Talk:Video tape recorder

Untitled
Is this page really necessary? There is already a page for the VCR. Perhaps the pages should be combined.


 * On Japanese TV, they typically call any prerecorded video a VTR, so this page does seem relevant.


 * VTR is a video (tape) recorder which uses tape. VCR is a VTR which happens to use cassettes. The reel-to-reel VTR was invented and in common use for 15-20 years before VCRs were invented/common. To put the VTR information in VCR is probably misleading. Anyway, all VCRs are VTRs, but not vice versa. So technically, Japanese TV is correct (assuming they still use tape!) Fourohfour 11:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you suggest which VTR model is popular for industrial use ?

I'm adding my thoughts as of a current read via Ask Search Engine, where this came up as a mirror site page. I would like to see more information about Betamax and LaserDisc's last released models before bowing out of production, not just USA of course, consumer end, but as Wiki and other sources show the earliest examples, I would take keen interest in the last ones to appear, where the most refinement often happens. VCR competes with Camcorder variety, and now with Hard Drive based camcorders, one could argue, using Standard definition, mind you, the quality versus tape is still something to take seriously, when one is shopping for home use, or even professional dubbing and archiving video and audio sources.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Video tape recorder. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090907081817/http://sony.net:80/Fun/SH/1-11/h1.html to http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-11/h1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus. -- Calidum 13:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Video tape recorder → Videotape recorder – Consistent with Videotape ~Kvng (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Vpab15 (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose based on nom. I don't think its straightforward that there is a consistency merit here. This is an article about early tech which can be thought of as a "tape recorder, for video". The sources use the current title more often in my view, so better evidence is needed. I'm also a bit leery that Videotape is at the right title rather than Video tape. -- Netoholic @ 12:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , what do you think are the chances or merits of moving Videotape to Video tape? For what it's worth, my spell checker seems to prefer Videotape. ~Kvng (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose IIRC "video tape recorder" is the more common form, even if "videotape" is the coordinate term -- 67.70.26.89 (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. WP:CONSISTENCY comes into play when other things are equal, and I really don't see strong evidence how this archaic piece of hardware was commonly called back in the time (nor that it would matter much). No such user (talk) 13:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. References use “video tape”.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Google ngram shows both. WP:TITLECHANGES applies. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The videotape vs. video tape ngram is also interesting.
 * As for WP:TITLECHANGES, there doesn't seem to be a reason why we have videotape in the title of one article and video tape in the title of the other. Consistency is the reason I've proposed this change and there doesn't seem to be a strong counterargument other than inertia. I can respect inertia if the consensus supports it. ~Kvng (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

field or frame?
The article says: requires 16 tracks for a single analog NTSC video frame or 20 for a PAL frame. Earlier it indicates 16 scan lines per track, which seems to indicate that it is 16 or 20 tracks per field, not frame. (Not that 262.5 is divisible by 16.) Gah4 (talk) 21:53, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

You are correct about field vs frame. And the indivisibility of 262.5 by 16 is because some tracks recorded 17 whole scan lines while others contained 16. There was a small amount of overlap so that they all had a little over 17 lines recorded, but on playback the head switching occurred in the horizontal blanking interval so either 16 or 17 lines per track were used. http://www.lionlamb.us/quad/format.html#2in Whitcwa (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Beatles first users?
I recently heard on a podcast that the Beatles were the first people in the UK to get video recorders - arranged by their manager, Brian Epstein. Interesting snippet? Apepper (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * People, so not counting large corporations? (Only in the US are corporations people, with voting rights.) Gah4 (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * People, so not counting large corporations? (Only in the US are corporations people, with voting rights.) Gah4 (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)