This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Counldn't it be transfered to DVD using a stand-alone DVD Recorder, and the disc created would then be PC-compatible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.203.252 ( talk) 11:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
There is something terribly wrong with this article. It does not even mention miniDV and seems to not notice video8 is at least dying if not dead. Maybe it has been copied from an old magazine and slightly updated? The mention about Digital-8 has been added by someone else than the original author. (Preceding unsigned comment made by anonymous user user:81.249.102.135 at 13:16 on 22 September 2004)
The severe abuse of hyphens is absolutely unbearable but I just don't have the energy to fix it. -dsandlund (Preceding comment made by
User:dsandlund on 3 July 2005)
This article has become untidy. There is far too much discussion on minor points, particularly around audio. I don't agree with the above comment about Video8 (and by inference Hi8) being dead, new Hi8 camcorders are still readily available (late 2005). But the article does desperately need tidying. I will have a go, in a few weeks when I return from abroad, if it's not been done by then already. Also echo note above about 'new contributor edit notes' etc., this is messy. If there are two sides to a discussion, then present them both clearly and without bias. Some people get personal about these things and have to have the last word. [[User:
Colin99 21:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)]]
Okay; I'm having a go at cleaning this up, but *not* all in one go (please NO!).
I've already said I don't want to sound overly critical. The individual sentences or even paragraphs are fine when viewed in isolation; viewed "close-up", this is actually pretty decent and better than a lot of articles. However, as I plan on doing some extensive reorganisation, I feel that I should at least explain the problem before I work on it:-
The major flaw is that taken as a complete article it completely lacks organisation, structure, coherence, flow or any conception of its target audience. The ideal (IMHO) is that someone should be able to dip into the article and read up to their level of interest, being presented with the basic facts (then more depth as they read on), well-organised and split up; rather than being bombarded with detailed facts and information scattered through three different sections.
So... Wikipedia say "be bold", and that's what I hopefully plan to do over the next week or so :)
Fourohfour 01:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
There were quite a lot "discussion" comments in the article that should never have been placed there. I'd already commented out some, but on reflection they should have gone on this discussion page in the first place. All are taken from the 5 November version last edited by Fourohfour (me!):-
From the end of the 'overview' (this is too detailed for the overview section anyway):-
From the middle of 'Digital8':-
From the end of 'Digital 8' (might be a useful sentence here if it's made more factual and less POV):-
From 'Transferring 8mm footage...' (already commented out):-
Fourohfour 22:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Another one, missed out (from end of 'Enhancements to Video8'):-
Added by Fourohfour 01:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I was recently looking at buying some Hi8 tapes for my camcorder when I was struck thinking whether I needed PAL or NTSC tapes as my camcorder is a PAL camcorder. I was alerted to the obvious fact that the color system doesn't come into play when buying video tapes or 8mm tapes because its not the tape that is different just what is recorded.
Whilst I conceded this point I am still trying to figure out a few things about the tapes.
1) Does buying an NTSC tape to use on my PAL camcorder mean that I will able to record more on it? I used the Kodak Film Calculator and by my calculations buying an NTSC tape that states it is 90 minutes should work out to just under 108 minutes recording in PAL. Would this be right?
2) Is there any difference to the quality of tapes bought in different countries. Or are they all around the same quality? Talking more of Sony Hi8 tapes.
Lummie 05:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Who originated the tech and owns the patents on it? Sony?
Aren't the last two methods the exact same thing? -- Crnk Mnky 03:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I have looked and looked and looked, but I can not find a source to answer that simple question. Is it 5 megahertz? Someone should add the answer to the article, if it's available. - Theaveng 12:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Since it is hard to find tapes nowadays, i wondering if i could record on D-8 tapes with my video 8mm camcorder ( pal - standard play ) And I wondering the same thing about Hi-8 cassettes, but i think the answer is yes because you can record on a S-vhs tape with a regular VHS videorecorder. It could be the same. What do you think about? If someone has answer could it be added to the article?
-A.S.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.179.73.238 ( talk) 07:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Video8 is different tape (at least quality wise, likely in the substrates as well) than Hi8 and D8. You technically _can_ record on it, but it may not be magnetized as well and likely will not hold up. --
tonsofpcs (
Talk) 03:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I think I sould try just to see how it looks. A.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.179.77.117 ( talk) 20:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Should an encyclopedic article really conjecture on futures like this? -- tonsofpcs ( Talk) 03:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi8 is aprantly supirior of the original VHS format. It also uses smaller tape inside the cassette, I am not sure how wide the cassette tape is. It is also inferior quality wise than Mini DV. It does have 90 minutes of recording time, which is 30 minutes more than Mini DV. It is not to much larger than Mini DV either. I think over all I would probably shoose Hi8 over Mini DV as it has longer recording time, but it is analouge. Though I am not sure how popular Hi8 was, or how popular it's sucssesor Digital 8 is. J2F Duck ( talk) 20:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the article says, if a Video 8 camera can record on a Hi8 cassette. I tried to do this, and just got snow, on playback. DaveDodgy ( talk) 04:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
All sites cited as references are businesses trying to drive traffic to their site. They are not reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.218.163 ( talk) 13:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I am by no stretch of the imagination an expert on video, Hi8, or any of the information contained on this page. However, as a interested consumer of the information, I noted an inconsistency within the page's information. I don't have the knowledge to say which of the conflicting assertions is correct, but one of them must be incorrect. I hope that someone with knowledge of this topic may be able to clarify the following.
In the top section of the entry, in the box on the right side that displays an image of a Video8 cassette, under "Capacity," the tape runtimes for PAL-format Video8/Hi8 are listed as follows: "60 minutes (PAL-SP), 90 minutes (PAL-SP), and 135 minutes (PAL-SP)," and the listed tape runtime for NTSC-format Video8/Hi8 is, "180 minutes (NTSC-SP)." However, in the adjacent "Technical Overview" section, the penultimate sentence of the fourth paragraph states, "Standard recording time is up to 180 minutes for PAL and 120 minutes for NTSC."
Clearly there is some incongruity between the information. Hopefully someone knows the truth of these matters and can correct the entry because I cannot.
66.7.84.125 ( talk) 17:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't DA-88 be mentioned in "Video8 outside the camcorder market" or "See also" section?
After all this system used the 8mm tapes. It should be rather mandatory to mention this fact on the DA-88 page itself.
83.13.239.255 ( talk) 19:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Article states: "Standard recording time is up to 180 minutes for PAL and 120 minutes for NTSC. (The cassette holds the same length tape; tape consumption is different between PAL and NTSC recorders.)" To my knowledge, it's the other way round, PAL recording and play times are shorter than NTSC. The article seems to mix PAL LP with NTSC SP. AFAIK, the maximum tape lengths available in SP are 90 min for PAL, 120 min for NTSC. Also, I can't find a verification for the 135 min (PAL) claim in the info box. Although I'm quite confident all this is correct, I'm not 100% sure, so I'll refrain from editing the article for now. -- 91.61.220.193 ( talk) 14:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, might be worth mentioning there are two different types of tape available for Video 8& Hi8. There is Metal-Particle and Metal-Evaporated. Metal-Evaporated is higher quality, but not as robust after repeated playback.
Cheers. 2A00:23C7:C797:FC01:1C3B:98BA:7A91:E4D6 ( talk) 06:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
In a couple of places, this article states that Hi-Fi audio recording was not possible on VHS-C or S-VHS-C camcorders. This is clearly incorrect as there were a huge number of (S-)VHS-C camcorders that supported Hi-Fi Stereo audio recording (at least for PAL; don't know about NTSC). I think this needs fixing or clarifying. 86.139.25.238 ( talk) 21:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Counldn't it be transfered to DVD using a stand-alone DVD Recorder, and the disc created would then be PC-compatible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.203.252 ( talk) 11:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
There is something terribly wrong with this article. It does not even mention miniDV and seems to not notice video8 is at least dying if not dead. Maybe it has been copied from an old magazine and slightly updated? The mention about Digital-8 has been added by someone else than the original author. (Preceding unsigned comment made by anonymous user user:81.249.102.135 at 13:16 on 22 September 2004)
The severe abuse of hyphens is absolutely unbearable but I just don't have the energy to fix it. -dsandlund (Preceding comment made by
User:dsandlund on 3 July 2005)
This article has become untidy. There is far too much discussion on minor points, particularly around audio. I don't agree with the above comment about Video8 (and by inference Hi8) being dead, new Hi8 camcorders are still readily available (late 2005). But the article does desperately need tidying. I will have a go, in a few weeks when I return from abroad, if it's not been done by then already. Also echo note above about 'new contributor edit notes' etc., this is messy. If there are two sides to a discussion, then present them both clearly and without bias. Some people get personal about these things and have to have the last word. [[User:
Colin99 21:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)]]
Okay; I'm having a go at cleaning this up, but *not* all in one go (please NO!).
I've already said I don't want to sound overly critical. The individual sentences or even paragraphs are fine when viewed in isolation; viewed "close-up", this is actually pretty decent and better than a lot of articles. However, as I plan on doing some extensive reorganisation, I feel that I should at least explain the problem before I work on it:-
The major flaw is that taken as a complete article it completely lacks organisation, structure, coherence, flow or any conception of its target audience. The ideal (IMHO) is that someone should be able to dip into the article and read up to their level of interest, being presented with the basic facts (then more depth as they read on), well-organised and split up; rather than being bombarded with detailed facts and information scattered through three different sections.
So... Wikipedia say "be bold", and that's what I hopefully plan to do over the next week or so :)
Fourohfour 01:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
There were quite a lot "discussion" comments in the article that should never have been placed there. I'd already commented out some, but on reflection they should have gone on this discussion page in the first place. All are taken from the 5 November version last edited by Fourohfour (me!):-
From the end of the 'overview' (this is too detailed for the overview section anyway):-
From the middle of 'Digital8':-
From the end of 'Digital 8' (might be a useful sentence here if it's made more factual and less POV):-
From 'Transferring 8mm footage...' (already commented out):-
Fourohfour 22:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Another one, missed out (from end of 'Enhancements to Video8'):-
Added by Fourohfour 01:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I was recently looking at buying some Hi8 tapes for my camcorder when I was struck thinking whether I needed PAL or NTSC tapes as my camcorder is a PAL camcorder. I was alerted to the obvious fact that the color system doesn't come into play when buying video tapes or 8mm tapes because its not the tape that is different just what is recorded.
Whilst I conceded this point I am still trying to figure out a few things about the tapes.
1) Does buying an NTSC tape to use on my PAL camcorder mean that I will able to record more on it? I used the Kodak Film Calculator and by my calculations buying an NTSC tape that states it is 90 minutes should work out to just under 108 minutes recording in PAL. Would this be right?
2) Is there any difference to the quality of tapes bought in different countries. Or are they all around the same quality? Talking more of Sony Hi8 tapes.
Lummie 05:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Who originated the tech and owns the patents on it? Sony?
Aren't the last two methods the exact same thing? -- Crnk Mnky 03:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I have looked and looked and looked, but I can not find a source to answer that simple question. Is it 5 megahertz? Someone should add the answer to the article, if it's available. - Theaveng 12:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Since it is hard to find tapes nowadays, i wondering if i could record on D-8 tapes with my video 8mm camcorder ( pal - standard play ) And I wondering the same thing about Hi-8 cassettes, but i think the answer is yes because you can record on a S-vhs tape with a regular VHS videorecorder. It could be the same. What do you think about? If someone has answer could it be added to the article?
-A.S.- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.179.73.238 ( talk) 07:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Video8 is different tape (at least quality wise, likely in the substrates as well) than Hi8 and D8. You technically _can_ record on it, but it may not be magnetized as well and likely will not hold up. --
tonsofpcs (
Talk) 03:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I think I sould try just to see how it looks. A.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.179.77.117 ( talk) 20:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Should an encyclopedic article really conjecture on futures like this? -- tonsofpcs ( Talk) 03:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi8 is aprantly supirior of the original VHS format. It also uses smaller tape inside the cassette, I am not sure how wide the cassette tape is. It is also inferior quality wise than Mini DV. It does have 90 minutes of recording time, which is 30 minutes more than Mini DV. It is not to much larger than Mini DV either. I think over all I would probably shoose Hi8 over Mini DV as it has longer recording time, but it is analouge. Though I am not sure how popular Hi8 was, or how popular it's sucssesor Digital 8 is. J2F Duck ( talk) 20:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the article says, if a Video 8 camera can record on a Hi8 cassette. I tried to do this, and just got snow, on playback. DaveDodgy ( talk) 04:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
All sites cited as references are businesses trying to drive traffic to their site. They are not reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.218.163 ( talk) 13:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I am by no stretch of the imagination an expert on video, Hi8, or any of the information contained on this page. However, as a interested consumer of the information, I noted an inconsistency within the page's information. I don't have the knowledge to say which of the conflicting assertions is correct, but one of them must be incorrect. I hope that someone with knowledge of this topic may be able to clarify the following.
In the top section of the entry, in the box on the right side that displays an image of a Video8 cassette, under "Capacity," the tape runtimes for PAL-format Video8/Hi8 are listed as follows: "60 minutes (PAL-SP), 90 minutes (PAL-SP), and 135 minutes (PAL-SP)," and the listed tape runtime for NTSC-format Video8/Hi8 is, "180 minutes (NTSC-SP)." However, in the adjacent "Technical Overview" section, the penultimate sentence of the fourth paragraph states, "Standard recording time is up to 180 minutes for PAL and 120 minutes for NTSC."
Clearly there is some incongruity between the information. Hopefully someone knows the truth of these matters and can correct the entry because I cannot.
66.7.84.125 ( talk) 17:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't DA-88 be mentioned in "Video8 outside the camcorder market" or "See also" section?
After all this system used the 8mm tapes. It should be rather mandatory to mention this fact on the DA-88 page itself.
83.13.239.255 ( talk) 19:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Article states: "Standard recording time is up to 180 minutes for PAL and 120 minutes for NTSC. (The cassette holds the same length tape; tape consumption is different between PAL and NTSC recorders.)" To my knowledge, it's the other way round, PAL recording and play times are shorter than NTSC. The article seems to mix PAL LP with NTSC SP. AFAIK, the maximum tape lengths available in SP are 90 min for PAL, 120 min for NTSC. Also, I can't find a verification for the 135 min (PAL) claim in the info box. Although I'm quite confident all this is correct, I'm not 100% sure, so I'll refrain from editing the article for now. -- 91.61.220.193 ( talk) 14:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Hi, might be worth mentioning there are two different types of tape available for Video 8& Hi8. There is Metal-Particle and Metal-Evaporated. Metal-Evaporated is higher quality, but not as robust after repeated playback.
Cheers. 2A00:23C7:C797:FC01:1C3B:98BA:7A91:E4D6 ( talk) 06:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
In a couple of places, this article states that Hi-Fi audio recording was not possible on VHS-C or S-VHS-C camcorders. This is clearly incorrect as there were a huge number of (S-)VHS-C camcorders that supported Hi-Fi Stereo audio recording (at least for PAL; don't know about NTSC). I think this needs fixing or clarifying. 86.139.25.238 ( talk) 21:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)