The difference here is it isn’t surprising that footage of the game took so long to become public precisely because it was inconclusive. It was widely reported at the time that Ruth made some sort of gesture before he hit that home run. The debate was where Ruth pointed, and what he said.
Ruth himeself denied having called that shot, pointing out that if he had did something like that he’d likely have got a beanball from the pitcher. And the pitcher stated that he didn’t think Ruth was calling a shot.
Given that the best evidence long has been that Ruth didn’t call a homer, no shock that footage wasn’t released until much later when some family members decided to try and twist history with useless “evidence”. The surprise is that people think this footage proves anything.
This is unlike the possible lost video tape or kinescope of SB1. It’s only value is to show how the game was telecast, and not as evidence of what happened on the field. While soon after the game this video was obviously thought to be of no value, it didn’t take long before the Super Bowl became a Big Thing, and that if this video could be found, it would be quite valuable. If this video exists, it must be because whoever had it died or such before they had a chance to sell it. There’s always a chance that some network engineer took home the tape a memento, and then died and it is sitting in a box of one of his descendant’s basement somewhere.
Did you read that link, Walloon? He’s not saying that VHS was technically superior picturewise or mechanically, but that because VHS had a longer recording time, it gained an important foothold and became more popular. Which is exactly what I was saying.
But thanks for that link, because it reinforced my recollection, which your earlier link had caused me to question, that Beta was introduced with only one-hour capability, and VHS countered with two hours (not four, as I said earlier, on the basis of that other link’s assertion).
As for Beta’s superior picture or other technical characteristics, personally I’m agnostic about it. When I referred to the “much trumpeted superiority,” I was only saying that a lot of people made the claim, not that it was necessarily true.
As is only too obvious, with a slick enough marketing campaign, the mass of people can be persuaded to choose an inferior product.
I did read that link, that is what the author said, and I second it. I gave it as a counterpoint to the common myth, which you mentioned, that Betamax was really superior to VHS.
Given that Betamax and VHS were indistinguishable in picture and sound, the fact that VHS tapes had a longer running time made the system better.
Okay. Sorry for repeatedly misunderstanding your points.
Picture issues aside, I seem to recall that at least part of the claimed superiority of Beta was that its tape threading path was simpler, and thus theoretically less prone to mechanical failure. But AFAIK, the more complex path used by VHS didn’t end up being a major weak point.
