Most active commenters
  • boomboomsubban(6)
  • guestbest(3)

←back to thread

653 points thunderbong | 14 comments | | HN request time: 1.715s | source | bottom
Show context
boomboomsubban ◴[] No.36908788[source]
I'm surprised there aren't more full tapings of 90's television available, as in entire blocks of broadcasting with all the commercials intact. That was how most recording would have happened, and with the start of TV Land the networks should have been able to predict there'd be a market for it in 30 years.
replies(5): >>36908845 #>>36908922 #>>36912076 #>>36914980 #>>36915509 #
guestbest ◴[] No.36908922[source]
Storage was a problem back then.
replies(1): >>36909338 #
1. boomboomsubban ◴[] No.36909338[source]
Not really. Hoarders were already mass recording TV from home, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Stokes

Recording ~5 hours of television a night would have been a trivial cost for a network like NBC. Particularly compared to the licensing fees those hours would have had.

replies(5): >>36909796 #>>36910516 #>>36910624 #>>36911425 #>>36912036 #
2. throwanem ◴[] No.36909796[source]
Which 5 hours? The programming transmitted by the network with few to no commercials, or the programming broadcast by hundreds of NBC affiliates, each with its own set of commercials paid for by local advertisers?
replies(1): >>36910351 #
3. boomboomsubban ◴[] No.36910351[source]
The storage costs wouldn't be a huge deal to either group.

In general, the affiliate nature would add a wrinkle to the whole thing, but not an insurmountable one. If nothing else, they could have used the broadcast from the affiliates they owned.

replies(2): >>36910488 #>>36920647 #
4. guestbest ◴[] No.36910488{3}[source]
Where’s the profit motive?
replies(1): >>36910623 #
5. ikekkdcjkfke ◴[] No.36910516[source]
Legend
6. boomboomsubban ◴[] No.36910623{4}[source]
Viewers? As my hypothetical has them planning this in the 90's, they would have been aiming for cable licensing fees. TV Land was fairly successful, by 1999 is was outperforming MTV.
replies(1): >>36911325 #
7. standardUser ◴[] No.36910624[source]
Really. Tape media is bulky, expensive, prone to deterioration and the content back then started off low quality, so that deterioration takes a meaningful toll. Sure, a major corporation could afford to archive and maintain all of that material, but what's in it for them? A few thousand hours of repeating commercials and station promos?
replies(1): >>36910919 #
8. boomboomsubban ◴[] No.36910919[source]
Those networks were already well aware how lucrative nostalgia was, it seems like someone could see it as a worthwhile investment.
9. guestbest ◴[] No.36911325{5}[source]
That was more of a problem with MTV than the success of nostalgia.
replies(1): >>36911841 #
10. karaterobot ◴[] No.36911425[source]
Presumably it's not just the cost of storage media, but storage of the media too. Climate-controlled warehouses leased in perpetuity, archivists, security, and so on. To be clear, I don't think this is why so much of TV and movies (not to mention radio) is lost, I think that's just lack of foresight or different priorities. My point is, I don't think just buying a few thousand off-the-shelf VHS blanks would have solved the problem.
11. boomboomsubban ◴[] No.36911841{6}[source]
TV Land's ratings were roughly equivalent to ESPN's, and it's success led to numerous imitators. Definitely a success.
12. tivert ◴[] No.36912036[source]
I'm working to digitize some old VHS tapes. It's not as easy as it sounds.

You've quite a few barriers to getting that stuff online.

1. Sure, someone taped 6 hours onto a junk tape of TV from some channel to catch one show. But then they likely taped over that, again and again.

2. Tapes are bulky. VHS in general and junk tapes in particular would have been viewed by most people as low value junk that was tempting to disposed of. That's especially true during the decade or two before nostalgia and retro-cool starts making old junk more desirable.

3. Tapes degrade. Even if someone kept them, they might not be readable and/or gum up the VCR you're trying to use to read them.

4. VHS digitization equipment is also old. Apparently newer capture cards aren't very good compared to older ones, and there are specialized devices to fix signal errors (TBCs), allowing capture cards to actually work, that are becoming hard to find and expensive.

5. It takes a lot of time. VCRs play tapes at 1x speed. So if you want to digitize a 6 hour tape, it's going to take at least 6 hours.

replies(1): >>36916164 #
13. smackeyacky ◴[] No.36916164[source]
Find a good quality dvd recorder, sony made some great ones that can be thrifted for $10 or so. A good quality hifi 6 head VHS is about the same money.

Hook those up, record to DVD.

Rip DVD.

No need to fool with terrible capture cards they sucked back in the day and have not improved. The biggest problem I found with VHS is mold growth.

Edit: bonus with dvd recorders is that some have firewire ports so ripping portable video vamera tapes is automatic.

14. throwanem ◴[] No.36920647{3}[source]
> The storage costs wouldn't be a huge deal to either group.

Broadcast-grade video tape cassettes were expensive even in bulk, and all tape requires climate-controlled archival storage since heat and especially humidity are quickly destructive to the adhesives that hold the magnetic layer to the substrate. (If you'd like more detail here, the term of art for this failure mode is "sticky-shed syndrome". While it's obviously more of a problem now than then, archival needs were understood at the time.)

Depending on format (Betacam SP or U-Matic), an open-ended commitment to preserving all programming would involve adding at minimum 2/3 to 1 cassette per hour of programming - more if you want multiple copies. So your running costs start out sizable and only grow over time, in search of a highly speculative payoff that at best won't be realized for years to decades.