Judging from this old quote from the OP I'm guessing he was using a Domesday Duplicator.

I've done comparisons myself using other people's uploads of retail releases but I'm not that impressed. Granted I ain't using the exact same copy of whatever retail tape they they are using so it's not a 100% fair comparison.

Personally I'd only use it for a small selection of tapes I have that are either one of a kid/super rare releases and tapes with close caption data. Do not plan on redoing my whole or personal collection.

Don't leave room for misinterpretation here. :2cents:

vhs-decode is in no way better, or best, but rather different.

When you have rare content, you'll often want to re-capture it multiple times, to squeeze out all possible quality. So a standard/normal workflow (VCR > TBC > capture card) may give you 95%+ perfection. As perfect as VHS tape conversion can be, at least. Maybe 1-2 scenes are not quite what you want, so you try again and again. vhs-decode can be one of those methods.

If anybody doubts me, then look at the Star Wars and Superman the Movie projects, among others, over the past 2 decades. That is literally what they do. Multiple sources, multiple extraction methods. If source Z, with method 7, gave a better result of a 13-second clip, then it was a win, everybody celebrated. Nobody dick-measured about "my method was better".

You start with the best (ie, standard/normal workflows with TBCs), then work your way backwards. And the #1 reason there is because each successive conversion method may degrade the tape more.

That's how I feel about it, it's just different. I really only plan on using this method sparingly for rare tapes I already captured conventionally anyway.

Feels like there are more things that could go wrong that impact the end results, so I'd rather do a conventional capture first then a decode capture as a second pass going forward.

And I've long stated this is a fine "macro workflow".

Most people do this:
- capture
- edit
- distribute

Others do this:
- capture, capture, capture
- edit, edit, edit
- restore, restore, restore
- then many don't even distribute, they did all that work just for themselves. :laugh:

vhs-decode is really for the OCD, the hobby tinkerers that enjoy the process probably more than the actual video. When you have rare videos, let's be honest, you're usually on the obsessive/hobby end of the spectrum.

In this way, VHS digitizing is not too different from "measure twice, cut once",
So "capture twice (or more), distribute once".

Fun fact: I almost never capture tapes just once. Not for myself, not for clients. It's why I have multiple decks, multiple TBCs, multiple capture cards. Consumer analog tape formats just are not that consistent to give a once-through result in best possible quality. vhs-decode is nothing special, as it's still subjected to the tape paths and VCR heads, at minimum. It's just another secondary/tertiary extraction method.

It's a shame that the "queen bee" of that project wants to remove all scientific objectivity, replacing it with his own personal FUD, misinformation, and outright lies. Actual concerns, like the still-harsh halo/ringing are ignored, never head-on addressed honestly and earnestly.

And that's why I'd want to use it rarely, I fall under the OCD crowd. For the most part I usually just do one capture of a tape then that be that, but sometimes I do two, three maybe even five captures.

I never want to do anymore than like, eight or so.

This is no different to when I decided to redo some tapes with my 1980, ones that were EP mode or had mono linear audio, where the 1980 performed better than my JVCs.

There are a couple of tapes I want to use decode on and I will, but for most of my collection I do not care at all. Like I'd only redo 5% or so of the tapes I do have.

I've personally messed around with the software side of things, while decode introduces more ringing overall you can add some software noise reduction to remove it. But that reduces overall sharpness, so the end results look more and more closer to prosumer setup, not better.

Probably would only be useful for some tapes that have a tiny bit of ringing baked in. Now harsh ghosting like in TV recordings I bet can not be dealt with.

If anything, the complaints should be targeted towards the hostile nature of the promoter and some community members, the overall confusing complexity of the method to begin with, the techoblabble mess of the wiki that'll confuse any newbie coming in.

Oh yeah, and that this is the method you hear being promoted to newcomers. That'll just confuse their brains even more.

I view Decode so far as neat but impractical for most use cases, end of story.

Situations like this remind me of yard work.

Sometimes I go outside, with the simple intention of mowing the yard.

But once outside, I find that I have to:
- pick up sticks
- poison ants/wasps/spiders around the house
- weed-eat (trim)
- handle flower beds (animal dug it up, diseased plant needs extraction, etc)
- gas up mower, inflate tires, check plugs

... then mow, if I even have the energy for it anymore! :mad4:

That makes me hate the whole process. I don't want to do that each time. I just want to mow the f'ing yard!

Similarly, vhs-decode has this layer of BS on top of the actual capturing. It's not something you want to subject yourself to each time. Otherwise you'll hate the capture process, and simply avoid capturing altogether. I've had this conversations with others too many times now. I especially find myself trying to convince newbies that capturing doesn't have to be this difficult. Unfortunately, they somehow got sucked down the rabbit hole where Daffy Duck lives. :laugh:

I just want to digitize tapes, not do all that nonsense each time. The method has a place, but not "all places".

And this is worth repeating:
Yeah, sad. :depressed: