PDA

View Full Version : VHS vs. DVD, the surprising truth!



Dremora
August 22nd, 2008, 12:30 AM
http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.8.24.112921.289.html

And a poll, please give me your honest opinion and state why.

Prefix100
August 22nd, 2008, 12:32 AM
Blu-Ray,

because HD enriches the soul.

Alasdair
August 22nd, 2008, 12:34 AM
I accidentally voted DVD before seeing the Jelly Doughnut option. :(

Dremora
August 22nd, 2008, 12:39 AM
I cast my vote for DVD.

Cheap, compatible, good picture and sound quality.

(I almost made the 5th option Ross Perot) :lolflag:

edm1
August 22nd, 2008, 12:39 AM
Which is the best at/for what? Picture and sound quality? Value for money at the current time? Cheaply recording and distributing a promotional film?

Dremora
August 22nd, 2008, 12:41 AM
Which is the best at/for what? Picture and sound quality? Value for money at the current time? Cheaply recording and distributing a promotional film?

For your particular needs.

doas777
August 22nd, 2008, 12:46 AM
DVDs took a while to take over, but that was because of the prohibitive cost of burners and set-top recorders. nowadays they are my storage medium of choice. I won't move to BD until I can rip and burn on a budget. until then, I'm perfectly happy with DVD!

Dremora
August 22nd, 2008, 12:51 AM
It wasn't just the cost of burners and writable media (I saw ONE DVD-R at Walmart for like $30), it was also the players and movies.

An RCA DVD player at Walmart ran me $300 in 1998, and movies were never less than $27.

Now you can get a player with more features than that, for $30, and discs from $5.

linuxguymarshall
August 22nd, 2008, 12:53 AM
DVD. Because I don't have an HD player.

zmjjmz
August 22nd, 2008, 12:54 AM
For my immediate needs, an 8GB flash drive would be just fine :D

Lostincyberspace
August 22nd, 2008, 12:55 AM
I enjoy jelly donuts the most.

But the article is wrong on quite a few points we bought alot of disney vhs when I was younger adn in my 19 years they have all (except for the most recent ones) gone to the garbage including aladdin (my favorite) and Hercules (Second) both of which were only watched about once a week at most.

Giant Speck
August 22nd, 2008, 12:57 AM
Pfft. You forgot Betamax tapes! :p

DVD for me!

Dremora
August 22nd, 2008, 01:05 AM
I enjoy jelly donuts the most.

But the article is wrong on quite a few points we bought alot of disney vhs when I was younger adn in my 19 years they have all (except for the most recent ones) gone to the garbage including aladdin (my favorite) and Hercules (Second) both of which were only watched about once a week at most.

The "article" is a farce, look around some more at the site. :lolflag:

LaRoza
August 22nd, 2008, 01:09 AM
Anything not using magnetism...

DVD's and the like are much better. DVD's stay the same. VHS tapes degrade over time and use (the earth's magnetic field gets them, to say nothing of other tapes (so don't store them around each other!) and just playing them)

DirtDawg
August 22nd, 2008, 01:10 AM
Clearly laserdiscs are the superior choice. If one shaves the edges to razor-like sharpness, they can be used to slice open the space time continuum, allowing one to travel from 1986 to present day, which is how I got here.

Do you guys still have Teen Wolf here in the future? That movie is totally toobular!

AdrianStrays
August 22nd, 2008, 01:10 AM
VHS. All forms of laser discs drive me insane. You play them four times and then have to buy them over again. They come filled with special features nobody watches, and the one benefit of the DVD, that being the ability to skip the ads at the click of a button, has been removed. I acknowledge differences in picture quality, but come ON. "Oh yeah, the picture is great, too bad its frozen or it doesn't sync up with the audio". I have a VCR I bought in 80's that I use to this day. I have movies from the 80's which are still in good quality. In the last five years I've been through 3 DVD players and had to buy the same movie FOUR TIMES, and I have an easy going lifestyle. My apartment's clean, I put my dvds away, I don't handle the bottom part. Its all crap, and the fact that I'm now going to have to replace all this equipment just for a slight improvement in picture quality while the issues that made DVDs SUCK are still around, infuriates me.

Adrian SMASH!

LaRoza
August 22nd, 2008, 01:16 AM
Clearly laserdiscs are the superior choice. If one shaves the edges to razor-like sharpness, they can be used to slice open the space time continuum, allowing one to travel from 1986 to present day, which how I got here.

Do you guys still have Teen Wolf here in the future? That movie is totally toobular!

Laserdiscs are cool, but unwieldly, and the players are just begging for broken trays...

Dr Small
August 22nd, 2008, 01:28 AM
I prefer DVDs over VHS. I have several VHS (more than the DVDs), but I like the fact that I can make copies of my DVDs if I fear I will lose one of them or one gets ruined. I can't do that with VHS, and unfortuantly, I've lost a few.

Dr Small

LaRoza
August 22nd, 2008, 01:31 AM
I prefer DVDs over VHS. I have several VHS (more than the DVDs), but I like the fact that I can make copies of my DVDs if I fear I will lose one of them or one gets ruined. I can't do that with VHS, and unfortuantly, I've lost a few.

Dr Small

You can copy tapes...

SunnyRabbiera
August 22nd, 2008, 01:39 AM
For a commercial format DVD format is great, but as a recording format VHS is still better...
I have had hell with recording DVD's, the technology isnt there yet for day to day recording... plus with normal DVD's you can only use the disk once, you have to get DVD ram to get something you can record on more then once but only certain players can use them.
There are just too many formats when DVD is concerned.

doas777
August 22nd, 2008, 01:40 AM
Anything not using magnetism...

DVD's and the like are much better. DVD's stay the same. VHS tapes degrade over time and use (the earth's magnetic field gets them, to say nothing of other tapes (so don't store them around each other!) and just playing them)

It is my understanding that optical disks (especially write-able ones) are subject to some deterioration over time. This depresses me as I will have to start a media rotation in another couple of years. I don't particularly relish the idea.

http://www.gcn.com/print/23_5/25166-1.html?topic=news

http://www.pcworld.com/article/116473/burning_questions_when_good_discs_go_bad.html

Cheers!

SunnyRabbiera
August 22nd, 2008, 01:42 AM
yes DVD's degrade too, plus DVD's can get scratched just as easily as tapes can get eaten.

doorknob60
August 22nd, 2008, 02:20 AM
For me DVD, because I don't have an HDTV or a Bluray player . But if my family got a Bluray player (I'd get mad if it wasn't a PS3 :-P) (we got an HDTV downstairs), then I'd vote Bluray, even though they're DRM filled :( DVD's are fine for me, but Bluray is the future, and if I had a PS3 and an HDTV, I'd vote Bluray for sure.

Polygon
August 22nd, 2008, 02:30 AM
dvd win in every aspect, except for the fact that it was so much easier and cheaper to record stuff from the TV using vhs tapes. 90% of VCR's had it built in.

LaRoza
August 22nd, 2008, 02:39 AM
It is my understanding that optical disks (especially write-able ones) are subject to some deterioration over time. This depresses me as I will have to start a media rotation in another couple of years. I don't particularly relish the idea.

http://www.gcn.com/print/23_5/25166-1.html?topic=news

http://www.pcworld.com/article/116473/burning_questions_when_good_discs_go_bad.html


In a couple of years? You must handle them poorly.

I keep my disks scratch free and in their cases when not in use. They will last a long time, much longer than the VHS tapes we had and have degraded just by sitting there.

Shippou
August 22nd, 2008, 02:50 AM
Blu-Ray, because of more storage capacity. But when VMD is released, be ready everyone.

@Dremora, you may have also included HDDVD, just for the sake of completeness.

********VMD - Versatile Multilayer Disc. See info here: http://www.nmeinc.com/

Dr Small
August 22nd, 2008, 02:50 AM
You can copy tapes...
Not when you only have one VCR.

JillSwift
August 22nd, 2008, 03:26 AM
If phenakistoscopes were good enough for my generation, dammit, then they're good enough for yours!

damis648
August 22nd, 2008, 03:30 AM
Excuse me! I already voted Blu-Ray but where is my option for HVD? You should really put that in there. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_Versatile_Disc for those that don't know what it is.

EdThaSlayer
August 22nd, 2008, 06:01 AM
It's been 7 years since that article was written(2001.8.24. if you look at the title). Things have changed since then and, DVD is far better but still, the internet will replace all *physical* transactions as time progresses. But I have to say blu-ray is starting to look pretty good, but it's expensive and I'm not a big fan of Sony.

zachtib
August 22nd, 2008, 06:15 AM
blu ray, because i love my 1080p

amazingtaters
August 22nd, 2008, 07:09 AM
DVD got my vote. BluRay is too expensive for me to contemplate right now. Heck, I still use CD's a lot. I'd say I use 3 spools of CD's for each spool of DVD's I use. But DVD is the best, as you can fit lots of stuff on them, and they aren't horribly expensive anymore.

mips
August 22nd, 2008, 09:14 AM
In a couple of years? You must handle them poorly.


Not really. You get some crappy quality disks out there that really do not last long. I have experienced this myself, after a while the disks just becomes unreadable although it has zero scratches on it. I have discs from canonical that no longer work (even had a thread about this some time back)

I would say the brand of media is important when you buy, I generally try to stick to one brand. I know there are also specific discs out there specially rated for archival purposes (100yrs etc)

http://adterrasperaspera.com/blog/2006/10/30/how-to-choose-cddvd-archival-media

gn2
August 22nd, 2008, 09:40 AM
Jelly donuts are so much more easily digested than all the others, so win hands down.

Sky+, an old PIII PC as a jukebox and a car stereo with USB and SD card slots mean that now I only burn CD's to give away, or if I need to send really large files by snail mail to someone with a poor internet connection.

gn2
August 22nd, 2008, 09:44 AM
I would say the brand of media is important when you buy, I generally try to stick to one brand. I know there are also specific discs out there specially rated for archival purposes (100yrs etc)

http://adterrasperaspera.com/blog/2006/10/30/how-to-choose-cddvd-archival-media

Too true. This is why when my parents bought a PC six years ago I used Memorex CD's with the built-in recovery CD creation utility to create restore media.
Six years later the CD's are no longer readable and they have been sitting safely in jewel cases in a box in a cupboard all this time.

Optical media sucks sometimes.

mips
August 22nd, 2008, 10:10 AM
Too true. This is why when my parents bought a PC six years ago I used Memorex CD's with the built-in recovery CD creation utility to create restore media.
Six years later the CD's are no longer readable and they have been sitting safely in jewel cases in a box in a cupboard all this time.

Optical media sucks sometimes.

I try to stick to Verbatim as it seem to be the only reliable brand available around here. I have a spindle of 20 cheapo cd-r's lying on my desk that I use to 'give away'

qazwsx
August 22nd, 2008, 10:16 AM
Harddrive. I convert all my recordings into h.264

I have also standalone dvd player that plays XVID. Sometimes I convert my recordings into xvid avi and burn them into DVD/CD. Easy to do.


MPEG-2 is legacy :)

doas777
August 22nd, 2008, 01:13 PM
In a couple of years? You must handle them poorly.

I keep my disks scratch free and in their cases when not in use. They will last a long time, much longer than the VHS tapes we had and have degraded just by sitting there.

well I started ramping up my collection about 4 years ago so I'm thinking a 6 year rotation is a good bet.

Sorivenul
August 22nd, 2008, 01:21 PM
Where are 8mm and Betamax?

insane_alien
August 22nd, 2008, 01:25 PM
bluray. lots a high def or even more standard def on a single disc.

also, the article is wrong. VHS chops the vertical resolution in half to fit a decent number of hours on to the tape. DVD allows the whole shebang. VCD is the disc equivalent of VHS.

billgoldberg
August 22nd, 2008, 01:25 PM
I voted Blu-ray.

I can play the using my ps3, but haven't actually bought any. (no lcd tv yet).

I have quite a few dvd's.

It is however impossible to say dvd is better than blu-ray.

mcduck
August 22nd, 2008, 01:34 PM
I actually bothered to reead the web site behind that link.

What can I say?

:D

I couldn't find a single valid point in that article.. It sounded like a web site for some funnu cospiracy theory or something.. :D

1: "While it's true that DVD theoretically has double the vertical resolution of VHS, this fact has nothing to do with how the picture is presented. The vertical resolution of your television set is fixed by your local standard (NTSC in the United States and PAL in Europe."

Not true. First, the difference in picture quality comes from the way the image is stored, and how it can be transported to your TV. VHS uses analog composite signal which combines both color & brightness & sound data into one signal, while DVD stores hue, luma & chroma data for the picture separately,and data for all audio channels separately. Tis gives sharper picture wth less color bleed. You can confrm it easily by comparing the picture quality when you connect your DVD player with composite cable or RGB/S-video/Component cable.

Secondly, the resoltution part is crap as well. Most modern flat screens support higher resolutions. But the most important thing is the difference betwee progressive scan (on DVD's) compared to interlaced picture. Of course picture on a VHS is blurry enough that the eartifacts created by interlacing isn't clearly visible.

2: "They lack the analog warmth that is present in VHS performances and LPs. When analog is recorded and mastered, the sound undergoes slight alterations from the original intonation"

this is another comon mistake. The warmth of analog recording is not a feature of the analog storage media, it comes from the analog compression that happens when recording sound into analog tape. If you then move the seound to digital storage media the warmth will stay. Same effect can be acchieved by using a tube compressor while recording/mastering the sound.

"Finally, it's worth mentioning that all of these high-end sound formats such as "Dolby Digital 5.1" and "DTS" are pure junk. Scientists have demonstrated that the human brain is not capable of separating out more than four simultaneous sound channels at once."

The author fails to inderstand the idea behind multi-channel audio. Human brain is clearly capable of figuring out the _direction_ where the sound comes from. And that's what the multi-channel audio is trying to acchieve. It's not tying to overload your brain with sound information, but simply to position the sound in space.

3: "can be watched a dozen times of day for three years straight without showing any appreciable wear. Yes, the digital nature of DVD means that the encoded bits will never "wear out", but VHS movies rarely "wear out", either."

Actually all magnetic media wears out, you don't even have to use it and still the signal quality will reduce over time.

What happens to mishandled storage media is a different thing completely, but if you mishandle your disk that's your own fault, not the medias. :D

DVD, when kept correctly, will mantain the same picture & sound quality for years, not depending on how much you use it.

VHS, like I said, will loose the qualite over time, and also quicker the more you use it.

4. So? You can put "special features" on a VHS tape, too

No, you can't. Not separate audio channels & subtitles for different languages. Of course an american might not even realise what would be the point in that, but for the rest of the world that is really a great feature..

There was more, but my work day is over and I think I'll rather head home than keep on pointing mistakes in that article.

In the end, my answer to the poll was blu-ray. Absolutely _amazing_ picture on mu full-hd TV. <3

nothingspecial
August 22nd, 2008, 01:41 PM
"This might even be a bigger whopper than the picture quality myths. In the movie "The Rock", a character asks Nicholas Cage why he just spent $500 on an old Beatles LP record. The reply? 'Two reasons. Number one, I'm a Beatle maniac. And number two, these sound better.'"

I`m with Nick on this one.

lawrencep93
August 22nd, 2008, 01:49 PM
Bluray. Once you have seen it on a full HD sony bravia X 60 inch lcd there is no turning back. And also bluray is like the best to backup an old hardrive. 30 GB hell yer.

In a few years or something they will bring out the mother of all cd looking things. The 120gb bluray CD I heard its made from organic matter and the burner cost 2million bucks.

Kernel Sanders
August 22nd, 2008, 02:17 PM
Jelly Doughnut FTW!

Lostincyberspace
August 22nd, 2008, 02:17 PM
"This might even be a bigger whopper than the picture quality myths. In the movie "The Rock", a character asks Nicholas Cage why he just spent $500 on an old Beatles LP record. The reply? 'Two reasons. Number one, I'm a Beatle maniac. And number two, these sound better.'"

I`m with Nick on this one.
LP's sound like crap they pop and his and sound like they are from a tin can. But I do collect them since others will pay lots of money for them (baby boomers, generation after them from the 80's) a good Beatles can get you a few $100 easy.

mips
August 22nd, 2008, 02:28 PM
I couldn't find a single valid point in that article.. It sounded like a web site for some funnu cospiracy theory or something.. :D


Have to agree and they also have technicall errors. I just don't have the energy right now to type out a response to the article.

damis648
August 22nd, 2008, 04:03 PM
Blu-Ray gets my vote for an in-production discs. Blu-Ray is only the best. I see great potential in HVD, however.

Joeb454
August 22nd, 2008, 04:08 PM
What's up with good old HD-DVD

damis648
August 22nd, 2008, 04:10 PM
What's up with good old HD-DVD

Lost the format war. Out of production... losing to Blu-Ray. I am still waiting for HVD though.

Bungo Pony
August 22nd, 2008, 04:19 PM
I'm torn between DVD and VHS. I voted DVD solely for the size benefit. If you take care of your DVDs, they'll hold up fairly well. However, with VHS tapes, you can fast forward through all the garbage, like the FBI warning and video company splash. I can't count how many times I've mashed the buttons on the remote, frustrated that I couldn't watch my DVD NOW.

I personally don't promote Blu-Ray. It's a Sony product, and I hate Sony anything. Good example: 3 1/2" floppy disks. Unreliable pieces of crap. The 5 1/4" disks held up much better.

Also there's a few formats missing from the list. I have a CED player, and the picture is pretty good on that thing. You also never have to touch the disc. You slide the sleeve in the player, and the machine takes the disc out.

And there's also the HD-DVD which is now dead, Betamax, and motion picture film. If it were my choice, I'd probably go with the film. You scratch the film, you get a mark on your picture and that's it. You completely break it, you can patch it together with some splicing tape and still watch it. You scratch a DVD, that part is unwatchable FOREVER. You break a DVD, it's 100% screwed.

Ozor Mox
August 22nd, 2008, 04:21 PM
Maybe I'm not old enough but I've never really got that warmth stuff that all the LP owners go on about, and how digital recordings are so cold. Technology goes obsolete, and gets replaced. At least you can still actually buy record players, cassette players and video recorders!


Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.That way, when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

I have no idea why, but even though I've seen this a thousand times, it still cracks me up every time! :)

HappyHenry
August 22nd, 2008, 04:28 PM
The statement, from the link you provided, is that, "any parent with children knows..." This is not true in my house. I have collected every disney release on VHS and sadley most of the older ones have become corrupted and the sound picture contains static. Some are so bad that for every few seconds of clear video and sound we get minutes of pure white noise. So, no VHS is not equal or anything close to the shelf life of DVD. They do degrade just sitting on the shelf. Sure wish I would have known this before investing in something i expected to gain in value. Most of the older ones, nine years or so, are now worthless, except if i find someone who wants the art of the boxes. lol.
Someday i will get around to transferring all the good VHS i have to DVD. At least on DVD if for some reason the dvd gets a scratch they can be reserfaced (a small amount of the service shaved off) to smooth the service and allow you to regain your investment. With VHS once ruined, always ruined. The data in a DVD or CD is actually very safely stored under the service of the disk, scratches are temp problems. I mean they can be repaired and no loss of data actually occurs. The service scratch causes a problem in accessing the data locked inside because light gets refracted and that mixes the data being retrieved. Smooth the service and light can once again reach the perfectly safe data.
IMHO
From my experience DVD is far superior to VHS.

BigSilly
August 22nd, 2008, 04:29 PM
I've no doubt that Blu-Ray is a superior picture etc, but for me as a movie fan, with a large collection of beloved titles, regular old DVD still makes me very happy indeed. It still offers so much to the movie fan.

I won't be switching to any other format for long time yet.

Bachstelze
August 22nd, 2008, 06:30 PM
Blu-Ray,

because HD enriches the soul.

Ditto. I just got my first bunch of Blu-rays this week, and it's really stunning. Now, watching DVDs fullscreen almost makes me puke :p

nothingspecial
August 22nd, 2008, 06:40 PM
LP's sound like crap they pop and his and sound like they are from a tin can.

Your sound system must be pants then! My lps sound like honey compared to the aspartame of cds.

Saying that, 90% of the time I`m lazy and put my digital music on (alot of audacity ripped vinyl in there). But if I`m really going to have a listen - eyes shut on the sofa, full concentration job, only vinyl will do.

nick09
August 22nd, 2008, 06:43 PM
Blue-Ray because you can fit a ton of movies on it at SD resolution as a single layer has 25GB of space.

Dremora
August 22nd, 2008, 10:08 PM
"This might even be a bigger whopper than the picture quality myths. In the movie "The Rock", a character asks Nicholas Cage why he just spent $500 on an old Beatles LP record. The reply? 'Two reasons. Number one, I'm a Beatle maniac. And number two, these sound better.'"

I`m with Nick on this one.

Initially, the LP sounds better than a CD, but after a while the needle wears the vinyl down and it sounds worse.

You need a really expensive laser turntable to avoid that, which were about $3,000 in 1996, and around $500 now.

You need exceptionally good speakers, and really good hearing to notice any difference, by the time you're in your 40's or 50's, you have significant hearing loss, especially high frequencies.

myusername
August 22nd, 2008, 10:20 PM
why did we go from HD-DVDS to blu-ray? did u guys not read that article a while back on how they fit 500gb on one HD-DVD? why in the world did we drop that??

Dremora
August 22nd, 2008, 10:23 PM
why did we go from HD-DVDS to blu-ray? did u guys not read that article a while back on how they fit 500gb on one HD-DVD? why in the world did we drop that??

Cause the companies backing Blu Ray ended up being more and more than HD-DVD....Sony is huge and to add to that, they own their own movie studio label, so it was really over before it started.

On HD-DVD, the only notable backers were Microsoft and Toshiba, Microsoft is a software company, and Toshiba is one hardware manufacturer.

Nostrafus
August 22nd, 2008, 10:28 PM
I went with DVD, because something they seem to miss is that over years VHS breaks down, they touch on it but after about 10 or so years a VHS gets jitter spots, the video doesn't have the original quality, not only that but every DVD is digital, meaning it is never more than a 2nd generation, whereas a VHS may be a 3rd to 5th generation.

You don't need to rewind a DVD, and we've lost more than a few VHS tapes to rewinding that tears apart the ribbon. Also had more than one get completely eaten by a VHS player, meaning we needed to replace the tape and the player itself.

DVD's are not susceptible to erasure by magnets, unlike VHS where a simple fridge magnet can cause a good bit of damage to it, if not erasing it, still doing enough damage to where it's almost unwatchable.

You can't accidentally record over a DVD, VHS just needs an accidental pressing of a record button on a tape to mess it up. I lost a few TV movies (Namely Vlad: The true story of dracula, and Attila) to my mother/father recording over them for a cooking show.

A DVD collection takes up A LOT less space than a VHS collection (about 3x less if you keep them in their boxes, about 50x less if you keep them in a DVD binder)

I kinda see the person who wrote this in the same light as people who argue that DAT tapes are the perfect storage media, or LP's are the best way to listen to music.

I didn't got for blu-ray because they're still a bit expensive. A single blank disc for $25 is a bit much. I didn't go for laserdisc because... well I've only ever seen 3 laserdisc's in existence, all of them at school about a decade ago. And I didn't go for jelly donuts because they don't fit into my diet and I just can't eat that much sugar anymore.

hessiess
August 23rd, 2008, 12:44 AM
HD looks better on a high res TV peuerly becouse LCD,s can only display one native resolution, so the signal is bilinier filterd to the higher resolution, as well as deinterlased. I hoistly Cannot tell the differance between HD on a hdtv and SD on a simmaler sized CRT, under 'normal' viewing conditions.

1080i is a useless standerd becouse ONLY CRT,s can display a interlased signal, deinterlacing will ALWAYS introduce artifacts or degrade picture qualaty, most deinterlcers simply discard one feild alltogether. reduceing the 1080 pixel high image down to 540 pixels and line dobbling it back up to 1080. or 'bob' deinterlace, which is esentuily the same as the discard tecnique, exept that the two feilds are treated as separate frames and displayed one after the outher, 25i becomes 50P. this still reduces vertical resolution by harf, although your brain can interpolate between the frames so its slightly less notisable, but still nowhere neare as good as progressive.

I voted for VHS, as its the only format with no DRM. also you can take the cassete out, put it back in, and it will carry on from exactly where it was before. DVD's only take up sugnificantly less space if you dump the boxes, but then thay get damaged easely

If you know where to look most digital TV is absolutly packed with compression artifacts. and MP3, no matter what bitrate, sounds verry 'tinny' in the high frequancyes.

spoons
August 23rd, 2008, 02:44 AM
I voted for VHS, as its the only format with no DRM. also you can take the cassete out, put it back in, and it will carry on from exactly where it was before. DVD's only take up sugnificantly less space if you dump the boxes, but then thay get damaged easely

If you know where to look most digital TV is absolutly packed with compression artifacts. and MP3, no matter what bitrate, sounds verry 'tinny' in the high frequancyes.

Nonono. VHS has Macrovision. Ever tried to copy a VHS tape that uses macrovision? I bet not. And for the love of god don't.

All good DVD players have a "resume playback from last point" feature.

Here's my view on the article:

The vertical resolution of your television set is fixed by your local standard (NTSC in the United States and PAL in Europe.) The fact of the matter is that DVD could *quadruple* the vertical resolution of VHS and there would be no visual gain from it! NTSC has a resolution of 648 x 486. PAL is slightly higher at 720 x 486.

I don't know about him but my PAL TV (I'm british) is 720 x 576.
DVD looks much less grainy than VHS. It won't degrade for at least 20 - 30 years. VHS has a much shorter lifespan.


In a recent study by Brown University, one hundred students were shown a clip of the movie "Big Momma's House" on VHS and then were shown the same clip on DVD. The students were not told which clip was which format. They were then asked which of the two clips had better video quality, or if they were about the same. Nearly two-thirds of the students (63%) thought that there was no difference. Of the remaining students, 19% thought that the VHS tape looked better! In other words, the students with a preference (narrowly) favored the image quality of the "inferior" VHS clip!

And what hardware (projector, CRT, LCD) was displaying the clip? If it's the world's crappiest TV how are they gonna tell the difference? They aren't. So it could well have been rigged like that.


This might even be a bigger whopper than the picture quality myths. In the movie "The Rock", a character asks Nicholas Cage why he just spent $500 on an old Beatles LP record. The reply? "Two reasons. Number one, I'm a Beatle maniac. And number two, these sound better."

This quote has no relevance. It highlights analog over digital yes, but then an LP is NOT a VHS tape.


It gets worse, though. Not only is DVD sound digital, it is compressed digital. Anybody who has ever heard the sound quality of an MP3 file when compared to its original source can tell you that digital compression makes already-bad audio sound even worse. Of course, if the DVD video is compressed, why should the zealots care if the audio is compressed?

It's not encoded in MP3. It's encoded in AC3. It has a relatively (for a lossy codec) high bitrate. Sure it's digital, but since you're such an analog zealot you already use tube-amps, right?


VHS tapes, on the other hand, are virtually impossible to destroy. If a part of the tape gets dirty or crinkled, you may have to put up with a few lines of static for a few seconds, but that's it. Unlike a DVD, it is not possible to easily destroy an entire movie, since doing so would require you to destroy an extended length of magnetic tape. Even in severe cases where defective players "eat" the video tape, all that one needs to do is wind the tape back up into the cartridge. Compared to their fragile digital brothers, VHS tapes are invincible.

No, because the tape can snap. But you're right, they're COMPLETELY immune to children. Until they get the fridge magnets off the fridge...


DVD preserves better than VHS tapes

Again, this is mostly a lie. Any parent who has young children and a collection of Disney VHS movies knows that those things can be watched a dozen times of day for three years straight without showing any appreciable wear. Yes, the digital nature of DVD means that the encoded bits will never "wear out", but VHS movies rarely "wear out", either.
A DVD lasts 20-30 years. Don't you DARE tell me a VHS lasts that long, because the film degrades. Also a Disney VHS will NOT last over 13,000+ watches without degrading. The head touches the tape and wears a very thin layer away. That's a lot of layers.


Those are the highlights. The truth is that for all practical purposes, VHS is a better all-around home theater format than DVD. There are many little things that make VHS a better choice; for one, you don't have to put up with the annoying pause when a DVD player switches between layers on the disc. Additionally, linear searches forward and back are much smoother than they are on a DVD player .. even the most brainwashed DVD junkies admit that searching DVDs is a bit choppy.

You won't stand a slight jitter between pauses but will put up with a few seconds of static on your VHS tape? Madness.
And DVDs don't get funny lines on them when you fast forward or rewind. I'll take a few jitters over a big strip of static over the main characters head when I fast forward thanks.

Oh yeah, and DVD works on your PC...

My 2 cents. :)

Kabezon
August 23rd, 2008, 07:51 AM
I voted for Blu-Ray; ever seen one? It's really good quality. About the DVD vs VHS essay: the guy who wrote it... I just don't see the point in it. I think it is quite obvious which one looks better... He can give me all the "facts" he wants, but when I play a VHS and then I play a DVD I can clearly see which one's better.

Also, he mentioned that VHS don't break as easily; that is such a big, fat lie lol I still got cassettes from the early 90s, and I keep them as safe as possible, but they still worn out. While I have this CD from 1997 and it's still sounding great =] Sure, you can leave cassettes out of their case lying pretty much anywhere and it's gonna be fine, and yes, you can't say the same about CDs and DVDs, but, for common sense's sake, how about you just keep the CDs in their cases? I guarantee you they'll be as good as new in 11 years ;] I hate it when people don't take care of them and then cry when they can't use it anymore, but now with Blu-Ray that problem's gonna end :P

P.S: Little advice: don't ever let ANYONE borrow your CDs or/and books!

mips
August 23rd, 2008, 10:51 AM
However, with VHS tapes, you can fast forward through all the garbage, like the FBI warning and video company splash. I can't count how many times I've mashed the buttons on the remote, frustrated that I couldn't watch my DVD NOW.


There are now DVD players on the market that allow you to skip through that crap. Neat eh?

Bachstelze
August 23rd, 2008, 11:30 AM
There are now DVD players on the market that allow you to skip through that crap. Neat eh?

Yeah, but Blu-Rays (at least the few I have) don't even have it in the first place :p

mcduck
August 23rd, 2008, 11:42 AM
why did we go from HD-DVDS to blu-ray? did u guys not read that article a while back on how they fit 500gb on one HD-DVD? why in the world did we drop that??

Actually they did that on Blu-Ray, not HD-DVD.. ;)

http://www.engadget.com/2008/08/05/pioneer-finds-20-layer-500gb-blu-ray-disc-feasible/

I'm not sure if they ever developed the HD-DVD beyond the original 2-sided 2-layered 60GB disc.

Sorivenul
August 23rd, 2008, 02:48 PM
All good DVD players have a "resume playback from last point" feature.

Not trying to start a war, but the keyword here is "good". As far as I know, all VHS players have this feature. Of course I'm still working with 8mm standard, Super 8mm films, and Ampex video systems. Not the case for everyone, but working with older, no longer standard formats helps one develop an appreciation of just how great something as simple as VHS is.

As far as digital goes, BluRay has my "two thumbs up".

TenPlus1
August 23rd, 2008, 03:43 PM
DVD has more than enough quality for a good movie... If the storyline is good and it's well directed then no-one will notice the quality of an HD movie...

JP1990
August 23rd, 2008, 03:48 PM
Blue Ray FTW if you set up 2 of the same tvs and plug a dvd player and a blue ray player in to each of them then play the same movie but on each format

take a step bk then say wow blue ray rules :)

SuperSonic4
August 23rd, 2008, 03:51 PM
Definitely Jelly Doughnuts, none of the others smell nice :p

clueless
August 23rd, 2008, 03:59 PM
VHS. All forms of laser discs drive me insane. You play them four times and then have to buy them over again. They come filled with special features nobody watches, and the one benefit of the DVD, that being the ability to skip the ads at the click of a button, has been removed. I acknowledge differences in picture quality, but come ON. "Oh yeah, the picture is great, too bad its frozen or it doesn't sync up with the audio". I have a VCR I bought in 80's that I use to this day. I have movies from the 80's which are still in good quality. In the last five years I've been through 3 DVD players and had to buy the same movie FOUR TIMES, and I have an easy going lifestyle. My apartment's clean, I put my dvds away, I don't handle the bottom part. Its all crap, and the fact that I'm now going to have to replace all this equipment just for a slight improvement in picture quality while the issues that made DVDs SUCK are still around, infuriates me.

Adrian SMASH!

Plus ever since DVDs became popular, they started making more and more crappy movies. The best movies I have ever watched were on VHS and that's where I'm casting my vote

hessiess
August 23rd, 2008, 04:02 PM
Blue Ray FTW if you set up 2 of the same tvs and plug a dvd player and a blue ray player in to each of them then play the same movie but on each format

take a step bk then say wow blue ray rules :)

get two simmaler sized tv's, one HD and another NATIVE standard def, 720*576(PAL), LCD or (preferably) a CRT. play a blu ray on the HDTV and a DVD on the SD tv, stand back and you can hardly tell the difference :).

the reason SD looks bad on a HD LCD is because of up scaling(bilinear filtering)

toupeiro
August 23rd, 2008, 04:08 PM
DVD for me.

I don't like the concept of a head for watching a movie for the same reasons I don't like the concept of a head for backup tapes. Heads malfunction and/or get dirty, and when they do, they DESTROY tapes. I'd prefer some fragmenting and skipping to let me know my DVD player is dirty rather than having it spit me back my disc in shards.

I'm not completely convinced that blue-ray will stay around long enough to become the commonplace media format. Its too expensive, and I don't see the costs coming down faster than the development of on-demand streaming content. As soon as I can stream a movie in 1080p inexpensively, and believe me we are close to that, then the disc media wars will be pointless.

kaboodle_fish
August 23rd, 2008, 04:13 PM
Great.

I stuffed a jelly donut into my DVD player to see if it was any better and now the player will not work.

I blame Ubuntu for the dinner getting burnt and the cat being sick!

matt79
August 23rd, 2008, 04:19 PM
I use a DVD. It means I do not have to buy equipment and I can afford to buy the disks. Plus I have never had a problem with the quality from a DVD. Although I would really like a jelly filled donut right now.....

insane_alien
August 23rd, 2008, 04:26 PM
get two simmaler sized tv's, one HD and another NATIVE standard def, 720*576(PAL), LCD or (preferably) a CRT. play a blu ray on the HDTV and a DVD on the SD tv, stand back and you can hardly tell the difference :).

the reason SD looks bad on a HD LCD is because of up scaling(bilinear filtering)

tried, it, and YES you can tell the difference. it is very very obvious.

i mean, if your using a little 15inch TV and standing 5 meters away then i'm sure nobody could be do the same with 37in telly and you definitely can.

Polygon
August 23rd, 2008, 04:54 PM
saying that vhs tapes are better cause better movies came out for it is moot.

so...what happens if i convert a vhs tape to dvd? not to mention many vhs only movies have dvd versions as well

dvd is a techincally superior format in almost every way except its durability (its hard to break in half a vhs tape,....quite easy with a dvd)

clueless
August 23rd, 2008, 06:32 PM
saying that vhs tapes are better cause better movies came out for it is moot.

so...what happens if i convert a vhs tape to dvd? not to mention many vhs only movies have dvd versions as well

dvd is a techincally superior format in almost every way except its durability (its hard to break in half a vhs tape,....quite easy with a dvd)

I'm not saying that VHS is superior to DVD. I just think that the DVD quality made producer focus more on the effects and the image than the story itself. Plus, a trend was born for people to collect DVDs, leading to mass production of crapy films. Of course this is not the DVD format's fault but it just makes me miss the old days where I would rent a film in VHS and it would be great. Even the image quality with the imperfections would contribute more to the whole "Friday night experience".

ghindo
August 23rd, 2008, 07:27 PM
My vote goes to Blu-Ray, despite me not actually owning a Blu-Ray player. Just seeing them has blown my mind. It's cool to see High Definition formats go mainstream :)
why did we go from HD-DVDS to blu-ray? did u guys not read that article a while back on how they fit 500gb on one HD-DVD? why in the world did we drop that??I missed that article - could you link me to it?

Besides, Blu-Ray discs can theoretically fit up to about 200 GB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray#Ongoing_development), but that doesn't mean we'll see them in mainstream production anytime soon. Who needs that much storage on a disc, who can take advantage of that much space, and how expensive do you think they would be?

hessiess
August 23rd, 2008, 08:44 PM
tried, it, and YES you can tell the difference. it is very very obvious.

i mean, if your using a little 15inch TV and standing 5 meters away then i'm sure nobody could be do the same with 37in telly and you definitely can.

fair enugh, you can tell the difference, under 'normal' viewing conditions I cannot :). obviosly I can if I still frame through zoomed frames, but then thats not 'normal' viewing conditions :lolflag:

JLF65
August 24th, 2008, 04:05 AM
get two simmaler sized tv's, one HD and another NATIVE standard def, 720*576(PAL), LCD or (preferably) a CRT. play a blu ray on the HDTV and a DVD on the SD tv, stand back and you can hardly tell the difference :).

the reason SD looks bad on a HD LCD is because of up scaling(bilinear filtering)

You either need glasses or a better TV. :lolflag:

HDTV is visibly superior. Is it enough to justify the extra price? That is what varies from person to person. Clearly, you don't feel it's worth it, and that's fine. I still get DVD's for most things myself as it's sufficient for most programs. However, certain things are WAAAAAAYYYYYYY better in HD. Shin-chan is NOT one of those. :)

By the way, the article linked in the original post - it's complete and utter garbage. As an electrical engineer who programs on the side, I can tell you that not a single point had any merit at all. The author is clearly a retard. I hate it when people write articles on subjects they haven't the slightest idea about. :mad:

myusername
August 24th, 2008, 05:30 AM
My vote goes to Blu-Ray, despite me not actually owning a Blu-Ray player. Just seeing them has blown my mind. It's cool to see High Definition formats go mainstream :)I missed that article - could you link me to it?

Besides, Blu-Ray discs can theoretically fit up to about 200 GB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray#Ongoing_development), but that doesn't mean we'll see them in mainstream production anytime soon. Who needs that much storage on a disc, who can take advantage of that much space, and how expensive do you think they would be?

here ya go
http://www.ultrasharpware.com/blog/2007/07/07/universities-in-germany-put-500gb-in-one-dvd-claim-1tb-is-possible/

pbpersson
August 24th, 2008, 06:10 AM
I voted for Blu Ray because in theory it has the highest video resolution for HD and that is where everything is going.

I have never in my life purchased a pre-recorded VHS tape - they were always WAY too expensive. I remember when laservideo discs came out, you could buy a movie for $20 and that was dirt cheap as compared to VHS - then VHS had to come down in price to compete.

Most of my movies are DVDs I transferred from TiVo - movies from cable in surround sound that I got basically for free. I can store WAY more movies on the shelf on DVDs than I ever could with VHS and they will last forever.

That article claiming that scratches on a DVD will cause pops.....that is crazy. I have never had a problem with my DVDs but many VHS tapes landed in the trash because they could not be viewed any longer. Besides....that article is ancient - pre HDTV. Everything is going to HD and VHS is obsolete now, if it was not back when that article was written.

When I do buy DVDs, it is the $5 bin at Wal-Mart. I don't trust cheap VHS tapes - there is just too much that can go wrong with those things.

Anyway, I am not a quality nut - I don't need "warm" sound or whatever - I just want to be able to burn lots of movies to DVD, store hundreds of them on the shelf, and watch them for years to come. :)

mcduck
August 24th, 2008, 07:33 AM
here ya go
http://www.ultrasharpware.com/blog/2007/07/07/universities-in-germany-put-500gb-in-one-dvd-claim-1tb-is-possible/

I posted here a link to similiar article about fitting 500GB on a Blu-Ray disk, so we aren't really missing anything because HD_DVD "failed". Actually the Blu-ray disk available _now_a re bigger than HD-DVD's are, and for future both seem to be capable of equally high disk sizes. At least with Blu-Ray they have even confirmed that all the current players & drives should be able to use those 500GB disks.

There seems to be new articles every couple of months about achieving higher sizes, but it's going to take years before this kind of disks will be available to consumers and with reasonable prices. If ever. :D

Anyway, anybody claiming that VHS would have equal picture quality compared to DVD (not to even mention HD medias) either has a bad TV, old glasses, or uses wrong kind of cables to connect the players. Of course if you plug both VHS & Blu-ray players to 15-year-old TV with composite cable they will both look the same, but that's not because of the media, but because of the crappy TV and connector that limits the video quality.

I can clearly see the difference between VHS & DVD on my old 21" CRT TV when both are connected using RGB-SCART. (actually VHS could be connected with composite as well, that's the best it can do anyway..) Not to mention the difference when comparing the same sources (+ Blu-ray player connected with HDMI) on my big HD-TV. Actually _everybody_ who has been around when I've been watching a movie has been stunned by the picture quality of HD movies.

(and watching a VHS after DVD or Blu-Ray definitely makes my eyes hurt, trying desperately to focus the picture, which is of course useless when the picture really _is_ blurry :/)

crazyfuturamanoob
August 24th, 2008, 08:03 AM
Well, DVD is currently the best because it's cheap and has large capacity enough.