Capturing analog Video8 tapes comparison?

[BW37]

Any analog video in, analog video out device, (SVHS VCR, Hi8/D8 camcorder or deck) with an internal TBC and/or DNR (DIGITAL Noise Reduction) will route the signal through an A to D and then D to A path to utilize the ALWAYS Digital TBC and DNR functions. So the Hi8 decks will still do digital processing if they include the desired TBC. The only way to avoid this is to use an older non-TBC camcorder or similar. These are usually plagued with bad capacitors and are not recommended for that reason and because for most people, the benefit of the TBC outweighs the possible negatives of the AD/DA conversions.

The recommended D8 and Hi8 device list is not complete. There are missing units for both NTSC and for PAL, more so for PAL than NTSC I think. Just because your CCD-TR748E is not listed doesn’t mean it won’t do the job. If it has a TBC function and it’s working properly, I would say that it will produce video results comparable to all the listed devices. What it’s missing is the built in LCD screen which can be helpful in the capture process for monitoring the video as it’s playing but also for using the controls via the menus. In fact I’m not sure any of the TBC equipped but non LCD screen equipped models (TR vs TRV) are listed, either NTSC or PAL.

The 748E is also mono audio out vs stereo out on many other models. All Sony camcorder models ending in 8 are mono as well as a few others. This is not a huge deal because the “stereo” audio of most camcorder recordings is usually marginal anyway due to the limitations of the built-in stereo mics on camcorders. Still, most would prefer a stereo out playback unit if possible…

My
BW

[latreche34]

No, not true, most VCRs and camcorders apply TBC/DNR on the tape signal only, with the exception of some D8 and DV camcorders that can be used as digital passthrough when converting to DV codec via the firewire output, Some prosumer and pro camcorders that have separate analog inputs and outputs can be used in analog passthrough but remains to be seen if they apply the TBC/DNR in the analog passthrough mode.

[BW37]

@latreche34:

I stand corrected. I see your point. I probably shouldn’t have said “Any analog video in, analog video out device” as that’s too general. I guess my point was more that anytime you are using a device specifically to process an analog signal using its TBC or TBCish functionality, the signal is being digitally processed and then converted back to analog. This would be true whether the TBC is part of the playback device or the TBC is in any so called “pass through” device.

I believe that the consensus is that on the Sony camcorders recommended for Video8 and/or Hi8 playback, that the tape playback signal is always passed through the AD/DA process even when the TBC and DNR are turned off. Can you confirm this to be your understanding as well?

Of course none of the recommended (pretty much all consumer models) camcorders can even do analog in to analog out pass through since they all have only one analog connection which can function as either input or output but not both. And some (many PAL units for tax reasons?) can only do analog out period.

It’s interesting to speculate as to what digital processing is being done by a D8 (or miniDV) device on an external analog signal when the device is being used to effectively “capture” the analog signal and transfer it as DV to a PC. How much and what kinds of time base correction and digital noise reduction is being done before the DV codec is applied? I don’t recall reading any threads where this was specifically discussed, at least for a few years. The subject comes up about Canopus devices and is generally poo-pooed, but the Sony D8 camcorders are specifically known for their internal TBCs so maybe at least some line TBC processing is done prior to DV encoding.

BW

[Bester]

Is this AD/DA processing considered a compromise or detriment to the 8mm capture process then?

I was surprised to hear those dedicated 8mm decks/players aren't more sought after. All that bulk, all that tech and cost to find out most Camcorders are preferred!?

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bester

Is this AD/DA processing considered a compromise or detriment to the 8mm capture process then?

No.

Too many users have made this assertion in recent years, and it's ridiculous. It's akin to saying "there's a tiny % chance that food may be bad, so I'm going to stop eating entirely".

Horses, not unicorns.

Quote:

AI, Gemini
The statement "Horses, not unicorns" is a reminder to think about the more common or likely explanation in a situation, rather than a rare or fantastical one. It's similar to the medical adage "when you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras," meaning to consider the most probable diagnosis first. This phrase can be applied to various contexts, encouraging practicality and avoiding unnecessary complexity.

Most probable is better video, not worse.

[latreche34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bester

I was surprised to hear those dedicated 8mm decks/players aren't more sought after. All that bulk, all that tech and cost to find out most Camcorders are preferred!?

They were designed for a purpose back then, which is video editing, and did very well especially with pristine recordings from camcorders with good imaging sensors and better low light performance, Now we just want to playback the tapes, so a decent camcorder is more than enough to do that task.

[Bester]

Decent Camcorder it is then. I already have a CCD-TR748E.

How do I get my camcorder added to that buyers guide shared on page 1 here?

What's the criteria to make the grade?

[latreche34]

Not sure what the requirements for that list are but a good camcorder for analog tape playback is a Hi8 or a D8 with analog playback capability, built in TBC/DNR and has S-Video out and stereo audio out. For D8 tapes any D8 camcorder with firewire out should do.

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by latreche34

Not sure what the requirements for that list are but a good camcorder for analog tape playback is a Hi8 or a D8 with analog playback capability, built in TBC/DNR and has S-Video out and stereo audio out. For D8 tapes any D8 camcorder with firewire out should do.

I want to add some nuance:

Some (many?) of the D8 models, that play Hi8, convert to DV before output. Be careful here.

The composite output on some models rivals the s-video output on others. Remember that composite is not inherently bad, implementations are bad (and 99% of everything is indeed quite bad). There is a specific final 2005 Hi8 model that has outstanding output, as well as a better-than-average tracking ability, and I often use it. I have both the PAL and NTSC versions. I forget model off-hand, not where I can get to it now.

The sources are almost always camcorder-shot, often using mono mics. Even the "stereo" mics are sole-sited, making it amusing to consider it true stereo. So mono/stereo should not be a major consideration, if at all. The audio processing matters more. Both mono and stereo cameras can be noisy/muffled/distorted/etc, or not.

[Bester]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordsmurf

There is a specific final 2005 Hi8 model that has outstanding output, as well as a better-than-average tracking ability, and I often use it. I have both the PAL and NTSC versions. I forget model off-hand, not where I can get to it now.

Such a tease!

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordsmurf

Even the "stereo" mics are sole-sited, making it amusing to consider it true stereo.

Yeah I've pondered this myself. So cheap.

I think mine is capable out Stereo Output but can only Record Mono.

I'd need a tape recorded in "Stereo" to tell but, if the mics are all sole-sited seems a bit pointless.

What tests can I do to make it on the list with my CCD-748E PAL?

[BW37]

@Bester
As I described above, I believe your CCD-TR748E should perform well if it is all in working order. Give it a try and report back with your impressions. If it does perform well, you can add a post to the recommended list thread recommending it to others. That’s about the best you can do. Due to forum limitations/rules, editing of old posts is very minimal, so the initial post in that thread has seldom if ever been updated to add all of the models recommended in subsequent posts. The same is true for the thread regarding recommended VHS playback units.

BW

[latreche34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordsmurf

Some (many?) of the D8 models, that play Hi8, convert to DV before output. Be careful here.

You probably meant digital processing, DV is encoded at the last step next to the firewire port, unless using the firewire output, the analog output has nothing to do with DV.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordsmurf

So mono/stereo should not be a major consideration, if at all. The audio processing matters more. Both mono and stereo cameras can be noisy/muffled/distorted/etc, or not.

It is if the tape has already been recorded in HiFi stereo.

[dpalomaki]

Some Video8/Hi8 VCRs and camcorders may suffer from the SMD capacitor problem. So test before you buy if you can.

The higher end Video8/Hi8 VCRs have better tape handling than camcorders. But they were not widely sold and command a premium price. Arguably worth it for commercial use (if in good condition) but probably note worth the added expense for home/hobby use.

I've used a Sony EV-S7000 for linear editing of Hi8 and Video8 tapes. Worked nicely for near frame accurate editing, but over the years developed evidence of SMD capacitor disease. I am contemplating recapping the suspect board but lack the time to do it. Features like time code write and PCM audio inserting (giving 4 tracks of audio) were nice, but most other Video8/Hi8 gear could not read it.

The 'Walkman' form factor Video8/Hi8/D8 are nice, but they have camcorder tape handling properties and command a premium price for little benefit over a decent camcorder.

[captainvic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lordsmurf

There is a specific final 2005 Hi8 model that has outstanding output, as well as a better-than-average tracking ability, and I often use it. I have both the PAL and NTSC versions. I forget model off-hand, not where I can get to it now.

lordsmurf, would you please post this model number when you have a moment? Many thanks!

[Aya_Rei]

Quote:

Originally Posted by captainvic

lordsmurf, would you please post this model number when you have a moment? Many thanks!

Looking it up, the final analog Hi8 camcorder model seems to be the Sony CCD-TRV238. The last Digital 8 camcorder model is the Sony DCR-TRV285.

There is also the CCD-TRV138, another 2005 released model

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aya_Rei

Looking it up, the final analog Hi8 camcorder model seems to be the Sony CCD-TRV238. The last Digital 8 camcorder model is the Sony DCR-TRV285.
There is also the CCD-TRV138, another 2005 released model

Good sleuthing, those are it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by latreche34

You probably meant digital processing, DV is encoded at the last step next to the firewire port, unless using the firewire output, the analog output has nothing to do with DV.
It is if the tape has already been recorded in HiFi stereo.

Hmmm...

The analog I>O of many D8 camcorders is definitely DV quality. Not with blocks, but with color loss/desaturation (~4:2:2 to 4:1:1). The loss is obvious, stark at times. It seems the processing preps it for 4:1:1 output, even if analog outputting. So while maybe not "converted to DV", it is downconverted colorspace.

That merits study.

I was always analyzing output colors on the analog out, I never thought about lack of macroblocks until now. You're right, not DV, but definitely not true to the analog Video8/Hi8 source tapes. The net effect is "DV quality".

[vwestlife]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aya_Rei

There is also the CCD-TRV138, another 2005 released model

The TRV138 and TRV338 were both released in 2005, but the TRV338 was dropped after one year while production of the TRV138 continued until 2007.

Same thing with the DCR-TRV280 (or its PAL equivalent, the TRV285E) -- it was the last Digital8 model, carried over until 2007.

Unfortunately these models were dumbed-down by the removal of the S-Video jack.

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vwestlife

Unfortunately these models were dumbed-down by the removal of the S-Video jack.

I wouldn't say that.

Composite isn't an inherently bad connection type. The problem with composite is that devices implement it badly. Those devices often shoehorn video data into the single carrier signal, then barf it out. But it doesn't have to be that way, and sometimes is not.

Certain devices actually do have quite decent composite quality, and the 138 is one of them. Certain Cypress TBCs are others (but definitely not all Cypress).

I was not aware that the 138 had continued production into 2007 (or I forgot), as those longer product runs can mean production changes. So, bah.

- My 138 is gorgeous.
- Have you used a 138 that is miserable?

If so that would suggest possible production changes, and that would really suck. (People sometimes get all irate that I talk about gear having versions, as if it's my doing. Or because they can't comprehend it. This is an extremely common issue in tech. It's been happening for decades, since last century. And yet, some are unaware. It gets really hard to give advice for buy __ when the item may really be more like item(s) sharing a name/number. I hope that's not the case here. )

[aramkolt]

I avoid all the ones that end in "8" - Typically means mono audio output only.

[dpalomaki]

As I recall, at one time suppliers like Sony used a slightly different model number (typically the last digit or letter) to differentiate between big box house and other retail item supply chains, or to differentiate among the various accessories in the packages. It also served to obfuscate price comparisons and price matching.

BM cards (including the Intensity series) demand a good, stable, within spec video signal. The Intensity Pro 4K was especially bad with component analog input. HDMI capture was OK. But many reported issues with the USB versions.

DV was a good alternative SD video in the old days of slower computers and expensive and slow storage. It was easy to edit on the old PCs, but was a poor choice for noisy videos sources due to compression artifacts and compression routine implementations, and viewing suffers in this day of large screen high resolution viewing devices.

My observations with all this legacy gear from 15+ years back is that individual unit aging/wear may result is significant variations in performance among similar units and give widely varying results. If you have several options for signal path, use the one that givers you the best results. And it may vary from tape to tape.

While stereo in a typical consumer camcorder often is poor, there were (and still are) models with single point stereo mics that perform reasonably well. It requires good acoustic path design.