Video signal cleaner?
 

Came across someone selling a Video Signal cleaner from days gone past (for S-Video and composite).
It's a Velleman K8036 board: https://www.velleman.eu/products/view/?id=348080
Was wondering if worth having one in the tool box in case it helps with any bad tapes ?

It appears to be a macrovision defeater as well.

It was sold as a DIY circuit board as well as a ready made kit (VM106).

Kit details attached (including schematic).

It's just an analog microvision stripper, It is not digital, no memory buffer, no microprocessor, not needed for capturing, just get a capture card that ignores MV, there are quite few out there.

Thanks for the reply.
I do not have any MV content so it was not for that I was thinking of using.
It seems to promise in cleaning up and regenerating the sync signals.
Would that be similar to line time base corrector (ish) like the ES-10 dvd recorder ?

Welcome back. :)

No, completely worthless. As you seem to understand, those things existed long before digital formats. Even back then, the units were extremely unreliable (both in quality and function), sometimes not working at all. The entire purpose was to "clean" the video of anti-copy/Macrovision. Synonyms for "cleaning" was cliarfy, enhance, filter, etc.

Well, not exactly. Just like the analog "cleaners", cards that "ignore" anti-copy are not 100%, and those do not address dropped frames whatsoever.

The promises are hogwash. It's nothing like a timebase corrector in any way. It's about as close to a TBC as any other random circuit board (a modem, an air condition controller, etc). The most is has in commons is that it passes video signals, but so do TVs and DVD players.

No, not even close, There is no processing chip in that device, just an analog passthrough that ignores the MV bursts.

And the anti-copy can/does fall outside the filtered area, which is why those units would often fail partially or entirely. Back then (and the DVD era, too), Macrovision/others were very active in adjusting their methods to add anti-copy. So what worked once may never work again.

Thanks...its been a while :)

Ok so I will pass on this one.

I saw one review here by a guy who to used it to help in stabilising a couple of bad tapes while capturing but didn't help with one of them (made it worst).

Video samples (Youtube, post attachments, etc) have betrayed a lot of people's comments about what "good" (or "fixed") quality is. Their results look like crap.

I have no faith in that sort of post from a random person, given the facts of the matter/item. What he/she says is simply not based in reality. More likely is placebo affect, which is very true in cheapskate video. It's only better in their head, not reality. I don't deal in sugar pills, though I do like M&M's and jelly beans from time to time. :laugh:

If you want a low-cost TBC(ish), or a budget TBC, options exist. Just not that thing. Definitely not something that costs the same as a cheeseburger (or fish & chips basket).

If this is something you want to pursue -- and understand that some form of TBC, at minimum, is required in a workflow -- let's talk numbers, see what is possible for you. Realistic numbers, grounded in the reality of what gear costs. Let's also discuss your project, both quality and quantity.

No it was not something I was going to pursue as a TBC by any means.
It just caught my curiosity that it was a "signal cleaner" and wondered if it would have helped in work flow chain.
That is, in front of TBC so that TBC would get a "clean sync signals".

Clearly not.

A lot of us were snookered back in the 80s/90s. Many of these had BS sample images of "what it could do" (HA!) on the box.

I bought these, Sima boxes, mixers -- anything to avoid a then-$500 TBC (now at least $1500 with inflation). After saving up, sucking it up, I finally bought an actual TBC, and kicked myself for not doing it sooner. It was the difference between "I think I see something" (hopium), and actually seeing obvious improvements.