Quote:
Originally Posted by lilsweepy
As a concept, I think that VHS Decode is a very exciting project that could one day reduce the need for increasingly rare equipment.
|
That has also always been my contention. But I'd go one further, and suggest using the FM/RF method for mere VHS is pretty stupid. Of all the analog tape formats out there, VHS literally needs it the least. There are many obscure formats with no extraction, and many non-rare formats like U-matic and Beta(max) that never really got decent hardware. S-VHS really was the height of gear for any analog format, save maybe BetacamSP. It's such a lost opportunity here.
Quote:
|
There seems to be this argument that decoding an RF Signal is fundamentally better than traditional preservation workflows.
|
It's not whatsoever. In fact, there really is no singular "traditional" workflow, aside from the very basic formula of
VCR > TBC > capture card. vhs-decode is identical here, merely swapping capture and TBC to
VCR > capture > TBC (and DOC/etc). Though is need be noted that this "software TBC" of sorts does not functino nearly as accurately as hardware TBCs. Lots of workflows have modular orders of operation, swapping or even merging tasks. But the basic needs cannot be avoided. It's not better, just different, and still worse.
Quote:
|
That relying on a player to decode an image is automatically a lossy process.
|
It's just false. vhs-decode uses a player too, for at least the heads.
Quote:
|
I can definitely understand this being the case for cheap consumer VCRs, or players that can overcorrect an image, but this is admittedly where my knowledge gap begins. I’ve seen many posts, on this forum included, that suggest working from an RF signal could yield a sharper image than traditional flows. But why exactly is this the case? Is this judged on a player by player basis, or is this a uniform truth?
|
Most of the "it can be sharper" is actually traced back to my discussions of it long ago, in a theoretical sense more than practical application. In hypothesis (maybe note even a theory), it can be a tiny % sharper than the best VCRs, due to processing. I do not refer to the fake Youtube BS that shows a blurry thrift store VCR, compared to vhs-decode (and noting vhs-decode isn't great there either). I refer to quality equipment, the various brands/models of suggested S-VHS VCRs. Most Youtube comparisons are actually Y/C vs. composite, or bad VCR vs. not-terrible/decent/good VCR, nothing more.
But getting that sharpness will come with tradeoffs, meaning you'll lose quality in other areas, at least as the project exists now. Consider something as "simple" as DOC (dropout compensation), which is generally handled well in VCRs, but not at all well by vhs-decode. This is simply the nature of working with analog video. It's often about trade-offs, and perfection is a fool's errand.
Quote:
|
It’s been difficult tracking down info as so many posts I’ve seen compare VHS Decode to extremely rudimentary setups for their use cases. Or they are penned by those new to analog to digital workflows haphazardly applying concepts.
|
That is entirely correct.
Quote:
|
I will admit that results I’ve seen from VHS Decode can be quite amazing, and in pointing out an overly enthusiastic fanbase is not my attempt to downplay the project. But having a previous career preserving content for public broadcast stations I’ve encountered the same (or better) results from a traditionally sound workflow.
|
That's the difference. Newbies are fooled by bad comparisons. People who know better realize both of them suck. One sucks less, but it's still a level of suck. I'm not even referring to the image quality here, but the level of needless work (and drive space) to re-create the wheel for what already exists. It's a solution looking for a problem. It's not at all like ld-decode was, and how other -decodes (other formats) could be.
Quote:
|
Are these not two means to the same end?
|
Yes -- but not "the same", it's still very beta. I've been around video for decades, and am not fueled by hopium. This project could gain in future years, or fail entirely. It's not proven itself as a viable reliable method, merely one of tinkering with mixed results.
Quote:
|
Or is it true that a good workflow is always “lossy”
|
No.
Quote:
|
and decoding an RF signal yields a fundamentally better result?
|
No.
Quote:
|
And lastly, if one process has the potential to outweigh the other, are we just chasing pedantic improvements or something actually meaningful?
|
In terms of the VHS/S-VHS format (and likely Video8/Hi8 format, eventually), realizing that an actual 1:1 comparision may yield tiny % sharpness gains, you're looking at pedantic, asinine, OCD, placebo. It is there, but you enter the insane realm of the self-described "videophile", who will spend countless time and money for a % of a 1% gain.
I'm a pragmatist, I'm
The Price Is Right. I want the best quality possible, but without going over(board). Some of the stuff even discussed at this site makes me shake my head at times, such as breaking out a histogram for every single crappy homemade camcorder tape. You've lost sight of the actual project. You enjoy playing with toys, not doing work. That's largely the realm of vhs-decode, and probably always will be. It's hard enough convincing a person tat he/she needs quality gear to not make their conversions look dreadful (worse than the VHS tapes were). It's another to tell them they have to tear apart a VCR, learn scripting, and buy dozens more hard drives to store unviewable data.
I'm sure some small % people are getting some % of results, but that's really it. I've seen very few videos that were truly interesting, and much of it was likely due to other variables.
To be a bit crass and blunt here...
Certain folks online get all pissy when I don't bless their method as bestest ever, but they also need to grow the hell up. It's a tool/method to convert a video, it's not their real-life child. It doesn't need their mama bear protection, attacking any who do not agree it's the most beautiful perfect thing ever. vhs-decode's farts smell like ass too. All of the methods fart, each can be quite stinky. Some more than others.
Does that answer it for you?
