VHS was a phenomenal achievement!

[Graham G3ZVT]

Originally Posted by emeritus

I recall a 1990's Wireless World ediorial (AFAIR about HDTV) observing that most viewers saw no difference between a live broadcast and a VHS recording [...]

Even when VHS cassettes were cheap many viewers compounded this by putting running time above quality, and using the dreaded LP mode.

When asked about choosing a VHS machine for best quality recordings, I would give two pieces of advice, which were usually ignored.

First, don't go for a dual speed machine. Save your money, because in SP it lays down thinner tracks than an SP only machine, this means less magnetic flux picked up on playback whatever machine is used.

Second, don't use 4hr tapes they necessitate a thin substrate that is more prone to stretching and getting tangled.

[Graham G3ZVT]

Originally Posted by peter_scott

The early portable VHS recorders were a laugh. I borrowed one for a summer holiday in Spain and walked up a small hill where we were staying. The recorder weighed about as much as a normal machine but to add to that the battery weighed about as much as car battery then you had a none too light camera on your shoulder with the microphone next to your face. At the top of the hill my heavy breathing was very obvious. (Not all of the hill appears in the video.)

https://youtu.be/bvM33_e0KMU

Peter (in 1987)

A laugh from our perspective now, but at the time you probably thought it was the bees knees.

A lot of livings were made using that sort of equipment for weddings etc.

Our wedding was captured on silent Super 8 (1979)

BTW, how was that artifact on the L&R sides of your film introduced? Was it Youtube's image stabilization filter?

[bluepilot]

Originally Posted by martin.m

I agree with you Frank. TV programmes were better quality and more entertaining when there were only four channels.

I'm sure I've mentioned it before but I am convinced there is a universal physical constant of the total amount of good program content. The more channels there are, the more the good content is spread out. When we only had two channels (BBC and Anglia) they were both good. Now with thousands the good content is spread so thinly that they are all rubbish.

[peter_scott]

Originally Posted by rambo1152

BTW, how was that artifact on the L&R sides of your film introduced? Was it Youtube's image stabilization filter?

Hi Graham,

I'm not sure why those effects are there. To be honest I can't actually remember whether the recorder was a full sized VHS machine or a Betamax? I am wondering now if perhaps it was Betamax (for which I've never had a player) and I subsequently rerecorded the content from Beta to VHS before I returned the borrowed kit.

Peter

[emeritus]

I recall a magazine columnist comparing the present situation to someone replacing your set of silver cutlery with 50 different sets of plastic cutlery and saying it was better because you now had so much more choice .

[paulsherwin]

Originally Posted by peter_scott

The early portable VHS recorders were a laugh. I borrowed one for a summer holiday in Spain and walked up a small hill where we were staying. The recorder weighed about as much as a normal machine but to add to that the battery weighed about as much as car battery then you had a none too light camera on your shoulder with the microphone next to your face. At the top of the hill my heavy breathing was very obvious. (Not all of the hill appears in the video.)

You should have seen the first generation of professional ENG gear! It basically consisted of a full sized U-matic deck with a huge battery pack, with a pro broadcast camera and a big microphone. The crews back then seem ridiculously overmanned by modern standards, but you needed all the people to carry the kit.

[Refugee]

They did do a half size U-matic cassette that also fitted in full size machines.
I never did get to see one of the adapters that did nothing but fill the space around the outside in a full size machine.

[Welsh Anorak]

(from #26)..and a paglight plus its power pack evenly distributed in a belt pack worn around your waist so you looked like a Commando!
The nice thing about the early cameras were they were nicely balanced on your shoulder and enabled you with care to reduce camera shake to negligible proportions.
If you thought LP was bad, how about EP? Panasonic did it on a few domestic VHS machines - dropouts seemed to spend an age going down the screen. But 12 hours on an E-240? Must be good!

[electronicskip]

Originally Posted by stevehertz

A trick I learnt in my vintage video days was to load a cassette (of any format you wish) with the very latest, high quality VHS video tape that you could lay your hands on. I'm guessing I'm talking around 2002. Large inroads were made into improving video tape formulations during the lifespan of video machines, and the later ones contributed greatly to improved performance both electronically and mechanically. The difference in picture quality is stunning, I kid you not!

Remember this advert for long lasting Scotch Videotapes?
Just re record not fade away!! with the skeleton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU75D5rZ_I8

[Refugee]

Panasonic also did a CCTV machine that recorded one frame every how long you set it for in mono.

[Richard_FM]

When my family got it's first VCR in 1987 it was an Amstrad 4600 because it could record twice as much material on a tape. Poor for archiving but OK for watch once & wipe.

My Sony is a four head models so it records on LP almost as well as SP. Most of what I've recorded still looks OK.

[paulsherwin]

I actually found LP and even EP to give surprisingly good results if the tape was in good condition. The image was softer than SP, but not unacceptably so, particularly for time shifting.

[peter_scott]

Originally Posted by paulsherwin

You should have seen the first generation of professional ENG gear!

Ah! But they probably had the microphone sensibly on a long pole so as not to capture the wheezing gasps of the "Mad Dogs & Englishmen" out in the midday sun. (OK I'm not English but the same applies.)

Peter

p.s. I too had no bad experiences with LP and I also agree with an earlier post that considered S-VHS to be somewhat unexciting.

[Welsh Anorak]

Remember HQ? Did it really offer any improvement?
I remember when we sold Hitachi VT63 series VCRs. I was called out to several with the complaint the picture was soft and muddy, especially when compared to another make. The solution was easy - use Memorex or Maxell tapes - in fact, anything but Scotch Lifetime.

[stevehertz]

Originally Posted by rambo1152

When asked about choosing a VHS machine for best quality recordings, I would give two pieces of advice, which were usually ignored.

First, don't go for a dual speed machine. Save your money, because in SP it lays down thinner tracks than an SP only machine, this means less magnetic flux picked up on playback whatever machine is used.

Second, don't use 4hr tapes they necessitate a thin substrate that is more prone to stretching and getting tangled.

I'm not surprised your advice was ignored, those reasons nearly bamboozle me and I'm an electronics engineer!

[Vintage Engr]

Originally Posted by peter_scott

The early portable VHS recorders were a laugh. I borrowed one for a summer holiday in Spain and walked up a small hill where we were staying. The recorder weighed about as much as a normal machine but to add to that the battery weighed about as much as car battery then you had a none too light camera on your shoulder with the microphone next to your face. At the top of the hill my heavy breathing was very obvious. (Not all of the hill appears in the video.)

https://youtu.be/bvM33_e0KMU

Peter (in 1987)

Reminds me of a similar situation. I worked for professional dealer, & one of our suppliers was JVC Pro. We were invited to a dealer conference in Malta, it was 1984 I think. One of our tasks was to take a 'Portable' 3-tube camera and pro VHS recorder around the island, make a recording, & go back to the hotel. In the afternoon we had to edit it, and then after the evening meal make a presentation. It was both salesmen & us engineers. I also remember that the sales shots were mainly girls on the beach, not so us proffesional engineeers...
We were absolutely shattered by the end of the day!

Remember that these recorders used lead-acid batteries, so that made for a very heavy package. I seem to remember that we also used a Pagbelt (ni-cads in an ammunition-style belt), so that added even more weight.
However, the overall quality of the final material was pretty good for the available technology of the time.

David.

[Graham G3ZVT]

Originally Posted by Richard_FM

My Sony is a four head models so it records on LP almost as well as SP. Most of what I've recorded still looks OK.

If I recall correctly, a four head machine uses the same two heads for SP & LP record and playback.

The additional heads are positioned to track the tape more accurately when the tape is stationary (freeze frame).

[nigelr2000]

Re record not fade away

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6Clw3lp07s

[Richard_FM]

Originally Posted by nigelr2000

Re record not fade away

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6Clw3lp07s

I did wonder when 3M called time on the lifetime guarantee?

Supposedly they stopped making their own tapes after a few years & bought it in from various suppliers, so quality of later Scotches can vary somewhat.

[Graham G3ZVT]

Originally Posted by nigelr2000

Re record not fade away

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j6Clw3lp07s

Deryck Guyler, wasn't it?