JVC S-VHS ET Quality
Phil M
All I read what "Nor good" or "Great" But none of the messages had a
COMPLETE picture, as far as under what conditions the quality is Great or
"Not so great. Is it under the SP or EP speed? Is it with unbranded tapes,
VHS or S-VHS tapes? So I decided to buy one. I took the chance. Here's the
verdict:
Got this VCR NEW for $120 and I shouldn't be complaining at all. I got what
I paid for. I did several tests with this VCR in the SP (fast) mode using a
variety of known brand VHS and S-VHS tapes such as the top of the line S-VHS
Fuji H471S, Top of the line VHS TDK HD-X Pro and several other high quality
consummer grade VHS such as the maxell GX-Gold and GX-Silver. I recorded in
the SP in the S-VHS ET mode, with video calibration ON and Picture control
on EDIT, wich is the best compromise between grain and softess.
The result is DISSAPOINTING. I got a VHS picture quality, on a S-VHS
recording... (even with a real S-VHS Tape in the SP speed)Probably my
expectations are high since I work in the TV and Radio Broadcast industry
and I watch S-VHs tapes payed on air daily.
My test ended there. I didn't bother testing it with unbranded no-name cheap
cassettes in the EP speed. I didn't want to be even more dissapointed.
But the end result from this VCR is equivalent to a very high quality VHS
recoding. Its like an "enhanced" Quasi SVHS. Quality is not even near to
what a real S-VHS has to offer. For Features, ease of use and programming I
give it a 4/5, but for quality I give it an average of 1/5. (2/5 with a
S-VHS tape in SP speed).
In our days, for $120 you don't get a Hi-Fi VCR with S-VHS playback
capabilities. So this is a real +. But for the price? Why I'm I complaining
now?
Eric
Thanks for confirming what most of us suspected: Low end entry level
SVHS VCRs do not provide the same video quality as a higher end SVHS
VCR can deliver. Those that shun SVHS as a format based solely on
the performance of the JVC HR-S3600U are not experiencing true SVHS
performance.
Are you still reading this group, Paul?
Mike Frisch
news:p9bY5.2161$He.1...@wagner.videotron.net...
> The result is DISSAPOINTING. I got a VHS picture quality, on a S-VHS
> recording... (even with a real S-VHS Tape in the SP speed)Probably my
> expectations are high since I work in the TV and Radio Broadcast
industry
> and I watch S-VHs tapes payed on air daily.
If you expectations are so high, did you really expect a $120 VCR to
provide the video quality of a $1000 VCR? Let's be realistic here.
I have a JVC HR-S3500 and am very pleased with it. It's very noticeably
better than the VHS recorder that it replaced. It was worth every cent
to me. Given that fact that it gets used perhaps once a week, I did not
think a pro-sumer model was a necessity.
> My test ended there. I didn't bother testing it with unbranded no-name
cheap
> cassettes in the EP speed. I didn't want to be even more dissapointed.
Why use no-name cheap cassettes in any player/recorder? What does that
prove?
> In our days, for $120 you don't get a Hi-Fi VCR with S-VHS playback
> capabilities. So this is a real +. But for the price? Why I'm I
complaining
> now?
We're not sure...
Mike.
Topcoder
Phil M wrote in message ...
|After reding several posts on the JVC HR-3600U, none of them was complete.
Neither is yours, I'm afraid. You rendered everything irrelevant
by failing to identify the source(s) that you were recording from.
Without knowing that, no agreement can be reached about quality, or lack thereof.
Phil M
> by failing to identify the source(s) that you were recording from.
Ouuups. Ok. I used 3 sources:
The first one was from DishNetwork Satellite reciver model 6000, using the
S-Video out
The second source:
a Betacam SP UVW-1400 S-Video out in to the S-Video In to the JVC HR-S3600U
The third and last source was RF, via outdoor Yagi directional antenna.
Tuned to channel VHF 12. (a 360,000 watt station) and Channel UHF 14 (a
1,200,000 watt ERP)
Audio cables were RCA "Home theatre series" 99.99% oxygen free. From the
BetacamSP player I used the "RCA Audio Monitor out" Since it has XLR audio
outs for Line.
The S-Video cable is a High-quality HOSA S-Video gold plated 5-ft cable.
model SVC-105G.
Monitor was the Sony PVM20M2U Production Monitor using the Y/C input.
The sources I used are clean. I think that the JVC HR-S3600 is a good value
for the money. ($120).
I wouldn't say its a real S-VHS VCR.
*** Its a high quality Hi-Fi VHS with Quasi SVHS playback and Quasi SVHS
recording. *** Its OK for occasional home use. the S-VHS ET feature (Quasi
SVHS recording) is especially good for recording high quality VHS programs.
But I have to stress that S-VHS quality is *NOT* obtained even with a real
S-VHS tape inserted in SP mode.
PS. I wouldn't be performoing this test with an old kinescope hooked in via
RF...
Kevin
> *** Its a high quality Hi-Fi VHS with Quasi SVHS playback and Quasi SVHS
> recording. *** Its OK for occasional home use. the S-VHS ET feature (Quasi
> SVHS recording) is especially good for recording high quality VHS programs.
> But I have to stress that S-VHS quality is *NOT* obtained even with a real
> S-VHS tape inserted in SP mode.
As I'm about to sink into one of these, I'm a little disappointed by this
statement, even if it is to be expected.
Does anyone know if the higher-end JVC models also have this
"problem"? I'm tossed between the 3800 and the 4800, but I'm leaning
toward the 4800 with its flying erase head and dubbing features. If it as
a higher quality recording than the 3800, that would be even better.
I'm almost wondering if their previous model, the 3600, is even better.
--
Kevin
Calum Tsang
Phil M <philli...@videoclub.edu> wrote:
>variety of known brand VHS and S-VHS tapes such as the top of the line S-VHS
>Fuji H471S, Top of the line VHS TDK HD-X Pro and several other high quality
>
>The result is DISSAPOINTING. I got a VHS picture quality, on a S-VHS
>recording... (even with a real S-VHS Tape in the SP speed)Probably my
>expectations are high since I work in the TV and Radio Broadcast industry
>and I watch S-VHs tapes payed on air daily.
I think that's the issue: consumer SVHS decks don't push the
format to the limit compared to industrial or professional decks,
something like a Panasonic AG7750 or JVC BRS series deck blows the doors
off any model you can by in a store. Of course, these require a certain
amount of upkeep and aren't by any way cheap.
If you want a good SVHS deck for home use, consider the Sony
SLV-R5, R1000, SVO-2000, or Panasonic AG-19xx series. None of them are
particularily expensive.
Calum
--
Calum Tsang Research Systems Manager, Interactive Media Lab
tsa...@mie.utoronto.ca -- Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
http://peach.mie.utoronto.ca/people/tsangc University of Toronto
"And you may tell yourself, my god, what have I done?" -Talking Heads
marcus51
>Quality is not even near to
>what a real S-VHS has to offer.
Can one get real S-VHS quality from a consumer machine?
Thanks!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
at_home
quality picture, The image is much sharper then regular VHS and the colors
do not
bleed, The only thing I notice that if I get close to the screen i notice
some
background noise in the video.
If i use a good signal like satellite or digital cable the picture is good
I only see the noise when I look for it.
The wifie sees no difference (she thinks our old BETA is still great)
Ken.
Doonie
catnap
"Kevin" <nom...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:90uucj$o61$3...@bertrand.ccs.carleton.ca...
I've got one of *it's* predecessors, the 7500, and the S-VHS stinks on
it...be it either ET or normal S-VHS SP (VHS actually looks better on it--go
figure)
Eric
> Can one get real S-VHS quality from a consumer machine?
Yes, but not in cheap entry level machines.
Eric
> Didn't Beta kick ass as far as video quality was concerned?
Over VHS? Yes. Over SVHS? No. (You need ED Beta for that! <g>)
Jonathan Biggar
> As I'm about to sink into one of these, I'm a little disappointed by this
> statement, even if it is to be expected.
>
> Does anyone know if the higher-end JVC models also have this
> "problem"? I'm tossed between the 3800 and the 4800, but I'm leaning
> toward the 4800 with its flying erase head and dubbing features. If it as
> a higher quality recording than the 3800, that would be even better.
>
> I'm almost wondering if their previous model, the 3600, is even better.
Don't get the 3800. I picked one up at Costco to replace my 3500 which
was eating tapes, and when I got it home, I discovered it had no S-Video
input.
Get the 4800 instead.
--
Jon Biggar
Floorboard Software
j...@floorboard.com
j...@biggar.org
JD
"Eric" <kn...@home.com> wrote in message news:3A33E08F...@home.com...
> Doonie wrote:
>
> > Didn't Beta kick ass as far as video quality was concerned?
>
> Over VHS? Yes. Over SVHS? No. (You need ED Beta for that! <g>)
>
SVHS is now superior. If ED Beta had continued to improve, like
implementations of SVHS, it would have been fantastic.
The original consumer SVHS was junk, with aliasing being very prevalent.
John
JD
"Phil M" <philli...@videoclub.edu> wrote in message news:NtZY5.1800$V84.1...@weber.videotron.net...
> > As I (clearly) remember the performance of ED Beta out of the box,
> > SVHS is now superior
>
>
> ED-Beta has sync tip frequency of 6.8 MHz
> S-VHS has sync tip frequency of 5.4 MHz
> SuperBeta has sync tip frequency of 4.4 MHz
> Beta has sync tip frequency 3.6 MHz
> VHS has sync tip frequency 3.4 MHz
>
> To find out the approx. resolution, Just multiply sync tip frequency by 72.
> (72 lines per MHz)
>
The calculation is (Sync-tip - 1.2MHz) * 80 or so (72 is a good number also -- it
is limited by the implementation), for potential almost flat
response. You knock off the 1.2MHz for the chroma RF space and/or the
FM audio carriers, so that the FM sidebands to smash the chroma up too much.
The FM audio carriers are the reason for the NEED for older beta (on NTSC) to
bump the FM carrier upwards (and maintain resolution.) Those semi-evil
FM audio subcarriers (on NTSC) did steal needed luma SNR from the picture.
Those EVIL non-depth multiplexed FM audio carriers also caused some of
the dancing edge noise.
>
> ED-Beta provides 500 lines of horizontal resolution
> S-VHS provides 400 lines of horizontal resolution
> VHS provides 240 lines of resolution
>
I am quite familiar with the calculations -- problem is that EDBeta had too
much edge noise. The carrier frequency is only a LIMITING factor, but the
decks didn't match the TRUE, clean resolution implied by the high carrier
frequencies, They needed to run it a lower carrier frequency (mods are simple),\
and it provided excellent SNR then. Note that EDBeta provided essentially
unneeded nonlinear compression/expansion, thereby compensating for
the evil, too high luma FM carrier, but it certainly helped with specsmanship!!!
Take a 9500 EDBeta deck, and compare it with a current model SVHS,
and you'll see a big difference on the pro-SVHS side -- especially
if you pay the same amount of $$$.
Seesh, EDBeta wasn't even flat out to 4.2MHz. It could have been better,
but there were tradeoffs. It *was* better than SVHS then, but current
SVHS implementations blow away the EDBeta implementations. TWO
different model EDBeta decks that I had didn't provide flat response over
the normal 4.2MHz broadcast bandwidth, and that is important for generation
loss issues. I don't care at all if a format can provide 500 lines at 20dB down,
when the cost is 4-6dB at 320 lines. With minor mods, EDBeta could
provide almost FLAT 400 lines, at a better SNR. The form of nonlinear
compression used (made edge noise worse), and an excessively high carrier
frequency (made the non-linear compression desirable) made EDBeta
not applicable for pro-use. (Except in one generation use, and the
camcorder had terrible low-light abillities.) EDBeta is a perfect example
of a crippled design.
Sony should have provided FLAT response, and give us a TRUE 400 lines
without dancing all over the screen, just like SVHS can do today. Look, I
LOVED EDBeta, but it's time is long gone due to being left to die on the vine.
As I said before, if EDBeta kept up with technology, it would have been
better even now. It was possible for EDBeta THEN to be as good as
high-end SVHS is today, but alas, they chose specsmanship. At the time
of EDBeta, SVHS was simply junk, with the inability to keep high frequency
detail from wrapping around zero Hz. EDBetat implementations didn't
have that flaw (but did have too much edge noise, when being pushed
for more detail.)
(This is from someone who easily modified and redesigned EDBeta
electronics as a hobby -- me.)
John
JD
"Phil M" <philli...@videoclub.edu> wrote in message news:9s7Z5.5629$u73.1...@wagner.videotron.net...
> You're absolutely right on this one. If ED-Beta deck is modified down to a
> resolution of 400 - 450 lines, it provides noiseless picture. Since Sony
> decided to abandon the format, almost a decade ago, S-VHS is now the best
> for consumer, and entry-level professional and broadcast.
>
Well, I think that DV is generally better than SVHS for entry-level professional
and broadcast. SVHS is now a consumer-only format (in my opinion.) In fact,
at the price of high-end SVHS, you can *almost* go to D9 or certainly get
DV (or a professional DV derived format.) 5.5MHz at -1dB of luma and
1.5MHz at -4dB of chroma is pretty hard to argue with. The key with DV
is to minimize edge enhancement, and the overwhelming of the compression
scheme. Actually, the 50MHz DV formats are even more cool, not so much
because of the fantastic chroma, but because the luma compression is almost
impossible to overwhelm.
>
> Anyways, talking about ED-Beta, I have an EDC-55 ED-Beta video camera, are
> you familiar with this one? It needs a tremendous amount of light to make a
> good looking picture. Is the model made like this or it needs internal
> adjustments?
>
I have heard of the lighting requirements only on the net. At one time, I would
have given my eye-teeth for one of those!!!
>
> I don't want to spend too much money on this one (service
> manual, parts, time,...) if its made like this. ? Any experience with this.
> I use it as my personal home camera, but in order to provide a good picture,
> I have to bring with me a 500w - 1000w video light... (and almost a TV
> crew)... just to shoot a personal birthday party, so it gets a bit
> inconvenient.
>
Even the difference between my Optura-PI and my KY29 is significant (but
the Optura price is hard to beat for quality.) Both will work okay with 60w to
100W of lighting (where the KY29 provides an almost noisefree picture, and the
Optura shows noise.) Having to provide 500w is really excessive!!! At one
time, that would have been okay, because the quality would have been pretty
good. Otherwise, having the quality of an EDBeta camcorder at home was
impossible until recently. I guess that some people might even consider
DV as inferior (but IMO, in the important chroma and 300-500 line range,
DV has got to be better.)
I suspect that under ideal conditions, it would have provided a beautiful
picture!!! Sorry that i cannot help you with it, but perhaps using a high
quality DV camcorder to feed the unit (if possible) would be effective?
John
Rui-Tao Dong
I have a cheap 32" Sony TV which can only use S-video OR composite. I
need to unplug the S-video cable before I can connect my VCR via
composite. I am looking for a cheap VCR with S-Video output (for
legacy applications), so I can use my receiver to switch among my DVD,
computer and VCR. All VCRs I have seen with S-video are S-VHS. I
suppose that it would be trivial to add an S-video out to a non S-VHS
VCR, but haven't figured out how to do it.
--
Rui-Tao Dong ~{6-HpLN~} <rui...@home.com>, Mission Viejo, California
David Matthew Wood
> S-Video is everywhere.
>
> DVD players have s-video out
> most the modern satellite receivers have s-video out
> S-VHS vcrs have s-video out
> ED-Beta vcrs have s-video out
> Some Sony BetacamSP UVW series vcrs have s-vido out
> Digital Video (professional and consumer) VCRs have s-video
> computer capture cards have s-video out
> Time base corrects (TBC) Frame encoders, etc have s-video
> what else has s-video out. (Y/C)
> The U-matic SP has a Y/C out but its quite different than the S-Video Y/C.
> (Y-688 kHz) with a small adaptor, you can convert this U-MaticSP Y/C to
> S-video Y/C. (but that's a detail)
Shirley Bendau
which is on the back of the machine.
Also, in regards to its video quality, I have digital cable, and the
difference between the tape and the broadcast is very minimal, in my
opinion. There may be slightly more noise, but it is certainly not
objectionable. By the way, I use only true S-VHS video tapes. To me, ET is
just a gimmick, although I have run short tests with high grade tapes, and
the quality appears to be a little better than the regular VHS mode. I just
feel that if one gets a S-VHS machine, one should use S-VHS tapes to take
advantage of the format.
David Bendau
----------
In article <3A34068E...@floorboard.com>, Jonathan Biggar
Jonathan Biggar
>
> I have the 3800. It most certainly does have one S-video input and output,
> which is on the back of the machine.
Interesting. Maybe they tried to rip me off even more than I thought.
The box said 3800, but there was definitely no S-video input or output
in the back.
I took the thing back, anyway.
Richard
both but find that even conventional VHS on the R5 gives superior SN and
edge quality over the Beta deck. What is nice about both units is their edit
switch which removes edge enhancement and other frequency enhancements so
that quality copies from one to the other can be achieved. The transport is
a bit more responsive on this beta unit, more like a sports car, but the R5
is not far behind in loading and changing directions. The 900 series has far
superior on deck controls that even a blind person could operate, very easy
to set the time or program. And the 900 series remote works a Sony TV and
both the R5 and the beta deck, and you can use it in the dark. The R5 and
most modern VHS decks are next to impossible to run without the remote and
the remote requires full light and a college course to operate, and to
switch between two vcr's is possible but much more difficult. How could Sony
forget how it got it right, almost to perfection on the 900 series? Very
strange. And don't forget, the Super VHS deck has S-Video interconnects,
something Sony never put on their Beta decks (HD excepted).
"Eric" <kn...@home.com> wrote in message news:3A33DEFA...@home.com...
Z
Alexander Ibrahim
it only uses VHS tapes.
I taped a dance show that was lit for the stage using DV. It was very very
RED. When I dub to SVHS i get a very reasonable rendition. When I dub to
VHS...it is awful...the red crawls all over the screen. SVHS-ET leaves me
with suck VHS resolution, but the color registration is vastly improved, not
as good as SVHS, but much better.
I think that SVHS-ET has its place...I won't be using standard VHS for
anything anymore. When I want to archive I'll use SVHS, but for my utility
recordings I'll use SVHS-ET. It is not SVHS, but it IS better than VHS.
Oh yeah...one last thing VHS tapes are still cheaper than SVHS tapes right ?
So if I can get more out of my VHS tapes why not ?
As to the VCR's tehmselves...I have only used recent models that are true
VHS with SVHS-ET capability. That is what I recommend. At my Circuit City
and Bryn Mawr they start at $200. They lack editing features, but they do
produce a very good picture. At about $250 you get a flying erase head and
it starts to look decent.
Finally why are you guys using cheap consumer tape. Spend a little and get
pro-video tapes. It does look better. It also takes better advantage of
image enhancement like SVHS-ET.
Alexander
http://www.zenera.com
Phil M
detection hole?
If yes, how is the picture? I never tried this, but I know its possible. A
real S-VHS VCR will think that a S-VHS tape is inserted.
> So if I can get more out of my VHS tapes why not ?
Talking about S-VHS-ET (or Quasi S-VHS as I prefer to call it) quality is a
bit better than VHS and a lower than S-VHS. As you mentioned, for archiving
or Air-Check purposes for TV stations, its perfect.
Phil M
benefit. The signals on a regular Beta are not recorded in Y/C, but
composite. So adding a S-Video or Component output to a composite-only vcr,
it won't make any difference at all.
Rod Gasson
>detection hole?
Yes.
>If yes, how is the picture?
It depends on the tape - the results range from totally unwatchable to
barely acceptable.
Much as if the tape was recorded on a machine with worn heads.
> I never tried this, but I know its possible. A
>real S-VHS VCR will think that a S-VHS tape is inserted.
Only a really old S-VHS VCR. Almost all of those made in the last 10, 15
years or more simply DON'T rely on the 'ident' hole to determine tape type
(other than to switch the SVHS LED indicator on/off).
This leads many people to *believe* they are recording SVHS on regular tapes
even though they are not (the machine will record/play the tape just as
though the ident hole wasn't there). Miraculously though not only do these
people believe they are getting SVHS recordings, many of them say they can
actually SEE the improvement.
>> So if I can get more out of my VHS tapes why not ?
The only way to get 'more' out of regular VHS tapes is to use the "ET"
format recorders.
Unlike a 'real' SVHS machine that will only record VHS *or* SVHS (nothing in
between) the ET machines actually squeeze the most out of any given tape -
without excessive clipping (streaks).
>Talking about S-VHS-ET (or Quasi S-VHS as I prefer to call it)
Quasi S-VHS is NOT the same as S-VHS-ET.
Cheers
Rod
Rod Gasson
>On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 22:44:18 GMT, "Alexander Ibrahim"
><ne...@zenera.com> wrote:
>
>I thought there was a vhs to svhs hack where you drill an extra hole
>in the vhs tape cartridge. If this is the case, then isn't svhs tape
>the same as vhs tape?
SVHS tapes are NOT the same as VHS tapes, they are specifically formulated
to handle the greater frequency response.
The 'hack' you mention simply doesn't work, although MANY people are fooled
into THINKING it works on account of the fact that the ident hole (the hack)
is used to activate the SVHS indicator.
By drilling this hole either one of two things will happen.
1. The machine will actually attempt to perform a SVHS recording with the
results of severe streaking when the tape is played back.
2. The machine will ignore the hole (other than to trigger the SVHS
indicator) and will record the same VHS that it would have done without the
hole. This is what fools most people!
>>Oh yeah...one last thing VHS tapes are still cheaper than SVHS tapes right
?
Right (and with good reason, they are NOT the same)
>>So if I can get more out of my VHS tapes why not ?
The ONLY way to get 'more' out of a VHS tape is to use an SVHS-ET machine.
Cheers
Rod
Greg L. Kimnach
philli...@videoclub.edu in a delusional state claimed thusly:
let's see, my sl-hf2100 has y/c as do my ed beta decks.....oh, and y/c is/may
be "useful" on any consumer vtr deck, since they are color-under formats.
y/c ==> seperate chroma and luma.
this means that the color and luma info are recorded with different carries,
and mixed when transmitted on a composite (rca) cable. they then must be
seperated by the tv's comb filter.
yes, even standard vhs could benefit from y/c i/o.
--
regards,
greg (non-hyphenated american)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiculturism is a euphemism for national division.
Greg L. Kimnach Kim...@GRC.NASA.GOV
NASA Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field
21000 Brookpark RD. MS 301-5 "ED Beta is simply the best videotape format
Cleveland, OH 44135 available." --Video Magazine (Nov. 22, 1992)
216-433-6251
I opted for Betamax, the world for VHS; I for Amiga, the world for IBM-clones.
Microsoft slogan: "How do you want to be aggravated today?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hamlet
>
Why do people mix up s-video with SVHS all the time? Just because both
begin with an "s"?
Phil M
benefit. The signals on a regular Beta are not recorded in Y/C, but
composite. So adding a S-Video or Component output to a composite-only vcr,
it won't make any difference at all.
> And don't forget, the Super VHS deck has S-Video interconnects,
JD
"Phil M" <philli...@videoclub.edu> wrote in message news:X0NZ5.9867$u73.4...@wagner.videotron.net...
> Why should Sony put a S-Video connector on a non Y/C VCR. I don't see any
> benefit. The signals on a regular Beta are not recorded in Y/C, but
> composite. So adding a S-Video or Component output to a composite-only vcr,
> it won't make any difference at all.
>
composite video.
All of the consumer Beta's record color-under, and BetaCam records a
format rather superior-to, but similar in concept to color-under.
John
Alexander Ibrahim
This is the second time you have responded to my comment about getting more
out of my VHS tapes out of context.
When I said the comments responded to below I was specifically addressing
the use of VHS tapes for VHS ET.
SVHS Tapes are different from consumer VHS by a long shot. Even if you use
double coated broadcast grade VHS you will at best get a very poor SVHS
picture.
As Rod says recent SVHS machines rarely rely on the ID hole any longer to
determine if SVHS tape is inserted.
If anyone knows exactly how SVHS machines detect what type of tape is
inserted, cause I am having trouble with mine failing to detect tapes
consistently.
Alexander
http://www.zenera.com
"Rod Gasson" <r...@videocam.net.au> wrote in message
news:917sos$5p6$1...@vcsweb.com...
Phil M
recorded separately. By outputing to s-video, a conversion (separation) has
to take place somewhere. Y/C will be seperated by the tv's comb filter
anyways. What difeerence will make if Y/C is separated by the VCR (at the
output) instead of the TV (at the input)?
Eric
> I thought there was a vhs to svhs hack where you drill an extra hole
> in the vhs tape cartridge. If this is the case, then isn't svhs tape
> the same as vhs tape?
Drilling the hole only allows normal VHS tape to be used to record in
the SVHS format. The actual SVHS tape formulation is still superior
to the normal VHS tape formulation, and its performance will be superior.
JD
> Yes, but the signal of a Beta / VHS is not Y/C. Chroma and luma are not
> recorded separately. By outputing to s-video, a conversion (separation) has
> to take place somewhere. Y/C will be seperated by the tv's comb filter
> anyways. What difeerence will make if Y/C is separated by the VCR (at the
> output) instead of the TV (at the input)?
>
the same, modulo frequency and tape parameters.) When recording composite,
all of the consumer formats split the composite into Y/C (or further into
component, in the case of DV), and record the chroma and luma seperately
onto different parts of the frequency spectrum on tape (in the case of the
analog formats.) In the case of DV, the situation is quite different, closer
in concept to the BetaCam approch, but done digitally.
Every one of these formats records color-under with a Y/C scheme:
3/4", Old 1/2", Beta, SuperBeta, EDBeta, VHS, SVHS.
Even at least one of the early 1" schemes was color under. This was probably
NOT because of bandwidth, but for ease of time base correction.
There is little to argue about, other than 1/2" didn't always provide color
abilities. Note that there is NO WAY that Beta provided enough bandwidth
to support direct chroma. In fact, Beta would be lucky to provide 3dB at
3MHz, and that doesn't pass chroma very well :-). Even EDBeta couldn't
do it, due to noise issues (but an adequately sophisticated TBC would
also be needed.)
Beta started looking a little worse with Beta-II and/or Beta-Hifi... This has
nothing to do with the format being color-under (Y/C.) When overlapping
the tracks (and getting co-mingled information between theme), there
was a need to do some phase reversal games, but that has NOTHING to
do with Y/C. The HiFi subcarriers as used on NTSC, forced the increase
of the FM carrier by 400kHz or so, in order to maintain resolution. Actually,
there was still a net decrease in BW avail for luma (of course, with additional
loss of SNR.)
The *best* that you can do to record composite today (without 1" or 2" decks,
or high end digital), is to use a well designed ORTHOGONAL component
decoder and encoder pair around a high quality component deck. Theoretically,
you can do it without getting damage to diagonal resolution.
The only reason why Beta didn't have artifacts, is that it didn't record anything
into the chroma range by the Luma signal. It looked better than VHS, not because
it was so GOOD, it was because VHS was so very BAD.
john
Gary Croll
> suppose that it would be trivial to add an S-video out to a non S-VHS
> VCR, but haven't figured out how to do it.
MCM Electronics www.mcmelectronics.com sells a composite to S-VHS adapter
for about $16.00. It's passive so it can be used in either direction.
Rod Gasson
>Hey Rod;
>
>This is the second time you have responded to my comment about getting more
>out of my VHS tapes out of context.
There is probably good reason for that.
>When I said the comments responded to below I was specifically addressing
>the use of VHS tapes for VHS ET.
Other than the message header (which I never take notice of because people
rarely ever change them to suit the topic being discussed) I'm sure you have
given every indication that you were refering to S-VHS and not SVHS ET
(which are completely different formats).
>SVHS Tapes are different from consumer VHS by a long shot.
Yup.
> Even if you use double coated broadcast grade VHS you will at best get a
very poor SVHS
>picture.
I know that, and apparently you know that. All we need do now is convince
the rest of the world ;-)
>As Rod says recent SVHS machines rarely rely on the ID hole any longer to
>determine if SVHS tape is inserted.
No one is going to believe this. Well, they never seem to belive me when I
say the same thing.
>If anyone knows exactly how SVHS machines detect what type of tape is
>inserted, cause I am having trouble with mine failing to detect tapes
>consistently.
For recording they record a series of short pulses of frequencies and
modulation levels using SVHS specifications, which are then played back
(internally) and evaluated for SVHS capability (this takes just a fraction
of a second).
For playing back a prerecorded tapes its just a matter of monitoring the
offtape frequency response.
This is putting it simply of course - and failure to correctly detect tape
type can be caused by something as simple as dirt on the heads, a creased
tape, or perhaps worn heads.
Cheers
Rod
David Matthew Wood
it's different in this part of the world (who knows?) but I tried it on
3 different newer VCRs, and they all do in fact use the hole to detect
the tape (and I'm not just going by the indicator either).
These VCRs were:
JVC HR-S5100U (semi recent, but doesn't have SVHS-ET)
JVC HR-S4500U (made 2 years ago)
and my more recent Mitsubishi u795.
I tested this by drilling a hole in a very old tape. The results were
very grainy since the tape wasn't made for SVHS recordings.
Andy Mai
David Matthew Wood <dmw...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>Don't forget videogame consoles!! Makes a HUGE difference.
Which videogame consoles have S-video? I've never seen one in North
America.
Andy
Eric
> I hate to start arguments here and maybe for some really bizarre reason
> it's different in this part of the world (who knows?) but I tried it on
> 3 different newer VCRs, and they all do in fact use the hole to detect
> the tape (and I'm not just going by the indicator either).
>
> These VCRs were:
> JVC HR-S5100U (semi recent, but doesn't have SVHS-ET)
> JVC HR-S4500U (made 2 years ago)
> and my more recent Mitsubishi u795.
Add the Mitsubishi U70 to that list. Normal VHS tapes with the hole
drilled and recorded in SVHS on the U70 will *NOT* play back correctly
on my neighbor's standard ol' Panasonic VHS deck. This (to me anyway)
indicates SVHS recording and *not* just SVHS indicator activation.
Perhaps things are different in Oz.
Eric
> >Don't forget videogame consoles!! Makes a HUGE difference.
>
> Which videogame consoles have S-video? I've never seen one in North
> America.
Playstation? See:
http://www.us.playstation.com/product_detail/product_detail.jhtml?PRODID=9&CATID=404
Dennisgg
Electronics Boutique and Babbages, etc.
Dennis
"Andy Mai" <m...@meeker.ucar.edu> wrote in message
news:91b9cm$63h$1...@meeker.ucar.edu...
David Matthew Wood
Fossill
"Andy Mai" <m...@meeker.ucar.edu> wrote in message
news:91b9cm$63h$1...@meeker.ucar.edu...
Rui-Tao Dong
>>>>> "Gary" == Gary Croll <gary....@ucr.edu> writes:
>> All VCRs I have seen with S-video are S-VHS. I suppose that it
>> would be trivial to add an S-video out to a non S-VHS VCR, but
>> haven't figured out how to do it.
Gary> MCM Electronics www.mcmelectronics.com sells a composite to
Gary> S-VHS adapter for about $16.00. It's passive so it can be used
Gary> in either direction.
Thanks for the info. That reminds me that I haven't received their
catalog for a while. I'll check the website.
Anyway, my understanding is that decoding composite into S-Video takes
quite a bit work. VCR (even non-SVHS ones) record L/C separately and
mix them for composite out. If I can tap them before mixing, I can
avoid the mixing and decoding phases (and picture quality downgrading)
altogether.
--
Regards,
Rui-Tao (x31679)
David Matthew Wood
Next time I'm at school (and if I remember it) I'll try this experiment
on our Panasonic AG-1960s (S-VHS recording with hole drilled that is).
Eric
> > Add the Mitsubishi U70 to that list. Normal VHS tapes with the hole
> > drilled and recorded in SVHS on the U70 will *NOT* play back correctly
> > on my neighbor's standard ol' Panasonic VHS deck. This (to me anyway)
> > indicates SVHS recording and *not* just SVHS indicator activation.
> >
> > Perhaps things are different in Oz
>
> Next time I'm at school (and if I remember it) I'll try this experiment
> on our Panasonic AG-1960s (S-VHS recording with hole drilled that is).
You saw the post regarding the AG-7450, I hope. Add it to the list.
ed
animations. I know you can use the single frame grab function to import
frames but I don't have any idea what kind of camera to use as capture
device. I have an Analog conversion board (ATI 3-D Rage Pro) and
Premiere but I need to know wheather to invest in a digital still
camera, a DV camera or a regular analog video camera. I am going to be
doing miniature shooting so I need a lense that can zoom and focus
pretty close. If anyone knows of a good camera or even just what kind
(still, DV, video) to be looking at I would appreciate it.
Thanks a ton
-ed
sgispe...@my-deja.com
"Rod Gasson" <r...@videocam.net.au> wrote:
> For recording they record a series of short pulses of frequencies and
> modulation levels using SVHS specifications, which are then played
>back (internally) and evaluated for SVHS capability (this takes just a
>fraction of a second).
And how do they do this without changing the direction of the tape
transport?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Jeff Rife
> And how do they do this without changing the direction of the tape
> transport?
It is possible to place a record head in front (in terms of forward tape path)
of the playback head. Cassette decks do this all the time, to allow off-the-
tape monitoring.
Most VCRs don't do this due to the spinning heads, but some (most?) do have a
separate, fixed erase head that the tape gets to before it gets to the
spinning head. A minor modification of the signal to the erase head would
allow it to write a test signal, which would be read by the playback heads.
--
Jeff Rife | "One minute we were spanking each other with
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane | meat, and the next minute it got weird."
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 |
Home: 301-916-8131 | -- Joe Hackett, "Wings"
Work: 301-770-5800 Ext 5335 |
Rod Gasson
sgispe...@my-deja.com wrote in message <92d7b1$h0q$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
They don't. The tape direction does get reversed.
Rod
PS. I'm not going to waste my time replying to your other post, well not
until such a time you do a few more studies about bandwidth requirements of
both analogue and digital recording and a short course in compression, 'cos
you obviously don't have a clue. Furthermore DV tapes are not of the same
formulation as VHS tapes anyway, not to mention that you have totally
ignored the different recording methods and different heads that are
required for DV.
It's people like you that will actually believe that it is possible to
record video onto an audio cassette!
Rod Gasson
>sgispe...@my-deja.com (sgispe...@my-deja.com) wrote in
alt.home-theater.misc:
>> And how do they do this without changing the direction of the tape
>> transport?
>
>It is possible to place a record head in front (in terms of forward tape
path)
>of the playback head. Cassette decks do this all the time, to allow
off-the-
>tape monitoring.
This doesn't apply with video. Please don't confuse this idiot even
further - he's already waaaayy of track with his claims and comments.
>Most VCRs don't do this
NONE of them do this!
> due to the spinning heads, but some (most?) do have a
>separate, fixed erase head
ALL have a fixed erase head (generally two of them actually) - one of them
being the full erase head that erases the entire width of the tape, this is
located to the left of the video heads. The other erase head is located next
to the linear audio head and this is used to erase any 'residue recording'
from the video heads prior to laying down the linear audio track (located
across the top edge of the tape).
> that the tape gets to before it gets to the
>spinning head. A minor modification of the signal to the erase head would
>allow it to write a test signal,
> which would be read by the playback heads.
Video heads spin for good reason - it is the only practical way to record
the high frequencies required by video - the stationary erase head, no
matter how much it is modified, simply will not be able to record the
frequencies required in order to test/check tape quality for the video
spectrum, so this hypothesis is totally incorrect.
Cheers
Rod
David Watters
> Jeff Rife wrote in message ...
> >sgispe...@my-deja.com (sgispe...@my-deja.com) wrote in
> alt.home-theater.misc:
> >> And how do they do this without changing the direction of the tape
> >> transport?
> >
> >It is possible to place a record head in front (in terms of forward tape
> path)
> >of the playback head. Cassette decks do this all the time, to allow
> off-the-
> >tape monitoring.
>
> This doesn't apply with video. Please don't confuse this idiot even
> further - he's already waaaayy of track with his claims and comments.
Name calling. What a credit robbing thing to resort to.
However your attempt to distract didn't work as I noticed that inspite
of correcting this poor soul's reply to my question to _you_, you have
not answered it yourself.
So, Rob, how do they do what you suggested?
Rod Gasson
>
>So, Rob, how do they do what you suggested?
The name is Rod, and I've already answered this in previous posts
DJ James
With the tape stationary, they record one video line of data then read
it back. The tape doesn't have to move let alone reverse direction.
at_home
"Rod Gasson" <r...@videocam.net.au> wrote in message
news:92evh7$uva$1...@vcsweb.com...
BobR
I don't know about people like him, but I've seen video recorded on an
audio cassette - the cult-favorite Fisher Price PXL2000 camcorder did it
back in the '80s.
David Watters
Avoidance #2
"Rod Gasson" <r...@videocam.net.au> wrote in message
news:92evh7$uva$1...@vcsweb.com...
>
> >
> >So, Rod, how do they do what you suggested?
David Matthew Wood
went quite fast. Picture was digital and very low res (and in black and
white with a huge border around it), but it was doable.
Paul Rubin
> > I don't know about people like him, but I've seen video recorded on an
> > audio cassette - the cult-favorite Fisher Price PXL2000 camcorder did it
> > back in the '80s.
>
> Yes, and I had one to play with as well. It used type II tapes, and
> went quite fast. Picture was digital and very low res (and in black and
> white with a huge border around it), but it was doable.
I bet they could do a much better job now. A cheap Walkman stereo
cassette recorder has maybe 10 khz of audio bandwidth on two channels
with at least as much dynamic range as a telephone. Since a phone has
3 khz audio bandwidth on one channel, and supports 28.8 kbps modems,
you'd think they could get about 6x that much data rate (say 150 kbps)
on an audio cassette using the Walkman mechanism/electronics if they
really wanted to. And if you look at a lot of the streaming video on
the web (cnn.com or whatever), yes it's fairly low res but has full
color and decent sound in less bandwidth than 150 kbps.
Marc Wielage
(in message <92ec2o$fvh$1...@vcsweb.com>):
> This doesn't apply with video. Please don't confuse this idiot even
> further - he's already waaaayy of track with his claims and comments.
>-------------------------------<snip happens>-----------------------------<
Actually, there are a few pro video decks that do have "confidence head"
playback -- both digital and analog. It was a common feature in 1" C for
many years on the Sony BVH-2000 and the Ampex VPR-3 (to name just two
machines).
I agree, though -- there's no consumer VCRs that have this feature, though it
could theoretically be done. All that would be necessary would be an
additional set of rotating playback heads on the drum, along with
corresponding video playback circuitry. But it wouldn't be cost-effective,
especially in these days of $139.95 "gutless wonder" VCRs.
--MFW
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= Marc Wielage | "The computerized authority =-
-= MusicTrax, LLC | on rock, pop, & soul." =-
-= Chatsworth, CA | m...@musictrax.com =-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Voltor- the friendly toad
Look Rod;
Why the hell can't you reply to a person's post w/o using terms such as "idiot", "clueless", etc.
You have a history of (in this newsgroup anyway) insulting people that ask perfectly good
questions.
What is the need for that?
Rod Gasson
>Look Rod;
>Why the hell can't you reply to a person's post w/o using terms such as
"idiot", "clueless", etc.
I call a spade a spade.
>You have a history of (in this newsgroup anyway) insulting people that ask
perfectly good
>questions.
I also have a very good history of giving a LOT of people a LOT of good
advice.
>What is the need for that?
I refuse to be 'nice' to people just because people want me too. I give good
and often valuable information when appropriate, and I'll call an idiot an
idiot if I percieve them as such.
I guess you've just got to learn to take the good with the bad, and if you
don't like that you can add me to your twit filter or spam list.
I NEVER post messages under assumed names, I NEVER fake my email address -
so filtering out my posts shouldn't cause you or anyone else any hardships.
Now go take a hike you wanker!
Cheers
Rod
Dave Haynie
wrote:
>David Matthew Wood <dmw...@bellatlantic.net> writes:
>> > I don't know about people like him, but I've seen video recorded on an
>> > audio cassette - the cult-favorite Fisher Price PXL2000 camcorder did it
>> > back in the '80s.
>> Yes, and I had one to play with as well. It used type II tapes, and
>> went quite fast. Picture was digital and very low res (and in black and
>> white with a huge border around it), but it was doable.
>I bet they could do a much better job now. A cheap Walkman stereo
>cassette recorder has maybe 10 khz of audio bandwidth on two channels
>with at least as much dynamic range as a telephone.
Considerably more dynamic range, at least for a good tape drive and
metal tape (up in the 70-80dB range, versus something like 40dB for
telephone).
>Since a phone has 3 khz audio bandwidth on one channel, and supports 28.8 kbps modems,
>you'd think they could get about 6x that much data rate (say 150 kbps)
>on an audio cassette using the Walkman mechanism/electronics if they
>really wanted to.
V32/V34 modems sample at around 9.6kHz, I suppose to have a clean,
flat sample up to 4kHz, with a little margin for mid-1980s-vintage
brick-wall filters.
> And if you look at a lot of the streaming video on
>the web (cnn.com or whatever), yes it's fairly low res but has full
>color and decent sound in less bandwidth than 150 kbps.
The hottest area in web video today is in the 250-500kb/s range, where
Microsoft and Real Networks are both approaching something arguably in
the VHS quality range (there are a number of reasons low bandwidth
digital video is a hard sell against VHS, not the least of which is
the fact that most viewers have trained themselves to ignore the VHS
noise through years of watching it).
I think you're probably right -- given a modern digital over analog
encoding, you could probably manage something in the 150kb/s-200kb/s
on audio cassette, depending on the quality of the tape in use, using
two tracks (or, hey, 300kb/s-500kb/s using all four tracks, more still
using a rotating head, but then you'd be adding too much cost).
There are two major problems. One is simply that, in recording analog,
you're at the mercy of tape fade, and unless the system is seriously
robust in error correction (which of course limits the useful
bandwidth), the life of such tapes might be a real problem.
The other is computational resource: MPEG-2 is way too costly to
encode in an ultra-cheap video camera, MPEG-4 and other more
sophisticated DCT or fractal encoding algorithms require more
computing power still. More than you could put in such a camera and
still get results anything like what you see on the web in the "good"
low bandwidth videos. Even the little one. So you'd really have to go
"on the cheap" for the encoder, and perhaps the digital over analog
scheme, or the unit would be too pricey. What's the sense of competing
against $250 8mm units?
Take walkman tape mechanism, "Web-cam" like CMOS imager, and some
$10-$15 microDSP or similar processor, and you're still in risk of
running the MSRP over $100...
Dave Haynie | frog pond media | dha...@jersey.net
"Whomever dies with the most cameras wins"
Ron
<r...@videocam.net.au> wrote:
>Voltor- the friendly toad wrote in message ...
>
>>Look Rod;
>>Why the hell can't you reply to a person's post w/o using terms such as
>"idiot", "clueless", etc.
>
>I call a spade a spade.
No, you simply indulge in name calling, like other third
graders do.
>>What is the need for that?
>
>.... I'll call an idiot an idiot if I percieve them as such.
When you perceive someone as an idiot, it could be becasue
you are right (they are), or wrong (meaning, *you* are).
Since you perceive so many pople as idiots and there's only
on of you, you would do well to take a good look at
yourself.
When you perceive someone as an idiot becasue you object to
their post, calling them 'idiot' merely exposes your own
idiocy. It's better to say "I perceive you are an idiot".
It's best to say, "I disagree with your argument."
For example, this is why I will not state you are an idiot,
even though your line above reeks of stupidity and clearly
demonstrates you're full of it.
>I guess you've just got to learn to take the good with the bad, and if you
>don't like that you can add me to your twit filter or spam list.
Just did.
>Now go take a hike you wanker!
So many more people would be happy if you did.
-- Ron
Paul Rubin
> >I bet they could do a much better job now. A cheap Walkman stereo
> >cassette recorder has maybe 10 khz of audio bandwidth on two channels
> >with at least as much dynamic range as a telephone.
>
> Considerably more dynamic range, at least for a good tape drive and
> metal tape (up in the 70-80dB range, versus something like 40dB for
> telephone).
I don't think cheap walkmans use good tape drives and metal tape. And
I think both those dynamic range figures are way too high (try more
like: 30 dB walkman recorder, 10 dB phone). But no matter.
> V32/V34 modems sample at around 9.6kHz, I suppose to have a clean,
> flat sample up to 4kHz, with a little margin for mid-1980s-vintage
> brick-wall filters.
Are you sure about v32 modems sampling at 9.6 khz? That makes no
sense. The phone systems they're connected to sample at 8 khz.
> There are two major problems. One is simply that, in recording analog,
> you're at the mercy of tape fade, and unless the system is seriously
> robust in error correction (which of course limits the useful
> bandwidth), the life of such tapes might be a real problem.
Does that mean audio tapes degrade over time? I have some really old
ones that I still listen to and they sound ok, but I'm using cheap
equipment. Maybe I better digitize them soon.
> The other is computational resource: MPEG-2 is way too costly to
> encode in an ultra-cheap video camera, MPEG-4 and other more
> sophisticated DCT or fractal encoding algorithms require more
> computing power still.
I'm thinking more like mpeg-1 at 1/16th vga resolution (160x80).
That's nowhere near VHS, but at least as good as what you get in
typical web news clips.
> What's the sense of competing against $250 8mm units?
I didn't say you'd WANT to, just that you COULD. :)
> Take walkman tape mechanism, "Web-cam" like CMOS imager, and some
> $10-$15 microDSP or similar processor, and you're still in risk of
> running the MSRP over $100...
That's still a lot less than a Pixelvision cost.
Eric
> Since you perceive so many pople as idiots and there's only
> on of you, you would do well to take a good look at
> yourself.
Or take a look at the percentage of respondents to this group who
are idiots?
> >Now go take a hike you wanker!
>
> So many more people would be happy if you did.
Are you sure? Did you take a vote on this, or are you speculating (again)??
Rod Gasson
Ron wrote in message <3a538b29...@news.concentric.net>...
>>Now go take a hike you wanker!
>
>So many more people would be happy if you did.
Maybe, but my mailbox tends to suggest otherwise. The 'thank you' messages
tend to outnumber the 'your an idiot' messages by at least 100/1.
In fact just from this short thread alone I've had *no* mail supporting you,
but *several* messages suggesting that I either ignore you (because they too
think your an idiot), and one or two others urging me to pull out all stops
and let you know what I really think.
To these people (some of whom I've never heard of until now), I say "Thanks
for the support".
Cheers
Rod
Ron
<r...@videocam.net.au> wrote:
>
>Ron wrote in message <3a538b29...@news.concentric.net>...
>
>>>Now go take a hike you wanker!
>>
>>So many more people would be happy if you did.
>
>Maybe, but my mailbox tends to suggest otherwise. The 'thank you' messages
>tend to outnumber the 'your an idiot' messages by at least 100/1.
That would be because most people do not resort to name
calling. BTW, I didn't call you an idiot either, even though
I failed to perceive any sign of intelligence in your post
(name calling does not qualify).
BTW, are you saying that 101 people sent you personal emails
rather than post here? Curious :-).
>In fact just from this short thread alone I've had *no* mail supporting you,
>but *several* messages suggesting that I either ignore you (because they too
>think your an idiot), and one or two others urging me to pull out all stops
>and let you know what I really think.
Nobody cares what you 'really' think. I do not believe you
got *any* emails concerning this exchnage, but maybe others
do.
Ron
wrote:
>Ron wrote:
>
>> Since you perceive so many pople as idiots and there's only
>> on of you, you would do well to take a good look at
>> yourself.
>
>Or take a look at the percentage of respondents to this group who
>are idiots?
A very small percentage. Filter out just 3 or 4 'regulars'
and the amount of name calling you'll see will drop
significantly. If there was a way to remove their quoted
repsonses, it would drop to just about zero. Many
respondents that are forced into these personal wars would
rather not, but are drawn to respond to ad hominem attacks.
It's not surprising that those that do the most name calling
turn out to be the most clueless as well. They are driven by
their ego, rather than knowledge.
>> >Now go take a hike you wanker!
>>
>> So many more people would be happy if you did.
>
>Are you sure? Did you take a vote on this, or are you speculating (again)??
Pure speculation...
Yet, yes, I am sure. Fact is, most people do not relish the
crass name calling and personal attacks that go on here. You
don't need to take a vote on this -- just do some reading
here.
-- Ron
David Watters
The only problem with quoting one of my killfile lamers is that it sneaks
in and I have to read the crap.
>>Maybe, but my mailbox tends to suggest otherwise. The 'thank you' messages
>>tend to outnumber the 'your an idiot' messages by at least 100/1.
>>In fact just from this short thread alone I've had *no* mail supporting you,
>>but *several* messages suggesting that I either ignore you (because they too
>>think your an idiot), and one or two others urging me to pull out all stops
>>and let you know what I really think.
> Nobody cares what you 'really' think. I do not believe you
> got *any* emails concerning this exchnage, but maybe others
> do.
I agree. Rod is full of it when he suggests that people are taking the
time to send him encouraging emails about a religeous flame war
concerning the FACT that you can record SVHS signals with perfect
results on the right VHS tape.
I think it is more funny that these "supporters" are doing so secretly rather
than openly. What does that tell you Rod? That even your imaginary
email buddies are embarrased by how you behave. (Just a reminder
that you need to call me a well hung idiot in email, my killfile buddy.)
ps. I am recording a perfect SVHS signal on a VHS tape right now!
Can you feel it??? Can you feel it??? Does it burn??? (Try praying).
Oh, I am doing it some more... oooo... oooo... oooo... How does
that feel?
Ron
<David_...@maildotcom.com> wrote:
>
>The only problem with quoting one of my killfile lamers is that it sneaks
>in and I have to read the crap.
>
>>>Maybe, but my mailbox tends to suggest otherwise. The 'thank you' messages
>>>tend to outnumber the 'your an idiot' messages by at least 100/1.
>>>In fact just from this short thread alone I've had *no* mail supporting you,
>>>but *several* messages suggesting that I either ignore you (because they too
>>>think your an idiot), and one or two others urging me to pull out all stops
>>>and let you know what I really think.
>
>> Nobody cares what you 'really' think. I do not believe you
>> got *any* emails concerning this exchnage, but maybe others
>> do.
>
>I agree. Rod is full of it when he suggests that people are taking the
>time to send him encouraging emails about a religeous flame war
>concerning the FACT that you can record SVHS signals with perfect
>results on the right VHS tape.
Gee, is that what this is all about? It got compeletely
obliterated by the feud...
I have been recording in S-VHS on regular VHS cassettes for
*ages*. Have hundreds of cassettes recorded that way. Rather
than drill them all, I jumpered the sensing microswitch in
my S-VHS VCR. It now thinks any inserted cassette is S-VHS.
I can still control format with the VHS/S-VHS switch.
I find that TDK HiFi cassettes are very good in this
application. They cost abouit 2 bucks apiece, if you know
where to go. The TDK EGH are almost as good. Lower cos
cassettes are disappopinting.
-- Ron
Rod Gasson
>BTW, are you saying that 101 people sent you personal emails
>rather than post here? Curious :-).
Yes, that is *exactly* what I'm saying. But due to the fact that you appear
to have trouble understanding plain English, I never said or claimed that
I've had this many over the last few days. These have accumulated over the
last 12-18 months (There were a lot more, since I've been a regular here for
at least 5 years).
As a result of the current 'discussion' I've only had 4 emails urging me to
simply ignore you so that you'll go away like so many other dickheads have.
I keep all the emails (both good and bad) because quite frankly, people like
you really get me wondering why the hell I 'waste' my time here (when I
should be working on customers machines and actually making a living from
it). I've often got the the stage where I've almost called it quits - until
I review my mail folder and see that I apparently help FAR more people than
I 'offend'.
Dickheads like you, as discouraging as you may be, pale into insignificance
after reading these other comments and as such, you won't get rid of me
easily. Why should I penalise others because of one or two morons?
As to why these people occasionally send email rather than post the same
things in the newsgroup is entirely their business. I respect the fact that
they have their reasons, and because of this I am not at liberty to give
their names or to post copies of their messages (They know who they are
though).
Also, I *don't* encourage emails - and as well as all the 'flowers', rarely
a day goes by when I don't get at least one message along the lines of "I've
been reading your posts in the newsgroups and was wondering if you can
help.....". If I really were more offensive than helpful (as you would
suggest) why would people seek me out in this manner?
Sure I offend some people. Sure, if I perceive someone to be a dickhead I'll
tell them so, but aside from this I am possibly the most qualified and most
experienced VCR tech in the newsgroup.
I'm not a nice guy, but I do know my business.
Rod.
PS. I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again - If anyone has any VCR
related problems PLEASE post them to the newsgroup rather than sending me
Email. I'm far more inclined to respond to newsgroup postings because my
replys could help others with similar problems.
Ron
<r...@videocam.net.au> wrote:
>
>>BTW, are you saying that 101 people sent you personal emails
>>rather than post here? Curious :-).
>
>Yes, that is *exactly* what I'm saying. But due to the fact that you appear
>to have trouble understanding plain English, I never said or claimed that
>I've had this many over the last few days.
Neither have I implied that. Now, who has problems
understanding English?
> These have accumulated over the
>last 12-18 months (There were a lot more, since I've been a regular here for
>at least 5 years).
So you claim to average an email message once every 3 to 4
days??? I hope others believe you, because I do not.
>As a result of the current 'discussion' I've only had 4 emails urging me to
>simply ignore you so that you'll go away like so many other dickheads have.
Only 4 emails? All from people that prefer to plead with you
*privately* to ignore me? Yea, sure, whatever...
As to the rest of your post... Seems anyone opposing your
cude, crass, uncouth posting style is a dickhead? Got news
for you... There are many of us.
Do feel free to ignore me. I will no longer be seeing your
enlightened posts.
-- Ron
Rod Gasson
>As to the rest of your post... Seems anyone opposing your
>cude, crass, uncouth posting style is a dickhead?
In my opinion, yes.
> Got news for you... There are many of us.
Yes, sad isn't it, and certainly nothing to be proud about.
>Do feel free to ignore me.
I've been ignoring you since your first post.
> I will no longer be seeing your
> enlightened posts.
I count my blessings.
Rod
ericDONOTS...@eudoramail.com
(Ron) wrote:
>I jumpered the sensing microswitch in
>my S-VHS VCR.
How might I go about doing this on my RCA S-VHS VCR?