|
|
|
#1
03-15-2021, 06:31 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
V.H.S. and Betamax versus 8 m.m.
Hello. People (especially amatoures) started to preffer videotape, especially after the introduction of more affordable format cameras using formats like V.H.S. and Betamax. But how was the qualty compared to 8 m.m. films?
Of, I forgot to mention Video 8 and Hi. 8. 
|
|
#3
03-16-2021, 07:48 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Tom C. Zenith: The quality stays in EVEN after the name falls off! What I want. --> http://www.videokarma.org/showpost.p...62&postcount=4
|
|
#4
03-16-2021, 09:54 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I have a collection of 8mm films, the quality is kind of crap. I'd be surprised if even an early camcorder could not do a better job.
I also had a camcorder that did Video8 and Digital8. I don't think I ever tried a side-by-side comparison. It always just seemed to be good.
|
|
#5
03-16-2021, 11:17 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
16mm film and full bandwidth standard definition analog TV were roughly the same quality.
VHS tape had less resolution than 16mm film, but better quality than 8mm film. 16 mm film shown on full bandwidth standard definition TV resulted in some reduction of overall sharpness, since each were contributing about the same amount of degradation. 35mm movie film, even fairly grainy high speed film, was pretty much transparent to full bandwidth analog TV, but the grain was quite visible when televised in high definition. This resulted in CBS in particular, and others, changing their production standards for scripted programs to be filmed on slower, fine grain 35mm stock. This in itself raised the production costs because more light was required. In 1951, Otto Schade of RCA won the first SMPTE Sarnoff gold medal for his studies of the comparitive quality of film and TV. He developed the concept of trading resolution (film's forte) vs. sharpness (TV's forte), with the use of the JND or Just Noticeable Difference, and its calculation as the squared area under the modulation transfer function (MTF) curve. The MTF curve is a graph of the detail contrast of sine waves vs. frequency. Schade's work indicates how the perceived sharpness of analog TV can be roughly equal to or somewhat greater than 16 mm film, although the film has greater resolution. Schade's work correctly predicts the visual sharpness comparison between VHS and full bandwidth analog TV or DVDs, as well as the comparisons to various film formats. It also predicts the very sharp appearance of Kodachrome compared to other still films available at the time.
|
| Audiokarma |
|
#6
03-17-2021, 09:36 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well the thing about any movie film is that it really depends on the film quality, the recording camera, and the operator. Not that analog video differs much, but I think more factors are handled by preset adjustments, rather than the operator. At least for a camcorder, anyway.
|
|
#7
09-20-2022, 08:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Super 8 can look better than DVD, some say it can look like HD. I saw some spectacular looking Super8, but some crappy looking as well. VHS is more stable in quality, but you can see that it is analog consumer-grade video with its interlacing, its jitter, its spurious noise, its murky low-res color, ugh. https://youtu.be/3Nh9BTMWj9M Video8 was better than VHS, about 275 lines. Hi8 and SVHS are even better, but chroma resolution is unchanged, it is pitifully low. Last edited by DVtyro; 09-20-2022 at 08:32 PM.
|
|
#9
10-14-2022, 01:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Experience means nothing  I have an SVHS camcorder that makes images not worth of regular VHS, I suppose the sensor is too low-res. But plays fine.
|
|
#10
10-16-2022, 12:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Video-8, standard VHS, Betamax and U-Matic are all about 240 to 250 horizontal lines of luma resolution and around 30 lines for color in the real world depending on how good the bandpass filters are and the luma carrier. During my early days I recall 16mm was about as good as 3/4 inch tape with a good photographer while 8mm film paralleled a single tube camera recording 6-hr VHS.
|
| Audiokarma |
|
#12
10-24-2022, 12:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I mean, this was one of my questions in another thread to get a straight answer whether Umatic was as bad as VHS/Beta/8mm as a first generation recording. I understand that pro versions of Umatic have all kinds of pro features like Y/C connector, genlock, timecode, 1-frame accuracy, remote console, etc, but I wondered whether the sheer video quality of the first generation is kind of the same as VHS/Beta, because this is what numbers show and this is what I see on old Umatic videos. No, Umatic does not look as good as 16mm if only because of pitiful color resolution. As for 8-mm comparable to VHS, here is a 1985 Super 8 processed on a DIY film scanner (YouTube video), I don't think you can get similar color resolution from VHS. There are even better examples of how Super 8 can look, but I don't want to post samples shot on a modern camera with precision electronic control and good mechanics.
|
|
#13
10-24-2022, 12:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#14
10-24-2022, 12:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Color film inherently has color resolution equal to luminance resolution since the three dye layers (CMY) all have the same resolution. Conversion to digital typically uses full resolution luma and half-by-half resolution chroma (called 4:2:0), which is hardly ever noticeable as degraded.
As DVtyro stated, analog color systems reduce the horizontal chroma resolution drastically. And VHS looks much worse than full bandwidth analog, in both luminance and chrominance resolution. I would note that early digital satellite transmission (especially the early "MPEG 1.5" of General Instrument) often looked worse than full bandwidth analog transimission. This was due to highly visible artifact levels, mainly due to the unrefined encoding algorithms, not the ultimate capability of the digital coding. Early coders were prone to things like I frame pulsing, "mosquito noise," and noticeable sudden decrease in quality immediately after scene changes. These were all alleviated by better codec algorithms that had better buffer management to allocate data among frames and better allocation of data between pixel data and auxiliary data such as motion vectors. Last edited by old_tv_nut; 10-24-2022 at 12:24 PM.
|
|
#15
11-05-2022, 09:39 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
| Audiokarma |
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
