Capturing analog Video8 tapes comparison?
 

Hello,

I have been dealing with capturing analog 8mm tapes and I'm trying to figure out which capture chain (and player) yields the best results.

Here are 2 clips which all show the same sequence.
One has been captured by a professional transfer service right into DV-AVI (player, setup, capture chain is unknown, however, MediaInfo lists a DVCPRO codec for the respective DV-AVI files).

The other file shows my own attempt of capturing. I'm using a Sony EV-S9000E (PAL) Video/Hi8 Deck, connected via S-Video to a Panasonic EH 575 which is then connected via HDMI to a Blackmagic Intensity 4K Pro Capture Card capturing in 4:2:2 HuffYuf lossless AVI --> I'm following this guide here in terms of capture setup because it was said to yield the best possible results for analog capture.

Now here is the comparison: one by a professional transfer service done into DV-AVI with unknown capture gear and setup and the other one done by myself with the above-mentioned gear and capture chain. What differences do you see? Which would you think of as "better"? (I used an external hoster since the forum has a limit of only 99MB, which, using the original unaltered clips without re-encoding, is too little even for the DV-files that are by technical standard more compressed than the HuffYuf ones):

Sequence 1 (Transfer Service): https://we.tl/t-jPxxdJVzrR
Sequence 1 (own capture): https://we.tl/t-PaMCxJLohr

Sequence 2 (Transfer Service): https://we.tl/t-C0F6s8PaWl
Sequence 2 (own capture): https://we.tl/t-aiVLwAsUEk

I can see quite some differences between the two different formats and capture chains. What do you see?

Sorry but all is wrong... Why to HDMI? Why to HD and not SD?

Nothing is captured in HD. HDMI doesn't necessarily mean HD. Read the guide that I've linked above. If you had looked at the files I've attached, you'd have seen that none of them are in HD either.

The DV files look to be de-interlaced, chroma suffered the most, For better comparison you should have de-interlaced your files. I see a lot of line jitter, Is the deck's line TBC on?

HDMI output from certain legacy DVD recorders is okay.

The DV files aren't de-interlaced. Because DV is - per definition - interlaced. What you are probably referring to is that the Huffyuv-files show excessive combing and interlacing structures. That's because the interlace flag hasn't been set properly with these files due to the capture method. If you tag them as interlaced (e.g. in your editing software (I told Adobe Premiere that these files are interlaced BFF), then they are shown correctly).

If I play them using VLC Media Player they look horribly jaggy because they don't have a proper interlace flag implemented for some reason. Same thing about aspect ratio. The Huffyuv-Files seem to have an aspect ratio flag saying 5:4 wheras the DV-files correctly have an aspect ratio flag of 4:3.

Something about these flags must have gone wrong during capture - but you can easily tell your editing software how to "interpret the files".

Also, de-interlacing analog material is never a good idea. Analog material is always interlaced - so it's best to keep it as it is. Modern TVs or players can easily handle it by deinterlacing themselves. No need to mess up the material by forcing deinterlacing.

Especially since it is technically still a 576i output. I set the DVD recorder to output a PAL 576i signal. So either way, it's got nothing to do with HD anyway.

QTGMC interlacing is fine, I don't trust hardware de-interlacing even the $3,000 LG OLED I have, it does a horrible job at interlaced videos, not bad for 1080i, but 480i de-interlacing is just an after though for almost every device made in the last 10 years or so. Watch interlaced only if you have an old school CRT TV if you can live with the flicker.

Hmm. Something odd seems to be going on with both, or it could be my playback hardware just using VLC. It's as though every other line is a slightly different color, like sky is blue with slightly more purple line in a repeating pattern. In times of no motion, you shouldn't really be able to see any sort of every other line patterning and even so, it should only be in the areas where there are motion and not static colors like the sky. See attached screenshot of this still relatively still part and check out the sky. This is of your capture, but I also see it in the professional capture as well. Could be the way the tape was recorded maybe where the odd fields somehow got recorded at different color levels?

Yes. If you're referring to those fine horizontal / parallel lines in monochrome areas such as the sky: I got them in all of my dozen tapes. It seems as if that was a technical fault with my video8 camcorder as it got recorded on every tape using that specific camcorder.

I understand that there's an Avisynth script to make them go away, though.

I think he is talking about the entire frame tone, One field is greenish, the other field is blueish, I noticed that on the lossless sample only, The DV file has identical fields' tone.

Slightly better detail on your captures, maybe 5-10% improvement.
Color is off with both workflows, work is needed if that's something you're doing for these.

Depends on the situation.

- If the footage is super sentimental, rare, critically important, and must be kept as highest possible quality, then your new captures plus editing will be better.
- If the footage is "I'm using this sweet camcorder, I'm zooming in and out," then I'd take the previous captures and be done, and that would be better.

It depends how you factor in all your time spent to recapture, for it to be a tiny bit more detailed (which no one will notice given the overall quality), then all your time spent doing additional work on the new captures. Everyone has different valuations for this.

Keep in mind it currently takes a pretty high-end Nvidia desktop GPU to have QTGMC running close to realtime FPS while deinterlacing this type of SD video.

Regardless of what AI upscaling and other goodies the AppleTV and Nvidia Shield currently have in their toolbox, they're not matching manual SD preparation quite yet.

So, yes, any device "can easily handle" deinterlacing on its own. But there's still a visible quality difference in most cases. No one is saying deinterlace the archival masters. Just the files for streaming, sharing, etc.

Where exactly do you see this improvement?

Here is a frame-by-frame comparison between the DV capture and my own DIY-HuffYUV-capture:

https://imgsli.com/MjQ0ODU5

While I cannot tell differences with regard to better details, that is, the 5-10% improvement that you are seeing, what I see is that the DV seems to have a little lesser brightness or gain which results in more fine structures that are preserved (e.g. cloud outlines in the sky). My own capture seems to be a tad over-exposed causing fine structures and details to be washed away in the sky (clouds).

In this scene here it all becomes even more apparent:

https://imgsli.com/MjQ0ODY2

DV brightness gain is more accurate than the lossless capture, This is one of the reasons why BM cards are not recommended for analog tape sources, You can tone down the gain in the crossbar, Also the sharpness created ringing and dark edges. DV suffers from chroma as I mentioned above and it is pumped up a little bit.

Unfortunately, I can't control anything via proc amp. This is due to the way I capture using a Panasonic DVD Recorder as external TBC that gives out a HDMI signal right into the BM Intensity Pro. Since I'm not using the analog inputs of the card, I don't have any proc amp tools but have to take the digital signal that's coming out of the Panasonic Recorder. If anything, I would have to insert an external proc amp device between the Hi8 deck and the Panasonic if I wanted to tweak the signal.

Doesn't the Sony EV-S9000E already have a TBC built in? Why did you opt to use a pass through TBC as well?

Edit: Found it in the Manual. Page 48. https://archive.org/details/manual_EVS9000E_OM_SONY_EN

I actually wouldn't be too surprised if the entire capture chain for the "pro" service was just a Digital8 camera outputting DV.

I've meant to do similar tests with the NTSC equivalent EV-S7000 to see if it does better than D8 camcorders, but haven't gotten around to it.

This is my conundrum.

I already have a Hi8 Camcorder (Sony CCD-TR748E). It has built-in Line TBC and DNR (independent of eachother).

I've seen one for sale but is there any point getting one of those dedicated decks.

No, don't even think about getting a home Hi8 deck. They are usually heavily used, they have a common failure of a cam gear, most features it has not needed for normal playback, the price will be well over $500 for even an unknown condition machine.

You are spot on with the price. That's good to know. I think I'll stick with Sony camcorder.
Speaking of which, are there any particular models that are recommended for Hi8 capture?

Also V8 and D8.

The VCR guide is much more detailed then Camcorder guide.

Well there is this buyers guide

I myself use a Sony CCD-TRV87, got it refurbished by I & N Electronics.

Also have a CCD-TRV66 for recording. Mainly for its ability to record footage from an A/V source onto tape, like doing that to give art and videos an accurate "VHS" look.

Yeah that's the guide I sae. There is great talk of expanding it into a table but I guess it never happened.

I was hoping to see how mine compared (CCD-TR748E).

What I did spot was this: https://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/vid...html#post80437

I wonder if the decks operate differently?

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 :2cents:
BW

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.

@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

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!?

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.

Most probable is better video, not worse.

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.

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?

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.

Such a tease!

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?

@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

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.

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.

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

Good sleuthing, those are it. :congrats:

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. :hmm:

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".

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.

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. :depressed:)

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

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.