2013 - Digitize VHS - final consensus on how to do it?

[jgiannis]

I see TBC discussions on this thread going back to the early 2000s. It's 2013 now, and I've been reading these threads for 2 days, yet I cannot find a final consensus on the best methodology for digitizing VHS.

The most knowledgeable people on the subject appear to be BrainStorm69 and davideck. I hope they can chime in.

My goal is to digitize:

(1) my professional VHS (i.e., created by professional studios), and
(2) my non-professional VHS (i.e., home recordings)

My understanding is that I should get 2 TBCs. One will be built internally the VCR. The second will be external.

I believe the signal chain should look something like this:


VCR w/internal TBC --> MiniDV as the external TBC --> adapter for Firewire output capability, if the MiniDV camcorder doesn't have it --> MacBook Pro --> Final Cut Pro --> High Quality Video File

The suggestion of the MiniDV as the external TBC comes from one of davideck's posts in 2006, which showed stunning results.

Your thoughts please.

Thanks!

[Brad]

BrainStorm69 Last Activity: 22nd Apr 2012 09:59
davideck Last Activity: 17th Apr 2013 19:22

I don't think there's such a thing as a MiniDV camcorder without Firewire. It's integral to the whole idea of a digital video recorder.

I don't see anything wrong with your proposed setup otherwise, except:

• the MiniDV may reject copy-protected tapes
• you could consider a Panasonic DMR-E**/ES** that has a line TBC paired with an uncompressed USB device instead
• in both cases you may additionally need a frame synchronizer/full-frame TBC to remove copy protection and to provide a stable signal

[vhelp]

those two members will never show up here again, at least not with the fish bait you threw out there for them.

i can't answer the home videos, but commercial tapes is another story, mostly having to do with (mv) macrovision. i know and deal with two kinds of mv, curling of the top portion of the video frames, and agc color twitching/diming/flickering/fading in/out, etc., etc.

now, the curling, you can remove, but the agc, that is the touchest, and vary from tape to tape and equipment. there is or was a small discussion on this issue recently. search around for it. other than that, you may be in for a long and rough ride. good luck.

[sanlyn]

There are two kinds of tbc available to us mere mortals who can't borrow a few spare billion $$$ from a foreign country. The first type is a line-level tbc. It's the most commonly used tbc for VHS capture. Works like this: your VCR plays a frame off tape and sends out so many lines of image resolution. The lines are supposed to go to your transfer device at a certain rate, blip-blip-blip, one line after another, until you get a whole frame. Alas, the timing of these lines ain't always exactly in sync with the digital device. Some are a little faster, some arrive a little later, some are on time. When the lines of the frame don't arrive in sync as expected, you get wiggles in your video, horizontal and angular lines that do a snakey boogie, or what looks like a slanted top border, a stuttering right border, or similar disturbances. So you get a line-level tbc. It holds those lines in a memory buffer and then - voila! -- it sends the lines out in exactly the expected pace for your capture device.

You can get a pro-level line tbc for about the price of that rebuild on your Mercedes engine. Or you can get a VCR that has a line-level TBC built in (good luck finding one that still works). Or you can use one of the tbc-equipped cameras you've seen discussed (careful, because some of them won't pass that Macrovision-protected video). Or you can get line-tbc functionality using certain DVD recorders as one of those pass-thru devices you've read about (try Panasonic, the current rave for those who enjoy processing effects along with line sync, or Toshiba's more civilized manner, but either way these products stopped coming out of factories around 2005 or so). A few newer DVD machines can be used as pass-thru, but they're inferior to the older stuff and no one has furnished a list of new units that do it and new units that don't.

The other type of tbc is a frame-level or full-frame tbc. If you think it means that a frame-level tbc works on frame transmission rates instead of lines-per-frame rates, you're right. In rebuilding the frame sync signals they tend to strip away the Macrovision garbage. Will they stop the line wiggles and other heebie-jeebies? Nope. But you can get a combo line-and-frame tbc at your nearest pro video dealer (bring the paperwork for your second mortgage with you). Or you can go to a reputable dealer like B&H Photo on the web and order an AVT-8710 frame tbc or its more expensive cousin the TBC-1000 -- both pretty decent frame tbc's, not the greatest but way ahead of those $50 cheapies that "magically" don't do anything after you get it home from BestBuy.

Hope that helps clear it up.

[Brad]

try Panasonic, the current rave for those who enjoy processing effects along with line sync, or Toshiba's more civilized manner

I thought the Panasonic DMR's noise reduction could be disabled independent of its line TBC.

[SixFiftyThree]

But you can get a combo line-and-frame tbc at your nearest pro video dealer (bring the paperwork for your second mortgage with you).

Not exactly. There are, or at least used to be, combo devices at the consumer level. One of them is GTH Electronics "ACE", which provides line and full frame functions. Its line correction isn't great, but decent. Discontinued product only found used now, read more here: http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/video-restore/4956-ace-advanced-convertor.html
Good post anyway though.

To the OP - is this thread just about the TBCs? Because nothing's changed from the older discussions afaik, apart from some hardware simply getting harder to acquire. And some highly-regarded models like AVT-8710 becoming a risk due to the spread of defective units. I would advise against the camcorder TBC suggestion, however, unless you're certain you want to compress to DV. Not ideal for NTSC users due to colorspace crushing.

I don't believe there will ever be a 'final consensus' on how to digitize VHS - too many variables, too much based on personal preference. For the most part, it's no different in 2013 than it was so many years ago. I'd say the only thing that's changed are the capture cards, and discontinuation of older hardware.

[2Bdecided]

I would advise against the camcorder TBC suggestion, however, unless you're certain you want to compress to DV. Not ideal for NTSC users due to colorspace crushing.

NTSC DV 4:1:1 chroma = 180 lines. VHS chroma = 30 lines. NTSC DV is not a bottleneck problem for VHS capture.


The consensus in 2013 is that decent VCRs are hard to find and expensive to buy. Best results come from a VCR that likes your tapes, and a capture chain that is kind to them too. Best results always include a line TBC somewhere. Best results have reasonable video levels (no clipped highlights, but reasonable contrast) which often requires a proc amp somewhere. Best results do not introduce visible artefacts due to overcompression. Beyond that, I don't think there are hard and fast rules, and like others have said, much of what was true five years ago is still true today.

Cheers,
David.

[jagabo]

NTSC DV 4:1:1 chroma = 180 lines. VHS chroma = 30 lines. NTSC DV is not a bottleneck problem for VHS capture.

Just be sure to use a DV decoder that interpolates chroma rather than duplicates it. Here's an example of bad decoding with duplicate chroma:

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/239994-DV-CODEC-for-VHS-Capture?p=1421497&viewfull=1#post1421497

[2Bdecided]

Just be sure to use a DV decoder that interpolates chroma rather than duplicates it. Here's an example of bad decoding with duplicate chroma:

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/239994-DV-CODEC-for-VHS-Capture?p=1421497&viewfull=1#post1421497

I ask Cedocida for DVD-ready chroma (i.e. MPEG-2 sampled 4:2:0/YV12) so I've never seen this.

I wouldn't dream of using a different DV decoder.

Cheers,
David.

[jagabo]

Yes, Cedocida is the best DV codec.

[davideck]

I believe the signal chain should look something like this:


VCR w/internal TBC --> MiniDV as the external TBC --> adapter for Firewire output capability, if the MiniDV camcorder doesn't have it --> MacBook Pro --> Final Cut Pro --> High Quality Video File

The TBC performance of my MiniDV (as the line/external TBC) was so good that a VCR w/internal TBC was not required. The real benefit of this approach for me was that it let me use whatever VCR worked best for any given tape.

If you have Copy Protect issues, then you'll need a TBC-1000 or AVT-8710 as mentioned. Unfortunately, they must be placed between the VCR and the MiniDV, thereby blocking out the TBC performance of the MiniDV.

[SixFiftyThree]

NTSC DV 4:1:1 chroma = 180 lines. VHS chroma = 30 lines. NTSC DV is not a bottleneck problem for VHS capture.

I'm just repeating what seems to be the consensus on NTSC DV, never worked with it myself. The negativity towards it suggests the theory doesn't apply so well in practice. Apparently the main issue is not so much digitization, but the final conversion to 4:2:0 from 4:1:1. NTSC DV camcorders should also be used with a proc amp to correct black level, as they don't account for 7.5 IRE on their own (so I've read here).

Anyway, I personally consider the DV format adequate for VHS, at least on the PAL side which I do work with.

[jagabo]

One other issue with DV decoders: some would only output RGB using a standard rec.601 matrix (Panasonic DV Codec, for example). That would cause super-darks and super-brights to be lost. You would not be able to recover super-dark and super-bright details using one of those decoders. That's not a problem with Cedocida. You can control what colorspace it outputs and whether or not it uses rec.601 or PC.601 matrices.

[2Bdecided]

Suggesting that DV is a bad choice because some 10+ year old decoders have problems is like saying DVD is a bad choice because some 10+ year old players processed chroma incorrectly. Probably even dafter, since a new DV codec is free, while a new DVD player isn't.

The main reason to avoid DV is if you have extremely noisy VHS which could upset the DV compression, or you want to do some specific processing that will be upset by the DV compression (but somehow not upset by the far worse problems inherent in the VHS source).

The main reasons to use it are because some of the better and less painful methods of capturing VHS involve it, the file sizes are more reasonable than lossless, the codec is an international standard (and therefore a better future-proofed bet than this years favourite lossless codec), and the quality is more than good enough.

Cheers,
David.

[Cornucopia]

I agree.

[TrackingError]

Essentially, there is a frustrating lack of consensus. I capture based on assorted things I've read on this forum, and according to this guide. Over the past few months, I've had people tell me vehemently that DV is the absolute best choice for capturing a VHS tape, and that DV is an absolutely terrible choice and I shouldn't touch it.

In the end, I do what feels right to me. None of my captures are so mission-critical that I can't redo them later. I'm glad to learn, and I enjoy this process very much.

[sanlyn]

You'll find that both schools of thought (lossless or DV) have their pros and cons. It depends on the video. Something that needs extensive repair work and in bad shape would fare better if processed as lossless. To go from DV to DVD involves a re-encode. Some vids can handle it, some can't.

[Sainsbo_McManus]

try Panasonic, the current rave for those who enjoy processing effects along with line sync, or Toshiba's more civilized manner

I thought the Panasonic DMR's noise reduction could be disabled independent of its line TBC.

I have an ES10 and an E50. It can be disabled on the ES10 independent of the TBC [the TBC can not be switched at all]; the E50 (an earlier model) I think has no input noise reduction. gshelly61 says the same (from : https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/214666-Panasonic-DMR-ES10-Reviewed)

The E55 and ES10 have the user switchable input video noise reduction, the E50 does not.

However, the ES10 and E50 both have AGC and can brighten the image significantly [the ES10 a little more]. Lordsmurf says that the Panasonics cause posterisation, presumably caused by the AGC.

I use them a lot as pass-through devices when capturing VHS, I love them.

[sanlyn]

The main reason to avoid DV is if you have extremely noisy VHS which could upset the DV compression, or you want to do some specific processing that will be upset by the DV compression (but somehow not upset by the far worse problems inherent in the VHS source).

I agree. I say, watch out for noisy, damaged, poorly recorded tapes and home videos with ugly color, noise, and motion problems. For better-quality source that's destined for MPEG2 or another encode, use a high DV bitrate and go at it.

I have dozens of retail VHS captured directly to DVD, and a couple were caught on DV for me and re-encoded to DVD. I guess I could have spent 6 months getting rid of some tape grain and some spots from the movie sources, but they all look OK to me. Those were decent tape issues to begin with.