Talk:VHS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] times?

This article must reflect the current times, because when VHS first came out it was not a form of video playing, it simply referred to all types of video (including Beta), for example what is known as VHS now in the UK was originally called PAL.

Sounds like nonsense to me. PAL is the colour-encoding system used for TV transmission used in large parts of the world; it also commonly refers to a 625-line/50Hz PAL picture, but I've never heard it used to refer to any form of video cassette.
I think you're muddling up VHS cassettes for PAL TV systems; I've never heard anyone else make your claims. Fourohfour 17:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It's true. VHS was known as PAL in the UK, just like it was know as NTSC in the USA. If you look at early video cases that are made to hold both kinds of video tape, it says "VHS PAL and VHS BETA". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.188.116.9 (talk • contribs) .
I'm sorry, this is complete nonsense. I have never heard your claim made *anywhere* else, and I've never heard "PAL" used synonymously with VHS.
Furthermore, although I haven't seen the cases you refer to, it's probable that you're misinterpreting and reading stuff into the meaning of some isolated labelling. Even then, I'm not even sure how you came to that conclusion from the label example you gave. Fourohfour 12:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Nonsence is it? Next they'll be saying email and chat rooms started with the Internet and it was the first type of usuage with a modem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.65.39.59 (talk • contribs) .

Meaningless defense. You may as well say something like "My claim [YADDA YADDA YADDA] is nonsense? Next they/you'll be saying that the earth is flat."
I won't, and I won't, so cut the irrelevance, and point us to any plausible evidence that the original claim ("VHS was marketed under the name PAL") is correct and not just misinterpretation. That's all I have to say. Fourohfour 19:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a meaningless defence, I'm pointing out that some people sometimes change history when something becomes known as something else in another time, which is what the debate is about.. it happens. Also you wonder how I came to that conclusion looking at video cases that said VHS Beta and VHS Pal. Hmm, VHS is before both PAL and Beta on the case... maybe that is why? No?! 74.65.39.59 19:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

PAL is the colour TV standard in most of western Europe, established in the 1960s. It would have been pointless and extremely confusing for the consumers to market a video tape format under that name, 10 years after the word "PAL" was already established with a completely different meaning.

Some time later when people began to send each other video tapes across the Atlantic, they started to realise there was a compatibility problem due to the differing signal formats recorded on the tape, which are conveniently named "PAL", "NTSC" and "SECAM". This may have lead some people to believe that those are names for video tape formats, when they are really television signal formats. This may be the source of the confusion. Anorak2 07:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Indeed, that may just be the case. So I accept that where these cases were printed may have made some kind a mistake based on what you have said (even though I thought otherwise for about 20 years) that probably makes sence. 74.65.39.59 19:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I do wonder why people who have little-to-no technical or historical knowledge bother trying to contribute to this type of article. As has been said, VHS was only, and I mean ONLY, used to describe the tape format we know and love/hate. Any other interpretation would be solely based upon misreading the facts and making baseless assumptions. Hardylane 03:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually "any other interpretation" mentioned here is based on error in information given out. As it happens none of this information was ever added into the article and was just discussed on this talk page, which is why this talk page is here. Wikipedia is an open forum and anyone is free to participate. If you don't like that, then maybe this isn't the place for you be using your wonderful knowledge on the subject of VHS tapes. One thing I do wonder myself, however, is why someone like you would make such a comment more than one year after this particular discussion closed and was settled! 14:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.39.59 (talk)

[edit] VHS/Beta race

The VHS/BETA race for popularity should be disscussed in the article. Noldoaran 21:54, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Moved

I moved this from Video Home System to VHS, because that's what it's best known as (sort of like NASA, or—more relevantly—PAL). --Delirium 05:44, Jun 10, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Unclear Sentence

"On the other hand, Betamax offers a superior picture quality to VHS, something with hindsight is a somewhat subjective matter to many."

I'm having trouble making sense of this sentence. Perhaps "something that, with hindsight, . . ." would clarify it.


[edit] Removed from main aritcle

VCRs were taken to court and found to have substantial legitimate uses other than copyright infringing uses in the case of Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios. However, Senator Orrin Hatch has proposed the Induce Act [1], which, if made law, would effectively reverse this ruling.
In November 2004 the British retail group Dixons announced that it would begin phasing out VHS machines in favour of recordable DVD (DVD-R and DVD plus R) and personal video recorders, leading many observers to predict the imminent demise of the VHS system.

Former maybe belongs on main VCR page, latter lacks substance and is best left for the external links section Dtcdthingy 04:25, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] How to store? (odd question)

How do you store VHS tapes? Legthwise ( = ) or heightwise ( || )?

Does either affect the tape at all?

I've heard that storing them heightwise (vertically) is best, in case the reels of tape inside the cassette have some "popped strands", which are winds of tape where their edges stick out slightly and aren't flush with the remainder of the tape wind. Storing a cassette horizontally could press down on these popped strands, resulting in small crinkles/creases on the edges of the tape. This could cause some minor tracking errors, since VHS' control track is recorded on the tapes edge, and possibly some muffled audio as well, since the linear audio track of VHS is recorded on the opposite edge of the tape. --misternuvistor 05:15, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Storage orientation is irrelevant. Maintaining constant temperature and humidity is what's important. You'll get the best life out of tapes stored at 60°F - 70°F and RH around 10%-30%. Temperature fluctuations can cause the tape to expand and contract, causing wrinkles in the middle of the tape pack, so maintaining constant temperature is essential. If a tape has been in storage for an extended period, before playing it, it should first be shuttled end-to-end and back, to relieve any accumulated stresses. Avoid atmospheric conditions which could lead to condensation. --Quicksilver 06:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually you're both right, except that storage orientation is NOT irrelevant. They should be stored 'heightwise' (||) as misternuvistor says, and at a moderate, steady temperate, as Quicksilver says. And to make the story complete: store them well away from magnetic sources like speakers, TV screens, amps, etc. Rien Post (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Under colour modulation

This is mentioned and linked to in the article, however the page linked to (under colour addition), doesn't really mention how this system works in VHS. Is there no specific brightness signal, and multiple colour information signals combine to allow darkness information to be recovered in some way? Maybe someone would consider adding more information with respect to VHS in that article. – drw25 (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The link is simply wrong, it's about a print-related process which has nothing to do with video. Someone should create a new video related "colour under" article and change the link to it. The "colour under" process isn't VHS specific, ot's used in many consumer and non-consumer video formats. So it's probably a good idea to keep it separate so that it can be linked from all relevant pages. Anorak2 10:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. There is actually an existing article: Heterodyne. :) Dulldull 19:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page name

Uh, Video Home System would be a better name and that VHS redirects to this article, and so that people will learn what VHS stands for when they read this article. --PJ Pete

No, because VHS is far and away the most commonly-used name, and was the name used virtually-exclusively (at least in the past 20 or so years) to market the system. That alone is enough reason for VHS to be the title. In addition, there is some dispute over whether "Video Home System" is the correct/official expansion; has it *ever* been used officially? Fourohfour 14:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. In the late 70's/early 80's Video Home System was used extensively. I was there. Hardylane 03:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DVD and the decline of VHS

I'm removing/clarifying US-centric references from this section, which necessitates the removal of the following sentence:

DVD rentals first topped those of VHS during the week of 2003-06-15.

There's no information about whether this statistic refers to the US or worldwide, and none of the external links gives the answer. If anyone knows and can link to supporting evidence, feel free to modify it and put it back.

--LesleyW 00:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Also are the predictions of 2006 being the final year for VHS US centric? Although running fast, the UK is arguably behind on the switchover - for one random example Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith did not have a US VHS release last year but did have one in the UK. Timrollpickering 23:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following statement from this section:

"However, DVRs such as TiVos are the main competitors with the VHS in home recording."

This is because this section focuses only on the comparison between DVD/DVD recordables and VHS. Although TiVo is available in DVDR form, a separate section called "DVR and the decline of VHS", or even combine both DVD and DVR and call the section something else should be done. Groink 23:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole first half of this section is "Ameri-centric" - for example, nobody in Europe, Asia or Australia knows or cares what "Circuit City" or "Best Buy" are.
Well, fix it then. This is Wikipedia - if you can critique it, then you must have some ideas of your own on how to improve on it. Groink 01:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed the US centric elements and changed them to become broader. Obviously, its impossible to know the exact state of affairs regarding VHS across the globe, but the stance written is pretty standard across developed nations. Removing brand names also increases the quality of the article, especially since you don't require citations if you aren't specially referring to a company and its motives/movements. 59.167.215.25 16:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ya know, there are still a LOT of americans who use VHS for time-shifting. I don't think I'd say, "VHS is dead in the U.S." yet. Just because the studios stopped selling VHS in an attempt to make us all buy Copy-protected DVDs and Encrypted DVRs (play once; copy never), doesn't mean VHS is dead. I still arhive sportsgames or capturing home videos using my Super VHS vcr/camcorder (~560x480 resolution, rivaling DVD quality). I don't have a citation (unfortunately), but I recall reading 40% of Americans still use the VCR as their primary means for delaying television. And stores are still selling the blanks. - Theaveng 17:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Notable VHS Companies

Is this really necessary? It looks more like a list of entertainment companies to me. Any comments?

--LesleyW 01:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't even know what it means. Is it just a list of companies that have released VHS tapes, or were all these companies somehow involved in VHS development? If the former, why don't we have a list of all the people in the world who have ever used a VHS tape? --DudeGalea 07:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I have moved the list of companies that have marketed pre-recorded VHS cassettes to home video, which is a more appropriate article, since none of them are really concerned with developing the technology and so do not fit into the VHS article. Canadiana 06:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E180 and E240

This article does not explain what E180 and E240 means on VHS tapes.

Just added, see chapter "Tape Lengths". Anorak2 11:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tape length table

I added a table showing common tape lengths for North America and Europe. Anyone who can provide the missing data I would welcome them to add it in. --Cab88 13:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've got a similar table lying around somewhere which I created myself. It's a bit more extensive. Would you mind if I replace it? (won't happen at once, but one of these days ...). Anorak2 13:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Existing table is quite good, but the way the columns swap round, and the way that lengths are written metric(english/imperial) in one, and english/imperial(metric) in the other is also strange. Fourohfour 14:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
If your table is better then by all means. --Cab88 12:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed waffle about VHS/Beta recording times. Implies that Beta had short recording time for most of its life, which is simply wrong. It still says that USA Beta machines limited to 60mins in 1980, which I doubt, but being in UK I can't remove this until verified; someone please look into this. Colin99 00:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please mention somewhere what "SP", "EP" and "SLP" actually stand for? Also, I was under the impression that (in the U.S.) there were three tape speeds allowing for 2, 4 or 6 hours with decreasing degrees of recording quality. Brad 04:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

-- I do believe those stand/stood for "Standard Play, Extended Play, and Super Long Play". They typically were 2,4,and 6 hours respectivly, but I have seen tapes that indicate being recorded in a certain mode, but either were too short or too long for that "mode", usually almost to the next level up or down.

Is it for sure that LP is 2/3 the speed and EP 1/3? I don't know about EP, but LP gives two times the recording time (as also in the table), so isn't it 1/2 the SP speed? Edwing 21:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You need to specifiy if you're talking NTSC or PAL, otherwhise it's unclear what you're asking.
NTSC EP = PAL LP
NTSC SP = 3 times NTSC EP
PAL SP = 2 times PAL LP, thus PAL SP is about 1/3 slower than NTSC SP
NTSC LP = 3/2 NTSC EP, "middle" speed between NTSC EP and NTSC SP and non-standard
PAL EP = 1/3 PAL SP, even slower than PAL LP and non-standard
It's all a bit confusing, the table is supposed to make it clearer. Doesn't it? Anorak2 11:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lifespan?

Of a VHS tape. From a reliable source.

I'd also like to know VHS's lifespan. I know DVD's last about 4 years. 71.250.17.62 22:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Average lifespan is 10-15 years, but can be 2-3 years if not stored correctly. [2] 71.250.17.62 22:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I doubt if there's a definitive answer, as it's clearly going to depend upon factors such as tape formulation, the conditions in which the tapes are stored, and how often they are played. Some of my own tapes are over 20 years old and are still perfectly playable; some are only 12-15 years old yet look very ropey. (During the early 90s, I made a lot of recordings on cheap off-brand tapes, but in hindsight I really wish I'd used the more expensive ones.) AdorableRuffian 22:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Tapes made in the 70s are notoriously bad. Apparently companies decided to experiment with a cheaper formulation, and sometimes as short as 5 years later, the magnetic material started peeling off the clear plastic tape. Around 1985 the companies reversed their decision and went back to the more-stable stuff. ----- Bottom line if you've got anything from the 1975-85 timeline, you probably have a pile of sticky, gooey black stuff rather than tape. If the tape is still serviceable, copy it immediately. - Theaveng 17:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I have hundreds of VHS tapes from the 1980s, still in perfect condition. Storage is an important factor. Store them upright (like a book), preferably cool, dust free, and away from magnetic sources like speakers and TVs (obviously). The original quality of the tape does have something to do with it, but generally speaking a properly stored tape should last a few decades. Making safety copies on DVD doesn't hurt, though :-) Rien Post (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Backronym

The article implies that the backronym of VHS = "Video Home System" is an internet phenomenon. In fact, this was the popular meaning given in the 70s too, so it's not new. I remember this particularly because even back then, there were people who pointed out that it 'really' stood for "Vertical Helical Scan". In fact, it's only because there was an argument that I can even recall that anyone claimed it stood for anything! --DudeGalea 14:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


"Video Home System" was what JVC called the system back in the late 70s/early 80s; I never once heard any of the JVC guys from Japan refer to it as "Video Helical Scan". That would be an absurd name anyway; ALL domestic videotape formats are "Helical Scan"! However one of them DID mention that the "home" bit was meant to distinguish VHS from Betamax, in that VHS was designed from the ground up as a "Home" video system, as opposed to Betamax which started life as failed semi-professional format. It's not generally known that the original "Beta" format was just a cut-down version of u-matic, with guard bands and a maximum 60 minute playing time, designed purely as an "industrial/educational" format. When that failed to go anywhere, they re-engineered it to halve the tape speed and so give 2 hours play/record time, added a TV tuner and a mechanical alarm clock for a timer and released it as "Betamax". JVC looked at it and thought it wasn't a bad idea, the only problem being the short record time. Not being locked into "using up" any existing engineering, they just designed their own version with a bigger cassette and the rest (and Betamax) is history! If Sony had bitten the bullet and redesigned their deck to take longer tapes, the story might have been very different. But do try not to "reverse-engineer" history. At the time all this was happening nobody had any idea how big the VCR/rental industry was going to become, it was all about recording TV broadcasts.Elekas 08:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


The "Vertical Helical Scan" is, as you say, a complete misnomer. As someone who was heavily involved with them at the time, this term was never, ever used as the name, trademark or brand of the system. In the UK, Ferguson, a division of Thorn EMI Industries, repackaged many JVC machines, and used the "Video Home System" name a great deal. We also have the citation here now from one the format's inventors stating the "Video Home System" facts, so I will revert any attempts to establish "Vertical Helical Scan" as the meaning of the acronym. Hardylane 04:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


Hello. I admit I am a newbie and this is my first foray into Wikipedia, but as a 39 year old geek who remembers VHS's arrival, I strongly remember VHS standing for Vertical Helical Scan, as a child, and indeed read it spelled out as such in at least one magazine in the 70s, perhaps "Which?" in the UK as my parents subscribed to it.

I find it strange that Hardylane, with his particular memories, as old as mine are and as every other editor of this page, should decide he holds a monopoly on history or memory, and has decided the absence of evidence is somehow evidence of absence.

It was Vertical Helical Scan, and such a description is not "absurd", the vertical part refers to the alignment of the tape, in the vertical plane. The helical part is the scan pattern. And there you have it. If it was being named as a description of a home video system, it would have been called "Home Video System" or "HVS", the transposition of the first two initials renders it silly, or "absurd".

A quick Google shows many many pages including Answers.com, stating "Vertical Helical Scan" and some "Victor Helical Scan". I suggest that "Video Home System" is a "backronym" just as the V in DVD now "stands for" versatile, and the I in RAID for "independent". But nobody is trying to deny their origins, only Hardylane is adamant that VHS has always stood for it's corporate meaning today.

Can we at least change the page to be less authoratative on the subject, and say that with pages such as these: http://www.ukamerican.co.uk/site/rssfaq.htm and http://www.vhstodvd.co.uk/history.htm stating Vertical Helical Scan as fact, the page should at least recognise that many people believe the initials began standing for this, and were changed to their current meaning. The only other explanation is mass hysteria.

There's a Japanese movie out by TOEI, and created with the blessing of JVC called Hi wa Mata Noboru. In the movie, they have a scene where they're designing the VHS logo. One guy asks what VHS stands for, and the other says "Video Home System". Because JVC supervised the production of this movie, and seeing JVC invented VHS, I would say that this is compelling evidence that JVC themselves approved of the meaning of VHS. I can post a clip of this part as evidence if needed. I was also in my teens when my parents bought their first VHS unit in 1977 (a Quasar unit), and back then the company referred to VHS as video home system. Groink 08:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and uploaded the clip to my web site. Groink 08:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This does not prove anything, as it's consistent with the hypothesis that it is JVC who are trying to rewrite history and erase the "Vertical Helical Scan" origins of the initials. In any case I just cannot see how Wikipedia can totally ignore the mass of opinion evident from a quick Google, about 3,000 pages contain the exact phrase "Vertical Helical Scan" and VHS on the same page, no way are all of the authors wrong.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Magpie68 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


Actually, your method of finding source also doesn't prove anything. What you're basically finding is a bunch of web sites that are spreading the same story - that's all Google proves. The difference between you and I is that I found a reliable source from an official source like JVC, while you on the other hard is applying the logic, "Well, if 3000 web sites say the same thing, then it MUST be true!" I can give you hundreds of examples of popular culture - from Britney Spears rumors to the old "Why are manholes round?" - where stories are passed on from site-to-site because 1) it sounds like it could be true, and 2) because they're not encyclopedias like Wikipedia, they don't have to cite or prove that it is true. Up to today, no one - I repeat NO ONE has been able to find an official source from a VHS manufacturer that those three letters actually mean something else. More likely, it MUST be a hardcopy of a advertisement brochure or manual, since back in the 1970s the Internet wasn't commercial. Also, that bit you said about JVC changing the meaning of VHS - exactly why would they even want to do that? It isn't like "vertical helical scan" means "burn in Hell" or "I love Flip Wilson". Again, that's just a rumor no one can prove with a valid reference. Remember - citing sources on Wikipedia isn't just about saying "Here, this guy and that guy is saying the same thing!" You must look under those sources and evaluate whether or not they're just repeaters of the same story. Groink 21:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


I never said we should state with any authority that the initials ever stood for Vertical Helical Scan, but that the article should at least recognise the existence of the popular conception that it did. JVC may have decided that VHS sounded more friendly and, just as described in the talk section "backronym", reinvented it when it became clear it was going to mass market. I don't know. But it's conceivable. What's true is a lot of people believe that it did stand for something else, and will come here for clarification, and to not even have the popular (mis)conception recognised (in a similar way to recognising popular myths such as on the article about chameleons, we say "Despite popular belief, chameleons cannot change colour to their surroundings". That's what I recommend. 62.189.169.182 13:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, magpie68, I am not a "he", as my userpage would have indicated. Secondly, I was involved in the sale, promotion and demonstration of this equipment around that time, and nothing in that official literature used this incorrect meaning of the letters VHS. My professional involvement would therefore surely be of greater authority than the memories of a consumer? As someone who worked with these products on a daily basis? I would, in fact, suggest that the mistake has been made by some other media, possibly hobbyist or consumer magazines, and this is perhaps where it was heard... I have no problem with this erroneous backronym being included in the article, but surely only as it stands, which is as being incorrect. The reference already on the article: [3] is from the IEEE website, who are a world-standard professional body. This article clearly states that VHS stood for Video Home System, from the outset. What is the problem here? Hardylane 03:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As a former video editor I wouldn't be at all surprised if VHS stood for Vertical Helical Scan while the system was still being developed in the JVC labs. Because technically that's what it IS. Makes perfect sense. But no consumer will ever remember such a term and it doesn't sound very catchy either, so Video Home System was PROBABLY invented afterwards to make the marketing a little easier. We'll never know for sure. In short, I think 62.189.169.182's recommendation makes a lot of sense. Mention both. Rien Post (talk) 22:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pun

In fact it initially stood for Vertical Helical Scan - 'initially' 'stood for'. Very good! I was tempted to change it, but I think it's quite nice. :-) --DudeGalea 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's lovely. :ö) Edwing 21:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Do PAL E360 tapes exist?

I remember an advert on tv for them many years ago but I cant find any information to proove it though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Atirage (talk • contribs) .

Probably best to leave it out then; at any rate, I've never heard of anything longer than a PAL E300 (and they were rare in the UK though not- apparently- Germany). Fourohfour 16:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better picture

I think we could do with a better picture of a VHS tape. The one used has a US coin for scale, but only people who live in the US know how big the coin is. A ruler would be better.

I don't have any VHS tapes any more, otherwise I'd make one. 217.154.30.28 21:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that using US coins for scale is a bad idea; however, I dislike the use of rulers. We can already say that something is XX inches. Putting a ruler in the photo simply *shows* that it's XX inches, but we already know that; having it in the photo is just redundant and intrusive.
It could be argued that a ruler provides visual scale, but it's not the best choice for that. Rulers vary in width, so a wide 30cm ruler may look similar to a narrower 15cm ruler in a photo. For this reason, I think an audio cassette might be a better size-comparison. Fourohfour 22:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the VHS tape is ubiquitous enough to serve as a measurement standard itself. In other words, if someone really doesn't know how large a VHS tape is, then they're not likely to know how big any other 'standard' object is either. Maybe in 10-20 years' time when the young 'uns have never seen a VHS before. Right now, I think the VHS is probably better known than the audio cassette. I've certainly used VHS much more recently than the last time I used an audio cassette (sometime in the late 1990s). --DudeGalea 06:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
"I think the VHS tape is ubiquitous enough to serve as a measurement standard itself. In other words, if someone really doesn't know how large a VHS tape is, then they're not likely to know how big any other 'standard' object is either."
Maybe so. However, if we accept that argument, then there's no reason to have the picture there in the first place, as everyone (supposedly) already knows what a VHS tape looks like. :-) AdorableRuffian 22:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aah good ol' VHS

I remember just the last decade i would start my VCR renting movies daily watching these films i thought how can anything advance beyond that in quality, then DVD of course came along and now i realize the more grainy picture of VHS which i completely didn't notice before DVD came out, totally obvlivious. What technology advancement does to the mind.

I remember the days when you bought a VHS only if you really liked the film enough to warrant repeated viewings, nowadays with DVD folks just buy it for things like extras? And commentaries? And just to keep it part of a nice film collection? With VHS it was just the pure movie itself. I watch dvds occasionnally, but i still watch my old VHS tapes from the time to time which i don't have DVDs for and i still love it.

[edit] VHS Releases

Uh...officially, new releases on VHS was discontinued after 2005, because, there were no films released on VHS in 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.56.136 (talk • contribs)

Who defines "officially".... the big movie companies or every company putting stuff out? Where in the world does this apply, the US or in every country? This is pretty pointless without qualification and backup. Fourohfour 17:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the use of the word "official" isn't the right way to approach the idea. However, a community can also agree to an "official" date of sorts, based on a pattern of activities which lead to the conclusion. This is very much like when everyone agreed that disco music "officially" died when Studio 57 was shut down. It is the same thing with VHS. You won't see an authorative figure pounding his or her fist down and say, "As of XXXX date, movies in VHS will cease production." But when you don't see a single company releasing VHS movie in 2006, then you can very much draw this sort of a conclusion. Yes, disco will always be alive for infinity, but VHS is a tangible item that its life can physically be measured. Groink 04:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-format the "DVD and the decline of the VHS" section

Seeing DVD hasn't totally killed VHS, it would be good to modify this section to be a more generalized "decline of the VHS" section that include various technologies that will, together, kill VHS. Suggestions on sub-sections within the "decline" section include:

  • Optical disc-based technologies, including DVD, HD DVD and Blu-ray.
  • Tapeless digital video recorders (DVR), such as hard disk drive-based systems like TiVo and Scientific Atlanta, and PC-based systems like Windows Media Center.

Or, if the "decline" section becomes much too large for the VHS article, create a separate "Decline of VHS" article. Groink 23:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've went ahead and performed the re-org. Groink 23:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say DVD has largely killed VHS in Australia, at least. There's only 1 Movie Rental place within about 20km of here that rents VHS tapes, I haven't seen new VHS pre-recorded movies for sale outside the bargain bin at Target for a couple of years now, and most of the new VHS players that are being sold tend to be simply for recording shows off TV, as DVD Recorders are still $300 and a new VHS player can be had for $70 or so, depending where you shop. --Commander Zulu 03:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macrovision and DRM

I've removed the following statement from the "Optical disc-based technologies" section:

DVD Recorders may prevent recording of some programs due to Digital Rights Management. VCRs generally ignore these restrictions.

The reason behind the removal is that the statement is just too general, and is technically not correct. There are two types of protection out there: macrovision and DRM.

Macrovision has existed sinec 1983. Even back then, when you tried recording a signal containing macrovision on a VCR, the video would be scrambled. There are equipment out there that will shut off macrovision, but that does not mean the VCR itself is capable of recording signals containing macrovision. There are also VCRs that either disable macrovision, or they just don't attempt to detect macrovision, such as very old VCRs. However, that is not the norm that would deserve the generalized statement regarding VCRs.

DRM on the other hand really doesn't play into this scenario; DRM is a digitally-based encryption mechanism protecting the 1's and 0's, while macrovision is an analog-based encryption method within a video signal. To make the statement more accurate, DVD recorders cannot record video sources containing macrovision, but can record unencrypted (i.e. de-DRM'd) video, i.e. dubbing. Let's say a DVD does contain DRM but no macrovision. Once the video has been decrypted in the player, and delivered out of the player, any recorder - including DVD recorders and VCRS - will record the video.

If one is attempting to make a statement giving the VCR an advantage over DVD recorders regarding encryption and other protection methods, these ideas should be considered. Groink 01:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up technical details?

The "technical details" section is quite large, and tends to wander between topics quite loosely. Could someone more fluent in VHS rearrange the information in a more natural way, or split it into several sections? Sections could include "physical properties", "electromagnetic properties", etc.

Personally, I came to this page looking for the information necessary to make good quality recordings to a computer from VHS tapes, so it's very useful to have details like frame rate and video resolution spelled out in language that I can understand, coming from a binary world. unsigned by Andrew Sayers

One thing I haven't seen discussed in the article is timebase correction (TBC), which is very important for VHS-to-computer recordings. Briefly, there are two ways of getting TBC. One, you can purchase a VCR that supports TBC. I use a JVC S-VHS unit with built-in TBC, and tapes that displayed major tears in the video are now clean. Two, you can place a device between the VCR and computer. Canopus sells a device model ADVC300 that handles TBC, although I do not have personal experience with this unit. Because there's a growing number of people doing the VHS-to-DVD thing, it would be beneficial to create a section covering TBC and other methods of fixing video quality for digital conversion. Groink 06:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation tag

I added a "citations missing" tag to this article because there is only one footnote, and no Inline citations.

Latitude0116 04:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physical Dimensions

There is nothing in this article listing the physical dimensions of the VHS tape (lxwxh) --Stux 17:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I did a google search and the following page has great information on dimensions: http://www.russellvideo.com/video_formats.htm I just don't know or really have the time to figure out where to add this information (and it should be aded to the pages of the other formats as well). This essentially would be a small project. --Stux 17:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VHS initials

The name "vertical helical scan" is not documented. The system does use a helical scan system, but it is not "vertical", it is diagonal across the tape. I have found no source for this name. The name Video Home System" was given by its inventors and is widely documented (see the IEEE history page referenced in the article). See also the comment in the "Backronym" post from July, 2006. --Blainster 16:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Some people are continuing to try and change this on the article, which I will resist, because it is NOT fact. Hardylane 04:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...a rectangle of discrete pixels

Under technical details, there is the following sentence:

Because VHS is an analog system, VHS tapes represents video as a continuous stream of colour, even though the images displayed on a television set are a rectangle of discrete pixels.

Under what TV signal format(s)? The NTSC and PAL formats which were contemporary to VHS's golden age were analog, just like VHS; it was not until the growth of digital TV in the 2000's that the concept of a TV picture as a rectangle of discrete pixels replaced that of a continuous analog stream (punctuated with HBLANKs and VBLANKs).

The crux of this section, I think, is that because of the design of VHS's luminance modulation, its horizontal resolution was limited to roughly 240 "columns" per scanline, even though analog video signals could theoretically achieve twice that or more. Any discussion of "pixels" is anachronistic within the analog domain of TV signals in the 1970s-1990s.

Rootbeer22 18:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size

An IP changed the dimensions - since the same IP also inserted more obvious vandalism, I assumed this was "subtle stat vandalism" but can someone check these numbers? --Random832 17:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confused by horizontal resolution

VHS's horizontal resolution is often cited as 240 "lines". But what do that means? I know three different interpretations:

- 240 lines means 240 distinct pixels (for luminance)

- 240 lines means the ability to show 240 different lines and therefore 480 (or 479) pixels (black-white-alternating.)

- 240 lines means 320 pixels due to the aspect ratio of 1.33 (refering to http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_6_3/essay-video-resolution-july-99.html chapter "Horizontal resolution . . . where the confusion begins.")

Due to my observations one should avoid to talk about "pixels" since it looks like the VHS "pixels" positions are not fixed (contrary to a digital display device like a TFT monitor.)

I tried to enumarate it myself with guessing the number of distinct horizontal elements in a tv programme logo and multiplied its count by 11 since the logo tool 1/11th of the total tv width. Considering a bit overscan, this methode lead to a number of almost 300 "pixels" per scanline. This is definitively more than 240, but also notably less than 320.

Interesstingly enough, it do fits into the statement of "220 lines" at the linked site which leads to a number of nearly 300 "pixels" (or maximum different details in the luminance per scanline.) But 220 are not 240.

So can someone *please* make it clear, what VHS's horizontal resolution really is?


Aths 15:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no "pixels" on VHS tape or traditional analogue broadcasts. There are only horizontal scan lines that can get brighter and dimmer. The horizontal resolution tells how many times the horizontal scan line can transition from black to white or white to black across a horizontal distance equal to the height of the screen before the whole thing just looks like grey. Both black and white lines count, so a resolution of 220 means 110 black vertical lines and 110 white lines.
The resolution will depend on whether you are using an RF cable (usually channel 3 or 4) or separate video/audio cable, or S-video, etc. It will also depend on how good your cables are, the types of filters the TV uses, the quality of the black tape, the recording speed, the quality of the video heads, etc.
For a good discussion of resolution see http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/vidres.htm and pages linked to it. For complex reasons, horizontal colour resolution is typically only about 25-32 pixels from tape. See the page for discussion Canadiana 18:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


Hello, since VHS is analogue, you are right that there are no real pixels. However we got a smallest size of detail, or a maximum amount of (luminance) details per scanline. I doubt that VHS is limited to 120 vertical lines alternating black and white (making 240 "pixels").
I actually tried to count luminance details per scanline and it comes out to nearly 300 per scanline (including the invisible overscan.) Since you speak about "he horizontal resolution tells how many times the horizontal scan line can transition from black to white or white to black across a horizontal distance equal to the height of the screen the number of 220 should be multiplied by 1.33 to get the number for a complete scanline (in 4:3 aspect ratio.) Or did I got it all wrong? Aths 08:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You've got it. To find the number of lines across the entire width of a standard aspect screen, you'd have to multiply the resolution by 1.33, so my example of 220 would be 293 lines across the entire screen, which sounds like your estimate of "nearly 300". I think that 244 is a theoretical maximum within the VHS signal bandwidth. Individual results will vary according to equipment, etc.
I looked at the article just now and the information there is clearly wrong. I don't have time to correct it right now, but someone should. Canadiana 21:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for clearing this. I already edited the german issue of VHS, since my english is not that good, please edit this english version of the VHS article =)
Making 320 "pixels" (no real pixels, but smallest luminance details) out of VHS fits well into S-VHS's 400 lines (and therefore 533 "pixels") which is about the maximum of the analog PAL or NTSC TV signal.
I do have some other questions, though:
- Are NTSC-VHS and PAL-VHS using the same colour subcarrier frequency? (In other words, is the noise in areas with high colour saturdation for NTSC-VHS as big as for PAL-VHS? Due to the lower tape speed and lower head drum rotation speed for PAL-VHS, I guess that NTSC-VHS delivers better colour reproduction.)
Does SVHS improves luminance details only or does SVHS also improve the color resolution (and quality due to lower noise?) Aths 14:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
No S-VHS does not alter the chroma. Neither does Super Betamax or ED Betamax. What these formats did was leave the chroma half of the tape at ~650 kilohertz, and extend the luma part from ~5 megahertz to ~7 megahertz or even as high as ~10 megahertz. Thus the luma gained more fine details, but the chroma remained the same.
It's easy to calculate luma resolution. VHS has a 3.1 million cycles per second luma bandwidth divided by 30 frames per second / 525 scanlines per frame, which yields 197 waves per scanline. The NTSC standard only uses 83% of the line for picture (the rest is reserved to moving the "gun" to the next line, aka blanking interval). And each wave can represent two "pixels" of white & black side by side. So 197 * 83% * 2 == 327 pixels edge-to-edge.
Except analog resolution isn't measured edge-to-edge; it's measured assuming the screen is perfectly square. So 327 edge-to-edge * 3:4 aspect ratio == 245 lines of horizontal resolution. ----- I should take note here that analog is a very "fuzzy" medium that often depends on who is looking at the screen. One person might look at the screen and say, "I only see 230 lines," while someone working for JVC's VHS marketing department might say, "I see 250; honest," as is the case with my JVC camera. I wouldn't get too hung-up on the exact number, because it can vary vcr-to-vcr, tape-to-tape, and person-to-person. (Which is why analog broadcast is listed as "300-330 lines"; it depends on lots of variables, and the viewers' eyeballs.)
If you're like me, you probably think in terms of digital resolutions. Here's a quick rundown of resolutions for various media (all of these are approximate and rounded to the nearest 10):
* 320x240 - Video CD
* 320x480 - Umatic, Betamax, VHS, Video8, CED (videorecords)
* 390x480 - Umatic SP, Super Betamax, Betacam (pro)
* 560x480 - Super VHS, Super Video8 (Hi8), LaserDisc, Betacam SP (pro)
* 700x480 - ED Betamax
* 720x480 - W-VHS, DVD, DigiBetacam, Digital8, miniDV, Digital VHS
* 1280x720/1920x1080 - W-VHS, HDCAM (HD Betacam), HD DVD, Blu-ray, HDV (miniDV), Digital VHS - Theaveng 17:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question, please answer ASAP!

Will most modern VHS players from the US play PAL films? I really need to know this fast! Thanks!

I would say no... but the thing is, here in the UK, all VHS players sold in the 2000's at least play NTSC - same with DVD players. I don't think there is a big enough demand to display PAL in the US. The manual will tell you though.

Dinsdale1234 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The answer is no. Regular mass market VHS machines sold in the US will not play PAL. A couple of niche market multi standard machines will, but chances are if you have to ask at all yours isn't. Anorak2 08:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Optical disc-based technologies

This section states, "Dual layer recorders and media have not yet become commonplace." Also, "Dual layer DVD discs are still quite expensive."

Is this still true today? From a little research, I think this is a majority of what they sell now. And the prices keep falling for dual layer disks.

I think this needs to be put in more perspective of the time or removed completely. As this might be true today, but it will definitely not be true years from now. --Mkoko483 19:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


Dual layer hardware is now the absolute norm, but takeup of dual-layer discs is still small. Hardylane 00:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Several things. First, most "appliance-based" DVD recorders currently in-use are still only single-layer. And it is still true that, by perspective alone, single-layer DVDs are hands down much cheaper than dual-layer DVDs. So right now the statement currently in-place is still true. Second, I believe that DVD-HD and Blu-Ray will become the standard recording medium BEFORE dual-layer DVD, which is why I believe manufacturers are holding off on supporting dual-layer recording in their appliances. Third, statements can actually be written to describe the trend today, even though everyone knows it won't be true tomorrow. Even printed publications like Encyclopedia Britannica have to be updated every year. People read Wikipedia for TODAY's information - and not to read about tea leaves written to compensate about tomorrow. Think of Wikipedia as a living encyclopedia that can change by the day. Groink 01:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that many "appliance based" DVD recorders utilise standard IDE-interfaced DVD rewriters within, which are capable of dual layer writing, even if the firmware on the device only supports single-layer writing. Hardylane 12:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that may be good for the DVD recorder article. But it is out-of-scope for a VHS article. Groink 19:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, but I was clarifying a point here by mkoko482. Hardylane 22:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

What's the point of the black thing at the back of a cassette that covers the magnetic tape? A video still works even with that thing removed. I should know - I accidentally dropped a video cassette yesterday and that thing fell off. I wasn't planning to watch it, but I just put it in the player to see if it still worked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.160.178 (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The black flip-up strip is to protect the tape, which is easily damaged by dirt and fingerprints. More to the point, this dirt is even more easily transferred to the machine's rotary heads, causing clogging, and the loss of picture. Hence the need to keep sticky fingers off the tape. Hardylane 10:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Why do people keep changing it from Video "Home" System to "Helical"???

I'm getting annoyed. - Theaveng (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I get the impression it is either a former name or at least a notable misnomer - see [4]. Any chance there's a reliable source in that mix so we can throw these people a bone? —Random832 16:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The source is already cited, but that won't stop morons from changing it because they've got it in their head, erroneously, that it means helical. I suspect a protrated arguement will continue on this subject. Why should a citation stop Joe Public, who is always right, after all :/ Hardylane (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I put three copies of the "Don't change to helical scan" warning in the article. Hopefully that will be obvious enough for even the slow-witted. ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
My question was actually if a reliable source could be found for a statement that it is commonly incorrectly called that, or that it was once called that, etc - it seems likely to be true, and getting the name in there with such a qualifier might be enough to shut them up. —Random832 17:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Earlier I posted that VHS movie clip, where they mentioned VHS as "Video Home System". The movie was produced by TOEI in association with JVC/Victor. The editor rejected this piece of evidence thinking JVC changed the meaning of the acronym was a conspiracy of some kind. That may seem too James Bond for a company to change the meaning. Also, keep in mind that VHS was invented by the Japanese. When it comes to foreign loanwords, the Japanese are very simple people in that they would never use something as complicated as vertical horizontal whatever - especially when Victor at the time tried to sell VHS to the other companies as a way to overthrow Betamax. If Matsushita for example heard that VHS stood for verical helical yadayada, the CEO would've said "WTF! What is this? Mr. Wizard????" The Japanese are known to use very simple loanwords when marketing products, and video home system is very simple. This is purely POV on my part, but once again we do have solid evidence pointing to "video home system" as being the correct meaning of the VHS acronym. Like the legal system, it is the pundits who think otherwise that has the burden of proof.
My theory on how all of this came about. When the west received VHS, the Japanese didn't tell them what VHS stood for. As westerners must know EVERYTHING and therefore there must be some meaning for those letters, they probably just made something up! The helical business, again seems very un-Japanese and VERY western - and something only a real technoweenie would have thought up. Groink (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
What can we do about these bots adding the dreaded "Video Helical Scan" rubbish to the article?? Hardylane (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
We cannot shut down a particular type of edit. Instead, we can only revert on the basis of weak or no citing of resources in support of the change. Groink (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning the tape

Can anyone say what chemicals can be safely used to clean dirty and Nouldy VHS tapes ? I wiould appreciate your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.94.214.117 (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about the case: it doesn't really matter. Just a damp cloth with some mild soap. Be careful not to get any dampness into the casing, though. If you're talking about the actual TAPE it's another story. To clean that you would have to take it all out of its casing first, without damaging/folding it and without getting dust on it. A virtually impossible task that I do not recommend. Should you wish to try it though, do not clean the tape with liquids. Rub the stains gently with a soft cloth (like you would clean a CD) whilst keeping the tape flat on a clean, non-magnetic surface. Be careful not to fold or wrinkle it. Wear clean, soft gloves. For persistent stains you could try moistening the cloth lightly with the purest alcohol you can find (at least 90%) but I do NOT recommend it. Some tapes can't stand the stuff. After cleaning make a new copy of the tape ASAP. (And just to satisfy my curiousity: how on earth did you get a tape dirty and mouldy?) Rien Post (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison to other media

In the article there is a list over the different medias resolutions. Shouldn't there just be a link in the template and beneath the headline to a separate article about this topic? It do apply to the other formats as well.

I don't see any reason to create a separate article that is only 1-2 paragraphs long. i.e. Pointless. ----- Also a separate article would not be tailored to fit VHS specifically, and would likely contain a lot of additional, non-relevant information about obscure formats (like VHD or 1930s-era 25 line videorecords). I prefer to keep the paragraph localized & under the control of VHS editors. ---- Theaveng (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HiFi audio tracks (Audio Upgrade from AM to near-CD quality)

At the moment the article states: "These audio tracks take advantage of depth multiplexing: since they use lower frequencies than the video, their magnetization signals penetrate deeper into the tape. When the video signal is written by the following video head, it erases and overwrites the audio signal at the surface of the tape, but leaves the deeper portion of the signal undisturbed."

Interesting theory, but utter nonsense. VHS HiFi sound is an FM signal which is added between the video's luma and chroma signals. It hasn't got anything to do with the depth of recording, it is modulated into the video signal that's written to the tape. I'm rewriting the sentence. Rien Post (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: Modifications to the page by Anorak2 are incorrect. This "deeper in the tape recording" is nonsense. If you don't believe me, just try to find ANY reference for it. Reversed the page to 25 jan version. Rien Post (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm moved to disagree, I'm afraid. The principle of depth multiplexing is a known standard. Google "hifi depth multiplexing" to read about this. There's plenty of references, such as a Google book called "VCR Troubleshooting and repair" by Gregory Capelo, and also many other articles on the subject. Please either revert to the technical description previously given, or reword it. Wholesale deletion is not appropriate. (ESPECIALLY the section about the fact that it uses separate hifi heads) Hardylane (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

CITATIONS:

Now stop rewriting the article with your false information. VHS is not betamax. Betamax uses the "sandwich audio between video" technique; VHS does not. ---- Theaveng (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(hits forehead) You're right, Theaveng, my apologies. I got confused with Betamax. Note to Hardylane: I did not delete wholesale, I only edited the one paragraph quoted in my first remark. Wrongfully, agreed, but in good faith. Somebody else was kind enough to delete wholesale, including this Talk subject. Rien Post (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)