Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / Entertainment => Topic started by: KennyR on August 13, 2004, 06:39:06 PM
-
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.
-
:roll: oh brother...
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
It's like the LP/CD argument except it makes far less sense. ;-)
-
@ 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:
-
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.
-
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)
-
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! :)
-
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?!?! :\
-
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...
-
I meant a DVD-disk (or is that disc?). :P
BTW, the RSAF would be rather useless, if there only was one "Grip".
-
Oh!
(yes two hours is a bit small)
>>BTW ,
you mean they have two? !!!
-
Indeed they have! The others have all crashed (Most swedes will get that joke). :lol:
-
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.
VHS on a high-end 6-head player may be better than a badly encoded DVD played on a 50€ DVD player. But in normal situations, never.
What I dislike about DVD's is that you cannot eject the disk and easily continue watching later at the point where you stopped, at least I get confused everytime the doorbell rings and I press the "STOP" button. But then maybe my DVD player is a moron, or me. That never happens on VHS :inquisitive:
-
:-?
Every player I've seen has a resume feature of some sort.
-
Not mine. Or I haven't found it yet :roll:
-
Heh... That's what manuals are for. ;-)
-
Even my Panasonic Q Gamecube has a limited resume feature (limited in that if you switch the power off you can forget resuming) I believe its becoming pretty standard for players to save your position when you switch it off and give you option to view from that position the next time you play that dvd.
-
DVD players resume when you press stop, but I own several and none have ever resumed when you take out the disc and put it back later.
(Its annoying pressing stop twice by mistake, then the DVD goes back to the start. Gaah!)
-
Turambar wrote:
Even my Panasonic Q Gamecube has a limited resume feature (limited in that if you switch the power off you can forget resuming) I believe its becoming pretty standard for players to save your position when you switch it off and give you option to view from that position the next time you play that dvd.
Well, I got curious and fiddled around with my DVD player today, and unlucky me, no resume. Press stop and you're screwed. A friend of mine however, has a DVD player with resume. Aargh. I'll buy a new one soon, it's really a bad player.
Anyhow, did you guys know that quite a lot of todays DVD players contain only an IDE'ish DVD reader and a Linux box with the OS on ROM? Pretty lame, no wonder they give bad picture and sound...
-
>a) What is better quality, DVD or VHS;
LaserDisc
No, sorry, I think DVD is overall. But MPEG compression can really mess up the quality of animation.
It depends on the recording more than anything.
>b) Whether the difference quality is visible straight away or not.
I can certainly tell the difference immediately.
-
Actually after watching Lord of the Rings the other day, I must say that VHS generally has a much higher picture quality.
I hate all of the little blocks that can be seen in the less detailed areas of the movie. MPEG sucks. Yuck!
-
>a) What is better quality, DVD or VHS;
LaserDisc
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FAQ/Introduction.html#RivalsDVD (http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FAQ/Introduction.html#RivalsDVD)
-
iamaboringperson wrote:
Actually after watching Lord of the Rings the other day, I must say that VHS generally has a much higher picture quality.
I hate all of the little blocks that can be seen in the less detailed areas of the movie. MPEG sucks. Yuck!
The sharpness of your TV may be up too high. Try one of those THX optimizers you get on some DVDs. Most people seem to think sharper is better: that's not true. TVs have a certain resolution, and sharpening them is like sharpening fuzzy jpeg pictures - it doesn't add more information, it just makes them look terrible.
(Although, when the sharpness of my TV is up high enough to see MPEG artifacts, VHS looks really bad.)
-
In my case, the option is clear: VHS.
Once image and sound quality have reached a certain point, any improvement is a moot point for me.
I usually watch things once, so recording is much more important.
The last time I checked, VHS was both cheaper and could record for longer.
Besides, I hate the access controls on DVDs. Once I buy something I should be free to do what I wish with it, short of breaking the law.
-
@macto
Double layer DVD-RAM for DVD recorders can record 4 hours. E-180 VHS tapes can record 3 hours 5 minutes. Sure you can get twice that on longplay, but the quality is generally terrible. And, while I don't own a DVD recorder, the quality is said to beat VHS by a long way too. I'd have to ask someone who owns one.
(Anyone?)
-
Yeah, I would like to see a realtime recording of a DVD-recorder. Safe to say that pre-recorded DVDs are way ahead of VHS simply because the master copy has generally been carefully encoded presumably by high-end encoders (pro stuff). I have yet to see a DVD recording made 'on the fly'.
Oh, I have a VHS copy of Lord of the Rings too. The picture quality of pre-recorded VHS tapes is awful due to poor quality tape. Home-recorded VHS movies always look better.
VHS: always avoid recording pictures containing solid reds ;)
-
whabang wrote:
>a) What is better quality, DVD or VHS;
LaserDisc
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FAQ/Introduction.html#RivalsDVD (http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FAQ/Introduction.html#RivalsDVD)
LaserDisc video is better than any MPEG compression out there.
I'll still be building my LD collection.
(What you've pointed out in the article is crap, BTW)
-
The sharpness of your TV may be up too high.
I actually use my computer monitor.
And, I actually want more resolution anyway.
-
There's no format that can keep up with monitor resolution - except HDTV that is.
-
There will be a new version of DVD soon. Apparently it has 4x the resolution :)
I can't wait.
-
I miss the mentioning of Video2000 from Philips (and Grundig) in this thread.
wich is way superior, it has (good) recording ability and superb picture quality. Plus it can store up to 16 hours on one tape.
-
...but you can't buy movies on it.
-
iamaboringperson wrote:
I'll still be building my LD collection.
(What you've pointed out in the article is crap, BTW)
??? I hate to point this out, but the article is completely accurate as far as it goes, it does not mention MPEG artifacts which only occur on DVD, but the resolution, component picture and dynamic range comments (which DVD is superior to LD and much superior to VHS) are all completely accurate. Given a well done compression, just the fact that DVDs are component and the other two alternatives are composite give you a huge gain in picture quality of the DVD vs its commercial competitors as long as you are going component or Y/C to your screen. As good as my Digital Beta?? No, but better then my VHSs, HI-8 or my beloved laser disks?? Absolutely.
-Tig
-
LaserDisc video is better than any MPEG compression out there.
No.
The lack of MPEG-compression is plus, but that's the only one. A properly encoded high bitrate MPEG2-stream is almost identical to the original.
-
KennyR wrote:
...but you can't buy movies on it.
But you can record or copy movies with hardly any picture/sound quality loss. Plus, if I'm right, newer models of Video2000 players can also handle VHS (not sure though)
-
phillips invented the screwdriver...anyway :lol:
betamax rulez :-D
vhs sucks :pissed:
pal rules :-D
ntsc sucks :pissed:
but there are always exceptions...
my 12 year old sony television, has flawless quality, compared to any plasma flatscreen sh|te you'd get in a store today...
--edit--
aliens se appears fine to me...
-
Tigger wrote:
iamaboringperson wrote:
I'll still be building my LD collection.
(What you've pointed out in the article is crap, BTW)
??? I hate to point this out, but the article is completely accurate as far as it goes, it does not mention MPEG artifacts which only occur on DVD, but the resolution, component picture and dynamic range comments (which DVD is superior to LD and much superior to VHS) are all completely accurate. Given a well done compression, just the fact that DVDs are component and the other two alternatives are composite give you a huge gain in picture quality of the DVD vs its commercial competitors as long as you are going component or Y/C to your screen. As good as my Digital Beta?? No, but better then my VHSs, HI-8 or my beloved laser disks?? Absolutely.
-Tig
Sorry, I should have been more specific.
I was refering to the opinion:
6.3 DVD: The new digital 5" laserdisc
No it's not! :-D Sorry, but it's not.
The main problem with DVD's IMO is are still the repeating squares in the less detailed areas of a film (like character blocks on a c64).
If there is ment to be movement in that scene (and you can tell, because other areas are moving), some blocks wont change until there is greater movement.
I don't get that on LD.
I would prefer a new analogue format in the future. I know, it's just a dream.
-
whabang wrote:
LaserDisc video is better than any MPEG compression out there.
No.
The lack of MPEG-compression is plus, but that's the only one. A properly encoded high bitrate MPEG2-stream is almost identical to the original.
See, that's the problem.
Almost identical.
{bleep}ty MPEG compression. And DVD doesn't currently have the 'high bitrate' and resolution that you mention.
Lord Of The Rings shouldn't look like {bleep}. But on DVD it does.
-
sir_inferno wrote:
phillips invented the screwdriver...anyway :lol:
betamax rulez :-D
vhs sucks :pissed:
pal rules :-D
ntsc sucks :pissed:
but there are always exceptions...
my 12 year old sony television, has flawless quality, compared to any plasma flatscreen sh|te you'd get in a store today...
--edit--
aliens se appears fine to me...
Finaly ... somebody who nearly completelyl agrees with me about video.
(Of course professional video systems have always been better, and always will be)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.)
-
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:
-
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.
-
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. :-(
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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).
-
Peter Jackson's LOTR wasn't. It was all about the effects. Thats why LOTR loyalists like Mikeymike thought it was crap.
-
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.
-
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 :-)