Test of various VCRs Image Quality from VHS Tape (Big Pics)

[gshelley61]

Only interaced signals can come from the composite or s-video outputs. The 531 simultaneously produces standard interlaced signals from those two outputs regardless of whether the component outputs are set to progressive or interlaced.

You may want to try it again, but this time manually adjust the video input settings to be sure the Y and C noise reduction filters are off, the Y/C separation filter is set to slower motion, etc. Check the Detail setting, too. I can't recall what the Professional default settings are.

Likewise, check 531's the playback video output picture settings when you record that VHS tape. For example, the MPEG DNR should be off.

[Marvingj]

From what my eyes tell even though JVC is Softer it look much better then the Panny? To much noise is a killer...

[BrainStorm69]

OK, here are the caps with my Toshiba M-784


Toshiba M784 - DNR "on"


Toshiba M784 - DNR "on"


Toshiba M784 - DNR "on"


Toshiba M784 - DNR "on"

I think Fulci's capturing with the DVD recorder is causing some of the chroma issues and perhaps some softness. These caps have some of the chroma issues because of the composite connections, but not as bad as what Fulci's looked like.

[FulciLives]

I'll have to play around with the settings on my Pioneer DVD recorder to see if I can get better results. I'm using Philips patch cables but they are "high end" monster like cables (very thick ... gold plated connectors) so I don't think it's cheap cables or just the fact that it is composite. So either it's settings on the Pioneer or this 4 Head Toshiba (highest end 4 Head they ever made though) is not as good as the 6 Head units. Unfortunately my last 6 head died on me and my 8 Head Toshiba (multi-system PAL/NTSC/SECAM VHS VCR) is old and starting to like to eat tapes from time to time so I don't like using it now ... perhaps it is time to look for the infamous (kick myself for not buying it new) 6 head S-VHS Toshiba on eBay ... I've seen it on there from time to time.

I also managed to dig out my AverTV Stereo PCI capture card (BT based) so maybe I'll pop it in and install the BTwincap driver and do a HuffyUV capture therefore eliminating the Pioneer from the recording loop (currently it's my only DVD unit so I need to use it for playback as my Cyberhome CH-DVD 500 is on loan with my girlfriend and it's hard enough pulling equipment from one room to another little alone from one apartment to another LOL).

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[anitract]

Great job on the post BrainStorm69 and everyone else. This is the kind of stuff that makes VH such a kick butt site! I wish I had a VCR right now so I could compare my own results.

[Lou71]

@ BrainStorm69
Is there any chance you might be able to upload that file again, The link has expired.
Thank You

[BrainStorm69]

@ BrainStorm69
Is there any chance you might be able to upload that file again, The link has expired.
Thank You

Uploading again now. When it's complete, I'll come back and post the link.

EDIT: here is the new link:

http://s37.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=1F5EM94LI9OEX01CS2XJP2IL3F

[sanlyn]

lordsmurf wrote (1-30-6), replying to sanlyn (same date):
"Personally, I think this is horsecrap. VHS is a low-res format.
But even if you believe this, then simply add a detailer from
Vidicraft or SignVideo.

If you dislike Sony, JVC and Panasonic, there's not much left.
I'd like to hear your idea on what would be an excellent player."

I think we've been over this before. Detailers cannot repair the specific type of over-processing effects like those I see on JVC VCR's. No detailer or capture-card filter can create detail where no detail exists, nor can they restore detail from washed-out highlights or muddy, poorly saturated shadows and night scenes I see in tapes I made on both old and new JVC machines -- and which wreak havoc during conversion to DVD. You might recall that my favorite VCR's are the ones I had completely refurbished, at great cost: Panasonic PV8662, Panasonic PV-9668, and Sony SLV-585HF. Sorry I don't have my old Toshiba or Mitsubishi (the 1994-vintage Toshiba was mono, but what an image, with its DNR either on or off).

Back in 1992 I made two simultaneous recordings of "Viva Zapata" broadcast on AMC -- thru a rather pricey ($130) amplified splitter from my cable box and some good Belden cable, I recorded the movie at SP on a 1991-vintage, $650-MSRP JVC machine (Sorry, no model # to recall, but you probably know it), and on my 1992 SONY 585HF. Speed was SP, both VCR's fed by the same wiring out of the same cable box, both on brand-new TDK pro-grade VHS tape, both recordings starting and ending at exactly the same time, date, and place.

A year ago I purchased two JVC 9911's, ended up returning both. The first was obviously defective, the second was 'probably' defective but I returned it anyway, for this reason:

Using a PANASONIC DVD recorder, a Toshiba XS34 recorder, a borrowed Pioneer DVR-533H, and my Ati AIW 9600XT card, I made medium-to-highest bitrate recordings from the original JVC tape and the original SONY tape of 'Viva Zapata" I recorded in 1992. At first I used the JVC 9911 to play both tapes -- in all cases, in the scene in which Brando as Zapata is arrested and being led by a rope around his neck across the Mexican countryside, the original JVC taped image shows no facial features on Brando's face in long shots: his entire face is just a blur and, at that, a blur of washed-out highlights. Then, On every DVD image I made from the original SONY 1992 tape, played thru the JVC 9911, the image slightly improved -- you can tell in those scenes that Brando has a mouth and, very likely, the remnants of at least one eye.

After my 9911's were returned, I spent over $850 fixing up my old Pannies and SONY. Thru the PV-9668, a DVD made from the original JVC tape has Brando looking as if he's wearing a stocking over his face. But, in images made fom the original SONY tape and played on the '585', you can see most of Brando's facial features, a bit soft thru the Sony's playback DNR and then turning into a "grainy blur" if use the 585's sharpness control -- which I almost never do.

When I play the original 1992 JVC tape on the SONY VCR, Brando still has no facial features. Playing the JVC tape on the SONY and using the '585's sharpness control, I turn sharpness all the way up and, lo and behold, Brando's face on the JVC tape is an exceptionally sharp-edged, star-bright, shimmering, absolutely featureless white blob -- a clear sign that detailers or sharpness filters cannot "bring out" details that were never recorded to begin with.

Thru the Panasonic PV-9668 with anamorphous heads and mild built-in DNR, and playing the original 1992 JVC-made tape, I can barely see Brando's eyes and what appears to be at least one nostril. The reason I can't see his eyes too well is because there is so much murky, ultra-fine-grain noise on the JVC tape, you really can't see much of anything. But using the same Panny to play the original SONY-made tape, and viewing from 18" away with the 35mm frames filling my 19" PC screen (or from 8 feet away with the 35mm frames filling my 27" TV), I can see Brando's eyes and facial features far more clearly, and I can also see him blink.

I understand that JVC makes very good VCR's for about $5,000. I have owned three JVC's costing between MSRP $450 and $700 since 1990 (four JVC's, if you count the obvious $500 defect). I never liked any of them. However, the reason JVC is in business is because there are many people who prefer their products and the images produced by their philosophy of image processing.

The DNR on my SONY '585' isn't perfect, either, but it's not the same kind of filter used by JVC. SONY used a 3-stage process, in which they blur objects, then sharpen edges, then restore the original contrast which the blurring diluted. You can see it in areas such as skin texture, where many faces have the correct shadings and shadows and highlights, but facial texture itself has become almost entirely smoothed-over (my recording of "Indiana Jones" on the '585' has Karen Allen looking very cute and sharp, but all the freckles have disappeared from her forehead and nose). Overall, however, the images are remarkably free of fuzzies and noise, with excellent solidity in shadows and very stable highlights -- none of which I can say about any JVC-recorded tape I've ever seen, except possibly those made with JVC studio units that no one can afford.

If your major interest in VHS and DVD is noise reduction above all else, JVC is the way to go. I accomplish exactly the same thing thru the mild use of built-in filters on my Ati card ($185). If you want a compromise, or no DNR at all, there are many choices available, including JVC recording and processing setups that go for $15,000-plus. I, too, would recommend JVC for VHS-to-DVD work -- but not for less than $5000. If you prefer an even softer image and aren't bothered by burned-out highlights, a $400 to $500 JVC VCR is exactly what you're looking for.

Please note: lordsmurf has made many, many invaluable contributions to this forum. Heed his advice, and you will seldom (if ever) go wrong. But I do not like the way JVC products process VHS images.

[theaveng]

I don't like softness.

I like to extract as much detail as possible. (Isn't that why VHS HQ was developed? To boost detail from 240 to 250 lines?) For me the ideal VHS VCR would produce as much detail as possible.

[lordsmurf]

Ten added lines of difference is so small as to be invisible. A large number of people who "see more detail" are psychologically fooling themselves, often confusing noise for "detail".

[theaveng]

Ten added lines of difference is so small as to be invisible. A large number of people who "see more detail" are psychologically fooling themselves, often confusing noise for "detail".

I could see the difference on the charts. Some of those VCRs had 3.1 megahertz bandwidth, while others barely passed 2.7. That's REAL improvement in horizontal resolution, not just imagination.

Also:

To say detail doesn't matter... well, you might as well downgrade from 720x480 DVD burning to just 320x480 burning (if you care so little for horizontal detail). No it doesn't make sense to downgrade to a lower resolution, but that seems to be what you're suggesting by going with a blurrier VCR with only 2.7 megahertz video resolution.

Anyway...

obviously we disagree. If one VCR shows a girl's freckles, and the other does not because of luminance blur, then I'm going with the first VCR as the better one.

[danno78]

For Pal users some caps from one of the last series of Panasonic high end vcr
DVD Player: Redstar
Connection used: S-video
Cables: cable from Ati Vivo card
Capture Device: ATI Theatre 550Pro
Capture Format: AVI using Lagarith
VCR for recording: Panasonic NV-HS860
VHS Tape: TDK HDX PRO (VHS tape, high definition extra)
VCR for playing: Panasonic NV-HS860 (Auto sharpness, TBC = ON, 3DNR = ON)
Screen caps application: VDub save as png

tdk_auto_dnr_tbc_svideo.png

[danno78]

Same settings:

tdk_auto_dnr_tbc_svideo_2.png

[danno78]

Soft setting for the next two:

tdk_soft_dnr_tbc_svideo.png

[danno78]

Soft sharpness

tdk_soft_dnr_tbc_svideo_2.png

[theaveng]

For Pal users some caps from one of the last series of Panasonic high end vcr
VCR for recording: Panasonic NV-HS860
tdk_auto_dnr_tbc_svideo.png

Impressive. This first image appears to have 3.2 megahertz of bandwidth! That translates to ~255 lines of horizontal resolution (per picture height).

[cfelicio]

Sorry to revive this old thread, but does anyone still have the original file from the OP? I'd like very much to run this testing on my setup and see what gives the best results...

Thanks!

[jagabo]

Here: https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/331681-s-video-artifacts?p=2236468&viewfull=1#post2236468

Although I think the original was a VOB file (in a 20 MB ZIP file) and this M2V was demuxed from it. I still have the VOB if you need it.