|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Sept 15, 2011 10:52:18 GMT
Moved in from elsewhere Actually, I do have a VHS player. It's a very good machine and even plays NTSC tapes. Which leaves me with an unfortunate dilemma of whether to bid against Ken.... (Incidentally, I do not consider VHS to be obsolete nor DVD to be superior to it.) It blatantly is in both cases. Of the 576 lines in a standard definition UK TV picture (usually labelled as 625 line: the remaining 49 are used for things other than picture) a VHS machine records & plays 250 of them, so less than half. DVD by contrast uses all 576 lines so the picture quality is far better for a start. You can argue about which is the more physically durable format both: there are pluses and minuses on both sides. So VCR is then kept just as a recording format. I don't think there's anyway you can argue that a VCR is superior to a PVR (Sky+/Tivo/Freeview+) except that it's more obvious portable between machines. Even then most equipment now has some sort of export facility to allow you to move the raw files to a computer. VCR is effectively dead. It's sole surviving function is to play back material that you have on VHS that isn't yet on DVD. |
|
Nigel
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
Posts: 5,101
|
Post by Nigel on Sept 15, 2011 12:03:33 GMT
I didn't mention PVR. Nor did I say that VHS is superior to DVD.
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshift on Sept 15, 2011 13:36:56 GMT
I never realised how much better DVD was until I watched a VHS tape after a while. Crikey, the difference is like chalk and cheese.
VHS vanishing from the shelves took me by surprise. One day HMV was full of videos, the next day there were none.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Sept 15, 2011 13:42:09 GMT
In terms of picture quality, as those specs above show, DVD is at least twice as good.
And we forget now how poor a VHS' pause button was!
(incidentally the "only recording 250 of 576 lines" accounts for why VHS degrades when copied)
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Sept 15, 2011 13:42:45 GMT
After getting Sky Plus and A DVD recorder in 2005 we have used VHS for two things*. Before that we hadn't really bought anything on video for 3 or 4 years but still recorded regularly. I never imagined something used so often could cease to be irrelevant so quickly but for us it was just about over night. It was probably sped up by the fact that almost all of the videos in the house ceased working properly at the same time in fairness.
*The two things were watching season 1 and 2 of West Wing and watching the video cut of Muppet Christmas Carol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Sept 15, 2011 13:47:49 GMT
The only time the VHS ever comes out in our house is to play back Doctor Who stories I don't yet have on DVD.
|
|
Hero
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
King of RULES!
Everything Rules
Posts: 7,494
|
Post by Hero on Sept 15, 2011 14:08:06 GMT
Same here.
===KEN
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Sept 15, 2011 16:12:12 GMT
In terms of picture quality, as those specs above show, DVD is at least twice as good. That may be true, but it doesn't follow automatically from your logic. As you go to higher and higher resolution, the difference will become less and less perceptible to the human eye, for a fixed screen size. Martin |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Sept 15, 2011 18:53:18 GMT
No. The ammount of detail contained will be the same in relation to each other - that's fixed into the format. VHS is fixed into the 576i/625 line format: even through a 1080i capable tv will still only produce a 250 line picture*, just as a DVD will only produce 576 lines. For a higher resoloution picture you need a hiugher resoloution format like BD
* the caveat being that your equipment isn't doing upscaling on the fly but the low res of the source material won't do you any favours here
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Sept 16, 2011 7:44:25 GMT
The ammount of detail contained will be the same in relation to each other Yes, but the human eye/brain doesn't respond in a way that keeps recognising a doubling of detail ad infinitum as being twice as "good". For a given screen size - and sitting a fixed distance away from the screen - at a certain resolution the picture will be indistinguishable from perfect, and any further "improvements" will go unnoticed and so not really be improvements at all. Martin |
|
Dave
Empty
Posts: 1,811
|
Post by Dave on Sept 16, 2011 8:43:41 GMT
That's the idea behind the "Retina Display" in recent iPhone's/pods. From Wonkypedia:
This section is followed by someone saying that it would actually have to be 477 ppi to do that, but you get the idea...
That said, even on my old diddy TV the difference between VHS and DVD was noticeable. For Blu-Ray, the bigger the TV, the more noticeable the improvements over DVD, but I don't think they do a HDTV small enough to notice no difference.
|
|
Nigel
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
Posts: 5,101
|
Post by Nigel on Sept 16, 2011 9:25:24 GMT
VCR is effectively dead. It's sole surviving function is to play back material that you have on VHS that isn't yet on DVD. Sorry Phil, but you've just defeated your own argument there. If its sole function is playback (when its only other function anyway was recording) then it can't be said to be obsolete. Personally, I still watch a lot of VHS. I've spent thousands of pounds building a collection over the years; I'm not about to waste thousands more replacing things I've already got. The only reason I don't record on VHS any more is that the government-enforced switchover to digital broadcast has rendered it impossible with terrestrial television (with my current equipment) while having a Sky+ box means there is rarely any need to use it for satellite broadcasts. Better picture quality does not equate to superior technology. I am firmly of the opinion that if something is worth watching, then it doesn't matter how good the picture is. (For this reason, I have no intention of getting Blu-Ray or HDTV. Also, if something "must be seen" in HD, then what is that gloss making up for elsewhere in the production?) Then there's the durability issue. Yes, tape degrades over time but it remains watchable, usually even if the tape has been chewed. A DVD effectively doesn't degrade but one major scratch and it's knackered. As for PVR, it's very easy to accidentally delete a recording. Also, there's the issue of how you can watch the different formats. A tape can be ejected and playback can resume from the same point; with DVD, you have to find the same point. Conversely, it's easier to start at a specific point with DVD than VHS. Also, you can fast forward through copyrights and other stuff at the start of a tape; you generally can't with a DVD. Each format has its pros and cons. As far as I'm concerned, the only true benefit to the consumer that DVD has over VHS is that it takes up less physical space. Incidentally, the space factor is part of why retailers were so quick to back the format; it used less shelf space than VHS and, as new technology, could be sold at a higher price than the older format. Also they're more efficient to distribute (smaller and lighter) and presumably much cheaper to manufacture than VHS. |
|
primenova
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
Posts: 6,057
|
Post by primenova on Sept 16, 2011 11:45:10 GMT
I am currently taping Transformers Prime on VHS LP 4hr tape.
|
|
Nigel
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
Posts: 5,101
|
Post by Nigel on Sept 16, 2011 12:01:36 GMT
I need to hook up my video to the Sky+ box.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grand Moff Muffin on Sept 16, 2011 17:45:25 GMT
What boggles my mind was how long it took them after inventing the DVD to invent slim two-disc DVD cases... and why some manufacturers still supply cases with easily-breakable-prior-to-opening 5-or-6-pronged plastic holding bits in the middle while others have DVD cases with 2-piece holding bits that don't break.
High technology indeed.
Martin
|
|
Nigel
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
Posts: 5,101
|
Post by Nigel on Sept 16, 2011 19:15:20 GMT
Not as long as it took them to invent those CD cases that have the hinges about one cm in from the edge rather than the ridiculously easy to break exterior corner hinges.
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Sept 16, 2011 19:52:10 GMT
I've never worried about obsolesence in a global sense. After all by the definitions being used in this thread my television has been made obsolete by the existence of HDTV, and all three of the computers in this house are obsolete by several generations. But they all still work and do what I need them to do so whether they are obsolete seems to me purely academic.
Like wise VHS may be superceded format in retail terms, and might be inferior to its replacement, but my VHS recorder still does what it needs to do in terms of playing back the VHS tapes that I need it to. So in that sense it is not obsolete in terms of its place in my line-up of equipment because there is nothing else out there that can perform its function, so in that sense it has not been replaced by anything else.
Karl
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Sept 16, 2011 19:57:17 GMT
Where the hell are my coloured blocks of wood that hold any and all types of information including video playback?
Star Trek lied to me.
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Sept 16, 2011 22:11:17 GMT
No it didn't, they're made of plastic, have metal at one end and are called memory sticks.
They got mobile phones too!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bogatan on Sept 16, 2011 22:49:24 GMT
We could encase one in wood for Ralph if it makes him feel less betrayed.
|
|
|
|
Post by legios on Sept 17, 2011 7:35:56 GMT
No it didn't, they're made of plastic, have metal at one end and are called memory sticks. But those don't make the correct klonk noise when you slot them in...... Karl |
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Sept 17, 2011 8:49:57 GMT
We could encase one in wood for Ralph if it makes him feel less betrayed. No! They need to be entirely made of wood! That's what makes them magical! -Ralph |
|
|
|
Post by Philip Ayres on Sept 17, 2011 10:46:34 GMT
The prop might be wood, but who knows what they're made of in the Star Trek world?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Sept 17, 2011 12:06:28 GMT
Wood! In the future, wood can hold information!
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by duffism1981 on Sept 17, 2011 12:57:06 GMT
Will wood still exist in the future?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Sept 17, 2011 15:32:47 GMT
Yes! We need trees for us all to live!
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by duffism1981 on Sept 17, 2011 16:02:41 GMT
I am an idiot. I did not consider that.
When i thought wood in the future, I thought of the stereotypical metal future where a tree isn't in sight. though i suppose by then they may have found a way of creating oxygen after all the trees in the trees in the world have been chopped down.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Doctor on Sept 17, 2011 16:12:56 GMT
I would hope so or everyone on that metal planet in the Star Wars prequels would die!
-Ralph
|
|
|
|
Post by duffism1981 on Sept 18, 2011 17:18:04 GMT
I do have my video recorder still in my living room. I haven't used it at all this year. Last time i did use it, I had it hooked up to a DVD recorder to transfer some old stuff onto DVD.
|
|
Hero
Fusilateral Quintro Combiner
King of RULES!
Everything Rules
Posts: 7,494
|
Post by Hero on Sept 28, 2011 21:54:08 GMT
My VHS player has not been used in years, but is there in case something comes along on VHS I want to play.
Charity shops won't take in VHS tapes anymore (aside from the odd boxset). The small independent one I visit has had black bags of tapes dumped on them and they have mounted up into a huge pile in the alleyway because they cost £15 a bin liner full to dispose of and can't afford to do so. The corridor is like a VHS graveyard. Surely there is a way to recycle tapes.
|
|
Actually, I do have a VHS player. It's a very good machine and even plays NTSC tapes. Which leaves me with an unfortunate dilemma of whether to bid against Ken....
