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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[KennyR]

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!)

[KennyR]

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.)

[KennyR]

@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?)

[KennyR]

There's no format that can keep up with monitor resolution - except HDTV that is.

[KennyR]

...but you can't buy movies on it.

[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.

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[KennyR]

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