CED VideoDisc and Player Discussion

[cedmagic]

One topic at CES 2005 was the impending release of the competing HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc formats. Some speculate it will be a repeat of Betamax vs. VHS or CED vs. LD, while others think the competing formats will be irrelevant if hardware manufacturers make players supporting both formats. Here's an article on the topic:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ibd/050107/tech_1.html

--Tom Howe

[Reinhart]

[Phredreeke]

BluRay is more expensive, but has larger capacity.
HD-DVD is cheaper, but has less capacity.

Now, we're all forgetting something, SD-DVD. It has an already established base. Now, if I wanted to buy HD format, I wouldn't try to save a few bucks on getting the inferior format. If I wanted to go cheap, then I'd just buy the regular DVD (in fact, those people might still buy VHS) If it was up to me I'd say keep SD-DVD, market BluRay as a niche product a la laserdisc, drop the in-between HD-DVD format as well as VHS (the additional expense on DVD is a one-time cost in mastering, making menus, extras et cetera, in reasonably large scale, DVD is cheaper)

That's my two cents (or ören)

[Rixrex]

Reinhart make a good point about the Beta vs VHS format war being bad. It was bad in a way because the inferior format won out, not based on quality, but on money, advertising and availability. Sony blew it with Beta by being too stubborn with the technology, though it survives in many ways. The general public, at the time of the tape wars, mostly had no better than 25" mono TV sets, and the quality difference between Beta and VHS was nearly imperceptible, and either was better than most over the air broadcast signals anyway. I could see the difference, but then I had a 40" large screen and a background in broadcast technology.

CED and LD was not really a war because neither one was hot with the public in the way videotape was, mostly thanks to recordability of tape, although in this matter (and don't take this as a slam of CED) the better quality format lasted longer and has many more titles available. I'm convinced CED would have done better had the discs been priced right, as the players were.

Much of what the public in general decides to purchase is based upon availability, price, and perception. In this way, standard DVD is well entrenched, and any HD DVD technolgy will have a hard time taking off. The boom in widescreen HD TVs will also prove to be a factor in strengthening the hold standard DVD has with the public in these ways:

Price - DVDs are really inexpensive now, except for the big releases at first sale, then they drop significantly in a short time. They are less than half of what tapes used to sell for when first released.

Availability - You can't go anywhere without seeing a rack of DVDs for sale anymore.

Perception (meaning the perception of quality when viewing the source) - Anamorphic DVD on a widescreen TV in progressive scan can rival HDTV in perceived quality, though technically inferior. Technically, it is 480 viewable lines of resolution (with over 500 actual) with a progressive scan rate of 60 fps, which greatly reduces jaggies and motion artifacts for a significant increase in perceived quality. The anamorphic squeeze, when unsqueezed, increases perceived quality, though not actual resolution. In contrast HDTV is 1080 lines of interlaced scan, which is more than double the lines but half the fps, so it's an increase in resolution but then the scan rate brings it down a bit, and in actual perception, it's better than anamorphic DVD but not by a lot. Not enough to make the public clamor for hot new stuff on HD DVD, and turn in their current collections. Not yet anyway, as the DVD juggernaut marches on, and the general public will be cranky if confronted with yet another format to handle. The key to HD DVD success would be to make inexpensive players that play both formats over both an HDTV input, and a standard video input, so those who want to spend the $$ for HD DVDs can do so.

[7jlong]

I am intrigued by the notion that the quality improvement would be marginal. Please expand, as the numbers I have been seeing look pretty good as compared to DVD or LD.

Not to mention, the accompanying implementation/adoption of screens with higher resolution and refresh rates (or, as mentioned, the interlacing issue) sounds like a godsend.

Having done a lot of video editing since "the bad old days" of three decks and an edit controller, I am praying for the day that I don't have to preview my work on an NTSC-standard monitor. It sounds as if we are headed in this direction, not just with HD broadcasts of football games but a viable media delievery system that will eventually be writeable.

As far as wars, as the article mentioned it might not be long before dual-play machines make the argument useless, just like all the DVD players with built in SACD.

Speaking of SACD/DVD-A, I think one of the issues here is that most people are not, these days, willing to fuss with five speakers and then sit in the "sweet spot" to hear all that is have to offer. If you're not willing to do that and instead have the stereo on in the other room while cooking dinner, it makes no sense to get hyped up about 5.1 audio. I like the high resolution audio discs I've heard - quite a bit - but investing in the setup and committing myself to sitting and enjoying it is not going to happen.

With image delivery, however, all you have to do is sit with a true HD monitor next to an old-style (even if it's brand new) TV. The difference is clear, even to the "casual viewer". I have never understood why the big electronics stores group their TVs by type - they should have the old NTSC standard sitting right next to HDTV. I know which one I'd buy (if I had the money, which is a perpetual problem with HDTV).

[Reinhart]

[Phredreeke]

AFAIK, most people aren't able to hear above 15 khz, while some golden eared people are able to hear up to 20 khz.

Do you mean that Blu-Ray players would not be compatible with regular DVDs? Cause from what I've heard both format's players would play SD-DVD. To not be compatible would be a great mistake IMO. I've also read newsbits about hybrid discs, HD-DVD with SD-DVD on the opposite side, and Blu-Ray with SD-DVD on a deeper layer.

[Reinhart]

[Total Rewind]

Actually Beta vs. VHS wasn't the first format war. In the early days of music recording, the flat disc was in competition with the cylinder, and the war was every bit as fierce and with the same marketing shennanigans, dirty tricks and passionate loyalties. The two formats fought for the rights to the top stars (who had to perform live to cut each master!) and the current hits.

In the end disc won, partly because they developed a more sensitive system with a greater dynamic range - which could record quieter sounds with clarity. In this case, quality was a deciding factor!

After that, Baird's mechanical TV system fought against Farnsworth's electronic approach - not much of a war in the end, because just as the few people with TVs were deciding which to back the real war stopped TV transmissions. 6 years later everyone bought (or built!) electronic sets, partly because of the advances in CRT technology driven by Radar.

There was also the Sony EL-Cassette in competition with the Philips ACC we all know today, along with 8-track of course.

Andy

[constrictor]

You are correct, the Blu Ray laser pickup wont read a DVD signal, but the players themselves will have support. It would be suicide by Sony to release any Blu-Ray player that wasn't backwards compatible, and Sony is not that stupid. So, yes, technically the statement "Blu-Ray is not backwards compatible with DVD" is true, however it is misleading because the players will be able to play SD-DVD.

Another very famous format war that actually took over 10 years to come up with a winner was 4 channel audio cassette vs 8-Track. Most younger people don't know that both formats were released all around the same time. 4-track, 8-track, and reel-to-reel came a little earlier, but the cartridge based 8-track debuted in America around 1966. At the same time in England, the cassette tape was being released in England.

At first, the 8-track system caught on first because it had wider audio tracks for increased sound quality, and obviously the functionality of multiple programs on the same tape were appealing to many people.

As most of you would know, 8-track continued successfully all the way through the 80s when finally the cassette format finally caught up and passed 8-track in popularity. It remained the audio system of choice until the early 90s when CDs started to dominate the market. The death-toll finally sounded in the late 90s when recordable CDs became popular and inexpensive.

As for the HD-DVD / Blu-Ray topic, I agree with the statements, that either format is going to have a very difficult time catching on because the need is not there for a new format, like there was for DVD when it first came out. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray improve upon SD-DVD in the relam of high-res video and improved audio definition. However, in order to experience these higher quality A/V recordings, higher end A/V equipment will need to be used, whcih will be costly to the consumer. Joe-6-Pack is not going to see as much of a need to do this upgrade. I have a feeling that at least for the next 10 or so years, DVD will continue to be the dominant format for home video, with Blu-Ray or HD-DVD as a high end alternative, similar to how Laserdisc was in the 80s and 90s.

[cedmagic]

I thought it would be interesting to revive this thread after 2 years of inactivity, as a report indicates Blu-ray sales recently surpassed HD DVD for the first time, although they are still pretty close to being even. The Sony Playstation 3 helped Blu-ray with its playback support for that format:

http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/02/23/blu-ray-surpasses-hd-dvd-in-disc-sales-for-the-first-time/

--Tom Howe

[Caroline]

I think these two formats will be 50:50. The first two format players are on sale, and I think most people will buy them.
I dont will buy one, because they have a copy protection, the players are too expensive, and the movies.... Why should I buy old movies a second or third time. I think it is of no sense, to publish classics like "Citizen Kane" again. The masters arent HD, and it is useless to "blow them up".
I have the Citizen Kane CED, and it is almost as good as the DVD.

Here in Europe, we had a much bigger format war, than in the USA.
We had the dutch/german VCR and VCR-LP systems, the german SVR and LVR, the japanese VHS and BETA, and the german-dutch V2000 (VCC) system, where you can turn the side, just like music cassettes.
Technically the best - at its time - was Beta. Then came V2000.
And who won : the worst of them all : VHS.

[AilingRichMan]

Currently Sony's having a lot of problems getting their Java to work for picture in picture and some navigational features. Articles are stating that current Blu-Ray players (with the possible exeption of PS3) will not be able to play these features because of their lack of RAM. HD-DVD has now also surpassed Blu-Ray in capacity. Studio support and PS3 is a lot to battle with though. Also, those HD-DVD combo discs are a waste. A movie that would cost $25 goes to $35.

Personally I think both are niche and that downloadable HD files are the future "format" for home video.

[RT9342]

I just wonder though how long it will be before Sony releases another video disc format. How long after U-matic came out did they release Betamax, and then 8mm? And remember all of the audio disc formats? CD, MiniDisc, HD MiniDisc, PSP (I guess that was more of a game/video format, but still ANOTHER format by Sony), I'm sure I left some out.
I also never understood why DVD wasn't more HDTV friendly in the first place. I don't think it was a matter of the technology at the time, because I can remember asking that question back in the late 90s when I first read about the DVD technology (back when a $400 player was a pretty cheap one). I was sure it would have high definition video and that there wouldn't be a difference between NTSC and PAL discs, except maybe the region code, as I was under the impression that the signal was a high-definition RGB signal being down-converted by the player to NTSC or PAL. The ZOOM features helped lead me to this conclusion. I was shocked to find out that none of this was the case, and that the discs still had either an NTSC or PAL signal (or an NTSC compatible 24 fps signal, utilizing 3:2 pulldown in the player). Though I think it's dumb that they're bringing out all of these new video disc formats, I also think it's dumb that they made DVD as limited as they did. Maybe it was to keep the DVDs from being REALLY high priced (like some of the players for these new formats).

[cedmagic]

Here's an article on the current status of Blu-ray vs. HD DVD that also included a mention of SelectaVision:

http://www.betanews.com/article/Warner_Bros_Holds_Fast_on_Bluray_HD_DVD_Dual_Commitment/1190236933

--Tom Howe

[Rixrex]

Additionally, one thing to consider, even though BD outsells HD now in disc sales, is that HD players have a significantly lower retail cost, and I saw that HD is getting a promotional push on Amazon currently that gives away something like 8 free movies with the purchase of the player.

[Rixrex]

Well, IMO, the longer the two HD formats compete, the longer SD-DVD is going to remain dominant, while consumers choose price and convenience over other factors (like the Beta-VHS tussle). Currently available at low prices, say around $100-$200, are top-brand SD-DVD units that upconvert to HD. I've seen them in operation, and the best ones do a superb job of upconversion, much like the rather expensive DVDO units that upconvert SD to HD. Though the DVDOs are absolutely the better units, the general public can't really see a big difference, unlike those of us who are videophiles and notice every flaw.

Why would the general public take a chance on one HD format or the other, when all they hear is "Format Wars!", and recall the Beta-VHS struggle, and don't want to spend big bucks and then maybe end up stuck in a limited format? Why wouldn't they opt for way cheaper SD-DVDs that have ALL film products available, and just get an electronic digital HD enhancing SD-DVD player that's pretty cheap and still looks great to them on their HD screen?

While there were other 'format wars', the Beta-VHS struggle is the one consumers recall. Unlike we videophiles, what they recall is: Beta equipment cost more, they could not initially record lengthy programs on Beta like they could on VHS, and eventually the Beta product available for rentals shrank and shrank. Watching on 19" and 25" sets, they didn't really see the quality differences that videophiles saw.

Now, I'm going to take an unpopular stand and say that Beta, as presented to the general public, was not the better format, regardless of video quality. Beta was initially a tape with a one hour recording limit, wheras standard VHS would record 2 hrs. That's a significant convenience factor for the public. Thanks in large part to RCA execs, VHS moved up to 4 and 6 hr recording times, and Sony eventually introduced Beta 2 and Beta 3, but they were slow on doing this.

I personally like the Beta format, and have a good-sized collection of tapes and several machines, but even with my sensitive viewing eye, Beta 2 (the format for pre-recorded films onto Beta) and VHS-SP are generally the equivalent in quality, since Beta 2 is a slower tape speed than Beta 1, and cannot maintain the same quality. The more recent pre-recorded VHS tapes I have, from around 1995 on, are actually recorded with such quality that they are even better than Beta 1.

[mnallard]

I'm one of those who doesn't understand why we need so many formats to do a single task. I could understand the transition from CEDs to VHS simply because of the whole record thing.

With DVD...I don't see anything wrong with the Standard DVD player/recorder. It does what it was sent out to do, a format that we don't have to worry about wearing out the more we play it. The only disadvantage to any CD/DVD based format is the "small scratch" syndrome (refering to scratches on the label side), which can lead you to having to buy a new copy.

I still have and use CED, LD & VHS. Why? There are some exclusive titles to those formats you won't find on the other or DVD. Blue-Ray/HD-DVD...I don't see the point...and not everyone has the funds to afford everything they'll need to get full benefits from the technology. I thought I moved up in the world when I bought a 20" Sanyo TV that supported component/s-video & composite connections. I still use this set-up...it works for me.

We may also be playing with a double-edged sword here. The favored format may also replace DVDs completely, the same way DVDs replace VHS (I can't find a single VHS tape in my town...I wish sometimes I could!). Blue-Ray still has bugs in PS3 units from what I've been told. It loses track of where it's supposed to read from time to time (or so I've been told from friends who own one). And XBOX 360's HD-DVD attachment only allows the system to play HD-DVDs, you will not get all of the functions of HD this way as the system doesn't support them.

I'm still using my first DVD player when they first came out (which is an RCA NOT made in China) I paid over $300 for. I haven't had any problems with it at all and it has played discs that our second DVD player won't.

I know I'm lengthy, but...I feel that this post is here to voice opinions. To me, simplicity is better. I don't wish to see additional camera angles that were not in the original theatrical release. Bonus features like "making of" and a few music videos are pluses.

CEDs & VHS will remain my favorites. CEDs because of the lack of advertisements before the movies, VHS because of my Disney collection. I have 2 VideoDisc players (I'm still looking for a J/K player), 4 VCRs (just incase one goes out) a LaserDisc player and 2 DVD players. I buy stand alone VCRs any chance I get just incase because you never know.

Keep it simple, real & enjoy the past from time to time.

[71chevyvan]

[quote="Rixrex"]Reinhart make a good point about the Beta vs VHS format war being bad. It was bad in a way because the inferior format won out, not based on quality, but on money,[/quote]

I would be hard pressed to call "S"VHS inferior. too bad it wasn't the orginal vhs format.
its picture quality at SP is almost equal to dvd.
and if you can get a blank,broadcast quality tape, it gets even better.
71chevyvan.
_________________
An analog kind of guy forced to live in a digital world:>)

[Rixrex]

I agree, S-VHS and even VHS-SP are both better than Beta 2, the Beta mode for pre-recorded tapes, in my view. But Beta 1 is definitely superior to VHS-SP, which was pretty much the standard for the general public at the time that VHS began to boom and Beta began to fade.

There is nothing like inexpensive initial hardware to create a flow of consumers to that particular product. Beta was a significantly more expensive machine initially than VHS players. I remember well, because I bought my first VCR in 1981, and I had to go with a Sansui VHS model because I just couldn't afford the extra for a Beta.

If DVD players were still expensive, VHS might still be a market force. You will see the general public be slow to warm up to either HD or BD discs mostly because they aren't quite ready to spend for the hardware and when looking at the costs of the discs vs standard DVD, often triple, they think twice. It will eventually happen, but not quickly I believe.

[Caroline]

[quote="Rixrex"]

"Now, I'm going to take an unpopular stand and say that Beta, as presented to the general public, was not the better format, regardless of video quality. Beta was initially a tape with a one hour recording limit, wheras standard VHS would record 2 hrs. That's a significant convenience factor for the public."

That was different in Europe, only the very first model here had a nearly 2h limit. But the later models could record 3 1/4 hours. In a time, where most of the old VHS VCRs still were "2 hour runners".
( We in Europe never had BETA-1, 2 or 3 - Longplay playing/recording. )
Beta failed, because the VCRs were more expensive ( but only 10-20% ).
And they were much, much better. But normal customers only looked at the retail price. Beta had features VHS models hadnt at this time. The blank videotapes were priced almost like VHS, but they had only 195min, instead of 240 min VHS.
The biggest mistake : SONY charged high licensing fees, JVC didnt.
And SONY was restrictive on p_o_r_n in the beginning.
They nearly made this error with Blue Ray again, but now they sublicense.

PS: Beta dont failed in every country, it had and has a strong base in Japan, and it won the format war in Turkey and Indonesia.

[Caroline]

And to add: Super-Beta is much better as Super-VHS.
Beta - in terms of quality - was always a big step ahead of VHS.

I think the Industry is in a sort of "new" feaver now. It reminds me of a
parable of Dr.Seuss. Almost nobody, excluding IMAX and THX fans,
really need a high defn. format. And it also has disadvantages, if you see
everything, you also can spot the tricks more easily.
I dont think it is a pleasure to watch a Roger Corman movie on High Defn.

[Reinhart]

[quote="Caroline"]

[Reinhart]

[Reinhart]

[Rixrex]

I agree that Beta 2 or 3 was not as good as S-vhs in SP mode, even Super-Beta. I might take issue with Beta 1, except that for the home market, Super-Beta was Beta 2 & 3.

I have S-vhs factory recorded tapes that present a 400 line resolution, and that's really close to LD resolution of 430. The only Beta I've ever seen that matched this was the industrial Beta machines years ago that were still being used in film and TV studios for specific purposes. These were all Beta 1 machines.

If those in Europe only had Beta machines that were basically 2 and 3.5 hrs, that's just because you didn't have any Beta 1 machines available to the public. If Thorn-EMI somehow pushed VHS in England to the exclusion of Beta, that's not how it happened in the US. Beta machines were actually 20 to 30% more expensive initially, and cheaper is important to most US consumers. As a nation of consumers, we're always looking for the bargain.

Certainly in many asian markets, Beta lasted a long time. Sony had a lot more authority in those markets. But they pretty much snubbed RCA in regards to RCA's suggestions on how to improve Beta for the US market, so that was obstinence that helped lead to the demise.

A general misnomer was that the x rated industry caused Beta's demise. This is a popular misconception that's promoted by moronic TV newscasters who need some kind of titillating lead-in to any story about the Beta-VHS battle. It really didn't matter if Sony didn't like x films on Beta, in the US they couldn't control who bought blank Beta tapes and recorded what they wanted on them. The x film industry chose VHS because it was cheaper to release in only one format, and VHS was generally cheaper than Beta for multiple recording situations. Once again, Americans looking for the inexpensive deal.

It appears Sony may be headed that way again, as Toshiba announces some good deals on their HD-DVD players, such as $100 for the very nice HD-A2 at some retailers. The Walmart/Kmart/Target US consumer will be getting those for Christmas, and they'll be happy with them as they'll upconvert standard DVD to HD resolutions, even though the A2 ouptuts just 720p and 1080i. I doubt if too many electronics companies will be crying if Sony loses out again.

[Caroline]

Hmmm. I have a Sony Super Beta and a JVC Super VHS.
And if I use High Grade blanks and record in Super Beta and SVHS,
the picture of the Beta VCR is much better. ( Maybe because we have PAL
in Europe and you NTSC, which is inferior to PAL ? )

The "Beta died because Sony dont wanted DELETED " is nonsense.
This was only true for the dutch-german "Video 2000" System, but not
for Betamax. All of the old X-rated classics were released on Beta too.

RCA also wanted to release the CED Selectavision System in Europe
( but only did it in UK ). I can remember seeing a prototype in an
old book of vintage electronics, but it was never released.
We had a big flop in Germany, with the Telefunken "Bildplattenspieler".
( A system, where small flexidisc are played like a vinyl audio single, the problem was, a "Bildplatte" only had max. 12 minutes playing time.
My grandfahter bought a movie, and he had to turn the next disc in
after 12 Minutes. )
Philips first Laservision system sold very well in some countries,
so RCA dropped plans for an european CED System.
Its also still a mystery to me, why they havent distributed the UK version,
but wanted a totally new model for the rest of the european market.
All countries have PAL too, excluding France, which has SECAM.

[Reinhart]

"I agree that Beta 2 or 3 was not as good as S-vhs in SP mode, even Super-Beta. I might take issue with Beta 1, except that for the home market, Super-Beta was Beta 2 & 3."

BI in Betamax is still limited by the modulation frequency of the video signal compared to Super VHS, so you still have the same resolution. The higher linear speed, however, helps to reduce overlapping video tracks which reduces crosstalk since, I believe you are aware, the home 1/2 inch video formats have no guardbands for the video field tracks.

For SuperBeta, you are forgetting about BI-S, which is BI speed with SuperBeta, first made available in the United States on the SL-HF750.

"I have S-vhs factory recorded tapes that present a 400 line resolution, and that's really close to LD resolution of 430. The only Beta I've ever seen that matched this was the industrial Beta machines years ago that were still being used in film and TV studios for specific purposes. These were all Beta 1 machines."

I think the industrial Betas you are referring to is Betacam. That's an entirely different format from Betamax, despite the fact that both are 1/2 inch and the small Betacam cassettes can fit in Betamax VCRs.

To give you an idea of the difference, a 750 foot length tape on Betacam yields a recording time of only 30 minutes. On Betamax, the same length of tape, which would be L-750, yields 90 minutes in BI.

"If Thorn-EMI somehow pushed VHS in England to the exclusion of Beta, that's not how it happened in the US."

Thorn EMI did play a role for VHS in England because Thorn EMI not only released video cassettes, but also sold and rented VCRs.

"Beta machines were actually 20 to 30% more expensive initially, and cheaper is important to most US consumers. As a nation of consumers, we're always looking for the bargain."

This is but one factor. Other factors was that VHS in the United States initially had more features than Beta, including greater recording times. This was a primary factor on why RCA passed on Beta and went with VHS.

"Certainly in many asian markets, Beta lasted a long time. Sony had a lot more authority in those markets."

In Japan, this was also because the Ministry of Trade favored Betamax over VHS.

"A general misnomer was that the x rated industry caused Beta's demise. This is a popular misconception that's promoted by moronic TV newscasters who need some kind of titillating lead-in to any story about the Beta-VHS battle."

You're preaching to the choir here. The x-rated angle was a factor, but not a very significant one, nor as important as Sony's mistakes such as snubbing Hitachi to find favor with Matsushita or thinking they knew the market without doing adequate research.

"It appears Sony may be headed that way again, as Toshiba announces some good deals on their HD-DVD players, such as $100 for the very nice HD-A2 at some retailers. The Walmart/Kmart/Target US consumer will be getting those for Christmas, and they'll be happy with them as they'll upconvert standard DVD to HD resolutions, even though the A2 ouptuts just 720p and 1080i. I doubt if too many electronics companies will be crying if Sony loses out again."

Maybe, maybe not. The Blu-Ray and HD-DVD situation shares things in common with Beta versus VHS, but there are also important differences.

Alliances with both formats are much more fragmented and is even somewhat more hostile considering the alliances: HP and Microsoft support HD-DVD while Apple and Dell support Blu-Ray Disc.

There is already an existing contender in the form of the more ubiquitous DVD, making the HD-DVD versus Blu-Ray war look more like the SACD versus DVD Audio war: a niche product unable to unseat Compact Disc despite the advantages of both over CD. DVD yields very serviceable results, is cheaper, and EVERYONE makes software for it instead of some making stuff only for Blu-Ray and others making stuff only for HD-DVD.

While HD-DVD hardware is cheaper, there is arguably more software on Blu-Ray because of greater studio support. Remember, hardware is useless without software and vice versa.

For me, the smartest move for ANY consumer: WAIT IT OUT! Settle for DVD until one or the other HD format is declared victor or until another HD format comes along and puts down both. - Reinhart

[Reinhart]

"Hmmm. I have a Sony Super Beta and a JVC Super VHS.
And if I use High Grade blanks and record in Super Beta and SVHS,
the picture of the Beta VCR is much better. ( Maybe because we have PAL
in Europe and you NTSC, which is inferior to PAL ? )"

There is one fact that Super VHS and SuperBeta share in common, regardless if it's NTSC or PAL: video modulation on Super VHS will be higher than SuperBeta.

On SuperBeta, the video modulation is about 3.8 MHz. Super VHS has a video modulation of 5.4 MHz. Higher numbers for video modulation frequency = higher resolution. These numbers are for NTSC versions, but PAL will have a similar difference.

Another factor on why such a discrepancy exists in your case could be due to your Super VHS VCR. Who made it and, more importantly, when was it made?

And, who made your SuperBeta and what model is it?

"The 'Beta died because Sony dont wanted DELETED' is nonsense."

Except I never touted it, someone else did.

"Philips first Laservision system sold very well in some countries,
so RCA dropped plans for an european CED System.
Its also still a mystery to me, why they havent distributed the UK version,
but wanted a totally new model for the rest of the european market.
All countries have PAL too, excluding France, which has SECAM."

The most likely reason: CED in the U.K. wasn't doing as well as hoped, so there was no point in wasting more money releasing it further in other countries.

As for LaserVision, that format had a bumpy start, at least in the U.S. The Philips-made players were horribly unreliable and software quality control with the MCA-made discs was virtually non-existent. The players and discs did sell out when first introduced in American test markets in 1978, but that was it since they were both junk.

Philips and MCA, Dutch and American companies respectively, invented the format based on patents by David Paul Gregg, but it took a Japanese company to fix it and make the format truly viable: Pioneer. - Reinhart

[Rixrex]

Is it possible to post messages without a nit-picky reply that breaks up another's message into sections, then either reminds us of what was left out, not necessarilly forgotten, or in some way assumes the original poster had a lapse of memory or a faulty recollection? I truly find this style of adding information to be tantamount to rebuttal, and merely a method to express superiority in knowledge.

It might make one feel better about one's self, but it seems to be not really the best way to handle a discourse when one wants to make a considered valid point without having it appear too personal, frankly. I feel that a poster can make points very easily by simply recording them in a standard paragraph format without a point-by-point examination of another posting. It is very possible that the original poster just did not want to create an extremely lengthy post by including all the tidbits of information seen as left out.