Think back to the early Eighties...
Was BETA tapes actually better a system for picture quality over VHS, or was it about the same? Obviously VHS format won back then, so why did BETA systems fold up so fast if they were better? The tapes were smaller in size as I remember, so that had to be a plus in addition to a supposedly better picture quality...so why did that format die out so fast?
2006-10-09 11:59:25 · 12 answers · asked by Middy S 2 in Consumer Electronics ➔ Other - Electronics
Many TV stations are still using BetaCam SP format that was derived from the BetaMax format as the pro-versions you can get the smaller tapes (similar in size to a VHS tape) in up to 30 minutes or the larger case (about 3x the size) in up to 90 minutes of record time. Many stations used SVHS for a while in the late 80's early 90's but everything is all DV Tapes or BetaCam SP now. DVD compresses the quality too much compared to Beta, and another thing about beta is the the Tape Time is recorded on the tape itself and not based on the spot you placed it in the machine which is why it works so great in a TV production environment in addition to it's high quality picture and 2 separate audio channels that can be used for Stereo as well as muliple languages or sound (as in voice and Background sound)
2006-10-09 12:21:42 · answer #1 · answered by enterprise17 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Beta had better picture quality and smaller cassettes. But as far as I can remember, only Sony and Sanyo made the machines. While VHS was backed by more companies like JVC, Panasonic (Matushita), RCA, Fisher, etc. It boiled down to marketing. It doesn't really matter who has the better product, it's marketing that won VHS. Unfortunately, marketing will also decide who wins the battle between Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD.
2006-10-14 04:04:37 · answer #2 · answered by John Quest 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it was a better format, but the company that created it refused to share it's "formula" with other manufacterers, prefering to try and singularly corner the market. Big mistake, as other companies soon began to share info about a product called VHS
2006-10-09 19:01:54 · answer #3 · answered by woopigstacy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
BETA worked a little like the DVDs of today. So it would of been better to stay BETA. But BETA was costly. A system at Sears was around $1,000
2006-10-09 19:03:26 · answer #4 · answered by Tedi 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the big money companies got behind vhs and left beta in the dust. This usually happens when two forms of media go head to head..cassettes & 8 tracks? well, 8 tracks were superior in sound, but lost out becuase of the robber barons not getting behind it and stayng behind it. They pulled out their financing to get behind cassettes. Same thing happened with cd's.
2006-10-09 19:03:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes, but for some reason they didn't catch on like VHS did. They were smaller, had better picture, and I think they were cheaper(not sure about this) but they just weren't popular.
2006-10-09 19:00:59 · answer #6 · answered by dumbblonde131313 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Quality was better, but the length of time you could record on one tape was less. That killed it.
2006-10-09 19:01:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, Beta had better picture quality.......
2006-10-09 19:00:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Here are some web sites offering that information.
2006-10-09 19:11:35 · answer #9 · answered by The_answer_person 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
betamax were smaller if i remember correctly and vhs could hold more
2006-10-09 19:00:53 · answer #10 · answered by 株式会THE CITADEL 株式会 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋