Does anyone else feel that D-VHS is a stupid investment? (1 Viewer)

[Jack Briggs]

You know, I was thinking about the red laser thing. As I recall, I remember Sound & Vision's David Ranada discussing Toshiba's trick laser. It "starts" as a red laser and "ends" as a blue. It was kind of a nifty-seeming device. Anyone here care to elaborate?

 

[Ronald Epstein]

My two cents....

D-VHS was a proposal that I don't think anyone --
even the studios -- are taking seriously.

The reason it was supported by the studios was
to create a sort of HD standard that would have to
be equaled or beaten by the next HD format.

In a way, its inception was pure genious. Put
out a HI-DEF format that would probably die out
quickly, but serve as a reference point that all
future formats would have to at least equal.

The format is designed for the true videophile
who doesn't want to wait for the upcoming HD disc
format.

For most of the rest of the world, the format is
something that can be easily ignored. It will never
catch on to the masses before the rise of HD
recordable discs. It's tape, for gods sake!

I am sure my opinions will be met with criticism,
but I have talked to many in the industry who don't
expect the format to thrive, but yet appreciate the
fact that it was started as a means to create some
sort of HD standard.

 

[Brian-W]

Universal's D-VHS titles have always been $44.95 so they are not on the rise.

D-VHS was perfect for those that had D-VHS decks, Echostar Dish 5000's, and began in 1999. If you started back then and recorded everything shown, you'd have approximately 700 HD movies and programming. Add in television shows (not movies) and that figure jumps quite a bit (almost doubles).

Not bad for those longing for HD programming.

Tape sucks, I hate it, but until there is a recordable optical disc in HDTV, D-VHS suits me just fine. And when that optical disc comes, hopefully I can transfer most of the tapes I made to that format.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

You know, I was thinking about the red laser thing. As I recall, I remember Sound & Vision's David Ranada discussing Toshiba's trick laser. It "starts" as a red laser and "ends" as a blue. It was kind of a nifty-seeming device. Anyone here care to elaborate?

If this is true, than I would be interested in further details as well. Sounds very nifty indeed.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

I am sure my opinions will be met with criticism,
but I have talked to many in the industry who don't
expect the format to thrive, but yet appreciate the
fact that it was started as a means to create some
sort of HD standard.

My point exactly!

 

[David Rogers]

Bottom line for this consumer is pretty simple.

Not investing in an inferior tape format when it's clear the most convenient and usable formats are optical discs and/or hard-drive based recorders.

I don't use a VCR right now because I'm so distasteful of all things tape. The next recorder device I go to will be either a PVR or a computer-based PVR. Probably the later since no company is apparently interested in building a stand-alone PVR that doesn't require you shackle yourself to their data service.

The movie format that will supplement or replace DVD for me will be optical or some similar format that offers all the extras and content DVD does but improves the quality as dramatically as DVD did over VHS. Memory cubes, video sticks, whatever they call it and whatever it is, I don't care. Maintain the added content and give the next level in quality presentation, and I'll move over/up. Not until.

DVHS is a joke as far as I'm concerned. It's a dabbler's format for folks with a lot of cash, or a BURNING need to be SOTA when it comes to formats and early adoption. Tape is not serious in Dave's World. Tape is linear, tape breaks and gets wrinkled/jammed in players, and tape is bulky. Tape sucks. I'm not devolving to tape. Especially not right after DVD, especially with as happy as I am with DVD, and especially not after the joy of searchable optical discs.

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Ron, I agree that it will never catch on to the masses.

Dave, you mentioned some of my thoughts. I'm actually very happy with the quality of DVD, (most of them anyways, we do see a few real klunkers). For me personally, (and I know many others don't agree), I would have no problem with DVD solidfying it's move as the medium of choice among the masses (almost there now), and staying there for 10-20 years or more. Even if HD-DVD does not catch on. Actually, that scneario would be preferable to one where in 5-8 years, you can't get any more titles in DVD, only HD-DVD. Maybe HD-DVD will be the LaserDisc of the future. The masses will have DVD and the people who are really selective will move towards HD-DVD.

 

[Joe Schwartz]

It's Warner and *Microsoft* that seem so set on the red-laser.

David, what makes you think that Microsoft wants HD-DVD to use a red-laser system? I'll bet they just want to sell their codec, which would work equally well with a blue-laser system.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

MS teamed up with Warner to co-develop and push this format. I'm sure that in absolute terms MS could care less about laser-color...but they're working with Warner to push for this as a team.

I'm sure they'd be happy if their codec was selected to be used on a blue-laser format, of course. If their new codec really is that much better and if it can offer better PQ than MPEG2 at the same data-rate then I'm all for it (the codec, that is).

-dave

 

[Ronald Epstein]

David,

Good to see your name around here.

Either I have been elsewhere or you have been
notably absent. In any case, welcome back!

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Not investing in an inferior tape format when it's clear the most convenient and usable formats are optical discs and/or hard-drive based recorders.

It's a tape format sure, but it's clearly the superior Home Theater format. It's the best quality format out there for consumer use, period. DVD don't come close.

 

[David Rogers]

It's not superior. It's a linear format that physically wears out when used as intended, physically fouls itself when used as intended in a properly maintained player, and is still T-A-P-E.

It costs more, has a greater chance of failure or malfunctions, and lasts less.

How is it superior again?

 

[Eric_R_C]

It's superior because it's the highest resolution you can get from Dolby Digital and HD video (even more so than HDTV!)

Your concerns cover practicality. Some people want the best picture and sound possible, and this is it. Nothing else even comes close.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

How is it superior again?

In terms of video quality, it is clearly superior.
Did you miss that part?

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Millions.
Duh!
However, two percent [est.] of the TH enthusiast will have the greatest quality video [and potentially, audio] systems in the world because of D-VHS.
And that's a good thing.

Please allow me to ask you; Do you think a $80,000 FP CRT
"is a stupid investment"?

Reminder: CRT is an 'obsolete' product.

 

[Brian-W]

It's not superior. It's a linear format that physically wears out when used as intended, physically fouls itself when used as intended in a properly maintained player, and is still T-A-P-E.
It costs more, has a greater chance of failure or malfunctions, and lasts less.
How is it superior again?

Let me address some of them:

• It's superior (1080i or 720p)
• It's linear (so are movies, regardless of format)
• It wears out (I've got tapes I've demoed and watched over 50 times, no problems at all)
• Physically fouls itself (I've had plenty of DVD players go bad, and they cost more than D-VHS tapes to replace)
• It costs more (JVC 30K as low as $650, same price as a darn good DVD player)
• It costs more again (I record movies on S-VHS tapes that cost $4, which is cheaper than a single layer DVD-R let alone DVD movie. Pre-recorded tapes are pricey from Universal, but Fox are very reasonable in price compared to DVD versions)

You clearly don't own a D-VHS deck, so you're not really in a position to claim everything you did above. VCRs have problems JUST LIKE DVD PLAYERS OR ANY OTHER ELECTRO-MECHANICAL device. I've replaced THREE DVD players, which is far more costly than replacing a blank or pre-recorded D-VHS tape. Am I ready to claim DVD players are inferior? No. Are tape players more likely to go bad? No.
You don't like tape, fine. But it serves a purpose for now, and one that many are enjoying (recording and HDTV). HD-DVD will come one day but it ain't today, and there is no guarantee of recordability on day 1 of release.
We all know HD-DVD is coming (in what form remains to be seen). D-VHS tides many of us over until then. And if HD-DVD doesn't live up to D-VHS, I can't wait to see the arguments then.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Guys,

Let's calm ourselves here.

There is no doubt that D-VHS is currently the
superior recording format at this moment.

Anyone that is keeping up with the latest product
developments can already see a half dozen companies
racing to get out a HD disc format. I would expect
one to be available by year's end.

However...

It seems kind of senseless at this stage of the
game to invest in a recordable tape format that
is about to be replaced by a more durable disc
format.

Still, I have no criticism about anyone that
invests money into this format. It's simply a
toy for the moment -- a format that people can
use to record HD information to.

 

[John_F]

Ronald,

You make some points, but to me they don't seem to be very strong points.

If HD-DVD is "available by year's end", it will be the inferior (Video AND Audio) Warner proposal. If this happened I would jump on D-VHS. Also, I would guess that there would be a format war that would take a while for a winner to emerge.

You talk about recording, but I would guess that HD-DVD recording won't be "practical" for some time. In the past, it has always taken longer for recording on discs to take longer (using CD and DVD as a case study). Also you may not be able to record much on HD-DVD; what can be recorded may be limited by the content providers.

In the end, for myself, it comes down to four major things:

1) Video/Audio quality
2) Price of hardware
3) Price of software
4) Availabilty of software

Although I definitly consider a disc to be a strong plus, it is not the selling point. Also, recording is nice, but not essential.

For D-VHS: 1 is definitly satisfied, 2 is close enough for me, I would like the price of software to come down a little.

Currently I am putting off a purchase of D-VHS because of availability of software, and I would like to see what gets finalized for HD-DVD.

I will probably revaluate a D-VHS purchase decision in March when a HD-DVD "standard" is announcd/finalized.

Please note these are all my opinions and may be based on incorrect/misinterpreted information.

Thanks and regards,
John Flegert

 

[Patrick Sun]

The only selling point (for me) of DVHS would be the ability to record OTA HDTV broadcasts. Prerecorded film titles don't really get me all that excited. But until the DVHS decks get down in the $200-$250 range, I will sit on the sidelines.

 

[Dave Anderson]

First off, we all know it gives a better picture quality than normal DVDs. However, thats the ONLY advantage it has over the current technology. In fact, it's clearly inferior on every single aspect other than picture quality, to the current DVD format.

LOL. I got such a laugh out of that statement. Gee, it's only advantage is vastly superior video. Is that it? And vastly superior video is last on the priority list, right? Haha.