amj

When deciding which format to buy an older film title in? due to compression on dvd recordings is the quality of video titles better and more like the original print ? any thoughts?

Wicked Lady

Either way it depends on the quality of the print it was copied from, doesn't it?

I have some hideous copies of films on DVD and some first rate ones on video. And vice versa.

Modular

The best way of finding out which format to buy would be to ask people here on this forum.

There are plenty of knowledgeable people here who would be happy to point you in the right direction on various titles.

Steve Crook

There is no general rule. It depends on the individual transfer, and even the individual copy.

It depends which source they use and how well they did the transfer. If they used any compression techniques or shortcuts which lose information.

And any one recording on DVD or VHS can be a bad recording

Steve

amina

I remember my brother bought a copy of Star Wars on video when it was first released on VHS, it was for rental purposes and I think it cost him over £150, however the quality never faded and it there is no difference between that and the dvd quality.

batman

Do you have a specific film in mind?

"Boom boom a baby .... Banham Zoo .... Banana pants! Hahahaha"

narabdela

Mmmm. Looks as if some members are still using 21" 4:3 televisions.

asiamiles

Sorry, but the difference in quality between the first STAR WARS VHS rental release (which would have been p&s) and the DVD must be vast. It's probably gone through 3 or 4 video upgrades and the same number of laserdisc upgrades before being finally released on DVD. To say "there is no difference between [the VHS] and the dvd quality" is simply untrue.

narabdela

Thank heavens for some common sense!

johng

I think this issue is getting confused. If the original material has been remastered then Ii would be the first to agree that the quality of the DVD would likely be a vast improvement on the original VHS copy.

However many of the original VHS matertial when re-issued on DVD will not have been re-mastered in any way and in such cases the DVD will be of no better quality than the original.

This is a debate where one could argue for and against for ever after and still not come up with a definite answer.

As has been said earlier a lot will depend on how the transfers have been made. One thing is certain however and that is that just because it has been re-issued on DVD does not automatically mean that there will be an improvement on quality.

Dr Karswell

I have over 700 VHS tapes, many of which are well over 20 years old. They were only used the once to record a film. I must say that the quality have not deteriorated over this time, and personally I prefer the old VHS tape.

The casing protects the tape, and it is more like an old film roll, as opposed to a DVD, which can often get scratched. I have also found that the films that I have on VHS, taken from off air recordings are more often than not better quality prints, than some of the old films that are on DVD. This also helps when they are transferred to DVD-R

Obviously today it is harder to obtain tapes, but there is no way that I will be getting rid or upgrading my collection to DVD. Yes I do have many DVD's as well, but there is something about videos on the shelve as opposed to discs!

Mark O

The Morrisons Supermarket chain still stock Maxell 3 hour and 4 hour blank video tape, at a very good price too!

I still don't have a DVD recorder as yet, I prefer the old fashioned way!

Mark

MrT

There is no absolute answer to the question about whether dvd is better than VHS. What you need to do is to look at specific titles. VHS at its best (including S-VHS) was capable of delivering excellent quality, but of course a lot of quality was lost when tapes were copied so a first generation copy is really essential. Many collectors have second or even third generation VHS copies in their collections which would not be impressive in this digital age. Some commercial dvd's are dire quality - Orbit Media's Leather Boys springs to mind - and some early dvd releases were dubbed from tape anyway!!

I define quality as to how good the copy looks compared to the original source - many early films are now only available in battered prints, I can live with this if nothing better is available, provided a high quality copy - either VHS or dvd - has been made.

On balance though dvd is capable of higher resolution so a dvd copy should be better........

Mike (MrT)

CALF28

I agree MrT, ther'e's virtually no loss of quality when recording DVD to DVD but video to video is a very different matter. and two or three times down the line they're trerrible. Interestingly the VCR makes a bit of difference I have three machines and certain tapes look better played on a certain machine. Also what you view your films on, video projector or type of T.V. They all make a differnce to the end result that you see on the screen. But of course it does depend entirely on the quality of the original print. You can't make a silk purse...........

Hobnail

I'd say 99% of the time the dvd will leave the old vhs in the dust, unless you're talking about some quasi-legitimate budget release. When dvd began the studios were already re-scanning films in HD for future use, so the transfers are generally WAY better.