To be honest, from a picture quality standpoint, VHS is what it is, and is limited by its specification. Various techniques were used over the years to gain minor incremental increases in quality, but I don't see that the machine in question is exceptional in any way. S-VHS, though sharper with a bit more detail, was still burdened by the same low colour bandwidth of standard VHS which is very poor to begin with, hence it was never taken up seriously in the broadcast environment. I always, some may say unfairly, draw a comparison between hi-band U-matic and S-VHS. Both 'colour-under' systems, with S-VHS having a higher resolution, but a side-by-side comparison HBU will blow S-VHS out of the water. A better S/N ratio and much more accurate colour reproduction make for a much better picture. It isn't all about resolution. But unfair comparison.... Yes, or course, recording time is the obvious one. U-Matic is pretty useless with a 60 minute recording time for the domestic user.
@@bsanchez3563 That wouldn't really be a fair comparison though. Hi-band U-matic was introduced around the same time as VHS, D-VHS came a lot later and would obviously produce a much better picture than U-matic. Every format is determined by it's specification laid down at the time of manufacture. If you apply that kind of logic to VHS you may as well compare Digital Betacam to domestic Betamax, there would be no contest.
I’m with you, I’m surprised to see so many “best sharp vcr” videos. VHS is VHS, gotta love it for what it is. Any gains seem to be negligible. As far as recording onto a tape through svideo I’m sure is better, but as far as playback? It won’t get much better. Not enough for me to go out and seek something like this. I got enough other worthless junk in trying seek out ha
The Panasonic NV-HS900 EG (S-VHS, K-Drive, PAL) can reproduce the 3 MHz lines in the test image with "100%" contrast on VHS if "AI" (that's what Panasonic called it in the mid-90s) is switched on. Unfortunately, full sharpness without VNR cannot be set on Panasonic VCRs, although this is absolutely necessary with real AI in the PC.
@Sometimes Igoback Those VCRs had very good tape transport mechanisms.. The problem that I had with my dx800 was one of the top boards were shorting out as the cabinet was giving way!
@@Hi-Tech-Raymakes sense if the set is sitting on top.. even a plastic one struggles under a tv weight fwiw.. well a crt that is fwiw. I learned that when zi was a kid trynna pretend it was a cpmbo unit as I wanted on of those but as an adult.. zi realize its gonna be problematic inevitably before the tv portion dies.
Toshiba SV-950 was the first and oldest S-VHS model from 1987, along with JVC HR-S7000U, Panasonic PV-S4764, Hitachi VT-2700A, and RCA VPT-695HF together. All 1987 S-VHS models.
This is not the best vcr at all, Toshiba vcr was not the best and I use to fix these things years ago. It JVC and Panasonic who made the best top end vcrs.
@@cloudstrife8596 your best trying to find a jvc or Panasonic SVHS deck with a time base corrector built in. They are getting harder to get. It more about getting one with low hour uses on it. I use to repair and service video recorders years ago and they do need a good service to keep them tip top. You can pay a lot of money still for a good quality vcr.
@@Supersammy22-1gv7ej2j your a bit of an idiot, that’s like saying blu-ray is better than dvd . We are talking about video tape recorders here not optical disc players. If you want to go down that road try DV and DVHS they are better than dvd and they are still tape. Learn your stuff before you reply.
All vcrs have comparable Picture quality. 6 headed ones was litle better for dealing with imperfections of tapes. I have compared my professional panasonic that is properly served with brand new old stock 6 headed one and they looked no different to each other in any way if you set picture parameters corectly. The new one is pretty generic typical vcr from 2000s and it is almost half in size. So electronics seen some shrinkage for sure. But no any better or worse in Picture quality. Just litle snappier in rewinding perhaps and less shaky footage when paused. Vcr was very much like crap in crap out. And take care of me ill take care of you type of thing. TBS 80s tech looks much better then 90s tech for sure.
Why would anyone need s-video on analog source? It shouldn't produce better quality. I know on laserdisc players s-video is basically the same as composite because I've captured both analog sources and I didn't notice a quality difference and the resolution didn't change either. The only s-video analog source I've ever noticed a benefit is on my Sega Dreamcast. It looks much better in s-video on a fat tube tv.
@@jojowilson2868 S-Video is an analog connection. S-Video separates Luma and chroma signals for better separation than composite video. Composite smashes luma and chroma into one signal, resulting in a blurrier picture with more bleeding and less defined separation within images.
@@jojowilson2868 Laserdisc is *recorded* as a composite signal, while even standard VHS is seemingly recorded with a signal kind of inbetween composite & s-video - so s-video should squeeze out a little more quality. It should also be easier to get a high quality digital capture. The s-video format itself is inherently better than composite, but of course if it's just being converted from composite(as from laserdisc) it's unlikely to make much difference - unless a capture or display device just handles s-video better.
The price is $999.99 free shipping. It is expensive, but you will get what you pay for. spencertified.com/collections/s-video-svhs-super-vhs-player-recorders/products/toshiba-sv-950-s-video-svhs-vhs-video-cassette-recorder-super-rare-professional-commercial-grade-editing-vcr-spencertified
