Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Gee..they were really psyched out by the "New Video Cassette Machine" when it debuted at Tower Records, back in '73...

I guess they were right to be.

Video @ link

by Anonymousreply 139December 6, 2020 10:30 PM

oops...video @ link

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 1July 30, 2014 5:19 PM

My parents bought our first VHS Player in late 1978, for, I believe, $1300.00 or so. It was a huge monster of a machine. But it did its job, recording lots of movies off of HBO and Showtime.

by Anonymousreply 2July 30, 2014 6:19 PM

My family got its first VCR in December 1984. It was a VHS player that cost less than R2's, but was still far more expensive than what it ultimately became. My mom still has most of the tapes we taped on it.

by Anonymousreply 3July 30, 2014 6:24 PM

Parents' Betamax--circa 1980 or '81?

about a grand

a novelty back then and then VHS quickly took over

even though it just sits unused in their den, the Betamax STILL WORKS FINE!

probably made a lot better than electronics today

by Anonymousreply 4July 30, 2014 6:27 PM

The cassette recorder was pretty cool when it came out, but I always had problems with my cassettes getting caught in the wheels of the unit. I thought the Mini Disc was better, because it never skipped. But, it was too late for it to catch on, because MP3 started taking off.

I also owned a Sony LaserDisc player, but the movies were so expensive.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 5July 30, 2014 6:28 PM

I was the first guy on my block to own a Panasonic VHS recorder, which I purchased for $700.00 at Best...remember that store? The first video tapes I bought was Looking for Mr. Goodbar and Lady Sings The Blues. This was before we were able to rent tapes. VHS movies were very expensive at the time.

by Anonymousreply 6July 30, 2014 6:33 PM

I wish I had some bread to buy one.

by Anonymousreply 7July 30, 2014 6:37 PM

My parents bought an RCA VHS in 1981 for about $1200. It lasted until late 2003. They were so much better made then.

My sisters and I begged our father to also get a camcorder so we could all channel our inner movie star, but he wasn't interested.

by Anonymousreply 8July 30, 2014 6:38 PM

I remember having to bring them into the local repair shop to get the heads cleaned. What a pain! I missed my machine when it was gone!

by Anonymousreply 9July 30, 2014 6:40 PM

Movies usually ran from $70.00 to $100.00.

by Anonymousreply 10July 30, 2014 6:41 PM

Our family got our first VHS machine in about 1985. Not sure what my folks paid - I think by that time they were coming down in price. We used it mainly to tape soaps.

by Anonymousreply 11July 30, 2014 6:43 PM

In the '70s, my dad was huge into technology and electronics. He had top of the line stereos (he loved his Beatles and Zeppelin). In 1976, he bought our first VCR. The first thing he recorded on it was the James Bond movie "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" taped off of ABC (it was aired over two nights). We got HBO in 1977 and we recorded shitloads of movies.

In 1981, Dad bought our first laserdisc player. He was a Star Trek fan and bought the disc player solely to buy the laserdisc of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. ST: TMP was only released on disc at that point. The VHS copy of it didn't hit stores until 1982 or 1983. He also bought us Alien, Superman the Movie, and Airplane! on disc.

by Anonymousreply 12July 30, 2014 6:48 PM

I never owned a Betamax, but they were supposedly better than VHS.

by Anonymousreply 13July 30, 2014 6:50 PM

laser disc quality was amazing but they were pricey just like the original beta and vhs tapes.

I remember the lowest VHS tapes origianlly around $60, but I was a kid so I might be wrong.

Laser discs often had fantastic cover art and as I recall were really popular in Japan,

Was it the price that kept them from being popular here?

by Anonymousreply 14July 30, 2014 6:53 PM

[quote]Was it the price that kept them from being popular here?

Absolutely. I had the Star Wars Trilogy, and it cost over $200.00 at the time. Laserdisc players were the best way to view movies, but VHS was cheaper.

by Anonymousreply 15July 30, 2014 7:02 PM

Ha, Ha, we had a Beta Max back when they came out too. Yes, much better quality then VHS, but not as good as Laser Disc. But the Disc were almost twice the price of tape which is why almost no one bought them. Already spending a fortune on the machine, didn't want to spend a fortune on the content.

When people say they were well made, they are not kidding. Almost no plastic. Heavy aluminum or metal cases, sturdy solid buttons, real glass window on some. Real wood decorative insets or panels on some.

Defiantly not the cheap, disposable plastic kind they sell now at Best Buy. They were the iPhone of the day. Only most people could not afford them. Maybe 1/4 the people I knew had them. (middle class Brady Bunch era)

But yes, 1,000 in the 70's is equivalent to 3,000 by today's standards.

And what no one talks about is Porn showed up on tape just about as fast. Dad little secret. Unfortunately it was all straight.

by Anonymousreply 16July 30, 2014 7:23 PM

R16, Actually there was quite a bit of gay porn on tape in the late '70s. Lots of Falcon titles. They were very expensive but they did exist. They were shot on film and transferred to tape. I had a crate full of them.

by Anonymousreply 17July 30, 2014 7:33 PM

I got my first VCR for free. My mom won it in a drawing at a Pi Beta Phi dinner reunion. She didn't want it, so she gave it to me. This would have been around 1983. A few years later, I returned the favor and bought a new one for my mom and stepdad. By that time everyone had or wanted one. My first VCR was one of those front loader ones. I remember it cost $5.00 to rent a movie at a video store. This was way before Blockbuster'. National Video and other chains. If you wanted to buy a commercially released movie on tape, the prices were steep. I still have a copy of LOOKING FOR MR. GOODBAR with the price sticker. The cost? $39.95 Nd

by Anonymousreply 18July 30, 2014 7:42 PM

[quote]The first video tapes I bought was Looking for Mr. Goodbar and Lady Sings The Blues.

Cos Goodbar's really a film you'd want to watch over and over again...for the feel good factor.

I remember when people had very few tapes and we'd watch them over & over. It was the magic of being able to watch something whenever you felt like it. It was such a new experience. FREEZE FRAMING!...REWINDING!!!

I remember a clever friend saying one day you'd be able to freeze frame and create a picture. I couldn't really get my head around such a wonderful thing. When eventually it was possible, with a computer and a DVD, I did it a lot.

by Anonymousreply 19July 30, 2014 7:45 PM

My parents were smart and waited until around '82 to buy a VCR. I think it was about $300. Friends had a nearly 5 year old top-loader with wood paneling that they payed more than 4x that much for.

Everyone hated the top loaders because you needed extra room for clearance on top where the tape ejected. This was back before even "entertainment consoles" because there was literally nothing else to a TV set up except maybe a tiny cable box. VCRs were new fangled, DVDs were light years away, "home theaters" were what immeasurably rich people had after installing projection booths, and audio systems (we called them "stereos") were entirely separate.

In addition to being analog, CRT and possibly antenna'd, TVs of that era had horrible sound quality, like playing YouTube direct from your smartphone. Imagine that turned up loud and filling a room with canned laughter.

by Anonymousreply 20July 30, 2014 7:46 PM

Got the first VHS, an RCA in the 70's. The store Friendly Frost on Long Island had two, the RCA which was VHS,(whatever that meant) or the Sony Betamax. Both same price, $1200. I asked what the difference was, and I was told the Betamax records up to two hours and the VHS recorded up to four hours a tape. Duh, I never looked back. First show I recorded was Saturday Night Live and the next day on HBO I recorded "The Bad News Bears" and Woody Allen's "Love And Death". Video rentals were at least a year away.

by Anonymousreply 21July 30, 2014 7:47 PM

I remember Falcon selling videotaped porn for something like $80 a tape. $80 for 90 minutes of porn.

And we paid for it. And watched it over and over and over...

by Anonymousreply 22July 30, 2014 7:49 PM

[quote]Video rentals were at least a year away.

I still remember the poisonous queen who ran my local very early video rental place, to this day.

Why, oh, why can't we be nice to each other?

by Anonymousreply 23July 30, 2014 7:51 PM

Actually R19 I consider GOODBAR to be a great movie and I wish they would settle the music rights and release it on. DVD Blu ray.

by Anonymousreply 24July 30, 2014 7:52 PM

In addition to GOODBAR, I bought WEST SIDE STORY, CABARET and THE WIZARD OF OZ. do you think the cashier at Peaches. figured out I was gay? ;)

by Anonymousreply 25July 30, 2014 7:58 PM

I dont think Falcon or gay porn came out right away. You may have tapes from that era, but they were not widely available unless you were in the porn industry.

Gay porn even in Adult Book Stores was very very limited.

by Anonymousreply 26July 30, 2014 8:07 PM

Any New Yorkers here?

Remember The Videoroom on 84th and 3rd? It was such a great place, and the people who worked there really knew their stuff and recommended me movie all the time.

Lyric Hi Fi was great for electronics and things like stereos; not sure if they sold VCRs.

by Anonymousreply 27July 30, 2014 9:12 PM

I didn't have a VCR until 1988, because I didn't have a TV until then. There were lots of porn videos to rent (the Hensons, the Jeffs, Brad Hunt, Bobby Madison), but I mostly used it to record Another World.

by Anonymousreply 28July 30, 2014 9:25 PM

[quote]I still have a copy of LOOKING FOR MR. GOODBAR with the price sticker. The cost? $39.95 Nd

And, that movie is still not out on DVD.

by Anonymousreply 29July 30, 2014 10:22 PM

[quote]And, that movie is still not out on DVD.

I feel a brand new Goodbar thread percolating.

by Anonymousreply 30July 30, 2014 10:25 PM

I had cable from the late 1970s so never felt the need for one, plus they kept coming down in price. In 1992 I bought a nice VCR for $200 at American Appliance. By then the prices had standardized. I liked having it.

I did stay with someone in 1986 who had a VCR but not many movies for it. I used it mostly to tape news and soaps.

by Anonymousreply 31July 30, 2014 10:32 PM

R30. " Don't leave me this way....." ;-)

by Anonymousreply 32July 30, 2014 10:38 PM

Great thread! I think Sony released the first Betamax recorder at about $2,000.00? But, it was too expensive for the average consumer, only rich people and videophiles owned one. VHS players were cheaper, so everybody started to buy them...especially when they started to release porn on VHS.

My very first porn VHS tape I purchased was "The Devil in Miss Jones" only to see Harry Reems naked, though it had a great soundtrack! :) My first gay porn VHS tape was "Hot Truckin" starring Colt's Gordon Grant. The pause button on my VHS player came in very handy. ;)

I remember when they used to display video movies like movie posters, and "Looking For Mr. Goodbar" was one of the first releases, along with "Saturday Night Fever" and "Lady Sings The Blues".

by Anonymousreply 33July 30, 2014 10:41 PM

[all posts by tedious, racist idiot removed.]

by Anonymousreply 34July 30, 2014 10:45 PM

[quote]Gay porn even in Adult Book Stores was very very limited.

You usually had to order them through the mail from a porn magazine. They cost as much as a laserdisc movie at that time.

by Anonymousreply 35July 30, 2014 10:47 PM

[quote]Any New Yorkers here? Remember The Videoroom on 84th and 3rd? It was such a great place, and the people who worked there really knew their stuff and recommended me movie all the time.

What about Video Shack in Times Square in the late 70's early 80's, they were the premiere video store. They were owned by pornographers that owned all the porn theaters on the block (see picture)Downstairs thousands of mainstream movies. They even had celebrities come and do signings. I met Elvira there when her collection was released. Upstairs all adult.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 36July 30, 2014 10:52 PM

Most popular early porn was Kip Noll, Al Parker, Jon King and Falcon stuff. A long time ago..........

by Anonymousreply 37July 30, 2014 11:01 PM

R34, it could take up to a year before a theatrical release made it to tape.

by Anonymousreply 38July 30, 2014 11:03 PM

Videotapes were in mono at the time, but when laserdiscs came out, movies were in stereo. I think DiscoVision was the first laserdisc player, but it was played with a stylus, like a record player. Later on, laserdiscs were played with a laser beam.

by Anonymousreply 39July 30, 2014 11:35 PM

Hey, KCGuy...in case you haven't seen it...check this out.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 40July 30, 2014 11:52 PM

[quote]I was a wee child during the VHS years, but I seem to remember that it took much longer for a movie to be released on video after it cleared out of the theaters. Didn't it take several months?

Oh, yes...even longer.

Films really had to have completed their run before they were on video and some new films showed for a very long time in various places.

by Anonymousreply 41July 30, 2014 11:54 PM

Another thing I remember in stupid London...a hot new title would be released and the video store would have just one copy. You'd have to put a reserve on.

Eventually they cottoned on to good business practices and you'd get a whole shelf of a much in demand new film.

by Anonymousreply 42July 30, 2014 11:57 PM

Thanks R40, I will watch. I remember seeing it when it was on TV.

by Anonymousreply 43July 31, 2014 12:15 AM

My father bought our first VCR -- a Panasonic top loading middle of the line model -- in summer 1978. No idea how much it cost but it certainly was over $1,200. That machine lasted at least 10 years.

For Christmas that year, my mother gave me the VHS tape of Sound of Music. Price was $79.99 plus tax. Blank tapes at that point cost about $5 each.

In August 1983, after college, I bought my first VCR -- a Panasonic top of the line -- for $850. By that point, blank tapes were down to about $2 each. Most prerecorded movies were $29 or $39.

by Anonymousreply 44July 31, 2014 12:51 AM

Tower Records is gone, long gone, so stop living in your Gimbles furnished past and get into the 21st Century.

Gays are losers enough without you dragging them through the Wayback Machine.

by Anonymousreply 45July 31, 2014 12:51 AM

I wish videotapes would come back again. I miss the sound of the "click" when I pressed the play button.

by Anonymousreply 46July 31, 2014 12:58 AM

[quote]Gays are losers enough without you dragging them through the Wayback Machine.

God, you're stupid.

by Anonymousreply 47July 31, 2014 1:31 AM

[quote]I was a wee child during the VHS years, but I seem to remember that it took much longer for a movie to be released on video after it cleared out of the theaters. Didn't it take several months?

At the beginning they showed up after the cable run. Then a year, no less was the norm. Even in the heyday they were expensive and very few titles were "sell through". Video stores would pay about $75 a tape EACH wholesale, to rent to you. Mom and pops would buy a couple of the big titles, but Blockbuster would buy ten, twenty copies each of a big title. It was a cash cow for the studios especially when they opened up their vaults for their older titles.

When DVD was developed, Warner Bros thought to make all titles sell through to get people to cross over, and the other studios reluctantly followed. It worked in that way, buying DVD's is the norm but it did two negatives for them, they killed the video rental business and lost all that huge revenue per title.

by Anonymousreply 48July 31, 2014 3:18 AM

Remember Divx? I remember wanting to purchase my first DVD player at Ultimate Electronics, but they wanted to sell me the Divx player. I said "No, that won't sell". So, I ended up buying a top of the line Sony DVD/SACD player changer, best purchase I made! ;)

A little bit of trivia, the guy promoting the Divx player for Circuit City went into incognito.

I do wish SACD stayed longer, because they sounded way better than CDs.

by Anonymousreply 49July 31, 2014 5:38 AM

Oops!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 50July 31, 2014 5:39 AM

Bought my own VCR when I moved out of my parents house in 1990. That monster worked until last year. Loved it.

In 1992, I bought the Director's Cut of Blade Runner on VHS. The pissy little queen at the register bitched the whole time because it was $29.95 and "who pays that?!" for VHS? But most movies were $15-$20 or more, so I didn't know why he was griping. Got home and he'd written his phone number on the receipt. Guess who never got a call?

by Anonymousreply 51July 31, 2014 9:37 AM

R7 I don't understand why they're talking about bread. They're not in a bakery, and we don't have a bartering system anymore.

by Anonymousreply 52July 31, 2014 10:23 AM

R34, I was born in 1980, so was a teen for most of the '90s. Even then it took a while for movies to go on video.

For example, Disney's BEAUTY AND THE BEAST and ALADDIN were released in November but didn't come out on video until the following fall (October). Compare that with FROZEN, which was released in November but came out on Blu-ray/DVD just 4 months later, in March.

But the longest time between theatrical premiere and VHS debut that I recall from that period was JURASSIC PARK. It was released in June 1993, but didn't come out on video until over a year later, in October 1994.

by Anonymousreply 53July 31, 2014 10:33 AM

[quote]buying DVD's is the norm but it did two negatives for them, they killed the video rental business and lost all that huge revenue per title.

Oh they still get huge revenue through pay per view at home or in hotel rooms and online distributors like Netflix and Amazon. Blockbuster is gone, but so are a lot of mom and pop stores and franchises that employed a lot of people. Now all that revenue goes directly to the studios and distributors, while we browse and view movies without leaving home, or while traveling to other places.

by Anonymousreply 54July 31, 2014 11:32 AM

I think piracy is partially the reason why movies are released much more quickly on video, now. That, and the home market has proven to be very lucrative - in many cases, much more lucrative than theatrical releases.

by Anonymousreply 55July 31, 2014 12:37 PM

My mom bought my siblings and I our first VHS in the summer of 1983, to keep us occupied during the vacation. It was a toploader and lasted us at least 6 years of very heavy use. It made a hell of a whirring, creaking noise as it rewound or fast forwarded, but we loved it.

by Anonymousreply 56July 31, 2014 1:19 PM

[quote]It made a hell of a whirring, creaking noise as it rewound or fast forwarded

Mine shrieked!

When I was a kiddie there were no videos. We had Show'N Tell!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 57July 31, 2014 1:23 PM

What is that R57? How did it work?

by Anonymousreply 58July 31, 2014 1:47 PM

[quote]Tower Records is gone, long gone, so stop living in your Gimbles furnished past and get into the 21st Century.

Oh, go stand in line and wait for you iPhone 6, twerp.

by Anonymousreply 59July 31, 2014 2:14 PM

I remember getting blank VHS tapes in my Christmas stocking.

And video rental sections cropped up in almost every mom and pop convenience store.

by Anonymousreply 60July 31, 2014 2:26 PM

Remember hustling over to Blockbuster on a Friday night, hoping they'd have a copy of the newest release to watch, and then being disappointed that all 30 copies were rented?

by Anonymousreply 61July 31, 2014 2:29 PM

Tower Records is alive and well in Dublin, Ireland, as of July 2014:

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 62July 31, 2014 2:30 PM

This is Show'n Tell, R58...see link.

You stuck a film in a slot and played an old 45 RPM record on the turntable.

As the record went round the film also moved in time.

I don't actually remember it being quite as primitive as it is in this clip, but it must have been.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 63July 31, 2014 2:35 PM

People used to buy special rewinding machines to save wear and tear on VCRs.

by Anonymousreply 64July 31, 2014 2:52 PM

[all posts by tedious, racist idiot removed.]

by Anonymousreply 65July 31, 2014 3:13 PM

R65, I almost never go to see a movie in the theater because I have no interest in anything that's being made nowadays for some reason, but when I do go, I always think that the experience is so much better than sitting at home on the couch watching the movie, no matter how big the TV is. Theater screens are huge. The sound is huge. It's a total immersion.

The next big screen experience I have lined up is a 35mm showing of George Romero's Martin from 1977. It'll be WAY better than watching it on my fucking 13" laptop screen!

This thread has brought back a lot of great memories (chiefly the clicks and whirrs of a tape in its various modes), but I guess I was too young to remember retail prices between $40-80 for VHS. Born in '79, first VCR in 1986 (I think), first VHS: The Wizard of Oz, $29.95. Our VCR, which was a 2-head mono player from Sears-Roebuck (that was who manufactured it!), lasted forever. I think it would still work today but I'm sure I junked it sometime in the late 90s after it had served it's purpose. In the early 90s, I bought a Sony 4-head stereo VCR and used to hook the two machines together with RCA cables to make dubs and compilations.

I got a Pioneer laserdisc player for maybe $400 in the early 90s. It was a floor model at our local Radio Shack. I used to buy movies for it without even having seen them first--I was justr desperate to build up a collection. Never got too far with it, and then DVD came out.

Mostly I miss my ALF collection on VHS, recorded during first-runs Monday nights on NBC.

by Anonymousreply 66July 31, 2014 3:44 PM

I remember it used to take a year or two for VHS tapes of hit movies to be released, 1979-82.

There were exceptions, "Superman: The Movie" was released theatrically in Dec. of 1978. A slightly shortened version of the film was released on VHS in October of 1980. Dad bought it for us at $79.99.

"Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" was released theatrically in June of 1982. The specially-priced ($39.99) went on sale in November of 1982, just five months after the theatrical release. Dad bought me that for my 17th Birthday. I still have a 1982 magazine announcing STII coming on VHS for November.

The Long Waits:

Star Wars (1977) wasn't released on VHS until Summer 1982. It premiered on HBO in Feb. 1983.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) - released on VHS in Dec. 1983, just in time for Christmas.

by Anonymousreply 67July 31, 2014 3:57 PM

[all posts by tedious, racist idiot removed.]

by Anonymousreply 68July 31, 2014 3:57 PM

[quote]When I was a kiddie there were no videos. We had Show'N Tell!

Oh my GAWD! I used to have one of those when I was a kid. I think that's what lend the idea of DiscoVision and Laserdiscs.

by Anonymousreply 69July 31, 2014 4:09 PM

What R66 said. I haven't been to a movie theatre since 2005, and I wish I hadn't gone then. It was the first night BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN was showing, and it was packed, and I was seated next to some cellphone-wielding cunt whose compromise to being in a theatre was to look at her cellphone on the floor. Cunting is now the order of the day, so I avoid the public as much as possible.

by Anonymousreply 70July 31, 2014 5:53 PM

Our first VHS tape was 'Alien' in the Summer of 1980. It was distributed by Magnetic Video. Our second was 'Heaven Can Wait' (with Warren Beatty, Julie Christie, and James Mason). By '81, Dad had a nice little movie collection. Plus, we had HBO, Showtime, Spotlight, and Cinemax.

by Anonymousreply 71July 31, 2014 6:01 PM

The tapes were hugely expensive at first. $100 in those days was a lot or money. What made VHS a success was the porn industry.

by Anonymousreply 72July 31, 2014 6:07 PM

[all posts by tedious, racist idiot removed.]

by Anonymousreply 73July 31, 2014 6:10 PM

The first commercially released movies I ever owned on VHS were the Disney versions of [italic]Pinocchio[/italic] and [italic]Robin Hood[/italic]. Those clamshell boxes were thick as bricks.

We got laserdiscs for the first time when I was 8 and DVDs when I was 16.

by Anonymousreply 74July 31, 2014 6:20 PM

That's 2 years prior to the release of Betamax in 1975...and it took 5 years to catch on after that. A family friend gave me an early Betamax similar to the news story prototype in the mid-80's. It recorded at Beta I high speed for 60 minutes maximum (later extended to 100 minutes with special thin tape cassettes.) What they say about the format's great image quality vs. VHS is true.

by Anonymousreply 75July 31, 2014 6:25 PM

[quote] This is Show'n Tell, [R58]...see link. You stuck a film in a slot and played an old 45 RPM record on the turntable. As the record went round the film also moved in time. I don't actually remember it being quite as primitive as it is in this clip, but it must have been.

I loved this as a kid! And yes it was that primitive. It was literally a filmstrip player. Remember filmstrips?

by Anonymousreply 76July 31, 2014 6:29 PM

I had my own View Master Theater, suckers.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 77July 31, 2014 7:17 PM

In more recent history, remember when there was the standard and widescreen version of a movie when it came out on VHS and dvd?

by Anonymousreply 78July 31, 2014 7:34 PM

I worked at the mall store Suncoast for years and I can tell you there was a huge learning curve on widescreen format. People continually told us they were getting less of the picture and would not believe they were getting more.

by Anonymousreply 79July 31, 2014 7:41 PM

R78, sometimes widescreen versions of DVDs are out of print and all that's available (leftover stock from initial run, I'm guessing) is the pan & scan. Dreadful!

by Anonymousreply 80July 31, 2014 7:41 PM

R79, I know a moronic, friend-of-a-friend acquaintance who at least a few years ago did not understand that the "black bars on the screen" are not obscuring anything, but facilitating the viewing of the whole, wide-format image. I actually tried to explain it to him, comparing the squarish SD TV we were watching to a rectangular, horizontal movie screen, but he just could not grasp it and insisted that we watch our movie in "fullscreen". When I told him that would lop off the sides of the image he actually said "really? Where does it go?" I just stopped talking to him at that point. Complete fucking idiot and this was only about 3-4 years ago.

by Anonymousreply 81July 31, 2014 7:53 PM

To complicate it there are films shot in matted widescreen. The film is shot in tv dimensions but shown in theaters with the top and bottom cut off. A good example is Pee Wees Big Adventure. If you watch the scene where he chains up the bike in fullscreen you can actually see the chain coming up from below the compartment. But matted as it was for theaters that joke isnt ruined.

by Anonymousreply 82July 31, 2014 8:06 PM

[quote] To complicate it there are films shot in matted widescreen. The film is shot in tv dimensions but shown in theaters with the top and bottom cut off.

Right. In these instances you actually get MORE visual information in the standard format as opposed to the widescreen.

by Anonymousreply 83July 31, 2014 8:15 PM

I used to get mad when movies were released on DVD in pan-n-scan. When the studios finally got the message to release movies on Widesceen anamorphic, I pretty much celebrated.

by Anonymousreply 84July 31, 2014 11:30 PM

R83, like in Ghost Story (1981) for instance.

by Anonymousreply 85August 1, 2014 12:49 AM

R81, I hope when you say you stopped talking to him, you meant permanently. People like him should be taken out into the woods and shot. I'm not kidding.

by Anonymousreply 86August 1, 2014 12:50 AM

R84 I still haven't bought the film "Deathtrap" on DVD because it is in pan and scan format and not widescreen.

by Anonymousreply 87August 1, 2014 1:08 AM

I know.

by Anonymousreply 88August 1, 2014 2:47 AM

What's pan and scan? I mean I just looked it up on Wiki but I still don't get it. Can someone explain it in lame man's terms?

by Anonymousreply 89August 1, 2014 4:51 AM

LOL, r89! You mean "Pan and Scam".

by Anonymousreply 90August 1, 2014 6:11 AM

Pan and Scan is when the picture is non-Widesceen, cropping the left and right of the scene, where they only show the middle portion of the shot. You're pretty much missing the left and right of the picture. They did this to stretch the movie to fit your TV square screen, so you don't see the black bars on the top and bottom, making the picture look bigger...rather than Widescreen.

Now that we all own Widescreen TV flat screens, you're watching the current ratio, or close to it.

by Anonymousreply 91August 1, 2014 6:19 AM

There's never anything worth seeing on the extreme left or right of the movie, unless it's porn.

by Anonymousreply 92August 1, 2014 6:34 AM

R90, no I meant "pan and scan." That's what everyone else wrote.

R91, thanks. Didn't the stretching distort the picture?

by Anonymousreply 93August 1, 2014 6:38 AM

[quote]Didn't the stretching distort the picture?

No, it's like putting a widescreen movie in a square box, so you don't see the black bars...that's pan in scan.

by Anonymousreply 94August 1, 2014 6:48 AM

[quote]People continually told us they were getting less of the picture and would not believe they were getting more.

Actually, if the film was 1.85:1 or made in Super 35, then you are getting less of the picture, as it's simply masked with the black bars. However, what you are getting is the film as it was intended to be shown by the director and with the correct composition.

by Anonymousreply 95August 1, 2014 6:56 AM

[quote]It made a hell of a whirring, creaking noise as it rewound or fast forwarded

[quote]Mine shrieked!

You two made me think of the old SNL skit where Jan Hooks played Bette Davis reading her will. They were watching it on tape. Hooks made the whirring sound when the video was fast-forwarded.

by Anonymousreply 96August 1, 2014 10:21 AM

R90, TCM did a little video on the difference between pan 'n' scan and letterbox back in the 1990s. It honestly helped people calm down about letterbox and accept it as a home video format. Looks like it's still useful today!

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 97August 1, 2014 11:42 AM

R92 You'll see ALL the show in Todd-AO!

by Anonymousreply 98August 1, 2014 1:51 PM

[R96] Hilarious! I miss Jan hooks so much

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 99August 1, 2014 2:28 PM

[quote]I wish I had some bread to buy one.

Little did they know that an anti-carb movement was soon on its way.

by Anonymousreply 100August 1, 2014 2:43 PM

R99, why is that video unavailable in my country? I'm in the US!

by Anonymousreply 101August 1, 2014 2:45 PM

LOL!

by Anonymousreply 102August 1, 2014 3:29 PM

[quote]why is that video unavailable in my country? I'm in the US!

Are you in the continental US?

by Anonymousreply 103August 1, 2014 3:47 PM

Yes, I'm in MA.

by Anonymousreply 104August 1, 2014 3:56 PM

I don't know what to tell you. Are you using some proxy IP that mimics you being in some other country?

by Anonymousreply 105August 1, 2014 3:58 PM

It says that I can't load the video in my country. šŸ˜§

by Anonymousreply 106August 1, 2014 3:59 PM

I don't know what that means. I'm a bit computer illiterate.

by Anonymousreply 107August 1, 2014 4:00 PM

[quote]It says that I can't load the video in my country.

Are using google chrome?

Try something else.

by Anonymousreply 108August 1, 2014 4:01 PM

I posted the video from you tube but I'm in France. It's weird because NBC content was never available here before.

by Anonymousreply 109August 1, 2014 4:03 PM

R92, you are a complete moron and should probably stick to coloring books and colored wooden blocks for your entertainment.

by Anonymousreply 110August 1, 2014 4:17 PM

Pan and scan also meant more than just cropping off the sides of the picture. As an example, let's say the original movie in widescreen was a static shot of two people in profile talking to each other, one on each side of the screen. When the rectangular image was reduced to a square for tv, instead of just seeing a nose on each side of the screen, they would pan across the screen from left to right, depending on who was talking. If you didn't know any better you would think they were horrible filmmakers, just waving the camera left and right.

by Anonymousreply 111August 1, 2014 4:52 PM

R111, R92 already stated that there is nothing of interest at the extreme ends of the frame. Unless you're watching porn of course.

But what you describe never happens because there's never anything to see at the extreme left or right of the screen. Except in porn.

by Anonymousreply 112August 1, 2014 5:25 PM

"But what you describe never happens because there's never anything to see at the extreme left or right of the screen."

You are a giant idiot.

by Anonymousreply 113August 1, 2014 5:31 PM

R112, no, R111 is right. I've seen it on movies that air on TV, especially on network or basic cable. I didn't realize it was called "pan and scan" but the camera does move weirdly from left to right depending on where the focus ought to be. I especially noticed it once when I caught A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN on USA and the camera kept swaying left to right or even top to bottom. I knew there was something wrong because I own the DVD/Bluray and it doesn't do that.

by Anonymousreply 114August 1, 2014 5:40 PM

An example of things that are to the left and right of the center are credits.

by Anonymousreply 115August 1, 2014 7:11 PM

The panning and scanning of the super widescreen movies of the 1950s is especially horrendous!

by Anonymousreply 116August 1, 2014 7:46 PM

[quote]The panning and scanning of the super widescreen movies of the 1950s is especially horrendous!

I couldn't agree with you more. A good example of that is Gone With The Wind and The Wizard of Oz.

by Anonymousreply 117August 2, 2014 5:31 AM

The Wizard of Oz was never pan-and-scanned. It didn't have to be. It was made in the same ratio as a TV screen.

My parents bought our first VCR for Christmas of 1983. The remote was attached to the machine by a long skinny black cord.

by Anonymousreply 118August 2, 2014 6:17 AM

Wasn't the Wizard of Oz in CinemaScope?

by Anonymousreply 119August 2, 2014 7:07 AM

CinemaScope? In 1939 folks were just grateful moving pictures weren't silent any more. Technicolor alone blew them away.

by Anonymousreply 120August 2, 2014 7:23 AM

CinemaScope wasn't invented until 1953. The rectangular widescreen was an innovation of the 1950s. Movies in the 1940s and 1930s and prior were projected onto square screens. I remember reading that when GONE WITH THE WIND was rereleased in the 1960s, they wanted to make it look like it was on widescreen so they chopped some off the top and some off the bottom to fit it on a rectangular screen. In one of his books, Roger Ebert complained about this, saying it was akin to desecrating a work of art just to take advantage of a modern craze.

by Anonymousreply 121August 2, 2014 7:30 AM

[quote]But what you describe never happens because there's never anything to see at the extreme left or right of the screen

Your favorite movie must be "Four Brides For Four Brothers".

[quote] I remember reading that when GONE WITH THE WIND was rereleased in the 1960s, they wanted to make it look like it was on widescreen so they chopped some off the top and some off the bottom to fit it on a rectangular screen.

Yeah they tried blowing it up to 70MM and it looked terrible.

by Anonymousreply 122August 4, 2014 2:24 PM

For proof (imagine the sides cut off)

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 123August 4, 2014 2:33 PM

The first movie in CinemaScope was THE ROBE

"CinemaScope...the MIRACLE you see without glasses!"

by Anonymousreply 124August 17, 2014 8:44 PM

Interesting...BUMP

by Anonymousreply 125December 6, 2020 4:10 PM

The great thing about cassettes is that you could record an album onto them. One kid buys the album, buys a stack of cassettes on sale, makes 10 cassettes, sells them at half the price of the album & makes a profit. Todayā€™s business model would never allow that to happen.

by Anonymousreply 126December 6, 2020 4:22 PM

In retrospect, the picture quality on VHS recordings were so shitty. But so was the picture quality on TVs when they came out.

I bought a S-VHS machine, which had a resolution closer to the laserdisc/DVD. It was very expensive to both buy and fix.

After it broke the third time, I threw it out, leaving me with a stack of S-VHS tapes that won't play on anything.

by Anonymousreply 127December 6, 2020 4:23 PM

never heard of S-VHS

by Anonymousreply 128December 6, 2020 4:26 PM

I owned the exact set-up OP shows in that 1973 video... a Sony U-Matic Player/Recorder and matching Sony Trinitron Television. I operated a small TV production company in the 1970ā€™s and used the deck for mastering and duplication of tapes. It used U-Matic cassettes holding an hour of tape, 3/4ā€ wide.

I recall using the deck to record off-the-air stuff like the 1976 Bicentennial celebrations... and then never watched the tape again. I also remember friends and neighbors staring at the machine like it was something from NASA. The concept of recording a TV show for later viewing... and not having to worry about ā€œappointment TVā€ was a huge deal. Fun times.

Btw, picture quality was always horrible compared to what we are all used to today.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 129December 6, 2020 5:02 PM

R128 it was a format introduced in the late '80s. It didn't catch on.

Mainly because it was very expensive -- and recorded at a higher resolution than TVs at the time. It was really only useful for recording rented laserdiscs. Or transferring high resolution (for the time) video from cameras.

by Anonymousreply 130December 6, 2020 5:02 PM

Until HD came along, TV pictures were pretty bad.

I remember dad getting a Sony Trinitron, and we all thought it had an amazingly clear pic with good color. Now, I'm sure we would laugh.

by Anonymousreply 131December 6, 2020 5:04 PM

A while ago (10-15 years)? I had a really hard time getting my Mom to get rid of her VHS tapes. She probably had 600 to 700.

All commercial movies, in pretty good shape actually, and in the heyday of VHS, movies were frequently $30+ a tape, so I could see why she didn't want to get rid of them (even though she hadn't watched one in years). She still has the combo VHS/DVD player and it works fine.

Once I played a few though, she could see how bad they look on even the cheapest HD television. They are unwatchable. We were able to sell the collection, but for ... $150? It wasn't much.

by Anonymousreply 132December 6, 2020 5:10 PM

I have to laugh at these people claiming tv was ā€œbadā€ before HD & laser disks came along.

Remember antenna television? If a storm was coming, the picture would die. You could get audio on one channel, but the picture would fade in & out. Static could make it impossible to hear dialogue. Ghosts inhabited the screen. Two different channels could be coming in on one station at the same time. If something happened to the picture for a few days in a row, you had to call the tv repairman, wait for him to come to your house and then he would say he has to take it in to be fixed & you'd be without tv for a week. Youā€™d wait all week for your favorite show to come on, and the douche guy on the next street was on a ham radio fucking up your reception.

Anyone who went from that to cable tv laughs at your claims of ā€œbad quality.ā€

by Anonymousreply 133December 6, 2020 5:13 PM

We inherited a video player like that @ OP from my uncle. We only had two tapes. God knows how much they cost. But just being able to play a tape on the TV seemed magical.

My father got a new VHS machine in about '79 and that was progress - but the tapes were expensive and buying a movie was really expensive. Then the rental places opened...

by Anonymousreply 134December 6, 2020 5:18 PM

Before the Internet, VHS machines (and then DVDs) were the only way to watch porn at home.

by Anonymousreply 135December 6, 2020 5:20 PM

[quote]A while ago (10-15 years)? I had a really hard time getting my Mom to get rid of her VHS tapes. She probably had 600 to 700.

And that's about $25,000 worth of tapes.

Your mom is the Carrie Bradshaw of VHS. And a hoarder.

by Anonymousreply 136December 6, 2020 5:21 PM

Thanks for that info, R135,

by Anonymousreply 137December 6, 2020 5:21 PM

I STILL have a cupboard full of VHS tapes. I haven't opened it recently, but most of those movies and old TV shows are not available elsewhere.

by Anonymousreply 138December 6, 2020 5:23 PM

She absolutely is R136 and it is frustrating.

Iā€™ve seen far worse of course on television, and it isnā€™t that her house is cluttered, but anything that MIGHT have a monetary value (and this is big MIGHT), she refuses to toss. She assumes she can sell it at an estate/garage sale.

She does/did estate sales for a living so I get her point of view, because people do buy loads of useless crap at those things, but she just refuses to accept that tech things (opposed to china, quilts, furniture) just have no worth after a certain point.

.

by Anonymousreply 139December 6, 2020 10:30 PM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!