Vhs Or Dvd?

[POLO9999]

Soo... i think a subject like this should exist... Nostalgic between New technologics...

On my side... i ever use VHS... but let's compare the 2 main formats :

DVD has better quality than VHS, more reliable for go on one side to other side quickly, and recording quite easy too and have chapter selection... but i think it's not the best format Because :

1° Commercial DVD (Movies)

- We must to watch their Anti-Piracy Stuff and in some case... sign ident (WB).

- For foward some seconds... it is less watchable to see 0.5 seconds that can be interesting in a minute of quiet... (moving 3fps (preview) for foward :().

- When there's scratch... sometimes unreadable, picture freezing directly or lag...

- ...

2° Recorded DVD (TV Programs by example).

- Only 1 Time record on normal DVD... DVD-RW can record twice or more but it's more expensive (and same quality)

But in this case... there's less to talk.

VHS resolve some of theses problems (skiping by foward,...).

Also i think the VHS is easier to use than DVD... I had helped some people to use simple DVD, how to get menus and all... VHS is inside the VCR and play and enjoy!

But VHS has also some problems

Commercial and Recorded :

- Bad Quality on somes VHS, color quite bad (LP mainly).

- It get snow when there's bad using of VHS but still playable.

- ...

What's your opinion about it?

[kbf_private_joker]

Are you seriously trying to argue that VHS > DVD? And how come you didn't include Blu-Ray in the poll?

In all seriousness, the ultimate format is MKV or AVI. Watching movies on the computer is my choice. 0 ads. 0 PSAs. No cases cluttering up the house.

[Tony_32]

lol @ this thread. In all fairness, I will give VHS credit for being a lot more durable but as joker mentioned, high def mkv would be my choice.

[kbf_private_joker]

lol @ this thread. In all fairness, I will give VHS credit for being a lot more durable but as joker mentioned, high def mkv would be my choice.

What he said ^^^. 720p MKV is my choice. 1080p doesn't seem to produce a noticeable difference to warrant 2x the size on my hard drive.

[MacGruber]

The time will say, but definetively Blu-Ray it's my choice And regarding the vhs vs. dvd matter, I prefer dvd

[POLO9999]

Yes sorry... i didn't notice the Blu Ray and Computer matter... i think Computer is quite out of competition (Because it has only advantages) and Blu Ray is... (don't slap me) not a main format (I think we can't still record to Blu Ray directly (i may say wrong)).

EDIT : Finaly, i'll put the Blu ray/PC one... it'll grow up quickly :-)

[Thor]

I'd have to say DVD is better but even better is if you have a DVR with a DVD burner those are sweet. (speaking of that a PSX is up on ebay that can do just that right now).

[Mister Zero]

[]RANT:[]

I don't understand why we need so much space on Blu-Ray? I haven't read up on the subject, as I don't plan on buying a player anytime soon. Does the video and audio take up the full BR disc? Do they cram on a ton of useless extras? What's the deal?

I personally don't care for the most crisp picture all the time, etc. DVDs have been crisp enough for my taste. If a movie is crap, it's crap. I don't care if it's pretty crap. If I rent a movie once to just see it and don't want to buy it, it doesn't make a difference to me.

Most movies I own are old. How many times can they go back and try to get the best picture from an old master for a new video medium? You'd think it would only get so good.

And audio isn't a big deal to me, either. Most of the time when I buy something, I don't really care to make it a home theater experience, I only watch it casually.

Really, it comes down to price for me. If I can buy a movie on VHS for .50 that I'll only watch a couple times but love, that makes more sense to me than shelling out $25+ for the same movie on a new format.

I can understand that DVD is going out of style after 12 or so years(and VHS has been out of style for longer) but I really don't plan on spending a lot on something until I know it will be most prevalent and somewhat more affordable.

[kbf_private_joker]

[]RANT:[]

I don't understand why we need so much space on Blu-Ray? I haven't read up on the subject, as I don't plan on buying a player anytime soon. Does the video and audio take up the full BR disc? Do they cram on a ton of useless extras? What's the deal?

Hi-def picture and sound takes up a ton of space. They also usually have DTS, Dolby, and many other high quality formats so most people can benefit

I personally don't care for the most crisp picture all the time, etc. DVDs have been crisp enough for my taste. If a movie is crap, it's crap. I don't care if it's pretty crap. If I rent a movie once to just see it and don't want to buy it, it doesn't make a difference to me.

Most movies I own are old. How many times can they go back and try to get the best picture from an old master for a new video medium? You'd think it would only get so good.

I used to think the same thing. However, I've seen movies from the 60s and 70s on hi-def and they look fantastic. When they created the VHS and DVDs, there is a ton of detail that is lost because those formats had a relatively low resolution.

And audio isn't a big deal to me, either. Most of the time when I buy something, I don't really care to make it a home theater experience, I only watch it casually.

Really, it comes down to price for me. If I can buy a movie on VHS for .50 that I'll only watch a couple times but love, that makes more sense to me than shelling out $25+ for the same movie on a new format.

I can understand that DVD is going out of style after 12 or so years(and VHS has been out of style for longer) but I really don't plan on spending a lot on something until I know it will be most prevalent and somewhat more affordable.

Give it time and BluRay will become affordable. Most people still don't have HD TVs but once those are reasonably affordable ($300-500 range), everyone will want to benefit from the new format. Trust me once you see a few in HD, you don't want to go back.

[Data]

If it wasn't for tapes we would not have most of the movies that are on the shelves right now. Some of my favorite movies were only available in limited quantities on VHS.

DVD's take up alot less space but shelling out between 5 and 25 dollars a second time is sick for me. The blu-ray costs too much for me right now. Especially when I can barely notice a difference in resolution. In fact I haven't purchased a movie in 6 years.

I have a terabyte hard drive filled with movies and television series I have either recorded off a high-def satellite, downloaded from the internet or worse case scenario, rent from Blockbuster and later encoded to Nero digital.

Edited July 17, 2009 by Jake

[Gnash]

my option is not up there h.264

[kbf_private_joker]

If it wasn't for tapes we would not have most of the movies that are on the shelves right now. Some of my favorite movies were only available in limited quantities on VHS.

DVD's take up alot less space but shelling out between 5 and 25 dollars a second time is sick for me. The blu-ray costs too much for me right now. Especially when I can barely notice a difference in resolution. In fact I haven't purchased a movie in 6 years.

I have a terabyte hard drive filled with movies and television series I have either recorded off a high-def satellite, downloaded from the internet or worse case scenario, rent from Blockbuster and later encoded to Nero digital.

I agree with you Jake. Storing movies and tv shows on hard drive is the best option. No clutter and instant access once the PC is on. I am sure glad hard drive prices are dropping. Backing up 1.5 TB of stuff used to be crazy expensive. Now it's only $120 or so.

[Areala]

I honestly never see Blu-Ray taking off as a technology the way that DVD did, for the same reasons that the CD has been the unchanged king of physical audio format for some twenty years now. Quite simply, Blu-Ray isn't necessary. Be honest with yourself...is Catwoman a better film because you can now watch it in high-def? Was Indiana Jones just a piece of crap before you could see it on a blu-ray disc with slightly upgraded picture quality? Of course not.

DVD mattered for two reasons:

1) Smaller physical storage space; it beat out the competing formats of both laserdisc and VHS because you could store 2 DVDs in the space it took for 1 VHS tape, and it could be a small shelf instead of the large LP-sized racks required to store laserdiscs. For home use, this was important. For retail space, this was PARAMOUNT: 2x as many titles to stock, and thus 2x as many potential sales on your shelves. When you got into dealing with films like Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, Gone With The Wind and other titles that came packaged as 2 VHS tapes vs. 1 DVD case, this was even more important and added even more value.

2) Digital archival format; the picture quality was better, but more importantly, you could play the same film 500 times and never experience the loss in picture and sound quality that you experienced with a VHS tape. Oh yeah, and no more rewinding...that was pretty nice too. But most importantly, this was a technology that everybody could instantly see the benefits of and rally around. With Blu-Ray, it's not that clear to everybody; most people still own standard-def. televisions, and while a Blu-Ray player can run anywhere from $200 on up, a DVD player can be had for under $50. When most people want to watch a movie, they want to see the movie. Seeing it "prettier" is of secondary consideration when it'll cost you $10-$20 more per title to get that clarity.

DVD isn't going anywhere; in December of 2008, "The Dark Knight" went on sale (from what I can tell, it's the best-selling Blu-Ray so far). Three million total units were sold that day, and 600,000 of them were Blu-Ray. This sounds impressive until you realize that means that 2.4 million units were regular DVDs, and that rather puts it into perspective. People just plain don't care about high-def, because there's no need for it. Hell, I own a PS3 and an HDTV and I STILL don't care about Blu-Ray. Sure, they are pretty, but pretty alone isn't a good enough reason to switch for 75% of the consumers out there.

Remember all the formats that were going to just totally kill the CD? We had Mini-Disc, and DVD-Music, and Super Audio CD, and HDCD, and on and on and on. And not a one of them caught on, because CDs were the "good enough" digital archival media format for music. DVDs are the "good enough" digital archival media format for video, and as such that will secure their prominance in the marketplace long after Blu-Ray, HD-DVD and other would-be technologies are just jokes to be laughed at in 10 years.

*huggles*

Areala

[nickerous]

I enjoy Blu-Ray and I try to get the new movies that I care about on Blu-ray. I like dvd as well. The PS3 does an excellent job of up-converting the dvds. Blu's look great and sound great, but I don't have a surround sound setup, so sometimes, it's hard to hear the dialogue over the music/effects.

[kbf_private_joker]

I honestly never see Blu-Ray taking off as a technology the way that DVD did, for the same reasons that the CD has been the unchanged king of physical audio format for some twenty years now.

There are several reasons why CD is king over things such as vinyl and cassette:

1. Convenience - small and can jump to tracks

2. Lossless quality - you can't get better sound unless you go from stereo to 5.1 or are at a recording in person

However, do you see CDs being around in 20 years. I don't. Sales of CDs have gone down to almost nothing as of late. Lossless digital is where it is at. I ripped all my music CDs and then sold them on Craigslist. Why keep them? Do people still use them on a regular basis? Not really. Mp3 players will make them obsolete in a decade.

1) Smaller physical storage space; it beat out the competing formats of both laserdisc and VHS because you could store 2 DVDs in the space it took for 1 VHS tape, and it could be a small shelf instead of the large LP-sized racks required to store laserdiscs. For home use, this was important. For retail space, this was PARAMOUNT: 2x as many titles to stock, and thus 2x as many potential sales on your shelves. When you got into dealing with films like Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, Gone With The Wind and other titles that came packaged as 2 VHS tapes vs. 1 DVD case, this was even more important and added even more value.

2) Digital archival format; the picture quality was better, but more importantly, you could play the same film 500 times and never experience the loss in picture and sound quality that you experienced with a VHS tape. Oh yeah, and no more rewinding...that was pretty nice too. But most importantly, this was a technology that everybody could instantly see the benefits of and rally around. With Blu-Ray, it's not that clear to everybody; most people still own standard-def. televisions, and while a Blu-Ray player can run anywhere from $200 on up, a DVD player can be had for under $50. When most people want to watch a movie, they want to see the movie. Seeing it "prettier" is of secondary consideration when it'll cost you $10-$20 more per title to get that clarity.

DVD isn't going anywhere; in December of 2008, "The Dark Knight" went on sale (from what I can tell, it's the best-selling Blu-Ray so far). Three million total units were sold that day, and 600,000 of them were Blu-Ray. This sounds impressive until you realize that means that 2.4 million units were regular DVDs, and that rather puts it into perspective. People just plain don't care about high-def, because there's no need for it. Hell, I own a PS3 and an HDTV and I STILL don't care about Blu-Ray. Sure, they are pretty, but pretty alone isn't a good enough reason to switch for 75% of the consumers out there.

Remember all the formats that were going to just totally kill the CD? We had Mini-Disc, and DVD-Music, and Super Audio CD, and HDCD, and on and on and on. And not a one of them caught on, because CDs were the "good enough" digital archival media format for music. DVDs are the "good enough" digital archival media format for video, and as such that will secure their prominance in the marketplace long after Blu-Ray, HD-DVD and other would-be technologies are just jokes to be laughed at in 10 years.

Several reasons why I believe you are wrong

Blu-ray is not being adopted in high numbers because

1. Technology is still too expensive

2. Most people haven't experienced HD because they don't have a HD TV

Once you can get a blu-ray player for $30 at Wal-Mart and Blu-Ray discs for $10 a pop, kiss DVD goodbye. The other reasons is that HD TVs are too expensive. Once they come down in price, eveyone will want to watch movies in hi-def. People aren't used to hi-def TV yet. DVD also took a while to adopt, so will Blu-Ray. However, now that all TV is broadcast digitally, people will get used to watching all TV in HD. There will always be people who don't want to change, but those people are still watching VHS or no TV at all. I believe once the price is competitive with DVD and everyone has a 42 inch or greater TV screen, they will start picking up Blu-Ray. Now the price point might be as low as $10 each, but if it's low enough, people will want it. I bet the discs cost a few dollars each, so who knows what will happen.

Of course I could also see us completely jumping over Blu-Ray and going straight to digital copies of movies. With internet speeds increasing every year, what's to say we won't start buying movies online from Itunes. I can download a 10GB movie in a few hours. Once most people have FIOS or something equivalent, that time gets cut in half.

Now that I think about it, this is probably a more accurate prediction for the next 10 years.

Whatever happens, I'm excited about the new tech

[MacGruber]

...Remember all the formats that were going to just totally kill the CD? We had Mini-Disc, and DVD-Music, and Super Audio CD, and HDCD, and on and on and on. And not a one of them caught on, because CDs were the "good enough" digital archival media format for music...

I think all the formats you mentioned above wasn't conceived as "cd killers"; contrarily, they were intended to be differents "alternatives" to choice from.

Mini-Disc: with it you can record and erase your own music, compress it, etc.

DVD-Music: I don't know said format, but if you wanted to say "DVD-Audio", such format was intended primarily to "audiophiles", so that was and is their "target".

SACD: again a "audiophiles" oriented format.

HDCD: This was an "enhanced" cd, which included 4 additional bits more than the normal 16 bits cd; moreover, they are compatible with normal cd players too.