Talk:Videotape format war

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Recent Change

Hi this is my first time editing a wiki article. I have been doing some research for one of my college classes and was asked to contribute to a wiki article related to my topic. I have inserted a paragragh in the Market Share section that talks about some of the reasons behind the format war and why Sony's format declined so quickly, it is the second paragraph in that section. Please feel free to edit it or make changes. I also added my references in the reference section. thanks Rcross17 20:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beta completely dead?

This article concludes by talking as if Beta is completely dead, despite the fact that similar technology, in the form of Betacam. Though Beta has fallen out of use in the home, it did manage to become the industry standard for industries that need high-quality video. I know of many TV studios that still use Beta tapes for their shows, and I personally use it on a regular basis for video production and presentation. I am going to edit the end of the article to point out Beta is not truly dead. --QuantumDriverX 23:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Betamax is to Betacam :as: IBM PC floppies are to Macintosh floppies. Yeah sure they use the same media, but they are completely different & incompatible formats. (You can't play a Betamax tape in a Betacam machine, nor can you play Betacam in a Betamax machine; just doesn't work.) Theaveng 15:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The above simile is understated. I'd say Betamax is to Betacam :as: Floppies are to CDRs. Betacam does more than move the tape faster, it records the signal entirely differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.113.79 (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of item regarding picture quality.

I strongly oppose the removal of this item: "Betamax offers a higher video resolution (bandwidth), lower video noise, and less luma-chroma crosstalk than VHS. For these reasons, Betamax was often quoted as providing superior pictures to VHS. In practice however VHS was "good enough" for most viewers at the time, and the actual picture performance depends on other factors including the condition or quality of the tape and individual video recorder models."

I wrote this in a non-POV way, but it is technically correct. It is a documented fact that the Betamax format has a higher video bandwidth than the VHS format, and an examination of the tape spectra assignments will show this. You can read some of the technicalities here: http://www.betainfoguide.com/BetaBetter.html

So it is wrong to remove this short section which helps to tell the story. I will re-insert the paragraph unless someone can provide a clear technical explanation of why it should not be there. Colin99 21:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

OK well therse are the paragraphs we are talking about:

It was widely believed that Betamax was better quality than VHS, although reviews at the time didn't back this up -- there seems to have been no difference visible to the naked eye. Any difference in quality was only detectable using test equipment.

This is not POV, it's fairly factual. But it does lack a citation to the Total Rewind site.

Betamax offers a higher video resolution (bandwidth), lower video noise, and less luma-chroma crosstalk than VHS. For these reasons, Betamax was often quoted as providing superior pictures to VHS. In practice however VHS was "good enough" for most viewers at the time, and the actual picture performance depends on other factors including the condition or quality of the tape and individual video recorder models.

This is in fact more POV as it leaves out the fact that this is only the case when runing at its highest speed (or if not there needs to be a comparison of BI,II and III vs SP,LP,EP). And it also lacks a citation. Plus, you disparage VHS by saying that VHS was "good enough" and that other factors would have made up for VHS's performance (and are we talking BI vs SP or BII vs SP?). So I feel I was correct in deleting the passage, as the original one wasn't that good anyway, that way if it offended you it keeps the article as factual as possible. - Diceman 07:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)



The quote "Any difference in quality was only detectable using test equipment" is at best relating to one particular market and is not well sourced. Many viewers can certainly see a difference. But I see one of the problems now. You are talking about USA equipment, I am in Europe. BI etc did not appear in the UK. Here it is a straight fact that the VHS system has a lower vertical line resolution (approx 240 vs Beta 250), and the allocation of spectrum on VHS tape causes more chroma-luma interference and video noise. It's also true to say that the higher line count in the PAL system makes more bandwidth demands of the system, each sweep of the video head (ie each field) contains more video information than with NTSC. So the failings of a video system are quite evident on PAL & SECAM.

So, in order to still retain the important part of the story, that Beta has a higher technical performance than VHS, I had created the paragraph which you removed. Perhaps then the paragraph should be partly re-instated with some reference to Europe (whilst still keeping it brief). How about:

"With reference to the European market at least, technically Betamax has a higher video writing speed than VHS and so a greater bandwidth. This allowed Betamax to offer slightly higher resolution and certain other small technical advantages. For these reasons, Betamax was often quoted as providing superior pictures to VHS. In practice however VHS was "good enough" for most viewers at the time, and the actual picture performance depends on other factors including the condition or quality of the tape and individual video recorder models."

I have retained the section about VHS being "good enough", what I was aiming at here was it was adequate at the time; whereas with modern large widescreen displays it is fair to say that VHS is no longer adequate in the 21st Century. Furthermore I was hoping to balance the forgoing description of Beta's technical superiority with a comment which in part explains why technical superiority alone was not enough to make the format win. However I'm willing to listen if you would like to reword it.

Would this be more acceptible to you? Hoping you take this on board as a friendly discussion as intended. Colin99 13:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Murphy's law would dictate that my older brother doesn't pay his half of the phone bill, diabling my internet service at this vital point in the discussion (thanks for having patiernce). This is what I wrote earlier:
This article is largely a minor rewrite of the Total Rewind article, before we go any further you should have a look at the source material: http://www.totalrewind.org/sidebars/F_beta_frame.htm. They don't appear to favour any one of the video formats over the other so make of that what you will. - Diceman 11:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

How is this for a rewrite:

Betamax offered a slightly higher horizontal resolution (250 vs 240 lines for PAL), lower video noise, and less luma-chroma crosstalk than VHS, and was marketed by Sony as providing superior pictures to VHS. In practice however VHS picture quality was indistinguishable from Beta to the general consumer, as the actual picture performance depended on other factors including the condition or quality of the tape, and individual video recorder models.

Note that the vertical resoltion is the same (625 lines for PAL for both). - Diceman 12:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't take the Total Rewind site as gospel on this issue, particularly as it seems to be from USA so does not necessarily speak for the European market.

I think we are close to a compromise. I would drop the "Sony" mention because of course there were several manufacturers and they did some marketing together. I think it is still POV to say that the VHS picture is indistinguishable from Beta, but can tweak it slightly. So:

Betamax offered a slightly higher horizontal resolution (250 vs 240 lines for PAL), lower video noise, and less luma-chroma crosstalk than VHS, and was marketed as providing superior pictures to VHS. In practice however VHS picture quality was very similar to that from Beta, as the actual picture performance depended on other factors including the condition or quality of the tape, and individual video recorder models.

Are we there now? Colin99 14:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Total Rewind site is a UK site which is why I thought you might like it. I haven't personally compared Beta and VHS pictures so I'll take your word for it that there is a difference and add the above paragraph to the page. - Diceman 12:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I worked with both formats in the mid-1980s and I like the point that for professionally manufactured tapes, Beta was indistinguishable from VHS for the general consumer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.113.79 (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Keep in mind that VHS HQ was in fact signal processing improvements, and in no way did it change the resolution. It increased the apparent resolution, but the actual bandwidth on the tape never changed. Otherwise, it would not be compatible with older VHS decks. As to which improvements an HQ branded deck has, your guess is as good as mine. Some had all of them, others, the minimum amount (and at minimum cost) needed to qualify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.153.47 (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Software?

I don't understand this part in Market Share chapter: "Betamax's combination of lower market share and a lack of --software-- both strengthened VHS's hand, and gradually the public turned away from Beta." What software is being referred to? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.188.83.18 (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Software in this instance refers to Video Tapes. The same way that the hardware would be the actual players.68.192.22.48 00:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manufacturers?

How many companies made Betamax Players? (was it just Sony?) How many companies made VHS players (JVC, Panansonic, Sharp, RCA are a few of the brands I have seen) if it is 40 to 1 (VHS to Betamax) that would have had some part in the price of Beta being higher than VHS and that could be a factor as to why VHS won. The public has often backed an inferior product ,especially when the inferiority is not by a large margin, when the price is much lower. 75.67.45.110 05:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


Sony was the leader. Sanyo, NEC and Toshiba also signed on. Zeninth OEMed their decks from Sony, but Sony didn't really want to be an OEM. Sanyo was an OEM for a number of brands, like those sold at Sears and later Radio Shack. Other brands included Marantz (They offered a stereo deck with Dolby C), Aiwa, and even Pioneer offered two SuperBeta decks (a rare example of a Sony OEMed deck).

When Zenith defected to VHS, they sourced their decks from JVC. RCA originally got them from Panasonic, and would later use Hitachi as their OEM. The main players were Panasonic (really Matsushita, whose brands include Panasonic and Quasar), JVC and Hitachi. The real issue here is that Matsushita and Hitachi are much larger individually than Sony, so they could supply the market with a lot of decks.

If Sony had gained the support of Matsushita, it would be different. Legend has it Hitachi approached Sony, but Sony wouldn't deal with them until the situation at Matsuhita had been settled. Sony didn't want to appear to be undermining any negotiations with Matsushita by cutting a deal with Hitachi. Sony even offered Matsushita a licence for Betamax at no cost, as they knew one standard would be more profitable than many.

Sanyo was also pushing their V-Cord system, Panasonic had VX, and Quasar offered their "Great Time Machine. None of those formats lasted very long once Betamax hit the street. Everyone quickly signed on with one camp or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.153.47 (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sourcing

This isn't acceptable for Wiki sources: "A quick perusal of the Betamax library reveals that adult entertainment was readily available. For example, Playboy Industries released their videos in a dual format, both Betamax and VHS, for most of the 1970s and 80s (and can be confirmed with a quick search through Ebay's adult section, or other used video markets)"

You can't say "this is true; you can figure out why yourself this way...". There has to be a legitimate third-party cite.Alvis 06:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Would a picture of a Porn Catalog filled with Betamax titles be sufficient? - Theaveng (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Not, that would still be WP:OR Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Destroyers

Is it true that if you fast foward or rewind BETA tapes the BetaMax Player will destroy the tape according to imaxination 80 of youtube that what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.21.50 (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense. Obviously Beta tapes can be fast forwarded or rewinded otherwise they would be useless Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


Then every VHS machine made since the early 90s would do the same thing. They used to brag how their slow, clunky thread/unthread process reduced headwear, unlike a Betamax which laced the tape immediately and kept it that way until you pressed "eject"... (Sanyo Beta machines only threaded the tape when you pressed play, and retracted it when you pressed stop.)

Beta tape was manufactured with this issue in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.153.47 (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on LaserDisc

I am not sure if it's accurate to say that the LaserDisc format never gained much ground. It was quite popular in Japan and other Asian countries, though maybe not in Europe and America. Rodparkes (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My Japanese friend tells me she's never heard of laserdisc, only VCRs and DVDs, so it could not have been too popular. So anyway, how popular was laserdisc? How many homes owned one? ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I remember Siskel & Ebert pitching laser disks on their movie review program. There was an active community of movie buffs promoting it - some of them opposed DVDs when they first came out. Laser Disks were well known in video magazines, and places that sold a lot of VCRs would usually have one or two as well. There was a short-lived store near my house that was all laser disk. Algr (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes and I owned a laserdisc, but I'm an admitted nerd. Nobody else I know owned one. So how popular were laserdiscs? 1% of the homes had one, perhaps? ---- Theaveng (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well 'my friend from XYZ has never heard of ABC' is never a good argument. I'm sure there would be cases when someone on this date can honestly says 'my American friend has never heard of Barack Obama'. Anyway back to the main point, according to LaserDisc 2% of US households and 10% of Japanese households had LaserDisc players at one time. Probably still a niche but not a tiny one Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of LaserDiscs, the article says "Manufacturers also introduced disc-based systems called Capacitance Electronic Disc (CED) (aka videorecords) and LaserDisc. Neither of these disc formats gained much ground as both could record consumers' favorite TV programs; however, they did hold small niche markets." Uh... what? 71.43.195.94 (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


RCA's CED did OK for a few years, it appealed to people who wanted to watch movies, but were not really interested in recording TV shows, and didn't want to pay the price for a VCR. JVC's VHD never really went anywhere outside of Japan. LaserDisc appealed to those who wanted something better than tape offered. In the early days these devices often were available for substantially less than a VCR, which explains their appeal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.153.47 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lessons Learned/Similar Format Wars

I changed the last section heading from "Lessons Learned" to "Similar Format Wars" as i think it sounds better, and also due to the fact the section does not list any lessons that have been learned through the VHS/Betamax war. Thoughts? ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (contribs) 14:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Noticed that user:Theaveng has changed the title of this back to "lessons learned" I have reverted it, and have given the reasons above. There are no listed objections. Theaveng, please list why you think it should be "lessons learned". Thanks ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (contribs) 15:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Because I don't want THIS article to devolve into a long, long, long list of "wars" like:
-laserdisc
-SACD v DVD Audio
-DAT vs Digital Compact Cassette
- and on and on and on
The topic was already sufficiently recovered in 2-3 other wiki entries. A link to those entries should be sufficient, otherwise there's a danger of article creep (where this entry wanders off into off-topic trivia). ---- Theaveng (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thats fair enough. But that was not my question... personally, i dont think you have improved the article much. My version only had the HD/Bluray war, not SACD v DVD Audio etc... you are giving reasons which dont exist. I'll leave the stuff you have changed, but as the section does not have any lessons which have been learned, i will change the title back to "Similar format wars" ... Unless you edit the section to provide various lessons which have been learned, please DO NOT change the title again, or i will consider it vandalism, because i know you are doing this on purpose. I note by your talk pages, you are getting up various peoples noses. Keep changing this and you will be reported. Thanks. ← κεηηε∂γ (talk) (contribs) 09:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Well. Just wait and see. In about six months time, other users will have added other format wars to the list, and the section will have grown into a huge, non-relevant topic that has nothing to do with videotape. ----- I'm going to just sit back and watch. Theaveng (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Pointing at the other format wars should reduce that, whether through the current format or {{main|Format wars}} -- SEWilco (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I don't really see where this article's subject is improved by that paragraph/section - no lessons learned, and it lists events from other recording formats - so basically an off-topic section. Why not just list Format wars in the "See also" section, and leave it at that? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
That might be a more general solution, however there have been reports that Sony (Betamax loser in this war) made some interesting maneuvers in finishing the Bluray battle. That might be collected as lessons learned by Sony for the later HD fight. One might also consider rearranging the Format wars article to make video easier to spot (leading icons on each entry, or a sortable table?). -- SEWilco (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Porn versus Sony

It is an internet legend. Sony did not block porn, nor did the porn industry favour one format over the other. This myth came up again when the Blu-ray versus HD DVD battle began.

Porn sold VCRs, period. They offered their product in both formats, as alienating half (or more) of your market wasn't a good idea in the early days. The situation remained that way until the mid-eighties. With more and more movies coming out on tape, duplication started getting tight, and many duplicators began to increase their VHS capacity without adding any new Beta decks. In that time frame, the sales swung over to VHS in that market too.

Time wasn't really an issue either, as your average porn movie ran for an hour, maybe an hour and ten minutes. They were done on film in those days, and meant for theatrical exhibition. Videocassettes were just another way to sell their product. Film was expensive, so the number of new releases every year was limited, as were the theatres to exhibit the films in. Unlike the mid-eighties, when production switched over to 'direct to tape' mode, and a lot of new entrants appeared due to the declining cost of getting into the business. Some of the new producers may not have even bothered to release their titles in Beta format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.153.47 (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)