[tokyojerry]

" "High-Def Camcorders: Tape Edges Out Tapeless" and "Who said tape is dead?"

Perhaps there is an ounce (or gram) of truth in that statement. Just like who said vinyl records are dead? Or, people who ride horses instead of an automobile? More realistically and practically thinking, try to keep that magnetic media around for a couple of decades and then lets review the quality of that magnetically encoded data on your tape. I have a couple tapes still lying around the house, that are 1977 vintage. I can vouch for the quality. Perhaps ditto can be said for even burnable DVDs which are chemically coated. How long will be the longevity of your data on chemically coated DVDs versus commercial DVDs in which data is etched into the surface? Anyway, given the digital era, for all practical purposes, tape is dead. For archival purposes, there might be some practical utility. For practical purposes though, random selection and accessibility of media playback, digital is far superior and convenient over FF and REW and all them clumsy controls, not to mention hiss sounds and video noise of tape, etc.

[NightshadesMac]

Indeed, I hadn't heard of it's arrival. Thanks. However, I doubt the likelihood that very many people are going to be willing to pay as much for their keyboard as they are for their computer. I still feel like its time has come and now I'm wondering how long it will take for this piece of tech to come down in price so that people can afford it.

[RogerKni]

"given
the digital era, for all practical purposes, tape is dead."

Canon doesn't think so.

"For practical purposes
though, random selection and accessibility of media playback, digital
is far superior"

Most people agree. But some people prefer tape, or at least would like to use it occasionally, for the reasons mentioned in my quote.

"try to keep that magnetic media around for a couple of decades and then lets review the quality"

It's not ideal if it is the only copy--but it would make a good backup copy--as a protection against loss. (Assuming the user copies the tape to his computer, edits out the portions he doesn't want, and saves the highlights to disk and/or DVD.) With tapeless models, the original gets overwritten--and storing the entire original on disk becomes expensiv if there is lots of videotaping done. (As you acknowledge, "For archival
purposes, there might be some practical utility.")

The purpose of my quote wasn't to prove that tape is thriving, or deserves to thrive, but only that it's hanging on, and may well keep hanging on, as evidenced by the recent release of a top-quality HD camcorder by a major mfgr. This disproves overstatements that tape has no future, "IS dead," etc.

[RogerKni]

PS: Excuse me for all the indentations above--they occurred by accident.

[tbutler67]

{quote:title=RogerKni wrote:}{quote}

Quote

The purpose of my quote wasn't to prove that tape is thriving, or deserves to thrive, but only that it's hanging on, and may well keep hanging on, as evidenced by the recent release of a top-quality HD camcorder by a major mfgr. This disproves overstatements that tape has no future, "IS dead," etc.

I suppose it all depends on context and what you mean by 'no future'. I agree that tape is still used extensively at the pro and even prosumer level, just as Betamax was used as a professional format for many years after it was effectively dead at the consumer level. But that doesn't mean anything when you're out shopping for a camcorder for a Christmas present (well, unless you're giving one to a pro and have very deep pockets). I think most people here are talking about that consumer marketplace, what you can find when you walk into a Best Buy or a MicroCenter (or even a Fry's, J&R, or a Nebraska Furniture Mart).

So, looking at it from the consumer context... well, when camcorders first came down to the consumer level, they were almost all VHS. (I still have the JVC deck my father got back in the 80's, where the tape mechanism and tuner were two separate equal-sized boxes, so you didn't have to sling the entire thing over your shoulder while trying to hold a separate camera in your hand.) Then VHC-C came in, and standard VHS camcorders disappeared. VHS-C was replaced by Hi-8/Digital8, which was supplanted by MiniDV. Now in the consumer electronics stores, as I said earlier in the thread, I'm seeing the exact same pattern with tapeless camcorders and MiniDV as I saw with MiniDV and Hi-8/Digital8: first a couple of models, then a whole generation of models taking up a significant chunk of market share, until now the majority of camcorders are tapeless. Sure, you can still get tape-based camcorders, but they're now a minority. (And FireWire based models are a small subset of that minority.)

That's our data. What conclusions can we draw from it? If it follows the pattern of other camcorder formats, which it seems to be doing so far, that would certainly suggest that tape-based models are on their way out; new models may continue to be released, but fewer and fewer as time goes on. Does that mean that tape 'has no future' or 'is dead'? You can make a reasonable argument that tape isn't strictly 'dead' as long as new models are being produced - but if they become expensive and/or hard to find at ordinary consumer outlets, what's the practical difference? Likewise, if a few consumer models continue to be produced for 'tape-o-philes', you could argue that tape technically has a future... but is that going to matter to the average consumer who just wants to walk into Best Buy and grab something that will be quick and simple for them to pick up?

[tokyojerry]

@tbutler67

Well-stated. That pretty much sums up my feeling and what I wanted to express. Fundamentally, at the consumer level anyway, tape is out. You can say the same about vinyl recorders too. Yeah, they exist, in used record shops, antique shops etc., and yes you can still by turntables if you hunt for them. But CDs have supplanted that. And frankly, I think even CDs will go by the way of the DoDo bird as well since DVDs can do everything CDs can and more. In fact, I would not be surprised to see both go as now we are in the age of digital audio and video files, digital downloading, enjoying, archiving.

Back to DV tapes, yes, here in Japan where I can monitor this activity first hand, there is an occasional model from Canon and whoever that will put the token DV tape model on the market. But but and large, the consumer products are either hard-disk-based, SDHC (memory card)-based, mini-DVD and mini-BD-DVD-based, and so on. That's the trend, and the market. And, those will eventually give way to SSD-based, etc. Yes, tape 'exists', and, VHS tapes can still be purchased, but that's the end of it.

[sirboom]

This is not a good article. It's all positive. What about the fact that the Macbooks LCD is horrible? Hello?

[sirboom]

Agreed 100%! And when are we going to get a 14.1" Macbook Pro?!?!?!

[sirboom]

The question is, when is Apple going to realize that some of us out here want a 13" or 14" Macbook Pro?! 15" is massive! We can plug into a monitor if we need more room!

[Oliver99]

"Simply put, the display is gorgeous."
Simply put, you're blind.
Even the staff at my local Apple store admit that the Macbook has a very poor LCD panel. I find myself squatting lower and lower as I look at it, trying to find an ideal angle, as if playing limbo. It's worse than any PC notebook display I could find at Circuit City.
The reflection issue is a total red herring. I'm sorry so many people have such poor visal acuity that this pathetic screen is deemed passable in a very expensive notebook.

[DonaldGould]

No new notebook for me until Apple the Glossy Display, the chiclet keys, and adds USB-3... if I live that long.

[chasrails]

The lack of a matte display option is certainly a legitimate concern, but I don't understand why discussions of the new Macbook display tend to focus on that one issue when the new display is so poor regardless of that issue. I own an Air, which has a truly wonderful glossy screen. The main problem with the new Macbook display is not that it is glossy, it is that it is 'excessively reflective' on the glass surface. I've compared side-by-side an Air and a new Macbook, and the displays are very, very different. The new Macbook display is far more reflective, and to me this is very distracting even at maximum brightness. I do not believe the new Macbook would be very usable outdoors, and I especially wonder why Apple thought an indoor-only notebook would be a 'good fit' for students (or anyone else for that matter!). The Air display is also far superior with respect to color and warmth -- but I expect this might be addressable via a future firmware upgrade.

I'm very disappointed with MacWorld magazine -- I expected a true unbiased review that might help motivate Apple to fix this problem, but instead it was brushed aside. Why? This is not a subjective concern, or one that takes a discerning eye -- it is an obvious issue that smacks you in the face. I'd be interested in hearing about how and when Apple will fix this display. I'd be interested in whether a firmware fix could resolve other reported issues (e.g., the bluish tinting).

So please, let's not just focus on the 'matte versus glossy' issue, but also (and arguably more important) the glossy versus 'excessively reflective' issue. Thank you.