Yes I also owned, till it was stolen, a JVC two piece VHS, quite a nice piece of kit.
These days I have little to do with any hi-res formats for anything, curved TV what were they thinking?
I feel the Phillips was good. Seldom worked for more than two weeks.
I am very impressed with up-scaled SD digital TV. It saves so much hard drive space. On TV HD is better than SD. On PVR it is closer as the PVR seems to have superior digital. This was the gamble I took. Mid range TV , top of the range PVR. I suspected the TV to be the same throughout the range with the front end different. This meant the PVR was free of charge considering the up grade of front end it gave ( Linn Sondek thinking again. FRIGRO ). I thought I had lost my discerning powers at first as SD so good. Sound on HD is better usually !!! Then the definitive reason. The detail in SD is still poor. One needs to be close to see that. As one sits at 2 metres plus the average viewing distance compromise is used. It looks far better than it is. In fact if VHS that aspect is not very different. The trick is stable pictures and careful contrast choices. It seems many times better than VHS. I suspect it is technically worse when SD?
I am very impressed with up-scaled SD digital TV. It saves so much hard drive space. On TV HD is better than SD. On PVR it is closer as the PVR seems to have superior digital. This was the gamble I took. Mid range TV , top of the range PVR. I suspected the TV to be the same throughout the range with the front end different. This meant the PVR was free of charge considering the up grade of front end it gave ( Linn Sondek thinking again. FRIGRO ). I thought I had lost my discerning powers at first as SD so good. Sound on HD is better usually !!! Then the definitive reason. The detail in SD is still poor. One needs to be close to see that. As one sits at 2 metres plus the average viewing distance compromise is used. It looks far better than it is. In fact if VHS that aspect is not very different. The trick is stable pictures and careful contrast choices. It seems many times better than VHS. I suspect it is technically worse when SD?
I think putting it all down to porn is a gross oversimplification, although not incorrect.
The basic thing is that Sony was a technology driven company and spent too much time developing the machine as such.
As opposed to them, JVC knew they had an inferior product, so spent most of their time signing deals with Hollywood studios related to their video format.
3 years down the road, and JVC's VHS had about 10 times (sic!) more software available in their format than Sony did. Add to that the significantly higher cost of building Beta machines, the far too late arrival of tapes longer than 60 minutes, and that was that.
I should know, I owned a Beta machine built by Sanyo. Never even hiccuped, let alone broke down. But to what end, when VHS had so much more software, and the sheer number of titles available in Beta format had started to decrease?
So I sold it off and bought a Panasonic VHS which was all right but clearly inferior to the Beta format. This improved somewhat when I later changed to a nominally Philips, but effectvely Panasonic, S-VHS recorded. Since 400 lines kinda beats 240 lines, that was much better, but still not as good as Beta.
The basic thing is that Sony was a technology driven company and spent too much time developing the machine as such.
As opposed to them, JVC knew they had an inferior product, so spent most of their time signing deals with Hollywood studios related to their video format.
3 years down the road, and JVC's VHS had about 10 times (sic!) more software available in their format than Sony did. Add to that the significantly higher cost of building Beta machines, the far too late arrival of tapes longer than 60 minutes, and that was that.
I should know, I owned a Beta machine built by Sanyo. Never even hiccuped, let alone broke down. But to what end, when VHS had so much more software, and the sheer number of titles available in Beta format had started to decrease?
So I sold it off and bought a Panasonic VHS which was all right but clearly inferior to the Beta format. This improved somewhat when I later changed to a nominally Philips, but effectvely Panasonic, S-VHS recorded. Since 400 lines kinda beats 240 lines, that was much better, but still not as good as Beta.
By Gen II time, the viewer will have to stick his head in.
The following generation will be spherical (as we all know, the movies predicted it decades ago)
I think this is just the industry starting to try anamorphic style, because the tech is able to do it, kinda like moving from CRT to panels that can actually have edges.
I do agree somewhat that curved panels are a little silly at smaller sizes, but at large sizes (80+ inches) , anamorphic can be pretty damn stunning.
Edit: I guess anamorphic isn't the term I'm looking for...eh, who knows.
Last edited:
I just did a bit of research. The whole Betamax story is based on the mythical Beta 1 that was a commercial failure. It was not unlike U-matic. When the usable Beta II came out the difference was small compared with VHS. More remarkable was how well VHS used the tape. Lets be honest both were awful. We used to say about 2.3 MHz and 2.8 MHz when Beta . Some said U-matic 6 MHz. The PAL chroma problems at 5.5 MHz ( check patterns ) were not shown on either Beta or VHS but were on U-matic so this may be true? The resolution on U-matic about 330 lines and the others about 240 lines. It is said Beta 1 was almost U-matic . I have my doubts.
Going back to the 2.3/2.8 Mhz. It only needed slight misalignment to loose any difference. My old boss beat all other engineers on a training course to do that setting up. Like Linn they used us to do it. JVC were 100% and no need to set them up. I guess that's why I made a good Linn man as I was so used to things being made right by us. If an over the counter box job it couldn't be this way.
Much of this is memory so forgive errors. I think the 6 MHz of U-matic is highly unlikely. I think that was what a mythical studio video tape deck might do or camera. U- matic was good enough for general TV work.
Lucy a friend from BBC archives says 1968 USA video the best she ever saw. Alas conversion to PAL ruined it. She does all the Doctor Who in 405 line ( not resolution, Schoenberg EMI Blumlein 405 line system circa 1937 ) Black and White to digital stuff. Owns a Garrard 401. I thought I had a brand new Sony 405 recorder for her. Alas it wasn't, just smutty 625. We did have some and someone threw them away.
Going back to the 2.3/2.8 Mhz. It only needed slight misalignment to loose any difference. My old boss beat all other engineers on a training course to do that setting up. Like Linn they used us to do it. JVC were 100% and no need to set them up. I guess that's why I made a good Linn man as I was so used to things being made right by us. If an over the counter box job it couldn't be this way.
Much of this is memory so forgive errors. I think the 6 MHz of U-matic is highly unlikely. I think that was what a mythical studio video tape deck might do or camera. U- matic was good enough for general TV work.
Lucy a friend from BBC archives says 1968 USA video the best she ever saw. Alas conversion to PAL ruined it. She does all the Doctor Who in 405 line ( not resolution, Schoenberg EMI Blumlein 405 line system circa 1937 ) Black and White to digital stuff. Owns a Garrard 401. I thought I had a brand new Sony 405 recorder for her. Alas it wasn't, just smutty 625. We did have some and someone threw them away.
I have never heard anything as erronious as this statement.
At the time, I owned both systems, so I know what I saw, and I saw the Beta system being hoplessly up, up and away above the VHS. Especially in terms of the sound delivered. And I had both units as two better ones of their breed, not nearly the best that was available, so I speak from a home user's view.
It took the S-VHS standard, which came later on, to catch up with Beta standards somewhat.
Nige, this is worse than the Linn saga.
Last edited:
My feeling is that it has a lot to do with colour balance; the better the inherent quality, the more critical it is to get colour accuracy spot on. I spent quite a bit of time with the Aldi tweaking the RGB levels, well beyond the usual calibration "standards" - and it's paid off: the picture is always satisfying to watch, it always looks 'right' - the colours in any situation always match my sense of what they should be. Conversely, I've experienced many impressive sets that always have a cartoony quality, the look is slightly off, I never quite gell with what's on the screen ...
Does this sound familiar at all ... ?
,
If all you've ever drunk are $10 reds, then your measure of wine quality possibilities is somewhat 'narrow',
. Then one day you chance upon a $200, top class, beauty and finally you "get" what the excitement and fuss about wine is all about. So, when a friend says he's got a really fabulous $12 wine to share, you think ...
surely you can get the 12 dollar red performing at its peak Frank - the glass rim to height ratio has to be bang on, the temperature of pour and consumption needs special focus and a wide range of other detials, once identified and optimised can make that horrid little Borossa Valley roughy into a thing of exquisite pleasure.
But, how that does work is that if you sample a decent $12 item, is that you can recognise some measure of the positive qualities which are so intensely expressed in the $200 fellow. The smart thing when you drink the cheapie, is to focus on the plus traits, which remind one of the top notch example, and ignore the minuses - and then it does become pleasurable to some degree.
Pretty hard to find "horrid roughies" these days, you can pick up a bottled Shiraz, Merlot, etc. these days for $2.50 or so, which has no faults, and has a decent bit of character in them, are satisfying to drink - quite remarkable ...
Pretty hard to find "horrid roughies" these days, you can pick up a bottled Shiraz, Merlot, etc. these days for $2.50 or so, which has no faults, and has a decent bit of character in them, are satisfying to drink - quite remarkable ...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.