LS, you'll be turning people away from here carrying on like that.

... and we're back to aggressive and unfriendly. That was fast. :screwy:

Which community is that? :hmm:

I come from the video hobby community, especially in the 90s and 00s, specifically cartoon and TV show collectors (but also some news/documentary/etc type content). We'd seek certain shows, and do our best to crowdsource (before that was even a word) sets of episodes in the highest quality we could find. Sometimes locating would take weeks, months, or years. Early on, others would acquire, and I'd just do the ingest for us. The reason I started to teach video online was so that more collectors could capture in quality, as I did, using TBCs and proper settings. And back then, hobbyists didn't whine about costs, as we all understood that all hobbies have costs. Within that community, there were us actual creators/collectors, there were helpful/useful non-creators, there were leeches, and there were profiteers (the fat slobs sitting at bootleg tables at comic shows, scummy SOBs, a subset of leeches).

In those earlier days of the community, quite a few content creators (showrunners, producers, actors, etc) were seeking copies of their old shows (often to show grandkids), as the originals were locked away, even to them. This was an era before TV DVD box sets took off (still lots of unreleased content), before Youtube existed, back when Netflix mailed DVDs, before streamers, etc. I met some interesting folks in those days, we'd trade multiple emails before saying goodbye. The quality of my work (both ingest and restoration) got the attention of the right folks, and I suddenly found myself doing professional work by the end of the 00s. Health is the reason I'm not still working for studios.

As our analog hobby turned digital (VHS became DVDs), I noticed a bad habit developing. People started to collect shows simply "because they can". They'd never watch the content, never enjoy it ... just collect it. Bad, good, didn't matter. I never understood the point of it. Not then, not now.

Most normal people have goals with video.
- to convert home movies, their family history and memories
- for nostalgia, to watch an old programming block (commercials and all) that contained their favorite childhood shows (ie Saturday mornings, weekday afternoons, Cartoon Network, etc)
- to watch certain shows, especially to binge
- to create new content from old, mostly documentaries (but also lots of Youtube clips these days)

So when I see "here's 50 VHS tapes of random stuff I converted" (on torrents, on archive.org, etc), with no apparent goal, no content logging, I just shake my head. Who's going to do that? Why? Especially now, when we can all access vast libraries from Netflix, Disney+ and Hulu, Paramount+ and PlutoTV, Amazon and Freevee, Tubi, etc. You also have to wonder how carefully those 50 random VHS tapes were monitored and QC'd, since it was not done with any end goal in mind (content likely not watched, probably not even timeline scrubbed). In my experience, monitoring/QC is non-existent (and sadly, that's too often true even at the studio level, where low-level grunts are tasked with encode/ingest, too many errors gets broadcast now).

In hindsight, I sometimes ask myself if I wasted years worth of time on a hobby that would become irrelevant due to streaming. Sure, I still have some unreleased content, but not too much now. It's mostly some inferior copies of shows, compared to the studio releases we now have access to -- and often for free, too! So much wasted time and money (mostly the storage discs/drives, not the capture workflow gear).

These days, I focus heavily on
- DIY'ers that are preserving family history
- organizations with original content to preserve
- working with documentary filmmakers
- collectors of non-released non-retail sources (old news footage, "bonus" type material, pre-2000 commercials, etc)

You have to balance time with costs.
- vhs-decode has cut video gear costs (and foolishly so), but has not saved on the storage/compute costs. And it requires excessive time.
- standard VCR > TBC > capture card workflows have varying costs (everything from uber-budget costs of $500, to recommended in the low +/-$3K range, to higher needs of $10K+), and time is not wasted on further required processing or bloated resource overhead.

I think you lack perspective, about your role, about your importance, and even about what communities do and do not exist (and sizes of those that do).

Again, I think you're too boastful, too eager, and too proud of yourself. You participated in an open source project, great. You didn't invent some game-changing life-altering new technology. And the attitude of "previous method worthless now, my new method best" is ridiculous and wrong.

Which people is that?

What I see is a very small group of folks that wants to "archive everything" for $0. That's not the norm. If they like their methods, great. But it's not for everybody, and in fact not for most. Nor does it do everything that some of them claim.

"We worked really hard on this and therefore it must be good!"

Can you convince latreche34 and hodgey that vhs-decode is better than LordSmurf's recommended equipment and workflow?

I don't see why the defensive behavior? If I was developing something and get criticized for it, that means I have to listen to those critics and improve upon not be mad and seek affirmation. It's a community of hobbyists with coding skills, don't expect anyone to join in who doesn't know how to troubleshoot a script, Sure there are wikis but it doesn't mean that anyone comes to these forums can understand them, The majority are struggling getting a USB driver to work properly or can explain a certain video artifact.

Lets assume for a moment LS becomes a cheerleader and started recommending the workflow, the first thing will happen is members coming in and asking where they can buy the workflow, And then what? send them to your wiki page instead of a page where they can buy an actual capture device?

Not just defensive, but downright childish, immature. :rolleyes:

He's trying to "get back at us" (all of us, the whole community here) by marking the forum generated response subscription emails as spam. We were notified by the SMTP. Therefore, as per our email policy, he is now banned.

Point them to the wiki page and let them have a go at it. If it's not for them, they can use RCA cables. Nobody said every process has to be made out of a cookie cutter to satisfy the end consumer. There are all kinds of devices, systems and processes that would fly over an off-the-shelf consumer's head but that doesn't mean they're not useful for the tasks they're designed for.

It's somewhat like buying a car -- or a car kit (kit car), with online instructions in a wiki.

And that's perfectly fine. :noworry:

I think some kit cars look fantastic. General Lee, anybody? :)

But don't state BS like "ready-made cars will never be a thing anymore, we can all build one ourselves now!" It gets doubly ridiculous when the kit is inferior to many of the ready-made cars. Kit cars are made by a tiny % of car enthusiasts, which is itself a tiny % of car users. I'm talking to the 1M+ audience (literally), not the 100+ audience (if even that many).

That's where we are. Overstating. It's a character flaw of certain devs more than a flaw of the tech itself. The tech isn't making the asinine claims, and RF method results (and lack of results) speak louder anyway.

I also did not miss the "they can use RCA cables" comment. That's a misdirect. Recommended workflows rarely use "RCA" (actually composite), with some exceptions (most of them budget related to the TBC).

I'd like to comment on why I got into this hobby. It was entirely because I wanted to document my family and friends history. Outside of my film collection which dates back even earlier, I had lots of VHS and Hi8 home movies from my family in America from the early 80s and onward. My original plan and goal was to upload them on YouTube to share as sort of a preservation project for documenting the past.

When I received advice on this forum, I didn't smirk, I didn't get angry... I listened and did what was necessary to obtain the best equipment which I wanted for my collection.

VHS is not software. It's a physical analog format, and in my view... my preference will always be that most of my corrections and editing are done in the analog realm. The entire concept of VHS-Decode is the idea that "you don't have to buy expensive equipment". Buy a low-end VCR, and miracle software will make all the corrections. No more reason to buy SVHS decks. No more reason to buy TBCs.

At the end of the day... even if software ended up catching up to the workflow of the past 20 years, it's still compensating for the real thing... which is a high quality VCR setup (heads, components, mechanism etc.) and a simplified workflow that involves analog proc controls, and transparent frame and line correction. Why fix something that isn't broken that everyone already knows how to use?

Any errors, blips, and glitches are permanently frozen into the image once you convert to digital!

Are we also forgetting about capturing good audio? Not all VCRs sound the same.

My approach has always been, it's best to start from the best source possible. You want to make the least amount of corrections and spend the least amount of time in post process. This is incredibly important when you have a large collection and don't have time to fiddle around in software. I want it to look good coming out of the VCR.

It reminds me of the Pro Tools plugins that try emulating analog mic pres from the 60s. My first and foremost love has always been working in the analog world and you have to come from that mindset to understand. I'm not against software (having been a software developer myself!), but I am very much weary of claims of perfection and not being open to healthy criticism.

I continue to use this forum, because it is one of the few places left I can turn to for reliable information. Most of the VCR and VHS experts (that really know their stuff) are getting up in age or have already passed away, and as Smurf alluded to, we only have a limited amount of time to archive the analog material that is left.

I'm open to learning new ideas and seeing examples, but why the hostility?

Because we're mixing facts with opinions and use them interchangeably, contributing to infodemiology in this niche, leading to confusing people willing to learn.

The facts here are:
- no, you don't need any TBC for decoding RF on your computer
- ld-decode works
- vhs-decode works
- you can check the source code if you want, have an opinion about it and send a PR
- you can test the process by yourself, spreading knowledge is encouraged

The opinions are:
- *-decode doesn't work as I like, I think the colour is a bit off (maybe next month new version will come out)
- I prefer my traditional workflow involving $brand VCR with $TBC
- TBC will never been archived via software (wrong, code is on github, have a read)
- I don't like eggs for breakfast
- traditional analogue workflow is better, because more mature

The last point might not see as easy to understand as other points, I'll explain that

**catch a breath**

On your traditional workflow, at every step, at every filter, at every cable you connect to the VCR that goes to the TBC and then to the capturing card: you are approximating the original signal sent from the heads of your VCR.

Hence, you are introducing an error, you can make that error as small as possible, you can buy the most expensive hardware to make it really really small, but it's still there. It's intrinsic, there are maths formulas on signal processing textbook, that stuff is complex. For example, dot crawl is one of the most visible error introduce into the chain...

This is valid on every block of the chain, have you got a fancy frame sync that will help to capture the signal? It's an approximation of that came out from the tape, video pipeline inside the VCR has its own flaws, it has to transform the ENV RF into some s-video/cvsb, and it will lose some details.

You know those TBC boxes, once analysed, don't have anything exceptional. They have to sample the signal coming from the VCR, store it somewhere and then after the correction re-convert back. How many steps this image have been through already? The final result can be appreciated, can look nice to the eye, but we can do way better now.

Also, not to mention we're playing a totally different game, those boxes and everything related has to run on the same pace, fixing frames in time for the next to arrive. Every part of the chain has to run at 25i/30i fps, no delays, no error, or we have to drop a frame.

We don't have to stay at that pace, we sample the RF signal, and we can think about some fancy algorithm to catch up and fix the errors. We sample at a rate that is enough to do so, there are again textbooks about sampling and replaying the sampling signal (also measure the error).

People are doing that for free, I can't stress enough, they are not selling you anything. Sinking hundreds of hours of work and release everything online.

That's why this system is so revolutionary, you get the signal from the source and play with it. Decode today with software v1.0, if tomorrow a new version will get better colours and stability, just get the sampled file and replay.

Also, the signal preservation is much, much better, you fetch the image at the beginning, not after have been through many steps. You are not slave of the spec of your traditional gear. Colours might be washed out because of 411 format, some other approximation down the line might affect the stability. Again, there are so many variables. With the RF signal, you can decode and use 10bit per colour, and run some fancy maths there to show the real colour space of the device.

This is a mind blow to me, you can use open hardware like domesday duplicator or a cheap CX card, because someone has the knowledge and willpower to hack the driver. This is insane, we should appreciate the work of people.

I remember insane avisynth scripts to fix errors made on analogue domain, because not everybody has the money to but expensive gear, did I mention this is a game changer?

They will break, not now, maybe not in 10–20 years, but one day they will become so fragile to handle like nitrogen films. Let's not glamorise the analogue format, the VHS is made of plastic, electronics of reproducing them can fail. From e leaky capacitor to a breaking down pinch roller that will ruin the tape.

Colours can fade out, because materials on the tape can be attached tomorrow by some fungus. Some electronic component can go wrong, there are so many variables that can affect the play of a VHS. Playing those things is incredibly complex, event the cheapest mechanism has to deal with incredibly small tracks on the tape.

Also, there aren't going to be any new VCR. The gear has been produced, we have to stick with that.

There is still lots of media out there in tape format only, look outside the English speaking countries, there is a ton of stuff. Things that deserve to be preserved, young ones are going to do that, because the people that made the footage are retired or sadly dead.

This post is already too long, I'll leave you the Nyquist–Shannon sampling theorem, it doesn't care if you use a TBC or your vinyl sounds better. It just samples, it's up to you where to sample.

good night

The disagreement is not if it works, but rather how well it works. That's always been the difference. Not just in terms of addressing video errors (hit or miss), but simply being user friendly (and it's not whatsoever).

I just do not have the time or energy to reply to every point made. But much of that is disingenuous, because it discounts the fact that hardware also contains algorithms, and is usually able to crunch data vastly faster (better, more accurate) than any Win/Lin/Mac type box. End user software lags toward infinity, zero direct hardware access or optimization. We have more compute available in this world than standard desktops.

Many of the vhs-decode samples of color truly sucks. It has some positives in the details, but it totally misses the mark where it counts. The PAL seems to be mostly fine, but the NTSC is a mess.

No. This is false, always has been. The colors cannot fade on a tape, period. It's not film, that's not how the data is stored. The color now is the color is was 20/30/40 years ago, and will be the same in 20/30/40 years more from now. When people miss these simple aspects of consumer analog formats, it makes me question everything else they're claiming.

I've never been fond of this. It's overstated, misunderstood, overly simplified. Simple oversampling is not the panacea many claim it to be. Video is far more involved than that. The same is true of photography. To quote Ken Rockwell, it's often nothing more than "measurbating" to prove my number is bigger than yours. The actual factors of resolve/etc are fully ignored.

This has bothered me some in recent years. I truly miss some of these people. I was younger than them, and now I'm alone with certain knowledge on certain topics. I've done my best to share what I can on this site, and in this forum (and other forums). Not too long ago, I did manage to reconnect with somebody I'd lost contact with over a decade ago. We had a nice chat, she retired quite some time back.

My opinion here: messing with professional gear is not easy either, also you have to dig some manuals and knowledge that were accessible to a small part of professionals. Gathering that knowledge today is hard. Even have a hobby here is cumbersome, knowing the brands, what they meant in the 90s and how to repair them, that's a lot to process. Again my opinion here, tapping an RF cable from a VCR, not a big problem. You have less moving parts, fewer variables, and to me this looks simple, easier, on top of all accessible.

Don't be so dogmatic. Engineering is so vast that some applications can be archived in digital domain as well as analogue circuits, we have to define the problem and specs. All that part was already done, it's online, it's there.

I didn't mean to compare to the film. I have some tapes with some colour degradation, I can't tell if it's because it was mastered in that way or something else. But still is a problem to me, in any case tapes can degrade, not as much as we might think but still.

too bad, the theorem is proven, it's a fact. You need it to understand any modern signal processing system. Your paragraph remembers me what audio enthusiasts said about compact discs, because the audio experience is analogue and plays with physical waves to our eardrums, can't be captured from digital domain. Takes time to change idea, you will be absorbed, one sample at time :D

Can you point me to a comment here where anyone claimed this project is a ready to go replacement for traditional video captures?

The fact that you believe a color signal modulated into a high frequency carrier can fade tells me everything I need to know about your intelligence, So why should I consider everything you said above is true?

No one is denying that vhs-decode works, what we are saying is that the results are not consistent, therefore it is not a final product yet, Even when it is finalized and works just like the chips inside a high end VCR it will still not available for the masses because requires software and hardware skills.

Even after all the waves of TV DVD sets and streaming options, there's still so much more that isn't available. There are still showrunners, producers, actors, etc. that cannot find digital copies of their work. I'm not telling you anything you don't know or trying to be argumentative. I'm just lamenting how much more content is either locked away or may only exist in a private collection of a showrunner, producer, actor, etc. I am getting to experience this for the first time after reaching out to an actor that mentioned in an interview they had a tape collection and no equipment to view it with. It's quite a thrilling experience when you get to see things that you never knew existed or things you haven't seen in decades. Of course, it's also quite a thrill to help preserve someone's legacy for them and allow them to share it with their family. Decades of their life's work only remains in a box of tapes. You know how valuable it is to them, because they've still held on to it long after they got rid of the tape player. So you know that you've done something very special for them by giving them the opportunity to playback some of the highlights of their life.

This frustrates me as well. If I do manage to find something valuable to me, it is buried in a pile of low quality, often unwatchable stuff. You wish you could have been the one to get a chance at that tape so you could make a decent copy. It's a tragic waste of time and resources to burn up precious remaining hardware digitizing so much needless stuff in bad quality, rather than taking the time to extract the potentially valuable portions with more love and care. If only the time they spent cranking out all those hours of video were spent finding out what is already available elsewhere and reading about how to get a decent capture of what's left.

I joined this game so much later than you, and so I feel like there's much less of a chance that the stuff I've been preserving will ever be made commercially available. My perspective is I regret not starting this sooner than I did. So much of what I've been preserving has remained in copyright hell or just plain neglect of the rights holders. Stuff that millions of people watched on TV, but has been virtually erased from existence in today's world if not for the VCR generation. Although, I do realize that content could still be released. The longer something goes unreleased, the less likely I expect it ever will be. The rights holders are in the same shrinking window that we are. And maybe they have digitized it. But copyright law will prevent it from ever being released in my lifetime. I'm reminded of this when silent comedies I'm interested in from 95 years ago are finally able to be released because they are now public domain. If it were released, I would gladly throw out my inferior copies without regrets. Of course, so often official releases have something edited out. When you really care about the content you preserve, the risk of never being able to see it again makes it easy for me to be free of regret or doubt of how I spent my time. I feel the regret would be my future self saying why didn't I seize the opportunity while I still had it.

thank you for the compliment sweetheart :hearts:

I would say it's not even an opinion here -- it's fact. :congrats:

And that's precisely why I'm now refurb'ing and selling gear to the community. I'm the easy button, no need to DIY repair. You can get a ready-made workflow (video capture kit), just plug it up, and start to use that day. And I will continue to do this for as long as I can -- as long as refurb candidate gear can be sourced, and assuming my health continues to be stable (even if ups and downs).

Again, it omits far too much. The VCR is still a variable, and the full setup ("computer hacking") is a big problem for 99%+ of would-be users. That sliver of 1% then has to manually futz with aspects that were once handled automatically by hardware, in command line software/scripts. Remember, we're talking users that can even handle Avisynth with AvsPmod or Hybrid GUIs.

Huh? :question:

Are you trying to state the obvious here, that hardware (chips) have software/firmware on those chips? Well, yeah. But you don't just copy/port dozens of Python scripts to a chip, and call it a day. Coding chips takes an entirely separate skill from banging one out on a keyboard on your typical home/office computer.

This is 100% impossible. And honestly, to me, as it has to latreche34 here, it speaks volumes about your understanding of VHS signal theory. I'll reply to latreche34 here a second, expand on this more...

Degradation is physical, and vhs-decode doesn't solve that (or even address it whatsoever).

Furthermore, most degradation is storage related. That's a nice way of saying people are morons, and store their "valuable" VHS tapes in attics, garages, outbuildings, storage units (especially non-temp controlled), etc. That's not proper storage. And that's not the tape's fault. Those same people ruin lots of things, not just their tapes.

When tapes truly degrade, and the person has taken great care of the tapes (in sleeves, indoor storage, clean house, etc), then we have to get into discussions.

Yes, but that wasn't my point. Nyquist is too often weaponized by internet trolls (who have a tenuous grasp of imagery), or usurped by marketing. Sometimes Nyquist discussions remind me of kids arguing on a playground. "Because Nyquist, haha, I win!" Not to different from "I triple dog dare you" (from A Christmas Story).

Both self-described "audiophiles" and "videophiles" are insane, and make up whatever BS fits their narrative. I put them right next to flat earthers, 9/11 deniers, and the like. Spouting nonsense to be ignored in almost all cases.

However, audio CD is an interesting case, and actually provides a great example to my early point. Specifics matter. For example, the Metallica album St. Anger. When it was released, it got criticism that was falsely "debunked" as being typical audiophile rantings. However, that was false. St. Anger levels were boosted too far, and distorted. It wasn't acknowledged until the Guitar Hero version came out, and fans could finally hear the undistorted tracks as Metallica intended. That had nothing to do with the Audio CD book format, but rather crappy mixing.

So go back to Nyquist. While the theorem is great and all, it only cover a tiny sliver of overall signal theory. You could have a video that's been degraded in multiple ways, and it could "pass" whatever Nyquist "test" or discussion you're having, to "prove" whatever twisted logic you want. Weaponized. This has been the case since I first learned about Nyquist (and Kell) in the 90s.

To go further yet, when I hear/see this bastardizing in realtime, I generally know to ignore the person. Nyquist and Kell can both be the "Hitler rule" of video, as far as I'm concerned. When it's the defense, the argument is lost.

I'd have to scroll back through the thread, but several participants here -- namely msgohan aka Brad at VH, and Harrypm -- have made numerous claims to this end, either here or elsewhere. Harrypm makes quite a few false claims, on various topics (see attached image for an obvious example of his BS; that's obviously been badly processed on purpose; or he's quite inept/incompetent at capturing, and/or using crap gear).

While I'd normally edit posts, with the note to "Be nice!", to keep the site more professional, I'm not going to here. We've literally heard this BS for 20 years now, and it's wholly false.

It was either
(a) stated by shady conversion shops, to pressure you into sending them tapes "before it's too late!", or
(b) parroted by somebody that didn't know much about video.

The most damning situations were when
(a) the shady shop did a butcher conversion job -- and too often trashing the customer tapes, forever leaving them with nothing but a crap conversion to watch
(b) the parrot argued it, pretending to know video, when he didn't know much at all

Seriously, 20+ years of that crap.

Name some. :)

It's usually not the legal aspect itself, but joint rightsholders not coming to an agreement, seemingly not understanding that keeping it unavailable is a total loss.

As an easy example, NBC owns partial season 7-9 rights to Smurfs (or at least did), which is why it's never been released to physical media in North America. It did get the Aussie release, and I had that on preorder as soon as it was announced (about 10 years ago; that set is rare now, about $500 when you do see it). Much of the toon is available on streaming now, though not complete.

After 99%+ of the fans are dead. Sad.

That was my feeling in the moment, not wanting to miss anything when I had the opportunity. But in hindsight, I feel differently.

I want to reply to your first version of this reply, though I'm glad you edited it. :)

What you wrote is sometimes true, but not always. The exception to the rule is exasperation. When you see/hear/experience the same bogus info, over and over, you do get tired of it. And you tend to question the one repeating it (and rightfully so!). And experience has shown many of us that the person saying it is wrong about more than just that one item. So the tendency is to just shut down the conversation before it repeats for the nth time. But sometimes aggravation gets the better of us (any of us; you, me, whoever), and a simple insult is what gets uttered. For one thing, it's the short version, the simply summary.

But again, I prefer your edited version. It is amusing, maybe light-hearted enough to turn the conversation back more cheerful again.

eheh :D :D

Yes, I realised wasn't helping the tone of the conversation. About the other points, I realise it would require a very long explanation, but essentially, I believe in the long run this is will be the main method to digitalise tapes, as long as we have a working VCR on this planet. I perhaps lack of some knowledge on how the tape tech actually works, but I think the engineering behind vhs-decode is very good, and it's catching up with traditional gear.

About the circuits/electronics I didn't mean to generalise too much, for some tasks it's possible to fit an algorithm to process a signal. The story of engineering teaches new solutions might start as experiments, can have flaws but with time and efforts can be good enough if not better. I think this is one of those cases.

I mentioned the sampling theorem because we have cheap tech to get the data out of the signal, and process it later, I should have clarified in the first place. I remember the story about Metallica's song, it was one of those cases of loudness war.

Yep, and I already get more screen time that I want. :wall1: :screwy: :laugh:

Maybe. As I wrote earlier in the topic, tech doesn't always play out as it looks when the project is still in early phases. And yes, a mere decade is an early phase. I would imagine that something, someday, will go further, and remove the traditional spinning head entirely. The VHS loading needs to go away entirely. Instead of having the tape go to the head/RF, we need head/RF to go to the tape. ASICs/etc of some sort will be involved, as scripted crap on a Wintel box is for the birds and nerds. But none of it will happen until the tech looks more solid, and not be so easily outperformed by a prosumer VCR from the 90s. Nobody really cares about sidegrades, we want upgrades. The problem here is time is not on our side, and it's a vintage media format now. It may be another case of too late.

I want to be clear here: I think RF will be potential in the future, but vhs-decode will likely fail due to being overrun by too many immature devs and fanboys/cheerleaders. Either that, or they grow up ... and fast.

"good enough" is the enemy to good.

And then the main ingredient to almost anything is time. You can't run a project, like an impatient child, declaring it ready when it obviously isn't. But to reiterate, it's a time race in this hobby/field, and I'm not that confident RF will happen while people still care.

Good talk. :congrats:

Morning! I've been a lurker and don't want to add to the drama, I'm just intrigued by this statement:

From a technical point of view, how does tape degradation affect the signal? If it's something like spontaneous demagnetization (some grains flip their magnetic domain orientation), it results in an overall reduced magnetic contrast, akin to a reduced recording current. This shouldn't really affect the luma signal (other than overall SNR) because it's FM. Chroma, on the other hand, is QAM and the amplitude carries the saturation information. Wouldn't it be at least conceivable that a reduced SNR could affect this amplitude-modulated signal non-uniformly (i.e. frequency- or amplitude-dependent), which would manifest not just as noise but also as reduced saturation contrast in the image? I don't know how severely magnetic degradation affects tapes in the real world (as opposed to e.g. physical damage or mold) and it certainly depends on storage conditions, but I wouldn't straight-out discard the possiblity of loss of color definition as hallucinations...

As for the rest of the discussion, I've seen the argument of "time is running out" being brought up a lot - and fair enough, it definitely is. But isn't it an argument for RF capture at least of the most important tapes in addition to traditional capture before they turn into dust? All analog processing is permanently baked into the capture, so wouldn't it be prudent to bypass as much of it as possible by digitizing the signal directly from the tape and not after the analog processing? The RF capture process (just talking about capture) is arguably more accessible than a high-end traditional setup and the storage requirements are comparable to lossless video, so it shouldn't deter enthusiasts who were already willing to invest so much time and money in a traditional setup. Obviously it's not satisfying to "wait for the software" (or make your own), but you still have your traditional captures to play with until then. The point is that tapes will degrade, a digital image of the tape won't.

I would see it as a kind of speculative (but low-cost!) investment to potentially get a better picture from your tapes someday, you don't have to (and are not supposed to) wait until software decoding has been perfected. Surely that's not something for the mainstream (like people who are satisfied with some HDMI upscaler thingy), but so is high-end hardware decoder equipment. The whole RF capture project is driven purely by enthusiasm for perfection beyond the question of whether it's "worth it". Nobody is in it for the money because it was never supposed to be a commercial product (which already exists elsewhere to some extent), maybe that's the whole point of contention.

Welcome. :)

You're somewhat mixing up concepts here: PAL vs. NTSC, write/storage vs. read, the quality and features of the players, etc. (I'd like to expand in this, but I just don't have time for it right now. I'd need to pull out my signal theory books, brush up on facts, and try to write it in a format readable to mere humans.)

No ... at least not as typically presented ("use bestest ever vhs-decode, not the old poopy method").

I agree with this. Capture with proper workflow first, best possible quality. Then feel free to attempt vhs-decode, see what can be done. I would never be opposed to that approach.

Odds are the current RF method version gives lackluster results overall. Overall. However, some segment may be better. It's really not any different than what many of us already do: capture 1st pass in JVC, 2nd pass in Panasonic, capture 3rd in whatever, 4th, etc. Combine best parts. That tedious process is often what is required for some projects, and it's not something 99% of people will need/want to do.

Something to keep in mind is that tapes may be "one and done", literally self-destructing on capture. So you get one shot. Don't waste it hobby tech that is unproven and known to be variable output. Those must be captured in the best known-quality workflow. I'd no more suggest current RF/vhs-decode than I would a thrift store VCR in this situation.

The problem here is that it's somewhat BS. vhs-decode does not bypass as much as you're led to believe. Yes, it takes out some steps, that might potentially (maybe) cause signal degrade. But the main difference is simply native sharpness. Most other samples that show difference in dynamic range, etc, and comparisons using a junk/crap VCR with the RF method. It's not a true comparison.

Not at all. The RF methods still need quality decks, not thrift store junk. So no cost savings there. The method ignores TBCs, to its own detriment, so I guess you call that a "savings". And then a capture card is still needed. Furthermore, it's not plug-and-play, and has a very steep learning curve, with a large time requirement. So that's not "more accessible" whatsoever.

No, not at all. Loss is about 35gb/hour, and RF captures are way larger sizes.

The issue is impatience. Most of us have stated "DO NOT THROW AWAY YOUR TAPES!" fro years now, decades. Someday, the RF method may mature to the point of reliable usability.

Yes, there is risk with tape loss/failure, but the lifespan of VHS tape is 35-65 years. Some go quicker (rarely, mostly junk grade off-brand tapes), some may last longer than 65 (likely). There should not be a rush, but simply mindfulness of impending timelines. You can probably wait 5-10 more years for vhs-decode to mature, without many (or any) tapes being lost.

Certain vhs-decode devs are way too eager to state "mission accomplished". It's like a kid telling his parents that he's done painting the fence -- but it has streaks, he missed some boards, and he accidentally painted the grass. And it's still all wet, not even dry yet. "Not a bad first coat" you tell him, then he gets pissy and throws a temper tantrum.

Agreed! :congrats:

That's a problem. Software, especially open-source, has a way of just .... ending. Not with a bang, or even a whimper. Just poof, gone. Most here can readily think of software that did this, including video, especially something scripted like Avisynth plugins.

That's a false equivalency there. Not wanting to use RF doesn't mean we want $5 Chinese junk. Discussions here should compare a quality setup to RF, not junk to RF.

I think a lot of people underestimate the use of quality gear, due to their own bias of cheapness. Apple is literally the richest company in the world, mostly due to selling overpriced iPhones, iPads, Macs, etc. But people want it, and buy it. Complaining about costs doesn't affect them, it only affects you. (I have a Mac, several actually, in addition to Windows and Linux boxes.)

Additionally, too many people seem to think only certain gear is viable. No correct. Certain gear is "best", but you can trade down for budget reasons. The only caveat here is that the trade-down incurs trade-offs in quality and/or ease of use (aka, headaches, loss of sanity).

Ah, but you'd be mistaken! There is definitely some shady stuff going on. But to keep this thread drama-free, I'm not going to go into details here.

The main points of contention =
- overstating abilities/needs
- understating existing "competing" methods
- false comparisons

I've long been intrigued by the project, but I'm vehemently anti-myth and anti-BS. Certain egos need to be removed. I think oln/hodgey should be the one leading the project.

There is no doubt that over time the wear from playback and poor storage condition affect the overall condition of the tape, However people think that tape fade or color fade is when you have a cherry red shirt in the video over time becomes light red or pink, This is impossible. To be able to change the chroma tones you would have to decode the RF signal, extract the chroma, up convert it and then change the chroma primary values, It's called procamp, does it ring a bell?

Chroma can suffer from the poor conditions stated above, in term of timing, If the chroma burst is weak the chroma timing is lost, delayed or advanced, Noise can affect chroma if the carrier frequency dropping out or weak. But it is usually a combination of chroma and luma problems not just one or the other.

Small fish in a big pond here, but I love head-to-head comparisons of different conversion methods.

The premise that modern software decoding that doesn't have to work in real time to decode a signal straight from the heads should theoretically produce the most accurate representation of the original signal. It is the absolute shortest "video chain" hence does not have to go through old components within the VCR that may not be performing like they used to when they were new 20 years ago.

I am relatively new to following VHS decode, but I have seen recent feature adds that would be useful to the end user - namely support for Apple Silicon which is relatively easy to get a hold of and is very energy efficient which may be much easier to install and use than previous iterations for the average user. Seems to be getting towards a one-app solution without a complicated install. I haven't tried it myself to know though, but I plan to soon. I applaud their efforts on this project and will absolutely shoot a donation their way if that ends up becoming my ultimate capture method.

Lord Smurf - Why not digitize a couple of your more difficult tapes that you don't mind losing (in a worst case scenario in cases something happens in shipping) via your best conversion method and mail them to those at VHS-Decode and each post YouTube videos separately of the conversion results?

There was some site that I've seen that loads and synchronizes two different YouTube videos in the same browser window, so you could watch them side by side even if they were uploaded by different users.

Personally, I don't think LS is against the idea of VHS decode, I just don't think there are a lot of good head-to-head comparisons out there and his method I am sure produces an excellent result, so his thought process is probably "why change when I've spent decades getting it right" and there's a good chance that he's never seen a process yielding a better result than what he's currently doing and he can't endorse it without that. Some of it may also come down to ease of use if the result is very similar. I also think a lot of the relatively few comparisons out there that they are not of the most modern version of VHS decode, hence, improvements since then are probably not well known.

I will say that a lot of the various hardware changes I've made in my chain with my relatively minimal testing were often hard to tell expensive equipment from consumer grade stuff as a lot of the quality comes down to the source material and the capture card which are the two things that we aren't typically varying. Those being equal, it's often hard to tell what the hardware does better than others, so I do think results of a certain workflow have to be "seen to be believed".

Real-time vs. non-RT doesn't really matter as some think. It's about the algorithm quality, not the time required. Even the word "modern" doesn't mean much -- ie, the old phrase "don't make them like they used to" can be valid at times, or not.

I've had some tapes in mind for years now. But I need to see better results. As mentioned earlier, an actual upgrade, not a sidegrade.

No, that's not it. vhs-decode over-promises, and under-delivers.

The "official" wiki is also laden with misleading "facts" and outright nonsense, in an effort to make it seem better than it really is. There's zero reason to do that, other than ego from some project members.

Yep. Most of what you see is both inferior + superior, so it's a wash. But the inferior makes it harder to watch, while the superior is buried. Many people don't seem to understand how VCRs and TBCs process video, erring on the side of not making the output unviewable, even if at the sacrifice of otherwise "better" aspects.

A huge portion is due to junk VCRs in use. Noting that even the capture cards used aren't great. The RF is still affected by the base components in use. RF is "off the heads", not "on the tape".

Several basic needs must be met:
- good VCR (actual good, not random ideas of "good")
- some form of TBC
- a capture card (and capture software) that doesn't butcher the video

The better the gear, the less quality that is lost. It's not really about "quality gains" once the minimum is met. Better gear also gives less usage issues.

Source matters, and in fact determines what minimum workflow gear spec you can use.

Thanks for the detailed reply! :congrats:
I'm pretty much an outsider (to both sides), but I'm intrigued by the academical value of the RF capture and software decode concept because it enables the same type of tinkering like SDR or how people have been able to extract the best possible picture from retro consoles (I know, it's not apples to apples, just an inspiration). Commercial viability or even practicality in the "real world" are secondary concerns to me; I value the research effort of reverse-engineering this old format with the potential of recovering the "unaltered" source image, just like others have a passion for hacking their old NES.

The magnitude component of the chroma is the same for PAL and NTSC, so fading magnetic contrast should lead to fading (or at least dynamic range reduction) in the same way. Phase distortions (affecting hue) should manifest differently between PAL and NTSC for sure. I'm also not saying that high-end playback machines can't compensate for this to some extent (turn up the saturation, maybe even nonlinearly etc.), but that's essentially image post-processing. On a simple machine without that much post-processing I wouldn't find it unbelievable that magnetic degradation could lead to reduced saturation contrast (i.e. "faded colors") compared to the same tape in good condition.

I didn't even mention VHS-decode in my post :) .. I was only talking about making an RF capture as a digital image/backup of your tapes while they're still readable.

That sounds peculiarly similar to "it's a tedious process to tune your digital signal processing chain [in the software of your choice] and see what produces the best image quality for a given digitized RF signal."

Fortunately for all of us it's not either-or :) - most players, in particular the professional ones, allow non-invasive RF tapping, so you can get more out of your precious museum-grade tape if you capture the RF simultaneously with the hardware-decoded S-video.

Forget about the samples, I'm talking purely academically. If you capture exactly the same RF signal from the tape that the VCR "sees" and feeds into the long analog processing chain, you have by definition the most "lossless" version of what's on the tape (short of scanning the tape with a magnetic force microscope). Of course you have to make sure that the signal doesn't degrade on the way from the RF test point to your ADC, but that's relatively easy to control (BNC cable and a decent front-end for the ADC) and also applies for any analog processing chain. So RF capture does bypass all the processing, obviously, and I don't think there is any controversy about that. The only debate is about how well the decoding software can replace the analog processing, for which you have absolutely valid criticisms regarding VHS-decode (both in terms of usability and results), and that's fine. My point is that software is flexible, can be improved or reimplemented (by anyone) and the decode can be repeated as often as you want in order to reach perfection without ever touching the physical original. It's like forensic work on a hard drive image rather than on the fragile "real thing". Hardware tools, on the other hand, while being very mature thanks to enormous R&D budgets back in the day, are frozen in the way they perform and will only degrade over time, just like the tapes (I'm also talking "overall" here; good storage and maintenance prolongs their lives, of course).

I have to disagree here :) .. RF capture needs a quality deck up to the RF tap (i.e. transport, heads, tracking), it does not need any futher processing, conversion or convenience features at all. I guess it can be a hit or miss, but towards the end of the format the transport and pickup systems matured enough to become more or less commodity parts, and the only difference between player models dicatating the price were (largely) the features after the RF pickup. Ignoring all analog processing steps is the whole point of RF capture. The decoding software is the TBC (in addition to RF demodulator, filter, chroma decoder, RGB converter, scaler and anything else you can think of). And regarding steep learning curves, the particular software (VHS-decode) definitely has one for the moment, as does traditional high-end capture where you have to know the quirks of each hardware model. The hardware side of RF capture is very accessible though (unless you're scared to open up a case) - connect a cable from the RF test point to the capture card, that's all, oftentimes even without any soldering. And that's talking about inexperienced hobbyists - adding the RF capture workflow should be trivial for "enthusiasts" who already have a high-end traditional setup.

Depends on the resolution, sampling rate and actual bandwidth (which affects FLAC compressibility). In my test with Video8 RF files (higher bandwidth than VHS) I get 65GB/h for 20Msps 10bit, 43GB/h for 20Msps 8bit and 34GB/h for 16Msps 8bit, which is a sufficient sampling rate for VHS. RF captures also tend to be larger because they capture the full field, not just the image area. Instead of throwing around "Nyquist" I'll just subtly remind that "vertical" resolution (bitness) is as important and the required bitness is dictated by the SNR (like the sampling rate is mandated by the bandwidth thanks to Nyquist). It's not clear-cut what's the required bitness and sampling rate to "fully" capture the RF signal as it is on the tape (FM has different requiremens than QAM), so it's up to the individual to either skimp on drive space and use just enough resolution to capture the physical dynamic range (given by the peak-to-noise ratio) and bandwidth of the RF, or overdo it and waste space. There is no one-fits-all recipe yet, that will come with experience. It's at least in the same ballpark as lossless video though.

I don't believe even the biggest VHS-decode fan would advise anyone to throw away their tapes once they are captured.

Even if you can prevent the tapes from degrading with proper storage, vintage players in good condition will only be harder to come by with every passing year. It seems like you're equating RF capture with VHS-decode - one is a format, the other is one particular software approach to the format. Just as you don't need the blessings of JVC to homebrew your own VHS player, you don't have to wait for VHS-decode to work to your expectations in order to RF-image your tapes, especially when it costs (almost) nothing compared to a traditional setup apart from drive space.

Again, a software is not the format. If one project dies, others can fork it or make a new one from scratch. Traditional capture didn't disappear just because one particular capture tool stopped updating. The worst that could happen is that you can free up your hard drives if you believe that there will never be an adequate decoding tool in your lifetime. As I said, it's a low-cost speculative investment (of drive space and a bit of capture effort). Considering the time and money hardcore enthusiasts invest in potentially getting a slightly better image, RF-imaging as an additional insurance policy seems like a no-brainer.

What do you mean by "we"? I never said "we" or "you" because none of this is "mainstream", not RF, not a fancy TBC setup. And of course a "quality setup" must be the reference to tune the digital signal processing chain using the RF.

Totally agree. But the project is the format, the software is just one part of it (even if an important one) and doesn't deserve the drama. Even if some "over-optimistic" claims have been made, it takes nothing away from the concept which is academically sound and might turn out to be a valuable tool for no-compromise high-end video preservation with an accessible way to RF-backup tapes already today. The "capture now decode later" approach is very reasonable and also applies to other conservation fields where some artefact is "stabilized" until proper restoration is possible. The speculative nature of it (delayed results) might make it not worth it for some, which is totally fine - I don't mind it to be a niche.

There are many things that can happen to the chroma, and I didn't go into the phase stuff (affecting hue). The entire signal on the tape is quite complex and noise or loss of magnetic contrast can have complicated interactions with all the signals in different frequency bands. Still, all the signal components (luma, chroma, FM audio in the case of V8/Hi8 and whatever else) are simply heterodyned together, and the saturation component of the chroma (U or V, I always get them wrong) is an AM signal which is significantly more susceptible to amplitude degradation (such as loss of SNR) than FM (luma) or PM (hue) signals, though there are additional parasitic effects like amplitude-to-phase coupling which would also affect hue...

This stuff can get as tedious as you want, with very diminished returns.

Perhaps. The problem here is that a lot of the "pro" decks work quite poorly with consumer-made VHS tapes. The JVC series decks from about 95-05 have been proven all-around best quality and playback, with a deck that tends to hold up better than most Panasonics. Since the current RF methods (ie, vhs-decode) seem to work poorly with JVCs, it's a problem.

I've long stated that RF capture is a sound theory. The problem is the "in practice" isn't there. It may someday come, or may never come. That's the issue.

But noting it's not guaranteed, especially with open-source. Zero financial incentives has consequences. Even for-pay software eventually quits working, but tends to receive more updates and patches, especially for new OS/hardware.

I know for a fact that's not true. (I'm not able to say more on the matter.) It can be, but certainly does not have to be.

That's my only point. It's not as perfect as some want to insist. The samples have repeatedly shown that to be true.

The RF capture method reminds me of trying to play emulators on a 486. It's nifty and fun, but hit or miss. And that fact has never changed in the past 25-30 years. Newer hardware "runs" newer games, better, faster. But it still has lots of errors. Nobody (with any sense) will ever claim emulators work better than the original hardware. Some is better, some is worse, and it's mostly just different. Definitely cheaper, sometimes. Unlike video, video games never elicit the same sort of whining about money. It's a hobby, all hobbies have costs.

Again, that's the point. Certain people are touting it as more than it is, refusing to acknowledge imperfections, issues, errors, failings, etc. Then they further make false claims about workflow hardware, especially TBCs. Then get angry and defensive when it's called out. That's not helpful to the end users, but merely to stroke egos.

And yet, it is happening.

No, not at all. I've stated several times that RF is sound, vhs-decode has issues, mostly with certain devs.

RF is not really a "format", but an extraction method. And longer term, I think it has to fork to improve.

Visitors to this site, who come here looking for solutions to achieving quality video conversions.

The problem is that "today" is not accurate. The output results are all over the place. Again, to many RF devs/fans are ready to proclaim "mission accomplished" (a Bush reference, for the younger folks reading).

I doubt most would agree. It's not a NASA trip, where it takes decades to finally get where you want. That sort of patience is not extended to video conversions, and I think it's unreasonable to expect others to agree.

I think the ideal use is as a secondary (or later) attempt to recover footage, but also understanding you may just get scenes. Or nothing. Maybe a whole something, but unlikely. Regardless, lots of time is required.

Anyway...

I think this has been an informative thread for all involved. But I'm starting repeat myself now, and probably have nothing more to add here for a while. Busy anyhow, video projects to do, not just talk about it!

Overall, I think many people allured by the RF (or vhs-decode) have good intentions: the best video quality. A few egos and a few cheapskates shouldn't detract from it -- just be aware that they exist, and have bias that may not align with seeking quality.

I think we're getting to the core of the issue, so I'll try to keep it brief :) ..

But what's the mission? If it's getting a better image with software RF decoding under all circumstances for all formats, it's a long way to go. If it's a lossless digital preservation of the tape signal as seen through a VCR read head, that's absolutely doable today. It's not dummy-proof, it needs some (but not all) of the same experience as high-end traditional capture, and it's not cheap (decent ADC and storage) if you don't want to "risk" it (I don't really trust the cheap 8bit cards to capture the full dynamic range of the signal). When (or even if ever) the decoding software will surpass the quality of analog processing is a completely separate issue - that's the speculative part of the digital RF format (it's definitely a format because it's agnostic of the method how you extracted the signal from the tape or whether it even came from a tape, see LD, but I'm merely being academical here again).

I laid out the effort required for digital tape imaging - it's "simple" enough to implement for any high-end traditional capture enthusiast as an additional archiving channel, not as a replacement for traditional capture (of course!), so indeed it's not a NASA trip. Noone needs to agree, it's obviously a personal preference to go the extra mile. But just as claims like "software decoding is solved" are very misleading, so are recommendations like "give them another 10 years with the software, only then start thinking about RF capture". Take data recovery from an important flash drive as an analogy: Would you rather get a raw flash image while you can, even if you don't have the tools yet to reverse-engineer the sector mapping in order to reconstruct the data, or put the broken drive in a drawer until maybe one day the recovery software can process it perfectly and only then attempt the physical transfer? That's how I see the role of the digital RF format - lots of time required indeed and somewhat based on hope. Nonetheless, the best time is now, while tapes can still be read and working players can be found outside museums.

Side note:

Funny you mentioned it - the recent emergence of FPGA emulators is pretty insane because they can simulate the original hardware exactly and in real time. I'm not comparing anything here (the sheer fact of digital vs. analog), it's just a neat example of how far hardware abstraction/emulation in software can come if there's enough general interest and R&D money for a certain niche...

I think the true core problem is RF pickup in itself is neither finalized nor can it be trusted, How do I know I got exactly what's been read by the video heads? What if there is a miss representation of analog signal being digitized, How do I verify the data? What if there is bits of dust came across the heads and caused short data loss? Your analogy with a USB drive is not correct, because I can verify the integrity of data in a digital storage medium but I can't verify an analog signal sampled into digital bits. So unless there is a reliable and robust decoding scheme to go along the RF pickup to verify that what I got is all there, there is no way of trusting an RF backup with no verification, Therefore "capture RF today and encode in the future" is flat out wrong.

In a conventional capture, even if you don't monitor the capturing process you can still check the captured files and if a recapture is needed you would know right away, not 10 years later.

I'm afraid to see the long version. :laugh: (I can be the same way, brief intention fails by longer end.)

That's it. Not better, not cheaper, not easier -- just different. :congrats:

Some different good, some different bad. The "bad" is in terms of time and results. If you have unlimited time, then you may enjoy the alternative manual tinker approach, and can squeeze out that last % that truly exists on the tape beyond what standard quality workflows do. I think it's very warranted in some instances, not at all in most others.

For many, simply getting them into a quality workflow (ie, resisting the urge to buy crap from Amazon and Goodwill) takes some convincing (for their own good). Trying to expand their timeline for a % gain is impossible.

I fully agree. :congrats:

In many ways, it reminds me of RISC (eventually ARM), Tesla/EVs (EV still in infancy; power grids will not sustain it easily for many yeasr), etc. And those are just the successful ones. Early results, then some folks makes claims about "the future". But the actual future is different. Enjoy early successes, the early adopters in a tiny niche, many of them too vocal. But then you have massive headwinds for actualization in any meaningful way, and it just takes time to get there. Patience required.

None of the above. I'd use/pay Ontrack. (again!)

I think most users and would-be users would wholly agree with this, as do I. :salute:

It's just a vocal few that make claims that are not realistic. But these days, that's almost to be expected, with anything. The rest of us just need to tell them to simmer down a bit, get facts straight, don't embellish, don't BS. And that's really been the mantra of this thread.

... but also noting "before it's too late!" is not a reason to rush, it's just something to be mindful of. We have time still, probably multiple decades. I'm fairly certain whatever RF is done now will be done again (and better) later.

That reminds me of scanning photos in the 90s, or even digitizing videos to DVD in 00s (and later again as lossless). Now is fine, but later you realize that "now" was actually pretty crappy. But we do it, and redo it, because most people want quality. But eventually "quality" is diminishing returns, and more time/money investment loses charm. I think wider RF adopter for VHS will meet resistance because of it.

I know I'm not re-scanning my photos for a 3rd time, regardless of how much better dynamic range or res/interpolation gets on flatbed scanning. Maybe a few special photos for framing, but no more. I'm definitely not creating a DSLR rig to shoot the prints, which some do as well (and many are vocal for and against). I think DSLR scanning is a decent analog to RF VHS capture, as it's both better and worse at the same time, takes lots of time and tinkering, and has hidden costs ("just use a camera" instead of a buying a scanner; but oops, buying a quality camera has costs).

Final note...
Too much emphasis is on VHS, which is fairly trivial to get quality results with quality gear. What I want to hear about is all the other formats, like Betamax, where available hardware is truly gone or garbage. That's what RF devs should focus on first, if "before it's too late" is really a concern. Because for some rare formats, we're well into the "too late" phase.

There's even some tape-based digital formats where players are rarer. And the ancient software to transfers/"capture" is difficult to find, install, or use.

So ... dedicated hardware required. Sound familiar? ;)

And then gaming emulation is about 25-30 years old now. Hmmm, that sounds familiar too! :hmm:

I've not kept up with emulation for several years now. I was considering a Pi for retro gaming around 2018, but wanted to hold out for a Pi 4, due to too many issues with games I had interest in playing on it. That never happened, mostly due to the chip shortage. I don't really have spare time to play games anyway.

All true. :congrats:

Yep, back to more hardware needed. You can "easily" have a 2nd pickup downpath that verifies the 1st. Of course, it has to be done in clean conditions, otherwise dust is likely. This has analogy to HDD recovery, open platters = dust magnet, tapes are no better.

That's absolutely a valid concern, that's why I called it a speculation to do it (somewhat!) "blind". In order to perfectly verify your RF captures, you need to perfectly decode them. If that would be available today (emphasis on "perfectly"), we wouldn't have this discussion. Still, there are basic rules and approaches for digitizing signals in general to ensure you're not altering the RF signal on the way to the ADC. I already pointed out how to assess the resolution requirements. Pushing a few-MHz signal through a shielded BNC cable to an impedance-matched input on the ADC is not that much of a challenge nowadays and it's been done in consumer electronics even with cheap RCA cables for decades. There are ways to check the RF quality without actually decoding the image, just by looking at spectrograms and noise figures. Interference is easy to spot as are drop-outs, and of course you can monitor the playback with a hardware decoder. Apart from the lack of a perfect verification method (yet), it's not harder to get right than digitizing traditional analog S-video on a PC. A good ADC (good SNR + linearity) with a good frontend is crucial, but keep in mind that this applies just as well to traditional capture and the TV capture PC-cards don't always have the best ADCs in them and don't offer much control over the S-video-to-RGB/YUV decoding and quantization process.

The analogy with the flash recovery is specifically that you can't verify the imaged data until some decoding software is developed which is able to reconstruct it. But you can do the imaging to the best of your ability with sound methods. So would you still do the imaging without having the software (yet) to extract and verify the data? It's speculative and therefore everyone should make up their own cost-benefit analysis, but it's definitely not wrong.

Yes, mindful, that's what I'm trying to convey. But while being mindful, also consider one's own individual situation in judging how much time is actually left, because not everyone has ideal storage conditions or a museum full of old parts for player maintenance (speaking of the "real world" again). When/if the perfect RF decoder software comes out, your RF captures from today will work with it just fine (even better) because it's necessarily the same format. There's no need to re-capture if a better software comes out, that's why I was stressing so much that RF capture and decoding are very separate things. The only scenario where re-capture would yield a better quality is if somehow the capture hardware improves significantly, but in terms of ADCs there are already very diminishing returns in increasing the resolution (considering the limiting signal quality on the tape). A better magnetic pickup would have the potential to improve the results (for both RF and traditional capture) but I doubt a modern transport/head system will be ever developed because it's far outside the scope of hobbyists; might as well send the tapes to a magnetic force microscopy lab and lose all grasp on reality :) .. So I think my favoring the "two birds one stone" approach (traditional + RF in one go) is not unreasonable, especially if you want to avoid re-capture in another 10 years...

Yeah, I remember a time when I was young and perfectly fine with audio tapes to MP3 :D .. But joking aside, I wouldn't compare scanning photos with RF capture but rather with traditional capture (analog in, digital picture out). Without getting too philosophical, the "analog signal" of a physical photo is tremendously more complex than the magnetic signal on the tape. You'd need to capture the visible light spectrum of every film grain to get a "lossless" digital image in terms of the analog information on the photo. Of course that's impractical and you have to resort to some reasonable compromise of approximating the photo with an image sensor. The RF signal on a tape, on the other hand, is already a reasonable approximation (for its time) of a physical image with all the required limitations in bandwidth, and can therefore be captured with a modern digitizer "exactly" (or rather with negligible loss) as it was recorded. Again, that's academic (the dreaded magnetic force microscope) but nonetheless a fundamental difference between physical photos and analog signals generated by electric circuits. If there won't ever be a new generation of "modern and improved" read heads, then the RF signal from a current player is the closest we can ever get to the original recording.

Personally I'm in it (almost) exclusively for V8 and Hi8 home video tapes which contain the most valuable personal memories but on the other hand aren't of much interest for "corporate" level investment in archiving R&D. The post-2000s Sony camcorders do a reasonably good playback job with integrated TBC and all but you have to live with the baked-in image post-processing and they cut a bit of the image on the left edge and at the bottom (around the head switch), which can both be recovered with RF decoding. So there has to be some incentive (personal investment or otherwise) to get involved with a specific tape format, that's why open-source progress is slow in a niche. But that's even more reason to RF-capture the more obscure formats "before it's too late", especially if decent-quality traditional decoding has been lost to time - with RF there's at least a possibility...

FPGAs are more software than hardware. The code can run on a PC with the same results, just not in realtime. That's why the only commercial RF capture solution I'm aware of implements the signal processing on an FPGA. For hobbyists the speed penalty of doing RF decoding without hardware acceleration is definitely worth it; but for a game emulator sub-realtime is kind of a deal breaker :) ..

I'm just glad this conversation has become sensible, honest, friendly. That's all I ever wanted.

I think most users will be this way -- though some may take longer to reach that conclusion, due to being a bit blinded by overoptimism. Like a kid getting a new puppy -- then learning he has to feed it, walk it, scoop poop, etc. It takes work, more than you realize, and will have both elation and disappointments. It just is what it is, no more, no less.

And on that zen note, g'day. :D

That was the opposite of my understanding. What worries me is people relying on software instead of hardware to get the job done correctly. I don't see any circumstance where I wouldn't want the best VCR for the job, rather than creating more work for me post process. I want the cleanest signal out of my VCR as possible. This includes using DNR, built in line/field TBC, proc controls, dynamic drums etc.

You don't need to spend money on expensive equipment because insert VHS decode. It does "work" and will continue to improve, but I disagree with the workflow. It's simply my preference and not knocking it for those who use it and appreciate what it does.

In 10-20 years many VHS tapes will be too far gone to be archived. We just need the current SVHS decks and TBCs to last another decade or two. We are at the final stretch of this hobby. As Smurf alluded to before, we don't have time to wait for software to catch up. The best results RIGHT NOW are hardware.

I don't want to sound discouraging. It looks like a very interesting project with a lot of dedicated people. I would just disagree with those who say it replaces TBCs and SVHS decks. It's much easier for me to plug in my TBC, press play on my VCR, and let my hardware do all the work. No coding skills required. That's what you work in a transfer house. Consistent results.

I enjoyed reading through the debate and have a lot to learn. I will keep an open mind.

That's a misconception and the only reason to bother with RF in the first place. Both methods (traditional and RF capture) start with an identical signal, which is the RF picked up by the read head. For software decoding, it's digitized right there with high enough resolution to have negligible loss (which is not trivial but relatively approachable, just as digitizing the processed S-video or component signal in a traditional workflow). At this stage nothing is baked into the signal yet other than the magnetic pickup characteristics of the VCR, which is the same for both methods. All necessary further processing (demodulation, PAL/NTSC decoding, TBC etc.), whether done in hardware or in software, will introduce loss and bake its result into the final image.

The difference with software decoding is that you can go back to the digitized RF "original" whenever you want and as often as you want, even long after the tapes and hardware players have been lost to time, and improve your decoded picture with the latest available (digital) signal processing technology. In contrast, with a traditional setup you are stuck with the way the hardware decoded and processed the picture that time and the settings you used. You can't "re-tune" anything in the signal processing chain retroactively (e.g. change the TBC, insert another filter etc.) apart from post-processing the final image, which you can also do after software decoding, of course. An analogy (to some extent at least) would be the "raw" image format that digital cameras use vs. the processed/decoded RGB image.

Agreed, a good VCR is mandatory for both methods. However, for RF capture it "only" needs to be good up to the RF test point and doesn't require any particular image processing features. But as I said many times, RF capture should not replace traditional capture (because the reliability of the available decoding software is not there yet) but supplement it to preserve the RF original indefinitely and potentially get a better picture out of it in the future due to the flexibility of software decoding. Theoretically you could even feed the digitized RF signal back into your VCR and do your analog processing without a physical tape. My point is, whoever takes tape preservation seriously already has a (more or less) decent traditional setup, so adding RF capture to do both simultaneously might be worth the (manageable) additional effort. Of course everyone has to make an informed judgment whether the decoding software will ever "catch up" (or make their own), but you don't have to wait for the software to mature in order to start RF capturing.

For this I have to agree with Novgorod, VCR's that have good solid picture are the ones from the mid to late 90's that use Soc (system on the chip) like the JVC, Panasonic and Sony ones, They digitize the RF signal using an ADC, process it (DNR,DOC..), time it and store it as lines or fields in a memory buffer, and convert it back to analog using a DAC, So the near lossless digitizing concept is not a bad idea, So that wasn't the issue we are discussing here.

Are you sure they digitize the RF directly? I thought the processing is analog at least until after the demodulation step and probably also after de-emphasis (all inside a chip but still analog) and only the demodulated proper PAL/NTSC Y/C signal is digitized and processed with the internal TBC and all the image filtering stuff, like e.g. the later Sony camcorders did.

To be honest I'm not sure what's going on in their chips, But I know they are more digital than their counterparts from the 80's. You can't tell from their schematic either, because the RF pickup is going into the main chip.

Simple solution then :)

Get a VCR with Dynamorphous heads that has such good tracking, line TBC is not required.

Buy a DVHS deck with built in SD MPEG encoders that accepts analog inputs, and buy some blank DVHS tape. Hit the record button and watch your analog signal be recorded onto digital tape without using a frame TBC. Now output to HDMI or firewire for capturing.

All joking aside I wonder if this works. My BV10 TBC is transparent and happy with it.

I did that already, sort of. Nah the old school way is way better, Albeit I did not use the same VCR for both samples.

You mean digitize the raw RF signal with a DVHS recorder? I like the outside-the-box thinking but it will result in a big mess (or, more realistically, in an empty recording) because the DVHS recorder expects a PAL/NTSC compliant input and would probably just reject anything else. Even if you could somehow override everything and trick the recorder to use some internal clock source unrelated to your input signal, the MPEG encoding would kill it. RF capture has to be lossless (apart from quantization), kind of like PCM audio. Lossy compression which is optimized for raw RF doesn't exist and probably never will because it's too complex and too niche. So maybe some SDI capture hardware might be bastardized for RF capture, but I think at the moment nothing is economically competitive with a PC based ADC and a bunch of hard drives or data tape if you have a huge library...

Nope. Not if it uses broadcast profiles, like 4:2:2 @ 50+ mbps. That's always been a holy grail of capturing, nothing does it, aside from appliances that have added downsides.

I agree that it's plenty sufficient for SD RGB (or YUV) video, but I meant trying to put a raw RF waveform through any type of (lossy) image or video compressor. Technically any waveform signal can be interpreted as a grayscale "image" but the high-frequency RF signal will behave very poorly with lossy compression that is optimized for "human vision". That said, it may be worth exploring lossy RF compression with a modern audio codec like opus or aac with a custom quantization table optimized for the spectral information distribution in the RF signal. This should significantly reduce the file size compared to FLAC with a negligible quality loss. But I think that's not of the highest priority for the RF capture/decode project at the moment :) ...