More than 25 years ago, Matt and Patrice York had an idea of sharing their love of video technology with like-minded people, to teach and encourage users of those new-fangled video machines how to make their home movies better. They wanted to democratize the elusive world of video creation, to bring the elitist process of video production to the masses. The hard work was soon to escalate in June 1986 with the launch of Videomaker magazine. There were other video-centric magazines such as Video and Video Review, but these were for people who "watch" video, not "make" it. Occasionally these magazines had "How To" articles about video techniques, but it was a small part of their content. There were a few publications for professionals in Hollywood, but Videomaker was the first of its kind dedicated to every-day video enthusiasts.

25 Years ago - 1986: Format Wars

Videomaker's early years focused on three challenges that we felt were the biggest hurdles video enthusiasts were going to have to overcome. Camcorders able to record images of a high enough quality that would attract audiences; the skills and gear needed to edit the video in proper sequences with good audio, titles, and effects; and an easy method of distributing the video to an audience.

In its infancy, Videomaker tackled such subjects as making entertaining wedding videos, using a computer to edit, (very advanced concept at the time!), audio syncing, video terminology, and primers on homemade titles that would have today's electronic graphic artists laughing at the simplicity. Because 8mm film was still very much in use for home movie enthusiasts at the time, Videomaker's first few years had continuing features for making the transition from film to video and technical explanations, as well as the good vs. bad to both (video: instant access and easy to view; film: clearer images and better color, etc.). Our first issue included a "Charter Member" subscription offering six issues for $9.97 - what a bargain! I wonder if any charter members are still reading us today.

The format war - Beta vs. 8mm vs. VHS-C, etc., was big our first few years. In fact, we had three bi-monthly issues in a row dedicated to camcorder buyer's guides - each issue featuring a different format: VHS-C in June, 8mm (Video8) in August, and VHS with two Beta cams in October 1987. We featured 58 camcorders in all, with an average price of $1646. Sixteen VHS camcorders - average price: $1625, twenty-one 8mm cams - average price: $1710, twenty-one VHS cams - average price: $1564 and two Beta cams. ($1495 and $1795 respectively.) Only the Zenith VM6150 "Sharpshooter" VHS-C was priced under $1000, and those priced at the top kept their prices at $1900 or less, possibly to appear to be in that magic "less than $2000" sweet price. The Minolta CR-8000S 8mm camcorder, at $2186, was the only one that topped the $2000+ mark.

Our Buyer's Guide featured a sidebar asking "What about Beta?" stating: "Although an obvious minority in the marketplace, Beta camcorders remain a viable option for quality minded video producers. Boasting the highest resolution among consumer-level formats, (until the arrivals of Super-VHS and ED Beta,) and benefiting from excellent format-specific editing capabilities, Beta is especially practical for dubbing to other formats." Although Beta was a superior format, VHS eventually won out due to price and availability.

At $1000+, prices for average consumers were still quite high. Those camcorders were clunky, the low-light shots were terrible, and the color was horrific compared to today's superior quality cameras for under $300.

15 Years Ago - 1996: Video via email?

Our ten-year anniversary issue had some exciting news to announce: "Videogram, a proprietary CODEC supported by Alaris Incorporated's QuickVideo capture card, can be used to create tiny, multimedia-style video clips that are small enough to send via email or over the Internet." The advantages of the new CODEC, the story said, would allow users to fit a 30-second audio/video file on a single 3.5" 1.44MB floppy disk. Wow. Video creators could then embed the playback software within the video file itself, creating a self-playing .EXE file for distribution to anyone with a 486 or Pentium computer. This was big news, and the beginning of what we have today - mass video distribution, the hurdle video producers needed to conquer so they could showcase their videos to larger audiences, without having to depend on the "middleman." The need for distributors was starting to fade.

Sony launched a digital VCR that year, at a hefty price in the $2,000 to $3,000 range, but DVDs were about to hit the market hard, and with them, clean copy abilities, causing industry concern. We reported on legislative news regarding digital machinery copyrights that Congress was deliberating. We told our readers that video producers "interested in going digital should pay special attention to the outcome of this legislative battle; the ability to buy inexpensive equipment that makes perfect digital copies of audio and video may hang in the balance."

The copyright issue is still big, all these years later, and even more so now that we have sites like YouTube, where anyone can post anything at anytime. Digital VCRs came just too late for the digital revolution - DVDs were about to change the market, but they, too, may be on their way out following a 15-year run. Videograms? Not exactly a viable method of distribution, but getting close.

Although camcorders were becoming easier to use and more affordable, video editing was still cumbersome for the average consumer, and many people were still using a tape-to-tape method, which required two VCR machines and a shuttle, along with some synchronization or time-base corrector system to match up two video streams. Professional editors were already working on computerized editing software, called nonlinear editing, but the process was still difficult, highly technical, and expensive for the average consumer. Matt York lamented in his 10th anniversary Viewfinder column: "I am very disappointed at ... manufacturers for their inability or unwillingness to manufacture equipment that makes editing easier..."