Decoding RF signals vs. traditionally sound workflows?
As a concept, I think that VHS Decode is a very exciting project that could one day reduce the need for increasingly rare equipment. And yet, I’m not the first to point out that some of the claims surrounding this process have been hyperbolic, to say the least. That being said, learning more about RF workflows by way of VHS Decode has left me with some hanging questions.
There seems to be this argument that decoding an RF Signal is fundamentally better than traditional preservation workflows. That relying on a player to decode an image is automatically a lossy process. I can definitely understand this being the case for cheap consumer VCRs, or players that can overcorrect an image, but this is admittedly where my knowledge gap begins. I’ve seen many posts, on this forum included, that suggest working from an RF signal could yield a sharper image than traditional flows. But why exactly is this the case? Is this judged on a player by player basis, or is this a uniform truth? It’s been difficult tracking down info as so many posts I’ve seen compare VHS Decode to extremely rudimentary setups for their use cases. Or they are penned by those new to analog to digital workflows haphazardly applying concepts. I will admit that results I’ve seen from VHS Decode can be quite amazing, and in pointing out an overly enthusiastic fanbase is not my attempt to downplay the project. But having a previous career preserving content for public broadcast stations I’ve encountered the same (or better) results from a traditionally sound workflow. Are these not two means to the same end? Or is it true that a good workflow is always “lossy” and decoding an RF signal yields a fundamentally better result? And lastly, if one process has the potential to outweigh the other, are we just chasing pedantic improvements or something actually meaningful? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But getting that sharpness will come with tradeoffs, meaning you'll lose quality in other areas, at least as the project exists now. Consider something as "simple" as DOC (dropout compensation), which is generally handled well in VCRs, but not at all well by vhs-decode. This is simply the nature of working with analog video. It's often about trade-offs, and perfection is a fool's errand. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm a pragmatist, I'm The Price Is Right. I want the best quality possible, but without going over(board). Some of the stuff even discussed at this site makes me shake my head at times, such as breaking out a histogram for every single crappy homemade camcorder tape. You've lost sight of the actual project. You enjoy playing with toys, not doing work. That's largely the realm of vhs-decode, and probably always will be. It's hard enough convincing a person tat he/she needs quality gear to not make their conversions look dreadful (worse than the VHS tapes were). It's another to tell them they have to tear apart a VCR, learn scripting, and buy dozens more hard drives to store unviewable data. I'm sure some small % people are getting some % of results, but that's really it. I've seen very few videos that were truly interesting, and much of it was likely due to other variables. To be a bit crass and blunt here... Certain folks online get all pissy when I don't bless their method as bestest ever, but they also need to grow the hell up. It's a tool/method to convert a video, it's not their real-life child. It doesn't need their mama bear protection, attacking any who do not agree it's the most beautiful perfect thing ever. vhs-decode's farts smell like ass too. All of the methods fart, each can be quite stinky. Some more than others. Does that answer it for you? :D |
Quote:
I had first come across RF decode within amateur archivist circles on Twitter (which is also a source of great disinformation). In my previous career as an archivist I did some outreach and education on AV preservation workflows so am always excited when people get interested in the process. But when I start to hear blatant misinformation in regards to preserving a rare or one of a kind tape, I can’t help but be frustrated. Practicality is another thing, as you said. I heard the RF decoding process adds hours of time. If that’s true I’d hesitate to recommend this approach to any institution. They’re already racing against time to begin with. Thank you so much for your input! This is my first post after being a longtime visitor so I highly appreciate the detailed response. Again I wanted this post to clear up some of my own misconceptions and I guess to highlight some frustrations. I’m a big user of open source solutions so any new addition is cool to me. It’s the info surrounding those tools that can lead to issues. |
I think too many members misled by non fair comparisons, where you take a composite capture using easycap and compare it to an RF pickup that bypasses composite, easycap and lossy mp4.
VHS is noisy, that's just the nature of the beast, but if we put the noise aside and compare a proper capture of say a clean S-VHS feed like this one, tell me what does VHS-decode brings beyond this? My point is VHSdecode is as close as possible to the RF recorded on tape, no doubt about that, but it can be achieved as well using proper equipment and bypassing a time consuming step of decoding that hasn't been finalized yet and takes a lot of time and memory storage for the RF files. Keep in mind the video in the link is not the raw capture, let that sink in. |
Site design, images and content © 2002-2024 The Digital FAQ, www.digitalFAQ.com
Forum Software by vBulletin · Copyright © 2024 Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.