Who was the market for the JVC CR-6x00U?

[DVtyro]

30p is not good enough. If you shoot with an interlaced camcorder (30i) the end result for a prog-scan TV should be 60p. See this channel for inspiration: https://www.youtube.com/@ReelyInteresting

M/MII vs Beta/BetaSP is clearly a fail from Panasonic. With M, Panasonic chose color format that was compatible with NTSC but not with Rec. 601 unlike Sony. With MII, Panasonic switched to U-loading as Sony Umatic, while Sony switched to M-loading with BetaSP/8-mm/DV as JVC/Panasonic had all along, and made the mechanism even smaller. Sony clearly won here. I wonder why JVC did not join Sony - was it the prior allegiance to Panasonic that prevented it from doing it?

SVHS as well as Hi8 were better than BetaSP luma-wise, but worse in every other aspect. Sony advertised Umatic SP as the affordable editing platform for SVHS/Hi8, saying that Hi8 is "negative", while Umatic SP is the editing platform.

[ARC Tech-109]

Just to clarify Sony did not go M-load with the Betacam/Videos/Hi8 formats, they were still loop thread B-load. The only M-load 8MM was the TASCAM 8-channel DAT used in the professional recording arena, I have a version 4 DA-88 and it is definitely M-load. Both of my portable BetaSP decks and digital A500 machines are B-load while my VO-2860 is U-load.
The SVHS and Hi8 had a higher luma frequency response than BetaSP however their S/N ratio was not in the real world despite what the printed specs said.

[DVtyro]

Originally Posted by ARC Tech-109

Just to clarify Sony did not go M-load with the Betacam/Videos/Hi8 formats, they were still loop thread B-load.

They did on single-piece, that is, non-modular camcorders. Same for 8-mm camcorders. Same for DV camcorders.

[ARC Tech-109]

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.

[DVtyro]

Originally Posted by ARC Tech-109

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.

The BVW-3 camcorder is modular. The BVW-200/300/400 are not. See this video: https://youtu.be/vnJlZDOyEhs?si=-mc5ncG-bmsCwmnO&t=169. Notice how the cassette is moved towards the head drum. You can also read Sony's whitepaper on the BVW-200/300/400, which mentions smaller head drum, M-loading and 15 mm savings in mechanism's height. Sony used the same approach for 8-mm camcorders. Also all MiniDV camcorders I've seen use similar lacing scheme. So, by the late 1980s Sony figured how to use M-loading to save space, while Panasonic copied older U-loading in a futile attempt to keep pace with Sony.

[ARC Tech-109]

Same exact mechanism in my PVV3 docking betacam and it gets regular use even in the modern 16:9 day. I dock it with my DXC-D55 which does both 4:3 & 16:9 and while it's not hi-def deinterlaced and corrected is not bad either. Going raw never digital to my old Magnavox it looks far-far-far away better than anything digital and feeding my 54" Samsung plasma using component it still looks more natural than DV.

There was a time when Sony had this 3/4 head wrap in the consumer betamovie camcorder package and while I could be wrong I think it was also an M-wrap, they did this later with the 4MM DAT format in the mobile/portable devices like the in-dash DTX-10 and TCD-7 portable. Not the most reliable or robust but it did squeeze things down. I had the DTX-10 for over a decade in my service truck and it was the internal power supply that killed it.