Converting VHS Tapes To DVD

[PuzZLeR]

I have to disagree about it will not get any better, it is possible that somewhere along the line a machine will be invented to convert VHS to HD, that would create better results, I realise to the purist that is a load of crap but to the amateur wathcer, may be?

In terms of marketing to Joe Average Consumer, I agree.

But in terms of technology, I wouldn't really worry or hold my breath for a better HD solution. Any purist can arguably agree with the fact there's little difference between:

VHS -> HD digital format
or
VHS -> SD digital format -> HD digital format (if we here decide to take this step later in time)

In fact, one can make the argument that the extra step may be necessary since VHS is really VCD resolution, half that of regular DvD SD Full D1, so to go to HD you'd probably need to add certain Lanczos filters to the production anyway. I would think this is a video encoding/filter issue more than a hardware issue and personally wouldn't trust a consumer based solution to do this for me. I still believe what we have today is enough if you know what you're doing. (I'm still cringing in horror thinking how a consumer solution will convert a 4:3 VHS to 16:9 HD... )

I hate to mention this but I put my vcr collection , and it numbers 8 models !, including jvc 9911J, ag 1980 and sharp/toshibs good basic 4 head models, through a avt 8710 then through Panasonic es10 to the JVC M100S dvd recorder and the result was almost 100% identical from every machine, the vhs tape I used was a SP Ntsc good recording.

Ah, the true junkie. We're probably all in the same boat as you. My understanding however is that 4 heads are basically useful for recording quality, not playback quality, so to capture to digital, 2 heads should be enough. Not sure if some people here are actually still recording new content to VHS.

BTW - My DVR's hard drive was full one day a few months ago and didn't have time to empty it for a program so I went to VHS... it was very weird...

[thecoalman]

I will comment however on the fact that some of those that I haven't watched since 1987 or 1985 or whatever have had new life breathed into them in digital format - even if the quality wasn't the best, I still enjoyed them again. Probably the reason why I didn't watch them all these years previous was due to the fact that they were in some box somewhere, in a clunky VHS tape that you needed to cue in your machine that was breaking down anyway. Digital gives new life.

All of the tapes I did were watched maybe a few times, I think the major point most people overlook is archiving the material in the most suitable format for your children's children's children's.... I have a few photos here of my Great Grandfather but good prints are few and far between. I wish someone had taken the time to archive the negatives properly or even archived the print. Most are in pretty bad shape. That material may not be that important to you but it will be for future generations. Even the simplest every day tasks will be of interest to them. Videos of childrens birthday parties or even them horsing around cannot be replaced.

That's why I advocate storing as DV-AVI because its the highest quality format that is practical. Others are too large and others like MPEG lose a lot during encoding. Technology will improve and having the very best source (within your means) in the future is going to be essential to get the very most out of these videos when the time comes.

I have to disagree about it will not get any better, it is possible that somewhere along the line a machine will be invented to convert VHS to HD

Certainly technically possible but first you'd need a market for it and I doubt there would be one. Even if they did in the meantime your VHS is turning to fuzz. The technology for VHS has already reached its pinnacle. I don't think you're going to see anything in the future unless you have already archived as digital.

[PuzZLeR]

That's why I advocate storing as DV-AVI because its the highest quality format that is practical. Others are too large and others like MPEG lose a lot during encoding.

Looking into your recommendations, the ADVC looks awesome since Canopus has an award winning DV-AVI codec. Archiving an old sports game is one thing - DVR/MPEG-2 is fine. But now that I'm working with irreplaceable family vidz I would agree with DV to future-proof the quality.

I have to disagree about it will not get any better, it is possible that somewhere along the line a machine will be invented to convert VHS to HD

Certainly technically possible but first you'd need a market for it and I doubt there would be one. Even if they did in the meantime your VHS is turning to fuzz. The technology for VHS has already reached its pinnacle. I don't think you're going to see anything in the future unless you have already archived as digital.

So I wouldn't be misread - I never disagreed that it wasn't theoretically possible to improve the tech to do this, but yes, the market doesn't justify this for a format considered finished. There are enough consumer based solutions available that will satisfy Average Joe Consumer with little demand for better. So what we have now is what we have. The time to digitize is now.

[lordsmurf]

I-frame high bitrate MPEG-2 is just as good as DV, and much smaller. HP@HL if you don't want MP@ML. Studios use that as an editing source too.

[orsetto]

I have to disagree about it will not get any better, it is possible that somewhere along the line a machine will be invented to convert VHS to HD, that would create better results, I realise to the purist that is a load of crap but to the amateur wathcer, may be?

We should maybe clarify our terms here: we were mostly discussing the use of existing older machines from the "glory days" of VHS as playback sources to digitize VHS, for those of us who are fussy enough and interested enough to make use of them. In *those* terms, PuzZLer is quite correct that "the time is now": these machines are not getting any younger, they are getting scarcer, and they are getting harder to service. The image cleaning and stabilization functions they perform during the transfer stage are a bitch and a half for the untutored to replicate in PC post-processing. So they are in effect irreplaceable machines: they will not under any circumstances EVER be manufactured or improved upon again in future. VHS hardware is deader than dead, the very last high-end models of this category were the DVHS units of five-six years ago. End of story.

Now, if you mean will there be future Hi Def formats that will be made available as combo decks with cheap VHS sections, the answer is "probably". There still seem to be a lot of older folks with big VHS collections who have neither the time nor patience to transfer them to a digital format, so the hardware industry will continue to cater to those customers for at least one more format generation. It costs very little to include a bare-bones VHS deck in a chassis, so combo decks should continue for another few years. They may or may not be able to make a better VHS transfer than current equipment- my guess is not. These will be fine for the casual user but will have limited application for the fussier among us- we will still be trolling for ten year old deluxe VHS machines.

I hate to mention this but I put my vcr collection , and it numbers 8 models !, including jvc 9911J, ag 1980 and sharp/toshibs good basic 4 head models, through a avt 8710 then through Panasonic es10 to the JVC M100S dvd recorder and the result was almost 100% identical from every machine, the vhs tape I used was a SP Ntsc good recording.

Um... this kind of supports my earlier post? If you include an external AVT-8710 TBC and Panasonic ES10 in front of EVERY vcr you attach to your JVC DRM100 dvd recorder, you will almost always get a flawless result, especially with a "good NTSC recording". If you take out the AVT and the Panasonic, and connect your cheapest VCR directly to your DRM100, and try to transfer a "poor" tape recorded from noisy cable or a 2nd-3rd generation copy, chances are your DRM100 will exhibit problems and not make a very good transfer. Yet a newer DVD recorder of another brand will make a passable transfer under the same conditions. My intent was not to knock the JVCs, just to point out they cannot perform at their best without additional equipment that some might not want to bother with or spend money on. Those people should consider other options before committing to a JVC. (Although the point is moot now, since the only new JVCs worth getting are the "pro" units that cost $1900- totally impractical. Current inexpensive consumer JVCs are mediocre rebadged OEM units without the high-quality DRM100-style encoders.)

[victoriabears]

Thank you very much for your interesting post on this subject which is crucial to so many.

I am very interested in your notes about jvc dvd recorders of newer generations than the m100, what changed, and what other brands of dvd recorder would you suggest? Particulraly outside the often suggested Toshiba, for instance I see LG market a few models, what of other brands?

[p_l]

I had an LG a couple of years ago. I eventually returned it because of something or other, perhaps having to turn it off for the timer to record or not doing chase play or something, I forget. Anyway, I still have a few VHS transfers I did with it and the result was quite passable. I haven't tried recent models, though, but I always see them in the stores. And they have HDDs. I don't know why, but they always seem to be ignored like someone's ugly stepsister.

[PuzZLeR]

Particulraly outside the often suggested Toshiba, for instance I see LG market a few models, what of other brands?

I had an LG a couple of years ago. I eventually returned it because of something or other, perhaps having to turn it off for the timer to record or not doing chase play or something, I forget.

A family member had an LG machine. Yes, you have to turn off the machine to work the timer. Then it develops this annoying thing where it doesn't shut off properly - a bug in the firmware. After a firmware update it evolves to a similar glitch when finalizing. Once I even had them record a regular program for me as a favor since there was a scheduling conflict. The quality was quite inferior to what I was used to from my older Pioneer machine - the LG's content being viewed on a LCD monitor looked blocky, snowy, etc. I don't want to think how it would be with VHS.

Long story short, it was a bad product. I think LG needs some more time (but they make some nice blu-ray players though.) Anyway they got fed up and bought a Pioneer after since they liked mine. They've been happy ever since. And I recommend it too. Us Canadians are lucky having Pioneer available.

[PuzZLeR]

@Orsetto: Thanks again for your post, however can I get you to explain this a bit more?

If you include an external AVT-8710 TBC and Panasonic ES10 in front of EVERY vcr you attach to your JVC DRM100 dvd recorder, you will almost always get a flawless result, especially with a "good NTSC recording". If you take out the AVT and the Panasonic, and connect your cheapest VCR directly to your DRM100, and try to transfer a "poor" tape recorded from noisy cable or a 2nd-3rd generation copy, chances are your DRM100 will exhibit problems and not make a very good transfer. Yet a newer DVD recorder of another brand will make a passable transfer under the same conditions.

Obviously, for hypothetical purposes, you can mention that the TBC theoretically "equates" the capture from any VCR source. However, I notice you mention it necessary for the JVC DRM100. I had the understanding that it was built-in to DVRs. But the JVC DRM100 being an older machine doesn't have one built-in? And I would imagine, if a DVR has one built in, using a TBC would be redundant, regardless of whether or not the VCR has one. No?

Robjv1 and Davideck: I noticed you addressed the JVC as well. But I'm confused as to the TBC being in the VCR or the DVR, or neither, and your use of it as a third party external.

I'm assuming my Pioneer 520 from a couple of years ago has one built in, but I'm still curious about this nevertheless. Thanks for any clarification.

[Midzuki]

PuzZLeR wrote:

since VHS is really VCD resolution, half that of regular DvD SD Full D1,

VCD == 352x240/288, VHS and CVD == 352x480/576.

[PuzZLeR]

I admit when I typed that I wasn't sure of the details, but knew my point about going to HD rez from that of a lower-than-full DvD resolution would still be valid nevertheless. Even though you are a weird one, I still thank you for the correction and providing the exact figures.

[davideck]

Obviously, for hypothetical purposes, you can mention that the TBC theoretically "equates" the capture from any VCR source. However, I notice you mention it necessary for the JVC DRM100. I had the understanding that it was built-in to DVRs. But the JVC DRM100 being an older machine doesn't have one built-in? And I would imagine, if a DVR has one built in, using a TBC would be redundant, regardless of whether or not the VCR has one. No?

The JVC DRM100 does have an internal TBC/Frame Synchronizer, but its ability to lock to an unstable input (the so called "TBC performance" or "timebase correction capability") is lacking in comparison to other TBC/Frame Synchronizers, be they external devices or internal to other DVD Recorders. Therefore, putting one of these ahead of the JVC tends to improve things, even though it is in fact functionally redundant.

Robjv1 and Davideck: I noticed you addressed the JVC as well. But I'm confused as to the TBC being in the VCR or the DVR, or neither, and your use of it as a third party external.

I am wondering as well if the TBC in the VCR was on during robjv1's problem captures...
I was pointing out that my Toshiba DVD Recorder provides better TBC performance than my DataVideo TBC, so I also tend to use the Toshiba as an external TBC whenever I need one. Is that what you are referring to?

[Midzuki]

PuzZLeR wrote:

Even though you are a weird one, I still thank you for the correction and providing
the exact figures.

If you really are as good as you want me to believe,
then your alleged normality/sanity is just for show, granted.

[orsetto]

I am very interested in your notes about jvc dvd recorders of newer generations than the m100, what changed, and what other brands of dvd recorder would you suggest?

Newer JVC consumer decks, beginning with the DR-MV7, are not "pure" JVCs anymore. They do NOT have the famous LSI video encoder chip with JVC's proprietary Haddamard and Block Noise Reduction enhancements and JVC "FR" variable recording speed/bitrate adjustable in 5 minute increments. With the proper input signal, those features were what made JVC recorders worthwhile and sometimes superior. Without these features, a JVC is nothing but a Funai in a prettier cabinet: hardly worth seeking out. JVC *does* still include their "classic" features in their horrifically expensive "pro" line, but these are known to be DOA brand new and not cost effective for consumer use. In any case the superior encoder in "classic" JVCs like the DRM100 have the drawback of being oversensitive to some VHS instabilities that do not seem to bother later recorders from other mfrs.

Regarding the confusing use of the terms "TBC" and "frame synchronizer" as applied to circuits built into DVD recorders: these are yet ANOTHER circuit variation, different from external TBCs like DataVideo and AVT, and also different from the built-in TBC/DNR of a high-end VCR. These are more like analog "input buffers" that roughly stabilize incoming video signals before they reach the DVD encoder. Some recorders are better at this than others, JVCs were not very good, some older XS-Toshibas were excellent, a few Panasonics like the ES10 were superb, and all Pioneers made after 2005 are very very good. I'm not speaking here of actual final perceived image quality, these circuits are solely related to a DVD recorders ability to handle a sub-par VHS signal without external stabilizers: a JVC with attached TBC is certainly capable of making a "better" recording of some material than a Panasonic or Pioneer without TBC. The point is, if you DON'T care that the Panasonic or Pioneer recording is, say, 10% less "perfect" than the JVC but you DO care about spending an additional $500 for the TBC a JVC requires, you will make a compromise. That's all.

As far as suggesting alternatives for the JVC aficionado, that's a minefield with no good answer. The JVC DRM100 makes a very distinctive-looking recording that some people love and some people hate (to be crude, some think it looks beautifully smooth while others think it looks like mush). There is no other recorder on the market today that will give you JVCs exact "look". A lot depends on source quality and what accessories you're willing to purchase and use, since you already own an AVT-8710 TBC/Proc Amp and Panny ES10 stabilizer, you have perhaps more options that may work for you. According to our esteemed wabjxo, the Phillips 3575 and 3576 models have a derivation of the LSI encoder with highly effective noise reduction when recording VHS at SP bitrate. To my own eye, the Phillips recordings appear about the same as on my Pioneer 640 and 450, machines I prefer for their more intuitive remotes and editing procedures. Compared to my JVC DRM100, my Pioneers and Phillips do better with some tapes and slightly worse with others. But its very subjective and even I change my mind day to day. I don't have long-term experience with any Panasonics: these are like JVCs in that people love them or hate them, so I suppose they have a distinctive "look" to them as well. Toshiba seems to have dropped out of the standard DVD/HDD recorder race, their older units are beloved by some but the newer ATSC models are apparently no better than average. Of todays current models, just about ALL have solid input stabilizers for VHS and will make creditable recordings at SP or perhaps out to about 150mins. They will look more-or-less the same with the exception of older or pro-line JVC and Panasonic, which some feel have a more distinctive, identifiable, "superior" look to their recordings.

Frankly, I'm past caring anymore after transferring over 1000 VHS tapes to DVD. My primary criteria now is maximum efficiency using minimum hardware and effort for a "good enough" result. Perfectionism takes time- a lot of time. As long as I can get a recording with minimal jitter, tear, smear and noise I'm happy. I reserve my tinkering for "perfection" to only the most rare or irreplaceable recordings.

[davideck]

Regarding the confusing use of the terms "TBC" and "frame synchronizer" as applied to circuits built into DVD recorders:

Why are these terms confusing?

http://club.cdfreaks.com/f94/jvc-introduces-new-dvd-recorder-line-128096/

At the heart of the new JVC DVD recorder line is the DR-M100S...Super MPEG Encode Pre-Processor...A three-step process that takes place before MPEG-2 encoding of the input signal. A time base corrector eliminates jitter, a frame synchronizer provides frame normalization, and Motion Active Noise Reduction provides a clearer image than with conventional frame noise reduction, such as 3D noise reduction, by using an algorithm that predicts motion and applies it between moving pictures to minimize image lag...

these are yet ANOTHER circuit variation, different from external TBCs like DataVideo and AVT

Different in what way?

Without making a recording, if you monitor the Video In and the Video Out of a DVD Recorder simultaneously on a two channel oscilloscope, you will see these two signals drift in time with respect to each other. The Video Input is being retimed to the internal DVD Recorder reference and provided as an output. This is a good litmus test to check for the presence of a frame synchronizer.

This is the same operation that the DataVideo and AVT external TBC/Frame Synchronizers perform. I have provided a more detailed technical explanation here;
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/archive/tbc-fundamentals-t279530.html

These are more like analog "input buffers" that roughly stabilize incoming video signals before they reach the DVD encoder.

What is your definition of "analog input buffers"?

[orsetto]

davideck, you're splitting hairs: you're technically correct but that doesn't help "newbies" understand the different functionality of a "TBC" as a separate component, as built into a consumer VCR, and as built into a DVD recorder. There is confusion because the DVD recorder mfrs were full of it four years ago when they all claimed to have "pro-level" TBC and frame synchronizers built into them. They did not. The JVCs, Pioneers and other units pre-2005 absolutely gagged on the slightest VHS hiccup: hardly "equal" performance to an external dedicated TBC like the DataVideo or AVT. Ditto the VCR mfrs: the "TBCs" they include are not industrial strength and are mostly used to stabilize their associated dynamic noise shapers.

Trying to record unstable VHS to a JVC DRM100 or a Pioneer 510/520 or a LiteOn of the same era is an exercise in futility unless you add an external TBC to the input chain. Whatever "built-in" frame synchronizing or time base correcting they do is the bare minimum for off air recordings, so in that sense they are in a different category than an AVT or DataVideo external TBC. In the same vein, they do absolutely nothing to clean or reshape VHS chroma and luminance noise or stabilize tearing as they record- if anything they make it worse. Which brings us to the built-in "TBC" of hign end VCRs like the JVC 9911 or Panasonic AG1980: the value of these vcrs is in the chroma/luma *noise reduction* which is linked to their TBC circuits, here again new users are confused by the "TBC" reference. Newer DVD recorders like the Phillips 3576 or Pioneer 640 incorporate stronger input "TBCs" (or "frame synchronizers" or "input buffers" or whatever the hell anyone wants to call them). These perform similarly to the AVT or DataVideo but on a smaller scale: they correct normal VHS irregularities on the fly to avoid major picture distortion. But severely funky tapes will still need an external TBC and many will also need the noise reduction provided by high end VCRs.

The actual perceived visual benefit of these three "manifestations" of the TBC concept differ. There are many possible combinations of tape, VCR, and DVD recorder which will require one or more of these TBC variations. One size does not fit all: that is what newbies sometimes get confused about, and why I replied they aren't the same thing. On paper, yes they are- you are of course correct, but in practice, they aren't at all.

[davideck]

orsetto, I'll admit that I am of the technical persuasion and therefore tend to place a high value on specifics and accuracy. Splitting hairs is my hobby. I think it is important to accurately name, describe, and differentiate performance parameters when comparing different devices. "Timebase correction" is different than "frame synchronization" which is different than "noise reduction". Terms like these have specific meanings, and confusion arises when they are used interchangeably, as if they refer to the same thing or provide the same result.

...hardly "equal" performance to an external dedicated TBC like the DataVideo or AVT. Ditto the VCR mfrs: the "TBCs" they include are not industrial strength and are mostly used to stabilize their associated dynamic noise shapers.

I'll disagree with you here. For example, the JVC and Panasonic internal TBCs provide horizontal jitter reduction that is unmatched by any external TBC or DVD Recorder that I have tested. I would rate H jitter performance in this order from best to worst;

1) JVC Digital Camcorder pass through
2) JVC HR-S9600 / 7600
3) Panasonic AG-1970
4) Toshiba DVD Recorder
5) FOR-A 300 TBC/Frame Synchronizer
6) DataVideo TBC-1000 / TBC-3000
7) JVC DVD Recorder

With respect to vertical jitter performance, I would rate them differently. I keep reading great things about the vertical jitter performance of the TBC/Frame Synchronizer in the Panasonic ES10 DVD Recorder. Maybe it would be at the top of the list. With respect to video quality (signal transparency), I would rate them differently still. A requirement for frame synchronization would knock out some right away. And of course, some things might vary depending on the source tape, so I fail to see how this all reduces to three "manifestations" of the TBC concept.

I agree that in practice, all TBCs are unique.

[orsetto]

So, we more or less agree after all , except you don't quite get what I mean by confusion over the three circuit variants: you and I and many people here understand the differences, but newbies zero in on the acronym "TBC" as if it were the answer to everything. Both of us, in our own ways, are trying to explain that each different device that has a "TBC" in it will have different effects on the result, and often the expensive outboard TBC is the least effective at solving a problem, per your list. We both agree each random combination of tapes and hardware presents different challenges and unpredictable results. For example, while I'd agree with most of your hardware list, in my *personal* experience JVC vcrs are jitter factories that cause more jitter than they solve. I use them for noise processing only when I need to. For jitter, I turn to a Panasonic VCR or borrow as many different brands of DVD recorder as I can until I find one with an encoder that can resist that oddball tape's jitter. Fortunately I don't have too many jittery tapes!

There are no guarantees with this VHS-to-DVD process, which is a drag because many of us waste a lot of time and money on trial and error with assorted hardware until we find what works most of the time for our own tapes. When you average our experience a sort of consensus emerges, but it is still an unpredictable thing. Makes life difficult if you're on a budget and don't want to become an electronics dealer on eBay.

[davideck]

We agree on many things. I find your posts to be full of valuable, specific, and accurate assessments of the performance parameters of many different devices, and I thank you for expressing them so well.

When you use the term "circuit", do you mean the actual circuitry? If so, then I claim that the DataVideo is much less similar to the FOR-A than it is to a DVD Recorder. There are fundamental differences between the JVC and Panasonic VCR internal TBCs, so I would not group them together in terms of circuitry. Which group would include Camcorder pass throughs? They are excellent TBCs.

If all TBCs are unique in practice, then I do not see a reason to attempt to categorize them. In fact, I suspect that it leads to confusion. Everyone's performance parameter list is different. Nevertheless, someone may end up thinking they need to buy a DataVideo because it is an "external TBC" when they've got a "DVD Recorder" in the other room that might not only do the job as well, but may actually perform better with respect to the parameter that they are interested in.

I think it is less confusing to simply identify the actual "TBC"s and "Frame Synchronizer"s, etc. along the signal path wherever they may be, specify their strengths and weaknesses, and then evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of having them there. Whether they are in a separate box or inside a VCR or DVDR doesn't matter. The issue is the signal path.

[vhelp]

I say, Before and After are best medicine for disicussions like these..

A digital Camcorder with analog passthrough to 1394 can also provide excellent TBC performance. The JVC GR-DVL915 is particularly good at eliminating jitter, even outperforming the internal TBC in the JVC VCRs.

Yeah, I agree. This definately works great for this purpose.. mine is the JVC GR-DVL820U model. However, (OT) this model also offers a discovered hidden function: progressive video.

The edges are nicely flush and clean. No wobble or jitter/tear.

I don't know what else to give to the original poster (and others) in terms of suggestions to work out in their vhs transfer to other medium through the avenues of hardware devices. But it would have been a wise move if the poster (and others) would post a short few seconds or so of of video clip so we can see the issue at hand and then assertain theoris, suggestion or solutions. I wish people would do this ore often, but they don't. These threads always bring out good ideas and things but on account of the lack of acutal evendense (problem source) they are just theories in some cases

-vhelp 4759

[lordsmurf]

IF you two can come to terms with re-defining "TBC", "frame synchronizers" and whatever ever -- for the benefit of the masses -- let me know. There is way too much overlap, the terms are too loose, and it's downright damned misleading half of the time (for example, Canopus ads about the ADVC devices).

[davideck]

I'll offer these definitions, based on the actual hardware that is required to provide the functionality.

Starting with "TBC", in order to digitize the image area of a video signal, it is necessary to derive a sampling clock that is based on the timing signals within the sync area of the video signal. The characteristics of this sampling clock will determine the TBC performance of the digitization process. This implies that any device that digitizes video will have some charactersistc TBC performance. Therefore;

"TBC" = a device that digitizes a video signal

Note that there are several parameters associated with TBC performance. Horizontal Jitter reduction, Vertical Jitter reduction, Chroma Purity improvement, etc. can all be evaluated for any digitizing process.

Now for "Frame Synchronizer". One characteristic of a video signal is whether or not it is continuous over time. By this I mean that the timing signals within the sync area are never missing or corrupt or reset to a new frame before the previous frame is completed. When a VCR plays through a record gap on tape between two scenes, the whole video signal drops out such that the image area and the sync area are temporarily lost or corrupted. Whenever the channel is changed on a tuner, the switch from one source to another creates a discontinuity in the timing signals, thereby temporarily corrupting the sync area of the tuner output. Capture devices do not react favorably to corruption of the sync area.

A Frame Synchronizer creates a reference video output signal that is continuous over time regardless of what is happening at its video input. If the video input is valid, then the Frame Synchronizer digitizes the image area and inserts it into the reference video output signal. If the video input is not valid, then the reference video output simply marches on providing a continuous sync area with black or blue or noise or whatever in the image area. This typically requires a frame of memory in order to synchronize the input timing to the output timing. Therefore;

"Frame Synchronizer" = a device that digitizes a video input signal and provides a continuous video output signal.

Note that as defined here, all Frame Synchronizers include a TBC. However, not all TBCs are Frame Synchronizers.

Make sense?

[orsetto]

Very nice, very clear! Thank you, davideck!

[deuce8pro]

Orsetto,
I question someone with your expertise and knowledge which I think is amazing would have such issues with vhs tapes you seem to have recorded. The issues you have dont sound like to me the type of issues I have which are often multi-generational and 20 years old tapes. Now THAT is the problem that I dont think 99 percent of the people who visit or post in these forums have. But your problem seems to be what? Let me ask, did you store these tapes well over the past 20 years or so and did you record them in SP mode on high grade tapes of the time? Id think with limited playing in all these years, those tapes should have no problems dealing with the TBC/DNR filters of the JVC decks. In fact, it should make those tapes look better then they did played back after recording them on the original VCR. Have you tried using your original vcr to transfer them since they dont appear to work on the JVC's well? The thing is that people do need to understand is to not use a $20 vcr if they want good results and you do need a recorder such as the JVC DRM100 but you must set the black level before recording on that unit and the results will come out amazing. You cant rely on the JVC recorder as a time based corrector but merely a deck for encoding. The second you rely on it for time based correction ability, you're screwed. But specifically I wanna know what is the problem with your tapes and have you tried rewinding and fast forwarding them multiple times before playing? Also have you thought of using this chain of method that will clean up your tapes:

Either JVC, Panasonic or Mitsu svhs deck with thc/dnr turned on or off depending if it jitters or flags > a pro quality s-video wire > Panasonic ES10 with line in nr turned on and both in and output black level set to dark > a second pro quality s-video wire > any camcorder with analog to digitial pass through with tbc/dnr > firewire > jvc drm100

This should give you the results that everyone is looking for unless you have such problematic tapes.
A JVC deck or even a Mitsu deck might not track the tape well. You can argue that these decks add a problem in and thats a good point, but these decks do far more good then bad. Also, have you tried opening the deck and cleaning the tape guides and what not after every day of using these decks? It could help and it has with me.
Cleaning the guides.
Some tapes are just too stubborn and wont track in most vcrs. You have to realize that you are gonna deal with that if you want to track tapes that are old.

[orsetto]

deuce8pro, thank you for your thoughtful inquiries into my specific tape transfer issues, and your well-considered advice.

I would reply that I have now managed to cover all of my bases quite well with the minimum amount of hardware possible, which was my goal. Each of us here has different priorities, in my case I have a deadline approaching when I will be moving to a much smaller home with a fraction of the storage space I currently enjoy. I have nearly 3000 VHS tapes which I rarely watch but I want to keep just because I spent so many years recording them. So my position is, I need to do the *fastest* number of transfers commensurate with reasonable (not flawless, but equal to the tapes) quality. I cannot spend precious time fooling around with an assortment of TBCs, proc amps, additional recorders used as stabilizers, too many types of VCR, etc. I am usually running between four and five transfers simultaneously, several times a day. Which explains why I wanted to hit on a predictably stable DVD recorder model, and widely compatible VCR model to feed it.

In the beginning four years ago when I had more time, I used equipment similar to what you suggest: JVC DRM100 and DRMV5 dvd recorders, an assortment of high end VCRs, and daisy chains of stabilizing hardware. For the number of transfers I need to do, this quickly became unwieldy and difficult to manage, also I went dangerously into hock trying to purchase the entire chain several times over for simultaneous transfers. More or less by accident, I discovered the JVC DVD recorders, and the early Pioneers I also tried, were particularly sensitive to some very minor issues on many of my tapes, which later DVD recorder models by Pioneer and Panasonic and Phillips would handle just fine *without* requiring outboard stabilizers or TBCs or high-end VCR circuits. This simplified my hardware requirements dramatically, and allowed me to set up five dubbing stations in a small amount of space with a predictable workflow that did not require time-consuming adjustments to multiple components. I needed repeatability, and finally got it. The resulting DVDs are mostly within the final quality range I would have gotten with my earlier, more complex setup. Some are not quite as good, some are better, a few (very few) I do over again, adjusting things a bit until I'm satisfied. On average they are just fine.

I do not have any problems due to bad tape brands, climate damage, poor storage, anything like that. Every tape is good-quality TDK, Fuji and Maxell, half are high grades dating from when that grading system actually meant something. All are stored vertically in the ten-tape shipping boxes they were bought in, in a basement which is never damp and always temperate. They have been sampled and viewed periodically over the years by family and friends. They were all recorded on top vcrs of their era, mostly 4-head HQ HiFi recorders with flying erase heads from Hitachi, Panasonic and Mitsubishi. So there are no physical tape problems involved.

Where I ran into trouble with 2005 and earlier JVC and Pioneer dvd recorders was their heightened sensitivity to a kind of "invisible" signal distortion on roughly 1000 of my tapes recorded from analog cable. These tapes look normal when played directly from any VCR into a television, but connected to early JVC and Pioneer dvd recorders they turn into a maelstrom of distortion, tearing, jitter and noise- utterly unwatchable as DVD transfers. The same result occured with approx 30% of my tapes that were second or third generation copies, such as movies copied to edit out commercials or compilation tapes of TV comedy clips and music. The only way to get passable transfers from these tapes was to use every available DNR and TBC circuit on a high-end JVC or Mitsubishi VCR, sometimes adding a DataVideo TBC and/or other intermediate items. This thwarted my naive plans to run "no fuss" multiple dubbing stations simultaneously. Also, the DNR/TBC circuits on the fancy VCRs often solved the main problems but then added artifacts of their own: they can add minor jitter, smooth away important detail along with noise, make live video look like a cartoon, and create false white "dropouts"- all of which stops when you turn off their TBC and DNR. After a while it became a depressing game of what artifacts do I detest least?

Then one day while cruising eBay I came across a listing for a used Pioneer 531, then Pioneer's latest model with hard drive (my own units did not have hard drives). No one seemed to bid on it, and I won it for under $200. I figured I could always resell it after I tested it. Well... suffice to say I still have that Pioneer 531, learned how to repair it, and have replaced its burner to keep it chugging away for me. The first week I owned it, I threw two dozen of what I thought were my most impossible tapes at it. One by one I turned off the fancy VCR features and removed all the intervening stabilizers and TBCs: no reaction! The video and sound held steady, with just a little rise in color noise when I turned of the JVC vcrs' DNR. Finally, I substituted my lowly 1997 Quasar from the living room, a simple 4-head hifi vcr you can pick up anywhere for yes, $20. The transfer of my "torture" tapes from this simple VCR straight to the Pioneer 531 went perfectly: not a single hiccup or artifact. I came the closest I ever did to turning a cartwheel: somewhere between 2003 and 2005 Pioneer figured out how to reduce the sensitivity of its DVD recorders to minor VHS irregularities!

Over time, I slowly sold off my JVC dvd recorders and some of my high-end JVC and Mitsubishi VCRs, and most of the other TBCs and stabilizers, since I found them to be unnecessary with newer DVD recorders. I replaced them with four more Pioneer DVD/HDD recorders (bought broken at cheap prices and repaired them myself) and a Phillips 3575. I also picked up a bargain Panasonic AG1970 vcr for its jitter stabilizer, an inexpensive Sharp vcr and a couple of simple cheap Panasonic AG2560 industrial players which equal the quality of my cheap but amazingly good Quasar. Combined with the one JVC9911 I kept (because its too unreliable to sell) and my Mitsubishi DVHS, I'm covered for nearly every tape in the house.

I write my endless posts whenever this topic comes up because I hope to prevent others from spending as much time and money as I have to get to this point. It is perfectly understandable that many members bought their hardware several years ago and swear by it as wonderful, and dispense advice regarding all the external extras needed to get good results from *that* hardware. It works for you, its long since been paid off, and naturally you want to help new people to get the same good results. When I offer alternative advice, it isn't to dispute those members: when I started out I used the same items and would have given the same advice. But because I had to try new things to get myself moving faster, I learned that some of our long-held advice here is not strictly necessary but situational depending on the DVD recorder and tapes involved. If someone new here inherits a pre-2005 DVD recorder, especially JVC or Pioneer, and wants to use it for tape transfers, they should definitely print out deuce8pros post above and keep it for reference, because his suggestions are necessary for good results with those DVD recorders. But if you just now went out and bought a new Pioneer 650 or Phillips 3576 or Panasonic EH55, I would suggest starting small: just hook up your existing vcr to your new dvd recorder. You may be surprised to discover it makes a perfectly serviceable DVD this way!

If you have rare irreplaceable tapes with a lot of color smear and noise, or other strange distortions, THEN you could try a high-end JVC9911 or Mitsubishi DVHS or Panasonic AG1980 to correct the problem. These VCRs are not cheap and not easy to find, so don't pull your hair out trying to buy one unless you *really* have many tapes that would need their help. I also suggest not judging a book by its cover: just because a VCR was commonplace or inexpensive compared to a JVC9911 does NOT necessarily mean its greatly inferior. Particularly during the mid-1990s. many simple 4-head hifi VCR models from Panasonic/Quasar and Sharp included surprisingly sophisticated color decoders and hifi tracking that in some ways BETTER the circuits in more expensive decks. I am very often surprised that my simple Quasar and my lowly Panny 2560s output a video signal only slightly inferior to my JVC9911 and other premium decks with their TBC and DNR turned on. The benefit to using the more basic VCR is the more realistic image you get from them, especially of people's faces which tend to get 'plasticky'-looking when you turn on the premium VCRs TBC/DNR. Also, I find in most cases after using the TBC/DNR switch I have to sit and watch the entire transfer on the hard drive of the DVD recorder, editing out the inevitable glitches and hiccups caused by these circuits as they try to dynamically clean the image. When using a basic VCR as the source, I hardly ever have to do this: the transfer is consistent at all points in the program.

Those wanting to use older DVD recorders for VHS transfers, whether out of preference for their image quality or because they acquired them inexpensively, would do well to research the advice of long-term members like deuce8pro and of course LordSmurf, who've done a great deal of work with these older machines as well as newer ones, using every imaginable source tape. But if you are totally new to this and just this week bought a new DVD recorder, try my simpler approach first: you might find it perfectly satisfactory. If you don't, there are dozens of members here more advanced than me who have many tips to offer you (that's how I learned in the beginning).

VideoHelp is the single greatest community resource for video hobbyists on the web, thanks to all the experts and newcomers constantly exchanging their experiences here. Gotta love it!

[deuce8pro]

I cant understand what exactly this signal distortion is you are talking about on those analog tv broadcasts
that you recorded. I recorded many tapes on analog tv broadcasts and played
them fine. Except I used a Toshiba dvd recorder. I could have easily just passed the signal to the JVC
for encoding but I decided to do it that way.

Now you are saying four years ago you used a JVC dvd recorder. I believe you mean the JVC DRM10, right?
That came out in 2004. 2005 came out with the DRM100.

Also I have to disagree with your opinion that the TBC/DNR circuits of the JVC smoothes away important detail
or makes it look "plasticky". If improving your tapes by removing the noise/grain in the picture makes it
look unrealistic and plasticky to you. You should immediately box up thst vcr and resell it to
someone who prefers a cleaned up image. I think those circuits are necessary on every tape you recorded
from a analog tv broadcast. In some cases on multi-generational tapes its necessary to turn the tbc/dnr
off as it will add more noise in or cause jitter, but thats on some tapes.
Thats why you need to experiment with what gives you the best results with these decks.
I dont see any reason why you shouldnt use it for your 3000 tapes.
What I think is a mistake to do is recommending a regular VHS player to transfer your tapes,
that would be getting back all you tried to eliminate with a JVC. Also, your only option
would be a regular yellow video wire connector, which isnt gonna seperate the colors its gonna give you
a very dull and soft look. What experts at this site I feel dont talk enough about is the wiring, you
must use the very best s-video wires (not necessarily expensive ones) to seperate the colors
and give you the sharp detail you need. That will make a difference in your
dvds (preferably encoded on the JVC DRM100 though).

Also we dont wanna recommend a Panasonic dvd recorder for encoding
unless its a model like the ES10 with great pass through tbc-like filters.
Also, I dont recommend "pre-2005" dvd recorders. Ive never commented about
any "pre-2005" dvd recorder.
I recommend the JVC DRM100 strictly as an encoder, not a TBC.
If anything its a more affordable option as you can buy one used on ebay for much less,
hoping in still working order.
I recommend the Pan es10 or the Toshiba DR4 as a pass through tbc/black level corrector
into the JVC. Both can be found on ebay for less then $100 new.
Although the es10 is much better as a pass through tbc filter and it does have some
form of noise reduction in it and you want to turn it on unless you feel it softens
the image too much which I think is redundant since vhs tapes are soft anyway.

I think theres also the possibility that your tapes dont need the extra filtering.
Its possible that they are fine the way they are played back in your Quasar deck. But I doubt id prefer that if it were my tapes.

[tonyaldr]

I don't have the experience that these senior members have, but I'll just give you my experience. Originally I was using a JVC combo deck to transfer my old VHS (recorded at EP) to DVD and was getting decent transfers. But then when I wanted to edit, I had to rip from the DVD and do editing on the PC. Now I broke down and bought the ION VHS2PC player with USB. Although the software is pretty bare bones and buggy, it does what it's supposed to do and transfers to a single large MPG file which I can edit in another MPG editing program. It also plays back the tapes better than the JVC unit did. Might want to give it a try.

[orsetto]

deuce8pro, my issue with "invisible" distortion inherent in the tapes I recorded from local analog cable are apparently unique to me, since nobody else here reports a similar experience. I have tried describing it as best I can but without seeing it for yourself its hard. Time Warner analog cable quality in NYC has always been borderline horrible, apparently it is so unstable that it barely survives analog VHS recording but can't hold itself together if digitally encoded from those VHS tapes by a sensitive DVD encoder. The JVC DRM10, DRM100, DRMV5 and Pioneer 210, 310, 510, and 520 recorders I've attempted to use all required heavy external processing to make a usable DVD from those tapes. Connecting the unprocessed VHS direct to the DVD recorder resulted in a picture not unlike the opening sequence of "The Outer Limits": unwatchable. Connecting the same unprocessed VHS directly to a *current model* Pioneer or Phillips, etc, results in a normal, satisfactory DVD copy with no issues. So the crux of my experience is look to the DVD recorder first: if someone is having distortion issues with an excessively high number of their tapes, and their recorder is three years old, the easier answer may lie in getting a more up-to-date DVD recorder than spending a fortune on ancillary items.

Sorry if my use of the term "pre-2005 dvd recorder" was unclear: I was trying to give a general 'dating' guideline because I'm dead certain all post-2005 machines have more stable reactions to VHS. 2005 was the turning point, that year some makers upgraded their encoders for better VHS handling (Pioneer, Toshiba), but others like JVC did not. During 2004 I used a couple of JVC DRM10 units I borrowed long-term from a friend's studio. They were highly recommended by online forums for their picture quality, and did not disappoint, although they did require all the add-ons to cope with my VHS sources as discussed eariler. Eventually they developed the dreaded power-supply meltdown common to that model, and I gave them back to the studio so they could be sent in for service. Since I was happy with their PQ, I began my mega-project in earnest. I stocked up on the new-for-2005 JVC DRM100 and DRMV5. These had equally excellent PQ, but also needed all the outboard hardware, so I maxed out my credit cards to buy multiple TBCs, multiple vcrs with TBC/DNR, etc.

It was in late 2006 that I tried the second-hand Pioneer 531 (a 2005 model). This coped nicely with all my tapes, never requiring the outboard TBC (which softens the image besides being expensive) and rarely requiring the cleanup skills of the expensive TBC/DNR eqipped VCRs. To be sure this wasn't a fluke, I doubled back and borrowed a number of different dvd recorders from friends, dated 2003-2006. All the pre-2005 units gave me trouble, and *some* 2005 machines as well, most notably the very JVC DRM100 and DRMV5 which I had stocked up on. Satisfied that post-2005 machines would suit me better, and very happy with the hard drive editing system on the Pioneer 531, I began selling my original hardware and replacing it with Pioneer 531, 640, 540, and recently 450 models that I buy "broken" and repair (usually replacing the hard drive makes them good as new.)

Of course my posts reflect *my* specific experience, by no means do I suggest I'm right and everyone else is wrong. But since I am getting by having downsized to the minimum amount of hardware, I feel comfortable recommending that as a *starting point* before buying all the additional processors and fancy VCRs: wait until you definitely see a need. I also feel that my alternative view regarding the positive and negative points of expensive TBC/DNR vcrs is not often represented here: we constantly see "wonder cure" reports that a JVC9911, Panasonic AG1980, or a DVHS will "solve every problem and make your DVD copies look better than the original tapes". It ain't necessarily so, there is no free lunch: these machines clear up noise, and sometimes jitter, but they DO alter the overall image in ways that are obnoxious if you are sensitive to it. Personally, I cannot *stand* the way these VCRs make facial features constantly blur and shift out of movement sync with the actual face. These machines eliminate noise by performing a very crude (and slow-reacting) pre-digitization of the VHS image, and removing detail along with noise. These circuits are not the $10,000 processors in a Hollywood studio, they are $50 chips grafted into an otherwise ordinary VCR. Combined with the consumer-grade encoders in DVD recorders you can end up with a blend of two potentially sub-par encodes instead of one.

So I avoid the TBC/DNR switch in the high-end decks as much as possible- I prefer to see a little VHS noise (which I'm used to anyway) with normal, realistic detail that does not disappear when the primary object moves and then reappear when its stationary. After 27 years and dozens of VCRs, I've also noticed the super-high-end TBC/DNR decks do not track hifi sound nearly as well as their less expensive brothers: an important consideration on some tapes where pristine sound is more important than the perfect picture. I do still need the JVC9911 and Mitsubishi 2000DVHS for some tapes with severe color noise or horizontal jitter, over time and many tapes I've learned how to determine within seconds which VHS tapes will benefit most from TBC/DNR processing with the least amount of motion artifacts. But if I didn't already have them I'm not sure I'd be willing to pay up to $400 to buy a TBC/DNR vcr now- I'd probably make do with the slightly inferior transfer. Note that each high-end VCR employs different processing: JVC and Mitsubishi prioritize perfect color above all else and will sacrifice detail to get it, Panasonic changed TBCs between the 1970 and 1980 (the 1970 is better for horizontal jitter and detail enhancement but does nothing for noise, the 1980 clears noise and enhances color but loses detail, has no adjustment range and adds spurious vertical cross-hatching to some areas of the picture). All my fancier VCRs were bought brand new except for the 1970, they are not malfunctioning: its a matter of choosing your poison.

We all see things differently: I'm only saying its unwise to assume any single method is "the way" until you've tried it and looked at the results several times with *your* favorite tapes. Some prefer (or their DVR requires) additional processing, some do not. If one set of hardware doesn't look right to you, try another until you find one that does. It all depends on how you see things, your particular tapes, your TV display, etc.

[davideck]

these machines clear up noise, and sometimes jitter, but they DO alter the overall image in ways that are obnoxious if you are sensitive to it. Personally, I cannot *stand* the way these VCRs make facial features constantly blur and shift out of movement sync with the actual face. These machines eliminate noise by performing a very crude (and slow-reacting) pre-digitization of the VHS image, and removing detail along with noise...I prefer to see a little VHS noise (which I'm used to anyway) with normal, realistic detail that does not disappear when the primary object moves and then reappear when its stationary.

I agree.

Temporal filtering (i.e., combining pixels across multiple frames) is utilized in the JVC TBC/DNR VCRs to provide noise reduction. This is an aggressive technique that should be avoided if the preservation of detail is desired. Small differences in pixel values from one frame to another are considered to be noise and averaged out, thereby also eliminating the subtle differences in detail from frame to frame. The noticeable delays involved with frame averaging lead to the image lag that you mention.

I find it interesting to note that JVC claims the DNR in their DVD Recorder is "clearer" (i.e., more detail?) than what they utilized in their VCRs...

http://club.cdfreaks.com/f94/jvc-introduces-new-dvd-recorder-line-128096/

At the heart of the new JVC DVD recorder line is the DR-M100S...Super MPEG Encode Pre-Processor...A three-step process that takes place before MPEG-2 encoding of the input signal. A time base corrector eliminates jitter, a frame synchronizer provides frame normalization, and Motion Active Noise Reduction provides a clearer image than with conventional frame noise reduction, such as 3D noise reduction, by using an algorithm that predicts motion and applies it between moving pictures to minimize image lag...

[orsetto]

davideck, thanks for providing the correct technical term and process details! Much more concise than my rambling attempts to describe what I see using those VCRs. The things I learn here.

"Temporal Filtering" sounds w-a-y cool, doesn't it? Too bad it has some drawbacks at affordable price levels.