Talk:Betamax/Archive 1

South America

≈Beta might actually have been more popular in South America than North: A Chilean film from 2004 had a Beta version, and this two years after Sony had stopped making them evenin Japan.Flake11 17:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC) ---- The entire section on Umatic and Betamax is completely wrong. Umatic was developed as a consensus standard that involved JVC [1]. It was a similar situation to the Unix industry rejecting AT&T/Sun "System V" UNIX. Sony licensed Umatic to various companies, so there was nothing new or different about JVC licensing VHS to multiple makers, nor was it any less "proprietary" than Betamax.

That part of the article is false and misleading, isn't supported by any facts, and should be removed. Danieleran 23:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Porn industry

Regarding this paragraph:

One claim which has been made is that the failure of Betamax was driven by the porn industry's preference for VHS. While claims that this was because Sony disallowed the sex industry from licensing the format are unlikely since the licenses applied to the production of equipment, it is certainly true that Sony persued an anti-porn policy which may have been offputting. Other reasons given for the sex industries reluctance to use Betamax have been the too short, 1 hour, time limit on the original Betamax tapes with the porn industry preferring the cheap convenient VHS.

The provided reference simply mentions that the porn industry preferred VHS over Beta, and says nothing about an anti-porn policy by Sony.

" US pornographers' decision to adopt the cheap convenient VHS - rather than rival Betamax - when the two systems were introduced in the 1970s killed off Betamax while sales of pornographic films drove take-up of video recorders."

Can we get a reference for the Sony anti-porn statement? Cheers, -Willmcw 23:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This whole section needs some citation or it needs to be axed. It's presenting (what amounts to be) opinion as fact. Mratzloff 00:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've cut it. It admitted that sources say the porn industry was a factor, but advanced a novel argument to prove them wrong, which is blatant original research. (For what it's worth, I didn't find the argument very convincing, either.) If someone can write a better section on this subject, that would be great. —Celithemis 02:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Head speed

"Technically, the Betamax format has an improved bandwidth over the VHS format, due to a tape path design which gives Betamax a faster video head writing speed, despite the tape itself moving slower than VHS."

Huh? How does that work? - Omegatron 02:03, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

He/she means the spinning drum moves over the tape faster, while the tape is fed past more slowly. Although, since the rotational speed of the drum is fixed to the field rate of the video, the only way to increase the video head writing speed is to use a larger drum, which Betamax does (77 vs 62 mm). I've reworded accordingly. (also, both a really another way of saying the tracks are much closer together on Beta) --Dtcdthingy 02:30, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Writing speed is determined by two factors: the highest frequency you wish to playback, and the head gap. If you move the tape faster, you get better high frequency response on playback. When the wavelength of the signal is equal to twice that of the head gap, you get maximum output from the head. As the wavelength gets shorter, the output drops dramatically. Equalization can only help so much.

When Sony was designing the Beta system, head technology was pretty crude compared to today. To get the needed writing speeds, they made the head drum 74.5 mm in diameter. This gave them about 6.98 metres/sec in terms of writing speed (60Hz, less the 40 mm linear tape speed.) This gave them the speed they needed for the head gap available. In terms of track width, they needed 40 mm/sec to move the tape fast enough while maximizing the recorded track width. (Due to leakage, the recorded track is apparently wider than the head itself, which will cause some issues.)

Any time analog signals are recorded on tape, faster, and wider is better. Frequency response is directly related to tape speed and head gap, and the signal to noise ratio is related to tape speed and track width. When recording, you write with the trailing edge of the gap, and this will erase some of the previously recorded signal, so a faster speed helps to reduce that effect too.

Beta tape uses a formulation similar to chromium dioxide, because it's frequency responses are better than ferric oxide. That helps with higher frequencies a video recorder uses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.84.62 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 4 August 2007

Struggle and failure in the home market

Three theories are presented here. Which one is most entrusted today? Should all three get equal emphasize, as they do now?

1. The idea that the porn industry is the main reason for Betamax's failure seems a bit far fetched to me.
2. That Betamax format's shorter recording time is the reasons seems like a minor technical issue.
3. The theory from Sony's founder (Sony's difficulties in licensing the format to other companies) should be the most credible since he is a person who should know what he is talking about.

I think we don't have to give people the idea that the porn industry clearly had something to do with it unless the evidence really point to it...

Comments? I was rather young at the time and know little about the subject myself. --Fred chessplayer 23:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sony had actually attempted the license Betamax before VHS even came on to market, and I believe that JVC developed VHS avoid paying licence fees, becuase they didn't want to support their rival. Is my imformation correct

How could anyone possibly argue in good faith that shorter recording time is a minor technical issue !?!? We're talking bang for the buck here, folks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.149.248 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 21 March 2007

This an illustration of the confusion that can be caused by the current mess that the page is in, in that there is no dating of the introduction of the various Beta speeds in relation to each other, let alone to VHS. The first Betmax machines came out in 1975, while VHS went on the NTSC market in Sept 1976. The first X2/BII NTSC machine appeared in 1977, with BIII in 1979. Before VHS, what we would now regard as "shorter" recording times were the norm, e.g. the Phillips Video Cassette Recording system introduced in Europe in 1972 also had a maximum record time of one-hour. VHS marked a breakthrough by effectively doubling the capacity of existing home systems, but really only had a narrow window of opportunity to exploit it before X2/BII (and Philips VCR-LP, for that matter) appeared.

It notable that Beta was introduced in Europe and other PAL/SECAM territories in the only speed it had there, getting 3h 15m out of an L-750 cassette, contemporary with (or ahead of) VHS with 3h on an E-180 (PAL designation of approximate T-120 equivalent). If anything, Beta had the edge in these countries time-wise, but ultimately still failed. Nick Cooper

Video 2000

There should be a link to Video 2000 somewhere I think, because of all the parallels. Shinobu 20:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

MGM v. Grokster

Updated this text to concisely reflect the content of the decision. Noticed I was accidentally not logged in; removed and re-added this change so it would be properly attributed.

Option 30 June 2005 16:51 (UTC)

I restored this again after most of the comment was removed. I really don't think it makes any sense to mention Grokster here in passing (as opposed to any other Betamax-related case) unless you give at least 1 sentence of context. I'd say if you're going to cut it down again, cut any mention of MGM v. Grokster completely. Option 18:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

If people are interested they can surely click the link? (Though I agree it might not belong here at all) --Dtcdthingy 23:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

References

Would anybody mind me changing the title of this section to References in pop culture, as the section is not a repository of reference material, rather references to the Betamax's portrayal in pop culture? I'd like to change the section to include reference that the portrayals of the characters on the shows The Simpsons and Married with Children are intended to portray the Betamax as an outmoded or obsolete technology. The title References is normally used as a header for a section containing reference links or descriptions of reference materials used to compose an entry, and as it stands it is both confusing and misleading. Glowimperial 01:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Homevid box.

I added the Homevid box, as it seemed to be missing, and a Betamax entry was in it. --65.146.18.161 05:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Likely error.

"Beastie Boys music video Sabotage was filmed with Betamax cameras." Unless this can be confirmed, we should assume that this is another case of mistaken identity, whereby the recording was actually done with Betacam equipment. Colin99 21:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

quality?

do we have any numbers on how good beta was? i've heard beta had higher quality than vhs, but this isn't really mentioned in the article. has anything like this ever shown up here?

Justforasecond 05:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Beta had a higher tape head to tape speed than VHS and so should have had a greater bandwidth to the recorded signal. However most contributors here have go the relationship wrong. They have assumed that it is solely down to the wavelength that the head gap can resolve. Unfortunately, it is a bit more complicated than this. While recording the head will record wavelengths far smaller than the gap would suggest (on 3 head audio recorders the record head gap is typically 3 times larger than that of the replay head). It is the replay head gap that limits the reproduction of those recorded wavelengths but other factors conspire to make the relationship of frequency versus head to tape speed non linear (and in practice the response is less than the gap size would suggest).

The reality is: that the maximum reproduced frequency rises roughly with the square root of the head to tape speed [1]. This means that although the beta frequency response is better than the VHS response it was not actually so much better than anyone would really notice. However, the perception really was that Beta provided a much better picture than VHS.

The reason behind this was that the beta system exploited an electronic trick. The replay system included an electronic circuit known as a 'corer' (don't ask my why it's called that). This circuit sharpened up the rising and falling edges of the video signal making the edges appear to be sharper. The downside was a loss of fine detail which went largely unnoticed. VHS could have exploited the same trick, but for some reason chose not to.

[1] This is betrayed in analogue recording where tape running at 3.75 inches per second provided a frequency response up to ~13,000 Hz (with a 1 micron replay head). Doubling the tape speed to 7.5 inches per second fails to double that to 26,000 Hz, and in practice the maximum frequency response only rises to ~18,000 Hz (close enough to the square root of 2 greater). It is necessary to double the speed once again to 15 inches per second to get to 26,000 Hz. The actual frequency response obtained is subject to many other factors including (but not limited to) tape formulation and record biasing. 86.182.66.217 (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There are other points of Beta's superiority. A major one is that the Beta transport does a better job of isolating the tape from the cassette. The result is less line jitter. (You can see this easily on a VHS machine by switching to Scan. The image sharpens visibly. This does not occur on Beta machines.) Another major advantage was due to Sony's refusal to license their simple system of inverting polarity to minimize color crosstalk between adjacent tracks. This forced JVC to use a "rotating quadrature" system that wreaked havoc with chroma phase. The result is that VHS rarely has anything even approaching "good" color.

VHS is arguably the lowest-quality consumer-electronics product ever to achieve wide acceptance. It is a poorly compromised system that produces crappy images. Beta represents a reasonable compromise that doesn't (much) offend critical viewers. I used to time-shift programs with an SL-H900 and play them through an NAD MR-20A (one of the best color TVs of its era). It was not always obvious that one was watching a recording. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Is this normal?

Is it normal for a Betamax VCR to emit a buzzing noise when loading or unloading a tape? --71.162.21.183 22:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The magic trick Beta used

The vhs format uses a lot of nasty tricks to make it work.

For tape run time, the easiest way to increase that is slow the tape down.

Doing so means narrower tracks will be needed. To maintain a wider track, they made the head drum smaller and tilted it at a more severe angle. Doing so they reduced the writing speed. To maintain a good S/N ratio, you need wide tracks with a fast writing speed. They made some tradeoffs to maintain a reasonable sized cassette with a 2 hour run time.

As well, their bandwidth isn't as great, since the writing speed enters into this. Part of the solution was to reduce the carrier deviation to allow more spectrum for the sideband (where all the real information is carried: a large sideband means more resolution). Deviation is related to contrast.

Sony designed the original Beta machines with 1.3Mhz Carrier deviation, but reduced it to 1.2MHz for BII. VHS has always used 1MHz.

For comparison, BI had a 60 micron track width (38um was the narrowest possible for the introduction of BII). jvc used 38um for vhs SP mode. Beta I still can produce the best picture quality possible for a half inch format, due to the long track, wider track, and the higher writing speed.

The difference in bandwidth is insignificant as regards to perceived picture quality. It is true that Betamax users perceived the picture to be better, but it was nothing to do with bandwidth; track width; track length; writing speed or even colour of the box. Betamax machines incorporated an electronic trick which was a circuit (technically known as a 'corer') which sharpened up the leading and trailing edges of the visual information. The perception to the viewer was an apparently sharper picture, though the sharpness occured at the expense of the finer detail. VHS could just have easily used such a trick, but the manufacturers decided not to do so and retain the finer detail. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Greek or Japanese?

• according to the Total Rewind site (www.totalrewind.org - I can't link the sub-page from here because the whole site is set in frames) the name "beta" actually comes from the Japanese word for quality, not the second letter of the Greek alaphbet, which the tape spooling is supposed to resemble. Can somone look into this? -Litefantastic 21:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The name "Beta"

Actually, it's a Japanese calligraphy term, meaning to cover with a broad stoke, or cover completely with a stroke.

Sony used the term to describe the method by which a "beta" recorder works, in this case, there are no guard bands and the video portion of the tape is completely covered, as if by that of a broad stroke. Unlike U-matic, which has guard bands. By this definition, VHS machines can be technically (and correctly) called a "beta recorder".

Sony took the term and added "max", to emphasize the recording method. Easier to say than "Zero Guard Band Videocassette Recorder". Also one of the few trademarks to succeed with an "x" as the final letter, as it's believed that will jinx the product.

IIRC, this is explained in the book "Fast Forward".

This is what I heard -- "bet" is a Japanese word referring to surface coverage, and "max" refers to the lack of guard bands. I don't have a reference, but this is likely true. Why hasn't the article been corrected? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WHOLE ARTICLE

This entire article needs a re-write. It has become rambling and disjointed Technically it's all jumbled up because so many NTSC references have been allowed to permeate the article as though NTSC is the only TV system in the world. So it wanders around talking about Beta speeds (not relevant to PAL) and RCA (no-one has ever heard of RCA in the UK), as though these things were somehow relevant to the whole world market. Furthermore there are statements like "recording time was everything" which is POV yet given as some kind of fact (once you can record more than 3 hours on a tape in one go, any more is increasingly unimportant). Pretty well the entire "Criticism" section could be deleted, along with references like "The real reason for the success of VHS is RCA" which is irrelevant outside USA.

It always seems such a contentious subject, but we really need to be level headed and throw out all the POV and USA-centric remarks. Perhaps an NTSC and PAL/SECAM section which covers all the fundamental differences between those markets and technologies, then the rest of the article can be left to talk about the tape format itself.

Any volunteers? Colin99 20:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The reasons why the article is "USA-centric" are because the population of Britain is 60,609,153 and the GDP is $1,903,000 million while the population of the United States is 298,444,215 and the GDP is $12,980,000 million, Hollywood is located in America, and nobody has worried about anything being UK-centric in the last 50 years (at least). All these factors mean that the economy is USA-centric.

I should also note that your never hearing of RCA may be because RCA was taken over by GE in 1986, so few people under 30 have heard of it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.118.1 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 19 March 2007

Your soapbox rant overlooks the fact that collectively the UK, Europe, Australasia and all the other countries using PAL are easily equal to - if not actually outnumbering - the USA, Canada, Japan and all the other NTSC territories. Don't let your blatent nationalistic prejudice get in the way of logic, i.e. that the PAL (and SECAM) side of the Betamax story is no less important than the NTSC side.Nick Cooper 00:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You may not have heard of RCA in the UK, but it'd be difficult to avoid their technology if you've been using consumer electronics for more than a few years.

I "added" to the article's rewrite by removing an entirely duplicated paragraph. Whelkman (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The UK? Who cares about some little place that invents or affects nothing in the industry. When these formats were still considered Japan and the US were the only countries making decisions. They still mostly are for this industry. A bigger problem than the article being "US oriented" (as if it could be oriented around anything else) is that this whole article reads as a page which Beta nerds gathered around to write. "Beta enthusiasts..." haha ok, have your hobbies. But still I guess Wikipedia is usually just a bunch of nerds gathering around arguing about their meaningless opinions like that comic book guy in the Simpsons. Flame away UK people, Beta "enthusiasts," and Wikinerds! But yeah someone fix this trash please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.122.98 (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Actually, the battle was fought and lost in North America, period. European versions of Beta and VHS appeared years after their launch in North America. They may have even launched within months of each other in Europe, meaning that no one really got a head start. The slower frame rates meant longer run times to begin with, reducing that issue.

By that point, the number of VHS OEMs, and their manufacturing capability, allowed a flood of VHS decks with European and Japanese brand names to overwhelm the much smaller Beta Group. Matsushita is at least ten times the size of Sony, and add in Hitachi's capacity too.

In North America, RCA, and Matsushita have large dealer networks. Not everyone carries Sony products. Even though Sony was usually number two in sales volume, RCA was selling at least twice as many, with Matsushita (Panasonic and Quasar) and Hitachi weighing in too. Plus the private brands manufactured by them.

Besides, you cannot swap tapes if you don't own the same format as your friends.

Pop Culture Reference Discrepancy

Regarding this reference:

A gag made in a 1990 stand show by UK comic Jasper Carrott goes "People are asking me which am I going to buy the Philips Compact Cassette system or the Sony Minidisc system. Which ever I choose will be obsolete by easter, you are looking at Betamax man"

I'm not sure the date on this is accurate; the article on Minidisc states:

The technology was announced by Sony in 1991 and introduced January 12, 1992, and is capable of storing any kind of binary data.

Was Jasper Carrott prescient? --Chaos95 00:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Porn revisited

This was stuck into the popular culture section:

• It has been said that when the adult film industry adopted the VHS format, that decision sounded the death knell for Betamax.

It definitely didn't belong there, but does it belong somewhere else? I've seen similar claims in recent stories about Blu-Ray, so even if it's not true it may be worth bringing up in order to refute it. —Celithemis 02:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I work at Sarnoff Corporation, which used to be RCA Labs. I've heard this from co-workers who were there in the day. I'll poke around the corporate library and see if there is any verifiable info regarding the Porn/VHS connection. 70.106.123.197 04:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

---

The porn issue seems to appear from time to time, perpetuated by people who know nothing of the early days of home video. Just look at any early 80's copy of Video magazine, and there is no shortage of porn in either format.

In those days, anything that appeared on VHS also appeared on Beta. The market was too small to prefer one over the other, as a VCR was an expensive luxury in those days. Most machines had a suggested retail price of over $1000, which was a lot of money in the 1970s. The people who were interested in porn on tape could buy either format, as they were equally available in terms of equipment and tapes. Many times, the guy you rented tapes from was the same guy you bought the VCR from.

It wasn't until the mid-80s that video rental outlets began rationalize their inventories, as Beta had slipped to about 10% of the market for new decks by that time. If three-quarters of their rentals were VHS, they could afford to alienate a portion of the customer base by not stocking as many Beta titles, because tapes were expensive in those days and duplicating the inventory was costly. Not to mention the big chains that began to appear, and only stocked VHS. Many Beta owners bought a VHS deck for that very reason: the local rental store was VHS only.

In the early part of the 1980's (in North America) the street price of a VCR had dropped to the point where the "early" and then "late majority" began to climb onboard, and they were not really interested in porn, just the latest Hollywood flicks. Some of them were horrified to learn that this "new hobby" was being "invaded" by smut pedlars!

Then there are those who claim that "Sony wouldn't allow porn on Betamax". Which is entirely baseless, as Sony only sold the equipment, they were not involved with duplication. They had no control over what you did with your Beta equipment.

Saying that is almost the same as saying Matsushita and JVC actively encouraged the adult entertainment industry to release their product onto videotape, in particular, VHS. Although JVC recognized that movies would be important to the success of VHS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.84.218 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 24 July 2007

The porn situation was much the same in the UK - for many years product was available on both VHS and Beta, and even Video 2000 for a while. Nick Cooper 14:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Back in those days, your typical porn film (remember, this was done on film!) ran anywhere from 60 to 70 minutes. It's not like there were a lot of complex plot elements that needed to be explained. Due to the cost of production on film, there were not a lot of movies made annually, and only a few people were making them. Many of those productions were short loops, with few "feature length" movies, due to the costs, and distribution channels. So the two hour capacity of a VHS tape isn't really an advantage.

---

I would also like to note for the pop culture references that a Beta tape was a major plot device in Episode 18 (Speak Like a Child) of Shinichiro Wanatabe's Cowboy Bebop. A character receives a package containing a Beta.

The reason VHS dominated the United Kingdom

The Thorn EMI company chose VHS for their range of Ferguson Videostar recorders, which were basically rebadged JVC machines. Thorn EMI also owned three major national chain stores, Rumbelows, DER and Radio Rentals and of course it was Thorn's Ferguson VHS machines that got shelf and window space in those shops at the expense of Sony and Sanyo. Chris Longley 21:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

DVHS

DVHS has no place here. It never was a competitor to Beta, as it showed up long after Beta decks disappeared from the shelves.

Well since the article mentions ED Betamax, it should also mention DVHS (which was developed at approximately the same time, and in response to ED Betamax). Theaveng 16:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Tape Consumption

In the early days, tape consumption was a big issue.

The thing that killed U-matic as a home system was a large, expensive cassette that ran for 1 hour. Too costly for the late 1960s.

With Beta, Sony made the same mistake, but in a smaller cassette, with one hour run time. Sony saw Beta as a mechanism to accomplish time shifting. They didn't foresee the sale or rental of Hollywood movies on videocassettes.

When you are talking about a Beta cassette, costing $30 or more, holding one hour of tape, versus a VHS cassette costing a few dollars more but holding 2 hours of tape, that is a majour issue. Basically, one episode of Star Trek versus two. After a few episodes, it starts getting costly.

With VHS LP, you can record 4 episodes on one VHS cassette. Less than $10 of tape per episode. SLP/EP will drive that down to about $5. An L-750 running at BIII would yield enough run time for 4 episodes.

Into the early eighties tapes were still costly. For example, an L750 at $30 costs $20 per hour at BI, $10/hour at BII, and less than $7 at BIII. A VHS T120 would be $15/hr (SP), $7.50 at LP, and $5 at SLP. (For the EU: L750 is 90/180/270 minutes, T120 is 120/240/360 minutes).

When the price of tapes dropped, the cost per hour favoured an L750 (BII), giving the user 50% more recording time compared to a T120 at SP. VHS still won at SLP, by a small margin.

And as history has shown in North America, the typical VHS owner was more interested in recording 6 hours of video at 200 lines of resolution than anything else. Better picture quality offered by Beta wasn't an issue, they wanted 6 hours of video at tolerable quality on one cassette. If they really wanted a better picture, SVHS wouldn't have been the spectacular dud it was.

(Having worked at Kmart, I can tell you that the only difference the consumer saw between a knock-off and brand name VHS cassette was that one was half the price. Which one do you think sold well, prematurely wearing out millions of heads....) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.84.62 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 5 August 2007

A few corrections:

There was never a European equivalent of BI speed; the first PAL and SECAM machines appeared with the equivalent of BII, with which an L-750 ran for 195 minutes, not 180. Similarly, there was no equivalent to BIII in Europe. Maximum tape time was eventually 215 minutes with an L-830.

A T-120 runs for approximately 172 minutes on PAL/SECAM equiment, since it has a nominal length of 246 metres, compared to the 258 metres of a three-hour E-180, which in turn runs to 126 minutes in NTSC SP. PAL/SECAM VHS LP doubles a tape's duration, so an E-180 runs for 360 minutes, while a T-120 would run to around 343 minutes. PAL/SECAM VHS EP only appeared in the last five years or so, and triples the duration, giving 540 minutes with an E-180 or 514 minutes with a T-120.

As to relative tape costs in the early-1980s, in the UK L-750s were selling for an average of £8.30 compared to £8.50 for an E-180 in March 1980. This was before the introduction of VHS LP, so Beta tape was actually cheaper per hour than VHS. Nick Cooper 19:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No mention of L-830, which held 5 hours of recording time in Beta Three. I know many people who, uh, "archived" VHS movies onto L-830 tapes. I also still use L-830s for archiving TV shows. Though a VHS T-200 or DF-480 hold many, many more hours. T-200 holds 10 hours in EP mode, and 16 hours 55 minutes in Panasonic's VP mode. DF-480, though developed for DVHS, holds 12 hours (give or take) on a standard VHS VCR (experimentation pays off), and in Panasonic's VP mode, if I remember correctly, almost 19 to 20 hours, though I don't have an exact time since I re-used the tape for other things. This is all NTSC use, by the way. Coffee4binky (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Message to user:Theaveng

The "IMPORTANT" section I removed was a paragraph duplicated in its entirety. Apparently you agree as the article has since been re-consolidated. I suggest not using strong language such as "some vandal" when you do not know of what you speak. Whelkman (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you had explained that in the edit summary? Instead you just left it blank, thus it looked like vandalism. - Theaveng (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Unintentional omission. Whelkman (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, a blank summary line is typical of how vandals operate. You can see why I thought, what I thought. - Theaveng (talk) 11:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hardware licensing

NEC built at least two Betamax VCRs (one was the V70) without using a single Sony made part. The V70 had never-seen-on-VHS features like a NiCd backup battery for the clock and program timer and a clear tape flap with a flip down mirror and light so people used to visual tape checking of the old top loaders could see how much tape was left. The V70 also had a digital counter. This VCR had over 30 buttons, knobs, meters (multi-segment LED level indicators), slide controls, input and output connectors on the front and rear panels. In contrast, NEC's Betamovie camcorder was merely a re-badged Sony Betamovie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.251.226 (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Lines of definition

why are lines of definition being listed as 1000 for 1080 and 500 for 480 etc. the resolution is indicative of how many lines there are, thus 1920x1080 is 1080 lines of resolution, then p and i can determine whether it is interlaced or progressive. what is annoying is the lack of listing the actual number of lines, we dont' need an estimate in parenthesis or whatever that is for and there is a lack of pal listings as well. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.215.235 (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the amount of picture shown on the screen is not the full resolution that the format name would suggest. This is a legacy from overscanning in CRT days. In the case of 1920x1080, the actual picture presented to the viewer is 1877x1000. Simialrly not all of the 480 active lines are presented to the viewer in an NTSC system (576 for PAL or SECAM). 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Although many HD sets default to overscan, almost all have a "dot-by-dot" mode that displays the entire image. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

This was less true when the comment was added in November 2009 than it is now. Whilst nearly all current TVs have a true non overscanned mode, not all set makers necessarily make it easy to identify how to invoke it, some giving the mode an obscure tag. My own LG HD monitor features a non overscanned mode, but the mode is called "16:9 SCAN" mode (really clear that one). The user manual also mentions it, but as the description reads as a very bad translation it is impossible to discern its function (the rest of the manual is in near perfect English).

The Toshiba set I recently scrapped was even worse. All the time I owned it, I was convinced that it didn't feature such a mode (the user manual certainly never betrayed it). It was shortly before it was scrapped that I discovered an obsure menu item whose tag didn't give away that it was the non overscan mode. My sister has a 2 year old HD TV that if it does have a non overscan mode, it has yet to be found. Fortunately, my new living room TV features a clearly identified 'Overscan off/on' item in the menu (a Panasonic model).86.180.174.58 (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The Real Mccoy movie

There are also some Betamaxes in one scene. I do not remember the words, but dialogue was something like: - 'huh, a Betamax?' - 'yes, it's still popular in Africa' (or in 'Latin America'?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_McCoy_(film) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.52.38.10 (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture

I've given the popular culture section a bit of a trim, as it seemed to be accruing entries that didn't really demonstrate anything about Betamax's impact on pop culture, beyond the fact that some comedian had made a joke about it, some band had a song which referenced it and so on.

I added a lead sentence describing the common theme of Betamax references in order to try and give a bit of focus to the section, however, I'm aware that this may constitute a synthesis or OR - do feel free to amend/remove if so. Brickie (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of formats table

The article includes a very nice comparison of formats table which lists the vertical resolution of the various formats. Problem is that it lists the resolution in lines per picture height. The reality is that for analogue measurements the value should be in line pairs per picture height and the digital systems should be in pixels. The two are not directly comparable, but as a rule of thumb, for similar resolution, the number of (digital system) pixels should be roughly double the number of (analogue system) line pairs. The inability to directly compare arises because analogue systems will resolve the maximum resolution anywhere on the plane, whereas a digital system can only resolve the maximum resolution if the pattern aligns perfectly with the pixels. Further, the analogue resolution is often measured as the point at which it becomes impossible to distinguish the line pairs on an analogue display, whereas the digital resolution is usually fixed by the pixels (and the pattern in this case is clearly discernable).

The article mentions Kell factor for measuring the resolution but this is more to do with observing pixilated picture information on digital display devices than with analogue resolution or bandwidth. If the analogue resolution is checked on an analogue display (as it should be) then Kell factor has nothing to do with it. If you are using a digital display, then the quoted Kell factor is meaningless without knowing the resolution of the display.

Neither of the citations provided mention the resolutions quoted at all. In fact, the first citation is really advertising. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Lines per picture height is used in quoting horizontal resolution, not vertical, since "per picture height" is inherent in a vertical spec. Video resolution specs, analog or not, never use line pairs. Kell factor does apply to the vertical resolution of analog video, as it even though it is analog it is "sampled" by the scanning lines. e.g. 480 horizontal scan lines gives you a usable vertical resolution for arbitrary targets (i.e. details not aligned to the scan lines) of about 340 lines (not "line pairs"), the difference is the Kell factor of about 0.7. With NTSC timing and the usual over-the-air bandwidth of 4.2 or so MHz for the luminance signal there is room for about 440 cycles (220 white/black pairs) across the width of a scan line, this becomes "330 lines per picture height" when the 4:3 aspect ratio is accounted for. This puts both H and V figures on an equal basis. It is possible for laserdisc, S-VHS, or NTSC DVD over S-video to provide higher luma bandwidth than this, hence giving better horizontal res (as there is no audio carrier in the way, as there is in the broadcast signal). Jeh (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

To convert an analog horizontal resolution figure (in lph) to equivalent pixels in a digital system, you apply Kell factor backwards. For example, starting from 330 lph for broadcast NTSC, multiply by 4/3 to allow for the frame width, then divide by 0.7 to get 628. Hence 640x480 for VGA. Now a VGA signal is actually a LOT sharper than NTSC, because it has that same resolution for chroma as well as luma... but that's the closest easy approximation. Jeh (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ref for much of the above: http://broadcastengineering.com/infrastructure/broadcasting_horizontal_resolution_pixels/ Jeh (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that the term "lines per picture height" - which seems to have been introduced to the page back in December 2010 with this edit - isn't a particularly common one, and is potentially confusing. Certainly around the time Betamax was on the market, simply "lines" and "horizontal resolution" were used instead. It would probably be better to revert back to just "lines," and in the text above the table to include simple explanation, e.g. "lines refers to horizontal resolution (i.e. the number of distinct vertical lines that can be resolved)." Nick Cooper (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, we are at cross purposes here. Yes, the Kell factor does come into vertical resolution because the scanning line effectively breaks the image up vertically into the equivalent of pixels. But I am discussing horizontal resolution where no such break up occurs (on an analogue display). I am aware that horizontal resolution is still quoted as line pairs per picture height otherwise the frames of reference would not be the same for vertical or horizontal resolution (but then I never claimed otherwise).

I note that your reference states that line pairs and lines are the same thing. It may be a regional thing but here in the UK, I have never heard it refered to as anything other than 'line pairs'. I note that some test cards use 'lines per picture height', but they appear to be US sourced and anyway the lines does refer to the line pairs (one black, one white). Resolution is usually tested using black and white test cards or charts so chroma resolution does not come into it. The human eye has a far lower colour resolution than it does monochrome anyway, so the point is moot.

In any case the table of comparisons is still totally unsourced. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nick: The trouble with leaving off "per picture height" is that it leaves open the question of whether the number refers to "pph" or the total screen width. Note that in e.g. "1920x1080", the "1920" does of course refer to the total screen width. Such ambiguities should not be left in a WP article, and if the concept that resolves the ambiguity is unfamiliar to the general reader, then the concept should be explained, not ignored. The term is indeed uncommon in retail advertising but it is always either stated or understood in video engineering and even among the technically-aware video enthusiast and hobbyist community. The "330" that's commonly quoted for OTA NTSC, or "240" for VHS", is horizontal resolution in lines (not line pairs) pph, whether or not "pph" is appears. Jeh (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

DSP: The reference does NOT state that they're the same thing. The opening notes that resolution can be expressed using either, but that doesn't mean they're the same. Jeh (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Re test cards, are you looking at test cards made for photography? Longstanding convention in photography is indeed to always use line pairs (i.e. one black and one white line = one line pair), even if the spec for a lens or whatever says simply "lines/mm", they really mean "line pairs/mm." But video res is always quoted in "lines" - half-cycles, if you will. Both the white and black lines are counted (corresponding to the peaks and troughs of the cycles). If you have the patience to look at a video resolution test pattern, count the lines in the horizontal resolution portion, divide by the fraction of screen height it occupies, and compare with the number indicated on the chart, you will find that they're counting the white lines as well as the black. If you don't want to bother, the timing analysis in the ref I provided makes this clear: 4.2 MHz luma bandwidth over the duration of the visible portion of an NTSC "line" has room for about 220 full cycles, each providing a black and a white line, hence 440 lines over the picture width and 330 lines pph. If you insist on using "line pairs" the numbers will be half of what is always quoted for video. Jeh (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The Kell factor is useless in calculating lines of resolution, as it is a purely subjective calculation; same with the EIA chart, it is a purely subjective calculation. None of the links support the evidence, nor is there any scientific evidence. Thus the comparison chart should not be there. The only quantifiable comparisons of sources is between the frequency at which the signals are recorded. Plus there is no way on earth that VHS and Betamax produced the same picture quality. I just recently did a test on these two formats with material originating on Mini-DV. With the Mini-DV I had shot with a half-filter, so that the sun wouldn't wash out the sky. When I compared the two images, with VHS it looked like I had not even used a filter, not to mention a few of the shots had close-ups of wooden planks and I could barely make out the rings in the wood (and this was transferred to a VHS cassette in a S-VHS vcr by S-Video), whereas on both Regular and Super Betamax I was able to make out the rings quite clearly, and the image looked very much like the original Mini-DV, a little darker due to the transfer by composite cable. Sorry, your comparisons table is very incorrect, thus why it keeps getting deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.156.246.33 (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Horizontal resolution in analog video does not involve Kell factor nor any subjective interpretation of a test card, simply bandwidth and time.

For example, in NTSC broadcast video, the luma bandwidth is 4.2 MHz. A waveform at 4.2 MHz takes a little less than 0.24 microseconds per cycle. The amount of time for visible video in each horizontal scan line is 52.6 microseconds (this is 63.5 microseconds minus the HBI of 10.9 µs). 52.6 microseconds divided by 0.24 microseconds is 221... ergo, there is time across the scan line for 221 cycles at 4.2 MHz. If you actually sent a 4.2 MHz sine wave during the visible video interval of one line, this would of course be displayed as 221 alternating light and dark spots. If repeated on every scan line, you'd have 221 pairs of light and dark vertical lines. In video we count both the light and dark lines, so this is 442 lines per picture width. Since the picture is 4/3 as wide as it is high, we multiply this by 3/4 and get 331 lines per picture height. Voila! This is NTSC's oft-quoted resolution. No Kell factor involved and there is nothing subjective about it either. It's just arithmetic.

VHS has a luma bandwidth of 3 MHz, so... well, you can do the arithmetic, I'm sure. Please note that that is not the same as the FM carrier frequency used in recording (e.g. 5.6 MHz for SuperBeta).

Your test results did not isolate luma bandwidth from all other variables. See the section above called "The magic trick Beta used". The "corer" described is also referred to as a "peaking circuit." I would expect this to have pretty much the results you describe. Yes, it enhances some edge detail... at the expense of other detail that you weren't looking at. There's a terrific slide on several video test LDs and DVDs that shows the truly awful effect of peaking circuits. But hey, they do make those edges look nice and sharp.

For vertical resolution, yes, a Kell factor of 0.7 is used to convert 486 visible scan lines into 340 lines of vertical resolution. Yes, this is a subjective judgement. It involves looking at the horizontal and vertical portions of the resolution test chart and seeing when they both show about the same resolution. Different test subjects may declare that the chart "grays out" at different numbers along the scale, but there is no reason to think that they would see this differently on the H vs. the V scales. In any case, Kell factor of 0.7 is an industry standard figure. See, for example, here. You have offered no grounds for challenging it, other than your own handwaving.

Incidentally, the number of scan lines was chosen so that the useful vertical resolution (after accounting for the fact that vertically arrayed details in your subject are unlikely to cooperatively line up behind your scan lines, which is what Kell factor is about) was about the same as the horizontal. There is no point, after all, in having one be significantly greater than the other, is there? Hmm, well, in S-VHS and SuperBeta and LaserDisc the horizontal is significantly better than the vertical (and of course in VHS and Beta the H resolution was much worse than the V), but those designs came much later.

Anyway... please provide references that justify your challenging of the 0.7 Kell factor, or your wholesale deleting of these tables. As it is your actions look like vandalism, regardless of how well-intentioned you think you are. You will continue to be reverted and, if you persist, blocked for longer and longer periods. Jeh (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Over at talk:S-VHS you claimed:

These are extremely subjective, because the Kell Factor and EIA chart are very subjective results, as they rely solely on what different human eyes perceive, as well as how the different equipment is manufactured and processes the information. There is no scientific evidence that S-VHS is 400 lines, because it might appear that way to someone in their sixties, but for a twenty-year old they could, quite possible and depending on their equipment be able to make out up to 950 lines.

What is scientifically known are the frequencies that the video is recorded at. S-VHS for instance records and plays back it's luminance between 5.4 and 7.0 MHz, depending on record speed and type of tape used, while its chroma is always recorded at 629kHz, but is up converted to the NTSC and PAL standards on playback. Compare this to Super Betamax that records between 4.4 and 5.6MHz with chroma stored at 688 kHz.

Thus the comparisons on all the pages related to video recording should not be here, because they provide information that is not scientific and are very subjective conclusions that are misleading.24.156.246.33 (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. That "a 20 year old could be able to make out up to 900 lines" on S-VHS is flatly impossible. S-VHS would have to have a luma bandwidth of over 11 MHz for that! Again: it's all about signal bandwidth... which is a completely known quantity, baked into the design of each recording system and objectively measurable. The bandwidth of S-VHS dictates a minimum possible time per low-to-high or high-to-low signal transition,* and there are only so many microseconds available across the width of a scan line. Divide the former into the latter, and that's your maximum resolution in lines per picture width. Divide by the aspect ratio to get lines pph. Kell factor has nothing to do with it, human visual perception has nothing to do with it, and differences in equipment have nothing to do with it. There just isn't time for any more.

* this is simply 1/(2*bandwidth_in_Hz) . The 2* is in the divisor because in counting video "lines of resolution" we count both the black and white lines... i.e. each transition, or half-cycle, is a possible "line". Thus this formula gives us the time per half-cycle at the bandwidth limit.

By the way, a "bandwidth limit" is always cited at the 3 dB down point. This too is a standard convention throughout the electronics industry.

Of course, it is certainly the case that someone with bad eyes or bad equipment might report seeing less resolution on a test card than that dictated by the bandwidth limit! But the limit imposed by the system design bandwidth is the one that's always quoted. And it's the one that's been quoted in the table.

Nor can some equipment of a given system manage any better. If it did, the artifacts would be horrible, as the signals would intrude into other parts of the recording or transmission. For example, NTSC OTA is limited to 4.2 MHz out of the 6 because of the FM sound carrier. If it was allowed to go higher the video would make noise in the sound. This actually used to happen on old cheap or poorly aligned TVs: A picture with a lot of white in it (like self-keyed white lettering) would cause a buzz in the sound.

Do be aware that the FM carrier frequencies you have quoted here are not the same things as the record/play signal bandwidth. We can say that the available signal bandwidth is always less than the FM carrier frequency, but how much less varies from system to system; so there is no way to directly go from FM carrier center frequency to signal bandwidth. As an example, consider FM broadcast radio, which uses carriers from 76 to 108 MHz, depending on what country you're in, but the round-trip signal bandwidth is below 100 kHz. Jeh (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Untitled 1

These claims are reported as "Many people believe..." because I have no hard facts other than having heard both sets of rumors many times. Does anyone have the facts? -- Anon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.158.106.177 (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2003

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Untitled 1a

165.121.129.41, the anime reference you removed was on-topic, and quite interesting; I enjoyed reading it when I first came across this article. I suggest putting it back.
--tsca 10:01, 2004 May 7 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Untitled 2

It would be nice if someone could explain the "electronic trick that could easily have been applied to VHS", which made the picture of betamax tapes better. - Xorx77 18:21, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Betamax recorders incorporated an electronic circuit known as a 'corer'. It operated a little bit like the treble filters that radiograms of the 1970's had. They filtered out the hiss and made the radiogram have a more 'mellow' sound. Something users expected having become to bandwidth limited AM broadcasts. The side effect was that they also filtered out the high frequency contaent of anything played.

In a parallel manner, the 'corer' circuit sharpened up the rise times of the edges of video signals. This had the visual effect of making the picture appear sharper. However the downside was the circuit removed fine detail. It is hotly debated whether Betamax with its apparently sharper picture, or VHS with its greater detail was preferable. The sharper picture was usually to credited to the Betamax format, but in fact there was nothing to prevent the VHS manufacturers fitting a similar circuit and benefiting by VHSs slightly greater (but not significantly so) bandwidth. However, they chose no to do so. 20.133.0.13 14:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

U-format

The "u" format was developed mainly by Sony, with Matsushita contributing their expertise, typically in the area of cost reduction and manufacturing. JVC was involved via Matsushita. Sony saw this format as a home format, and wanted to establish it as such. So they got involved with Matsushita, knowing the big players can be helpful. This is typical of Japanese business practices.

Due to the cost (IIRC, $30 for a cassette in 1969) it went nowhere in the home entertainment market. But the pros loved Sony's U-matic, so it was rebranded as a professional format. JVC and Matshushita also sold their versions, but Sony was the dominant one in the professional market. Sony would be the last maker, announcing the end-of-life in the mid 80s, yet keeping U-matics in production another 10 years to meet the demand from the professional and industrial markets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.84.218 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 24 July 2007

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Untitled 3

I am rather skeptical of the claim in the article that VHS eventually equalled the technical superiority of Beta, based on my own experience. In late 1997, I purchased new a Betamax SL-HF 2000 VCR (the last consumer model sold in the US; introduced in 1993) and a Panasonic PV-S7670 S-VHS VCR. At that time, S-VHS had been available for a few years. While the visual quality produced by the S-VHS VCR was vastly superior to VHS quality in the 1980s, it was still noticably inferior to the Betamax, albeit slightly. Also, like Xorx77, I would be curious to know what the "electronic trick" was, and why VHS VCR manufacturers waited so long to use it (if indeed they ever did). Edeans 19:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

January 2014

An editor deleted all of his contributions to this section. What remains are answers to comments that are no longer here, i.e. replies without context. Please leave this section alone and allow it to be mercifully archived.

This thread was created almost ten years ago. The matters that were raised have mainly been dealt with in the meantime. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC) The above comment by Redrose64 applied to the original location of the preceding text. It was originally in the "U-matic" section, where it does not belong as that section is ancient, and the new query doesn't even mention U-matic. Jeh (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC) It may be helpful if I reconstruct the chain of events that led to the preceding comment by John Johnstone Smith (talk · contribs). User John Johnstone Smith (talk · contribs) (henceforth JJS) added an external link to the article with this edit. The link is to this page: http://www.flickr.com/photos/highamsparkimagingdevices I reverted that addition here, with a standard template comment to his talk page as shown here. JJS replied on my talk page, asking if I would reconsider. I replied that discussion of article content belongs on the respective article's talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJeh&diff=590145859&oldid=587271664 JJS deleted his comment from my talk page and added it to his own. I replied there, again stating that such discussion belongs on the subject article talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohn_Johnstone_Smith&diff=590170107&oldid=590148311 There was further activity on JJS's talk page, not relevant here. JJS eventually blanked his talk page except for the welcome template. JJS added the above text to the top of the U-matic section on this page. Between RedRose64 and I, we got it to the right place on this page. I've also enabled archiving here. And here we are. I believe that JJS's comment above should be read in the light of his previous post to my talk page, and also the text on the Flickr page to which he wanted this article to link. Note that if you click on some (many? most? all?) of the pictures there you will find a large amount of text regarding Betamax and other video formats. This text is apparently what JJS's proposed link is supposed to be about. My own comments to follow, perhaps later. Jeh (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC) 1. The "U-matic" section above is to be archived as that thread is very old. Please do not add to it. You may wish to move the comments you made there into this section; otherwise they are going to be moved into the archive soon (and you should not edit in the archives). 2. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. What specific improvements or changes are you proposing? I am somewhat mystified as your primary concern or claim seems to be that "Betamax is not inferior to VHS", but this article never makes the claim that Betamax is inferior to VHS, so the article already agrees with you on that point. 3. I must say that you have made a great many claims, many of them contrary to well-established fact. The article is currently quite well referenced, and any changes made must be supported by reliable sources. The web site (Flickr page) you linked previously cannot be considered a reliable source. Please review WP:V and WP:RS for WP's policies on verifiability and reliable sources. Do you have any sources for your claims, other than your own writing and what you yourself have thought up? Please be specific. Thank you. Jeh (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.49.10 (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Bottom line: You have no sources for the opinions and beliefs you have expressed here. Your own writing doesn't count. If you change the article without providing sources, your changes will be reverted very quickly. That is all. Jeh (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC) "Best selling model" is a meaningless claim, because the "winner" is any manufacturer who sells the same unaltered model for a long period of time, while their competitors instead are constantly up-dating and re-numbering (i.e. so they are not teh same model) their product. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC) The VTC-5000 was indeed best selling model of 1982, John Johnstone Smith (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC) You can't make judgements on Betamax based on Betacam. Although linked products, their markets were completely different, and not connected in any meaningful way. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Your proposals and suggestions are supported only by your own ideas and arguments, which are not backed up by anything Wikipedia would consider reliable sources. In fact, everything you have written here is what we call original research. That is not what Wikipedia is for (see WP:NOT). That is not even what Wikipedia talk pages are for (see WP:TALK). It does not matter what you write here, or how much you write, or how many times you go back and re-write. Bottom line: You need to find reliable sources for any changes you want to make to Wikipedia. But you have not done that. In fact, in all of the hundreds of words you've written here, you have not provided a single source for even one of your claims. The changes you propose are therefore not supportable here. You can of course write whatever you want on your own blog, but not here. Jeh (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

{{ArchiveThisNowPlease}}

Betamax Verdict?

Was there a video tape format war between Betamax and VHS? or is it unfounded rumour? We can draw some conclusions to what happened to the betamax to why it had a poor reputation in the early 1980's , Did PAL and Secam colour configurations "SP recorders only" that was marketed opposed to NTSC that marketed LP Betamax recorders with the same recording length as VHS Home Systems machines have the built in concessions granted to a "SP recorder only" video recorder? (built in better picture module to compensate for the restricted long play. NTSC has the same amount of recording on all three imaging device formats of approx five hour, NTSC recording lengths was(Video8mm=5hs/VHS=5hrs-46mins/BETA=5hrs)compared to recording lengths on PAL/SECAM (Europes and The Middle East/Australia & NZ Television systems) was Video8mm=3hrs-40mins/VHS=8HRS/Beta=3hrs-35mins. as per chart you can see the difference between the two colour configuration, and notice Betamax in Europe was sold as a SP recorder only, with no LP mode called Beta-3, there is nothing technically wrong with a SP recorder only, many products have been successful as a "SP recorder only such as "VHS-C" (Video Home System Compact)and Mini-DV (Miniature Digital Video)so this rules out that Betamax was erased from the video recorder consumer market because it did not have enough recording length, and this also deletes the the theory that the manufacturers of the Betamax did no know how to produce long play on there video recorder compared to VHS and lost in a Tape format war, because you can see that the manufacturers did know how to make long play on the Betamax because NTSC systems have 5hrs recording length on the Betamax compared to 3hrs-35mins on the European/Australian,NZ/India systems, this raises questions boosting up inside the machine because all other products that have restricted capacity always offer a option to cater for this restriction , like Mini-DV camcorder format because it was smaller it had to be marketed with no long play system or else be thrown off the market, because "small is a luxury item Where is the advantage inside the Betamax sold on PAL? "HOW DO WE GET EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS EQUIPPED WITH ADVANTAGES GIVEN TO A SP RECORDER?" It seems apparent that PAL and SECAM systems swapped a shorter record l Betamax for a longer recording length and forfeiting the extra long play of the Video8mm camcorder systems of the early/mid 1980s. Why? It would seem a option if the recorders had other hidden advantages built inside there machines to warrant SP recorder, example, Betamax video recorders offered more electronic trick modes inside there machines than VHS , this was done by using "Non Tape Dethreading of the Video Head on Fast Forward and Rewind" that offered the consumer at the time a option of a more electronically advanced machine by not having a tape de-threader built into the machine "if the video head is worn down prematurely because the tape swipes the video head twice when using fast forward and rewind modes because their is no built in tape de threader, which is the loading device mechanism that loads the tape around the video head , "on all VHS machines models they have a built in tape de threader" a built in tape de-threader means that when you press "STOP" the tape de-threader releases the video tape from the video head when you want to fast forward, or rewind the video tape. so you can see why the Betamax looked more electronically advanced compared to VHS recorders, offering opposed to the VHS specifications, Electronic tuner, electronic buttons, infrared remote control, and a four cassette auto changer making the machine capable of 15 hrs continuous recording, so it is easy to see the benefits in having a "non tape de-threader" built inside the Betamax because of the deals it could negotiable in the way of "super electronic advancements" compared to a "built in tape de threader VHS" as per specification the VHS never warranted electronic advancements because the consumer was catered for in the way of a "Built in tape de threader" easing pressure on the video head being worn down prematurely, So now for the tricky bit what people want to know "where is the advancement in the Betamax like the advancements highlighted for to compensate for lack of a length built in tape de-threader for the the machines reduced long play?" If the recording l is also restricted this means the Betamax machines have another trick up there sleeves offering yet another technical advancement inside there machines. and you can see "you cannot have your cake and eat it" The opinion to date going back to the early 1980s suggest that the shorter play SP recorders only marketed on PAL and SECAM systems opposed to NTSC colour configurations indicate that the Betamax was to blame for giving no concessions to the consumers of Betamax machines in the way of electronic advancements, built into the video recorder because it lacked a LP mode, and like the specifications of having a "non built in tape de threader" suggests and that is to allow the consumer to have another option made available inside the machine to compensate for this restriction in Long Play "in the way of electronic wizardry" But before we can say the Betamax was at fault for doing this, we must also look at to as to why they would not put the proper parts inside the PAL and SECAM Systems video recorders for common sense reasons we must. So first we will look for evidence that they did not deliberately take out vital parts inside the machines that could compensate for a SP recorder only video recorder. Concessions given to SP recorders are such as those seen on Mini DV camcorders, because of it does not have a long play mode on the camera it is able to be manufactured smaller than a long play Video8mm camcorder offering the public a option of large and small (full capacity long play, or restricted capacity long play but with the benefits of a more compact size), in order to produce a smaller camcorder the LP mode had to be made void in order to be able to manufacture a smaller camcorder, that was the deal with the Mini DV, it was smaller so it had no need to have any other advances such as long play, size is luxury and the public brought it. Can a SP recorder marketed, opposed to a Longer play VHS have been the downfall of the Betamax? Lets look at SP-recorder formats like VHS-C(Video Home System Compact)The VHSC was marketed as a SP short record camcorder format from 1982 until around 2008, and seemed to be very successful as a SP recorder only alike Mini DV's SP recorder only natural format that did not get a bad reputation like the Betamax did, so this rules out the theory that Beta lacked the ability to be able to produce long play against the VHS because Betamax cassettes can hold 10hrs 20mins LP inside the shell(Advertised on Betacam-SX62 the Beta-6 or Beta 6.2) please note this is a dummy cassette, and will not record 10hrs 20mins because it was only a example only 2yellow colour coded cassette" used in the Television broadcast Industry just before the launch of VHS-5 the fifth and last edition of the VIdeo Home System format in 1999, entitled, (DSVHS Digital Super Video Home System, offering now 12hrs LP, and 1080 lines horizontal what they call 1080p today) and secondly there is no evidence to suggest Betamax could not have been made alongside VHS for 30 years like VHSC was side by side with Video8mm was. Because there is no real evidence to say the consumer had to lose out on further technical advancements they would normally get from a SP recorder format therefore another theory arose "The conspiracy theory" that suggests a professional criminal gang hijacked The Betamax and tried to extort money out of the electronic manufacturers(World Wide Standard) and maybe the television industry, and when they never paid up never paid up the Criminals destroyed the Betamax's mass media description, and hence it became forever misinterpretated spreading from amueter media sources disguising it's self as Professional allowing amueter reviewers that would not have been able to otherwise, to now run riot on the professional review scene untrained, this can happen as is well known examining all possibilities will give s a perfect overall picture even considering that owning a video recorder that was also the most glamourous same system used in television studios could have been the asking price claim to fame of owning the same recorder as a limited edition, and the buyers of the betamax did not mind, and went along with the deal happily knowing deep down inside themselves it was a great video recorder.The World Wide Standard On Professional Broadcasting in 1982, and was offered to the public that they had first refusal of the new television broadcast systems, hence the limited amount of time the Betamax was available on the consumer market until it was solely exclusive to the Broadcast television industry, Betamax left the consumer market on january the first 1985, This poses the question "Why did the manufacturers have any motive to degrade the Betamax?" and the evidence is very small that they had any motive, what fool in there right minds would do this? Just looking at the details of the Betamax sales figures on close of production of the format for year starting 1984, and ending to the first of january 1985, state that there was was 2.5 million Betamax machines manufactured (33% of the worlds video supply)and these figure do not indicate a declining formatt because they was only commissioned with 33% of the worlds video supply in 1977 by the "World Wide Standard Of Manufacturers" 66% was commissioned to VHS by the "WWSOM", These sale figure indicate that Betamax never lost a sale to VHS and always kept there share of the worlds video market and even winning International video recorder of the year award in 1985 there third title all in all. In 1982 "the year of the video recorder" even though rumour appeared to circulate about the Betamax the actual events of said year read different showing that the model VTC-5000 Betacord nicknamed V-Cord3 outsold every model of VHS to become the worlds first mass production video recorder ever made by Sanyo, and hold the record jointly even still today with the new DVD format. The evidence show clearly that Betamax was discontinued because it was a limited edition "Super new broadcast machine format" for the television industry. Evidence of betamax decline is also noted as a misinterpretation showing figures for 1986 when Betamax had already been decommissioned why obviously they would only hold 6% of the world video recorder market because they had stopped been made so sale figure would only be 6% This is because when a format is discontinued the manufacturers have a obligation to manufacture spare parts for the machines they had made previously to date of decommissioning , such as tuner parts, capacitors, video-heads , But incase of worse case scenarios whole machines was made available under the title "broken beyond repair/stolen" to get the consumer a video recorder for compatible playback on their existing cassettes, these are rare machines and not officially on sale on the consumer market after they was decommissioned as soon as 1985 arrived but only for rare cases of someone's stolen video recorder or broken beyond repair in a accident, these replacement machines continued to be offered to owners of Betamax for a few years with the last production run of these machines being in March of 2002 and closing completely January the first 2003, he last production run was of 4000 video recorders headlined by the EDV model. As of today Betamax is still in production in the TV broadcasting industry with Digital Betacam. and Betamax HDCAM vcr recorders and camcorder holding the top of the range broadcast television equipment still being today "The world Wide Standard On Professional Broadcasting" for 32 years, and credited to be the most successful television broadcast telvision equipment in the history of television since 1985 noted with Digital Betacam (DigiBeta) it is thought betamax(Betacam will be manufactured anytime up to year 2025 when it will be 50 years old. Betamax first went into prodcuction in November of 1974 and released on sale April 1975. Could this have been a accident a misunderstanding and because of the Betamax video's early exit from the consumer market as soon as 1984 ended gave people the impression that betamax was discontinued because there was a fault with the specifications? and not being able to see the betamax still continue because it was made obscure from their view in the fact the broadcast television stations was using it and the public could not see that, and this led people to believe it was totally defunct, and made obsolete? On paper there seems to be nothing wrong with the Betamax and was simply misinterpreted when infact it was a class A piece of machinery ,Blame the World Wide Standard Of Manufacturers" because they are the ones that invented the Betamax and distributed the copyright to a consortium of manufactures acting as managers of the format, with the head manager of the consortium Sony? this may be like banging your head against a brick wall as blaming the world wide standard would be interpreted a a contradiction in terms that 200 electrical manufacturers did not know what they was doing and would bodge the record length and not give added incentives granted inside a SP recorder formatt marketed on PAL and SECAM colour configuration Systems a kind of inside job-Industrial Esponage,Maybe there annaounsionsion in the early 1980's to discontinue the Betamax for as soon as 1985 arrived because it was well known Betamax was only going to be made for a short time/limited edition because it was only really ever intended to replace U-matic video recorder format as the TV industry's standard machinery, and criticism arose that the Betamax manufacturers was decommissioning 33% of the worlds video recorders in just one day and letting down the buyers with a format unlike VHS that would not be seen after the first of January 1985?. On paper there seems to be nothing wrong with the Betamax and was simply misinterpreted when infact it was a class A piece of machinery. The mystery continues to find out what was wrong with the Betamax? If you look at this early record Betamax / Betacam has it's origins from the 1950's with this all new film recording Format Led By Ampex called "Video tape recorder" and that is where the X in Beta to make Betamax comes from. Betamax was announced in 1958 along with VHS and Video 8mm, to format the three World Wide Standards World Wide Standard on professional broadcasting, World Wide Standard on Consumer camcorders and World Wide Standard on Home VCR recorders and Film Players. this early ANNUNCIATION (First broadcast of colour video, obviously a ANNUNCIATION ,RCA and Ampex colour video recorder. RCA is VHS and Ampex is Betamax) In 1958 video became alive When the worlds first video recorder launched by Ampex in 1956 called the Quadruplex was colour converted by VHS in 1958 the planned formatting of the late Fiftes of the three imaging devices of 8mm.VHS/Beta was to ensure smooth formating of the three imaging device ready for the early to mid 1980's, changing over to VHS, Beta, and Video-8mm From the exsisting format of 8mm/ Super and 8mm and also, 16mm film( used for outdoor broadcasts instead of video until the 1980s), also U-matic video cassette recorder. In 1977 Betamax video format was commissioned with 33% of the worlds video recorder market, and VHS 66%,Betamax consumer home vcr recorders With JVC appointed head of the consortium of VHS manufactures, and Betamax was led by, Sony Corporation that consisted of nine manufacturers acting as management of this Beta format Sony acting as the manager of the consortium appointment by the "World Wide standard of manufactures to govern this device" Ampex launched the first video recorder in 1956 and RCA adapted a colour system to the Ampex video recorder in 1958.Is this the legend of a manufactured row that we infact manufacture rows for sake we manufacture everything else in the world, and so the routine schedule suggested that it was time to manufacture a row for sake of rowing to cater for people that like a row and a machine as well? Betamax being a shark where it knew it was best and elite all along but making out it was second rate to promote war mongering and promote that idea to the masses this was ok " but there is nothing wrong with me really i am only here to psych you out" Was there any difference between VHS and Betamax? is that last question starting a debate that was manufactured to start a row?. How about creating a merger machine called BetaVHS ? is that where you have just banged their heads together? maybe some would see that as "schizophrenia" or to others as simply "two faced"?. We have looked at all angles of Betamax and VHS and found many theories to what could have happened. and it is for you to to make your own decision on what you think happened between Betamax and VHS. John Johnstone Smith (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for essays or original research. I believe you have been warned about this before. Talk is used in ways to improve the article, not discuss the merits of the article subject.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 17:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It does say on the Video Tape format war £ wikipedia page that :

[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2008) This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. (April 2008) This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. (September 2009) This article reads more like a story than an encyclopedia entry.: So because Betamax is highlighted in this page also as being involved in a video tape format war i thought it was best to write this article.John Johnstone Smith (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages are not for your "articles". You continue to post nothing but original research, which is to say, your own ideas (which continue to be obviously wrong on many points, completely contradicted by evidence, already given in reliable sources).

I don't know where you get the idea that there never was a format war. I was an avid buyer of consumer electronics at the time; I and many of my friends bought some of the earliest VCRs. I assure you that there was a format war, and that Betamax lost. If you peruse the trade journals, the hobby magazines, the "entertainment" sections of large newspapers (they had no "technology" sections back then) that were published during that period you will find countless references to the "war", "battle", etc., between VHS and Betamax. And, as Betamax's market share declined and then when the last Betamax production line was shut down, you'll find articles about how and why Betamax "lost" the "battle" or "war". There is simply no doubt or ambiguity about it: The war happened, and Betamax lost.

You keep writing about why Betamax just "couldn't" have lost the war, why it makes no sense, that there was no war—but there was, and Betamax did lose, so your articles are not even wrong. You're trying to come up with a line of reasoning that proves something didn't happen, when we have every evidence, not to mention the recollections of many Wikipedia editors, that it absolutely did.

You've been asked to provide reliable sources for any changes you suggest to the page. But you can't, and you never will, because what you think happened simply didn't happen.

Please stop. Just stop. Jeh (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Betamax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-13/h5.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060818014014/http://aolradio.podcast.aol.com:80/twit/DGW-030.mp3 to http://aolradio.podcast.aol.com/twit/DGW-030.mp3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Grilled blood cake in Philippines

Can we add a section for Cultural References? One such reference would be a popular dish in the Philippines, a grilled blood cake which is called Betamax by the locals. I read that it looks like the Betamax tape, hence the name. ADTC ^{Talk Ctrb} 15:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Resolutions

In the table below "Comparison with other video formats" there are different resolutions listed. The equivalent pixel resolution in "lines per picture height" (following lph) is also mentioned. While for all luminance resolutions this is throughout, only a few chrominance resolutions are listed with differences, for example VHS with 40 in general and 30 in lph (display aspect ratio 4:3). Betacam and others instead are listed with the same amount of lines for chroma.

My question: Is this a mistake that should be resolved or is there an explanation I haven't thought about yet? If there is a mistake, which values will have to be changed, the ones of the general resolution or the ones of lph?

Also I would like to ask if there are really the identical values for Quadruplex and Type B and C.

It would be great if someone who knows about magnetic tapes could explain and maybe would have some references since there have no been for the table until now. Jan digital (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)