TBC still required for RF capture? (VHS-decode)
 

I was reading around on the forum and interwebs, of a few VHS enthusiasts using Domesday Duplicators that capture the RF signal from VHS heads directly.

They claim you don't need a TBC if you do this. They claim it's "software based TBC". They also claim you're getting sharper images.

I'm not sure about the second part, but I'm interested about the first part.

The Domesday Duplicators states that it has TBC corrections, so I'm pretty sure RF signal decoded still requires a form of TBC for capturing.

edit: (repeat question. Thread already exists)

http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/vide...c-frame-2.html

No, not really.

The signal will require timing correction, period. Both frame and line, perhaps field. But trying to recreate TBC in software has not worked to date, and may never work. So hardware is likely still going to be required. But it'll have to be a new kind of TBC, not the standard A>D>A.

This projects has a lot of wild claims. And most of the claims come from people not developing it, nor understanding the fundamentals of digital video ingest. (Upscaling, Topaz, and "AI" are the same way. Lots of claims, most are half truths or nonsense.)

vhs-decode is not viable for actual VHS capturing yet, especially not NTSC. Anybody doing it currently will have rough results, worse than a standard workflow (using quality suggested gear). I dismiss a lot of these claims outright, because I've seen it over and over again. "VCD quality is great", etc etc. Functional, but not quality.

Personally I find that RF capture is being used, more or less as an excuse for not buying a good and proper SVHS deck. It's being used as a way to bypass the internals of a cheapo VCR. Then because you don't have line correction, people try and compensate that with software but it will never be as good as an SVHS deck.

Oh and by the way. I mentioned to the curious onlooker who was interested in KeyWest BV10s. I warned him about buying used models on the internet and directed him to DigitalFAQ, after he told me he "already spent a lot of money on the project with terrible results". I warned him against buying on FleaBay, he thanked me for the advice and I never heard from him again. Oh well...

I can honestly say spending the few grand last year on a proper setup was the best decision I ever made. I would still be tinkering with broken equipment if I hadn't. I spend a grand on the latest iPhones so I really had no excuses.

People underestimate the value of a good TBC and SVHS deck. Nothing is like the real thing.

Just because you are used to having a separate TBC and a capture device it doesn't mean that's the rule. Having one device for capturing and signal timing is not new, it was used since the early 2000's, S&W made devices that have ADC, line TBC and frame TBC all under one hood, a very sophisticated computer with FGA, proprietary OS and ADC and TBC chips, An example is the TBS-800.

What's different with VHS-decode is instead of starting from the Y-C signal, they go back all the way to the RF signal recorded on the magnetic tape and do all the processing steps, Amplification of the RF signal, decoding luma and chroma, horizontal and vertical timing, chroma timing ... etc. In theory a TBC is just a capture device.

Excuse me? :huh1: ld-decode has performed software TBC on the demodulated RF signal since the first prototype code in 2013. If it didn't, the decoded video would warble around nonstop.

ld-decode in stages

vhs-decode uses the same TBC code base, and the developers have improved upon it to better handle the crappier and more varying sync signals found on VHS (consumer recordings) as compared to LD (always professionally-mastered pressings).

This is not the same concept as attempting to perform TBC on a digital component (4:2:2) file like the "Software TBC that doesn't need the frame edges" or jmac's attempts. The *-decode projects are working from the complete signal including horizontal & vertical sync.

Perhaps that's the problem.

Sure. But those are closed-loop systems, somewhat proprietary (and non-standard to classic capture norms), and have weaknesses to certain types of source. That's the main reason I've never used such a setup. But if you can use that sort of setup, it's viable. Those were mostly made for pro settings, pro sources, not consumer analog sources.

Sort of like "six one way, half a dozen the other". vhs-decode is still capture, just in a different way. However, certain constants/non-variables must still exist. ie, TBC.

Laserdisc isn't VHS. No mention of ld-decode is made here. Many would argue that even analog capture of LD needs no TBCs, and that would be correct in theory (just not practice).

I know. But it's not anywhere near being viable. I check on it from time to time. Progress is extremely slow (snails move faster), and I have my doubts it will ever work. But still, I've always wished them well. I'll do what I can to support it (suggestions, samples, space, etc), but I'm no cheerleader.

Pfft. No. I know what's needed for this to happen. We're not seeing it yet. Lemmings that are not involved in the project, and have scant knowledge of video ingest whatsoever, parrot and regurgitate BS all the time. This mentality goes back decades. I still remember "KVCD is as good as DVD" and more recently "all you need is an HDMI adapter" and "Topaz is AI". From a technical perspective, all hogwash, easy to dismiss without further investigation. When something new is mentioned, that merits a look. Not the same old nonsense.

While that may be part of it, I think equally it's an issue of nerds playing. That's great and all, but it's a distraction from actual work, and quality work. Serious hobbyists, pros, they're really not interested in something like this right now. Not viable, not worth messing with. We want to spent our time doing video, not farting around hoping/trying to maybe do video. That's the difference. This excludes the project devs and contributors, of course.

Also never underestimate the negative economics, the stupidity, of ultra cheapness. Some people would rather throw away hours (days, weeks, months, even years), as opposed to just buying the tool needed. Often times, amusingly, the "cheap" method longterm actually cost more (money, time, or both). The simpleton idea of "any VCR works" is the clickbait for vhs-decode.

Sure, closed loop it is. But lets say you have a way to get the perfectly timed digital signal out of your TBC-1000 and feed it to the computer to be stored as it is without converting it back to S-Video, wouldn't you want that? That would make it closed loop wouldn't it? Unless you think converting the signal back to analog improves it further, If so I would like to see a technical explanation of that.

There cannot be. Staying in digital from the beginning is an added value for sure.

I think LS refers to the fact that having separate components is more flexible because you can change one if sometime the capture chain does not behaves properly (loosing quality compared to the all in one approach if it worked)

Even better would be the option to use all digital chain, or A>D>A when needed.

Improve? No.
Not make worse? Sometimes. Too often, in fact.

That's it exactly. VHS is rarely simple matter of one-size-fits-all workflow. Either that, or you have to set aside tapes that will not cooperate, and have those done elsewhere.

I can't get behind this, not in the technical argument anyway.

S-VHS players have the benefit of playing S-VHS tapes properly. There's nothing inherently magic about an S-VHS machine for playing back standard VHS tapes. S-VHS machines use the conventional S-Video connector which is very useful for capturing, but the machines don't really do much extra for 'vanilla' VHS.

Broadly, S-VHS machines are later in VHS' lifecycle and were, by virtue of being built for a more demanding market, better quality machines than many standard players, but they're no panacea.

Many S-VHS machines can restore (to a degree line-timing), they often restore sync-tips, colour bursts and neaten the non-visual portion of the line which is a worthy task, but they're often not the best at it. These machines are all ageing though, they command high values and many of them are (personal opinion) not worth the prices some try and command for them, I'm fortunate that I can purchase 2nd/3rd rate machines and repair them, but this isn't feasible for many.

vhs-decode is proven in principle, I don't think that's up for debate anymore - there are arguments for and against when it comes to the technicalities and overall result, but it is improving, whereas some of the knackered old TBCs that are commanding such huge values are ageing like fine-milk bluntly and most are getting to the stage where components need replacing; where shall we be in five years? The same with many cards and capture devices, how long do we pretend these items aren't ageing?

Where this is interesting (and as a tape head, it's a well-known phenomenon in the tape community) is the following:

1) "Old tape stock is too expensive/rare!";
2) Formulations are designed, or re-releases of old tape stock, perform brilliantly;
3) Market sits back and waits for the prices to drop on the old-tapes, as this is what people 'actually' want, pristine, wrapped 1988 MA-XGs, not modern formulations, no matter how technically superior they are;
4) Gate-keepers do a round of 'well poisoning', 'you shouldn't look to new formulations', 'they make the shells in China y'know', If you truly cared about your recordings, you'd be happy to spend $100 on a That's MR-X Pro' and a hundred others.
4) Nothing happens for six months - nobody buys or sells anything whilst everybody watches on expectantly;
5) Lack of interest, new stock is withdrawn/deeply discounted - sells out in minutes at 75% reduction;
6) Gatekeepers holding the old stock sell again, with a +20% on the previous prices.

Rinse and repeat.

I've seen a few cycles of this, it's almost now a trope in the tape community. I think anybody who hangs around a few analogue forums will testify.

Now there's no distinct parallel between this and vhs-decode, after all, vhs-decode is not a tangible product - but I'm just watching a few reactions and I can't help but wonder if there are a few, very faint shoots of this springing up over VHS-decode? It could be my eyesight, however.

vhs-decode will work, there's a long way to go to make it a feasible exercise for general hobbyists but arguments about things like the concept of a software TBC are settled now, are they not?

One more advantage of using S-VHS machine for VHS tapes is avoiding the extra composite stage, It keeps the luma slightly sharper, chroma cleaner and avoids the chroma/luma cross-talk. It would not make a VHS tape look like a S-VHS tape but the difference is noticeable to the average viewer in a side by side comparison.

You're right, and I didn't consider that in my reply - which I should have done.

It's still a heterodyning stage though, so whilst it is a (great) improvement, it's not flawless. Only U-Matic from memory can do true Colour Under ->Colour Under throughput but we're wandering into the weeds at that point. Please don't rush out to play with UMatic! Colour was very fragile on U-Matic anyway, hence it was probably a requirement rather than a convenience.

You're right to clarify that though.

So what?

"trying to recreate TBC in software has not worked to date, and may never work"

This quote is objectively false, because it has already been done. Your statement said nothing about VHS, so a software TBC that corrects LD already proves it false. But again, this same TBC code has been extended to work better for VHS sources. So it's doubly false.

I've already found an example tape where Panasonic's line TBC fails on a particular shot while vhs-decode's software TBC succeeds.
Attachment 15098
Attachment 15099

Every LaserDisc player ever produced includes a TBC. It's literally a requirement to play back the format.

https://youtu.be/zj8RE1EV_Q4?t=1878

I need to get some images up of some of my experiments, this view is also quite useful for clearly visualising line distortion between conventional TBCs as well which I have used it for.

I've found that the vhs-decode software TBC is more consistent than some hardware, it's also able to rectify some issues that other equipment could not manage, or at least greatly improve some very wonky tapes.

Arguing that it 'doesn't work' is being a bit delusional now. Sure there are arguments regarding practicality, user-friendliness, things it doesn't do so well and no doubt a host of other obfuscations, but the argument, in essence, that it 'doesn't work' is just denial at this point.

This can be improved upon at least, unlike [insert brand X] hardware unit.

... And one of the main reasons why it is not ready for prime time yet is that there is so many variables in extracting an analog video signal from a tape that constant tweaking never ends, not to mention things can change from a tape to another, One cannot deny that even with conventional VCR's, playback compatibility is not consistent across multiple tapes, that's why multiple VCR models are preferred for maximum tape compatibility. However as of right now you get more tape compatibility using one VCR than using VHS-decode with one set of settings.

<sigh>

It's only "magic" when people don't understand what's going on. As mentioned, a primary reason is non compositing the output. Another is that the decks are simply made better, which lends itself to things like less timing errors. It's very much a situation of "you get what you pay for", with the cheaper/worse option having more problems, less quality. Often many more problems, substantially less quality -- not a nuanced amount.

Don't confuse newbies here. The decks are not suddenly higher in cost. In reality, most are less than MSRP. Some at. Refurb'd units have the added costs of the refurb parts/supplies/time. And none of those numbers includes inflation of 15-25 years, namely that many AV items have doubled in price in that time, often with a lower quality. So in reality, gear now is a bargain compared to then.

That's been my stance from the beginning.
- Does it work? Yes.
- Does it work well? No. That may change, or not. This isn't an easy task, and has some ugly challenges. And the tern "challenges" doesn't mean overcoming it is inevitable. Sometimes challenges are insurmountable (something I can attest to, in terms of health). In those cases, where you cannot overcome, alternatives must be used. And we already have the capture alternative, and have for many years.

Again:
- I do support it.
- But I'm not a fanboy or cheerleader about it. I'm a realist, not a blind optimist.

In terms of video capture hardware, we'll be fine. (I'd be more worried about geopolitics at this point in time.) The need to capture will of course be dimiinshed.

Capture cards isn't as big of an issue. In fact, not really a worry at all. The bigger issue is OS, and stubborn users refusing to use legacy OS (not merely latest-and-"greatest" OS), Newer is rarely better with video capture, newer is often just newer (and more often worse).

I can't buy that. Why? 20% isn't worth the buy of stock. From fundamentals alone, I'd suggest there's merit to the argument of avoiding new tape stock. And any tape bought on a dip is finally fairly valued. Or did you mean sold at 120%, with it bought at -75% (aka, 95% gap). But even then .... eh.

Well, no, this is misleading. Yes, software TBC has been possible for at least 10 years now. But the problem is it only functions well on a per-tape basis. It's not a general use button on a deck, press it, and it works. Software TBC has always needed lots of tweaks, and even then it can still be inferior. I've seen many cherry-picked samples, and am actually thrilled that a rare video of mine was made better enough that I could use the "beat it to death with temporal NR" that it became viably viewable again.

I'm glad you found a scenario where a Panasonic TBC was outperformed. But that's always been possible. After all, it's why most of us own multiple decks, multiple devices. JVC, ES10, etc. That's not unusual, it's just par for the course.

No. You can get away with a lots of inefficiencies when the TBC is weak, or outright a "TBC" (in name only). So a TBC (or "TBC") for LD would fully flop with VHS sources. I've always laser focused on TBC performance with consumer analog sources. Not broadcast sources, not video games, not LD, etc. Those other needs tend to be far less demanding, often requiring only the most base of corrections.

That's it. :congrats:

Time spent tweaking, sometimes (often?) with same or worse results.
Time ROI is negative.
Money ROI is arguably negative.

Exercise for the reader: compare and contrast the two bolded statements.

Exactly how many hours of footage have you fed through vhs-decode's software TBC? From what you've said, it's exactly zero. Why are you now pretending that you have experience with this?

I think he means by "it doesn't work" it is not a reliable alternative for the average user, Yes some samples look rock solid but for the most part there is a lot of work to be done based on the samples I've seen over at videohelp and youtube, This is one of the reasons I haven't jumped on it yet, a lot of inconsistencies and trial and error. As of right now I can get better results using a high end S-VHS VCR and a studio capture device/TBC with digital out.

In my opinion for this project to really have some fruits the team should think outside the box and start considering building their own RF preamp bypassing the VCR's own, as well as the motors servo control to completely have control over the signal, That way they don't have to worry about what model VCR is and what signal level of the RF is, Also having control of the capstan and head drum motors means with one VCR you can have more tape compatibility in terms of video standard (PAL, SECAM, NTSC), The recording speed (SP, LP, EP ..), shrunk or stretched tapes speed compensation, prediction and replacement of damaged control track sync pulses for better tracking...etc.

Those are not contradicting statements.

Software TBC "works" in the sense that it can function in a very limited way (many tweaks needed), often as "proof of concept" only. Software TBC "doesn't work" (isn't viable) in the sense that it's not something that can simply be enabled and disabled, and used in the traditional sense.

That's exactly it.

Agree. :congrats:

You and I, and others, have discussed this somewhat before. This sort of project will eventually require dedicated hardware to ever get anywhere. Random VCRs, trying to software code (inefficiently compared to hardware), etc -- that's really a road to nowhere. But therein lies the problem.

As a geeky freebie open-source projects, it's nifty and all. But to be viable, investment will be needed. In a recent (past months) TBC thread here, investment was part of that discussion. A box of old random parts, and some "duct tape and chicken wire" programming won't cut it (the ill proposed TBC code from the TBC thread, not vhs-decode).

Furthermore, a project like this won't be for John Q., nor cheapskate DIYers. At the current dev rate, average users will have long ago converted videos; many already have. So the target marker will be more serious, more pro, and demand something that has both investment and time ROI. Endlessly fiddling and tweaking is poor time ROI, which drives up end customer/user costs to unsustainable levels. Money/capex to the pro/serious capturer/ingester is less of a concern, as we all expect hardware to cost $$$$. So avoidance of hardware is really quite silly from a longterm macro view.

Remember, video was my accidental career, due to serious hobby, quality of my work. My prior career path was both financial and technical, so I don't BS easy with some things. I'm not an artsy-fartsy type that gets lost in fantasy, but am far more grounded in reality. While I'd like to see vhs-decode succeed, I'm not seeing it currently. I'd love to see an "outside the box" hardware complement. Both NTSC and PAL, noting that the PAL usage is still more advanced.

Again, I can support vhs-decode, but I won't be a cheerleader that overlooks current limitations and flaws, and that includes the project trajectory and viability. The devs are trying, I know, but sometimes it's just not enough (something I also know).

Out of interest, what is your professional role in video? I've seen you allude to it a few times but some of your speculation about videotapes doesn't add up to somebody with a tremendous amount of experience with professional videotape, only VHS?

I've seen you say "my studio days" a few times, I'm just intrigued as to what you actually did? I've found a few vestigial websites where you sold material, but it's not clear what your professional video work is?

- streaming
- restoration
- analog source ingest

Those last two require a special attention to hardware, such as TBCs.

The streaming was in the 2000s, back when it was far more challenging to balance size and quality. This wasn't something I overly enjoyed, as it was not an extension of hobby (analog source ingest, restoration).

There's lots more to it, but I just don't have the time to write that novel post. :weird:

Which formats?

I have been away recovering from surgery over the past month and have not been able to reply to messages. I'm back. :)

First off, this is why I bought an SVHS deck, and was willing to pay for it. I prefer an external workflow as much as possible. The reason I like proc controls as well. The less I have to fiddle around in software the better. I don't need an incredibly fast computer. I can even capture to an external recorder like an Atomos Ninja.

I use SVHS not just for the line corrections (a working AG1980 still works a lot better than VHS decode), there are improvements to outputting s-vid over composite, and like others have said just better built more rugged tape components (when it comes to JVC at least).

When it comes to servicing, an SVHS deck is no more costly to refurbish than a "regular" deck. All of these machines are getting up their in age, and the way I see it... I might as well put my time and efforts into an SVHS deck.

Second point. No software to my knowledge and even to this date, has replaced external frame TBC (please correct if wrong). No software can replace dropped frames.

The justification of using software TBC is that it is less costly. The major cost involved with TBC hunting is frame correction. Most I have seen fooling around with TBC software, are running a DV converter into their computer setup. I recommend many hobbyists to this forum, and the overwhelming majority baulk when they see the cost of obtaining a TBC setup. I even had someone say to me "the pros are intentionally holding newbies back by recommending expensive equipment."

If I'm archiving VHS I would rather be playing my tapes in an SVHS deck, not a cheapo deck running into software. I did reach into the piggy bank for a proper TBC for frame correction, because I wanted both proc controls and 4:2:2 color.

I don't knock software options and find it exciting there is still such an interest in the VHS world. I don't mean to sound behind the times or grumpy, however I do believe there are elements of the analog world that can never be replicated with software hacks or cheats. Please keep in mind that once the signal is converted to digital, any flaws are baked in and software can only compensate for so much.

I've invested in building a transfer house business, and I am not confident at this time to rely on the software that is out there. I much prefer having an external workflow and it was worth the cost.

In years past, such a comment would have amused me.

But in more recent years, we seem to live in a "Q" society (referring to QAnon, aka incredibly crazy conspiracy). The video community is sadly no different. Some of the BS that I've read in the past 2-3 years is such a wild mess of misinformation that it literally contains zero good info. In the past year, I think a lot of the stupid stuff is actually coming from young TikTok generation, that barely knows the difference between a VCR and a toaster.

Most BS is due to being cheap. That's it. Everything should cost $1, apparently?

And when you're young, time isn't yet valuable. So why simply use a good tool for a task, when you can waste hours/days/weeks/months/years screwing around? (Business understand ROI, regardless of age.)

Far, far too many older hobbyists and pros have written me in private, essentially throwing up their hands at trying to refute the nonsense, wanting to quit various sites and other forums out of frustration. It was their "goodbye" of sorts, as we'd not see each other at that place anymore. I'd do my best to talk them out of it, and some did stay. Some just post less, and others did eventually leave. All were appreciative that I'm still out there trying to dole out reliable information, as they really did love their hobby or career, and hate to see the BS cesspool it has become (along with so many other areas of our society). I truly miss some of those folks, especially our chatroom days (late 90s, early 00s).

I wish you speedy recovery, if not already there. :)

A lot of those instant expert/google diploma folks don't have the good gear to compare it to, All what they have is a cheap VCR from the thrift store or the side curb and dongle they bought from Amazon for $5, They have no sense of how a proper capture would look like and they participate in threads by saying this is good enough for me, Well this is not about you, it's about the poster seeking recommendation.

In the following video segment I linked look at how stable the frame is when using proper equipment, line and frame TBC, proper capturing, In a blind test environment most people would think it's from LaserDisc. It is a S-VHS tape however but without the proper gear the graphics in that video would have never looked that stable, except for some tape dropouts.

I browsed these forums for many years before I made an account.

There are a lot of familiar faces I don't see anymore. Yes I know what you're talking about!

Thank you by the way. I'm already hooked on pain meds. :rolleyes:

You see. This is how a proper setup can look! Why fix something that isn't broken?? :smack:

This sounds like a great idea. Is it feasible? I'd like to pay someone to build a proof of concept device for VHS and another for laserdisc. Do off the shelf components exist or are we looking at contracting a Chinese manufacturer to build something? Can we dig into the internals of line/frame/field TBCs, perhaps with input of a retired JVC or Panasonic engineer? What level of VC funding would we need to put something in front of the BBC to digitise the rest of their archive material at as close to perfect quality as possible with minimal training for those performing the task? I'm personally interested in some very poor-quality VHS tapes made for Bolton Wanderers season highlights in the 1980s and 90s, which I've managed with an S-VHS deck, a decent TBC and an ATI capture card, but the results are still quite bad. I've had success post-processing the videos with various software, but it's painful.

We've discussed this before numerous times across several threads, While everything can be made, the problem is finding someone to risk a big chunk of money in case the project comes to a dead stop or completes but no buyers.
SingMai is making similar device using a barebone VCR mechanism bypassing most of its electronics, but it has been a while since they made the announcement and we haven't heard anything yet.
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/...re-alternative)

More about the project:
https://www.singmai.com/dvcp.htm

Interesting - I'll reach out to him.

I am the original creator of this thread. I have updated information from an argument I've been having with a VHS Decode enthusiast.

Smurf originally replied...

This fellow claims VHS Decode replaces the need for frame TBC. I tried explaining to him (unless I am wrong) that VHS Decode is used mainly for line corrections. Or perhaps this has changed recently?

He replied... I tried explaining to him that once a source is captured in the digital realm in software, any mistakes or flaws are baked in and cannot be corrected once they leave analog. His response...

So now I am confused... so VHS Decode compensates for dropped frames and does it well?

Harrypm (Harry Munday) is one of the non-dev cheerleaders (self-described "documentarian", a video newbie in his early 20s) that thinks VHS farts will smell likes roses when sniffed by vhs-decode. The fact that Harrypm doesn't understand the difference between line TBC, and frame TBC, is revealing. I've had run-ins with him before.

For consumer analog formats, timing correction is needed, period.

You would be shocked at how many anti-TBC people don't even know what the letters "TBC" stand for. Then again, sadly, maybe not surprised at all.

The half-baked idea often peddled is that a "yet to be created" software TBC (FYI, likely not possible) will be integrated into the post-RF file processing. Good luck with that. I've personally funded $K of R&D into software TBC, and it cannot happen without a dedicated appliance of some sort, and thus rivaling the cost of traditional TBCs. It's tricky, even with the "fuller" signal (beyond standard 720x486 palette).

Our own hodgey (aka oln at VH) is a far more grounded vhs-decode dev, and he never states the BS that some of the others do. That's because he has some decent knowledge of video (and I remember when it was far thinner, so kudos to him learning, I'm proud at how far some of our members have come over the years -- some even rival my own knowledge now, on certain subjects!)

RF data is raw ugly data, warts and all. It still involves capture cards, and thus you get all the negative affects of any other capture card (ie, baked in errors happen). There's no magic to vhs-decode, it's just different. It allows more native sharpness (keyword: native), but it has some pretty bad performance on issues that VCRs from the 90s do not (or even 80s).

One step forward, one step back.

It's an interesting project, perhaps some niche uses. Not ready for primetime, not now, maybe never.

The only way vhs-decode will succeed is to ditch the cheapskate mindset, integrate some standard quality hardware, and divest themselves of the hopium addicts like Harrypm.

FYI, I'm far from the only critic of this project, nor the only one pushing back against the BS. I've been amused several times now, where Harrypm has accused other commenters of being me. Nope!

VHS decode is a two step process and yes it addresses line, frame, DOC, DNR and more in the second process, BUT: Capturing RF which is the 1st process, is not finalized as they claim it to be, I've read throughout their main forum and they did have problems with hardware and software, So to say capture the RF and throw away the tapes is misleading.

As to the second process which is the decode of the RF, that is for sure not finalized yet and I would not approach it with sticks, too messy and complicated and results are not consistent. It does seem like the entire project has been stalled though, not sure why but haven't seen any new posts in the VH forum.

So ... none of it is final.

Part 1 is the RF capture. Zero consistency.
Part 2 is the RF processing. Zero consistency, messy even.

vhs-decode has been stalled for most of the past decade now. It gets spurts of progress, and "progress" (not really), and then goes dormant for more months/years. That's what you get with open source niche projects. I've been there too many times over the years, both with video and non-video. We've had the conversation before: until it has ROI, it probably won't go anywhere for anybody. Even BBC no longer invests much into "dead media", not even Doctor Who now -- noting that only PAL was ever supported anyway for their projects.

It's catch-22. This needed to exist 20 years ago, but the processing for it did not yet exist (and arguably still does not).

Meanwhile, most of the rest of us (you, me, others) are actually capturing tapes, with standard VCR > TBC > card workflows, before our tapes all implode. (What was scaremongering in the 2000s is now factual in the 2020s, we're losing tapes now, measurably so.) Waiting for vhs-decode to be finalized is not an option.

When are you gonna come down the the real world?

You know I'll fly you in from Kentucky any day you want and show you the decode projects in full scope with a wide range of VCRs hell I'll tap your best VCR for free and give you a 40msps 10-bit CX White card for vlaue of 23USD just for comming, and you know what I'll throw in some archival M-Discs and I know your health is not the best but wish you all the best, if you want to take me up on my offer my email is on the wiki alongside the 79 pages of It I maintain grounding us all to this harsh reality.

- I appreciate the best wishes on my health, thank you. :)
- I'm not in Kentucky, never was. I think you confuse me with somebody else.
- Much like vhs-decode probably should have existed 20 years ago, I probably would have taken you up on your offer 15 years ago. But it's simply not an option now. In fact, I'd have loaded up the car with gear and tapes for serious comparisons. [Nope, you're in UK, not so easy to transport it.]

Unfortunately for you, I do live in the real world, one where vhs-decode simply is not viable, for the multiple reasons already documented on multiple sites (including this one). Understand I say this with disappointment, not any sort of malice. It is what it is.

I can see you're proud of your input to the project, but maybe a bit too much at times, as you do tend to overstate its abilities, and understate the abilities of standard workflows (TBCs, etc).

In our previous encounters, you were aggressive and unfriendly. Here, you softened your tone, so I shall as well. :tiphat:

I have no doubt that you have a quite nice setup, we are not denying that. All what we are saying is that not everyone who wants to capture video tapes has to go through the learning curve, acquiring the gear and tinkering with the parameters, Like LS said if this was available 20 years ago then I would have jumped, The capturing business was booming back then, not much today. I personally get a pretty good results for the type of tapes I do, If I was an archivist for a media company I would probably consider it by paying someone like you, but for just a hobby? not worth my time really.

I need to interject here ... :no2:

That's not likely whatsoever. I had such a role (comparable), and still frequently deal with organizations and those in that role. This is a niche open-source project (and aggregated by random people lacking in professional resume/CV). In order to be adopted, it must have time/money ROI, and it must be an easily repeatable process. The content cannot leave premise.

At very best, but also unlikely, is an outside person gets an on-site temp/contract job. But it can also involved NDA, and other legal surrender.

Existing hardware has the ROI and repeatability, vhs-decode does not.

When I discuss vhs-decode, I'm actually not thinking of hobbyists much, because those folks are far less likely to want to hassle with any of it. It's hard enough to step them through usage of standard workflows, then on to Avisynth where the real work begins. DIY non-hobby is even less willing, fully needing turnkey solutions, and costs are often not as concerning as some seem to think -- you pay in time, or money (or both!), no way to escape, pick your poison.

vhs-decode has carved out a tiny weird niche of people who are adamant about not spending any money, instead preferring to waste a mountain of time. Most seemingly don't even care about the tiny potential sharpness gains, what I consider the main benefit. For this reason, I somewhat view the project as an oddity, not much different than I do some wacky fringe politicians. A WTF, a head scratcher.

FM capture still has potential, the vhs-decode project itself probably does not until forked.

I have been paid to do transfers, and modifyed sevreal CX Cards for production use it works...

FM RF capture would not be for a thing for archival if it was not for vhs-decode, if make it sound like its some arcane obscure thing that does not work its really gas lighting.

In reality the vhs-decode and by extention the ld-decode and tools suit has advanced together by the month not by the year, anyone can verify that by logs and pull older commits and test to see the milestones.

The ROI is saving terbytes of space for clients archives and having master sorce files and less LTO tapes, the ROI for personal use is simmler small inital cost, small long term storage cost of optical discs which is the only practical cold medium.

Heres the kicker Its on Windows (self contained binarys), MacOS, and works on most distrobutions of Linux.

Heres the thing that made me use it, find me a single VBI data reader for under 40USD that can save data to file properly I mean each value from VITC, Closed Captions, XDS data, Teletext etc you really can't.

If it did not work why would I even bother writing a wiki?, and making graphics detailing the workflows with pictures!

Now we are at the point of TB's of FM RF data are out in the wild and its only getting bigger as the decode team migrates bulk archives to public domain for demo use.

- That's great, you made some extra bucks.
- You used Github to upload some files, made a Wiki on how to use, sure. Many other do that too, easy and free, though limiting.
- Mac and Linux too, okay, great. All software should be, and many are.
- CC/etc data was saved, alright. But in an era of AI transcript writing, new subs will probably be more accurate than old CC.
- Some amateur hobbyists uploaded copies of random unsorted old home recordings, fine, whatever. Very niche hobby there.

ROI isn't about space here, as destroying masters should not be an option -- and it won't be for almost all.

Still far too much emphasis on costs. That's really a driving factor of the project, cutting costs when it's not the most important factor. Sort of like a nurse putting stitches in a nasty cut on you finger, meanwhile ignoring the fact that your arm is broken. Attention in the wrong spot.

Again, the issue here is you're overly eager, overstating abilities, the need, the TAM / user base, etc. It's not "the future", at least not anytime soon, if ever. You're young, only 21 years old. You've not yet reached the age where you realize stuff really doesn't change all that much over the decades of our lifetime. Stuff changes, but not at some fast pace, it's not overnight changes. And most things never end up the way we think earlier in the process.

Right now, we have a proven method that has worked for two decades. Then we have a new method that is not yet reliably working now. That's where we are, when you remove the noise.

I'm a realist, not an optimist/cheerleader. I need to know what exists now, reliably. Not what could at an unknown date, or what sorta does/doesn't now "but it'll get better at the next update" (because we all know where that goes).

In the offline world, you and I would probably get along great. But you are a bit wound.

You just lost any hope of getting any respect from the community.

You just brushed off and trivialised a decade of work, what's sad more so is you go and update your message with a petty jab, I gained my experience like I gained my respect of my fellow FM RF archivists, hard costs, hard effort I put the work in and actually learned from the ground up and made every step of it public information for others to consume and advance the work.

What's sicking about you is not only do you, truly not understand what goes into building a project, but keeping it in order together with multiple nationality's, personality's and backgrounds hell even time zones, zero respect for the work you have done nothing but try and cast falsehoods on it angering everyone who has contributed to its development as a 12 year old could deploy it.

Insulting the project is like pissing on a bible anyone can do it, but if you don't read it you get the point but in doing so you also anger everyone who subscribes to it.

You have been nothing but disrespectful to the community and make up information that suits you on the fly, I know incompetence acting with an un-informed opinion and passing it onto others without first fact checking or self improving or amending your mistakes with humility this display is just pure arrogance the mentality that breeds incompetence in others instead of full-scope self education.

The official docs and information out there now and it cuts off any leg you want to stand on, you will never be welcomed by the community period, between your acts of fraud and misinformation campaign, I've had enough of it really, keeping digging a hole to burry yourself alongside your petty "TBC Market" the future wants nothing to do with you as you have only helped inflation, and propagate miss information when real people in the real world have fact checked and rightfully stomped out your invalid opinion's on too many occasions to count.

It was cathartic to get all that out, I'll archive this page and note it in the wiki for future reference, oh got to hate those pesky public archives.