Best SVHS deck for recording from WV-F250 camera?
 

Howdy!

I'm trying to decide on a VCR/Editor Deck for producing and recording footage from my WV-F250. However, I'm not entirely sure which one to pick.

I see a lot of "professional" VTR units on eBay, many of them are being advertised as used in universities, or hospitals. (cool, in an eerie way.) However, I also see that a lot of the more "prosumer" gear is more recommended, while these editor decks have very little feedback on them at all (that I can find). These editor decks, however, appear to have many features that I find desirable! Manual level-control, dubbing (I make music-videos), several line-ins and outs, and all these other knobs and buttons that would likely allow me to fine-tune my tapes. Needless to say, they look very, very appealing! :)

Only bad part is that they weigh A TON, and I've got to find a way to belt all these VTRs and cameras, power supplies, etc to my body or a backpack. (I record a lot of Airsoft, so I'm constantly finding myself moving around to get better angles on the action, and I already struggle to do that by not having the components available for movement at a moment's notice. I hope to have a carry handle welded into the next VTR unit, so that I can operate it for image adjustment, alongside the camera (( it does not have the dock-able recorder)), before moving around again for a different shot.)

I'm not looking for anything specific, just something nice and sturdy, with a plethora of options for customization. Like those editor decks. But, maybe they aren't all that they're cracked up to be...?

Also, I really, really, REALLY, do not want anything that records audio as PCM, or the video as DVC, onto the tape.

Thanks for the help!

What exactly are you trying to accomplish here? I don't want to sound rude or anything, but something like a Go-Pro or small solid state camcorder would be more suited for this type of shooting. Heck, 15 or so years ago when I was doing B-roll footage in high school I would ditch their provided VHS camcorder units and just use my personal Hi8 camcorder just to have something light and easily maneuverable for sports shots.

Funny, I had a GoPro 3 Black and I didn't really like it it. The video quality was great, though.

It's not so much that I'm going to be using these for mobile-recording, I was just offering some background to what I use my devices for. I'm just looking for some feedback on these professional decks, and if they're not any good, then someone could point me in the right direction.

What's Hi8?

Hi8 is High Band 8mm video, provides higher resolution than standard 8mm video. Uses a higher grade of video tape too, but same form factor. In general Hi8 gear will play 8mm tape, but not the other way around. Hi8 was mainly from Sony and Canon (with a few other players as well). Hi8 is similar to S-VHS in terms of video quality; one can say that Hi8 is to 8mm video as S-VHS is to VHS.

Is this an initial video acquisition project? Unless you are into retro, there is no reason I can think of to shoot or record to a VHS or 8mm format these days.

I would consider getting a DV Video Walkman (e.g., Sony GV-D300) and recording to it for portable SD acquisition from a SD camera.

However, modern HD camcorders are economical and give excellent result, are light weight, very portable, have long battery life, low cost media, easy to edit, etc. so I would have to have a compelling reason to go retro.

I'm not sure what you mean by "initial video acquisition". If you mean that I'll be using the deck to record new video from my WV-F250, then yes, it's for initial video acquisition.

Yes, I'm very much into "retro" gear. Though, I'm much more attracted to the analog-tape part of it, which is why I don't want PCM audio, or something like DVC PRO, especially since (from the compression figures I've read about the format) DVC Pro is very compressed...:(

Even though its "compressed", you really don't notice too many artifacts with DV family compression. Its nothing like bitrate constrained MPEG2 found on DVDs. Its also very edit friendly since it is a intraframe compression scheme. I've shot MiniDV and Digital-8 (same format, different tape) and the quality easily blows away the analog tape formats. PCM audio used by DV is completely uncompressed and slightly above CD quality (tape formats sample at 16bit/48khz vs. CD Audio's 16bit/44.1khz).

Maybe you need something like a Atomos Ninja recorder coupled with a Analog to SDI converter (e.g., AJA V2Digital). High quality digital 4:2:2 ProRes, etc.

VCRs from hospitals tend to be yucky. And anyway, they're really old. These machines were NEVER suggested, and were mostly mediocre gear marketed to medical facilities. For example, SP only, and only with certain tapes (that are no longer made).

DVC is 4:2:2, and superior to VHS. Same for PCM. What's wrong with that?

@NJRoadfan: Really? HS was only 15 years ago. Now I feel really old. Thanks. :oops:

SHOOTING with DV is fine.
It's the CONVERSION using DV (NTSC 4:1:1) that's a no-no for quality.

Thank you all for the feedback so far!

Man, that's really disappointing that such impressive looking machines would prove so terrible. I'm actually very sad, as these machines looked so customization-friendly. :(

I'm not sure I understand the quality between shooting DVC vs converting to it? What do you mean?

DV camera to shoot = good
Canopus/DataVideo DV boxes to convert VHS to DV = bad

So, something like the Panasonic AG-1980 would be best suited for my needs, then? Or maybe there's a sleeper unit out there that doesn't cost 200$ just for a working one?

The AG1980P is a good playback VCR. But for recording, you have many options...

Well ... sort of. VHS (and S-VHS) are dead formats. Tape are no longer made, and the recording equipment tends to be well past its prime. To even get many excellent playback VCRs to work these days, you need to service them back into like-new condition to the tune of $100-400.

Maybe you have some particular favorites from the past?

In the 90s, I really liked the JVC HR-S3600, 4600, 3800, and 4800 units. I mostly used them for cable TV recording.

The 4x00 had the flying erase heads, and were therefore better for recording.

I actually still have some left, but they're in currently unknown condition. After my medical issue in 2012, I've never again used them. Someday that will hopefully change again. For now, they're in storage.

The AG-1980 power requirement is rated 33 watts at 120 VAC and it weighs about 15 pounds. To this add the weight of a power supply (long cords or battery and inverter). If trying to run with it in a backpack, not clear what the movement would do for accurate tracking.

The advantages of the DVC format compared to VHS/S-VHS for initial acquisition include bandwidth (resolution) and signal to noise ratio.

If you insist on the S-VHS/VHS format, maybe look for something like a Panasonic AG-7400 that is designed for mobile work.
http://www.surplusserver.com/products/Photo-Video/165/Panasonic_AG-7400_Portable_Recorder.html
(or for the risk taker) http://www.ebay.com/itm/Panasonic-AG-7400-S-VHS-Portable-Professional-Video-Cassette-Recorder-Player-/361270857791

I don't mean to de-value your suggestion, Dpalomaki, but if what Smurf said is true, then that AG-7400 might be just as much of a "crapshoot" as the other professional units. Weight isn't an issue, since I can just get a handle drilled into the VTR like my current Emerson, and carry it with my left hand.

I'm a bit more concerned with the quality of the audio, rather than the video, though. do JVC decks (on average) have better sound than Panasonic units?

For recording, JVC and Panasonic are the same.

Remember, you are dealing with equipment that is in many cases approaching or exceeding 20 years old and had lead rough lives. Many of these decks may never have been serviced as well.

As for the WV-F250, how is it configured? The "default" studio setup usually requires a "remote camera unit" (RCU) that provides power to the unit and breaks out the input/output. It connects to a multi-pin port on the camera itself. That portable Panasonic VCR directly interfaces in its place (provided you can find a cable), or another option is to replace the studio module with a docking VTR. That camera seems to have been on the market long enough to receive a DVCPro docking VTR (AJ-D90).

Also consider the weight, nobody really liked carrying around 30lbs of equipment 20 years ago. When things got smaller and maintained the same video quality, the pros jumped on it immediately. Today you can buy equipment for $200-300 that greatly exceeds the quality of a top notch camera/VTR used in broadcast television 20 years ago AND fits in your pocket.

Funny you should mention the AG-7450 (the docking unit), as I specifically avoided auctions listing that configuration once I learned that it recorded in DVC PRO.

I actually have two power units, one is for the camera itself, the other is for the WV-VF65 that I have welded its "hood" of onto the front of a PASGT. The unit for the VF65 actually has video inputs and outputs, but they're BNC connectors. Thankfully, I have converters for composite. They're both powered by this nifty device I got on eBay a year back: http://www.amazon.com/Duracell-DRPP3...with+ac+outlet

The camera has it's own power unit, too. It's not exactly the right one, but it works. It's a Sony CMA-7, and it has video output, too. I can cram all the power supplies into my duffel bag, but I've found that the camera and VTR must be carried, I have found that I cannot access them fast enough by having them in the duffel bag. Fortunately, my Emerson weighs mere pounds. Humorously, I actually find myself almost pushing it off my "tower" of VCRs just by pushing the buttons alone.

The AG-7450 is actually a SVHS unit going by the manual. Its period correct for the camera. The AJ-D90 is DVCPro however.

:)Please excuse my ignorance, What Brand is a WV-F250?, and what format does/did it shoot in?:)

It's a Panasonic, I think it shoots "analog", but the dockable unit records DVC-PRO onto the VHS tape, I swear I read that in the manual.

Some analog video terms that might help the OP.
- Hi8 is a legacy analog video tape format, similar in quality to S-VHS. It differs form 8mm (and VHS) by having somewhat higher resolution in the b&w portion of the transmitted image.
- BNC is a type of coaxial connector typically used on commercial/professional gear for low power signals above the audio frequency range, including video. It has advantages of being a locking connector and lower signal losses.
- XLR (or Cannon) connector is used for audio and sometimes power on commercial/professional gear.
- RCA or phono is a name often used for the low cost coaxial type of connector used on consumer gear for low power audio and video signals.
- phone (and mini phone) refer to the 1/4" and 1/8" diameter jacks often found on headphone audio connectors. They come in 2, 3, and 4 conductor variants and are typically used for audio and instruments (e.g., guitars).
- composite often refers to a type of video signal in which both the b&w and color information are combined for transmission on a single coaxial cable. It typically is associated with a yellow RCA jack on consumer VCRs.
- s-video refers to separate video where in the b&w and color information are carried on separate coaxial cables. It typically uses a 4-pin mini DIN connector. It is mainly found on S-VHS, Hi8, DV, higher end TV sets and projectors, older DV & Blu-ray players, and cable set top boxes.
- component often refers to a video signal that uses three connectors/cables for the video signal, typically the red, blue and green RCA jacks on consumer gear. However, the signals themselves contain b&w (on green) and color difference (on red and blue) information.
- prosumer - a term often used to describe gear that is in the price and performance space between high end consumer electronics and entry level professional/commercial equipment. This has been a favorite of moderate budget event videographers (e.g., weddings) and some public access cable.

Any gear from 20 years ago is a crap shoot. Prosumer/industrial gear stands a slight better chance of being supported somewhere for maintenance/repair, but may have seen higher use than consumer gear. The best hope is prosumer gear from a household where everyone had a full time job and no time to use the VCR much for time shifting or rental tapes. How good is VHS? S-VHS? The fact that commercial broadcast did NOT use it for anything important or prime time if an alternative was available tells the story.

As to buying legacy analog gear, short of being able to test the gear before making the purchase, shopping from a well-established used broadcast gear recycler may be a good assurance of an honest equipment condition description.

I believe that the OP is hell-bent on using the vintage camera to record to consumer analog tape. Alternatives that use current technologies that address the failings of the old consumer technologies are of no interest to the OP. It matters not that VHS was a compromise based on developing a video record/playback system that could produce a first generation image on available tape technology acceptable to most consumers on the TV sets of the day at the least possible manufacturing cost.

I came over from cassette, as I was very impressed with the results provided by the tapes in my possession. I figure: "Hey, maybe something like VHS will have great analog results, too!" And it mostly holds true, as I'm satisfied with the quality of VHS both pre-recorded and made by others, and myself. I'll admit, it sucks re-winding just to try and find my spot on the tape, but that's just because I haven't got a VTR with a counter.

Other than age, I don't see what's wrong with S-VHS, or even VHS (other than companies like Panasonic being obscure about what gets converted, or recorded to digital on what should be an "analog" system >:( ).

My EasyCap is arriving today, since I cannot find the software to adjust my TV-Wonder's input resolution, and I end up just re-sizing to 480p. I hope this correction of resolution will lead to even more impressive results!

Honestly, my only gripes are with my shaky tripod, and the lack of a counter VTR.

But...I thank you for taking the time to explain it like that to me. It's unfortunate that a better analog tape system couldn't have been produced. Look at what audio cassettes managed, and it seems that most people won't even compare the audio quality between the two formats, which, I believe are technically the same aside from size and ips.

The are better, much better, analog video tape formats than VHS, but they did not reach down in to the consumer market.

VHS linear track audio is, with few exceptions, mono, and the pits. But then so was typical 1980's vintage TV set audio. Stereo HiFi on VHS gave roughly FM radio quality.

Audio cassette quality was also pretty bad until the advent of Dolby, DBX, and the significantly improved tape formulations in the 1970s and early 1980s or so. (For a long time the #1 road side litter (after beer cans) was failed audio cassette.) But compared to AM radio it was OK.

Example: BetacamSP

Ooh...This Betacam looks interesting, what's it got to offer over VHS? I'd like to hear it from an expert's mouth, not Google's.

BetacamSP was the dominant analog ENG format used in the broadcast industry from the 80s to about the mid-90s to late 90s when digital formats became commonplace (DVCPro and Betacam SX are some of these formats). It stores luma and chroma on two separate tracks on the tape. Its luma quality isn't as good as the "high band" Hi-8 or SVHS formats, but the chroma on a separate video track blows the consumer formats out of the water. As for the camera, the WV-F250, all video taken with it is going to be digital since it is a CCD camera, it converts the output to analog to record on SVHS. The only true analog cameras were tube based, which is a whole different ball game. Think heavy, power hungry, and a pain to keep working right. Oh and the image quality usually stinks on shoulder sized tube cameras.

So technically, information written to Betamax tape is digital, too?

When I started in on video, some 20+ years ago, in the analog days, pros used BetacamSP, and serious hobbyists, low-budget pros, and schools/colleges used S-VHS. I never got into BetacamSP, as I've never been a shooter. At that time, I was just a serious hobbyist, using S-VHS and the "cheat" S-VHS-ET (S-VHS on VHS tape). By the time I went pro, the early digital formats were already here (MPEG-2 and DV).

I was never really a shooter in my hobby days, though I did do some S-VHS stuff. It was blah, not much better than VHS. I was always into editing, restoration, and re-recording pre-existing pro sources (cable TV, etc).

Of course, I'm still not really a shooter.

DV is so-so, DVC is better. These days, I'd go straight for a camera that shot MXF (Canon or Sony) for pro work.

I shoot tripod-mount on a DSLR now, 720p @ 60fps (reduced rolling shutter), decimate by 2. But again, I don't shoot much.

EDIT: BetacamSP is NOT the same as Betamax!!! Don't make that mistake.

Err...Then Betacam SP is technically digital?

Betacam SP is analog.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/RCA-Newvicon...item2c9a6fe381

So, does Betacam SP have it's own "Set" resolution? Or is that a variable left up to the capability of the camera?

Might get one of these if that's the case. Very pretty looking analog unit that could be paired with a Betacam SP recorder for pleasant results!

BetacamSP was structured to provide a signal for use in broadcast video. Thus the slightly lower luma resolution compared to the Hi8 & S-VHS formats. But it likely had a noticeably better signal to noise ratio and flatter frequency response within the design bandwidth. Thus it survived multi-generation editing/copying much better than the consumer Hi8/S-VHS/VHS/8mm formats.

The camera internals are a mix of analog/digital for image acquisition, but the output signal to the recorder is analog video.

Until recently NTSC broadcast video was all analog, nominally 330 lines of video resolution (B&W image portion). Hi8/S-VHS provides nominally 400 lines of video resolution, and VHS/8mm about 240 lines (on a good day). The DV formats provides about 500 lines. Resolution is the number of alternating black and while vertical bars that can be distinguished in a horizontal span equal to the image height (480-486 lines for NTSC SD). It is somewhat subjective and what you see depends greatly on the quality of the display used.

Another other issue is the frequency response. One MHz of horizontal bandwidth corresponds to roughly 80 lines of video resolution. But if the record/playback response has a dropping frequency response curve, say down 15 dB at 2 MHz (~160) lines and still visible bars, the next generation copy will be -30 dB, and probably no longer visible bars. (Figures for illustration purposes only.) The bandwidth (resolution) of the color portion was much lower, on the order of 40 video lines, but that was all the average human eye needed to provide a usable image in the early days of color TV. That is part of why VHS copies are so bad.

The BetacamSP format is well matched to SD broadcast video.

Many items of legacy video gear contain digital circuits internally. The Canon A1 Digital and L1/L2 Hi8 camcorders had them for DSP and effects, and playback processing, but the video format on tape, and the output was analog video and audio.

The video signal format is set by the NTSC standard. The quality of the final viewed video is limited by the weakest link in the chain and the cumulative effects of each step in the chain.

If the camera is 3 dB down at 200 lines + some noise
The Recorder is 6 dB down at 200 lines + some noise
The Player is 6 dB down at 200 lines + some noise
the TV is 2 dB down at 200 lines + some noise
What you see on screen will be 17 dB lower than the real life subject with 4 increments of noise added.

That is why digital formats can do much better - no losses or noise beyond the original encoding and final display decoding.

This might fly in the face of everything this board stands for...but...I'm not concerned with quality here. Really, only damaged tapes, or ones with visible compression artifacts bother me. Of course, I've got a limit on how low resolution can be (VHS is kind of pushing it...)

http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-JVC-...:X:AAQ:US:1123

Something like that (I did a bit more research, and found that the Newvicons were single-tube, subpar units.) would be more than enough for me, and who knows, just looking at it I think I'd have more fun making the recordings that watching them! :laugh1:

Looks like these Betacam SP decks are all either "professional editor" decks, or J-3, or J-1 units? Any recommendations for one that'll produce nice results?

You are correct. If quality (as well as portability and workflow) are not an issue, then I would say buy what ever strikes your fancy and fits your budget, and have fun.

This was an excellent post. :salute:

I don't suppose there was ever an HD Analog video format beyond W-VHS?

I'm absolutely not against better video. If I can get better resolution, then I'd be more than willing to spend the money of whatever obscure format that offers both high-resolution, and analog video.

What I don't understand is why Analog video couldn't have resolutions like 900p, or even 1080p? Is that a problem with tape-width, or were the electronics not able to handle a resolution like that?

The issues for HD analog video recording formats are bandwidth, cost, and demand. No one would pay what it costs to do it well, especially when current digital formats can do it well.

The component HD output (if available) from a HD source such as a set top box or BD player is HD analog up to 1080i. It is generally digital on the media (typically compressed as MPG or AVCHD) or in the transmission channel.

The electronics can do it, but tape is more problematic. For clean 1920x1080P, 60 FPS, HD quality analog recording you would need a tape format that can record and playback signals to ~75 MHz with a 50 dB signal to noise ratio and reasonably flat frequency response. Not a trivial task.

S-VHS tape is something like 8 MHz bandwidth and around 46 dB S/N on a good day. The broadcast SD NTSC video channel bandwidth was 6 mHz.

Note that all commercial color TV sets were effectively digital-like displays, even the tube types. The color image was essentially comprised of individual R B & G phosphor dots behind a shadow mask/aperture grille. The later Trinitron-like tubes had vertical stripes, but the individual scan line essentially chopped them into dots as well. The electron beam was analog, but the visible display was comprised of luminous spots on the screen. (We will ignore the color wheel designs that never really sold.)

I've done some thinking...Maybe a digital camera would be best...

I guess I should have given some background: My obsession with analog was started with my frustration with music producer's driving an album's levels into the ceiling...'cause loudness, I guess. Originally, I hadn't bothered with video being analog, but I guess my separation of the two had become blurred.

I will need to seek information on budget video cameras in a separate thread, but I will also continue to try and buy tapes on cassette. That's, to get the music in its original, and "un-molested" form...

I'd like to thank all of you for bringing me to my senses. My wallet might be a bit salty about it for a while, in part due to to a revamp of my setup, but I'm sure it'll be worth it in the end when I'm not paying 20$ a piece for a metal tape, or 300$ for a roughly 480p camera from 1970.