What exactly is low-grade recording?

[Charles Roberts]

Since people are asking stuff that I assumed everyone know, i'll reveal my own ignorance and ask this one.... ;D

What exactly is a low-grade recording? Was this made using some primitive sort of VCR technology, or was it a telerecording? I have never seen one myself, so what is the quality generally like with one of these?

Thanks

[hartley967]

do you mean 'low band' ?

as low grade could mean anything in comparison to anything else.
'Low Grade 'was also an affectionate term for programmes made by ITC.

if you do mean ' low band '
then it was a Sony cassette format introduced in the early 1970s.
originally called Umatic , but became low band when high band came out.
The cassette could run a max of an hour in colour and the tape was about 3 quarters of an inch wide . Picture quality was comparable to SVHS plus twin sound tracks.

Originally aimed at the tv industry for private viewing copies and programme selling pitches. IE a replacement for the telerecording.
However the huge heavy tape machines could not really compete
with the ubiquitous 16mm projector and of course later the arrival
of the unsung hero, the proven sturdy and reliable VHS system.

Sony then pitched the system for newsgathering and as a replacement for film cameras, but UK engineers were not happy with the quality and so Sony improved the picture quality and thus called it 'high band' . But in the UK, news companies were to hang out untill 'betacam' arrived.

Low band found its niche in the corporate world when light weight (relatively)machines came along with loop features and thus could be found at exhibitions and the like .
Because it was a big format, the machines were very rugged and could play all day long with few problems.
The tape is another matter, its heavy and can become lumbering
and sticky after time. Many old tapes now can looked faded with lots of drop out.


Rumoured is another 'low band'. supposidly a version of the Ampex 2 inch broadcast tape, but this seems a pointless format?
Whatever ever use is that? Why would you degrade an excellent broadcast format? its not as if you could take it home or anything?

Incidently now telerecordings are being run through a digital chain rather than analogue, they can look superb, as good if not better than some 405 line tapes - that is of course i f they were recorded properly in the first place.

[Charles Roberts]

Ah, thanks, and yes I did mean "low band".

[emitron]

Low bandwith for b/w recordings, thus the 60s Dr Who b/w episodes. High for colour.

[Andrew Martin]

All b/w BBC VT recordings were low band until about 1973, by which time only a few regional and education programmes were being made in b/w. You get high and low band Umatics, depending on the quality you want - high band were broadcast quality, low band weren't. Not being a very techy person, I would say that low band means less information is recorded on the tape, thus it was possible to record b/w programmes low band as there was no colour information to record, but I wouldn't like to hazard a guess as to what the advantages of that were...

[Steve Roberts]

Let's not get confused here between Low-Band Quad (2" open reel format used for broadcast recordings of monochrome programmes) and Lo-Band U-matic (a roughly VHS quality cassette format).

Low-Band Quad was fine for recording 625 line monochrome video, but it didn't have a high enough bandwidth to properly record the colour subcarrier for 625 line colour video. High-Band was introduced, using a better tape forumation and increased recording frequencies to allow this.

There have been cases where colour programmes have been recovered from low-band tapes - I believe there's an episode of 'The Goodies' available on DVD which was sourced this way. It's quite odd to look at, as you get colour appearing at the boundaries of objects, but flat colours are still fairly monochrome. Considerable work needs to be done to try to get any semblance of true colour back into the pictures.

Steve

[hartley967]

Arh I see how quad low band came into the picture now.
thanks Steve and Andrew

[Peter Bradford]

Since we're talking Quad formats, don't forget Super Hi band - even better than Hi-band as far as picture 'fidelity' was concerned. Not a 'popular' format and didn't achieve wide usage.

[Robert Manners]

red16v said:

Since we're talking Quad formats, don't forget Super Hi band - even better than Hi-band as far as picture 'fidelity' was concerned. Not a 'popular' format and didn't achieve wide usage.

was due to TV broadcasters been unwilling to payout and change formats once again with not much to gain?