DVD vs. VHS

[KennyR]

imaboringperson wrote:
I would prefer a new analogue format in the future. I know, it's just a dream.

What for? Analogue takes up too much space, and its signal to noise ratio is high. I'd prefer a higher sample rate digital technology with lossless compression.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

but a really good movie can be enchanting even on the most lousy video systems. So I think you watch kinda utterly bad movies if you think you need such a super-system.

[that_punk_guy]

iamaboringperson wrote:

whabang wrote:
A properly encoded high bitrate MPEG2-stream is almost identical to the original.

See, that's the problem.

Almost identical.

You surely can't be suggesting that LD replicates the original perfectly?


Anyways, Eyso has a good point. A worthy film will keep your attention regardless of the format it's on.

[KennyR]

but a really good movie can be enchanting even on the most lousy video systems. So I think you watch kinda utterly bad movies if you think you need such a super-system.

And vice versa, even the best movie can be ruined by really poor visual and audio quality.

(And besides, once you've watched a DVD movie on a 38" widescreen system with a home theatre system, you'll find it hard ever to go back. You just miss so much of the film otherwise. Its a truncated sensation.)

[Dan]

KennyR wrote:

but a really good movie can be enchanting even on the most lousy video systems. So I think you watch kinda utterly bad movies if you think you need such a super-system.

And vice versa, even the best movie can be ruined by really poor visual and audio quality.

(And besides, once you've watched a DVD movie on a 38" widescreen system with a home theatre system, you'll find it hard ever to go back. You just miss so much of the film otherwise. Its a truncated sensation.)

I prefer to read the book!
Superior picture and sound quality :lol:

[Speelgoedmannetje]

KennyR wrote:

but a really good movie can be enchanting even on the most lousy video systems. So I think you watch kinda utterly bad movies if you think you need such a super-system.

And vice versa, even the best movie can be ruined by really poor visual and audio quality.

(And besides, once you've watched a DVD movie on a 38" widescreen system with a home theatre system, you'll find it hard ever to go back. You just miss so much of the film otherwise. Its a truncated sensation.)

I can tell you from experience that it is untrue what you state.

[whabang]

Dan wrote:
I prefer to read the book!
Superior picture and sound quality :lol:

Aye!

I feel a bit sad. They're going to make movies about Clive Custler's books about Dirk Pitt. Apparently, they want to replace 007, with someone more adapted to the 21st century. :-(

[KennyR]

I can tell you from experience that it is untrue what you state.

Then obviously you've never watched the movie Braveheart in a cinema, been absolutely gobsmacked, then buying the VHS and wondering what all the fuss was about.

Much of movies - especially action movies - depends on physical triggers. Roller coaster ride style shots work on big screen but fail utterly on small ones. Low frequency booms feel realistic on woofers but end up disappearing into static hiss on normal TVs. Fast moving action detail disappears into the fuzz of VHS. Most of the experience doesn't make it into low quality equipment.

Trust me: some movies are made to be experienced, not just watched. You don't realise what you're missing. You say a good movie will always be a good movie: but that discriminates against good movies that are good because of their adrenaline rush. It's no wonder people think action movies are crap with their 26" 4:3 TVs, VHS, and built in 2 channel pseudostereo sound. None of the physical aspect can ever be portrayed through this. Try appreciating oil paintings if you're only allowed to see them rendered on C64.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

I prefer not watching action movies, so probably you're right on that one. Btw. other kind of movies are also to be experienced (especially, actually), but that doesn't happen by crisp picture quality.

But evenso, one action movie that I like is Lord of the Rings, and it was as good on a vhs as in the cinema

[KennyR]

LOTR was specially made for cinematic showing. Wide sweeping vistas and vertigo-inducing shots where the camera follows a catapult projectile or zooms over mountains, just look cheesy on a small screen. On a big screen, they're amazing.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

KennyR wrote:
On a big screen, they're amazing.

wow :-/
actually, I can't care less about such effects. It's all about atmosphere, as well as the book as well as the movie (should be).

[KennyR]

Peter Jackson's LOTR wasn't. It was all about the effects. Thats why LOTR loyalists like Mikeymike thought it was crap.

[Dan]

KennyR wrote:
And vice versa, even the best movie can be ruined by really poor visual and audio quality.

(And besides, once you've watched a DVD movie on a 38" widescreen system with a home theatre system, you'll find it hard ever to go back. You just miss so much of the film otherwise. Its a truncated sensation.)

If something is really interesting you can watch it on a 2" TFT casiotv and won´t notice. If it´s mindless entertainment it won´t be better on a 32" than a 28" or a 14". The truth is that no one with half a brain would buy anything bigger than 28" if it isn´t a projector, simply because you get far less squarecm of picture for those last 1000s SEK (100s of Euros) on top off the price for a 28".
But off course it´s on that money that there is most profit, 14,21,28 inchers is common and needs to be competively priced.
Then there is the issue off making the altar( of entertainment) to big to fit in the room.
And stereo is stereo, with the right speakers you don´t need 51.1 sound, but those are of course expensive.

DVD vs VHS
I say DVD is better for a movie that is going to be watched over and over again. It has better mechanical durability.
Of course the ideal system would have been if 3,5" magnetoptical disks replaced everything, videotape,cd,floppy, because it was technical superior.

And why is there no wooden TVs, even in the highend?
The old black and white with tuning knobs we had was the most beautiful tv I ever seen and it lasted 40 years.
It may have been equal to your 38" in price considering inflation but I bet the 38" won´t last forty years.

[Dan]

I decided to never watch that unholy, unmentionable thing....
Making movies off X-men and Spiderman was a bad enough idea, fortunately all experienced comicreaders knows about parallel dimensions and the movies were rather good.
Daredevil and Hulk on the other hand sucked and there aren´t going to be any "Movieverse"-comics about them.

But making movies out off Tolkiens books.....
I hate it when they make movies off things I have read(and liked) for no god reason!
Are they so braindead that they can´t come up with a script off their own?

I predict that the 2006 summer blockbuster will be Thomas The Tankengine an all out actionmovie :lol:

The best entertainment device ever invented is the librarycard:-)
Unfortunately most books don´t last more than one or two days and it´s hard to find good books too :-)