HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: daver@felix.filenet.com (Dave Richards)
Newsgroups: rec.video
Subject: Re: VCR +
Date: 30 Aug 92 23:49:32 GMT
Reply-To: daver@fritz.filenet.com (Dave Richards)
Organization: Costa Mesa, CA

I wrote:
>> Seriously, buying a VCR+ is like buying a Betamax.  Proprietary systems
>> are not a good investment in the long run.

In article <1452@seqp4.sequoia.com> cantrell@seqp4.sequoia.com (Paul Cantrell) writes:
>Betamax was/is no more proprietary than VHS. It just never became as
>popular. Are you saying that we should skip VHS, BETA, Laserdisc, Hi8,
>S-VHS and Compact Disc because those are all proprietary formats, and
>thus not a good long term investment?

It was my understanding that in the early years of Betamax, Sony did not
(would not?) allow any other manufacturers to produce VCRs using the
format.  On the other hand, the VHS format had three manufacturers be-
hind it from the beginning.  That may explain why the VHS format became
dominant in spite of its (reportedly) poorer quality.  I don't think you
have to be an expert in economics to understand why competition is good
for the consumer.

>If enough people purchase VCR+, it won't go away. The fact that some
>manufacturers are now putting it into their VCRs tells me it's probably
>pretty popular. I still don't understand why they don't all put the smarts
>in their remotes, though. A VCR with built in VCR+ does not handle the
>cable box programming problem.

Until reading follow-up postings, I was unaware that several manufacturers
were including VCR+ features into their product.  That indicates that the
company IS in fact licensing the technology, in which case you should dis-
regard most of my previous post.

Dave
From: jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke)
Newsgroups: rec.video
Subject: Re: Coming out of the closet...
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:48:27 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

In article <1684D772C.TFSTAM01@UKCC.UKY.EDU>, TFSTAM01@UKCC.UKY.EDU writes:
> 
>      The only real solution will be when the 16:9 ratio widescreen TV's
> come on the market (for those that can afford them).  I understand most of
> them will allow current letterboxed video to expand, to fill the screen.
>  

Not really.  A 16:9 ratio is not wide enough for any of the wider films
like Blade Runner that are 2.35:1 (you still lose about 1/3 of the picture.)
You will still need letterboxing on those titles.  Even the less wide 1.85:1
films will be a bit cut off unless letterbox is used.  And, of course, for
Academy ratio you will have black bands on the sides.  Somehow I DOUBT that
people who do NOT like letterbox now will except an Adacemy ratio film that
is blown up to fill a 16:9 ratio TV -- the heads of actors will be chopped
off quite a bit.  So they'll have to live with bands on the sides which 
they probably won't like and so they'd most likely rather have their old TV
back!

To those who do not like letterbox because they are bothered by the black
bands, I ask: what is the difference between those black bands and the
top and bottom of your TV (and sides for that matter)???  They are all
borders.

Steve
From: ebupaf@ebu.ericsson.se (Pat Fargo 6266)
Newsgroups: rec.video
Subject: Re: Giant Screen Tv
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:46:03 GMT
Reply-To: ebupaf@ebu.ericsson.se
Organization: Ericsson Business Communications, Inc.

I own both a 45" Mitsubishi, and a 53" Sony. The Mitsubishi
required two costly repairs in its 4 year life. The Sony is
new. Before buying the Sony, I went and looked at Hitiachi,
the new Mitsubishi's, and the Sony's. The Sony picture is 
outstanding, and it has two tuners built in for PIP, without
a VCR. There was no comparison on the pictures... Sony was the best.
---
Patrick A. Fargo		Ericsson Business Communication
				Anaheim, California
From: russ@prism.gatech.EDU (Russell Shackelford)
Newsgroups: rec.video
Subject: Re: Help with Antenna
Summary: another question...
Date: 3 Sep 92 00:55:45 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


I've just put up an antenna with a rotor and am pleased... except
for one thing...

there's some sort of noise in the picture.... small flickery white
thingees that cover the entire width of the screen, but that appear
on only about 1/3 or 1/4 of the screen height.... forming a band
that slowly rolls upwards off the top and starts again at the 
bottom....

I assume that this is some sort of noise due to the mast-top
amplifier I've got, or maybe due to something else... but I'm
otherwise clueless.  

Is there some straightforward fix for this sort of thing?  Please
advise!

thanks,
russ

-- 
Russell Shackelford
College of Computing
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332
russ@cc.gatech.edu         (404) 894-9217
Newsgroups: rec.video
From: wlrc@uhura.neoucom.edu (William R. Cruce)
Subject: The TRUE Anamorphic Ratio, was Re: Coming out of the closet...
Organization: Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1992 00:20:44 GMT

In article <19834@fritz.filenet.com> daver@fritz.filenet.com (Dave Richards) writes:
>
>I hate to make a pest of myself, but the 35mm anamorphic aspect ratio is not
>2.35:1.  It's 2.39:1 (I round it to 2.4, but most people seem to love the
>two-decimal-place accuracy.)  It has been 2.39:1 for the last 21 years, or
>since 1971.  I'll keep bringing this up until people either a) start using
>the right number, or b) stop quoting ANY specific value and just say "scope"
>or "anamorphic."

Could you elaborate a bit?  Perhaps the reason people use 2.35:1 is
because that's what Carr & Hayes use throughout their book WIDE SCREEN
MOVIES.  The book is full of so many other errors that I'm not going
to go to battle over this one.  I'd just like to know why you say
2.39:1 is the correct ratio.

-- 
                 "So many windows, So little time"

Bill Cruce, N.E. Ohio Univ. Coll. of Medicine, Box 95, Rootstown, OH 44272
VOICE: 216-325-2511,  FAX: 216-325-0522,  INTERNET: wlrc@uhura.neoucom.edu
Newsgroups: rec.video
From: strong@tc.fluke.COM (Norm Strong)
Subject: Hi8 tape mistake and apology
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:53:17 GMT

Sorry to report, but the source of Hi8MP120 tape for $4.99 turned out to
be bogus.  The picture in the flyer was apparently just for show; the
actual offer was for plain MP120.

I'm terribly sorry to get everybody excited for nothing.  

After I raised hell, they gave me a rain check for 6 of them at that
price, but I don't think this is going to be a valid source for the long
haul.  

Moral:  Read Pay 'n' Save flyers very carefully, and ignore the
pictures.  
-- 

Norm Strong  (strong@tc.fluke.com)
2528 31st S.   Seattle WA 98144   USA
Newsgroups: rec.video
From: dchang@ra.csc.ti.com (Dardy Chang)
Subject: Time for prices to fall
Organization: Texas Instruments
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:28:53 GMT

I have a simple question:  How long does it take for the price of an LD
player new to the market to drop?  I'm interested in Pioneer's D701, but
I know that I can wait and get it cheaper in the future, as new models
come out.


Thanks,
-- 
Dardy Chang
dchang@ra.csc.ti.com
Newsgroups: rec.video
Subject: Re: The Wall & Brazil LDs
From: claudius@zeus.calpoly.edu (King_Claudius (Chris Knight))
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 20:44:43 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

kucharsk@solbourne.com (William Kucharski) says:
>>In article <920824142750.653@tiger.hsc.edu> JOHNN@TIGER.HSC.EDU writes:
>>Has anyone compared the two? 
>
>What do you want to know?

Personally I really disliked the videotape version of The Wall.  The live
versions really ruined it for me, then again I guess I was spoiled by seeing it
on the bigscreen...but there are other differences besides the music.  Much of
the animation is different, and the ending is a bit different too...one thing
that sets the videotape distinctly apart from the movie was the "flower"
scene...if that's on the LD and you remember hearing live stuff [different from
the soundtrack/album] then the LD is prolly the same as the tape...yech.

>I'm a letterbox fan, so I of course love (and was hoping beyond hope that they
>would release) the lbx version.  There is so much that gets cut off in the P&S
>version that whole scenes (especially "The Trial") seem new and unfamiliar if
>you haven't seen the film in a theatre lately.

P&S version?

>All in all, except for some long dropouts during "Comfortably Numb," it's very
>highly recommended.
-- 
---King Claudius---                                   claudius@zeus.calpoly.edu
From: davepat@flash.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Dave Patterson)
Newsgroups: rec.video
Subject: LaserDisk Storage and ROT (FAQ question?)
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:52:19 GMT


Hi!

I have a bit of a problem brewing now...  I've noticed that many
of my prized disks seem to be rotting:  Back to the Future III,
Help! (CAV Criterion), T2 (the Collector's Edition :( :( ),
Who Framed Roger Rabbit (almost unviewable, now :( ), and the
list goes on.

Three questions, (plus a little):

1)  Should I expect this from all laser disks?  (Should I just
    rent lasers and tape them?  Should I pack it in, sell it
    all, and just go back to tapes?  :( :( )

2)  Is the way I have them stored incorrect:  They are stored
    as my LPs are stored: sitting, (standing?), on their edges
    next to each other in a cool area, out of direct sunlight,
    (like you would see them in a Disk Store).  As far as I can
    tell, there is not a lot of humidity in the house, either. 
    Should they lie flat one on top of the other?

3)  Shouldn't I be able to return these disks, (and I *did* save
    the receipts!), to the place of purchase for another, (even
    though it has been almost a year for a couple of these)?
    What about the Collector's Editions?  

:(  :(

Very depressedly (is that a word?) yours,

:-(

-Dave Patterson

PS.  The only good news I have, sort of, is that my player (D701)
plays 'em okay, (except that I heard the black line bug is still
there :( ).

= #include <disclaimer.h> ===============================================
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||    | "UnHappy, UnHappy, UnJoy, UnJoy!  |
| |||                        |||    |  UnHappy, UnHappy, UnJoy, UnJoy!  |
|     o l i v e t t i  a t c        |  UnHappy, UnHappy, UnJoy, UnJoy!" |
|                                   |         - !Ren & !Stimpy          |
================ {ucbvax, etc.}!hplabs!flash!davepat ====================
Newsgroups: rec.video
From: zhao@bcarh12d.BNR.CA (Jeffrey Zhao)
Subject: Buying a CamCorder in Japan
Reply-To: zhao@bcarh12d.BNR.CA (Jeffrey Zhao)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:14:37 GMT

Could anybody tell me if a CamCorder bought in Japan can be used
here in North America?  I know Japan uses NTSC, but what about
the audio frequency (sound carrier)?  I phoned a few local stores,
but none of them could give me a definite answer.

Thanks in advance.

Jeff
Newsgroups: rec.video
From: fineberg@win31.nas.nasa.gov (Samuel A. Fineberg)
Subject: Re: S-VHS vs regular video output
Organization: CSC, NASA Ames Research Center, NAS Division
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 16:44:52 GMT
Reply-To: fineberg@nas.nasa.gov

In article <1992Sep02.003944.13570@uhura.neoucom.edu>, wlrc@uhura.neoucom.edu (William R. Cruce) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep1.014715.17596@mprgate.mpr.ca> ng@neutron.mpr.ca writes:
|> >...However, when I compare the video 1 S-Video 
|> >input (of my TV which a Sony XBR Trinitron) which is connected to the S-VHS 
|> >ouput of the laser disc player and the video 2 regular video input which is 
|> >connected to the regular video output of the same laser disc player, I cannot 
|> >see any difference in picture quality. ...
|> >
|> >Did I do the right comparison? or any types of output from a laser disc player
|> >give pretty much the same quality? Can someone explain to me why I didn't
|> >get a better image quality from a S-VHS output? 
|> 
|> I think Bob Niland (rjn@fc.hp.com) has an article with a longer explana-
|> tion of this, but basically it depends on which device (TV or LD player)
|> has the better comb filter.  Often a high quality monitor such as
|> the XBR has a filter equal to (your case) or better than the LD player.
|> On my Pioneer rear projector the two images look different but I prefer
|> the standard composite video connection rather than the S-Video (not
|> S-VHS btw).  I think the consensus from previous net discussions of
|> this FAQ is that the S-Video connector on LD players is mostly a marketing
|> gimick (except for the $3500 Pioneer LD-S2).
|> 
Actually I use my S-Video output to go to my TV for another reason.  I wanted
to hook my LD player direct to my TV and my VCR.  It has only one output and I
didn't want to split the signal, so I plugged the S-Video to the TV and the RCA
to the VCR (it is a standard VHS VCR).  I did try using the RCA to my TV, and 
notcied no difference in picture quality (I don't have a Sony XBR).

Sam
From: gt7257c@prism.gatech.EDU (Jose R. Perez)
Newsgroups: rec.video
Subject: Re: Coming out of the closet...(Widescreen opinion)
Date: 24 Aug 92 00:19:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In <1992Aug23.000459.2982@amgen.com> chriss@sam.amgen.com (Chris Silvester) writes:

>I'm sorry, but I've watched the comments about how LBX is far superior to PAN
>& SCAN too long to not venture my own opinion.  So, for me and anyone else out
>there like me, I'm going to say it...I DON'T LIKE THE LBX FORMAT!!!  Glad that's
>off my chest.

>Seriously though, IMHO having the picture on my TV scrunched by LBX is FAR
>more anoying then putting up with an occasional shift in camera angle to
>capture pertinent action.  Having my 35" Picture reduced to less than the
>equivelent of 20" is very depressing...



   Well, if you have the necessary money, go out and find the P/S version
of Star Wars and do an A/B comparison with the letterbox disc. In the
opening scenes, the P/S version omits:

	-A moon, forever lost in this version.
	-Various soldiers at various moments.
	-R2D2 and C3PO, in some scenes (They prefer to show rebels getting 
	 killed)
	-The soldier standing beside Vader
  	-And on, and on, and on...

   After seeing these few minutes, you'll begin to find letterboxing a lot
less objectionable compared to the *very* artificial P/S of this movie.
You are missing almost half the picture all the time, for God's sake!!!



-- 
*Jose R. Perez           |" Really??" - Dr. Joel Fleishmann                   *
*Internet:               |--"I love you"                                      *
*gt7257c@prism.gatech.edu|--"I know"  - From one of my favorite movies        *
**********************"There can be only one."- Conner McLeod *****************
Xref: sparky rec.video:10874 rec.arts.movies:26713
From: pearl@sw.stratus.com (Dan Pearl)
Newsgroups: rec.video,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Explain this effect?
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:10:56 GMT
Followup-To: rec.video
Distribution: usa
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

Here's my crack at the explaination...

The areas are an artifact of the image composition process.

To superimpose a shuttlecraft on a starfield (to cite ST:TOS), the shuttle
model is filmed before a blue screen, with the camera/model motion simulating
motion of the shuttle.

Despite the best efforts of the engineers, not everything in the frame is
either SHUTTLE or BLUE.  Sometimes, an especially deep shadow of the rig
holding the model registers as black (i.e., non-blue "Information"), or there
are technicians in the frame.  These must be masked out before the image is
assembled.  

In the blue-screen process, the goal is to come up with the following
items which will be combined in the optical printer:

	A. The original footage
	B. The starfield footage
	C. Black film with a clear shuttle hole
	D. Clear film with a black shuttle blob

The final footage will be (B+D) exposed, then (C+A) (where "+" means
"sandwiched together").  The problem seems to be in the production of the
C and D components.   In the background of the C there is, ostensibly,
black.  That black resulted from the detection of blue (in the blue
screen process), but it also results from the application of a hand-applied
mask, which masks out the non-blue information that appeared in the background.

The hand-applied masks, I'll bet, are perfect.  That is, they let no light
through.  The blue-screen process is, I'll bet, slightly less than perfect,
resulting in a not-quite-100%-black where the blue was.  The problem is that
C is actually 
	
	C. Total black film surrounding an almost-black area which contains
 	   a clear shuttle hole.

During the (C+A) exposure, for instance, some of the blue blackground is
exposed through the almost-black box.  During the (B+D) exposure, the D
strip (which is produced by negating the C strip), an almost-clear area
subtracts some of the depth of black from the star field, rendering it
slightly gray.

The film-to-video transfer undoubtely affects the visibility of such
artifacts on the small screen.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Pearl  **  Stratus Computer, Inc.  **  pearl@spectacle.sw.stratus.com
From: N. Richard Caldwell <nrc@bsbbs.columbus.oh.us>
Newsgroups: rec.video
Subject: Re: splitting cable signal
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 06:47:13 GMT
Organization: The Big Sky BBS (+1 614 864 1198)

ccw@prefect.uucp (26554-wood) in
  <1992Aug28.014315.10244@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> writes:
> In article <trussell.714957886@cwis> trussell@cwis.unomaha.edu (Tim Russell) 
> writes:
> 
> >I have a RS 4-way version, and it's worked well for me.  I have it
> >driving a TV, VCR, Digital Cable Radio, and a 40-foot cable run to my 
> >roomie's TV and all signals look as good as the original signal does to 
> >my eye.
> 
> Hmmm.  I bought a similar box from Radio Shack to do the same job, and
> it put all sorts of noise and interference on the line.  Made the
> picture annoying to watch.  So we put in a passive splitter, which
> worked OK.

I had the exact same experience.  The RS amp caused a fine white line 
to slowly roll through the picture.  I returned it and got a passive 
four way splitter which seems to work fine.


"Don't drive too slowly."         Richard Caldwell
                                  The Big Sky BBS (+1 614 864 1198)
                                  {n8emr|nstar}!bluemoon!bsbbs!nrc
                                  nrc@bsbbs.Columbus.OH.US
Newsgroups: rec.video
From: kimnach@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (GREG KIMNACH)
Subject: Re: VCR +
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Distribution: na
Date: 31 Aug 1992 10:18 EST  

In article <19822@fritz.filenet.com>, daver@fritz.filenet.com (Dave Richards) writes...
>I wrote:
>>> Seriously, buying a VCR+ is like buying a Betamax.  Proprietary systems
>>> are not a good investment in the long run.
> 
>In article <1452@seqp4.sequoia.com> cantrell@seqp4.sequoia.com (Paul Cantrell) writes:
>>Betamax was/is no more proprietary than VHS. It just never became as
>>popular. Are you saying that we should skip VHS, BETA, Laserdisc, Hi8,
>>S-VHS and Compact Disc because those are all proprietary formats, and
>>thus not a good long term investment?
> 
>It was my understanding that in the early years of Betamax, Sony did not
>(would not?) allow any other manufacturers to produce VCRs using the
>format.  On the other hand, the VHS format had three manufacturers be-
>hind it from the beginning.  That may explain why the VHS format became
>dominant in spite of its (reportedly) poorer quality.  I don't think you
>have to be an expert in economics to understand why competition is good
>for the consumer.


Let's get this straight: Sony was strict about licensing.  It did not want 
others manufacturing decks which did not perform up to par.  (Thank 
goodness Symphonic and the likes did never produced a Beta deck!)  Also, 
many other manufacturers DID produce Betamax decks--and did so until 1986.  
I cannot accept the "lack of hardware/software synergism" argument as 
causing the downfall of Betamax.  We should all recall the days when every 
movie appeared on the shelves in both Beta and VHS fomats.  The problem was 
(and continues to be) marketing and public ignorance.  

I am glad that I selected the technically superior format and not the one 
that sounds like "VCR."


Greg
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
    ED-Beta: Simply THE BEST!
                 Remember: The crow flies in square circles.
                          "Either do or do not!  There is no 'try!'"--Yoda
    "It's not what we do, it's what we know.  And we know what to do!"
                                                                --R. Lebron
 Another version:
"It's not what you know, it's what you do.  And you don't know what to do!"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.video
From: ahom@yingjow.tnds.bellcore.com (Allen Hom)
Subject: Re: Pioneer LD player. comments?
Organization: Network Data Collection Presentation and Processing Development
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 11:18:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.133059.17865@citib.com>, flongo@seles (Frank Longo) writes:
|> I'm considering the purchase of Pioneer's LD 501 for $739.00.
|> Any comments on the price or the unit would be helpful and
|> appreciated. Thanks.
|> 
|> Frank Longo
|> flongo@bank.citib.com
|> 
The price seems a little high.  I just purchased the LD701 from
New West Electronics for about $730, and they are authorized Pioneer
dealers.  I asked about their D501 price, and it was around $560.
I don't have their number, but they have a 800 number, so you can
call the 800 directory assistance for it.

Hope this helps.
-- 
allen hom
Bellcore
ahom@tnds.bellcore.com
(908)699-5728
Newsgroups: rec.video
From: steinarb@idt.unit.no (Steinar Bang)
Subject: Dolby Surround
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Distribution: rec
Date: 31 Aug 92 10:37:54

This may be a FAQ, but the FAQ wasn't resident on my NNTP server right
now, so...

I would like to find some more information about the Dolby Surround
sound system. Like articles describing the system, build it yourself
descriptions from electronic hobbyists magazines, lists of availiable
external decoders (prices etc.).

Any difference between different TV standards (PAL, NTSC, SECAM)? I
guess not...

Thanx in advance for any and all replies.

- Steinar
From: JOHNN@tiger.hsc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.video
Subject: RE: PAL in USA
Date: 28 Aug 92 12:46:55 GMT
Organization: The Internet


jimth writes -
>Can anyone out there tell me if a recording done in NTSC can be converted to
>PAL.  I would like to send personal video messages to Australia. (Message-ID: 
<1669@shaman.wv.tek.com>)

	Yes indeed.  See the ads in the back of almost any video equipment magazine.  
The service can be expensive and many converter operators use low quality, 
inexpensive machines.  Ask for references.  

good Luck,
John 

Newsgroups: rec.video,misc.consumers
From: mf@dancer.uucp (24241-fusco)
Subject: Re: Video Tape Encoding Signal
Organization: On the Road
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 16:54:49 GMT

	This reminds me of something a friend recently remarked on.
Apparently, while on vacation, he recorded with a portable
(mini-VHS or 8mm) unit but when he connected it to a TV in the UK, it
didn't look right (scan rate?).  Are there differences in the TVs
in Europe and the US?

Thanks!
mf
From: JOHNN@tiger.hsc.edu
Newsgroups: rec.video
Subject: RE: VIDEOTECH Digest V92 #710
Date: 28 Aug 92 12:42:59 GMT
Organization: The Internet

Neal A Raisman wanted to know of the availability of movies
 for overseas in VHS. (Message-ID: <1992Aug27.144820.5567@ucunix.san.uc.edu>)

	For overseas videos and hard to find ones, I use FACETS MULTIMEDIA of 
Chicago.  800/331-6197, 10 - 6 cnetral time.  Good selection and they know thier 
stock and the trade.  They sell at retail, absolutley no discouts but some 
sales. On the downside, a few of there tapes were recorded in either LP or EP, 
and this is not listed in the catalogue.  Also they rent but with a $20.00 
membership fee.

Good Luck,
John