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

[Troy LaMont]

Well said David...

Troy

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

D-VHS will help the studios learn how to make transfers that really get a film "right". Because the consumer base is by and large limited to videophiles with large-screen HD displays, the format will have to appeal only to one market interest.

David, this argument doesn't really make sense. As much as we would like to hope that studios listen to home theater enthusiasts such as ourselves, they are an industry like any other. They listen to the market. If they had made DVHS a more market-friendly app (i.e. price) maybe they would learn something. But a limited consumer base does not promote faith within the ranks. Perhaps the technical side of things will improve, but chances are that unless studio execs read messages like ours, they won't.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Why doesn't my argument make sense?
My point is that in regards to HD pre-recorded media, WE ARE THE MARKET.
Your standard Walmart shopper has no interest in D-VHS. He's satisfied with SD-DVD.
The consumer buys D-VHS is the same consumer who bought laserdisc...the niche film-collector and videophile. Just as with Laserdisc, D-VHS only has this one audience to try to satisfy.
SD-DVD will be here to stay. Even once HD becomes more common place anyone with a small TV size will be happy with 480P and see no improvement with HD. Just like with audio where it's the audiophile with the hi-end system who enjoys the higher fidelity of SACD or DVD-A, but the average consumer will CONTINUE TO BY standard CDs for years and years to come. The "improved" hi-resolution CD formats will never replace the common red-book CD in the average person's living room. Niether will any HD format replace standard DVD.
HD mediums, like D-VHS and eventually HD-DVD, will appeal to the consumer who has a large-screen display.
And that's just the type of display where you don't have to be picky to notice problems like compression artifacting, overfiltering, and EE.
This division in markets/mediums is what we need. The one-size-fits-all DVD format can't satisfy everyone. Even in this forum there are consumers with small screen sizes who would rather see "extras" on a disc while conusmers with large-screen sizes complain about the compression artifacts or EE and would gladly sacrifice an extra or two in order to get a better picture (just look at the Beauty and Beast thread...those who suggested that large-screen systems should be the standard by which to judge final DVD image quality were called snobs for suggesting that an interlaced 27" 4x3 TV couldn't reveal the maxiumum fidelity of the disc).
HD appeals to the large-screen consumer and because of this, its marketing advantage over SD images will be picture quality. Picture quality (and sound quality) are the ONLY advantages that any HD format has/would have over the current SD-DVD format. Unless an HD-medium truly provides a spectacular picture on a big-screen, it won't succeed.
-dave

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

DaViD:

You're missing my point. You stated that DVHS would help studios to master their films better. My response was that the studios and/or distributors don't really pay attention to "fringe" markets, i.e. target consumers that make up less than, say 20% of the buying population. And I'd doubt that even 20% of TV owners have HD-capable sets. Ergo, the studios will most likely not (for right now) be spending a lot of money improving their mastering methods.

HD mediums, like D-VHS and eventually HD-DVD, will appeal to the consumer who has a large-screen display.

Great. But for right now, this is a very small market. And for your average guy who likes what he saw at Best Buy, how's all this talk about 1080i and EE going to make sense? Yeah, I know you said this is not a Walmart product. How then do you expect DVHS to last?

My problem with DVHS is not technical. Hell, it sounds great on paper and I'd love to see and hear it for myself. My arguments are purely based on consumer interest. "Marketing advantage" is not something that DVHS has. For example, have you seen any DVHS ads not in HT publications? I just saw a TV ad for Ice Age, and they didn't even mention DVHS in the small print, even though it's their first day and date title.

I'm not attacking DVHS as a format, but as a bad product. The problem is that instead of consolidating efforts to standardize a HD playback format, two competing formats are debuting very close (

 

[Barry_B_B]

Having tasted the disc format and all the advantages that go along with it, will be staying with disc over ANY tape format no matter what.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

You're missing my point. You stated that DVHS would help studios to master their films better. My response was that the studios and/or distributors don't really pay attention to "fringe" markets, i.e. target consumers that make up less than, say 20% of the buying population. And I'd doubt that even 20% of TV owners have HD-capable sets. Ergo, the studios will most likely not (for right now) be spending a lot of money improving their mastering methods.

Jesse,
You're missing *my* point which is that it's only that 20 percent "fringe" market that D-VHS is intended for!.
Nobody else. D-VHS is just for us...the videophiles.
When a studio releases a product that is *specifically aimed* at this niche "fringe" market they *do* cater to its demands. They did with laserdisc. They will with D-VHS.
If D-VHS was a "mass market" item that everyone at Walmart was interested in buying then you're right...the demands of the fringe few would be meaningless. That's what's happened to DVD (only in the last few years however, initially it was a product marketed to "fringe" videophiles as well).
But with D-VHS there is no dual-audience need. Those who adopted DVD for its conenience are still happy with DVD. Those who adopted DVD for it's picture quality improvements will also adopt new HD formats...We are precisely the audience/market this product has been designed for. And it will stay that way. Hi-def. pre-recorded media will never fall into the hands of the "masses" because they *already have a format* that they are perfectly happy with.
And if the masses ever do all get large-screen HD displays and seek out the picture quality advantage of hi-def media, then the mass market will reflect the same demands that the fringe-few do right now...they'll want images that look high-quality on their big screens as that's the *only* advantage the new format has over purchasing a DVD.
If they don't care about the image quality of D-VHS they won't be buying it at all.
And if your point is that even a strong support of hi-def media by a 20% market share isn't enough to alter mastering practices you're wrong. Laserdisc appealed to an even SMALLER market share and it was enough to garner film restoration efforts and the development of new mastering techniques that never would have occured to satisfy the VHS market. Hi-Def capability, even without a wide selection of pre-recorded media, already has better market penetration than laserdisc ever had.
In the case with HD it's even simplier to get there than it was with laserdisc. We *already have* the equipment to do stunning 1080P res transfers and most studios are *already doing* them anyway. Where they are "screwing up" is with bad image processing like over-filtering, adding EE, and compression artifacting while the image is being prepped for DVD. These are post-transfer issues and can easily be avoided with D-VHS with just a change in attitude (ie, the fewer knobs and dials one turns during mastering the better rather than the other way around).
Watch and see. the hi-def future is bright and clear.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

DaViD:
I realized soon after posting my response that I was being too doom-and-gloom about this topic. You're right, just because it's a "fringe" market doesn't mean it's doomed. I'm very conscious of econmic factors, and tend to underestimate things such as technical and aesthtic appeal. I admit, I was missing your point, not the other way around. One caveat though: Price is a big hurdle. DVHS players do need to come down in price. And it wouldn't hurt if they put out some better movies. I just hope it lasts long enough to prove that HD is the future. For now, the future is a little out of my price range .

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Join the (poor) club!
I'm trying to figure out how to pay off my credit card debt so I can get the DLP 16x9 front-projector of my dreams
Hopefully by then I will be able to afford a D-VHS machine.
Oh...something to remember about these VCRs...they still play regular and S VHS tapes. If you think of the price of a decent S-VHS player, it's really not *that* much more for the digital HD feature!
dave

 

[Eric_R_C]

Jesse, don't forget that the original VCR's (which were HUGE) were several hundreds of dollars, and the first DVD players were 2,000-3,000 dollars. Hell, for a while, I didn't think I'd EVER get DVD. Like these components, the price of D-VHS will eventually come down. It's only been out for a couple of months.
A funny though came to mind while reading yours and David's posts. I couldn't help but imagine a scenario where future HD-DVD releases had widescreen, extras, and all the goodies, whereas SD-DVD had fullscreen, production notes, and maybe a trailer (similar to the reasoning for DivX.)
Wouldn't it make sense to put all the good stuff on HD for the videophiles, and just the movie for J6P (who "probably" wouldn't have a display worthy of the higher resolution, much less an upgraded HD-DVD player, if you'll pardon my quick generalization.)
Would it make sense for studios to do dual releases for the two formats (similar to wide- and fullsceen releases)? This never went over for S-VHS, but it did for Laserdisc.
No real opinion here, just something to ponder.

 

[IanF]

I have a very simple reason not to buy D-VHS. Simplicity and aesthetics of my setup.

Space is a huge issue for me. I can't have a huge RPTV or FPTV (ceiling height). I have a 50" plasma that pretty much the perfect size for me. I have 2 Pioneer DVF727s that contain the 400+ DVDs I own. While they are not progressive, they do have component video and the video quality seems fine to me.

I don't think there will be a 300 tape changer coming out soon, so D-VHS will never be for me.

 

[Clint Walker]

Okay gang...I'm pulling from the posts now
There have been some excellent point made each way. Feel free to continue the discusion. Thank you for your help...be sure to look out for the next thread!

 

[Gary Reber]

The 720p and 1080i D-Theater versions of Digital Video Essentials have arrived in California and are being labeled and packaged for shipment to Widescreen Review. WSR will receive the first allotment of the title in time for the Home Entertainment Show in San Francisco at the Westin St. Francis Hotel June 6 to 8. Copies will be available for purchase at our booth (215 on the second floor) at the show. Immediately following the show we will ship all preorders! Quantities are extemely limited so be sure to get your preorder in to assure receiving your copy or copies. You can preorder at www.DVHSMovieGuide.com or phone toll-free 1 888 977 7827. The price for each version is $89.99.
The DVD version of "Digital Video Essentials" in NTSC and PAL versions will become available July 15. We are now taking pre-orders for these two DVD versions at $24.99. Please order at www.WidescreenReview.com or www.DVHSMovieGuide.com

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Cool!
Gary,
Any chance on a 1080P version in the not-too-distant future?
dave

 

[JasonRosenfeld]

DaVid:
There is a FAQ about Digital Video Essentials for D-VHS here. It does answer the 1080p question. Offers some good general D-VHS stuff as well.
Best
Jason

 

[Jason Kleeberg]

D-VHS will fall, no doubt. I won't support it and most of the people I know won't support it. DVD's look good enough, plus they're on non-deteriorating stock AND they contain extras.

Down with D-VHS.

 

[Jonathan Dagmar]

I saw a DVHS U 571 playing in an electonics shop the other day. It was playing in a greta big LCD HDTV and it looked great from an optiumum viewing distance of about 10ft away on this particular screen. In fact, it looked absolutly incredible, and better than most movies look in the theatre.

Not far away, they had Attack of the Clones DVD playing on another HDTV, this time an RPTV that was of a similar size to the LCD screen. From 10 ft away, the movie looked fantastic, from 8ft away, it still looked fantastic. In fact, to my eyes, it looked just as good as the DVHS movie. It wasn't until I got fairly close to the screen, within 5ft or so that I could see that is was somewhat soft, and lacked detail compared to the DVHS.

So, if one was to ask me if I would ever spend the money on DVHS, the answer is no. The difference in quality is apparent, but not so drastically apparent, except under artificial conditions, that it warants any real attention. And it is a tape media, and unlike those studio masters, my movies at home get played a lot, and a tape media will deagrade, no question about it. In addition, I am happy to be free of rewisning tapes, dirty tapes, jammed VCRS, and the like.

So do I care abouy DVHS? Not really. I can and will wait for HD-DVD, and take comfort in knowing that odds are, it will be backawrd compatible with all my current DVDs as well, so only my absoulte favourites will need to be repurchased.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

So, if one was to ask me if I would ever spend the money on DVHS, the answer is no. The difference in quality is apparent, but not so drastically apparent, except under artificial conditions, that it warants any real attention.

I agree to an extent. I think what most people fail to realize is the fact that the D-Theater tapes will make the most dramatic difference in quality when using a front projector with a large screen (about 90 inches and more).

I have seen the difference, and I can tell you it is not insignificant. The D-Theater market is much more suited to owners of front projectors.

 

[Jonathan Dagmar]

I have seen the difference, and I can tell you it is not insignificant. The D-Theater market is much more suited to owners of front projectors.

Makes sense to me. Which again brings us back to the fact that the vast majority of home theatre owners still do not have HDTV. Of course prices are falling every year, so that is chnaging fairly rapidly. But fewer still have front porjectors, or space for one.

Not to say that there isn't a differecne on regular RPTV and LCDs, there obviously is. But at normal viewing distances, on an average sized HDTV, the difference is far from being night and day.

 

[Anthony Urzi]

Studio's use tape because they have to. If studios really had a choice they wouldn't use tape, Star Wars was nearly destroyed because it was stored on tape....most of the project to brign the Special Editionm to life was cleaning up and repairign thos eodl tape masters frame by frame....and if they didn't do it when they did, they might have lost the masters in a useable format all together.

Now, storing the data DIGITALLY on tape is an advantage over storign it via Analog, becaus fo error correction etc, it can degrade more before it adversly affects picture quality.

Studios woudl love to store their masters optically, but it's too expensive, and the disk capacaty just isn't there, so the best option for them is tape, plus the fact that that si the format they invested in doesn't hurt either. If they went all digital, that would cost a lot of money in upgrades.

I have a slightly differnt view on all this.....

I have a 55" HDTV .... I've yet to see oen HD program on it.....I don't have HDTV cable, hell id otn even have Digital cable. Regular ntsc broadcast quality is fine for me, on the tv programs i watch....i dont do movies on tv....i can't stand comercials, and the edits often made to the cuts. Sure D-VHS which i've also never seen, or even heard of til thsi forum, is great for recordign hd content....but that should not be part fo thsi conversation really. I think you need to compare studio eleases of dvd and d-vhs not dvd to d-vhs copies, it's apples and oranges. And if comparign dvd-r to d-vhs they both have the same advantages of non studio releases with alck of edge enhancement etc. And the picture quaility there relaly comes down to teh quality fo the encoder over the quality of the medium wouldn't you say?

DVHS better be better, it's much more expensive by the sounds of it and higher resolution. It's a given it'll look better if all other factors are the same. It's also a given a hdtv cable broadcast will look better but no one is going to give up buying a dvd for HDTV broadcasts of their favorite movies, even with tv on demand.


What abotu the HD versions of movies in WMP9 format now, set top boxes are on the way that play wm9 enocoded, and Divx encoded content. then you have the best fo both worlds...uses existing dvd media standards, higher resolution, optionnally even superior to d-vhs, and user controled bitrate.

If oyu take a hidef master put on a superbit DVD and ab's it to an equally well made dvhs master on the majority of sub 50" tv's, from 15-20 feet away, are you telling me the differnce in picture to teh nakid eye is so dramatically better that it's worth yet another format to choose from, and an expensive buy in at that. I'll stick with dvd...having never seen d-vhs, and being rather un-ethusiastic about hd programing in general *720x480 is perfectly enjoyable to me, "poor picture quality" doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the movie* I see no reason to invest in this format for the pathetic selection of pre-recorded content currently available.

I guess this discusion really has 2 main focuses.

You have the direct comparisons of the quality of the mediums (and everyoen sems to side with d-vhs)

And then you have the discusion if that better quality is ultimatly worth it in the long run. Does the quality of one outweigh the features, ease of use, availability, and logevity of the other.

I Guess it depends whats more important to you, ultimate picture quality or,special features, cost and a large library of movies.

Thats the question that needs to be answered, and is what drives consumer adobtability.

Remembeer Beta? That si technically the superiour vhs format (to vhs) yet which is in every home now?

Same with dvd-r/dvd+r
Sepcs are dvd+r is slightly better...but dvd-r is what got, and continues to, get adopted, largly due to cheaper media and better player compatability.


and s-vhs never really made it into the average hhome but enstead stayed locked up with the video profestional and videophiles

 

[Brent M]

It doesn't bode well for the D-VHS format when there are only around 50 titles available and you can't even find them at local retail stores like Circuit City and Best Buy(at least not where I live). I seriously considered purcashing a player just so I could get the best image possible with pre-recorded movies, but then I realized that there are only 9 or 10 titles out right now that I would actually buy. It seemed pretty stupid to drop $600-700 for a D-VHS player just to watch a handful of movies that I already own on DVD anyway. I know the image quality is superior and the audio is as good or marginally better, but I think D-VHS has been doomed from the start and I don't want to sink money into a format that will be obsolete as soon as HD-DVD hits.......whenever that might be.