Point blank, no bull, is D-VHS a direct threat to dvd? (1 Viewer)

[Jerry Gracia]

I think you're a little too paranoid, Jon.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Perhaps.

 

[Todd Hochard]

D-VHS has the studios behind it because:

1. As a tape format, it's much easier (distinctive) to sell you your movies over again.

2. No one has connected a DVHS machine to the Internet, and sent the bitstream to all their friends.

D-Theater, as a copy protection scheme, is only good to the extent that it exists on a tape format.

Why is it "late" in the game? Your perspective is skewed, methinks. It's way early, as there aren't many HD sets out there. You've got to have someone to sell the format to, and the audience is limited, right now.

The only thing I fear for DVD is a further dumbing-down of the format, to the extent that picture and sound quality start being ignored. Many people (myself included) are tired of tape, but may reluctantly pick the format up. I can tell you this- it will not succeed because of me. I'll wait until the prices come down first.

Todd

 

[Jack Briggs]

At present, only four studios have thrown their weight behind D-VHS D-Theater: Fox, Universal, DreamWorks, and Mirimax. Warner, as the prime moving force behind DVD-Video (along with Toshiba Consumer Electronics), is unlikely to support D-VHS D-Theater.

The fact remains, though, that if you want the best-possible picture--even better than over-the-air HDTV--then D-VHS is your ticket.

Personally, I doubt it will reach more consumers than did LaserDisc. And it's good that Damin shared those pre-DVD comments from LaserDisc diehards.

As a side note, if the studios were not so unreasonably paranoid about copy-protection issues, HD-DVD would be a market reality now.

DVD-Video is "safe." Too many people like its random-access convenience. And the picture it produces is still great.

But as enthusiasts, we should welcome technological improvements no matter which format that appear in. Whatever brings us closer to the ideal of replicating the cinematic experience in the home is what home theater is all about.

It's simply the times we live in: this is an era of dramatic technological transition. It's unprecented, really.

 

[AllenD]

When it comes to picture quality D-VHS blows DVD...OUT...OF...THE...WATER! As much as I'd like to have the quality D-VHS/D-Theater has to offer in my home, there's too many uncertainties to invest $2k in the format, IMO. First of all not including an ATSC tuner into the player is a set-back. Coupled with Hollywood's paranoia about content protection, I'm certain I don't want to invest $2k on what MIGHT become paper weight! I'm personally waiting it out for more options.

 

[Ron-P]

So, will this eventually replace dvd or what?

No. We are just getting the general public to buy into DVD. To try are get them into a newer tape based format will not happen. D-VHS will fill a very small niche. End of story.
HD-DVD will have a greater impact on the general public than D-VHS ever will. People are now starting to love DVDs. Price, size, features...etc. Going back to tape, even with a superior picture, no way.
Wait for HD-DVD..it will blow D-VHS out of the water. Unless D-VHS drops to $200 a player and $18.00 for a movie, I will not invest.
I will wait for HD-DVD...it is coming.
Peace Out~

 

[Troy LaMont]

ps. how much care do you have to give vinyl to keep it in good shape?

Not much really, keep it clean by keeping it stored properly. Also make sure that it's not exposed to extreme heat or cold (don't store it in the attic).
Point blank: No, it's not a threat to DVD.
Troy

 

[Michael St. Clair]

Wait for HD-DVD..it will blow D-VHS out of the water.

Don't hold your breath. The studios are scared shitless of such quality for formats you can stick in your computer, and have already announced tentative support for low-bitrate red-laser HD-DVD. Yes, this may change, but there is certainly no guarantee at this point that HD-DVD will look as good as D-VHS.

 

[Bruce Hedtke]

Quote:

No. The immediate results might appear dim, but that's because there is no alternative at the moment. If the studios don't screw it up and HD-DVD is brought to life in its full capability, there will be no comparison. People have moved to embrace the optical choice and I would think that would continue in the future. Convenience sells and the optical format holds all the cards in that respect.
Bruce

 

[Josh Simpson]

Sorry Troy. I guess I should clear up some things. I myself may never buy a tape again, but I'm not saying I don't want the format to succeed. Who am I kidding? I could see one of these babies in action and change my thinking. But if any of you are interested, more power to you ya. Whatever floats your boat. I guess just because I don't personally care for what I've read about it doesn't mean others won't care. I didn't really care too much for laserdiscs, and now I wouldn't mind having a player and some movies (Star Wars OT).

 

[Wayne Bundrick]

I don't think we should welcome every incremental technological improvement that is thrown at us. I think we should expect a new format to offer multiple improvements over the existing format. And D-VHS is not that. It's high definition but that's the only improvement, other than that it's a major step backwards to go back to tape.

 

[Ron-P]

The studios are scared shitless of such quality for formats you can stick in your computer, and have already announced tentative support for low-bitrate red-laser HD-DVD. Yes, this may change, but there is certainly no guarantee at this point that HD-DVD will look as good as D-VHS.

Good point here Michael. That may very well be the case, but it is only a matter of time before such worries are put to rest. I for one can wait 1 year, 2 years, 5 years...no matter. My only exception will be to see if the movies and players drop to prices that would compete with the current DVDs and player prices. If so, I may buy in. If not, I'll wait. I see D-VHS only being a bridge to HD-DVD. I'm just very glad I did not buy into laser disks.
Like Wayne said above, the picture may be better, but in every other way D-VHS is a step backwards. A quick way for studios to cash in, that's about it.
Peace Out~

 

[Michael St. Clair]

I'm just very glad I did not buy into laser disks.

We are of a very different mind. I am so thankful that I bought into laserdisc.

 

[Damin J Toell]

D-VHS is going to be pretty much a necessity in the marketplace, i think. it seems to me that consumers will want real-time portable recording capabilities for HD broadcasts. while PVRs that support HD will certainly satisfy a meangingful segment of the market, i think that many will continue to want a tape format that can be physically stored, that friends can borrow, etc. the sad fact about current optical technologies is that real-time recording isn't a viable option. so while tapes will always have a place in the market (until something similarly portable and capable of real-time recording of HDTV broadcast comes along), it doesn't pose a threat to optical media; it's simply a natural and necessary successor to a different segment of the market.

DJ

 

[PerryD]

As soon as I have the ability to record HD-HBO, HD-Showtime, and the local channels on the JVC D-VHS VCR, I will probably buy one, although spending $1500 or so is a bit daunting. If D-VHS were designed for playback only, I would not even consider it.

 

[Brian-W]

I think we should expect a new format to offer multiple improvements over the existing format. And D-VHS is not that. It's high definition but that's the only improvement, other than that it's a major step backwards to go back to tape.

Only improvement? Hmmm....

• Higher bitrate than standard ATSC (28.8Mbs vs. 19.8Mbs)
• Higher bitrate support for Dolby Digital
• Support of full bit rate DTS AND Dolby Digital
• Support for native 1080i or 720p formats

And other notable features

• Plays existing VHS/S-VHS tapes
• Ability to record HD content on $4 S-VHS tapes
• $30-$40 list price for HD content

I dunno, most of the top studio titles heavily discounted are $20 DVD titles. I'd rather forgo "bonus features" for an HD picture for ~$10 more.
I wouldn't call this a lame-duck format.
As for the tape arguments, funny, as pointed out previously in other posts, studios archive on TAPE. Last time I checked studios using HD cameras for filming were using TAPE. 99% of the consumer video recording formats are TAPE based. And for filming, film cameras will be replaced by TAPE cameras, not optical or any other storage medium.So to say tape is so 80's is ignorant.
Piss on D-VHS all you want. I'd rather have TAPE than the half-ass HD DVD scheme that's being proposed. Give me 28.8Mbs tape over MPEG-4 low bitrate DVD anyday.

 

[ChrisA]

Is there some reason we are revisting the D-VHS thread? Perhaps it is best to bump up the other thread which ahas tons of information on this redundant thread.

 

[AllenD]

As soon as I have the ability to record HD-HBO, HD-Showtime, and the local channels on the JVC D-VHS VCR, I will probably buy one, although spending $1500 or so is a bit daunting. If D-VHS were designed for playback only, I would not even consider it.

This can be done already. Just ask around HERE. Although it will cost more than $1.5k...:frowning:

 

[Jacob_St]

My answer to the OP is no. My guess is DVD will replace low res VHS as the format of choice and D-VHS will be embraced by those who are primarily interested in superior picture and sound quality and are willing to pay extra for it.

 

[RobertR]

I've really turned around on D-VHS. Although I'm still concerned about the copy protection aspects of it, I'm convinced that its existence shouldn't be viewed as a threat, but as a technological "push" for better picture quality. I've seen it and it looks DAMN good. It will keep anyone from foisting a low quality HD-DVD solution on us. Early adopters simply won't stand for it. This is the warning. HD-DVD BETTER be at least as good, or it will go nowhere. So the question to you potential HD-DVD makers is, will you leave the market to D-VHS?