Hardware Video Processors and Filters

[gshelley61]

Northpole, why do you use a TBC1000 if the ACE lists itself as being a Time Base Corrector? (amongst its other functions)

Well, the TBC-part in the ACE is not a "full" TBC. It's more like a quasi-TBC. I don't use the ACE primerely for the TBC function at all, but it "helps out" my TBC on the stabilizing part. I can see difference in the out going signal when I bypass the TBC-part in the ACE, so I usually leave it on in addition to the TBC-1000. That is - if the tape is in really bad shape.

The main reason for the ACE is it's other function. It converts from/to PAL/NTSC/SECAM in real time on the fly (!!!) and - with NO signal loss or signal degree. And - absolutely no sync problems what so ever. In addition to that, you can adjust the RGB levels separately, together with full control of the saturation, hue and signal sharpness.

I am aware of that several of these functions also have good software solutions - but not so good ! All this adjustments happens in realtime, with no sync problems, no signal loss and nothing left of that "hope and pray" that the result is fine after 12 hours of software filtering.

Complete WYSIWYG control via my ADVC-300 output connections to the TV-set. What you adjust - you see on the TV set and can play with the settings BEFORE capuring, and what you see is also completely identic to the result you get in your DV-AVI file.

This is a very strong chain, and I spent several hours (and A LOT of readings in this forum and over at Lordsmurfs) to get it right set up order-wise.

What is left for me to understand, is the audio part of the capturing. All my equipment and knowledge so far has been focus on the video part. Audio also is important, and I'm not happy with the audio restoration so far. I wish I know about a hardware audio restoration unit I could remove some hiss and buzz and so. The software solutions I have tried so far degrees the audio too much. ("Mumbling" sound).

[Sorry if some of the words is mis-spelled - English is pretty far away from my native language. Hope you got the sense of it anyway]

I wish that ACE unit was more plentiful over here... I've never seen a pre-owned one for sale. It sure looks interesting and does some very cool things.

Like you, I'm completely sold on hardware video processing. It's real-time, saving so much effort over software filtering. Plus, frankly the results are superior.

[gshelley61]

SignVideo Dual Proc Amp and DR-1000







ACE Standards Converter






One difference between these two setups... the SignVideo processors do not sample or digitize the analog video signal in any way. In general, it's good to minimize the number of times the video image is digitized as some degradation will occur with each sample (cascading effect).

[seekninfo]

gshelley61 wrote:

"So far, it appears the best method for VHS is to run the s-video out from the VCR through the DR-1000 Image Enhancer, then through the Proc Amp and into the DVD recorder."

I notice you did not mention a TBC in the connections for capturing from VCR to DVD. Does this mean that none (ie TBC ) is needed or the function is performed by either the enhancer or the Proc/amp?

Thanks again for continuing my education on performing better captures.

[trock]

Does this mean that none (ie TBC ) is needed or the function is performed by either the enhancer or the Proc/amp?

No, neither the SignVideo Image Enhancer or Proc Amp contain TBCs (although there are many pro TBCs that contain Proc Amps).

In my setup I run from a JVC VCR that has a line TBC to a TBC-1000 and then to the SignVideo units. In one recent case, adding the TBC-1000 to the loop, made the diffeence between dropped frames and zero dropped frames when capturing.

trock

[gshelley61]

My main VCR (JVC SR-W5U) has a built-in full frame TBC already. For noisy old tapes that need more help, I have a JVC BR-S378U prosumer VCR that has some built-in proc amp controls, but no TBC. I run that through my Feral A4:2:2 standalone TBC, which has lots of proc amp adjustments and a very effective noise reduction feature.

[Northpole]

SignVideo Dual Proc Amp and DR-1000
One difference between these two setups... the SignVideo processors do not sample or digitize the analog video signal in any way. In general, it's good to minimize the number of times the video image is digitized as some degradation will occur with each sample (cascading effect).

Heh - the ACE unit really does have a kind of "retro"-look, right ? -

But belive me - it's pure horsepower inside, it's solid and well build, and in that matter I can live with the look of it.

The box don't digitize at all. After all, that's why I have the ADVC-300 in the end of my chain. (In addition to this units very powerful video gain and black background settings - among other things).

The knob on the ACE titled "digitize" is'nt digitizing the video in that form - it's just an effect-button, where you can play with the video and "disturb" it and make mosaic effects and so. I usually leave this "off".

In addition to the obvious enhancement part of the ACE, my main reason for use is it's very powerful and flawless NTSC/PAL conversion and vice versa. On the fly, and with precicely the same quality as the source (or better !) Since my tapes from about 25 years of collection are both NTSC, PAL and even SECAM, this funtion is far better and easier then any software conversion I have tried out.

Also, this is the only unit I know about that - again, on the fly and without loss of details - transform 4:3 video to widescreen; - before the captured video even hits the firewire cable.

[gshelley61]

Time base correction, standards conversion and aspect ratio/zoom circuits have to sample digitally in order to perform those functions - they are digital functions. However, it is possible that if none of those features is used, the ACE may otherwise remain analog all the way through.

Some Y/C comb filters (the motion adaptive type) are also digital and sample the incoming composite video signal to perform the Y/C split.

Either way, it looks like an awesome unit, for sure.

[tonyp2]

This really is a great thread. I just read through it again and noticed that some put the TBC before the image enhancer and others after. Is there a preferred order? I will be using a regular old Sony VCR, a AVT8710, and an old Vidicraft HVE-100 (assuming it works when I get it), all into my video capture card. Should I TBC (and in the case of the 8710 color correct) the video before enhancement or after?

[Northpole]

This really is a great thread. I just read through it again and noticed that some put the TBC before the image enhancer and others after. Is there a preferred order? I will be using a regular old Sony VCR, a AVT8710, and an old Vidicraft HVE-100 (assuming it works when I get it), all into my video capture card. Should I TBC (and in the case of the 8710 color correct) the video before enhancement or after?

To my opinion you should always TBC before you put the signal further on to any correction unit. In that way you have the best signal possible to work with. And - maybe you could adjust less in that way.

NB: Don't expect miracles. Enhancements is just that. The better source in, the better is the chance to get more decent result after further enhancement. Really, really crappy video is almost impossible to enhance to a very good level anyway. To the beginning I always enhanced too much, made the result kind of "plastic" look or other unwanted sideeffects. Remember, enhancements is always some kind of trade offs. In this matter I come to the conclusion that "lesser is better". That is, both video and the audio part. It also corresponds great with the restoration part you can read over at lordsmurfs site. (Highly recommended by the way - it have helped me a lot along the way !)

[gshelley61]

The signal chain order depends on the source. I try to limit the amount of processing, so (for example) if a TBC is not really necessary, I don't use it. Less is more.

Sometimes I put the enhancer before the TBC, sometimes after. Each source has it's own unique challenges. With some very good to excellent sources, perhaps only a very small amount of sharpening is all that is needed. In those cases, I bypass the TBC and color correction (proc amp) entirely. Standalone TBC's tend to soften the image, so I only use mine when I have to.

[tonyp2]

But gshelley61, don't you have to use a TBC if you're doing capture from a VCR?

[gshelley61]

But gshelley61, don't you have to use a TBC if you're doing capture from a VCR?

Not always. A very good quality analog videotape (VHS, S-VHS, 8mm, Hi8, etc.) with no copy protection, that is first generation (original) may capture just fine without a TBC - especially to a standalone DVD recorder that has a basic "line TBC" built-in. TBC's are almost never needed for laserdiscs, either.

TBC's were primarily designed to deal with sync pulse timing errors in older, worn out or multi-generational analog videotapes. These errors manifest themselves as image flaws like "wavy" vertical lines and such.

TBC's fix a flawed sync pulse signal by stripping it and replacing it with a new corrected sync signal, line by line. In the case of full frame TBC's (which sample and correct two or four fields at a time), the process of sync replacement just so happens to defeat all analog videotape copy protection signals, too.

[CaZeek]

Hello,
I know you said you would go into more detail about TBCs later on in the thread, but I do have a specific question concerning them (to anyone, not just gshelley) . On many of my old (not even that old.. about 5-10 years) retail VHS tapes, the video (after being run through a JVC SR9911U w/ the Line TBC in "Soft" mode) still has some noise. It's not really grain or speckles. I'm not sure how to describe it, but it can be solved by using a noise reduction filter that works along the time axis (as I found in the TMPGEnc noise filter and the "temporal smoother" filter in Virtual Dub). The picture is basically moving around a bit (like little waves are running through it). This isn't a major problem, but it is noticeable. I'm wondering if a full frame TBC (Datavideo TBC-1000 or other) would solve this problem. If I can do anything to clarify, please let me know. Thanks!

[gshelley61]

A full frame TBC may be able to eliminate or reduce the image movement... but each tape is unique and has its own problems. The built-in line TBC's in some consumer VCR's and DVD recorders are pretty weak, though.

[seekninfo]

Does any one know if hardware processors can be used to improve picture on TVs for viewing (short of buying one of those expensive scalers). If yes, has anyone tried it? Secondly does Sima SCC Pro remove Macrovision in addition to it being a color corrector?

[BrainStorm69]

Secondly does Sima SCC Pro remove Macrovision in addition to it being a color corrector?

Yes.

[Brent212]

Is there any difference between Studio 1 Productions and Sign Video? I've seen pictures of the dual proc amp from both of them and both look nearly identical. Are they in fact the exact same unit? Did Studio 1 just change its name?

[gshelley61]

They are exactly the same products built by the same folks (ex-Vidicraft people). Studio 1 Productions used to market their stuff for them, now they are selling the products directly as SignVideo.

[Brent212]

So gshelley, how would you rank these three products, in order of what you would buy?

Elite BVP-4
Sign Video dual proc amp
Sima SCC (or SCC-2)

Judging by what I've read, you prefer the Sign Video, and I would have thought you'd put the Sima at the bottom of the list, but then I saw an older post you made about changing your mind and deciding that the final results from the Sima were better than you got with the BVP-4.

I'm sure each has it's strong points, but say you could just have one, which would it be? and then if you could only have one of the remaining two, which would it be?

Thanks for all the info you've shared already. Interesting reading for sure.

[gshelley61]

The BVP-4 is a very powerful correction processor that is most effective on sources that need serious help. For good to excellent quality sources, the SignVideo Proc Amp combined with the DR-1000 Image Enhancer is the best setup I've seen so far. The Sima is OK for the low cost, but not superior to the BVP-4.

[Brent212]

The DR-1000 is more for sharpening and bringing out detail, right? Would using this with the BVP-4 be a good combination, especially for sources that need a lot of help?

[gshelley61]

The BVP-4 has a "resolution boost" feature, which is similar to sharpening. I suppose the DR-1000 could be used along with the BVP-4, though.

[ahrmny]

gshelley61, can you explain how (or if) you'd use the SignVideo dual processors simultaneously? Would there be a reason to do this? Thanks.

[gshelley61]

The suppose the probable reason someone would want dual processors is for analog editing from two different sources (VCR's). In my case, I happened to get a good deal on the dual version, so that's what I've got. I run one composite video, the other s-video.

[seekninfo]

Can someone please help clear the confusion that is raging in my mind?
(1)Are the ICM/Laird VC2000 and the Knox K700 also timebase correctors in addition to being Proc Amps?
(2)Are all TBCs macrovision removers and are all macrovision removers also TBCs.
(3) A link to an article on TBCs was posted sometime ago. If anyone can point me in the direction of that link I would be mighty grateful

All answers are welcome..Thanks for the help.

[lordsmurf]

The res boost on the BVP-4 cannot even closely compare to the effects of the DR-1000 units. No contest, DR-1000 wins. Boosting res does not equal a sharper image.

A TBC is a timebase corrector. A macrovision remover can, quite frankly, be any piece of shit that works once to "remove MV" at any point in time. So are they the same? Hardly. A TBC flawlessly removes certain errors by replacing it. MV resides in this area, thus it dies. Those "defeater" devices almost never have TBC circuits, but rather pansy/flimsy workarounds for the signal.

[gshelley61]

Can someone please help clear the confusion that is raging in my mind?
(1)Are the ICM/Laird VC2000 and the Knox K700 also timebase correctors in addition to being Proc Amps?
(2)Are all TBCs macrovision removers and are all macrovision removers also TBCs.
(3) A link to an article on TBCs was posted sometime ago. If anyone can point me in the direction of that link I would be mighty grateful

All answers are welcome..Thanks for the help

(1) No. The ICM/Laird has a sync stabilizer that can be switched on and off, the Knox does not have a stabilizer at all. They are both Proc Amps.

(2) No. Line TBC's digitally sample and correct one or more scan lines at a time and may not completely eliminate some types of copy protection. Full frame TBC's digitally sample and correct two or even four fields at a time. The side benefit of this method is that all copy protection is eliminated. Sync restorers (stabilizers, clarifiers) are not TBC's. They just automatically adjust the sync pulse signal to a standard level, which will defeat some copy protection.

(3) A great explanation of what digital time base correctors and frame synchonizers are and how they work:
http://www.broadcastpapers.com/sigdis/timebase.doc

some more TBC info:
http://www.videotek.com/app6.htm
http://www.videotek.com/app7.htm
http://www.studio1productions.com/Articles/TBC.htm

[piano632]

So, would the Sign Video DR-1000 (or the like) be any better at adding detail than just having a high-end VCR with sharpness control. I have turned the sharpness all the way up on my VCRs and still it seems the resolution/detail is not what it should be considering my tapes are S-VHS/SuperBeta and they are supposed to have very good resolution. I record to the JVC DR-M10S as others here do, and it seems to be masking out the added noise that increasing the sharpness would usually cause (fortunately), but still I think it should look sharper than it does. Any suggestions?

[lordsmurf]

Yes, DR-1000, Vidicraft Detailers, much better. It's a much crisper detail method. Those other afterthough style embedded filters tend to make the image chunky, not sharper.

[gshelley61]

Yes, DR-1000, Vidicraft Detailers, much better. It's a much crisper detail method. Those other afterthough style embedded filters tend to make the image chunky, not sharper.

These units are much more powerful, too. If your source is good, a significant amount of sharpening and detail can usually be applied before excessive grain, right edge ghosting or an unnatural appearance becomes a problem.