Everything above and DVD players don’t invite little stinkers to stick peanut butter and jelly sandwiches in them.
Personally for me it’s all about the instantaneousness of DVD. Even pause, fast forward, rewind are slow and clunky on VCRs. I can sit on my counch and chance everything I may want about the movie in a couple of seconds. If I miss a scene or can’t understand what’s being said I can review it in seconds rather then the much longer process for the VCR.
And some times they throw in something very neat. Like pressing a few buttons and then getting to watch Memento play out in real time rather then backwards.
Also if you turn off the region coding in your computer’s DVD playing software you can watch DVDs from around the world, even PAL and SECAM countries. At least I believe this is so. I don’t have DVD playing software nor a computer fast enough to play then even if I did.
There are times when new a technology provides so many advantages that it’s worth breaking backward compatibility. Audio tapes to CDs, floppies to CD-ROM (as software distribution medium), MS-DOS to Windows (or MacOS to OSX), and now video tapes to DVD. Face it, the vast majority of people think the convenience and features provided by DVDs are well worth the expense of buying a new player, for the reasons already given here. Each reason may seem minor to you, but when a new format provides all those advantages it’s worth it.
I’d tend to agree with Priceguy that DVDs aren’t enough of an improvement on VHS to be worth the extra money.
That said, I love DVDs because I’m a student without a television and it’s much cheaper for me overall to buy films on DVD that I can watch on my computer than to pay for a TV, video recorder, £120 license fee… So, thumbs up to DVDs from me!
Whatever. Everybody has told you exactly why DVD is better than VHS and your response is “but I don’t care about that.” Fine. If you don’t want better-looking, better-sounding, cheaper, less space-consuming movies with more audio and subtitle options and more features from around the world, nobody’s stopping you from sticking to your VHS collection. More than likely your tapes will degrade before the time comes when you can no longer buy a VCR.
I will say one thing I don’t like about DVD versus VHS is the fast-forwarding mechanism. I remember in college I had to write papers about foreign films on a tight deadline more than once; I could fast-forward through them and read the subtitles and get through them in half an hour. Can’t do it on DVD. But I think this is a PRETTY small consideration, particularly if you’re not in film classes.
In addition to all the things people have mentioned above, the DVD players have some cool features, too.
I bought my DVD player mostly so I could burn my MP3 collection (ripped from my own CDs, nothing illegal) onto a CD and have all my music in one place easily accessible from my TV. I wired it up to my stereo and now I have a cheap, high tech jukebox.
I have also archived some older movies and home videos onto Video CD, where they are not prone to degradation and are much easier to find and store.
DVDs are more convenient, reliable and offer much more versatility than your ordinary VHS, in my experience. The prices have really come down, too. But YMMV.
Well, as a former video store manager I can tell you some advantages that we faced by carrying DVDs in stock over VHS:
DVDs were usually cheaper than VHS tapes. New releases pre-ordered for street-date deliver would cost us around $25 on DVD, compared to $70-80 on VHS.
DVDs were usually available to order for sell-thru (or available to buy) on streetdate, whereas most VHS tapes were set for a 3 month lag on sell-thru
DVDs are compact and take up less shelf space.
DVDs generally are more resilient than VHS tapes. Sure, they get scratched pretty easily, but it’s a heck of a lot easier to resurface a disk than it is to fix a tape with edge damage or splice out a chunk of tape.
No rewinding! Hallelujah!
You can skip right to any part of the disk without having to guess where you’ll end up.
You can pause the screen and get a pefectly clear image
Well, I’m slightly pissed off about DVD. I wanted to vent off a little steam (but not quite enough to make this thread pitworthy) and hear what’s so good about DVD anyway, since I can’t see it.
It’s not an argument.
Tell me where I’ve disparaged DVD, and then tell me why you care.
Low-res compared to what? That’s like saying a 2 gHz processor is slow because they’ll be making a 3 gHz one tomorrow.
Please tell me you don’t prefer squeeze to black top and bottom bars.
The problem can of course be solved by not having a widescreen set. Or, we could just adapt VHS to be able to handle widescreen sets.**
[/QUOTE]
I’ve conceded a few points in favor of DVD, such as switchable subtitles. I won’t say things I don’t agree with, such as picture quality being a good reason to trash the VHS system.
While we’re talking, what about recording off television? Can you do that on DVD yet, and if so, what are the costs involved?
Space Vampire, that’s a function of your DVD player. Different players have differing methods of transport. Sony players act just like VCRs in regards to slo-mo, FF, and such. I’m other manufacturers do also, though I don’t know if any player can display subtitles in FF.
DVD has MUCH more to offer to any home than a video tape…
Video Quality, Sound Quality, Storage space, no degradation…and so on…
I have read people post this and your responce by now…
bu those are all huge steps…
watching a DVD has many other factors such as, what type of player you are playing it through…
What type of television you are watching it through, and what kind of sound do you have it hooked up to.
For example… If I watch a DVD through my PS2 on my Televsion in my room… it is going to be better than a VHS, but not quite great…
If I watch a DVD in my Televsion room with my Progressive Scan DVD player hooked though my Denon reciever with Digital 7.1 sound. Component Video cables hooked up to my 43" Sony HDTV, and Fiber Optic cables for sound. with 7 speakers and a subwoofer. You can bet your ass that I am in awe whenever I watch a movie in that room.
this is all possible because of the quality that a DVD can output. Most people do not take full advantage what a DVD can do…
but if you want the most out of watching a movie…
You will try to never have to watch a VHS again…
“Better-looking” and “better-sounding” I’ve already addressed; I think they’re manufactured needs. “Cheaper” is simply false. I took the liberty of doing some comparison shopping on Amazon:
Memento: $14.95 VHS, $19.34 DVD
Fellowship of the Ring: $19.50 VHS, $22.46 DVD
Fight Club : $9.98 VHS, $16.99 DVD
Titanic: $12.95 VHS, $25.49 DVD
The Big Lebowski: $9.98 VHS, $14.99 DVD
I avoided limited editions, deluxe editions and so on, and used the first five movies that popped into my head (well first six, actually, but I had to throw out Men In Black since they had nothing in stock but limited and deluxe editions).
I can’t see “less space-consuming” as a serious advantage, but fine; I won’t argue. I’ve conceded that “audio and subtitle options” are a good thing about DVD. The other features, apart from random access, can be implemented on VHS as well.
I didn’t even know this. You can’t fast-forward on DVDs? At all?
Don’t foget about surround sound. VHS can’t carry discrete signals to separate speakers to give the viewer the whoosh of spaceships or the thunderous rumble of an explosion like DVD can.
DVD is superior to VHS in every respect. Now it may not matter to you and you can hang on to an inferior medium if you wish, but you still sound like the kind of Luddite who lamented the death of the LP’s crackle and skipping.
My husband and I have over 300 movies on DVD at my house (er, last I checked) and show no signs of slowing down - space considerations are very important for me.
As for watching while fast-forwarding, he must have a player without that feature. Not only can I do that on my player, I can swap between 3 different fast-forward speeds, and not even have to hold down the button on the remote.
Priceguy, I understand that for you it’s not necessarily about having to buy a new player, as you’ve already proposed changes to the VHS standard that would require new equipment anyway (and new tapes, too, but you seem to ignore that).
Your problem is that you have lots and lots and lots of movies on VHS already. I’d say that’s your problem. Unless you do nothing else with your life, I’d say most of those movies you haven’t watched in years anyway. I used to “collect” VHS’s in the same way, and finally realized the futility of it. Tons of tapes that never get watched, and god forbid you should get one too close to a speaker or the TV set, and it gets wiped (admittedly doesn’t happen very often, but any magnetic source will destroy your VHS tape). Now, I only buy movies that I really really love. . .no buying movies just to be buying movies. If I get the itch to watch a movie I haven’t seen in 10 years (and probably won’t have the desire to see again for another 10 years), I’ll take one of the approximately 6,000 Blockbuster Rewards Free Rental coupons they send me and “rent” the DVD, for free (or $.99 or whatever, if I don’t have the coupon).
Not to mention the benefits I get from progressive-scan and component video output to my HDTV set, but that is of no consequence to you anyway.
DVD recorders for home use are in the works, if not already out (I don’t know). I think the problem - last I heard - is setting a standard format, as there is some disagreement between companies producing it. I don’t record off the TV, so it’s not an issue for me nor something that I’ve been following the progress on.
VHS has 240 lines of horizontal resolution.
Broadcast TV has 480.
DVD has 500.
HDTV(another ‘unnecessary invention’) can have 720 or 1080, whichever standard wins.
Now take about 40% of that 240 lines on VHS and convert it to black bars for widescreen. You are now watching a movie using about 144 lines of horizontal resolution. Clear as mud.
I think also that you are confusing a raster squeeze with a zoom function. On squeeze-capable sets, the entire horizontal viewing area is pushed into a widescreen formation. All 480 lines that used to take up, say 20" on a 4:3 TV are pushed closer together so that they now take up about 15". They’re all still there, but there is now less space between them. Its the same principle as the screen size function on your monitor. When you use this function while watching a DVD, depending on the aspect ratio of the film, you lose much less of those lines to black bars. The majority of the black bars are generated by the TV itself, because there is no raster there. On a standard-def TV with squeeze, the smaller spaces between lines make for a much sharper picture. On a 4:3 HDTV with squeeze, its downright film-like.
On adapting VHS to widescreen sets, it cannot be done, being that most US widescreen sets are also HDTV. The resolution simply isn’t there. D-VHS is more than up to the job though, but at an average price of $2,000 per deck and $10 per tape, it won’t be mainstream anytime soon. D-VHS has a horizontal res of 1080 lines.
Recordable DVD exists, and has for about a year in hometheater-like decks. It’s existed for longer in PC drives. Average cost for hometheater decks is $1,000. Its not mainstream either.
I apologize for saying you disparaged DVD, but you do seem damn bitter about it. Don’t worry though, something is coming down the pipe that might even piss off DVD collectors. Its called Blu-Ray, and its essentially a DVD on steriods. For now its a high-capacity DVD in a cartridge instead of a naked disc, so it will require different players that might not be backwards compatible. Its supposed to compete with D-VHS. The entire Extended Edition FOTR will fit on one side of a Blu-Ray disc, with room for extras.
Oh, and also, I won’t hesitate to point out that in your comparison of prices, Priceguy, the VHS’s are largely only that price now because of the existence of DVDs. I distinctly remember new VHS tapes costing $20-$25. Now DVDs cost $20-$25, and VHS cost $9-$15. If not for DVD, I can almost guarantee you that those same tapes would still cost $20–so your argument that VHS is cheaper is fallacious. Of course, one could go on a rant about how overpriced all of this stuff is in comparison with how much the tapes/discs actually cost to produce, but that’s a different thread.
Re: FFW – my 2 DVD decks, relatively inexpensive Apex and Sharp models, do keep the subtitles on-screen at x2 forward speed. So indeed I can “get to the good part” in half the time w/o missing on plot points. Maybe not “a whole movie in a half hour”, but I could cut down the time.
Things I like about DVD media: pretty much everything that has been said. Compactness, durability in storage, subtitling/audio options, multi-angle options, can use them on my portable computer, no rewinding, fast to-the-spot search, once in a while a worthwhile extra feature (just once in a while). And it HAS helped drive down the price of VHS, as this has to compete on price, to the point I can be prevailed on to buy the VHS media because it’s such a good deal.
Things I don’t: The dozen or so kludgy disc-spindle designs in the cases, with no sign of a standard in sight; Pre-programmed un-skippable “this is how we want you to watch this” BS like the FBI warning or some menus; copy-protections that won’t faze a real bootlegger more than 5 seconds but can freak out my system (which RIAA now wishes to make extensive to CDs) ; slow achievement of real universality of hardware/software compatibility and later of recording standards.
I believe what he’s saying here is that while a DVD is fast-forwarding, subtitles won’t display, so he can’t do the “watching a subtitled film in half the time” trick that you can do with a videotape.