wargo (12/03/82)
Hello out there, In the near future I plan on buying some video equiptment, the problem is what is the difference between VHS and BETA? Which is of better quality? And is one type of machine more reliable then another? Thank you all for your help Dave W. ucbvax!sdcsvax!sdcsla:wargo
jim (12/07/82)
VHS outsells Beta 6-1, primarily because VHS has more manufacturers producing these machines and selling stripped machines for very cheap. However, maintenance and engineering-wise, Beta is the superior format. Head replacement and realignment is far less often and easier accomplished on a Beta machine.
grimes (12/13/82)
VHS or beta? VHS is much more popular, about 2:1 in the US, hence, many more cassettes are available in more places. JVC, and others, are building industrial quality recorders for VHS format, but none so far for betaland. I understand that the beta format is a little better on a multiple generation basis, and is better mechanically. This is, of course, inconsistent with JVC's building commercial VHS editing systems. The specs on the portable panasonic and hitachi recorders are the same as the commercial (panasonic) decks. I ran some informal tests with my Hitachi portable recorder and RCA 011 camera, taping a b&w crt screen, in "competition" with a $45K camera and a sony $4.5K 3/4" deck. Back at the TV studio, we ended up dubing in video from my gear, onto the edit master, because it had tighter shots on the crt screen. Needless to say, the quality was indistinguishable from the more expensive studio equipment. That, for me, was a valid test of the quality of this consumer gear, compared to the broadcast equipment. The rationale goes like this. Once a man who made radar detectors for the police left and went into business on his own making fuzzbusters. He had an inherent 1/r**2 advantage, of course. In any event, he took in so much revenue from the consumer business, that after a year or two, he had SUPERIOR TECHNOLOGY. The consumer business does generate revenue. Similiar story in the reel to reel versus philips tape arena. As a result, it is not really suprising that the consumer VCR gear is equivalent in quality to the 3/4" gear. Panasonic is the root conpany for VHS. Hitachi and RCA are OEM's. there are a host of others. Sony is the root company for Beta, there are a host of others. The media costs are comparable. There is a cute little VHSc or something, mini, but mechanically compatible cassette for a JVC(?) portable system. (By the way, I like the RCA cameras, they have super low light specs.) The best of the lot currently, seems to be the Panasonic P5500 portable system for about $800, maybe $750 in NYC. Advice: go for broke and buy the recorder with all the bells and whistles. You will not believe the ways that you will use them. For example, I usually watch NFL games delayed, 'cause with the fast picture search whistle, it only takes about 1.5 hours, no commercials, no halftime, no timeouts time and no delays between plays!............enjoy decvax!ittvax!grimes (jack grimes)
mark (12/13/82)
Panasonic is the root for VHS? I thought I once saw a Sony commercial where Sony claimed that before they invented Beta they invented VHS, and that therefore Beta was better. Can anyone clear up the confusion?
mclure (03/09/83)
#R:sdcsla:-17600:sri-unix:7100002:000:196 sri-unix!mclure Dec 4 16:10:00 1982 There is no real difference until you start using extremely long tapes or switching into closely-packed mode. As long as you avoid these, the two are equivalent. I believe VHS outsells Beta 10-1.
bjroehl@wateng.UUCP (Bernie Roehl) (02/23/84)
Well, I recently considered the purchase of a VCR but decided instead
to lease one. My reasons for leasing were simple: I did't want to have
to worry about maintenance, I didn't want to commit to VHS or Beta until
the smoke clears, and I didn't want to lay out $500 all in one shot.
The VCR I got runs VHS format, and I've since had an opportunity to
compare the quality I get with the quality out of a Beta VCR; the short
answer is that in my case the difference in quality is non-existent.
Reviews of systems using the two formats tend to support this, saying in
effect that the two are equivalent. I suspect the "noticeable differences"
some net posters have mentioned are attributable to difference in tape
quality (which I notice a tremendous variation in, on both VHS and Beta).
I can't speak for the midwest or west, but can say that in the Eastern
United States and Canada, VHS is by far the more prevalent system. Many
video stores are carrying only VHS, and those that do stock Beta are
phasing it out.
If I were to purchase a VCR at this point, I would choose VHS; the
greater availability of programming suggests that, right or wrong, it's
the system that will prevail (at least until the new 8 mm format becomes
popular and supplants both VHS and Beta).
--
-Bernie Roehl (University of Waterloo)dimare@ucla-cs.UUCP (08/30/84)
I got a couple of weeks ago what I consider a bargain: an Hitachi vtr 34a (is this the correct model?) for $460+tax. I had to go through the VHS vs. Beta dilemma, and I decided for VHS for 2 reasons: before getting the machine I talked with 7 video rentals and 2 told me that they didn't cary Beta stuff. I also saw more VHS movies than Beta's. Second, my friends have VHS. I learned that you can't have VHS & hi-fi. Who cares? I watch tv, I never really listen to it (do you?). [Yes, I don't want my mtv!]. Are you gonna keep waiting until they develop the write laser disc recorder? If your performance measure is chuminos ($$$$), then you should realize that you can get a $300 (acutally 299) Beta machine, with no frills, from Toshiba or Sanyo (how's their quality?). I had to pay 50% more to get VHS format... I guess it depends on what you want. Do you want to see movies, use up more space for cassettes, and have a great selection? Then go VHS. Are you into hi-fi multi-tickles high-tech weaponry-this-is-for-me!, then go ahead and get Beta. Do you agree? Adolfo (dimare@ucla-locus.arpa) ///
brahms@trwspp.UUCP (09/01/84)
[}{]
>> I learned that you can't have VHS & hi-fi. Who cares? I watch tv, I
>> never really listen to it (do you?). [Yes, I don't want my mtv!]. Are
>> you gonna keep waiting until they develop the write laser disc
>> recorder?
You can't have a VHS hi-fi? I thought Panasonic just came out with one?
On another subject, I don't remember the company, but I saw an add for
an all-in-one camara that used real VHS tapes, not the Kodak 8mm tape.
Anyone know anything about it?
-- Brad Brahms
usenet: {decvax,ucbvax}!trwrb!trwspp!brahms
arpa: Brahms@USC-ECLCmoriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) (09/04/84)
>I guess it depends on what you want. Do you want to see movies, use up more >space for cassettes, and have a great selection? Then go VHS. Are you into >hi-fi multi-tickles high-tech weaponry-this-is-for-me!, then go ahead and >get Beta. > >Do you agree? > > Adolfo (dimare@ucla-locus.arpa) > /// Not quite... I think another reason to go Beta is that, from many responses, the Beta format is better engineered -- VHS was built to get around the Sony patent rights, for the most part. I know many people with VHS models who have to take them in for tune-ups about once a year... the few who do this for Beta units seem to be the ones who have 4-head (instead of two-head) Beta, which are usually non-Sony models. Hoever, I agree on one point... if you're REALLY into getting movies (without hi-fi), you'll probably have more selection on VHS. I chose Beta for the lower maintenance costs, the better picture (and the hi-fi audio), and the fact that I want to do a lot of TV-recording (Hill Street and St. Elsewhere start in a month....) "It looks just like a photon pod... but in verrry bad taste." Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. UUCP: {cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \ {allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA
pvlm@hou2f.UUCP (P.LAMASTER) (09/04/84)
If anyone has seen an ad for a true standard VHS camrecorder, please let me know...I've been looking for one for over a year and was about to give up. Zenith and JVC make "VHS compatible" camrecorders which use mini-tapes that must be played back on the camrecorder or via a converter...I've decided that those don't fill my wants. Lately I've been considering the SONY Betamovie...does anyone know if I can do playback on it and hook the video out to the video in of my VHS machine? That way I'd have both VHS and Beta availability. Pete LaMaster NJ (201)949-5009 ihnp4!hou2f!pvlm
gordon@uw-june (Gordon Davisson) (09/05/84)
[Bill the Cat for President! Opus for Veep!]
I recently acquired for a time a Granada (local TV rental place; I believe
the actual brand name is Hitachi) VHS recorder from a friend, primarily to
copy Doctor Who tapes a friend in California is sending me (are you reading
this, Dave?). I also have a Beta SL-5100 (not particularly new) machine, so
I have had the opportunity to compare the machines close-up.
The two machines compare feature-wise: they both have seven-day timers,
pause and fast-forward and reverse scan. The VHS machine also has a "frame-
advance" feature which the Beta lacks, but I consider that minor, as it isn't
terribly useful. The paused picture on both machines is pretty bad by today's
standard. The main difference is the fact that the VHS machine is slow!
There is a several-second delay when pressing "play" on the VHS machine for
the picture to come up on the screen, compared to about 2 seconds on the Beta.
If you press "rewind" on the VHS machine while it's playing, it pauses several
seconds before it begins to scan, while the Beta machine does it instantly.
My overall impressions of the VHS machine are that it is clunky and slow.
I suppose people who've had VHS exclusively don't notice this as much, not
knowing that there is a better way, but when you have to live with one after
having Beta, I begin to consider kicking it. I'll take Beta, thank you.
Human: Jamie Green @ Gordon's Account
UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,tektronix}!uw-beaver!uw-june!gordon
ARPA: gordon@uw-june
Gordon hates flames, so send 'em in!
P.S. Please note that I am not a tried-and-true Sony fan (except to the point
that I acknowledge that they make good products), nor am I a general VHS-ill-
wisher (in fact I considered buying one until I tried the one I'm using now),
I am just relating my experiences with the machines.gwatkin@ittral.UUCP (Jay Gwatkin) (09/07/84)
Referring to the question about whether you can hook the playback of the SONY Betamovie to your VHS machine the answer is NO. The unit doesn't play anything back. It only records. In fact it won't even rewind the tape. To the best of my recollection, it has only one speed and the battery lasts about 2 hours. Viewing what you record is through a viewfinder - not a screen. The good part about it is that you don't need a recorder to go with it. Hope that helps. Jay Gwatkin ITT Telecom
perl@rdin.UUCP (Robert Perlberg) (09/11/84)
>the Beta format is better engineered -- VHS was built to get around the Sony >patent rights, for the most part. Give me a break! I've always considered the VHS system to be far superior to the Beta system. Every aspect of Beta makes it obvious to me that Sony was just trying to push something out the door before VHS got to market. VHS is much better thought out than Beta. VHS can run for 8 hours. Beta can only run for 5. The slight difference in cassette size cannot account for this. Sony just coudn't engineer enough quality into an 8 hour speed. And look at the speeds. The progression from single to one-half to one-third speeds in VHS was as natural as if they planned it that way, which they probably did. I can't even remember the correspondence between the Beta speeds. They just pushed it as far as they could in a futile attempt to remain competitive with the superior VHS system. More: All Beta cassettes are CHROME. VHS gets the same quality from Normal tape. All Beta's use Dolby. VHS gets the same quality without Dolby, and some units give you the option of using Dolby to further improve the quality. As far as Beta-HiFi, VHS-HiFi units are already available. Is it any wonder that more movies are available in VHS format? The Sony Betamax sells for the same reason that the IBM PC sells--some people don't look any further than the name plate. Robert Perlberg Resource Dynamics Inc. New York philabs!rdin!perl
piety@hplabs.UUCP (Bob Piety) (09/12/84)
Give ME a break!!! A couple of years ago, I went out with the intention of buying a VHS machine. After looking at the video quality and feature of several, I went home with a Sony Sl-2000. The Sony's quality at the slow speed is quite good-- good enough that I use the "5-hour" mode for 99% of my taping. Two years ago, I couldn't find a VHS machine that equalled the quality of the SL2000, in the long-playing mode. I've read articles comparing the way the tape is handled, mechanically. I believe the Beta machines put less stress (stretching, twisting, distorting) on the tape than VHS, but the difference is, evidently, slight. Such a difference might only be apparent when playing tapes from one machine on another or for critical uses such as digital audio, where excessive dropouts are a real concern. As far as tape availability is concerned, the video store that I rent tapes from (Prime Time Video, Sunnyvale, Ca.) carries EACH title in both Beta and VHS. Since there are more VHS owners than Beta owners, a popular titled movie will often be already rented but I can usually get a Beta copy. Thus, I have found no disadvantages to owning Beta, except for a few, rare occassions when a friend with a VHS machine had something I wanted to see, and vice-versa. The fact that there are many more VHS machines sold than Beta does not imply high quality-- merely ADEQUATE quality, often for non-discriminating consumers. There are more Chevrolets and Fords sold, but few will admit that they are of higher quality than a Honda, Toyota, Subaru, or Datsun. For those of you who are unconvinced, make several generations of a VHS tape, from one VHS machine to another, on slow speed, and observe the degradation of video quality. Now try the same on Beta, at least the Sony SL2000. You will be surprised. You say you never need to make multiple-generations of copies, VHS-slow to VHS-slow??? Great! So where's the beef? You're happy; so am I. Bob (with an eye on a Sony SL2700, BETA!!!)
moriarty@fluke.UUCP (Jeff Meyer) (09/14/84)
As I'm leaving in five minutes, I don't have the time to list every one of the errors that were printed in this article (there were so MANY!). But before placing corrections, let me say this: I am not saying that VHS is junk and Beta perfection... I am just saying there are reasons why I picked Beta over VHS, and then listing said reasons. I notice that after one buys one or the other format of VHS, one tends to root for it... after all, if it's Hi-Fi, you've put ~$1K into it. However, this article had so many mistakes in it that I think I should point some of them out. Remember, this is net.video, not net.flame! We're trying to pass information and opinions here, not rah-rah. >Every aspect of Beta makes >it obvious to me that Sony was just trying to push something >out the door before VHS got to market. Please read the case histories. This can be done in numerous articles published by consumer magazines and the like (VIDEO comes to mind). VHS was built after Beta had been out on the market for about a year (different articles vary the time... I can't remember back that far :-) ). The companies that designed the VHS VCRs had to get around the patent rights placed by Sony. As to the superiority of the Beta engineering system over the VHS, well, that's an opinion, but before buying it, I talked to a lot of engineers and read a lot of the aforementioned articles, and most (not all, but most) thought the Beta was engineered better. What varied most was the degree of improvement. >More: All Beta cassettes are CHROME. VHS gets the same quality >from Normal tape. All Beta's use Dolby. Both blatently false. I have a non-Dolby Beta system at home that does not use Chrome tapes. >Is it any wonder that more movies are available in VHS format? >The Sony Betamax sells for the same reason that the IBM PC sells--some >people don't look any further than the name plate. This is what annoyed me most about the article. Please, from now on, restrain the insults; they do no one any good, and lower other people's opinion of you as an objective observer. "Wink-Wink, Nudge-Nudge, Know-what-I-mean, Know-what-I-mean?" Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. UUCP: {cornell,decvax,ihnp4,sdcsvax,tektronix,utcsrgv}!uw-beaver \ {allegra,gatech!sb1,hplabs!lbl-csam,decwrl!sun,ssc-vax} -- !fluke!moriarty ARPA: fluke!moriarty@uw-beaver.ARPA
perl@rdin.UUCP (Robert Perlberg) (09/18/84)
<> There is something I've always wondered about VHS--why do all VHS machines have to unload the tape when not playing? What is it about the VHS format that makes it impossible for some manufacturer to change the drive logic so that it leaves the tape loaded, as in all Beta format machines? I will post responses. Robert Perlberg Resource Dynamics Inc. New York philabs!rdin!perl
rht@trsvax.UUCP (10/10/84)
>There is something I've always wondered about VHS--why do all >VHS machines have to unload the tape when not playing? What >is it about the VHS format that makes it impossible for some >manufacturer to change the drive logic so that it leaves the >tape loaded, as in all Beta format machines? I will post responses. This question from the individual that recently expoused the virtues of VHS over Beta??????? Maybe he really wants to know, after he made all the statements concerning thhe "inferior" Beta system. As far as I am aware, Sony invented VHS, but then sold the unfinished rights to Panasonic to go after the Beta format. As to the VHS unloading the tape, early VHS systems were pretty rough on the tape. Fast forwarding and rewind were thought to be so bad for the tape that it would be withdrawn into the cartridge for any fast movement. The new logic controlled VHS decks will leave the tape loaded so that it is now much easier to edit and find things on the tape. You may like your VHS, I like my Beta, but next time get the facts straight or else state it as an opinion. mikey at trsvax
follmer@hplabs.UUCP (08/17/85)
As I understand it, the VHS vs. Beta comparison really boils down to the issue of Frequency Response and S/N ratio, for both video and audio. Lines and all that other stuff fall out of these figures. Yet I have never seen clear numbers comparing Beta and VHS on this basis. To further fuel the debate, here are some quotes from the August 12 issue of Electronics: "Most observers believe Sony is trying to arrange an orderly switch to 8-mm without appearing to abandon the Beta system" Regarding SuperBeta, the article quotes competitors as saying that "Sony really had no choice... the video resolution of the firm's VCRs was superior before it opted for hi-fi audio... these earlier VCRs have resolution superior to that of today's HiBand [SuperBeta] Beta HiFi VCRs." I've gone with SuperBeta BetaHifi myself. CompuStore carries the SLHF 600 (list $1K) for $666 delivered. However, they have already taken 2 months and I still don't have it. I've had better luck with 42d st. photo; they cost a little more, but they've never made me wait that long. So, if we could get the S/N and Response of the top JVC and Sony decks, maybe we can resolve the resolution issue. For that matter, what do the 8mm decks deliver? ucbvax!hplabs!follmer
lauren@vortex.UUCP (Lauren Weinstein) (08/17/85)
8mm ain't gonna replace Beta or VHS for home use. Remember that the original wars were fueled by pushes for longer and longer playing times--which now run up to 6 hours or so. It is unlikely that people are going to settle for 2 hours for new machines (and that is still down the path a ways for 8mm; the current generally available top is 90 minutes). There are limits to how thin a tape you can use before tape jams and print-through become significant problems. The small size of the 8mm package severely limits the amount of tape that can go into the cassette. It'll do GREAT for portable operations, but people will still want larger formats for recordings made at home, particularly typical time-shifting of commercial broadcasts and movies. --Lauren--
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (08/18/85)
In article <97300002@hplabs.UUCP> follmer@hplabs.UUCP writes: >Regarding SuperBeta, the article quotes competitors as saying that >"Sony really had no choice... the video resolution of the firm's VCRs was >superior before it opted for hi-fi audio... these earlier VCRs have resolution >superior to that of today's HiBand [SuperBeta] Beta HiFi VCRs." When I worked at a TV station, "High Band" video recording meant using a high (8+ mHz) FM carrier frequency, recording the entire composite signal without any conversion or hetrodyning of the color information. Of the home video media, only LaserDisc uses high band recording, and its the only one that looks good on a projector. Neither VHS, Beta, Super Beta, nor 8 MM are high band by this definition. I've also read that 8MM gives no better resolution than the home 1/2" formats. -- Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf CIS:70715,131 Omen Technology Inc 17505-V NW Sauvie Island Road Portland OR 97231 Voice: 503-621-3406 Modem: 503-621-3746 (Hit CR's for speed detect) Home of Professional-YAM, the most powerful COMM program for the IBM PC
heneghan@ihu1m.UUCP (Joe Heneghan) (08/21/85)
> As I understand it, the VHS vs. Beta comparison really boils down to > the issue of Frequency Response and S/N ratio, for both video and audio. > Lines and all that other stuff fall out of these figures. I'd like to add availability of prerecorded tape and numbers sold to date ( chances are you can borrow tapes from freinds). Before I bought my vcr, I had the dealer play beta and vhs over the same 19" monitor, *** NO DIFFERENCE *** . I had both played on a 36" monitor and the differences became more apparent. Ergo, you have to have a good set to be able to take advantage of the slightly better performance. Joe Heneghan
david@tekig5.UUCP (David Hayes) (08/22/85)
> I had the dealer play both beta and VHS on a 19" monitor
One of the more noticable differences between beta and VHS
is the quality of the recording. Use one source and make
a copy on both beta and VHS at the slowest tape speed.
Then playback and compare clarity at normal speed and slow
motion or still frame.
The lower cost betas I have seen by Sanyo and Toshiba
outperform the lower cost VHS units from RCA, Mitsubishi,
and JVC, especially in the still frame.
davepreece@ccvaxa.UUCP (08/27/85)
> The small size of the 8mm package severely limits the amount of tape > that can go into the cassette. It'll do GREAT for portable operations, > but people will still want larger formats for recordings made at home, > particularly typical time-shifting of commercial broadcasts and movies. > --Lauren-- ---------- The shorter tape is better for most purposes, assuming that the cost per minute of taping is equivalent. If I were using a VCR for time shifting I would prefer to put one item on each tape, thereby avoiding storage fragmentation and rewind waiting. Similarly for keeping copies of movies or tv shows. The only advantage to the longer lengths are (1) cost per minute (I don't really know what the comparison is between VHS, Beta, and 8mm, but in a given format the longer tape should be cheaper per minute because of reduced packaging), and (2) usefulness during extended absences. Clearly, if you want to tape Dr. Who every night for two weeks, a two hour tape is too short. On the other hand, a two hour tape should just about handle one complete Dr. Who sequence... I do think that two hours is a little too short, though, because quite a few movies do run over that time; if two hours is really the most they can cram into the package, a lot of movies will need two tapes, which is a drag. -- scott preece gould/csd - urbana ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
brown@nicmad.UUCP (08/31/85)
In article <12000003@ccvaxa> preece@ccvaxa.UUCP writes: >The shorter tape is better for most purposes, assuming that the cost >per minute of taping is equivalent. If I were using a VCR for time >shifting I would prefer to put one item on each tape, thereby avoiding >storage fragmentation and rewind waiting. Similarly for keeping copies >of movies or tv shows. The only advantage to the longer lengths >are (1) cost per minute (I don't really know what the comparison is >between VHS, Beta, and 8mm, but in a given format the longer tape >should be cheaper per minute because of reduced packaging), and >(2) usefulness during extended absences. Clearly, if you want to >tape Dr. Who every night for two weeks, a two hour tape is too short. >On the other hand, a two hour tape should just about handle one >complete Dr. Who sequence... I do think that two hours is a little >too short, though, because quite a few movies do run over that time; >if two hours is really the most they can cram into the package, a lot >of movies will need two tapes, which is a drag. VHS: One 4 part Dr Who will fit without any trouble onto a T120 at the SP speed. For quality reasons, LP or SLP/EP speed is not even considered. For 6 part Dr Who stories and movies longer than 2:02, use a T160. Beta: Two 4 part Dr Who stories will fit onto a L750, at the Beta II speed. Since it is about 3 horus long, the L750 will hold a long movie. The L750 does create the problem that you mentioned, in that it will hold more than one program and will require the winding and rewinding to find the program you want. The L500 is shorter, but harder to come by in some areas. -- Mr. Video {seismo!uwvax!|!decvax|!ihnp4}!nicmad!brown