Slashdot Mirror
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.
"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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
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 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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
That only applies if you have a crop sensor. Most professional DSLRs now are full frame.
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!