Posted by Specs on 05/08/06 15:13

"Mr. Tapeguy" <mr.tapeguy@pro-tape.com> wrote in message
news:1147096499.487346.170310@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > He has posted since being asked to supply data but alas has failed
to
> > > > deliver the aforementioned.
> > > >
> > > > Check out these data I've been able to locate:
> > > >
> > > > Brand Coercivity Retentivity
> > > > Fuji 120kA/m 450mT
> > > > Pana PQ 120kA/m 450mT
> > > > Maxell DVME60 120kA/m 450mT
> > > > Sony PR/EX 105kA/m 500mT
> > > > Sony HDV 125kA/m 550mT
> > > > Pana MQ 120kA/m 500mT
> > > > Sony DVCAM 105kA/m 500mT
> > > >
> > > > My understanding is that retentivity is the more important figure.
>
> According to whom? What about signal-to-noise, carrier-to-noise,
> dropout and the "intangibles" ? According ot your info, there is NO
> reason to buy EX vs. PR. That's because some of the critical
> information isn't contained in the specficiations.
>
My understanding of physics says retentivity is the more important factor of
the two. Its pretty rich for someone to make note of the sparcity of
critical information when they have steadfastly refused/incapable/unwilling
to produce the mearest hint of information.

>
> > Well it would help if you had data to back up you claims instead of
> > re-publishing Panasonic marketing BS. That's why you end up in a debate
> > because your claims don't hold up to inspection.
>
> What inspection is that? Nothing has been shown to prove otherwise,
> least of all real-world use. Most of the newsgroup questions I deal
> ask for people's experience with usage. I would think you would be
> aware that specifications aren't everything. For starters, who do you
> think writes them? If you think Panasonic's marketing BS is, well "BS"
> then perhaps you'd better research who writes specifications for
> Panasonic tape...which is why I rely only partially on any of that
> information and more on what feedback from in-house use and customer
> feedback. The best use of manufacturer's published specs is in
> relating one of their own tapes to another. I don't want to get into
> the insulting accusations that you seem to feel the need to throw but I
> really think you can't see the forest for the trees here, and
> especially since you seem to feel that any specification that is
> published is better than one that isn't.

Why do you septics always seem to think someone is throw insulting comments
at you when others write in a nonambiguous and direct way?


> Head life is also something we should all be concerned about and every
> tech I've dealt with along with various websites has found Panasonic to
> be less abrasive. That can be thousands of dollars of savings along
> the way. I realize there is a tech referenced in this exchange who
> feels differently.
>
How was that measured? By rubbing it on their chins? Sorry don't buy it.
Presumably you can quote coefficient of friction values for Panasonic tape
vs other manufacturers?

> > I am genuinely interested to see if there is a significant difference
> > between brands and grades within the brands. But I've got to see some
hard
> > facts or some serious problems with the tapes I use before I change my
> > buying habbits.
>
> The best way to determine that is not a spec sheet but the experience
> of people who use them, yourself included. I tell people every day, it
> doesn't matter to me what you buy. I recommend what works best based
> on our experience and customer feedback, along with being aware of what
> the manufacturers publish about their products.
>
> > On the data I found by googling and my own experiences it seems a fool's
> > game to overly worry about the media one is recording to. It would
seems
> > how one treats that media is far more important. In my professional
> > experience.
> >
> > I just entered "brand name" and "tape name" coercivity and retentivity
into
> > google and cross referenced what I could. Sorry I neglected to post the
> > reference URLs.
>
> No need - this stuff is commonly available. And I agree with your
> first point.
> >
> > > I don't make my living selling just tape and unlike the old days, spec
> > > sheets are not routinely provided for everything. I'm glad you were
> > > able to find some data though, even though those statistics don't tell
> > > the whole story. Nowhere is dropout mentioned (arguably the most
> > > critical spec) nor anything about the components, which is nearly
> > > impossible to document.
> > >
> > I think there are far too many variables to make it worth worrying
about.
> > Treat your tapes and camera with respect and you won't go far wrong.
>
> Agreed; however if you want to take no chances, particularly on
> something that can't be shot again, the higher grade tapes do offer
> much lower dropout and have better mechanisms, besides being more
> carefully selected. I don't think it matters for routine stuff. For
> shoots that can't be redone and "mission critical" I think they are the
> way to go particularly when the prices are comparable; i.e. Sony PR vs.
> Panasonic PQ or Sony EX vs. Panasonic MQ.
>
There you go we're back to square one. I have not seen any clear evidence
that one should use Sony EX over PR let alone use another brand altogether.
It seems like a reflex action to recommend a more expensive tape without
providing any data to prove it is a worthwhile endeavour.

The very fact that manufacturers' data is not easily obtainable is telling.

The next time I get a dropout in the middle of something important you can
say I told you so but until then I'll remain blissfully ignorant but
contented knowing that I'm not being conned into buying something that I
don't need.

[Back to original message]