🚀 go-pugleaf

Iain Wilkie Logan <iain...@enterprise.net> wrote:

>Or VHS versus Betamax - a case of a
>poorer technology becoming predominant, which is relatively unusual. Perhaps
>it was a victory by 'marketing' over 'product worth'.

Actually, no.

VHS was poorer than Betamax in some respects, but better in others
that were more valued by more consumers.

Beta mode  L-500 time L-750 time   Equivalent VHS mode     T-120 time

Beta I     1 hr       1 hr 30 min   Standard Play          2 hrs
Beta II    2 hrs      3 hrs         Long Play              4 hrs
Beta III   3 hrs      4 hrs 30 min  Extended Play (EP/SLP) 6 hrs

Beta has higher horizontal resolution than VHS. Therefore, mode for
mode, Beta has better picture quality than VHS.

As Beta pioneered, and VHS copied, the heads on the drum are slanted
slightly in opposite directions, so that high frequencies used to
record the monochrome portion of the signal do not interfere in
adjacent tracks.

But as you change to longer playing modes, the color part of the
signal does interfere.

Now, then, supposing you want to rent a movie. Do you get better
picture quality on the Beta version?

Sorry, they're not in equivalent modes. The VHS one is in SP, but the
Beta one is in Beta II. A little more horizontal resolution, and a lot
more color smearing.

And, note that for the same price (at different points in time) when
buying blank tape, you got either 100% or at least 33% more recording
time with VHS.

VHS was not tecnically more elegant. But it was superior in terms of
what the consumer valued even before it became 'the standard'.

John Savard