Template talk:Video storage formats

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Professional sound production (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Professional sound production, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sound recording and reproduction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
NA This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject Electronics (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page
Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject Blu-ray  (Inactive)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Blu-ray, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Analogue / Digital[edit]

I think Analogue / Digital classification of formats should be done. Have you any idea on how to do this? I think to add two columns (Analogue / Digital) and obviously to leave the two already existing rows (Magnetic / Optical) but I don't know how to do this. Please collaborate. Armando82 (26 - June - 2006)

I did the following template starting from Template:CompressionMethods. It finally do Analogue / Digital classification of formats. Unfortunately, there are some graphical issues. Can anyone fix these, please? Armando82 22:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This final version seems ready for deployment. Do you agree? Suggestion? Enhancements? Armando82 19:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that looks a bit too cluttered. Would it possible to home analog and digital categories so they appear next to the media type so formats could be split horizontally?--Kevin586 16:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Below is a past snap shot !!)

Should 8 mm film and Super 8 mm film be added to this template? If not, why not? appzter 03:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

8 mm film isn't really a home video format. Super 8 looks like it should be added. Fresheneesz 22:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe, but Super 8 is a motion picture film format, not a videotape format. Not to pooh-pooh anything here, but shouldn't this template be reserved for electronic video formats? BTW, this kind of reminds me of one format that would definitely blur this line, the Electronic Video Recording format developed by CBS Laboratories in the late 60s. It was film-based with a visible image on the film, but electronically recorded to film via an Electron beam recorder and reproduced to a tv set using a player fitted with a flying spot scanner. I wonder where this would fit in the template....? :) misternuvistor 06:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of DVD from the template[edit]

I thought I'd make a topic here to discuss the matter, so I can fully explain the reasoning behind removing DVD in favor of the DVD-Video article.

The basic issue is thus: we do not link to articles on the media itself unless that article also contains information on the video format(s) used on that media. For example, we have links for Video CD, Super Video CD, even CD Video, but we do not link to the Compact Disc article. With the current rewrites to the DVD article and the creation of a separate DVD-Video article the appropriate link to include is DVD-Video, not DVD. If something changes, such as a sub-categorization by media type, then we should include both DVD and Compact Disc in the template to be consistent. -- Y|yukichigai (ramble argue check) 00:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1/8" kumi kater????? (and IVC 2") and (VK)[edit]

I've noticed that the template here has an entry for '1/8" kumi kater (1968)' under the Magnetic Tape section. Now, I've done a lot of research on video formats (not to brag), and I have never seen a single piece of info on a "1/8 Kumi Kater" videotape format from 1968. Further searching on Google results in only its presence on Wikipedia, and other sites that mirror Wikipedia's content. Anyone (especially the user who added in this format in the template) care to elaborate/shed light on this mystery format? Also, I noticed that there's an entry for the IVC 2 inch Helical scan format as well. This is legit, it's officially referred to as the IVC 9000 format, after the model of VTR that IVC made utilizing this format. It was well used in the 1970's for television production, due to it's multi-generational resilience for dubbing video (in turn due to being such a high-quality format). There is an article here for IVC themselves, maybe the link in this template for IVC 2" could be redirected to there? What do you all think? misternuvistor 06:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thank you, misternuvistor, for moving IVC (videotape recorder) to International Video Corporation and for your improvements to the video pages. IVC 9000 is the company's model number, so IVC 2 inch Helical scan is more of the of a format description, than just the VTR model number. Such as 1/4 inch Akai is the format more than "VTS" which is the Akai's model number for it's 1/4 inch Akai format. When only one company makes the format it is some time not clear what the "format title is" IVC made more 1 inch VTRs than 2 inch. Later I would like to see (and well likely make) a page for there 1 inch VTRs. IVC 2 inch Helical scan now has it's own page, no redirect page is needed.
  • I also have worked on many VTRs, (I wrote the starter page for 1/4 inch Akai), but I have not heard nor can find any info on the the 1/8 Kumi Kater. The other unit with no page is the VK (1977), I found a picture on the web[1] with the model numbers: VT-300 1/2" VK Format Video Cassette Portapack and VT-350 1/2" VK Format Video Cassette Portapack. But with no text information on these units.

Telecine Guy 04:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Update the VT-350 1/2" VK Format is an Akai, format. [2] [3] [4] Telecine Guy 04:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

    • About the IVC article, no problem, my pleasure. I suggested making a redirect previously for IVC 2" helical to IVC's main article, due to the former article (IVC 2 inch Helical scan) being a red link at the time, not being writen. Thanks for doing so, and thanks also for the info you added to the 1" type B videotape article too, interesting that there were so many modifications of that format....! :) About the VK format, I could write up an article for that as well, but you can too if you feel inclined to do so... misternuvistor 00:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Ampex's DCT VTR really ought to be on this list (and probably should have an article) since it was the first compressed digital videotape format. It was DCT compressed 4:2:2 on 19mm tape. And yeah, they really managed to trademark the name "DCT" for it. I can't recall if it was before or after D3. Since I worked on the project, it wouldn't be right for me to edit this myself. -- Cjensen 05:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could add it to the template, I feel that it should be there also, considering the format's historical significance. (On a side note, I remember reading on the web back around 1997 that Warner Bros. chose to use DCT for the mastering of some of its first DVD releases back then...) misternuvistor (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, as well as done writing an article for the format as well. misternuvistor (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vaporware formats[edit]

A number of the future digital optical disk formats listed here appear to be either vaporware, dead, or inappropriate in a list of video media. These include:

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating the deletion of these articles - simply their removal from the template. This template doesn't need to list every single proposed media format, especially when there's strong evidence that a number of them will never appear on the market Zetawoof(ζ) 03:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As nobody's responded, I'll go ahead and delist these formats. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed rename[edit]

Can we rename this template to "Video formats" or somesuch? It is hardly specific to home video and it feels odd to put {{Video storage formats}} on pages about professional formats that no normal person has at home... jhawkinson (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

trial columns format[edit]

This seems to take up more space and is harder for me to read. I liked the older version. Other opinions? jhawkinson (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've gone ahead and reverted this. Ouch, that was kind of a pain in the neck, though, even with M-x query-replace-regexp. I'm sorry if you put a lot of effort into it. My reasoning is that the "trial" format takes up a lot more space and I find it harder to read, and I figured two weeks was sufficient discussion time. If this does come back, though, we should definitely make a template so that editing it is less painful. jhawkinson (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should, however, bring back the alternating colors of rows. Why isn't that in the Navbox template? jhawkinson (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VERA 1952, Quadraplex 1956?[edit]

Why is VERA listed as 1952 when development began in 1952 but wasn't completed until 1958 and yet Quadraplex is listed as 1956 (when it was finished) even though it started in 1952 also? Laserdisc is under 1978 (when DiscoVision came out) and not 1958 when development started. At least be consistent. I would suggest that date of development is much harder to quantify and less useful as a reference. DVD should probably be moved to 1997 also, as that's when players and media came out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollinger (talkcontribs) 16:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Shouldn't these be on the list of digital video disc formats? If CVD, EVD, and HVD are on there, CBHD certainly deserves a place. (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, no answer, so I formally propose the following change:



VMD (2006) · HD DVD (2006) · Blu-ray Disc (2006)


VMD (2006) · HD DVD (2006) · Blu-ray Disc (2006) · CBHD (2008)

-- (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done as page is now unlocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

VHS HD[edit]

I noticed that somebody edited in a new entry in this template for "VHS HD"? AFAIK, there is no official format called "VHS HD" (according to a Google search I did, which proved inconclusive. The only thing that came close was an article on a 1080p upscaling VHS & DVD combo player from Panasonic). There's W-VHS and D-VHS, which are both capable of HD, but those are already in the template. So, if no one has any objections, I'm going to revert that edit. Plus, said edit has a tag on it for "excessive whitespace", FWIW... misternuvistor (talk) 07:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do anyone here remember Philips 12"video disc"The Doomsday Map"Circa 1978 [email protected] cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colinshorey (talkcontribs) 20:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]