|
Can't speak for those as I don't have anything from that line, I have the BVW-35 & BVW-50 portables, PVV3 which you pointed out would be considered modular and my desktop machines that are DVW-A500's and a BVW-22 for Betacam. I think M-load was the de-facto for DVCAM/DVCPRO and the unified Betacam UWV and BVW-D ENG cameras but I seem to remember a tensioner arm pulling the tape over to the corner on the take-up reel side in lieu of the threader ring but have not done much with these camera packages.
The threading methods all had their advantages between them and were engineered for the application and we all know how hard-headed Sony can be when it comes to this. Even just comparing the complexities of the U-Matic loading between Sony and JVC can become a hot debate topic in itself. My VO-2860 for example has three distinct layers with tape guide pins to the metal threader ring that catch on the stops as it loads the tape, JVC used a glass infused nylon ring with the guide pins pressed into molded bosses plus I think there was a spring loaded flip-up guide or two along the way that would sometimes catch and break the ring. Easier and simpler to replace than the Sony who I think used the extra complexity to justify the pricetag... don't know for sure. What I do know is how to replace the JVC thread ring in my sleep on the CR-4700/4900 portables and the 8250 editors and the parts were far cheaper. The CR-6060 of the topic used a metal ring with fixed pins and fold-out arm on the supply reel side that would sometimes get caught up from slop & wear but despite being from a lower "caste" in the U-Matic family I feel it was better than the Sony layout in that the ACS stack and capstan were easier to access for cleaning and they had a simpler mechanism overall.
I suppose we could debate this as well but I won't instead leaving room for your input as well as from other members.
|