Maybe we could of got a better quality image using better tapes, I think you also have to bear in mind as well however that the technology to transfer film into some sort of video has probably come on leaps and bounds since the 80s and to add to that we now have people using computer technology that can really help clean and restore the film.
One thing he should have mentioned is that VHS noticeably degrades with age, consumer VHS tapes really only hold their quality for around twenty or fewer years, no matter the usage.
So unless you have a perfectly preserved tape, can't really do a true quality comparison.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;51208491]One thing he should have mentioned is that VHS noticeably degrades with age, consumer VHS tapes really only hold their quality for around twenty or fewer years, no matter the usage.
So unless you have a perfectly preserved tape, can't really do a true quality comparison.[/QUOTE]
Except he recorded a new one himself.
VHS was really bad
[QUOTE=-Xemit-;51208551]Is there any quality difference between PAL and NTSC VHS tapes? I don't remember them looking that bad, there still was a huge difference compared to DVD but it wasn't that shit[/QUOTE]
PAL was higher resolution than NTSC and could even run longer too. Colour reproduction was better too though it could be over saturated. Films on PAL video were also sped up 4% so to make up the single extra frame difference it had.
Though not really a fault of the technology, the fact that just about every movie was missing the sides of the shot is pretty terrible.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;51208491]One thing he should have mentioned is that VHS noticeably degrades with age, consumer VHS tapes really only hold their quality for around twenty or fewer years, no matter the usage.
So unless you have a perfectly preserved tape, can't really do a true quality comparison.[/QUOTE]
i kind of like that VHS can degrade, can make for a cool aesthetic
Once, I found some old vhs tapes of movies and documentaries that I used to watch all the time when I was a kid.
I'd try watching them and see how degraded they've become, all the while remembering how much clearer the audio and picture was when I watched them back in the day.
It's a strange feeling.
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;51208517]Except he recorded a new one himself.
VHS was really bad[/QUOTE]The blank media itself was aged, which would affect recording. And unlike what 8bitguy implied in the video, the color of the tape doesn't reveal quality of the data.
[QUOTE=Splarg!;51208752]Though not really a fault of the technology, the fact that just about every movie was missing the sides of the shot is pretty terrible.[/QUOTE]
Letterboxing a 2.35:1 movie on to a 4:3 standard definition VHS for viewing on the traditionally smaller TVs of the day could have been practically unwatchable though, pan and scan was really the only option
VHS is like most other analog formats, it can look and sound good on great equipment (high-grade VCR), but most people are familiar with the lower-quality stuff (cheap VCRs that can chew up your tapes), so the format gets a bad rep.
it really seems like this guy didn't do any research? most of the time he was like 'now, i don't know if this is accurate' or 'i don't KNOW if x exists'
would it really be that hard to find a newer vhs player with something better than component (which do exist)? or at the very least, using a vhs that wasn't something that was even bad at the time it was new? or even looking up what indicates a good quality blank vhs, and getting one? and why, for the blu-ray comparison, didn't he use a blu-ray drive so he could get a direct, 1:1 comparison, instead of capturing the bluray with a CAPTURE CARD???? this is such a shitty test
I imagine that Betamax holds up a little bit better. Too bad VHS was cheaper.
[QUOTE=megafat;51209964]I imagine that Betamax holds up a little bit better. Too bad VHS was cheaper.[/QUOTE]
Blame pornography
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;51210046]Blame pornography[/QUOTE]
That leads down a dark path, Still without a certain excise video VHS probably wouldn't of made it into the market as it did.
[QUOTE=megafat;51209964]I imagine that Betamax holds up a little bit better. Too bad VHS was cheaper.[/QUOTE]
If we're talking old video formats in general, LaserDisc can, at best, look as good as some early DVDs, minus the digital artifacting. It was really an unappreciated format. The price really hurt it.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;51210046]Blame pornography[/QUOTE]
Well, porn did increase the popularity of home recording devices, blu-ray and better internet speeds, so it makes up for it.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;51210069]If we're talking old video formats in general, LaserDisc can, at best, look as good as some early DVDs, minus the digital artifacting. It was really an unappreciated format. The price really hurt it.[/QUOTE]
To bad it was giant and unwieldy.
[QUOTE=Splarg!;51208752]Though not really a fault of the technology, the fact that just about every movie was missing the sides of the shot is pretty terrible.[/QUOTE]
Its not missing the sides though, its being shown at full frame resolution. Back To The Future is 1:85.1 aspect ratio and how they achieve this is they black out the top and bottom parts of the 35mm film, but what your seeing is those blacked out parts removed so your seeing more than you see in more recent releases.
What is the problem with this you may ask? The problem is that for one thing your seeing more than the director intended and its running the risk of boom mics coming into view unintentionally and seeing stuff like wires on the floor where they shouldn't be. Granted modern releases of 1:85.1 will often expand the top and bottom for 16:9 but the differences are so minute it doesn't compromise on anything at all.
I still remember when VHS tapes would get stuck in the players and then you'd need to take out the tape and wind it all back.
[QUOTE=Grindigo;51210973]I still remember when VHS tapes would get stuck in the players and then you'd need to take out the tape and wind it all back.[/QUOTE]
I had to open a VHS-player several times because the tape got tangled up in there. It didn't really matter if the player or the VHS was new, I guess we used them more than we should have (daily).
He doesn't know about Super VHS which did have S-Video.
[editline]17th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;51209886]VHS is like most other analog formats, it can look and sound good on great equipment (high-grade VCR), but most people are familiar with the lower-quality stuff (cheap VCRs that can chew up your tapes), so the format gets a bad rep.[/QUOTE]To a certain extent, it really depends on the usage of the heads. Anything that wasn't really used often will produce a nicer picture, but VHS in general only had a chroma (colour) resolution of about 30 lines or so. A regular VHS in Super VHS VCR will get rid of a lot of the noise though because they typically had a higher frequency response.
When it came to Analog SD video though, Beta[B]cam[/B] SP was king and looked similar to DVD.
[editline]17th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Genericenemy;51210566]Its not missing the sides though, its being shown at full frame resolution. Back To The Future is 1:85.1 aspect ratio and how they achieve this is they black out the top and bottom parts of the 35mm film, but what your seeing is those blacked out parts removed so your seeing more than you see in more recent releases.
What is the problem with this you may ask? The problem is that for one thing your seeing more than the director intended and its running the risk of boom mics coming into view unintentionally and seeing stuff like wires on the floor where they shouldn't be. Granted modern releases of 1:85.1 will often expand the top and bottom for 16:9 but the differences are so minute it doesn't compromise on anything at all.[/QUOTE]Yeah, but the VFX shots were all 1.85 and cut the sides of for the VHS release, I made a video showing this on Back to the future II:
[video=youtube;Syxti-y4RAE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Syxti-y4RAE[/video]
[QUOTE=smurfy;51209864]Letterboxing a 2.35:1 movie on to a 4:3 standard definition VHS for viewing on the traditionally smaller TVs of the day could have been practically unwatchable though, pan and scan was really the only option[/QUOTE]
Yeah that makes sense, though if I were as old as I am now when VHS was still standard I would have hated watching anything known for its cinematography.
[QUOTE=Genericenemy;51210566]Its not missing the sides though, its being shown at full frame resolution. Back To The Future is 1:85.1 aspect ratio and how they achieve this is they black out the top and bottom parts of the 35mm film, but what your seeing is those blacked out parts removed so your seeing more than you see in more recent releases.
What is the problem with this you may ask? The problem is that for one thing your seeing more than the director intended and its running the risk of boom mics coming into view unintentionally and seeing stuff like wires on the floor where they shouldn't be. Granted modern releases of 1:85.1 will often expand the top and bottom for 16:9 but the differences are so minute it doesn't compromise on anything at all.[/QUOTE]
Depends on the movie. Sometimes the director would shoot accordingly so that a full frame release would be acceptable (and yeah sometimes the studio would just do it anyway.) Far more were pan and scan though.
[QUOTE=megafat;51210211]To bad it was giant and unwieldy.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, maybe for you.
[sp]It IS a total pain in the ass to movie a whole box of 50, though.[/sp]
[QUOTE=Rusty100;51209890]it really seems like this guy didn't do any research? most of the time he was like 'now, i don't know if this is accurate' or 'i don't KNOW if x exists'
would it really be that hard to find a newer vhs player with something better than component (which do exist)? or at the very least, using a vhs that wasn't something that was even bad at the time it was new? or even looking up what indicates a good quality blank vhs, and getting one? and why, for the blu-ray comparison, didn't he use a blu-ray drive so he could get a direct, 1:1 comparison, instead of capturing the bluray with a CAPTURE CARD???? this is such a shitty test[/QUOTE]
Better than composite doesn't matter because the signal on the tape is a composite NTSC video signal.
They did also try to make better tapes. It was called SVHS, and never really caught on. It had really pretty decent video quality.
[QUOTE=michaeldim;51214954]Better than composite doesn't matter because the signal on the tape is a composite NTSC video signal.
They did also try to make better tapes. It was called SVHS, and never really caught on. It had really pretty decent video quality.[/QUOTE]Super VHS wasn't amazing by any means, it just separated the luminance and chroma channels. The luminance got more resolution, but the chroma or colour was still 30 lines, so it still had colour bleed.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
