Talk:Videocassette recorder

message: This article fails to point out some market dynamics and corporate politics behind it.  Someone in business school should write a paper about what happened.
Betamax failed because it was a SONY format.  All other manufacturers in the market banded together to reject it.  They rather adopt an inferior format than to let SONY had its way.  It was unthinkable how stupid the decision was because the VHS format (250 lines) has less resolution than the broadcast TV in NTSC (350 lines).  Compared to S-VHS (400 lines) or LD or DVD, the VHS is pathetic.
You can see the similar situation in the "religious" war between the MOTIF and OpenLook GUI for the X-Windows in computer.  OpenLook was clearly a better designed GUI.  Since it was supported by Sun Micros and AT&T at the time, all other computer companies went for an alternative as long as it is not from the two giants.  
~~Beta failed (in the western world) because its blank tapes could only record for five hours max, and Sony did not market the product effectively: their ads appealed to the congoscenti rather than to mass market. Beta was, however, popular in certain Asia-Pacific and Latin-American countries.~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.156.43.8 (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Market dynamics

message: Video tape should not redirect here; it existed for over a decade before the video cassette and deserves its own article. -- Infrogmation 00:12 May 6, 2003 (UTC)
:Video tape now has a separate article. — Walloon (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate article for video tape

message: I think the intro should be re-written - it's a bit silly going into detail about the different speeds of VHS tapes in this part of the article. Actually I'm not sure if that should be here at all and should be best left to VHS. This article should be by no means be specific to the VHS system - there's at least 10 other different tape formats that VCRs have used in the past couple of decades, be them consumer or professional formats.  --Zilog Jones 22:01, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Excuse me, but why was videocassette recorder redirected to video cassette recorder. videocassette is one word not two. video cassette recorder is the wrong name for the article. videocassette recorder  is right. — 82.32.57.16 15:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but what are you talking about? The title of this article is Videocassette recorder, and it does not redirect anywhere. There is no article titled Video cassette recorder. There is an article titled Video Cassette Recording, which which is about "VCR" an early domestic video format designed by Philips. The company always spelled "video cassette" as two words. Philips later abandoned the trademark, and "VCR" has become a generic term. — Walloon 00:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection issues 

message: What I would find really, extremely useful is a table showing all the different types of tapes, both PAL and NTSC, and their recording time on EP, SP, LP etc. I have had great difficulty finding such a resource on the web. From experience I now know some of them, but if anyone with more knowledge could make such a table, I for one would really appreciate it. --newsjunkie 16:02, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recording Times 

message: I have categorised the history section, and tidied it up a bit. This is a generic article, and as such the history section should provide an overview, placing the *main* developments and features in context. It was evolving into a series of mini-articles about the particular formats, and in the process becoming too detailed for its intended purpose. (Each of the formats has its own page anyway, so there is a place for such detail).
Also, I believe that it's acceptable to say "cassette" instead of "videocassette" and "VCR" instead of "videocassette recorder", so long as it's clear from the context what is meant.
Anyway, no massive changes made, and no specific criticisms against any one contributor intended; I find that there is a tendency (particularly with technical articles) for edits which may individually be fine to add up to something that is a mass of detail, and failing in its purpose as a result.
Fourohfour 13:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History rewritten 

message: I notice the caption on the stamp was changed so that we are "illustrating the stamp in question", hence making it "fair use".
I am not a lawyer, but despite the change, I'm not convinced that this would stand up to U.S. "fair use" laws. The question is whether we are genuinely describing the stamp, or using it as an illustration.
Anyhow, it's a nice enough stamp, but should it be the first (and hence "main") picture in the article, or would a good photograph of a VCR not be better? And yes, I'm well aware that whilst there are *countless* equipment shots (including, I'd guess, those of VCRs), the number of professional or near-professional standard ones is *far* lower. Fourohfour 13:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stamps from the U.S. Postal Service are not under copyright. In fact, federal copyright law prohibits the U.S. government from holding any copyrights on its own behalf. -- Walloon 16:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: U.S. Postal Service#Copyright and reproduction --jiy (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article linked to says that post-1978 stamps are under copyright and that written permission is required for their use; therefore, my original reservation about its use seems to apply after all. Fourohfour 10:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that USPS article linked as a source does not say that post-1978 stamps are under copyright. That word does not appear anywhere in the USPS article. Title 17 of the U.S. Code says about the U.S. Government and copyright: "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government…" — Walloon 13:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stamp 

message: hey, the images are rather old, would not it be better if we add some newer ones? — 87.69.22.188 09:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old Images 

message: "One feature still not seen today on VHS VCRs, or DVD players, was Beta's 'speed play', which allowed the viewing of programs at twice normal, but with clipped rather than 'chipmunk' voices."
Assuming "clipped" means "audio playback at normal pitch", I don't think this is totally true.  I've seen at least one DVD player (actually a DVD recorder) that does render audio during double-speed playback with normal pitch--it's slightly distorted, but speech is intelligible. --68.102.127.239 07:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Speed Play" 

message: Should we include
: Main article: Video 2000
and the like in each of the format sections, to emphasise that more detailed articles are available? Or would this just add more clutter than it was worth? Any thoughts? Fourohfour 21:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've done this now. Fourohfour 18:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Main article" 

message: My Akai vcr VS-G280 has fast forward speeds of 7,11 and 22x but did the standard vhs machine in general have an industry wide 1x speed at all.Atirage 16:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "speeds" are multiples of the normal playback speed. Or that's what I'd assumed- what else would they be?  Fourohfour 16:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  22X Fast Forward 

message: This was a very interesting article but, it fails to mention how the VCR actually works! 156.34.212.181 14:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How does it work? 

message: ...television sets of the time were rather poor in quality - limited to barely 3 megahertz bandwidth and 240 horizontal resolution...
This sounds like NTSC; was beta quality similar to VHS when viewed on PAL or SECAM?
Apepper 13:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV quality 

message: I think all VCR have video AGC which is the attack vector of Macrovision.  The difference is whether VAGC is done at the horizontal or vertical rate.  If it's done at the horizontal rate Macrovision can only affect one line but at the vertical rate it can affect one field.  I have seen VCR modifications that change the R-C time constant in the VAGC circuit by changing a resistor or capacitor to minimize the effect of Macrovision and they work, but only in older machines with discrete components.  An EE friend of mine says Sony changed VAGC in Beta machines from horizontal to vertical right at the time when Macrovision was introduced.  Collusion?  Any comments?  Also, I would suggest changing "unwatchable" to "annoying" or "very annoying."  Unwatchable is a videophile term.  If everyone was a videophile we would never have had Beta or VHS in the first place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stclifford (talk • contribs) 07:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: fedswvvfsn gfdrmvficmfhmsio snyuv.akcios cgas nfrsmvio òpvia cnjcinvgifndisbuc 79.17.72.234 (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy Protection 

message: : Another important drawback of DVD recording is that one single layer DVD is limited to around 120 minutes of recording if the quality is not to be significantly reduced, while VHS tapes are readily available up to 210 minutes (standard play) in NTSC areas and even 300 minutes in PAL areas. 
i admit it's been a long time since i used VHS, but i remember the recording quality being much lower than either broadcast (PAL) TV or DVD.  in fact, if one were to record VHS-quality video on a DVD, i suspect a lot more than 300 minutes of video could be stored.  this sentence should probably be reworder to reflect that, but i'm not sure what a good phrasing would be. kate.
:I would also dispute those recording times.  I have never seen a VHS tape that could record more than 160 minutes of NTSC in stores.  I did recently find a T200 tape on Amazon, but it costs $30!  I wouldn't call that "readily available", when T120 tapes cost ~$2. Were they once less expensive? — Ken g6 (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  a not so important drawback 

message: The lead claims that VTR refers only to open-reel video tape recorders. It is my understanding that a VCR is a type of VTR. I'm sure that different people have different opinions about this. If we're going to belabor this point, it needs to be supported by some quality citations. --Kvng (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "VTR" is widely used to refer to any device that records videotape, open or closed reel, so you folks are correct. A VCR is a VTR; the only difference is that in a VCR the tape must be in a cassette. I've removed the paragraph. NTox · talk 06:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  VCR is a VTR 

message: The usage of  is under discussion, see Talk:VCR (disambiguation) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 11:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "{{noredirect|VCR}}"

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Videocassette recorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090907081817/http://sony.net:80/Fun/SH/1-11/h1.html to http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-11/h1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I originally wrote this for the talk page in the VHS article but I though the information might be relevant here.
That section of the article currently deals primarily with the United States and parts of it might be outdated. I am under the impression that no video cassette recorder has a digital tuner so they would not be able to record channels other than what the viewer is watching after digital television transitions. I got that idea from the media and retailers in the United Kingdom in 2007 which encouraged the idea to promote sales of digital equipment ahead of digital switchover. According to one poll many Britons expected to get rid of their video recorders after the switchover. This might also be because the major studios stopped releasing films on VHS in the late 2000s and most viewers already had DVD players by then. However services such as timeshift channels and online catchup services such as BBC iPlayer also played their part in the decline in the use of recording equipment. As for immigrants using VHS to source content from their home countries, that is only possible for content that was ever released on VHS. I think this is the case throughout the developed world and the digital television transition in the United States was completed in September 2015. Tk420 (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  21st century use 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Videocassette recorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130310085705/http://www.porterelectronics.com:80/servlet/the-2975/Sanyo-VWM-dsh-950-4-Head/Detail to http://www.porterelectronics.com/servlet/the-2975/Sanyo-VWM-dsh-950-4-Head/Detail
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130310085705/http://www.porterelectronics.com:80/servlet/the-2975/Sanyo-VWM-dsh-950-4-Head/Detail to http://www.porterelectronics.com/servlet/the-2975/Sanyo-VWM-dsh-950-4-Head/Detail
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: At the bottom of the section "First home video recorders", this article says "In 1967, videocassettes of movies became available for home use.", citing Broadcasting & Cable. This appears to be incorrect:
* The next paragraph of this article says the first videocassette format was introduced in September 1971. It is ... unlikely ... that a product was offered four years before it was playable.
* The B&C article at http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/news-articles/timeline-fun-facts/112619, under 1967, says "Prerecorded movies on video are sold for home use." (Entire text; no mention of cassettes.)
* Cartrivision says "Cartrivision is an analog videocassette format introduced in 1972, and the first format to offer feature films for consumer rental" (with an online cite).
I've put the note/cite about prerecorded movies in Video tape recorder, in the middle of the History section where it fit chronologically. I've also changed the text and cite here. Both are plain links; anyone who wants to pretty them up (or make a local copy of the cited pages?) feel free.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.73.78 (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movies on videocassettes? 

message: Can somebody please source it? 5.18.244.22 (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  No yearly/cumulative VCR sales data? 

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) 19:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited material in need of citations