The Federal Judicial Center in 1970 supplied courts in the Eastern District of Michigan, the Northern District of Ohio, and the Eastern and Western District of Pennsylvania with videotaping equipment and training. It gave such equipment to the Southern District of New York in 1975 and began a 27-month monitoring process of the courts' use of videotape in 1976. Videotape's primary appeal is its ability to record and recreate more of the communicative elements of spoken testimony than can stenography. Although videotape is more complicated to use, it is preferable whenever witness credibility is important and when somewhat lengthy testimony will be presented to the jury. Special circumstances that might favor videotape include when a witness has limited ability to speak English and when exhibits or other visible things are material to the testimony. In many instances the choice is to use videotape in lieu of live testimony or not at all. An analysis of the log sheets on the pilot courts' use of videotape equipment revealed that two used the equipment extensively, two used it infrequently, and one used videotape extensively for recording complete trials because of a judge's experiment with a dual docket. Although the pilot courts provided videotape services without charge, private services nevertheless played a significant role in their videotaping activities. While some circumstances might justify the use of court-owned equipment, the report recommends against any substantial court investment in videotaping equipment and that the parties be responsible for obtaining case-related videotapes. Tables and six footnotes are supplied.