Posted by Specs on 05/15/06 16:53

<mv@movingvision.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sgzSTuCPvFaEFwM+@movingvision.demon.co.uk...
> 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

John

The wet vs dry tape lubricant is still regularly referred to as a possible
issue for cameras. Is that another myth that has been busted? Are the
tapes lubricants all the same now? What was the issue for mixing tapes with
different lubricants? I've never seen thes problems but have seen many
times stories of impending dread if one were to mix n match.

[Back to original message]