[QuadList] Quad Vs Type C

[dcfwtx at aol.com]

Scott,


The cameras on Golden Girls were deliberately "fogged up" a bit (softened) if I recall correctly. I would not compare that type C recording to quad. True that some early type C suffered from poor S/N and tape stock issues. But many factors contribute to whether a certain tape can look good or not. As I mentioned earlier, type A  very high band (with good cameras such as what appeared to be HL 79's in this dance segment I transferred), looked good. A properly tuned 2" quad (with all factors in place) had exceptional capability to reproduce good, sharp pictures. It just took an effort at times.


David Crosthwait
 





-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Thomas <scottgfx at mac.com>
To: Quad List <quadlist at quadvideotapegroup.com>
Sent: Sat, Jan 30, 2010 4:26 pm
Subject: [QuadList] Quad Vs Type C


I have a question regarding the longevity of Quad tapes verses Type C.

When I see transfers of Quad material, it looks tack-sharp like it's first 
generation. When I see TV programs that I know were produced in the Type-C era, 
they tend to look softer.

One example, I saw Golden Girls on cable this past week. It looked a bit soft to 
me.

One theory I have are that perhaps there is more print-through on the Type C 
material, the tapes are degaussing themselves? Quad's wider guard bands and 
thicker tape base perhaps prevent this more?

Has anyone else noticed this?

Scott Thomas

_______________________________________________
Please trim posts to relevant info when replying!
Send QuadList list posts to QuadList at quadvideotapegroup.com
Your subscribe, unsubscribe and digest options are here:
http://mail.quadvideotapegroup.com/mailman/listinfo/quadlist_quadvideotapegroup.com

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.quadvideotapegroup.com/pipermail/quadlist_quadvideotapegroup.com/attachments/20100130/1190d6fe/attachment-0001.html>