<OzOne> wrote in message news:dn5a1494gj2lt4u7dprbpgrcm11paj9u4a@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:45:02 +1000, "Jason James" <at@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"the_dawggie" <the_dawggie@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:6o7Rj.5560$ko5.5516@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> David Z wrote:
>>>
>>> > What's VHS?
>>>
>>> A video tape technology that should not have replaced
>>> BETA.
>>
>>True. How did VHS manage to get ahead of Beta? At first Beta hire movies
>>were available,..but not for long. Beta IIRC had superior frequency
>>response
>>and therefore definition. Only thing I can imagine happened, was vested
>>interest in VHS had much more money to force the movie companies to use
>>it.
>>Money speaks all languages.
>>
>>Jason
>>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2003/jan/25/comment.comment
>
> Read
>
> OzOne of the three twins
>
> I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
>
The article is rubbish. That's a one man biased crap viewpoint Oz. Totally
inaccurate.
Betamax WAS superior (technically) to vhs. Betamax's downfall was the
typical Sony syndrome of keeping the best to themselves where as JVC gave
the vhs technology to every manufacturer and his dog. Marketing was and
still is a major form of selling or not selling.
As for tape lengths, vhs had E-60min, Beta had L-250 (1hr 5mins), vhs had
E-120min Beta had L-500 (2hrs 10 mins), vhs had E-180 whilst Beta had
L-750
which was 3 1/4hrs, all longer playing times than vhs. True, vhs did have
LP
speed
which gave atrocious results and we all know of the
dramas associated with E-240 and E-300 of the vhs formats.
Just let me explain myself a little. For starters, Betamax had a higher
writing speed due to the much larger head drum. Betamax used the superior
"U" format to engage the video heads whilst the vhs used the failed "M"
format of the Panasonic foray into television. Physical damge to the media
caused by the excessive tight turns of the "M" format was its main hurdle
as
well as poorer and less contact with the heads compared to Beta.
To understand this clearer, look at the tight turns in the letter M as
opposed to
the smoothness of the U let alone the amount of head contact.
Remember the pre vhs and Betamax days of U-Matic? That was the television
networks entry into ENG after 16mm film. Then came the highly successful
Betacam and Betacam SP whilst still using the "U" format from the
Betamax/cord days. Even 8mm, HI-8 and the current success of MiniDV and
DVCam all use the highly successful "U" format.
The guy talks about the success of super-VHS. I say what ****ing success?
All it succeeded in doing was making the hundreds of tape dropouts clearer
to see. We were left with the legacy of vhs due to the greed of Sony.
Today, we are now looking at acquisition on cards similar to what you use
in
your
still cameras. DVD's and hard drives will soon be fazed out as recording
formats
and replaced with these cards. The weakest link in all these past
recording/playback
formats has been the mechanical side of it. These cards eliminate that as
it
will be
all digital electronic devices (DED's) with no moving parts or heads to
wear
out or
get clogged/dirty.
First we had tubed cameras, replaced by chips (CCD's) now we are looking
at
CMOS
appearing in cameras. Interesting times ahead.
Don't ask me to quote sources as this is all my own opinions/experiences
only.
Roger
|
