RogerM

Recently, a discussion came up in aus.cars that resulted in Beta vs vhs (yes
I know again and again). I read the article at the web address below and
felt I needed to make comment on it as I found it totally full of holes. As
that newsgroup is dedicated to mechanics etc., so therefor don't know much
about the real world, I decided to carry the post over to this group who may
agree or like to disagree with my comments and make what coulkd be an
interesting and topical discussion.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...omment.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

Peter J Smyth

"RogerM" <RogerM@justrucks.net.au> wrote in message
news:47ydnXsDJI48y4vVnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@internode...
> Recently, a discussion came up in aus.cars that resulted in Beta vs vhs
> (yes I know again and again). I read the article at the web address below
> and felt I needed to make comment on it as I found it totally full of
> holes.

Same in aus.tv.

And yes, Beta format is better. A number of reasons. Technically the tape
has far less travel on head take-up and drives than VHS. VHS lacing goes
around circles.

The Beta sized tapes are still used in broadcast and 'motion picture' like
Star Wars Epsiodes 1, 2 and 3. George Lucas stated that he will never use
film again. My Betacam SP recorder is 10 years old, just put a D35 front on
for 16:9 back in 2001. I had the heads replaced two years ago and it is just
like new and I can pick up SP tapes for $14 each. It will soon be replaced,
maybe with XDCam, maybe P2, but to get more than 10 years out of broadcast
gear is pretty good these days, mainly because it was Betacam SP format.
(Betacam was a bit average and SX chroma is worse the SP...that's my
opinion)

This WAS a good arguement back in the 1980s and 90s, but who uses VHS
anymore?
At home, record to hard drive. If I wish to keep it, cut out the ads and
burn it to DVD.

=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Je=DFus?=

RogerM wrote:
> Recently, a discussion came up in aus.cars that resulted in Beta vs vhs (yes
> I know again and again). I read the article at the web address below and
> felt I needed to make comment on it as I found it totally full of holes. As
> that newsgroup is dedicated to mechanics etc., so therefor don't know much
> about the real world,

I've been away for 2 weeks, so haven't read aus.cars. But I'll bet this
is really about Noddy, right? Man, he can press your buttons so easily, lol.

J Brockley

"RogerM" <RogerM@justrucks.net.au> wrote in message
news:47ydnXsDJI48y4vVnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@internode...
> Recently, a discussion came up in aus.cars that resulted in Beta vs vhs
> (yes I know again and again). I read the article at the web address below
> and felt I needed to make comment on it as I found it totally full of
> holes. As that newsgroup is dedicated to mechanics etc., so therefor don't
> know much about the real world, I decided to carry the post over to this
> group who may agree or like to disagree with my comments and make what
> coulkd be an interesting and topical discussion.
>
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...omment.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
>
>
Article sounds reasonable to me.

John Tserkezis

RogerM wrote:

> Recently, a discussion came up in aus.cars that resulted in Beta vs vhs (yes
> I know again and again). I read the article at the web address below and
> felt I needed to make comment on it as I found it totally full of holes. As
> that newsgroup is dedicated to mechanics etc., so therefor don't know much
> about the real world, I decided to carry the post over to this group who may
> agree or like to disagree with my comments and make what coulkd be an
> interesting and topical discussion.

Sigh, not another HD-DVD / BlueRay argument all over again...


Bottom line is, it doesn't matter.
However superior the failed product A is compared to product B, Product B
will catch up and pass the performance of Product A anyway (eventually). Or
maybe not, either way, it doesn't matter.

Yes, yes, I know there's the argument of if product A was developed as much
as B, would it be as good or better? Yes, probably, but who cares? In the
end, it really doesn't matter, nor has it any effect on which format wins.

You know the joke about the employer interviewing ladies for a particular
job, evaluating in detail the pros and cons of each applicant before settling
on the one with the big boobs?

This is the same, but the winner is the group with the better marketing guff.

Best for the job is irrelevant. Best marketing wins.
It's as simple as that.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

-

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:23:50 +1000, John Tserkezis
<jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote:

>RogerM wrote:
>
>> Recently, a discussion came up in aus.cars that resulted in Beta vs vhs (yes
>> I know again and again). I read the article at the web address below and
>> felt I needed to make comment on it as I found it totally full of holes. As
>> that newsgroup is dedicated to mechanics etc., so therefor don't know much
>> about the real world, I decided to carry the post over to this group who may
>> agree or like to disagree with my comments and make what coulkd be an
>> interesting and topical discussion.
>
> Sigh, not another HD-DVD / BlueRay argument all over again...
>
>
> Bottom line is, it doesn't matter.

Ahhhh!
It does if you buy hddvd when they've pulled it off the market.

Beta vs vhs. Who cares!!!!!!!!!!

John Tserkezis

- wrote:

>> Bottom line is, it doesn't matter.

> Ahhhh!
> It does if you buy hddvd when they've pulled it off the market.

This is my take on depending on if you have the winning or losing kits:


Group of Developers:
Con: Lose about $700 million on development costs.
Pro: Make a Bazzilion dollars in royalties over the next decade+.

Consumer:
Lose: You've lost a thousand bucks on a no longer supported product.
Win: You've got a 15-30Gig disk burner.

Both stand to lose a moderate amount of money (relatively speaking) if they
pick the losing format.

If on a winner, developers stand to make lots of money, and end users have
burner in their computer that's just about entry level nowadays anyway.

Looks like the developers are slightly better off here.

> Beta vs vhs. Who cares!!!!!!!!!!

I certainly don't.
--
Linux Registered User # 302622
<http://counter.li.org>

jd

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:23:50 +1000, John Tserkezis
<jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote:

>RogerM wrote:
>
>> Recently, a discussion came up in aus.cars that resulted in Beta vs vhs (yes
>> I know again and again). I read the article at the web address below and
>> felt I needed to make comment on it as I found it totally full of holes. As
>> that newsgroup is dedicated to mechanics etc., so therefor don't know much
>> about the real world, I decided to carry the post over to this group who may
>> agree or like to disagree with my comments and make what coulkd be an
>> interesting and topical discussion.
>
> Sigh, not another HD-DVD / BlueRay argument all over again...
>
>
> Bottom line is, it doesn't matter.
> However superior the failed product A is compared to product B, Product B
>will catch up and pass the performance of Product A anyway (eventually). Or
>maybe not, either way, it doesn't matter.
>
> Yes, yes, I know there's the argument of if product A was developed as much
>as B, would it be as good or better? Yes, probably, but who cares? In the
>end, it really doesn't matter, nor has it any effect on which format wins.
>
> You know the joke about the employer interviewing ladies for a particular
>job, evaluating in detail the pros and cons of each applicant before settling
>on the one with the big boobs?
>
> This is the same, but the winner is the group with the better marketing guff.
>
> Best for the job is irrelevant. Best marketing wins.
> It's as simple as that.

Shouldn't you be using a Microsoft Operating System then ?

John Bennett

RogerM wrote:
> Recently, a discussion came up in aus.cars that resulted in Beta vs vhs (yes
> I know again and again). I read the article at the web address below and
> felt I needed to make comment on it as I found it totally full of holes. As
> that newsgroup is dedicated to mechanics etc., so therefor don't know much
> about the real world, I decided to carry the post over to this group who may
> agree or like to disagree with my comments and make what coulkd be an
> interesting and topical discussion.
>
>
Reminds me of when I began to look at buying a vcr.

The Highly Knowledgeable Sales Person was spouting forth on the
difference between vhs and beta. He said "The beta is named that way
because the tape follows a path shaped like the letter beta" - and drew
an omega!!!!!

Actually, I always thought that following a beta shaped path would
require interesting mechanics!!

John

J Brockley

"jd" <jd@syd01.net> wrote in message
newst9e14l64aeu5svlnaokuogu6iurg3ol84@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:23:50 +1000, John Tserkezis
> <jt@techniciansyndrome.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>>RogerM wrote:
>>
>>> Recently, a discussion came up in aus.cars that resulted in Beta vs vhs
>>> (yes
>>> I know again and again). I read the article at the web address below and
>>> felt I needed to make comment on it as I found it totally full of holes.
>>> As
>>> that newsgroup is dedicated to mechanics etc., so therefor don't know
>>> much
>>> about the real world, I decided to carry the post over to this group who
>>> may
>>> agree or like to disagree with my comments and make what coulkd be an
>>> interesting and topical discussion.
>>
>> Sigh, not another HD-DVD / BlueRay argument all over again...
>>
>>
>> Bottom line is, it doesn't matter.
>> However superior the failed product A is compared to product B, Product
>> B
>>will catch up and pass the performance of Product A anyway (eventually).
>>Or
>>maybe not, either way, it doesn't matter.
>>
>> Yes, yes, I know there's the argument of if product A was developed as
>> much
>>as B, would it be as good or better? Yes, probably, but who cares? In
>>the
>>end, it really doesn't matter, nor has it any effect on which format wins.
>>
>> You know the joke about the employer interviewing ladies for a
>> particular
>>job, evaluating in detail the pros and cons of each applicant before
>>settling
>>on the one with the big boobs?
>>
>> This is the same, but the winner is the group with the better marketing
>> guff.
>>
>> Best for the job is irrelevant. Best marketing wins.
>> It's as simple as that.
>
> Shouldn't you be using a Microsoft Operating System then ?
>
Perhaps the article needs to have beta/VHS changed to Linux / Windows and it
will be current again:-)