AVT-8710 TBC & Lack of RCA Audio Input/Output - Will It Matter?

[NY2LA]

These images demonstrate that the TBC performance of the Canopus is better than the AVT for this type of timing error.

. . . if only the Canopus ADVC110 didn't skip frames in the capture at left. Apparently, that's what the Canopus does instead of allowing the tearing.

[NY2LA]

But the Canopus is still missing MANY sync/timing errors, based on the geometric distortions in the architecture. While it does seem to help more with the one specific tearing issue, it fails at everything else. I would argue that it's "fixing" or "removing" the tearing -- it's just reducing it from what I can tell.

Indeed, the Philips may have some degree of corrections. But again, it won't be able to account for all errors. That's why multiple TBCs and frame syncs may be needed. And that starts at having a good VCR.

In fact, there's a chance all of this is the fault of the VCR.

I think the problematic videotapes themselves definitely have time base errors. However, I am using only a cheap consumer VCR, Toshiba SD-V296 DVD/VCR Combo, so perhaps a better VCR would help.

I am going to read all of the info via the links you provided. Looks like lots of good suggestions.

Also, possibly, I need to develop a better eye for the issues the Canopus ADVC110 (by itself) is failing at, that you refer to.

[davideck]

These images demonstrate that the TBC performance of the Canopus is better than the AVT for this type of timing error.

. . . if only the Canopus ADVC110 didn't skip frames in the capture at left. Apparently, that's what the Canopus does instead of allowing the tearing.

There are two separate functions involved here. Timebase correction (to remove/reduce the tearing) and frame synchronization (to prevent frame dropping).

The AVT is providing frame synchronization with poor TBC performance. The Canopus is doing a better job of timebase correction, but it is not providing frame synchronization.

In most cases, the first TBC device (i.e., digitizing device) in the signal path determines the TBC performance of the whole path. Putting the AVT ahead of the Canopus prevents the Canopus from performing the TBC function.

[edDV]

But he is using the ADVC-110 (no TBC) not the ADVC-300 (line TBC).

[lordsmurf]

And the Canopus does not have a "TBC" by most definitions. Even the 300 model is easy to argue, observing its output. There is correction going on, sure, but I don't think we could truly call either one a "TBC" by the definition most people would want to apply (based on the quality of output).

Possible TBC functions:
- reduce jitter (vertical)
- remove jitter (horizontal)
- remove tearing
- replace and rebuild non-visual signal data (i.e., wiping out anti-copy and similar natural errors)
- stabilize the chroma (remove/prevent chroma noise)
- stabilize the luminance

The Canopus doesn't really do ANY of that.
I have yet to figure out what the Canopus 300 boxes do to claim "TBC" status.

[NY2LA]

I have yet to figure out what the Canopus 300 boxes do to claim "TBC" status.

In fact, I get the impression, even on the Grass Valley Desktop Solutions Forum, ADVC Products, no one raves about it. See kbosward's comments:
http://ediusforum.grassvalley.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9942

[lordsmurf]

Canopus has never given me a straight answer. I've asked.

There is more information at https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/313473-NOTE-A-Canopus-DV-box-does-not-replace-a-TBC!
There are some comments in there about how the TBC does essentially nothing from what anybody could see. Somebody in Japan had been researching this, and I have some of the documentation -- then he never finished. The findings at the time were along the lines of "if there's a TBC, I can't find it." My research is still a mess, so can't pull it up easily or quickly, unfortunately. Been working at that all year now.

[edDV]

The Canopus ADVC-100/110 does fine at what it does, convert analog composite or S-Video to DV format. It uses a similar hardware codec to the Sony DV camcorders but solves the levels issues with switchable black IRE.

VHS/SVHS has many other noise and timebase instability issues with the exception of some "prosumer SVHS SP only decks with TBC" that the ADVC-100/110 doesn't address. They just encode what you give them.

They do a credible job with Video8/Hi8 from a player with TBC like the D400/D800. They should also do OK from a quality TBC output.

I think the OP's issues are problems on the tape. The way to verify that is try the tape playback to a differenct capture device such as a DVD recorder.

[davideck]

But he is using the ADVC-110 (no TBC) not the ADVC-300 (line TBC).

No argument. That falls under my previous statement;

"If the Canopus is not removing any timing errors, then the AVT must be making things worse."

Any device that digitizes video will do so at some level of TBC performance. Making no difference is better than making things worse.

[lordsmurf]

The Canopus ADVC-100/110 does fine at what it does, convert analog composite or S-Video to DV format. It uses a similar hardware codec to the Sony DV camcorders .

I would say it's "competent" for what it is. It's just a box that turns inputted video to DV on output.
Any number of DV cameras can do the same thing, however, so it's nothing special.
I'd suggest there are other (better) DV codecs, too. Matrox, for example.
The Canopus boxes are simply overhyped.

Not bad, but nothing to hold up in awe and wonderment.

[edDV]

The Canopus ADVC-100/110 does fine at what it does, convert analog composite or S-Video to DV format. It uses a similar hardware codec to the Sony DV camcorders .

I would say it's "competent" for what it is. It's just a box that turns inputted video to DV on output.
Any number of DV cameras can do the same thing, however, so it's nothing special.
I'd suggest there are other (better) DV codecs, too. Matrox, for example.
The Canopus boxes are simply overhyped.

Not bad, but nothing to hold up in awe and wonderment.

The advantage of the Canopus ADVC series over most DV camcorders (MiniDV+DVCAM+Digital8, ...aka DV25) is the zero/7.5 IRE switch. It makes all the difference.

DV codecs have converged to the same thing since the format was standardized in 1998. The only "better" DV codecs are those that have the switch and maintain levels. For hardware codecs, Canopus is spot on. For PC software encoding use the Cedocida DV codec.

I agree there is nothing magic about the ADVC series. Their design goes back to 2003-4. But they are highly useful for analog to DV format conversion.


Note: the above discussion only applies to the Americas version (aka NTSC) of DV. The only thing NTSC about the ADVC is the analog input. It also has switches for PAL to 4:2:0 DV.

[NY2LA]

I think the OP's issues are problems on the tape. The way to verify that is try the tape playback to a differenct capture device such as a DVD recorder.

As you know, I think the problems are on the tapes. But I've been confused about why they copy okay to miniDV tape. What circuitry does a Canon ZR200 camcorder, which cost me only about $400.00 in 2005, have that the AVT-8710 doesn't have?

Unfortunately, I don't have another capture device such as a DVD recorder.

P.S. Transferring to MiniDV tape, then capturing the MiniDV tape, has been my workaround for this problem. But I was hoping for something else.

[NY2LA]

The advantage of the Canopus ADVC series over most DV camcorders (MiniDV+DVCAM+Digital8, ...aka DV25) is the zero/7.5 IRE switch. It makes all the difference.

Very interesting. I have done side-by-side comparisons of captures of the same material, on my computer monitor, of the Canopus ADVC110 versus the Canon ZR200. At first, I thought I didn't see a difference. Then I noticed brighter stars in a night sky, and brighter white text on a black background, in the ADVC captures. Ever since, using the ADVC has been my preference.

[NY2LA]

The advantage of the Canopus ADVC series over most DV camcorders (MiniDV+DVCAM+Digital8, ...aka DV25) is the zero/7.5 IRE switch. It makes all the difference.

DV codecs have converged to the same thing since the format was standardized in 1998. The only "better" DV codecs are those that have the switch and maintain levels. For hardware codecs, Canopus is spot on. For PC software encoding use the Cedocida DV codec.

I agree there is nothing magic about the ADVC series. Their design goes back to 2003-4. But they are highly useful for analog to DV format conversion.


Note: the above discussion only applies to the Americas version (aka NTSC) of DV. The only thing NTSC about the ADVC is the analog input. It also has switches for PAL to 4:2:0 DV.

So, with the switch set to 7.5 IRE (the way I've always had it set), does this mean the ADVC is removing the 7.5 IRE setup from the NTSC analog source (North American VCR), bringing the darkest blacks to the zero percent level in the digital video?

Then when I send video out from the NLE, through the ADVC as digital to analog, and analog out to the monitor, the ADVC is adding the 7.5 IRE setup?

Am I understanding this correctly?

[edDV]

The advantage of the Canopus ADVC series over most DV camcorders (MiniDV+DVCAM+Digital8, ...aka DV25) is the zero/7.5 IRE switch. It makes all the difference.

DV codecs have converged to the same thing since the format was standardized in 1998. The only "better" DV codecs are those that have the switch and maintain levels. For hardware codecs, Canopus is spot on. For PC software encoding use the Cedocida DV codec.

I agree there is nothing magic about the ADVC series. Their design goes back to 2003-4. But they are highly useful for analog to DV format conversion.


Note: the above discussion only applies to the Americas version (aka NTSC) of DV. The only thing NTSC about the ADVC is the analog input. It also has switches for PAL to 4:2:0 DV.

So, with the switch set to 7.5 IRE (the way I've always had it set), does this mean the ADVC is removing the 7.5 IRE setup from the NTSC analog source (North American VCR), bringing the darkest blacks to the zero percent level in the digital video?

Then when I send video out from the NLE, through the ADVC as digital to analog, and analog out to the monitor, the ADVC is adding the 7.5 IRE setup?

Am I understanding this correctly?

Yes. In more precise terms 7.5-100 IRE NTSC gets converted to 16-235 digital. Overshoot video 101-107 IRE gets converted to 236-255 without clipping.

On export, DV digital 16-235 gets converted back to analog 7.5-100 IRE. 236-255 overshoot is also passed as 101-107 IRE.

The analog color bar output follows the the 7.5 IRE / 0.0 IRE switch. In 7.5 IRE mode, black is at 7.5 IRE and white is at 100 IRE. This is very useful for adjusting analog levels.

[NY2LA]

The title I gave this thread is unfortunate, because the video and audio staying in synch was never an issue when I experimented with using the AVT-8710. For that reason alone, I've started a new thread, "My experience with the AVT-8710 between the VCR & Canopus ADVC110".