Proc amp recomendation?
 

Hello guys

I am looking for Procamp that I can put it before the A/D so I can adjust YUV signal and IRE ,
any recommendation for good device

PAL or NTSC?

I need both .
is there any device work with two color system . if not I need separately

Many TBCs have proc amps built-in, though many TBCs will not handle both NTSC and PAL. What will your full capture chain be? If you are going straight from your video source to your capture card, you will probably get similar results with the settings within your capture card's proc-amp settings. Some TBCs are kind of odd in that they can clip levels anyway if incoming signals are too hot (even if the TBC has proc amp features), but that's fairly uncommon. Main one I know that's talked about doing that is the DPS475/575 if IRE is over 110 as it enters the device, but I haven't tested that myself yet.

Other question is whether you are using s-video or composite. There are far fewer non-TBC proc amps that have S-Video in/out.

Vidicraft makes some ok Proc Amps from what I've read, but they are composite-only as far as I know, and probably support only NTSC or PAL (not both).

Someone else can correct me, but the main thing you usually want a proc amp for during capture is to adjust the luma (bright/dark) specifically. Color can be adjusted in post as I don't think I've seen chroma actually ever really "clip" per se to the point where there'd be data loss from that at the time of capture. Exception would be if you don't want to do any post processing color correction - Example: burning directly to DVD for distribution.

Never heard of anyone doing this, but If the goal is only to adjust the luma (Y) in an S-Video (YC) signal - I don't know why you couldn't just route the luma wire as thought it was composite through a composite-only proc amp and then only adjust brights/darks. Chroma wire would just skip the proc amp altogether and go on to your capture card or TBC unchanged.

thanks for ur reply,
I need procamp actually to adjust IRE, after I finish from digitizations there is a report generated with video. and most of it give error in Sat and Hue and it must be adjusted to meet expectation.
my work flow will be like this :
VCR-------TBC Procamp-----capture card ( pcie )
so i need to adjust analog signal before converted to digital.
and as I know Procamp can adjust Luma ( brightness ) chroma ( sat and hue )

my source is composite

and the other issue , I have drop frame while capturing, this drop frame will effect on video. So when I used TBC this issue solved. So that why I need TBC with Procamp. and I really need for PAL and good one so the signal being processed would not loss any quality.

I am wondering about the difference between editing tint(hue) in hardware vs. software. I have been editing my tint in hardware first by looking at skin tones until I get the green out and at the same time looking at reds so they look right. I try to find a balance there. I took the saturation down a little to reduce color bleeding.

My sharpness slider is over my R. I don’t think I am going to software sharpen at all. I don’t like the look of it. Plus after I sharpen in hardware I get no increase in sharpness by using software. It just adds a bunch of noise. Software sharpening has more negatives.

Chroma can clip. It can be too saturated on your vectroscope and cause clipping but my videos I could tell were a little over saturated and they weren’t even close to clipping. Clipping in chroma is probably a waste of time to worry about.

You can’t clip with tint because tint just rotates the color tint/hue. You can see all this on the histogram(levels) function in Avisynth.

I have the Elite Video BVP-4 (non-plus) which I bought non-working from eBay and replaced the fuse and bought a power supply with the correct polarity to get it working again. But I don't use it. Instead, I make a "flat" capture with contrast turned down and brightness increased to avoid crushing any shadows, then I adjust luma my liking in Virtualdub/Avisynth after capture.

For hue and saturation, I use the vectorscope in Virtualdub to check, and i adjust them in Avisynth.

My reds often appear to clip in the histogram, but on closer inspection, it usually seems to be a false positive.

I think a proc amp would be useful when recording directly to DVD but that's not my workflow.

Different members are going to have different experiences with proc amps because we have different proc amps. I’ve heard that the BVP-4s are really strong and they can mess with the signal. That makes sense since they are a separate device. A lot of people don’t use them unless they really need to. The AVT-8710s have a weak pro amp. The TBC 3000s have a stronger full proc amp. The proc amp on those matured from 1st to 4th generation then there is mine that is a 5th genaration and it’s unknown. Even LS hasn’t tested one. Datavideo stuff in general has its own issues right now though.

Your really important stuff is a Good recommended refurbished VCR and a TBC anyways. That’s usually what most people focus on first.

This can get complicated.

Most do not do both PAL and NTSC, no. Either some items that can "also do" the other system are terrible at it (ie, certain TBC-3000 versions hate PAL). But some items can do both, if other items in the workflow allow for it.

By that, I mean both line and frame TBC must be in place. You cannot get a low-end multisystem VHS VCR that "does both" as you mentioned to me elsewhere. You cannot mix quality gear with crap, it never works. Either use all quality gear, or just give up and make terrible conversions that nobody wants to watch.

Sometimes I just have to be blunt. :rats:

No. That is post-digitize correction, and that can be done in VirtualDub, Premiere, Da Vinci, whatever.

No PAL, only NTSC, and one of the rarer III models have s-video. But Vidicraft is still inferior to the later SignVideo and Studio1, which is all from the same company (changed names 3 times since 80s, same ownership).

Nope, not always. Sometimes stacking proc amps is even needed, especially if you have both YUV and RGB types (as I do, and have used for complex restorations).

Yes and no. At overexposure values, the luma bleeds to chroma post-digitize, so it has to be corrected in the analog domain pre-digitize/capture.

Advanced restoration, or digital video artists (glitch, etc), do wild things at times, to reach the needed results.

I would suggest VCR > TBC > proc amp > capture card
I doubt integrated TBC + proc amp will serve you well in your exist use case --- with a very specific Cypress exception. There's always exceptions! And I actually know where to get that unit, but he wants a high cost for it. Then I need to refurb it, because it's not usable as-is.

That's fine.

No, way too high! 0/unity (middle notch) is already too sharp by default, pushing right really adds noise very fast. I occasionally need to do it, but never at all times

Not the advanced Avisynth scripts.

It's often too powerful. It's great for advanced restorations, but you can ruin a simple transfer. It's not a clean passthrough, so it's best saved for net improvements (like ES10/15 and tearing).

Scopes/meters/graphs/grams help, but eyes should always be the ultimate decider. I think lossless capturing has gotten a wee too puritanical in the past decade. Even I don't do some of that stuff, it gets silly and dogmatic.

All correct. :congrats:

If you are doing composite to composite, you might find that the Brighteye BE5 would be a good compromise here. It accepts both PAL and NTSC, has a proc amp that is controllable with free software (both Mac and PC compatible), and uses 12 bit DAC/ADCs. They can typically be found on ebay for much less than a typical recommended TBC.

I'm not sure if LS has tried one, though my guess is that it's not on the recommended because it doesn't handle S-Video which is generally recommended in all capture chains.

I do have a BE5 for testing and I can say that it does pass the VCR blue screen test and can be set to blank out macrovision using "Wide VBI" (vertical blanking interval) setting. I haven't directly compared it to the recommended TBC1000, but will eventually do that.

Another option you might consider is a Snell and Wilcox standards converter. These will typically have a part number that starts with CVR. These are definitely meant to handle both PAL and NTSC and I believe all in that series have S-Video in and out. Most of them also have SDI out which is even better if you have an SDI capture card as the signal would stay digital after a single analog to digital conversion. Many models also have other features like a set number of line blanking from the top and bottom independently (so you can mask the video head switching noise at the time of capture instead of in post), and all have proc amp functions. Some also have pattern generators that you could use to record test tapes from as well.

Caveat with the standards converters is that it has been suggested that certain ones may not actually put the signal through the TBC part if you aren't converting from NTSC to PAL or PAL to NTSC - For VHS capture, we'd just be having it take NTSC in and outputting NTSC. By the nature of them being standards converters though, their normal function involves deleting and creating lots of frames, so they should be more than up to the task theoretically.

Descriptions of the TBCs of the CVR series varies a lot within their manuals as below for a few examples:

CVR250 - "Standards converter, timebase corrector, synchronizer and video processor in one compact box"

CVR450 - "Rugged TBC performance enables reliable processing of poor quality input signals"

CVR600 - "multi-standard broadcast quality 12-bit sampling, 10-bit processing standards converter, synchronizer, aspect ratio converter, noise reducer, and time base stabilizer"

The other argument you'll hear is that professional units like the Snell and Wilcox were not made to handle consumer grade (error prone) sources, but I've yet to see a video showing a Snell and Wilcox not working with consumer sources - could just be that no one bothered to make a video on them or that I just haven't seen the video though. I have a few different CVR series units for testing as well.

Half the battle is really designing what a TBC stress test needs to look like and I've yet to get any inquiries about donations of any difficult tapes to use in that testing. I've found that blue screen test fail doesn't mean that it won't work well with actual video as the VCR blue screen is not technically an NTSC signal (it's like 288p or something I read, and can vary from VCR to VCR).

I really appreciate ur reply. But in some how, all devices u mentioned them are lack . and there is no way to find good device u can rely on it. I bought many many TBC's bbut most of them are out of service.
I am working hard to get a new one/ good one but it so hard

I don't think I've ever seen a Brighteye TBC fail (other than during a upgrade firmware - I personally don't recommend that)- they have very few electrolytic caps inside, though downside is they are SMTs which are more known for failure in general. The caps they do have are quite physically large - like even though the entire unit runs on 12V, many of the caps are rated for 35V or more so that they are physically larger and have lower ESR (less likely to fail).

I'd be very surprised if that didn't meet your needs since you are just doing composite to composite and want an easy to use proc amp.

I've seen everything in failing states, and S&W gear is no better. And, in fact, probably worse, due to the abusive settings/environment.

I think the goal should be to get off composite, not allow it for inferior captures.

Remember, proc amp should come after frame TBC. Some TBCs have crossover, where composite input is filtered into s-video/YC output. Then you can proper filter with quality proc amps, and in a chroma separated way.

Who suggested that? I think you're mixing up standard color converters with analog to digital converters, The TBS (S&W) and CVR (Grass Valley) series all have the same architecture: ADC, Proc amp, TBC, Frame Sync, audio embed, SDI out. TBC can be turned on or off by front panel or menu in the control app, it has nothing to do with standard conversion.

Latreche, you are correct, the S&W manuals do suggest that the signal goes through the digital section even if it's more or less being used as passthrough plus proc-amp. Saw some speculation somewhere that it might not, but can't remember where. I have the 3 models I mentioned above, just haven't tested them to see if they handle consumer video any differently from each other.

Still trying to come up with the actual test protocol for TBCs to show what the strengths and weaknesses are for each so that I can post results. Protocol is important so that I'm not re-testing them all several times. I'd like it to be something that others can repeat on their own equipment so that they can compare/add to the "database" of sorts. The toughest part about a repeatable protocol is that no one is going to have the same VCR and analog/physical media.

Despite many settings for those devices most of them are not needed for analog video, Keep everything at default or zero, The only thing you may want to change is proc amp setting and audio gain, That's it.

One other related comment since LS mentioned this opposite to what I thought would be ideal:

Shouldn't the proc amp be placed before a frame TBC in the chain (presuming the TBC you are using doesn't have its own proc amp)?

My logic is that if illegal analog video signal levels come into a TBC, there's potential for the TBC to clip them during the digital buffering stage and you won't be able "unclip" them afterwords. I guess if you can prove that there is no clipping going on inside of a specific TBC, this probably doesn't matter as much.

I also don't get what the difference would be if you were to use a hardware proc amp after the TBC versus just using the software proc amp controls for your capture card at the time of capture since they are both in the same place in the capture chain then?

My understanding is that standalone proc amps shouldn't be able to clip anything because the signal stays analog throughout the device.

I don't understand why people are too worried about levels, The levels are always within a margin of tolerance by design, They can only be screwed up during camera shooting when there is an idiot behind it, such as using wrong setting for the scene conditions or wrong white balance, Also low end camcorders with poor performance in indoor conditions, And those will be baked in the tape anyway and cannot be corrected by a proc amp no matter where it sits. Proc amps are good for touching up the levels but not for correcting baked in mistakes.

What mistakes are baked into the tape that I can’t correct with my proc amp?

The ones I mentioned above and home videos are full of them.

No. Levels fully depend on factors.

Wait, no, stop, halt. For starters, I'm not sure I'd call my parents idiots.

Take off the 21st century blinders (2000s-2020s), and go back to the 20th century (1970s-1990s). Back then, things like auto white balance were terrible, and the instructions and controls to manually set values (WB, etc) were obtuse or non-existent. I actually still have one of our 80s family camcorders (I think it's the 2nd unit from 1984-ish), and it's a confusing beast, in addition to being the size of two basketballs that weighed at least 10 lbs.

We were early VHS adopters. They shot family Christmas with my grandmother (who's been gone for decades now; aunts and cousins now gone too --- we cherish those tapes now), my high school and college graduations, etc, and it's all on VHS. And none of it looks great. Back then, those cameras were at least $1k, and we weren't rich by any means -- back then, you'd save and buy (or use layaway), not plop down credit cards.

One of my regrets is that we didn't switch to Video8 then Hi8 in later years. VHS and VHS-C (even S-VHS-C) home camcorders sucked. But only in hindsight, seeing how much better those tapes look when digitized, something that obviously wasn't know at the time.

Best case, value issues can be corrected.
Worst case, value issues can be made less worse.
Though noting many tapes are fine as-is, proc amp not needed. But when it is needed, it's really needed!

No, never.

Clipping is not a function of TBCs. The exception is certain TBCs that have proc amp (certain BV), but even that is unusual.

No. The software proc amp is post-digitize. It's too late, baked in, just use an NLE for correction instead of weenie crappy driver sliders.

Cheap junk proc amps existed, and did everything from clip to distort colors. Same as anything else: random VCRs, random TBCs, random proc amps = random quality.

I can agree on can be made less worse, but proc amp is not magic, You change the gain for one area and screw the rest of the frame or vise versa, You can't have it both ways.

Yep, that's it.

For anything more advanced, you need HDR. But to enable HDR to have something to work with, you generally want to pre-adjust with proc amp in analog domain.

It's all about give and take.

I'm not quite sure that the software setting proc amp settings at capture are "post digitization" - but rather "as it is being digitized"- How would one go about testing that? I'm envisioning a known hot signal with luma levels that are in the 130 IRE+ range which would be easy to produce with a proc amp before the card.

Question is, how do you prove that the automatic gain control on the card doesn't kick in and bring the levels down before the software proc amp settings take effect?

That also brings up the question - if the automatic gain control on the capture card is ideal (which AIW cards are purported to be) - wouldn't a proc amp almost never be needed? Only scenario I can think of would be a very low dynamic range such as a a super dark scene where you'd want to expand the limited range of values (while still analog and not 1's and 0's).

Orrrrrrrr are you saying that AGC is also post-digitization?

If everything was done post-digitization (AGC and software proc amp settings), you should see a flat topped clipped waveforms when viewing the recorded 130IRE signal described above that has then been brought down to 100IRE in the captured file?

Digital proc amp should be part of the analog to digital conversion process to be effective, Either be part of the TBC itself or part of the capture card if it's connected directly to the VCR, If you have a TBC without proc amp that converts back to analog you're out of luck. If proc amp important to you get a separate proc amp before the TBC (digital or analog), get a TBC built in proc amp, or get a capture device built in TBC.

The usual signal flow for an effective proc amp is as follows:
Analog video -> analog to digital conversion -> signal timing -> Proc amp -> audio embed -> digital video.

https://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/att...1&d=1715569231

No, TBC comes before proc amp. Do not color correct non-timed signals. You wrote that wrong to start, then stated it properly after the diagram. Regardless of A<>D

And too much is made of A<>D these days, it's become silly dogma. Same for colorspace conversions (non-lossy, or minimal lossy). These are merely processes of video, not some sort of video cooties to be avoided.

A lot of TBCs that "also have" proc amp are fairly weenie. With a few exceptions, as always.

In digital that's not how it works, the signal has to be digitized, time based to a stable signal and then corrected for levels, There is no such device works that way even the AVTool, keep in mind this is all happen in digital, correcting for VBI and HBI does not affect the scan lines video data, You can sort of say it happens in parallel but in diagrams they always show it after the TBC, but certainly not before TBC. Only proc amp changes affect the scan lines video data.

In analog workflows you have to put the proc amp before TBC because every device works independent from the rest of the workflow, But most people that use external TBC use the proc amp in the capture card driver via the capture software, this was always the case, What has changed that everyone agrees with me now?

That's what I'm saying as well. :unsure:

If you attempt to correct levels before stabilizing the time base (of the analog videotape), the timing just gets worse (essentially injecting nth gen properties), and in fact can make the signal unstable beyond TBC repair. That's actually what digital artists want, so I do inject proc amp before TBC for effects. You can do some crazy crap in the pure analog domain.

I'm not sure what you mean here. :huh1:

I don't think "most people" ever did that. In fact, most are fully unaware of the software proc amp controls. Not that they should be using them, since it's post-ADC and redundant to better CC in an NLE.

@aramkolt
And post-ADC card/software/driver proc amp is easy to see, the luma levels have a "digital" leveling to them that vastly differs from analog levels. (I lack a more proper description at this moment, but again it's extremely obvious.)

Should the proc amps in a TBCs that have them built in NOT be used either because that is also "post digitization"? Granted, on most TBCs, that is then re-converted to analog on output (unless you're using one with SDI out).

Perhaps what is unique about TBCs is that they are allowed to output at illegal levels as high as they want (that matches or exceeds the input levels), and therefore don't cause clipping?

For those that do SDI capture from a TBC, then the proc amp controls on that are definitely post-digitization and shouldn't be used either?

I am also aware that SDI proc amps exist to legalize these levels, but I always thought there was still a ceiling that would clip above certain levels if they start out too high?

Again, too much is made of, and misunderstood, concerning A<>D. To say that a capture card, and a TBC, and both "post digitize" is misunderstanding the fundamentals of those processes. And again, it's the difference between a signal and an image.

The clipping aspect fully depends on multiple factors.

SDI is a closer-loop system, with differences from standard workflow.

It's hard to describe some of these concepts, because it's a big concept. Sort of like saying "the car works by putting in the key", which is a simplified description of what is actually happening. It's not one I've ever really been interested in tackling, because it's mostly just trivia for users -- and I don't waste my time on trivia (unless it's a sentence or two, not a novel long).

The further irony here is that some people can tell you the trivia, but have zero idea how to apply it to a real world application. Sometimes "knowing" the concepts still doesn't mean you know how to actually do/use it. You find a lot of that in academia, and is why you hear "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."

Digital Proc amps, mixing consoles, character generators have always worked this way as I and LS mentioned, To process the signal you have to digitize it, stabilize it, then correct its levels. If you are talking about pure analog proc-amps that's a different story, I've never dealt with those and as I've read they are not as good as digital ones in terms of quality, hope this clears the confusion.

These may be analog proc amp, 1980s Archer gear.
https://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/vid...-enhancer.html

Terrible items. :sick: