Posted by doc on 01/11/85 11:45

for us, beta was only barely better . . our opinion.

drd

"David McCall" <david.mccall@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4j71g.5698$_w6.3481@trndny09...
>
> "Steve King" <steveSPAMBLOCK@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message
> news:JbKdnWU66PDvZtnZnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>>
>> No, you just had to play every take to confirm no drop outs ;-) At least
>> BetaSP was better than 3/4 inch, which was better than 1 inch, which was
>> better than 2 inch, which was not nearly as good as 16 mm.
> I'll buy that BetaSP is better than 3/4", but the ONLY thing better
> about 3/4" over 1" was the weight of the equipment, and perhaps
> the convenience of a cassette. 2" quad was at least equal to 1",
> except that you needed an engineer close at hand to clean and
> tweak the machine every time you changed a tape. 16mm was
> one of the best consumer formats ever developed, but it pales in
> comparison to 35mm for robustness.
>
> 16mm a consumer format? Yes it was early on. As was 3/4" and
> DV. They all just turned out to be "good enough" for the professional
> market to adopt them.
>
> David
>
>

[Back to original message]