Which TBC should I buy for Hi8 workflow?

[Sevo030]

Dear forum members,

Im planning on digitizing about 30-40 old Hi8 tapes.
My Playback device is the original sony handycam which was used to record those tapes.
It has a built-in line tbc.

At first I tried to only use an ATI 600 capture card, and even though this gave me better results than the crappy Elgato device I tried before, the video still suffers from audio delay and occasional dropouts.
I tried to work around this using the avaliable Virtual Dub settings, but I didn't manage to get it right.

So I think I understand that the only way of achieving acceptable quality ist the use of a dedicated Full-Frame TBC.

My Question now is: How much do I need to Invest in a TBC in order to achieve "ok" results?

I don't want to do heavy restoring or anything, I just wan't to get the tapes digitalized, archive them interlaced on a big hard drive, and create compressed de-Interlaced video files for playback/upload purposes.

I might do some minor color adjustments but thats It for me.

So my workflow would look like this:

Sony camera - hooked up to a TBC (that I still need to buy) - connected to the ATI 600 capture Card - connected to a Windows 7 PC (only for digitizing).

Do you guys have any suggestions for me? (Don’t hesitate to correct me if I got something wrong).

[BelowZero]

Does your original Sony handycam have a DV output port? And does your Windows 7 computer have a Firewire (ieee 1394) port? If so, a simple Firewire cable will do the trick. Your quality will be better than using the component output-->TBC-->Capture Card route. And you won't have to worry about sync and dropouts. It would worth your while to check that out first before looking to purchase a TBC.

[Aya_Rei]

The problem with using DV is that it's a compressed old codec. Not loseless like huffyuv and the like.

That and with NTSC, the color sampling it 4:1:1 instead of 4:2:2 resulting in reduced colors. I've also seen that the white level tends to get blown out using DV. Case in point

It's probably the least worse option out there, just so you can have a passable enough digitized copy. Not some low quality compressed mussy slop like what you'd get with using an Elegato or ClearClick

[Sevo030]

Thanks for the quick reply,

Unfortunately I just have a Hi 8 model without a DV output.
I already read about the possibility to play back Hi8 tapes using a digital 8 camera, in order to capture the video via firewire.

But did I got it right that besides the compression, that is happening through the conversion to the DV format, it is guaranteed that there will be no dropouts or audio delay.
- Does that mean that those cameras have built-in full frame TBCs or something similar?

And if it actually is like this, how much do I need to invest for suitable a Digital 8 Camera.
Because if its as much as for an actual TBC wouldn‘t it be better to instead go for that?

[Aya_Rei]

Probably around $300 to $400 refurbished like these listings

Though only select models support playback of analog tapes

I don't think there is a guarantee for no dropouts nor audio delay, granted I never tested using DV to capture analog tapes myself as it is generally not the ideal method.

Wouldn't hurt to do a test I suppose and report your findings.

[Sevo030]

Interesting, thank you for the link.

In this case it sounds like it actually might be better for me to buy a tbc from the marketplace in this forum.
Since i saw a pal TBC priced at 700$, and If I got it right the use of an actual tbc would mean, that I have the guarantee of no Dropouts. I‘ll think about It…

[Aya_Rei]

Oh are you from a place that uses PAL instead of NTSC?

If so then PAL DV, while not suggested for serious work, isn't the worse option as it's chroma subsampiling of 4:2:0 is better than NTSC's 4:1:1

[BelowZero]

The TBC in cameras is generally line TBC and not frame TBC. No, I cannot guarantee that there will not be any dropped frames or have any sync issues. It's been a while since I tried capturing analog tapes with DV, but I don't remember having those types of issues.

I agree with Aya_Rei that this wouldn't be the ideal method, but it does work. I understood your post to mean that you want acceptable quality and not "archival" quality (sorry if I misunderstood). Capturing lossless with a frame TBC in the workflow would certainly give you more to play with in post. But I thought if your camera had a DV port, a $10 cable would be a cheap way to see if you were happy with the results. A working DataVideo TBC1000 is pretty expensive these days so a $300-$400 camera and cable would definitely be a cheaper option.

[Sevo030]

Yeah, my current goal is to digitize the footage without worrying about dropped frames or audio sync issues, with quality being my secondary priority.
I don’t think investing another $400 without the guarantee that everything will work is something I’m looking for.
However, I’ve seen a „Cypress Video“ TBC listed in this forum’s Marketplace – PAL only – for $700. If this would guarantee everything works just fine, I might be willing to invest the money.
What do you think?

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevo030

Dear forum members,
Im planning on digitizing about 30-40 old Hi8 tapes.
My Playback device is the original sony handycam which was used to record those tapes.
It has a built-in line tbc.

Noted, good, fine.

Quote:

At first I tried to only use an ATI 600 capture card, and even though this gave me better results than the crappy Elgato device I tried before, the video still suffers from audio delay and occasional dropouts.
I tried to work around this using the avaliable Virtual Dub settings, but I didn't manage to get it right.
So I think I understand that the only way of achieving acceptable quality ist the use of a dedicated Full-Frame TBC.

Yep, typical lack-of-TBC issue.

Quote:

My Question now is: How much do I need to Invest in a TBC in order to achieve "ok" results?

That's the wrong frame of mind. TBCs aren't comic books, with poor-good-fine-mint-etc ratings. TBCs tends to work really well, or really crappy. With few exceptions, they are a binary object. The "really well" units have two main factors: transparency and features. Features are proc amps (etc), while transparency denotes imperfections in noise, levels, offset, AR, etc.

Quote:

I don't want to do heavy restoring or anything, I just wan't to get the tapes digitalized, archive them interlaced on a big hard drive, and create compressed de-Interlaced video files for playback/upload purposes.
I might do some minor color adjustments but thats It for me.
So my workflow would look like this:
Sony camera - hooked up to a TBC (that I still need to buy) - connected to the ATI 600 capture Card - connected to a Windows 7 PC (only for digitizing).
Do you guys have any suggestions for me? (Don’t hesitate to correct me if I got something wrong).

Noted, good, fine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelowZero

Does your original Sony handycam have a DV output port? And does your Windows 7 computer have a Firewire (ieee 1394) port? If so, a simple Firewire cable will do the trick. Your quality will be better than using the component output-->TBC-->Capture Card route. And you won't have to worry about sync and dropouts. It would worth your while to check that out first before looking to purchase a TBC.

DV cameras are nothing special. Those can, and often do, lose audio sync. Those can, and often do, drop frames. DV cameras/boxes are just like any other ingest device. The "doesn't lose sync" is an old myth perpetuated by misunderstanding technical "audio lock" (has nothing to do with capture/ingest), further abused by Canopus marketing in the 00s.

DV is a 1990s method. Yes, it can work. But it tosses out 50% of the color data for compression -- compression made for 1990s Pentium II and III computers. It was superseded by MJPEG and lossless by the 00s.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aya_Rei

The problem with using DV is that it's a compressed old codec. Not loseless like huffyuv and the like.
That and with NTSC, the color sampling it 4:1:1 instead of 4:2:2 resulting in reduced colors. I've also seen that the white level tends to get blown out using DV. Case in point
It's probably the least worse option out there, just so you can have a passable enough digitized copy. Not some low quality compressed mussy slop like what you'd get with using an Elegato or ClearClick

This.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevo030

Thanks for the quick reply,
Unfortunately I just have a Hi 8 model without a DV output.

Nothing "unfortunately" about it.

Quote:

But did I got it right that besides the compression, that is happening through the conversion to the DV format, it is guaranteed that there will be no dropouts or audio delay.

Nothing in a DV camera prevents dropouts and audio delay. It's really not too different from ES10/15, though weaker.

Quote:

- Does that mean that those cameras have built-in full frame TBCs or something similar?

Line TBC only, not frame.

Quote:

And if it actually is like this, how much do I need to invest for suitable a Digital 8 Camera.
Because if its as much as for an actual TBC wouldn‘t it be better to instead go for that?

Frame TBC does what you want: prevent audio sync errors, prevent dropouts.
DV does not do that.
Line TBC does not do that.
Non-TBC frame sync can, but not guaranteed, 40 tapes will reveal some issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aya_Rei

Probably around $300 to $400 refurbished like these listings
Though only select models support playback of analog tapes
I don't think there is a guarantee for no dropouts nor audio delay, granted I never tested using DV to capture analog tapes myself as it is generally not the ideal method.
Wouldn't hurt to do a test I suppose and report your findings.

I hate the "test it" advice, when people who have been doing this for decades can tell you it's BS. It's like "put out cookies on Christmas, you never know if Santa is real until you try". Sometimes the zillionth test really is Einstein's (paraphrased) "repetition, and expecting different results, is insanity". But it is what you tell a stubborn kid/person that refuses to believe you. Problem is, this sort of issue won't be immediately revealed, so you can waste lots of time/money before realizing "oops!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevo030

Interesting, thank you for the link.
In this case it sounds like it actually might be better for me to buy a tbc from the marketplace in this forum.
Since i saw a pal TBC priced at 700$, and If I got it right the use of an actual tbc would mean, that I have the guarantee of no Dropouts. I‘ll think about It…

Which exact TBC? $700 is really low, which means there are asterisks/caveats to pay attention to. The exceptions I mentioned earlier. Sometimes you're fine, sometimes those are not for you.

If this is the CDM from joonas, acquired from me several years ago, it's probably fine for you. The s-video is a wee softer (not bad, still better than typical composite), and the color can have levels offset (tweak in capture card, or in post).
So:
- If you want the best possible transfer, it's not for you.
- If you want a good/great transfer, it's fine. I'd use it, if needed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aya_Rei

Oh are you from a place that uses PAL instead of NTSC?
If so then PAL DV, while not suggested for serious work, isn't the worse option as it's chroma subsampiling of 4:2:0 is better than NTSC's 4:1:1

PAL DV is still lossy -- just not as bad. It's like DVD or SD Youtube color quality, which can still suck, if done wrong/bad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BelowZero

The TBC in cameras is generally line TBC and not frame TBC. No, I cannot guarantee that there will not be any dropped frames or have any sync issues. It's been a while since I tried capturing analog tapes with DV, but I don't remember having those types of issues.
I agree with Aya_Rei that this wouldn't be the ideal method, but it does work. I understood your post to mean that you want acceptable quality and not "archival" quality (sorry if I misunderstood). Capturing lossless with a frame TBC in the workflow would certainly give you more to play with in post. But I thought if your camera had a DV port, a $10 cable would be a cheap way to see if you were happy with the results.

Quote:

A working DataVideo TBC1000 is pretty expensive these days so a $300-$400 camera and cable would definitely be a cheaper option.

Buy it, use it, resell it. Quality gear holds value. In the long run, the difference between buy/sell (if any) is the rental fee.

FYI, that's what several in the marketplace are doing right now. They bought, they used, and they're reselling (and those eventually are sold). I've been completely out of TBCs for a while now, so they're getting a great no-compete from me.

Quote:

...

Final thought:

TBCs are a lot like cars. You get a lot of stupid/wrong/bad advice online, because they don't really understand TBCs (especially variations that exist, and why). Or cars. Trying to capture without a TBC is like trying to drive a car without brake fluid. Low-knowledge users only think the car needs gas. Remember that most people can't even locate the hood latch, much less how/where to check the various fluids. Too many people will double down on their mistakes, argue it, rant about "costs", etc -- anything other than admit they have thin knowledge on the topic. Both cars and TBCs. (And note that knowing about cars doesn't automatically qualify to know about TBCs!)

[Sevo030]

Thank you for the detailed answer.
I think I understand now. The only way I’m going to proceed is by buying an actual Frame TBC.

Yes, the TBC for $700 that I mentioned is the one you were referring to.
I think I’ll take some time to think about what to do next.

[lordsmurf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sevo030

Thank you for the detailed answer.
I think I understand now. The only way I’m going to proceed is by buying an actual Frame TBC.

Yes, the TBC for $700 that I mentioned is the one you were referring to.
I think I’ll take some time to think about what to do next.

Also consider this:

I don't enjoy telling others to spend money, but you also need to think of a frame TBC as insurance. Imagine wasting all that time and money, only to later learn you did a bad conversion job. What now? Redo it all? Kick yourself and live with crap conversions?

Can you gamble without a TBC, and win that bet? Yes, but with the same odds as casinos/lotto/etc, In other words, the house normally wins. You lose.

It's just a fact, science. It is what it is. TBCs are the tools for good conversions, the end.

[Sevo030]

Yes, I agree 100%.