Vhs better quality than dvd?

[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]

name='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?

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]

name='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?

Do you have a specific film in mind?

[narabdela]

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

[asiamiles]

name='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.

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]

name='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.

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]

name='Dr Karswell']



Obviously today it is harder to obtain tapes,

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!

[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]

name='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)

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]

name='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?

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.

[TESTCARD CHRIS]

I suppose it depends on the actual question here,

Is it ..... are pre recorded DVD's better than pre recorded Video tapes



or



Is a pro VHS set up using pro quality VHS tapes better than DVD



The VHS system is capable of reproduction that will at least match DVD, but you will need the top notch pro equipment to get this quality.





All the best,



Chris.

[Windthrop]

Can only add that in my experience new films and remastered older films played on an upscaling DVD player through an HD TV are superb and I have seen some remarkable examples of remastering - so good it is difficult to believe that even the best of VHS copies (which can contain drop-outs et al) could match.

[RAREFILMFINDER]

Another good forum. Having spent the day in a studio watching someone edit a Hd film I have no doubt that dvd is better.

However I believe that vhs has proved itself with the test of time.

I have far less problems with vhs tapes than with dvds ,which the slightest scratch ruins the disc. And having just watched a test film on both dvd and vhs I can say the dvd was only slightly better.

The film was "joshua tree" in vhs and "army of one " on dvd.





lenny

[MarkG]

name='TESTCARD CHRIS']The VHS system is capable of reproduction that will at least match DVD, but you will need the top notch pro equipment to get this quality.

No it's not.



S-VHS isn't too far behind DVD quality, but standard VHS is truly awful no matter how expensive your VCR may be; it only looked OK on a TV because most TVs up until the last few years were awful too. In terms of luminance resolution, I believe DVD is around 500 lines, S-VHS around 400 and VHS around 250; and VHS color resolution is absolutely abysmal. If you don't believe me, try watching a VHS video on a computer monitor, not a TV, and marvel at the horrific color bleeding.



I agree that VHS tapes are much more robust, and it's certainly possible to buy DVDs with worse picture quality than VHS because the original source tape or print was so bad. But if you record from a decent source using decent equipment, DVD will always be better than VHS, and 99% of the time better than S-VHS (the only time it will be worse than S-VHS is on footage that's hard to compress well).

[Chris B]

You only have to look at the edge of a door frame on VHS and see it "shimmering" to see the difference between VHS and dvd, also if you project VHS it is abysmal compared with dvd, no contest in my book.