viewing Vhs ... hdmi output better?

[Tom81]

I am plugging my vhs player into an Epson video projector with composite output to composite input on the Epson (the projector model does not have svhs input but does have hdmi input). If I get a dvd/vhs combo unit with an hdmi output and use that to input into the Epson will I get a noticeably, better picture projected from VHS tape?

[davexnet]

I don't think there is a clear cut answer. Will the combo unit be doing any noise reduction and/or picture stabilization? Upscale?

[GAhere]

Short answer.. NO.

SD video, is SD video quality no matter how much you process and reprocess.

In fact doing so potentially could have the opposite effect of what you are trying to accomplish as you are adding a lot of uneeded signal processing into the chain.

Longer answer..

The video inputs like composite, S-Video, Component are already "scaled up" in your viewing device. A "scaler" should already be built in to the TV or in your case projector if it has lower resolution inputs. A scaler takes lower resolutions and converts them to a more usable format which matches the viewing devices "native" resolution.

It is however possible that the built in scaler may not be as good as it should or could be. For those cases then what you want is a standalone EXTERNAL scaler which may or may not be superior to the built in scaler. A standalone scaler will not have additional extra processing that may degrade the picture further or introduce unwanted artifacts or delay the video (delayed video means the video will lag the audio causing a noticeable sync problem when folks are talking)..

Up Scalers (SD to HDMI) work by adding duplicate lines into the digital stream, they do not add more detail by doing so so they are not miracle workers.

In your case, you could by a composite to HDMI scaler and see if you get an improvement, they often will give you several settings like 720 and 1080.. But be warned, don't expect the SD video from a VHS tape to look as good as a video source that started life as 720 or 1080..

VHS is a pretty poor example of SD quality video to start with, Beta, 8mm tape, Hi8mm tape and DVD were far superior in SD video quality and if the VHS was recorded in SLP (6hr mode) it is almost not worth messing with unless you are trying to play "home movies" you recorded of your family on a camcorder..

If it is commercially available movie releases on VHS, you are better off buying DVD versions which are far superior to VHS in every aspect for video and sound quality. Granted, not every movie released on VHS have been rereleased on DVD, but most have been.

Back to home movies, you might consider the idea of doing a video capture to digital format, then you can try out making enhancements/alterations via editing software. This also gives you the chance to also upscale by saving the video in a higher resolution format. But be aware, sometimes trying to enhance details to be sharper with VHS will often create other noticeable defects, it becomes a game of trade offs..

But no matter what you do, you cannot put more detail or info into VHS recordings if that is what you are wanting to do..

[rgr]

I am plugging my vhs player into an Epson video projector with composite output to composite input on the Epson (the projector model does not have svhs input but does have hdmi input). If I get a dvd/vhs combo unit with an hdmi output and use that to input into the Epson will I get a noticeably, better picture projected from VHS tape?

It depends on which has better image processing (image correction, upscaling, denoising).
Ideally, the DVD recorder should be based on a JVC chip (this rules out Panasonic, but I think Pioneers had such a chip).
Plus, you won't gain much (really little) by converting the analog to digital path.

[GAhere]

I am plugging my vhs player into an Epson video projector with composite output to composite input on the Epson (the projector model does not have svhs input but does have hdmi input). If I get a dvd/vhs combo unit with an hdmi output and use that to input into the Epson will I get a noticeably, better picture projected from VHS tape?

It depends on which has better image processing (image correction, upscaling, denoising).
Ideally, the DVD recorder should be based on a JVC chip (this rules out Panasonic, but I think Pioneers had such a chip).
Plus, you won't gain much (really little) by converting the analog to digital path.

Dollars to doughnuts, finding a used working DVD recorder that you would not have to repair will be a fare more expensive proposition than if you just bought a Composite to HDMI scaler.. Not to mention a fair chance that the cheap standalone scaler will be far better than what was available back when DVD recorders were manufactured..

You can get a Composite to HDMI scaler for as low as $11 on Amazon..

https://www.amazon.com/Converter-Adapter-1080P-Composite-Support/dp/B0C7N7CZ5Y/ref=sr_...NIkLhCpl8&th=1

Some scalers have additional capabilities of multiple output resolutions like this one..

https://www.amazon.com/YITROX-Svideo-Converter-Upscaler-Support/dp/B0BJVXHY8D/ref=sr_1...=qLHvNIkLhCpl8

Or this one that allows you to adjust color/brightness/contrast/hue/saturation plus standard 4_3 or widescreen 16-9

https://www.amazon.com/ClearClick-AV-HDMI-3-0-Generation/dp/B0GK2S2QWX/ref=sr_1_26?cri...=qLHvNIkLhCpl8


[Attachment 92136 - Click to enlarge]

Using a DVD recorder as a means to upscale is an obsolete method of achieving composite to HDMI scaling..

If you have a DVD recorder on hand, try it.

If you do not have a DVD recorder, don't buy one just for this issue.. Instead buy a stand alone video scaler.

Something else to consider, if the projector has a zoom or overscan setting like stretch, stretch to fit, do not use that setting, you want NORMAL. Stretching means the scaler will attempt to fill the 16-9 widescreen of the projector with a 4-3 aspect source as such it magnifies the video which will not only clip the top and bottom of the video but amplify ALL of the noise inherent to VHS making a OK picture look absolutely horrible and unwatchable..

Yes, no stretch means you are not using all of the widescreen and yes that means you will have black sides but it will be much better looking.

[VWestlife]

Don't overthink it. If the projector has a composite input, use it. End of story!

[GAhere]

Don't overthink it. If the projector has a composite input, use it. End of story!

I would have to agree with this.

However, there can be some advantages of using an external scaler in order to use HDMI inputs.

For example, I have a 50" TV which has composite, component and HDMI inputs but I do have several SD composite video devices I like to use. The TV has very limited settings options on the analog composite jacks, and the HDMI inputs have far greater adjust ability which allows me to fine tune the video source to look the best I can get it. So, for the SD composite items I have, I opted for the external composite to HDMI scaler. Just for the additional adjustability it was worth spending $40 in my case..

This may or may not be the case for everyone so your mileage may vary..

[rgr]

I have no problem finding such DVD recorders, and I buy them from time to time (I'm currently getting a DMR EH-775 for 50 euros). Chinese converters for $10 without TBC-like functionality? Better not.

[GAhere]

I have no problem finding such DVD recorders, and I buy them from time to time (I'm currently getting a DMR EH-775 for 50 euros). Chinese converters for $10 without TBC-like functionality? Better not.

TVs, projectors have zero "need" for TBC so no "need" for a DVD recorder to mundge up the video chain more.

Not to mention, the TBCs in the likes of some DVD recorders were garbage and in reality not real TBC. I know TBCs have been tossed around on this and other forums as the "savior" of everything video, that view is rather skewed.

The reality is CONSUMER TBCs are not real TBCs.

To get a 100% real TBC, you must dive into COMMERCIAL units which were made for the commercial broadcasters.

To fully understand and appreciate TBCs and functions you have to go into a lot of electronics and TV theory.

In a nutshell commercial TBCs fully strip out the horizontal and vertical sync signals, only using the original sync signals to establish the base timing. Then it recreates brand new sync signals which are rock steady using a highly stable master oscillator to broadcast engineering specifications. The new sync pulses are then added back into the video. The result will be a clean, stable video waveform that conforms to standardized levels.

TBCs in consumer equipment are far less accurate and far less stable and would never have been used for commercial broadcasting and the output is an approximate to standardized levels.

Commercial TBCs also have one additional thing called "genlock", genlock is basically an input to the TBC which allowed one to use a "master clock" signal to all of the equipment. This allowed one to use multiple video sources while switching between sources and yet maintain full lock between sources (glitch free editing).

DVD recorders have no such capability as gen lock (IE use an external precision master clock).

Here is an example of a commercial quality TBC..

https://www.bsbroadcast.com/snell-wilcox-tbs180-advanced-time-base-corrector.html

"The Snell & Wilcox TBS180 provides multi-standard Y/C, Composite and SDI timebase correction and synchronization. The Composite input automatically detects PAL, NTSC, NTSC-J, PAL-N, PAL-M, N4.43 and SECAM, and is sampled and decoded using an adaptive comb filter to ensure optimum decoding performance. The signal correction features include luminance and chrominance gain, black level, NTSC hue, vertical and horizontal enhancers, RGB gamut legalizer, YC horizontal timing and picture position.

Rugged sync and clock recovery ensures reliable operation with unstable and noisy inputs. In addition a powerful frame recursive noise reducer automatically eliminates much background noise providing much improved performance over adaptive technology. A sophisticated motion detector seamlessly switches off the noise reduction in moving picture areas. The broadcast quality 12-bit output encoder is fully genlockable to a composite reference and supports PAL, NTSC, NTSC-J, PAL-N, PAL-M, N4.43 and SECAM. The TBS180 will also operate as a transcoder between any of the available standards of the same line rate. Serial digital component outputs are available simultaneously on the Snell & Wilcox TBS180."


Absolutely no consumer "TBC" can stack up to a real commercial TBC.

But, that is not the issue the OP is asking about, the issue is can they obtain a much better looking picture on their projector by converting the analog composite VHS to a digital HDMI and using the HDMI input on the projector.

The answer is not clear, it depends highly on how good of a SCALER the projector has built into the composite port and if an external scaler may be better.

Has nothing to do with a DVD recorder having a TBC or not, but more about the quality of the SCALER the DVD recorder may have which is what is used on the DVD recorders which featured a HDMI output.

And for the record not ALL DVD recorders featured HDMI outputs, most will have composite at a minimum or had composite and component.. I have one that features composite and component but no HDMI as it was built and sold way before HDMI ever was available.

I personally would rather spend $40 for a brand new scaler than $10 on a used DVD recorder which will have old caps ready to fail if not failed. Not to mention, scalers are tiny little "black boxes" that can be velcroed to the projector/TV/video player and you don't have to keep or lug around a large DVD recorder on top of the VHS deck.

[aramkolt]

I think I posted on your other thread, but you might look to those who do live viewing of laserdiscs and are trying to squeeze out the best picture on modern TVs. Laserdiscs are natively composite. However, there's more to be gained from laserdisc as the horizontal effective resolution is a lot higher. You are more likely to run into typical composite issues (dot crawl, rainbowing) with higher resolution sources as the patterns on screen can be "finer" and alternating brightness patterns can be confused for color information instead.

With composite, much of the result comes down to how good the comb filter is in the device that is internally separating the chroma and luma. There can be a lot of variation there. However, if you aren't seeing dot crawl or rainbowing on fine repeating patterns that bothers you, then the projector is already solving some of the bigger visual issues that inferior comb filters can have. From there, all you really have to gain from fancier scalers and S-Video use would be a possibly sharper image. Sharper often means more chroma noise and "grain" which can trick the eyes into thinking the image is higher resolution. I kind of like that sort of grain myself, but it's often down to preference.

On a minimal budget and for convenience, you might find it reasonable to try a cheap composite to HDMI scaler as they are indeed under $15 and you might prefer the picture from it. Since they aren't all made by the same manufacturer and likely have had several revisions over the years, you won't really know if you're getting one of the better or poorer ones though. The few demos I've seen of these often appear kind of plastic-y and oversmoothened.

As far as DVD recorder scalers (advantage here is that they can accept S-Video and might possibly deinterlace and scale better than the projector), the one I dabbled with is what 12VoltVids showed on his capture setup which I visually determined the model to be a Toshiba DR430. I bought two parts units and got both working well with what I'd say was a moderate degree of recapping required. The idea was to compare several popular Youtubers' recommended capture chains against each other on the same source. What is kind of unique about this player is that it has LED indicators on the front that tell you what the input is being scaled to and it would apply any appropriate audio delays during passthrough as well. I believe it can scale to 480p, 720p, 1080p and 1080i.

Quite a few laserdisc users do say they like the picture through an upscaling DVD player better than modern composite only input devices (mainly for the more advanced comb filtering). Since you'd be using S-Video, you should get even better results than the "best" DVD player comb filter as there is no "perfect" comb filter. VHS being relatively low effective won't likely have quite as much to gain than laserdisc though. Just some quick googling says laserdisc has about 425 lines of horizontal resolution whereas regular VHS might only have 240. This means that if you take a width of the display that is equal to the height of the screen (so in a square viewing window), you can distinguish that many alternating equal width vertical lines from each other without them blending or bleeding together.

If you know anyone else with a projector that does have S-Video input, maybe bring your VHS player there to see if you really can even tell a significant difference with S-Video via projector before second guessing how good composite looks on yours.

Another test you might do is take a short clip of something captured from VHS to a DVD recorder (onto disc) via S-Video and then play that on a DVD player via HDMI out into your projector and compare it to the composite output from the same DVD player into your projector. If you can't really tell a difference, I'd say stick with composite that it has. Starting with a VHS source is important here because you'll want the original source to have been the 240lines of horizontal resolution. I could make you a short burnable ISO of a DVD recorded that way and post if you're interested, you'd just need a DVD burner for the test and then the a DVD player that has both HDMI out and composite out.

[rgr]

I have no problem finding such DVD recorders, and I buy them from time to time (I'm currently getting a DMR EH-775 for 50 euros). Chinese converters for $10 without TBC-like functionality? Better not.

TVs, projectors have zero "need" for TBC so no "need" for a DVD recorder to mundge up the video chain more.

??? It's nonsense. So why was TBC created if it is "not needed"?

Not to mention, the TBCs in the likes of some DVD recorders were garbage and in reality not real TBC. I know TBCs have been tossed around on this and other forums as the "savior" of everything video, that view is rather skewed.

??? After all, this is also nonsense, as has already been confirmed many times in the tests that are available on this forum. TBC in DVD burners is quite effective.

In a nutshell commercial TBCs fully strip out the horizontal and vertical sync signals, only using the original sync signals to establish the base timing. Then it recreates brand new sync signals which are rock steady using a highly stable master oscillator to broadcast engineering specifications. The new sync pulses are then added back into the video. The result will be a clean, stable video waveform that conforms to standardized levels.

And that's how DVD Recorders work - they digitize the analog signal and then replay it from the digital form.

TBCs in consumer equipment are far less accurate and far less stable and would never have been used for commercial broadcasting and the output is an approximate to standardized levels.

This is obvious, but for home needs, the algorithms available in DVD burners are sufficient. It's like playing a VHS tape - you can have great equipment for $500, and you can have very good equipment for $50.

Commercial TBCs also have one additional thing called "genlock", genlock is basically an input to the TBC which allowed one to use a "master clock" signal to all of the equipment. This allowed one to use multiple video sources while switching between sources and yet maintain full lock between sources (glitch free editing). DVD recorders have no such capability as gen lock (IE use an external precision master clock).

I'm glad. But do we need this for our home VCR?

And for the record not ALL DVD recorders featured HDMI outputs, most will have composite at a minimum or had composite and component.. I have one that features composite and component but no HDMI as it was built and sold way before HDMI ever was available.

Is there anything simpler than checking if a device has HDMI?

I personally would rather spend $40 for a brand new scaler

Which scaler has TBC-like features like DVD burners?

Edit: Do you even have a VCR?

[GAhere]

I have no problem finding such DVD recorders, and I buy them from time to time (I'm currently getting a DMR EH-775 for 50 euros). Chinese converters for $10 without TBC-like functionality? Better not.

TVs, projectors have zero "need" for TBC so no "need" for a DVD recorder to mundge up the video chain more.

??? It's nonsense. So why was TBC created if it is "not needed"?

Not to mention, the TBCs in the likes of some DVD recorders were garbage and in reality not real TBC. I know TBCs have been tossed around on this and other forums as the "savior" of everything video, that view is rather skewed.

??? After all, this is also nonsense, as has already been confirmed many times in the tests that are available on this forum. TBC in DVD burners is quite effective.

In a nutshell commercial TBCs fully strip out the horizontal and vertical sync signals, only using the original sync signals to establish the base timing. Then it recreates brand new sync signals which are rock steady using a highly stable master oscillator to broadcast engineering specifications. The new sync pulses are then added back into the video. The result will be a clean, stable video waveform that conforms to standardized levels.

And that's how DVD Recorders work - they digitize the analog signal and then replay it from the digital form.

TBCs in consumer equipment are far less accurate and far less stable and would never have been used for commercial broadcasting and the output is an approximate to standardized levels.

This is obvious, but for home needs, the algorithms available in DVD burners are sufficient. It's like playing a VHS tape - you can have great equipment for $500, and you can have very good equipment for $50.

Commercial TBCs also have one additional thing called "genlock", genlock is basically an input to the TBC which allowed one to use a "master clock" signal to all of the equipment. This allowed one to use multiple video sources while switching between sources and yet maintain full lock between sources (glitch free editing). DVD recorders have no such capability as gen lock (IE use an external precision master clock).

I'm glad. But do we need this for our home VCR?

And for the record not ALL DVD recorders featured HDMI outputs, most will have composite at a minimum or had composite and component.. I have one that features composite and component but no HDMI as it was built and sold way before HDMI ever was available.

Is there anything simpler than checking if a device has HDMI?

I personally would rather spend $40 for a brand new scaler

Which scaler has TBC-like features like DVD burners?

Edit: Do you even have a VCR?

It is obvious that you have never worked in the TV broadcast industry nor have had any electronics training nor have worked in the TV/audio or other electronics sectors.

Yes, I do, not only 1 VHS, but 4 VHS units, plus 3 Hi8mm tape decks, plus 1 Hi8mm tape camcorder, plus 1 HD digital Camcorder that records to SD cards, plus 1 DVD recorder. In addition have three standalone recorders, one is a Sandisk recorder which records video to SD card, and two Argosy HV359T recorder/players that record digitally to internal HDs, plus a bunch of DVD players. All in working order by the way. Multiple TVs starting with some 1970s era Philco and Zenith that I have repaired and still have plus many more modern LCD TVs.. In the past have owned a early color 1/2" Reel to reel portable VTR, multiple Beta machines.

First job out of Tech school was working with Broadcast quality video editing equipment, company had in the main editing suite 3 nice Sony 1" Reel to reel editing decks, two 3/4" uMatic decks, 1 Panasonic Industrial VHS, 1 Beta machine, each 1" inch deck had it's own TBC by the way. That suite also had a full editing studio, Grass Valley switcher ect. Second suite had 3/4 uMatic editing machines and a lot less equipment.. They also had a studio for in house video shoots, plus had multiple 1" and 3/4 portable VTRs and assortment of broadcast cameras and mics to round things out. I was one of two Techs that had to oversee all maintenance and repairs of all the equipment.. Even got to do camera tube alignments using standardized charts. Everything HAD to be to broadcast specs as any or all of the equipment could be used for commercial broadcasts. Was pretty cool as a young adult to get to play with multi-million dollars worth of equipment..

Also spent nearly 5 yrs working in TV/VCR/stereo/sat (C band big dish) repair shops in my early career days moving into computer repair in industrial equipment in my later yrs.

I also have received multiple warranty repair certifications from IBM, Okidata, HP and other computer peripherals over the yrs and lots of Windows training, not to mention a degree in electronics.

I won't bore you with all the audio and computer equipment I have or have worked on and repaired..

So, what is your specialty and work record?

What is your "qualifications" other than a keyboard jock?

Oh and by the way, analog VHS eventually had three recording speeds, 2hr SP (standard play), 4hr LP (Long Play) and 6hr SLP (Super Long Play). LP and SLP was achieved by slowing the tape speed which resulted in a lower quality picture all commercially recorded store bought VHS releases where done using SP for the best picture. LP never really caught on and most recorders eventually removed the option to record at LP only offering SP and SLP recording options. Better VHS machines offered 4 head video drums, 4 head drums allowed for a specialized dedicated head for SLP which resulted in better 6hr video over 4hr LP video.

[lordsmurf]

Don't overthink it. If the projector has a composite input, use it. End of story!

^ This.

Not to mention, the TBCs in the likes of some DVD recorders were garbage and in reality not real TBC. I know TBCs have been tossed around on this and other forums as the "savior" of everything video, that view is rather skewed.

Yes, the "TBCs" in DVD recorders are vastly overstated in ability.
But also not worthless, very good (and specific) uses exists when it comes to videotape conversion.

The reality is CONSUMER TBCs are not real TBCs.

There is no such thing as a "consumer TBC". There are, however, TBCs for consumer sources. And those TBCs are bought by pros and hobbyists. But in no way are those "consumer TBCs".

To get a 100% real TBC, you must dive into COMMERCIAL units which were made for the commercial broadcasters.

Not correct. "Commercial" TBCs are rackmount "pizza box" units found in analog studios in the 70s/80s/90s. Those were not made for consumer sources, and most often choke on those. Those expected better or different properties, not the contained chaos you get from VHS tapes, or Hi8/Video8 tapes,

To fully understand and appreciate TBCs and functions you have to go into a lot of electronics and TV theory.
In a nutshell commercial TBCs fully strip out the horizontal and vertical sync signals, only using the original sync signals to establish the base timing. Then it recreates brand new sync signals which are rock steady using a highly stable master oscillator to broadcast engineering specifications. The new sync pulses are then added back into the video. The result will be a clean, stable video waveform that conforms to standardized levels.

You essentially describe a "frame TBC" (or "frame sync TBC").

TBCs in consumer equipment are far less accurate and far less stable and would never have been used for commercial broadcasting and the output is an approximate to standardized levels.

That's because you're confusing frame TBCs with line TBCs. Not the same at all, different purposes. Line essentially cleans the image, while frame essentially cleans the signal. Line is intraframe, frame is interframe.

Commercial TBCs also have one additional thing called "genlock", genlock is basically an input to the TBC which allowed one to use a "master clock" signal to all of the equipment. This allowed one to use multiple video sources while switching between sources and yet maintain full lock between sources (glitch free editing).

Not necessarily. Genlocks are actually also found in some of the "consumer TBCs" (as you wrongly described it). Again, those are just pro/hobby TBCs made for consumer sources, and contain pro features. Some actually have different form factors, though same internals. So you can find rack mount, as well as plastic box.

Here is an example of a commercial quality TBC..
https://www.bsbroadcast.com/snell-wilcox-tbs180-advanced-time-base-corrector.html

Have you used one? If not, you can't make that determination. A lot of those "multi-standard" units only have TBC operating on the conversion, not bypass/passthrough of the signal (ie, NTSC>NTSC, as opposed to NTSC>PAL formats conversion).

Absolutely no consumer "TBC" can stack up to a real commercial TBC.

Equally, no "real commercials" unit can stand up to DataVideo/Cypress type units, when it comes to consumer analog videotape sources.

The answer is not clear,

We met in another thread, you seem kind and knowledgeable. But I would suggest you're far outside your wheelhouse when it comes to TBCs in digital conversion scenarios. What you knew back in broadcasting simply does not translate well here, or at all. Very different topics, even if seemingly the same. I assure you, not the same at all.

Oh and by the way, analog VHS eventually had three recording speeds, 2hr SP (standard play), 4hr LP (Long Play) and 6hr SLP (Super Long Play). LP and SLP was achieved by slowing the tape speed which resulted in a lower quality picture all commercially recorded store bought VHS releases where done using SP for the best picture. LP never really caught on and most recorders eventually removed the option to record at LP only offering SP and SLP recording options. Better VHS machines offered 4 head video drums, 4 head drums allowed for a specialized dedicated head for SLP which resulted in better 6hr video over 4hr LP video.

You're also forgetting the pitch size variable, namely 19µm, which made a difference in recording/playback quality of SLP (later EP).

[GAhere]

Lord smurf, while I do respect your opinions There are some notable assumptions being made.

You stated..

"There is no such thing as a "consumer TBC". There are, however, TBCs for consumer sources. And those TBCs are bought by pros and hobbyists. But in no way are those "consumer TBCs". "

While you are technically correct to a point, the reality the name of TBC has been over hyped and over marketed.

The reality is pro/consumer "TBCs" only do partial signal restoration at best (IE "Line"), while this may shore up horizontal sync it is only addressing ONE issue. There are multiple parts to a video signal at work, you have horizontal, vertical, luminance (brightness), hue (color burst) and even the level between all of the timing signals.

While this "partial" restoration may make the video recordable, it really isn't and actual time based correction.

You stated..

"Have you used one? If not, you can't make that determination. A lot of those "multi-standard" units only have TBC operating on the conversion, not bypass/passthrough of the signal (ie, NTSC>NTSC, as opposed to NTSC>PAL formats conversion)."

The TBC I linked to was only shown to demonstrate what an actual TBC costs now days, the ones I worked with were only NTSC but I can assure you they worked perfectly fine with VHS and Beta to stabilize the the video to broadcast standards. The ones I used back in the 1980s were on the order of about $10K US each. Memory back then was far more expensive than now days..

You stated

"Equally, no "real commercials" unit can stand up to DataVideo/Cypress type units, when it comes to consumer analog videotape sources."

Have you personally tried a commercial broadcast TBC with VHS?

I have, so I know it can be done. But best way is to have waveform monitors and vector scopes so the levels and timing of the output to ensure the levels are not set outside specs.

Wished I had taken some photos of that setup, was very cool and yet it all worked together.

You stated

"We met in another thread, you seem kind and knowledgeable. But I would suggest you're far outside your wheelhouse when it comes to TBCs in digital conversion scenarios. What you knew back in broadcasting simply does not translate well here, or at all. Very different topics, even if seemingly the same. I assure you, not the same at all."

Analog to digital conversion is no different from analog to analog.

The only difference is analog to analog was slightly more "forgiving" than analog to digital for waveform or levels.

A to D devices have limitations as to how much noise or mishaped waveforms outside the design window they can accept.

Most scenarios where one places a DVD recorder into the signal path to a capture device it will reduce (attenuate) the noise in the source signal just enough to reduce A/D conversion errors. The result will be a slightly softened (blurred) picture that the A/D chip can handle.

This result is where many are attributing to the device having TBC but in reality all you are doing is reducing the bandwidth of the video just enough to reduce noise spikes inherent with VHS.. The noise spikes can confuse any A/D process. Every device you place in series with your signal path results in some loss of fidelity, video is no exception to this rule.

As far as A/D of video not being in my "wheelhouse", I take exception to that.

I have successfully captured 100% of my Hi8mm library to digital format, about 15 yrs worth of video I recorded via camcorder. The results are as good looking as the tape when compared side by side.. Literally several hundred hrs documenting my families trips and other events.

I have also 100% successfully captured all of my VHS library that was important to me, less about my family more of preserving parents history. Those digital captures also look as good as the original source tapes. I do have a couple of newly found tapes that are of my wifes family that came to light that I need to look at and capture.

I did not bother capturing movies on VHS that were recorded OTA as those were chopped up "edited for TV" movies with commericals and loss of parts due to censoring. Much better to by a DVD then rip..

I also did capture a lot of uncensored movies from Satellite (big dish) that I recorded on Hi8mm tape into digital format, they looked good other than they were 4-3 TV format.. Have been buying DVDs and ripping those to get 16-9 widescreen format..

By the way, I used no TBC or any other device in the signal path for any captures and yet the result has been no issues with the digitized versions.. The recording devices I have do not seem to take issue with VHS, Hi8 or even recording from my Dish network VIP722.

But it may be helpful to have good working VHS deck to start with that is in alignment, no worn heads.. My decks have very low hrs of use which may contribute to my success.

But all this is a bunny trail from the OPs post..

OP was asking if using a DVD recorder that converts the composite to HDMI in the signal path will improve the result they are getting on their projector..

The answer is still a solid NO..

Additionally, not asked for would be would a TBC improve the result.

The answer would be a solid NO.

The question of would using a composite to HDMI SCALER improve the result..

The answer is a Maybe. However that depends on the quality of the scaler in the projector and the settings that the projector is set to on the composite input.

And NO, absolutely no TBC (fake or real) is going to improve the picture on a projector. The TBC and DVD recorder thing is a bunny trail in this case.

[GAhere]

Dug up some of my capture footage.

First snap shot is a PBS special back in the mid 1980s of Frank Loyd Writes "Falling Water"

This was recorded on VHS using SLP (6Hr) record mode, the only reason I digitized it was that this special was never made available on DVD.


[Attachment 92177 - Click to enlarge]

Next one was recorded on my Sony Hi8 camcorder during a vacation trip, battleship USS North Carolina..


[Attachment 92178 - Click to enlarge]

I would post the video but I don't feel like snipping pieces then rendering it out then uploading..

In both cases, no "timing errors" can be found but you can clearly see that the VHS in 6hr speed and recorded OTA brings along a lot of video noise and is rather soft and the Hi8 has a much less video noise, is a lot sharper. Both are stable captures, might be a little vertical or horizontal movement with both captures but not really detracting, objects are straight, not bent. VHS shows some 6hr speed ghosting on the edges but that is to be expected and Hi8 had very little ghosting artifacts unlike the VHS. However when comparing the analog source to to the digital capture in both cases the captures were impossible to tell if they were degraded, basically a duplicate of the original source, as far as I am concerned, the digitized files for my purpose need no after the fact adjustments or reworking. I am not trying to make my captures look like artificial HD.

[lordsmurf]

But all this is a bunny trail from the OPs post..
OP was asking if using a DVD recorder that converts the composite to HDMI in the signal path will improve the result they are getting on their projector..
The answer is still a solid NO..
Additionally, not asked for would be would a TBC improve the result.
The answer would be a solid NO.
The question of would using a composite to HDMI SCALER improve the result..
The answer is a Maybe. However that depends on the quality of the scaler in the projector and the settings that the projector is set to on the composite input.
And NO, absolutely no TBC (fake or real) is going to improve the picture on a projector. The TBC and DVD recorder thing is a bunny trail in this case.

^ I agree with all this.

While you are technically correct to a point, the reality the name of TBC has been over hyped and over marketed.

The problem is that a single jargon does not exist. It's a loose term.

The reality is pro/consumer "TBCs" only do partial signal restoration at best (IE "Line"), while this may shore up horizontal sync it is only addressing ONE issue. There are multiple parts to a video signal at work,

Correct. You need both line and frame TBC to do a proper thorough job.

only shown to demonstrate what an actual TBC costs now days,

TBCs were always in the $500 to $3000 range, USD.
Few were less, in a very specific window, for very specific reasons: 2000s oversupply, cost cutting, and a worldwide recession brewing. The used market, at that time, was mostly desperate recently-unemployed people selling their gear for quick cash (which is why you find so few original gear owners anymore).

Have you personally tried a commercial broadcast TBC with VHS?

Yes. They all sucked for one reason or another.

Analog to digital conversion is no different from analog to analog.

That's simply not true.
Then you backpeddled the statement with very important differences:

The only difference is analog to analog was slightly more "forgiving" than analog to digital for waveform or levels.
A to D devices have limitations as to how much noise or mishaped waveforms outside the design window they can accept.

Most scenarios where one places a DVD recorder into the signal path to a capture device it will reduce (attenuate) the noise in the source signal just enough to reduce A/D conversion errors. The result will be a slightly softened (blurred) picture that the A/D chip can handle.
This result is where many are attributing to the device having TBC but in reality all you are doing is reducing the bandwidth of the video just enough to reduce noise spikes inherent with VHS.. The noise spikes can confuse any A/D process. Every device you place in series with your signal path results in some loss of fidelity, video is no exception to this rule.

Yes, it's generally true that DVD recorders reduce quality in multiple ways.
But that's not true of all recorders. We specifically reference Panasonic ES10/15 type units. Those have other issues, but not the ones you state. ES10/15 is ideal for "least worst" usage, not always-on "poor man's TBC" (which is false, overstated). Everybody tends to be wrong on what ES10/15 can and cannot do, what it should and should not do. Pros and cons. These days, everybody wants to ignore what they don't agree with, or don't want to address. I blame politics, "alternative facts". Sticking head in sand. "If I close my eyes, you can't see me!"

As far as A/D of video not being in my "wheelhouse", I take exception to that.
I have successfully captured 100% of my Hi8mm library to digital format, about 15 yrs worth of video I recorded via camcorder.
The results are as good looking as the tape when compared side by side.. Literally several hundred hrs documenting my families trips and other events.

Yeah, get back to me after you've captured 10's of thousands of tapes, minimum, for 25+ years. That's where I am. Not your own small stash of tapes.

By the way, I used no TBC or any other device in the signal path for any captures ...
Dug up some of my capture footage.
I would post the video but I don't feel like
In both cases, no "timing errors" can be found

The timing errors in those videos are extremely obvious. You either don't know what a timing error looks like, or you're being intentionally obtuse. Both happen these days, so I will address this as an educator:
The top-screen tearing is obvious, the left-overscan wiggle suggests it, and wiggly antennas and ladders in-image confirm it. That video looks terrible. A posted clip would immediately betray it as chock full of timing errors, no line TBC, tons of wiggles. If also no frame TBC, then dropped frames will be obvious.

[rgr]

OP was asking if using a DVD recorder that converts the composite to HDMI in the signal path will improve the result they are getting on their projector..

The answer is still a solid NO..

Only an amateur could write something like this without even knowing anything about the target device. And I don't even have to try to easily refute your claims – I have a device with a composite and HDMI input (AVernedia). The image from the composite input is so poor quality that it defies all standards; there's no point in using it.

There have been so many examples of how good recorders improve image stability that it's almost worthless to write about it.
https://youtu.be/DsgmuQT4udE?si=9jf08aE5HEf64Iau
https://youtu.be/vo0Ymus8V5k
I don't know Epson, but I'm 99% sure it doesn't have that capability. Neither do scalers.