Forum archive - A TBC with low bandwidth=signal degradation?

Forum Archive Home -> Restoration -> A TBC with low bandwidth=signal degradation?

A TBC with low bandwidth=signal degradation?

Cingular posted 2009 Oct 19 12:49

http://www.for-a.com/products/fa125/fa125.html I just got off the phone with a rep at "For-A" and he was talking about TBC's and bandwidth. "For-A" stated if the bandwidth of the TBC is too low it will soften the image? If I understand correctly "For-A" TBC's have a 5MHZ bandwidth which is the highest? He said that Proc Amps and Image enhancers do not affect the bandwidth. I noticed that the bandwidth of the popular AVT-8710 is not listed. Should someone look closely at the bandwidth of a TBC when looking for one? Do the "For-A" TBC's turn out a better VHS/Hi-8 to digital product because they have greater bandwidth? The For-A technical rep also stated that he thought (not certain) that the TBC in VCR's such as the AG-1980P are for input only. Is the TBC in a AG-1980P for input only? I suppose this is why an additional TBC is necessary in addition to the one built into the AG-1980P? Thanks for all you help and for reading though my questions.

jagabo posted 2009 Oct 19 13:01

Cingular : "For-A" stated if the bandwidth of the TBC is too low it will soften the image? Of course. The question is how much bandwidth (and a zillion other details that aren't covered by bandwidth) you need for a particular source. Cingular : The For-A technical rep also stated that he thought (not certain) that the TBC in VCR's such as the AG-1980P are for input only. He's wrong. He's a salesman and wants to make a sale... You have two basic types of TBCs: line and full-frame. Line TBCs (found in high end VCRs) keep individual scanlines aligned and clean up the horizontal sync pulses. left uncorrected, right line time base corrected: The will not help with very badly mangled sources were the signal may drop out completely. This is where full frame TBCs come in. In addition to cleaning up individual scan lines they provide a perfect output signal (in terms of sync pulse timing) regardless of what's coming in.

edDV posted 2009 Oct 19 13:11

Cingular : http://www.for-a.com/products/fa125/fa125.html I just got off the phone with a rep at "For-A" and he was talking about TBC's and bandwidth. "For-A" stated if the bandwidth of the TBC is too low it will soften the image? If I understand correctly "For-A" TBC's have a 5MHZ bandwidth which is the highest? He said that Proc Amps and Image enhancers do not affect the bandwidth. I noticed that the bandwidth of the popular AVT-8710 is not listed. Should someone look closely at the bandwidth of a TBC when looking for one? Do the "For-A" TBC's turn out a better VHS/Hi-8 to digital product because they have greater bandwidth? In general yes, bandwidth is important for high quality VCR's (e.g. S-VHS, Hi-8, pro formats) that have luminance bandwidth out to ~4.5 MHz or more but not as important for VHS, Video8 or U-Matic which are bandwidth limited to around 3 MHz (below subcarrier) by design. The wide bandwidth models need quality Y/C separation on the record side (e.g. comb filter rather than notch) for smooth luminance frequency response in the subcarrier frequency area (3.58MHz NTSC or 4.43MHz PAL). VCR TBC's work on the output side. The input signal is assumed to be from a stable source (e.g. broadcast or camera). If the source is unstable such as an uncorrected VCR, the output TBC cannot improve the timebase stability when played back.

Cingular posted 2009 Oct 19 13:24

Thanks for the reply edDV. So it is still best to have another Time Base Corrector in addition to the AG-1980P? My sources are VHS and Hi8. Thanks for your help.

edDV posted 2009 Oct 19 13:45

Cingular : Thanks for the reply edDV. So it is still best to have another Time Base Corrector in addition to the AG-1980P? My sources are VHS and Hi8. Thanks for your help, Marc I don't have any direct experience with the AG-1980P but my guess is a FOR.A class frame based TBC would do better than the built in line TBC. Are you recording from VHS or Hi8 to this deck? I'd recommend you don't record. Just use this for playback. Hi8 should be directly captured to a computer. You don't want to drop tape generations.

Cingular posted 2009 Oct 20 15:14

I am using the 1980P as a playback deck for VHS. For Hi-8 I will either use the original source Hi-8 camera or a Sony EV-S7000 deck. I hear that a Sony Digital 8 camera might be better, but I do not know if it has the inputs and output to add a TBC, proc amp, image enhancer etc. The original Source Hi-8 camera does not have a TBC to my knowledge and it is 1995 vintage. I also might use a JVC-HRS9600U VCR, I hear this is better for playback for SP VHS tapes? I have sent it off to have the heads cleaned. The JVC-HRS9600U does look a LOT more like a consumer deck than the AG-1980P. What do you use as a source VHS or Hi-8 playback deck?

lordsmurf posted 2009 Oct 20 16:30

Standalone TBC for cleaning the signal, it rarely makes improvements to visual image. For visual filtering, you need the line TBC.

edDV posted 2009 Oct 21 14:01

Cingular : What do you use as a source VHS or Hi-8 playback deck? I'm not yet big into VHS capture. When I do capture I use one of my S-VHS decks. I do a lot with Hi8, Digital8 , Betacam SP, MiniDV and HDV. For Hi8 I have two capture solutions that work well 1. My 1990 vintage Sony CCD-V5000 camcorder (has an internal line TBC) to a Canopus ADVC-100 DV converter. 2. My Sony GV-D200 Hi8/Digital8 player. Both capture to DV standard.

deuce8pro posted 2009 Oct 22 12:33

Cingular : I am using the 1980P as a playback deck for VHS. For Hi-8 I will either use the original source Hi-8 camera or a Sony EV-S7000 deck. I hear that a Sony Digital 8 camera might be better, but I do not know if it has the inputs and output to add a TBC, proc amp, image enhancer etc. The original Source Hi-8 camera does not have a TBC to my knowledge and it is 1995 vintage. I also might use a JVC-HRS9600U VCR, I hear this is better for playback for SP VHS tapes? I have sent it off to have the heads cleaned. The JVC-HRS9600U does look a LOT more like a consumer deck than the AG-1980P. What do you use as a source VHS or Hi-8 playback deck? A digital8 with tbc/dnr playback would do just as good of a job as the hi8 playing decks, probably better because it has the firewire connector. Id highly recommend getting it to playback your 8mm/hi8 tapes, just make sure it has the ability to playback those tapes, not just any digital8 can do that. Id also recommend you use the d8 cam as a pass through in between either an AG1980 or HRS9600U to whatever recorder you are using to futher clean up and filter the noise of your vhs tapes using its tbc/dnr. Also, it helps to clean up some of the noise that you get when you turn off the tbc/dnr on the jvc 9600.

Cingular posted 2009 Oct 22 22:30

Thanks for the replies. I have thought about the Digital 8 camcorders such as the TRV-740, TRV-820, TRV-840. Would a digital 8 camcorder similar to what I just described have a good tape transport? I would guess that the camcorders described above would be more prone to breakage, have a shorter service life, and be more likely to be worn out? The source Hi-8 camcorder is a CCD-TR700, 1995 vintage, it has the RC time code but I do not think it has a TBC. I have heard from some that using the original source recorder is sometimes better? Also, is there any real benefit to using something like the Matrox MX02 mini, working in 10bit uncompressed, then making DV files and H.264 (MPEG 4). Matrox Graphics thought that you turned out a better product working in 10 bit and archiving to some sort of compression? If you use a Digital 8 camcorder it seems you are limited to Mini-dv compression which from what I understand is more than adequate but still rather small compared to what a Core 2 quad or newer Nahalem can handle. Thanks for you help.

lordsmurf posted 2009 Oct 22 23:28

I'm not aware of a D8 with an actual TBC+DNR inside, that works to clean up 8mm and/or Hi8 tapes. Please give model numbers.

edDV posted 2009 Oct 23 02:26

Cingular : I have thought about the Digital 8 camcorders such as the TRV-740, TRV-820, TRV-840. Would a digital 8 camcorder similar to what I just described have a good tape transport? I would guess that the camcorders described above would be more prone to breakage, have a shorter service life, and be more likely to be worn out? The source Hi-8 camcorder is a CCD-TR700, 1995 vintage, it has the RC time code but I do not think it has a TBC. I have heard from some that using the original source recorder is sometimes better? The original Hi8 source cam should have an advantage for tracking but Hi8 decks seem mechanically tighter and interchange tapes better than VHS. The TRV-740, TRV-820, TRV-840 were the best of the Digital8 and are mechanically the same generation as the GV-D200 and GV-D800 Digital8 players. There are also the pro Hi8 and Digital8 playback decks intended for integration into broadcast facilities. Used equipment varies from like new to worn out but consumer Hi8 camcorders generally weren't used for home TV taping or other heavy use. Most have low hours. Cingular : Also, is there any real benefit to using something like the Matrox MX02 mini, working in 10bit uncompressed, then making DV files and H.264 (MPEG 4). Matrox Graphics thought that you turned out a better product working in 10 bit and archiving to some sort of compression? If you use a Digital 8 camcorder it seems you are limited to Mini-dv compression which from what I understand is more than adequate but still rather small compared to what a Core 2 quad or newer Nahalem can handle. Thanks for you help. I haven't used the MX02 but it is a step up from 8bit, 4:1:1, 25 Mb/s DV to go with uncompressed 10bit, 4:2:2, 270 Mb/s SDI. You will need a RAID to deal with any realtime modes in Premiere, etc. And Matrox is all about realtime Premiere editing. The $449 MX02 mini is new. I don't understand the limitations vs. the $1595 MX02.

danno78 posted 2009 Oct 23 05:45

Cingular : Also, is there any real benefit to using something like the Matrox MX02 mini, working in 10bit uncompressed, then making DV files and H.264 (MPEG 4). Matrox Graphics thought that you turned out a better product working in 10 bit and archiving to some sort of compression?. With ATI cards you can have 12 bit precision and YUY2 colorspace. RGB for low chroma resolution (30 lines) format is to much.

deuce8pro posted 2009 Oct 23 11:26

Cingular : Thanks for the replies. I have thought about the Digital 8 camcorders such as the TRV-740, TRV-820, TRV-840. Would a digital 8 camcorder similar to what I just described have a good tape transport? I would guess that the camcorders described above would be more prone to breakage, have a shorter service life, and be more likely to be worn out? The source Hi-8 camcorder is a CCD-TR700, 1995 vintage, it has the RC time code but I do not think it has a TBC. I have heard from some that using the original source recorder is sometimes better? Also, is there any real benefit to using something like the Matrox MX02 mini, working in 10bit uncompressed, then making DV files and H.264 (MPEG 4). Matrox Graphics thought that you turned out a better product working in 10 bit and archiving to some sort of compression? If you use a Digital 8 camcorder it seems you are limited to Mini-dv compression which from what I understand is more than adequate but still rather small compared to what a Core 2 quad or newer Nahalem can handle. Thanks for you help. You would get better results playing back your 8mm/hi8 tapes using a d8 cam with tbc/dnr playback then you would using your tr700.

deuce8pro posted 2009 Oct 23 11:28

lordsmurf : I'm not aware of a D8 with an actual TBC+DNR inside, that works to clean up 8mm and/or Hi8 tapes. Please give model numbers. Clean up 8mm/hi8 tapes as well as vhs in pass through, models I could think of are trv-340, trv-740, probably the previous years models which were the trv-330 and trv-730, im sure.

Cingular posted 2009 Oct 24 10:06

“The original Hi8 source cam should have an advantage for tracking but Hi8 decks seem mechanically tighter and interchange tapes better than VHS. The TRV-740, TRV-820, TRV-840 were the best of the Digital8 and are mechanically the same generation as the GV-D200 and GV-D800 Digital8 players.” Then why not get the current production GV-D200 or GV-D800 over the D8 camcorders listed since they appear to still be in production? If you use a TRV-740, TRV-820/840 don’t they only have S-video output which would restrict the usage of a standalone TBC such as the TBC-1000, Signvideo Proc amp or Signvideo signal enhancer? “The $449 MX02 mini is new. I don't understand the limitations vs. the $1595 MX02.” I know nothing of the MX02 except that it seems to work with Mac only, and appears to be the wrong application for this type of work? The MX02 mini is driver based, it works off a box and add on card. It has compabibility with Vista/XP but they told me it will not install on Windows Server 2008? I might get the “MX02 mini max” anyway and try it out on Server 2008. The MX02 mini-max is the one to get, it is around $800 but it allows uncompressed, HD and vastly accelerated creation of MPEG4 files. The “MX02 mini max” would have applications with current digital camcorders as well as older analog camcorders. The “MX02 mini” will work with its own software or even non Premiere but to get the most out of the unit you really need to have Premiere CS4, the older versions will not work. If you are not working with Premiere CS4 or the Mac equivalent it is probably better to choose another solution. “Clean up 8mm/hi8 tapes as well as vhs in pass through, models I could think of are trv-340, trv-740, probably the previous years models which were the trv-330 and trv-730, im sure.” Do these camcorder models listed above have both S-video input and output so you can use a standalone TBC/proc amp, etc? Is best to direct connect a TRV-740 to a computer though firewire and bypass the usage of a standalone TBC/proc amp, etc? Thanks for your help.

edDV posted 2009 Oct 24 14:29

Cingular : “The original Hi8 source cam should have an advantage for tracking but Hi8 decks seem mechanically tighter and interchange tapes better than VHS. The TRV-740, TRV-820, TRV-840 were the best of the Digital8 and are mechanically the same generation as the GV-D200 and GV-D800 Digital8 players.” Then why not get the current production GV-D200 or GV-D800 over the D8 camcorders listed since they appear to still be in production? If you use a TRV-740, TRV-820/840 don’t they only have S-video output which would restrict the usage of a standalone TBC such as the TBC-1000, Signvideo Proc amp or Signvideo signal enhancer? All of these models are out of production including the DV200/DV800. I'm fairly certain the TRV-730, TRV-740, TRV-820, TRV-840 all have analog pass through and S-Video I/O. Yes they do. http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/sony_dcrtrv740_camcorder_review.htm http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay ... ifications

Login/Register to our forum to be able to post here.