TBC or Not TBC?

[Zeek]

I have a rather large stockpile of older VHS tapes that I will soon be converting. The plan is to use the A->D passthrough on my Canon ZR60 camcorder to convert/capture. Test results so far have been surprisingly good.

I've read quite a bit on the usefulness of TBC's for this kind of thing, their integration into some of the older, high-end S-VHS machines and the necessity for having them when dealing with older tapes such as my own. However, I've also read that some camcorders negate the need for "standard" TBC - either because of actual built-in TBC components of their own, or because of circuitry that creates a final product similar to one corrected by "real" TBC (whew!). Best info I have regarding this stuff is in this thread here.

So here's the thing: I'm wondering if my camcorder will do the job adequately and if it even has TBC - fake or otherwise. I've contacted Canon in regards to my particular camcorder to see if it has that capability. So far, no answer. Lord Smurf was kind enough to recommend checking out bhphotovideo.com for possible info on the camera, but so far they've been no help either. (Transferred about a gazillion times and I'm not exactly heavily into being put on hold.) The long and short of it all is:

1. Does anyone have any opinions/experience on this particular matter? Think my camcorder alone will do the trick?

2. If it will not (and I'm guessing that'll probly be the consensus), any ideas where I might get a VCR w/ built-in TBC that'll do the trick? So far, ebay has failed me miserably and I'd rather not part with $300 for a standalone unit in addition to the VCR.

3. I'm a man in a hurry. If I fail to get such a VCR (or anything with TBC), would it still be worth it for me to blow the extra dough on an S-VHS instead of regular old VHS machine? (In other words, would that help "clean up" my source a little bit at least?)

Thanks for any insight you guys can provide...

Z

[saspgmr]

I can't give you a complete answer since I don't have a VCR with TBC, but I have been using Canon ZR70 (using the a-d passthrough) for a while to backup my VHS tapes onto DVD. The results have been great. The only difference I can tell is that I don't need a VCR to view the movies anymore. Anyway, as long as you use some reasonable apps to process the converted dv file, I doubt you'll see enough of a difference between using the a-d passthrough on your Canon and using a dedicated TBC machine to make the additional purchase worthwhile. But that's just my opinion.

[arklab]

My sugestion (from a rank amature) is to find a commercial VHS tape you KNOW is macrovision protected (and you OWN), and try backing it up through your Canon.

Since macrovison is KNOWN to induce sever video errors, it should be a great test ... and a cheep one.

Others PLEASE comment on this idea, before I mess this poor guy up!

[Zeek]

Thanks muchly. Actually, I'm wishing now that I got the ZR70 instead. Image stabilization is kind of lousy w/ the 60, but the hardware encoder alone still makes it worth the price.

If you don't mind my asking, which apps are you using to process/author your final product?

[Zeek]

Arklab:

Thanks. That sounds reasonable. Now just have to find one such tape. I think they're in the Smithsonian somewhere.

j/k. Off to Wal-Mart, I guess.

Zeek

[saspgmr]

Sorry, I forgot one item. You didn't mention commercial VHS tapes in your original post (or at least I didn't see it). If you use the ZR with a protected tape you'll need to use a seperate box to eliminate the macrovision. The Canon gives you a warning and won't let you copy if it sees some "protection" . But these boxes cost a lot less than a VCR with TBC.

[yg1968]

Most Sony DV camcorders defeat (or correct?) macrovision when using the passthrough feature. I can confirm that my Sony TRV-25 does.

[Zeek]

Thanks to all for your helpful replies.

I am still wondering, regardless of the camcorder - without TBC, is an S-VHS unit still worth it? If so, any suggestions?

Thanks...

Zeek

[tito13kfm]

I would say that an SVHS camcorder will produce a better quality than a standard old VHS flavor because of the wider heads in which it uses to play the tape. And then exspecially if you get one with S-Video out. S-video will give a much sharper picture than composite. I can't get into the technical aspects of SVHS vs VHS output lines of resolution and S Video vs composite, because I don't know them.. But to my eye, the difference is considerable to substantial.

I would also say that picking up a VCR with TBC will help the situation, especially if you get one that also includes DNR (digital noise reduction) It is absolutely amazing at how much of a difference the DNR has made on my tape transfers. All the random graininess and noise from the source video are magically gone (yes i know it's a filter, and by applying filters you are "ruining" the source, but screw it.. it looks better)

[vcdforme]

I don't know if your camera has a built in TBC or not. I'd be real curious to know. But what is working for me is using my Samsung R4000 DVD recorder as a pass-thru. It has a built in TBC that works quite well at cleaning up my old tapes.

My chain is this....VCR, R4000, ADS A/V link, IEEE Card into computer.
Excellent results.......If you don't need to edit, then just record with the
Samsung. By the way, the Panasonic E-50 is the same machine. Check
Amazon.......

Why spend $300 plus for a TBC vcr when you can get a DVD recorder
with built in TBC for about the same price?

Hope this helps....chow

[proxyx99]

I'd say forget TBC (unless all tapes are an old junk, with overscan, recorded on a misaligned head VCR with vertical synch issues).
Use best VCR you can get (borrow). Since you said that your results were "surprisingly good" what more do you need? TBC is good for situations described above or similar. For commercial tapes you are less likely to ever need a TBC. It's been more of a myth then a reality (especially for amateurs). On a good source you won't notice TBC's impact. How would you feel not beeing able to see any change after spending 300 bucks? (that is a 300 bucks worth of reassurance that the tape in question was in fact OK)

[lordsmurf]

I'd say forget TBC (unless all tapes are an old junk, with overscan, recorded on a misaligned head VCR with vertical synch issues). ...TBC is good for situations described above or similar. .... It's been more of a myth then a reality (especially for amateurs). On a good source you won't notice TBC's impact.

I'd disagree entirely with this. A TBC is especially good at removing chroma noise. VHS is a format known to have severe chroma issues (red and blue noise or 'glow' in the signal), even from commercial tapes. DNR-based TBC (ones in JVC machines) and even dedicated full-field TBC's remove excess noise, including both real and aritificial (Macrovision, etc) noise. And they tend to remove other errors. Even the low end JVC S-VHS player are better than many high end VHS players. But I'd say go for the higher JVC ones and get more filters, TBC and longer life. There are few tapes where a TBC does not make it better, often MUCH better. This chroma problem, as well as interlace errors, are my top two pet peeves of video. I'll turn it off before I watch it.

@Zeek: It all depends on how good your source is and how pleased you are. Buy one. If it's not good, take it back. If you're who I think you are, you live in New York anyway, maybe a short drive to B&H? Worth a shot?

All that matters is that you are happy with it, and that you'll stay that way.

[SatStorm]

I agree. A TBC is a must for VHS captures the analogue way. Expecially if you capture NTSC.

[proxyx99]

As TBC proponents I would assume that you own such unit... it's so useful(!?). Guess what, they don't. I happenned to own 2 (now just 1, simple and cheap). As an owner I can say you will rarely have a chance to use it. Lordsmurf (who admittedly never had one) is dreaming in a broad daylight, so is Satstorm (no offence guys). Btw. TBC can correct chroma if it has a filter built in, some do have it, some don't.

[johns0]

I can't get into the technical aspects of SVHS vs VHS output lines of resolution and S Video vs composite, because I don't know them..

Vhs=230 lines,svhs=400.

[vcdforme]

As TBC proponents I would assume that you own such unit... it's so useful(!?). Guess what, they don't. I happenned to own 2 (now just 1, simple and cheap). As an owner I can say you will rarely have a chance to use it. Lordsmurf (who admittedly never had one) is dreaming in a broad daylight, so is Satstorm (no offence guys). Btw. TBC can correct chroma if it has a filter built in, some do have it, some don't.

I have a TBC.
For DV capturing, it's the greatest.
No offense, but you are very wrong.
I agree with Lordsmurf.

[lordsmurf]

Who said I don't have a TBC? I've got 3.

1. The piss-poor almost-not-a-TBC but still perfect for minor things SIMA SED-CM. Proved itself at least twice.

2. The JVC 9800 with an internal TBC that is based off algorithms to enhance DNR. Always a joy, had it for years.

3. The dedicated DataVideo TBC-1000. One of the best things I ever bought for video, aside from JVC.

Without these devices, I'd still be in the stone ages of video capture with all the other people that have not yet figured out it takes real tools to do real work. A plain VCR from Best Buy won't cut it.

[Bob W]

Who said I don't have a TBC? I've got 3.

1. The piss-poor almost-not-a-TBC but still perfect for minor things SIMA SED-CM. Proved itself at least twice.

2. The JVC 9800 with an internal TBC that is based off algorithms to enhance DNR. Always a joy, had it for years.

3. The dedicated DataVideo TBC-1000. One of the best things I ever bought for video, aside from JVC.

Without these devices, I'd still be in the stone ages of video capture with all the other people that have not yet figured out it takes real tools to do real work. A plain VCR from Best Buy won't cut it.

What do you use to display your masterpieces Monitor, TV, or HDTV)?

[proxyx99]

I have a TBC.
For DV capturing, it's the greatest.
No offense, but you are very wrong.
I agree with Lordsmurf.

Hmm, you lost me here. For DV it is useless (raw data). Digital video has precise timecode and TBC does not apply here. Can you clarify?
Nevertheless, how often do you use it, from what source, and how do you benefit from it? Just your sheer experience. As you know TBC restores timecode to sync fields into a frame so explain why is it "the greatest"?
Same to Lordsmurf (JVC has additional enhancing filters so talking about it as TBC is at least inappropriate).
One more remark, if it is so indispensible how come overwhelming majority does great without it (only few have it, I followed the hype and bought one pro-grade as well, no need for it anymore).

Please refer back to https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=190459&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0.

What else can I say, maybe to suggest that every member of this forum buys a TBC to emerge from "dark ages" just like Lordsmurf. I'd prefer a microwave oven.

[lordsmurf]

A lot of my material is VHS and SVHS and I need a TBC. Without a TBC, all sorts of errors are seen. A lot of this will be outlined in the Video Restoration of my site, still working on all of that.

You need good hardware (including TBC) if you want to improve your source, not merely transfer it.

[SatStorm]

I have a matchline Philips VCR with a built in TBC.
I use this built-in TBC of my VCR when I capture from VHS through S-Video to my capture cards almost always. Rarely, there are some tapes from CamCoders (not TV recordings), which play worst with TBC On. But for tapes recorded from TV, this built in TBC of my VCR helps me a lot with framedrops. Expecially on my 20 years old SECAM tapes, I currently convert to DVD-Rs
With this built in TBC, I'm able to capture PAL60 @ 29.97 without issues, while on all other cases, I need to capture PAL60 @ 30fps and have issues (framedrops)

I can't understand proxyx99 why you call me "liar" in a polite way... Something personal, or you simply don't like me?

[proxyx99]

Lordsmurf, you are just blurring the picture. TBC is used to eliminate picture roll due to flutter (irregular feed by the VCR). It is used for frame accurate editting, broadcast, dubbing. The "all sorts of errors" you are referring to is a screensmoke. To correct chroma luma issues processing amps are needed not TBC. Many TBC's have this amp built in. But we ere talking really pro-grade TBC not Datavideo that is a semi-pro or accomplished amateur unit. Good TBC has full frame buffer/memory and is used for replacing original timecode with a generated one.
VCR TBC's are frame stabilizers with a small few line buffers coupled with dynamic tape stabilization circuit to eliminate roll. You may call them TBC for the sake of discussion.
So it turns out that TBC proponents do not in fact have a true TBC of broadcast quality. In this case I would suggest toning down your "as a matter of fact" posts to devices that you own.
TBC will not repair video, it will deliver new synced timecode to avoid picture roll, just that.
Too many times I've read advice to buy or sell sth from PPL that not only never had it but are confused as to what is it actually used for.
Don't take me wrong guys but "TBC indispensibility" falls into the same category. Portraying it as a "do it all" remedy is a huge misunderstanding.

@Satstorm, nothing personal but if you used it for very specific and rare situations that you mentioned you have just confirmed my point that most users will never need it. One more thing, this is not personal and I did not intend to offend you or Lordsmurf. I just happen to know sth about the subject, I owned pro (broadcast) grade TBC and would hate to see others lining up for TBC at closest Pro-video store just to find out that it all is just an overblown issue.

PS. VCR TBC will not prevent framedrops due to lack of full-frame buffer.
Video capture devices do incorporate frame stabilizing circuitry as well, so does regular VCR and TV set.

[lordsmurf]

I think your argument is with manufacturers. You're trying to re-define what a "TBC" is. And that may be all well and good, but if anything, that's blurring the situation.

I really don't care what the true definition of TBC is. The fact at hand is that most things called "TBC", and sold as such, do in fact provide a stunning amount of correction on the video, and it is very needed for most tapes.

SatStorm likes to point out this is NTSC more than PAL, and the more I start to work with PAL tapes, the more I'm believing him... not because of a definition somewhere, but because I can see it with my own two eyes.

I have no degrees in video, nor do I care to get one. What matters is what I see. I bring practical experience to the table. Dictionaries, degrees and theory is left outside.

I see a TBC as being a necessary part of video work for anybody that plans to do it with any kind of seriousness. Call errors "screensmoke" but I before smokeless clear images.

And no, nothing is personal, I don't really think we're arguing. It's just discussion. Good old discussion.

[proxyx99]

Again, you got me confused. I've been shooting PAL for about 9 years and my library is over 2 meters long (shelflength) of Hi8 (over 80 tapes)and VHS tapes.
Never had a need for TBC due to video format issue, but if you say so...
I transferred all my PAL and NTSC tapes to DVD and used TBC I think for just 2 NTSC ones. From my experience TBC is redundant unless there are head allignment, tape streach issues (must be old...).
Anyway to answer the main question "To TBC or not to TBC?" I'm saying "NO" with exception of a very rare situations.
To your comment that I try to redefine TBC, I'd say that it is just the opposite. As to "stunning" level of correction TBC provides, if you sleep better with this conviction so be it. Please, for the sake of all of us post some examples (with and without). I happen to work in a broadcast facility and can't wait for the moment I'll be "stunned". I would gladly present your post to my collegues.

[SatStorm]

@proxyx99: This is an international forum. Half users here are not americans.
So how you call SECAM capture "rare occacion", or you consider the capturing 20 years old VHS tapes a "rare occasion"?
The opposite: DV and tapes from Video Cams are rare here. Only a minority I know has DV cams or Cams. Recording you life on tape, is a aglosaxon tradition, a UK/US thing. It is not common or a need for most Europeans.
So, when you label something, please try to think global. You are not the center of the world you know...

The way you specify "TBC" is nothing to do with the "TBC" I know. The "TBC" I know is a fuction called "Time Base Corrector" and some later mid 90s good VCRs have built-in. It has nothing to do with luminance or colour correction. It just buffers fields (or frames, depending the model) and when a field is missing or simply don't exist, cover it with a fake one. So, you don't have framedrops while capturing and the picture look overall better on TV, without jumping fields (something which is usual on old, lots of time recorder all over VHS tapes).
Those TBCs can solve issues with PAL and SECAM VHS tapes recorded from TV and issues when you capture PAL60, which is NTSC covered (and all modern european VCRs output insteed of NTSC unfortunatelly).

From my understanding, what you or Lordsnumf mention about TBC, is about those third party units, you can find in USA about Chroma Correction, Luminance Corection and other flaws of the NTSC system. Well those units don't exist in Europe, because PAL system don't need that kind of corrections. So when I state "TBC" is neccessary, I mean the "Time Base Correction" fuction, those good VCRs have.

For good or pro VHS tapes, TBC is not neccessary. But those tapes is what I call rare, 'cause the last commercial tapes I know in the European market, is 3 - 4 years old, so they are allready "old".

I'm glad that it is not something personal from you, but I start wondering If I have to STOP answering to USA members of this forum. You think so local and you lebel anything the way YOU determine, it start bothers me. This attitude must stop, because it is wrong.
Times like this, I wished for a forum "filter" option, which you could choose to discuss matters only with americans or not americans. Believe me, if that option existed, you Americans only rarely gonna have to deal with my posts.

[lordsmurf]

proxy, if I find some time, I'll gladly upload a few images for you. But you gotta realize I'm way to busy to "prove" myself to everybody that demands it.

Jitter and chroma "leakage" are two common error corected by TBC. This will all be shown on my restoration guides when complete. With images.

[DVWannaB]

Dont mean to take sides on this iisue, but I will post my personal experiences. I live in the US (NTSC) and have recorded VHS tapes for 20 years. I even have some that are second and third generation stuff. You know, the one that is passed from a firend of a friend

I have tried various gadgets and gears to get good looking transfer of VHS to DVD/SVCD/VCD none with satisfactory results. The best being AVI cap with ADVC-100, filtered in Virtualdub, then frameserved and encoded.

I then decided to try a JVC-9811 S-VHS VCR (with TBC) with a DataVideo TBC-1000 and ADVC-100 to capture AVI file. After tweaking the various settings within the JVC to get the best possible picture, all I can say is WOW WOW WOW WOW!!!!!! This is no exaggeration, folks. If you have noisy, flickering, jumpy, video tears, warped picture, you name it, this is the best way I have found to get great results. Sorry, but my eyes dont lie. This is as obvious as the nose on your face kind of difference. So if the TBC does not work in improving visual quality of old VHS tapes, then I will have to chalk it up to the"Almighty" hand of God . For some strange reason, his "Almighty" hands only manifest when I connect these devices . Maybe he likes them as much as I do.

[proxyx99]

Satstorm, your definition of TBC happens to be almost identical with mine. Let's skip details. My postings are not "American". Your country is most likely PAL and SECAM tapes are now rare (correct me if I'm wrong).
Capturing 20 year old tapes is rare as well.
Chroma/luma levels adj. are found on many more elaborate TBC's.
This is not "american" thing. Tint (hue) adjustm. is NTSC related.
Many of my tapes were shot in Europe. Seems you underestimate European users as lots of them have DV and other Video cams. Europe has a very strong home-video market and in that respect I totally disagree with you. Btw. the time has come for you to start recording your life on tape as well. My kids love it and those who never did envy it.

Lordsmurf, you don't need to prove anything for me, I know the outcome.
As to the "chroma leakage", TBC provide better (more even) separation of chroma carrier signal. In some cases this will reduce noise level (only from interference with color carrier). Jitter, flutter, roll (simply V-sync) is another situation. End of story. Not as you previously wrote "all sorts of errors" suggesting that TBC can do more then it can really do.

Last post:

After tweaking the various settings within the JVC to get the best possible picture,

Nice, but I wonder how much of it was JVC filtering and how much TBC. As I said, try it on a good copy as some suggest (not noisy, flickering, jumpy, video tears, warped picture - we know that) expecting a miracle to happen

[yg1968]

Interesting thread.

However, I am still not sure about the question that I had asked in another thread:

If you use the passthrough feature of your DV camcorder to capture VHS, will the DV camcorder kind of act like a TBC (assuming that a TBC is needed!). My understanding is that it probably does. But I am not sure why it does. Can anybody confirm that it does act like a TBC? and tell me why it does?

[proxyx99]

Not to my knowledge. Pass-through TBC requires dedicated memory (at least for several lines) and this is not part of pass-through A/D functionality.
To add: but it does have a V-sync stabilizer from what I've heard.