Beta SP and Super VHS...THAT much of a difference?

Sticky Fingaz wrote on 1/17/2004, 10:58 AM

I am compiling a DVD for a rap group by the name of Onyx. Some of you may remember them, they had the number 5 single of ALL of 1993 called "Slam" and sold 2 million rap albums when that amount was completely unheard of.

In their 10 year history (they have since broken up, because frankly, Def Jam gives them 13 cents a CD and they were barely making money) they have recorded 19 music videos. One of the members of the group who I have been in contact with somehow managed to convince Def Jam to give me a call and to give me ALL of their music videos. I was sent a Super VHS tape (the format I requested) and the videos look awesome.

However, while on the phone the woman asked "You sure you don't want these on Beta SP, their original format?" I said no since I do not have a Beta SP player, and a quick check on ebay yeilded $1,500+ for a unit. These guys want to do this DVD as cheap as possible (but not low quality), and since I am such a huge fan of their music, I am going to do a fantastic job for free.

Anyway, I transferred the SVHS to DVD and did little tweaks (don't flip out, just minor saturation adjustments) and added CD sound, and it's awesome. I can't help but think maybe Beta SP would look better? Before anyone screams "of course Beta SP looks better, you dolt! It has bla bla bla and yada yada yada!" remember these are rap videos from 10 years ago. Will Beta SP make a difference? This was not a rap group who talked about money and girl's asses. They had mosh pits and fights in their videos and were grimey, and so were most of their videos. So I know music videos of today can have some pretty awesome looking, almost HDTV esque picture quality to them, but this was a rap group whose image was basically underground (even though Def Jam was a huge label).

So I was wondering everyone's opinion. Beta SP the way to go? Keep in mind how much those damn players cost. Super VHS is gonna be fine, especially since these videos are nothing extreme anyway?

I have no idea and this is why I come to this fantastic forum for help. Thank you guys so much for your time.

Back to post

Comments

john-beale wrote on 1/20/2004, 1:54 PM

Makes perfect sense that a broadcast station would require Beta SP or SX. It was designed specifically for that application, it is robust and works well, and that's the gear they own and use. I think the broadcast places view any consumer technology with suspicion- how reliable is the gear, how interchangable are tapes, etc. I'd say DVD *can* have better quality than BetaSP, but depending on how it's authored, the quality may be worse and it may not even play at all... not what you want to deal with in a broadcast environment, given you can just specify Beta and eliminate the unknowns.

For doing your own "indy" type DVD production I'd say whatever the client is happy with is good. Especially if there's no budget! As editors and DVD authors, all of us instinctively try to maximize technical quality wherever possible. But from an artistic point of view, could a more grungy image give this particular piece a more "authentic" or historic underground feel?

Would a prospective viewer of this DVD feel any differently about it overall, based on the SVHS/BetaSP quality difference? Imagine two screening rooms showing two hypothetical versions of this DVD, one based on BetaSP material and one from SVHS, but otherwise identical. Could exit interviews determine any real difference in audience reaction between the two? This is pretty hypothetical but personally, I doubt the audience would have a much different experience.

johnmeyer wrote on 1/20/2004, 1:54 PM

OK, I just called Def Jam, and left a voice message to see if I can get their videos in Mini DV. Would this be as good as Beta SP? Lightyears better than Super VHS? Complete crap?

In theory, it will be a step down because DV uses a restricted color space. Also, it will depend on how the video was transfered from SP to DV (what equipment was used, etc.).

However, if the same equipment was used to transfer to DV as was used to transfer to S-VHS, then you would be much better off with the DV than with the S-VHS.

farss wrote on 1/20/2004, 2:41 PM

A very valid point.
Given that in this case the only way he's going to ingest the material is via DV25 compression it will not matter. II can tell you for a fact a lot of what goes to air off SP or digibeta originated on DV25.
If you think the material off those digibeta dubs are better than the DV25 source you're wrong, what's worse digibeta dubs are not bit copies even from digibeta unlike DV25, go figure that one out.

gold wrote on 1/21/2004, 5:36 AM

The original NTSC from the camera is as "good as it gets." Tape and storage is where it gets corrupted. Digital is evil in that it is lossy [so is analog storage to some extent as mentioned by earlier posters]. Decompressing and recompressing further reduces quality. Converting from one compression scheme to another is the most lossy in that the same features are not lost the second time. For example compressing with CODEC 1, decompressing, editing, then compressing with CODEC 1 would probably not effect the quality as badly as recompressing with a different CODEC. For a really fabricated example, assume CODEC 1 compresses soley by removing color information from frames while CODEC 2 compresses by reducing resolution. Scenerio 1 would give a full resolution black and white image at its limit; whereas, scenerio 2 would result in a black screen at its limit. I sometimes remember the analog computers I used to program in the old days like the ole' GEDA L3 made by GE and wonder if thay had become automated and we were processing video in analog with analog hold circuits for storage would the edited quality be as good as the original--need coffee..