This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Video 2000 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can someone confirm or deny the accuracy of the following statement from this article: "VHS and Betamax sported slightly better display resolution" I'm not certain this is true, particularly of VHS which has a 240-line vertical resolution.
Re. "Philips introduced a long-play cassette, the V2000 XL, with a capacity of eight hours per side." I think this is factually wrong, wasn't it the eXtended Play (XP) mode which provided eight hours per side, not the cassette itself? Comments please on both of the above. Colin99 21:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
This comment looks factually wrong:"Distribution of Video 2000 products began in 1979 and ended in 1998". Would that be 1988 perhaps? Colin99 20:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Intuitively, I'm sure that competitors to the Video 2000 must have presented the need to flip the tape as a disadvantage, rather then an advantage. VHS and Beta could utilize the entire tape area without flipping, so why limit the recorder to only be able to record on one half of the tape at a time? This serves no purpose other then to mimic a quirk of LPs and Audio Compact Cassettes, and it would reduce picture quality compared to utilizing the whole tape at once. Algr 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Beta | VHS | VCC | |
---|---|---|---|
tapes available and target prices | L125 30min £4.90 L250 1hr 5min £5.50 L370 1hr 30min £6 L500 2hr 15min £6.30 L750 3hr 15min £8.30 |
E30 30min £5 E60 1hr £6.20 E90 1hr 30min £6 [rare] E120 2hr £7.30 E180 3hr £8.50 E240 4h available shortly |
VCC120 2x1hr £7.25 VCC240 2x2hr £11 VCC360 2x3hr £16 VCC480 2x4hr £21.50 |
cost per hour for longest tape | £2.55 | £2.85 | £2.70 |
cost per hour for 2-hour tape (or nearest) | £2.80 | £3.65 | £3.65 |
Regarding this edit; was the original size given in metric or inches? The change might be okay if the metric figure is meant to be an approximate conversion from inches (phoney accuracy in conversions is a bad thing).
OTOH if the original figure (and actual) figure was metric and the inches one is an approximate conversion, then it shouldn't be changed unless it was wrong. And also, the mm should be the main figure given.
Fourohfour 11:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The link goes to the wrong page! It should go to the subsection of the VHS page describing what video tracking in the sense of the video head following the track. 67.180.29.122 06:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that the opening sentence in section "Format developments" does not feel really neutral in its claim: "As with so many Philips developments, Video 2000 was ahead of its time."
Shouldn't this be changed?
Mutant_Fred Mutant Fred ( talk) 09:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The article says:
"Thanks to DTF, V2000 was able to play both fields of the image in still frame mode, providing full vertical resolution whereas VHS and Betamax could only reproduce one field, giving only half of the normal vertical resolution."
Can anyone confirm this? Both VHS and Betamax have always had two video heads on the drum, which scan alternate fields when in still-frame mode, so display both fields. Early VHS machines also displayed the tell-tale "flicker" mentioned in the article. I'm not convinced V2000 was any better/worse than VHS or Betamax in this respect. 86.132.57.137 ( talk) 11:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
"Hifi sound was never marketed although rumours persisted shortly before the format's demise of a hifi machine which utilised the data track. This would have offered the format another advantage over VHS/Beta as the hifi track would be independent of the visuals, and so could be re-recorded or dubbed as became possible later with Video8" Sorry but we have a "portable" Philips machine from the early eighties and it had a button for "dubbing" audio while keeping the video track intact. You could use whatever was being displayed in its TV tuner, or from the SCART audio pins. I've never seen a domestic VHS machine with that advanced feature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.13.8 ( talk) 21:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Video 2000 must also been marketed in Australia as well as Europe, South Africa and Argentina, as a PAL market. My brother told me he saw a videorecorder on sale that could record on both sides of a videotape Eligius ( talk) 00:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream ( talk) 20:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Wikipedia article is only stating it was PAL. Plus SECAM to an extent. If that is the case then that is technically commercial suicide from a North American and Japanese point of view. Without a NTSC version that was an own goal for the format. Seemed Video 2000 had the best of VHS and Betamax combined. 81.159.28.10 ( talk) 20:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Video 2000 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can someone confirm or deny the accuracy of the following statement from this article: "VHS and Betamax sported slightly better display resolution" I'm not certain this is true, particularly of VHS which has a 240-line vertical resolution.
Re. "Philips introduced a long-play cassette, the V2000 XL, with a capacity of eight hours per side." I think this is factually wrong, wasn't it the eXtended Play (XP) mode which provided eight hours per side, not the cassette itself? Comments please on both of the above. Colin99 21:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
This comment looks factually wrong:"Distribution of Video 2000 products began in 1979 and ended in 1998". Would that be 1988 perhaps? Colin99 20:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Intuitively, I'm sure that competitors to the Video 2000 must have presented the need to flip the tape as a disadvantage, rather then an advantage. VHS and Beta could utilize the entire tape area without flipping, so why limit the recorder to only be able to record on one half of the tape at a time? This serves no purpose other then to mimic a quirk of LPs and Audio Compact Cassettes, and it would reduce picture quality compared to utilizing the whole tape at once. Algr 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Beta | VHS | VCC | |
---|---|---|---|
tapes available and target prices | L125 30min £4.90 L250 1hr 5min £5.50 L370 1hr 30min £6 L500 2hr 15min £6.30 L750 3hr 15min £8.30 |
E30 30min £5 E60 1hr £6.20 E90 1hr 30min £6 [rare] E120 2hr £7.30 E180 3hr £8.50 E240 4h available shortly |
VCC120 2x1hr £7.25 VCC240 2x2hr £11 VCC360 2x3hr £16 VCC480 2x4hr £21.50 |
cost per hour for longest tape | £2.55 | £2.85 | £2.70 |
cost per hour for 2-hour tape (or nearest) | £2.80 | £3.65 | £3.65 |
Regarding this edit; was the original size given in metric or inches? The change might be okay if the metric figure is meant to be an approximate conversion from inches (phoney accuracy in conversions is a bad thing).
OTOH if the original figure (and actual) figure was metric and the inches one is an approximate conversion, then it shouldn't be changed unless it was wrong. And also, the mm should be the main figure given.
Fourohfour 11:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The link goes to the wrong page! It should go to the subsection of the VHS page describing what video tracking in the sense of the video head following the track. 67.180.29.122 06:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that the opening sentence in section "Format developments" does not feel really neutral in its claim: "As with so many Philips developments, Video 2000 was ahead of its time."
Shouldn't this be changed?
Mutant_Fred Mutant Fred ( talk) 09:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
The article says:
"Thanks to DTF, V2000 was able to play both fields of the image in still frame mode, providing full vertical resolution whereas VHS and Betamax could only reproduce one field, giving only half of the normal vertical resolution."
Can anyone confirm this? Both VHS and Betamax have always had two video heads on the drum, which scan alternate fields when in still-frame mode, so display both fields. Early VHS machines also displayed the tell-tale "flicker" mentioned in the article. I'm not convinced V2000 was any better/worse than VHS or Betamax in this respect. 86.132.57.137 ( talk) 11:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
"Hifi sound was never marketed although rumours persisted shortly before the format's demise of a hifi machine which utilised the data track. This would have offered the format another advantage over VHS/Beta as the hifi track would be independent of the visuals, and so could be re-recorded or dubbed as became possible later with Video8" Sorry but we have a "portable" Philips machine from the early eighties and it had a button for "dubbing" audio while keeping the video track intact. You could use whatever was being displayed in its TV tuner, or from the SCART audio pins. I've never seen a domestic VHS machine with that advanced feature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.13.8 ( talk) 21:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Video 2000 must also been marketed in Australia as well as Europe, South Africa and Argentina, as a PAL market. My brother told me he saw a videorecorder on sale that could record on both sides of a videotape Eligius ( talk) 00:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream ( talk) 20:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Wikipedia article is only stating it was PAL. Plus SECAM to an extent. If that is the case then that is technically commercial suicide from a North American and Japanese point of view. Without a NTSC version that was an own goal for the format. Seemed Video 2000 had the best of VHS and Betamax combined. 81.159.28.10 ( talk) 20:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)