Are there any videos that show the difference between regular VHS and S-VHS

[pandy]

You know, we know, you can't modify a VCR, If you are too old for the BS don't start it.

"We"? You are some form of collective body like Borg or perhaps self taught revolution leader such as Lenin?
I know for sure you have no basic electronics knowledge and that's why you are constantly repeating tons of marketing blahbling...

For people with knowledge everything i've wrote is quite obvious and natural - VHS is designed in particular way and by principle Y & C are processed separately and there is no technical reason to not output Y & C signals separately too and you not need for this S-VHS VCR - from your perspective this is magical knowledge thus your claims.

I asked you about "magical chip" preventing possibility to not combine Y & C in VHS and you immediately started you shabby elaborate about "i modify - you sell" unable to provide name of such mythical VCR signal processing chip (and hilariously for you i can't eliminate as engineer possibility that at some point there was single IC processing Y&C internally without possibility to not combine them but most of VCR's has separate IC's to process signals due overall complexity and inability made single, large LSI capable to perform all analog processing, also early 90's most of silicone vendors started to not share details about their specific IC's so even today it is quite difficult to find detailed datasheet for such VCR signal processing IC's so i can't say no, there was no single signal IC VCR).

But OK - fine - lets start doing business together - you send me unit to be modified with service manual and datasheet for Y & C signal processing IC's, you pay me for modification and after all you sell modified unit for money you like. This is fair model of doing business.

Suddenly this discussion was drifted from "separate Y&C output on VCR like S-VHS is foundation for S-VHS high quality" to "separate Y & C output in VHS VCR is not important". This is how marketing works for people without knowledge...

[lollo]

Suddenly this discussion was drifted from "separate Y&C output on VCR like S-VHS is foundation for S-VHS high quality" to "separate Y & C output in VHS VCR is not important".

I am going to don't respect what i said about not continuing this discussion, but the fact that adding a Y/C signal to a basic VHS turns it into a high-end S-VHS is just your idiocy and bullshit.

This is where all discussion drifted.

This is how marketing works for people without knowledge...

As I said, obviously you have no knowledge in the domain, so I am again wasting my time. I stop now, this time for real.

[pandy]

I am going to don't respect what i said about not continuing this discussion, but the fact that adding a Y/C signal to a basic VHS turns it into a high-end S-VHS is just your idiocy and bullshit.

This is where all discussion drifted.

Nope, it is hilarious to read how you are contradictory to your self:
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/417204-Are-there-any-videos-that-show-the-differen...HS#post2763579


I never made such claim that adding separate Y/C output to VHS made it equal in quality to S-VHS - this is your claim (attributed to me which is lie based either on misunderstanding or malicious intentions).

I claimed: "you can modify VHS VCR (ok, most of them as i don't have knowledge on all possible VCR schematics but those i know use separate IC's to process Y & C so both signals are available easily) to output separate Y/C thus avoid CVBS issues in capture" but i never claimed that you get S-VHS quality after such modification! Please stop lying.

As I said, obviously you have no knowledge in the domain, so I am again wasting my time. I stop now, this time for real.

How miserable FUD... but same to you, same to you...

[lollo]

The world upside down.

Before learning about VCRs and Capturing, you should learn english as well.

How miserable FUD... but same to you, same to you...

No FUD, it is simply the truth.

[dellsam34]

@pandy
I have no interest in taking anything free from you, so stop labeling me as scammer or an idiot who doesn't know how business work, How about show us a modified VCR and I'll bring you buyers and take zero commission, just for the good of the capturing community. I often offered financial help for such projects, not the other way around.

I've been in this place since 2005 and I've seen a lot of enthusiastic projects go cold that were promised to be "easily done", One thing I know for sure is, it's easily said than done.

[pandy]

The world upside down.

Before learning about VCRs and Capturing, you should learn english as well.

Now suddenly my English is problem - i never complained for your English but this not mean that there is no reason to complain.

No FUD, it is simply the truth.

Truth of liar...

[pandy]

@pandy
I have no interest in taking anything free from you, so stop labeling me as scammer or an idiot who doesn't know how business work, How about show us a modified VCR and I'll bring you buyers and take zero commission, just for the good of the capturing community. I often offered financial help for such projects, not the other way around.

I've been in this place since 2005 and I've seen a lot of enthusiastic projects go cold that were promised to be "easily done", One thing I know for sure is, it's easily said than done.

Now you sounds more reasonable than before so please read my explanations calmly and please do not add anything new especially something i never said/wrote. Thank You.

I'm not labeling you scammer - labeled you clever as you run away from my technical question to business "opportunity" - i want to be clear on that - i asked you about chip (single LSI) performing all VCR signal processing (so perhaps you are right that it may be not possible to do simple modification) - i can't remove possibility that VCR's at their technological peak - somewhere in first half of 90's VCR may indeed use such single chip solution so my assumption will be not valid for latest VCR's. I can be honest on this as you see.

All i wrote is "VHS VCR can be modified to output separate Y/C" - separate Y/C may be beneficial for overall quality improvement but it is technique not reserved for S-VHS only.

By principle VHS use separate Y & C signal processing so there is no technical reason preventing possibility to output separate Y/C.
Hope we can agree on that.

Now another issue - i didn't said this is my project and i need financial support - this need to be clear. Such modification is relatively simple and it can be done virtually money free (so i don't see business opportunity here but perhaps there is some very limited market - i don't know).

Another thing - this is not my project - i never wrote : "i have project to modify VHS VCR so it will be possible to output Y/C separately" - also i didn't asked for any donations or funds to support my project.

Now my projects - my current projects priority list is: finish my home construction, then move my stuff from various places to my home, create some working environment and after this start some electronic related projects (mostly around Amiga computer family) - fixing and modifying VHS units i have is not on top of my list so perhaps in many months from now i can provide you information you are asking for but this not happen tomorrow or next week.

To be honest your attitude triggered my curiosity to try such modification.

[rgr]

I once tested my VHS tape (not SVHS) in a VCR with both Composite and SVideo connections. No difference.

[rgr]

i have lots of VHS tapes that i wanna digitize. i know S-VHS is the best VCR type to use. I just wanna see a visual example of the enhanced quality of using S-VHS compared to regular VHS.

If he already has those tapes recorded in VHS (and not SVHS), why do you want to see the difference? A bit too late

[Alwyn]

If he already has those tapes recorded in VHS (and not SVHS), why do you want to see the difference?

My reading is that he wants to see the difference between playing the tape in a non-SVHS machine verses a SVHS machine. He doesn't want to see the diff between a SVHS recording and a non-VHS recording.

[lollo]

I once tested my VHS tape (not SVHS) in a VCR with both Composite and SVideo connections. No difference.

Redo your test, possibly with a tape in nice condition and a proper workflow.

If he already has those tapes recorded in VHS (and not SVHS), why do you want to see the difference? A bit too late

Reading a VHS tape with a high-end S-VHS player improves the quality compared to a basic VCR.

[aramkolt]

That's been on the list of things I've wanted to test - see to what degree a regular VCR modified for S-Video output improves capture quality. I think Pandy is right, it really shouldn't be that hard to locate the separated luma and chroma before they get mixed, then buffer and amplify those signals to the appropriate levels that S-Video is supposed to be at while terminated with 75 ohms.

If anyone has a specific circuit for me to try for tapping luma/chroma and amplifiying it to S-Video levels, I'm all for soldering it up, testing it, and posting the results.

I think Pandy is saying that ONE of the main advantage of an S-VHS VCR is you get to preserve separate chroma and luma, not that a modified regular VCR will equal the performance of an S-VHS VCR with TBC turned on. Since a lot of people use DMR-ES10/15 for stabilization, they'd be turning the TBC feature off anyway and it is possible that a regular modified S-Video output VCR could look just as good as one of the recommended VCRs with their TBC turned off and from there you'd need to add your own line TBC of sorts

[Sharc]

Just do the "easy" modification and show the results here

[lollo]

I think Pandy is saying that ONE of the main advantage of an S-VHS VCR is you get to preserve separate chroma and luma, not that a modified regular VCR will equal the performance of an S-VHS VCR with TBC turned on. Since a lot of people use DMR-ES10/15 for stabilization, they'd be turning the TBC feature off anyway and it is possible that a regular modified S-Video output VCR could look just as good as one of the recommended VCRs with their TBC turned off and from there you'd need to add your own line TBC of sorts

What you don't understand in: "the advantages of high-end S-VHS VCRs compared to basics VCRs rely on Y/C output, better mechanisms, higher quality internal components, better hardware filtering, better connectors, integrate noise reduction at TBC level, picture control, and so on"?

Just adding a Y/C output to a Funai VCR does not turn it into a JVC S-VHS (*).

About the TBC correction, what is performed inside the VCR is a D/A and A/D conversion close to the source of the signals, with line adjustement in between, working on digitized signals close to the original.
When adding a specific DVD-Recorder in pass-through mode for VCR not having a TBC, you degrade the signal because you are far from the source, you add signal connectors and introduce the known defects of this kind of machines (overbrigth, banding, posterization).

So, from an engineering point of view, the assumption (*) is a complete non sense, even adding an external TBC feature, and I won't waste any time in doing so.

On the other hand, as Sharc suggested, you can do your own experiment anyhow, post here the results and prove that I am wrong.

[pandy]

Just do the "easy" modification and show the results here

I can help (remotely) as much as i can. So if someone feel comfortable with electronics work and doing modification in working VHS VCR then i can provide support. Simple oscilloscope plus soldering capability should simplify such modification.

[pandy]

I think Pandy is saying that ONE of the main advantage of an S-VHS VCR is you get to preserve separate chroma and luma, not that a modified regular VCR will equal the performance of an S-VHS VCR with TBC turned on. Since a lot of people use DMR-ES10/15 for stabilization, they'd be turning the TBC feature off anyway and it is possible that a regular modified S-Video output VCR could look just as good as one of the recommended VCRs with their TBC turned off and from there you'd need to add your own line TBC of sorts

What i'm trying to say (despite my poor English) is: Y/C separate output is NOT exclusive technology for S-VHS and it can be applied also to VHS VCR's, it can improve quality and make capture quality better but it is NOT key technology for S-VHS being undoubtedly superior to VHS.
So in other words - VHS capture quality can be marginally better than VHS CVBS after such modification.
Unless whole signal processing is done in single Large Scale Integration IC without access to separate Y and C then modification should be possible easily.

Signals may need buffering (anyway i always recommend active buffering) but signal levels should be not a problem (probably they need to be attenuated anyway so simple resistor voltage divider plus capacity coupling should be fine). Levels are known (in PAL overall Luminance signal level is 1V, 300mV for sync tip, 700mV for video, Chrominance signal level is also known - chroma burst level is always 300mVp-p).

[pandy]

Just adding a Y/C output to a Funai VCR does not turn it into a JVC S-VHS (*).

No one (perhaps except you) claim such thing - strangely to me simple modification allowing minimal quality improvement (quite obvious for any logical thinking electronics engineer) suddenly was set in line with all S-VHS improvements and TBC added on top (false impression that TBC was standard in every S-VHS VCR).

About the TBC correction, what is performed inside the VCR is a D/A and A/D conversion close to the source of the signals, with line adjustement in between, working on digitized signals close to the original.

We not talking about TBC as in second half of 80's technology that made TBC possible will cost approx 500..750$ additionally - TBC is exclusive for highest and most expensive consumer VCR models. Theoretically IC's such as TDA4660 allow to made analog line TBC but they appeared on market quite late - somewhere around 1990.

[lollo]

Just adding a Y/C output to a Funai VCR does not turn it into a JVC S-VHS (*).

No one (perhaps except you) claim such thing

Again the world upside down.

Me? Read again my posts since the beginning!

[pandy]

Again the world upside down.

Me? Read again my posts since the beginning!

You - no one except you claim such things - i mean - i never claimed anything you tried to bond with me - pointed this earlier.
From beginning you are arguing with yourself not me.

I just wrote - "Y/C can be added to VHS with relatively small modification, quality should be improved but i don't expect miracles" . Nothing more, nothing less - rest is from you and we have unwanted (at least by me) fight.

[lollo]

From beginning you are arguing with yourself not me.

Is that me arguing with myself?

Yes, but after processing a regular composite VCR combines the Y and C in one signal resulting in luma to chroma interference, The use of a Y-C capable (consumer S-Video) VCR skips that step.

But this is optional step i and technically you could avoid this (in fact it will reduce BOM and cost) also you may modify existing VHS recorder (doable if your goal is highest quality).

You continue to forget that the intrinsic quality of a S-VHS VCR is higher than a VHS VCR anyhow. Y/C separation is not the only reason.

do not forget anything - i just refereed to point where as one of main advances of the S-VHS over VHS was Y/S separated output - from my perspective this is second grade difference... so i just pointed that most of VHS VCR's can be easily modified to provide separated Y & C signal.

And dellsam34 (who seemed to understand your point like I did) already answered:

But this is optional step i and technically you could avoid this (in fact it will reduce BOM and cost) also you may modify existing VHS recorder (doable if your goal is highest quality).

Yes you can avoid the composite step by using a S-VHS deck, It's not that easy to modify an existing VHS recorder especially the newer ones, Everything is in the chip, Plus you can't take advantage of good mechanism and TBC used in high end S-VHS VCRs. If there is a better option outhere you think we haven't found it yet?

In any case, I did not want a figth either.

[pandy]

Is that me arguing with myself?

Nope you arguing with things i never wrote but you and you trying to attribute those things to me then arguing.
This is quite obvious to me - if you follow thread.

And dellsam34 (who seemed to understand your point like I did) already answered:
In any case, I did not want a figth either.

I have impression (perhaps wrong) that for you and Dellsam any idea for even simple modification that may introduce possibility get higher quality from VHS is abomination of S-VHS - way how you both reacted looks like i violated something saint. To me VCR is just VCR not black cuboid from 2001: A Space Odyssey... that's why i asked Dellsam on LSI IC chip name(s) so i can analyze their application and/or VCR schematic diagrams to check if there is possibility to add separate Y/C - for many VCR's schematics lead to conclusion it is possible - for example Philips VR6843 use AN3215K and C signal is feed to pin 12 to be combined with Y signal so simple modification by removing C signal (coupled trough capacitor) should remove C from CVBS (so create Y), buffer C signal and feed it to separate output - this don't look like huge challenge.

[lollo]

Nope you arguing with things i never wrote but you and you trying to attribute those things to me then arguing.
This is quite obvious to me - if you follow thread.

It was not obvious to me. Maybe is a misunderstanding. Does not matter anymore, let's move on.

I have impression (perhaps wrong) that for you and Dellsam any idea for even simple modification that may introduce possibility get higher quality from VHS is abomination of S-VHS

Not at all. Our answer was that adding a Y/C output does not turn a crap VCR into a high end S-VHS VCR, even when reading standard VHS tapes.

for example Philips VR6843 use AN3215K and C signal is feed to pin 12 to be combined with Y signal so simple modification by removing C signal (coupled trough capacitor) should remove C from CVBS (so create Y), buffer C signal and feed it to separate output - this don't look like huge challenge.

We are electronic engineers, and talk the same language, so I agree on that. It is just worthless because a capture with a high end S-VHS VCR will be better.

But as per @aramkolt, if you want to experiment, why not

[pandy]

It was not obvious to me. Maybe is a misunderstanding. Does not matter anymore, let's move on.

Agree - situation was cleared i hope.

Not at all. Our answer was that adding a Y/C output does not turn a crap VCR into a high end S-VHS VCR, even when reading standard VHS tapes.

Agree - all i wrote - adding separate Y/C may marginally improve capture quality, i also in PM to @aramkolt explained why so i will repeat it here:

- firstly it is obvious that keeping Y separated from C remove their mutual interference's and as such lead to improved quality,
- secondly using 2 ADC (one for Y and one for C) in capture device may marginally improve SNR (at best 3dB) for uncorrelated noises.

Benefits may be not the great but still if modification is relatively easy and inexpensive then why not try it.

We are electronic engineers, and talk the same language, so I agree on that. It is just worthless because a capture with a high end S-VHS VCR will be better.

There is always trade of between costs and availability - S-VHS units are more expensive and more difficult to obtain also parts are more expensive thus risk of using not fully working device is high. Additionally S-VHS accordingly to my knowledge (but i admit i never investigated this thoroughly) use different heads to play VHS (also signal path may be different).
Importantly there can be problems with tracking and other factors involved so S-VHS machine may give sub-optimal results when compared to playing recording on same machine used to made recording. So for unique tapes (like family recordings) it may be sane to modify VCR to output separate Y/C.

But as per @aramkolt, if you want to experiment, why not

I had no intention in near future to modify VCR i own (firstly they need to be fixed if possible - among all those years i lost almost all my VCR's so now i have only vintage Dual and some newer Sony VCR - both are quite basic models in probably bad shape) i also own Panasonic NV-M7 S-VHS camera so there is possibility to perform comparison if such modification will be finished by me - i'm quite curious TBH on this (but still believe that RF capture directly from VCR head amplifier and software demodulation is the most appropriate approach as it remove lot of analog processing issues).

[lollo]

secondly using 2 ADC (one for Y and one for C) in capture device may marginally improve SNR (at best 3dB) for uncorrelated noises

Well, this has to be verified in this contest of signal processing (we are not using a dual channel for the same signal, but we have 2 different signals).

Importantly there can be problems with tracking and other factors involved so S-VHS machine may give sub-optimal results when compared to playing recording on same machine used to made recording. So for unique tapes (like family recordings) it may be sane to modify VCR to output separate Y/C.

Only for evident mis-alignement in recording this is true. Generally we have a large set of VCRs to deal with different cases, although is true that the recording machine is the best candidates.
But for "family recording" the VCR is not the device which recorded, except for 2nd generation. You meant cameras, perhaps.

that RF capture directly from VCR head amplifier and software demodulation is the most appropriate approach as it remove lot of analog processing issues

Great expectations for vhs-decode, but so far no improvement had been validated over a classic workflow consisting of high end S-VHS VCR with TBC with Y/C output -> recommended capture card -> YUV 4:2:2 lossless. We had long discussions here and on digitalfaq forum.
We'll see in the future (I have no plan to experiment it so far).

edit: added clarification for 3dB SNR improvement

[pandy]

Well, this has to be verified in this contest of signal processing (we are not using a dual channel for the same signal, but we have 2 different signals).

Anyway this Y/C vs CVBS (where CVBS combine noise from Y and C). But i agree - this is estimation and it will be good to verify it (it can be verified by using S-Video signal source and combine Y/C so signal can be captured as Y/C and CVBS).

Only for evident mis-alignement in recording this is true. Generally we have a large set of VCRs to deal with different cases, although is true that the recording machine is the best candidates.
But for "family recording" the VCR is not the device which recorded, except for 2nd generation. You meant cameras, perhaps.

Family recordings is wide term - it is not only camera but also some unique recordings like broadcast transmissions that we already knew was not archived by broadcaster (common in some countries practice in 80's - tapes was reused and never archived).

Great expectations for vhs-decode, but so far no improvement had been validated over a classic workflow consisting of high end S-VHS VCR with TBC with Y/C output -> recommended capture card -> YUV 4:2:2 lossless. We had long discussions here and on digitalfaq forum.
We'll see in the future (I have no plan to experiment it so far).

Beginning is always difficult also i have impression that nobody seriously tried to understand signal processing path in VCR (but i admit that some knowledge need painful testing) - still capturing RF with servo signal should deliver best results.

Btw i was able to find such single LSI to process all signals - Sanyo LA71562M - obviously no datasheet available but based on service manual (Sony SLV 350) i can se that both Y and C playback signals are available so adding separate output is not a problem at least for Sony SLV series using this IC... Have impression that even those LSI use sometimes external additional IC to improve signals (like analog TBC / NR made in CCD devices so no A/D, D/A and memory required to process data).

[dellsam34]

Some of us made it clear from the beginning of this thread that the use of a S-VHS machine is not just for Y-C separation capability, but also better processing circuits, YBC/DNR, better mechanism and probably better heads, The argument that Y-C separation can be added to any VCR came up later in the thread.

Anyway, for all I know, uMatic, one of the oldest formats with no SoC, yet no one was able to find a synced C pin, the only workaround available was to use the Y from the DUB connector and extract C from the composite out, which kind of defeats the purpose of separation, but at least the Y is clean with no interference, the reason behind picking the C from composite is to achieve Y and C synchronization since composite carries the synch signal needed, other points where C can be picked up are not in sync with Y, at least according to Colin that runs video99.co YT channel whom I respect a lot for his VCR knowledge.

[Bogilein]

Maybe this is interesting for your discussion about adding a Y/C output...
The pages are in German language. It's best to have them translated with Google Translate.

http://www.heimers.ch/de/n1700.html

http://www.heimers.ch/de/videoverstaerker.html

[lollo]

The availability of the C signal on the input of "Sign Perp" and its interruption (so the signal at "Modulator" is only containing Y) makes life easy for this model.
pandy could buy one and start from there

Off topic: I noticed the "field shift" at some point in time (frame 271) of the sample video that we also see in more recent JVCs with TBC. So for this model the line compensation is not the reason. (I am always trying to understand if this problem is tape-related only (repetitive same fields shift across multiple captures) or the device also play a significant role, or both)

edit: added frame number

[pandy]

Maybe this is interesting for your discussion about adding a Y/C output...
The pages are in German language. It's best to have them translated with Google Translate.

Thx, interesting reading.

Anyway, for all I know, uMatic, one of the oldest formats with no SoC, yet no one was able to find a synced C pin, the only workaround available was to use the Y from the DUB connector and extract C from the composite out, which kind of defeats the purpose of separation, but at least the Y is clean with no interference, the reason behind picking the C from composite is to achieve Y and C synchronization since composite carries the synch signal needed, other points where C can be picked up are not in sync with Y, at least according to Colin that runs video99.co YT channel whom I respect a lot for his VCR knowledge.

AFAIK umatic is pro format supporting opposite to VHS true trick mode (so at tape signal is stored to line level not frame level as in case of the VHS). I don't get why C can't be aligned externally with help of some additional processing and synchronization (it is probably used in synchronous way internally anyway to form CVBS. But TBH i never had access to umatic and as such never interested to explore this).
In fact most of VHS tapes i still have was used to store (backup) data from computer (Video Backup System).

pandy could buy one and start from there

But why? TBH i doubt if i will buy any VCR - they are very expensive - broken JVC or Panasonic cost over 100 Euro (at least in my country)...

[dellsam34]

No, uMatic was designed and sold for consumer but later was adopted by some broadcast companies, it is recorded RF just like VHS with chroma under scheme. You're mixing uMatic with another pro digital composite format made by Sony.