Talk:Video 2000

message: Can someone confirm or deny the accuracy of the following statement from this article:
"VHS and Betamax sported slightly better display resolution"
I'm not certain this is true, particularly of VHS which has a 240-line vertical resolution.
: Has anyone got evidence for this yet?  I'm in agreement with the above poster  (Colin99?) - any comparison with standard VHS was, in my opinion, always in the favour of the V2000.  Indeed, I only upgraded to VHS when the ability to record stereo and Super VHS became available (at a reasonable price!)...  C2r 23:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy of statement on V2000 XL

message: Regarding this edit; was the original size given in metric or inches? The change might be okay if the metric figure is meant to be an approximate conversion from inches (phoney accuracy in conversions is a bad thing).
OTOH if the original figure (and actual) figure was metric and the inches one is an approximate conversion, then it shouldn't be changed unless it was wrong. And also, the mm should be the main figure given.
Fourohfour 11:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimensions 

message: The link goes to the wrong page! It should go to the subsection of the VHS page describing what video tracking in the sense of the video head following the track. 67.180.29.122 06:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Tracking 

message: I think that the opening sentence in section "Format developments" does not feel really neutral in its claim:
"As with so many Philips developments, Video 2000 was ahead of its time."
Shouldn't this be changed?
Mutant_Fred Mutant Fred (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-neutral claim 

message: The article says: 
"Thanks to DTF, V2000 was able to play both fields of the image in still frame mode, providing full vertical resolution whereas VHS and Betamax could only reproduce one field, giving only half of the normal vertical resolution."
Can anyone confirm this? Both VHS and Betamax have always had two video heads on the drum, which scan alternate fields when in still-frame mode, so display both fields. Early VHS machines also displayed the tell-tale "flicker" mentioned in the article. I'm not convinced V2000 was any better/worse than VHS or Betamax in this respect. 
86.132.57.137 (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that was the problem.  The heads don't scan correctly down the recorded tracks, because when the tape is stationary, the tracks don't follow the heads.  The heads scan across more than one tracks.  Ordinarily, the machine would not display a satisfactory stationary picture (bearing in mind that neither head can reproduce the video from the 'wrong' track).  As you note: early machines just presented whatever the heads recovered.  Various tricks were employed to overcome the deficiency, the main one being to store the last correctly reproduced picture in a frame store and present that to the viewer (more usually only the odd or even field).  Also multiple heads were employed and plenty of other tricks besides.  With V2000, when the tape was stationary, the DTF mechanism allowed both video heads to move to follow the track on the tape and give a clean picture made up of both fields. 86.182.66.217 (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I can deny this, actually.  My first VHS recorder was a 2 head model. In EP mode it's freeze frame was quite clear, but did jitter when motion existed within the frame.  This is not a fault of the deck, but in the nature of any interlaced video.  (Even modern digital systems have a version of this called "mouse tooth".)  The two fields are recorded separately at different times, so motion will occur.  The SOLUTION to this was to add extra video heads to allow only one field to be seen at a time.  The loss of sharpness was trivial compared to the benefit of removing the motion jitter.  It sounds to me like the article is simply trying to spin another limitation of the Video 2000 format as being a strength - Any two head VCR will behave like this in still mode.  Algr (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  You don't need to add extra heads to only scan one field at a time. The solution is simply to discard one of them. And I've had a couple of VHS machines after the V2000 we had at home and it NEVER behave like that, nor I've EVER seen a VHS machine able to show two fields at a time in pause mode. It was useful, too, when viewing film material, with both fields belonging to the same frame.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.13.8 (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

text: Offcourse! What's the use of perfect tracking if you're recording interlaced signal with two completely different fields (unless it's film content with "In-phase" fields and it's usually is not), that content can't be "clean" unless you discard one field. Why was that not corrected in the article? 93.143.32.30 (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scanning both fields in still frame mode? 

message: "Hifi sound was never marketed although rumours persisted shortly before the format's demise of a hifi machine which utilised the data track. This would have offered the format another advantage over VHS/Beta as the hifi track would be independent of the visuals, and so could be re-recorded or dubbed as became possible later with Video8"
Sorry but we have a "portable" Philips machine from the early eighties and it had a button for "dubbing" audio while keeping the video track intact. You could use whatever was being displayed in its TV tuner, or from the SCART audio pins. I've never seen a domestic VHS machine with that advanced feature.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.13.8 (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Plenty of early VHS machines had audio dub for re-recording the linear audio track, and it was still found on many high-end decks in the 1990s. Most of the latter also had insert edit, which is essentially "video dub" - it overlays new video without disturbing the linear audio (although you could do both together). Nick Cooper (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audio dubbing 

message: Video 2000 must also been marketed in Australia as well as Europe, South Africa and Argentina, as a PAL market. My brother told me he saw a videorecorder on sale that could record on both sides of a videotape Eligius (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marketed in Australia 

message: I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited material in need of citations

message: Wikipedia article is only  stating it was PAL. Plus SECAM to an extent. If that is the case then that is technically commercial suicide from a North American and Japanese point of view. Without a NTSC version that was an own goal for the format. Seemed Video 2000 had the best of VHS and  Betamax combined. 81.159.28.10 (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was there a NTSC version?