Jump to content

Talk:VHS/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Macrovision and DRM

I've removed the following statement from the "Optical disc-based technologies" section:

DVD Recorders may prevent recording of some programs due to Digital Rights Management. VCRs generally ignore these restrictions.

The reason behind the removal is that the statement is just too general, and is technically not correct. There are two types of protection out there: macrovision and DRM.

Macrovision has existed sinec 1983. Even back then, when you tried recording a signal containing macrovision on a VCR, the video would be scrambled. There are equipment out there that will shut off macrovision, but that does not mean the VCR itself is capable of recording signals containing macrovision. There are also VCRs that either disable macrovision, or they just don't attempt to detect macrovision, such as very old VCRs. However, that is not the norm that would deserve the generalized statement regarding VCRs.

DRM on the other hand really doesn't play into this scenario; DRM is a digitally-based encryption mechanism protecting the 1's and 0's, while macrovision is an analog-based encryption method within a video signal. To make the statement more accurate, DVD recorders cannot record video sources containing macrovision, but can record unencrypted (i.e. de-DRM'd) video, i.e. dubbing. Let's say a DVD does contain DRM but no macrovision. Once the video has been decrypted in the player, and delivered out of the player, any recorder - including DVD recorders and VCRS - will record the video.

If one is attempting to make a statement giving the VCR an advantage over DVD recorders regarding encryption and other protection methods, these ideas should be considered. Groink 01:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Clean up technical details?

The "technical details" section is quite large, and tends to wander between topics quite loosely. Could someone more fluent in VHS rearrange the information in a more natural way, or split it into several sections? Sections could include "physical properties", "electromagnetic properties", etc.

Personally, I came to this page looking for the information necessary to make good quality recordings to a computer from VHS tapes, so it's very useful to have details like frame rate and video resolution spelled out in language that I can understand, coming from a binary world. unsigned by Andrew Sayers

One thing I haven't seen discussed in the article is timebase correction (TBC), which is very important for VHS-to-computer recordings. Briefly, there are two ways of getting TBC. One, you can purchase a VCR that supports TBC. I use a JVC S-VHS unit with built-in TBC, and tapes that displayed major tears in the video are now clean. Two, you can place a device between the VCR and computer. Canopus sells a device model ADVC300 that handles TBC, although I do not have personal experience with this unit. Because there's a growing number of people doing the VHS-to-DVD thing, it would be beneficial to create a section covering TBC and other methods of fixing video quality for digital conversion. Groink 06:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation tag

I added a "citations missing" tag to this article because there is only one footnote, and no Inline citations.

Latitude0116 04:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Physical Dimensions

There is nothing in this article listing the physical dimensions of the VHS tape (lxwxh) --Stux 17:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I did a google search and the following page has great information on dimensions: http://www.russellvideo.com/video_formats.htm I just don't know or really have the time to figure out where to add this information (and it should be aded to the pages of the other formats as well). This essentially would be a small project. --Stux 17:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

VHS initials

The name "vertical helical scan" is not documented. The system does use a helical scan system, but it is not "vertical", it is diagonal across the tape. I have found no source for this name. The name Video Home System" was given by its inventors and is widely documented (see the IEEE history page referenced in the article). See also the comment in the "Backronym" post from July, 2006. --Blainster 16:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Some people are continuing to try and change this on the article, which I will resist, because it is NOT fact. Hardylane 04:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

...a rectangle of discrete pixels

Under technical details, there is the following sentence:

Because VHS is an analog system, VHS tapes represents video as a continuous stream of colour, even though the images displayed on a television set are a rectangle of discrete pixels.

Under what TV signal format(s)? The NTSC and PAL formats which were contemporary to VHS's golden age were analog, just like VHS; it was not until the growth of digital TV in the 2000's that the concept of a TV picture as a rectangle of discrete pixels replaced that of a continuous analog stream (punctuated with HBLANKs and VBLANKs).

The crux of this section, I think, is that because of the design of VHS's luminance modulation, its horizontal resolution was limited to roughly 240 "columns" per scanline, even though analog video signals could theoretically achieve twice that or more. Any discussion of "pixels" is anachronistic within the analog domain of TV signals in the 1970s-1990s.

Rootbeer22 18:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Size

An IP changed the dimensions - since the same IP also inserted more obvious vandalism, I assumed this was "subtle stat vandalism" but can someone check these numbers? --Random832 17:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Confused by horizontal resolution

VHS's horizontal resolution is often cited as 240 "lines". But what do that means? I know three different interpretations:

- 240 lines means 240 distinct pixels (for luminance)

- 240 lines means the ability to show 240 different lines and therefore 480 (or 479) pixels (black-white-alternating.)

- 240 lines means 320 pixels due to the aspect ratio of 1.33 (refering to http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_6_3/essay-video-resolution-july-99.html chapter "Horizontal resolution . . . where the confusion begins.")

Due to my observations one should avoid to talk about "pixels" since it looks like the VHS "pixels" positions are not fixed (contrary to a digital display device like a TFT monitor.)

I tried to enumarate it myself with guessing the number of distinct horizontal elements in a tv programme logo and multiplied its count by 11 since the logo tool 1/11th of the total tv width. Considering a bit overscan, this methode lead to a number of almost 300 "pixels" per scanline. This is definitively more than 240, but also notably less than 320.

Interesstingly enough, it do fits into the statement of "220 lines" at the linked site which leads to a number of nearly 300 "pixels" (or maximum different details in the luminance per scanline.) But 220 are not 240.

So can someone *please* make it clear, what VHS's horizontal resolution really is?


Aths 15:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no "pixels" on VHS tape or traditional analogue broadcasts. There are only horizontal scan lines that can get brighter and dimmer. The horizontal resolution tells how many times the horizontal scan line can transition from black to white or white to black across a horizontal distance equal to the height of the screen before the whole thing just looks like grey. Both black and white lines count, so a resolution of 220 means 110 black vertical lines and 110 white lines.
The resolution will depend on whether you are using an RF cable (usually channel 3 or 4) or separate video/audio cable, or S-video, etc. It will also depend on how good your cables are, the types of filters the TV uses, the quality of the black tape, the recording speed, the quality of the video heads, etc.
For a good discussion of resolution see http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/vidres.htm and pages linked to it. For complex reasons, horizontal colour resolution is typically only about 25-32 pixels from tape. See the page for discussion Canadiana 18:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


Hello, since VHS is analogue, you are right that there are no real pixels. However we got a smallest size of detail, or a maximum amount of (luminance) details per scanline. I doubt that VHS is limited to 120 vertical lines alternating black and white (making 240 "pixels").
I actually tried to count luminance details per scanline and it comes out to nearly 300 per scanline (including the invisible overscan.) Since you speak about "he horizontal resolution tells how many times the horizontal scan line can transition from black to white or white to black across a horizontal distance equal to the height of the screen the number of 220 should be multiplied by 1.33 to get the number for a complete scanline (in 4:3 aspect ratio.) Or did I got it all wrong? Aths 08:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
You've got it. To find the number of lines across the entire width of a standard aspect screen, you'd have to multiply the resolution by 1.33, so my example of 220 would be 293 lines across the entire screen, which sounds like your estimate of "nearly 300". I think that 244 is a theoretical maximum within the VHS signal bandwidth. Individual results will vary according to equipment, etc.
I looked at the article just now and the information there is clearly wrong. I don't have time to correct it right now, but someone should. Canadiana 21:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for clearing this. I already edited the german issue of VHS, since my english is not that good, please edit this english version of the VHS article =)
Making 320 "pixels" (no real pixels, but smallest luminance details) out of VHS fits well into S-VHS's 400 lines (and therefore 533 "pixels") which is about the maximum of the analog PAL or NTSC TV signal.
I do have some other questions, though:
- Are NTSC-VHS and PAL-VHS using the same colour subcarrier frequency? (In other words, is the noise in areas with high colour saturdation for NTSC-VHS as big as for PAL-VHS? Due to the lower tape speed and lower head drum rotation speed for PAL-VHS, I guess that NTSC-VHS delivers better colour reproduction.)
Does SVHS improves luminance details only or does SVHS also improve the color resolution (and quality due to lower noise?) Aths 14:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
No S-VHS does not alter the chroma. Neither does Super Betamax or ED Betamax. What these formats did was leave the chroma half of the tape at ~650 kilohertz, and extend the luma part from ~5 megahertz to ~7 megahertz or even as high as ~10 megahertz. Thus the luma gained more fine details, but the chroma remained the same.
It's easy to calculate luma resolution. VHS has a 3.1 million cycles per second luma bandwidth divided by 30 frames per second / 525 scanlines per frame, which yields 197 waves per scanline. The NTSC standard only uses 83% of the line for picture (the rest is reserved to moving the "gun" to the next line, aka blanking interval). And each wave can represent two "pixels" of white & black side by side. So 197 * 83% * 2 == 327 pixels edge-to-edge.
Except analog resolution isn't measured edge-to-edge; it's measured assuming the screen is perfectly square. So 327 edge-to-edge * 3:4 aspect ratio == 245 lines of horizontal resolution. ----- I should take note here that analog is a very "fuzzy" medium that often depends on who is looking at the screen. One person might look at the screen and say, "I only see 230 lines," while someone working for JVC's VHS marketing department might say, "I see 250; honest," as is the case with my JVC camera. I wouldn't get too hung-up on the exact number, because it can vary vcr-to-vcr, tape-to-tape, and person-to-person. (Which is why analog broadcast is listed as "300-330 lines"; it depends on lots of variables, and the viewers' eyeballs.)
If you're like me, you probably think in terms of digital resolutions. Here's a quick rundown of resolutions for various media (all of these are approximate and rounded to the nearest 10):
* 320x240 - Video CD
* 320x480 - Umatic, Betamax, VHS, Video8, CED (videorecords)
* 390x480 - Umatic SP, Super Betamax, Betacam (pro)
* 560x480 - Super VHS, Super Video8 (Hi8), LaserDisc, Betacam SP (pro)
* 700x480 - ED Betamax
* 720x480 - W-VHS, DVD, DigiBetacam, Digital8, miniDV, Digital VHS
* 1280x720/1920x1080 - W-VHS, HDCAM (HD Betacam), HD DVD, Blu-ray, HDV (miniDV), Digital VHS - Theaveng 17:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Question, please answer ASAP!

Will most modern VHS players from the US play PAL films? I really need to know this fast! Thanks!

I would say no... but the thing is, here in the UK, all VHS players sold in the 2000's at least play NTSC - same with DVD players. I don't think there is a big enough demand to display PAL in the US. The manual will tell you though.

Dinsdale1234 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The answer is no. Regular mass market VHS machines sold in the US will not play PAL. A couple of niche market multi standard machines will, but chances are if you have to ask at all yours isn't. Anorak2 08:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Optical disc-based technologies

This section states, "Dual layer recorders and media have not yet become commonplace." Also, "Dual layer DVD discs are still quite expensive."

Is this still true today? From a little research, I think this is a majority of what they sell now. And the prices keep falling for dual layer disks.

I think this needs to be put in more perspective of the time or removed completely. As this might be true today, but it will definitely not be true years from now. --Mkoko483 19:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


Dual layer hardware is now the absolute norm, but takeup of dual-layer discs is still small. Hardylane 00:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Several things. First, most "appliance-based" DVD recorders currently in-use are still only single-layer. And it is still true that, by perspective alone, single-layer DVDs are hands down much cheaper than dual-layer DVDs. So right now the statement currently in-place is still true. Second, I believe that DVD-HD and Blu-Ray will become the standard recording medium BEFORE dual-layer DVD, which is why I believe manufacturers are holding off on supporting dual-layer recording in their appliances. Third, statements can actually be written to describe the trend today, even though everyone knows it won't be true tomorrow. Even printed publications like Encyclopedia Britannica have to be updated every year. People read Wikipedia for TODAY's information - and not to read about tea leaves written to compensate about tomorrow. Think of Wikipedia as a living encyclopedia that can change by the day. Groink 01:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that many "appliance based" DVD recorders utilise standard IDE-interfaced DVD rewriters within, which are capable of dual layer writing, even if the firmware on the device only supports single-layer writing. Hardylane 12:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, that may be good for the DVD recorder article. But it is out-of-scope for a VHS article. Groink 19:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, but I was clarifying a point here by mkoko482. Hardylane 22:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

What's the point of the black thing at the back of a cassette that covers the magnetic tape? A video still works even with that thing removed. I should know - I accidentally dropped a video cassette yesterday and that thing fell off. I wasn't planning to watch it, but I just put it in the player to see if it still worked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.160.178 (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The black flip-up strip is to protect the tape, which is easily damaged by dirt and fingerprints. More to the point, this dirt is even more easily transferred to the machine's rotary heads, causing clogging, and the loss of picture. Hence the need to keep sticky fingers off the tape. Hardylane 10:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


Why do people keep changing it from Video "Home" System to "Helical"???

I'm getting annoyed. - Theaveng (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I get the impression it is either a former name or at least a notable misnomer - see [1]. Any chance there's a reliable source in that mix so we can throw these people a bone? —Random832 16:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The source is already cited, but that won't stop morons from changing it because they've got it in their head, erroneously, that it means helical. I suspect a protrated arguement will continue on this subject. Why should a citation stop Joe Public, who is always right, after all :/ Hardylane (talk) 08:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I put three copies of the "Don't change to helical scan" warning in the article. Hopefully that will be obvious enough for even the slow-witted. ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
My question was actually if a reliable source could be found for a statement that it is commonly incorrectly called that, or that it was once called that, etc - it seems likely to be true, and getting the name in there with such a qualifier might be enough to shut them up. —Random832 17:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Earlier I posted that VHS movie clip, where they mentioned VHS as "Video Home System". The movie was produced by TOEI in association with JVC/Victor. The editor rejected this piece of evidence thinking JVC changed the meaning of the acronym was a conspiracy of some kind. That may seem too James Bond for a company to change the meaning. Also, keep in mind that VHS was invented by the Japanese. When it comes to foreign loanwords, the Japanese are very simple people in that they would never use something as complicated as vertical horizontal whatever - especially when Victor at the time tried to sell VHS to the other companies as a way to overthrow Betamax. If Matsushita for example heard that VHS stood for verical helical yadayada, the CEO would've said "WTF! What is this? Mr. Wizard????" The Japanese are known to use very simple loanwords when marketing products, and video home system is very simple. This is purely POV on my part, but once again we do have solid evidence pointing to "video home system" as being the correct meaning of the VHS acronym. Like the legal system, it is the pundits who think otherwise that has the burden of proof.
My theory on how all of this came about. When the west received VHS, the Japanese didn't tell them what VHS stood for. As westerners must know EVERYTHING and therefore there must be some meaning for those letters, they probably just made something up! The helical business, again seems very un-Japanese and VERY western - and something only a real technoweenie would have thought up. Groink (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
What can we do about these bots adding the dreaded "Video Helical Scan" rubbish to the article?? Hardylane (talk) 09:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
We cannot shut down a particular type of edit. Instead, we can only revert on the basis of weak or no citing of resources in support of the change. Groink (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning the tape

Can anyone say what chemicals can be safely used to clean dirty and Nouldy VHS tapes ? I wiould appreciate your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.94.214.117 (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about the case: it doesn't really matter. Just a damp cloth with some mild soap. Be careful not to get any dampness into the casing, though. If you're talking about the actual TAPE it's another story. To clean that you would have to take it all out of its casing first, without damaging/folding it and without getting dust on it. A virtually impossible task that I do not recommend. Should you wish to try it though, do not clean the tape with liquids. Rub the stains gently with a soft cloth (like you would clean a CD) whilst keeping the tape flat on a clean, non-magnetic surface. Be careful not to fold or wrinkle it. Wear clean, soft gloves. For persistent stains you could try moistening the cloth lightly with the purest alcohol you can find (at least 90%) but I do NOT recommend it. Some tapes can't stand the stuff. After cleaning make a new copy of the tape ASAP. (And just to satisfy my curiousity: how on earth did you get a tape dirty and mouldy?) Rien Post (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparison to other media

In the article there is a list over the different medias resolutions. Shouldn't there just be a link in the template and beneath the headline to a separate article about this topic? It do apply to the other formats as well.

I don't see any reason to create a separate article that is only 1-2 paragraphs long. i.e. Pointless. ----- Also a separate article would not be tailored to fit VHS specifically, and would likely contain a lot of additional, non-relevant information about obscure formats (like VHD or 1930s-era 25 line videorecords). I prefer to keep the paragraph localized & under the control of VHS editors. ---- Theaveng (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

More citations would help.

I have noticed that some sentences and paragraphs in some sections seem to lack any form of in text citation and that the "Popular Culture" and "Trivia" seem to lack any at all. Therefore, I think that one of these

in both the Pop Culture and Trivia would really help the article get more citations.


Furthermore, one of these

up top might get some citations in those other spots. Rengaw01 (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"EP" / "SLP" mode omitted for PAL/SECAM regions

Seriously now, I've seen the players for sale in my local high street stores and seen several advertised in catalogues, online retailers etc with this mode included. PAL EP exists. Can we maybe have it added in to the running time tables and so forth? I doubt it would have been missed for quality reasons - I still do a fair bit of recording on VHS in LP, and whilst it's discernably a little fuzzier than SP, it's still perfectly acceptable for watching back widescreen TV shows on a 32" 16:9 LCD... 193.63.174.10 (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

DVD and the decline of VHS

I'm removing/clarifying US-centric references from this section, which necessitates the removal of the following sentence:

DVD rentals first topped those of VHS during the week of 2003-06-15.

There's no information about whether this statistic refers to the US or worldwide, and none of the external links gives the answer. If anyone knows and can link to supporting evidence, feel free to modify it and put it back.

--LesleyW 00:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Also are the predictions of 2006 being the final year for VHS US centric? Although running fast, the UK is arguably behind on the switchover - for one random example Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith did not have a US VHS release last year but did have one in the UK. Timrollpickering 23:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following statement from this section:

"However, DVRs such as TiVos are the main competitors with the VHS in home recording."

This is because this section focuses only on the comparison between DVD/DVD recordables and VHS. Although TiVo is available in DVDR form, a separate section called "DVR and the decline of VHS", or even combine both DVD and DVR and call the section something else should be done. Groink 23:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole first half of this section is "Ameri-centric" - for example, nobody in Europe, Asia or Australia knows or cares what "Circuit City" or "Best Buy" are.
Well, fix it then. This is Wikipedia - if you can critique it, then you must have some ideas of your own on how to improve on it. Groink 01:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I removed the US centric elements and changed them to become broader. Obviously, its impossible to know the exact state of affairs regarding VHS across the globe, but the stance written is pretty standard across developed nations. Removing brand names also increases the quality of the article, especially since you don't require citations if you aren't specially referring to a company and its motives/movements. 59.167.215.25 16:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ya know, there are still a LOT of americans who use VHS for time-shifting. I don't think I'd say, "VHS is dead in the U.S." yet. Just because the studios stopped selling VHS in an attempt to make us all buy Copy-protected DVDs and Encrypted DVRs (play once; copy never), doesn't mean VHS is dead. I still arhive sportsgames or capturing home videos using my Super VHS vcr/camcorder (~560x480 resolution, rivaling DVD quality). I don't have a citation (unfortunately), but I recall reading 40% of Americans still use the VCR as their primary means for delaying television. And stores are still selling the blanks. - Theaveng 17:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(Oct 11) Ok, I modified this entry because of some awkward wording. I fear I may have replaced awkward wording and reasoning with more awkward wording and reasoning. The DVR section needs some more work. People don't buy a DVR 'so they can regularly upgrade the hard-drive', they buy it because they want some specific feature-set or home-integration not offered by an off-the-shelf solution (like TiVo.)

I think the contention "VHS is dead" is controversial because it is too broad a statement. In terms of studio-support, retailer-support, and consumer electronic mfg support, VHS is dead (or dying) consumer tech. I think we can all agree about that. The question remains what longevity VHS has outside the couch-potato space; industrial applications, broadcast-timeshifting (most digital cable/satellite systems force users to rent/buy their proprietary DVR, and everyone else "went TiVo"), etc. Also, the entire article is US/Euro-centric. In less developed nations, the market dynamics are probably different. (For example, in Asia, VideoCD was the preferred home-video release format, not VHS.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.228.164 (talk) 06:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

HiFi audio tracks (Audio Upgrade from AM to near-CD quality)

At the moment the article states: "These audio tracks take advantage of depth multiplexing: since they use lower frequencies than the video, their magnetization signals penetrate deeper into the tape. When the video signal is written by the following video head, it erases and overwrites the audio signal at the surface of the tape, but leaves the deeper portion of the signal undisturbed."

Interesting theory, but utter nonsense. VHS HiFi sound is an FM signal which is added between the video's luma and chroma signals. It hasn't got anything to do with the depth of recording, it is modulated into the video signal that's written to the tape. I'm rewriting the sentence. Rien Post (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: Modifications to the page by Anorak2 are incorrect. This "deeper in the tape recording" is nonsense. If you don't believe me, just try to find ANY reference for it. Reversed the page to 25 jan version. Rien Post (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm moved to disagree, I'm afraid. The principle of depth multiplexing is a known standard. Google "hifi depth multiplexing" to read about this. There's plenty of references, such as a Google book called "VCR Troubleshooting and repair" by Gregory Capelo, and also many other articles on the subject. Please either revert to the technical description previously given, or reword it. Wholesale deletion is not appropriate. (ESPECIALLY the section about the fact that it uses separate hifi heads) Hardylane (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

CITATIONS:

Now stop rewriting the article with your false information. VHS is not betamax. Betamax uses the "sandwich audio between video" technique; VHS does not. ---- Theaveng (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(hits forehead) You're right, Theaveng, my apologies. I got confused with Betamax. Note to Hardylane: I did not delete wholesale, I only edited the one paragraph quoted in my first remark. Wrongfully, agreed, but in good faith. Somebody else was kind enough to delete wholesale, including this Talk subject. Rien Post (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

... Hi-Fi VHS VCRs emerged in 1985? No, both Betamax and VHS introduced Hi-Fi (AFM) stereo in 1982 or 1983. Prerecorded-movies with Hi-Fi stereo became available around that time, even though it took much longer for 'affordable' home Hi-Fi VCRs to come onto the market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.228.164 (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Evaluation of Radiohead song is subjective interpretation

It is stated in the popular culture section that the song "Videotape" by Radiohead is about concerns over using video to record memory. Clearly, any examination of the lyrics disputes this interpretation, as the song does not imply any sort of concern about the use of video, and perhaps is not at all about video. Inclusion of the song is ok, but like many Radiohead songs, it has been over interpreted in this context. --Gypsyjazzbo (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:VHS/Archive_2&oldid=257422898"