Posted by greg kimnach on 04/12/07 03:25

In article <JGAv8n.1xB7@wjv.com>, bv@wjv.com says...

>I could see the lines at the 500 circle, but not at the 550 line
>circle, and it diappeared about 1/2 way between the two so I
>interporlated it was 525.
>
>Super-Beta I was the rare version - but it was on my SL-1000s, and
>it was added to 900's by anyone with electronic skills and a bit of
>soldering capabillity.

and i loved the sl-hf2100. it was a very sleek machine. too bad it
didn't have control-t and couldn't be used to its fullest capability
with my 9500s and 1000s!

>What killed the 7500s and 9500s was the Yen to dollar ratio was
>very very bad at that time and the list price of the machines
>virtually doubled from what was originally projected. It left
>the EDV-9500 listing at about $3500.
>
>But it was still the finest VCR I've ever owned.

i recall a friend was floored when we compared picture quality of his
flagship hrs-10000u (? high-end s-vhs) with my edv-9500. hell, even my
sl-hf1000 gave it a run for its money! we fed each deck with the output
of my edw-10f camcorder with the recorder removed and having
the camera-only attachment (va-10f).

>
>And the editing capability, with 5 second pre-roll was spec'd
>at +/- 3 frames, but in 90% of the cases I'd get frame accurate
>editing.
>
>I'd aquire something from cable on the EDV-9500, and then bring
>it down to SB-II on the SL-1000, and there was virtually [very
>little] no loss in dubbing. You had to have a good set and good
>eyes when you A/Bed the two.
>
>The resolution on the EDV-9500 when using the metal tape was
>superb. The only problems I could see was what was typical
>of any analog recording medium, but it really showed up
>only in the blues - that were slightly noisier than the source.

and that's why i used to use the format for wedding videography. it was
a pain in the shoulder, but the benefits (in light-permitting
situations) was worth it.

[Back to original message]