[photo-3d] Re: Digtal, Betamax, etc.

[Gee <73157.2172@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

JR writes:

>A very good example of what I have been trying to get across for quite a
>while.  Consumer Beta was superior to VHS from the beginning.  With each
VHS
>improvement, Beta was improved so as to keep its quality lead.  And, the
>pricing was usually competitive (feature-for-feature) with similar VHS
>models.  Yet, Beta is for all practical purposes gone as a consumer item.
>Interestingly, it is still the major format (Beta SP), by far, for
>acquisition in the professional market.  Also interesting, is the lack of
>further meaningful improvements to VHS (previously, almost annually) after
>the competition (Beta) disappeared.

Um, no.  This is one of those myths that just wont die.  Consumer Beta was
never superior to VHS.
Ever.   Both of these formats stink.  However, without getting into
specifics, if you record a 
broadcast source onto each format and play them back side by side, the VHS
copy will look
more like the original broadcast.  Beta lost the war for one primary reason
- playback time.  At a 
time when tapes cost $20 each, it was important how much you could cram
onto one.  A secondary
reason was Sony's arrogance toward the rest of the electronics industry. 
(A lesson they still haven't
learned, I might add.)

>The point is, that the public does not look for real quality when making
>buying decisions.  Most people buy on hype, not facts.  If garbage is
>slickly advertised, people will buy it.  If you do have a good product,
>forget trying to promote it on its true merits.  A truly good product can
>only be widely sold if it is hyped.

Absolutely true.  People usually vote with their wallets first.  Quality is
a secondary
issue.  As they said in my Marketing classes, "You're selling the sizzle,
not the steak!"

>Look at the Apple Mac.  It was a great product, but nearly went the way of
>Beta.  Then, they repackaged it in rainbow colors and hyped the eye appeal
>(yes, there were some technical differences, but it was still basically
the
>same product inside). They hyped it royally, and it took off.

Somewhat true, but the new Macs have really saved Apple from Chapter 11,
rather than
revolutionized the industry.  They still are a niche product.   

>The Stereo Realist (let alone the superb RBT) is light years ahead of any
>digital product currently offered, in terms of the image quality it can
>deliver.  Yet, digi-squash is what is hyped.  Look what the public buys. 
Go
>figure.

I agree that photos are still better than digital.  People are hooked on
instant gratification,
and on the email sharing of pictures.  Not sure when the tide will turn
toward digital as the
majority of pictures taken, but that day IS coming.  We stereo enthusiasts
are already the "audiophiles" of the photographic world, and we will be
even more so as we cling to the traditional photographic
processes.

                                                                      Derek
Gee

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/