Posted by none on 10/15/05 02:57

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:33:13 +0000 (UTC), toor@iquest.net (John S.
Dyson) wrote:

>In article <1129245906.060365.30090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "Lansworth" <ptlansworth@gmail.com> writes:
>> I couldn't phrase it better than what I put in my subject line, so I
>> won't: SVHS -- Apparently Kicks VHS's butt, but how does it compare to
>> others? I am aware it doesn't live up to formats like DVCAM, DVCPRO,
>> etc. (thats a given), but does it produce a fairly decent image? I have
>> heard it does have a fair amount of resolution, at about 400. Not
>> excellent, but better than VHS. Thoughts? I want to hear what you have
>> to say.
>>
>When comparing FORMATS it is important to also consider the
>actual machine. I believe this to be especially true for the
>consumer analog format SVHS.
>
>Resolution isn't really the most important parameter of a recording
>format. Alot of tradeoffs come along with resolution. For formats
>like SVHS/VHS/etc, IMO the biggest gotcha is chroma performance of all
>kinds.
>
>Another big difference is the multi-generational performance. SVHS
>doesnt' seem to hold up for very many generations, but D9 (a DV50
>format) really does look about as good as BetaCamSP after more
>than several generations. After several generations, SVHS will tend
>to start looking 'not very good.' (I ran some tests on D9, where
>I did 10 record/playback cycles through the component I/O ports, and
>it stilly looked very good -- far beyond SVHS for the first generation.)
>
>For an 'interesting' time, record a multi-burst on an SVHS deck, and
>play it back without 3D noise reduction (but certainly with TBC enabled.)
>You might notice defects in the high frequency reproduction. For
>normal DV, you'll notice rock-solid reproduction. Then, make a third
>generation copy of that multi-burst (using the appropriate copy settings
>on the SVHS VCR), using SVideo I/O for both DV and SVHS. The comparison might
>be interesting. For a stationary pattern, DV25 and DVHS will likely perform
>similarly, while SVHS will tend (depending upon the deck) to look worse
>than the original. Disclaimer: MULTIBURST is not a difficult test for
>the typical digital formats like DV25 or DVHS MPEG. Movement (mostly
>MPEG) or irregular detail are more difficult for those formats.
>
>Given that comparison, then note that DV25 (normal DV) tends to be on the
>low end of the SDTV quality scale -- but still pretty good. Formats
>like DigiBeta will start diminishing to DV25 quality after 5-10record/playback
>generations. (i.e. the fifth copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, etc.)
>
>
>John

I've used commercial SVHS machines in years gone by and still have a
SVHS setup in a corner of editing room for special apps.(Sanyo
commercial SVHS with RS232 controller for stop motion/animation work)
I've used it to produce first gen recordings with older 3-chip
cams.(and 3-tube on occasion)
Mainly used it because I've still got a wall full of SEG's, TBC's and
special effects boxes that allows me to do alot of tweeks that would
take forever in post with my digital setup AND do it live/realtime.
I then use analog capture to digitize it and about all I have to do is
a bit of color balancing to get it to blend in with my digital footage
which almost always gets softened a bit to get it closer to a film
look anyway.
I've never had anyone tell me they could see any difference in the
analog vs. the digital.
I wouldn't recommend trying to go past second gen. if you're using a
strictly SVHS analog setup.

[Back to original message]