VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4
FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 94
Thread
  1. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    The 1970 is workable, but quality is rougher. Restoration is a must. Also many of the same issues as 1980. I have a 1970 as well. It's just hard to argue the tracking quality.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS
    Quote Quote  
  2. As it happens, I just pulled a spare 1970 out of mothballs: it was occupying shelf space I need for the new-to-me Sony SVP-5600 (a behemoth SVHS that you can't just slot in anywhere). Been so long since I used it, I forgot it was absolutely mint (purchased as backup to my workhorse 1970, which now has a fading display and faltering loader). The 1970 does have great tracking, equal to the 1980, but lacks the unique TBC/DNR cleanup performance. It can be a good, cheaper alternative for certain tapes where the strong line TBC/DNR of the 1980, JVCs and Mitsu sometimes backfire and aren't useful. The problem today is price escalation: until recently it was a giveaway VCR, but with broken 1980s skyrocketing in price the lookalike 1970 is inflating beyond its intrinsic worth (as LS noted, it does share some repair issues with the 1980, albeit on a much smaller scale).

    Given the very mild (barely detectable) DNR and TBC effect of the 1970, today I feel the newer Mitsubishi HS-U448/449 (VHS) or HS-U748/749 (SVHS) are better price/performance decks for EP/SLP tapes that balk at TBC/DNR. These Mitsus (and only these Mitsus- other Mitsu models are built very differently) have HiFi and EP/SLP tracking ability comparable to the 1970/1980, at far lower prices and much lower breakdown incidence (electronics/transport is rock-reliable).
    Last edited by orsetto; 27th Dec 2020 at 16:50.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Capturing Memories dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    VCR design went through a lot of technical advancement all they way to the mid 90's, While cost cutting was a major player in the design some manufacturers such as JVC kept the high end players out of the cost cutting equation, Some of the major advancement of the later models are laser machining and alignment of the tape transport, Better motor control of both the capstan and drum (high tech controls such FOC and sinusoidal, still used today in BLDC motors), Better electronics, three-line digital 3D comb filters, better Y/C handling and other digital filters such as TBC and DNR vs old bulky analog filters. On top of all that the modular design helps servicing the deck in minutes instead of hours.

    But yes the late 90's brought the shittiest VCR's you can imagine, Funai (the Croseley of the VCR's) just recently ceased the VCR manufacturing I believe in 2016. So I wouldn't take any chance with a VCR made before or after the 90's.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by dellsam34 View Post
    VCR design went through a lot of technical advancement all they way to the mid 90's, While cost cutting was a major player in the design some manufacturers such as JVC kept the high end players out of the cost cutting equation, Some of the major advancement of the later models are laser machining and alignment of the tape transport, Better motor control of both the capstan and drum (high tech controls such FOC and sinusoidal, still used today in BLDC motors), Better electronics, three-line digital 3D comb filters, better Y/C handling and other digital filters such as TBC and DNR vs old bulky analog filters. On top of all that the modular design helps servicing the deck in minutes instead of hours.

    But yes the late 90's brought the shittiest VCR's you can imagine, Funai (the Croseley of the VCR's) just recently ceased the VCR manufacturing I believe in 2016. So I wouldn't take any chance with a VCR made before or after the 90's.
    Some good JVC decks still came in the early 2000s. Panasonic AG-1980 production was still ongoing, lasted over a decade starting in 90s.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS
    Quote Quote  
  5. Capturing Memories dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    Yes, JVC kept using the same technological achievements of the 90's (designs, patents ...etc) up until they folded the VCR manufacturing, They gave it a last shot with D-VHS but failed unfortunately.
    Quote Quote  
  6. The history of "VHS performance" is more nuanced and inconsistent than many are aware of (or are old enough to remember). First, one has to separate out the SVHS sub-format, which was of zero interest to the mass market (outside Japan) until much later in the game.

    When focusing exclusively on standard VHS, you find a varied timeline where things got better then worse then better etc for assorted specs. For those of us who were absolute video nuts, you also had the extremely inconvenient, expensive and annoying disconnect between VCRs that excelled at recording and VCRs that excelled at playback. During the late '80s vcr heyday, getting the best performance for both modes in a single deck was near impossible, and it went out the window entirely with the more contemporary SVHS decks with TBC/DNR we prize so much today for transfer work. These late '90s wonders can be great players for capture, yes, but at the time recording quality was lousy unless you used them in SVHS mode. A big PITA as far as compatibility with most other people (who wouldn't know what SVHS was if you hit them in the face with the overpriced blank tape).

    It is also largely forgotten that JVC + Panasonic made a big push toward improving standard VHS specs before giving up in favor of the separate incompatible SVHS format. The initial wave of mid-80s "fully-HQ-compliant" VCRs, esp from JVC and several OEM Hitachi clients, were noticeably better recorders than earlier machines. The best of these came close enough to SVHS recording quality that I saw no need to burden myself with an unpopular secondary format. Premium HiFi HQ models like Minolta MV-70S (Hitachi), Teac MV-900S (JVC), Canon VR-HF600 (Panasonic) and JVC's own unique side-loading HR-D470U made really beautiful video recordings. Unfortunately, HiFi audio was still in its teething stage: other than the Minolta which made highly compatible tapes, the rest all made tapes with HiFi tracking issues that haunt me to this day. And only the JVC 470 played back as nicely as it recorded: the Canon would do in a pinch, but I ended up with a couple midrange Panasonic and JVC HiFi decks to use as player slaves for dubbing.

    The "Compatible HQ Recording" push fell apart fairly quickly: only JVC was willing to spend the money for the full complement of luma and chroma circuit upgrades, while Panasonic and its licensees usually cheaped out to only include the minimum, crude luma enhancement. Hitachi wavered, with various models and sub-licensees having different HQ versions. Just like their end run with the surprise LP speed, Matsushita/Panasonic once again left JVC with egg on their faces: had JVC been able to insist on "Full HQ" as a specification upgrade, there might have been a mass uptick in VCR quality during the late '80s. But JVC wasn't powerful enough to buck Panasonic, whose cooperation was required to even launch the spec.

    Panasonic cannily deduced that the mass market could care less about picture quality, and resisted formalizing the expense of the full HQ upgrade, instead making JVC agree that each mfr need only use he cheapest of the HQ improvements in order to claim "HQ" on the front panel. The predictable result being "True HQ" fizzled out within two years and the only path toward consistently balanced, better video quality became the incompatible SVHS format. Pity, tho in a strange twist, Panasonic suddenly decided years later that VHS chroma upgrades were worthwhile after all and could be implemented cheaply: nearly all but the bottom-line Panasonics sold btwn 1992-1995 had a remarkably effective dynamic CNR (color noise reduction circuit). Midrange models like PV-4664 had color purity that amazes even today. But this proprietary CNR feature was short lived: unlike the earlier "HQ Chroma", it was tied too heavily into tracking (if tracking drifted even a hair off optimum, the reds in a scene would flash and strobe as the CNR struggled to lock on). This wreaked havoc with many worn rental tapes, so Panasonic had to drop it.

    My "True HQ" decks all died within 4-5 years, and even back in 1992 you could already forget about repairs: most VCR repair shops were staffed by hacks who could band-aid a junk mass-market Fisher/Sanyo but would faint if you brought in something like a JVC 470. The "True HQ" models had such small market penetration that almost nobody was trained to service them. It didn't help that transport and electronics designs went thru wholesale changes every six months from 1986 thru 1996, esp at the high end: getting truly good, professional repairs for TOTL JVCs (and their derivatives) was a hopeless quest even at factory-authorized depots in NYC. The last of the "True HQ" recorders were the final Hitachi-made RCAa with flying erase head, bought on closeout from J&R in '92. When those broke down in '97, there was literally nothing available worth a damn unless you opted for SVHS. All standard VHS models from every mfr were plagued with horrible boosted luma noise in the late '90s (even pricey SVHS decks like Panasonic PV-S9670 and Mitsubishi HS-U790 were dismally grainy). At that point, the JVC TBC/DNR went from luxury to necessity unless you wanted to burn your eyes out. I didn't love the blurring effect or constant transport breakdowns, but until DVD recorders came along to replace VHS there was nothing else. Panasonic's AG1980 arrived too late and was way too expensive for most of us (discount price $1299 minimum vs $699 for a JVC DigiPure circa 1998).
    Last edited by orsetto; 28th Dec 2020 at 14:02.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by orsetto View Post
    T For those of us who were absolute video nuts, you also had the extremely inconvenient, expensive and annoying disconnect between VCRs that excelled at recording and VCRs that excelled at playback.
    <raises hand> Ugh, I almost forget about that. That was actually true in the 90s, too.

    only JVC was willing to spend the money for the full complement of luma and chroma circuit upgrades, while Panasonic and its licensees
    I forget the timeline. Were both not yet subsidiaries of Matsushita? Because there were some good products in the 90s, when both seemed to communicate (though still not by much).

    Panasonic suddenly decided years later that VHS chroma upgrades were worthwhile after all and could be implemented cheaply: nearly all but the bottom-line Panasonics sold btwn 1992-1995 had a remarkably effective dynamic CNR (color noise reduction circuit). Midrange models like PV-4664 had color purity that amazes even today. But this proprietary CNR feature was short lived: unlike the earlier "HQ Chroma", it was tied too heavily into tracking (if tracking drifted even a hair off optimum, the reds in a scene would flash and strobe as the CNR struggled to lock on). This wreaked havoc with many worn rental tapes, so Panasonic had to drop it.
    Interesting. Didn't know that. I'd left Panasonic VHS by then.

    most VCR repair shops were staffed by hacks who could band-aid a junk mass-market Fisher/Sanyo but would faint if you brought in something like a JVC 470.
    Was always true, 80s to 2010s.

    Panasonic's AG1980 arrived too late and was way too expensive for most of us (discount price $1299 minimum vs $699 for a JVC DigiPure circa 1998).
    B&H had the JVC 9800 for about $550 (because I bought one, should still have the receipt in my files), while the AG1980 was about $1299 from the shady NYC camera/video stores in the back of photo mags. I still have some of those old ads. $699 for the JVC was around 1996 for 9600, maybe even '95 for the 9500. I was looking at those back in the mid 90s, wanting to build a capture setup, but no good capture card existed.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS
    Quote Quote  
  8. Originally Posted by lordsmurf View Post
    I forget the timeline. Were both not yet subsidiaries of Matsushita? Because there were some good products in the 90s, when both seemed to communicate (though still not by much).
    The relationship between Matsushita and JVC has been so variable and convoluted over the years, I doubt even the Japan Trade Ministry could get the timeline straight. The closeness and cooperation waxed and waned, but they rarely seemed to fully agree on anything, esp VHS. JVC was more inclined pursue quality at any cost, while once Panasonic saw how lucrative caving to the quality-oblivious USA market could be they were hesitant to do anything that would slow the free-fall in prices and stall their top dog position as the commodity VCR brand/OEM. Of course this was before the rise of Bronksonic and Funai selling crap VCRs for peanuts thru WalMart, derailing the market from "commodity product" to "loss leader don't even bother product".

    JVC held the patents while Panasonic and its satellite brands held vastly more market share. Whatever the corporate power dynamic was, Matsushita evidently called the shots for their own products and had the power to ignore or frustrate some of JVC's attempts to evolve baseline VHS. The JVC HQ initiative was a big deal, welcomed by most of the large retailers of the time who needed a new excuse to upsell. The consumer electronics trade press was solidly behind the HQ initiative (unlike their later tepid "who asked for it?" response to SVHS, which was beyond the budget of average retail customers). But Matsushita was unwilling to risk a short-term profit/share hit by having to raise retail list prices $20 (the actual cost to implement full HQ), so scuttled the whole consortium in its infancy. Had Matsushita been willing to press ahead with the full HQ plan, even if it temporarily sacrificed some discount sales to emerging competitors, the sheer unit volume of Panasonic brand alone would haven driven the added cost for full HQ chips into steep decline within a year, making VHS HQ barely more expensive than baseline VHS, raising performance across the board.

    Sadly, Matsushita chose not to rock the boat, instead forcing JVC to dilute the HQ spec into total BS before Panasonic would agree to promote it. Other than a handful of premium JVCs, two or three JVC licensed models from audio brands like Teac and Sansui, a few Hitachis OEM'd for RCA and Minolta, and a couple Panasonic AGs rebranded as Canons, "true" HQ VHS vcrs never got off the ground in a big way. After the first two waves, even JVC gave up, stripping full HQ from their VHS line and limiting it to the newer pricier SVHS line (esp later, as the basic HQ Chroma circuit was expanded into our beloved-for-transfers DigiPure DNR). All that remained of "HQ" for 95% of VCRs that sported the HQ logo was, er, the logo itself. Allegedly use of the logo required at minimum a vestigial boost to luma detail capture, but few mfrs bothered and JVC was in no position to enforce. By 1991 the logo was nearly extinct.
    Last edited by orsetto; 29th Dec 2020 at 14:57.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Originally Posted by orsetto View Post
    As LordSmurf and I noted, the closest PAL equivalent to the AG1980 was the NV-SF200. From that basic fact, things proceed to get a bit more complicated and shaded in UK vs USA.
    I'm not sure it is, when you look at the service manuals, the NV-FS200 is nearly identical to the AG1970, e.g:
    NV-FS200
    Image
    [Attachment 56513 - Click to enlarge]


    AG1970P:
    Image
    [Attachment 56514 - Click to enlarge]


    The PAL model that has most in common in the video decoding path with the AG1980P is the NV-HS950 which uses a lot of the same chips and the same mechanism (K). The pcb and general layout of the machine is a bit different though, it being mid-mount with the pcb below the mechanism like newer units. The AG1980P also seems to have 2 additional video head connections on the head amp schematic, not sure if it had 2 more heads or if it's some other thing.

    NV-HS950
    Image
    [Attachment 56515 - Click to enlarge]

    AG1980P
    Image
    [Attachment 56516 - Click to enlarge]


    The NV-HS1000 seems to sit somewhere in between the FS200 and HS950. The mechanism (K mech), video and system chips have been updated, and it has a TBC, but with otherwise analog video decoding and noise reduction. There is a HS800 which is idendical except no TBC, and the HS900 which is similar to the HS950 but without TBC and digital decoding (video chips seem more similar to the HS1000/800).
    The syscon chips all of these in them have slightly different, but seem to be related.

    The HS850 (non-TBC model which seems be between HS950 and HS860 age wise) ,HS860 and HS960 moved to use the z mechanism, though seems to also use some digital video decoder circuitry still with 3d noise reduction, albeit with different chips, at least on the 860. The HS960 seems to be similar to the 860 with some extra features and share the same manuals.

    The later 830, 880, 930 and non-TBC 820, 825 and 870 seems to have moved back to a more traditional setup, with a video IC that looks suspiciosly similar to one JVC used in their later models (just noted with a part number in the schematics, but the pinout seem to be the same), and some off-the-shelf TBC/DNR/YC sep chips from Toshiba (TC90A88F, TC90A79AF TC90A11F).
    NV-HS880:
    Image
    [Attachment 56520 - Click to enlarge]

    JVC HR-S6950:
    Image
    [Attachment 56521 - Click to enlarge]



    The late models NV-SV120/121 I haven't found much on so I don't know what hardware they use, though I think they use a further cost-reduced mechanism at least.

    The consumer non-SVHS PAL models meanwhile seem to just be progressively tweaking the same design through NV-HD and NV-FJ models. They are completely different from the models released in the US, the US ones seem to even use a different mechanism not seen on the PAL ones. There are a few multi-system ones variants of them though and some ""pro"" ones like the AG25xx models that look similar on the outside and maybe have similar hardware that come in NTSC versions.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Wow: thats some great detective work, oln! Excellent info for anyone needing a starting point for parts or repairs: I don't think I've seen this exact collection of details all pulled together in a single post anywhere before. Thanks!

    Re the NV-SF200 and AG-1980 confluence: the reason LS and I (and others) consider the 200 the closest PAL approximation to the NTSC 1980 is tradition and availability, along with the outer similarity. As the 1980 is the most recognized and well-known North American Panasonic, so is the 200 in EU (UK particularly). Long story short, no PAL Panasonic prior to the 200 equaled its TBC/DNR performance: the benchmark it set was matched by later PAL models but not significantly exceeded. In that way it equals its NTSC cousin: no Panasonic before or after the 1980 equaled its performance- it set the benchmark. The 200 was the first in a line of high performing TBC/DNR PAL Panasonics, its rough contemporary the 1980 was the first (and only) NTSC Panasonic with equivalent TBC/DNR performance. While they may be far distant internally, the end result is what matters: by that metric the 200 was the first, most popular PAL to look like, operate like, and perform like the 1980. Or vice versa: its unclear whether the 200 or the 1980 arrived first on the market.

    The difference in video formats seems more significant than one might imagine. While the 200 shares more general DNA with the NTSC 1970 than 1980, the performance of the 1970 elements in PAL guise is distinctly better. The 1970 is a lovely deck with mediocre video performance: strip out the lame TBC and phantom DNR, drop the original retail list price by $400, and its quite competitive with other NTSC SVHS vcrs of the early-mid '90s. Its sturdy, nice to operate, tracks great, and has decent (if not remotely impressive) video output. But at its original list price, it was a joke when tested against comparable JVCs: much more expensive, with nothing in the video to justify it. JVC TBC/DNR was like flicking a light switch in a dark room: huge noticeable difference when active vs inactive. The effect of the 1970 TBC is almost imperceptible except with the extremely rare range of tape defects it can fix, the 1970 DNR (if it actually exists and is connected to anything) shows no visible effect.

    The PAL 200, by contrast, has a video presentation competitive with similar JVCs. The 200 TBC and DNR actually seem to do something when switched in and out. Much of the internals may match the 1970, if so those bits work way better when optimized for PAL than they do when pitched for NTSC. Panasonic needed to really step it up in the 1980 revision to finally reach NTSC TBC/DNR parity with JVC, while descendants of the PAL 200 either maintained the same performance or faltered a bit (other than the anomalous 860, later models do no better than 200 output). So in PAL regions, the shift from 200 to later models was not nearly as dramatic as the NTSC shift from 1970 to 1980.
    Last edited by orsetto; 29th Dec 2020 at 17:34.
    Quote Quote  
  11. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Don't forget: The NS-FS200NX is an AG-1980P.
    Explain that one!

    The parts may not match, but performance does. FS200 = AG1980. After seeing the NX model, I'm convinced the intention of the FS200 was a PAL version of the 1980.

    I wish I owned a FS200 myself, but I have to rely on info from people that do own both, have used both, samples from both. The HS1000 was the only other unit argued as closer to the 1980, but not near as often. The HS1000 may be closer to the 1970.

    Internal parts being different doesn't surprise me.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS
    Quote Quote  
  12. Video Producer Tig_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Sorry, old thread and I totally failed to respond to something here. That video I posted is no longer available but quick answer is that I made it 23.976fps because that's a cinematic standard and felt more fitting for the family's memories. That was a compilation for enjoyment, not the archive. Unfortunately I no longer remember which version I uploaded so I don't recall exactly was in the signal chain for that upload, but I know it wasn't an AG-1980 and I captured it on my old XP rig. Anyway…

    Of course I made the mistake of saying my AG-1980s have been fine and now one is going dim. I remember someone around here suggesting he did more comprehensive AG-1980 repairs than TGP. I've had good experiences with TGP but can anyone remind me who that was? Just wanted to investigate a bit more before I proceed.

    To the OP: for whatever it's worth I've been averaging 15 tapes captured per day for months now, so the AG-1980 exhibiting issues has been through a lot and the other one is still running fine. But it's also certainly true that the one with issues is complete garbage next to a cheap but properly-functioning deck that's easier and cheaper to source. Even as I seek out a repair, I still think great decks are worth it, but anything clean, well-aligned, and in proper working order is better than anything that isn't.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member DB83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    I had a notification re the above so had to re-aquaint myself with the thread.


    It was lordsmurf who asked the question why your sample was 23.976 fps and it would not be for me to spoil his fun should he now find your answer and comment again.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Video Producer Tig_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by DB83 View Post
    It was lordsmurf who asked the question why your sample was 23.976 fps and it would not be for me to spoil his fun should he now find your answer and comment again.
    Yes, I was answering lordsmurf's question. What do you mean about spoiling his fun?
    Quote Quote  
  15. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    You refer to deter, who is more thorough on the caps work.

    But Tom may be more thorough for the non-caps work (though I hope to help deter get up to speed here, I have some possible tips for him). Two of our TGrant decks now need re-recapping, for $$$, and that sucks.

    I also fail to understand the "fun" aspect here.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member DB83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    Apologies if my remarks have sailed over your heads.


    But you asked why 23.976 fps more, I assumed, in puzzlement rather than the answer that was given. I hoped you would take this up to direct Tig_ where he is wrong here (for I would also assume an original video source (home VHS) and not an original film source)


    And you did make some original comments about his sample and this could also be a contributing factor.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Video Producer Tig_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by DB83 View Post
    But you asked why 23.976 fps more, I assumed, in puzzlement rather than the answer that was given. I hoped you would take this up to direct Tig_ where he is wrong here (for I would also assume an original video source (home VHS) and not an original film source)


    Why am I "wrong" going 24p? The original tapes are 29.97 and I've archived them as such. 24p was a creative choice for the compilation I made the family, based on it being full of meaningful memories better-suited in my opinion to a framerate human beings have for decades been ingrained into thinking of as "cinematic," due to it being the standard in American (not sure about elsewhere) cinema.

    I'm a professional videographer and except for slow-motion footage (which I shoot at 60/120fps), I shoot everything at 24p for exactly this reason. My clients don't want to feel like their weddings are daytime TV (or an old VHS tape). They want to feel like their day was beautiful and epic in the way usually seen on the big screen. That's the same feeling I wanted to impart into the compilation I shared.

    It's important to know the rules before you break them, and then break them only for a reason. Another, related example might be the 180° shutter rule, which I break quite often; in the chaos of a wedding day (or sports tournaments, etc. which I also shoot), sometimes it's just easier to crank the shutter speed than to throw on a neutral density filter and stopping down would not achieve the desired depth of field. However, convenience aside it can also be used for effect, e.g. in Saving Private Ryan.

    But I'm always learning. Please educate me on why 24p was wrong to use.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Originally Posted by Tig_ View Post
    24p was a creative choice for the compilation I made the family...
    Creating a jerky-playing video is a 'creative choice'?
    Please educate me on why 24p was wrong to use.
    Because the native framerate is 29.97fps interlaced. You removed the sample so I can't go and look. You didn't shoot progressive 24fps so forcing your interlaced 29.97fps to become progressive 24fps completely destroys it. It's not telecined footage (I assume) so you're removing way too many unique fields/frames.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Video Producer Tig_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by manono View Post
    jerky-playing video
    If 24p looks jerky to you, your eyes are probably more accustomed than the average person's to 29.97 — which makes sense given the VHS focus of this forum. The average person I deal with, however, watches 24p content on their screens regularly. If you don't like 24p, that's a totally valid opnion and I respect that, but it's not going anywhere and meanwhile those of us producing video have to contend with how 24p vs 30p is perceived by our clients.

    Originally Posted by manono View Post
    Because the native framerate is 29.97fps interlaced. You removed the sample so I can't go and look. You didn't shoot progressive 24fps so forcing your interlaced 29.97fps to become progressive 24fps completely destroys it.
    "Completely destroys it" is an overstatement (well, maybe not if you do hack job de-interlacing). Converting to 24p is an inherently destructive process but the proper filters, used well, can provide a result that makes some footage look better to the everyman due to decades of conditioning by TV vs movie standards.

    This is why I create proper lossless 29.97i archives of every tape I capture, then choose the output format of any compilations etc. based on the source material. Yes, it's a creative choice.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member DB83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    Well you did say "I am always learning" yet when challenged by someone (not me) who has more knowledge than you in analog capture/processing you immediately go on the defense and claim to be correct.


    Yes. Noone can now check that sample since it no longer available - in your site research you should have appreciated that samples should be uploaded direct to the forum and not to third-party hosts (even if this is your own site)


    But the 'jerky' comment merely paraphrases one of the comments by lordsmurf - who also knows his stuff. And even back then you were going to be dismissive inasmuch that anyone who challenged your knowledge, or lack there of, had an agenda.


    Now if you really wish to learn you could go in to a lot more detail of your 'creative' process. But I guess you will not.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Originally Posted by Tig_ View Post
    If 24p looks jerky to you, your eyes are probably more accustomed than the average person's to 29.97...
    You misunderstand. If it were filmed at 24fps, then that's fine and I'd have no problem with it. What you did (apparently) was to deinterlace it to progressive 29.97fps and then remove every 5th frame. That creates 6 little jerks every second, something true 24fps doesn't have.
    "Completely destroys it" is an overstatement
    Nope. It's supposed to play at 29.97fps and nothing else. This has nothing to do with any video look keeping it at 29.97fps might produce. I don't guess you're creating a DVD, but if you did you'd be able to encode the original interlaced 29.97fps and get complete smoothness in the playback. The 'soap opera effect' you're trying to prevent comes from playing true interlaced video at 59.94 fields/frames per second, not from progressive 29.97fps.
    Quote Quote  
  22. There is no "wrong" or "right" here, if someone wants to change their own material to 24 fps to achieve some specific look or better blend in with other material that's filmed at 24p, or making something a customer wants to be at that format, that's totally fine. Of course personally I would prefer watching analog video material deinterlaced to the full 59.94 fps as that's closest to the original way it would be played back but YMMV. If they were a production company "remastering" some old tv show that was originally shot on analog video to 24fps that would be another matter, but that's not what we're talking about here.

    With modern technology it is possible to resample the frame rate in better ways than simply dropping every 5th frame, but idk if that's what the poster did.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member DB83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Search Comp PM
    But there is always a 'right' and a 'wrong'. The customer is typically guided (or influenced) by the producer. The reason 'because it is a cinematic standard' holds no merit whatsoever.


    The original question had been long forgotten. By answering it merely opened a large can of worms.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Video Producer Tig_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by manono View Post
    What you did (apparently) was to … remove every 5th frame
    I don't use frame dropping, as yes that would be jerky. Nor resampling/blending as oln mentioned, as that tends to introduce ghosting or other artifacts. I prefer interpolation to new 24p frames, which is smooth with no perceptible artifacts.

    Originally Posted by manono View Post
    Nope. It's supposed to play at 29.97fps and nothing else.
    IMO video is "supposed" to play the way the client wants it to play. It's her video, and when I gave her options she preferred the 24p version. I happen to agree with her decision, but it wouldn't be my place to tell her she's "wrong" even if I didn't.

    I didn't mean the soap opera effect (that's its own thing entirely) — just the difference between how TV and movies feel due to frame rate. The compilation in question, was camcorder footage encompassing the 18 years of life the client's son lived before he passed. My personal opinion is that she was perceptive to choose 24p, based on its content, context, and scope.
    Last edited by Tig_; 27th Mar 2021 at 00:34.
    Quote Quote  
  25. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Animaniacs. Good idea, bad idea:
    - Converting video to B&W = artistic decision.
    - Using wrong framerate = NOT an artistic decision.

    Deinterlace is also NOT an artistic decision, but merely another video requirement for various distribution, sometimes restorations. Art has nothing to do with it. Lots of technicals like resolution and framerate have little to nothing to do with art. Pulling 60i down to 24p doesn't somehow give it a "film look". It just makes it jerk and judder, and often gives people headaches by trying to watch it.

    Although there is art that seeks to make mangled videos ... so I guess? But it's somewhat esoteric, like a paint splatter in a museum. Most normal people call that a mistake -- not art.

    @DB83: Yep, on days when I don't feel well, like most of this week, now even, I just need things spelled out. Nuance and innuendo can sail over my head. That sometimes makes conversations boring, but boring can be good. Joe Friday, "just the facts".
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS
    Quote Quote  
  26. Video Producer Tig_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Minnesota, USA
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by lordsmurf View Post
    Animaniacs. Good idea, bad idea:
    - Converting video to B&W = artistic decision.
    - Using wrong framerate = NOT an artistic decision.

    Deinterlace is also NOT an artistic decision, but merely another video requirement for various distribution, sometimes restorations. Art has nothing to do with it. Lots of technicals like resolution and framerate have little to nothing to do with art. Pulling 60i down to 24p doesn't somehow give it a "film look". It just makes it jerk and judder, and often gives people headaches by trying to watch it.

    Although there is art that seeks to make mangled videos ... so I guess? But it's somewhat esoteric, like a paint splatter in a museum. Most normal people call that a mistake -- not art.

    @DB83: Yep, on days when I don't feel well, like most of this week, now even, I just need things spelled out. Nuance and innuendo can sail over my head. That sometimes makes conversations boring, but boring can be good. Joe Friday, "just the facts".

    If you're unable to convert 29.97i to 24p without making it jerky, I absolutely agree you shouldn't do it. Or if you just don't like the look, etc.

    To each his own — I have no interest in telling anyone else how you should approach VHS capture etc. Too busy capturing tapes myself!
    Quote Quote  
  27. Capturing Memories dellsam34's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Member Since 2005, Re-joined in 2016
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by Tig_ View Post
    To each his own — I have no interest in telling anyone else how you should approach VHS capture etc. Too busy capturing tapes myself!
    I understand your position, I had one job that the customer wanted the frame to be cropped around all four sides to the bare active video area and then resized to 1080p, Even though I tried to explain to him that this is not recommended he insisted, even after showing him these two samples, SampleSD is the right resolution 704x480 and SampleHD is the cropped then resized to 1440x1080, Both are de-interlaced though.
    Image Attached Files
    Quote Quote  
  28. Gave a shot myself with the $300 Magewell Pro Capture HDMI (the PCI card) for VHS capture on a Windows 10 system, using it with a JVC SR-W7U with the Panasonic ES-10 as passthrough.

    I've done about 30 home movies and off-air cable recordings with it and while overall I'd say it has a nice picture, it seems to have a fatal flaw with intermittent duplicated frames -- even when using AmaRecTV for capture (kind of gave up on VirtualDub for capture in Windows 10).
    Quote Quote  
  29. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by robjv1 View Post
    Gave a shot myself with the $300 Magewell Pro Capture HDMI (the PCI card) for VHS capture on a Windows 10 system, using it with a JVC SR-W7U with the Panasonic ES-10 as passthrough.

    I've done about 30 home movies and off-air cable recordings with it and while overall I'd say it has a nice picture, it seems to have a fatal flaw with intermittent duplicated frames -- even when using AmaRecTV for capture (kind of gave up on VirtualDub for capture in Windows 10).
    Yep, we've known that for years now.

    The HD cards (Blackmagic, Magewell, etc) all have serious SD issues, with frames dropping, inserting, blackouts, etc -- and ALL is unreported. You're flying blind, and getting crappy unstable captures.

    I wish that weren't the case, but it is what it is.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS
    Quote Quote  
  30. Originally Posted by lordsmurf View Post
    Originally Posted by robjv1 View Post
    Gave a shot myself with the $300 Magewell Pro Capture HDMI (the PCI card) for VHS capture on a Windows 10 system, using it with a JVC SR-W7U with the Panasonic ES-10 as passthrough.

    I've done about 30 home movies and off-air cable recordings with it and while overall I'd say it has a nice picture, it seems to have a fatal flaw with intermittent duplicated frames -- even when using AmaRecTV for capture (kind of gave up on VirtualDub for capture in Windows 10).
    Yep, we've known that for years now.

    The HD cards (Blackmagic, Magewell, etc) all have serious SD issues, with frames dropping, inserting, blackouts, etc -- and ALL is unreported. You're flying blind, and getting crappy unstable captures.

    I wish that weren't the case, but it is what it is.
    Yup, I definitely saw some vague chatter around it but it wasn't quite clear to me if anyone had observed it directly with the PCI card with a Panasonic ES-## in-line, so just thought I'd pass my experience along for future searchers.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!