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 won in the commercial setting.
VHS was better in homes.
"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.
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.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
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.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
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.
The digital back is the camera. All you need to do is attach your lens.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.
Just another day in Paradise
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.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
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.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
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!
To be fair, none of the 35mm digital cameras can be had for $400.
$2000 maybe, but not $400.