What's new

DVD ETC. MAGAZINE ASKS: DVD versus D-VHS? (1 Viewer)

Craig W

Second Unit
Joined
Jul 28, 1999
Messages
445
DVHS is designed was designed for one thing IMO:

To keep JVC's patent royalties coming in. DVD has seriously damaged the steady stream of income that JVC has been getting over the last two decades. Technology is moving on at the expense of JVC. JVC like any smart minded company is trying to keep its revenue steady or increase it. The problem is that most techno-savvy consumers, aka the early adopters, don't want anything to do with tape anymore even if its high def. Does anyone remember DCC, Digital Compact Cassette? Philips invented that because they didn't want to see their revenue die from the original cassette format. The problem was Philips forced this format out even when it was pretty well known that people did not want it because compact disc was just starting to hit its stride.

I think JVC is hoping that laserdisc diehards will flock to them for the higher quality, but with all the talk about the DVD forum trying to come up with a HD-DVD standard is pretty much causing DVHS to be DOA much like Philip's DCC.

I have a feeling that HD-DVD will be the next laserdisc-like niche format and DVHS will be collecting dust in the trashbins of failed formats.
 

Paul McElligott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2002
Messages
2,598
Real Name
Paul McElligott
TiVo has a lot to do with tape because it is a magnetic tape based medium. The recordable layer in the hard drive platter is made from the same materials (iron oxide) used in some tapes, hence, it's tape based.
Other than being magnetic, there is very little similarity between a tape and a hard disk. A hard disk is random access (like a DVD). The heads only touch the part of the disk that is being read, not all the tape, every time. More importantly, hard disks are not continually stretched and dragged across the heads like tape is.
The basic point is that, in order to work, tape must be subjected to stresses that disk-based media never are. The issue of master tapes is not an issue because 1) The tapes they use are industrial grade, built to specs far beyound what is used for commercial applications like DVHS, and 2) Master tapes are read but once to a hard drive, where most of the authoring process takes place. Once you have the Mpeg2 files, you can put the master tape in a vault and never touch it again.
 

Robert McClanahan

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Jul 21, 2000
Messages
188
D-VHS does not have DTS support that I am aware of.I think one of the nice things about DVD is that its so compact.The new DVHS format will go the way of laserdisc.It may stay around for a few years but when HDDVD hits the market,D-VHS will slowly die.The good thing too is that a HDDVD player will play all those current titles we now own.
 

george kaplan

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2001
Messages
13,063
Actually Rob, I think you are making the assumptions. I didn't say anything about how many viewings it would take, but if you think it'll never degrade after uncountable viewings, I think you're wrong. I can't prove it, but I'd bet a lot that the sun will come up tomorrow, and I'd bet as much that D-VHS will indeed deteriorate with repeated viewings.
Now how many viewings it would take before you'd notice it is an open question. And it also depends on your definition of 'discernable', although I think for a format whose selling point is picture quality, that even brief pixelation would count as discernable.
The fact that this is digital tape doesn't mean it won't degrade. It simply means that the effect on the picture from the degradation of the tape is binary. The physical wear on the tape happens at EVERY viewing. Now, it may be that it takes a lot of degradation before it would affect the picture, but unless the laws of physics have been rescinded, there is degradation of the tape after each viewing.
As to the effect of that, I've seen some reports of no picture degradation after many viewings, and others of noticeable picture degradation after only a few. Some of these may be machine-specific. There really isn't enough data to know for sure.
The bottom line is that D-VHS may hold up enough to repeated viewings to make it worthwhile. But I am not willing to believe so without proof, and by the time that existed, this would be a moot discussion. :)
 

Lars_J

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
200
Regarding digital tape formats and wear and tear...

As anyone who has owns or has worked with a DV camcorder (myself included) can tell you, DV tapes do degrade. Plus the reading heads may gather dirt, etc. Unlike analogue storage, this causes blocky artifacts to appear, which may ruin just a part of a picture or in extreme cases, a whole frame is garbled.

Now DV does use a different compression algorithm than DVD and D-VHS, but I would expect similar effects from worn and damaged D-VHS tapes. (I suspect it would look much like a dirty or scratched DVD) One also has to admit that DV camcorders also get used in more extreme conditions, so with careful handling of tapes and regular cleaning of D-VHS decks, these problems should be much less frequent. But it can still be a problem.
 

Paul W

Second Unit
Joined
Dec 17, 1999
Messages
459
The heads only touch the part of the disk that is being read
Actually, the key difference here is the heads don't touch the disk at all.

It seems to me that, given the digital nature of the data, DVHS can stand a lot more wear and tear than analog VHS. As long as the tape head can read the synch marks on the stretched tape at the correct speed and damage to the tape itself is kept to a minimum, then I don't see why DVHS tapes couldn't last at least long enough for the HDVD versions of your favorite movie come out.
 

Greg Conti

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Mar 6, 2000
Messages
71
I could care less that D-VHS is tape based. The thing that is stopping me from buying is selection. Until there is a decent selection with most new titles being released, and I can rent them from Blockbuster or some Netflix type outfit, D-VHS will remain just a curiosity for me.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2001
Messages
16
Now how many viewings it would take before you'd notice it is an open question. And it also depends on your definition of 'discernable', although I think for a format whose selling point is picture quality, that even brief pixelation would count as discernable.
For most of us who support the format that really is NOT an issue. Frankly, I would rather endure a split-second pixelization here and there in an HD presentation than two hours of soft, edge-enhancement infested, artifact laden, heavily filtered DVD video any day of the week. But honestly, I have yet to run into the degredation problem. The one tape that I have played the most so far, at the request of guests, and been run though the deck 14 times. No sign whatsoever of degredation.
I will admit that I don't know how many licks it takes to get to the tootsie-roll center of a tootsie pop :). It's more than 14 and less than 1000 I would surmise. But the world may never know.
You know, I used to think the same way a lot of you detractors did and defended my DVDs to the bitter end; right up to the point where a friend of mine brought his JVC deck and D-Theater tapes over to my place for a demo. It took all of about 30 seconds of viewing and I was sold. He asked me how I felt about my DVDs afterwards. I said "forget about DVD, I want more high definition."
It amazes me how so many people, so secure in their comfort with DVD, feel threatened by the very fact that some people are enjoying D-Theater and recorded movies in 1080i. It further astonishes me how some can be so critical of a format they have no experience with and have never seen.
--Jerome
 

Paul McElligott

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2002
Messages
2,598
Real Name
Paul McElligott
"It amazes me how so many people, so secure in their comfort with DVD, feel threatened by the very fact that some people are enjoying D-Theater and recorded movies in 1080i."
I'm not threatened. I won't be buying into DHVS and D-Theater for reasons.
1) Money. It'll be a while before I can afford a HDTV set, much less a DVHS deck.
2) I don't think it has much of a future. By the time HDTV set are commonplace, HD-DVD should be on the market and people will be more concerned with backwards compatibility with their existing DVD collections, not their long-since-out-to-pasture VHS collections.
If you've got the bread to blow on a cool toy right now, knock yourself out, just as long as you know that DVHS will never be more than an expensive niche product.
 

Lars_J

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
200
Jerome Saliga wrote:
I would rather endure a split-second pixelization here and there in an HD presentation than two hours of soft, edge-enhancement invested, artifact laden, heavily filtered DVD video any day of the week.
So you think those issues will magically go away with HD? Nope. Those problems will be reduced, yes, but I fail to see how HD will automatically get a lower share of incompetent transfers than DVD, just because it is HD. Just look at this Terminator 2 (D-Theater) review at www.digitalbits.com for an example of an imperfect D-VHS treansfer. Here's a quote:
"However, the difference in quality isn't as great as it is for the other D-VHS titles I've seen thus far. There is much greater color fidelity on D-VHS than the disc exhibits (although there does seem to be a slight red push on the D-VHS version), along with superior contrast and shadow delineation. As one would expect from the 1080i resolution, the D-VHS also delivers Still, the video image looks noticeably softer overall than the other D-VHS movies I've reviewed, and print artifacts are somewhat more visible (the occasional bit of dust and rougher film grain). Strangely, the same tiny bit of edge enhancement seen on the DVD is also visible on the D-VHS version, but (as with the DVD) the picture doesn't suffer for it. In the end, the D-VHS image quality is definitely superior to the DVD, but the difference isn't as dramatic as I expected."
(My emphasis bolded)
 

Jack Briggs

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 3, 1999
Messages
16,805
The irony is that, back in 1997, one of the primary draws of the new DVD-Video format was its vastly improved picture quality. Ultimately, that's what home theater embraces. And right now, the best picture quality can be obtained from D-Theater. There's come culture shock going on, for sure!
 

Patrick McCart

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 16, 2001
Messages
8,196
Location
Georgia (the state)
Real Name
Patrick McCart
I'd rather see HD-DVD.

While D-VHS has a very good 28MBS video quality, what is stopping HD-DVD from having the same quality?

One thing that is making D-VHS limited in appeal is the total lack of older films which could take advantage of the quality.

Give me a D-VHS with Lawrence of Arabia, 2001: A Space Odyssey, or Ben-Hur and I'll be convinced.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2001
Messages
16
So you think those issues will magically go away with HD? Nope. Those problems will be reduced, yes, but I fail to see how HD will automatically get a lower share of incompetent transfers than DVD, just because it is HD. Just look at this Terminator 2 (D-Theater) review at www.digitalbits.com for an example of an imperfect D-VHS treansfer.
Lars,
How many D-Theater movies have you watched and on what equipment? I own 11 of them and have seen them all. How many recorded HD movies have you seen from HBO and SHO? I have 65 of them. How many A-B comparisions have you personally done between DVD and HD? I've done 10 direct comparisions.
I've read the Digitalbits piece as well. I take it with a big grain of salt. I don't know what Bill Hunt uses for equipment so I won't comment on that specifically. I also think he is biased because he has a readership who is heavily invested in DVD to think about. But I will say that equipment is important to the experience. I think the difference between D-Theater and DVD is pretty large when watching on my Toshiba 50" widescreen HDTV set. It becomes ENORMOUS when viewed on my NEC XG110 8" CRT projector and 92" screen.
This is what I KNOW as opposed to relying on what someone else says: on my setup, with my projector and screen size, edge enhancement is nowhere near the problem on HD that it is on DVD. Yes, I do have a couple of D-Theater tapes and a few recorded movies from SAT that exhibit very mild and occasional edge enhancement. But it is nothing like the EE fest that plagues so many DVDs. Most HD movies don't have any discernable EE at all.
Also, with respect to the quality of transfers most DVDs these days are made from an HD master on D5 tape. For DVD they are encoded and downconverted to NTSC and this is usually where things start to go south. So yes, there are and will be many, many cases where the HD will be glorious and the DVD will be an artifact-laden mess.
--Jerome
 

Eric_R_C

Second Unit
Joined
Sep 9, 2001
Messages
254
Lars,

While those statements were made, I would think that the opinion that should take precedence would be your own, after having viewed D-VHS yourself. "Dramatic" isn't really a scientific or measureable quantity, and as such, would not be consistent among all reviewers. Think about how many differences of opinions there are among current DVDs!
This is not to mention the fact that the visual quality is being compared to other D-VHS titles, not DVDs. It is still far and above the visual quality of reference DVDs and HDTV! Obviously, not all D-VHS tapes (or DVDs or laseerdiscs) are created equally. Taken out of context, your quote is akin to ranking the top 5 graduates at Harvard, and then saying that the fifth person is not as smart as the top 4. Obviously, this is not a reasonable comparison, as that person is still smarter than the hundreds of students below him/her. If you want to search for defects on a 10-foot screen (or use a magnifying glass on a 27-inch tv) so be it. Nothing's perfect, and it's easy to point out problems of any format, and some people will never be satisfied. For features, DVD reigns, and for top visual/audio quality D-VHS reigns. It depends on what YOU consider more important that counts.
I think it's ironic that you highlight the print artifacts, which refers to the quality of the master print, NOT digital pixelation. This is not a limitation of the format (if anything, the high visual quality simply exposes the problems of the master. This issue also occurs in HDTV, where cheap sets and makeup have to be overhauled because the higher resolution reveals many details that aren't clearly visible in NTSC)
FWIW, I would (if I could afford it) purchase both formats. The DVD for features, and the D-VHS for presentations. How many times do you have people come over and listen the commentary of your favorite movie? As much as I love the extra stuff, I usually listen to it once or twice, and then share the information with friends. Maybe this is different from what you do.
 

Troy LaMont

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 11, 1999
Messages
849
How in the hell are all these people adding in their $.02 in a comparison thread when they 1). have never seen D-Theater/D-VHS 2). don't own a HD set, ergo they have never really embraced HD to begin with 3). have never spent quality time with D-Theater/D-VHS to add a constructive comment outside of the fact that it's tape!
When you see what it has to behold on a nice system and understand what minute intricacies there are, you'd definitely change your opinions.
It's like dogging out a blind date because of some preliminary information you heard through the grapevine and she ends up looking like Halle Berry.
I think we need to take in consideration those people who have HD sets, who have had more than 10 minutes exposure to it to offer up some constructive criticism.
I notice a frightening trend, those people without a D-VHS deck are the ones with the most negative things to say, where as the people who have them think that sliced bread may have had a good run. :)
Troy
 

Brian-W

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 8, 1999
Messages
1,149
The irony is that, back in 1997, one of the primary draws of the new DVD-Video format was its vastly improved picture quality. Ultimately, that's what home theater embraces. And right now, the best picture quality can be obtained from D-Theater
Want some more irony Jack? Back in 1997, pretty much all the die hard Laserdisc fanatics were a)refusing to adopt a technology that had compressed video and b) felt that DVD would die a quick death. It can be summed up doing a search in the newsgroups back then.
Even more ironic was that in Japan beginning in late '93 there was a pre-recorded High Definition laserdisc format (search HTF, enough info from me about it) with movies (ironically, T-2 was one of them!), so JVC isn't first with HD content.
As for HD-DVD, I hope it is as good if not better than D-VHS. Because if it's not, those who panned D-VHS a year or two ago (and even now) will regret not having great quality content if faced with something that say Warner (low-bitrate) is pitching. In essence, those that hate tape are missing out on building a great library at about $4 a tape.
 

Mark_Mac

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Mar 26, 2001
Messages
91
One thing that is making D-VHS limited in appeal is the total lack of older films which could take advantage of the quality.
Well Patrick I recorded "The Right Stuff" off of HDHBO last month and the picture quality is amazing for this older movie. There is a scene at the beginning of the movie where they are in the desert attending a funeral for a fallen test pilot. The sun is setting in the background and it one of the most beautiful scenes I think I have ever seen, this is from a movie almost 20years old. The DVD doest even compare to the HDHBO version. D-Theater might fail but dvhs is only going to grow as the price comes down and ota HDTV is more available. Also dishnetwork has a HDTV set top box coming out with firewire-out that supports dvhs. So very soon it will be easy for anyone to record HDTV off of satelite.
 

george kaplan

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2001
Messages
13,063
I've heard that the HBO channels are p&s. Is this true? Because if it's p&s, it doesn't matter how great those 2/3s of the picture looks, overall the movie would look like crap. On the other hand, if HDHBO has moved to OAR, I might look into it.
 

Steve K.H.

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jan 11, 2002
Messages
719
I just had a horrible dream...

Sony is introducing the D-Betamax.

At current prices, I'll pass. If they drop, I'll consider it. There are numerous pros and cons for each, all that have been stated over and over and over and over and over...
 

Rob Tomlin

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2000
Messages
4,506
I've heard that the HBO channels are p&s. Is this true? Because if it's p&s, it doesn't matter how great those 2/3s of the picture looks, overall the movie would look like crap. On the other hand, if HDHBO has moved to OAR, I might look into it.
HBO-HD is showing more and more of their HD movies in OAR. This is obviously a good thing! And the quality of the HD presentation has steadily increased as well. Again, the ability of the JVC D-VHS deck to record these HD movies is a great benefit!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,813
Messages
5,123,610
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top