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

[Bryant Trew]

An HD-DVD optical medium released now or in the near future would cannibalize the lucrative DVD market that is--in case you haven't noticed--exploding. Why release the replacement now when the studios can go with the standard DVD format for another decade or two, selling millions upon millions of DVD players and billions of discs to J6Ps everywhere? To make the most money, studios will beat the DVD format to death, then release its HD replacement and re-release all of their big hits so they can sell them to us again.

Not necessarily. HD-DVD could be just as niche as HD-VHS if:

1. J6P doesn't own an HDTV and is not going to spend $1500 on a HD-DVD player.

2. HD-DVD players don't have to be backwards compatible.

I would bet that hometheatre enthusiasts would take a non-backwards-compatible, $1,500 (or more) HD-DVD player over a $99 HD-VHS player.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Alright Cees, let me make a couple of points about the picture aspect.

Their was a guy in another D-VHS thread that was closed (what a shock) and he stated that where he lives it is very humid all the time and that tapes don't really last in his house because of that. Now, he is probably a special case, but what about this...

I'm the kind of person who loves to jump around on my films, after initial viewing of course, I love to pause, slow-mo, skip, scan forward, backward, and slow-mo some more. Now, how long do you suppose a D-VHS tape will last under these conditions? I am not a special case, LOT'S of people do that with their dvd's and tapes. My point is they're just not user friendly to most people.

And I don't buy this argument that D-VHS tapes can last as long a dvd can either. A tape running through a tape deck rubs up against moving parts, ie causing FRICTION, ie causing wear. An optical format touches nothing besides the tray, it's read with a laser, so how can a tape format possibly last as long? This is not coming from a guy who has any hostility towards D-VHS, this is coming from a guy who is asking a basic question about the simple and immovable laws of FRICTION!

It's just not good from a psychological standpoint. You KNOW in your mind that after the first viewing, the breakdown has been set in motion. Me, I love knowing that my dvd's are just as clear as the day I bought them with NO wear.

I'm also curious as to what D-VHS tapes look like when they start, inevitably, to show wear. Since these are digital, wouldn't the screen just go black when a drop out is encountered? A MIS-READ and a simple tape drop out are two different things. Regular VHS has lines and ripples that appear, I can't see digital tape exhibiting these same types of artifacts. It would be worse than standard VHS. And how about pixelation? Does D-VHS exhibit that god awful problem?

D-VHS is no where near the ballpark for me right now, and by the time it is, HD-DVD will be here, so I really don't care if D-VHS succeeds or fails, it's nothing even resembling an option for me at this point.

 

[David Susilo]

start quote

HD-DVD would be just as niche as HD-VHS because: 1. J6P doesn't own an HDTV and is not going to spend $1500 on a HD-DVD player. 2. HD-DVD players don't have to be backwards compatible.

end quote

It's nice to say the above until the actual product appears and the same bunch will complain, "It's a DVD player with a high bandwidth DA converter, but it's still a DVD Player. The technology can be bought for $50 these days, so why is D-VHS going for a $1,500 list price?"

and of course, there will also be the bunch complaining that the HD-DVD players being not backwards compatible.

oh and at the beginning of the launch, the very same bunch will complain that "the library is crap right now"

These bunch will start a thread, complaining about the price, non backwards compatibility and lackluster initial titles. At the the end of the thread, these bunch will end the thread with "Lower the price for this old technology dammit!"

sigh, I miss the days when home theater is a niche hobby. Everybody just strives for better audio visual quality and nothing of this format crap. This is what happen with anything when it reached a certain mass appeal.

 

[Bryant Trew]

sigh, I miss the days when home theater is a niche hobby. Everybody just strives for better audio visual quality and nothing of this format crap. This is what happen with anything when it reached a certain mass appeal.

I think you are totally wrong. The difference between now and then is that far more people are willing to spend hard cash on products that clearly demonstrate superiority. Unlike the old days when we were spending thousands of dollars on voodoo products that we could hardly be convinced really improved the sound quality. I would have a hearty laugh at anyone who bought into the Mark Levinson digital era of 30k processors and transports, only to have their performance matched or surpassed two years later.

I am convicned that HT enthusiasts who already have DVD players would buy HD-DVD at a $1,500 price and without backwards compatability. Simple point is that format does matter whether it's a niche market or not.

 

[george kaplan]

Wrong. There may be people who make the complaints that you are saying, but it will NOT be the SAME bunch. I am part of the bunch you're talking about that wouldn't touch D-VHS with a ten foot pole (I haven't even entered into the free giveaway). But it's because of tape, not the other reasons you mention. I've had a HDTV for a long time, though almost no HD programming for it. I spent $5000 for it so I could get anamorphic enhancement on my current dvds.

If they announced HD-DVD players for $1500 with only 6 titles (assuming I liked at least one of them), I'd be the first in line to buy it. They could announce 6000 D-VHS titles and drop the price to $200 and I wouldn't buy tape.

As I said, I got into a niche market (laserdisc fairly early) because of tape, and I'm not going into a market (niche or mainstream) that consists of tape no matter what.

So your prediction about the "same bunch" is just not a good one.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Let's please reread Cees's post--and consider it more than just a request. So far, RobertR is the only one to address what Cees suggested.

In other words, no more debating the beaten-to-death issue of tape versus optical disc. We now know who hates tape and who doesn't. Let's instead focus on how the picture quality of D-VHS D-Theater compares with previous home-theater software media.

Thanks.

 

[Bryant Trew]

Let's instead focus on how the picture quality of D-VHS D-Theater compares with previous home-theater software media.

Ignoring everything else about D-VHS would be a very short thread indeed. It has better picture quality, amazingly so on 100+ inch screens - end of story. Just goes to show how big of a screwup having this on tape really is. We should be in total bliss to have films in HD and with superlative surround sound. Instead we are consumed with the idiotic format.
The industry suuuuuucks.

 

[David Susilo]

George Kaplan, semantics... just semantics

bottom line: there WILL BE a bunch of people who will have the same complain as your bunch's complaints. Happy?

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

Let's instead focus on how the picture quality of D-VHS D-Theater compares with previous home-theater software media.

Speaking of which, has anyone actually tested the picture quality and sound quality of a brand new tape versus, one with 2 viewings, 5 viewings, 10 viewings, 20 viewings etc? How durable are D-VHS tapes versus S-VHS which I always noticed problems after the 3rd to 5th viewing, minor though at that point.

Has anyone done a non-biased breakdown of this like to the degree that Bjorn does with DVD's with EE?

That is the most important part of an optical format for me. The picture and sound quality never changes. And I'm one whom watches some movies dozens of times.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Speaking of which, has anyone actually tested the picture quality and sound quality of a brand new tape versus, one with 2 viewings, 5 viewings, 10 viewings, 20 viewings etc? How durable are D-VHS tapes versus S-VHS which I always noticed problems after the 3rd to 5th viewing, minor though at that point.

I'm not aware of any "before-and-after" tests as you describe. But I did read one magazine test report where the reviewer did experience a number of signal drop outs. (Can't remember which magazine, offhand--but it may have been in, of all things, the press' staunchest advocate of D-Theater: Widescreen Review.)

 

[nousername]

D-VHS is to DVD as DAT was to CD.
Although the sound was somewhat superior to CDs (this point is debatable) and you could record in digital, DAT never really caught on because people got used to the advantages of CD's portability, durability and random access track selection. DVDs have the exact same advantages over D-VHS that CDs had over DAT. Can you envision being able to view D-VHS movies on your laptop computer the way you can now with DVDs? I think not...
I don't hate D-VHS--I hope it survives as a niche product--but people are now so used to the advantages of optical media that I doubt the majority of them would want to go back to a tape medium. And that is why I think D-VHS machines are still so expensive and will always remain more expensive than DVD players/recorders--lack of demand. Remember, this was also the fate of DAT machines.
But you never know. I could be wrong about the whole thing...

 

[Rob Tomlin]

But I did read one magazine test report where the reviewer did experience a number of signal drop outs. (Can't remember which magazine, offhand--but it may have been in, of all things, the press' staunchest advocate of D-Theater: Widescreen Review.)

No, I am fairly certain that it was not Widescreen Review. Are you sure that it wasn't a certain online website (The Digital Bits, perhaps)?

 

[Trace Downing]

..., DAT never really caught on because people got used to the advantages of CD's portability, durability and random access track selection. DVDs have the exact same advantages over D-VHS that CDs had over DAT.

It never caught on because the music industry bogged it down in copywrite limbo, and other court cases, until it was only a viable product for the professional recording artists. The public was never given a chance to adopt or reject DAT, since the consumer decks never hit mass production, and remained expensive, not to mention the music industry refused to release pre-recorded material on it.
What the legal fights over DAT did do, is pave the way for legislation that freed up MD, DCC, and CD-R to not be stillborn with industry fears of "perfect bootlegs" like DAT was.
On the topic, I've never seen D-Theater in action yet, as I've yet to find a retailer around her with one, but I am sure curious as to what it looks like. I never liked VHS. Much of it for the reasons of durability, and rewinding, etc. But most of all, actually above all else, I hated VHS because of the poor picture quality. If something can give me a much closer approximation to film than what I've got now (DVD), and if that's only available on tape, then I can certainly live with the other hassles.
I'd love to have one, and a bigger selection of titles.

 

[Michael P]

Ok, I was a very very early adopter of the dvd format. Back when it was nip and tuck whether the format would succeed or not. Probably most of you posting to this thread weren't around back then, but dvd survived and flourished. Now the question is why did it succeed and will HD tape survive? Dvd's succeeded over vhs for a number of reasons. It offers a much better picture, much better sound(DD and later DTS), its much easier to use(rewind, ff, storage), and the dvd's have always been competitively priced vs the tapes. Everyone, even J6P could see the clear advantages that dvd's offered, and the players very quickly came down to reasonable rates(the dvd's were always reasonably priced). After a while the studios realized they were sitting on a cash cow, everyone would buy dvd's and here we are today. Now what will this new tape offer that will make people give up their dvd collections and start over? The picture is definitely better, but have we hit the wall of diminishing returns for a majority of people? Is the sound any better? The ease of use is definitely not better. So, now it has become a competing format with dvd's. Us old timers remember the last competing format divx and what it did to the dvd format, so why do we want to encourage a new format? That is one of the reasons some people are not very excited about this format. But with very expensive machines, and very expensive tapes and mixed improvements over dvd's I don't see how this will ever be anything other than a niche product for the true high end users. Boy I sure hope I win the contest!!!!!

 

[Tony Kwong]

I was thinking about purchasing a D-VHS deck and i was wondering how well d-VHS compares to the older W-VHS format. Recently I've been trading a bunch of W-VHS titles from people in Asia and they look pretty damm spiffy to me.

What other kinds of recording features are in D-VHS? Though the quality was average... I like recording two shows at the same time on W-VHS, while watching another channel. Is there anything similar to that on D-VHS?

Me, personally I don't have any problem with tapes. I guess that's because i use to be a content producer instead of a consumer only. I used to deal with tapes all the time.

 

[John_Berger]

D-VHS has a chance of becoming a commercial success if they can do several things:
(1) Bring the price more in-line with DVD players. That is what the average consumers looks at first, and is probably the most important requirement for D-VHS' success.
(2) Maintain full backwards compatibility with reading from regular VHS tapes. Can it already do this? I don't know, but if it can't it must be able to in order to survive, IMHO.
(3) Maintain backwards compatibility with recording onto regular VHS tapes if the consumer wants that option. This, of course, is under the impression that D-VHS tapes will not be comparably priced to regular VHS. If the prices and recording lengths of D-VHS tapes are comparable to regular VHS, then it would seem kind of silly to allow regular VHS recording.
(4) Do not market D-VHS as a niche product to compete with DVD or as a niche product only for HDTV owners. Rather, market (and price) D-VHS as a replacement for existing VCRs. We all know the differences between DVD and VHS/D-VHS/tape, so I'm not going to rehash that. However, if D-VHS can prove itself to be a viable and AFFORDABLE alternative to VCRs, people will purchase D-VHS as long as it can read their existing VHS library. (I know I would.) With this type of marketing strategy and price reduction, the average Joe will be more likely to buy D-VHS when a VCR breaks or they decide to get a new one.
These are all my opinion, of course. Your mileage might vary.

 

[Jay Sylvester]

(3) Maintain backwards compatibility with recording onto regular VHS tapes if the consumer wants that option. This, of course, is under the impression that D-VHS tapes will not be comparably priced to regular VHS. If the prices and recording lengths of D-VHS tapes are comparable to regular VHS, then it would seem kind of silly to allow regular VHS recording.

You can use S-VHS tapes to record on the JVC 30K. Technically, there's no difference between S-VHS tapes and D-VHS tapes in quality or construction.

I'd also like to put to rest the misconception that an HDTV is required in order to hook up a D-VHS deck and play back or record tapes. While a high-resolution HD set allows you to really see the benefits of the higher resolution D-VHS uses, the JVC 30K has composite, S-video, and component outputs that let you hook it up to pretty much any modern NTSC TV. No doubt the 30K looks better than DVD even on a standard TV.

 

[Eric F]

That said, the one thing they cannot do at the moment is bring the price down to DVD player levels.

Even $500 would be a bit too expensive for the average consumer (although I would jump on it in a second). Under $200 is the sweet spot, and that's not bound to happen any time soon, if at all.

 

[Michael P]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. I do not think that there is any way that dvhs can succeed as anything other that a bit player in the market. Backward compatibility will not make any difference, anyone who would consider this format has already changed from vhs to dvd along time ago. So we are talking about a format that offers a better picture than dvd's, while having a number of drawbacks. As far as recording goes, it would be interesting, but the only things that it would currently make any difference on is hd broadcasts, which is currently very limited, and almost anything I'd be interested in rcording off hdtv is currently available on dvd. I believe that dvd recorders will very quickly drop in price and will take over the recording market. JM 2cents!

 

[Gregg Loewen]

Guys, its not about niche markets, its about test markets.