Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Betamax was technologically better wasn't it? You know what was even better? Video 2000! That's what we had, you could record on birth sides of the tape, imagine that! It was a far superior machine but was released that little bit after VHS which meant it didn't succeed. The video shop would have two walls of vhs rentals, a wall of betamax and about seven video 2000. We must have rented The Twelve Chairs at least four times.

Edited by Harry Wiseau
  • Paid Members
Posted

The first time I saw Star Wars on home video on wide-screen was from a (possibly pirate) Betamax version.

Being too young to understand the concept of wide-screen vs pan-and-scan, I was amazed by how smaller video cassette had two sand people watching Luke's speeder going through the valley below them.

  • Paid Members
Posted
1 hour ago, Harry Wiseau said:

Betamax was technologically better wasn't it?

Better quality picture at the cost of run time. 

I've always been of the understanding it was all down to production company's backing VHS harder than Betamax, meaning the technical specs were secondary to consumers next to having a better catalogue. Much like the short lived HD DVD & Bluray era. 

What I've never heard is why that was, was VHS cheaper to mass produce for production companies or was JVC just the better salesman? 

Posted
14 minutes ago, Tommy! said:

What I've never heard is why that was, was VHS cheaper to mass produce for production companies or was JVC just the better salesman? 

VHS and VHS recorders/players were a hell of a lot cheaper to buy than Betamax. As you said, Betamax was slightly better picture and sound quality but the difference wasn't big enough to justify the extra cost of Betamax so most consumers went for the cheaper option, VHS.

  • Paid Members
Posted

Nigel Bruce, who played the wonderful old duffer Watson to Basil Rathbone's Holmes, was only 44 when Hound of the Baskervilles came out.

  • Paid Members
Posted
2 hours ago, Tommy! said:

Better quality picture at the cost of run time. 

I've always been of the understanding it was all down to production company's backing VHS harder than Betamax, meaning the technical specs were secondary to consumers next to having a better catalogue. Much like the short lived HD DVD & Bluray era. 

What I've never heard is why that was, was VHS cheaper to mass produce for production companies or was JVC just the better salesman? 

Sony wanted too high a license fee for other companies to use the technology.

  • Members
Posted
13 minutes ago, PunkStep said:

You joke, but I bet Merzbow does

"If you play it backwards, there is an uncut scene where Colonel Kurtz does an impromptu dance on the head of an enemy!"

Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Nostalgia Nonce said:

Sony wanted too high a license fee for other companies to use the technology.

It might be apocryphal but I've always heard that Sony wouldn't allow Betamax to be used for porn and VHS would, and that that market hugely contributed to it's success. 

Edited by Finbar

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...