Beta Verses VHS / World War 3

[Marvingj]

OK Fellas, After a few Buds, A heated debate was on again. Please don't Drink & Debate. Beta is far superior to VHS throughout the 80's and most of the 90's. That is a fact. It wasn't until improved electronics came along that VHS could even compare. Have you ever compared the pause or slow rewind/ff feature on a Beta machine compared to a VHS? There is no comparsion-on VHS it generally sucks, and on Beta it is far superior. Most innovations happened on beta first, anyway. Jog-shuttle , Flying erase heads, Hi-Fi, etc. All on Beta before VHS. The truth is that there are basic reason that Beta is better. The tape winds at a higher speed, meaning you don't need to cram as much information on a smaller space as compared to VHS. Anyone familiar with analog storage technology can understand how this is better. From a quality standpoint, Beta is vastly superior to VHS, or the format would have been two decades ago. It isn't until another superior technology came around-DVR& DVD- that it was dethroned. Oh Yea, Super Betamax Kills Super VHS Also. Plus Macrovision does not affect Beta.

[Jumbo_Holden]

It was proven that Betamax was better than VHS, VHS still became the standard. Just like its been PROVEN dvd+r is better than - it never goes wrong on me the picture quality is better and the discsa re manufactured to a higher quality but I still think DVD-R will be future standard

[wulf109]

As a former beta-fanatic it was better than VHS. Beta used a larger diameter head drum which resulted in much higher writing speed than VHS's smaller diameter head drum could achieve.
SuperVHS is however better then even Superbeta B1S speed.
I had 20 beta decks at one point,but it is just untrue to say Superbeta was better then SuperVHS. The Beta ED format was better than SuperVHS however. DVD-+R is better than any analog video tape could ever be.

[lordsmurf]

You can't "prove" +R is better than -R and you cannot "prove" Beta is better than VHS ... what a pointless discussion. Beta was not the perfect format everybody remembers.

[andyp1]

Exactly Lordsmurf , it's an argument that no-one will win.

[budz]

you cannot "prove" Beta is better than VHS ... what a pointless discussion. Beta was not the perfect format everybody remembers.

hmmmms I have to disagree with that comment Lordsmurf. I was a beta fanatic and a Sonyholic for many years. In my opinion the BETA quality is far superior to VHS because of the resolution it provides versus VHS. The professionals in the media world such as news reporters all use SONY PRO BETACAMS.

A few months ago when I rented a BETA to transfer all my beta tapes to dvd. (Had to rent one because my beta's are all dead and no parts to repair) I had no quality issues when I did captures from the BETA. But when I did some VHS tapes I got the jittery stuff on the bottom of the captures. From what I've read on this forum it is recommended to use a TBC to deal with the jittery captures and so forth.

I consider myself a newbie on doing conversions and captures but I think I've gotten the basics down with the equipment that I use. In my opinion with regard to BETA the captures were much cleaner because of the resolution that BETA has. As for VHS I would have to use a TBC which I haven't purchased yet. Lastly I remember that the LASERDISC resolution was the best during its reign and BETA was right below that, then came VHS.

[FulciLives]

I had 2 BETA VCR's both by SONY. The first was an early model that was mono the second was Hi-Fi Stereo.

I used the Hi-Fi Stereo BETA for a lot of things until I got my first Panasonic S-VHS VCR and which point I stopped using BETA.

I've read all the reasons why BETA didn't survive in the marketplace but basically it boils down to the average American Joe being a dumb ass.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[lordsmurf]

Don't confuse your "beta" formats. Broadcast journalists use Betacam SP, which is not at all the same as the "Beta" of the Beta vs VHS wars of the 70s.

Betacam SP is a high resolution, color intensive format, slightly better than SVHS because of how well it handles grain and color.

Beta pretty much had only one brand of blank tape: Sony. And it was good. If you compare Beta to VHS, be sure to do it on equal terms. Pick up a good JVC VHS tape, not the Walmart special. Be sure both are recorded on equal modes. Don't compare EP VHS to a short-play Beta tape.

Same for machine: Sony. Again, no Walmart specials. Grab a good Panasonic VHS player.

When you do all this, you'll normally see the differences were not really there.

[rixware]

The Sony marketing machine did such an amazing job of portraying Beta as superior to VHS that even 20 years later people still evangelize the Beta Way. While there certainly are technical arguments for Beta's superiority, they get trumped by a principle that rarely gets discussed: The Principle of Good Enough.

Even if VHS wasn't the technological equal of Beta (debatable), it was Good Enough for the masses. The picture quality was always Good Enough (even at SP speed) to watch a movie on or record a soap opera on. VHS was always Good Enough to store your favorite family memories.

And Beta had no other inherent advantage over VHS. The players weren't any easier to use or program. The tapes were no more readily available. There was nothing else to tip the scale. Essentially, in the mind of the public, it came down to a battle of two formats which were both Good Enough.

That leads to an important corollary rule: When two formats clash, and both are Good Enough, the cheaper one (not the technically superior one) will win.

For the vast majority of consumers, Good Enough is all that matters. And we've had another example of this principle over the last few years: the whole MP3 explosion. Technically speaking, MP3 as a format for distributing recorded music is substantially inferior to LPCM in almost every way. It has been demonstrated on listening tests over and over. But for most people, the sound quality is still Good Enough. The battle between CDs and MP3 downloads therefore could never be decided on sound quality, because both are Good Enough. So other factors (like price and convenience) took over.

Similar examples can be found in the home computer market (PC vs. Mac), the color printer market (6-color vs. 4-color), the digital camera market (megapixels), the camcorder market (format wars ad nauseum), and now the writable DVD market (+ vs. -). Technical superiority doesn't mean squat to consumers unless the differences are noticeable -- really, obviously, demonstrably noticeable. 240 lines of resolution (VHS) versus 250 lines of resolution (Beta) isn't enough of a difference for any consumer (except the highly technical) to notice.

This is, of course, maddening to those of us who dig into the technical details. We'll take the superior format -- even if it's more expensive -- every time. But we're the vast minority, sad to say.

Here's a personal example. My digital still camera (Olympus C2100) is a 2 megapixel model which records truly crappy QuickTime movies of up to 35 seconds (in the highest quality mode). But do I care? Not at all. They're crappy, but they're Good Enough. I wouldn't use it when shooting for a client, but at a birthday party? Who cares! It's perfect for that. Would I trade it for a 4 megapixel model which recorded slightly better quality movies? Nope, not worth it.

And at 2 megapixels, I may be seriously underpowered -- speaking technically -- but I just take pictures for fun and for my web site. I don't even use the highest quality settings, just the ones that are Good Enough.

Not even the Mighty Sony Marketing Department can beat The Principle of Good Enough.

+

[DereX888]

amen

[lordsmurf]

Professional still digital cameras ... many, many still in use today (myself included) ... models like the Nikon D1 ... are 2.74 megapixels, and provide many of those full-page photos you see in newspapers that look absolutely stunning and vibrant in color.

I see lots of stupid comments about "only 2" or "only 3" megapix. Then I show them one of my photos, printed huge, and show them my cameras. They drool, wandering how many zillions MP it has.

I'm ALWAYS amused by the dumbfounded look when I tell them the specs (2.74 MP using RAW 16-bit NEF mode). It's that JPEG crap and poor CPUs that kill a camera, not it's MP size. And CMOS failed miserably compared to CCD. That ship sank fast.

So much for the "only" crowd. 8)

Only recently has the D2H (4.1 MP) and D1X (5.2 MP) replaced these slightly older models, but not everybody buys the "latest and greatest" when our workhorses are still going strong. Plus, new ones always seem to trade-off assets of the older ones. I've given Nikon enough of my money for now.

Good enough? Indeed it is.

[Marvingj]

I guess people would rather settle for SH???T than Quality?

[wulf109]

Beta produced more lines of resolution than VHS. It's not a debate,technically beta produced a sharper picture,it's not opion it's a labratory tested fact. Did you ever own both formats and do an A/B comparison.
Sony's marketing machine is terrible. It was the decision to introduce beta as a one hour format that doomed it. Panasonic/JVC's decision to introduce VHS as a two hour format assured it would win and sealed beta's fate. Panasonic/JVC knew what Sony didn't. People would record movies and that required 2 hours.

[pyrohydra]

Marvingj:

What exactly posessed you to post this steaming pile of dogshit here? This site is mainly about converting AWAY from these two shitty formats onto a digital medium (VCDs/DVDs).

The format war of this era (read: 2004) is currently DVD + vs -, soon to be superceded by HD-DVD vs Blu-ray. So take your bullshit back to the 1980s, and out of here.

[Marvingj]

technofile
Al Fasoldt's reviews and commentaries, continuously available online since 1983
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How Sony killed Betamax

By Al Fasoldt
Copyright © 1988, The Syracuse Newspapers

In May of 1975, a proud Japanese company unveiled the world's first home video cassette recorder. With a TV monitor at their sides, executives of Sony Corp. popped a small cassette into their new SL-6300 VCR, pressed a button and launched a revolution.
The world of personal entertainment was never the same. With that single invention, Sony changed the way we watch TV, the way we look at movies, the way we schedule our evening hours. Even the name that Sony gave to its device" -- Betamax," with its first and second syllables suggesting something both old and new -- blended into the language of the '70s as the generic term for video recorder.
It is a bitter irony, then, that the Beta format is about to disappear into the attic of history. After denying rumors for weeks, and after its last ally abandoned it in the marketing war with the competing VHS format, Sony announced that it was giving up the fight and would be selling its own VHS recorders soon.
Sony's spokesmen insisted that Beta is not dead, but everyone else in the industry believes they know better. By joining its rivals in the VHS camp, Sony is admitting that Beta couldn't make it in the marketplace.
"With Sony backing VHS, nobody will bother with Beta any more," said a sales executive for a company that used to sell Beta recorders but switched a few years ago to VHS.
"It's a public admission they went the wrong way," said a store owner in suburban Chicago.
Officially, Sony says it will continue to make Beta VCRs, and will introduce super-high-quality ED Beta recorders in North America in May. But the behind-the-scenes talk in Chicago, site of January's huge Consumer Electronics Show, made it clear that the market for regular Beta recorders has now dropped to almost zero, and the prospects of selling any ultra-expensive ED Beta VCRs are very slim.
In some ways, Sony itself is to blame for the decline and fall of Beta VCRs. Unlike its rivals, who advertised and promoted VHS recorders in every possible way, Sony cut back on the promotion of Beta recorders once they were selling well. When Sony introduced a new VCR format, the tiny 8mm system, it canceled nearly all of its Beta advertising.
The result? A weak 8mm market (only 30 percent of all recorders are 8mm types) and a dead market for Beta.
Sony also failed to recognize that many consumers buy such items as VCRs on impulse. They stroll through a store looking for one thing and end up buying something else. VHS manufacturers knew that principle well, and made sure that VHS recorders were sold in many different types of stores -- even supermarkets. Consumers who paced the aisles looking for dog food or mustard could end up walking out with a VCR.
It is easy to imagine a different scenario. Beta has at least four solid advantages compared with VHS: The picture is a bit sharper, the tape-winding mechanism can switch quickly from one mode to another, the cassettes are small enough to carry in a coat pocket or purse, and the hi-fi sound tracks don't cause any problems for high-speed duplication.
Yet only one of those advantages was regularly mentioned in Sony's ads-when they ran. The company fell back on word-of-mouth advertising, and when it comes to that kind of promotion, as the saying goes, they got what they paid for.
In the 13 years since Sony's first Betamax lit up the TV screen in Tokyo, 170 million VCRs have been sold around the world. Only 20 million have been Beta. That's only 12 percent.
At Beta's peak, other companies besides Sony were making Beta VCRs. They included Toshiba, NEC, Sanyo, Zenith, Radio Shack and Aiwa. One by one they fell away. The defection of Aiwa, the last to go, was especially painful for Sony, since Aiwa is one of its own subsidiaries.
On the bright side is the possibility that Sony will inject new competition into VHS development. If Sony decides to make Super VHS recorders -- a move that Sony is denying at the moment -- it could help push the quality higher and the prices lower. It could also help establish Super VHS, which has a broadcast-quality picture, as the new standard home video format.
It's possible that Sony will struggle on for another year or two making both Beta and VHS VCRs, but it's not likely. Areas where Beta is still popular, such as South America and the Philippines, will need new Beta VCRs for many months to come, but Sony cannot expect to support itself on those markets.
What counts to Sony is the money it has lost in the VCR wars. Whether it can take a significant share of the already crowded VHS market is unclear. but with its reputation for quality and service, Sony has a head start already.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[wulf109]

This website is called VideoHelp not DigitalHelp, This topic is as valid as a discussion on capturing or any other video topic.

[pyrohydra]

This website is called VideoHelp not DigitalHelp, This topic is as valid as a discussion on capturing or any other video topic.

That doesn't make the discussion any less pointless. How many people do we see here asking for help recording / editing video on VHS or Beta (not conversion to other formats)? Not many, I gather. At least the + vs - war, for all it's stupidity, still has relevance.

But, carry on regardless.

[lordsmurf]

This website is called VideoHelp not DigitalHelp, This topic is as valid as a discussion on capturing or any other video topic.

That doesn't make the discussion any less pointless. How many people do we see here asking for help recording / editing video on VHS or Beta (not conversion to other formats)? Not many, I gather. At least the + vs - war, for all it's stupidity, still has relevance.

But, carry on regardless.

You're missing the point. You MUST know what the source specs are before you can perform a quality conversion. To blindly convert without knowing source specs is irresponsible.

This is videohelp.com. This is video. Questions were asked, brainstorming requested, and so it began.

I will agree with you on one aspect: it is a bit pointless to do in this "versus" style, especially when so much poor info is being passed around as fact. This argument is about as useful as the "my daddy can beat up your daddy" argument found on school playgrounds.

I have to roll my eyes and chuckle when somebody tries to convince me that 10 lines of TVL will be some sort of huge difference. Anybody even remember tv's from the 70s/80s? They sucked, you lost half the image inside those ancient tubes.

The only tapes I remember on Beta were porn and Disney.

[rixware]

I guess people would rather settle for SH???T than Quality?

No, not sh!t. If they are priced the same, sh!t will lose over quality every time. But we're not talking about that large a difference in quality. To most consumers, there was NO VISIBLE DIFFERENCE between the formats. And there were no other factors (like convenience) to be part of the equation. Read on...

Beta produced more lines of resolution than VHS.

250 for Beta, 240 for VHS. That makes Beta 4.2% better than VHS in terms of lines of resolution. Ooo, I'm tingly all over.

Demonstrable? Yes. Meaurable? Yes. Noticeable to the average consumer? No way. Big enough to make any difference whatsoever? Not even close.

Only people who read specs (people like us) could ever possibly care about a difference that small -- unless someone repeated it over and over in the media (which Sony did until they were blue in the face ).

+

[teegee420]

My butt hurts.

[housepig]

The only tapes I remember on Beta were porn and Disney.

mmmmmm..... Beta porn ...........

[FulciLives]

I guess people would rather settle for SH???T than Quality?

No, not sh!t. If they are priced the same, sh!t will lose over quality every time. But we're not talking about that large a difference in quality. To most consumers, there was NO VISIBLE DIFFERENCE between the formats. And there were no other factors (like convenience) to be part of the equation. Read on...

Beta produced more lines of resolution than VHS.

250 for Beta, 240 for VHS. That makes Beta 4.2% better than VHS in terms of lines of resolution. Ooo, I'm tingly all over.

Demonstrable? Yes. Meaurable? Yes. Noticeable to the average consumer? No way. Big enough to make any difference whatsoever? Not even close.

Only people who read specs (people like us) could ever possibly care about a difference that small -- unless someone repeated it over and over in the media (which Sony did until they were blue in the face ).

+

This is probably true for the most part ... that people couldn't really see a big difference ... if any difference ... between the two formats.

But resolution doesn't tell the entire story.

Other factors helped to make BETA better.

We all know for instance that the color RED can bleed alot of VHS. Not so or at least not so much with the BETA format.

Just another small example of why BETA was better.

But at this point who really cares?

S-VHS VCR's are now fairly cheap (though the blanks aren't) but you can now buy a stand alone DVD recorder for a fairly decent price and I'm sure soon even cheaper.

I'm gussing that by Christmas of 2005 a name brand stand alone DVD recorder such as Pioneer, Panny, JVC etc. will be down to around $200 or so.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[naturalzinc]

strange how u dodos are spending so much time bickering over 2 formats that are as dead as the Dodo. :P

[rixware]

But resolution doesn't tell the entire story. Other factors helped to make BETA better. We all know for instance that the color RED can bleed alot of VHS. Not so or at least not so much with the BETA format.

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but this misses my point. Ultimately it didn't matter to consumers because both Beta and VHS were Good Enough, and VHS won because it was cheaper (and aided, as mentioned in the article above, by some marketing blunders at Sony).

Further, technological superiority DOESN'T MATTER TO MOST CONSUMERS when the two competing standards are Good Enough. Without a COMPELLING quality difference (and I'm sorry to say that lack of bleeding reds doesn't qualify ), the cheaper (or more convenient) one will always win.

It's an important principle to understand because we're still in a format war with +R vs. -R. I've heard it argued both ways as far as quality and compatibility. But the truth is, consumers don't care. Currently, neither offers a cost or convenience advantage over the other (though the scales may be tipping ever so slowly toward -R). But because the technologies are each Good Enough, one of those other factors will have to change before a clear winner emerges.

I'm not saying it's right. (My first camcorder was a BetaMovie.) But it's one of the cautionary lessons to be taken from the whole Beta vs. VHS saga...

+

[teegee420]

I don't want to beat a dead horse here...

Too late. This thread was doomed before the first reply.

[FulciLives]

@rixware

Eventhough you quoted part of my last post you obviously didn't read the whole thing and if you did then you missed the point.

I was in fact conceeding that yes the average consumer probably couldn't see the difference between the 2 formats and because of all the other factors (such as price) thus VHS won.

As I said I agree with such a statement.

However, having said that, it is still clear to the tech head or the person who cares greatly about quality that BETA was/is better than VHS.

This is a technological statistics thing that despite what LordSmurf may say cannot be denied.

So yes VHS won because the difference in quality was minimal between the 2 formats along with other factors such as price and recording time etc. but hey let's give credit where credit is due ... BETA was the better format QUALITY wise.

Granted only perhaps by a small margin BUT it was better. And back then anyone that cared about quality could tell that even such a minimal difference was more than enough reason to favor BETA.

But of course the average Joe tends not to think that way or care much especially when money is an issue.

However I have no doubt that if suddenly all recording formats on the face of the planet went away except normal BETA and normal VHS that most of us here ... being the quality nuts that we are ... would pick BETA over VHS for our recording needs.

But of course those days are long gone.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[marvel2020]

Here we go again, another pointless which is best war.

Enough already for crying out.

[jeex]

well, i never experienced beta. but from what i've read in this thread it looks like the 2 big things that killed beta were;

length of recording time. beta only had 1 hour, vhs had 2 hours.

price/marketing

[budz]

FulciLives wrote:

@rixware

Eventhough you quoted part of my last post you obviously didn't read the whole thing and if you did then you missed the point.

I was in fact conceeding that yes the average consumer probably couldn't see the difference between the 2 formats and because of all the other factors (such as price) thus VHS won.

As I said I agree with such a statement.

However, having said that, it is still clear to the tech head or the person who cares greatly about quality that BETA was/is better than VHS.

This is a technological statistics thing that despite what LordSmurf may say cannot be denied.

So yes VHS won because the difference in quality was minimal between the 2 formats along with other factors such as price and recording time etc. but hey let's give credit where credit is due ... BETA was the better format QUALITY wise.

Granted only perhaps by a small margin BUT it was better. And back then anyone that cared about quality could tell that even such a minimal difference was more than enough reason to favor BETA.

But of course the average Joe tends not to think that way or care much especially when money is an issue.

However I have no doubt that if suddenly all recording formats on the face of the planet went away except normal BETA and normal VHS that most of us here ... being the quality nuts that we are ... would pick BETA over VHS for our recording needs.

But of course those days are long gone.

Well said FulciLives! Right on the money!

[fmctm1sw]

Neither were as good as the reel to reel projectors.....