DVD vs. VHS

[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?)

[Lemonty]

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

[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.

[KennyR]

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

[iamaboringperson]

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

I can't wait.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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.

[KennyR]

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

[Tigger]

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

[whabang]

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.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

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)

[sir_inferno]

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...

[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)

[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.