Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.8 $; site ccvaxa
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece
From: preece@ccvaxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.video
Subject: Re: VHS vs Beta (#'s please!)
Message-ID: <12000003@ccvaxa>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 15:49:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccvaxa.12000003
Posted: Tue Aug 27 15:49:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Aug-85 07:48:11 EDT
References: <97300002@hplabs>
Lines: 28
Nf-ID: #R:hplabs:97300002:ccvaxa:12000003:000:1380
Nf-From: ccvaxa.UUCP!preece    Aug 27 14:49:00 1985


> The small size of the 8mm package severely limits the amount of tape
> that can go into the cassette.  It'll do GREAT for portable operations,
> but people will still want larger formats for recordings made at home,
> particularly typical time-shifting of commercial broadcasts and movies.

> --Lauren--
----------
The shorter tape is better for most purposes, assuming that the cost
per minute of taping is equivalent.  If I were using a VCR for time
shifting I would prefer to put one item on each tape, thereby avoiding
storage fragmentation and rewind waiting.  Similarly for keeping copies
of movies or tv shows.  The only advantage to the longer lengths
are (1) cost per minute (I don't really know what the comparison is
between VHS, Beta, and 8mm, but in a given format the longer tape
should be cheaper per minute because of reduced packaging), and
(2) usefulness during extended absences.  Clearly, if you want to
tape Dr. Who every night for two weeks, a two hour tape is too short.
On the other hand, a two hour tape should just about handle one
complete Dr. Who sequence...  I do think that two hours is a little
too short, though, because quite a few movies do run over that time;
if two hours is really the most they can cram into the package, a lot
of movies will need two tapes, which is a drag.

-- 
scott preece
gould/csd - urbana
ihnp4!uiucdcs!ccvaxa!preece