Where is the Analog Video Love?

roxics

Veteran
I admit I got roped into vinyl record collecting back in 2014. But I have an excuse. I inherited my parents old 45 collection (along with their VHS collection) and even though it isn't a huge collection, maybe a hundred discs, I figured I might as well have a way to play them. I have no intention of getting rid of them. I didn't inherit a lot from my parents and nostalgia is real. So I bought a used turntable from a local record shop back in 2014 and a couple old Jethro Tull LPs from the 70s. They were only a few bucks each (before used records got stupidly priced) so I figured why not. The next day I went out and bought a new LP (Tool - Undertow, for the curious), just to see if it sounded different. Since then people have been buying me records as gifts or I've picked up a few of my own that I think would sound good on the format. But mostly I'm interested in the artwork and colored discs. As a collectable thing. I enjoy the concept. I've also somehow ended up with two more turntables over the years as well. So that's that. I'm fine with it. Lol!

But it has me thinking, there isn't as much love for analog video. I realize a lot of that likely has to do with the quality of the analog video formats we have. Most being standard definition. And the couple of HD analog formats that did pop up on the market were rare and limited. W-VHS and Muse Laserdiscs.
There are people do that collect SD Laserdiscs and VHS tapes. The latter seems to be most popular with horror movie collectors, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the connection between horror movies and VHS and not say rom-coms and VHS or action/adventure and VHS. I guess maybe nostalgia in combination with the gritty look of the format contributes to the appeal for horror movie fan in particular?

Even so, this is a smaller community, it's not like the resurgence we've seen with vinyl records where they have been selling them again in big box retailers and record stores have mostly converted back to 70-80% vinyl or more. Every so often I hear someone say something like "VHS is the next vinyl" or laserdisc or whatever. I don't buy it, and I don't think most others are either. I just don't think VHS was good enough quality to get more people interested these days. I could see laserdisc being appealing for the artwork size, but it was always a niche format and finding a working player these days is limited. Not like all the new turntables on the market.

People are still collecting movies on DVD/Blu-ray/UHD Blu-ray. Hypothetically I'm curious what it would take for people to be interested in an analog video format. I assume it would need to be able least HD or 4K these days. Would it also need to come on something like a big 12" vinyl discs in different colors and splatter or marble designs (that would be cool). Would it need to be tactile like dropping a stylus tipped tone arm down on it? Or do people just not care about analog video they way they do analog audio, and if that's the case, why not? Shouldn't the same notions/audiophile apply to video as they do audio. That we live in an analog world and digital will never fully capture the entire range of color and tonality and blah blah blah that analog will. I'm not making that argument, just pretending to be somebody who might.

I don't know, just something I've been thinking about.
 
Millennials are the last generation who would likely consider any love for analog video.

New humans don't care; want simple, fast...on their phones.

Occasionally you'll get the young odd bird looking up old tech on the internet to buy and use, but it's mostly done and just memories, write-ups about the history.
 
Millennials are the last generation who would likely consider any love for analog video.

New humans don't care; want simple, fast...on their phones.

Occasionally you'll get the young odd bird looking up old tech on the internet to buy and use, but it's mostly done and just memories, write-ups about the history.
Yet even gen z are buying records. So why that and not video?
 
Because it's a different dynamic. Same with video games...many 8-bit and 16-bit video games released only a few years ago are top-sellers, people enjoying entertainment (although they are much deeper than the ones from the 80s/90s).

You/we listen to the music you love in a different format, or just collect it and never listen to it like that (then it's just more of an art collection).

Who's going to shoot in analog video and for what? Don't get me wrong, I have messed around with PLENTY of cameras over the years and have a box filled with adapters and odds & ends to make it all work, but I love cameras, I worked in the industry.

Normal people are chasing the newest iPhone quality on IG and TikTok, not the opposite (besides music videos and artsy-fartsy projects).

If you're just asking about a very small group of people with love for analog then, yeah, def, they're out there somewhere; mostly on YouTube if you search for different yesteryear cameras.
 
Yet even gen z are buying records. So why that and not video?

A lot of people are convinced that records sound better (i.e. more "warmth") than digital formats. While we all hear this plenty of times about celluloid film VS modern digital, I don't think that anyone has ever claimed that early analog video was superior in any way to either format. It's also a very dated look, while many consider celluloid film to be timeless.
 
Last edited:
I think this gen does do some "vintage" stuff, but it is more about getting old lens adapted to their modern equipment to get the "look".
 
I can say definitively that many young filmmakers are fascinated by older consumer video formats, from VHS to DV. It just represents the opposite of what they get with today's gear. I rent out modernized versions of 80's and 90's cameras that have been used on commercials, music videos and features (some pretty sizable).

That's regarding shooting/acquiring, but I think the original question was more about watching/consuming, I can't speak to that end of it but I heard things--along with the resurgence of cassettes for audio, which is frankly baffling to me.
 
I am guilty of buying some cassette tapes in recent years, and even picked up a couple old Sony Walkmen so I could actually play the tapes!

The sound quality is not great, as expected. But for me it was more about supporting artists I liked and paying a few bucks more to get a physical object compared to just owning the digital files. On bandcamp the difference between the digital-only version of an album and the digital copy plus a cassette is often negligible.

It's rare (very rare...) that I actually listen to the tapes, but I do so on occasion. It's nice to have the option of something totally separate from my digital devices to listen to music with that isn't locked to one location (as is the case with my record player).

Having said that, I have no desire to go back to VHS tapes. I think the desire for physical media—which on the music front is being channeled into vinyl, tapes, and CDs—is finding expression in Blu-Ray collections. Compared to the lazy ease of streaming media, Blu-Rays are now almost "analog" by comparison. And while people can argue over whether vinyl actually sounds better than digital audio there is no doubt that physical movies can look significantly better than streaming versions.
 
Regarding VHS, some films never got released on DVD or were streamed. I suspect these were the straight to video productions, but may also be some of the more obscure earlier films. I've still got some old VHS tapes, which I should get rid of because they're deteriorating and can't be played.

DVDs and Blu-Rays hold up pretty well and offer extras such as commentaries by directors. I've got some old DVDs that the Sunday newspapers used to bundle for free - Fellini, etc, read the paper and watch a movie.

One issue with streaming is the buffering that can occur at times.
 
It all depends on the context when you are using the expression "analogue video". As you say, old alalogue video is generally absolutely not a pleasurable viewing experience... unless!

Take a look. By that I mean is that you will have to download the following two video examples, otherwise you won't get the full impact of what I am trying to describe. When you have the files jump past the opening sequence and get into the meat of the program.

What we are looking at with the first example is a typical 1970s / 1980s quality Standard Def PAL 4:3 50i video. That was originated on standard 16 mm film. It's material from a very popular TV series from the UK, aired during the '70s and '80s. The first file Is a typical, horrible piece of analogue video. The second file is an upscaled, converted to progressive, de-noised and regraded version of the same horrible SD 50i file. People who love this old material find the quality of the old analogue videos depressing to look at in the context of modern viewing expectations on modern smart TVs. Analytics tells us that 80% of the viewing audience for this material is in excess of 65 years old, and fully 80% of them are watching this material on modern smart TVs. This material plus dozens of other programs are getting the same upgrade treatment. These upscaled re-graded old analogue videos are being watched by thousands of viewers. Within the last two months, such upscaled and regraded videos have now attracted over 1.3 million views and 18,000 plus subscribers. You only have to read the comments to see how viewers absolutely love these rehashed old analogue video programs when they are turned into a much more enjoyable modern viewing experience. So yes there is a place for old analogue video... if it is made half watchable in this day and age on current technology platforms, TVs and computers.

The best part of this exercise is that the 65 year and older demographic are a segment of the population in the western developed world that have the most disposable income. That is becoming very apparent to us as all this is being supported by $$$ donations from the viewers. No sponsors. Though, we are currently fielding a number of sponsors who are chasing us. Donations are running well ahead of what the total overheads are, enabling me to pay an editor and a compressionist to keep the material flowing.

So yes, I'm loving this "old analogue video". :D (y)

Chris Young.

The original SD 4:3 50i video file:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KuIWCFAIuOxqG9aXf8AtkHevzOChoSIa/view?usp=sharing


The reworked 25p HD Upscaled video with reworked audio. Audio converted to current YouTube LUFs delivery Stereo levels.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TNr4otMr3NbGr_VGL21jFgl__lAro-Zf/view?usp=sharing
 
Last edited:
Chris, curious what are you using as the source material, what was the recording medium? Are they masters or home video recordings? Obviously there's a tremendous difference in quality between the two. And of course film originated material was 25 fps to begin with, which helps when deinterlacing! Although the AI upscales are really getting much better. Do you use Topaz Video AI?
 
Because it's a different dynamic. Same with video games...many 8-bit and 16-bit video games released only a few years ago are top-sellers, people enjoying entertainment (although they are much deeper than the ones from the 80s/90s).

You/we listen to the music you love in a different format, or just collect it and never listen to it like that (then it's just more of an art collection).

Who's going to shoot in analog video and for what? Don't get me wrong, I have messed around with PLENTY of cameras over the years and have a box filled with adapters and odds & ends to make it all work, but I love cameras, I worked in the industry.

Normal people are chasing the newest iPhone quality on IG and TikTok, not the opposite (besides music videos and artsy-fartsy projects).

If you're just asking about a very small group of people with love for analog then, yeah, def, they're out there somewhere; mostly on YouTube if you search for different yesteryear cameras.
I agree it's a different dynamic. Although what I find strange is that music is a format we usually want to be portable. We want to listen to it in the car or out on a run or wherever. Movies and video content aren't necessarily like that. Yet of the two right now, people are collecting music on a highly unportable format like vinyl records. Yet the only physical video formats still sold to the masses new are more portable DVD/Blu-rays. Granted not a whole lot more portable. But there are at least older laptops and portable players that can play them.

BTW I'm not necessarily speaking so much about shooting analog video as I am distributing it. Although given the right conditions/desires I could see where shooting it would be an option.
A lot of people are convinced that records sound better (i.e. more "warmth") than digital formats. While we all hear this plenty of times about celluloid film VS modern digital, I don't think that anyone has ever claimed that early analog video was superior in any way to either format. It's also a very dated look, while many consider celluloid film to be timeless.
I think you hit at the heart of what I'm looking for and maybe something I should have asked more clearly in the original post, which is, why is there a subset of people convinced that analog audio is better but not an equal subset of people who think that analog video is better? Like I said I get that the existing analog video formats kinda suck unless you're looking for that nostalgic pump from them. But what I'm asking is, what would it take for people to think highly of analog video they way they do analog audio? Would it need to be HD or UHD? Would it need to be a full RGB signal without any compression (is that even possible)? I don't know.
But there should be a point where people say "we live in an analog world, this analog video signal (from X format) is superior to these digital formats because it captures a larger spectrum of information. Whether it actually does or doesn't, but the perception would be there that it does, like the perception people have with records or reel-to-reel tape for audio. What would it take to get to that with analog video?
I think this gen does do some "vintage" stuff, but it is more about getting old lens adapted to their modern equipment to get the "look".
Agreed

I can say definitively that many young filmmakers are fascinated by older consumer video formats, from VHS to DV. It just represents the opposite of what they get with today's gear. I rent out modernized versions of 80's and 90's cameras that have been used on commercials, music videos and features (some pretty sizable).

That's regarding shooting/acquiring, but I think the original question was more about watching/consuming, I can't speak to that end of it but I heard things--along with the resurgence of cassettes for audio, which is frankly baffling to me.
Yeah and that shocked me at first, because I spent the 90s hating analog video and trying to do everything in more power to make it look more like film or just to shoot film instead. Now younger people are intentionally buying vintage analog video gear in order to get that look I hated. But an interesting thing happened. Their excitement for it (along with some time away from it) has caused me to look at it with new eyes and learn to appreciate it more for what it is. To the point now where I wish I had looked at it back then the way I do now.

That said, if I'm going to put on a movie to watch, it's not going to be on VHS or even DVD these days. I'm going to HD. Unless I can't find it other in HD. But I asked myself, if we had an analog vinyl video format that I could throw on a turntable like a 12" record, (or something like that) what would it take for me to be satisfied in watching that rather than reaching for a blu-ray? I'm not entirely sure. But I think it would need to be at least the quality of a blu-ray. Which I personally find to be the sweet spot right now. But I also wonder is there some other quality that analog video could have that would put it over the edge for viewers, in the same way that putting on a record gives a warmer sound and usually a different mastering. I guess the closest thing to that would be a film print in a projector.

Audio Distribution History:
Live band > Mechanical recordings (78s/wax cylinders) > Electronic Analog Recordings (poor and great) > Electronic Digital Recordings (good and great)

Visual Distribution History:
Stage Plays > Filmstrips > Electronic Analog Recordings (so so at best) > Electronic Digital Recordings (poor to great)

I feel like in the chain of visual distribution formats for the masses, we are missing an analog visual format that is great. The best we ever really got is Laserdisc and aside from the rare HD MUSE laserdiscs that pretty much no one owned, even regular LD is usually worse that our lower end digital format DVD.
 
I am guilty of buying some cassette tapes in recent years, and even picked up a couple old Sony Walkmen so I could actually play the tapes!

The sound quality is not great, as expected. But for me it was more about supporting artists I liked and paying a few bucks more to get a physical object compared to just owning the digital files. On bandcamp the difference between the digital-only version of an album and the digital copy plus a cassette is often negligible.

It's rare (very rare...) that I actually listen to the tapes, but I do so on occasion. It's nice to have the option of something totally separate from my digital devices to listen to music with that isn't locked to one location (as is the case with my record player).

Having said that, I have no desire to go back to VHS tapes. I think the desire for physical media—which on the music front is being channeled into vinyl, tapes, and CDs—is finding expression in Blu-Ray collections. Compared to the lazy ease of streaming media, Blu-Rays are now almost "analog" by comparison. And while people can argue over whether vinyl actually sounds better than digital audio there is no doubt that physical movies can look significantly better than streaming versions.
I agree that the closest thing we really have these days in the video world to a record is something like Blu-ray. In terms of feeling like you aren't compromising on quality while watching it. And you're right that in the minds of several people it has inherited an analog-ness to it by fact of it being physical. Even in the way we speak when people say "digital" these days they are usually referring to an downloaded or streamed file. I always find it mildly funny when someone says something like " you can find it on Blu-ray or digital."
Regarding VHS, some films never got released on DVD or were streamed. I suspect these were the straight to video productions, but may also be some of the more obscure earlier films. I've still got some old VHS tapes, which I should get rid of because they're deteriorating and can't be played.

DVDs and Blu-Rays hold up pretty well and offer extras such as commentaries by directors. I've got some old DVDs that the Sunday newspapers used to bundle for free - Fellini, etc, read the paper and watch a movie.

One issue with streaming is the buffering that can occur at times.
Yup. And don't get me wrong I've got nothing against DVD or Blu-ray. But also feel like maybe we're missing a high quality analog distribution format for video, but also I'm curious what it would entail that would entice people to watch it over a high quality digital copy. But I do agree those discs can last a long time. Although I'm hit or miss on the recordable versions of DVD/Blu-ray. I have some DVD-Rs that have lasted me 20 years, and others I cant read anymore. But that's a different scenarios compared to replicated copies. Even then I hear there are some issues with I think Warner Brothers DVDs. I could be wrong on that.
It all depends on the context when you are using the expression "analogue video". As you say, old alalogue video is generally absolutely not a pleasurable viewing experience... unless!

Take a look. By that I mean is that you will have to download the following two video examples, otherwise you won't get the full impact of what I am trying to describe. When you have the files jump past the opening sequence and get into the meat of the program.

What we are looking at with the first example is a typical 1970s / 1980s quality Standard Def PAL 4:3 50i video. That was originated on standard 16 mm film. It's material from a very popular TV series from the UK, aired during the '70s and '80s. The first file Is a typical, horrible piece of analogue video. The second file is an upscaled, converted to progressive, de-noised and regraded version of the same horrible SD 50i file. People who love this old material find the quality of the old analogue videos depressing to look at in the context of modern viewing expectations on modern smart TVs. Analytics tells us that 80% of the viewing audience for this material is in excess of 65 years old, and fully 80% of them are watching this material on modern smart TVs. This material plus dozens of other programs are getting the same upgrade treatment. These upscaled re-graded old analogue videos are being watched by thousands of viewers. Within the last two months, such upscaled and regraded videos have now attracted over 1.3 million views and 18,000 plus subscribers. You only have to read the comments to see how viewers absolutely love these rehashed old analogue video programs when they are turned into a much more enjoyable modern viewing experience. So yes there is a place for old analogue video... if it is made half watchable in this day and age on current technology platforms, TVs and computers.

The best part of this exercise is that the 65 year and older demographic are a segment of the population in the western developed world that have the most disposable income. That is becoming very apparent to us as all this is being supported by $$$ donations from the viewers. No sponsors. Though, we are currently fielding a number of sponsors who are chasing us. Donations are running well ahead of what the total overheads are, enabling me to pay an editor and a compressionist to keep the material flowing.

So yes, I'm loving this "old analogue video". :D (y)

Chris Young.

The original SD 4:3 50i video file:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KuIWCFAIuOxqG9aXf8AtkHevzOChoSIa/view?usp=sharing


The reworked 25p HD Upscaled video with reworked audio. Audio converted to current YouTube LUFs delivery Stereo levels.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TNr4otMr3NbGr_VGL21jFgl__lAro-Zf/view?usp=sharing
For sure. Thank you for those examples. I love that upscaling old video like that is now a thing that has gotten good enough to be easily watchable rather than struggling through it on modern displays. I agree that it's far more watchable when it is.

One of my favorite Youtube channels is "Reely Interesting" which uploads video content from Japan from the 80s and 90s. All of it upscaled really well and categorized according to format (VHS, LD, Betacam, etc.)

https://www.youtube.com/c/ReelyInteresting

This ED Beta video in particular I'm impressed with given that the format was 500 lines but at the same color compression as Betamax/VHS.
 
Chris, curious what are you using as the source material, what was the recording medium? Are they masters or home video recordings? Obviously there's a tremendous difference in quality between the two. And of course film originated material was 25 fps to begin with, which helps when deinterlacing! Although the AI upscales are really getting much better. Do you use Topaz Video AI?
Charles. A bit of this and a bit of that. Some of the earliest material has come from VHS tape, some from very early 50i DVDs and some from files people have supplied us. Some of the rarer DVDs go back to the first release DVDs of '96. The technology then was pretty much in its infancy, and some of the tape to disc transfers look pretty primitive, and look like they had little or zero preprocessing or grading prior to transfer. The VHS material once checked and cleaned goes through a Sony "pro" studio S-VHS deck. This has a built-in TBC and component out. The component output goes through a Blackmagic component to SDI/HDMI converter. With the DVDs it is a bit of a hit-and-miss process. Some come across best when captured via HDMI. Some come across better as DVD rips. Absolutely no hard and fast rules.

Without a doubt the early material that originated on film, even 16 mm comes across way better than the early material that originated on what back then in the '60s and '70 was 2" Quad, that looks quite ordinary. The later Composite 1" B segmented and then the 1" C format tapes material was a big jump forward over the 2" Quad in quality.

Once we have the material digitised, then it's a process of taking short, usually one minute clips and processing them in a variety of apps for our test results. The main apps being, yes, as you guessed, Topaz Video AI, along with Davinci Resolve. Very often with Topaz, it's a matter of trying different models to work out which gives you the best results on any given piece of video. Oddly, sometimes it's a two-step process that works best. Like some material converts best by going through Topaz to 720p and then going the next step to 1080p in Resolve using sometimes, Resolve's smart upscaling and sometimes not. Just grading and fine control of sharpening and radius controls sometimes deliver the best upscale renders. All a bit of a black art we are finding.

The old mono audio tracks get cleaned, de-noised and de-clicked and de-popped in iZotope RX Studio. The in Resolve using Fairlight, we utilise a variety of AI based mono to stereo plugins from a variety of sources. The very old rather flat dynamics of '60s, '70s, '80s audio where Dolby C was considered the ants pants with its 72dB range sounds quite ordinary on today's equipment. So we rework the stereo field and increase saturation, sparkle and overall dynamics and master at anything up to 10 LUFS depending on material. Some fairly useful advice here: https://productionadvice.co.uk/youtube-music/

It's all a very much suck it and see process. But as time goes by we are finding we can look at a horrible bit of video on screen and have a much better idea of what would work best on it.

All good fun! :D

Chris Young.
 
Once we have the material digitised, then it's a process of taking short, usually one minute clips and processing them in a variety of apps for our test results. The main apps being, yes, as you guessed, Topaz Video AI, along with Davinci Resolve. Very often with Topaz, it's a matter of trying different models to work out which gives you the best results on any given piece of video. Oddly, sometimes it's a two-step process that works best. Like some material converts best by going through Topaz to 720p and then going the next step to 1080p in Resolve using sometimes, Resolve's smart upscaling and sometimes not. Just grading and fine control of sharpening and radius controls sometimes deliver the best upscale renders. All a bit of a black art we are finding.
This is really interesting to hear--I haven't used the smart upscaling in Resolve since I started using Topaz a few years ago, assuming that Topaz would always be ahead of the curve, and back then I don't think there was much AI involved with the Resolve process as there was just sharpening and line doubling. But of course Resolve has leaned heavily into AI so I should probably revisit, especially based on your notes here. Very interesting and thank you! Congrats on finding a good bolthole to make some revenue.
 
Yet of the two right now, people are collecting music on a highly unportable format like vinyl records.
Collecting is really special to the brain...it's why Pokemon is worth more than Disney, lol (Pokemon is insane with merchandise).

Humans love it and do it for a variety of reasons...we even see psychological aspects of the behavior in animals (like dogs burying their bones and sticks).

In video game communities (especially Nintendo Switch 1/2), people collect the physical copies of games but play the digital ones; no difference besides to have an actual item of their favorite game/case/art displayed on a shelf (paying twice for two different copies, sometimes $60-$70 per game).
 
If you are after a "collectable" physical media distribution for these older videos once processed, you may want to consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-DISC . They don't use organic dies and have a tested 100+ year lifespan. They have also come down a heap in price. Might be an nice "archive the classic" spin to it to complement the work done on the old footage.

There are also a heap of technical options for outputting more niche but easily playable "finest archival quality" versions of the footage that would help fill the space on the 100GB M-Discs:
- 4:4:4 / Uncompressed Video with LCPM Audio
- BT2020 colour space / HDR
 
This is really interesting to hear--I haven't used the smart upscaling in Resolve since I started using Topaz a few years ago, assuming that Topaz would always be ahead of the curve, and back then I don't think there was much AI involved with the Resolve process as there was just sharpening and line doubling. But of course Resolve has leaned heavily into AI so I should probably revisit, especially based on your notes here. Very interesting and thank you! Congrats on finding a good bolthole to make some revenue.
Yes, the current Resolve has developed quite some way in AI. Bolthole! Well, let's just see how it runs. YT could always shut it down in an instant if some rights' holder suddenly takes umbrage with their material being used, even if it's not blocked.

A quick overview of some of the new AI features in Resolve 20. Some of them quite useful. Especially the audio AI features.

Chris Young

 
There's always going to be cycles of people becoming nostalgic for the days of yesteryear. Fashion goes through cycles, trends come and go, etc.

There's been a resurgence in analog stills coming back, lots of younger people shooting on film. Also younger people buying old digital cameras like the Canon Powershot from 10 years ago. It's a rebellion of sorts against the clean, AI processed iPhone photos that are so ubiquitous today.

I myself purchased a 3D printed lens mount that basically contains the plastic lens from old disposable cameras (Pocket Dispo is the brand). It's just ok I guess. I'd never use it for professional work, but I don't have clients who value that aesthetic. I don't find myself using it that often, but I remember using the actual disposable cameras and I appreciate the better photos I get nowadays. Again, horses for courses.

Charles has mentioned renting out his older cameras to professional productions who need that particular look, so there's certainly a market for it. I remember his thread on the Billie Eilish video that was shot to look a very specific way, that was definitely not "modern".

For the most part I don't find myself longing for crappy looking video.
 
Im actually involved with a lighting heritage project and the collection is growing splendidly! However, while the stuff that lights up fares well, bar rust, asbestos and the actual things with filaments, the controls and dimmers are a muc( bigger problem. The old dimmers are riddled with asbestos, which means we cannot even take them into many exhibitions or venues, and the electronic ones continually go bang, until we replace capacitors, but this impacts originality. The controls all feature long dead batteries that have eaten away circuit board tracks, and without the battery, the software has vanished! Even if you find a set of floppy discs with the software, it often needs a phone call to get a security key, and there are no computers anywhere running the software to generate the key. I have some amazing controls from the UK and US, but while they look great, they will never light up again. The exception is a 1950s console based on a compton theatre organ chassis, and we are displaying this in London, later this year. Things move, spectacularly, and we are happy with this restoration, but the only dimmers are in a UK TV studio, that take up the space of a house, and are major mechanical beasts. Totally impossible to get the console connected to modern dimmers as he system was electro mechanical, not electronic.

Video heritage is wonderful mechanically, but all the wonderful stuff is late 60s where the mechanics are fine, but the electronics very suspect. Even if pictures come out, what can we do with SD? My audio reel to reel collection is stagnant because £70 a reel of tape is just madness, for the end quality. How much does video tape cost?
 
Back
Top