I had a very short stint in videotape before I ended up doing studio camera. I seem to recall it took ten adjustments on this machine to get a tape ready for air, four if you were in a hurry :)

@@jethro1963 And that was not the TRT 1B I trained on and had to use at times! It had 6 adjustments per head x 4 heads. And then overall signal.

One of the things I love about KZfaq the most is that folks who knew the origins of some of these videos can comment and add context. In summary: thank you for chiming in here. I thoroughly enjoyed this presentation and explanation of pre-VCR technology. Good stuff!

I've noticed that too--it looks a lot like a kinescope. I'm guessing this was originally recorded on videotape with video cameras, most likely at the studios of WKBS (as mentioned on the opening credits). I wouldn't be surprised if the TR-4 featured in this film was one of WKBS' studio VTRs. My guess for it being a kinescope is that it was probably more practical economically in the mid-60s to distribute this limited-audience industrial instructional presentation on 16mm film (kinescoped from a videotape master), than keep it solely on tape. Since there were far more 16mm projectors around and readily available in that era than there were 2" quad machines like the one this program was probably recorded on, which makes sense for such a limited industrial audience as this film would target. And other industrial videotape formats at the time (like Ampex's 1" Type A from 1965 or Sony's 1" EV format from 1964) were so few and far between and nonstandardized to really not be well-known yet. Plus, film stock at that time was far cheaper than 2" quad videotape stock (the former being ideal for distribution to multiple parties), until smaller and cheaper videotape formats like U-matic became the norm (and widely used for industrial instruction like this film) in the 70s. I've noticed this was standard practice for a few educational/industrial videos originating on videotape from the 50s-70s that I've seen, having them kinescoped to then-more commonly accessible 16mm film until videocassettes arrived in the 70s. A production's master videotape could be easily and simply dubbed down from, say, 2" quad to U-Matic or VHS at a much lower cost than to have a film kinescope made and multiple prints struck from it in earlier times.

@@RyanSchweitzer77 Also the audio channels are out-of-phase! Playing this video on my phone, the audio is very garbled!

VHS is significantly lower quality though.

and VHS using "helical scanning" instead of "transverse scanning" that RCA used

@@xtalplanet that AMPEX invented

José Santos Not in the same sense as on a helical scan machine: you don’t get any sort of playback on a quad, where on a helical machine you’ll see most of a frame of video. On this machine, the main purpose for standby mode is so the head and capstan will already be up to speed when you hit the play button; that reduces the time for video to lock by several seconds, compared to hitting play from a dead stop.

@@jeffhartman7000 Right, it relaxed the vacuum guide so no head to tape contact

Actually the standby button spun up the headwheel. Thats all it really did

Upper edge "as it's portrayed in this sketch". There is no top or bottom of the tape on this type of machine, where one reel is above the other.

Uh no.... I restore these machines. So the control track is at the bottom of the tape. The control track head is perm mounted at the bottom of the video head assembly and must be perfectly aligned to the headwheel at the video head manufacturing or refurb company. I have been working with these machines since they were invented. The fact that the supply reel is above the take up reel is of no concern. Unlike helical scan machines, the tape path is straight.

@@rty1955 The tape path is straight as in exactly 90 degrees or just closer to perpendicular than helical scan? The basic difference that I see is one has segmented video and the other does not.

@@acoustic61 ever work on a quad? The tape path is straight on a quad. No slanted rollers, no wrapping around a head drum, no wrapping. No audio heads perpendicular to the head drum and tape never contacts the head unless it is in play or record mode. U can almost drop the tape into position on a quad Check kut a thread pattern on a quad vs a Sony BVH machine. Quad is MUCH straighter. Also the reel table height is the same on a quad. Makes for zero wear on guides & heads for either RWD or FFD

@@acoustic61 I think it worked out to 89.7 degrees (memory from training 49 years ago, I could be wrong on the number). The headwheel rotated at right angles to the tape and the tape was pulled past it at 15 inches per second, therefore the transverse tracks did have a slight angle. 0.010inch wide recording tracks with a 0.005 inch guard band between, for a pitch of 0.015 inches. Across a 2 inch tape moving at 15 ips, there was a very slight angle developed but somebody else can do the math if they want. Then, of course, there was 7.5 ips.

Uh... I think AMPEX had to have the help of those RCA engineers to make the AMPEX machines color capable. And I think AMPEX granted RCA licensing rights in return. RCA didnt rip anything off.

I used both too. TR70 locked up in 3 seconds. 1200 took 7 seconds.

I believe "VideoTape" was an AMPEX brand-name back then. RCA termed it "Television Tape"

palmer johnson RCA was unable to produce.viable video tape machine. AMPEX was already in production or machines for broadcast. This upset RCA greatly as RCA wanted to own all the patents for television broadcast. Just like Microsoft does for computers. When color TV came about, AMPEX was working on color mods for the quadraplex. RCA wanted so bad to have thier own version of these machines that AMPEX licenced the tape machine design in exchange for the color mods RCA had developed. I worked on every model of VTR that AMPEX made for broadcast from the VR-1000 to ACR225 models.

Were they compatible, i.e. could you play a tape recorded on RCA on an Ampex machine or vice versa?