Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

VHS tapes are better than DVD?


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 JohnC_21

JohnC_21

  • Members
  • 24,620 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:11 AM

Posted 16 July 2017 - 07:23 AM

I was looking to find what the equivalent xxxP was for VHS vs DVD and I came across this interesting site form 2001 that stated DVDs were all hype and VHS tapes were better in every way. 

 

http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.8.24.112921.289.html



BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Just_One_Question

Just_One_Question

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Local time:12:11 PM

Posted 16 July 2017 - 07:36 AM

Also interesting. :)


Edited by Just_One_Question, 16 July 2017 - 07:37 AM.


#3 Guest_Joe C_*

Guest_Joe C_*

  • Guests
  • OFFLINE
  •  

Posted 16 July 2017 - 07:41 AM

and dvd's are always a pita to rewind too!


Edited by Joe C, 16 July 2017 - 07:41 AM.


#4 hamluis

hamluis

    Moderator


  • Moderator
  • 56,381 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Killeen, TX

Posted 16 July 2017 - 09:05 AM

I think that VHS was abandoned simply based on advances made in hardware technology...portability, size of hardware, and the ever-advancing urge/tendency to do things faster and more consumer-friendly.  At least...that's how I look at many of the changes that have taken place over the 50 years or so.

 

The cost of a DVD player...when compared to the cost of a DVD player...along with the ease of us...would tend to be driving factors for any consumer item.

 

Louis



#5 mjd420nova

mjd420nova

  • Members
  • 1,880 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:03:11 AM

Posted 16 July 2017 - 10:08 AM

VHS and BETAMAX are analog devices that lay down helical tracks on magnetic tape.  DVD (and CDs) are digital in that only ones or zeros (lack of one) are written or read.  VHS was pretty much the tops for  analog TV too, being 640 by 480 or for a PC, EGA.   For PCs, it was onward to XEGA, VGA and then it ended with designations and went with the vertical resolution figure, hence the 720 and 1080 being used.  I have transposed hundreds of VHS and VHS-C tapes to DVD, all being composite analog 640 by 480.  Easier to convert to digital a full tape at a time and edit on a PC from there, many VHS machines are on their last legs if they still work at all.   I look at the HDTVs of today and wonder how we managed to watch such blurry and drab those recordings were and the sets they were watched on.  VHS machines aren't hard to keep going, but it takes tender loving care as some parts will wear out normally but early failures can be avoided with simple steps.  Tape enclosures can be pretty cheap and older  unusable tapes can be saved to use as donor parts for important tapes that get damaged.  Old tapes need special care to prevent them from wrapping up on the capstan and jamming (we've all seen that), leaving a trail of wrinkled tape as it ejects.  Dirty brake sleeves and hardened rubber wheels also lead to trouble.  Dirty sensors and dry sliding surfaces need attention too.  We all know that DVDs are better quality picture because it's a bigger format with more info than the analog equivalent.



#6 jwoods301

jwoods301

  • Members
  • 1,489 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:01:11 AM

Posted 16 July 2017 - 03:09 PM

Tape is less durable over time.



#7 Chris Cosgrove

Chris Cosgrove

  • Moderator
  • 7,098 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland
  • Local time:01:11 AM

Posted 16 July 2017 - 06:15 PM

VHS won out in the tape wars because the VHS association tied up the software - there was a much bigger range of films available on VHS compared to either Sony Betamax or Phillips.

 

DVD is not perfect, they are certainly fairly easy to damage, but !

 

I have never had a DVD turn into Granny's knitting inside the player; they are capable of recording much higher resolution; they are much less 'noisy' and they take up much less space.

 

Having said that, there is a place for tape in storing huge quantities of data in the computing field. It just isn't in the form of VHS cassettes.

 

Chris Cosgrove



#8 mjd420nova

mjd420nova

  • Members
  • 1,880 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:09:11 AM

Posted 16 July 2017 - 11:12 PM

VHS has had a few storage adaptations for archive use in the later 80's.  One system used it to store network traffic during a live stream download.  Held up to 8 GB, which was large in those days.  I use a Funai unit to make whole two hour copies of VHS © tapes onto DVD.  Have hundreds of 8MM movies that need to be projected and I might use the VHS-C camcorder and then whole copy to DVD but more so than the VHS tapes.  Most movies are 50 plus years old and the next pass through a projector may be their last so it has to be right.  I still have dozens of new VHS and VHS-C tapes, just for the transfer purpose.  The whole idea that I thought the DVD was about was the digital media, content-wise, never degrading but still faced the physical life of the transport media, the plastic disk.  I still do a lot of photography, on film, and find that the media for secure keeping is the negatives, prints can always be made from the negative, but the process has become digitized to where they will take your film, deliver prints but not the negatives??  No I just want the negatives, skip the prints all together, I'll decide.  Film is still available, Fuji still makes their orange tinted stuff and the GAF from UK is greenish.  No more Kodak.  I have both blank tapes and DVDs from Kodak and Fuji, so that is where the market went.



#9 JohnC_21

JohnC_21
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 24,620 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:01:11 AM

Posted 17 July 2017 - 08:00 AM

I have a feeling in the next 20 years you wont be able to purchase film. There are no longer any motion picture film cameras being made as far as I know. I guess it depends on how long they can keep the film cameras running.

 

From 2011

http://nofilmschool.com/2011/10/rumors-films-demise-longer-exaggerated



#10 Just_One_Question

Just_One_Question

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bulgaria
  • Local time:04:11 AM

Posted 17 July 2017 - 08:11 AM

"On February 18, 2010, it was announced that Tarantino had bought the New Beverly Cinema. Tarantino has allowed the previous owners to continue operating the theater, but he will be making programming suggestions from time to time. He was quoted as saying: "As long as I'm alive, and as long as I'm rich, the New Beverly will be there, showing films shot on 35mm."

 

I see the future of film pretty much the same as the present of vinyl nowadays. As long as the fans are alive and kicking, it will be around.:)



#11 mjd420nova

mjd420nova

  • Members
  • 1,880 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:12:11 PM

Posted 17 July 2017 - 09:37 AM

Vinyl, another media that was over-taken by advances in magnetic media on thin tape.  Studio equipment was reel to reel, but advanced into cartridge type (8-track and quad track) tape transports.  Vinyl has seen a resurgence lately, even Sony is pressing new releases.  Film, is unique in that it holds so much content that no digital media can match.  I take digital photos at maximum resolution, yielding a 12 MB size file, I scan negatives at twice that yielding a 25 MB file.  I only scan and print what "I" want, unlike processors that run it through a machine that prints everything.  Real film usually only yields about 90% usable shots, why print the other 10%??  Even digital cameras have a built in trash can to use, not so with film media.  I am finding some newer film manufacturers and trying them out but unable to find any high speed yet.  (ASA 800)



#12 JohnC_21

JohnC_21
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 24,620 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:01:11 AM

Posted 17 July 2017 - 09:43 AM

@mjd420nova, are you talking ASA 800 35mm color print film or slide film?



#13 mjd420nova

mjd420nova

  • Members
  • 1,880 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:11 AM

Posted 17 July 2017 - 03:20 PM

Either would make me happy, slides I can scan in at 35 MB files, more real content but no where near the real negative.



#14 JohnC_21

JohnC_21
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 24,620 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:01:11 AM

Posted 17 July 2017 - 04:28 PM

I'm not sure this is what you are looking for.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-Superia-800-Speed-Exposure/dp/B00004TWM0

 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/197191-USA/Kodak_1451855_Portra_800_135_36_Professional_Color.html

 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/107659-USA/Fujifilm_7004592_CZ_135_36_Fujicolor_Press.html


Edited by JohnC_21, 17 July 2017 - 04:30 PM.


#15 mjd420nova

mjd420nova

  • Members
  • 1,880 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:11 AM

Posted 17 July 2017 - 09:22 PM

Yes, I've tried them all, but availability is the hard part.  I can drive 70 miles to get all I need but with traffic and all, I'll  get along with ASA 400 for now, and maybe push a few to 800 if I can find a processor to do it.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users