Sony To End Sales of Betamax Tapes Next Year

AmiMoJo writes: In March 2016 Sony will finally end sales of its Betamax video tapes. The firm revealed on its website that it will also stop shipping the Micro MV cassette, used in video cameras. Sony launched the format in 1975, a year before JVC's rival the VHS cassette — which eventually became the market leader after a long battle between the two brands and their fans. Although many felt Betamax was the superior format, most cite the longer recording length of VHS tapes — three hours versus one — and the cheaper manufacturing costs for VHS machines as the main factors as to why VHS eventually won out. When my dad stops buying VHS tapes in bulk, maybe that market will finally wither away, too.

Comments

Blinders Much

[chinton]

Did someone finally clue them in?

Re:Blinders Much

[TWX]

"Betamax" probably encompasses more than simply the end-consumer tape. "SuperBeta" is a common commercial standard, much in the same way that "SuperVHS" was a common commercial standard, used by TV news and local-station production for decent quality for quick-turnaround broadcasting. It was essentially broadcast quality in an era of NTSC televisions, the tapes were durable and cheap, and just about all of the field cameras used for on-the-spot reporting supported them. Hell, even the vans they would use for remotes had their own mini editing studio with three or five decks, most for playback, one for recording to edit the clips together.

For this application the tapes were fine. When you're going to use less than five minutes of footage the tape length is not terribly critical, the smaller-than-VHS and smaller-than-three-quarter form factor meant that less camera by volume was necessary, and the quality was more than adequate at the time. I expect this kind of setup is still used, even if it is being replaced by higher def cameras and digital storage, that kind of changeout is expensive and again, for local news or local time-filler programming isn't really all that necessary.

The end of sale of the tapes probably comes as the market has finally shifted over, there are now more solid-state video cameras than tape video cameras, and the market finally doesn't want tapes in enough quantity to justify production.

Re:Blinders Much

[taiwanjohn]

Why don't we have a plug-in digital replacement for VHS/Beta tapes? With modern tech and materials, it wouldn't be that hard to devise a digital interface to the old helical-scan mechanism in the standard cassette formats. Not much of a market, for sure, but if they're still making tapes, apparently somebody is still using them. Might make a good kickstarter project for someone...

Another in the same vein... why can't I get a digital-imaging back for my old 35mm Nikon cameras? Seems like I should be able to get something like that for a few hundred bucks in today's economy.

Re:Blinders Much

[fustakrakich]

The digital back is the camera. All you need to do is attach your lens.

Re:Blinders Much

[Guspaz]

Because such a device would probably cost even more than a device that just plugged directly into the TV, making it pointless. Not to mention that the video quality would be, well, VHS quality.

Re:Blinders Much

[taiwanjohn]

True enough, but maybe I don't want to just toss all my old camera bodies. I reckon that if somebody came up with a digital replacement back for a few standard brands, they could make a killing off of old geezers like me.

Re:Blinders Much

[jpapon]

Another in the same vein... why can't I get a digital-imaging back for my old 35mm Nikon cameras?

Isn't that what a DSLR body is? Most of the cost of a modern camera is in the sensor, DSP chip, screen, and software. The components you would be reusing from your old 35mm body (mirrors, dials, viewfinder, housing itself) are all comparatively cheap. It doesn't make much sense to spend time designing hardware to reuse them.

Re:Blinders Much

[TWX]

There were some digital replacement backs for film cameras, but when it comes down to it that means spending a fairly large amount of money on a used, possibly worn camera. For professionals, they're probably going to want the newer camera body so long as it takes their existing inventory of lenses, because they wear-out cameras through use anyway. That leaves the replacement-back for consumers, and there's probably not enough demand.

If I understand correctly, it's a lot more common on medium-format cameras or other cameras, where spending five figures for the new back is justified.

As for the digital interface for tapes/video cams, I suspect that for the business, once the equipment is sufficiently depreciated they'll just buy new. They already have to contend with 1080, and at the rate they're going they'll have to consider 1080's successor. Plus they can still record over existing tapes for some time, and if they think they'll need tapes, put in a big final order now that the end-date has been announced.

Re:Blinders Much

[plcurechax]

True enough, but maybe I don't want to just toss all my old camera bodies. I reckon that if somebody came up with a digital replacement back for a few standard brands, they could make a killing off of old geezers like me.

Digital backs for still cameras have been around for medium and large format film cameras for twenty years or so. I don't think there were any popular / successful for 35mm (still) film cameras.

I don't know much about cinematic cameras, but I believe companies like Panavision have adapted their own models of cameras to include digital backs retrofits.

Re:Blinders Much

[Holi]

Like the Hasselblad digital back?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/...

Re:Blinders Much

[Holi]

Hasselblad medium format cameras have a wide selection of digital backs.

Re:Blinders Much

[countach]

I think only the top of the line "F" Nikons had removable backs anyway. Plus how do you fit in wiring and batteries to make it all work without making it super bulky?

Re:Blinders Much

[ColdWetDog]

Your old Nikon back is worth pennies. The lenses, perhaps quite a bit more.

People have tried to work this out for years and it just doesn't fly. A digital camera is a much different beast than a film unit. The ergonomics and data displays for a digital camera just encompass much more than the film cannister. Really, keep your old F4 on the mantle, buy a Nikon 3200 - the very bottom of the DSLR line and find it stomps the image quality and handling of any film camera ever made.* Nostalgia is just that.

* If you want to use your old lens, you're going to have to pony up to a D800 or so, but now we're getting technical.

Re:Blinders Much

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a tough call. Night Rider was cool because of all the flashing lights. But Baywatch was spankable, basically free soft porn back then.

Better use a lifeline on this one.

Re:Blinders Much

[taiwanjohn]

You seem to be conflating my two queries. I don't wan't VHS-quality video, I want 35mm film-quality stills from the lenses and bodies currently residing in my basement. As others have noted, there have been medium- and large-format image sensors available for decades, but they cost many thousands of dollars. I ought to be able to get a 35mm "consumer" version for a few hundred bucks. As long as it had 1080p resolution or better, I would buy it. And I'm sure there are a lot of other old-timers like me who would buy it too.

Re:Blinders Much

[gstoddart]

Your old Nikon back is worth pennies.

Maybe not pennies, but certainly a small fraction of what you paid.

Not so long ago I realized my Nikon F75 body would pretty much never get used again, since I now have a D90 and don't use 35mm film any more.

I can't remember what the camera store gave me for it, but I'm sure it was under $50, possibly closer to $25.

My 50mm lens? Well, slapped on a digital camera it works out nicely as the equivalent of an 80mm portrait lens.

The lenses still hold their value, because good optics in lenses still counts.

If you want to use your old lens, you're going to have to pony up to a D800 or so, but now we're getting technical.

I was lucky enough that my camera and lenses were new enough they all had autofocus to work with my digital camera. If you're willing to have manual focusing and the like, there's no reason why you can't use older lenses on newer Nikon bodies. Depending on what you use the lens for, that may be ok.

The mounting and physics of the lens is the same (give or take focal length for the lens), it still works, you just lose the ability of the camera to control it.

But it should actually still work ... it's still a lens. I'd be surprised if you couldn't use a 40 year old lens on a modern Nikon.

Re:Blinders Much

[taiwanjohn]

Nostalgia is just that.

Nostalgia is a huge market. (Surely you've seen Pawn Stars? American Pickers?) A few years ago, one of my employees, a 20-year-old, bought a Nikon FM2. I said, "What are you doing with a film camera in this day and age?" She just wanted to "go retro" and learn photography the old fashioned way.

People spend money for lots of weird reasons...

Re:Blinders Much

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you point me to a digital back for my old Zenit [a Pentax K1000 spin-off] camera?

Re:Blinders Much

[TheTrueScotsman]

As others have said, pretty much all of the value of digital camera is in the back. The front/top basically is for mounting the lens, but also contains some useful features like the shutter button.

Let's think how a digital back is going to interface with the film mechanics: no doubt some kind of mechanism could detect the shutter press and/or film winding, but it all sounds a bit clunky and you've still to to wind the 'film' to cock the shutter. Digital cameras just do this and I doubt a 35mm digital back containing these special mechanisms (and especially with such low expected production runs) could be made any cheaper than a low or even mid-range digital.

The real value of your old stuff is the lenses. I've got a reasonable selection of older Nikon AI lenses (and a couple of F3 bodies) and I use them with a D7000 which cost about double your 'few hundred dollars' desired price. Works great (the APS format is very usable but you can get full frame bodies as well, e.g. D750) and also takes very nice looking videos. I can't see the F3s ever getting used again - even if they suddenly turned into 'digital' camera (that motor drive is pretty hefty and I wouldn't want to bother with winding again).

Re:Blinders Much

[gstoddart]

I want 35mm film-quality stills from the lenses and bodies currently residing in my basement

Depending on how old your gear is, buy a DSLR of the same make and use your lenses. Back in the day the camera body was just there to hold the film and the lens, you won't be able to reuse that.

My Nikon DSLR can happily use lenses I had on my film SLR. Not all lenses will work. Heck, some models should cover lenses going back to 1959. I assume other companies have done similar.

I ought to be able to get a 35mm "consumer" version for a few hundred bucks. As long as it had 1080p resolution or better

I think a Nikon D3200 is currently under around $400 ... and it's a freakin' 24 megapixel camera.

The main thing you need to remember is the focal length changes ... a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera is an objective lens which sees the world like you do. The same 50mm lens on a DSLR ends up being a moderate telephoto, and is equivalent to an 80mm lens.

You may find you can still get a camera body which has all the modern features, but still works with your lenses that you spent a small fortune on.

In fact, depending on the specific brand and lenses, there's a really good chance of it.

Re:Blinders Much

[Guspaz]

I'm referring to your comment about a plug-in digital replacement for VHS tapes, not your comment about cameras. A plug-in VHS device would be subject to most of the same limitations as real VHS tapes, which is to say, the very best you could hope for is composite quality video, and in reality you'd get substantially less. The cost of such an interface, however, would be far more than the cost of just putting a composite (and/or HDMI) interface on the device to begin with. This sort of thing might make sense with cassette players in a car radio, where there are no other ways to connect to the radio, but that's not the case with a TV. Any solution you could come up with would cost more and provide lower quality than just plugging the new device directly into the TV.

In terms of the camera comments, the value is in the lenses, not the cheap semi-disposable camera bodies. You can simply buy a new digital camera body for your existing lenses. A modern APS-C DSLR will provide better image quality than 35mm film, albeit with a crop factor and reduced depth of field, and it can use your existing lenses. Possibly with adapters, depending on what type of lenses you have. They're $300-400.

Re:Blinders Much

[Gordo_1]

The main thing you need to remember is the focal length changes ... a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera is an objective lens which sees the world like you do. The same 50mm lens on a DSLR ends up being a moderate telephoto, and is equivalent to an 80mm lens.

That only applies if you have a crop sensor. Most professional DSLRs now are full frame.

Re:Blinders Much

[bws111]

Consumer stuff is inexpensive because of economies of scale. The market for digital backs for old cameras is bound to be pretty small, so those economies of scale will not be achieved, and the cost will be high.

Re:Blinders Much

[gstoddart]

Oh, OK. I didn't know that.

Thanks! I've always assumed it was intrinsic.

Re:Blinders Much

[Anonymous Coward]

You certainly clued us in that you were talking about a subject you don't understand.

Re:Blinders Much

[Ol Olsoc]

Depending on what you use the lens for, that may be ok.

The mounting and physics of the lens is the same (give or take focal length for the lens), it still works, you just lose the ability of the camera to control it.

But it should actually still work ... it's still a lens. I'd be surprised if you couldn't use a 40 year old lens on a modern Nikon.

That's why a lot of us buy Nikon - because of the lenses

They do work - some of the old ones need a small modification but a really small one indeed.

Some of the old Nikon lenses were tremendous as well. The old 55mm Micro Nikkor f3.5 was a simply magnificent lens, had a seriously flat field as well. So I'm happy to use it on my DSLR. Focus is manual of course.

Unless a person is working with alternative processes or with 4 by 5 and above formats, there's really no reason to use film any more. I love the relatively flat response although I'll threow an S curve on an image in photoshop if I want it to look like asilver based photo.

Cell phone cameras just show that you can have lots of Pixels, and the photos can still suck. People will have to argue with the laws of physics about that one.

Re:Blinders Much

[Farmer Tim]

The format used in broadcast was called Betacam (replaced by Betacam SP, Digibeta, Betacam SX and HDCAM in the same physical format, all incompatible with Betamax), which had a wider signal bandwidth than either VHS or Betamax and higher vertical resolution. S-VHS and Super Betamax were prosumer formats introduced later, and never widely used in broadcasting except for community/public access television.

Re:Blinders Much

[Anonymous Coward]

With all fairness, please don't comment on things you don't understand.

You are 100% correct that if someone wants to replace the film part of their camera with a "digital" format than the solution is the ditch the old body and just use the lenses on a digital equivalent. The digital sensor IS for lack of a better analogy, the "film" for a digital camera.

However, the line "the very bottom of the DSLR line and find it stomps the image quality and handling of any film camera ever made" is ludicrous.

It's obvious you've has never shot on a large or medium format camera (200+ MegaPixels anyone?) and you clearly have no understanding of the differences between digital noise vs grain and differences in dynamic range (I've been told digital is finally surpassing film in dynamic range, but honestly I've yet to see it when comparing a reasonable $2K DSLR setup and a $200 medium format body with a decent film in it.)

This isn't even getting into the physical properties of film which allow it overexposed shots to be carefully processed to bring out additional details-- unlike digital where the sensor will simple "blow out" those highlights. I.e. even when films dynamic range falls short, far more post-processing is available to "save" the shot--- even when you are doing all that processing digitally (since the information is still there to be recovered by the computer / software instead of just not existing in the raw file).

Add in the fact that the digital camera sensor IS the film, and you reach another issue-- a bare bones film body can use dozens of film types each with different benefits. Digital? I hope you like that look you've got because that's it-- everything you do now is post processing-- no more playing with the differences between Portra and Ektar it's all just one digital short adjusted in post production.

I wouldn't normally care, but the fact that this post was modded up was going to drive me bonkers!

Re:Blinders Much

[Pentium100]

What would be the point of that?

If someone is using video tape it most likely is because the tape is "good enough" - the quality is good enough, they already have the VTR etc. The hybrid you propose would be expensive, then why not just replace the VTR with a digital recorder and be done with it? Well, maybe if the VTR is good enough, why spend money on replacing it?

I myself still use VHS and S-VHS, though not as much as I used a couple of years ago. I now mostly record TV shows to a server (ripping an IPTV stream), but if I want to be sure I record it, I will also record to a tape (from coax cable TV). Also, tapes last longer without "maintenance" (backups, copying to newer hard drives etc).

Re:Blinders Much

[Dogtanian]

TWX: "Betamax" probably encompasses more than simply the end-consumer tape. "SuperBeta" is a common commercial standard...

Farmer Tim: The format used in broadcast was called Betacam (replaced by Betacam SP, Digibeta, Betacam SX and HDCAM in the same physical format, all incompatible with Betamax)

Indeed... came here to say this, want to say it again in bold text as people keep getting it wrong anyway.

*** REGULAR BETAMAX WAS *NEVER* WIDELY USED AS A PROFESSIONAL FORMAT. YOU'RE THINKING OF "BETACAM", A SEPARATE FORMAT WHOSE ORIGINAL VERSIONS USED THE SAME CASSETTE AND TAPE DESIGN, BUT HAD AN ENTIRELY INCOMPATIBLE AND MUCH HIGHER QUALITY RECORDING FORMAT! (And ran the tape at a much higher speed) ***

Ahem... thank you. :-)

Anyway, minor credit to the GP for at least not *quite* repeating this fallacy in its usual form, but yeah, he's still wrong in confusing Betacam with SuperBeta, a marginally-improved and mostly-compatible version of the consumer format.

TWX:much in the same way that "SuperVHS" was a common commercial standard

NO IT BLOODY WELL WASN'T!!!

Jeez, I'm taking that "minor credit" back! ;-) SuperVHS was a consumer format... where did you get this (mis-)information?!

Apparently they tried creating a professional format called "M" which used the VHS cassette design but- like Betacam- had a much higher tape speed and entirely-incompatible recording format compared to its consumer sibling. Apparently it flopped and a later version called "MII" enjoyed moderate success at best.

Re:Blinders Much

[thegarbz]

Multiple such things have been released for the 35mm formats over the years. They all faded into obscurity. Film is a few microns thick. The digital backs all had several things in common: they were bulky, they made serious cuts in order to make it compatible with 35mm film cameras and thus were utterly crap, and ultimately the sensor is only a tiny fraction of the improvements that have happened in cameras over the years.

Instead of hoping that maybe one day your 30 year old technology will be magic due to nostalgia and over priced equipment, why not actually look into some of the "classic" offerings from the current camera manufacturers? Things like the Nikon dF or the Fuji X-T1 may suit you quite well.

Re:Blinders Much

[thegarbz]

To be fair, none of the 35mm digital cameras can be had for $400.
$2000 maybe, but not $400.

Re:Blinders Much

[Anonymous Coward]

Not new, anyway, but Adorama out of NYC has a wonderful used selection (online) - I have bought a couple & each time better than described. Not shilling, not giving a link, just Google them.

Re:Blinders Much

[dwywit]

Last time I enquired, a digital back for my RB67 was $14K. Sigh. I guess I'll stick with film for now.

Re:Blinders Much

[Trogre]

That reminds me of the cassette adapters that you used to see, that looked like a cassette tape with a headphone cable coming out of it. With one of those you could play your DiscMan or other audio player through your tape-only car stereo!

Re:Blinders Much

[dryeo]

I bought one of those just a couple of years back, Was cheap, perhaps $5, and actually with it, my MP3 player sounded much better then any tape. Now I have a cheap CD player that also takes a USB stick with MP3s on it, and it sounds terrible, worse then the FM though CDs sound pretty good.

Re:Blinders Much

[Spugglefink]

Cell phone cameras just show that you can have lots of Pixels, and the photos can still suck. People will have to argue with the laws of physics about that one.

What really surprises me is that I've managed some really decent photos with my phone with some work and creativity. The camera couldn't have less going for it in terms of optics, sensor size, etc., and I find it amazing that I can produce anything even approaching decent with it. A real camera is it not, but still, those things have come a very long way.

Re:Blinders Much

[Ol Olsoc]

What really surprises me is that I've managed some really decent photos with my phone with some work and creativity. The camera couldn't have less going for it in terms of optics, sensor size, etc., and I find it amazing that I can produce anything even approaching decent with it. A real camera is it not, but still, those things have come a very long way.

Very good point. Creativity is the factor.

Back in school, my Photography prof used to make incredible images with a Diana Camera, which ranks up there with the worst cameras ever made. plastic lenses, light leaks. Horrible thing. It managed to put almost every abberation into one device.

I should have put in my post about how a good photographer can make good photos with just about anything.

The smartphones today feature a decent tonal range, certainly a high MP value. But those lenses! That tiny sensor requires seriously tiny and short focal length lenses, with all their problems.

Re:Blinders Much

[TWX]

I think it's good for photography students to learn film, because film is less forgiving and they're actually learning how exposure time and the light-gathering characteristics of the lens work. But, once the basic principles are fully understood there's little reason to remain on film. There certainly isn't a reason to manually develop one's own film anymore even if one still develops one's own prints, even for students, unless they're really want to be anachronistic.

betamax won in the commercial setting

[Joe_Dragon]

betamax won in the commercial setting.

VHS was better in homes.

Re:betamax won in the commercial setting

[Megane]

Since Betacam used the same tapes (with a different format), this apparently signals the end of Betacam as well.

Re:betamax won in the commercial setting

[Anonymous Coward]

Betamax won in the commercial setting.

VHS was used for porn.

VHS wins!

Re:betamax won in the commercial setting

[Thelasko]

Since Betacam used the same tapes (with a different format), this apparently signals the end of Betacam as well.

The entire industry has moved over to CompactFlash for the most part. Some cameras even have hot swapable arrays so a camera crew doesn't miss a second of material. Once one drive is full, the system automatically switches to the next drive and you can swap out the full drive while still recording.

Source: my buddy works in TV.

Re:betamax won in the commercial setting

[Anonymous Coward]

VHS was invented by Sony, but they sold it to JVC preferring the higher spec Betamax - which did not succeed anywhere other than recording studios. Sony's fixation over the length of tapes shot themselves in the foot, the public wanted to record full films off TV, and spoke with their wallets.

Re:betamax won in the commercial setting

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense, Matsushita had been developing video tape tech since 1954, Ampex was licensing patents from them as early as 1956, their JVC division simply took one of the already developed Matshusita open reel format and enclosed it in a cassette, presto VHS.

VHS tapes in bulk?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> When my dad stops buying VHS tapes in bulk

This is probably BS, but I'll bite anyway. Why would "your dad" purchase VHS tapes "in bulk" - is he taping every episode of his favorite shows? Is there a "pirating for seniors" effort we could start to help people like this?

Re:VHS tapes in bulk?

[Anonymous Coward]

This will help "his dad" get started.

Re:VHS tapes in bulk?

[Anonymous Coward]

My grandmother still uses VHS tapes to record her soap operas.

Re:VHS tapes in bulk?

[AmiMoJo]

Modern VHS tapes are complete crap, like modern floppy disks. Built to extremely low standards because hardly anyone uses them and they sell for ridiculously low prices. Many of them are old stock that have been sitting on a shelf for decades, or even worse in a shop window getting temperature cycled by the sun.

So the only option is to buy in bulk, throw away the duds and record to them only once.

Why wouldn't you just switch to recording on DVD/flash drive? It's mostly people with old equipment that they don't want to give up. Maybe they have a big VHS library, maybe they have an old computer that doesn't have USB (Amiga/Atari/early Apple etc). Having said that, there was some youngish bloke on the TV complaining when they stopped selling VCRs at major retailers, because analogue noise isn't as bad as digital noise etc, so there are actually some luddites out there too.

Re:VHS tapes in bulk?

[swb]

I seem to remember a story from a local group that's involved in documenting the local media scene. They had just recently inherited a *shipping container* full of VHS tapes that a recently dead woman had saved up. She had been recording all the local news programs. Every day. For decades. Never overwrote the tapes.

The documenters are thrilled, but what a daunting digitizing project.

Re:VHS tapes in bulk?

[AmiMoJo]

Oh, and there is one other reason to buy VHS tapes. The boxes are the perfect size for storing 3.5" hard drives. They fit in between the stand-offs that hold the VHS tapes perfectly. I know a few people who store offline drives that way.

Re:VHS tapes in bulk?

[Anonymous Coward]

I got my dad to switch to DVD recording a few years ago and he likes it very much, but many older men tend to be stubborn in their routines and might not want to switch to something new and different. I showed my dad how much physical storage space he could save with DVD-R's instead of videotapes (which he would never record over again) and he was sold on the idea. The DVD recorder works very similarly to a VCR, so he had no problems switching over to the new system. Other dad's might find the change too vexing for them, though.

Re:VHS tapes in bulk?

[plcurechax]

Modern VHS tapes are complete crap, like modern floppy disks. [,,,] (Emphasis added)

Huh? I thought both floppy discs and their drives have been out of production for some time now. I thought retro-computing types have been hording their magentic media for the purists who don't use adapters to solid-state storage (CF, SD card, etc.) for some time now. I don't think you can easily find [USB] floppy drives in stock at online computer retailers any more, except for refurbished units on eBay.

Re:VHS tapes in bulk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoah, there are Luddites still around? They must be really old!

Re:VHS tapes in bulk?

[gstoddart]

Huh? I thought both floppy discs and their drives have been out of production for some time now.

Probably not very common, but a little googling got me here pretty fast.

I don't think you can easily find [USB] floppy drives in stock at online computer retailers any more

Again, probably not very common, but not impossible.

Of course, the USB can probably cache more than the floppy can hold, and can definitely move it around a lot faster.

My brain hurts, this is like a laser-guided carrier pigeon. You could transmit more with the laser in less time.

One does wonder what people are using floppies for. There's probably some things without which society would collapse still relying on floppies. And that should scare the heck out of us.

Re:VHS tapes in bulk?

[Anonymous Coward]

Other dad's might find the change too vexing for them, though.

Not as vexing as your grammar, you little dork.

Re: VHS tapes in bulk?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea. Just look at the systems used for airplane maintenance sometime.

Re:VHS tapes in bulk?

[Anonymous Coward]

One does wonder what people are using floppies for.

A couple of years ago, a coworker stopped by my desk to ask about something. When we were done, I noticed that he had a floppy disk in his hand and asked about it. He had just returned from doing maintenance on one of our telephone systems and used the floppy to take a backup. i was amazed.

Re:VHS tapes in bulk?

[Pentium100]

Why wouldn't you just switch to recording on DVD/flash drive?

DVD cannot be rewound and recorded over to fix the "oh crap" moment of pressing the button too early. Also, I do not know what the latency between "pressing the button" and "recording" is for a DVD recorded. For a VHS recorded (the ones I have) it's about one second (or 3 seconds for the pro VCR I use now - to allow for seamless joining).

Also, recorded DVDs do not last as long as VHS tapes.

Flash or hard drive is better, however, are there any recorders that record the video and not add DRM to it, so I can play the recording on a PC or some other device? No, I do not want to use a PC with composite input card to record live video - too many problems led me to buy my first VCR in 2008.

Re:VHS tapes in bulk?

[antdude]

What happened to this project? Did these recordings get posted online?

Re:VHS tapes in bulk?

[Anonymous Coward]

"You know who else buys VHS tapes in bulk? MY MOM!"

-- Muscle Man

Really?

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

I thought both formats died long ago. The question is, should we stock-pile those things? Will they easily sell on eBay at much higher prices in 2017?

Fight for your bitcoins!

Re:Really?

[bobbied]

You can stock pile all you want, but any flexible magnetic media is going to go bad over time so I'd suggest you plan to unload your stock before 5 years is up.

Re:Really?

[TWX]

We have VHS tapes that still work 20+ years later.

While I don't dispute the potential for degradation, I suspect people are comparing the quality at the time of recording with the quality of modern recordings, and claiming degradation when in fact the differences are more attributable to the initial quality.

Re:Really?

[dcw3]

Over time, yes. In my lifetime, doubtful. I still have my Toshiba Beta from 1983, along with a nice collection that works just fine, thank you very much.

Re:Really?

[geekmux]

I thought both formats died long ago. The question is, should we stock-pile those things? Will they easily sell on eBay at much higher prices in 2017?

No.

Wait, that's not right.

Fuck No.

Let's not be stupid and keep this tech alive for the sake of Steampunk Pi projects or other abhorrently useless shit. IoT initiatives will soon force enough of that crap upon us anyway.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the guy that has an incandescent bulb working after 30 years. The fact that the vast majority of those made at the same time failed doesn't affect your reality bubble. You have a few surviving examples and think all is well. Good for you, but sooner or later the degradation will get so bad, you'll be convincing yourself the magnetic bleed from touching media was just the shitty recording. Please don't cap any of the content, it'll be far more amusing when you lose it all.

Re:Really?

[squiggleslash]

No, he's right. I've never come across any old analog magnetic media (specifically VHS or compact cassette) that didn't play the content recorded at more or less the same quality as I recall it being when I last played it, no matter how long the time period. I've dusted off cassettes more than 20 years old and they've sounded great.

As for digital media, I'll have to dust off my Amiga and see if I can load some of the old games from disc. I'd be fairly surprised if I have a problem, but we'll see.

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the "vast majority" of CDs would fail in a decade?
 
You're the one who's living in a fantasy land. Just keep consuming. They'll love you for it.

Re:Really?

[TWX]

I suspect the biggest danger for media that won't read is the magnetic media coming into incidental contact with magnets, especially if one has moved residences throughout the years and possibly ended up piling old stuff into boxes to move it.

As for the media itself, we tolerated a lot of picture and sound problems back when that was the only option available. We had reduced horizontal resolution compared to broadcast TV, poor sound, and often there were tracking issues such that the top or bottom of the image would be oddly distorted to one side or the other. We even had crappy on-screen displays that would end up recorded on to the media at times. It was even worse if the antenna or signal was poor when home-recording.

I got into SuperVHS for home recording; it was SO much better, basically looked as good as my Laserdiscs did. The Laserdiscs looked basically as good as early DVD and in some specific cases better (Highlander 20th Anniversary comes to mind, terrible digital artifacting on the DVD), it wasn't until widescreen-native televisions that DVD really pulled away from Laserdisc, and obviously the quality on Blu-Ray is significantly better.

Re:Really?

[qubezz]

Video tapes are not guaranteed to work, you are lucky if you've never had a problem transferring an important and personal VHS tape. Google "sticky shed". I've had digitizing challenges where the VCR head would be peeling off and spraying oxide all over the insides until the head wrapped up and ate the tape. Even "baking"/dehumidifying the tapes, like has been documented for reel-to-reel tapes, was not much of an improvement.

In Memorium

[RevWaldo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

.

Nonstandard or RF video sources

[tepples]

Why wouldn't you just switch to recording on DVD/flash drive?

Because not all reviews of DVD/flash drive recorders specify compatibility with video sources, and I don't have the money to buy one of each just to review it the way one Google engineer is doing with USB C cables.

Consumer recorders can record an NTSC signal with standard timing (227.5 color burst cycles per line by 262.5 lines per field) fine. But a lot of classic video game consoles output a nonstandard 240p video signal for memory cost reasons. The last flash recorder I tried (an Aiptek) recorded 480i TV and 480i GameCube video but puked on the 240p sources I fed into it. I have a Philips DVD recorder that records NES (227.333x262) and Sega Genesis (228x262) well, such that I can recover the original 240p from the recorded 480i signal with either AviSynth or FFmpeg. But for some reason, it records my Super NES (also 227.333x262) in black and white, sometimes with colored bars flickering in and out. My conjecture is that it confuses the nonstandard video signal of a 1/1/1 Super NES with certain analog copy protection schemes that the DMCA requires consumer recording equipment to respond to.

Furthermore, I was lucky to find a DVD recorder that had an NTSC/ATSC tuner when I could. Most current DVD recorders that I've seen in stores are line-in only, which doesn't work for RF-only sources such as OTA TV, low-end "Digital Transport Adapter" cable boxes, Atari 2600, original Famicom, or revised NES. So one would need to buy an external tuner as well.

Re:Nonstandard or RF video sources

[tepples]

very HQ recordings that nobody will ever want to see

You appear to underestimate the demand for videos of gameplay on retro consoles. Not only do people like to watch classic games, but also new games are being developed for the old platforms, and people want to watch the first level before buying the cartridge.

None of which has anything to do with sex life.

Poll?

[dcw3]

I'm curious how many of you still have Beta machines? Mine is next to my Eight Track player...no joke.

Re:Poll?

[GTRacer]

I still have my mom's first ever VCR, a Beta unit from waaay back with a wired remote and ~$900 price tag. No clue if it works, but I have a few tapes for it.

My wife's stepmom is forever trying to give us VHS apes from the thrift market, for our daughter to watch. My daughter has Netflix and a Kindle - there is no way she'd put up with linear program viewing now...

Re:Poll?

[behrooz0az]

My dad has 2 of themfrom his repair shop like 30 years ago.
I last used one of the players 6 years ago to watch a really really old movie to compare it to the full HD version that's now available. To my surpires it attracted quite an audience.

Re:Poll?

[hparker]

Still have a Hi-8 Betamax camera that we use as a player and about a few dozen cassettes of videos, mostly of our baby, plus a shelf of VHS cassettes and a VHS recorder. That baby is almost 20 now.
We plug the camera into our top rated (in 1995) 32" Sony Trinitron TV, which still works great. We will get one of those new-fangled HD flat screens one of these days, I suppose. :)

By the way, can anyone recommend a Hi-8 digitizing service?

The Engineer Guy: Why Betamax lost

[Anonymous Coward]

The Engineer Guy had a good overview of why VHS won out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddYZITaxlTQ

Does this include BetaCam?

[tekrat]

There were many "pro" and prosumer variants of Betamax. For example, in the late 80's we shot the PBS TV show "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego" on Betacam SP, which was a 1/2 tape format that had the quality of shooting on 1" tape.

Betacam was a really, really good format. I'd be sad to see that go, but I guess everything is digital these days and HD, whereas Betacam was analog and NTSC.

Re:Does this include BetaCam?

[Farmer Tim]

Analog Betacam was replaced by Digibeta, Betacam SX, IMX and HDCAM long ago; HDCAM SR is still widely used in broadcasting, so tapes for professional units will be available for some time yet. And the reason Betacam SP looked good is because it had nearly twice the bandwidth of Betamax (and ran at a higher tape speed).

Re:Does this include BetaCam?

[toddestan]

My assumption is they are talking about Betacam. I can't imagine they would be producing tapes for Betamax for all these years, except for the fact you can use a Betacam tape in a Betamax recorder. My guess is that the Pro market must have moved over to other formats and there just isn't enough volume left to justify continuing to produce the tapes.

Though my understanding is that other companies still make the tapes so new tapes will still be available for the time being.

Metics

[Anonymous Coward]

The better measure of "end of technology" the availability in "Goodwill" stores.

I can buy VHS but not Beta. I get plenty of CD, and DVD. I also get plenty of vinyl.
This secondary market indicates that there is value and demand in the economy.

I wonder if anyone uses "Goodwill" data to inform product development. I bet Buffet would.

Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

They were still making betamax tapes?

The real reason VHS won

[schklerg]

Was Porn. The porn industry chose VHS and beta died. Or at least that's what I heard. Please do not provide authoritative sources to disprove me. This is what I want to believe. Thanks!!

Re:The real reason VHS won

[Anonymous Coward]

Was Porn. The porn industry chose VHS and beta died. Or at least that's what I heard. Please do not provide authoritative sources to disprove me. This is what I want to believe. Thanks!!

Not gonna argue with you, I'm just curious...was this before or after Al Gore invented the internet?

Re:The real reason VHS won

[Markvs]

Was Porn. The porn industry chose VHS and beta died. Or at least that's what I heard. Please do not provide authoritative sources to disprove me. This is what I want to believe. Thanks!!

Not gonna argue with you, I'm just curious...was this before or after Al Gore invented the internet?

LOOOOONG before. Back in the day, Beta tapes were higher resolution but only 1 hour long, whereas VHS tapes were 2 hours long and featured viewable resolution. (This is before the EP/LP modes that gave 4 or 6 hours on a VHS tape but sacrificed even more quality.) Anyway, the point is that the average movie is somewhere around 90-110 minutes long, so one tape is much better than two. And take it a step further: epics like Lawrence of Arabia or Doctor Zhivago could be done on 2 VHS tapes instead of 4 Betas, so that was a big deal pricewise.
So what's that got to do with porn? Well, people like cheap porn. And VHS was the ideal vehicle, especially since the porn industry releases thousands of titles vs. Hollywood's dozens every year. Porn drove VHS adoption, and VHS adoption meant that mainstream movies went with VHS, which drove more VHS adoption...

Re:The real reason VHS won

[Anonymous Coward]

In the early 80's the porn aficionados I knew would rent VHS then make a copy on Beta. Supposedly they could fit more on a Beta. Which doesn't makes sense to me now because VHS had longer recording times. To this day I'm not sure what the deal was, maybe some quality shifting. At the time I was too young to have a good grasp on the topic. Fun times sneaking a peak at my friends parents porn and "horror"* collection (my own parents were much more boring).

* "horror" like Goulies and Critters, lol. Critters actually wasn't that bad. The same way Tremors isn't that bad. Actual horror has never been that interesting to me, I like sci-fi.

Re:The real reason VHS won

[ebvwfbw]

That's a myth. I and every one of my friends it was simple. The sony units were a lot more expensive. The video quality didn't look any different. Especially since we're recording off air anyhow. It was good enough. Very quickly, it seemed that only one of my friends had a beta. About 6 months later he bought a vhs so he could join the rest of the world. I still have my late 1970s vhs unit. It never did break.

It was bad marketing that did them in.

No need for such complicated reasons.

[Anonymous Coward]

> Although many felt Betamax was the superior format, most cite the longer recording length of VHS tapes — three hours versus one — and the cheaper manufacturing costs for VHS machines as the main factors as to why VHS eventually won out.

It's simpler than that: Betamax licence forbids adult content publishing, while VHS couldn't care less. People choose to watch combining of gene lines on app. 180-200 lines of resolution, rather than a year with a panda family NatGeo special on 300 scan lines.

Re:No need for such complicated reasons.

[neilo_1701D]

> Although many felt Betamax was the superior format, most cite the longer recording length of VHS tapes — three hours versus one — and the cheaper manufacturing costs for VHS machines as the main factors as to why VHS eventually won out.

It's simpler than that: Betamax licence forbids adult content publishing, while VHS couldn't care less. People choose to watch combining of gene lines on app. 180-200 lines of resolution, rather than a year with a panda family NatGeo special on 300 scan lines.

Well, as a former VCR repair tech, I can tell you why we thought VHS beat BetaMax: the VHS machines were much easier to repair.

During lace-up, a VHS machine drew the tape out in a "M" shape, whereas the BetaMax drew the tape out and around the head unit in a "C" format. So a machine failure in VHS left the tape relatively easy to extract. With the tape wrapped around the drum in the BetaMax: it was a pain. From a repair standpoint, changing a VHS head was a matter of unsoldering 4 wires, pull the head off with a standard tool, drop the new head on, resolder the wires and send it back to the customer. With a BetaMax, that was only the beginning of the job: you needed specialized alignment jigs and other tools to ensure that you could play back standard tapes. VHS won, IMO, because they engineered all that stuff into the unit.

As far as "Beta was better"... that's a matter of opinion. Beta looked sharper on screen because the circuitry put a HF "ring" whenever there was a strong contrast change. VHS had a higher head-to-tape speed, with a higher chroma bandwidth (but it was still pretty crappy), I've heard about the "porn industry" reasons for years, but I've never see a single piece of evidence to back it up. To my mind, VHS won because the cost of repairing the machine was so much lower.

Re:No need for such complicated reasons.

[k6mfw]

Well, as a former VCR repair tech, I can tell you why we thought VHS beat BetaMax: the VHS machines were much easier to repair.

A friend who worked at VMI in Sunnyvale back in the days said same thing. He worked on reel to reel, and interacted with other guys who worked on VHS and Beta. To align the beta heads, the machine had to be shipped to Japan as it was that precise.

I also heard there is a documentary about the guys who developed VHS, a Japanese show where they portray these as a drama. I'd love to see it as another friend while he was in Japan he watched this docudrama. These guys went on for days, weeks, months with very little time to sleep, take baths, or eat. Entire lab was filled with huge rack mount test equipment, scopes, etc. with cables and cords going everywhere, and floor covered with empty food containers. One of the guys was given an impossible task during the project which he was seriously considering an easy out (stabbing himself to death like a Samurai). Other tasks included hundreds of insert-and-eject tasks to ensure the decks will not eat tapes. When they finally got it going, Sony and other companies rejected it. But JVC accepted it and also provided licensing for other companies to make VHS machines.

Anyway, I am old enough to remember when video cassettes arrived on the consumer market. I didn't have enough money to buy a machine so I rented. VHS was a no-brainer because I can record a 2-hour movie or two 1-hour TV shows. Or put it in EP mode and record three 2-hour movies. Beta was maximum 90 minutes which even though I heard it was better (honestly I couldn't tell the difference) but I need that last 30 minutes!!!

But wait, this guy lead a team to develop the first consumer video cassette deck, https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Richard Elkus knew even in 1960s video will never be popular in the consumer market unless it was a cassette. i.e. people had 8mm film but they typically only watch it once because setting up a screen, setting up and feeding the film through a projector was too tedious for most people. Unfortunately US companies didn't buy into it but the Japanese took the technology and ran with it. Rest is history.

Getting back to Beta, that was the game changer for news media. None of the "film at 11!" as that is how long it takes to develop and show 16mm film footage of an event earlier in the day. None of packing a camera with a separate recorder and wearing a 50 lb battery belt. Grab that shoulder mount, run and gun, for action reality footage, and also be able to solve the camera in a politician's face, and footage is ready to go for the 6 pm news.

There's going to be a last-tape ceremony

[Applehu Akbar]

Yahoo News will carry a Polaroid shot of it.

Who-t-h has been buying them??

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought beta died in the early 80s and was long gone this whole time...

VHS was always crap

[sjbe]

Modern VHS tapes are complete crap, like modern floppy disks.

They always were complete crap. We just didn't have anything better back when they were ubiquitous. Even the best VHS tapes were really not terribly good products. Usable but never good.

Built to extremely low standards because hardly anyone uses them and they sell for ridiculously low prices.

Things that hardly anyone uses get sold for higher prices. The only reason they can sell them relatively cheaply is because the equipment to make the tapes has been fully depreciated for a very long time now.

Why wouldn't you just switch to recording on DVD/flash drive?

Because that requires learning something new. Lots of people absolutely HATE learning anything new. Several of my relatives have DVRs and have no idea how to use them despite them actually being quite easy to use.

not "felt"

[DriveDog]

"...many felt Betamax was the superior format..." No. Beta was demonstrably the superior format. VHS didn't become the dominant format because of longer recording times, that was just salesmen's selling point to counter the quality argument, it became dominant because there were a lot of companies spending a lot more on promotion, and I don't mean just advertising. A lot of salesmen could make more by selling VHS decks, so naturally they pushed them over Beta. Also, Sony was nastier about licensing. JVC/Matsushita was more lenient. An example: when JVC introduced VHS HQ, it included 4 enhancements. JVC decks had them all, but to label a unit "HQ", it only had to have 1 of the 4, so many companies just did the cheap thing and incorporated 1 or 2. Not until SVHS came along did VHS have an effective and consistent minimum quality standard. Of course, Sony countered SuperVHS with ED Beta, which again had demonstrably better picture quality.

Too much resources on old obsolete gear

[sjbe]

Why don't we have a plug-in digital replacement for VHS/Beta tapes?

To what purpose? So we can display low rez old TV signals? It's an obsolete technology. Time to let it die. Transfer the contents to digital media and throw the old unit out. Keeping old VCR units around is a waste of resources.

why can't I get a digital-imaging back for my old 35mm Nikon cameras?

Because it doesn't work well. It's been tried. There is more to it than putting a digital sensor into the body. The interface isn't the same and retrofitting is rarely a good idea. Buy a new camera body and use the lenses on it. Keep your old camera body in case you ever decide to use film again. I don't like to throw out old stuff either if it works well but sometimes you have to move on.

Japan

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't he get them in Japan? Japan is brilliant. They respect age, both in people and technologies.

Re:Japan

[MoarSauce123]

Yep! Recent survey shows that landline and fax machine are considered essential in Japanese offices.

Dupe!

[FriendOfBagu]

From... uh... 13 years ago... ?
Sony Kills Betamax

3 hours?

[mattack2]

I see no way to comment on that article..

I don't know where they got that 3 hour time from. (Maybe much later T180 tapes?) T160 were the only ones longer than T120 that seemed to get down into the "cheap" range. (I have TONS of old VHS tapes, probably all degraded by now.)

I wish re-recordable Blurays had gotten much cheaper. Even though I just instead download (non-copy-protected) media from my Tivo to a hard drive, sometimes it's easier to use removable media.

Betacam and DigiBeta? Video2000!

[MoarSauce123]

I doubt this is the end of Betamax in general. Most TV studios and broadcasters use Betacam and DigiBeta as medium. It provides incredible quality at a rather low price and incremental addition cost compared to hard disk based libraries. Especially DigiBeta is so robust you can swipe sandpaper over the tape and wrinkle it all up, you may end up with a few blocks in the image if that. As far as consumer grade is concerned, VHS was/is the worst of them all. Betamax was better, but the best was Video2000. Far better picture quality, stereo audio before any TV station broadcasted in stereo, and up to 8 hours in recording length...ok, to be fair, more 2 x 4 hours per cassette because you needed to flip it around like an audio cassette. VHS only won the video wars because it was dirt cheap and it clearly shows. I guess with HD streaming and torrenting content only die hards who like the sound of the loading arm wrapping the tape around the head drum will use video tapes.