Not just a proc amp, but in fact one of the best embedded digital proc amps in any TBC ever made. :congrats:

Most TBCs have terrible documentation, but this isn't too bad. Not complete, but not sparse. See the Level 2 menu for some of the basic proc amp. Other menu levels have more image adjustments.

I'm trying to sort my documentation lately, and was able to pull this up quickly. Eventually, I hope to have all my documentation online.

Thanks for the affirmation. Looks like if I ever did chain a es10 I can skip the cable hack and just adjust the luma in the BV. Thanks.

B

I see where you are talking about. https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/...e3#post2794924

https://youtu.be/amWY9CW6NBA?si=nsZFV0i2TRiukgeW

I bought into this being a possibility and fueled a bit of the debate over there. Hardware ID doesn't necessarily tell the full story since it could still use the same bridge chip like the eMPIA cards do, giving an identical hardware ID. It is odd that the company itself doesn't acknowledge there being any differences though as someone else pointed out. It is a little strange that the OS compatibility on the side of the box is different for several versions if they are all really the same. I guess the included software might only work on certain OS's, but just seems like an odd marketing tactic to not have the version sold in the USA claim the most modern OS Windows 11 compatibility.

I did actually acquire one of these Win11 versions (took several tries), but have yet to test it. I will agree that most capture cards will drop when doing FF/Rew, so that's pretty hard to fake. In re-viewing the original YouTube video, it kind of looks like the right edge of the frame isn't straight, as though it sort of very slowly drifts to the left very gradually the further you go down with the left side being flat as it's cut off there. Could just be the camera angle though.

I'll see about testing it tonight compared to one that I definitely know does not act like a line TBC.

The other thing is that I do respect him as a YouTube channel. He posted a fix (or at least pointed out what usually goes wrong) for the SR-VS30U's DV drive. I've yet to attempt that fix since I have tons of other DV decks, but he does seem to know what he's talking about in general.

I've replied to that Youtube video twice.

The simple fact that this person thinks a $89 capture card will get TBC inside is simply wild, as Sharc and I discussed at VH. It's not economically feasible.

Beyond that, very few chips now support any sort of analog input, none of which as TBC function.

This is just more "AI generation" misinformation.

When you're done, do you want to pass it to me? And I'll pass it back.

This urban legend will never die...

It looked like everyone there including you was skeptical. You like to test stuff out for yourself though.

Good luck to the OP of that thread. What he is trying to do is a tall order. It makes for an interesting thread though.

In my hunt for TBCs over the years, I've looked into anything mentioned. At least 80% of items without TBCs are claimed to have TBCs by users. Most of the claims are not scientific, nor backed by any repeatable methodology. In many cases, these people are very cultish, refuting evidence and facts when shown.

Sometimes marketing copywriting claimed "TBC" on the package, or in product specs or docs. But that's actually less common than people just making false assumptions.

After almost 35 years of having video and both hobby and profession, I've amassed a "TBC killing" library. Most TBCs claims crumple immediately when I run my barrage of tests. Every actual TBC has fail points, but non-TBCs flail about.

I think people are misinterpreting that videohelp thread. http://youtube.com/post/Ugkx1ju63G6-...op0eZ9h9jNQOpS

That guy is thinking the same items they mention on page four of that thread about having a TBC. Like the cloner alliance. It just reminded me of this because that guy just commented that about the cloner alliance. Just because it is somewhat resilient doesn’t mean it has a TBC.

Maybe it's not from that thread. Maybe it's just someone confusing resilience for a TBC.

Posted results over on Videohelp mainly because they tend to be more into technical analysis of files like caputurable range, detecting frame drops, and the other original discussion over there that there's only one hardware version of GV-USB2 which I now disagree with after testing 4 different GV-USB2s myself.

See thread here: https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/...ty#post2796021

I'll definitely need to do quite a few more tests with it, so I'll be holding onto it, but the "different" one indeed was the Windows 11-badged box as the original video poster noted if you're looking for one.

Is it a real line TBC (memory buffered lines with new line timing and color burst re-inserted)? Certainly not. But might it give a similar result? Possibly - seems quite a bit better than nothing in this test anyway. I conceptualize it as ignoring the space between lines and "left justifying" image data that gets triggered to start after it sees each color burst signal on each line. That, conceptually, would give a similar result and wouldn't require the memory or added complexity. That's all speculation of course, but makes sense to me.

Downside to this specific setup is that it could still be dropping frames as you can't put a frame TBC after it in the chain. Depending on the capture program, it might be able to compensate for the occasional frame drop though.

So I just realized that video capture guide has a video in which he says the Cloner Alliance has a TBC. It’s at 9:50.

https://youtu.be/f-utOng_US8?si=dymELGpFiNxvLS5d

I like his YouTube channel. He’s pretty accurate because his channel is based on this forum and videohelp. When he does that video though he is comparing it to an ATI AIW. The Cloner Alliance is more resilient than the AIW but they definitely didn’t put a TBC in a newer all in one device that was manufactured with budget and simplicity as the main priority like the Cloner alliance.

I think someone else would get way different results with a Cloner alliance anyways because he is probably using a well built VCR. Even with the TBC turned off when I play a tape that has line timebase errors they aren’t as bad coming out of my Panasonic 1980p ag as they are coming out of my low end VCR. Who knows what the people that purchase a Cloner Alliance will have in front of that device.

Problems always ensure because people don't truly understand what a TBC is and does. And what a TBC isn't and doesn't. To compound the issue, the industry has a loosey-goosey definition, and so do many people as a result.

Correct, it does not have any sort of TBC. You can literally see the door wiggling in the sample clip at 9:50.

I'm not away of any tool that gives a door such wavy cuts. :laugh:

Attachment 20423

That is not what you see when a line TBC is present.

Nor does it have frame TBC, with all that luma-changing flicker. That exact error is almost never 100% baked-in visuals. At most, the lack of frame TBC causes timing instability that emphasizes pre-existing luma errors.

I added this comment to the video:
And this is because higher quality decks have higher quality transports. :congrats:

Me too. Everybody makes mistakes. He just needs to address it, so as not to spread misinformation. And I trust he'll do just that, he's one of the few no-BS Youtubers on these topics.

I apologize for any misinformation I may have spread a bit as well, I've learned a lot more these past few months than I ever did about analog capturing. It's far more complex than I initially anticipated to properly capture these signals cleanly. I'll have to continue to read up on this, I have yet so much to learn :(

You're fine. It happens.

What matters most is that people learn, correct themselves. :congrats:

I learn new things all the time. And then I do my best to teach others what I know, what is in my circle of competence. I'm just an educator at my core. The one tip I have for others is to be cautious, always verify their information. In some cases, don't be a student trying to be the teacher.

Greetings.
I was forwarded this thread as my name came up in it, so while I'm here, I'll do my best to provide clarity on a couple of topics discussed. I'll focus on the main one of attenuation in this post.

Neither ENunn, nor anyone else, has credited me for the idea of attenuation itself - as it is clearly what is required here. To my knowledge, I might be the first in this community who has suggested using fixed BNC attenuators specifically - but it's trivial in any case.

The first solutions originated on Gleitz which began with using a volume controller as a workaround - functional, but designed for an input load of 8 kΩ. The next (in the same thread) was a modified S-video cable, now properly matched at 75 Ω, but inflexible - since the attenuation value required will vary per VCR.

There are otherwise many solutions for this purpose, but a fixed BNC pad - which is accessible for everyone and can be easily swapped out with different values as needed - is a simple and effective option. Additionally, secondary outputs on a VCR can be routed to secondary inputs on the DVD recorder, offering a true bypass path that can be remotely switched.

I’ve found no observable difference in comparison to my 75 Ω pads (SA03B75) at least with short cabling (<1m) to minimise reflections.
While 75 Ω options can be acquired new, mostly from brands under the Infinite umbrella (Pasternack, L-com, Fairview), they are expensive and/or with months of lead time.
So I suggest 50 Ω pads as the practical option instead, from a good brand like Mini-Circuits which can be easily acquired at low cost. Alternatively, you can find pre-owned 75 Ω variants for strictly correct impedance; it’s up to you.

As for dB rating, the goal is not precision - it is simply to contain luma peaks below the point of internal clipping. Extended range values, otherwise known as super-whites (and sub-blacks) are preserved on the DMR's output, over both analog and HDMI connections; allowing recovery in post even if luma enters super-white range. The only requirement is using enough attenuation so that it does not exceed that range.

On the other points:

• There is no need to attenuate C together with Y - the DVD recorder will apply AGC on the chroma regardless.
• These attenuators operate from DC preserving low level syncs - so the recorder has everything it needs to correctly digitise the signal. Note the black level in the Gist sample linked below, which continues to sit exactly where it should.
• Unlike a proc amp - the signal path remains entirely passive. So it is actually a more transparent solution, with only enough Y reduction to tame the AGC response.

Also worth mentioning that using the attenuator on a composite path is still perfectly viable - in fact, the samples I've provided show exactly this path, as it applies to a lot more people who are using ordinary VHS decks. This will still provide good results in combination with the DVD recorder’s Y/C separation.

If you are referring to levels internally clipped by the recorder - then absolutely not.
This can only be compensated for prior to the ADC stage.

Once the signal enters the recorder, that's it - the AGC either reacts favourably to the source, providing enough headroom to contain luma peaks, or it reacts aggressively and clips luma beyond the point of recovery.
If it's the latter, then nothing downstream of the recorder can recover what was internally lost. At most, you can use your capture card's proc amp to adjust what’s left and prevent further clipping, but it's not going to restore the complete dynamic range.

As for a standalone proc amp - in the scenario that it sits upstream of the DVD recorder, then whether or not it "hinders" TBC performance is entirely black and white:
Either the proc amp is analog, which will still allow the TBC access to the original sync pulses, or the proc amp is digital in which case the TBC is locked out of doing its job - as the signal has already undergone an internal A/D conversion (and D/A on output).

"Pissing away $60" is an excessive remark when you consider that standalone proc amps - particularly the suitable ones from brands like SignVideo - cost hundreds if you can even find them at all. Spending this amount just for the purpose of slightly reducing the luma is hardly worth it in any case.
Additionally - many devices that were tested for this purpose were not transparent to the signal, so ironically, the chance of degradation is higher compared to a passive BNC pad; even with a minor impedance mismatch.

On the $60 itself, let's be clear on what it's actually for - the total cost of the cabling supplied from BJC + the $15 attenuator itself. The price can be far below that if using alternative sources for the breakouts and some cheaper RG59 or RG179 BNC cables substituting my Belden 1505F option shown.

Indeed - I’m glad somebody understands.

Note:
For fixed attenuation values, either 4 or 5 dB should be selected - for an effective reduction of approx. 1 dB or more. You’re mostly limited to those two values, as 3 dB is insufficient to tame the AGC, and 6 dB is likely too much; driving your luma too far below target levels. It is cheap enough to get both and see which works best in your setup.

Examples:
As mentioned above, I’ve prepared a markdown with supporting samples on the topic. For now, it is just an edited copy of my thread on Discord - but I’ll be making a comprehensive guide with other viable options I’ve not yet detailed (yes, there are others).

Link: GitHub - Panasonic DMR Testing

This single quoted sentence was followed by several paragraphs, essentially if/then/else statements. And I do not disagree with those paragraphs, or even this sentence.

But I'm only into theory when it meets reality. And here's that reality:

To start, you ended your post with a link to images, from a retail tape, as "proof" of this concept. But retail tapes are terrible example, to the point of being invalid examples.

But most people, easily 99%+ of them, are not trying to make their own inferior copies of retail VHS tapes. Those movies and TV shows are on superior digital formats, be it DVD, Blu-ray, or streaming. There's some unreleased content out there, but not too much of it. Even censorship (swapped music, deleted scenes, etc) has backfired over the years, and studios are re-releasing it unmolested in the 2020s.

So that leaves home-shot video, homemade VCR recordings.

That homemade content is a mess.
- Cheap consumer VHS VCRs and camcorders pre-crushed blacks/shadows and whites/highlights decades ago.
- Overexposed, underexposed.
- White balance is non-existent.

The goal is to not make this worse. But not everybody cares about that goal, especially when it involves added money, added time, added anything.

When you use ES10/15 (and similar passthrough DVD recorders, mostly Panasonics from '05/06), you're surrendering some of that quality. ES10/15 effects go beyond just negatively augmenting luma, but include ill effects in posterization (color palette compression), NR that's always on (even when "off"), a non-TBC frame sync that generally results in a high duped frame count, and some others.

That's fine, I get it. Cost over quality, that choice must be made by some.

But then you can't go back, cherry-pick a single problem, then spend extra money on it. That strikes me as being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. The problems with the source are not addressed, the other problems of the recorder are not addressed.

DVD recorders were not made for converting VHS tapes to DVDs. That was a byproduct. The intention was always to be a PVR that outputted discs for storage. VHS conversion was always an afterthought feature. Panasonic give it two afterthoughts by adding the strong line TBC, which was also crippled due to enforced anti-copy.

Understand that Panasonic has always sucked at luma control and black levels. Not just DVD, but VHS as well. Even the AG-1980P and NV-FS200 are a wee bit aggressive in their processing (and thus why JVC is better overall). The DVD recorders before ES10/15 were vastly worse, ES10/15 not great, and final models not any better.

Higher-end users of ES10/15 generally know these truths. We're going to have S-VHS VCRs, TBCs, proc amps, and ES10/15 type where needed.

So a $60 cable is
- Redundant to the high-end user, as they already have proc amps, better-quality VCRs, etc.
- Ridiculous to the low-end users, who probably won't see a huge difference in final quality on their homemade tapes. In fact, many of them may like it, because their content is extra contrasted, and "pops". See also why TVs level are cranked up in stores.

In fact, better quality VCRs, by themselves, may fix the "crushed blacks" problem, because the VCR output isn't crushed over-contrasted junk out of the VCR.

In a vacuum, a workflow utopia, what you say is accurate. But we don't live in a vacuum, and a utopia would reject an imperfect ES10/15 from being allowed to exist.

I also have to wonder where the ES10/15's Lighter/Darker settings fits into this. That was never mentioned in ENunn's guide, nor in this thread. This entire cable conversation may be pointless, as ES10/15 has some built-in level options in NTSC recorders.

I thought I'd wait for some more replies before continuing discussion, but as the thread is largely inactive, then I'll simply address what's left -

How are the examples terrible and invalid for this purpose?

More importantly:
How does a retail tape that has been internally clipped, differ to a home video tape that has been internally clipped?

Answer: it doesn’t.

In either case, the luma has either been fully contained - or it hasn’t. If it’s the latter, then it will require attenuation just the same, regardless of whether it originates from a retail source or home video.

I don't know where you saw any kind of use-case implied. Did you not read the Gist and just skimmed through the images? As it should have been clear why I used the sources I did, as described in each test.

I’ll focus on the main ones below. GitHub link again for convenience.

Test 3:
To show that the Panasonic DMR does not have a fixed AGC issue, but a variable one.
Many are under the impression that the DMR always produces incorrect levels, but this is actually not the case. So this particular sample shows that - given a good source - it can produce perfect results (or as close to).

This is otherwise difficult to show using only home video sources, as those are especially vulnerable to the AGC misbehaving - due to them having inherent issues with luma which seem to trigger it.

The reason why this is relevant is to show that not all sources require attenuation, and it should therefore be used only as needed.

Tests 4 & 5:
These were the tests showing the specific AGC issue, and I certainly could have used a home video source instead - but I chose this at the time due to text and graphics that are only visible with correct levels, for the goal of a clearer example.
Again - it makes no difference what the source is, so long as it shows the exact same issue.

Home video:
I have no problem providing these samples either, so here they are - two different scenes, one particularly extreme, both with the same attenuation value (5 dB) which is universally suitable for camcorder tapes with this deck. I could otherwise provide 10 more, or 100 more of these, but I don’t see what they would contribute to something that's already crystal clear.

Attachment 20445
Attachment 20446

Those built-in levels options have nothing to do with reducing white level - they are strictly for black level only, specifically pedestal settings for 7.5 or 0 IRE. Brad has already detailed these options in a dedicated thread, which I recommend reading:
VideoHelp - Panasonic DVD recorder passthrough settings

ENunn should also not be expected to provide any finer details on the topic - this is a simply a solution I advised him on, which he happily shared after seeing the results.
The rest is up to me to document, which as mentioned, is going into a comprehensive guide with all manner of options for this purpose - none of which rely on largely unobtainable hardware. Make it about cost all you want, but the primary factor is always availability.

Thoughts:
I get the impression you're just trying to find something to discredit this as a viable method, but so far haven't found any good reason.
If you're going to form an opinion - then make it an educated one. There's no excuse not to simply buy the attenuator for next to nothing, and just connect it to your existing Y/C breakouts and BNC cables (which I'm sure you already have). Then at least you're not just guessing about its viability. I think that's a fair suggestion.

On the rest of the reply, there is frankly too much to correct in one sitting, and most of it falls outside the immediate topic. I might be motivated to address it if the thread becomes active again, but in any case - that too is going to be documented in-depth.

This has become off-topic to the original post, so I may split it off.

This is one of those conversations that seems to grow. For example, a single comment gets 3 replies. Then 3 replies need 9 replies. Snowball effect, rabbit holing. I don't infinite time to reply, but I'll get to a few main points.

It's because retail tapes are almost always better balanced color/contract/etc. Some are even intentionally using illegal values, overcontrasted/etc. "Color grading."

Homemade tapes aren't like that. Homemade camcorder VHS tapes have known and expected issues, as do H8, VHS VCR from cable, VHS VCR from OTA, etc. Those sources are generally lousy, and bad devices make them double lousy in a very obvious way.

No, what you're saying here is a viable method. But then problem is "How viable?"

I've been using the Panasonic DMR-ES10 since it was released in 2005. Within days, I noticed the anti-tearing qualities, and told others on VideoHelp, this site, and a few other sites. I was the one who first referred to these as "passthrough" devices, which was actually a mistake/misnomer on my part. (As "passthrough" is technically bypassing. But the video travels through the ES10/15 digitize circuits, including the hobbled line TBC, thus not actually passthrough.)

My point here is that know what to expect. When you posted the images in your last reply, my immediate thought was "cherry-picked". But in your "Test 3" text above, you didn't try to hide that fact. I respect that move, and I can see you've come to have a serious conversation. :salute:

I'd also suggest that AGC, by its very nature, is always viable. With some workflows, the footage captured twice will look difference.

And yes, I've known about the Panasonic ES10/15 type AGC issues for years. Those also have luma issues, with some Panasonics (not ES10/15) getting a green cast as a result.

Panasonic also sucks at IRE. But, to be fair, most DVD recorders suck at IER. At least in NTSC, it's obviously not a PAL problem. And you're PAL, correct?

ES10/15 generally doesn't have awful luma/AGC issues like NTSC does. So you're wire augment doesn't fully translate.

This is actually the core of my argument.

- It's not reliable without constant supervision, or re-captures.
- Proc amps, with actual TBCs in the workflow, both line and frame, will yield superior results.

I would strongly disagree that proc amps are unobtainable.
I would also disagree that these tools are expensive to serious users.

And that's really at the heart of your method: price.
Not availability.
And the price is coupled with the "good enough" mentality, where positives are overemphasized, and negatives are underemphasized or ignored. Although you've not done that here, whereas 99%+ of people are that way.

This conversation with you can be distilled down to 3 methods.

1. the dumb way, no TBCs of any kind
2. the budget/cheap/imperfect way, using inferior gear to get passable quality -- which I often approve of
3. the best/proper way, using known-good gear, regardless of price -- although, again, it's not an insane price for a hobbyist or pro, as video is one of the cheapest hobbies or business capex you'll find

You've essentially added a customized wire to the #2 method, to help it approach #$3 by a small %. I think that's great. Attenuation has been for years, probably since the late '10s, but again mostly from PAL origins. It's probably good add for those users, and I've mentioned this myself in posts over the years.

Your homemade tape captured here are still imperfect. You've traded washed highlights for crushed darks. But sometimes tradeoffs are required, and I think it was a good one in the samples above.

__________

// Conclusion

I really don't see any problem with what you've done. What I most often take issue with is exaggerated claims. Again, you've not done that here. But other people can't stop themselves.

I'm very aware of how you act in Discord, and some of the wildly wrong statements you've made about (for example) DataVideo TBC-1000s.
- Harry Munday is an immature 24-year-old ass. When you're around Harry, you act like an ass, too.
- Several people do that there, become the worst version of themselves. It can get more toxic than Facebook and Twitter/X combined.
- But when you're alone, you're fine. We had a great conversation. Thank you.

I think we have the same goals here: quality video, best possible. :congrats:

But you have a "short money leash". I understand that. It's fine. I just wish more people would say it, rather than hide behind false statement (or even defamatory statements) about the "expensive" methods. There's no need for that.

A close friend has a high-end Corvette. To me, what he paid for it is insane. But he enjoys it, and he's earned it. His hobby life is based around that 'vette. People never tell him "your car is a piece of shit" (jealousy), or "those cars randomly stop braking" (false claim, possibly defamatory). He never encounters FUD in real life, and very little online.

The video capture community use to be like that. A few years ago, in the 2020s, it changed. Can you guess where it started, and with who? But there's no need for that. We can all get along. And without all the BS.

Again, in your last reply, you were very measured, fairly reasonable, and we have no quarrel. I even agree with some takes.

Well, that reply ended up longer than intended. :woot: