RIP VHS is Dead

[Hondo]

Oh gee Thanks! after all the bucks we spent on tapes, now longer alive! :eusa_doh: I'm not tell you anything new, you probably know first hand.
I recently saw Indiana Jone’s “Raiders of the Lost Ark “ on VHS, you can see the big difference from digital DVDs, much brighter, and as much as I like DVD’s DVR’s I enjoyed VHS machines because it was so easy to use.
That’s technology for you.


http://tech.msn.com/news/articlepcw.aspx?cp-documentid=16348943&GT1=40000

 

[ScionPI2005]

Before Christmas, my dad and I watched the second Home Alone movie. It had been probably at least four years since I'd seen it and the only copy we have is VHS. It was the first videocasette movie I'd seen in several years to say the least. The diminished picture sharpness and colors become staggeringly obvious once you've gotten used to DVD's over the years. I had to remind my dad after the movie that it needed to be "rewound"--such a strange term that is hardly ever used anymore.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

And Blue Ray follows DVDs. Soon, we will be eulogizing them.

 

[Sefton]

No more need for "Please Be Kind Rewind"...
VHS to be interred next to it's sibling; BetaMax. We hardly knew ye.

 

[MEDIUMMYND]

Laser disc players from the early 80"s produced supurb results but never caught on.

 

[Maguire]

And Blue Ray follows DVDs. Soon, we will be eulogizing them.

I don't know, i've read some articles that say blue ray isn't simply catching on. Like with games, there's a point where the difference is too difficult to tell apart and people aren't going to spend an extra 10-15 bucks so they can see each individual blade of grass in the field.

 

[Brian Sheridan]

I don't know, i've read some articles that say blue ray isn't simply catching on. Like with games, there's a point where the difference is too difficult to tell apart and people aren't going to spend an extra 10-15 bucks so they can see each individual blade of grass in the field.

Don't know what those people are using to watch Blu Ray Dvd's, or which titles, but I put in the a standard def "Casino Royale" and a Blu Ray copy in and started them at the same time. Switching between them was like night and day. Big difference in clarity. Now, I'm skeptical how it could make our vintage films look better but if it means more details can be seen in Bogie's or Cary Grant's clothes - I'm all for it.

As for VHS, I spent the Xmas holiday bagging my old VHS tapes for disposal. I have 5 garbage bags of them. RIP VHS.

 

[Sefton]

There are still titles that are only available on old laserdiscs. Some of them still command high prices. I have my discs and player in storage since I copied the laserdiscs to DVD. I'll wait for the Blu-ray recorders to come down in price before making another investment in yet another format. If I could I'd trade them all for a 16mm projector and all of my film collection on ACTUAL film (just a fantasy for now).

Laser disc players from the early 80"s produced supurb results but never caught on.

 

[mike]

Blu Ray and HD are just baby steps towards the future. I'm just waiting for the next major announcement connected to Cern Laboratories in Switzerland to revolutionize the entire playing field. I don't doubt in the soon future we'll be able to hold our entire media collections on virtually a pinhead. And pair that with the official news of lightweight, foldable and superthin computer/tv screens we're looking at a much different world. Now if only the industries that make their money off of consumer products could catch up, it might actually come to pass :eusa_doh:

 

[Not-Bogart13]

I think the main benefit of BluRay is with newer films that are being filmed in high-def digital to start with. But since most of the movies that are actually WORTHY of the very best visual and audio experience are older, I find little use for the high def formats. Plus, the major investment to really gain the full benefits goes beyond a more expensive disc. The player, the right TV (which can really sap your wallet), and a good sound system... not to mention the space to set all this stuff up. Headache, expense, and for what? VHS was fine with me! I certainly don't need BluRay. But one day it will likely be unavoidable.

 

[MEDIUMMYND]

I seem to remember that Grundig produced a video that recorded on both sides of the tape just like a audio tape when you start to look the number of formats is amazing, for audio DAT tape had few equals

 

[mike]

I think the main benefit of BluRay is with newer films that are being filmed in high-def digital to start with. But since most of the movies that are actually WORTHY of the very best visual and audio experience are older, I find little use for the high def formats. Plus, the major investment to really gain the full benefits goes beyond a more expensive disc. The player, the right TV (which can really sap your wallet), and a good sound system... not to mention the space to set all this stuff up. Headache, expense, and for what? VHS was fine with me! I certainly don't need BluRay. But one day it will likely be unavoidable.

I agree! And as far as aspect ratio I am annoyed that I needed to go for a wide screen tv since it's all that's available today. I watch mainly 20's-40's films on TCM or history channel related shows. It's a no win situation if I have to choose between a smaller image with black bars on the side or to crop to top and bottom of an image off.

All due respect to Merian C Cooper (King Kong creator that also dreamed up Cinerama; paved the way for the wider film format in the 50's) but I prefer the dimensions decreed by the Lumiere Bros thank you very much!

 

[Edward]

HD-DVD died in the water. Blu-Ray looks interesting to me, however, there are a couple of limiting factors:

1] You really need to have an HD Ready TV to be able to actually see the difference. At present, most of us probably don't; in the next few years, this will change.

2] Format originally filmed in. As I understand it, all those classic movies which were not filmed in HD will gain nothing in picture quality from Blu-Ray that cannot already be had by using a quality DVD player with an upscaling feature.

The other chief advantage with Blu-Ray is that - again, in my limited understanding - much more data can fit on each disk. This would mean that most 'double-disk' DVDs could be issued as single disks, and we would be able to see the Lord of the Rings extended versions with each film on a single disk instead of split across two, which I found annoying (I would gladly have sacrificed two of the four commentaries to have the extended film on a single disk).

Myself, I have become rather accustomed to buying my DVDs in the supermarket or in sales: only rarely do I pay more than the cost of a single rental for discs. This being the case, I suspect it will be some time before I buy into the Blu-Ray format.

 

[Lily Powers]

Next thing you know, 8-track tapes will be obsolete.

 

[Sefton]

That's just c r a z y talk. Nothing beats listening to a favorite song fade out several minutes early then hearing a loud mechanical thump as the 8 track cycles to the next section containing the rest of the song!

Next thing you know, 8-track tapes will be obsolete.

 

[LizzieMaine]

VHS, Blu-Ray, DVD, whatever -- none can replace a thin ribbon of transparent cellulose carrying chemically-imprinted images passed before an arc light by means of an intermittent shutter-and-sprocket movement, through a series of precision-optical lenses, and thence onto a reflectorized 20-foot-high perforated fabric screen.

In other words, I'd rather go to a movie.

 

[warbird]

Laser disc players from the early 80"s produced supurb results but never caught on.

Actually I think you are confusing two formats. The discs that came out in the early 80' did not have a good picture at all. They looked like records and were in large sleeves. You put the sleeve into the machine and it would take the disc out and give you back the sleeve. You always had to turn the disc around halfway through the movie.

The quality laser disc that came out in the late 80's was much better picture quality. They as you say never did catch on.

Many today think they were the same thing and even Wikipedia gets it wrong, but I had one of the old machines and they did not play the next generation of large discs. In my opinion those first discs did not have great picture.

As for the end of vhs, I could really care less. I always thought the quality stunk, they easily got damaged or ruined and like cassettes that got tied up in the machinery. They also easily got dirty and the quality went downhill from the moment they were viewed. I also always hated having to rewind them and did not find them to be user friendly. On a DVD you can easily skip huge chunks of movie to find a particular spot.

Tha ony thing I liked abuot VHS was that you could tape tv specials you wanted to keep.

 

[ScionPI2005]

I don't doubt in the soon future we'll be able to hold our entire media collections on virtually a pinhead. And pair that with the official news of lightweight, foldable and superthin computer/tv screens we're looking at a much different world. Now if only the industries that make their money off of consumer products could catch up, it might actually come to pass :eusa_doh:

Just so long as we don't misplace our media collections and viewing devices in our trouser pockets and have them go through the wash. :eusa_doh:

Have to watch out for that time when small will eventually become too small.

 

[warbird]

VHS, Blu-Ray, DVD, whatever -- none can replace a thin ribbon of transparent cellulose carrying chemically-imprinted images passed before an arc light by means of an intermittent shutter-and-sprocket movement, through a series of precision-optical lenses, and thence onto a reflectorized 20-foot-high perforated fabric screen.

In other words, I'd rather go to a movie.

I agree that seeing a movie on the big screen is fun, for me it isn't very practical. First the expense of going to the show for a family is now a deterrent. With small kids I always end up seeing g movies or egads High School musical or some other nonsense. I refused to go to that one by the way, the wife had to take daughter to that one on her own.

When I was a kid the moviehouse near us was a great old theater in the old tradition with a balcony and plush carpet, the Belle Meade theater, and it was like an event. Now you get crammed into small uncomfortable seats, and the sound is cranked up to rock concert decibels, And the worst thing to me of all is the nauseating 20-25 minutes of previews and ads.\

All of that means I don't go to a lot of movies anymore.

 

[vitanola]

Actually I think you are confusing two formats. The discs that came out in the early 80' did not have a good picture at all. They looked like records and were in large sleeves. You put the sleeve into the machine and it would take the disc out and give you back the sleeve. You always had to turn the disc around halfway through the movie.

The quality laser disc that came out in the late 80's was much better picture quality. They as you say never did catch on.

Many today think they were the same thing and even Wikipedia gets it wrong, but I had one of the old machines and they did not play the next generation of large discs. In my opinion those first discs did not have great picture.

As for the end of vhs, I could really care less. I always thought the quality stunk, they easily got damaged or ruined and like cassettes that got tied up in the machinery. They also easily got dirty and the quality went downhill from the moment they were viewed. I also always hated having to rewind them and did not find them to be user friendly. On a DVD you can easily skip huge chunks of movie to find a particular spot.

Tha ony thing I liked abuot VHS was that you could tape tv specials you wanted to keep.

Two different formats, OM. You are, I belive, referring to the CED format, which was promoted by RCA as "Selecta-Vision" . this format used an actual grooved disc, which would wear badly after repeted playings. The Phillips Laser-Disc system was introduced at the same time, in 1981 or 1982, and, while it did improve somewhat over time, was fully backwards compatible (a 1983 vintage disc could be played on a 1997 vintage player).

The Phillips system was light-years ahead of the other formats in quality, but it was quite expensive, and only served a niche market.