Videohelp forum messages mentioned in YouTube

[lollo]

Mine and other messages from VideoHelp forums (and DigitalFAQ forums) have been mentioned in this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBO0AGx8324&t=426s

The author keeps deleting my comment to explain my point of view on his video, so I am reporting it here because I do not wish that our loved Videohelp forums are manipulated to substain false theories:

Because some of my comments have been mentioned in the video, let me clarify something about what I read here.

Sometimes I disagree with lordsmurf (on Capture Cards, Capture Software, Obligation to always use a (frame)TBC) but on this subject he's right.

For best quality, Analog should be captured YUV 4:2:2 lossless. In addition, when a restoration is needed (even a simple masking of the head switching noise from tapes), a lossless compressed file is more adequate than a DV file, because it gives a better quality, avoiding DV compression (in the source) and decompression (while restoring).

In videohelp forum we have several comparison of Lossless versus DV approaches:
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/376837-DV-conversion-vs-lossless-capture-compariso...uto-load%21%5D
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/360804-DV-vs-lossless-capture-of-VHS
many others are available there, on Doom9's Forums and on DigitalFAQ Forums

On the other hand, DV flow is an easier approach for consumer analog conversion with a small (but present) loss of quality compared to lossless, and may fit some needs.

ADVC devices have no internal TBC. They are sensitive to timing errors as any other device. There are no consumer capture cards with integrated TBC. Only old Canopus NX (available as both old PCI and PCI Express x1 versions), BrightEye75, some Snell & Wilcox, and some high-end AJA devices have (line)TBC or (frame)TBC.

BlackMagic cards are not recommended for analog capture and are not better than the best USB capture card, requiring as well a (line)TBC correction and often also a (frame)TBC correction, because they are prone to drop frames.

JVC high-end VCRs are not overrated, and are among the best player for analog capture; their (line)TBC is excellent.

The simple and best workflow for analog capture is always the same: high-end S-VHS VCR with Y/C output and (line)TBC correction -> one of the recommended capture card (such as I/OData GV-USB, Hauppauge USB-Live 2, ATI USB 600, Pinnacle USB 710 (the first 2 work flawless in Windows 10).
If the tapes are in bad shape add a specific DVD-Recorder in pass-through mode or a (frame)TBC.
Capture YUV 4:2:2 lossless at 720x576 (PAL) or 720x480 (NTSC) with AmarecTV or VirtualDub.

[dellsam34]

That's his second video actually, He was a member here before he got banned I believe named BabyDAV or something like that, While DV is not a bad capture format for an everage person that is planning on directly watching it on a CRT TV, Some of his claims are missleading about capturing lossless being an ancient way, He also praises DV as a glorios shooting format but he is discussing capturing analog tapes through it which is completly a different subject, Here is some of my remarks on DV:

- For instance DV is an ancient format too and so does its hardware.

- Most people do not know what to do with 13GB/hr DV files and cannot be shared due to large file size, If you edit them or convert them to other formats they suffer a huge loss, but lossless files can be converted to a modern codec with little loss.

- DV capture boxes are expensive and need firewire port to plug into which most newer platforms lack.

- Firewire cards are sometimes problematic on newer OS's despite his claim they don't need any driver, they do.

- Laptop options for DV are limited unless you buy a HP or Sony laptop from the 2000's equiped with firewire port, Pinnacle made some firewire emulators over USB but data rate is bottle necked by USB 2.0 speed and require a driver on newer platforms, I managed to get one working on Win 10 but some people may not.

I could go on but my goal is not to demean DV, Capturing analog video as a whole is a legacy task no matter what hardware or software you use, Because it involves an ancient video tape, ancient VCR, ancient cables, ancient video parameters ...etc.

[lollo]

Your comments are excellent, I suspect he probably deleted them from his videos as well as mine... Nice to have them here

[Bwaak]

This was a fun video, although five 15-second ads? I bet the monetization is through the roof

There are no consumer capture cards with integrated TBC.

Conexant Ultralock ?

[DB83]

That YTuber seems to have tons of vids going back some years. No idea if he is/was a member on here. But here's the thing. There is many a YTuber who thinks he knows everything. But when someone posts personal opinion about someone else - who he probably disagreed with either here or elsewhere - he devalues his own channel. More so that it simply invites replies from those that agree with him including an active member on here (just read the reply that has not been deleted)

I am not taking sides here. I try only to comment from my own personal experiences with products.


But YT is an open book. Without my name being mentioned, I was pillared by another former member since I dared to disagree with him on here. I complained to YT but they did nothing. He later deleted the video but not before the comments from his 'fans'. If he was to make such comments on here I would have the right to report and I would hope that appropiate action would be taken against him. But YT seem to accept these trollish comments as fair game.

[davexnet]

That YTuber seems to have tons of vids going back some years. No idea if he is/was a member on here. But here's the thing. There is many a YTuber who thinks he knows everything. But when someone posts personal opinion about someone else - who he probably disagreed with either here or elsewhere - he devalues his own channel. More so that it simply invites replies from those that agree with him including an active member on here (just read the reply that has not been deleted)

I am not taking sides here. I try only to comment from my own personal experiences with products.


But YT is an open book. Without my name being mentioned, I was pillared by another former member since I dared to disagree with him on here. I complained to YT but they did nothing. He later deleted the video but not before the comments from his 'fans'. If he was to make such comments on here I would have the right to report and I would hope that appropiate action would be taken against him. But YT seem to accept these trollish comments as fair game.

google don't care. Like most massive companies they behave with a certain arrogance and make up the rules as they go along,
providing very little redress for their users.

[lordsmurf]

It was addressed extensively here:
Misinformation spouted by TechTVusa on YouTube?

Just another low-knowledge nobody. He and his Canopus DV box need to get a room.

He doesn't understand what TBCs are, or do -- instead rambling about "expensive equipment". Then he claims his Canopus DV box has a TBC, which is false.

His tirade against my cartoon hobby in the 1990s is hilarious. He rants about "legally" this and that, but has apparently never read the "Betamax case" that permits timeshifting.

Some of us here at VH may disagree at times, even vehemently so, but we're at least in the same ballpark. That Youtuber is one of those contrarians that has "facts" comparable to flat earthers, etc. Youtube tends to be a perfect platform for echo chamber dwellers, as the "content creators" can delete comments they don't agree with. It's ironic that Youtube is often criticized for "freedom of speech" censoring, but in actuality the "creators" are doing it. This problem is way beyond video, but it bleeds into it more and more.

[lordsmurf]

I made a reply:

Apparently I'm living rent free in somebody's head. Interesting.

Here's a few hot takes, from my brief skim.
- Yes, I started to refurb and sell gear in 2016 ... but I've been giving advice on what to use since the 1990s and 2000s. (I knew the future 20 years ago? What was I thinking? I should have bought more Amazon and Google stock. Doh!)
- You are correct. Those tiny work sample shots from 2002 are pretty worthless now.
- Seriously, attacking my cartoon hobby? Amusing. I suggest you read up on what the "Betamax case" is. Timeshifting toons from satellite/cable to VHS (and S-VHS, S-VHS-ET) was not, and still it not, illegal in any way.
- Canopus ADVC-50/55/100/110 boxes do not have TBCs. The 300 does. However, the TBC in the 300 is pathetic, and actually makes quality worse. Old 1990s computer tech in action.

... that's enough for now. I'm busy. Carry on. Rent is due on the 1st of each month.

[lordsmurf]

My other posts there, for posterity, for the deleter:

@VHS VCR BEST That's exactly it. All of these devices have pros and cons. Some vastly more cons, few pros. That determines quality, or lack thereof. In general, the cheaper and lazier you get, the more your video quality will suffer. Some gear gives just a mild quality hit, while others create an outright unviewable mess. I've been teaching folks these differences for literal decades now, and help them craft the workflow best for their needs, source, and budget. DV conversion methods incur multiple quality hits, and outright fails in some scenarios. To claim it's "best ever" is highly misleading.

It would be a shame to upgrade to a quality VCR, only to downgrade the video quality post-VCR by using a DV converter in the workflow. Video Toaster worked great "back in the day", but it's never been very useful in the digital ingest era. Remember, "TBC" is a wide term, and can have multiple definitions. What matters to SD analog ingest of consumer formats is that certain TBC criteria are met. That generally results in DataVideo/Cypress type units, not anything from the offline analog editing days.

@TechTVusa DV hardware is literally 30 years old as well, just like the analog SD videotapes of the era. It's all aged now. Some has aged well, some has aged poorly. Some was never great to start with. DV boxes literally have a recommended spec of Pentium III, and minimum specs of Pentium II. Read the first revision cardboard box that the ADVC-100 came in.

@TechTVusa Bit depth and colorspace compression are separate concepts. Adjacent, related, but different. 4:1:1 will toss ~50% of chroma data at 10-bit, 8-bit, or 6-bit dithered. An argument can be made that 4:1:1 can capture VHS color-under information, but not with the crude compression of these old 90s tech Canopus boxes (or DataVideo boxes, Roland, and some others). Color gets "cooked" (values change), and overall image fidelity is drained of color, details lost.

@TechTVusa Why are you obsessed with 10-bit? VHS is more like 6-bit dithered, so 8-bit more than captures it.

@POrwig I simply do not have the time to make Youtube videos, nor do I find them overly helpful due to generic advice. I give one-on-one advice online, tailored to your exact needs, sources, and budget. In this instance, I'll either have the hardware needed, or know where to get it.
I really don't care what brand or width of lawnmower that a mowing service uses. What matters is he doesn't cut it while drunk, and run over my flowers. Results matter.
And my video advice is all about results.
In this case, to avoid DV if at all possible (and it's usually very possible), for the sake of quality. DV has nothing to do with TBC. A quality Pinnacle/ATI/Hauppage (certain models) type capture card gives outstanding lossless results. The silliest aspect of DV is that the DV boxes often cost more than the better cards. That was due to Canopus marketing, not quality.
You mentioned having a good JVC S-VHS deck. The capture card will be less than $200. That leaves the external frame TBC. Depending on source tape specs, capture card chosen, and since you have a good VCR, there are some options for kinda-sorta TBCs that may function for you at a lower cost to an actual TBC. But it highly depends on factors. I would have to know more details, and Youtube comments are not the proper venue for that.

[DB83]

There's a lovely line from the replies from LS and others which, amazingly, are still available (not deleted)

Quote "Instead of trolling my channel..." which is moot given that the channel holder was the one who started the trolling.


And here's another "I do not care about you....." referring also to LS when, if he did not, why spend precious minutes in his video talking/illustrating about him.


No doubt, when he reads this, - and even not being an active member here which I suggest but not having proof he still is - he will delete these since that does not fit his narrative.

[lollo]

On top of that he's asking to lordsmurf example of VHS lossless captures (which is legitimate), but then deletes all my comments linking to several examples of them. Strange.

And his personal attacks to lordsmurf are not acceptable. Sometime I disagree with him as well, but only about technical facts, never at personal level.

Never mind, I'll just ignore him from now, even if he'll manipulate our posts to be wrongly used as evidence of his (bad) theories.

[Bwaak]

There's a lovely line from the replies from LS and others which, amazingly, are still available (not deleted)

Quote "Instead of trolling my channel..." which is moot given that the channel holder was the one who started the trolling.

What exactly is moot?

troll
verb

• carefully and systematically search an area for something.
  "a group of companies trolling for partnership opportunities"
• fish by trailing a baited line along behind a boat.
  gerund or present participle: trolling
  "we trolled for mackerel"

[DB83]

TBH I have never come across the above defintion of 'troll'. A more relevant one is:

"Someone who leaves an intentionally annoying or offensive message on the internet, in order to upset someone or to get attention or cause trouble."


'Moot' may have been the wrong choice of word here since it typically refers to something no longer valid. Hypocritical is probably more appropiate.

[pandy]

loonies suffering from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority?useskin=vector and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect?useskin=vector are everywhere...

[Bwaak]

loonies suffering from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority?useskin=vector and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect?useskin=vector are everywhere...

They are everywhere indeed... everywhere.

Oh, here is one more for posterity:

Lordsmurf, Instead of posting on my channel so much why not create content on your own channel demonstrating your superior method? If you have time to hangout in the forums you have time to create a demonstration video.

@TechTVusa No thanks. Too busy. Maybe later. I'd rather spend my limited time actually doing video, or being with family. I help others online between tasks, those fleeting moments of free time throughout the day.

[dellsam34]

This YT member reminds of another YT chap who uses elgato hardware and elgato capture software into mp4 and brags about how good the quality is showed on a little tiny window on a computer monitor and brags about his google rating about the business. Based on the boxes on the back it looks like the legacybox headquaters, lol.

[Bwaak]

This YT member reminds of another YT chap who uses elgato hardware and elgato capture software into mp4 and brags about how good the quality is showed on a little tiny window on a computer monitor and brags about his google rating about the business. Based on the boxes on the back it looks like the legacybox headquaters, lol.

At least he is not afraid to show his operations, unlike, you know...

Lordsmurf and VHS VCR Best both have YouTube channels. Instead of trolling my channel wouldn't it be better from you both to demonstrate your superior method?

@TechTVusa YouTube would not do justice to anything I upload because YouTube compresses video after it receives it to AVC1, only YouTube partners or channels with lots of subscribers get the VP9 codec which compresses better.

I simply do not have the time to make Youtube videos, nor do I find them overly helpful due to generic advice. I give one-on-one advice online, tailored to your exact needs, sources, and budget. In this instance, I'll either have the hardware needed, or know where to get it.

And my video advice is all about results.

The whole exchange is a comedy, the sort of "Step Brothers" comedy.

[Alwyn]

Bwaak, I suggest you do due-diligence on what you read and not just repost.

only YouTube partners or channels with lots of subscribers get the VP9 codec which compresses better.

That's rubbish. Any 1440P or greater video will get encoded into VP9.

[Bwaak]

Bwaak, I suggest you do due-diligence on what you read and not just repost.

Huh? This is a quotation. Me quoting it does not mean I agree with it. As I said, the whole thing is a bad comedy.

[Alwyn]

This is a quotation. Me quoting it does not mean I agree with it.

Well, now that you know that it's wrong, I suggest that you edit your posts to remove all reference to it, lest some less-knowledgeable person reads it and believes it. At least edit and state that the quoted text is wrong.

This is precisely how furphies, red herrings and tangents are perpetuated on the Internet.

[lollo]

As I said, the whole thing is a bad comedy.

That's because nobody of the contenders is providing facts, but just words.


edit: some comparison from https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/376837-DV-conversion-vs-lossless-capture-compariso...uto-load%21%5D

https://imgsli.com/MTg1MzI0

https://imgsli.com/MTg1MzI1

dv_vs-lossless.avi

dv_vs-lossless_2.avi

[dellsam34]

Well, now that you know that it's wrong, I suggest that you edit your posts to remove all reference to it, lest some less-knowledgeable person reads it and believes it. At least edit and state that the quoted text is wrong.

He was referring to it as a comedy, so it means not serious or wrong, at least that's how I took it.

[Alwyn]

They may think it's a comedy but there's no way I'd not edit out an obvious unfact that I had quoted, especially after it has been pointed out to them. But each to their own.

I'll take the lossless on both of those imgsli, Lollo, although the wedding kisses are pretty close.

[Eric-jan]

I'm sorry to see this guy is all out of controll with his own comments on his YT channel, he has points i agree with, but one can say things in a civillized way….

so i deleted my input there, calling names like TechTvUSA does, i do not like, and won't support that. things can be said in a normal way, calling names is a weakness.

[lordsmurf]

At least he is not afraid to show his operations, unlike, you know...

The irony here, at this exact moment, is that I'm currently working with an organization to get away from ADVC boxes, as they dislike the results they're getting. And the results are pretty bad. They correctly want to start over, and do one last proper archive job, with proper gear and methods. Then the footage will be available, up to and including documentary needs. (I work with a lot of orgs and indy filmmakers.)

FYI, also ironically, a primary issue here is that ingest start values can drift and lock -- meaning that (for example) image luma gain is pretty bad, and tends to stick, though not always. Or the inverse, seem fine, then sticks higher. This is what happens with lack of TBCs. Because again, ADVC boxes do not contain any TBCs, aside from the 300 (which is a really crappy implementation). It was about 2003 when I first saw this sort of issue, with cheap DVD recorders (which did include some early Panasonic models). But any capture card can suffer, including lower-end capture cards (even the ones that are priced high, such as Canopus products).

Furthremore, as a normal human, I have to eat, sleep, chores. Time with family matters. Unfortunately, my health also limits my hours, which eats into hobby. So making Youtube videos to "prove" whatever to whomever, doesn't make the cut.

The whole exchange is a comedy, the sort of "Step Brothers" comedy.

Never seen it. Never heard of it actually, had to Google. I can't stand Ferrell, so still won't watch it. And again, not as much hobby time, and tv/toons is/was my hobby.

Speaking of toons, I actually had to turn down toon restoration work for a studio a few years ago. I can't do it, health won't permit. It sucks. I actually cannot bring myself to watch a certain character anymore, as it reminds me of this major missed opportunity. I had the chance to do what I wanted 30 years ago, to work in toons, in restoration, and I can't. Most people will never understand how it feels to give up a dream, due to a disease that ravages you.

Do you now see why "proving" something to a random Youtuber does not matter to me whatsoever?

This entire ordeal remind me of an early episode of The Big Bang Theory, the episode where Howard hooks up with Penny's Nebraska "friend". Penny is forced to vacate her apartment, and plays games with the guys. Penny is good, too! When done, Leonard tells Penny they should enter some Halo tournaments sometime. Penny responds with "... or we could have a life?" -- And that's how I feel here. This dumpy bald Youtube dude needs to get a life.

That's because nobody of the contenders is providing facts, but just words.
https://imgsli.com/MTg1MzI0

This is a good example of a DV boxes locking wrong values.

[Bwaak]

https://imgsli.com/MTg1MzI0
https://imgsli.com/MTg1MzI1

So what does it prove? DV loses highlights? This is not an issue of DV as a codec, this is the problem of particular capture chain setup. Besides blown out highlights I don't see much of a difference. I downloaded the clips as well, same thing - they look very similar to the point I would not know which one is which without the labels.

[lollo]

Besides blown out highlights I don't see much of a difference.

Small differences, but present, as we always said. I see them

[Bwaak]

Small differences, but present, as we always said. I see them

Are they objectionable? I think we are in the agreement that the differences are minute, unlike some other, um, debaters who strongly align to just one choice.

I decided to capture a bunch of commercial VHS tapes into MPEG-2 @ 8 Mbit/s, the storage savings compared to Cineform and to uncompressed are obvious, the quality is acceptable. It is not like I am preserving recordings of the last Egyptian clay tablet or something so that every element of the picture, every pixel of resolution could be important for future generations. As long as it does not break into macroblocks and is not too blurry, I am content.

In fact, sometimes the blurring of high res content can be useful, like when you are following an object with some high res stuff on the background. Shot with a consumer camcorder having deep DOF, this produces quite an ugly look. Adding some motion blur actually makes the scene better. Of course, I would like to have as much resolution as possible on static scenes. But this is how Long-GOP codecs work, which is why I think they are better than DV for this sort of content.

[lordsmurf]

Besides blown out highlights I don't see much of a difference.

Small differences, but present, as we always said. I see them

With normal viewing devices, like HDTVs,, extremely obvious. Too many people make bad quality judgment calls from tiny preview windows and phones.

[lollo]

Are they objectionable?

Of course they are. That's why we are here, to share experiences and to listen to, and eventually "learn" from, others.

It is not like I am preserving recordings of the last Egyptian clay tablet or something so that every element of the picture, every pixel of resolution could be important for future generations. As long as it does not break into macroblocks and is not too blurry, I am content.

I agree.

Of course, I would like to have as much resolution as possible on static scenes. But this is how Long-GOP codecs work, which is why I think they are better than DV for this sort of content.

Yes, depending on the content, distributing the bitrate across the GOPs with MPEG2 approach, rather than having no P and B frames as in DV, may have advantages. But MPEG2 bitrate must be quite high to compete.