Posted by mv on 05/15/06 10:45

In message <0gve62di6pesv44i1acl7r28u3vtf75deb@4ax.com>, P. C. Ford
<meoh@mouse-potato.com> writes
>On Sun, 14 May 2006 18:27:23 GMT, "doc" <doc@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
>>yes, if we use a NEW tape, one in three will have dropped frames . . however
>>. . if we use a tape that has been previously recorded on, we seldom have
>>dropped frames. that is, new tapes of the same consumer grade give us
>>dropped frames (1 to 30 frames) on one out of three brand new tapes;
>>however, if we reuse that same tape and record on it again, we seldom ever
>>have dropped frames . . THUS . . we usually burn in a new tape with anything
>>then reuse that tape over and over and over. to date, we haven't taken a
>>used tape out of service, recording some 60 hours of tape a month.
>>although, we plan to start taking some tapes out of service and just toss
>>them. hope this clearifies. why? we don't know but the fact remains that
>>this is our experience.
>
>So strange, everyone has a different angle...not disagreeing with
>anybody 'til I can see good solid data. And Mr. Tapeguy seems to be
>letting us down in that regard.
>
>Guess you have to have to make your choice and take yer chances..

I see this strand just runs and runs. In complete circles it would seem.

Just for reference I've re-posted here a follow up to one of Mr Fords
posts on the 24the April.




I have over 2,000 recorded miniDV tapes since 1996 that have been
particularly shot on four cameras, a VX1000, a PD150, a PD170 and a Z1,
which equates to a lot more drum hours than that. 99% of it on basic
consumer grade Panasonic tape and perhaps half of that in 'challenging'
environments. Never had a single issue caused by either tape or head
wear. In fact the 750 hours you mention should be well within the
service life of PD150 heads. Early faults are usually due to some other
issue than simple wear caused by tape abrasion, such as the ingress of
foreign particles, moisture or misalignment due to knocks and bumps.
Head wear is so much more tolerant with digital formats than it was for
analogue. Some early miniDV cameras have literally thousands of drum
hours without failing.

There used to be an issue caused by differing tape lubricants, but all
the tape manufactures have long since resolved that one, however
archived tapes form the mid 90's should be treated with caution. All
this gumph about Sony tapes being specially suited to Sony equipment is
rubbish. It's just more marketing hype of the kind that asserts that
spending 1,000% more on 'pro' branded tape will prevent drop outs, make
the tapes last longer, increase ones I.Q. or make one especially
attractive to women. It's DV or miniDV, a formally agreed multi brand
standard defined by contractual intercompatability. I've heard some
pretty daft assertions about why for example a Sony tape is better for a
Sony camera, such as the camber on the tape is minutely different to fit
a minutely differently cambered shaped head or the metal used on the
head is especially formulated to maximise some subtly unique tape
formulation.

This is an industry where more faux expert misdirection exits than
almost any other I've come across, nearly all of it traceable to
misdirectors own investments or a compelling need to be top nerd. Which
of course is me.
--
John Lubran

[Back to original message]