I ran across this odd-ball unit and it caught my attention. I'm not sure how a person would even capture TV with this, I will have to RTFM, but it appears to be usable for VHS!
Using my Toshiba W808 as well as my JVC 7800, I ran this EP-SLP pig VHS-c tape thru my beloved
CMD-1200.
I'm pretty satisfied, no dropped/inserted frames via my lowly W7-64 Thinkpad out to a USB external hard drive. But, what the heck is this thing?
-- merged --
Looking into this a little further, the properties say Empia, and the stick appears as USB Device 2863.
Here is a sample, no External TBC, only the one in the S7800u. Has anyone ever seen one of these weird USB TV sticks from Tevion before? It even has a remote.
Just to note that my Tevion Hi-Speed, both my Hauppauges, and this Tevion TV stick do not trigger Macrovision and this film is from 2002 so I would think it would be robust protection.
Side note: I have set up a new-old PC laptop and somehow have managed to get every dongle to not fight with each other if I switch em up.
Looks good, but with the quality of VHS playback varying so much, would be good to have something to compare to that is currently available like the Hauppage live 2 or the GV-USB2 on the same tape/playback device. Those I'm not sure what they do with macrovision, but most people probably don't capture macrovision content, so that probably isn't a dealbreaker for most users.
I've always thought DVD players would probably be the best "reproducible" source for capture card testing in general, though you won't have timebase errors with those and I don't think the general quality of DVD output is probably very different from DVD player to DVD player via composite or S-Video. You could always record onto a VHS tape from DVD first to add the potential for timebase errors though.
If you have the means, it'd be interesting to try the SW2 pattern with it that can show a variety of issues in a single test.
It's available on archive.org here along with some other patterns and is the "Snell & Wilcox Test Pattern 1.mkv" file. It originally came from the digital video essentials DVD.
You'd want to burn that to a playable DVD without re-encoding and then capture from the S-Video output of the DVD player. Comparing that capture to composite will tell you how good your comb filter is inside of the capture device (Vs the s-video capture which doesn't involve a comb filter) and will give you other info like chroma and luma bandwidth and sharpness.
Okay…okay…this could be interesting. I still have 1 standalone Sony DVD/BR unit. I’m completely unfamiliar with its outputs but it certainly should have s-video out. This might be an interesting task. I paid almost nuthin-ish for the dongle, and it looked so interesting, like a moth to a flame…
My Sony does not have S-video out.
The model is BDP-S570.
I’ll poke around at Savers (Goodwill knockoff) and see what’s available.Then it has to actually power on and function.
Wait! I have an ES-10 and 15. Can I fit one of those into the workflow?
What do you suggest as an alternative as an identical starting source to capture that almost anyone can do with items they likely already have at home? Can't be a tape since no two tapes are the same even if recorded on the same machine and getting test tapes to anyone who wants one for the cost of a blank DVD is unrealistic.
A digital source won't have timebase errors, but if you are using your recommended chain with a frame TBC, the card will already have a stable signal going into it, so that shouldn't be a factor for this specific test. Even without a frame TBC, there are other ways to detect timebase errors affecting the capture if present.
It should also be a great test to see if the passthrough TBC harms the image as it goes through - just compare the direct capture from the DVD player output to a capture that goes from the DVD player through your usual capture chain such as TBC/ES10 etc and capture with the same capture card. If the TBC or chain passthrough capture looks noticeably worse, then those devices are visually harming the signal and that's something the user should be aware of.
For further testing with timebase errors, you can record the DVD player produced patterns to a VHS tape first, then capture from the recorded tape.
I think a lot of users would like to know if their captures look as good as they should/can, but having an identical starting capture source would be the first step to then compare to what others posted they were able to achieve with the same starting source. Line timebase errors in real captures can be usually seen visually and frame drops can usually be detected in statistics, so no need to test them with patterns.
Sure, I can think of better ways to make a starting reproducible analog signal, but at huge diminishing returns in terms of cost and complexity for most users.
What do you suggest as an alternative as an identical starting source to capture that almost anyone can do with items they likely already have at home?
They can't. Testing anything -- literally anything, not just video -- requires controlled settings. Otherwise the test is randomness, thus worthless. Not everybody can test everything. That's doubly true when the requirement is for "items they already have", as most people lack some or all that's needed.
As a random example, I have a Greenworks 60V trimmer. (Yes, it's quite analogous to this discussion, as it's just a tool. Video tool, or yard tool, both are tools.) It's vastly better than the cheap gas trimmer, as well as the electrical corded trimmer. And yet, it's weenie compared to the tools I see on Youtube channels like SB Mowing, Midlife Stockman, and some others. Their tools are gas, and I don't want gas. Would the Greenworks 80V be better, or even another brand like Stihl? How do I test how powerful and effective my trimmer is, at home, with "what I have", or with zero basis of comparison to the Youtuber tools? I can't. I have to rely on them to test, and then I read/watch their information, as a basis to buy my own. (Prior to watching those channels on Youtube, I didn't know what I didn't know about string trimmers, only seeing what was available at Home Depot, Lowe's, Walmart, and maybe Amazon. They opened my eyes to making yard work life easier.)
Do you see what I'm getting at here?
Quote:
A digital source won't have timebase errors,
Tapes have more than timing errors, and capture cards react to those as well. For example, capture cards tend to react far different to luma/chroma coming from modulated analog off a digital source, vs. the raw analog ingested off tape.
Quote:
I think a lot of users would like to know if their captures look as good as they should/can, but having an identical starting capture source would be the first step to then compare to what others posted they were able to achieve with the same starting source.
This is difficult even for expert users. In the past, we'd have to share tapes in the mail. The unfortunate issue here is climate/temp changes from mailing, and thus findings may be entirely negated, even after the first leg of the journey. I've seen that happen before.
Quote:
Sure, I can think of better ways to make a starting reproducible analog signal, but at huge diminishing returns in terms of cost and complexity for most users.
I was watching a GenX video on Youtube yesterday, and it mirrors my own common stance: It's not about money, or complexity, but time. Time is the most valuable commodity, not dollars. Only the young think dollars matter most in this world. If I could go back in time, or add time -- or add health -- I would gladly incinerate every dollar, smelt every coin. For "most people", this is true.
This is difficult even for expert users. In the past, we'd have to share tapes in the mail. The unfortunate issue here is climate/temp changes from mailing, and thus findings may be entirely negated, even after the first leg of the journey. I've seen that happen before.
Does this mean that every time a tape is mailed to a conversion service, there are significant risks?
Does this mean that every time a tape is mailed to a conversion service, there are significant risks?
If shipping is timed well, and packed properly, then no, not significant. (I know you want to send us some tapes eventually, and this will be well-addressed at that time.)
Even in less ideal conditions, on the first leg of a journey, A to B, it's almost always fine ("almost always" is not 100%).
Ideally, a proper time for mailing is not when temps are freezing outside, nor 100+ (F) temps. You have to pay attention to both start and end destinations, as well as in-between weather conditions. It's not hard to do, just look at the 10-day forecasts on a national (or international) weather app/site.
It's the A to B to C to D, etc, where transit time is accrued, that you see loss. However, the loss is still almost entirely due to human errors here. For lots of hand-offs of tapes, in such a chain testing, we have to assume random mailing times, and random climate/temp issues. I've found that even "experts" make some pretty dumb mistakes with source tapes, such as flimsy USPS Priority Mail Flat Rate boxes, no padding, which exposes it to moisture.
Testing also requires marginal tapes, and those just do not hold up well with constant re-shipping.
If shipping is timed well, and packed properly, then no, not significant. (I know you want to send us some tapes eventually, and this will be well-addressed at that time.)
You are most kind.
I think I'm the classic case of noob who hears the worst case scenario from an expert and worries that it is the average expected scenario. Thank you for the clarification.
You are most kind.
I think I'm the classic case of noob who hears the worst case scenario from an expert and worries that it is the average expected scenario. Thank you for the clarification.
Overcoming that sort of knee-jerk reaction to situations can be helped by understanding statistics.
Now, I don't have exact numbers here, nor to a scientifically statistically significant sample size. However, from a 30-year and 1000s-of-tapes anecdotal view (which some may argue is statistically acceptable), I'd suggest that:
- Tapes shipped in extreme conditions have 50/50 odds of not incurring transit degradation -- that is awful odds.
- Bad packaging in extreme conditions can make it have a worse survivorship odds, below 50% -- that almost becomes "a given" of damage/loss, not even odds.
- But good packaging, good shipping conditions (not extreme temps, not extreme moisture exposure, etc), results in relatively harmless exposure, not even 1%. That's not zero exposure, just unremarkable damage, almost imperceptible.
- Damage is accrued. So shipping, and re-shipping, degrades tape conditions, and on a curve (not direct ~1% accrual per instance), even if each trip is relatively harmless unto itself. Over the longer term, the accrued exposure is not relatively harmless. Even a few legs of a trip can result in a noticed 5% or more loss.
- Add in any undesirable shipping conditions, on the repeated reshipments, and you're back down to 50/50 or less type odds.
Hopefully that makes you feel better, not worse.
This should not be an excuse to "use the local service" for transfers, because using junk/bad equipment can be worse than shipping in extreme conditions. Everything has risks, nothing is risk-free.
In essence, don't do anything stupid when shipping tapes, pay attention to details (weather, packages), and you should be fine.
As another non-video example:
In recent times (too often, sometime daily), I've had to handle family medical issues. I tend to get along well with doctors that can give me concrete odds (either a % or a "1 in 10,000" type reference). But some people, certain older family members especially, hear that death is a potential outcome (with or without odds), and they freak out. But death is literally a possible outcome for every drug, procedure, and health condition. Even drinking water can result in death! So it can be a fraction of 1% odds, and "OMG! I'M GONNA DIE!" <sigh>
Math makes people react in weird ways. Math is too often misunderstood. Math is hard.
