Yeah I never watched any channels above Ch.13 back in the day, Super UHF or regular UHF or whatever. Just watched ch2-13 in VHF. Never had a Y/C TV until the DVD days and they wanted the red green blue connectors that we never caught up with. Some unpronounceable ycrcb or whatnot. Progressive tv or something. My folks only had the old fashioned conservative hardware. 🤣
1:47 This is an important nuance. Super-VHS displays 400 lines of horizontal resolution-which makes the picture look sharper than VHS-regardless if you use an Composite (RCA) cable or an S-Video cable. But because an S-Video cable also makes the picture look sharper (for different reasons) and because it has an "S" in its name, people back then (and now) conflate S-VHS and S-Video. I guess that's part of the reason the narrator calls it the Y/C cable. Anyway, thanks for posting this in 4K 60fps.
Commercial is of course money based. But again, we won't see such high quality commerical ads. anymore. Not just the ideas it delivers, but also the music it used for decorates. So fucking elegant and everything is so optimum and premium in 80s and 90s. Analog is just superb in human history.
I wish I lived in the dimension where recordable Laserdisc took over. I can’t remember if it was Techmoan or another similar channel but there was a beige caddy with a Purple disc inside and it seems that such a beast did exist near the end … for a LOT of money. Industrial use not home market. Oh well. I love skipping to wherever I please and doing it instantly and no forced watching of “coming soon” advertisements which trying to skip gives me a function “not allowed”. Thanks, DVD.
Babylon 5 CGI used recordable laserdiscs. The Commodore Amiga would generate a frame & then record to laserdisc. Eventually a full scene was created for playback
@@nickpalance3622 That would have been great. There'd be homebrew games for Panasonic's LaserActive system. Indie bands could release videos on laserdisc like they do albums on vinyl.
I agree, the difference as displayed here absolutely isn't big enough to justify the significantly higher cost of S-VHS decks and tapes at the time, but it may look better in real life on a CRT screen. YT's compression does terrible things to analogue-sourced SD video, and of course SD has to be upscaled to either 720 or 1080 in order for YT to display it as 50/60fps, so blowing it up to HD size causes its own reduction in perceived sharpness.
The source footage (Betacam SP or MII?) and the way they split the screen hides a lot of the improvement as you're comparing different parts of the scene. The difference is visible in things like fences (compared the left and right gates at 6:00), but for the most part much of the picture energy is at lower frequencies that can be resolved fairly well even by VHS. I think they also simulated the VHS half by simply passing the luma component through a lowpass filter, given that both halves match perfectly in color and brightness. Finally, it's obvious the capture has been done from a very competent later generation S-VHS deck that has time base correction (TBC) and noise reduction, so it makes everything look cleaner than it usually would at the time. Sync jitter and noise impaired the picture on both S-VHS and VHS quite a lot.
The SMPTE graph shows Super VHS is much cleaner than VHS. That was the main difference: Almost twice the detail in black & white (the overlaid color remained the same)
Even at 4k, i just dont see enough of a picture quality difference that would have made me spend the extra capital for S-VHS, and i think its down to the fact that theres no increase in chroma resolution. Only luma. The demo does a great job of not showing that by showing things of high contrast and not lots of colors.
It may well have been more noticeable when actually connected to a TV(maybe moreso a CRT as that's what it was designed for, even DVD looks better on CRTs), and of course the capture here is being further altered and degraded by youtube.
Where do you find these things?? I want it, I want it, I want it! Nice to see that this appears to be a legit comparison of the strengths of S-VHS & weaknesses of VHS, instead of the typical advertising nonsense where one side is noisy and desaturated and the other side is crystal-clear. Of course, the introduction claiming better-than-broadcast quality fails to mention that this only applies to luma, while the chroma is basically as bad as VHS.
I wish SuperVHS was the HiFi only version that was available rather than it being an expensive pro version that most people couldn't afford. I only had one friend with SuperVHS and thought he was rich. Apart from that we had them in our schools for Video Editing classes.
S-VHS, as implemented, used the audio same system as VHS, that is, a linear audio track and a Hi-Fi analog "depth-multiplexed" track, so no. S-VHS specs did define an optional PCM track, similar to CD/LD, could be recorded to tapes; however, implementations were so rare that adding DTS/Dolby Digital, while technically possible, was something that never hit the consumer/retail space for certain.
Hmmm, this brings back painful memories of my HR-S4700. I actually managed to replace those shitty SMD caps that killed the HiFi sound. A great S-VHS deck, but only when it works... :^\
S-VHS pretty much had the quality of laser disc, the improvement is actually bigger than you see in this demo. For home recordings, too. Pity the blank S-VHS tapes were so expensive (You could record S-VHS onto a normal VHS tape using a simple trick, but the tapes would deteriorate faster).
I don't think there's any reason the tape would deteriorate faster, it just couldn't store quite as high quality & distorted chroma(from memory) a bit. Later models supported using normal VHS tapes directly, as S-VHS ET, which also corrected for using normal VHS tapes.
Now I understand why SVHS didn’t take over. It’s not that great of a resolution bump, and I guess it would be even more difficult to tell the difference between both formats on the (normal at the time) 19 inch CRT television sets. And there was the fact that you needed to buy a new VCR for that tiny improvement. For consumers, VHS was good enough.
A Question are: Why does Sony make her Professional S-VHS Recorder so, that was an U-Matic Recorder or a Super Beta HiFi Recorder at this Year 1988? The SL-HF950 ES a Super Beta HiFi Recorder from Sony, has the identical Data on with Pro S Tapes....
I'm not sure what you're asking but, for the consumer market Sony did make an improved BetaMax videorecorder (ED Beta). S-VHS was of course a JVC product and not made by Sony. But if you mean why Sony didn't just sell their professional video system (Betacam SP) to the consumer market, the answer is that this format used a much higher tape speed to get the superior image quality. The Betacam videorecorders also used multiple videoheads and more advanced electronics, and were therefor much more expensive. So it wasn't a suitable format for the consumer market. People wanted an affordable video systems with long recording time on a tape. That's what they tried to achieve with the Betamax / ED Beta formats.
@@MacXpert74 Look in a S-VHS Recorder from Sony and of course, an Betacam SP. You can see the old Mechanisme from the the prof. U-Matic System....Yes S-VHS was from JVC, but Sony goes in the prof. S-VHS an other Way. Consumer Market was not the Way from Sony about 1988 and the next Ten Years....She has other Recorded Systems e.g. DVD and at next Bluray on Disc, not on Tape. Tape was with Betamax SP, Betamax Digital and Digital Video (DV-CAM) at Prof. Camera Systems for Broadcast. Money is the Word....
@@Adidasfighter2006Sony made products for both the consumer market and the professional market back in 1988 just the same as today. And yes after analog video came digital products, but that's another story and doesn't have anything to do with the 80s analog video formats discussed here. I'm still not sure what your argument actually is. But never mind!
Essas imagens foram captadas em Betacam e postas em algum editor que simulou como se fosse numa fita VHS e numa S-VHS para o efeito de comparação. E é justamente por isso que a diferença é mínima e se torna algo enganador. O certo seria pegar uma filmadora que gravasse nos dois formatos e fazer duas gravações com as fitas diferentes nos mesmo locais, porém não exatamente iguais. Eu fiz isso e posso afirmar que a diferença entre as imagens era muito maior.
The difference between VHS and S-VHS was much more noticeable on televisions at the time. Just like in the 80s/90s, the difference between the use of SCART and S-Video cable was also immediately noticeable. Today, when I transfer to digital, the difference between VHS and S-VHS (recorded under the same conditions) is small. At the time, the prices for S-VHS recorders and tapes were very high/inaccessible, which contributed to their failure and not the lack of quality.
" Today, when I transfer to digital, the difference between VHS and S-VHS (recorded under the same conditions) is small." I disagree. SVHS and SVHS ET recordings have noticeably better resolution and color rendition. I'm an idiot for not taking full advantage of my SVHS VCRs back in the day!
I can see the difference between the two clearly on my LCD android screen. I wonder what it would look like on its intended display type of a CRT. Cathode ray tube electric gun displays can still do something even an OLED can't which is project without barriers. An LCD/Plasma/OLED has to illustrate tiny grids. If only they could've been combined into a hybrid... ):
@@electrictroy2010 No, I have been playing with VHS a lot recently. I have four VCRs. Even with a brand new tape on a good VCR, the quality is pretty bad. I do remember DVD looking amazing when I first watched it, so it makes sense when I think about it.
@@electrictroy2010 In terms of Luma (b&w) resolution, yes, but thats literally half the picture. In terms of Chroma (colour), svhs is the same as vhs i.e. poor 30 lines resolution compared to 120 lines chroma resolution in Laserdisc.
I have both NTSC and PAL VCRs I even have a multisystem Aiwa HV-MX100, I can assure you VHS NTSC looks much better than PAL VHS. And the reason for this is simple, despite PAL being obviously overall better than NTSC because of the higher resolution, in the case of VHS it's actually far worse, the drum speed for NTSC is 1800 rpm (30 rotations per second) while PAL drum speed is 1500 rpm (25 rotations per second) so the linear head to tape speed is lower for PAL meaning the bandwidth is reduced significantly. Think of it as a reel to reel tape, the higher the speed the higher the fidelity. It may look like it's not much, but my NTSC tapes recorded on EP speed looks better than my PAL tapes recorded on SP. And also PAL has more colour bleed. NTSC looks much sharper on VHS.
@@t0nito I have to disagree with you there. I have both also and my PAL tapes look a lot better than my NTSC. I suppose it comes down to what TV you are watching it on. NTSC is softer while PAL is sharper.
@@Kit_Bear don't know how that's possible from a technical standpoint, PAL VHS has 230 TVL while NTSC has 240 TVL, so NTSC has slightly higher horizontal resolution, I notice the difference on many TVs and VCRs, it's the same when comparing on my AIWA HV-MX100 VCR with my Sony KV-29LS35E TV (both multisystem sets)
I've been collecting SVHS machines for 15 years and have owned virtually every JVC SVHS consumer mechanism. While the first gen (HRS7000U/8000U/5000U/5500U/10000U) mechanism was built rather rugged and was loaded with features, it's PQ is poor in comparison to later JVC SVHS decks. Granted, the build quality of later JVC SVHS decks was poor, but the PQ was amazing. (e.g. HRS9400U, HRS9500U through HRS9911U). The last generation SVHS decks had very sluggish loading mechanisms.
@@fredjones5719 Your best bet would be the JVC HR S9911U. It uses the same mechanism as the 9500 - 9900, but without the prone to failure Dynamic Drum gears.
Why didn’t movie studios push for a-vhs theatrical releases? ThecS-VHS standard should have replaced VHS completely by the early/mid 90’s, but it didn’t.
Because on top of all the various features Laserdisc had at that point, its luma resolution is comparable to S-VHS, and its chroma res is still like double that of the tape. I think the only thing going for S-VHS in comparison is S-Video, which requires a whole new TV. People who were that in need of better picture quality probably would’ve already had a Laserdisc player for their favorite movies and stuff
Tinha tudo pra dar certo esse formato SVHS,mas já foi lançado tarde... Se tivesse lançado logo no começo da década de 80, teria substituído o VHS padrão e "enterraria" de vez o Betamax
У нас в России не был распространён формат svhs из за отставания от Америки или Японии, поэтому сразу после vhs перешли на dvd диски (это примерно 2002 год начали появлятся у богатых слоёв населения) а до dvd формата мы смотрели фильмы на video cd и cd сисках в формате .avi Я только недавно стал узнавать столько нового, что прошло мимо меня. Нормальные телевизоры, которые могли показывать в цвете с видеомагнитофонов или с игровых присиавок могли себе позволить только в начале 2000х годов а до этого смотрели черно белое изображение
У них тоже svhs не сильно зашел, так как слишком поздно появился, не смог вытеснить с рынка обычные vhs магнитофоны из-за высокой цены (а потом конкуренция с dvd добавилась), и давило количество обычных vhs видаков, которые у людей уже дома стояли - не было достаточно svhs кассет в прокате, и что было хуже всего - svhs кассета в обычном vhs видаке в лучшем случае воспроизводилась с огромным количеством тянущихся черных и белых полос по картинке, а чаще всего вообще никак. У кого svhs видак был, те чаще всего писали в обычном vhs режиме, дабы кассету можно было дать погонять, писали чаще всего с аналогового тв сигнала с соответствующим качеством, т.е. большого смысла такой видак покупать не было. К закату эпохи магнитной ленты (2000е годы) на свет родили vhs видаки, которые худо-бедно могли svhs кассеты крутить, но не писать. Единственное исключение - это видеокамеры, они чаще всего уже svhs были, что доставляло много счастья потом при оцифровке.
From a nostalgic framework: S-VHS looks too good to be nostalgic. It looks like when you digitally zoom-in with a modern phone with AI sharpening. For watching/recording films back then though, S-VHS hands down.
Yeah... when they worked. They used shitty SMD caps from the bad batches that were produced in the early 90s. I have a JVC Umatic that's 10 years older, and it works perfectly. Built like a tank. Like everyone else, JVC had to cut costs as time went by...
@@electrictroy2010 We're comparing the _reliability_ of 80s vs. 90s JVCs, regardless of format. Build quality really took a dive in the 90s, at least on the consumer models. But TBH that can be said of most manufacturers.
The actual comparison footage starts at 2:52...but I'd highly recommend sticking around for Len Feldman's slightly awkward commentary about Super VHF.
Yeah I never watched any channels above Ch.13 back in the day, Super UHF or regular UHF or whatever. Just watched ch2-13 in VHF. Never had a Y/C TV until the DVD days and they wanted the red green blue connectors that we never caught up with. Some unpronounceable ycrcb or whatnot. Progressive tv or something. My folks only had the old fashioned conservative hardware. 🤣
I came to the comments section just see if anyone mentioned the VHF part
1:47 This is an important nuance. Super-VHS displays 400 lines of horizontal resolution-which makes the picture look sharper than VHS-regardless if you use an Composite (RCA) cable or an S-Video cable. But because an S-Video cable also makes the picture look sharper (for different reasons) and because it has an "S" in its name, people back then (and now) conflate S-VHS and S-Video. I guess that's part of the reason the narrator calls it the Y/C cable. Anyway, thanks for posting this in 4K 60fps.
Commercial is of course money based. But again, we won't see such high quality commerical ads. anymore. Not just the ideas it delivers, but also the music it used for decorates. So fucking elegant and everything is so optimum and premium in 80s and 90s. Analog is just superb in human history.
The background music is so good…
1:44 SUPER VHF :P
The audio quality wasn't quite up to S-VHS standard. Or Mr. Feldman used to voice Daffy Duck! x^D
I can’t believe they left that in xD
I want to live in the dimention where SVHS took over due to better chroma resolution and VHS player compatibility.
Oh and no war, hunger, etc.
Maybe Samsung's augmented VHS format would have been the format in your alternate dimension: patents.google.com/patent/US5606423
I wish I lived in the dimension where recordable Laserdisc took over. I can’t remember if it was Techmoan or another similar channel but there was a beige caddy with a Purple disc inside and it seems that such a beast did exist near the end … for a LOT of money. Industrial use not home market. Oh well. I love skipping to wherever I please and doing it instantly and no forced watching of “coming soon” advertisements which trying to skip gives me a function “not allowed”. Thanks, DVD.
Babylon 5 CGI used recordable laserdiscs. The Commodore Amiga would generate a frame & then record to laserdisc. Eventually a full scene was created for playback
Of course Super VHS was recordable & had quality equal to laserdisc (both 5 megahertz bandwidth). JVC did that on purpose
@@nickpalance3622 That would have been great. There'd be homebrew games for Panasonic's LaserActive system. Indie bands could release videos on laserdisc like they do albums on vinyl.
Maybe TH-cam compression is to blame but I see very little difference. Certainly not enough to get me to upgrade my hypothetical VHS deck.
Are you watching on a phone capable of 400 or more “horizontal lines”? Maybe your phone needs a YC connector despite what the host says. 🤷♂️
I agree, the difference as displayed here absolutely isn't big enough to justify the significantly higher cost of S-VHS decks and tapes at the time, but it may look better in real life on a CRT screen.
YT's compression does terrible things to analogue-sourced SD video, and of course SD has to be upscaled to either 720 or 1080 in order for YT to display it as 50/60fps, so blowing it up to HD size causes its own reduction in perceived sharpness.
The source footage (Betacam SP or MII?) and the way they split the screen hides a lot of the improvement as you're comparing different parts of the scene.
The difference is visible in things like fences (compared the left and right gates at 6:00), but for the most part much of the picture energy is at lower frequencies that can be resolved fairly well even by VHS. I think they also simulated the VHS half by simply passing the luma component through a lowpass filter, given that both halves match perfectly in color and brightness.
Finally, it's obvious the capture has been done from a very competent later generation S-VHS deck that has time base correction (TBC) and noise reduction, so it makes everything look cleaner than it usually would at the time. Sync jitter and noise impaired the picture on both S-VHS and VHS quite a lot.
i see super vhs has more grid image
The SMPTE graph shows Super VHS is much cleaner than VHS. That was the main difference: Almost twice the detail in black & white (the overlaid color remained the same)
Even at 4k, i just dont see enough of a picture quality difference that would have made me spend the extra capital for S-VHS, and i think its down to the fact that theres no increase in chroma resolution. Only luma. The demo does a great job of not showing that by showing things of high contrast and not lots of colors.
It may well have been more noticeable when actually connected to a TV(maybe moreso a CRT as that's what it was designed for, even DVD looks better on CRTs), and of course the capture here is being further altered and degraded by youtube.
The difference is that S-VHS is watchable. Pretty sure my vision was permanently impaired from watching regular VHS as a kid.
VHS was really crappy in picture quality. Especially rental tapes.
Guardo il VHS da sempre,ho la vista perfetta,strano!
This was intended to be a higher end version of a vhs where people can see the picture in high quality.
you dont say...
Darn I thought it was supposed to be a lower end version of laserdisc
Where do you find these things?? I want it, I want it, I want it!
Nice to see that this appears to be a legit comparison of the strengths of S-VHS & weaknesses of VHS, instead of the typical advertising nonsense where one side is noisy and desaturated and the other side is crystal-clear.
Of course, the introduction claiming better-than-broadcast quality fails to mention that this only applies to luma, while the chroma is basically as bad as VHS.
NTSC chroma wasn’t much better than Betamax/VHS chroma bandwidth. About 1 MHz versus 0.4 mhz.
That slow tape speed really gave the chroma bandwidth no chance for improvement. It really is amazing what they accomplished given the limitations.
@@electrictroy2010That’s still like double VHS
1:43 you mean super VH...S, not F, right?
4:46 Ohoho, you sweet talker!
Anyone here listen just for the music? They dont make music like this anymore it seems.
I wish SuperVHS was the HiFi only version that was available rather than it being an expensive pro version that most people couldn't afford. I only had one friend with SuperVHS and thought he was rich. Apart from that we had them in our schools for Video Editing classes.
I’ve never seen video for Len Feldman. I read his columns in Audio magazine.
TIL that I can describe the way I see things with myopia as a standard VHS definition.
Then congrats, your eyes are way better than mine. I see stuff in warped Super-8 that's been in the projector too long. x^D
Picture looks like Laserdisc. Did 'S-Vhs' (vhf?) tapes carry uncompressed Dolby audio like ld?
S-VHS, as implemented, used the audio same system as VHS, that is, a linear audio track and a Hi-Fi analog "depth-multiplexed" track, so no.
S-VHS specs did define an optional PCM track, similar to CD/LD, could be recorded to tapes; however, implementations were so rare that adding DTS/Dolby Digital, while technically possible, was something that never hit the consumer/retail space for certain.
Man I’m struggling to find a place to buy some svhs movies….can’t seem to find any on eBay or online..is there any place you can recommend?
Hmmm, this brings back painful memories of my HR-S4700. I actually managed to replace those shitty SMD caps that killed the HiFi sound. A great S-VHS deck, but only when it works... :^\
what is the hardware chain to capture this? how are you capturing audio?
Фильмы на SVHS кассетах не издавались? На DVHS были издания с маркировкой D-Theater
у нас не издавались, в штатах в небольших количествах
S-VHS pretty much had the quality of laser disc, the improvement is actually bigger than you see in this demo. For home recordings, too. Pity the blank S-VHS tapes were so expensive (You could record S-VHS onto a normal VHS tape using a simple trick, but the tapes would deteriorate faster).
I don't think there's any reason the tape would deteriorate faster, it just couldn't store quite as high quality & distorted chroma(from memory) a bit. Later models supported using normal VHS tapes directly, as S-VHS ET, which also corrected for using normal VHS tapes.
I love the music in this video
What capture card you used?
Now I understand why SVHS didn’t take over. It’s not that great of a resolution bump, and I guess it would be even more difficult to tell the difference between both formats on the (normal at the time) 19 inch CRT television sets. And there was the fact that you needed to buy a new VCR for that tiny improvement. For consumers, VHS was good enough.
I found a S-VHS VCR yesterday only for 5 dollars in a thrift store
A Question are: Why does Sony make her Professional S-VHS Recorder so, that was an U-Matic Recorder or a Super Beta HiFi Recorder at this Year 1988? The SL-HF950 ES a Super Beta HiFi Recorder from Sony, has the identical Data on with Pro S Tapes....
I'm not sure what you're asking but, for the consumer market Sony did make an improved BetaMax videorecorder (ED Beta). S-VHS was of course a JVC product and not made by Sony. But if you mean why Sony didn't just sell their professional video system (Betacam SP) to the consumer market, the answer is that this format used a much higher tape speed to get the superior image quality. The Betacam videorecorders also used multiple videoheads and more advanced electronics, and were therefor much more expensive. So it wasn't a suitable format for the consumer market. People wanted an affordable video systems with long recording time on a tape. That's what they tried to achieve with the Betamax / ED Beta formats.
@@MacXpert74 Look in a S-VHS Recorder from Sony and of course, an Betacam SP. You can see the old Mechanisme from the the prof. U-Matic System....Yes S-VHS was from JVC, but Sony goes in the prof. S-VHS an other Way. Consumer Market was not the Way from Sony about 1988 and the next Ten Years....She has other Recorded Systems e.g. DVD and at next Bluray on Disc, not on Tape. Tape was with Betamax SP, Betamax Digital and Digital Video (DV-CAM) at Prof. Camera Systems for Broadcast. Money is the Word....
@@Adidasfighter2006Sony made products for both the consumer market and the professional market back in 1988 just the same as today. And yes after analog video came digital products, but that's another story and doesn't have anything to do with the 80s analog video formats discussed here. I'm still not sure what your argument actually is. But never mind!
4:12 is actually the Same quality as a Super VHS and VHS
Essas imagens foram captadas em Betacam e postas em algum editor que simulou como se fosse numa fita VHS e numa S-VHS para o efeito de comparação. E é justamente por isso que a diferença é mínima e se torna algo enganador. O certo seria pegar uma filmadora que gravasse nos dois formatos e fazer duas gravações com as fitas diferentes nos mesmo locais, porém não exatamente iguais. Eu fiz isso e posso afirmar que a diferença entre as imagens era muito maior.
The difference between VHS and S-VHS was much more noticeable on televisions at the time. Just like in the 80s/90s, the difference between the use of SCART and S-Video cable was also immediately noticeable. Today, when I transfer to digital, the difference between VHS and S-VHS (recorded under the same conditions) is small. At the time, the prices for S-VHS recorders and tapes were very high/inaccessible, which contributed to their failure and not the lack of quality.
" Today, when I transfer to digital, the difference between VHS and S-VHS (recorded under the same conditions) is small."
I disagree. SVHS and SVHS ET recordings have noticeably better resolution and color rendition. I'm an idiot for not taking full advantage of my SVHS VCRs back in the day!
@@RealHomeRecording I just wish I'd bought up a heap of used S-VHS VCRs when people were getting rid of them when DVRs etc took over!
ระบบS-VHS คุณภาพใกล้เคียงระบบM2หรือไม่
Эх ребята,как эе мы все тогда были счатливы! Это время уже не вернуть конечно.Мне нравится музыка в видео.Как она называется? Всем добра!
You don't get this kind of sales service anymore 🤣
My guy had a tough time reading those lines at a couple spots
I can see the difference between the two clearly on my LCD android screen. I wonder what it would look like on its intended display type of a CRT. Cathode ray tube electric gun displays can still do something even an OLED can't which is project without barriers. An LCD/Plasma/OLED has to illustrate tiny grids. If only they could've been combined into a hybrid... ):
SVHS is about how I remember regular VHS looking. Regular VHS looks far worse than memory serves. But it is what it is.
Of course Super VHS was recordable & had quality equal to laserdisc (both 5 megahertz bandwidth)
@@electrictroy2010 No, I have been playing with VHS a lot recently. I have four VCRs. Even with a brand new tape on a good VCR, the quality is pretty bad. I do remember DVD looking amazing when I first watched it, so it makes sense when I think about it.
PAL region?
@@electrictroy2010 In terms of Luma (b&w) resolution, yes, but thats literally half the picture. In terms of Chroma (colour), svhs is the same as vhs i.e. poor 30 lines resolution compared to 120 lines chroma resolution in Laserdisc.
VHS 1976, DVD 1996, Netflix/Streaming 2007. Everything in between and after was just nice tries. Same way that anything higher then 1080p60 is.
Whys the 80’s and early 90’s love saxaphone and sailboats so much?
i should get a boat 🤔
When you look at this comparison you have to keep in mind that he is comparing it on NTSC. PAL was better just on standard VHS.
PAL and SECAM were both higher resolution to begin with, so that helps.
Good point
I have both NTSC and PAL VCRs I even have a multisystem Aiwa HV-MX100, I can assure you VHS NTSC looks much better than PAL VHS. And the reason for this is simple, despite PAL being obviously overall better than NTSC because of the higher resolution, in the case of VHS it's actually far worse, the drum speed for NTSC is 1800 rpm (30 rotations per second) while PAL drum speed is 1500 rpm (25 rotations per second) so the linear head to tape speed is lower for PAL meaning the bandwidth is reduced significantly. Think of it as a reel to reel tape, the higher the speed the higher the fidelity. It may look like it's not much, but my NTSC tapes recorded on EP speed looks better than my PAL tapes recorded on SP. And also PAL has more colour bleed. NTSC looks much sharper on VHS.
@@t0nito I have to disagree with you there. I have both also and my PAL tapes look a lot better than my NTSC. I suppose it comes down to what TV you are watching it on. NTSC is softer while PAL is sharper.
@@Kit_Bear don't know how that's possible from a technical standpoint, PAL VHS has 230 TVL while NTSC has 240 TVL, so NTSC has slightly higher horizontal resolution, I notice the difference on many TVs and VCRs, it's the same when comparing on my AIWA HV-MX100 VCR with my Sony KV-29LS35E TV (both multisystem sets)
I've been collecting SVHS machines for 15 years and have owned virtually every JVC SVHS consumer mechanism.
While the first gen (HRS7000U/8000U/5000U/5500U/10000U) mechanism was built rather rugged and was loaded with features, it's PQ is poor in comparison to later JVC SVHS decks.
Granted, the build quality of later JVC SVHS decks was poor, but the PQ was amazing. (e.g. HRS9400U, HRS9500U through HRS9911U).
The last generation SVHS decks had very sluggish loading mechanisms.
so whats the best machine all around if I wanted to own a good one to watch my old VHS tapes?
@@fredjones5719 Your best bet would be the JVC HR S9911U. It uses the same mechanism as the 9500 - 9900, but without the prone to failure Dynamic Drum gears.
JVC HR-S5000E, I had it.
S-VHS, the evolution of VHS.
Competing with LaserDisc.
Not really, S-VHS became far more common for recording(on s-vhs/compact s-vhs cameras), while laserdisc was purely for pre-recorded movies.
more sharpness and details :O
and it looks like a LD or DVD
More Sharp! More Detail! More Cowbell!
@@NuGanjaTron xD
Why didn’t movie studios push for a-vhs theatrical releases? ThecS-VHS standard should have replaced VHS completely by the early/mid 90’s, but it didn’t.
Because on top of all the various features Laserdisc had at that point, its luma resolution is comparable to S-VHS, and its chroma res is still like double that of the tape. I think the only thing going for S-VHS in comparison is S-Video, which requires a whole new TV. People who were that in need of better picture quality probably would’ve already had a Laserdisc player for their favorite movies and stuff
TBH I was expecting more clarity from SVHS
Tinha tudo pra dar certo esse formato SVHS,mas já foi lançado tarde... Se tivesse lançado logo no começo da década de 80, teria substituído o VHS padrão e "enterraria" de vez o Betamax
Что за музыка играет? Обалденно! Супер!
Ah yes that is a doll 4:47
Perfect ! Yes !
Screw the format What camera is this filmed with ? I need this nostalgic energy ✨
У нас в России не был распространён формат svhs из за отставания от Америки или Японии, поэтому сразу после vhs перешли на dvd диски (это примерно 2002 год начали появлятся у богатых слоёв населения) а до dvd формата мы смотрели фильмы на video cd и cd сисках в формате .avi Я только недавно стал узнавать столько нового, что прошло мимо меня. Нормальные телевизоры, которые могли показывать в цвете с видеомагнитофонов или с игровых присиавок могли себе позволить только в начале 2000х годов а до этого смотрели черно белое изображение
У них тоже svhs не сильно зашел, так как слишком поздно появился, не смог вытеснить с рынка обычные vhs магнитофоны из-за высокой цены (а потом конкуренция с dvd добавилась), и давило количество обычных vhs видаков, которые у людей уже дома стояли - не было достаточно svhs кассет в прокате, и что было хуже всего - svhs кассета в обычном vhs видаке в лучшем случае воспроизводилась с огромным количеством тянущихся черных и белых полос по картинке, а чаще всего вообще никак.
У кого svhs видак был, те чаще всего писали в обычном vhs режиме, дабы кассету можно было дать погонять, писали чаще всего с аналогового тв сигнала с соответствующим качеством, т.е. большого смысла такой видак покупать не было. К закату эпохи магнитной ленты (2000е годы) на свет родили vhs видаки, которые худо-бедно могли svhs кассеты крутить, но не писать.
Единственное исключение - это видеокамеры, они чаще всего уже svhs были, что доставляло много счастья потом при оцифровке.
Bugger all difference you can see on youtube. I had a PAL s-vhs and it was way better than these
Similar to Kumyoung
Nice!
From a nostalgic framework: S-VHS looks too good to be nostalgic. It looks like when you digitally zoom-in with a modern phone with AI sharpening.
For watching/recording films back then though, S-VHS hands down.
1:43 super vhf
Good video
What were they trying to do? Because there's nothing to notice lol 😂
世界初民生用VHS＝1976年National(松下電器Panasonic)の発明品ですか？
世界初民生用β(Beta)＝1975年SONYの発明品ですか？
私はVHSは嫌いなので、現在もSONYのED Beta EDV-9000、EDV-8000を使用してます❣️
by Japanease
I am not impressed , honestly, The VCR has great design though
Super VHS is anything but more color. It still has the same crappy color resolution.
JVC D-VHS best.
Yeah... when they worked. They used shitty SMD caps from the bad batches that were produced in the early 90s. I have a JVC Umatic that's 10 years older, and it works perfectly. Built like a tank. Like everyone else, JVC had to cut costs as time went by...
@@NuGanjaTron +1
You’re comparing a Umatic (that is not much better than VHS)
to D-VHS that does high definition? Come on!
@@electrictroy2010 Yes, the material quality is terrible, but the 1035i supports audio codecs like Dolby Digital.
@@electrictroy2010 We're comparing the _reliability_ of 80s vs. 90s JVCs, regardless of format. Build quality really took a dive in the 90s, at least on the consumer models. But TBH that can be said of most manufacturers.
LOL more color, suuuure JVC, suuuuure
Makes no difference. S-VHS just makes the picture sharper and clearer.
Well that's a direct contradiction - makes no difference by making the picture sharper and clearer....
Reely uninteresting 😆