Talk:S-VHS

message: Is it just me or does S-video standfor SEPARATED video ?
mean Y/C on tape and thus , better quality
:No, S-VHS stands for "SuperVHS."  An S-VHS recording is no more separated than VHS; both use color-under recording, with the chroma subcarrier shifted to a low frequency and the luma signal recorded via FM on a higher-frequency carrier.  SuperVHS achieves greater luma bandwidth simply by using a higher carrier frequency and wider deviation in the FM. S-Video, on the other hand, refers to a signal, connector, and cable that carries the luma and chroma on separate conductors -- hence "separate video."  Jeh 23:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer to the top question is YES!  The question was asking about S-video connetors, not S-VHS.  Indeed the S here stands for Separated video, the luma and chroma are separated on this type of connector.  Some idiots think that the connector is a SVHS connector which it isn't, even some Panasonic SVHS recorder manuals are at pains to point this out. Colin99 20:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IF the question had been about the S-video connector, then you would be correct.  However I think the OP was asking about the tape format, even though he says "S-video", because of his wording "....mean Y/C ON TAPE...".  It seems very clear to me that the question is addressing the tape format and not the connector.  JVC contributed to this confusion by creating a logo, a graphic rendition of "S-VHS", which they used on tape and tape equipment.  Jeh 22:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: A somewhat ironic statement. The first use of the S-video connector was in JVC's debut S-VHS machines, but it appeared on Sony Hi8 equipment within two years, and was never a proprietary JVC-only item. It was always intended as a industry-standard connector for separated video. That JVC (and some others) erroneously labeled chose it as "S-VHS" on some products - even after it was being used for Hi8 and other uses - does not change that. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Separated video?

message: No mention of PAL, only NTSC specific. Could somebody with more knowledge please expand this article? Peter S. 18:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PAL information needed 

message: We have something approaching a contradiction.  Top paragraph says:
"when timeshifting TV programs on S-VHS equipment, the improvement over VHS is not noticeable"
The bottom paragraph says:
"Nevertheless, viewing an S-VHS recording through a VCR's built-in RF modulator yields a discernable perceived quality improvement over VHS"
They're not quite saying the same thing, the first is talking about timeshifting and the latter about an RF hookup (which is presumably used for timeshifting, what else?).
The truth is of course that it is subjective.  Some people can see the difference between VHS and SVHS, some can't.  It's influenced by the tape, recording source, monitor and make/model/condition of machine.  I've seen one set of VHS recordings (only one mind you!) which was so clear, noiseless, and carefully made as to subjectively surpass many recordings made by low-end S-VHS decks.  Often however VHS is a fuzzy noisy mess and S-VHS is a less noisy fuzzy mess.
Without making it all too wordy, we should modify these phrases to ensure that both tend to point to a superior performance of S-VHS over VHS which may or may not be immediately obvious depending upon various factors.  Volunteers to clean this up?  Colin99 15:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a first change, very easily, by changing the first bit to say the improvement IS noticeable.  It certainly is to me.  Jeh 22:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you record a foreign movie or TV show that has subtitles, the difference between VHS and Super VHS is immediately obvious.  In VHS the subtitles take-on a blurry appearance and are difficult to read, whereas the Super VHS preserves them perfectly.  ----- 00:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is S-VHS demonstrably superior to VHS in a domestic environment? 

message: JVC, Matsushita(Panasonic), and at least one other company made combo decks that had both an S-VHS transport and a MiniDV transport. Many of them also included a Firewire port for connection to a computer. What I've never been able to find out is whether or not they provided computer control of the the S-VHS transport or direct digitizing from it, or if to digitize from VHS one had to first copy to a MiniDV tape.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.251.47 (talk) 10:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Combo decks

message: SVHS is the follow-up of the video recording VHS, a video-recording standard, the old competitor of BETAMAX(SONY) and of VIDEO2000(PHILIPS). I am a PHILIPS man and in those days the competitors trick was to use a new way of transferring the video from the recorder to the TV. Instead of offering the usual composite signal of both Colour and Video Base band Signals: CVBS, where both signals: Colour and Black and White were mixed together, they send both signals separated to the TV. This excluded the necessity of using a signal-separation filter in the TV, thereby decreasing cross-interferences between both signals and.. improving Bandwidth and off course...... improving the definition of picture details! Because of that, PHILIPS and SONY just called the same idea: Y/C-signal-transfer. Y for video black/white and C for Color. I think the S originally stood for 'super', but the word 'separate' is actually better, because of the nature of the video-connection. So SVHS is correctly replaced by S-Video, forgetting the recording history.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.104.2 (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: S-video predates Super VHS by about ten years.  In fact by the time S-VHS arrived, studios were already using component video as part of the Betacam format.  ----- 00:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  from S-VHS, via Y-C,  to S-Video. 

message: Editor Hinata removed the "needs citations" parameter from the "multiple issues" template, saying that the article does "site[sic] references". And has now done so twice. 
WP policy requires that inline citations (and it's Citations, by the way, not Sitations) be present for "any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations" (see WP:CITE, WP:V), and that citations are strongly recommended for everything else: "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research". 
The policy does also state that "in practice not everything need actually be attributed", but that does not mean that two inline citations are sufficient for an article of about 20 paragraphs. Ideally it means a citation for every statement or claim of fact. 
And by the way... the two citations that are present here do not even directly apply to the article topic! One is used to justify a statement regarding poor chroma resolution of other video tape formats, and the other for the resolution of HDV! 
Sorry but the notion that this article has enough references or inline citations is completely unsustainable. I did change the parameter from "unreferenced" ("it does not cite any references or sources") to "citations missing" ("It is missing citations or footnotes"), as that is a better fit. Jeh (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Backed up, Jeh. I was going to add a "citation needed" tag on the "Modifying VHS Cassettes for S-VHS recordings" section, when I noticed that the need for citations was global to the article. Twipley (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In this "modifying VHS Cassettes" section, I would have liked to add that i have about 100 modified VHS tapes recorded on a JVC S-VHS deck in 2002, that are still readable with a panasonic NV-HS1000 as I'm writing this in December 2014. However, this is "original research" and shouldn't probably be included in the article. Is the information about the weak coercivity leading to very fast deterioration sourced anywhere? Shouldn't it be deleted then?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2788:A4:1480:85D1:987D:5A00:6C02 (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

text: I'll come back to the article with refs over the weekend. Plenty of RS available on the subject itself. As for the homegrown mods, it's better be reduced to just one line: "Yes, it was possible, no, it didn't work". Get real, it's all in the past, who really cares? It's like spending hours describing overclocking on a 286 (WTF is a 286, mommy ...). East of Borschov 09:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Even though there is a global citation tag, specific tags are still a good idea as they serve to highlight which particular parts of the article are being challenged. 86.183.24.235 (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Needs citations" template 

message: this article is confusing. what are "-lines" that it keeps referring to? IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: confusing

message: These are extremely subjective, because the Kell Factor and EIA chart are very subjective results, as they rely solely on what different human eyes perceive, as well as how the different equipment is manufactured and processes the information.  There is no scientific evidence that S-VHS is 400 lines, because it might appear that way to someone in their sixties, but for a twenty-year old they could, quite possible and depending on their equipment be able to make out up to 950 lines.
What is scientifically known are the frequencies that the video is recorded at.  S-VHS for instance records and plays back it's luminance between 5.4 and 7.0 MHz, depending on record speed and type of tape used, while its chroma is always recorded at 629kHz, but is up converted to the NTSC and PAL standards on playback.  Compare this to Super Betamax that records between 4.4 and 5.6MHz with chroma stored at 688 kHz.  
Thus the comparisons on all the pages related to video recording should not be here, because they provide information that is not scientific and are very subjective conclusions that are misleading.24.156.246.33 (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have copied this over to talk:Betamax and answered there. Trying not to fragment the discussion... Jeh (talk) 10:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Answer To Confusing/Explanation of Comparison's To Other Formats

message: I Owned A Samsung VCR But It Can Record S-VHS Tapes?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.93.24.96 (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Owned A Samsung VCR But It Can Record S-VHS Tapes? 

message: Some day someone with too much time on their hands may want to substantiate the references to S-VHS tape in
1) Blue Thunder when Lymangood learns of the tape storage in the Blue Thunder helicopter and knows of a similar system from his time on an aircraft carrier.
2) Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy where it is used in a recording system mounted on F-14 Tomcats who are surreptitiously trailing a flight of bombers to see where they are headed.
Both of which refer to or call back to uses by the U.S. Navy.
...and place them in a Popular References section.  This assumes it's worth the effort which I am not at all sure that it is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.34.131.98 (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  depiction of military use in popular culture 

message: The article often mentions the 0.4MHz limit of the chroma signal, and how much worse that is than broadcast. With I-Q modulation, and not well described in NTSC, I has 1.2MHz and Q has 0.5MHz limit. But NTSC was designed to make it easy to decode along the blue and red axes, with only 0.5MHz resolution, and just about all TVs made do that.  (There are a few exceptions.)  So, 0.5MHz is more than 0.4MHz, but not a lot more, and I suspect one would have to look pretty carefully to see the difference. NTSC did the actual studies to find which color differences people can see with more resolution, and came up with the I-Q axes to match. As well as I know, neither PAL nor SECAM followed that. Gah4 (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  0.4MHz, and I-Q coding 

message: In the section discussing S-VHS vs. ED-Beta, there is this sentence: "In PAL markets, depth multiplexed audio was used for both formats."  Did PAL ED-Beta exist? 86.142.94.246 (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  PAL ED-Beta?