It boils down to knowing the internals and capability potential of your gear. I've seen TV sets where-in the composite input display looked better than s-video from a known good source. Evidence that some inputs were added as an afterthought for marketing purposes.

S-video and component inputs/outputs are disappearing from new equipment, composite is often retained as an accommodation for legacy gear, at least for a while. HDMI is taking over.

I'm well aware of this, but thanks for retelling. Most of our transfers are done from YPrPb (or latterly HD-SDI) so I'm keenly aware of the signal architectures.

My point (which I did make clumsily) is "should chroma-under" be considered a composite, component or 'third' signal system?"

It was a genuine question, I'm not convinced domestic analogue videotape is any more component than it is composite? It doesn't change anything in reality - as I said, it was a genuine question.

No, Y-C is not composite, two separate components don't mix until they hit the composite circuit, Just because they are multiplexed in the same RF envelope recorded on tape doesn't make them composite. The degradation of chroma when recorded on tape is due to converting it to a lower frequency and restoring it back to its original frequency.

It gets degraded further in the composite circuit, You will never ever get a better picture from composite vs S-Video from the same player period. Once the chroma is smeared in the composite stage It don't matter what comb filter you use it will still be inferior to the original Y-C that started from. All the talk about composite could be better is in different scenarios with different hardware which is not what I was referring too.

The commonly used term for VHS and similar is "color under" as noted due to the chroma being separated and stored at a lower frequency band.

Another variation was found in Betacam, which does store the Y, Cb, and Cr components separately through a complicated process, which gave the format much better color resolution than the color under formats.

Also, we should keep in mind that the common use of the terms composite, s-video, and component refer to the method (protocol?) of passing the signal (connecting) from one piece of gear to another. We have been ignoring the RF (channel 3/4) connection method.

It does not equate to the method of storing the information on tape or other media. However, the storage methods may make signal transfer over one connection method easier or lower cost than another

Composite doesn't have to smear, and there is some composite gear that you'd have a hard time seeing an immediate difference between it and s-video. It'd take some A/B testing to see the difference. However, sadly, almost everything is smeared and full of ugly dot crawl. It didn't have to be this way. It's obviously due to mass usage of cheap chips, probably Philips/NXP.

It's called PAL.

(Runs for cover)..... :P

When it comes to chroma artifacts over composite, PAL is the best, followed by NTSC and then SECAM, SECAM chroma smear is horrible especially from consumer camcorders over composite. I've had some family tapes in VHS-C SECAM shot with a low end camcorder and they are unwatchable.

Hello again. Thank you, everybody for participating.

I did some recordings and want to share with you. I am ready to do better recordings later with your recommendations.

Files:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...97?usp=sharing

Gear
EasyCap capture device: I believe it's original version, and I am ready to open up it to check chip serial if it helps.
Laptop: budget Lenovo 5y+ old, Windows 10
Camera: JVC GZ-MG 47. Maximum bitrate, Svideo output
Mixer: Panasonic WJ-MX50. I think it wasn't necessary to use it, but I decided to keep it in chain.

Software
OBS, canvas 720x576. I did custom settings for easycap to make it 720x576 also. Everything else is default for recording.

Scenario:
1. Make recording with camera
2. Connect it via s-video to mixer
3. Connect mixer via s-video to EasyCap
4. Connect EasyCap to laptop
5. Open software with minimal settings
6. Start playback on camera
7. Do recording in software

File names meaning:
"original file.MOD" is file copied from camera memory
"obs mixer svideo capture" obs capture via mixer's svideo output

Also I have virtual dub 2, 64 bit version running on the same laptop. I did raw capture of the same file and setup with default setting and no special filters. File name is "virtual dub capture.avi" 740MB. But I personally cannot see any difference comparing to OBS. Maybe you can help with setting to virtual dub? Or point out diffs.

I did capture for mixer's RCA output also, to check if it's true about poor s-video on EasyCap. File name is "obs mixer av capture" For my opinion s-video is better, not sure why I decided that RCA output is better on this device, I will check again in different situation usually it has poor colors.

Again I am ready to make more apropriate recordings. and thank you for your help. What do you think about this degradation from original file? Can I get better quality with another gear or software?

As I promised before I am going to do the same on Matrox RT.X100 on WinXP and virtualdub famous pack VirtualDub 1.9.11 + Filters
if you help with basic filter and setting recomendations for that vitual dub.

But first of all I want to make it work on my laptop with any software or any other hardware at least for recording without streaming. But not old PC.