TV Home Forum

Top of the Pops

1990 on BBC Four

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
JA
james-2001
But it's a lot easier to have multiple copies in different locations to help prevent that, rather than just a single tape sitting on a shelf.
IS
Inspector Sands
That is true if there's a routine for doing it. But for intentional 'wiping' its much easier... and I speak as someone who has deleted may thousands of hours of video in my career. Most of which was material that was actually suppose to be wiped!
Last edited by Inspector Sands on 31 January 2018 10:27pm
SC
Si-Co
When we talk about “wiping” 2” or 1” tapes, or similar, does the material have to be physically removed from them, or can they just be reused or “recorded over”?
VM
VMPhil
LL
Larry the Loafer
The sinister buzzing probably doesn't help but watching that is downright uncomfortable, especially knowing that's how many long lost gems met their maker. It's like a slaughterhouse for television.
JA
james-2001
Si-Co posted:
When we talk about “wiping” 2” or 1” tapes, or similar, does the material have to be physically removed from them, or can they just be reused or “recorded over”?


I'm sure you can do it either way, I'm pretty sure there's some partial programmes that survive at the end of tapes that were re-used for something else.

I imagine wiping the tape like with the machine above beforehand probably helps there's no issues from the previous recording though.
DE
deejay
Yes, though you can simply record over a tape, it’s not so much the stuff that’s ‘underneath’ the new recording, but the stuff that remains further down the tape after you’ve finished or paused an edit. Non continuous timecode and synchs caused havoc with lots of systems. Better to bulk-erase (which is what that machine is, it generates a massive magnetic field which effectively scrambles the oxides on the tape reel in one go, and if you were unlucky stopped your watch in the process).
VM
VMPhil
The sinister buzzing probably doesn't help but watching that is downright uncomfortable, especially knowing that's how many long lost gems met their maker. It's like a slaughterhouse for television.



JA
james-2001
and if you were unlucky stopped your watch in the process


The guy in that video's wearing a watch- oh dear!
JA
JAS84
Yes, though you can simply record over a tape, it’s not so much the stuff that’s ‘underneath’ the new recording, but the stuff that remains further down the tape after you’ve finished or paused an edit. Non continuous timecode and synchs caused havoc with lots of systems. Better to bulk-erase (which is what that machine is, it generates a massive magnetic field which effectively scrambles the oxides on the tape reel in one go, and if you were unlucky stopped your watch in the process).
So it's like an EMP? Anyone using one of those nowadays would also need to keep their phone well away, lest it be bricked!
BA
bilky asko
JAS84 posted:
Yes, though you can simply record over a tape, it’s not so much the stuff that’s ‘underneath’ the new recording, but the stuff that remains further down the tape after you’ve finished or paused an edit. Non continuous timecode and synchs caused havoc with lots of systems. Better to bulk-erase (which is what that machine is, it generates a massive magnetic field which effectively scrambles the oxides on the tape reel in one go, and if you were unlucky stopped your watch in the process).
So it's like an EMP? Anyone using one of those nowadays would also need to keep their phone well away, lest it be bricked!


Having used a degausser, you generally have a small exclusion zone for electronic devices, and anyone with a pacemaker - though I believe ones for tape aren't anywhere near as powerful as one for hard drives.

8 days later

:-(
A former member
The member requested removal of this post
Last edited by A former member on 26 March 2021 3:15pm - 2 times in total

Newer posts