I was going to reply to chickensalad (great name
).
But sanlyn got to it first. Great reply. So I'll just reply to his, add a few more comments...
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanlyn
I think you are confusing the meaning of the word "clean" with "clear".
|
Clean = NR applied, less noise
Clear = what was seen on the tape, including undesirable image effects
Quote:
|
JVC's noise reduction is too strong and should be turned off, in my opinion.
|
Fair enough.
Quote:
There are two schools of thought.
One group of users insists that a capture is superior if it contains very little noise, even if noise reduction destroys many elements of the image.
The other group of users prefers milder noise reduction because post-processing filters are more sophisticated and will retain more of the original image.
|
No, no. There is a middle between your two descriptions, and I'd suggest it simply this:
1. Some NR during capture, maybe more post capture if needed.
2. All NR post capture.
I want a clean signal, but I'm also not willing to sacrifice lots of details for it to happen.
One of the primary problems with "no NR" is chroma errors. Those are not as easily fixed in software. Trying to correct chroma noise in software loses more details that fixing chroma noise in hardware. So it's a catch-22 at times. This must be remembered. If this was NOT the case, I'd probably opt for "NR off" more often than I do now.
Now then, yes, clearly there will be some people out there who approach video with your dreaded first description, with NR cranked to the hilt. But it happens both ways for them, software and/or hardware. We both see it. They've not learned "too much". To make matters worse, it's not even good NR in most cases.
Quote:
The first group has little time or patience for post processing,
the second group feels that post processing is more work but results in more convincing results.
|
The first group bought the hardware and wants to use it.
If good NR can be accomplished in hardware, to avoid more time-consuming software work, then do that. If more careful processing is needed in software, do that.
One should never be a purist, but rather cater to the needs of the tapes.
Quote:
|
A great deal depends on your video source. Much of the "detail" in analog source is actually noise, or else it is accompanied by high noise levels. Removing too much noise by using the primitive blurring techniques of legacy VCRs can cost too much detail. Often the typical JVC noise reduction circuits, or sometimes to a lesser extent the Panasonic AG-1980, will over-filter the results -- this produces a soft image and what are called "clay-face", soft-focus, or posterizing effects.
|
Yep.
And you forgot another aspect: the Panasonic over-sharpening issue. By default, at least the AG-1980 is pumped too high, and results in false "details" (mosquito noise) and halos/ringing. You have to tune that down some, using the deck slider bar. The default/0/unity setting is too strong. It's doesn't go all the way left, but it probably needs to cover 25% of the distance between default and unsharp.
Quote:
|
I am of the school that too much noise reduction during capture destroys the image along with the noise, throwing out the baby with the bath water. So, for very noisy tapes I often prefer less noise reduction such as with the Panasonic AG-1970 or the JVC SR-V10/V101 series,
|
Apparently I'm part of both schools. I like my AG-1980s equally to my JVCs. I just think JVC is cleaner at times, so it's my first stop when playing a tape. If results are not satisfactory in the JVC, I try to 1980 next. Whatever is best is what gets used!
Quote:
|
I formerly owned two copies of the JVC SR-7600 series and always felt that they softened the image, blurred motion too much, and were fairly useless with slow-speed tapes, of which I had more than 150 tapes.
|
This may have just been worn heads. Those are some of the things that start to happen.
Quote:
|
I also owned a JVC 9911, the first copy of which was defective and the second copy of which couldn't compete with the AG-1980 for tracking home made tapes.
|
Yep, well known that AG-1980P usually tracks EP better than most JVCs. And especially those EOL units like the 9911 and SR-V101, which had weaker transports. Too loose, too much plastic, most did NOT age well after 10-15 years (~2003 model). The SR-V101 heads also seems to wear easier, and go software more frequently than any other JVC that I've ever seen.
Quote:
|
I think you will find that based on my experience and on my observations from many posts in this forum and other websites, I'm not the best advocate for JVC players, although many people prefer them. However, you should note that the main reason a recommended player appears on the posted list is not based entirely on its noise reduction abilities
|
Correct, not entirely NR...
Quote:
|
-- after all, noise reduction is a modification of the original image, and is sometimes a flawed modification at that. Rather, players appear on that list for their ability to track more accurately and to inflict less damage onto the signal than lesser players do.
|
But that's also not entirely it, either!
True, the transport and ability to retain full quality from the tape matters. And NR makes the video looks better than the original tape. So what did you forget?
The internal line/field TBC.
VCRs are ranked on all the merits. I'm actually planning to grade that list soon, as it needs to be known that not every machine is an equal. For example, a D-VHS deck is no match for certain other JVCs, or Panasonic AG-1980s. It's not bad, but when given a choice between two decks, you may wish to choose the other instead. Hence my forthcoming list updates.
Quote:
|
Like most advanced users, you will eventually find that owning more than one VCR with varying playback characteristics will solve different problems. One of the players may do a better job of tracking the same tape than the other, or contrast or color might look better through another player. Ultimately I prefer more detail retention and better tracking -- but on the other hand many of my tapes were improperly stored and poorly recorded and would require more work and more post-processing cleanup regardless of the player used.
|
Yep.
