The Canopus ADVC300 has a TBC? Or dumb DV box?
 

My understanding is that the ADVC300 has a TBC -- which makes it far above a "dumb DV box." I have a Pinnacle unit which is VERY dumb (doesn't work at all and has many sync problems) so the 300 has to be better than that. I've read numerous user reports and comments from pros who swear by the 300.

GCW
--gwebb

This question was asked in a private message. Rather than hide our tech advice in private conversations, Site Staff will often answer PMs (from any site) here in the digitalFAQ.com forum, so that others may read and benefit from our expertise. Please continue the conversation here. Either login or join as a Free Member, and we can continue troubleshooting your video, photo or web related issue. Thanks for understanding our tech Q&A policies.

Most of us swear at the ADVC units. While they proclaim to have TBCs, there's generally no observable effects from it -- which isn't the desired function of a TBC. Additionally, in the NTSC domain, it crushes the colorspace of incoming VHS 4:2:2 (comparable) video to 4:1:1, distorting color and detail in the process.

DV was made for shooting, not converting.

Some people like the units because they're easy to use (basic dummy-friendly boxes), but that still doesn't change the fact that it's not doing a very good conversion job. It's butchering the video just as much as it's transferring it. Better hardware will correct the video -- not just say it does (and then not).

Thanks for writing. :)

Which one?

Maybe it is better to use miniDV cameras with S-Video in -> IEEE1394 out to capture VHS?

Better = LSI Logic chipsets, which can pass video to MPEG-2 or DV25. Much better than Canopus quality.

The MiniDV option also often adds a real TBC with certain models/brands of DV camera, so that would be an excellent solution, too. Plus it often costs less than a Canopus DV box. And as an added bonus, it's a useful camera, not just a dust-collector on your office/home desk!