TBCs for VHS digital capture

[AndyO6322]

I am looking for advice from forum members with experience using TBCs for digitizing VHS tapes. I am capturing VHS tapes that were privately recorded and therefore do not have MacroVision. I am using a JVC SR-MV45 that has a line TBC and using SVHS output to a DVD recorder (RD-XS35) that has the NEC chipset encoder with TBC. My question is whether I would benefit from adding a TBC-like device, for example a Videonics MX-1 or similar Panasonic mixer unit, between the JVC VCR and the DVD recorder or is the current setup adequate with the existing built-in TBC functions. Thanks in advance for any advice or recommendations.

[dellsam34]

If you are not sure how a good capture should look like, Capture and post a sample here, Two samples without and with the DVD recorder.

[Forenzik]

I use the MX-1, and its main benefit is the removal of the horizontal "wiggling" in portions of the picture. Some people say the MX-1 messes with coloring, but I honestly havent noticed it in a few comparisons. If your line TBC has already stablized the picture enough and you're not getting dropped frames, I dont see the reason to use the MX-1

[AndyO6322]

If you are not sure how a good capture should look like, Capture and post a sample here, Two samples without and with the DVD recorder.

Agreed that samples with and without the external TBC-like device in the workflow (eg. Videonics MX-1) would be best for comparison. Unfortunately, I currently don't have an MX-1 and am only evaluating whether it's worth investing in.

[Forenzik]

I think he is suggesting you post so we can see if there's anything in the video we think might be fixed by a TBC.

The fact that you didn't notice any unstable images might suggest that one isn't needed. It's not like a TBC is going to make your capture look like a DVD. For clearer image quality, i've been told to find a S-video VHS player.

[lordsmurf]

I am looking for advice from forum members with experience using TBCs for digitizing VHS tapes. I am capturing VHS tapes that were privately recorded and therefore do not have MacroVision. I am using a JVC SR-MV45 that has a line TBC and using SVHS output to a DVD recorder (RD-XS35) that has the NEC chipset encoder with TBC. My question is whether I would benefit from adding a TBC-like device, for example a Videonics MX-1 or similar Panasonic mixer unit, between the JVC VCR and the DVD recorder or is the current setup adequate with the existing built-in TBC functions. Thanks in advance for any advice or recommendations.

There are two: (1) line or field, (2) frame
You need both.
It's two different functions, like the axles and transmission of a car. Car doesn't work without both. Not having a TBC is like having broken axles, or the car stuck in neutral. The car moves, yes, but it sucks. Sort of how video plays without TBCs, but it sucks.

I started a more detailed explanation here, but not had time to finish/re-visit yet:
https://www.digitalFAQ.com/forum/video-restore/13993-problems-tbcs-fix.html

If you are not sure how a good capture should look like, Capture and post a sample here, Two samples without and with the DVD recorder.

^ This. And is must be video clips, not still images.

The fact that you didn't notice any unstable images might suggest that one isn't needed.

No, that's not a fact whatsoever. Lots of people "don't notice" things until shown. People don't know what they don't know, myself included (just not on this topic).

It's not like a TBC is going to make your capture look like a DVD. For clearer image quality, i've been told to find a S-video VHS player.

Using proper equipment can create VHS captures that look as good as DVD, or better. We've proven that for over 20 years now.

I use the MX-1, and its main benefit is the removal of the horizontal "wiggling" in portions of the picture. Some people say the MX-1 messes with coloring, but I honestly havent noticed it in a few comparisons.

The MX-1 is extremely weak, and it does mess with the signal and values. Any quality gains are offset by added problems. It's not a TBC, it's a mixer with an "included TBC" that is meant for the internal processing of the mixer. It's not made for your external source VHS tapes, and it fails miserably at it.

If your line TBC has already stablized the picture enough and you're not getting dropped frames, I dont see the reason to use

This is terrible advice (to not use TBCs). Why? Because most people are not getting proper drop reporting. We see a lot of "I don't have dropped frames, but why is it stuttering?" or "I don't have dropped frames, but why is audio out of sync?". That's because it is dropping frames! Too many people are using the wrong software (OBS, etc), or hardware that has known internal drops (Blackmagic). Some are disabling settings in VirtualDub, which essentially disables drop reporting. Too many people are following bad advice from Youtubers that don't know WTF they're doing either.

Agreed that samples with and without the external TBC-like device in the workflow (eg. Videonics MX-1) would be best for comparison. Unfortunately, I currently don't have an MX-1 and am only evaluating whether it's worth investing in.

MX-1 is pissing away money. All of those mixers suck, not TBCs made for converting your videotapes.

[Forenzik]

But the reality is that you cant get a TBC for what, under a grand or two now? How many are you personally selling smurfman?

If feel like a lot of the discussion in here is based on pride of having equipment that nobody else can get in this day and age.

Maybe if I used the MX-1 commercially, I would find it weak, but for my residential purposes, it improves the end result.

[lollo]

[QUOTE=lordsmurf;2723310]

Using proper equipment can create VHS captures that look as good as DVD, or better. We've proven that for over 20 years now.

I appreciate the "sense", but stay reasonable...

[Bwaak]

I am using a JVC SR-MV45 that has a line TBC and using SVHS output to a DVD recorder (RD-XS35) that has the NEC chipset encoder with TBC. My question is whether I would benefit from adding a TBC-like device, for example a Videonics MX-1 or similar Panasonic mixer unit, between the JVC VCR and the DVD recorder or is the current setup adequate with the existing built-in TBC functions.

You already have two A->D->A conversions, not to mention the final A->D conversion, and you want to add another one? Every conversion potentially degrades the video. You many even not notice the damage, but it is there.

If you don't see line jitter, and your picture is not rolling or jumping or drops out, then I would say you are good. Feel free to post a couple of samples.

I wonder, did you feel the built-in TBC was not enough for you to add a DVD recorder into the chain?

[AndyO6322]

There are two: (1) line or field, (2) frame
You need both.
It's two different functions, like the axles and transmission of a car. Car doesn't work without both. Not having a TBC is like having broken axles, or the car stuck in neutral. The car moves, yes, but it sucks. Sort of how video plays without TBCs, but it sucks.

Thanks LS. Understood that both functions are needed. I am asking whether the JVC SR-MV45 VHS deck with onboard line TBC and the Toshiba RD-XS35 DVD Recorder with the NEC µPD61181 chip (frame-type TBC per datasheet page 17, attached) is adequate or is an external Frame TBC necessary.

[AndyO6322]

I am using a JVC SR-MV45 that has a line TBC and using SVHS output to a DVD recorder (RD-XS35) that has the NEC chipset encoder with TBC. My question is whether I would benefit from adding a TBC-like device, for example a Videonics MX-1 or similar Panasonic mixer unit, between the JVC VCR and the DVD recorder or is the current setup adequate with the existing built-in TBC functions.

You already have two A->D->A conversions, not to mention the final A->D conversion, and you want to add another one? Every conversion potentially degrades the video. You many even not notice the damage, but it is there.

If you don't see line jitter, and your picture is not rolling or jumping or drops out, then I would say you are good. Feel free to post a couple of samples.

I wonder, did you feel the built-in TBC was not enough for you to add a DVD recorder into the chain?

Thanks for your feedback Bwaak. I was primarily asking whether the frame-type TBC (NEC µPD61181 chip) in the DVD recorder is considered adequate or not, as noted in my reply post to LS.

[Bwaak]

I was primarily asking whether the frame-type TBC (NEC µPD61181 chip) in the DVD recorder is considered adequate or not, as noted in my reply post to LS.

I suppose the gist of your question is whether all this equipment is enough to guarantee good quality output for unattended capture.

My situation is different, I don't capture lots of tapes, so I start with a minimal configuration and monitor the output, and if I see rips or rolls I switch to a more powerful method, which in my case causes highlights clipping, which is why I prefer to avoid it.

[oln]

If it's similar to the NEC chip in the PAL RD-XS24 and the NEC-based Pioneer and Sony dvd-recorders it should give a stable output for the capture card to deal with (since 99% of capture cards don't really contain proper buffering to deal unstable vcr input well) but can drop/insert frames if the input gets very unstable where one of these super expensive datavideo/avt/cypress TBCs that LS will try to sell you may be able to avoid it or roll instead. You'll have to look at your captures to see whether you have any issues with frame drops or rolling or whether it's acceptable as it is currently. It's not going to be some magic or drastic change otherwise. External tbcs are often somewhat old and used older video ICs so can come with some image quality tradeoffs as well.

[lollo]

I agree with oln.

If the source is good you may not need an additional external TBC "that LS will try to sell you (as oln said)". For most of my captures I do not need such a device, and I can compare the captured number of frames in the analog domain versus the original digital source, so I have a 1:1 mapping.

For tapes not in pristine shape or with defects, unfortunately, there is no other choice than an additional device, or a card with internal stronger Time Base correction than the VCR.

[lordsmurf]

Thanks LS. Understood that both functions are needed. I am asking whether the JVC SR-MV45 VHS deck with onboard line TBC and the Toshiba RD-XS35 DVD Recorder with the NEC µPD61181 chip (frame-type TBC per datasheet page 17, attached) is adequate or is an external Frame TBC necessary.

That MV45 is fine for line TBC.

davideck and myself (and gshelley at times, even BJ_M) debated TBCs for years, many years ago. (None of them been on VH in years.) He did somewhat like certain Toshibas, and was the biggest proponent of them. However, those mess with values, especially IRE. So it's not transparent. Nor is it really a TBC. (FYI, single chips are not frame TBCs, not possible, never will be the case.) The Toshiba is just another typical non-TBC frame sync -- which davideck acknowledged, but still considered all frame syncs to be TBCs, and that's not accurate. A lot of confusion regarding TBCs (frame/line/field, etc) and DVD recorders can trace back to these debates 15-20+ years ago. Often telephone-gamed elsewhere online. Then these have been dug up (but also garbled by newbies) in recent years, from attempts to finding "cheaper TBCs" (but silly newbies, TBCs were never cheap, and anything cheap wasn't a TBC!).

NEC µPD61181 is just the AIO used by Toshiba, comparable to the better LSI Logic used in JVC/LiteOn/etc of the era. It doesn't have anything to do with TBCs.

But the reality is that you cant get a TBC for what, under a grand or two now?

A TBC is a tool. Tools cost money. Lawnmowers, refrigerators, washing machines. Those are all boring items that cost money, just like TBCs. It's not sexy, not a status symbol. It's just what you need to do a quality job. People cry about buying TBCs way too often, and yet the same people probably piss away money on overpriced phones, daily Starbucks, weed, whatever. It's about priorities. If you want to convert video that looks terrible, have at it. I just hope I don't have to watch it. Perhaps let somebody else handle it, since you're lazy and cheap.

It's not a forever cost. Buy it, use it, resell it. TBCs actually hold resale, unlike most other boring tools.

How many are you personally selling smurfman?

Right now, I have 3 TBCs available.

If feel like a lot of the discussion in here is based on pride of having equipment that nobody else can get in this day and age.

No.

Maybe if I used the MX-1 commercially, I would find it weak, but for my residential purposes, it improves the end result.

It doesn't have anything to do with "commercial" or "residential". That's as dumb as claiming a hammer is for "home use" or "pro use. It's a hammer! Both pros and home DIY both the same hammer, from the same store!

Using proper equipment can create VHS captures that look as good as DVD, or better. We've proven that for over 20 years now.

I appreciate the "sense", but stay reasonable...

Not at all. Find conversations between gshelley and myself, on this site, 20+ years ago. Obviously it's extremely source based. But very, very possible at times. The key here is proper VCRs, TBCs, detailers, proc amps, good capture/encoder (including other DVD recorders), etc. I still have a few DVDs (somewhere) that are hard to tell the difference between it and the retail release DVD in FS.

For tapes ... in pristine shape

Make no mistake. If your tape is in pristine condition, zero defects (both visible and invisible/signal), then this Toshiba recorder can work. Not will, can, maybe. But even a small % of imperfection, and it'll flop around like a fish on shore. It just cannot catch it's breath.

. External tbcs are often somewhat old and used older video ICs so can come with some image quality tradeoffs as well.

Definitely. But it fully depends on not just the model, but the sub-line/generation, as well as exact unit condition.

/no longer quoting or replying to oln here, but still on this topic...

This is why random buying TBCs doesn't end well for a lot of folks. (Whenever I sell a TBC, we have discussions on whether it suits their sources, etc. Contrary to what some people seem to wrongly think, I'm not just putting a "for sale" sign on the unit, and expecting buyers "no questions asked". TBCs, gear of any kind, is only a small % of the overall video capture experience. What I do is probably 50% consulting/support, not mere selling.)

All TBCs have some % of processing effects (or noise), but DVD recorders used as "TBC(ish)" devices are large and noticeable at all times. The goal is transparency, and DVD recorder manufacturers obviously did not care about that whatsoever. Those were made for/during an era where most people still had CRTs, maybe craptastic early HDTVs (plasmas, bad LCDs, etc).

I think the main issue is that some people are more willing to sweep defects under the rug, be apologists to obvious flaws, and/or defending their purchase of cheap items that are "almost as good" (NOT!). In the 2020s, modern viewing has made some of those flaws unacceptable. While that does make the onus of deciding if quality is "good enough", you need to think beyond yourself, and to the others that may want/need to watch it (or suffer through crappy-made video).

[Forenzik]

I think it would be best for you to calm down and understand that the laymen may not perceive the quality differences as much as others and there are a variety of goals out there. An old man on hearing aids spending $1500 on audiophile level headphones does not make sense. It really is a question of how much one is willing to spend for what they can perceive; and this does not make them lazy and cheap. OCD is a real problem and I get a sense you may fall into that camp so of course gold plating the whole process is going to be important for you. No shame in that but there is no need to make it sound like your way is the only way.

[AndyO6322]

NEC µPD61181 is just the AIO used by Toshiba, comparable to the better LSI Logic used in JVC/LiteOn/etc of the era. It doesn't have anything to do with TBCs.

Lordsmurf, I am interested to understand how the NEC AIO chip µPD61181 differs from the ICs in a TBC like the DataVision TBC-1000 (Phillips SAA7111/Conexant Bt864A). See attached NEC datasheet referencing the frame-type TBC on page 17.

[lordsmurf]

Lordsmurf, I am interested to understand... TBC on page 17.

Define TBC. Therein lies the problem. There is no industry standard definition. So what many of us understand as "TBC" may be entirely referenced differently by a manufacturer. This has caused confusion for decades now. Some considered mere frame syncs to be TBCs, and yet the "TBC" (frame sync TBC) did not re-time or mistimed the output. So TBCs are tested for common fail points, to define them within our context of what a TBC is and needs to be, for our goal of consumer format SD analog ingest (without frame drop/insert issues).

Even so, let's assume that NEC chip really is a frame sync TBC to our definition. Now then, look closer at that Toshiba recorder, pull up the spec sheet. Does it contain 64mb+ RAM? Is that RAM shared with other processes (NR, etc)? Meaning the TBC is underbuffering. -- Now then, I'm not sure if this is the case here (specs not met), as I don't have XS35 specs nearby, nor do I have time to tear my own machine apart. But this is an example of what you do often find is the case.

This is where details matter, when it relates to claims of "TBC" in items. Too many TBC newbies focus on chip spec sheet claims, and not enough to real-world performance, or even the implementation in the chips. Very often, the mere spec of the item (forget the chip) shows it to be impossible or nonsense. Marketing depts loved to claim BS that did not exist in the 00s, for digital video products, simply because it was on the spec sheet of a component.

I bought a Toshiba recorder long ago because I wanted it to be a "TBC-1000 replacement" myself. That didn't happen. I still have the recorder, collecting dust on a gear shelf. For me, the main issue was irksome operation of the unit, then typical IRE offset, not even the "TBC" aspect.

People like to claim "yOu jUsT wAnT tO sELL sTuFF!" But note that I only started selling some refurb'd gear in 2017, because I saw it disappearing, due to lack of repair. But I wrote this post in 2006, more than a decade prior. Quite a few VH posts, too, but I don't have time to look for those. Me and others. I wasn't even the one to initially find these Toshiba issues, I just confirmed their findings later. (I was the one who found the ES10, however.)

I think it would be best for you to calm down and understand that the laymen may not perceive the quality differences as much as others

We're not talking nuance here. The nice home video of the family Christmas can, for example, with the wrong gear, be all wiggly, too dark (or too bright), and grandma will have an odd sunburn. The bad conversion hardware/software makes everything mushy, and you can't even see what gifts are being opened. The sound may be so awful that you can't understand what's going on.

I see these garbage conversions all the time.
All. the. time.
I fix them. I fix the screw-ups, both DIY and (sadly) mostly "professional" (HA!) work.

It really is a question of how much one is willing to spend for what they can perceive; and this does not make them lazy and cheap.

But perspective matters. When you're willing to spend more on a week of Starbucks, than on proper gear to convert your "precious" tapes, then you're a cheap ass. I won't mince words here. It's all about priorities. If you don't care about the video quality, then just say so. Don't wrap it up in a cozy bullshit blanket, and make excuses why it's "fine" or whatever.

OCD is a real problem and I get a sense you may fall into that camp

Nope. I'm a pragmatist. I'm The Price Is Right. I want as much quality as exists on the tape, without going over(board) to get it. There are budget solutions to convert video, and there are premium versions to convert video. But at some point, the "budget" method is vastly inferior, cheap, not budget at all.

- Your advice to use MX-1 is lousy. It's weak, too weak.
- The OP here wanting to use a Toshiba DVD recorder may be viable, if certain conditions are met. That's the thing about budget methods: it gets very case by case. It's not the "safe" route, with the best/ideal equipment. It's the "maybe, cross your fingers" route, using items that aren't quite intended for the function.

but there is no need to make it sound like your way is the only way.

You're missing what I wrote in this thread entirely.

- There are ideal ways to convert. (And I suggested these.)
- There are non-ideal/budget ways to convert. (And I may suggest these as well. But I point out what negatives exist with it.)
- And then there are bad/wrong ways to convert.

It's somewhat binary, it either works, or it doesn't work. The "doesn't work" is the fail %, and it can be quite high with items like the MX-1. And that's why those can be had for under $100 at times.

Now, my problem is that these $100 craptastic MX-1 mixers sell for "only" $200-500 at times, such as at this exact moment on eBay. Those are not worth that, and you're pissing away money on it. For those same funds, or less, get the ES15. It's a better budget option -- though remembering all budget options compromise quality. ES15 is what I consider a TBC(ish), and is merely a strong+crippled line TBC with non-TBC frame sync. But still, better than nothing, and better than MX-1. Better yet is to spend a little more, for a vastly better item in the $1k range. Still not "safe"/ideal, best quality, but at half the price some may decide the tradeoff is "good enough". There is a sweet spot.

So, you see, it's not about "perfectionism" or "OCD" or some hogwash that some claim. It's about matching needs, understanding fail points/%, and best allocating budget. Not "buy cheap, buy twice!"

[dellsam34]

The way I look at it, Any chip that rewrites the timing signal is considered a full TBC, VCRs with LTBC chip are full line TBCs because they regenerate the HBI signal, Devices that regenerate the VBI signal are considered full frame TBCs such as the TBC-1000. Frame synchronizers are just frame buffers, they rely heavily on a good VBI signal to determine the start of the frame, they always follow a frame TBC, Alone can't work. I don't know how DVD recorders and video mixing consoles work so I cannot define what TBC functionality they have.

[lollo]

I still have a few DVDs (somewhere) that are hard to tell the difference between it and the retail release DVD in FS.

Bad DVDs (master, processing, authoring, compression). Everybody can read the video specification of a signal in VHS and in DVD and make his own conclusion.

Make no mistake. If your tape is in pristine condition, zero defects (both visible and invisible/signal), then this Toshiba recorder can work.

I make no mistake. I do not care about "that" Toshiba. With many tapes I have experimented no need for additional external TBC. That's the point.

[lordsmurf]

Bad DVDs

I know Titanic FS was one we focused on at the time. It's not a bad retail DVD whatsoever. In fact, it was chosen for that reason.

Any chip that rewrites the timing signal is considered a full TBC, ... Devices that regenerate the VBI signal are considered full frame TBCs such as the TBC-1000. Frame synchronizers are just frame buffers, they rely heavily on a good VBI signal to determine the start of the frame, they always follow a frame TBC, Alone can't work. I don't know how DVD recorders and video mixing consoles work so I cannot define what TBC functionality they have.

There's also a middle ground, where you just accept whatever is input, then embed/rewrites errors for the "stable" output. Inserts/drops are part of the process, there is no temporal realign. But that can indeed be considered a (half-ass) TBC from some makers/chips. As I stated, and have for 20+ years now, we have to define TBC for our narrow uses (because there is no strict definition, very loosey-goosey). Any ol' "TBC" isn't necessarily a useful TBC.

[Bwaak]

The way I look at it, Any chip that rewrites the timing signal is considered a full TBC, VCRs with LTBC chip are full line TBCs because they regenerate the HBI signal, Devices that regenerate the VBI signal are considered full frame TBCs such as the TBC-1000. Frame synchronizers are just frame buffers, they rely heavily on a good VBI signal to determine the start of the frame, they always follow a frame TBC, Alone can't work. I don't know how DVD recorders and video mixing consoles work so I cannot define what TBC functionality they have.

From the info from elsewhere and from my own experience:

• Digital TBC originated as a buffer of just one and a half lines, which grew to 8, 12, 16, 32 and more lines. These TBCs line up H-Sync pulses only, this is a "normal" TBC or "Line TBC" in the parlance of this forum users.
• It is possible to have a TBC with a full frame buffer that does not line up V-Sync pulses, so this would still be a "Line TBC" but with an option of dropout compensation (DOC) for a whole frame. A full frame repeat does not look pretty on normal video.
• Frame Synchronizer is a device that lines up V-Sync, it does not necessarily line up H-Sync, which this video clearly illustrates.
• A so-called "Frame TBC" - the term that is often used on this forum - is a device that aligns both H-Sync and V-Sync pulses, so it combines functionality of a "normal" TBC with frame synchronizer. Unlike a "normal" frame synchronizer, which aligns V-Sync of one or more video signals to an external reference signal, possibly from another VTR or from a sync pulse generator, a "Frame TBC" aligns V-Sync to a built-in sync pulse generator.

Because of the above, "Frame TBC" includes "Line TBC" functionality. Hence, one does not need both a "Frame TBC" and a "Line TBC", just a "Frame TBC" is enough.

OTOH, frame synchronizer does not necessarily include "Line TBC" functionality, thus a "Line TBC" and a frame synchronizer complement each other.

"Line TBC" and "Frame TBC"are not industry-standard terms. I suppose those who use these terms imply that "Line TBC" == "X-line TBC", and "Frame TBC" == "Full-frame TBC".

Feel free to correct me if you have better info.

[lordsmurf]

Because of the above, "Frame TBC" includes "Line TBC" functionality. Hence, one does not need both a "Frame TBC" and a "Line TBC", just a "Frame TBC" is enough.

No, don't say that, you'll give newbies the wrong idea. Theory vs. practice here. It gets even more murky because weak line + strong frame did exist in the analog broadcast era. But those devices were not expecting the heavy issues on consumer sources like VHS, so those devices fail.

It is possible to have a TBC with a full frame buffer that does not line up V-Sync pulses, so this would still be a "Line TBC" but with an option of dropout compensation (DOC) for a whole frame.

Somewhat "field TBC".

OTOH, frame synchronizer does not necessarily include "Line TBC" functionality, thus a "Line TBC" and a frame synchronizer complement each other.

Correct. There is overlap.
- For laymen, I generally state "line is the image" while "frame is for the signal/non-image".
- Sometimes I go further, and state that line "mostly" fixes the image, or frame "mostly" fixes the signal, and that there is overlap (ie, frame correcting up/down image bouncing/"jitter", or line removing more based temporal/frame errors, etc) -- but that gets way too complicated for the average mortal, including higher-end users like archivists. It's just trivia. They want to use the devices, not take a video physics lesson.

"Line TBC" and "Frame TBC"are not industry-standard terms. I suppose those who use these terms imply that "Line TBC" == "X-line TBC", and "Frame TBC" == "Full-frame TBC".

There is no standard. I would suggest we just usurped JVC and DataVideo, since those were the de facto devices back in the 90s. JVC referred to "line TBC" and DataVideo referred to "frame sync TBC" (sometimes shortened to just "frame TBC"). Other manufacturers latched on to different terms, or even the same terms, to describe equipment that was the same, or even different. It's as clear as mud. Always had been.

Feel free to correct me if you have better info.

In past posts, you were all over the place in trying to understand TBCs. But you are understanding them better over time. I don't really see anything drastically wrong with a quick reading of your understanding here. I still don't think you fully grasp it, but you're not overtly wrong on anything this time. Good job. Sometimes people have a need to pigeonhole everything. Well, you can't always do that. Deal with it. And I think you finally are.

[dellsam34]

[*]Digital TBC originated as a buffer of just one and a half lines, which grew to 8, 12, 16, 32 and more lines. These TBCs line up H-Sync pulses only, this is a "normal" TBC or "Line TBC" in the parlance of this forum users.[*]It is possible to have a TBC with a full frame buffer that does not line up V-Sync pulses, so this would still be a "Line TBC" but with an option of dropout compensation (DOC) for a whole frame. A full frame repeat does not look pretty on normal video.[*]Frame Synchronizer is a device that lines up V-Sync, it does not necessarily line up H-Sync, which this video clearly illustrates.

I don't agree with that definition, Notice the nasty comment I left him back then, His definition of TBC is far off from the stuff we deal with, at least the consumer tapes, I have never come across the artifact he was showing, I assume it is some weird uMatic artifact or some digital format, Yes digital formats have timing standards too. That video didn't make any sense to me.

[Bwaak]

I don't agree with that definition, Notice the nasty comment I left him back then, His definition of TBC is far off from the stuff we deal with, at least the consumer tapes, I have never come across the artifact he was showing, I assume it is some weird uMatic artifact or some digital format, Yes digital formats have timing standards too. That video didn't make any sense to me.

Have you clicked on the link? Are you confusing this guy with someone else? He clearly says this is a VHS signal. There are no comments of yours on this video, maybe he has deleted them.

In any case, I don't care about his definition, the bulleted list above is mine. I linked to his video because it clearly displays the output of a frame synchronizer that does not have "normal" TBC functionality.

As for the horizontal shake, you may have missed this thread.

[dellsam34]

I still see my comment there, I watched the video long time ago, forgot he mentioned VHS, but that artifact is not very common to build a definition upon, We know the common line and frame timing artifacts and we've seen plenty of threads about them.

[AndyO6322]

Thanks everyone for the great TBC insights and suggestions. The overall message I am hearing is put off trying to build the 99% setup and use my current workflow, adjusting and modifying components in the workflow as needed as issues come up (or don't) with individual VHS tapes. That is a good approach for moving forward. Appreciate all the good TBC discussion that is helping me learn more on the topic.

[lollo]

Yes, always make your own experiments and conclusions on your material, without blindly following suggestions from others

[dellsam34]

The overall message I am hearing is put off trying to build the 99% setup and use my current workflow, adjusting and modifying components in the workflow as needed as issues come up (or don't) with individual VHS tapes. That is a good approach for moving forward.

This has always been my suggestion, By the time you get down to the problematic tapes if there is any, it probably justifies to have them done by someone with the right equipment and not having to worry about buying that same equipment for just few tapes.

[Bwaak]

Awesome new video from Videotape Retro, but check out his equipment and workflow.