In what category is RetroTink5?

[Darryl In Canada]

If you think about digitization devices, you have:

• DVD recorders that digitize to MPEG-2 on a disc
• Capture devices that save in some version of lossy (AVCD110, MiniDV camcorder, Pinnacle 710 USB, Elgato video capture, etc.)
• Capture devices that let you save in lossless codec in VirtualDub (all the ATI units(?), AJA units (?) etc.)
• Capture devices that let you save the raw RF signal (Domesday Duplicator)

Where does RetroTink5 fit in? It's superpower is that it has a built-in upscaler and deinterlacer that works in real-time. But you can turn it off and can capture in the native 480i in VirtualDub with HuffYUV. At that level, the only difference between it and an ATI is that the data exits the RetroTink via HDMI, so you need to add an HDMI-to-USB device to get it into your computer. (RetroRBG suggests the Magewell 32060.)

Do you think of the RetroTink5+Magewell be in the same category as the ATIs? Or another category?

[Alwyn]

Capture devices that save in some version of lossy (AVCD110, MiniDV camcorder, Pinnacle 710 USB, Elgato video capture, etc.)

To correct this, the Pinnacle 710 and Elgato only capture lossy because that is what the capture software does. I know for a fact that the 710 will capture lossless, and I'm sure that the Elgato will do the same. Included in the Lossless capture group are all the other reputable digitisers, such as the GV-USB2 and the USB Live-2.

All of those should be in your third dot point.

[lordsmurf]

RetroTINK is for video game consoles, the videotape use has issues. Was not made for tapes. Does not fit at all.

[dellsam34]

Do you think of the RetroTink5+Magewell be in the same category as the ATIs? Or another category?

It is a TV/monitor upscaler, why would you even classify it as a video tape capture device? HDMI was never meant to be a capture port, the only reason HDMI streamers exist is because video game enthusiasts like to record or live stream their experience, but since retro games consoles do not have a HDMI port for a HDMI streamer to connect, a device like RetroTink was born to fill that gap, Just because it has an analog video input doesn't make it a video tape capture device.

[Alwyn]

Nothing wrong with HDMI->USB. The Startech USB3HDCAP captures VHS via HDMI nicely.

[dellsam34]

Startech USB3HDCAP does not capture analog video, it streams HDMI/DVI over USB, The thread is about Retrotink which is an analog to digital upscaler.

[Alwyn]

Startech USB3HDCAP does not capture analog video

Of course it does. You output VHS from a HDMI-enabled VCR or DVD recorder, probably just like the output of the Retro.

The thread is about Retrotink

AND the bit that connects it to the PC.

[dellsam34]

I was not criticizing HDMI to USB streamers though, I was pointing out their purpose. You're picking the wrong argument.

[Alwyn]

[lollo]

It is a TV/monitor upscaler, why would you even classify it as a video tape capture device? HDMI was never meant to be a capture port, the only reason HDMI streamers exist is because video game enthusiasts like to record or live stream their experience, but since retro games consoles do not have a HDMI port for a HDMI streamer to connect, a device like RetroTink was born to fill that gap, Just because it has an analog video input doesn't make it a video tape capture device.

Well, we all capture HD broadcast from HDMI ports when a direct dump of the stream is not possible (i.e. proprietary set-top box).

And for analog VHS, a well established workflow exists, using specific DVD-Recorders playing the role of the capture device, and outputting a proper interlaced digitized signal on their HDMI ports. The step of dumping the HDMI stream is also well managed.

I never used that RetroTink device, so I cannot comment about it. But what is important there is the quality of its A/D conversion and the respect of the analog signal specifications while digitizing; its output format is not that relevant.
I would be suspicious if it claims to perform embedded TBC features, but that's another story.

[lordsmurf]

I would be suspicious if it claims to perform embedded TBC features, but that's another story.

RetroTINK fans claim it's the so-called "triple buffering", which is actually also a term reserved for video games, and has nothing to do with analog videotapes.

[lollo]

RetroTINK fans claim it's the so-called "triple buffering", which is actually also a term reserved for video games, and has nothing to do with analog videotapes.

Then I am definitely suspicious.

I hope that the internal "buffering" options can be turned off, and then the device being used in the classic workflow with a proper time base correction before feeding it as a digitizer (very few are the cards featuring somehow internal tb correction).

But all this is only my speculation, I never used the RetroTink.

[dellsam34]

And for analog VHS, a well established workflow exists, using specific DVD-Recorders playing the role of the capture device, and outputting a proper interlaced digitized signal on their HDMI ports. The step of dumping the HDMI stream is also well managed.

In the 1% of the time yes and I even recommended it before, unfortunately 99% of the time is cheap chinese RCA to HDMI gadgets that most of them output only 720p/1080p de-interlaced with wrong color space and levels without any option for 480i/576i, Add to that, not all HDMI to USB capture devices are transparent, if you feed them 480i/576i they will spit 720p or 1080p. Since the market is flooded with them due to their very low price a newbie will most likely end up getting one since some guys are glorifying this workflow and then they wonder why their capture looks crappy.

[lollo]

Since the market is flooded with them due to their very low price a newbie will most likely end up getting one since some guys are glorifying this workflow and then they wonder why their capture looks crappy.

Sure, all correct! I was referring to the well-known quality flow using a specific DVD-Recorder as capture device (despite potential levels/brightness issues) and an appropriate device for capturing HDMI stream through USB.

[aramkolt]

This is a decent video to watch if you want to see about the state of the RT4K for interlaced or progressive capture - Interestingly, they do use virtualdub for their capturing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N9mRJKk9ps

Starting at about 16 minutes in, they show the Snell and Wilcox SW2 pattern, though I'm not clear what source it was recorded onto the Video8 tape that is mentioned. The easiest source to find that pattern is the Digital Video Essentials DVD, but that uses 4:2:0 chroma subsampling obviously being from a DVD. I see a fair amount of ringing on the captured file, but the image in general is visibly stabilized over not having the RT4K there.

I plan to repeat this testing, but using an original Snell and Wilcox TPG21 test pattern generator as the source when copying over to VHS and S-VHS tapes to use as the capture test sample media. I'll also see how it digitizes the pattern directly from the TPG21 (which will not have time base errors, but should still show if there are any deficits when presenting different capture cards with a pristine signal). This will be part of testing around 20+ different capture methods/cards/TBCs all from the same source materials and playback devices. The SW2 pattern is nice because it can reveal a lot of issues all in one pattern. They also use this pattern again around 18 minutes into the video which shows image jitter is visibly stabilized with the RT4K.

Towards the end of the video, they talk about testing and proving 480i is being captured correctly and not blending or discarding fields which is reassuring that they've considered some of the pitfalls of modern capture devices and the RT4K can actually appropriately preserve those fields.

They don't claim that it'll necessarily beat a purpose built TBC (since I don't think they've really tested many of them directly), but the RT4K's hardware is definitely more advanced than traditional frame TBCs that are 20 years old. That, and firmware updates are still being released that can change how it works to further improve it. It does seem to not care about macrovision since they were able to capture eurotrip which I'm sure had macrovision. I'm not sure how good it is at grabbing on to weak and very degraded signals compared to traditional TBCs, but I'll try to test that as well. I'm not sure how it handles very weak signals that have lots of dropouts, but I'll try to come up with a test of that as well.

Really all a frame TBC does is hold a few frames worth of information in memory on a rolling basis and then output them at a digitally precise rate so that the capture card that is placed after it doesn't drop any of those frames. Since the RT4K also can embed audio into the HDMI output, it's possible for the device to delay the audio by the exact amount of lag that gets added by its frame buffer. It is unclear to me if the firmware on the RT4K knows to start duplicating frames if its frame buffer runs out of fames to send though. I'm guessing it does do that based on what I'm seeing in that video.

The RT4K is uses a Cyclone V FPGA and has a separate frame buffer and RAM for these, so it doesn't exactly matter what the RT4K's original intent was as the I/O and hardware can be configured in firmware to do something different than the original intended purpose. FPGAs have the ultimate flexibility when it comes to changing how the hardware works after it is already assembled. It basically allows for hardware emulation via firmware that can be changed. The more recent broadcast TBCs and format converters will have one or more FPGAs in them, so they are using similar hardware in that way.

I doubt that the RT4K current firmware allows for line-TBC-like effects, but there's really probably no reason that it couldn't be programmed in firmware to adapt line lengths and start all of the lines at the same point on the left side of the screen and scale the total line length to make each line end at the same point on the right of the screen when it goes to output the buffered line data. This is basically what ADLLT (Adaptive Digital Line Length Tracking) can do on certain Analog Devices ADC chips - the only issue is that Analog Devices chips that supported that feature required additional RAM to be present and it also needs to be enabled in firmware. So while devices like the Blackmagic Analog to SDI (as an example) contains a chip that supports ADLLT, it does not have the companion RAM or firmware enabling required.

I'd personally put the RT4K in as a "frame TBC that only has a digital output" that you have to then capture with an HDMI capture card that supports 480i. It goes in whatever category that you'd put the BE75 (Brighteye 75) which takes any analog in (component, composite, S-Video) as well as analog audio and outputs 480i SDI. SDI is easily converted losslessly to HDMI and vice versa and supports the same resolutions, it's just transmitted over a single BNC cable. I think the only reason HDMI was used for consumer stuff is that content protection (HDCP) was a consideration that SDI didn't originally (and maybe still doesn't?) have implemented.