Slashdot Mirror


The Forgotten Tale of Cartrivision's 1972 VCR

harrymcc writes: In 1972 -- years before Betamax and VHS -- a Silicon Valley startup called Cartrivision started selling VCRs built into color TVs. They offered movies for sale and rent -- everything from blockbusters to porn -- using an analog form of DRM, and also let you record broadcast TV. There was also an optional video camera. And it was a spectacular flop. Over at Fast Company, Ross Rubin tells the fascinating story of this ambitious failure.

92 comments

  1. Analog DRM, no way by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Informative

    using an analog form of DRM

    So, that'd be "RM", then.

    In case you're wondering, it was simply that only the rental store could rewind rental tapes (cartridges).

    Not so much rights management as blanket functionality removal.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Analog DRM, no way by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Funny

      In case you're wondering, it was simply that only the rental store could rewind rental tapes (cartridges).

      I bet that still didn't stop them from having a $1 "rewind fee" policy.

    2. Re:Analog DRM, no way by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      using an analog form of DRM

      So, that'd be "RM", then.

      In case you're wondering, it was simply that only the rental store could rewind rental tapes (cartridges).

      Not so much rights management as blanket functionality removal.

      DRM is "blanket functionality removal." That is it's intention. It fails, but that is not the point...

    3. Re:Analog DRM, no way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you hit the jackpot! a rewind fee and a late fee.

    4. Re:Analog DRM, no way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that actually be "ARM" ?

    5. Re:Analog DRM, no way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in this case perhaps "Draconian" rights management is

    6. Re:Analog DRM, no way by TWX · · Score: 1

      DRM is Digital Rights Management. Preventing a special cartridge from being rewound without inerting a pin into a special hole on the rental tape is not digital. It's a literal mechanical lock. Probably easily defeated too, but most people wouldn't bother unless someone else made a machine to do it for them.

      I admit I only skimmed the article. As a kid we watched rental tapes over and over while we had the tapes. One-watch per rental simply wouldn't fly. We also had separate VCRs from our TVs, we had probably three or four TVs but only two VCRs, and they got moved around to different TVs occasionally as needed. So between the one-watch model, the higher startup-costs associated with having to buy the TV/VCR combo, and the reduced portability I can see why the system didn't really take off.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re:Analog DRM, no way by schnell · · Score: 1

      In case you're wondering, it was simply that only the rental store could rewind rental tapes (cartridges). Not so much rights management as blanket functionality removal.

      Yes, but it can also been seen as a rather clever technical solution to the question of "how do you get people to only watch a movie once if that is what they paid for?" Of course the smarter approach would have been that adopted by the later VHS rental industry - just pay for how long you keep it, not how many times you watched it. But these guys were writing the rules as they went along in an entirely new market, and it's at least a concept that was worth exploring given the technology at hand (and potential hostility of the movie industry).

      The article notes that it was only the rental cartridges which couldn't be rewound by the home units, so it's not like that was entirely missing functionality. I still think it's a smart and simple technical approach to a business question given the limited technology at hand.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    8. Re:Analog DRM, no way by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      DRM is Digital Rights Management. Preventing a special cartridge from being rewound without inerting a pin into a special hole on the rental tape is not digital. It's a literal mechanical lock. Probably easily defeated too, but most people wouldn't bother unless someone else made a machine to do it for them.

      Given what I've seen, if the company had succeeded you would have been able to purchase everything from a completed rewinder* to a kit to plans where you have to get all the mechanics yourself.

      So between the one-watch model, the higher startup-costs associated with having to buy the TV/VCR combo, and the reduced portability I can see why the system didn't really take off.

      Don't forget reduced quality over the original broadcasts - tape tech wasn't quite there yet, so it only recorded every third frame. 20 fps vs 60 (rounding).

      Like a lot of start-ups in the multimedia format business, DRM is nothing but a weighted chain. Formats succeed despite DRM, not because of it.

      *Sold even in the VCR days so you could watch a different tape while rewinding the first.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    9. Re:Analog DRM, no way by GNious · · Score: 1

      using an analog form of DRM

      So, that'd be "RM", then.

      In case you're wondering, it was simply that only the rental store could rewind rental tapes (cartridges).

      Not so much rights management as blanket functionality removal.

      Soo, Mechanical Rights Management ?

    10. Re:Analog DRM, no way by by+(1706743) · · Score: 1

      DRM is "blanket functionality removal." That is it's intention. It fails, but that is not the point...

      While I certainly agree with that point for some implementations of DRM, I think there are cases where it's not altogether bad. Take Netflix, for example -- I am very clear that I am paying for the right to watch items that Netflix has, whenever I want to, so long as I'm internet connected. That's what I signed up for. I don't own every episode of M*A*S*H or Star Trek, but I'm enrolled in a service which lets me watch them on demand.

      Of course, if I, say, buy a movie, then yes, I should be able to watch that movie whenever I want, wherever I want, on whatever device I want. But, in certain cases (particularly streaming services), I don't really have an issue with this.

    11. Re:Analog DRM, no way by deathlyslow · · Score: 1

      I thought Broadcast tv was 24 frames/sec back in the bad old days.

      --
      Don't blame me for redundant posts. I can't type very fast. Hence the user ID.
    12. Re:Analog DRM, no way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was no such policy.

    13. Re:Analog DRM, no way by operagost · · Score: 1

      No one was interested in immediately rewatching a movie in our house. But not being able to rewind the tape if something interrupted the viewing would have been a killer.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    14. Re:Analog DRM, no way by operagost · · Score: 2

      No. It was actually 60 fields per second interlaced, 30 frames per second-- and that was for the monochrome signal. Due to technological limitations, the color information was at 29.97 frames per second which means there had to be two frames dropped (off the timecode, not the content) every minute except on the tens (10, 20, 30, etc.) to keep in sync.

      The 24 fps you are thinking of is for film.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    15. Re:Analog DRM, no way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So not even macrovision then?

    16. Re:Analog DRM, no way by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Preventing rewinds is a way to encourage people to return their rentals instead of stealing them.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    17. Re:Analog DRM, no way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only the rental store can rewind? YMBJ?

      You mean if I bought blank tapes and recorded on them I would have to take them somewhere to rewind them?

    18. Re:Analog DRM, no way by deathlyslow · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the refresher.

      --
      Don't blame me for redundant posts. I can't type very fast. Hence the user ID.
    19. Re:Analog DRM, no way by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      No, only rental tapes were blocked.

  2. Innovation: first != successful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the history of technology, the first to develop a technology and attempt to bring it to market is usually not the one that is ultimately successful.

    1. Re:Innovation: first != successful by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In the history of technology, the first to develop a technology and attempt to bring it to market is usually not the one that is ultimately successful.

      That's why Microsoft was so successful: they let the market test ideas, and then stole, bought, or cloned only proven ideas.

      When they did NOT follow this formula, such as for Bob, Zune, their first tablet, and Windows 8 tablet/desktop mishmash, they failed.

    2. Re:Innovation: first != successful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox.

    3. Re:Innovation: first != successful by houstonbofh · · Score: 4, Funny

      In the history of technology, the first to develop a technology and attempt to bring it to market is usually not the one that is ultimately successful.

      That's why Microsoft was so successful: they let the market test ideas, and then stole, bought, or cloned only proven ideas.

      When they did NOT follow this formula, such as for Bob, Zune, their first tablet, and Windows 8 tablet/desktop mishmash, they failed.

      Funny that you mention Bob. Yes it was a failure... But one of the marketing team, Melinda French, did all right by it. ;) Also, Bob was ported into Office as the "Office Assistants" that created much derision, but also saw a lot of use with non-tech types. And the concept behind it, especially the heuristic learning of behavior tied to content, is what eventually became Cortina.

    4. Re:Innovation: first != successful by Jhon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Edison didn't invent the light bulb -- he invented a way to make it cheaply (no platinum) and last longer.

    5. Re:Innovation: first != successful by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Sometimes products are just ahead of their time. This certainly looks like a case of a gadget being released before the technology was ready. Symptoms generally include excessively high price points that make the technology too expensive for mass market audiences. This is why you often see sour grapes from people who go "massive hit X wasn't even first, they were the knockoff imitators!", not realizing that the original product was bad simply because it was too expensive to be practical.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    6. Re:Innovation: first != successful by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      It's true they gradually learned from their mistakes and found eventual use for the technology, but had they followed the original formula, they wouldn't have had unleashed Bob and Clippy on the world.

      Was the bumpy early journey worth it overall? Close call either way I'd reckon. It's not like Cortina is wildly popular, and they could have purchased similar technology from outside.

    7. Re:Innovation: first != successful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Cortina

      *Cortana

    8. Re:Innovation: first != successful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody cares.

    9. Re:Innovation: first != successful by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      My Android didn't know how to spell it either...

    10. Re:Innovation: first != successful by evilviper · · Score: 1

      In the history of technology, the first to develop a technology and attempt to bring it to market is usually not the one that is ultimately successful.

      Daimler-Benz seemed to do reasonably well after inventing the modern internal combustion automobile and all... "By unit sales, Daimler is the thirteenth-largest car manufacturer and second-largest truck manufacturer in the world."

      Marconi had a pretty solid monopoly on wireless communications for quite a few decades.

      Holt's (patented) continuous track tractor company did pretty well, if I recall... Let's see now: "Caterpillar is the world's leading manufacturer of construction and mining equipment, diesel and natural gas engines, industrial gas turbines and diesel-electric locomotives."

      Sikorsky Aircraft developed the first stable, single-rotor, fully controllable helicopter to enter large full-scale production, and "remains one of the leading helicopter manufacturers, producing such well-known models as the UH-60 Black Hawk and SH-60 Seahawk"

      RCA & NBC had a pretty good long run of TV dominance.

      Ampex was pretty damn successful as the industry standard tape recorder for decades.

      I seem to recall a little company named Intel creating they first commercially available microprocessor (Intel 4004). I think they're still around.

      Has Tivo gone out of business yet?

      Just about anybody could come up with a lot more of these...

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    11. Re: Innovation: first != successful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla was ultimately awarded the patent for radio and Fairchild preceeded Intel.

    12. Re: Innovation: first != successful by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Tesla was ultimately awarded the patent for radio

      That's a lengthy discussion that, in the end, isn't relevant. Marconi patented numerous aspects of his radio systems (Tesla never even tried to develop long distance wireless comms), most of which weren't challenged. And no matter the end result of the patents, the Marconi companies were very profitable, for decades after Marconi developed the tech.

      and Fairchild preceeded Intel

      Fairchild never intended nor attempted to create microprocessors. Bell Labs preceded Fairchild, but that doesn't mean Fairchild never invented/developed anything of their own.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  3. LOL ... porn ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So it really is true ... all new technology must support porn.

    From the first photography, to the first page-flip animations ... it's all porn, and always has been.

    And yet humans still idiotically think they can curb such things, despite hundreds of thousands of years of evolution which says "humans are hardwired for sex".

    All these isms which say porn bad, sex bad ... I figure they're mostly moronic because they completely ignore the fact that it's always been a part of humans, and isn't going to go away because your ism says so. In fact, if you ism wants it to go away, that's probably a sign your ism is crap.

    If the first thing people do is say "in what way does this facilitate seeing boobies?", you're never going to get rid of it.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:LOL ... porn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      If the first thing people do is say "in what way does this facilitate seeing boobies?", you're never going to get rid of it.

      Well, we got rid of Cartrivision.

    2. Re:LOL ... porn ... by trevc · · Score: 2

      The latest is the banning of Sex Robots because, as Robot anthropologist and ethicist Kathleen Richardson, from De Montfort University in the UK, warns "these robots will encourage the sexual objectification of women and children."

    3. Re:LOL ... porn ... by kamapuaa · · Score: 2

      Right. My cell phone is mostly for porn. So are the bluetooth speakers I pair it to. My awesome electric car mostly drives me to the adult video store and back. My roomba has an inflatable doll on top, my XBox is hacked to play "Custer's Revenge," my solar panels just power a rotating bed, and my Kindle is for reading Wesley Crusher: Teenage Fuck Machine.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    4. Re:LOL ... porn ... by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      All these isms which say porn bad, sex bad ... I figure they're mostly moronic because they completely ignore the fact that it's always been a part of humans, and isn't going to go away because your ism says so. In fact, if you ism wants it to go away, that's probably a sign your ism is crap.

      I understand your distaste for people trying to enforce their morality on you. However "People have always done something" is a poor determination of whether or not something is "wrong".

      You've got murder, rape, child abuse and other forms of violence going back as long as there's been people. "People have always done it" is basically equivalent to "It's natural, therefore it's good". Sounds nice but basically meaningless.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    5. Re:LOL ... porn ... by lgw · · Score: 3, Funny

      Eventually they'll be banning them because they will encourage the sexual objectification of robots.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    6. Re:LOL ... porn ... by rubycodez · · Score: 2

      No, he's saying "people have always done this normal human bodily function and human need" (enjoying sex, sight of nude bodies, etc.)

      Those harmful behaviors you list are different matter

    7. Re:LOL ... porn ... by swb · · Score: 1

      I think it was probably pretty cutting edge offering porn in 1972!

      I mean, this was pre-VHS/Betamax and depending on how you want to date it, almost pre-Deep Throat and the brief mainstream fascination with X rated movies as more-or-less acceptable entertainment of the 1970s. I think it was an era where some local vice squads would still raid a place *showing* a porno film.

      My general understanding was that general public interest in porn spike with Deep Throat and there was a brief window where it was seen as kind of avant garde to go to an X rated movie.

      The development of VHS in the mid-late 70s allowed people to watch porn in the privacy of their own homes and skip the dirty movie theater.

    8. Re:LOL ... porn ... by operagost · · Score: 2

      Hmm. And here I thought alt.ensign.wesley.die.die.die was for an entirely different purpose.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    9. Re:LOL ... porn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ah.... No...

      Haven't you ever heard of stag parties. 8mm film was the way it was delivered before VCR's. And if I remember correctly most homes had film projectors. I have two in my basement, one from the late 50's and one from the late 60's. I can remember as a child in the early 60's watching hour long Micky Mouse and Pluto movies. I think you had to buy them at the time. There was even 8mm film on a roller about the size of a cup coaster that was about 15 minutes long.

      Stag films were passed around from friend to friend much the same way as video tapes were in the 80's

      Even my dad had his own Super 8 camera and lots of film of our family from the mid 60's. The bulbs were the problem with the projectors though. They would burn out often and were costly to replace or even hard to find. I should try to resurrect one now a days using LED's.

    10. Re:LOL ... porn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... they completely ignore the fact that it's always been a part of humans ...

      For the most part, no. Most cultures seem to have a concept of monogamy which was enforced to various degrees. The attitudes toward sex changed with Christianity and Islam. Christianity has a mixed attitude toward pre-marital sex but for most of its history, casual sex was the bigger sin, driven by an economic incentive for women to marry. In the 1800s, when lifestyle urbanized and the measure of wealth moved from land-holdings to bank accounts, the ban on pre-marital sex, prostitutes and even female arousal, arose.

      Controlling sex for the most part is controlling human behaviour, something the moral elite and governments always desire. There are strange exceptions to that. One is communism, which depended on a totalitarian government but provided more sexual freedoms and equality than democratic governments. Another is ancient cultures with strict controls on public behaviour, including nudity but almost anything went in private; homosexuality, bestiality and pederasty. In most cultures, children had rights equal to animals, making them as powerless as slaves.

    11. Re:LOL ... porn ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should talk to someone...

    12. Re:LOL ... porn ... by tingentleman · · Score: 1

      despite hundreds of thousands of years of evolution which says "humans are hardwired for sex".

      "Men are hardwired for sex"

      There fixed that for you

  4. Huh. Imagine that. by jpellino · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The equivalent of $7,172 in 2015 dollars, skip frame 1:3 recording and no rewind. And they failed you say? Early bird gets the worm, second mouse gets the cheese.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  5. The early bird gets the worm by Overzeetop · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:The early bird gets the worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why is it the second mouse? What did the first mouse get? Do mice eat worms? Do they compete with birds? I don't get it.

    2. Re:The early bird gets the worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      FALSE.

      With my DOUBLE MOUSETRAP, the second mouse gets whacked too.

    3. Re:The early bird gets the worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The first mouse got it's neck snapped by the trap.

    4. Re:The early bird gets the worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why mention birds? "The first mouse got the trap, the second mouse got the cheese" would be a lot more concise and comprehensible, and still calls back to the expression "a better mouse trap".

    5. Re: The early bird gets the worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a mash-up of a popular wise phrase, "the early bird gets the worm," and a witty counter-example. It is a fine metaphor.

    6. Re: The early bird gets the worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The witty retort to the early bird is the one about the early worm.

    7. Re:The early bird gets the worm by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 1

      A: You can't just tape two mousetraps together and patent it!

      B: Oh, I beg to differ. [Holds up approved patent.]

      A: [Tapes three mousetraps together.]

    8. Re:The early bird gets the worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C: Sorry A, three (or more) mousetraps is covered by my patent wherein the trap comprises a plurality of mechanisms...

    9. Re:The early bird gets the worm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  6. Sportsvision (UHF) was killed by people hacking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sportsvision (UHF) was killed by people hacking the signal it was not that hard to build your own tuner.

    It later moved to cable and c-band.

  7. Kind of reassuring by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

    I think "Sex makes the world go 'round" is a lot more reassuring than "Money makes the world go 'round".

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    1. Re:Kind of reassuring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sex doesn't make the world go 'round, though.

      Sex makes the world move in a reciprocal motion.

    2. Re:Kind of reassuring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... "Sex makes the world go 'round" is a lot more reassuring ..

      Well the drive to have sex certainly drove much of the behaviour of society. As society changed, the price of sex changed too, requiring men to buy different, and possibly more possessions. Some men literally shopped themselves into prison by pretending to be richer than they were. But then we're back to money and commerce.

      Everybody wants power and emotional comfort. For most people power means wealth although some psychopaths prefer the suffering of others. Emotional comfort is more difficult to describe: For men it is sex but women don't have to go looking for sex, as much as they enjoy fucking, so they judge their social capital by other actions.

  8. Could not rewind rental titles by sirwired · · Score: 0

    One thing the article forgot to mention was that rental titles could not be rewound. You could pause, but not back up (much less watch it more than once during your rental period.)

    1. Re:Could not rewind rental titles by j2.718ff · · Score: 3, Informative

      One thing the article forgot to mention was that rental titles could not be rewound. You could pause, but not back up (much less watch it more than once during your rental period.)

      Allow me to quote the article:

      Cartrivision employed analog-rights management: rented tapes, offered in red casings, could be rewound only with equipment available at retailers. That ensured that a consumer could only watch a movie once.

    2. Re:Could not rewind rental titles by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      No, that was actually mentioned. They describe it as a form of "DRM".

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:Could not rewind rental titles by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      And, while not particularly correct, it at least has the benefit that the younger crowd who aren't into retro stuff will at least know what they're talking about.

      For examples, there's videos out there of kids being presented with older technology, like walkmans, and asked if they could figure it out.

      A lot of them can't figure out how to operate a VCR, for example. It might of been staged, but another had a fun time trying to get a cassette into a tape drive, then finding out that fast forward wasn't an instant skip...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    4. Re:Could not rewind rental titles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was probably very easy to bypass, like the rental store's machine having a pin to unlock the tape, or something like that.

      Bonus points if the cartridge was fastened with screws.

      Speaking of screws... I used to get those monthly cassettes from the Columbia Club. A couple of times I went to the trouble of opening the cellophane package really carefully, dub the cassette, open both cases, exchange the tape to keep the original, putting the dubbed one in the original case, carefully glue the cellophane back on it, and ship it back as "not interrested".

      Fun times.

  9. Re:Huh. Imagine that. by Kjella · · Score: 2

    Well Prima Cinema is apparently still in business where for $35000 + $500/rental you can see first-run movies at home. If you're a multi-millionaire apparently that's an ok price not to go to the cinema and hang out with the plebs. Really early adopter prices are hard to compare to "sane" price, because the whole point would be you had it first. And you did it because you had that much disposable cash.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  10. Re:Huh. Imagine that. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    I have heard it as pioneers get slaughtered settlers get rich.
    It is funny but people forget just how much things have changed and how expensive a lot of things were back then.
    Of course back in 1972 you may have gotten your tv for free, you didn't pay for internet, computers, smart phones, tablets, music subscriptions and so on. Over all I like today better than the good old days except that back then we could go to the moon.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  11. Re:Huh. Imagine that. by gstoddart · · Score: 2

    And, really ... nobody has any sympathy for early adopters. Sure, they buy new tech and blaze the trail, and eventually the price comes down. But caring that someone was willing to spend thousands (if not tens of thousands) on new technology now has obsolete tech? No way.

    Those guys who dropped $10K on plasma screen? Or any other piece of brand new tech? Nope, sorry ... can't even begin to care that the last time I saw any in a store they were being liquidated for $400 or so.

    Early adopters get first look, and in a lot of ways help to determine what the rest of us get. But the premium they pay for that privilege also comes with the risk of getting burned.

    In your example, if you're a multi-millionaire, paying those prices to watch first-run movies with your friends in your own private cinema? Well, that pretty much sounds like chump change.

    If you have 10 of your buddies in your private theater is $50 each, which you'll happily pay to be able to show off to your buddies or not be in the cineplex. Got a theater big enough for 20 people? Well, at $25 each you're not spending all that much money.

    By the time you can afford to play on that field, the incremental cost isn't that much, because you've spent way more on building the cinema, furnishing it, lighting it, and buying all that movie stuff your decorator got for you. $500 to see a first run movie in your own cinema? If you could afford the gear, the cost of that is nothing.

    And, really, on the high end of home cinema ... one component costing $35K isn't really even that exceptional. By the time you're talking a home cinema with tiered seating, a bunch of high end seats, the floor lights and all the bells and whistles that people with money put into these things, the cost of the movie is nothing.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  12. Re:Huh. Imagine that. by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

    To be fair, most "portable" video recording systems in the early 70's were skip frame.

  13. Re:Huh. Imagine that. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    The Ampex VR-6275, available in 1967 for $1495, was a 1 inch color video open reel recorder. Not skip-frame.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  14. Sony's open reel video recorders also did very wel by swschrad · · Score: 1

    at least one in every school district, often one in every junior or senior high school. easy to work with. decent picture, not VHS quality, might have been the cheapo vidicon camera.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  15. The Birds are coming for you by swschrad · · Score: 1

    they are gathering in the trees, on the wires, watching. waiting. waiting for the critical number.

    that's what about the birds.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  16. the chassis units were sold out of bankruptcy by swschrad · · Score: 2

    I ordered two out of an ad in Popular Electronics. nice transformers, power supply, lots of good resistors and transistors to salvage. periodically I dip into my parts bins, and if I don't have a new resistor, I go back to the pulls from Cartrivison. often have the half-watt value, and none have tested out of tolerance. put the power supply section of my first into a cabinet, 3-voltage adjustable supply, and used that on the bench for years. had to sell it to get through my second college run and career change.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  17. Anyone remember their 1st VCR or movie rental? by Dusthead+Jr. · · Score: 1

    Ours was a Sanyo betamax machine in '82 or '83. The first movie we ever rented was Star Wars. For some reason we put it on at what must have been 11 or 12 at night, so I fell asleep right at Darth entrance. Never saw the whole movie until nearly a decade later.

    1. Re:Anyone remember their 1st VCR or movie rental? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't remember my first rental, but I do recall lugging my fairly new VHS box, circa '83 or '84, over to a friend's who was hosting a stag party so I could bootleg Debbie Does Dallas, among others.

    2. Re:Anyone remember their 1st VCR or movie rental? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember my first DVD rental. It was Rambo. At the end of the movie, I hit the rewind button on the DVD and waited and waited and waited. My first DVD player only had a 1x rewind button. I left it rewinding and came back to it an hour and a half later.

      I remember thinking that renting DVD's was never going to take off because it would take just as long to rewind it as it did to play it.

      Also when it got back to the beginning of the movie, it would automatically start playing again. Well that was until I hit the eject button and then thought what a fool I was.

    3. Re:Anyone remember their 1st VCR or movie rental? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tron on Laser Disc. Oh and some relative at the gathering also rented "The Big Chill" but as a 5 year old, only Tron mattered. :-)

    4. Re:Anyone remember their 1st VCR or movie rental? by dl_sledding · · Score: 1

      I fully understand why A/C... :)

  18. Re:Huh. Imagine that. by lgw · · Score: 2

    Those guys who dropped $10K on plasma screen? Or any other piece of brand new tech? Nope, sorry ... can't even begin to care that the last time I saw any in a store they were being liquidated for $400 or so.

    I Spent $3K on a plasma screen ~15 years ago, and it was a great TV for 10+ years: better color than LCD ever managed, no malfunctioning pixels ever, and that price over 10 years isn't bad at all. And it the time, a 42" screen one person could lift was a miracle.

    So a couple years ago I replaced it: with a 60" plasma screen, for $3K. Terrific panel, very black blacks, no artifacts even with very fast action, still better color than any LCD screen. I'm sure it will be solid for 10 years as well. And I can lift it myself, which still amazes me,

    By then, OLED will finally be consumer grade, and maybe I can get an 80"+ screen in that price range with perfect color.

    Not everything expensive is high quality, but many high-quality things are expensive.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  19. N1500 / VCR came out same year, wasn't skip field by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

    To be fair, most "portable" video recording systems in the early 70's were skip frame.

    I remember reading about the Cartrivision, and being willing to cut the limitations described some slack on the basis that it came out in 1972, which is *very* early on in terms of domestic videocassette recorders.

    That was, until I'd remembered that the Philips N1500 also came out in 1972 and didn't have a lot of those limitations. It was the first model to support their flop "Video Cassette Recording (VCR)" format. In particular, it doesn't appear to have been skip frame. In fact, from what I've read, the N1500 appears to have been far closer in design and execution to later video formats like VHS and Betamax.

    That's not to say it was perfect- apparently there were problems with the design of the reel-on-reel tape mechanism and feed, and later formats increased tape efficiency by removing the need for a guard band, amongst other improvements. Still, it looks to have been more advanced than Cartrivision.

    Not only does the current article itself mention the N1500, but reading it more closely it actually makes basically the same points I made above about its technical superiority and closer resemblance to later machines!

    In Cartrivision's defence, the OP's comment that it had "no rewind" is incorrect; the "no rewind" only applied to rental tapes used in domestic recorders; i.e. it was an anti-feature designed to ensure once-only viewing, but didn't apply to regular tapes.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  20. Re:Huh. Imagine that. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 2

    Thank you, you get it...

    Lots of people have "media rooms", far fewer have a real home theater...

    As in, a real theater with a real movie projector that shows what the cinemas show, a THX certified sound system, and a high end screen...

    You know you're in the right house when there are two employees in the home theater, one to operate the projector and one to provide food and beverage service. At that point the cost for the movie is trivial...

  21. Re:Huh. Imagine that. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

    Yes, but Prima Cinema is a very narrow market, but one that does exist.

    That being said, you can also get the actual film reels if you have that much money, you just have to ask.

    I saw Far and Away in a private home theater about 2 weeks before it hit the cinema back in 1992 at a private home theater. Complete with a 35mm projector operator and a food and beverage server.

    People with that kind of money can get that, Prima Cinema is actually a step or two below it, for the "almost wealthy".

  22. Re:Huh. Imagine that. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

    I remember how expensive VCRs were, even in the 80s. We had 1, but lord was it pricey! And I wasn't allowed to touch it!

    Everything has gotten a lot cheaper, all things considered...

    I recently purchased an el-cheapo TV... Polaroid (who knew they made TVs!)...

    4k resolution, 55" screen size... $399 delivered to my door...

    It isn't the best TV in the world, but that is a heck of a deal... (Thanks Nebraska Furniture Mart!)

  23. Re:Huh. Imagine that. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

    The Ampex VR-6275, available in 1967 for $1495, was a 1 inch color video open reel recorder. Not skip-frame.

    That works out to $10,667.14 in 2015 dollars.

  24. Re:Huh. Imagine that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thx certification haven't meant shit for over a decade now.

  25. "The sub-division of the electric light." by westlake · · Score: 1

    Edison didn't invent the light bulb -- he invented a way to make it cheaply (no platinum) and last longer.

    The Edison light bulb could be wired in parallel. The single most significant step forward and the one most easily forgotten. Lights could now be individually controlled and the failure of a single bulb wouldn't plunge you into the dark.

    1. Re:"The sub-division of the electric light." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Pretty much all of the previous light bulb designs could be run in parallel. The closest exception were a few designs/demonstrations that used too much current to be powered by a practical electrical distribution. Otherwise, if it works at a certain voltage and doesn't pull so much current that there is a huge resistive drop from your source wiring, you can run it in parallel.

  26. Re:Huh. Imagine that. by rpstrong · · Score: 1

    The equivalent of $7,172 in 2015 dollars, skip frame 1:3 recording and no rewind.

    Recordable tapes or purchased tapes could be rewound. Only rental tapes were blocked.

  27. Re:Huh. Imagine that. by dl_sledding · · Score: 1

    Is film even used anymore? AFAIK, movies are now distributed digitally. 35mm film is extremely expensive to produce and ship, and has a relatively short life span. And, it's not controllable, like a digital system is (talking DRM here).

  28. Re:Huh. Imagine that. by dl_sledding · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and wages were $2.00 an hour... Perspective.

  29. Re:Huh. Imagine that. by FlyHelicopters · · Score: 1

    Yes, many prints of 35mm film are made for every release.

    Many theaters have not upgraded to digital projectors, they cost big bucks (for the kind that can project an imagine to a theater sized screen).

    Also, backups are often done to 35mm film, since it is pretty well known how long it will last and how to store it, so even digitally produced movies often have a dozen or more 35mm prints made for salt mine storage.