DVD vs. VHS

[KennyR]

Quick check, I would like opinions on:

a) What is better quality, DVD or VHS;

b) Whether the difference quality is visible straight away or not.

I know where I stand on this, I just want to guage other people's opinions on the matter.

[x56h34]

:roll: oh brother...

[B00tDisk]

KennyR wrote:
Quick check, I would like opinions on:

a) What is better quality, DVD or VHS;

b) Whether the difference quality is visible straight away or not.

I know where I stand on this, I just want to guage other people's opinions on the matter.

I'm facinated to know what your take on it is, but that said...

DVD is head and shoulders above VHS.  I'll never go back to VHS, and to me the quality is immediately visible.  That isn't the sole reason I prefer DVD, but that's the scope of your question so I'll leave it at that.

[that_punk_guy]

Hmmmm? Seems like a no-brainer to me. They both have shortcomings in the picture department but you can see the those of VHS on a standard TV. For DVD I need to stare at a good monitor. Soundwise, there's no contest.

The only reason I keep my VHS tapes are sentimental value.

[KennyR]

@b00tdisk

I wasn't going to state my opinion in case it made people think I wanted to argue with them, I don't, I just want opinions. But what the hell.

My opinion is the same as yours. DVD is by far the better quality, and the clarity is immediately visible to me even on 14" screens. On bigger TVs VHS quality starts to really betray it, with fuzzy lines and a grainy image (and it can't do 16:9). The sound on DVD is also a lot more vivid, especially if you have the sound system for it. I bought my last commercial VHS 3 years ago and only keep a player for recording.

I wanted to know what people thought because yesterday I got into a heated argument with someone who said that VHS is better or the same, and that DVD was just a commercialist attempt to make more money. Obviously, I'm of the opinion that its not.

[Turambar]

Betamax destroys both! :-p

On a more serious note i cant think of a single way that VHS beats DVD, picture and sound quality is superior, no need to rewind, takes up less space on the shelf etc. Its a no brainer really, the guy you were arguing with must have some serious issues if he thinks its just about money.

[KennyR]

The guy I was arguing is actually quite intelligent and not easily fooled. That's why I thought it was strange and needed more information to see if there were any more people out there who prefer VHS, and why they do.

[that_punk_guy]

It's like the LP/CD argument except it makes far less sense. ;-)

[X-ray]

@ Kenny

Yes, I had the same argument!!! But this was with a vacuous specimen at work. She says there is no difference (as far as she can see) between a VHS tape and a DVD.

You know how I got her?

X-RAY: So, Vacuous, wanna come shopping with me, I'm buying audio cassettes on Saturday.
VACUOUS: Audio cassettes?
X-RAY: Yup. Just as good as CD, only cheaper. Can't hear the difference.
VACUOUS:  (silence)

 :lol:

[Wain]

KennyR wrote:
Quick check, I would like opinions on:

a) What is better quality, DVD or VHS;

b) Whether the difference quality is visible straight away or not.

I know where I stand on this, I just want to guage other people's opinions on the matter.

Depends on the movie and how well it was transferred to DVD, Aliens Special Edition on DVD was extremely blocky, you could actually see squares on several peoples cheeks.  VHS always sucks in my opinion, but then again I also have a Betamax and a Laserdisc player.

[KennyR]

Wain wrote:
Depends on the movie and how well it was transferred to DVD, Aliens Special Edition on DVD was extremely blocky, you could actually see squares on several peoples cheeks.

Nice coincidence, I had just turned off Aliens SE a second before I read your comment. :-D

I don't see any blockiness myself, maybe they recoded it for the Alien Quadrilogy version. Or maybe my TV isn't big enough.

(Early DVDs had poor MPEG encoding, and early DVD players didn't help. Usually you can see this around faces, smoke, water, and fire. These artifacts are even more noticable on digital TV, which, by the way, still beats analogue TV into the ground)

[KennyR]

X-ray wrote:
You know how I got her?

X-RAY: So, Vacuous, wanna come shopping with me, I'm buying audio cassettes on Saturday.
VACUOUS: Audio cassettes?
X-RAY: Yup. Just as good as CD, only cheaper. Can't hear the difference.
VACUOUS: (silence)

I can see how LP people can contest with the CD, but the audio tape...brrr!

[whabang]

KennyR wrote:
Quick check, I would like opinions on:

a) What is better quality, DVD or VHS;

b) Whether the difference quality is visible straight away or not.

I know where I stand on this, I just want to guage other people's opinions on the matter.

DVD, if not presented in the worng way (lousy encoding) is far better. Period.

On the other hand, VHS is cheap, and better suited to record TV-shows. I mean, come on! Two hours of video on a disk?!?! :\

[blobrana]

Hum,
a bit like comparing a `spitfire` with "the Grip"...
VHS is fine for small kids that may scratch delicate DVDs...

As for recording to disk, i think your right, but nowadays you can record direct to DVD; And HDs are really big nowadays 160Gb for £100, so no problem if you`ve got the room...

[whabang]

I meant a DVD-disk (or is that disc?).

BTW, the RSAF would be rather useless, if there only was one "Grip".