DVD vs. VHS

[iamaboringperson]

>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.

[iamaboringperson]

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!

[iamaboringperson]

whabang wrote:

>a) What is better quality, DVD or VHS;
LaserDisc

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)

[iamaboringperson]

The sharpness of your TV may be up too high.

I actually use my computer monitor.

And, I actually want more resolution anyway.

[iamaboringperson]

There will be a new version of DVD soon. Apparently it has 4x the resolution

I can't wait.

[iamaboringperson]

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.

[iamaboringperson]

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.

[iamaboringperson]

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)