Reality of acquiring a TBC in the 2020s?

[jimdaug]

What is the reality of obtaining a TBC? The most recent posts in the marketplace for anything are 5-8 months old. Are there any online shops that specialize in analog video equipment I can try?

Thanks

[lordsmurf]

There are no online shops in the 2020s with TBCs. Converting video was a 2000s task, and that's when the hardware was manufactured and sold new.

In fact, you should be very wary of any online listing you see. There are
- quite a few ghost listings still online (non-updated sites, or long-ago failed businesses with sites somehow still online)
- at least a couple of Chinese scammer sites
- and then your rank-and-file flipper/recycler/auction fodder

These days, you must be extremely careful with where you buy TBCs, and from whom. This gear is all 15-25 years old now, and it all requires varies refurbs to be viable for new users. You can't just grab a random unit, and expect it to still work correctly. (99%+ of people that claim it is "tested" and "working", without proper testing, is full of it. -- aka, eBay is to be avoided, those are just recyclers/resellers flipping stuff with zero knowledge.)

Even beware of used photo/AV gear sites like B&H/Adorama, as they get used TBC/VCR conditions wrong more than not. Unlike cameras, which are simple to test by comparison. Noting I've not seen them offer it in years, and it was a mess when they did.

I try to have units, and my marketplace listing was updated last month (so not 5-8 months old). At this exact moment, my listing shows to be sold out, but always contact me via PM to discuss, as that can change (and probably will very soon; ie, something in the works, and my waiting list is now zero-length queue).

The simple truth is that the gear is getting more scarce -- largely due to people
- having tossed "broken" (but still reparable!) gear over the years
- dumping it at recyclers -- and they were afraid to resell, unable to test, and unwilling to take on return costs
- tossing it in a drawer (or attic, or garage, even even rat-infested warehouse), forgetting it even exists

Locating, acquiring, and refurbing this gear is not an easy task. I've tried to be the "easy button" for people to get known-good TBCs, but it is getting harder to do now.

[SVHS Fan]

Thank you, LS, for the very detailed description of how we got to where we are now regarding video transfer equipment. It appears that years ago, the demand for such equipment dropped below the point where it was profitable to manufacture it. Sadly!

[jimdaug]

I think I'm opting out of even doing it at this point. If the only option is to acquire from one person and the barrier to entry is this high.

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimdaug

I think I'm opting out of even doing it at this point. If the only option is to acquire from one person and the barrier to entry is this high.

There are a few other people that refurb TBCs -- but they are less active, with less inventory, and less visible (harder to find). The reason is because locating, acquiring, and refurbing is just a time intensive process. It's not as simple as "add to cart" on Amazon.

And their price range is going to be the same range as mine. (Actually, they usually charge more than I do.) It's just not feasible to sell the units for the sub-$1k price range you want. That was the new price in the 2000s, without inflation, without the unit needing any work or time invested in it. That was the "add to cart" era, not now.

The numbers are just the numbers.

The alternatives to TBCs are:
- Use budget TBC(ish) items like ES10/15 or DVK, but do realize these have drawbacks and weaknesses, and are not actually TBCs. I approve of this approach, when budget forces it, and when acknowledging the weakness/drawbacks of it.
- Endless capture problems without TBCs, "spinning your wheels", never actually make headway on your project. Seen that too many times. The "fix" is always to add TBCs, and off they go, progress finally made.
- Quit now, not capture the tapes.
- Just accept whatever crap quality is possible without TBCs, which means audio sync and judder issues, due to drop/inserted frames. Seen that too many times, too. But most people are never satisfied, and eventually redo their projects (either with DIY redo, or paying somebody else for a better conversion attempt). This assumes they didn't toss their tapes, which sadly happens, and then restoration becomes very challenging.

Those last 3 are not good alternatives. But those are the alternatives.

When it comes to not using TBCs, a lot of people (mostly low-knowledge or outright cheap, or both) just make excuses to themselves, or others. "It's not that bad", etc. Like burning your toast black, then telling everybody how great it tastes. We all know it's BS, but sadly only a few people will state the obvious. (We live in such a wimpy society these days.)

If you want to not capture your tapes, I do agree with that. Quit now before you waste too much time, or even money buying the wrong thing (in the wrong-headed attempt to not buy a TBC, yet often wasting lots of money that would have offset a TBC cost mightily). Set the project aside, and re-visit it when funds allow. Just be aware that the tape aging process does not pause for you.

All tools have costs. TBCs are just tools for the task of video capture.

TBCs were somewhat cheaper (remember inflation!), more plentiful, and "brand new" back in the 2000s. But anybody needing TBC now waited/procrastinated for decades to convert their tapes. And this is the reality we now have, in terms of costs, conditions, and availability. If we (myself and a few others) were not providing this gear, or telling others how to repair these (which is not an easy process), then nothing would be available now. It'd all be failed gear, and lots of people would find themselves SOL to convert their tapes with any degree of quality.

[aramkolt]

There are quite a few pieces of broadcast equipment that contain TBCs, though the ones that tend to go under the radar aren't often called called TBCs on the outside. It is true that many will not handle consumer-grade formats which generally had larger timebase errors than professional formats, but in my experience, many seem to handle consumer formats just fine as long as the player has a line TBC which cuts down the degree of timebase errors a lot by itself. The VM700T actually will give a number in terms of signal jitter and I believe just turning a line TBC on cuts the signal jitter from around 600us to more like 15us which is a huge reduction. It's all about getting the jitter down to a threshold that your specific capture card can tolerate, and some will tolerate more of an error than others before dropping frames.

So some questions:

What type of content are you transferring and what does your capture chain look like so far without the TBC in it? Some capture cards are more tolerant to timebase errors, so if you are getting a ton of dropped frames even while using a line TBC, it could be your capture card or the program itself that is contributing to some degree.

Do you mind using composite instead of S-Video? If composite is ok, then there's the Brighteye BE5 which iworks pretty well, but is composite only. These can often be had for $150 or so on ebay. There's one group listed on ebay now that basically is just missing a power adapter, but any 12V 1A AC adapter can be wired to it. There are other brighteye models that do have S-Video and even component input, but they don't come up for sale as often and are much more expensive. The BE series used pretty high quality SMT capacitors (and they only contain like 5 of them total anyway) and I've yet hear any reports of those having bad capacitors.

Have you tried doing captures with just a line TBC within the playback device? Those often will cut down timebase errors quite a bit on their own, so the question then is whether you are getting audio sync issues with longer captures or noticeable vertical jitter on your captures?

If you are seeing horizontal wobble, that's a job for a line TBC, not a frame TBC, so just be aware that most picture problems other than vertical jitter and dropped frames aren't likely to be solved by adding a frame TBC.

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramkolt

It is true that many will not handle consumer-grade formats which generally had larger timebase errors than professional formats,

That's it. In general, for that reason, it's best for newbies to avoid those sorts of iffy devices. Because odds are that it will not work for them. So wasted time, wasted funds.

Quote:

or the program itself

Actually, the software settings.

Quote:

composite only.

Yes, composite-only does open up some options, and under $1k, but I'm not so keen on the SDI boxes (BE, etc) for this. It tends to add variables, just makes capturing more complex than needed.

[jimdaug]

I haven't actually captured anything yet. I've been clearing boxes and making room for a work area but I should be able to test by the end of the week. Most of the tapes are commercial from the 80s and 90s and may or may not have copy protection.

I'm probably stressing prematurely. I tend to do that.

I have a HR-S7800U that I'm borrowing from a friend for testing and I'm gradually working on two or three possible workflows.

#1 I have my old pc that I ended up doing a fresh Windows7 install on after getting it back up and running because the main drive gave up the ghost (it booted into windows 10 a couple of times and then decided that was it. It won't recognize in another PC with an adapter either). For that PC, I have an IO GB-USB2. I still need to install drivers and get VirtualDub copied over.

#2 I have an AIW card coming and thought I had an ASRock 4CoreDual-VSTA on the way but just got an email that it was cancelled for some reason. I'm going to attempt to get XP going on that PC.

#3 I've also been conversing with latreche34 about setting up an SDI workflow. I haven't made a decision on that yet.

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimdaug

I haven't actually captured anything yet.
I'm probably stressing prematurely. I tend to do that.

I wouldn't stress over this. You simply need to understand what tools are required for capture/ingest, what each does, how each functions. And if you stray from the recommended methods/advice, understand how that will affect your quality and time requirements (and even misplaced funds use).

Are you having money stress? That's the one I see most. It's the "I don't want to spend $xxxx" vs. "I don't want to buy the wrong thing, and waste my money". Sometimes people make these odd mental gymnastics, and automatically think more=bad. Many (sadly) delve into negative economics, and long-term spend even more. The old saying "buy cheap, buy twice" especially applies to video gear.

I've been doing this for 30 years now, I've seen (and been) where you are, as well as the later stages. This is almost like the "5 stages of grief" at times. Denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

Making this thread ended denial.
I think anger just ended.
So we're in bargaining/depression now (which tends to be tandem). For you, I think stress=depression, and bargaining= seeing what your gear options are (and hoping for low cost solutions).

Whatever you decide, ultimately, will be acceptance. You'll accept to
- buy a TBC
- not buy a TBC (and deal with those consequences)
- or somewhere in the middle, a TBC(ish) solution -- which gives a mix of costs savings, but also elevated issues/frustration

Your retail/commercial tapes will cause issues here, due to anti-copy. For that reason, you're not really a viable candidates for TBC(ish) solutions -- a solution generally reserved for "home movie" conversions (as those tend to not be the best camera work, and sometimes people are willing to incur further minor image loss/damage in the pursuit of saving dollars).

It's always interesting to watch people on this journey.

And I'll help you with whatever you decide. That's why I have some TBCs on standby for others, in the marketplace. Or give tips/advice on the less-ideal alternatives, to at least help you avoid the worst mistakes and traps.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimdaug

I have a HR-S7800U that I'm borrowing from a friend for testing and I'm gradually working on two or three possible workflows.
#2 I have an AIW card coming and thought I had an ASRock 4CoreDual-VSTA on the way but just got an email that it was cancelled for some reason. I'm going to attempt to get XP going on that PC.

Know that you are off to a good start here.

[jimdaug]

That's a fair assessment I think. Acceptance is going to have to wait for disposable funds to build up for a while though .

Moving on to bargaining though, is there anything so unique about a TBC that one couldn't be built today with standard components? Barring any special or out of production chips I know demand would be the next limiting factor. However, it reminds me of something my dad always talked about when he was working as an exploration geologist. He said there's plenty of oil and gas that's not worth going after at $100/barrel, but if the price ever got up to $200 it would become very economical. If it gets to a point in the future where supply is so limited, a small batch run may be worth it. IDK, just thinking ouy loud

[latreche34]

Not a good analogy, Oil is essential to our modern indutry, It hasn't been replaced by any other cheap natural energy ressource, Oil has replaced coal up to 99% but so far nothing has replaced oil. Sure we have wind, solar but the investement cost for a similar output is too high for an industrial scale operation. TBCs are for hobyists and small scale business operation, they will never make a come back because almost 90% of businesses that do mass digitization don't use a TBC, if those cannot make TBC come back, nothing will, So TBC is like coal now, still used but in a very limited way.

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimdaug

That's a fair assessment I think. Acceptance is going to have to wait for disposable funds to build up for a while though

Whenever that time comes, just post, or you can reach out to me directly via PM.

Quote:

Moving on to bargaining though, is there anything so unique about a TBC that one couldn't be built today with standard components? Barring any special or out of production chips I know demand would be the next limiting factor.

In the 2010s to 2020s, video processing chips are built around HD/4K/8K processing. It's wildly different than consumer format analog SD. The chips needed haven't been fabbed in 15-25 years.

Such an endeavor would require ground-up coding, lots of experimentation, and that assumes viable chips can be located or newly fabbed. R&D would likely take years, and have high cost barriers. And even then, after years, money can spent, no results to show for it. (Ask me how I know. Rhetorical, I can't answer. Let's just say that people don't realize I'm often tapped for paid consulting on video hardware.)

The last major gasp, mostly hopium and copium, regarding "new" TBCs, was seen with that Analog Devices prototype board about 10-15 years ago. People have screwed around with that board/chips for over a decade now, but that ADLLT (LLT) isn't TBC. In fact, it was so worthless that companies like Blackmagic had to disable function on the chip, so it wouldn't screw up the video (ie, the opposite affect of what TBC should do!). And given how lousy BM is at SD, that's quite the statement!

Given the nature of the semiconductor industry, with a constant goal for smaller/newer/faster chips, I doubt anybody would even be able to small-run chips from a decade ago schematics. Eventually, things have inverse pricing costs, and I can easily see where an old chip is vastly more expensive to produce than a new chip.

In essence, the world has moved on from TBCs, and from analog (and digital>analog ingest). Video in the 2020s is mostly procrastinators at digitizing, and the new GenZ/GenAlpha hobbyists that think VCRs are fun/nifty "old tech" (and with no serious need, just "because").

If any TBCs did appear, the common $2500-3500 price range would probably be a minimum for it. It would not be cheap to make. It'd probably be a small production run (so limited quantity), likely based off older chip stockpiles (as nothing current is viable, and not for years now). There'd be some pretty hefty capex involved, long R&D to get there.

Anybody looking to knock it off would be disappointed, as means to hardware lockout code has existed for decades. Lots of DataVideo and Cypress code is, for that reason, still largely unknown. The bare chips found in those TBCs were not using off-the-shelf coding, and it was generally locked. Attempting to hack the chips will likely just fry them. (Again, ask me how I know. Rhetorical.)

While licensing DataVideo/Cypress type TBC code could work, in theory, I know for a fact that internal documentation, from about pre-2015, is in shambles. But assuming they even had the "secret sauce" documentation, they'd surely want to "cash in" on licensing it, pushing up a new TBC costs, even to $5k range. But remember that both Cypress and DataVideo largely bungled their EOL TBCs ("black" Cypress, "blue" DataVideos), so their own code didn't do them much good.

So, essentially, it's a near-impossible task:
- where nothing from the past can be built on, it's all been lost
- where nothing new can really be made, because the tools and knowledge doesn't exist
- where, even if knowledge/tools exists, it'd still require lots of time and money to create

This question gets asked almost every year now, for almost a decade now. The answer is the same. The wrong assumptions that initiate the conversation also remain the same. I speak from deep knowledge on the subject, others speak from "gee, I wonder, it should be possible" less knowledgeable stance. (That comment isn't aimed at you, but rather some who have ignorantly argued it in the past.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimdaug

However, it reminds me of something my dad always talked about when he was working as an exploration geologist.
He said there's plenty of oil and gas that's not worth going after at $100/barrel, but if the price ever got up to $200 it would become very economical. If it gets to a point in the future where supply is so limited, a small batch run may be worth it. IDK, just thinking ouy loud

Your father is wise. For example, there is oil locked in tar sands, and it's very costly to extract.

Quote:

Originally Posted by latreche34

Not a good analogy, Oil is essential to our modern indutry, It hasn't been replaced by any other cheap natural energy ressource, Oil has replaced coal up to 99% but so far nothing has replaced oil. Sure we have wind, solar but the investement cost for a similar output is too high for an industrial scale operation.

However, in time, likely within our lifetime, that will change.

The major driver for alternatives is the fear of rising oil prices, as caused by supply/demand imbalances. There's also concern of oil control. There will definitely be political turmoil as the century progresses, as the remaining oil will be found in not-good places currently run by autocrats/dictators.

Companies like Exxon have known this for years, which is why they've started to heavily pivot into alternative energy. And then companies like Diamondback Energy know they have a countdown clock, as the Permian Basin (Texas) will likely be tapped out in 10-20 years. It already peaked in the 2010s. Oil companies won't be drilling more, gas prices won't be going down.

When it comes to oil alternatives:
- Most people immediately think of cars, and EVs, but it's an incomplete picture.
- You properly mention wind and solar (and there's also hydro, nuclear, geothermal), as an alternative to burning "dead dinosaurs" (oil, coal) in electricity generation.
- But oil is also the primary compound for plastics. But that use could be negated as well, using the furanics process from Origin Materials. (latreche34, I know you're into the stock market, so look up ticker ORGN, now is a decent entry time.)

In time, these alternatives will make oil somewhat useless, companies will bankrupt and cease operations. Pricing of oil may or may not go up, depending on demand.

So I think oil is a decent analogy to TBCs here.

TBCs had a finite window in time. Not like oil, with a 100+ year window. But still, TBCs had a good ~40-year run that has mostly now ended.

- The 70s-90s saw analog use, broadcast rackmount units made for broadcast sources.
- The 90s-00s saw analog to digital use, with heavy needs by consumer formats. That was the peak.
- The 10s saw decline, for multiple reasons ('08-09 recession was a real catalyst that ended lots of chip products -- chips needed for TBCs).

Which bring us to this:

Quote:

TBCs are for hobyists and small scale business operation, they will never make a come back because almost 90% of businesses that do mass digitization don't use a TBC, if those cannot make TBC come back, nothing will, So TBC is like coal now, still used but in a very limited way.

The TBC market does not (did not) exist at an "industrial scale" because of corporate/business greed, and consumer ignorance.

The large shady "conversion businesses" lie to consumers, tells them that all VHS looks terrible (to hide/excuse their bad conversion work), and that tapes will somehow rot/fade in their home. If they can avoid capital expenditure (capex), and maximize profit, they consider it a major win. Because it's about them, not you. Your precious memories and history means nothing to them. You're a dollar sign.

The small shady "conversion businesses" (side gigs, "beer money", etc) are largely incompetent quacks, offering services without ever having learned anything about video. From time to time, we see those in the forum. The irony here is that many don't even charge a reasonable wage, so they're just industry noise, and will slink away as quickly as they "opened shop" (often in their garage/basement).

Modern consumers are largely ignorant sheeple, too lazy to fact check anything -- as politics has shown us in the past decade, and continues to do now. So there is not any pushback on the miserable video quality they receive. There's no pressure on these businesses to buy proper tools.

Small long-lasting businesses use proper tools, like TBCs, as they gain a reputation for quality (and entry to certain niches). So while not large, they don't necessarily want to be. They've carved out a non-dullard client base, and charge commensurate to the service offered. However, it's not large enough to attract scale production of TBCs.

[aramkolt]

One thing that doesn't really get discussed with TBCs is what they do when there's a complete signal dropout such as can be the case with a tape that has been eaten/crimped in one spot. Some will output a black screen, some will attempt to repeat all or part of a prior frame indefinitely, but it definitely isn't universal. Even when they do, it doesn't look particularly seamless.

A good TBC won't drop frames (in that they'll continue outputting a sync signal so the card has something to capture, doesn't mean actual video content within frames isn't dropped though) and the audio stays in sync, but the result if often less than visually appealing. I actually have no idea what VHS_Decode does in that situation either. For good condition tapes, options are much wider for devices that can be used, but problematic tapes in terms of being physically damaged or having shedding oxide are likely to be more common in upcoming years.

The hope would be that there's some AVIsynth filters that might detect single black frames or frames that are mostly static and realize there's supposed to be something other than black or static there. Even turning black frames into null frames would be fine actually since that'd just leave up the prior frame when playing back I think. I'll need to look into individual frame editing at some point to see how much of a pain that is. Would be cool if there was something that looked for frames that don't seem to fit into a sequence and let you choose to motion estimate what should be there, repeat the last or next frame in place, but never heard of such a thing discussed.

[Feedbucket]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramkolt

Would be cool if there was something that looked for frames that don't seem to fit into a sequence and let you choose to motion estimate what should be there, repeat the last or next frame in place, but never heard of such a thing discussed.

Going off topic, but some variation of filldrops could do it. Just flip the conditional around to look for differences instead of duplicates. I think JohnMeyer also once did something to compensate for camera flashes.

[jimdaug]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramkolt

The hope would be that there's some AVIsynth filters that might detect single black frames or frames that are mostly static and realize there's supposed to be something other than black or static there. Even turning black frames into null frames would be fine actually since that'd just leave up the prior frame when playing back I think. I'll need to look into individual frame editing at some point to see how much of a pain that is. Would be cool if there was something that looked for frames that don't seem to fit into a sequence and let you choose to motion estimate what should be there, repeat the last or next frame in place, but never heard of such a thing discussed.

As much as I despise that everything is "AI" now, that's probably a good use case for it for more than a couple dropped frames.

[latreche34]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aramkolt

One thing that doesn't really get discussed with TBCs is what they do when there's a complete signal dropout such as can be the case with a tape that has been eaten/crimped in one spot. Some will output a black screen, some will attempt to repeat all or part of a prior frame indefinitely, but it definitely isn't universal. Even when they do, it doesn't look particularly seamless.

A good TBC won't drop frames (in that they'll continue outputting a sync signal so the card has something to capture, doesn't mean actual video content within frames isn't dropped though) and the audio stays in sync, but the result if often less than visually appealing.

Technically, that's not the job of a frame TBC, the frame TBC would function as long as there is a supply of frames coming in that need to be timed, maybe it can handle one to few drops based on the design of the TBC, if the treshhold reaches it crops out. To be able to achieve what you described you would need an additional feature called a frame synchronizer, It essentially generates a timecode regardelss if there is a video coming in or not, These were previously used to sync multiple sources to an external sync generator, to one of the video sources or to its own internal clock, Now we just use them for their internal clock.

Unlike line and frame TBCs, frame synchronisers can be stacked. If equiped, you can have it on in the analog to digital conversion phase as well as in the digital ingest when using a SDI, firewire or HDMI and they all work together in harmony, In other words they'll all synchronize to each other in a daisy chain. Frame synchronizers alone don't work, you have to have both, frame TBC and frame synchronizer. Devices such as the BE75 and TBS800 I own are equiped with both.

The closest thing to achieve this with a poor frame TBC is to use a sync generator in front of it so it will keep the frame count continous, Havn't tried this myself but read from forum posts that people had success using it with weak pitza box size TBCs.