haha, yeah, I collect a lot more broadcast gear than I do old TVs. That was my old studio, which has since been rebuilt. My live production/edit system now fills 7 equipment racks, and most of my basement. Sort of a hobby that's gone out of control. I'll give it its own thread if anyone's interested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohohyodafarted
Very nice restoration!! nice looking picture on that crt too.
It appears that you have a lot of high end video gear. I was just wondering why you chose to transfer the 16mm to tape instead of going directly to AVI digital. I must confess that I do not know much about commercial video tape. But I was under the impression that going directly to a digital format eliminates a factor of degredation.
Please enlighten me as to the pros and cons.
|
Well the simple answer is that for me, 3/4" videotape was actually easier. For anything I'm looking to archive, digital is totally the way to go. For the purposes of the demonstration though, it was the fastest way for me to get some good quality material into the set. Plus, that Elmo TRV-16 telecine I used ruins the film quality a lot more than the videotape does.
3/4" (marketed by Sony as U-Matic) is higher quality than many people think though. By the time U-Matic SP (Superior Performance) came out, it rivaled Betacam SP in quality (for composite video at least). The machines I use in my studio (Sony BVU-900 series VTRs) are the last and best U-Matic SP decks ever made, with built in digital time base correctors and noise reduction.
To get it into the TV, I used a small 3/4" player connected through a digital time base corrector (to stabilize the signal enough for the TV to sync to it) to a Betamax deck (just used as an RF modulator to channel 3). I used standard (non-SP) videotape, but for black and white they are very much the same in quality.
Still more lossy than digital, but I like to stick with analog for the fun of it.
–Tom