D-VHS Lower the price already!!! (1 Viewer)

[Gordon Moore]

Isn't it kind of like a step forward with 2 steps back?

If this was an optical format that had no backwards compatibility with DVD, I wonder if people would fuss as much? -Sorry that's a little off topic.

Are the manufacturers afraid to test the waters in the realm of the more average consumer? The mass public (voting with their hard earned dollars) would have a hard time going back to tape so why bother? It's hard enough to convince the average consumer on the benefits of widescreen. Imagine the confusion touting the wares of Hi-Def on tape!

 

[David Susilo]

Exactly! Why all the hostility? This is, after all, a top-end unit. To get a top end DVD player, you still need to fork over $10K (for a Faroudja DVD player which scales up to 960p).

So although I think $1000 for a VCR is to $$, I still think that the quality of this $1 K VCR is still above the $10K DVD player (with built in highest-end scaler).

After all, isn't the epitome of audio visual quality is what we're after here?

If we're grumbling about prices, we're no better than a J6P complaining that a progressive DVD player should cost no more than his Lennox US$70 DVD player because "they haven't invented anything. They've just combined different technologies which can already be bought cheaply"

ps: I still think the price is waaaaay to high, but I'm not going to complain left and right just because I can't afford one.

 

[Michael Lomker]

I think some people on here are missing the point. Nobody expects D-Theater to be mainstream. This is a niche product that is going to fill the gap until HD-DVD is readily available (3-5 years out).

The new D-VHS decks coming out this fall should street for $750 or so. That's quite a bit less than the current $1200 street price. Once again, not "mainstream" but most owners of HDTV's will be able to afford it.

If D-Theaters attains the penetration that Laserdisc did then it'll be a success. Mercedes, BMW, and Porsche aren't selling to a mainstream market but they won't be going out of business selling cars.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I did a cursory Google search. The prices I see for blank DVHS range from $8.50-$14 per 300 minute tape. Still pretty pricey if you ask me.

Re: tape wear, I tape a lot of stuff for time shifting, and I know how fragile tape is, and when dropouts and lines start showing up on the tape, you may as well toss the tape because it'll be irritating to watch such a magnificent source (1080 lines and all) with ripples in the video presentation. To me, it's a backwards step in what I perceive to be a flawed media format, so that makes me less inclined to support a tape format, regardless of its ultimate performance when I know it's tape time bomb waiting to happen. Again, I'm more than happy to wait for an optical solution to HD (not that's it's that important to me currently since I don't own a HDTV anyhow). But even if I did, DVHS would not appeal to me.

But if you enjoy the smattering of DVHS selection or have a need to tape OTA HD content, go ahead and embrace the format for all its worth. I just think you'll be at the bleeding edge of the HD format, and I am almost always a late adopter (wait until most of the kinks are worked out before diving into such a format).

 

[Brian-W]

Most people recording HD don't use D-VHS tapes. D-VHS tapes have proven identical in build, tape quality, and construction to good solid S-VHS tapes.

This is what the majority (and informed are using).

But if using a tape with a D-VHS logo makes someone more secure, they can still be had for less than $8 a piece which is what a good quality S-VHS tape down at Frys goes for.

Even at $8, still a good buy.

Jack, I agree, I don't understand the hostility either. I love D-VHS because of the HD content I can record or buy. But in no way am I championing this format over an optical. I take that last comment back. It depends on what HD-DVD ultimately ends up to be.

-Brian

 

[David Susilo]

From my extensive experience using DAT from its inception until today in my studio, only one out of God knows how many hundreds of tapes I've used got chewed by the machine.

Every single DAT is still playable perfectly.

If something as flimsy as DAT is that longlasting, I don't see why DVHS can be much less than that. After all, some of my DVDs from 1997 are unplayable. So much for a so-called durable medium.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

...not that's it's that important to me currently since I don't own a HDTV anyhow). But even if I did, DVHS would not appeal to me.

Maybe. But, I would have to say, being an owner of an HDTV set, that I think that you would be much more likely to be interested in D-VHS if you had an HDTV! HDTV owners are always looking for more, and better, HD content! Guess what? For the time being, D-VHS and D-Theater helps provide just that! The fact that it is on tape really isn't that big of a deal, considering the amazing quality that it offers!

 

[John_Berger]

It's the hostility to D-VHS D-Theater that I don't understand.

I have to disagree -- like that's surprising. I don't see hostility so much as trying to understand why there is such a big deal made over it. It still cannot replace the true theatrical experience, it still has a lot of limitations compared to DVD, and the cost for the benefits is incredibly unbalanced in most people's eyes.
I have to wonder if the hostility (if any) is coming from those who don't understand the rage over D-VHS or if instead it's coming from those who don't understand why others don't understand the rage.

 

[Jack Briggs]

I have to wonder if the hostility (if any) is coming from those who don't understand the rage over D-VHS or if instead it's coming from those who don't understand why others don't understand the rage.

"If any," John? Reread the thread.

If someone has a fully equipped system capable of producing high-definition video images, he or she has, presently, only three (and sometimes four) means of displaying them: over-the-air high-definition broadcasts, satellite high-def broadcasts, digital cablecasts (in a handful of markets), and D-VHS D-Theater.

When one has been exposed to well-displayed high-definition images, he or she is hard pressed to go back to a 480p standard-definition picture.

Add to that the growing testimony of D-Theater being superior, in some cases, to a 35mm release print of the same title, then a compelling argument has been made.

So, while waiting for an optical format, the home-theater enthusiast with the ability to play back and display high-definition images has an interim solution: D-Theater.

Every new technology involves exploring uncharted territory. D-Theater is one expression of the ultimate ideal: reproducing the cinematic experience in our homes.

 

[Mark_Mac]

It still cannot replace the true theatrical experience, it still has a lot of limitations compared to DVD, and the cost for the benefits is incredibly unbalanced in most people's eyes.

Its not a good comparison to compare the price of a DVD player to a DVHS player/recorder. Look at the price of the DVD recorders on the market, not much difference. The media price is about the same also. As far as video and sound quality...there is no comparison at all. Yes if you don't have a HDTV you dont need DVHS, but if you have a HDTV and you get HDTV from local or satelite a DVHS player/recorder is the way to go if you want to time shift also.

 

[Phil Florian]

It's the hostility to D-VHS D-Theater that I don't understand.

I think it is very justified and understandable. I mean, here we are with very fine and thankfully very successful optical medium that has been willingly embraced by the public at large. That is a good thing. The next logical step would be for manufacturers, retailers, etc. to support the next step in viewing such great material...i.e. 16x9 HDTV. Right? Instead, we have a "new" movement to bring back an old medium (tape) and lavish it with capabilities that many were hoping to be in the next-gen DVD players. Instead, we are looking at (estimates from this Forum) 10 years before the same level of HD goodness will come from those little silver discs that everyone is buying up.

That is enough to justify some...well, if not anger, maybe indignation (which in a textual medium like this Forum, could look like the same thing).

If the same thing was applied to other technologies, maybe the analogy would stick better. Video cameras are getting smaller and more feature packed, right? If they suddenly got bigger, more expensive and less features at the expense of some picture quality improvement, would people jump out to purchase and support them? How about cars? Wait, bad example...cars have gotten bigger, worse with gas mileage and handle like tanks and are flying out of the showroom...bad example.

I don't know, I think the best is the digital cassette tape for music. Tapes still sell because so many cars have tape decks in them, but did people pay gobs of money to purchase digital tape decks when CD technology was superior in the ways that most people wanted? Nope. CDs provide more music time, longer wear, great sound, access to any song at the touch of a button and, best of all, they are shiny. Why go back? Let's put the momentum forward and make the current technology better, not improve older technology that has been left behind. That is the source of indignation. That is the sound of frustration.

Phil

 

[Jack Briggs]

All the while, Phil, no one is forcing you to buy into D-Theater. It simply happens to be the only pre-recorded (and recordable) high-definition format available to consumers presently. Buying into D-Theater in no way means the Digital Police are going to break down your door and force you to give up your DVDs.

And DVDs will continue to be available as long as there is consumer demand.

So will D-Theater tapes.

 

[Jay Sylvester]

The next logical step would be for manufacturers, retailers, etc. to support the next step in viewing such great material...i.e. 16x9 HDTV. Right? Instead, we have a "new" movement to bring back an old medium (tape) and lavish it with capabilities that many were hoping to be in the next-gen DVD players. Instead, we are looking at (estimates from this Forum) 10 years before the same level of HD goodness will come from those little silver discs that everyone is buying up.

It would've been 10 years before we saw HD-DVD regardless of the introduction of D-VHS. Standard DVD is a huge cash cow for the studios, and they will milk it for all it's worth just like they did (well, continue to do) with VHS. It doesn't make any sense financially to improve on the DVD medium when the current technology is flying off the shelves. Drive the format into the ground and make every dollar you can before you move to the next format. That's what's going to make the studios the most money, which is why they'll hold onto DVD as long as they can.
If anything, D-VHS might push the DVD consortium to finalize the HD-DVD spec and get it out the door faster than it would have come before the introduction of D-VHS.
Whatever happens, I have an SXGA front projector and I want prerecorded HD now, not 5 or 10 years from now. I'll be happy to purchase a D-VHS deck this fall once the prices drop a bit, and it'll fit very nicely in my rack right below my LD player.
God bless the niche format

 

[george kaplan]

My 'hostility' is based on the following.

I have a HDTV set. I want HD films. But I HATE tape. I know some people have experienced laser rot. In owning hundreds of laser discs and hundreds upon hundreds of dvds, I personally, have NEVER had a disc go bad. I can't say the same about tape. I got into ld in the first place after having to rebuy about 10 tapes, some 3 times, and my whole collection was only about 25 tapes. And this happened over the course of about 2 years.

I've had very, very bad experiences with tapes deteriorating. Hence, it drives me nuts, that HD films come out, and instead of putting them on dvd, it's on tape.

I'm admittedly not an expert, and I've seen estimates here about hd-dvd being anywhere from 1 year to 10 years off, but I'm pretty certain that if the money and energy that went into producing D-VHS had been funneled into hd-dvd, that that would show up sooner. That causes me some 'hostitility'.

Finally, although this is a minor part of my 'hostility', I can't help but worry about exclusivity. If you think I've been hostile to d-vhs, believe me, I haven't. If there ever is an film available only on d-vhs and not on dvd (or only in OAR on d-vhs and p&s on dvd), then I WILL be hostile. I hope it never happens, but that's my biggest fear.

And frankly, it's a small probability, but one that grows with the popularity of d-vhs. So, while I've seen the arguments that d-vhs is good for hd-dvd (which I don't really buy, but may be at least somewhat true), I do worry that if this niche became large enough, then the temptation to do exclusives would become higher.

 

[RobertR]

then the temptation to do exclusives would become higher.

And perhaps that's the source of the hostility Jack refers to. There seems to be a feeling that DVHS is a threat to DVD in some form or fashion without being a true successor, as HD-DVD would be.

 

[John_Berger]

Voicing disagreement with the ardent supporters in this thread doesn't necessarily constitute hostility. What I see is more of a sandbox squabble -- "It's better!" "No, it's not!" "Is too!" "It's not!"

I don't care either way. If you feel the marginal benefits (as I see them) justify the cost, then have fun! It's your money. I don't feel that the costs are justified. You explained why you feel that they are as have others; I explained why I feel that they're not as have others.

If that constitutes hostility, then we're using different dictionaries.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

If you feel the marginal benefits (as I see them) justify the cost, then have fun! It's your money. I don't feel that the costs are justified.

Have you actually seen a D-Theater tape displayed on a properly calibrated HD device? If you had, I would be very surprised that your opinion would be that it gives "marginal benefits". If that is the way you feel, then I assume that you really are not looking forward to HD-DVD either, as they would only provide "marginal benefits"?

 

[george kaplan]

Hmm. Well, it's kind of stretching my memory a bit here, but by looking back at various photographs of my apartments during this period (I lived part of this time in San Diego and part in Texas), it looks like I had 4 different vhs players that I went through, using 2 at a time (1 in my living room, 1 in my bedroom). Now, I don't really remember (early 90s) why I bought 4 different players, but I think it was because I was upgrading to better and better decks (I wanted to be able to do some high quality editing as it existed back then). These were all good, high quality vcrs, so I doubt seriously if that's the explanation for the tape deterioration. Certainly my vcrs were better than anyone else I knew (I gave away my old ones when I bought new ones, and had very happy recipients of the gifts). On the other hand, I watch movies a lot. And when I only had a handful of tapes (as opposed to hundreds of discs) and I had no wife or son (hence a hell of a lot more time), I tended to watch each tape quite a bit. That's probably the explanation. In any case, while I probably wouldn't play a dvhs tape as often, and they may be better quality tapes, I still don't trust them.

 

[John_Berger]

Have you actually seen a D-Theater tape displayed on a properly calibrated HD device? If you had, I would be very surprised that your opinion would be that it gives "marginal benefits". If that is the way you feel, then I assume that you really are not looking forward to HD-DVD either, as they would only provide "marginal benefits"?

No, no. You misunderstand. I'm saying that given the current price differential between the two, the benefits are marginal when compared to, say, a progressive scan DVD player whch can cost less than $200. As the costs of D-VHS continue to drop, as all electronics do, and come closer to that of DVD players, I'm sure that more and more of us who currently do not feel that the value is there will feel differently.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Actually, I think my objection to DVHS is the "Be Kind, Rewind" mentality that's inherent in tape sources. Once I made the leap to DVD/optical, I absolutely abhor the slow access time from "chapter to chapter" with a tape over a DVD.