh0t1l_VM-U_n5a8mjab-) I think: "what can be better?"; but maybe there is room for some (marginal) improvement, I am open to a change. I also understand that this is a step I should do on my own and make my own comparisons. Sooneer or later I will do it.

OTHH Lordsmurf approach is also too much biased, especially because he's not using VHS-Decode and has nothing to compare with. And his attitude in "selling" his stuff on his forum as soon as somebody ask for support as shown in the posted link, is also a synthom of a conflict of interest large as the moon, that he should avoid. Is just my suggestion, not a judgement.

We should all be open to everything and judge only the facts and not the opinions. This is true for both sides.

[lordsmurf]

The outright attacking public forum posts and using alt accounts to spam report attack on r/vhsdecode, and resulting to personalised attacks

I have no idea what you're referring to. I'm not a child, I don't have time to go poop in your Reddit sandbox. Not surprisingly, it seems you have fair criticism from others, but the conspiracist in you sees green red blue.

A while back, somebody asked me what I think of you.
My response = "I don't."
I have real-world responsibilities/concerns. Things that actually matter. Family, health, etc. My time is valuable,

I generally refrain from replying to you, because you're a very unpleasant person. I don't understand your perverse fixation with me -- and apparently even other people that you merely think is me (but are not). That's some truly weird shit.

I don't hate decode, but I do dislike how Harry is promoting it.

That's exactly it.

Project devs essentially recreated VCR processing with Radio Shack parts and software. Hey, that's neat!

But it's not some sort of game changer that will make people toss out reliable quality video gear. Time and ROI also matter, which Harry doesn't seem to understand. I can only guess it's because he's just 22 years old, and not yet realized how short life is.

OTHH Lordsmurf approach is also too much biased, especially because he's not using VHS-Decode and has nothing to compare with.

It's exhausting to even try. I actually had a AG-1970 that I was going to use for it, but it bricked while stored.

... but it didn't work anyway.
... oh, but now it does, if you do this.
... oh wait, no, that's bad now, do this instead.
... nevermind, this is needed now.
... oh hey, try this instead.
... etc

It's just neverending. So I've been working with others. But none of them ever get anywhere either. Results vary from "not good" to "WTF is wrong with the VCR output now?" If/when one of them is able to create a reliable repeatable setup, I'll get involved again.

My focus is, and always has been, using gear. I need/want to work with gear, and not try to make it work.

Think about this: Brad started this thread 6 years ago, has been aggressively supportive of the RF VHS theory, and even he can't get it to give consistent quality results. After years, he still has to tinker and solder.

Meanwhile, I'm actually converting tapes, and trying to enjoy life.

[lollo]

My focus is, and always has been, using gear. I need/want to work with gear, and not try to make it work

I understand your point and agree, althougth working on hw/sw is exciting, and may improve the final results.

My feeling is just that you should avoid "absolute" statement, not having yourself a direct experience.

I'll grant you that anyway harrypm aptitude is not appropriate at all.

[dellsam34]

I'm not against any method what so ever and I don't tend to glorify one over the other, but one cannot make promises that will be broken later, I posted about this before when some members claimed that RF capture now and worry about decode later, It turns out and as demonstrated from numerous samples over the internet that the RF capture was indeed flawd due to noise patterns that are not available in the conventional method, first some members try to hide it by making crappy heavily compressed easycap comparisons, to other claims about wiring and imedence. It's good now they are looking for radical hardward improvement which is what should have been done but there is no need to make false claims and start back paddeling, I'm not against any member here, I'm just generally speaking and based on posts I read here over the years. We should not make this personal by attacking each other, it should be pure technical debate.

[The 14th Doctor]

It shouldn't get personal, but alas it kind of is... it has gotten to the point where other people are rightfully pointing out that the attacks make the whole decode community look bad. So much so that people who have dealt with Lordsmurf, and can see that he isn't perfect, are needing to defend him, it really is that bad.. and once again, one sided in my opinion...

The decode community (just Harry it seems, their loudest supporter) craps on us people that use recommended equipment because it's expensive, but I don't see Lordsmurf or others like you and I attacking back, we just ignore it and move onto to what we were doing, acknowledging the drawbacks about VHS decode, we aren't easily fooled.

Remember even seeing a Reddit thread where a user actually agreed with LS on the fact that the decode samples he has seen have horrible haloing/ringing. So LS ain't the only one here seeing the current drawbacks of this method. Heck, also saw a few comments left by a user who was interested in trying VHS decode, but wanted to see proper samples comparing it to recommended equipment (not easycaps/elegatos and consumer and/or damaged VCRs), as he knew the comparisons on the wiki were quite unfair.

[lordsmurf]

The decode community (just Harry it seems, their loudest supporter) craps on us people that use recommended equipment because it's expensive, but I don't see Lordsmurf or others like you and I attacking back, we just ignore it and move onto to what we were doing, acknowledging the drawbacks about VHS decode, we aren't easily fooled.

This situation is mostly just a sad statement on the times we live in.

Several GenZ'ers have reach out to me in recent months, regarding Harry and certain mouthy Redditors (all confirmed to be in their early/mid 20s). Two of these contacts actually apologized to me "on behalf of all GenZ" (which was very kind of them, and I truly appreciated the gesture). We had several nice long discussions.

GenZ grew up with the internet, and (anti-)social media, and online bullying. Toxicity is how many of them learned to communicate online. Many lash out at others, unable to accept opinions that differ from their own. The pandemic years made it worse, forcing them to be online-only for socializing, schooling, and maybe working.

Many GenZ have become self-aware of their generational problems (like the ones who contacted me), but others have not.

Most of Reddit (and Discord) is GenZ, at least 50% of it (average age 20-23). Many of them see these as "their" sites, where they can do whatever they want, no matter how uncouth. Many are aggressive to anybody older, especially those trying to impart their knowledge/wisdom and ideas. You'll often see comments calling somebody a "Boomer", even if it's another GenZ'er that simply doesn't agree with them.

Most GenZ has below-average income, but that's not unusual for an entry level workforce. However, many of them have unrealistic expectations about finances, and it results in money anger. (Why? Social media influence.) In this case, getting pissy about the costs of quality video hardware. And yet, they do have some money. As I often say, and my new GenZ friends/contacts also said, it's about spending/budgeting priorities -- often combined with an inability to save money (or worse, thinking that crypto is "saving").

I have GenZ family members, and I read non-political news (mental health, etc). So none of this is new to me.

In short, Harry is trying to "online bully" me, but I'm a GenX'er and that doesn't work on me. I just find it pathetic. (I'm probably at least the same age as his parents, and I wonder how he treats them? Their friends, colleagues, etc?)

I've always been willing to have an adult conversation with Harry. In fact, I often ignore his spewed bile, and simply respond to the technical points made. But Harry is so afraid of me, that he pre-banned me from his little Reddit/Discord fiefdoms, which is why you never see me responding to him there. (Yes, he was temp-banned from digitalFAQ.com, but he was breaking forum rules.)

In summary, Harry is a product of his generation, but he can overcome it. I actually look forward to the day when we can have a mature video conversation.

Anyway, enough armchair psycho-analysis. (But everything written above is well documented online.)

Lordsmurf, and can see that he isn't perfect

Nope, definitely not.

For starters, I'm limited by the gear that exists. Nothing perfect was ever made, and likely never will be. Everything has flaws, caveats. But the goal is to use gear that retains or improves basic quality, not make it worse. (Ringing/halo is such a basic flaw that it's really quite unacceptable. Even low-end VCRs from the 80s didn't do that.)

Now, there are "best" (ie "best made, best available") items, and worst/crap items. But the problem often comes with binary thinkers (which is ignorant), who make the fallacy argument that "if it's not perfect, it's bad" or "it's all the same". (See also: politics.) Sometimes there is "best for the situation", but that phrase can be molested to mean "junk is okay, junk is best". I refuse to agree with faulty logic, and that pisses some people off.

In this very thread, myself, lollo, and dellsam don't 100% agree, and our workflows differ. But we generally agree on junk/bad/problems. Admittedly, we sometimes bicker over the nuances of the decent/best gear we use (and situations where usage is appropriate), though I've never liked those less-friendly interactions. I try to defuse those, because it just makes us look grumpy/bad.

Most people don't know that digitalFAQ.com was originally lordsmurf.com, and a free-hosted site for years before it in the 90s. 25+ years ago, it was a place where I'd document my own mistakes, fallacies, confusions, and successes (and thus guides). Back then, video information was hard to come by. There was no VideoHelp (originally VCDHelp) yet. To learn video, you had to read manuals, visit the library, talk to professionals, visit pro facilities, etc. I'd share my finds, my learnings, my knowledge, with others in the videotape hobby community (especially cartoon collectors). I have always tried to be the "easy button" for others to learn about video ingest, video archiving, etc.

I've never claimed perfection. Just decades of knowledge. (Although it is the quality of my work that got me noticed by studios and archivists, and thus began my accidental career, from hobby to pro.)

I've literally helped millions of people over the decades, and I'll keep doing so. Not even a devasting disease (MS) has been able to stop me, though it tried (and almost killed me).

I generally don't have time for such long posts, but this was needed.

BTW, Tennant fan, great username The 14th Doctor!

[The 14th Doctor]

Ah hah thanks. Though when it came to the 'perfect' comment I more so meant how you present yourself to others, but still, no wonder the moderators of r/vhs banned Harry if multiple people are commenting how much of a nuisance he seems to be, some even talking about him to you in private. (Other users on the subreddit ended up reporting his posts, probably because they were tired of hearing him ramble while they just wanted to share their interest in VHS as a media format, which is why the mods had to put a stop to it by banning him).

If you did the same and people spam reported your posts, the mods would've probably done the same thing by telling you stop and banning you if you didn't stop, but that didn't happen whatsoever.

Really don't want this derail this thread into a hate fest, so for now I bid farewell.

[VideoMem]

Lot of people arguing and attacking each other personally.
I haven't seen this kind of heated turbo nerd debate since Linux vs Windows two decades ago.

All generations have their gems, it is not about what generation is better. All are the worse.

Only a really small percent of people really do the nice things in all times.

Don't be rude with Harry. He is an enthusiastic promoter of a kind of capture method.
If you guys want to get the less headache possible capture go and capture all what is worth to be preserved before the media expires.

Not all countries had the same markets and not all had either the same equipment, tv standards and taste, so go whatever method works for you, nobody forces you to buy anything here.

But if your country lacks good equipment, i'm sure vhs decode will produce better results than the composite out (if the rf signal is digitized properly)

Hardware is a big world.

A single or dual operational amplifier is hardware, but the turbo-encabulator powered tbc is also hardware.

Hifi-decode now sounds better btw.

[The 14th Doctor]

Don't be rude with Harry. He is an enthusiastic promoter of a kind of capture method.
If you guys want to get the less headache possible capture go and capture all what is worth to be preserved before the media expires.

We shouldn't be rude to him, but sadly he acts rather rude to Lordsmurf. The conversations our communities have should be about technical details, but to me it feels like he wants to knock LS down a peg whenever given the chance, to me it feels like his attacks are crossing the line of being personal, wishing him to go down under. He doesn't like it when people say that VHS Decode is a massive undertaking, it's like Nightmare difficulty in classic Doom ("Are you sure? This skill level isn't even remotely fair.")

This comment from Nicholasserra said it best "The doc writer [Harrypm] assumes everyone has the same knowledge as him and will be upset at anyone who claims the whole thing [vhs-decode] isn’t easy. You’re not alone."

I don't speak for everyone, but I believe we are just trying to calmly point out the flaws with decode as it stands and share our opinion that it's certainly an option, but not the be all end all. It's not perfect, has extra drawbacks compared to suggested equipment, as well as being a massive pain to setup for most people on top of it always changing, we don't wish for it to die and be reduced to nothing. Is it better than a crappy composite setup? Sure it is! But so is using a refurbished S-VHS VCR with line TBC and capture cards that are spoken well of (ATI 600s, select Pinnacle models, etc)

From what I've seen, the decode samples look like somebody went a bit too hard with the sharpness filters in avisynth, along with added ghosting and overall more noise. Heck I was able to improve the preserved detail in a tape by just switching the VCR mode from Norm to Edit! Yes there was more noise, but it also looked more sharp at the same time.

And yes, I agree with the idea on doing a proper conventional capture now, and doing a decode pass later, think I remember reading that Lordsmurf even agrees with that notion. I look forward to people like Brad and Lollo making proper comparisons with reliable gear, not crappy consumer gear. (That's why I wanted to assist by donating some concert tapes I have, to help with making comparisons)

I get it, we all have disagreements and don't fully get along with certain aspects, but we shouldn't wish somebody to go out of business and be homeless.

At the end of the day, I don't wish decode to fail, I bet none of us wish for it fail, but to get better and better. I just wish Harry will calm down and stop with the childish attacks to anybody who disagrees with him. I'm not the only one who can see the wrong in that.

If he keeps on attacking others then it'll look bad for him and the community he is apart of, there might be repeats of what happened with him and the r/vhs mods...

[i4004]

It's dementia in your advanced age Kevin.

i find this line cute. new vs. old(er?) forces of nature.

We hit the end of the aqusition debate with the ADA4857 amplifyer setup and have 100+ users on it now without complaints, Im sure Brads next set of examples case and point mirror whats already on the internet archive

i don't get this. for whom are raw rf files being uploaded?
if by 2025 there are no decent "final" codecs there never will be one.
i mean IA doesn't have the financing as-is, and here comes a bloke that will just clog it all with his vhs rf files.
unfathomable.

otoh, vhs-decode video quality usually looks above-par. it just looks sharper than most other things. while there is a decent possibility "most other things" are crap because people don't know what they're doing. ie they don't appreciate sharpness.
ie they find "some" vcr, find "some" usb mpeg2 capture device and produce the result. blurry result.
or, vice-versa works too: they get vhs-decode system and then capture crappy vhs tape:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEzmbw_Y-Tw

everything affects image quality, source, process and end codec. most will stumble at some part(s) of the process.
vhs-decode deals with "how can one improve the source". that should apply mostly to those with cheap vcrs (and poor quality usb capture devices), as videomem suggests. but then again, are these the people willing to tinker with everything vhs-decode requires?
i doubt it.

but some are:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCSQ8CDSxTE
(that diamond vc500 usb is utter rubbish, vhs-decode can beat it, but so can i, with "conventional", old setup)

interesting comments there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCSQ8CDSxTE&lc=UgwefPjfeZRUgcGse6Z4AaABAg
i wholeheartedly disagree with LS there: you don't need TBC. at all.
unless you're "lucky enough" to exclusively be digitizing 4-5th vhs generation....or everything containing macrovision. but i was even capping macrovision copies, without tbc. yes, contrast is pulsating, but sync in not lost.
(how do i know this: well, i rented (macrovisioned) vhs tapes in video-shop and copied them to vhs, then digitized that later)

and i think i know EXACTLY how this came about, this great love towards TBC: in the beginning there was scarcity of good digitizing hardware and software. that's when LS was starting. so he just remained in TBC camp. and i just replied there saying the same thing (but yt comments don't always work..i don't see my reply in anonymous browser window).
if on top of this LS was digitizing a lot of macrovision protected content, that explains everything.
otoh, most of my vhs stuff is OTA or 1st copy of OTA.
we were already discussing shades of vhs quality, recently, maybe on digitalfaq forum. maybe here. dementia!

at one level, tbc is just one more analog-to-digital, and digital-to-analog cycle you can live without most of the time.
like "i need tbc once every hundred tapes" most of the time.
again, my vhs sources are better than most, like i stated above. less macrovision, less "original" store-bought tapes overall, mostly "master" and 1st copy. but even the stuff i did for others wasn't in need of tbc.

i think americans payed much more attention to applying macrovision than the rest of the world. both on vhs tape-production, and capture equipment side. i think none of my pal capture cards care much about it.

lollo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVRkQQxODf8&list=PLCvrZEXO1laEwh0t1l_VM-U_n5a8mjab-

this is not a valid test: dvb-s (mpeg2) encoder might of had totally different setup when you were (re)recording it from satellite. ie lower bitrate.
dvb-s .ts rip will always look better than vhs recording of it, or s-vhs recording, or sp beta recording, doesn't matter which analog format u use. it's just that better formats will yield less deterioration.

but something i noticed about recording dvb-s on vhs (not s-vhs): it always looks soft, unlike OTA analog pal recording. as if vhs needs some noise to look really sharp. which it probably does (concept of dithering in digital domain).
also because dvb-s broadcasters always wanted to fit more channels per transponder, so the bitrate per-channel got lower, and image got softer.
instead of some good quality chanels, they were adding tens of channels of crappy quality: economy of scale.
but even with german dvb-s vs. analog satellite (ie higher bitrate mpeg2 on dvb-s) analog looked better. ie vhs recording of it.

[lollo]

this is not a valid test: dvb-s (mpeg2) encoder might of had totally different setup when you were (re)recording it from satellite. ie lower bitrate.
dvb-s .ts rip will always look better than vhs recording of it, or s-vhs recording, or sp beta recording, doesn't matter which analog format u use. it's just that better formats will yield less deterioration.

What is not valid is your understanding.

Let me explain once more the test in that link.

On one side there is the rip of a DVB-S broadcast at 480x576 resolution, MPEG-2 encoded at good bitrate 5/6mbps average bitrate. And from source master in good shape. In principle, from a technical point a view, slightly better than the max quality of the S-VHS standard, which allows rafely 400 point of horizontal resolution inside a line and 576 interlaced lines. Definetely a nice video when whatched.
(BTW, the rip is in .pva format, not in .ts; at that time there was no hardware able to rip the full stream)

On the other side there is exactly the same broadcasted program, transmitted few years earlier, when I did not have the hardware to rip the digital stream. So the flow to produce the digital file was DVB-S set-top box Y/C output to high-end S-VHS VCR recording on high quality Sony VXSE tapes, then an analog capture of the tape via its Y/C output to a capture card.

When comparing the two files there is almost no difference in term of quality, meaning that the whole process of capturing, but also of recording, is not introducing significant deviations from the original. Impressive!

As a side note, we all know that on Astra and Hotbird in Europe there were / there are channels with crap quality, at low resolution, too low bitrate and not optimized encoders and low preformances studio equipements (cameras and broadcast hardware). It was not the case for Canal Jimmy (my source for the test I linked) inside D+ bouquet in late 90s/early 2000s.

dvb-s .ts rip will always look better than vhs recording of it, or s-vhs recording, or sp beta recording, doesn't matter which analog format u use. it's just that better formats will yield less deterioration.

Yes in principle, not in practice in the test I showed, given the specifications I gave.

In order to see a difference the reference must be a D1 720x576 at 8/9mbps bitrate from a perfect master. Then, of course, the (limited in comparison) S-VHS specifications will not be able to match the original quality of the source.

i wholeheartedly disagree with LS there: you don't need TBC. at all.

Concerning the need of an external TBC, I am one of the few disagreeing with lordsmurf that is always needed, because I do not see a need for tapes in pristine shape like mines. But is not so common, so what you wrote in term of TBC "you don't need TBC. at all" is a non sense.

edit: and while comparing, as you can understand, I can also move frame by frame, field by field the reference and the analog capture at the same time and verify that not only the quality of the second is in pair, but also that there are not dropped or inserted frames or whatever, both with AviSynth scripts and by visual inspection. As you probably know these potential issues are of great concerns when capturing analog.

[VideoMem]

We shouldn't be rude to him, but sadly he acts rather rude to Lordsmurf. The conversations our communities have should be about technical details, but to me it feels like he wants to knock LS down a peg whenever given the chance.

I do not agree with any kind of personal agression, by either part.
So to end that, stop making bold generalizations of what the project is and is not.

It is just a method of bypassing the decode hardware and tbc.
It can output something on many formats.

The code is pretty complex, and the people contributing doesn't live from it, they're just the kind of autistic that finds some kinds of technical challenges fun.
There's no cult, just nerds.

If you guys found the documentation confusing, please tell harry to fix that, or submit a proper PR to the repo.

The thing can be as complex as you want to dive in, but it is not that hard.
And as with a lot of things, the tool is as good for the work as who handles it.

[MrCreosote]

I'm such a noob here. I have a lot of gear, SVHS VCR's, DVD HDD recorders, XP PCs, but not much in capture cards.

I'm working with SVHS and wondering, compared to VHS, is it worth the extra effort for RF-capture?

I looked for the ATI AIW 9800XT and Radeon 7500 cards and found not much on eBay. Is the 9800 PRO as good? I just don't know. A list of OK cards would be nice. Then read (pardon garbage memory) Brookstone? BF878 Conexant card someone wrote RF-capture firmware for? or? (don't quote me)

I remember somewhere, in some catalog, maybe Heathkit, ??? Lafayette Radio ??? where they had hi-fi systems (turntable, amp/receiver/tuner, speakers for various budgets. Would LOVE that for the Food Chain of capturing SVHS.

I definitely NOT a $$$ pro TBC maniac and honestly, RF-capture would require more time than I have left on this earth although the improvement over VHS is rather amazing BUT is it as dramatic on SVHS? I know REDs suck. (I recall somewhere about 60 lines for reds?, for VHS?)

Best "bang for buck" VHS capture? (I have read the Retro Game captures are NOT good for VCR. RetroTINK even expensive, not ideal.)

[The 14th Doctor]

I'm such a noob here. I have a lot of gear, SVHS VCR's, DVD HDD recorders, XP PCs, but not much in capture cards.

I'm working with SVHS and wondering, compared to VHS, is it worth the extra effort for RF-capture?

I looked for the ATI AIW 9800XT and Radeon 7500 cards and found not much on eBay. Is the 9800 PRO as good? I just don't know. A list of OK cards would be nice. Then read (pardon garbage memory) Brookstone? BF878 Conexant card someone wrote RF-capture firmware for? or? (don't quote me)

I remember somewhere, in some catalog, maybe Heathkit, ??? Lafayette Radio ??? where they had hi-fi systems (turntable, amp/receiver/tuner, speakers for various budgets. Would LOVE that for the Food Chain of capturing SVHS.

I definitely NOT a $$$ pro TBC maniac and honestly, RF-capture would require more time than I have left on this earth although the improvement over VHS is rather amazing BUT is it as dramatic on SVHS? I know REDs suck. (I recall somewhere about 60 lines for reds?, for VHS?)

Best "bang for buck" VHS capture? (I have read the Retro Game captures are NOT good for VCR. RetroTINK even expensive, not ideal.)

Correct, RetroTink and others like it aren't the best for analog capture, use it for video game consoles, what it was specifically designed for.

Will the extra effort be worth it? Maybe, but given your limited time left, I'd say no, seems like you agree yourself that RF-capture would be too time intensive for you.

In my opinion, I feel like a card such as the IOData GV-USB2 or Hauppauge USB-Live 2 will probably be the better choice, if you unable or unwilling to pay for an ATI 600 or Pinnacle 510/710 usb capture card.

[MrCreosote]

I'm such a noob here. I have a lot of gear, SVHS VCR's, DVD HDD recorders, XP PCs, but not much in capture cards.

I'm working with SVHS and wondering, compared to VHS, is it worth the extra effort for RF-capture?

I looked for the ATI AIW 9800XT and Radeon 7500 cards and found not much on eBay. Is the 9800 PRO as good? I just don't know. A list of OK cards would be nice. Then read (pardon garbage memory) Brookstone? BF878 Conexant card someone wrote RF-capture firmware for? or? (don't quote me)

I remember somewhere, in some catalog, maybe Heathkit, ??? Lafayette Radio ??? where they had hi-fi systems (turntable, amp/receiver/tuner, speakers for various budgets. Would LOVE that for the Food Chain of capturing SVHS.

I definitely NOT a $$$ pro TBC maniac and honestly, RF-capture would require more time than I have left on this earth although the improvement over VHS is rather amazing BUT is it as dramatic on SVHS? I know REDs suck. (I recall somewhere about 60 lines for reds?, for VHS?)

Best "bang for buck" VHS capture? (I have read the Retro Game captures are NOT good for VCR. RetroTINK even expensive, not ideal.)

Correct, RetroTink and others like it aren't the best for analog capture, use it for video game consoles, what it was specifically designed for.

Will the extra effort be worth it? Maybe, but given your limited time left, I'd say no, seems like you agree yourself that RF-capture would be too time intensive for you.

In my opinion, I feel like a card such as the IOData GV-USB2 or Hauppauge USB-Live 2 will probably be the better choice, if you unable or unwilling to pay for an ATI 600 or Pinnacle 510/710 usb capture card.

Thanks for the specifics!

I didn't expect external USB2 devices for capture - but learning USB2 is the stable one. Makes sense, since XP is usually PCI and that limits choices.

NOTE: I remember there were AV HDD that would stream w/o making on the fly temp recalibrations - better a few bit errors than dropped frames. Is that even a thing now? Probably no, because I've never heard of it mentioned in recent times.

Just searching on those models has lead to many other discussion where more gear is mentioned (!)


Found this comment about an ADV7180 chip before the decoder:

The 710-USB is a very interesting device, until a couple weeks ago I thought the DV port not to work on Win7x64, now I know it does work.. with some difficulty getting the system class driver installed.

The Pinnacles often (really often) included ADV7180 or some other preconditioning chip "in front of" the video decoder.. which could cure a lot of problems with poor quality signals. The ADV7180 in particular was known for adaptive line length correction, and specialized in VHS sync signal problems. The MovieBox Deluxe (wall adapter powered), the 500-usb, 700-usb, 510-usb and 710-usb (all USB bus powered) were more or less premium Raw YUV 422 capture devices. A level above typical low level consumer grade capture devices. AVID bought the Pinnacle company and kept sponsoring and supporting their development.

Vidbox NWxx also popped up.

Wow, so many Rabbit Holes.

This stuff really interests me. Right now scrounging locally on FB and CL is something I can be doing. I don't mind spending $100 for gear - even more if a value or rare.

[lordsmurf]

but to me it feels like he wants to knock LS down a peg whenever given the chance,

What's he's doing is called "clout chasing", using the old technique showcased in the 2002 movie "The New Guy" (ie, find the biggest guy in the room, and attack him). It's so transparent. He tries to build himself up by trying to tear down others. It's part of "narcissistic personality disorder". Feel free to look up those two terms, and that movie, and you'll see what I mean.

I get it, we all have disagreements and don't fully get along with certain aspects, but we shouldn't wish somebody to go out of business and be homeless.

I've seen him make these disgusting comments towards me, and towards others. We have families that rely on us. Honestly, you have to be a complete POS of a person to wish others (and their loved ones) get harmed.

If you guys found the documentation confusing, please tell harry to fix that, or submit a proper PR to the repo.

You act as if he's a reasonable person. For example, how many reasonable people make the "rules" of their site nothing more than personal attacks on others? How about the many people who have pointed out cherry-picked samples on the wiki, that are simply not believable, and thus just obvious propaganda? He acts like we're all stupid, and he's the only person that "gets it" -- even though many of us have literally worked in video longer than he's been alive. And yet it is our experience/knowledge that sees right through the BS, and what we do see is unimpressive, especially for the promises made (and broken).

--- Alright, enough about Harry, moving on to video topics ... ---
Writing about Harry = boring.
Writing about video = interesting, pleasant even.

doing a proper conventional capture now, and doing a decode pass later, think I remember reading that Lordsmurf even agrees with that notion.

Correct. And it must be a 2nd pass because of "one and done" tape risks (catastrophic damage after 1 play of the tape, irreversible degradation), due to vhs-decode being unreliable/unstable. Run the best possible copy first, using quality gear. Then, for the most important tapes, if you still want to go through all the time and effort, you can attempt a 2nd run, for possibly better (or worse, or just different) results.

For example, archivists care about preservation. That means removing/reducing risk. The least damaging methods. For video capture situations, it means the least tape runs, with verifiable results. vhs-decode is not that. You cannot run a tape blindly, then "oops, try again". That's not acceptable. A standard/basic quality capture setup is needed, in order to extract verifiable, qualifiable, quantifiable results.

As an example, some documents are immediately harmed by light exposure. So, in order to replicate those, it has to be done in a controlled environment. The reproduction attempt must be one-and-done. That means tried-and-true methods, not "hey, let's use my camera built from Radio Shack parts, and a camera flash I got from Facebook". Because that may result in no copy, and a destroyed master, so lost documents/media.

And while some people will say "that doesn't apply to me", many people are wrong. I found tapes in my own collection that began to degrade after a single play, and I've always been extremely careful about storage conditions. I've run into that too many time in the past 5-10 years now. Cherished videos of kids, "bootlegs" from a concert (band-shot, so not really a boot), etc. Irreplaceable, valuable, historical, sentimental. I cannot play around with others people's tapes, other organization's tapes, nor my own tapes. This is why institutions are not, and probably never will, adopt this method -- at least not for first-run usage, and 2nd run may depend on factors.

That doesn't mean the method is bad, useless, etc -- but rather that it has a place in a project workflow. But users like Harry, who insist it be the first method, and the only method, are entirely clueless about the capture/ingest ecosystem. It's just not acceptable to many people, and for good reasons. That excludes the technical complexity, or the ill-though-out attempt to be cheap (and yet, the added appliances and storage space negates it, $0 savings, or even inverse savings to budget -ish workflows using non-TBC VCR, ES10/15, and comprised-not-terrible capture cards).

and i think i know EXACTLY how this came about, this great love towards TBC: in the beginning there was scarcity of good digitizing hardware and software. that's when LS was starting.

That makes zero sense. "In the beginning" (of modern ingest/capture, meaning the late 90s, early 00s), the items were sold new in stores. Nothing was scarce. I remember, because I was there.

if on top of this LS was digitizing a lot of macrovision protected content, that explains everything.

Wrong assumption. Released retail material has never been my focus.

at one level, tbc is just one more analog-to-digital, and digital-to-analog cycle you can live without most of the time.
like "i need tbc once every hundred tapes" most of the time.
again, my vhs sources

This is not a true statement. And it seems you make the blanket statement based on your own narrow (and unverified) experiences. If TBC was not needed, why do you think I, and others, buy them? Do you really think we're just stupid?

Concerning the need of an external TBC, I am one of the few disagreeing with lordsmurf that is always needed, because I do not see a need for tapes in pristine shape like mines. But is not so common, so what you wrote in term of TBC "you don't need TBC. at all" is a non sense.

Let's isolate this conversation to "frame TBCs", to prevent any confusion for readers.

It's not so much that it's "always" needed, but rather "almost always". There are exceptions. However, everybody always wants to think themselves the exception. So the general rule is that TBC is needed, with exceptions. But the exceptions do not overrule the rule.

There's even exceptions where TBC can make an image worse, due to the flaws being so entangled into image/signal that correcting/removing harms the video. Clueless people blame the TBC, make dumb statements that "all TBCs are bad", rather than comprehend the full issue. That's assuming the TBC isn't flawed/damaged in some way, because many are/were. A quality TBC for consumer format analog ingest isn't a random TBC, and it's a wide term.

TBCs allow us to babysit captures less. We can let the capture hardware do its thing (VCR>TBC>card captures out video), with monitoring, but with no real invention needed.

You could even think of TBCs as insurance. With frame TBC, you know you're getting the best "quality" (actually capture integrity, signal quality, not visual). Without TBC, it's really just guessing, or overly relying on drop/insert counters (which can be deeply flawed with some cards/software), unless a deep-dive verification is performed post-capture. The net effect is that TBC removes project time needed.

You (lollo), do all sorts of deep dives (Avisynth, histograms, etc), you're almost a "rabbit hole master" of sorts.

But most others, even myself, not so much. TBCs pay for themselves if "time is money" (or time has any value to you).

I definitely NOT a $$$ pro TBC maniac and honestly, RF-capture would require more time than I have left on this earth

It doesn't have to be that binary choice.

There are budget solutions, though with quality hits. For example, the TBC(ish) use of the ES10/15, which has strong+crippled line TBC, non-TBC frame sync, with some posterization/luma/etc image degradations. But it's better than nothing (no TBCs), and can be paired with non-TBC JVC S-VHS. Feed that to AIW, and it's acceptable results, even quite good results. And still not that different from what we're seeing out of vhs-decode results --- but way easier, and vastly cheaper.

I'm such a noob here. I have a lot of gear, SVHS VCR's, DVD HDD recorders, XP PCs, but not much in capture cards.
I looked for the ATI AIW 9800XT and Radeon 7500 cards and found not much on eBay. Is the 9800 PRO as good? I just don't know. A list of OK cards would be nice.
Best "bang for buck" VHS capture? (I have read the Retro Game captures are NOT good for VCR. RetroTINK even expensive, not ideal.)

You just need a standard workflow: VCR > TBC > capture card.

If you have XP PCs, then ATI AIW are outstanding, some of the best cards ever made. When you say "9800 PRO", be sure it's "All In Wonder". but not just am ATI graphics card. It has to be AIW to have the video. Remember, AIW is just video, audio is slaved to a quality audio card, such as Turtle Beach Santa Cruz.

For your needs, it sounds as if you already have the S-VHS VCRs, maybe the passthrough TBC(ish) Panasonic DVD recorders, the XP system for capture.
- If your DVD recorders are not Panasonic ES10/15-type, then get one, it's cheap, under $200 at most, sometimes even under $100, all over eBay. ES15 was a highly produced model, and the supply of them may never give out. It's not a TBC replacement of any sort, but it's a budget option for budget workflows.
- An AGP AIW should be easy/affordable to locate -- but do know that many are damaged cards on eBay (even the so-called "tested" and "working" listings). Tip: If you receive it in an envelope, not a box, just return it immediately. It's almost guaranteed damaged, and the seller is an idiot. Try to insist they use a box to ship when paying, but most sellers (like most people) don't read.

although the improvement over VHS is rather amazing BUT is it as dramatic on SVHS?

It's all misleading, as shown on recent pages. Simply using quality S-VHS VCRs (with line TBC) is the same or better than vhs-decode. There's no drastic improvement to quality. I do think the -decode project has extreme value to other formats that lacked quality playback hardware, such as Betamax. But, for whatever reason, they opt to reinvent the VHS wheel.

In my opinion, I feel like a card such as the IOData GV-USB2 or Hauppauge USB-Live 2 will probably be the better choice,

Those are mostly choices for people that insist (A) it must be new from Amazon/eBay/Temu/Walmart/etc, and (B) it be under $100. Neither are really reasonable demands, but those are the results you get. The irony here is that neither card is "new" in any way, but just long-lived 00s USB cards, though with some production changes over time.

Live2 is definitely the worst of the two cards.

Be aware of GV-USB2 fakes, and actual Japanese GV need the Japanese AmaRecTV to function properly (VirtualDub generally rejects). GV has PAL fans, but not really NTSC -- which isn't unusual, lots of cards do favor one format, then "also do" the other (but compromised in some way, either video quality or usage/UX quality).

I don't necessarily object to either card be used (as you could do far worse), but there are better (with some taking effort to setup).

[lollo]

Concerning the need of an external TBC, I am one of the few disagreeing with lordsmurf that is always needed, because I do not see a need for tapes in pristine shape like mines. But is not so common, so what you wrote in term of TBC "you don't need TBC. at all" is a non sense.

It's not so much that it's "always" needed, but rather "almost always". There are exceptions. However, everybody always wants to think themselves the exception. So the general rule is that TBC is needed, with exceptions. But the exceptions do not overrule the rule.

I see it the other way aroud. Use external TBC (I do not use the term frame TBC because is confusing) only when needed.
Even because beeing an additional device it adds degradation to the signal (because A/D and D/A conversion, extra hardware, cables, and so on), being this very small or visible.

You could even think of TBCs as insurance. With frame TBC, you know you're getting the best "quality" (actually capture integrity, signal quality, not visual). Without TBC, it's really just guessing, or overly relying on drop/insert counters (which can be deeply flawed with some cards/software), unless a deep-dive verification is performed post-capture. The net effect is that TBC removes project time needed.

Once more, it happens that the "signal quality" is already present, so blindly introducing a degradation is a mistake if you care about high quality of the outcomes.
If you do not care much about best quality then yes, always put an external TBC and be on the safe side.

You (lollo), do all sorts of deep dives (Avisynth, histograms, etc), you're almost a "rabbit hole master" of sorts.

But most others, even myself, not so much. TBCs pay for themselves if "time is money" (or time has any value to you).

The deep dives are required to check the quality of the analog capture in any serious workflow. You cannot assume that the result is ok, even if you use an external TBC. Because patterns of luminance and chroma, their levels, histograms, dropped/inserted frames, colors, and so on.
You need to re-capture if something went wrong, and only an analysis of what you get can determine that.

The irony here is that neither card is "new" in any way, but just long-lived 00s USB cards, though with some production changes over time.

False. The USB-Live 2 has been the same hardware for a decade, for example.
Just recently this year a new version of it has been seen: https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/417100-Improve-Hauppauge-USB-Live2-capture-quality?
I do not own one of these so I cannot conclude, although the presented results are in line with what expected.

Live2 is definitely the worst of the two cards.

False. We checked once a comparison: https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/406066-What-is-best-capture-device/page3#post2660565, and there are many other examples around.
The disadvantage of the USB-Live is that require to be fed with a Y/C input signal, having a poor comb filter. But we always recommend a workflow with Y/C input signal, so not really an issue.

I own myself a GV-USB2, which is an excellent card, that I use when capturing from composite from some VCRs and cannot use the ES-15 to obtain the Y/C signal because the brightness problem (sometimes it happens).

I don't necessarily object to either card be used (as you could do far worse), but there are better (with some taking effort to setup).

In term of quality the USB-Live 2 and the GV-USB2 are in pair with the mentioned ATI USB 600 and Pinnacle 710 USB (and that you sell, together with the external TBCs, so again be careful with a potential conflict of interest), as shown in many examples in the forums. You do not want me to repost for the nth time always the same links, don't you

[lordsmurf]

I see it the other way aroud.

Ok. Fine by me.

The deep dives are required to check the quality of the analog capture in any serious workflow. You cannot assume that the result is ok, even if you use an external TBC.
You need to re-capture if something went wrong, and only an analysis of what you get can determine that.

That's my point. By using frame/external TBC, you significantly reduce the odds of errors and re-captures. You just need to verify, and it doesn't really need a detailed frame-by-frame inspection. The gear literally has one job, and quality units it perform it perfectly. No guesswork involved. No wasted time.

// end reply to @lollo

Consider this:
- If TBCs only cost $10, almost nobody would state TBC isn't needed.
- If TBCs were embedded in all capture cards (and all cards cost, say, $300 minimum), almost nobody would complain.
- Few complain about line TBC embedded in good non-cheapo VCRs, regardless of deck costs.

But an "external" item is, for whatever reason, wrongly perceived as "optional". Even worse is because the effects are not "visual" (but TBCs are like oxygen -- you need it, but you just can't see it with the naked eye).

So it really is about money. It's not about if it performs, or how well it performs.

Getting back on topic to the thread...

While the vhs-decode project was not forked (from ld-decode/Domeday86) due to money, it has been warped/distorted to be about money. Blindly about money, ignorantly about money.

And hypocritically about money, seeing as how the small hardware add-ins and HDD space require lots of money, exceeding the budget-grade TBC option costs.

So at what point is it really about "better" quality? -- which is actively being debunked by others, with true 1:1 S-VHS vs. vhs-decode samples,
Or about money, regardless of quality?
Or just a cult?

I really wish people would just say "I can't afford that, so I'm trying this alternate item/method" instead of BS'ing with "it's not needed, it's crap, derp derp". Honesty really is the best policy. I often do that with non-video tools, because those "fancy/pro" items are simply not within my budgeting for that project (and lack of resale is a part of my non-AV/photo decisions).

[MrCreosote]

I see it the other way aroud.

Ok. Fine by me.

The deep dives are required to check the quality of the analog capture in any serious workflow. You cannot assume that the result is ok, even if you use an external TBC.
You need to re-capture if something went wrong, and only an analysis of what you get can determine that.

That's my point. By using frame/external TBC, you significantly reduce the odds of errors and re-captures. You just need to verify, and it doesn't really need a detailed frame-by-frame inspection. The gear literally has one job, and quality units it perform it perfectly. No guesswork involved. No wasted time.

// end reply to @lollo

Consider this:
- If TBCs only cost $10, almost nobody would state TBC isn't needed.
- If TBCs were embedded in all capture cards (and all cards cost, say, $300 minimum), almost nobody would complain.
- Few complain about line TBC embedded in good non-cheapo VCRs, regardless of deck costs.

But an "external" item is, for whatever reason, wrongly perceived as "optional". Even worse is because the effects are not "visual" (but TBCs are like oxygen -- you need it, but you just can't see it with the naked eye).

So it really is about money. It's not about if it performs, or how well it performs.

Getting back on topic to the thread...

While the vhs-decode project was not forked (from ld-decode/Domeday86) due to money, it has been warped/distorted to be about money. Blindly about money, ignorantly about money.

And hypocritically about money, seeing as how the small hardware add-ins and HDD space require lots of money, exceeding the budget-grade TBC option costs.

So at what point is it really about "better" quality? -- which is actively being debunked by others, with true 1:1 S-VHS vs. vhs-decode samples,
Or about money, regardless of quality?
Or just a cult?

I really wish people would just say "I can't afford that, so I'm trying this alternate item/method" instead of BS'ing with "it's not needed, it's crap, derp derp". Honesty really is the best policy. I often do that with non-video tools, because those "fancy/pro" items are simply not within my budgeting for that project (and lack of resale is a part of my non-AV/photo decisions).

For me it's Time, not Money - I've even considered paying iMemory to do my stuff if I thought it would be done right. (I want indexes or chapters at every record session on the tape.)

[The 14th Doctor]

For me it's Time, not Money - I've even considered paying iMemory to do my stuff if I thought it would be done right. (I want indexes or chapters at every record session on the tape.)

iMemory, as in this iMemories? Hm, seems like they could be another LegacyBox situation (as in they give horrible results, turnaround time is forever and at worst the original tape or photos, film reels, etc is forever lost or damaged, as a reddit comment once said "I would find an individual. These places charge premium prices to slap something into a VCR and walk away. There are many enthusiasts who are far more attentive and don't charge corporate prices."

Seeing how you already have a, or multiple, S-VHS VCR(s), and can benefit by using a Panasonic ES10 or ES15 as a line TBC like device. I'd say you'd be betting off getting a suggested capture card and doing it yourself, but that's just what I think.

Apologies if I'm derailing this thread as I'm not even talking about decode here.

[lollo]

Consider this:
- If TBCs only cost $10, almost nobody would state TBC isn't needed.

It is not a question of money (I never mentioned this), but of quality. Even if it costs nothing, why introduce a potential degradation if not needed?

- If TBCs were embedded in all capture cards (and all cards cost, say, $300 minimum), almost nobody would complain.

Of course, because you avoid an external device, an additional A/D and D/A conversion, connecting cables and so on. Then the quality won't suffer (othh it would be nice to have that feature enabled/disabled by a setting).

- Few complain about line TBC embedded in good non-cheapo VCRs, regardless of deck costs.

We have no choice. While is true that internally to the VCR there is a A/D conversion for the time base correction and then a D/A conversion for generating the analog outputs, this is done inside the device and in any case this feature is mandatory for a good capture (contrary to the additional external device).

Off topic:

BTW, if we could have access to the digitized data at the output of the TBC circuits inside the VCRs it would be a wonder: no capture card needed, just a packing data/format conversion/what else.

As alternative to vhs-decode, which reads the RF output, a nice project could be to develop dedicated additional hardware for above purpose.
Just raving

[lordsmurf]

Of course, because you avoid an external device, an additional A/D and D/A conversion, connecting cables and so on. Then the quality won't suffer

This line of argument is extremely recent, last few years, started by newbies. And sometimes repeated by non-newbies, though rarer. It's just not accurate for multiple reasons. The A<>D process is not harmful any more than colorspace conversions are harmful. It's just how video processing functions. The anti-TBC crowd has latched onto this argument, but it's so weak, "grasping at straws".

Analogy: A lot of recipes require that you boil water, mix in contents, stir/prep more, then re-heat the water to a boil (then simmer). By the anti-A<>D logic, "oh no, you heat the water twice!!! it's ruined!!!!" --- which is, of course, ridiculous. That's just how the process works. If you try to "be smart" and boil once, you quickly learn (the hard way) why the recipe calls for two boils.

BTW, if we could have access to the digitized data at the output of the TBC circuits inside the VCRs it would be a wonder: no capture card needed, just a packing data/format conversion/what else.
As alternative to vhs-decode, which reads the RF output, a nice project could be to develop dedicated additional hardware for above purpose.
Just raving

Completely agree.

This is another of those "we never got it" items. I can fathom so many useful items that would have further capture, such as a non-NR cNR in-capture (modification of JVC filters, ie LSI), in-card TBC (non-SDI), even in-VCR TBC digital out. Some of these items were really close to existing, but the '08-09 recession stopped it.

[lollo]

The A<>D process is not harmful any more the colorspace conversions are harmful. It's just how video processing functions. The anti-TBC crowd has latched onto this argument, but it's so weak, "grasping at straws".

It is, by physical laws. All the rest is nonsense.

Analogy: A lot of recipes require that you boil water, mix in contents, stir/prep more, then re-heat the water to a boil (then simmer). By the anti-A<>D logic, "oh no, you heat the water twice!!! it's ruined!!!!" --- which is, of course, ridiculous. That's just how the process works. If you try to "be smart" and boil once, you quickly learn (the hard way) why the recipe calls for two boils.

The only ridiculous stuff is your stupid and inadequate example.

This is another of those "we never got it" items. I can fathom so many useful items that would have further capture, such as a non-NR cNR in-capture (modification of JVC filters, ie LSI), in-card TBC (non-SDI), even in-VCR TBC digital out. Some of these items were really close to existing, but the '08-09 recession stopped it.

I did not see that happening prior to 08-08, except for TBC integrated in capture cards (BTW SDI is nice, whatever you like it or not; dellsam34's and others testimony and samples prove it). Maybe some isolated attempt by hobbyists. But yes, a nice list of interesting features.

[dellsam34]

If we could have access to the digitized data at the output of the TBC circuits inside the VCRs it would be a wonder: no capture card needed, just a packing data/format conversion/what else.

As alternative to vhs-decode, which reads the RF output, a nice project could be to develop dedicated additional hardware for above purpose.
Just raving

Not sure how hard to reverse engineer those chips. Maybe it's impossible, maybe it's because no one has tried it yet, Who knows. But if extracted, it seems that it's much easier to deal with digital pockets of scan lines than an entire process of RF capture and conversion.

But I think the VHS-decode concept is better because it eliminates most of the VCR electronics, I wish they can includ motors servos controls in the system so that way any VCR can do any video format (525/625), all you need is the machanism, heck you can even make your own VCR cabinet if you have access to a 3D printer.

Edit:
Here is a typical motor control in some JVC VCRs on the left side of the micro processor chip, It is tied to the system control chip though but it is not hard to come up with a similar system that deals with motor control only:

[Sharc]

The A<>D process is not harmful any more the colorspace conversions are harmful. It's just how video processing functions. The anti-TBC crowd has latched onto this argument, but it's so weak, "grasping at straws".

It is, by physical laws. All the rest is nonsense.

Internal or external device's DACs are usually 10bits at least, as compared to standard 8bit video. So yes, every AD conversion introduces quantizing noise which doubles in power (+3dB) with each doubling of the number of AD conversions (of same resolution). Yet it has to be compared with the intrinsic noise of (S-)VHS video and its native 8bit integer rounding errors, e.g. producing gaps or spikes in the histogram in case of level adjustments in the digital 8bit realm. After all, I am not really worried about 1 or 2 extra AD conversions by "external" 10 or 12 bit resolution ADCs, providing the signal levels are set properly.

[dellsam34]

Most if not all consumer external TBCs are 8 bit 4:2:2, Few are actually 8bit 4:1:1. The most famous Datavideo TBC-1000, TBC-3000, TBC-4000, TBC-6000 and TBC-7000 are all 8bit.

[lollo]

And the A/D D/A is not the only aspect; any additional element introduces (neglettable or important) degradation. Better do not risk if not necessary.