Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 11/08/85; site unccvax.unccvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!unccvax!dsi
From: dsi@unccvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.video
Subject: Re: Question: Single frame recording
Message-ID: <449@unccvax.unccvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Feb-86 09:54:10 EST
Article-I.D.: unccvax.449
Posted: Wed Feb 26 09:54:10 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Mar-86 00:45:14 EST
References: <286@bambi.UUCP> <335@ihlpf.UUCP> <625@nbires.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: UNC-Charlotte
Lines: 24


    The only way you can do this reasonably is with a Sony BVH-2500 C-type
VTR.  Instead of going to the $117,000 (give or take a few thousand) expense,
why not try FILM instead?

     The BVH-2500 (we have one) allows you not only to record still frames
in sequence, but to record a still field at any arbitrary location on the
videotape which has been pre-SMPTE encoded.  Even this recorder does not have
the positioning accuracy in its transport to seek to a given track on the
tape; it relies on being able to move the recording and playback head in
the headwheel to find the track in question.  U-Matic and worse recorders
don't have enough transport accuracy to even allow still frame reproduction
without a time base corrector. (The Sony requires a TBC as well but the
raw video (demod) out is exceptionally free from subcarrier frequency
modulation, etc.)

      Everyone should have a BVH-2500 in their living rooms, right beside
the their Mirage, Paintbox, and Ampex ADO.

This is one of those times that film probably is more reasonable than 
using tape...

David Anthony
DataSpan, Inc