Slashdot Mirror


Tapeheads and the Quiet Return of VHS

Hugh Pickens writes "Joshua Phillips writes that something was lost when videos went from magnetic tape and plastic, to plastic discs, and now to digital streams as browsing aisles is no more and the once-great video shops slowly board up their windows across the country. Future generations may know little of the days when buying a movie meant you owned it even if the Internet went down and when getting a movie meant you had to scour aisles of boxes in search of one whose cover art called back a story that echoed your interests. Josh Johnson, one of the filmmakers behind the upcoming documentary 'Rewind This!' hopes to tell the story of how and why home video came about, and how it changed our culture giving B movies and films that didn't make the silver screen their own chance to shine. 'Essentially, the rental market expanded, because of voracious consumer demand, into non-blockbuster, off-Hollywood video content which would never have had a theatrical life otherwise,' says Palmer. While researching the documentary Palmer found something interesting: there is a resurgence taking place of people going back to VHS because a massive number of films are 'trapped on VHS' with 30 and 40 percent of films released on VHS never to be seen again on any other format. 'Most of the true VHS fanatics are children of the 1980s,' says Palmer. 'Whether they are motivated by a sense of nostalgia or prefer the format for the grainy aesthetic qualities of magnetic tape or some other reason entirely unknown, each tapehead is unique like a snowflake.'"

446 comments

  1. Onion did a report on VHS by bonch · · Score: 4, Funny
    1. Re:Onion did a report on VHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off, Apple fag.

    2. Re:Onion did a report on VHS by iFightForTheUsers · · Score: 1

      The people at Everything Is Terrible have a mission in life to sort through old VHS tapes to find videos that would otherwise be lost to the lanfill. I believe the address is eit.com. Cant verify as I am at work.

  2. Pffff, whatever. by DWMorse · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wannabes. The religious hipster cool kids have been getting their media via STONE TABLET for several millenniums now.

    --
    There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
    1. Re:Pffff, whatever. by ToThoseOfUs · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wannabes. The religious hipster cool kids have been getting their media via STONE TABLET for several millenniums now.

      Stone tablet... the really cool kids have been using the walls of caves.

    2. Re:Pffff, whatever. by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      The real hipsters are into bluray. They were into it when everybody else wasn't even over it yet.

      --
      Fnord.
    3. Re:Pffff, whatever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The animal spirits dancing in the northern sky gave us all the evening entertainment any man has ever needed.

    4. Re:Pffff, whatever. by DeathElk · · Score: 1

      Add some peyote and you've got one hell of a rave on your hands.

    5. Re:Pffff, whatever. by rvw · · Score: 1

      Wannabes. The religious hipster cool kids have been getting their media via STONE TABLET for several millenniums now.

      Stone tablet... the really cool kids have been using the walls of caves.

      Tsss, The really cool kids are fossils themselves.

  3. Content, not the Technology by afabbro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have no desire to "go back to VHS" or even to own any VHS tapes. But as the article points out, there are several good movies that have not been released on DVD.

    In those cases, I'd much rather have someone's mp4 conversion off piratebay than a fresh VHS tape because VHS tapes do not last the way digital files do.

    Same is true for a number of good movies and TV series that were never released on VHS. You want to watch the original Batman '66? Be prepared for some TV Land logos in your mp4s.

    The only reason every video ever made is not available on demand is idiotic IP laws and greed. That is what we all want, not this piecemeal idiocy.

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
    1. Re:Content, not the Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same is true for a number of good movies and TV series that were never released on VHS. You want to watch the original Batman '66? Be prepared for some TV Land logos in your mp4s.

      The only reason every video ever made is not available on demand is idiotic IP laws and greed. That is what we all want, not this piecemeal idiocy.

      For example a lot of japanese anime was broadcast in Italy in the late seventies, early eighties and the biggest and most famous franchises were never released on VHS, let alone DVD or BR. The reason ? As stated above IP laws and greed from the rights owners. But in this case p2p comes to the rescue.

    2. Re:Content, not the Technology by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Same is true for a number of good movies and TV series that were never released on VHS. You want to watch the original Batman '66? Be prepared for some TV Land logos in your mp4s.

      I listen to and love live DJ mixes. One of the broadcasts that I have been enjoying for a number of years now is A State of Trance. Now, while the current episodes are filled with people sharing, finding older sets is down right impossible. However, once I do manage to get them, I let them seed. No point in sharing what everyone else has out there, but for the folks that really do want to hear what was being played years ago (or perhaps the poor sods with OCD and the "Got to get them all" mentality) I think it is a nice thing to do.

      Some contain advertising from the radio station that they were recorded off (though not many) and I think it is hilarious. It makes me wonder whether those shops or companies are even still around or whether the advertising I am hearing is just a memory of what once was.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    3. Re:Content, not the Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Content? 80's? Really?

    4. Re:Content, not the Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are also clearly not a customer of the thousand dollar HDMI cables.

    5. Re:Content, not the Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... I'd much rather have someone's mp4 conversion off piratebay....

      MP4 is for playback on those damn proprietary devices. MKV is the proper container for P2P. Convert it if you must conform to some corporate master.

    6. Re:Content, not the Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason ? As stated above IP laws and greed from the rights owners.

      That and there can't be much of a market for Japanese cartoons rebroadcast in Italy 30+ years ago in the first place. Are you really going to go to all the trouble to restore and reprint a series just because 3 or 4 Italian basement-dwellers want to relive their childhood? I was a big He-Man fan as a kid, doesn't mean I'd go buying a DVD rerelease of the cartoon.

    7. Re:Content, not the Technology by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      not exactly.

      the main gotcha is supply and demand.

      how much cash is a licensor/distributor going to make from a DVD release of batman '66?

      how much cash would it cost to hunt down the film reels (if they exist), tapes, whatevers?

      how much would it cost to transfer the films to something good (even digibeta, which is 20 years old this year, is the best standard def has to offer)?

      how much would it cost to assemble everything into watchable form (ie, the film reels will have transfer notes, timing info, etc that needs to be recreated on modern gear, and episodes need to be re-cut to how they were screened.

      you'll find with anything that's not on DVD already (remember DVD's been around since 1998), you can safely guess that someone's done the maths above and it's come out negative.

    8. Re:Content, not the Technology by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      great. more robots and panty shots.

    9. Re:Content, not the Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason ? As stated above IP laws and greed from the rights owners.

      That and there can't be much of a market for Japanese cartoons rebroadcast in Italy 30+ years ago in the first place. Are you really going to go to all the trouble to restore and reprint a series just because 3 or 4 Italian basement-dwellers want to relive their childhood? I was a big He-Man fan as a kid, doesn't mean I'd go buying a DVD rerelease of the cartoon.

      Ha ha ha you have no idea what you're talking about. Grendizer is an anime that managed to get 100% share on the French national tv channel back in the early eighties. Although not for all episodes of course. Some animes in France and Italy although 30 years old have transcended their "cartoon" status and have become real cultural icons. But thats something that americans just can't comprehend because you got what 10 animes and that hack fest of Robotech in during the 80's ? Please.

    10. Re:Content, not the Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, Batman: The Movie is available on DVD. I know because I have it!

      Let me see... Bat repellent, no need. Shark repelent, maybe. Ah, yes, Holy Troll Repelent!

    11. Re:Content, not the Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL, know nothing.

      Anime, is pretty much only available by pirating it. The older it is, the harder to find unmolested videos of it. Remember that Japan released things on LD while no other country really jumped on the LD bandwagon. So unless you were one of the few people who invested their own money into importing LD's from Japan, you were stuck with only molested VHS recorded from broadcast/cable or the odd VHS release of "the best of" versions.

      Go ahead, try and find the cartoons you watched from the 1980's. Even if there is a DVD version, there is NO MUSIC. I was so damned disappointed after buying the Mario Bros cartoon on DVD that I opted not to buy any more 80's cartoons and instead seek out the pirate versions just so the music was intact. They loop the same 30 second music clip for every music cue, not even sound-alike cover versions.

      The problem with DVD versions of shows that were released before DVD, is that the contracts for broadcast included the music rights for broadcast only. No rights for home video. So there you go the RIAA is responsible for more shows not being available intact on BD/DVD/Netflix/iTunes/etc Sure I might not really care that much, but because either the DVD publisher didn't want to pay the RIAA's extortion charge to include it on DVD, these versions are inferior on DVD than they were when they were broadcast.

      But it's not just 80's cartoons. There is stuff that was broadcasted on PBS, which have been uploaded to Youtube, and the RIAA mutes the audio for the entire segment.

      People aren't running back to VHS for some perceived quality (as in scanlines or audio fidelity), but because some people recorded their favorite shows, and they have never been released, intact.

    12. Re:Content, not the Technology by chromas · · Score: 1

      Ro ots and anal g panty s ots wi h drop uts

    13. Re:Content, not the Technology by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      "The only reason every video ever made is not available on demand is idiotic IP laws and greed. That is what we all want, not this piecemeal idiocy"

      No. That's not the only, not even the main reason.

      The reason is that the cost of production making it digital won't be covered by the return.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    14. Re:Content, not the Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this is one of several reasons that capitalism is a FAIL.

    15. Re:Content, not the Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then "someone" should release that orphaned content to the public domain and allow it to be copied and shared.
      There is absolutely a non-zero demand for this stuff, and if copying was allowed, there would be an infinite supply.

      Someone out there has a copy of Batman '66. Someone else out there wants it. But as it stands, it is against the law for person A to send a copy of that content to person B.

      That's a travesty.

    16. Re:Content, not the Technology by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      So there's a lot of movies never released on DVD. Are they also not released on in-demand or Netflix or on iTunes? Personally, I think the DVD will take as long/longer to kill off than the VHS.

    17. Re:Content, not the Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there would be no cost of production, at least not one borne by the content companies, if they would just say "ok, we don't think this is worth our while. we abandon our claims to the content. if you want it, you go ahead and make your own copies."

      but instead they hoard the rights to things that they have no intention of producing because there's no financial incentive for them to do so.

      instead of a vibrant market of legal fan-produced and fan-distributed content, we have the current situation, where things are trapped forever in limbo.
      would fan-produced content be low quality? maybe. or maybe some dedicated fan would put enough work into the production to make it better quality. either way, having a low-quality copy of some content would be better than having that content lost forever.

    18. Re:Content, not the Technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the reason that the cost of production exceeds the return is because of idiotic IP laws. Many cannot be reissued because of outrageous demands by music publishers and others. Look into the WKRP in Cincinnati and Norther Exposure DVD release debacles for examples of attempts on end runs around the problem. The IP cabal doesn't seem to comprehend the concept that 100% of nothing is nothing.

    19. Re:Content, not the Technology by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      There was a pack released with every episode from 2001 to mid 2008 (380 something). About 55GB in size but you'd have to have membership to a select few private trackers to get it (along with a weekly release of the latest episode, soundboard mix not a stream rip!). Since ID&T radio stopped broadcasting the show at the end of 2004, it kinda lost its charm. No more radio IDs, and no more Armin announcing the next track in Dutch.

    20. Re:Content, not the Technology by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      They can always stream it on Netflix or other fine services.

    21. Re:Content, not the Technology by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's not available on demand because the industry has some legacy contract issues.
      If some has an open royalty agreement, then showing it means paying those royalties.

      While I don't think this is an issue for anything released in the last 5 years, stuff from an era where a TV show would gte played one, and then a few reruns, the contract can be more opened.

      If it was just greed, then it would be available.

      I mean, yeah, there is a bunch of men smoke Cigar and laughing how the could be making money, but it's more fun to laugh at people who want to pay for the content.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    22. Re:Content, not the Technology by geekoid · · Score: 1

      how much cash is a licensor/distributor going to make from a DVD release of batman '66?
      Put them on netflix.

      The internet make niches profitable.

      "how much cash would it cost to hunt down the film reels (if they exist), tapes, whatevers?"
      since batman is currently being shown on TV, I can't imagine it's a big deal.

      "how much would it cost to transfer the films to something good"

      Comparing profitability of DVD v Net release? stupid.

      The internet has a very, very long tail. DVD take up shelf space.

      So on the net, you make a few dollars over a long period of time.

      Here is the math:
      Sitting on the shelf negative dollars.
      Putting them on the internet get you some money. As long as it's makes money to offset storage cost, it's a gain.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    23. Re:Content, not the Technology by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      what? because you want everything for free?

      you know how hard it is to keep all that gear running? to keep food on the operator's (my) table?

      you can't have it both ways you know. you can't get everything for free and expect the people working in that field to be able to keep doing it.

      it does suck that there's no economical way to preserve a lot of the stuff that was made back in the day and was never considered as something that would be released in any way in the future. there's certainly ways it could all improve, like distributors all over the world contributing to the restoration efforts, rather than just buying the finished product and selling that for cheap.

      there's some fantastic national libraries and archives that have absolute treasures. more funding to them and less for Afghanistan and pork would be a good start. perhaps they should put their libraries online for free download? i'd love that.

  4. On the other hand, it killed community cinephilia by CRCulver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While home video was certainly a net gain in availability of obscure films nationwide/worldwide, at a local level it destroyed many local cinemas who ran classic art films. It used to be that you could go to a screening of, say, an Ingmar Bergman film from several years prior, meet other cinephiles in your neighbourhood, and walk out of the cinema having passionate discussions with your peers about what you just saw.

    Sure, nowadays you can torrent the film or get it from Netflix, and then go on IMDB or Flixster to post a review or get into a masturbatory flame war with anonymous people who can't spell, but that in-real-life community aspect is gone except in a very few places.

  5. You never owned it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Future generations may know little of the days when buying a movie meant you owned it even if the Internet went down and when getting a movie meant you had to scour aisles of boxes in search

    Ownership means you can do what you want. Like make copies and sell the copies of the contents of the tape as an example.

    You were a share cropper in the tape days, just like now.

    1. Re:You never owned it by sjames · · Score: 1

      At one time, however crappy the deal, you at least owned the license fair and square. Now even that may be revoked on a whim.

    2. Re:You never owned it by skids · · Score: 1

      Ownership of media conveys more rights than licensing it, in that the First-Sale Doctrine is entrenched case law for hard product, wheras applying it to digitally streamed media is still subject to some legal churn, so only applies to those than can afford the tort. Also given current trends, first-sale rights are only likely to erode.

    3. Re:You never owned it by Nutria · · Score: 1

      That's why I still buy DVDs (on sale from Amazon, natch), even though the first/only thing I do with them is rip to h264 so they are accessible from the DVR.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    4. Re:You never owned it by sjames · · Score: 1

      Personally, I can't imagine why anyone does otherwise. I can more or less see it if the download is completely DRM free, but even then if it's going to cost as much or more than the same thing on physical media, why do it?

    5. Re:You never owned it by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Because you need a certain amount of geekiness to think about doing it, and technical acumen to actually set it up.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    6. Re:You never owned it by sjames · · Score: 1

      I suppose thinking of it in the first place is a point, but it's a more or less one click operation.

    7. Re:You never owned it by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Ripping a movie DVD is, but setting up MythTV isn't, and products like this (which my wife+kids think is better than sliced bread) media player isn't advertised as much as it should be.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    8. Re:You never owned it by sjames · · Score: 1

      Those are under-advertised. It should get a lot easier now that TVs are becoming basically lower resolution monitors with a tuner added.

      I'm considering a Raspberry Pi for a DIY solution. Currently I'm using a MediaMVP with mvpmc because I wanted something I could hack on but the iomega looks good if you just want the thing to work out of the box.

    9. Re:You never owned it by Nutria · · Score: 1

      If the Raspberry Pi was shipping when I was in the market for a small, quiet media player then I'd have strongly considered it. Oh well, that's life in the tech world...

      The MediaMVP looks a lot like the ScreenPlay, both size and feature-wise, but cheaper. Maybe I'd have bought it insteas of the SP.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    10. Re:You never owned it by na1led · · Score: 1

      My wife and I purchased lots of VHS tapes for our kids, it filled up two cabinets along with some DVD's. I decided to just purchase a NAS and store all my movies their, with Raid Redundancy all my movies are safe and it doesn't take up hardly any room. I can elminate the old VHS player which takes up so much room and use my Roku Box the size of a ciggerett pack instead. Even if you do keep VHS tapes for Nostalgia reasons, they won't last long, and most newer TV's don't play SD video very well, it looks very grainy in most cases.

      --
      -- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
    11. Re:You never owned it by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You can do the same thing with HD, so I'm not sure what you mean.
      Do you think DVD aren't subject to the same laws?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:You never owned it by geekoid · · Score: 1

      If you aren't distributing, then tort is irrelevent.. in fact you can't even be caught.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:You never owned it by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Did you mean to write BD? Because otherwise I don't understand what you mean.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    14. Re:You never owned it by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's a pretty good unit. I'm using the older one, not the HD (which is apparently a complete redesign), but since my TV is SD, it doesn't make much difference. It does quite well, but is dependent on the media server for most of it's functionality.

      The OEM firmware is actually a modified VNC client with the media server presenting the UI. It only has MPEG decoders onboard, so the media server transcodes for it. When using mvpmc, the UI runs on the actual device, but it still uses an instance of VLC on the media server to transcode for it.

      That's not necessarily a bad thing, but does explain how it manages to be cheaper than similar devices.

      The HD version is apparently a complete redesign with the functionality all moved onboard, but I don't know that for certain. It looks like it could be hackable as well but Hauppauge seems to have forgotten they said they would release an SDK and documentation.

  6. LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    grainy aesthetic qualities of magnetic tape

    Grainy? Has this moron ever SEEN a video off VHS? How about blurry with messed up tint? How about seeing annoying streaks across the screen from where the tape has worn?
     
    I can see the motive behind records and audio tapes (not my thing), but this is RETARDED.

    1. Re:LOL! by skids · · Score: 2

      Well, I suppose the leet retro-format people are into LD instead, which is still analog but doesn't wear so much. Of course, while there are some things that were only released on LD, more was released on VHS, so if getting at un-transcribed publications is the goal, one just has to hope there's well preserved stock.

    2. Re:LOL! by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd group the vinyl and tape people in with the vhs heads.. it's all nostalgia and or generational insecurity, with the new converts just trying to differentiate themselves socially with their peers. obviously it's legitimate to go to those older formats when the recording doesn't exist on the newer ones (or it's a bad transfer), but otherwise it's pure snobbery. properly done digital is superior to all those formats.

    3. Re:LOL! by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      the transfer would have to be pretty bad for the VHS to be superior.

      like if it came off a VHS or something...

      i've used VHS recently in production as a special effect. there is something cool about deliberately creasing the tape, then resetting the timer on the resulting glitch, so you can record something on the tape which will then glitch out on that exact spot.

      but there's nothing intrinsically good about the format whatsoever. the only worse format was U-matic, and that's mainly due to the size of the tapes more than anything else. quality was the same or slightly better.

      J-format is the way to go if you want vintage cred. there's only a handful of working decks in the world. and by deck, i mean stand-in prop for a '60s computer - size of a catering fridge, massive reel-to-reel setup.

    4. Re:LOL! by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Informative

      In fact, the author even gave the real reason for "going back to VHS":

      because a massive number of films are 'trapped on VHS' with 30 and 40 percent of films released on VHS never to be seen again on any other format

      If you want to see one of those movies, you really have no other choice but VHS. If they were released on DVD, I'm sure there would be no such thing as a "return of VHS".

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    5. Re:LOL! by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      properly done digital is superior to all those formats

      That is very rare. In many ways I view the quality of DVDs and Blurays as equivalent to that of VHS tapes. It's Apples and Oranges really. With VHS you had degradation and quality issues inherent to the format. With digital, which is usually done poorly, even on high end Blurays, you have the "waterfall effect" where the blocks become noticeable in high speed movement in the scene, most noticeably on water falls.

      If we had a nearly loss less compression algorithm, or better methods of dealing with such artifacts that would be nice, but for now it is not like digital is perfect fidelity.

      If I had to choose I would go with my 300 pound Pioneer LaserDisc player. It was expensive as hell, and I did not have to flip the discs. The quality though was just shy of DVD and still analog video. That meant no artifacts and no degradation (well a heck of lot less without laser rot). It was a nicer looking picture to me.

      Not to mention the audio was in many cases digital and the Elite players had optical connectors to your stereo system.

      I know it may sound crazy, but it really pisses me off when I see a $20+ Bluray title, with super high resolution compared to the LD, and yet still have bullshit encoding artifacts in high speed motion scenes. LD did not have that.

      One of the many reasons why I won't spend a dime on Bluray.

      LD is too much of a pain in the ass though, not to mention new titles are not exactly being sold either. Never did see a burner or blank ones around either.....

    6. Re:LOL! by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      That is actually why I still sell analog capture cards because while folks can just get the new shows off of the net you'd be surprised how many folks have older shows they'd like to convert that simply weren't ever released, or more importantly videos of their families. I myself am gonna have to drop a couple of VHS tapes over to a friend's house or borrow his player for a day or two because i recently found a couple of old VHS tapes of me from the 90s playing with my old band and i'd like a copy but don't have a VCR anymore.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    7. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you digitize them, do what you can to clean it up, compress with x264. You can ditch the VHS then.

      (Optional, but recommended: share it. If the copyright holder complains, tell 'em they should have made a DVD release.)

    8. Re:LOL! by flapped · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't. There's not really any other point in tapes and vhs than nostalgia, but vinyl is in many ways superior to newer formats. Vinyl and mp3 are actually the only two formats anyone needs. Vinyl for home listening as it has superior sound quality, cover art you can actually see and lasts forever if handled properly, but on the flipside, is a pain in the ass to take away with you. Mp3 for traveling as it has no weight and you can easily listen to it anywhere, but has bad sound quality and no cover art whatsoever. What CD does better than mp3, vinyl does even better, and what CD does better than vinyl, mp3 does even better.

    9. Re:LOL! by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't let the MPAA hear you say that. They'll throw you in jail.

    10. Re:LOL! by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Vinyl for home listening as it has superior sound quality

      No, it doesn't.

      CD audio is perfectly able to capture audio just as well as vinyl. There is nothing inherently superior about vinyl. Vinyl also wears out over time.

      There is no need for physical media. If you are getting a nice 'warm' sound from your vinyl, that is an artifact of the sound distortion being introduced by your amp, or other parts of your equipment, maybe even the mastering of the album. All of these things can be captured and played back digitally.

      Your love of an old data storage format is just weird.

    11. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yeah, no. Vinyl captures a greater spectrum of sound than CDs do.

    12. Re:LOL! by Nursie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What, the sounds above 22kHz, the ones humans aren't capable of hearing?

      Sure.

      LOL.

    13. Re:LOL! by GrahamCox · · Score: 1

      I'd group the vinyl and tape people in with the vhs heads

      VHS is really a very poor quality video format. Just look at it! You can't really say that about vinyl and tape for audio, both of which are capable of high fidelity.

      I'm not a golden-eared vinyl afficionado, and in general I much prefer CDs, but there's a big difference between a good CD and a bad CD, much bigger than the difference between a good and bad vinyl recording. That's because of the stupidity of the labels over the last 15 years in insisting that everything is mastered as loud as possible, reducing the effective dynamic range of CDs to often less than 10dB! You can't attempt that with vinyl because it won't physically work.

      Properly done digital is indeed superior to all those formats - but show me a properly done CD and I'll show you 9 others that are garbage.

    14. Re:LOL! by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      Except... uncompressed or lossless digital audio is now superior to vinyl, since the master copy theses days is always digital. Its like those proponents of valve amplifiers. The "warm" sound they produce is caused by distortion being added to the signal by the valves. Like that pick-up being dragged through the groove on the vinyl record... The only reason it works in the first place is the wiggles in the groove are larger than the imperfections.

    15. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously haven't spent a lot of time listening to vinyl if you even have ever. CDs can clip audio pretty aggressively resulting in distortion if the music is improperly mastered. There's no clipping in vinyl since it's an analog format, a lot of records do end up sounding better than CDs. It's not always the case. If a CD is well mastered, I'd rather have that, but a lot of the time someone did a crappy lazy job with the mastering.

    16. Re:LOL! by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Vinyl has a maximum dynamic range of some twenty-odd dB less than CDs do. Frequency response isn't everything.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    17. Re:LOL! by walshy007 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    18. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a CD is well mastered

      Do you think the audio recording is simply poured in to vinyl in its natural form, but CDs require done kind of mastering process unique to the format? Vinyl can sound bad if it's poorly mastered. The mastering camp had a point when CDs were new, as expertise in mastering was kind of lacking. As you said, many of the issues are easily attributed to poor quality mastering. CD is technically the superior format, and these days there is plenty of mastering experience out there. Barring some specific examples, the love for vinyl over CDs owes more to nostalgia and familiarity with a type of sound, even if inferior, than it would to impartial and objective comparison.

    19. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never seen artifacts on a DVD that wasn't scratched. I've also never seen artifacts on any of the HD Blu-Ray or TV rips I've torrented (I don't believe I have ever seen an actual Blu-Ray player in wild), which are significantly smaller in filesize than a full Blu-Ray disc. It's not that I don't believe you... but I am very surprised that such artifacts would exist. Maybe I'm just less sensitive to such things than I think I am.

    20. Re:LOL! by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      Which would be useful... if they weren't mastered to a point where the total dynamic range used comes down to 3-6db... loudness wars huzzah.

      To many frequency response matters more than dynamic range when you already have 80+db of dynamic range that is never typically fully utilized.

      Personally I prefer 96khz 32bit float digital music samples, complete overkill of course but always better to have the least error to start with when mixing etc lest errors multiply. Then you can downsample it when finished later for people who don't care about it.

    21. Re:LOL! by Joce640k · · Score: 0

      Digital sound starts to suffer all sorts of aliasing and other related problems as you approach the limits.

      eg. How does a CD store the difference between 22kHz square/sine/sawtooth waves?

      It can't. It will even have trouble distinguishing them at 11kHz - well within the hearing limit.

      Other problems: How do you even sample a 22kHz sine wave? Where do you put the sample points? How wide should they be? You can't use the beautiful 'dot' samples shown in the theory books - if the phase is wrong you might sample the zero-crossing points and not see any signal (in fact there's only one phase which would see the full signal - 90 degrees out of phase with the sampler would give a quieter output).

      CD sound is FAR from "Right, that's that sorted out then...". On the contrary, It's on the very limit of audio fidelity, only just good enough. To get a good result you need to sample at much higher frequency/resolution then process it down but even then the exact waveform of the high frequency waves is lost (you can argue over whether those differences are audible, I think they are).

      These days we ought to be listening to 96kHz/24bit, the technology to reproduce it is ubiquitous. The problem is the MAFIAA doesn't want us to have it.

      --
      No sig today...
    22. Re:LOL! by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      The master copy is at a much higher bitrate/resolution than can be transferred to a CD.

      --
      No sig today...
    23. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Internet considers being potty-trained "snobbery".

      We own a combo DVD-and-VHS player. We still have a lot of videos. Here's three reasons why:

      THEY'RE CHEAP!

      THEY'RE CHEAP!

      THEY'RE CHEAP!

      Have fun being a shithead.

    24. Re:LOL! by DeathElk · · Score: 1

      Vinyl masters were not compressed the way recordings are these days. Dynamic range doesn't mean squat if the master is compressed to hell.

    25. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      VHS to DVD was a considerable leap forward. DVD is simply better in nearly every way.

      DVD to bluray on the other hand... a gigantic waste of time and money.

    26. Re:LOL! by StefanWiesendanger · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. You actually have to filter out more both low and high end compared to CD in the premastering process, due to the limitations of vinyl.

    27. Re:LOL! by StefanWiesendanger · · Score: 1

      The problem is only that even if was on the media (vinyl - and it probably wasn't), it probably wont make it to your ear, because there's amplification electronic and a speaker between the vinyl and your ears. And those filter out stuff as well.

    28. Re:LOL! by StefanWiesendanger · · Score: 2

      Read about Nyquist theorem please. You can sample a 22 kHz sine wave with 44 kHz sampling rate, because you will have a filter up there. That's exactly the point of using double the frequency as the sampling rate.

    29. Re:LOL! by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      Except... uncompressed or lossless digital audio is now superior to vinyl, since the master copy theses days is always digital.

      It is recorded in digital... at much higher qualities than you are likely to get on a cd. You think they record 16-bit audio at 44.1khz? think 96khz or higher with 24-bit to 32-bit samples. Far better than cd quality. It is then downsampled etc to 16-bit 44.1khz. If the original digital source was used, the vinyl would of course include higher frequency resolution than the cd.

      Cds do have their advantages, but so do vinyl, it's all a set of engineering trade-offs as everything is. DVD-audio is superior to both, where with a typical stereo soundtrack you can have 192khz 24-bit sampling. The trade-off there being of course the comparatively massive data size for the same length of sound.

    30. Re:LOL! by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      If we had a nearly loss less compression algorithm, or better methods of dealing with such artifacts that would be nice, but for now it is not like digital is perfect fidelity.

      You mean something like Huffman? The problem is that lossless at ~2.5:1 compression, you're already pushing the throughput limits of bluray, and you might get one half-hour TV episode per DVD.

    31. Re:LOL! by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      That would be... for DVD resolution and framerate.

    32. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the difference between 22kHz square/sine/sawtooth waves"

      This "difference" you speak of doesn't exist. It's a product of your misunderstanding of waves.
      All the waves in the world are sine, just in different combinations. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_series

      "How do you even sample a 22kHz sine wave?"

      You don't. The Nyquist limit is BELOW half the sampling rate. Below, as in "", not as in "=".

      "On the contrary, It's on the very limit of audio fidelity, only just good enough."

      On the contrary, CDs are perfect.

      "The problem is the MAFIAA doesn't want us to have it."

      The MAFIAA doesn't really have anything to do with that. I'm glad they don't, because if they did, I'd have to agree with them at least in this aspect, and I'd feel very dirty.

    33. Re:LOL! by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      Well those things can be changed, my present set of high quality headphones only reproduce to about 35khz before it drops off to nothing. Amplifiers that deal with those sorts of frequencies do exist, but they of course cost extra.

      While most people won't get that kind of gear because they don't care enough, a lot of people would be willing to sacrifice the extra data storage so that one day if the need arises they could listen to it in such quality.

    34. Re:LOL! by peppepz · · Score: 5, Informative

      CDs can clip audio pretty aggressively resulting in distortion if the music is improperly mastered. There's no clipping in vinyl since it's an analog format, a lot of records do end up sounding better than CDs.

      Because vinyl has an infinite dynamic range? Truth is, if vinyl was still mainstream these days, then records would be produced by the very same people who make bad CDs today, and they would only have disadvantages over their digital counterparts. Terparts. Terparts. Terparts. *thud* :-)

    35. Re:LOL! by peppepz · · Score: 1

      To be pedant, you can perfectly sample a < 22 kHz sine wave with a 44 kHz sampling rate if
      - you can store the samples with infinite precision, which CDs can't do;
      - you recreate the original waveform by summing infinite sinc()s, which CDs can't do.

    36. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually you can't - not for the purpose of pedantry. Read my AC comment below.

    37. Re:LOL! by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Cue the angry vinylheads in 3....2....

    38. Re:LOL! by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      1. vinyl doesn't last forever. it degrades with each play, has more noise, suffers from audible intermod distortion among other things, all of which drown out any theoretical superiority to cd audio (nyquist issues), nevermind 24bit audio where nyquist sits well beyond human hearing. if it's a bad master, blame the studio and not the format because a bad master ruins them all. if you want art buy the poster and the photobook. nothing prevents downloads from coming with high res artwork. most of the vinyl hype is coming from hippies who grew up with it and haven't bothered to learn about technology post 1970...and neohippie university students who want to differentiate from their peers.

      2. mp3 is only useful for compatibility with portable players. its compression ratio sucks compared with aac and other lossy formats. there is nothing superior about mp3 compared with cd audio except for the fact that it's smaller.

    39. Re:LOL! by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      and analog has similar limitations.. the mastering, manufacturing of the disk, and the playback method all introduce losses as well. whatever theoretical 'purity' you think you're hearing is gone the moment the needle touches the groove...gone even before the first vinyl is pressed. in fact, each copy will be different. with digital the potential exists at least for you to get an exact duplicate of what came out of the (digital) mixers used for recording and/or mastering. even if you get a downsampled copy, the format doesn't degrade with normal use, and is more convenient to store. it is true that resampling causes loss of data, but so do the analog equivalents.

    40. Re:LOL! by johnvile · · Score: 1

      You need to see Evil dead or some other "video nasty" on vhs they rock. All thats bad about the medium added an authentic quality to those movies. just like a pop or a scratch would on a record. that's nostalgic talk though. I can't imagine watching vhs after blueray & dvd.

      --
      "What Are They Gonna Do When Were All Using Freenet"
    41. Re:LOL! by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      sure.. until the needle hits the groove. then it's substantially less accurate than even a properly mastered cd from the same source.

    42. Re:LOL! by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      the loudness war affects modern vinyl just as much as cd. if you're into independents then you can probably find reasonably well mastered digital (maybe vinyl too) products from them.. this has nothing to do with the format and more to due with studio policy.

    43. Re:LOL! by johnvile · · Score: 1

      there is also a more personal element to Vhs, tape, records. their time based mediums. if you did someone a tape it took at least as long as the movie or album to do it. digital isn't so not only personal but physical.. if anything digital represents a further step toward a less physical culture. someing not bound by object phyicality.

      --
      "What Are They Gonna Do When Were All Using Freenet"
    44. Re:LOL! by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      you aren't part of the demographic being talked about here.

    45. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more that the medium is not important, compared to the contents.

      I find it more snobbish to assume something is not worth watching because it's not on whatever the latest digital format is this month.

    46. Re:LOL! by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Have to disagree with you there. I filmed a school dance concert last October. Used a Sony HVR-Z1P in high-def mode (1080i) and the footage looked great (for a stage production). I even bought a blu-ray burner to produce the discs. Then the school said, "no thanks, we'll have standard-def DVDs instead", so I had to produce what they wanted. The high-def version came to 27GB (MPG) and I looked at std-def and hi-def versions side-by-side on my monitor. I nearly cried. Then I re-compressed it down to ~8.5GB for a dual-layer DVD. Oh, well, they still paid :-)

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    47. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Digital sound starts to suffer all sorts of aliasing and other related problems as you approach the limits."

      No. No. No. The Nyquist limit is never reached, as those frequencies are filtered out before conversion.

      "Other problems: How do you even sample a 22kHz sine wave? Where do you put the sample points? How wide should they be? You can't use the beautiful 'dot' samples shown in the theory books - if the phase is wrong you might sample the zero-crossing points and not see any signal (in fact there's only one phase which would see the full signal - 90 degrees out of phase with the sampler would give a quieter output)."

      No. No. No. Only frequencies *below* half the sample rate are captured, so there is always more than two samples available to reconstruct a sine wave. The hypothetical scenario you give does not happen in a correctly built system, as you never sample a frequency at exactly 1/2 fs. Really, go read a beginner's guide to digital audio, and remember that the waveforms you see on a computer screen are NOT THE SAME as the reconstructed waveform after D/A conversion.

    48. Re:LOL! by muridae · · Score: 3, Funny

      What kinda high tech idiot watches LDs for analog video? You aren't going to get the real analog feel unless you are watching on CED. Laser discs just lack the tonal color, man. Besides, Laser Discs used PCM "digital" audio! That's not real analog, now is it!

    49. Re:LOL! by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Tell me truly (I'm not trolling) - why is 44kHz seen as the ideal sample rate? Sure, it's set at twice the theoretical maximum rate the human ear can deal with and pass along to the brain, but I'm puzzled about something. Say, for example, you listen to 3 pure tones, e.g. 1kHz, 4kHz, and 10kHz. How much information is your ear/brain processing? Why is 44kHz seen as sufficient to capture all that information?, let alone the complexity of a song?

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    50. Re:LOL! by Centurix · · Score: 3, Informative

      Mastering vinyl is a pain in the ass, you can't just send music to a vinyl factory and get it pressed. You have to get test pressings (white pressing) done first. The reason for this is that average vinyl can't reproduce everything flawlessly. Vinyl comes in different grades, highest grade (audiophile) costs $$$'s and can produce low frequencies quite well, but the stuff you get at the vinyl store will buckle badly in the white pressing stage if you're not careful. Low frequencies reduce the groove gap and if you push it too far the grooves will collide and cause the needle to skip. Not good.

      Mastering to CD is much easier. Producing things like downloadable FLAC is the easiest and best method.

      --
      Task Mangler
    51. Re:LOL! by Joce640k · · Score: 0

      This "difference" you speak of doesn't exist. It's a product of your misunderstanding of waves.

      I understand waves perfectly, thanks.

      My statement that a 44kHz sampling rate can't reproduce the differences between 22kHz sine/square/saw is a simple fact.

      On the contrary, CDs are perfect.

      Really? So why do professionals/studios use higher sampling rates?

      --
      No sig today...
    52. Re:LOL! by robthebloke · · Score: 2

      Truth is, if vinyl was still mainstream these days

      It's more mainstream than cassette tapes or mini discs. Have you been clubbing recently?

    53. Re:LOL! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      and analog has similar limitations..

      Yep.

      But it has no theoretical limitations. In theory Analog can be perfect, it's just a case of spending enough money.

      (Not that I'm advising that path - the difference would probably be difficult to hear)

      --
      No sig today...
    54. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I collect vinyl, and mix my records on turntables because

      a) when I started CDJs were just becoming available, and all the good techno was (is!) on vinyl anyway
      b) it feels good (in the tactile sense)
      c) it looks good (you get artwork, remember that stuff? :P)
      d) it sounds good (records do wear, but not that quickly)
      e) once you are setup, buying old LPs (I like my 60s / 70s stuff) is cheap, and it's fun to wile away an afternoon in a record store

      I buy digital music too, but the process of acquiring and playing it is sterile and boring. When I play my vinyl records I'm standing up, having a boogie, actively involved with the player, possibly mixing, or reading/admiring the cover. It's a thoroughly enjoyable situation. I mix on my computer as well (Ableton) and that's a fun exercise too, but I still buy vinyl.

      I don't have the same nostalgia for VHS or Cassette, except for music/movies that I can't get on other formats. Anyway, not all vinyl junkies are snobs and purists, some of us just like what it is and how it works and we earns our money and we spends it how we like.

    55. Re:LOL! by Joce640k · · Score: 0

      No. No. No. Only frequencies *below* half the sample rate are captured, so there is always more than two samples available to reconstruct a sine wave.

      Two-and-a-bit samples isn't an awful lot better than two, especially if it's mixed together with other waves of similar frequencies (as real sounds usually are).

      nb. I'm not saying the high frequencies can't be reproduced, it's the shape of the waves I worry about. Does a 20kHz sine wave and a 20kHz sawtooth sound different when they're reproduced on a CD? They should...

      PS: 22kHz is below half the sample rate.

      --
      No sig today...
    56. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that a 22kHz triangle wave can be decomposed into a 22kHz sine wave plus a series of odd harmonics (i.e. 66kHz, 110kHz etc...). Those frequencies that exceed the sampling bandwidth are not captured, but since they lie outside the range of human hearing it doesn't matter.

    57. Re:LOL! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Which would be useful... if they weren't mastered to a point where the total dynamic range used comes down to 3-6db... loudness wars huzzah.

      Isn't that why most decent music these days is released in "Radio Edit" and "Album Version"?

      (With "Radio Edit" being compressed to hell and back for listening on the move..."Album Version" for listening to at home on proper equipment)

      --
      No sig today...
    58. Re:LOL! by jones_supa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the contrary, CDs are perfect.

      Really? So why do professionals/studios use higher sampling rates?

      One major reason is that by doing so, the signal can take more editing without losing fidelity in the process.

    59. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      J-format? Far too new. Go back to the beginning: VERA. I believe there is exactly one machine left in existance, and it's the size of two fridges. The tape is steel tape moving at fifty meters per second, and quite capable of slicing an operater through to the bone if it snapped. It has to be run inside a safety cage. You get fifteen minutes per giant reel, and it doesn't do color.

    60. Re:LOL! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Why is 44kHz seen as the ideal sample rate?

      Full story here

      Short answer: It isn't "ideal", it's based on some hardware they had lying around.

      --
      No sig today...
    61. Re:LOL! by n30na · · Score: 1

      Relative. SD looks terrible on a half-decent tv these days, because HD looks so much better.

    62. Re:LOL! by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Laserdiscs suffered from bitrot and separation of layers.

      you had to store them flat or they would get a bend in them.

      And yes, those of us that had Laserdiscs were better than you proles with VHS :-)

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    63. Re:LOL! by Joce640k · · Score: 0

      The first harmonic of an 8kHz square wave is supposedly 'inaudible', right? (it's at 24kHz)

      Get out your sound editor and generate two tracks with an 8kHz sine wave and an 8kHz square wave. Go ahead, do it. I'll wait. If you haven't got one there's a free one called "Audacity" that can do it.

      Listen to both tracks. If you can't tell the difference between those two you're a cloth-eared nincompoop (don't worry, you will...)

      Why should the difference between those sounds vanish because the wave is at 16kHz? Human hearing is based on moving little hairs in the inner ear, it's obvious the hair won't respond the same to a sine wave and a square wave at the same frequency. What you've claiming is that the brain can't tell the difference between the movements. The experiment above proves you're wrong.

      --
      No sig today...
    64. Re:LOL! by gilgoomesh · · Score: 5, Informative

      As a video software engineer, I know your pain from a slightly different angle.

      Your "waterfall effect" is over quantization of DCT blocks (in rare cases it could also be misuse of the deblocking filters). It's pretty easy to avoid and most encoders can actually give feedback about quantization rates and whether artifacting will be visible in output frames.

      The problem is that people don't know how to use their encoders correctly, use them with completely the wrong settings and then don't inspect the output to see the result.

      The MPEG4 High Profile 4.1 used in BluRay discs is capable of practically flawless encoding at any motion rate if operated with a little care. MPEG4 allows custom and dynamic quantization and a two pass encoder can use the second pass to fix any mistakes by adapting the local bitrate and quantization method.

      I actually suspect though that you're seeing MPEG2 video getting pumped at an MPEG4 bitrate which is causing massive over quantization. This generally happens when studios have MPEG2 encoding hardware but no MPEG4 encoding hardware but they are told "keep your video at X bitrate" – even though this leaves half the disc empty and the video looking like a stream of 8x8 shiny cubes.

      Of course, some decoders don't implement deblocking algorithms correctly and actually *increase* blockiness in some cases. This would be the fault of your BluRay player – you'd need to play on a good software player and compare.

      And don't get me started on interlacing in digital video. It's a "feature" that has only ever made digital video worse and is somehow part of most broadcast standards. Aaarrgh!

    65. Re:LOL! by pla · · Score: 1

      eg. How does a CD store the difference between 22kHz square/sine/sawtooth waves?

      Whereas with vinyl, while a few researchers have found that you can actually reproduce nanoscale artifacts present on the pressing master, you completely obliterate all that detail the first time you actually play the thing by dragging a razor-sharp needle down the groove of soft, soft vinyl that contains all your nice sound information.

      So before you play it, you have 60+kHz frequency response and >25dB stereo separation. The second time you play it, you have more like 12-16kHz response and <10db separation.

      "But I can hear the difference in my $1600 retro clamshell-style headphones!"


      These days we ought to be listening to 96kHz/24bit, the technology to reproduce it is ubiquitous.

      With that, I will agree completely - And for a very small number of performances (mostly superstars and symphonic), you can get that as DVD-A. But for the rest, we've sadly headed in entirely the opposite direction, with crappy MP3s the de facto distribution standard for music now and for the near future.

    66. Re:LOL! by icebraining · · Score: 1

      if you did someone a tape it took at least as long as the movie or album to do it.

      The "High Speed Dubbing" in my tape recorder disagrees.

    67. Re:LOL! by zoloto · · Score: 1

      To be quite frank, many of us don't to have all our music digitized. Your computer gets fried from a serious power surge and it's all gone. It happened to me once and no amount of analyzing or voodoo could resurrect it. My tables? they kept on turning but that was ages ago. I have an iPod docked to a great system right now and the quality is FAR beyond vinyl - however, there are some albums I haven't found digitally, or care to take the time to convert. Old habits are hard to break, but as long as people still press records for bands of my own taste, who am I to argue?

    68. Re:LOL! by ripdajacker · · Score: 1

      There's no such thing as lossless digital audio. Sound being essentially a mathematical function where the points consist of irrational numbers, you would need infinite resolution to capture the analog sound.

      Granted you can crank the sampling rate to 96khz and you'll probably have a hard time hearing the difference, but the two recordings will still be inherently different. Analog will always win in terms of resolution, at least in theory. Digital recordings will always have this limit.

    69. Re:LOL! by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You'll never beat the warmth of phonovision discs.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    70. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that you had to flip the disc after half an hour, swap discs after half an hour and flip that disc after another half hour. That didn't break up the flow of the film watching experience at all!

    71. Re:LOL! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Whereas with vinyl, while a few researchers have found that you can actually reproduce nanoscale artifacts present on the pressing master, you completely obliterate all that detail the first time you actually play the thing by dragging a razor-sharp needle down the groove of soft, soft vinyl that contains all your nice sound information.

      You can get laser turntables which never touch the vinyl... :-)

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_turntable

      (But I'd still take 96kHz/24bit...or even 192kHz/32bit in a pinch)

      --
      No sig today...
    72. Re:LOL! by Joce640k · · Score: 0

      The point is that a 22kHz triangle wave can be decomposed into a 22kHz sine wave plus a series of odd harmonics (i.e. 66kHz, 110kHz etc...). Those frequencies that exceed the sampling bandwidth are not captured, but since they lie outside the range of human hearing it doesn't matter.

      I'd argue that they do matter. All the harmonics of an 8kHz square wave are 'outside the human hearing range' but I know for a fact it's easy to hear the difference between an 8kHz square wave and 8kHz sine wave.

      --
      No sig today...
    73. Re:LOL! by flyneye · · Score: 1

      What's the difference man? New improved clarity doesn't fix the same old lousy writing, repetitive plots and crappy acting. Sure there's always special effects, but my kid can do that to his youtube uploads now. Movies have gone the way music has, back into the hands of the people. It's being de-industrialized due to bad evolution habits. That's o.k. too, real people make better content than Hollywood. No it isn't as technically proficient, yes you have to dig for it, but, the evolution toward revolution has begun and industry movies are as dead as industry music. Similarly neither know they are dead yet.
      VHS? I'd still love to have a Betamax and a couple cases of blank tapes.
      If I cared to tape it the first time, it's still good to watch. None of it is good enough to justify the cost of " high resolution". Home screens will never give the bang of high resolution combined with HUGE.(thus making high resolution necessary) Most of the time the "entertainment " is just backdrop for whatever activity I have going anyway.
          I'll bet some people feel a comfortable security at seeing their fav shows on VHS just as they always did. Like vinyl pops and clicks, it is the familiarity, not any faux technical superiority that keeps the tape rolling.

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    74. Re:LOL! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That is very rare. In many ways I view the quality of DVDs and Blurays as equivalent to that of VHS tapes.

      Simply untrue, the resolution of BluRay is far superior or what VHS can offer. That isn't a subjective claim, it is simple fact. VHS does not store as many vertical lines and the horizontal resolution is limited by the bandwidth of the tape and the deliberately filtered analogue process the signal passes through. Plus the VHS recorder's video amps don't have the bandwidth or slew rate.

      It's Apples and Oranges really. With VHS you had degradation and quality issues inherent to the format. With digital, which is usually done poorly, even on high end Blurays, you have the "waterfall effect" where the blocks become noticeable in high speed movement in the scene, most noticeably on water falls.

      It depends on the bit-rate and encoder used. You would be hard pressed to find an example of the waterfall effect on a quality BluRay film. Maybe on a crappy one, but then again compared to the quality of a crappy VHS there is really no comparison even with that.

      You also have to account for the higher dynamic range of DVD and BluRay that VHS simply can't match.

      One of the many reasons why I won't spend a dime on Bluray.

      For me it's DRM, but image quality wise DVD was already a massive step up from VHS.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    75. Re:LOL! by Name+Anonymous · · Score: 1

      One of the many reasons why I won't spend a dime on Bluray.

      I can think of one case where you might buy a Bluray player. If you needed a new player. Remember you can borrow Bluray Discs from most libraries. And if you have to spend the money on a new player, you may as well get something multiformat.

    76. Re:LOL! by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was thinking exactly this. It's not like they just pour the live recording right into the vinyl. If vinyl had some sort of magic properties and mastering weren't important, hell, I'd run out and buy a bunch of blank vinyls and invent some software to burn my iTunes library directly to this superior medium.

    77. Re:LOL! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Not my player, it would play both sides without flipping. Disc swap was not that bad as you needed to get up to pee or get more popcorn at that time anyways.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    78. Re:LOL! by BetterSense · · Score: 2

      I think you are. I think you don't see the artifacts because you are used to them.

      This is a completely unprovable assertion and a favorite of the audiophile types, of course. I'm not denying that. But its my observation that modern people are simply used to digital artifacts, the way the vinyl generation were used to analog artifacts.

      I, personally, have never seen seen a DVD without annoying visual artifacts characteristic of the medium--aliasing, ringing, moire, mosquito noise, basically your standard digital artifacts. Blu-ray has higher resolution, but the same artifacts. Maybe this is why you 'don't see them'...they are universal, and so you think they are normal.

      I'm not a tape head or vinyl head but I do spend a great deal of time making, printing, and viewing analog/optical photographs (I am a darkroom junkie). I also shoot and project film movies. When you spend hours staring at physical images made entirely without pixels or digital processing of any kind, and you get used to their uniform, 'real', analog-y look, grain and all, the first time you see a digital image with a moire pattern it instantly jumps out. And that's not a rare artifact...literally ANY digital image of fine detail will show moire on any fine pattern, unless the image is anti-alias filtered or gassian blurred, which has its own look....

    79. Re:LOL! by dfghjk · · Score: 5, Informative

      "If I had to choose I would go with my 300 pound Pioneer LaserDisc player. It was expensive as hell, and I did not have to flip the discs. The quality though was just shy of DVD and still analog video. That meant no artifacts and no degradation (well a heck of lot less without laser rot). It was a nicer looking picture to me."

      Laserdisc was composite video. It had ENORMOUS degradation in the form of bandwidth limiting. Digital compression, with all its flaws, is far, far better at preserving information than Laserdisc's crude, sledgehammer approach. The only people who think that Laserdisc was good by today's standards are ignorant.

      "Not to mention the audio was in many cases digital and the Elite players had optical connectors to your stereo system."

      The audio of Laserdisc wasn't stereo, high bandwidth, or even digital!!! HiFi audio was bandaid'ed on after the fact. Pathetic. Then there was the crappy CAV/CLV choice where you got either good usability features at 30 minutes per side (rare) or got 60 minutes of video with poor usability. Embarrassing. Laserdisc sucked.

      "I know it may sound crazy, but it really pisses me off when I see a $20+ Bluray title, with super high resolution compared to the LD, and yet still have bullshit encoding artifacts in high speed motion scenes. LD did not have that."

      It's easy to produce a high quality image when there is no resolution. If a DVD were encoded using the Laserdisc's source signal you wouldn't see artifacting either, nor would you see a good picture. DVD's luma resolution is superior to LD but it's chroma resolution destroys LD due to the composite encoding. Then there's HD...

      "LD is too much of a pain in the ass though, not to mention new titles are not exactly being sold either. Never did see a burner or blank ones around either....."

      Wow, ridiculous. No one is making wax cylinders for Edison's phonograph either.

    80. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      clearly somebody who doesn't understand what the word 'superior' means.

    81. Re:LOL! by jythie · · Score: 1

      I suspect many of the people encoding professionally simply do not care. One of the things I have found frustrating over the years is that many older shows, torrents ripped from DVDs are often higher quality then DVDs produced by studios (with, I would assume, masters) mining their back catalog... you can really see that whoever the studio put to go encoding some old TV show really didn't care one way or the other (or was under heavy time pressure) while the amateur pirate puts real time into doing it right...

      And on the extreme end you have whoever Netflix has doing their rips... poor quality, mislabeled or out of order episodes, episodes completely missing.. etc..

    82. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      CD audio is perfectly able to capture audio just as well as vinyl.

      No it isn't, by definition. Digital audio samples signal slices at predetermined intervals as opposed to continuous capturing in the analogue domain. Thus, information is lost.

    83. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But see! Once you share them, they can't compete with free! All VHS should be handed over to the police and destroyed. That way we can go back to buying new stuff and save the economy!

    84. Re:LOL! by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      And don't get me started on interlacing in digital video. It's a "feature" that has only ever made digital video worse and is somehow part of most broadcast standards.

      I'm not clear what you're implying should have replaced standard 50 (PAL) or 60 (NTSC) fields per second interlaced video.

      Are you suggesting that they should have gone with 50/60 frames per second full progressive video? That would work, but it would also require approaching twice the storage/transmission bandwidth.

      Or are you suggesting that we should simply store video in 25/30 frames per second progressive format? While 25/30 frames/sec progressive video and 50/60 fields/sec interlaced video might use the same total number of lines, they *look* different due to the latter's greater temporal resolution. (*) In fact, this difference is one of the major reasons that film and traditional interlaced video look different.

      Granted, some people prefer the "filmic" look for dramatic material, but it's not better for everything, and the "detached" feel that 24 to 30 frames/sec rate gives has isn't always what you want- 50/60 fields/sec gives more immediacy and a greater sense of "being there".

      I appreciate that from a technical point of view, interlaced video can be a royal pain in the backside in so many respects. But there are still legitimate reasons for not getting rid of it.

      (*) If anyone's thinking that 25/30 (full) frames per second must be the same as 50/60 fields (i.e. "half frames") per second- no, because the order's different. With non-interlaced video, all the lines in each video should be scanned/updated at the same time, so a moving object is updated 25/30 times per second. With interlaced video (where the odd-numbered lines are scanned/displayed first, *then* the even-numbered ones, then the odd ones, then the even ones, etc.) a moving object may have moved in the time between the time the odd-numbered lines are being scanned, and the corresponding even numbered ones are scanned. Hence we still have 50/60 motion "updates" per second (albeit not at full resolution) even though the total number of lines are the same.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    85. Re:LOL! by The+Second+Horseman · · Score: 1

      Older shows were sometimes altered for DVD release - music removed or changed, etc. - due to royalty issues.

      And I can think of good movies that you can't really get on DVD today. Like the Stephen Frears film "Sammy and Rosie Get Laid".

    86. Re:LOL! by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Vinyl for home listening as it has superior sound quality

      I suspect you've been blasted on this already, but this is absolutely false. Vinyl has a higher noise floor and the sampling rate of digital audio is above the limit of human perception. If you're perceiving a difference, it's because of the mastering of the recordings. That or the placebo effect.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    87. Re:LOL! by dfghjk · · Score: 0

      Laughable.

    88. Re:LOL! by dfghjk · · Score: 1

      Vinyl was heavily compressed typically. Otherwise the grooves can't be placed close together. Anyone who says that there's no clipping in vinyl has no idea what is going on.

    89. Re:LOL! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Yes, information is lost. But that information is beyond the limit of human hearing.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    90. Re:LOL! by dfghjk · · Score: 0

      Wow, that's quite a standard you have there. Quite the elite thinkers as well.

    91. Re:LOL! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      If you can't ABX it, it does mean it doesn't have effects on your perception of the audible portion of the sound.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    92. Re:LOL! by Hatta · · Score: 2

      What's your point? That vinyl is a better medium than CD, or that mastering practices were better 30 years ago? You're arguing the latter, we're arguing the former.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    93. Re:LOL! by dfghjk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "eg. How does a CD store the difference between 22kHz square/sine/sawtooth waves?

      It can't. It will even have trouble distinguishing them at 11kHz - well within the hearing limit."

      It doesn't need to. Any 22K signal is entirely outside the passband of CD.

      CD encoding has no trouble with 11K signals.

      "Other problems: How do you even sample a 22kHz sine wave? Where do you put the sample points? How wide should they be? You can't use the beautiful 'dot' samples shown in the theory books - if the phase is wrong you might sample the zero-crossing points and not see any signal (in fact there's only one phase which would see the full signal - 90 degrees out of phase with the sampler would give a quieter output)."

      CD doesn't attempt to reproduce 22K signals. The reason for the 44K sample rate is to leave some room for the anti-aliasing filters.

      What Nyquist says is that you need a sample rate more than twice the highest frequency you wish to reproduce. You've deliberately violated that in your example. Even so, the actual sample rate is 44.1K so it's still theoretically possible, just impractical.

      "CD sound is FAR from "Right, that's that sorted out then...". On the contrary, It's on the very limit of audio fidelity, only just good enough. To get a good result you need to sample at much higher frequency/resolution then process it down but even then the exact waveform of the high frequency waves is lost (you can argue over whether those differences are audible, I think they are)."

      Your argument would be more persuasive if you had gotten anything you said right.

      "These days we ought to be listening to 96kHz/24bit, the technology to reproduce it is ubiquitous. The problem is the MAFIAA doesn't want us to have it."

      No, we shouldn't. That's the problem with people thinking beyond their pay grade.

    94. Re:LOL! by ciderbrew · · Score: 1

      For his own stuff???? Yeah, your right they would wouldn't they. *looks at shoes.

    95. Re:LOL! by Dogtanian · · Score: 2

      All the harmonics of an 8kHz square wave are 'outside the human hearing range' but I know for a fact it's easy to hear the difference between an 8kHz square wave and 8kHz sine wave.

      Assuming that first part is correct, how confident are you that you were *actually* listening to a perfect sine wave and a perfect square wave?

      The latter is technically impossible anyway, since a square wave implies instantaneous switching between the low and high levels (and vice versa), which is of course impossible with real-world equipment.

      Even ignoring that borderline pedantry, however, there is still the possibility that the square wave was being distorted at one or more processing stages before you heard it. I would *not* rely on your single personal experience as proof of a "fact" for that reason.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    96. Re:LOL! by dfghjk · · Score: 2

      "Two-and-a-bit samples isn't an awful lot better than two, especially if it's mixed together with other waves of similar frequencies (as real sounds usually are)."

      It is absolutely, critically better, and mixing in other "waves" has no bearing on that.

      "I'm not saying the high frequencies can't be reproduced, it's the shape of the waves I worry about."

      Stop worrying.

      "Does a 20kHz sine wave and a 20kHz sawtooth sound different when they're reproduced on a CD? They should..."

      Not through and 20K band-limited system they don't, nor should they.

    97. Re:LOL! by dfghjk · · Score: 2

      Yes, they were. Vinyl was heavily compressed AND band limited. Vinyl has crappy low AND high frequency response as well as inferior dynamic range compared to CD. Recording "these days" may be compressed horribly as well, but they are for different reasons.

    98. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i agree with that 100%. would like to add...

      Good DVD-Def source converted to Lo-Def MP4 (xvid) format looks perfect on my 32" CRT and my 24" LCD (if i'm at least 4 feet away)!

    99. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Optional, but recommended: share it.

      I own Harrison Bergeron on VHS. It's one of my favorite movies and I definitely would buy it on DVD but alas I could never find it on anything but VHS and I no longer have a VCR. So I downloaded it.

    100. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About 50% of every rental I get on disk skips, freezes or doesn't play at all.

      With VHS ... at least the damn thing played. Most of the time.

    101. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd group the vinyl and tape people in with the vhs heads..

      Actually, vinyl is a group of its own. The old records, because of how they are recorded and played back, offered an audio charm which is distinct from everything else. Even the needle played its part. I suppose its possible to add a filter in an attempt to re-create this with newer media. I have no idea if such a filter exists. But, part of the charm that comes from records is distinct from that of simply saying its a lower fidelity experience.

    102. Re:LOL! by Creepy · · Score: 1

      should be fair use case - you can make a backup of things you own to another format for archival purposes*

      Note that some VHS tapes can't be copied - they are designed to show streaks and discontinuity if they are. I remember this was one of the controversial features of Basic Instinct on VHS.

      * as long as they aren't encrypted, because that breaks decryption laws like the DMCA.

    103. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And yes, those of us that had Laserdiscs were better than you proles with VHS"

      HAD Laserdisc? I still have a small library of Laserdiscs, and two players. One a fancy setup with dual trays and ability to play both sides of both discs. And yes, for humor's sake it's hooked up to my HD plasma tv.

    104. Re: LOL! by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      There is one aspect I'm missing in these comparisons:

      The rather high wear on VHS tapes. I remember VHS from my parents' home as a system that would often introduce a buckle in the tape or even crinkle it, which had much worse effects on the quality than a few compression artifacts. In one or two worst-case events, we got tape spaghetti and had to open the recorder to remove it.
      The VHS recorders in question were moderately expensive models from then-respectable brands like Sony (that was way before the rootkit and PS3-Linux affairs). So the problems were not for lack of willingness to buy decent quality.

      Bottom line:
      On durability, VHS loses out badly to DVD. Don't be surprised if your favorite VHS tapes develop problems after playing them back a few times.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    105. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was an inherent advantage to the difficulties of mastering vinyl and that is that the mastering engineer tended to be someone highly trained in his art. Today, anyone who can use a mouse thinks they're a mastering engineer and we have the ruined albums to prove it.

    106. Re:LOL! by PhotoJim · · Score: 1

      I'm not against using analog technology (I still do my photography with film after all) but it's relatively easy to get around the my-computer-died problem. My digital music is on a server with RAID-1 disks for redundancy, and is backed up nightly to both a local external hard disk and a remote plug computer (at a family member's house). I'll never lose much, if anything, if I have a catastrophe unless it takes my family member's house out too. (3 km between us, so possible, but unlikely.)

      I buy my music on CDs and rip them though - that way I have a pressed original, too, and I can determine the ripping. That lets me have both FLAC and MP3 rips, and I have the original CDs to play if I want.

    107. Re:LOL! by Pope · · Score: 1

      Yeah, backing up digital files is hard.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    108. Re:LOL! by Flaming+Troll+Shill · · Score: 1

      I thought "Radio Edit" was taking out the naughty words ...

    109. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MP3 does not have "bad" sound quality. I've yet to meet an audiophile who can actually ABX a properly encoded MP3 from an uncompressed sample of the identical song. Even using KRK E8Bs. The problem is that people listen to shitty encodes and then complain that MP3 the format sucks.

    110. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to see one of those movies, you really have no other choice but VHS. If they were released on DVD, I'm sure there would be no such thing as a "return of VHS".

      Ahhh... yeah. The good times. The times before the SOPA/PIPA, ACTA, TPP, IPRED2... you could get a Movie.Title.(longgg-ago).VHSRip.-.Group.avi if it was good. And even .LaserDiscat. But that was before the Empire.

    111. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radio edits are, as the name suggests, edited for radio - e.g. the song may be shorter or have swearing/contentious lyrics removed or bleeped out.

      The album version is usually the uadulterated version, a bit like getting the directors cut of a film. It's nothing to do with the music being mastered differently.

    112. Re:LOL! by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You are comparing the best analogue performance with the worst digital performance. No wonder you came to your conclusions. If, however, we compare the actual performance encountered every day by users across the globe, digital shits all over analogue. Just as you can find a few examples of bad digital encoding, anyone who can remember using a VHS or LaserDisc player (your holiness excluded :)) can regale you with wondrous tales of ghosting; dying media; loud, clumsy players; limited media availability; and so on and so forth. It's an easy game to play.

    113. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can decrypt media for personal use. You just have to do it entirely yourself. No one can tell you how to do it, or sell you software to do it.

    114. Re: LOL! by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      The VHS recorders in question were moderately expensive models from then-respectable brands like Sony (that was way before the rootkit and PS3-Linux affairs). So the problems were not for lack of willingness to buy decent quality.

      Sony VHS decks were one of the most repair prone brands, unlike their Betamax decks which were much better built. This is based on first hand experience with a circa 1992 SLV-595HF that was in the shop many times for tape eating. Most of the insides of their early decks were Hitachi parts, not Sony. Panasonic on the other hand built some real tanks. Most any VHS restorer will tell you the best deck is either a Panasonic or a JVC, never a Sony.

    115. Re:LOL! by Scroatzilla · · Score: 2

      http://www.vhsps.com/ -- check it out.

    116. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds better because it doesn't have as high dynamic range. With most modern digital mastering, it's all multiband compressed and hard limited as close to 0dBfs as possible to make it sound "loud" but in essence sounds like shit. Case in point, anything by RHCP. You can't do this with vinyl so you get a much more reserved mastering job and a much more pleasant listening experience. I'm not a vinyl junkie but I hate what's being done to most digital masters these days.

    117. Re:LOL! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      With me, it's a matter of having bookshelves full of VHS tapes going back 25 years. I've been transferring them to DVD, just because it probably won't be long before you can't buy a VCR any more.

      As to records and audio tapes, LPS are better than CDs, but only if you have VERY good eqipment. CDs are marginally better than cassettes, but again, only if you have a VERY good (read:expensive) deck. Reel to reel? Far better than CD, but again, expensive as hell.

      I've been transferring all my analog data, and I doubt I'll ever get it all digitized, especially the music. I have so many LPs and cassettes I don't have a clue how many I have. Boxes and boxes of them.

      I do have a very good German turntable, and oddly (and probably unbelievably) some CDs I make from LPs actually sound better than their store-bought counterparts. I chalk this up to poor remastering when they re-released them on CD. Hilariously, often the LP has more dynamics than the factory CD, despite the fact that CDs have a larger dynamic range. Kids... "Dynamic range? Who needs that! Make the whole damned thing as loud as you can!"

      VHS? Even the best of my VHS is crap, but there's no way I could afford to rebuy it, and it was good enough new, it's still good enough. Besides, in fifty years my decendants can see what TV was like when I was here. "Uh, Grandpa, what was a TV?"

    118. Re:LOL! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I have downloaded some pretty some pretty esoteric stuff from the 40s an 50's.

      Never without many problems. So I can get pretty much anything off the net. Naturally, the older stuff isn't DVD quality. It's usually a recorded VHS from a TV broadcast.

      Occasionally I find an excellent copy. I suspect someone in some archives is leaking them.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    119. Re:LOL! by geekoid · · Score: 1

      which is why I use tools to determine things like that and not observation.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    120. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >> The audio of Laserdisc wasn't stereo, high bandwidth, or even digital!!!

      Please research before spouting.

      "Audio could be stored in either analog or digital format and in a variety of surround sound formats; NTSC discs could carry two analog audio tracks, plus two uncompressed PCM digital audio tracks, which were CD encoded channels ............EFM-encoded as in CD.[14] Dolby Digital (also called AC-3) and DTS"

      - retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laserdisc#Audio 2010-02-07

    121. Re:LOL! by pz · · Score: 1

      So you digitize them, do what you can to clean it up, compress with x264. You can ditch the VHS then.

      And exactly how are you going to play that tape to digitize it?

      The point in having a player for a given format is that there is minimal effort involved in playing content. Converting content to a new format always seems to be problematic. I bought a big box full of classic movies on VHS for next to nothing at a yard sale -- the cost (in time and money) to convert isn't worth the $20 VHS player I have hooked up in my system.

      Bear in mind that unlike CDs and DVDs that can be ripped in faster-than-real-time, VHS players don't allow for 10x or 12x (or whatever multiplier DVD drives are up to these days) playback with clean results. Thus, ripping a movie on VHS tape takes a long time. While that doesn't have to be necessarily when you view the content, if it's a tape that will be viewed only once or twice, what's the point of going through that labor when, again, a cheapo VHS player will do the trick just fine.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    122. Re:LOL! by Creepy · · Score: 1

      That is just the music, and mostly affected TV shows in the earlier days of DVDs - the studios had only licensed it for the broadcast and had to get a new license to include them in DVD releases. Some studios paid low rates originally (sometimes free even, for promotion) to use the song in the original broadcast and then were asked practically extortion level rates (often per song) to include them in the DVD, even if the artist was basically unheard of other than in that broadcast. The broadcast/movie industry called them on it and switched the songs rather than pay the fees and the music industry eventually backed off on their high prices (probably because major music studios were losing revenue when the songs were switched) so I haven't really heard of this as a problem lately.

    123. Re:LOL! by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      It's getting difficult to find SACDs and DVDAs in the stores today. Everyone's jumping ship to Bluray Audio.

    124. Re:LOL! by Physician · · Score: 1

      Whatever benefits that vinyl offers over CD, DVD-Audio does as well as or better than vinyl.

      --
      Does God treat us as servants or friends? Check my homepage.
    125. Re:LOL! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Example: I paid $5 for a boxed set of the Beverly Hillbillies a few years ago at WalMart, and the theme song had been replaced; no Homer and Jethro. Contract issues.

      Meanwhile, lately they've been playing it on MeTV with the original music... which anybody can record on DVD or hard drive.

    126. Re:LOL! by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Evil Dead II Blu-ray Reviewed: I miss the murkiness

      Both the original 35mm print and the first VHS and DVD releases maintained a dark, low-contrast look. Take Ash’s epic flight from evil through the preposterously large interior of the cabin in the woods. In early, gloomier releases, the top of the cabin interiors fades away to darkness, completing the cinematic illusion. In the Blu-ray release, the contrast has been increased, and the space where the set ends and the high school gymnasium they were filming in begins is clearly visible.

      I haven't much noticed this in more recent releases, but back in the "early days of blu-ray", the studios would try so hard to erase the film grain that all of the actors and actresses would take on an inauthetic waxy quality-- no skin pores.

    127. Re:LOL! by nonos · · Score: 1

      2. mp3 is only useful for compatibility with portable players. its compression ratio sucks compared with aac and other lossy formats. there is nothing superior about mp3 compared with cd audio except for the fact that it's smaller.

      mp3 directly riped from CD have worst quality, OK. But I'm wonder wich format wins if mp3 is produced from 24-bit audio @ 96 KHz... This new mp3 or the 44 KHz CD ?

    128. Re:LOL! by tilante · · Score: 1
      Yeah... because when I re-recorded tapes for people, I sat there and carefully babied them through the process for the entire time that the transfer took.

      Not.

      When I transferred things on tape, I put the tape I was copying from in one drive, put the other tape in the other drive, hit the button(s), and walked away and did other things. Later, I'd come back after the dubbing was done, and watch / listen to a minute or two of the new copy to make sure the recorder didn't do anything stupid. There was nothing "more personal" about it -- sure, it took longer, but time does not equal personal involvement.

    129. Re:LOL! by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Some shows which are dependent on music as a part of the plot completely lose the point due to contract fights. Two that come to mind are WKRP and Mission Hill. Because of music rights, some parts of those shows don't even make sense in the DVD releases because the dialog refers to music which has been replaced or removed entirely.

    130. Re:LOL! by sootman · · Score: 1

      > I know it may sound crazy, but it really pisses me off
      > when I see a $20+ Bluray title, with super high resolution
      > compared to the LD, and yet still have bullshit encoding
      > artifacts in high speed motion scenes. LD did not have that.

      Agree 100%. On the other hand you're getting better random access, better picture for the most part, greater portability, easier storage, don't have to flip discs,* etc. I wish the new formats were better than the old in all respects, but I'm happy enough with "mostly better."

      * even with a machine that flipped for you--my friend had one--there's still an annoying break that totally wrecked the mood of being really "into" the movie. And some discs held only 30 minuets per side. Star Wars (Ep. IV) spanned five sides! And a player could flip sides but not swap discs. :-)

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    131. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just used my capture card to convert some home movies from VHS to digital. Although they were apparently already converted from 8mm film and I'd like to see if I can get the original film scanned somehow.

      On a related note, why do these cards have horrible software support? I usually wind up having to try multiple drivers just to get anything better than 240 lines at 30fps out of them.

    132. Re:LOL! by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      But it has no theoretical limitations. In theory Analog can be perfect, it's just a case of spending enough money.

      It's not possible to create an analogue device with "perfect" reproduction, as that would imply an infinite number of levels and infinite sample rate and no flaws, ever.

      I think what you were trying to say is that in theory, given enough money, inclination and effort we could build an analogue system that met or exceeded whatever arbitrarily high level of accuracy we wanted.

      But if we were to accept that as being true, we could, by the same logic, design a digital system that also met any arbitrary level of accuracy (in terms of sampling rate and resolution).

      The difference between analogue and digital *equipment* is that digital has a clearly-defined level of accuracy, whereas analogue *equipment* does not have such a clear cut-off. Either can be better depending on the comparison; if it's a worn-out 78RPM record versus a 24-bit 96 kHz recording, "digital" wins. If it's some gritty 4-bit sample I managed to hack an Atari 800 into playing versus a pristine LP on a top-end turntable, etc., "analogue" wins.

      But underlying many analogue vs. digital arguments there seems to be the flawed implication that in theory "analogue" is better than "digital". This is flawed because it mixes and confuses two distinct issues- analogue as a theoretical concept that's infinitely continuous, and analogue equipment which- regardless of how well it's made, will always have its limits, even in theory.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    133. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guy is clearly 16 and trolling. Nice try.

    134. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Does a 20kHz sine wave and a 20kHz sawtooth sound different when they're reproduced on a CD? They should...

      Even if you sampled high enough to capture the harmonics of that sawtooth wave, if you claim you can hear a 40kHz harmonic, you're a damned liar.

    135. Re:LOL! by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Does a 20kHz sine wave and a 20kHz sawtooth sound different when they're reproduced on a CD? They should...

      I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The 20 kHz sawtooth will have harmonics above the Nyquist limit for sampling at 44.1 kHz and hence cannot be accurately reproduced by a CD- this will either lead to aliasing (if unfiltered) or distortion of the wave (if the signal is filtered at the Nyquist limit).

      In the latter case, my limited knowledge leads me to assume that once filtered, the sawtooth will be converted to a 20kHz sine wave(?)

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    136. Re:LOL! by domatic · · Score: 2

      You'll hate me then. I make mp3s from vinyl. After processing with declicking and dehissing software, I wind up with something I'd rather listen to over most CDs and the original vinyl.

      CDs should absolutely incredible compared to 99% of vinyl but the Loudness War has absolutely ruined my trust in any audio I can buy now. New issues of old material get the bejeezus compressed out of them and most tracks you can purchase digitally get the ole brickwall treatment. Technically CD IS superior to vinyl. It has far more usable dynamic range (in practice) and doesn't degrade with use if handled properly. But CDs and digital audio in generally have been gradually ruined over the past twenty years by evil marketdroid driven mastering practices.

      Clean infrequently played vinyl on high end equipment MAY have some points over PROPERLY mastered digital audio. But what you have most of the time is vinyl in indifferent condition on mid-range equipment at best. In practice, properly mastered digital audio is going to out-perform it 99% of the time.

      And don't get me started on tweaks with half-inch thick oxygen-free solid gold interconnects who regularly receive the gospel from Absolute Sound and Stereophile.........

    137. Re:LOL! by domatic · · Score: 1

      In an ideal world, what you say is true. But thanks to the Loudness War, old vinyl is often more pleasant to listen to if it is in good shape.

    138. Re:LOL! by EdIII · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand.

      I don't give a shit about resolution when there are artifacts in high speed motion scenes. I'm not hard pressed to find this. Over half of the Bluray and HD experiences I have had were with artifacts. It's inexcusable to have it. The technology allows for you to greatly minimize artifacts. It's the complete fucking retards doing the encoding that ruin it. If you are going to put a product out there, that ironically is digital and allows for 1:1 copies of the master, and ask me for more than $20, you can be professional and encode it well.

      Of course resolution is better. No doubt about it and it is not subjective. What I am saying is that I have the choice of watching analog video on VHS with its lower resolution, color bleeding, etc. or digital video on Bluray with its higher resolution and artifacts.

      What we are really getting down to here is quality. Now that is subjective.

      To that end, I was only pointing out, that to me, the quality issues with VHS and DVD/Bluray add up to the same thing. Which is why LD analog video was 90% of the resolution of DVD with none of the encoding artifacts. A well produced LD on Elite hardware is very good looking while still having the benefit of digital audio. They were even THX certified towards the end.

      My response was mainly to the idea that digital was absolutely superior in terms of fidelity. It's not. Of course I would never go back to VHS. That's just stupid. LD looks awesome, but you can't get content anymore.

      So I stick with DVDs.

    139. Re:LOL! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Mybe, but you'll never get the fuzzy graininess of 8mm film!

    140. Re:LOL! by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Netflix has content owners do rips, they never rip. If you call to complain about a bad rip they often say, "yeah, we know, we have been asking for a new rip for awhile..."

    141. Re:LOL! by BlueBat · · Score: 1

      That's because with Standard Definition, you have around 640x480 pixels at the high end resolution and with High Definition, you have 1920x1080 pixels at the high end. Displaying SD on an HD television means that you have to use 3 pixels to display each pixel in the width and and you need 2.25 pixels for each on the height. So each pixel on the image is suddenly huge and makes for very blocky looking images. You can see it for yourself on your computer by taking any image that is 640x480 and increasing it to 1920x1080 and looking at the image at 100% zoom and comparing the 2 resulting images.

      I have heard that there are some TVs that run some algorithms on the image before displaying it so that it looks smoother but I think those are the pricier TVs and it can't create detail that doesn't exist in the original images. Still, I have found that I can double a videos resolution and still find it an acceptable viewing experience as long as the original source didn't have a lot of crap in it.

      Hope this explains a few things to you and you find it useful in the future.

    142. Re:LOL! by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      What always bothers me is that, on DVDs, if person is in a dark shot there is often only about four colors on their face and so I can see four (smooth) polygons moving around and I sometimes get stuck in this view and can even briefly lose the sense that it is a face and not four polygons.

    143. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have YOU? The latest SVHS machines had identical video output to DVD. I copied many DVDs that way and there is nothing wrong with the quality.

    144. Re:LOL! by EdIII · · Score: 1

      My response was to the statement that digital had perfect video fidelity. It does not.

      You're absolutely right that I am comparing the best analogue performance. The "holiness" comment is not required. Some people are willing to spend their own money on quality. I did not do it to be snobbish, I did it because the quality was unreal at the time.

      As far as worst, I disagree. I encounter plenty of artifacts in nearly every digital title produced. Some people might be used to it. I never will be, and it is the same with overlays on TV shows and the like. I just pick it up the instant it is on the screen.

      It's been at least 3 years since I have seen an LD played on my equipment and I don't even have it hooked up anymore. Those LDs are not going to last forever, and neither will the player.

      So it's not like I am actually using VHS or anything. I stick with DVD because I won't support Bluray. I just think it is inexcusable and embarrassing to have the ability to make 1:1 digital copies from the master and to produce a master with shitty encoding.

      For every great encoding you think you found, I could show 9 others with artifacts.

    145. Re:LOL! by domatic · · Score: 1

      You really, really, really, need to read up on Nyquist, Shannon, and Fourier. And the former two were Real Engineers as opposed to the hacks that write for Absolute Sound and Stereophile.

      Short answer: neither analog or digital methods will reproduce wave components outside their frequency response envelopes. If you really do have the hearing of a bat or a dog, then you can readily buy 24 bit audio equipment that samples at 96Khz (or higher! in some cases). M-Audio has a well engineered card that will do this to professional standards for a $100 (Audiophile 2496). Their more expensive ones have more inputs, outputs, and some do 196Khz sampling(needed for highly multitracked editing). I guarantee that card will perfectly preserve every bit of crackle, pop, and hiss that would otherwise be rolled off over 20Khz.

      Incidentally, vinyl faces very real constraints on it's dynamic range and frequency response. Especially on the inner tracks. Good reel-to-reel tapes and players can approach 30Khz. I'd suggest using that for future gotcha games when arguing against digital.

    146. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      obviously it's legitimate to go to those older formats when the recording doesn't exist on the newer ones

      Which is obviously what's being talked about. From the Summary:

      a massive number of films are 'trapped on VHS' with 30 and 40 percent of films released on VHS never to be seen again on any other format.

      Now, can I be +5 Captain Obvious too?

    147. Re:LOL! by n30na · · Score: 1

      Well, granted.

      I do think that most decent tvs do some scaling more interesting than nearest neighbor, though for the most part that seems to be the burden of the output device, hence upscaling dvd players and the like.

      In any event, I know the difference and was hence expressing disagreement with the AC :)

    148. Re:LOL! by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      Originally, yes, audio was recorded directly onto vinyl. That is why the music is "arranged" because this person would move around performers to get the levels right.

      More recently, it was recorded onto very high quality (low noise) analog tapes and then poured onto digital or whatever. You always have clipping, the questions is what do you do about it: analog (tapes, vinyl) do linear up to the clip and then log. CD does linear up to the clip and then top hat. The log isn't ideal, but there isn't anything ideal and it is a lot better than the top hat.

    149. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The analog audio track on laserdiscs was lame but most Laserdiscs actually have CD quality 16/44k stereo digital audio and will sound better than any lossy sound encoding on DVD discs when you're just doing 2 channel stereo. LD composite video certainly had its problems but like anything analog benefited from good electronics. With a really good comb filter, TBC and line doubler it could look great. But back in the day most people couldn't afford that stuff. I mainly keep my LDs around for the unmolested theater releases of Starwars ep. 4-6 :)

    150. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know for a fact it's easy to hear the difference between an 8kHz square wave and 8kHz sine wave.

      Run the output through a spectrum analyzer. You're most likely hearing aliased frequencies and not the >24kHz harmonics.

    151. Re:LOL! by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Example: I paid $5 for a boxed set of the Beverly Hillbillies a few years ago at WalMart, and the theme song had been replaced; no Homer and Jethro. Contract issues.

      According to the Wikipedia article, some of the episodes are public domain (due to owner letting the copyrights lapse), which might explain why your box set was so cheap? If there are other rights issues involved, this may also explain why elements had been removed.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    152. Re:LOL! by Jawnn · · Score: 0

      Wrong.
      I'm not much of a "golden eared snob", but I do enjoy listening to recorded music. I can tell you that there is a very real difference between the commonly available digital audio formats and vinyl. On a system capable of faithful playback (no, your iPod and ear buds don't count), that difference is profound. I don't give a rat's ass about "social differentiation". I do care about the sound. Mp3 sucks, hard. That's not to say that there aren't digital audio formats that don't, but just try buying something encoded using one of them.

    153. Re:LOL! by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      I meant lossless compression, like FLAC and others.

    154. Re:LOL! by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Doesn't that assertion depend on how much more you pay your lawyers than those suing you?

    155. Re:LOL! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      AC is exactly right. I have a VCR hooked up to a Hauppague box for this purpose. If it weren't for the jackbooted thugs I wouldn't even have the box of tapes in my attic.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    156. Re:LOL! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No, vinyl and reel to reel are superior to CD, provided you have damned good equipment. Back in the analog days, it made sense to buy the best turntable you could afford, because the more you spent the better it sounded. A good turntable would accurately reproduce frequencies from the subsonic to the supersonic, but a chap turntable (or worse, and integrated stereo) was lucky to have 300Hz to 18kHz. The bass was attenuated to get rid of the rumble caused by cheap motors and cheap bearings, the treble attenuated so it didn't sound tinny with the bass so attenuated.

      The quadrophonic LPs modulated the rear channels with a 40kHz (IIRC) tone, which was demodulated on playback. I don't think a dog can hear a 30kHz tone.

      BUt with a good turntable, CDs you make from LPs often sound better than the store bought ones, simply because they were poorly remastered. The leader of Boston was quite upset about that; all the dynamics are gone in the CD version of their first album.

      Audiophiles used to have something to brag about. Now, except for speakers, cheap equipment sounds as good as expensive equipment.

      I'm sure I'll get a response about cheap DACs. Personally, my ears aren't good enough to tell the difference, but the difference between the LP version of Zepplin's Presence and the CD version is profound. Not only are the dynamics missing in the factory CD, the frequency range is as well.

      Analog and digital both have strengths and weaknesses, but for most, CD's strengths far outshadow its weaknesses. But if you have an analog master and a CD, or a digital master and an LP, you get the worst of both worlds, with the strengths of neither and the weaknesses of both.

      VCR vs DVD? No contest. Period. Well, except you can fast forward through the trailers and FBI warnings on VCR.

    157. Re:LOL! by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Isn't that why most decent music these days is released in "Radio Edit" and "Album Version"? (With "Radio Edit" being compressed to hell and back for listening on the move..."Album Version" for listening to at home on proper equipment)

      The term "radio edit" has been around for donkey's years and usually refers to longer songs (e.g. the "album version") edited for length to make it more acceptable for radio play. It has (or had) nothing to do with dynamic range compression.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    158. Re:LOL! by HonIsCool · · Score: 1

      I just tried this, and, except for volume, I can't really say I hear a difference.
      What sample rate did you synthesize to and what sample rate is your playback path capable of?
      Synthesizing to eg 44.1kHz produces very noticeable low-frequency components.
      Are you sure you are not listening to such alias artifacts?

      --
      "Give me six lines of C++ code written by the most competent programmer, and I will find enough in there to hang him."
    159. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, your black and white view is typical of many engineers and/or geeks who only look at specs. Granted, every popular type of recording media has its own merits, and yes digital audio recording can be far superior to a vinyl record, however specs are only the starting point of the debate. There are many, many variables, and when people describe something as "superior", especially when it comes to listening to music, it's all very subjective. It's like saying a 1966 Porsche 911 drives much better than a 2012 Corvette because of the specs; you can't easily compare the two. Sure, the technology and the specs are far superior in the modern car with computerized everything, but does that really make it truly "better" for the user/driver/listener?

      Yes, CD's have a lower noise floor than vinyl, but the sampling rate of 44.1 kHz is well known to be set too low to be completely inaudible in the audiophile world (due to the supersonic filtering needed, etc.) Plus, the D/A converters in most consumer CD players are run-of-the-mill and they introduce digital artifacts (yes, inaudible, but perceptible overall). Have an honest listen to a classic analog recording on quality vinyl, such as Miles Davis' Bitches Brew (on a properly calibrated turntable with a decent stylus and proper phono preamp with RIAA EQ curve), and compared to the similarly mastered CD and if you're a real musician or an audiophile, you'll hear the difference right away.

    160. Re:LOL! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      CD audio is perfectly able to capture audio just as well as vinyl. There is nothing inherently superior about vinyl.

      You're forgetting aliasing. The closer you get to the nyquist limit, the worse the aliasing (past the limit you get unbearable, audible noise).

      A sqare wave does not sound like a sawtooth wave, and neither sounds like a sine wave. At 44k samples per second, there are three samples in a 17kHz tone. With only three samples, there is no difference between any of the waveforms. You have no such distortion with vinyl.

      Vinyl also wears out over time.

      I have LPs I bought in the late '60s that sound just as good as when new. Unless you have a REALLY crappy turntable with 20 grams of pressure, you aren't going to have any measurable wear whatever. Those old LPs your grandpa had? He probably scotch taped a penny to the tonearm to make his records stop skipping.

      There is no need for physical media. If you are getting a nice 'warm' sound from your vinyl, that is an artifact of the sound distortion being introduced by your amp, or other parts of your equipment

      No, the "warm" sound is the lack of alias distortion. If it were your amp you'd get the same "warm" sound from the MP3, which is playing through the same amp.

      However, were they to raise the sampling rate 10x the 44k they use now, digital wouold blow vinyl away. But as it stands, any LP that was mastered from analog media will sound better than its CD counterpart.

      Of course, if your tweeters are cheap shit, you're not going to hear any difference between a 17kHz sine and 17kHz sawtooth either. That's why good speakers had tweeters that would go well into the supersonic; I had a pair once that went to 30kHz.

      As an aside, if you sample an LP that wasn't taken care of to CD, then rip to MP3, the LP's artifacts will actually be increased! I'm not sure what causes it, but it's audible.

    161. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, if your tweeters are cheap shit, you're not going to hear any difference between a 17kHz sine and 17kHz sawtooth either

      You can't tell the difference between waveforms at 17kHz anyway... the 2nd harmonic is 34kHz and I can guarantee you can't hear that no matter how good your speakers are.

      So why would you need to preserve the difference?

    162. Re:LOL! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No, the 22kHz is the Nyquist LIMIT. You can't go past 22kHz with a 44k sample. And as you approach the Nyquist limit, as the GP says, the aliasing gets worse. If you didn't use the filter, any samples above 22kHz would be missampled and produce audible and nasty sounding noise as loud as the signal itself.

    163. Re:LOL! by Jay+L · · Score: 1

      Why is 44kHz seen as sufficient to capture all that information?, let alone the complexity of a song?

      Because you're thinking of the samples as "points along a line, which I can use to approximate the original wave." The power of Nyquist is that it's not an approximation; those points are sufficient to reproduce the EXACT waveform. A better way to think about it is this:

      There is only one waveform that goes through exactly those points. Given those points, you know which waveform it was.

      Think of a simpler version: Instead of sine waves, use a straight line. All straight lines are of the form y = mx+b. I have two samples: (1,2) and (2,4). I now have all the information in the original line. Not some of it, not an approximation, not an estimate - ALL of it.

      Nyquist/Shannon says that if your sample rate is greater than twice the highest frequency, you have ALL of the information.

    164. Re:LOL! by Boycott+BMG · · Score: 1

      mp3 only goes up to 48kHz/16bit. So unless you can hear the frequencies between 22 and 24 kHz, the CD will be better.

    165. Re:LOL! by dwywit · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I couldn't wrap my head around some of that stuff.

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    166. Re:LOL! by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

      Vinyl for home listening as it has superior sound quality

      I suspect you've been blasted on this already, but this is absolutely false. Vinyl has a higher noise floor and the sampling rate of digital audio is above the limit of human perception. If you're perceiving a difference, it's because of the mastering of the recordings. That or the placebo effect.

      I'm sorry, but this is completely wrong. Have you ever actually done a side by side listen?

      I was given a turntable as a gift - I was highly skeptical about the vinyl revival, probably as much as most people on ./ - but the first time I listened to one of my favourite albums played from a brand new vinyl pressing through a very modest pre-amp I was instantly converted. I would have listened to this album 1000+ times on CD/FLAC/MP3, yet on vinyl I could hear more detail and subtlety in the sound than I'd ever experienced before, and the overall sound was (for want of a better term) 'smoother' and more complete.

      This is playing the same album side by side through the same amp and speakers. There is no comparison. I am not an audiophile - my setup is very modest by hi-fi standards, components worth maybe $3000 in total.

      IMHO, if you buy a brand new album cut in 2011 on CD and vinyl, there is no question that anyone without serious hearing impairment can hear the difference and that the vinyl is vastly superior as a listening experience.

      This is one of those stupid memes on ./ that just won't die - a bunch of nerds with no actual experience of a decent turntable setup declaring that it's impossible that vinyl sounds better. It does. It really, really does. Do yourself a favour - pick out a favourite CD, get hold of the vinyl and play it through a decent turntable.

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    167. Re:LOL! by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

      I'd group the vinyl and tape people in with the vhs heads..

      Tape, maybe. Vinyl, no, you are wrong.

      Tell me, have you ever listened to a newly pressed vinyl played through a half-decent hi fi? No? Then you don't really know what the hell you're talking about, do you?

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    168. Re:LOL! by caitsith01 · · Score: 1

      I know it may sound crazy, but it really pisses me off when I see a $20+ Bluray title, with super high resolution compared to the LD, and yet still have bullshit encoding artifacts in high speed motion scenes. LD did not have that.

      With the greatest of respect, you're insane. I've watched hundreds of blu rays and noticed distracting artifacts on maybe 3 or 4 of them. You are preventing yourself from enjoying by far the best home theatre experience yet devised on the basis of OCD-type concerns about a very minor issue.

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    169. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The audio of Laserdisc wasn't stereo, high bandwidth, or even digital!!! HiFi audio was bandaid'ed on after the fact. Pathetic."

      What's pathetic is your lack of knowledge of the format you're ranting about. You're confusing LaserDisc with VHS.

      LaserDisc absolutely *did* have digital stereo; the primary audio tracks were stored in the same fashion as audio CDs were -- 44.1KHz sample rate, 16-bit samples. They could *also* have a secondary audio track that was analog -- but it, too, was capable of stereo; it was 2-channel FM modulation, on 2.3Mhz and 2.8Mhz subcarriers. (However, most disc players could be made to play only the left or right track alone, so these were sometimes used for commentary tracks or dubbed foreign-language versions in mono.) Granted, not all of the 1st-generation disc players *supported* the digital-audio tracks, but they were always provided for in the standard from day one.

    170. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because whoever remastered the CD screwed with the dynamic range to make it sound "louder" for radio.

    171. Re:LOL! by EdIII · · Score: 1

      OCD-Type?

      Hardly. If the picture is bad, the picture is bad. You don't have to obsessive compulsive to not be satisfied with it.

      YMMV. I have noticed the waterfall effect on every single Bluray release I have seen everywhere. You might not be picking it up. That is not on crappy hardware either. People I have watched it on had the higher end Bluray players with the latest TVs and HDMI connectors.

      For the record the primary reason I not enjoying the "by far best home theater experience yet devised" is totalitarian DRM that completely removes all value and joy from the platform.

      I stick with DVD and will be doing so till the next revolution comes around without DRM. Yes, I know, that DVD technically has CSS. That is hardly a roadblock though and I can still make 1:1 backups and preserve the originals. While piracy is a very easy option to me with significantly mitigated risks, I compensate copyright owners to a reasonable extent where possible.

      If the next revolution comes around and it is still burdened with DRM and activation servers..... and DVD goes away...... I will just go 100% piracy and not look back. Not for one second will I spend money and not actually own something. That means no Sony products anywhere near me if I have the option, and that includes Bluray.

      If I really had OCD, I could not watch DVD either or Netflix on my WDTV Live Plus. Even with excellent bandwidth the Netflix streaming can start picking artifacts very quickly when it downgrades in response to any bandwidth issues that arise.

    172. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The MAFIAA isn't the problem, SACD and Audio DVD formats are out there, It's just the general dumb population that continue to think CD is good enough and anything newer would be DRM-laden to not bother with.

    173. Re:LOL! by brantondaveperson · · Score: 1

      I remember some metallica vinyl that a friend had back in the day, each side had a single track on it and the grooves were *miles* apart and wobbled side to side by what looked like a few millimeters. I bet that vinyl sounded fucking awesome, but being back in the day all we had was a cheap crap plastic stereo and it sounded a bit rubbish. Shame.

    174. Re:LOL! by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Try 70s and 80s sci fi, especially TV movies and failed pilots along with short lived series. i personally love these cheese fests like Northstar and Gemini Man because being sci fi they tried to be "cutting edge" which just made them REALLY locked to the time period, kinda like how those 70s and 80s pornos would try to be "hip to the times" so you had guys with bell bottoms and kick ass 70s funk in the 70s or girls with leg warmers and feathered hair and early 80s synth pop in the 80s.

      Sadly many of those failed 70s and 80s sci fi were released on VHS but never on DVD and good luck finding them on P2P. here is one that is newer i can't find, see if you can...12:01PM with the guy that played Red on that 70s show. It was a damned good (and more than a little depressing) short story about a man trapped in a single hour that kept looping. Now you can often find the upbeat remake based on the original idea but good luck finding the original.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    175. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nyquist/Shannon says that if your sample rate is greater than twice the highest frequency, you have ALL of the information.

      I'm surprised you haven't been blasted on this yet, but your statement is only true if you have infinite resolution.

      In practice, sampling is limited by quantization error - and on CDs, you only get 16 bits of resolution. That will allow you to get very close to the original information, but not to reproduce it exactly.

    176. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Your argument would be more persuasive if you had gotten anything you said right."

      Thats a fabulous quote. I may have to use it as a sig.

      on a related note, i read "pay grade" as "gay pride". also fabulous

    177. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get out your sound editor and generate two tracks with an 8kHz sine wave and an 8kHz square wave. Go ahead, do it. I'll wait. If you haven't got one there's a free one called "Audacity" that can do it.

      Listen to both tracks. If you can't tell the difference between those two you're a cloth-eared nincompoop (don't worry, you will...)

      I did this in Audacity, and the square wave was aliased to hell. Looking at the spectrum, it was full of noise.

      Then I did it again with the tracks and project sampling rates set to 96kHz. I generated an 8kHz sine wave and 8kHz square wave and absolutely could not tell any difference.

      The spectrum was nice and clean, too... the fundamental at 8kHz, and two clear harmonic spikes at 24kHz and 40kHz.

      Looks like you're the "cloth-eared nincompoop." You really don't know what you're doing, do you?

    178. Re:LOL! by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

      this is why they'll never release anything past the first season of malcolm in the middle

      --
      ...
    179. Re:LOL! by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

      I stick with DVD and will be doing so till the next revolution comes around without DRM. Yes, I know, that DVD technically has CSS. That is hardly a roadblock though and I can still make 1:1 backups and preserve the originals.

      you can currently do all that with blu-ray.

      --
      ...
    180. Re:LOL! by sixsixtysix · · Score: 1

      burn my iTunes library directly to this superior medium.

      wouldn't the source also have to be completely analog to achieve this so-called audio nirvana. once the jaggies are there, there are there, which is why i never understood releasing modern, digitally manipulated stuff on vinyl (aside from djing, although maybe those cd-dj decks have come along way from their initial hokey-ness).

      --
      ...
    181. Re:LOL! by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Purchasing Bluray, and the increasingly Internet connected players with their evolving DRM, is an endorsement of their behavior financially and philosophically.

      I simply cannot support that and must make the statement with my wallet that I am not willing to participate at any cost.

    182. Re:LOL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Human hearing is based on moving little hairs in the inner ear, it's obvious the hair won't respond the same to a sine wave and a square wave at the same frequency.

      When you talk about the "frequency" of a square wave, you're really talking about the fundamental. The hair cell will respond to the fundamental of each waveform identically (assuming they have the same energy).

      Whether the cell responds to the 3rd harmonic of the square wave, or any higher ones, is a different question. If they're above 20kHz, it's not very likely.

    183. Re:LOL! by kmoser · · Score: 1

      Actually, you could buy a device that sat between the two VCRs and boosted the signal so it could be copied quite well. Or so I've heard.

    184. Re:LOL! by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      Artifacts- I'll bet you that many of those artifacts that you see are due to your equipment and it's settings. Most likely it's your TV doing post-processing causing the artifacts.

    185. Re:LOL! by EdIII · · Score: 1

      I don't have Bluray or HD. I refused to buy it till the "war" settled down and the DRM issue was sorted out. Bluray won, but the DRM got worse.

      Post processing and the equipment was one of the thoughts that I had. I do have a basic understanding of the technology. My experiences have been with others, in their expensive home theaters, and it was lacking to me. More specifically, it did not have the value required to really put up with the bullshit of Bluray.

      It's a pretty wide range of equipment I have seen artifacts on, and to be fair, I am looking for them. I have even done some research on some occasions and have got the artifacts to be reduced.

      My response was about the supposed perfect fidelity of digital as it exists in the marketplace. Of course with proper equipment, and proper settings, and proper encoding, artifacts can be greatly mitigated. Even more so in the future. On average though, they are not. That was my point.

      So VHS and Bluray do *have* something in common. There is impaired quality in most viewings. That's all I was trying to say.

      I just have to live with it every day. Especially with Netflix and streaming media. I'm not being anal retentive about it as we are a hell of lot better off than we were in the 60's and 70's. My issue is spending $20 for crap encoding that the best equipment and settings cannot fix. I'm sure you are not telling me that you have not run across some pretty sketchy Bluray releases right?

    186. Re:LOL! by stewartjm · · Score: 1

      Due to noise, actual converters are limited to about 21 bits of dynamic range. 32, and even 64-bit floats can be useful for in memory representations, but provide zero benefit for fixed storage.

      For a final mix, properly dithered 44.1kHz, 16-bit will cover everything from a whisper to about as loud as you can listen to without incurring permanent hearing loss. And that includes golden eared humans. No one can ABX between a high quality 16-bit ADC-DAC pair, and a wire, at say 40-90dB recording and listening levels.

      At the recording and mixing stages, the extra precision/dynamic range of a "24-bit" recording is useful, mainly to avoid clipping. Along with some slight gains when mixing 10s to hundreds of sources together.

      Nominally going 96, instead of 44/48 is the equivalent of having 1 more bit of precision at 44/48. At the cost of doubling the storage required.

      You'd really be best off recording at 96kHz/24-bit and then immediately re-sampling to 48kHz/24-bit. You'd have what little extra human hearing range information the 96kHz recording provides, without doubling the storage space.

      Of course in reality, the 21-bit converter may perform worse at 96, than it does at 44/48, so you may not gain anything at all. Though, I think, these days, most of the high quality converters can get you 20ish bits at up to 192kHz. But even at 192, you could re-sample back down to 44/48, and keep all the audible precision. You'd have to go up to about 700kHz, while maintaining 21 bits of base recording precision, to be able to capture anything in the human hearing range, beyond what a 44/48 24-bit recording can contain.

      These days, there's virtually no difference between 44 and 48 kHz, you can re-sample between the two nearly perfectly with modern computers, and modern(circa 1990s and later) over-sampling converters can do a nearly perfect job with either.

      In the late 70s and early 80s, 48kHz, let you get slightly better quality, out of slightly cheaper analog anti-aliasing/reconstruction filters. 48kHz also fit more neatly into some ancient digital tape format. It doesn't really matter which you use these days. Not to mention, it also let component manufacturers, extract more money from professionals by offering a pro model with 4 more kHz.

      To sum up, as a storage format, with modern audio hardware, 44.1kHz 24-bit can contain everything that can be captured with a microphone, that is within the human hearing range. 96kHz workflows exist due to marketing, not science.

    187. Re:LOL! by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      * If you can build a perfect filter. Good luck with that.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    188. Re:LOL! by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      It was arbitrarily selected based on the sample rate used in a very early digital format recorded onto Sony U-matic tapes. The sample rate for that was based on the maximum fidelity of the tape and related to the 15kHz video frequency.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    189. Re:LOL! by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      You can only push vinyl so far before the cutting head jumps out of the groove and destroys the master, this is particularly true of bass frequencies, so while you could in theory compress the whole track as you would a CD your peaks would be substantially less than they could possibly be, because of this it would sound slightly flatter than other records that used the full dynamic range of the disc.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    190. Re:LOL! by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      dvds support LPCM at 48khz as well.

    191. Re:LOL! by operagost · · Score: 1

      The original Macrovision used to put an oscillating signal into the vertical blanking interval. Most VCRs had automatic gain circuitry that couldn't be turned off, and they interpreted this signal as part of the luminance information. The result was a picture that grew darker and lighter, and sometimes caused TVs to lose their hold. Black boxes could be built (and once were sold in magazines) to strip out the signal. One workaround my dad stumbled on was to use composite video booster that had its own manually adjustable gain. If you set the gain high enough, the AGC in the VCR would already be maxed out so the Macrovision signal would have no effect.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    192. Re: LOL! by operagost · · Score: 1

      I had a Panasonic Hi-Fi unit that lasted for 15 years (could still be alive now if I'd felt like replacing a belt) and I still have a later Panasonic Hi-Fi that is about 12 years old. Frankly, the older one was better, in that the picture quality was just as good but it didn't have stupid "features" the later unit has. For example: first rewinding at one speed, then coming to a COMPLETE STOP, and continuing to rewind at a slightly faster speed. Fortunately, I haven't had to use the thing in at least a year.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    193. Re:LOL! by operagost · · Score: 1

      Only if you use the $50 Monster cables.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    194. Re:LOL! by operagost · · Score: 1
      That's not a failing of the format, is it? I have CDs from the 80s and 90s before the loudness war, but after the "let's make a CD from a vinyl master to save time" era; they sound very good. I wonder if today's vinyl masters are being done properly, considering the hideous things they're doing to the digital masters.

      Side note: the cheap phono/tape/CD/radio units in pretty retro boxes are apparently designed by people who never heard of the RIAA curve. My LPs sound noisy with no low end. That's not a fault of the vinyl.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  7. Trapped films by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Some great films are indeed effectively trapped on VHS. In some cases they are never transferred to DVD/Blu-Ray, in other cases the quality of the transfer is pitiful compared to the VHS. In others, they are only available for a limited number of regions.

    One example: They Might Be Giants

    (I was going to mention The Lighthorsemen , but there is allegedly a Blu-Ray that exists now - but is it truly available?)

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:Trapped films by evilsofa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not a film, but a very significant example of being trapped on VHS is CNN's Cold War documentary. 24 hour-long episodes covering the whole Cold War, start to finish, with an unbelievable roster of interviews including Fidel Castro, Walter Cronkite, Henry Kissinger, Robert MacNamara, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Lech Walesa, Aldritch Ames, Mikhail Gorbachev, and more. Never released to DVD, because the series came out in 1998. Then 9/11 hit, and material in episodes 19 and 20 that covered the Russian Afghan war were re-classified by the Bush administration; CNN would not be allowed to republish that material. The DVD market went big-time shortly after, and CNN decided not to transfer an incomplete product. If you ever get a chance to see it, do so. It's worth your time. It's a pity that you pretty much can't obtain it legally anymore.

    2. Re:Trapped films by monzie · · Score: 5, Informative

      But we have youtube. And there are a lot of people who have taken pains to put up such documentaries on the site. The Cold War documentary that you mentioned can be seen at Cold War Full Length Documentary

    3. Re:Trapped films by jonwil · · Score: 1

      Anyone know what was in these episodes that made them verboten after 9/11?
      Was it the way that the documentary painted the Muslim Afghans as the "good guys" for fighting against the "evil communists"? (the same Muslims the US has been fighting for the last 10 years or so)

    4. Re:Trapped films by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If I had to guess, it'd be that and the fact that we supplied them with tons of guns and training.

    5. Re:Trapped films by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean this documentary.
      Thank goodness we have piracy....

    6. Re:Trapped films by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Walmart sells it on DVD. Says it has the two "forbidden" episodes, wonder if their doctored.

    7. Re:Trapped films by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then 9/11 hit, and material in episodes 19 and 20 that covered the Russian Afghan war were re-classified by the Bush administration; CNN would not be allowed to republish that material.

      Private organizations aren't forbidden from publishing material classified by the government. In fact, this would require the government to acknowledge the existence and classification of such information, which they generally won't do.

      How exactly was CNN forbidden from publishing this documentary by the government? Do you have any sources to support this?

  8. Thanks Macrovision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Its returning thanks to Macrovision and George Lucas.

    I have the real trilogy, with Han shooting first, on VHS, nicely locked away on Macrovision.

    Help digitizing that would be nice.

    1. Re:Thanks Macrovision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look for the Star Wars Despecialized Edition.

      You can thank me after you finish downloading it.

    2. Re:Thanks Macrovision by captjc · · Score: 1

      Lucas did put the original theatrical releases on DVD as a bonus disc when you buy the DVD releases of the original trilogy. They are completely unaltered but also more or less VHS quality with non-anamorphic widescreen.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
    3. Re:Thanks Macrovision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something like the Canopus ADVC-110 will do the trick. Macrovision is pretty easy to get around.

    4. Re:Thanks Macrovision by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      Find the laserdisc version, or buy a full frame time-base corrector and digitize the VHS.

    5. Re:Thanks Macrovision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Macrovision consisted of a very high signal level between frames, which confused the auto-level-adjust circuits in VCRs into recording black. Most modern capture cards attempt to detect this and refuse to record. To digitize, you either need a card that doesn't, or do what people did to copy VHS to VHS: a simple lowpass filter will remove Macrovision protection.

  9. Well I for one won't be going back to VHS.. by Billlagr · · Score: 1

    I had a Beta. Yeah, that's right. Beta top-loader.

  10. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't go to a regular theater if someone paid -me-. People have lost the ability to understand that their behavior in a quiet movie theater affects others. Gum chompers, bag rattlers, talkers, cell phone texters et al, have ruined the experience with the exception of over 21 theaters.

    Now, in my nice home theater, I can still invite friends, or converse with them afterwards on the subject matter. Without having to deal with what is frankly an unwashed, noisy, ill behaved mob easily provoked to confrontation when their behavior is pointed out to them.

    In short, fuck the public experience. It stopped working when the "it's all about me" crowd arrived.

  11. I think we all know the real driver by paiute · · Score: 0

    If there were no porn, we would still be using Beta. The kids would be rewatching that tape of The Last Unicorn that you bought for $120 over and over and over.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:I think we all know the real driver by Billlagr · · Score: 1

      I'd forgotten about that - not the porn, but movies WERE about the $100 mark initially, which is probably one driver behind video hire stores really taking off initially. Back on to the porn, I had a friend bring back a copy (of a copy of a copy..) of a porno from the USA when he went on a visit..we were gutted when we discovered that it wouldn't play back on a PAL player..

    2. Re:I think we all know the real driver by godel_56 · · Score: 1

      I'd forgotten about that - not the porn, but movies WERE about the $100 mark initially, which is probably one driver behind video hire stores really taking off initially. Back on to the porn, I had a friend bring back a copy (of a copy of a copy..) of a porno from the USA when he went on a visit..we were gutted when we discovered that it wouldn't play back on a PAL player..

      Most of the more modern PAL VHS recorders will play back NTSC tapes, but not record them.

    3. Re:I think we all know the real driver by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Bull...Shit. SO tired of this crappy urban myth.

      I HAD porn on BETA. Debbie Does Dallas, and one other whose name I can't remember. I assume there weren't only two titles.

      Sony licensing costs, and tape length killed Beta in the consumer market.

      It's that same Bullshit that people think porn drives innovation; which is patently false. It jumps on all technology, winners and losers.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  12. aisles, not isles by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Informative
    "browsing isles is no more"

    TFA (http://techzwn.com/2012/02/interview-filmmakers-tell-of-the-home-video-revolution/ ) says "Something was lost when videos went from magnetic tape and plastic, to plastic discs, and now to digital streams. Browsing aisles is no more, as the once-great video shops slowly board up their windows across the country."

    So the submitter actually changed it.

    Sigh.

    1. Re:aisles, not isles by penguinchris · · Score: 1

      Or, the original site spotted and fixed the mistake after the submitter copied and pasted it.

    2. Re:aisles, not isles by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      Or the slashdot editor 'corrected' it.

      (Unknown lamer? Who the fuck is that?)

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    3. Re:aisles, not isles by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      "Or the slashdot editor 'corrected' it."

      I checked the submission, it had "isle"; the Slashdot "editor" was equally illiterate and didn't notice.

    4. Re:aisles, not isles by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      "Or the slashdot editor 'corrected' it."

      I checked the submission, it had "isle"; the Slashdot "editor" was equally illiterate and didn't notice.

      You're just trying to do extra work to make up for those of us who don't bother reading the summaries half the time, let alone the articles. Investigating the submission? Inconceivable!

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    5. Re:aisles, not isles by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      we hav seen teh enemey, & he iz us?

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    6. Re:aisles, not isles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inconceivable!

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    7. Re:aisles, not isles by pnot · · Score: 1
    8. Re:aisles, not isles by 1u3hr · · Score: 1

      Okay, so the submitter wasn't quite as ignorant as I thought; didn't make the error, but didn't notice it either.

    9. Re:aisles, not isles by 6Yankee · · Score: 1

      Submitter might have sold his boat...

  13. Stupid by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Stupid article, stupid person, stupid premise, stupid argument. Stupid stupid stupid. Video has followed the same trajectory as audio, from analog to to digital physical to downloads. Except that analog video sucks just as much as, if not more so than, analog audio tapes. I know there's something of a vinyl resurgence, and I even think there's something to it (not audio quality, experience), but there's a reason nobody ever wants to screw around with audio tapes again. They're a pain in the ass, there's static, you need to rewind them, etc. Except video is even more finicky. Remember screwing with the tracking? Pulling the tape out of the box and finding it not rewound? Finding a particular scene?

    And is he seriously arguing that obscure films are *more* obscure now that you can watch them online, as opposed to finding them tucked away somewhere in the local video store? I'm also pretty sure that those obscure films have been digitized and are easy to "acquire" if you wanted to watch them.

    DVDs are superior to VHS in literally every respect. You don't have to rewind them, random access is as easy as sequential access, quality is better, audio is better (5.1 channels), smaller media, smaller players, quieter players, no static, no head cleaning, no moving parts in the media, cheaper media, extra features... the list goes on and on.

    Stupid.

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    1. Re:Stupid by slimjim8094 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I should add that I understand and accept that VHS was revolutionary for giving people the ability, for the first time, to consume media on their own schedule. Being able to record something to watch it later is a big deal, and we've actually taken a step backwards in that respect - less people have DVRs than had VHS recorders (though I'm not sure most people taped much - I know I only did it occasionally because it was a pain).

      But we moved away from VHS as soon as possible, much like we did with the hand-starter in a car. And that's a good thing.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    2. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DVDs are superior to VHS in literally every respect.

      Actually, there's at least one technical respect in which VHS is better: vertical chroma resolution. DVDs use 4:2:0 subsampling, so there is only row of samples for every two scanlines (and for interlaced content, the result can be a mess), whereas VHS retains the full vertical resolution.

    3. Re:Stupid by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      Fair enough, but that's a pretty subtle difference compared to other image quality metrics. Even on an old 480i CRT, where VHS arguably looks its best, there's noticeably less definition than a DVD.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    4. Re:Stupid by jpwilliams · · Score: 1

      Technically better doesn't mean superior to everyone. Some, as the article says, are into the nostalgia. Nothing wrong with that.

    5. Re:Stupid by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      DVDs use 4:2:0 subsampling, so there is only row of samples for every two scanlines (and for interlaced content, the result can be a mess), whereas VHS retains the full vertical resolution.

      Of course DVDs have several times the horizontal chroma resolution, which is why VHS colors bleed like crazy.

    6. Re:Stupid by Sir_Sri · · Score: 1

      A lot of people who taped taped religiously though. It meant people could watch a daytime only show while going to work. People from that age group are generally baffled by DVR's though, and any of the rest of the technology I take for granted.

      Trying to explain to someone in their late 70's how to record with the 'push of a button' (ya right...) on one box, that they may or may not be able to access in another room on a different TV is not trivial. So I still see a lot of people with VCR's and stacks of fresh VHS tapes from a few years ago because they can't figure out modern technology. The analogue to digital conversion hurt these users a lot because a lot of VHS players won't behave the same way with their converters and they can't get their shows the way they want.

    7. Re:Stupid by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      I'm sympathetic to that argument, but not with VHS/DVR. VHS is an astonishing pain to set up to record in advance. Substantially harder than setting the clock (which as we all know is nearly impossible, apparently). And even more difficult now that they're no longer publishing the "VCR+" codes (remember those?) that made it only mildly unpleasant instead of quite unpleasant. Recording a show that's currently on is equally easy for each - just hit the "record" button - except that the DVR will start from where you tuned to the channel, if you've been watching for 5 minutes, and automatically "labels" the recording with the name and time.

      Frankly, I can't believe that somebody can set a recording to happen in the future can't find the same show at the same time on the guide and hit "record" there instead. Compare "Menu->Schedule recording->Time/Date/Channel/Duration" to "Guide-> (Scroll to channel, date and time, channel and show helpfully named for your convenience) -> Record". Of course, some will refuse to do it merely because it's different, but I'm not particularly interested in catering to them (and it says more about the person than their age).

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    8. Re:Stupid by EdIII · · Score: 1

      I'll tell you what is not subtle between digital and analog. Compression artifacts. Those actually bother me more since DVD, being digital and all, is supposed to have more "fidelity". In most cases DVDs are pretty okay. Where it gets downright ridiculous is Bluray that I have seen. Can those retards not encode properly? Even on the best set ups I have seen embarrassing artifacts on high speed motion scenes.

      It should be nice, clean, and smooth. Anything else is a compromise, and to me similar to VHS in that respect.

      Definition is one thing, but artifacts is like that one dropping of rat shit on an otherwise perfect New York Cheesecake.

      I agree with you that it is pretty stupid to go back to VHS when there is an alternative, but analog video reached its peak with LD. That was quality on par with DVD every day of the week. LD had easily at least 90% of the definition of DVD and none of the drawbacks of VHS.

      When I can get proper encodings of video I will agree with your statement about digital "fidelity".

    9. Re:Stupid by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      vhs was worse than 4:1:1 (DV). the original standard was 3Mhz luma and 300khz for both color channels (ntsc has 500 for each iirc). it was probably the lowest quality video standard mass produced. it might have had a greater percentage of its bw allocated to color than say a 4:2:0 DVD, but that's not saying much when the total bw differed so greatly that 4:2:0 sources still had better color resolution.

    10. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that some people with basic cable get it with an analog signal. It's quite difficult to find a good DVR that can record from analog, and if you get something better than basic cable some suppliers takes messures to prevent you from recording stuff so you have to use thier on-demand service or whatever instead. For example having to use the supplied or a preaproved "Set-top box". Then the cheapest way to record stuff might be to record the analog antenna/scart signal, but then you get back to the problem of finding a good DVR that can record from analog.

    11. Re:Stupid by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      "Except that analog video sucks just as much as, if not more so than, analog audio tapes."

      Really? I record in 96K sample rate and 24bit that is far better than anything you have in a "old medium" and that is with a low end recording device. Highe end goes far higher than that does.

      Just because what you can buy at the store is complete crap and mastered by morons does not mean that is the state of digital audio.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    12. Re:Stupid by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Being able to record something to watch it later is a big deal, and we've actually taken a step backwards in that respect - less people have DVRs than had VHS recorders

      Those without DVRs are still better off than in the VHS days because they can use the internet to catch programs they missed.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A VHS tape if it gets tangled or messed up won't break bones in your hand much like the hand-starter would if the engine back-fired.

    14. Re:Stupid by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but where is the scratches, popping and needle skip? Won't anyone think of the romanticized childhood!

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:Stupid by lostchicken · · Score: 1
      --
      -twb
  14. I would never go back to VHS by xQuarkDS9x · · Score: 2

    Although VHS was very useful back in the 80's and 90's for recording various TV shows there was always playback issues between various brands of VHS machines simply because of how one machine recorded the show, the next one might have issues with grainy playback, fast forwarding or rewinding, or even audio issues. And remember the fun of buying the VHS cleaning tapes to try and keep the head(s) clean for optimal playback? Fun times!

    --
    You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
    1. Re:I would never go back to VHS by sjames · · Score: 1

      Wow, you must have bought some really crappy VCRs!

    2. Re:I would never go back to VHS by xQuarkDS9x · · Score: 1

      Wow, you must have bought some really crappy VCRs!

      I seem to recall in the household growing up we had common name brands like Hitachi, JVC, Sony, etcetera, so it wasn't like my family was buying the most cheapest brands around at the time. Mind you though if you wanted crappy VCRs, the ones made by RCA in the early 80's that were heavy enough to kill someone and weighed about 60 pounds would certainly qualify!

      --
      You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
    3. Re:I would never go back to VHS by sjames · · Score: 1

      I said that because my experience with perfectly run of the mill VCRs has been that they inter-operated fine and needed a minute spent once a year or so running a cleaning tape through. I still have 2 working VCRs from the '90s that I actually use. One was built in to an inexpensive TV and the other was a $40 standalone.

    4. Re:I would never go back to VHS by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      Although VHS was very useful back in the 80's and 90's for recording various TV shows there was always playback issues between various brands of VHS machines simply because of how one machine recorded the show, the next one might have issues with grainy playback, fast forwarding or rewinding, or even audio issues. And remember the fun of buying the VHS cleaning tapes to try and keep the head(s) clean for optimal playback? Fun times!

      What I remember about VHS tapes is how they wear out. Our daughter had a handful of favorite tapes that she'd always want to watch - some I suspect were played 100 times, easy. Whether or not they were technically wearing down, or the magnetic bits were getting realigned, or whatever - after a certain point they'd always start to degrade.

      Oh, and remember the alignment issues? And the little dials you'd use to fine-tune the channels?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    5. Re:I would never go back to VHS by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Maybe you didn't rent videos much? A single bad video was all it took to dirty up a freshly cleaned VCR.

      Although, I seem to remember VCRs lasted a long time. The one we had lasted around 15 years, so maybe the OP had more than one VCR at a time, and that's why he had trouble transferring from one VCR to another?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    6. Re:I would never go back to VHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did rent quite a lot of videos. Or actually got them for free since I was working in a video rental shop for a few years. I don't recall ever having issues playing the videos in different VCRs.

    7. Re:I would never go back to VHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I remember the cheaper VCRs was actually better when it comes to compatability, the more expensive ones almost made it into a point not to be compatable with each other,.

      like:
      "Look how good this video* looks played back on this Sony VCR, and then look how bad it looks if we play it on this randomly choosen** Hitachi VCR. That Hitachi VCR must be really bad! Make everybody you know buy a Sony VCR, Best Quality, Best Compatability!"

      *recoded on a sony VCR
      **not really randomly choosen, we bought 100 of these and used the lemon.

    8. Re:I would never go back to VHS by PhotoJim · · Score: 1

      Once we got automatic tracking on VHS VCRs - which if I recall became common in the late 1980s - this problem substantially disappeared. You could still manually track automatic-tracking VCRs if you knew how, and once in awhile it was helpful to avoid video or audio distortion.

      The consistent issue I saw was that of the three recording speeds - SP, LP (doubled recording time) and EP (tripled recording time), few VCRs supported LP well. Video usually disappeared during fast forward and rewind tape scanning, when it wouldn't using the other two speeds. Also, most "modern" VCRs won't record at LP speed although they will play it back. Still, it was not very commonly used.

    9. Re:I would never go back to VHS by PhotoJim · · Score: 1

      Automatic tracking and automatic tuning became universal in VCRs after a few years and helped a lot.

      I bought my first VCR in about 1990 - I know, late adopter - and it had both of these features. It even had a "cable eye" that would let it control cable boxes (and it still works on modern digital cable boxes, although the highest channel number it will take is 199).

    10. Re:I would never go back to VHS by ajlisows · · Score: 1

      As annoying as the "Wear Out Problems" and "Messing with the tracking dials" were, they were nothing compared to the "I'm going to shred your tape behind repair. You will have to spend 15 minutes digging the remains out from my bowels" aspect of VHS players. My last VHS player was a major offender in this category and I often avoided watching my favorite movies because I was in fear of them getting destroyed.

      No, I don't think I miss VHS at all.

    11. Re:I would never go back to VHS by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      I recall VCRs that were damn hard to mess up. I particularly remember one that took a peanutbutter and jelly sandwich and several crayons and still managed to play tapes fine after a little cleaning.

    12. Re:I would never go back to VHS by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      I'd managed to blank that particular memory out, but you've helped it resurface. Thanks... I think.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    13. Re:I would never go back to VHS by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If only the media they played didn't degrade. Sigh.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  15. I guess that means me. by CAIMLAS · · Score: 2

    I guess this means me. I fit the demographic. I was born in the early 1980s.

    There is something 'missing' in the digital remasters of films, though arguably it's of a non-quantifiable aesthetic. Arguably, it's something of nostalgia, and I'd grant someone who argues it that way.

    I remember, as a child, watching The Lone Ranger. Not the black and white, but the movie made in the 1980s (or early 90s). It'd come off television and had the start and finish of the ad segmens; my grandfather had recorded it for us, carefully stopping/recording at the appropriate parts - but we still had parts of he "We now return you to USA's Friday Night Movie".

    My brother and I also had an VHS 'copy' of the original Batman serials from television in the late 1940s ( I think). The cars were big, there was no color, and the "Batmobile" was no different than any of the other cars. (Much better than the 1950s Batman, IMO.) The same goes for the b&w Superman, which we recorded off of reruns off TV, at some point. The Batman serials, we'd somehowmanaged to record about 20 seconds over the middle - some Micromachines commercial, right in the middle of a fight scene.

    Flashing forward, I saw most of my favorite movies first on VHS: Die Hard, The Saint, Braveheart, Terminator, Commando. A favorite VHS had character, of sorts. You could tell it was well watched when the colors had started to fade and there was static or muddled audio. There was no jumping around randomly for favorite scenes. Many of them had been recorded off the TV by one person or another and passed around amongst friends. It wasn't until over a decade later that saw the full, non-edited-for-TV version of Commando (awesome!).

    And then there was rainy days, snow days, or really-bad-storm days. You'd sit at home with the generator on (if you had one) and maybe watch movies while someone made food. You'd sort through a dozen different movies to find one that didn't suck, and you'd look for something to like or something to make fun of: it'd end up becoming a favorite for one reason or another.

    That said: most of these people need to get a life. :) While I will grant you that the 1980s was the last great decade of America (for some time to come, at least), if you get too wrapped up in 1980s VHS films, you've got something wrong with you. I believe the term is "reality avoidance".

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:I guess that means me. by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 2

      While I will grant you that the 1980s was the last great decade of America (for some time to come, at least), if you get too wrapped up in 1980s VHS films, you've got something wrong with you. I believe the term is "reality avoidance".

      Especially since everybody who grew up in the 1980s knows that Betamax was better than VHS in every way.

    2. Re:I guess that means me. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's you, romanticism your childhood.

      as proof:
      "1980s was the last great decade of America"

      no. No it wasn't.
      As a child of the 60's I can say for certain that the 90's where the last great decade. Nothing through out all of history has change the world more then wide scale internet adoption.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:I guess that means me. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Only if you like to tape things under 2 hours.
      You know what else was popular in the 80s? movies with lengths of 2+ hours.

      And Common demographically targeted shows where in blocks of 4 hours. Usually.

      So if you wanted details that would only be noticeable in specifically instance and by people who get a rise out of picking out those detail, and where happy with only 2 hours, then sure Betamax was the way to go.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  16. How about? by arsemonkey · · Score: 1

    Remember the seemingly outrageous fines for destroying a tape? Remember getting home from the video store to find you had artifacts on the lower 2/3 of the screen? How about the video cassette rewinding machine, god knows that JVC vcr was built to last eons. don't miss it at all.. not one bit.

    1. Re:How about? by PhotoJim · · Score: 1

      I miss one thing about it: it was easy to record something and then let someone else watch it. Oh, you missed Television Show last night? Here's the tape. (Tapes were also cheap so it wasn't a big deal if you didn't get the tape back.)

      Of course, you can do this today but it's significantly more work to do it. I actually picked up a cheap DVD recorder so that I can dump content onto DVD painlessly, but unfortunately it won't turn HD video downconverted into 480i into anamorphic format so that you can still watch it as widescreen content. It's less work to go get the HD torrent, but I have a little better technical knowledge than the average person.

    2. Re:How about? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " but it's significantly more work to do it. "
      wha? you mean push the button that copies content from my DVR to my Burner? yeah, real hard.

      "Are you from the past?"

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:How about? by Ol+Biscuitbarrel · · Score: 1

      There's an excellent movie store in Portland Oregon, Movie Madness, who used to have a section for rare music video. Really amazing stuff but you had to cough up a $100 deposit to take something home. Whereas now there's just an utter avalanche of this sort of thing on YT.

  17. Technology is sometimes democritizing by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 1

    [...] how it changed our culture giving B movies and films that didn't make the silver screen their own chance to shine.

    The advance in technology has helped this more than harmed it. These days, put it up on Youtube to get known. Hell, put up a concept on a website just in hopes of funding. The passing of VHS and the arrival of streaming has been democratizing. If you're afraid of losing it, burn it onto a DVD. That DVD you burned will outlast any VHS tape and will do so through many, many plays. How many of us who grew up in the 80's didn't suffer the disappointment of losing our favorite film to a hungry VCR (I suspect my family, who were sick of rewatching the same movie rigged the thing to destroy the tape).

    1. Re:Technology is sometimes democritizing by rdebath · · Score: 1

      If you're afraid of losing it, burn it onto a DVD. That DVD you burned will outlast any VHS tape

      Um, no. It's true if you play the disk/tape every day the VHS will wear out in less than 100 passes. But even if you leave them on the shelf the DVD±R will rot, it will get harder to play it will skip and judder until the day, very soon, that it's no longer seen as a DVD±R. The VHS will just sit there for decades.

      Pressed silver DVDs do last longer, but repeated handling will eventually make them delaminate.

      At this point in time I understand the best high capacity digital archive format is the DLT/LTO style tape cassette, it should reliably last at least 20 years on the shelf or 250 full passes whichever is sooner with no handling issues. Writeable DVDs usually die in less than five years.

      If you want lots of playbacks, put it on the hard disk in your PVR.

    2. Re:Technology is sometimes democritizing by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, DLT is awesome, and expensive. Far more expensive then bruning a new copy every 10 years.

      "Writeable DVDs usually die in less than five years."
      nope.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  18. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

    In short, fuck the public experience. It stopped working when the "it's all about me" crowd arrived.

    That crowd doesn't go to see an Ingmar Bergman film from several years prior. You should expand your cinematic horizons and stop watching the newest teen vampire movie as it comes out.

    Going to a cinema like this is like going to a jazz club. You won't get the usual crowd of idiots, but likely have a great opportunity to meet some interesting people and have an intelligent conversation.

    --
    Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
  19. Edited for clarity by billcopc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    $HIPSTERS and the $MEANINGLESS_ADJECTIVE return of $OBSOLETE_KITSCH

    I am not a VHS fanatic. Even in the 80's, I hated the format. VHS tapes are/were made to the cheapest possible materials, so they wore out very easily and were highly susceptible to heat warping. Much like audio tapes, the sound tends to warble and even distort on overly bright video frames... such a kludgey format!

    I do think we need to preserve the content of these tapes, but not the medium itself. I've been an all-streaming guy for 8-9 years and have no desire to go backward.

    --
    -Billco, Fnarg.com
    1. Re:Edited for clarity by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      I do think we need to preserve the content of these tapes, but not the medium itself.

      Copyright: 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.
      Legally, we can't preserve these tapes and we'll all be dead by the time someone legally can.

      I've been an all-streaming guy for 8-9 years and have no desire to go backward.

      As an all streaming guy, you'll never have the opportunity to go backwards and neither will your children.
      Imagine a world where Disney can stop streaming a version of their film before the copyright expires and it disappears forever.
      Then, you can only stream the new remastered edition. And by "remastered" I mean "another 95 years of copyright".

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:Edited for clarity by fearofcarpet · · Score: 1

      No kidding, and "each tapehead is unique like a snowflake" in the sense that it melts and becomes useless... When I was in college we swapped VHS tapes of shows that we liked and often someone would drop a compilation tape in the VCR during a party. Those tapes--and the VHS players--degraded to the point that they became mostly unwatchable in a matter of weeks. I hung on to a box of VHS tapes of the first few seasons of The Simpsons because the local TV commercials are hilarious and nostalgic, but what possible reason could I have for actually watching the actual episodes when I can queue them up via XMBC in far better quality from every room in the house?

      Just how young are hipsters, anyway? (I live in a hipster-free part of the world.) Anyone that actually used VHS tapes appreciates YouTube, TiVo, and DVDs as far, far better replacements for a medium that is actually damaged through normal use... Ditto for cassette tapes; the day I could afford a CD player in my car is the day I threw away every cassette I owned... I mean, at least records don't degrade with (proper) usage and the needles can be replaced... but dragging a magnetic tape across a read head!?

      If there really are priceless gems of movies that only exist on VHS then one hipster can digitize it and share it via his i-gadget; problem solved! And I'll even Like/+1/thumbs up/whatever it and comment on how totally retro his giant sunglasses in his profile pic are... I would rather suffer through compression artifacts, hunched over a 3" mobile phone with buffering issues trying to stream over YouTube than find an f-ing RCA cable, re-wind a tape, and fight with head-cleaners and vertical tracking for the "nostalgia" of crappy VHS tapes. What's next? Leaded gasoline for that "retro brain damage?" Calculator watches for that retro impractically-small-buttons feel? Velcro shoes that wear out as soon as they get near carpet fibers? Hey, why don't we go dig up Madonna's leathery corpse for a halftime show...oh, wait.

      --
      Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
    3. Re:Edited for clarity by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well.. he can save the streams..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Edited for clarity by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      There is nothing preventing you from capturing the currently available version now, storing it, and then releasing it to public domain 95 years from now when the copyright expires. Even with the DMCA, once the content is no longer copyrighted, the anti-circumvention clauses are void. What will prevent you from doing so is the fact that the public domain is for all intents and purposes, gone. Nothing will ever enter it again, as we will simply continue to extend copyright duration to protect those original Disney videos and characters.

    5. Re:Edited for clarity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything that is on VHS that has not been re-released should be archived for prosperity (bit-torrent, digital conversion of the LOC, et cetera). So if your idea of fun is to pop in a VHS to show off to your friends how retro you are, your doing it wrong. Anyways, real hipsters invite chicks over to watch Betamax.

      If and when this media is in the public domain, we should have a good copy of it. The fact that the LOC doesn't operate a tracker currently is a shame, in 50 years it will be more so. Some of the original reels for this material will show up, or we can FORCE media companies to return their originals to the public domain if they are choosing not to release it. That said, a lot of smaller projects will fall through the cracks, and that is a shame.

      So of if it isn't being circulated yet and you have a VHS, make a good digital copy of it now, because the clock is ticking. Also, I admit to scoping out REALLY nice VCRs for restoration.

    6. Re:Edited for clarity by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      Few weeks ago I recorded "The Seven Ups" because I wanted to get some vidcaps of Roy Scheider using the Motorola HT-220 handie-talkie. This has a car chase which ended with Scheider slamming into a rear of a semi tractor trailer shearing off the roof. I remember seeing this scene years ago when you can see the stunt double quickly raised and lowered his hands momentarily after ramming the trailer to show film crew he was still alive (maybe it was not originally planned to slam into trailer). Stunt driver could have easily been killed doing this stunt. Film story has the truck driver running back to find a windshield covering Scheider.

      However, watching that same scene recently does not have the stunt double raising his hands (edited out). Which raises questions on watching vintage movies and what was altered from their original release? There are movies that have been altered (i.e. Shamus with Burt Reynolds made a comment, "makes you look like a faggot movie star" or other movies no longer shown even on premimum channels such as "Catch 22").

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    7. Re:Edited for clarity by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Um, you really have no clue about copyright, so shut up.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Edited for clarity by geekoid · · Score: 1

      But can he cross them?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Edited for clarity by billcopc · · Score: 1

      Ok, let me specify then: I stream content that is stored locally, on my own giant NAS. In my home, there are at least a dozen devices that are capable of fetching content from that NAS... set-top boxes, desktop/laptop computers, tablets, phones, game consoles. I have no need for a disc. Before my NAS epiphany, I had a pretty sizeable DVD collection. Now it's all packed away in the garage, and when I feel like watching one of them, I just find a torrent. It's faster than ripping and compressing the original anyway!

      There are LOTS of guys like me. Disney and friends can keep shitting down people's throats with their business practices, we do not care one bit. It takes one person to rip the movie and make it available online - no more national distributors, four less layers of middlemen, just simple efficient digital transmission.

      I go through this spiel every time I sign a new artist to my label. They try to charge $20 for an indie CD, citing the retail price of mainstream music, so when the discs don't sell, I have to explain where that $20 actually goes with a big name release. At least here in Canada, a $20 CD nets the band about $2.50 per copy, assuming they wrote all their own music. Cover albums make a third of that. So I tell them, since we're selling direct, to drop the price to $8.99 for a disc and $6.99 for a download, and they shit bricks. When they finally go through with it, they're selling three times as many albums at every show, with some patrons buying multiple copies to give out to their friends because it's so inexpensive, it's not even worth burning a copy or uploading 100mb of MP3's via email. The convenience trumps the cost.

      If the big studios would learn from this, ditch their obsolete retail channels and hand us a bit of a price break, piracy wouldn't be such a big deal anymore. Whether it's movies or music, the benefits are the same. I'd like to think that within the next 15-20 years, we won't use ANY physical medium to transfer data. The entertainment industry has every interest to adapt and adopt new tech before they're left in the dust.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
  20. Reminds me to archive my stuff from 1980s by k6mfw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have several VHS tapes from 1980s I need to transfer as magnetic tape does not keep its contents forever (and pushing 30 years is risky). Few months ago I viewed one, a movie shown on late night TV from a Los Angeles station. One of the commercials has Cal Worthington and his "dog" Spot (car dealer who had various animals from armadillos to bears). Probably can no longer do that these days. Tape also has when CNN had a interview with astronauts on the Shuttle, they only had a short window via ground stations as this was before TDRSS. Much of it was ironing out some technical issues. Crew could not hear audio from CNN though CNN anchors could hear them. They eventually got it to work. It was interesting because it seemed more authentic. Nowadays it's seems so staged. What I noticed is how anchors were more like journalists rather than celebrities. Other commercials had Federated stereo stores with goofy antics, and a lawyer commercial that begins with a car accident (staged with stills and sound effects of a crash) followed by a lawyer who says, "If your involved in serious accident, you need to seek legal advice immediately!" [don't bother calling paramedics]. Fasinating stuff of what was and used to be.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:Reminds me to archive my stuff from 1980s by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      Awesome! That old man Cal Worthington still does commercials, but they just have cars and trucks. No more "dog" Spot. Nothing hits the nostalgia button more than old commercials. Old movies are great, but old commercials are just pure cheese.

  21. Hope you stored them well by BagOBones · · Score: 2

    http://kingtapes.net/index.php/faq/2-do-vhs-tapes-degrade-over-time

    VHS degrades very quickly at room temperature and regular viewing... I know I could not stand watching some of my old ones after watching DVD for a few years, the color was so faded, it was awful!.

    --
    EA David Gardner -"... but the consumers have proven that actually what they want is fun."
  22. Not really missing it myself .. by n5vb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    .. VHS was such poor quality that the fact that it won out over Beta always amazed me. Chroma channel of such poor bandwidth that the best you could say of VHS color is that you'd maybe get a blob of more or less the right color around that black and white object in the luma channel. Longitudinal audio tracks that did a record wipe effect any time a kink in the tape went over the audio head (granted, the RF audio on later stereo VHS was somewhat better). I thought about trying to edit on it once, but decided I didn't want to bother without any way to implement a timecode track. Even the 2 hour mode was crummy enough to not be anywhere close to broadcast quality, and that was in the analog vestigial-sideband 480i SD NTSC-M days of composite video.

    And cleaning tape heads, and aligning transports, and dreading the day the pinch roller got a bit too sticky and unwound your only copy of your favorite movie into a rat's nest inside the VCR. (And yes, I've extracted a few such tape nests from family members' VCR's. Entirely too many of them learned that I knew how to fix the things.)

    Beta was better. 3/4" U-Matic showed me what good was when it came to videotape formats. I was happy to leave VHS behind when I was able to record on Digital-8 format in broadcast quality, and once I got a camera that would record on an SD card in 720p I never looked back. I have heard that VHS tape makes reasonably good magnetic card stripes, though ..

    1. Re:Not really missing it myself .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no, V2000 was the best actually ^^

    2. Re:Not really missing it myself .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sony didn't want porn on Betamax.

    3. Re:Not really missing it myself .. by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      > VHS was such poor quality that the fact that it won out over Beta always amazed me

      Main reason is Beta was limited to 90 minutes where VHS was 2 hours (or 4 or 6). This means you could record a 2-hour movie or two 1-hour TV shows. THAT is what killed Beta, I know because I was one of those people in the 20th century that took advantage of this new way of recording movies and shows when I was not at home (or didn't want to stay up at 3 am). 90 minutes was a show-stopper for me. Incidently Sony created the Betacam (same cassette but different recording format) which became the first practical ENG tape camera. There were others and videotape was not exactly 'new' but these were bulky (camera, back on shoulder, battery belt. examples at http://labguysworld.com./ With the Betacam, ENG people could run out, get the shot, pop tape out and hand it to the newsdesk. That was a huge paradigm shift for newscrews which in early 80s many were still using 16mm film.

      There are zillions of examples of good tech vs. customer convenience that is debated a lot.

      On topic of recording, another ***major*** advantage VHS (or Betamax) is when you want to record something, you pop that tape in and hit the button (no time consuming formatting needed). It ***will*** record even if there are glitches and noise in the signal. Lose power? Whatever that was recorded is still there. DVDs you loose it all. Any noise in the signal will kill the DVD recording, and you loose it all.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    4. Re:Not really missing it myself .. by antdude · · Score: 1

      It's about the cost. Cheaper for VHS than Betas!

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    5. Re:Not really missing it myself .. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Yep.

      In store, the consumer decision was:
      We have a beta max, it cost more, blank tapes cost more, and it records 2 hours.

      The we have VHS, cheaper tapes, cheaper machine, and recorded longer. THAT killed Betamax in the consumer market. The fact that it was a slightly superior format never came into it.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Not really missing it myself .. by domatic · · Score: 1

      .. VHS was such poor quality that the fact that it won out over Beta always amazed me.

      The first killer app for VHS wasn't home rental. It was time shifting TV, especially daytime soaps. VHS could record two hours in SP or even more in the LP and then the SLP modes. Sure it looked like crap but it was "good enough" for catching up on the soaps you had to miss.

      Beta recorded about half as much. That it looked a little better was irrelevant for what many of the early adopters were using it for.

    7. Re:Not really missing it myself .. by domatic · · Score: 1

      The first time I saw porn on video was beta tapes. From what I was told, an awful lot of porn on beta was quietly sold and traded nonetheless. Porn was very much borderline legal then. That Sony didn't want porno on their precious widdums really didn't matter worth a fart in a windstorm.

  23. VHS Advantage by oldhack · · Score: 1

    With a VHS cassette, you can deliver a good smack upside the head. Now, it won't bust anyone's skull, but still pretty satisfying.

    What you got with a DVD? Sure, maybe you can bust it in half, and try to stab'em in the eyes with the pieces, but that's a lot of work, certainly not as satisfying as a good-ole solid smack upside the head.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:VHS Advantage by captjc · · Score: 1

      You have obviously never tried to throw the disc like a ninja star or a Frisbee at someone. That can do some serious damage, especially aimed at bare skin.

      --
      Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
  24. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by penguinchris · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's not what he's talking about. Those people who don't know how to behave are not going to Ingmar Bergman films or even English-language arthouse/indie films, so the experience is only ever positive if you find a place showing such films - because for people who really like movies, the theater experience (including the film experience, which can't practically be replicated at home) is a big part of the enjoyment.

    There are still such places - theaters that show classic films, new foreign films, and indie and art films. The Dryden Theater at the George Eastman House in Rochester NY (where I went to university) is my favorite, though I don't live there anymore. Yeah you can get it all on DVD, but it's still worth going if you're into movies - and if you're not into movies, you're not watching those kinds of films anyway.

  25. Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have an old film on VHS, you'd be insane not to rip it to your hard disk. I recently tried to play some old VHS tapes, and some of them were so stuck together that I was afraid they would wreck my player. The ones that I was able to play were all wobbly and some (color films) only played in black and white.

    And what is this:

    the days when buying a movie meant you owned it even if the Internet went down

    Ever heard of downloading? Or ripping a DVD/BD? If people are stupid enough to "buy" something they can only access as a stream, that's their problem. The alternative are certainly not VHS tapes.

  26. VHS Tapes From Rental Stores had ond disadvantage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The disadvantage was that if you had a second machine hooked up to the first and tried to record the show from the rental tape on to your own blank tape it would be a badly scrambled image that looked like dark blobs of crap but yet the audio wasn`t affected. Not sure how they did that but a ``descrambler`` device (not sold in most stores obviousely) between both machines was very easily able to fix the cheesy form of copy protection they had on the VHS tapes in the late 80`s and 90`s.

    Always did wonder how they achieved that form of copy protection back in the day... perhaps the precurser of the RIAA

  27. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 0

    Going to a cinema like this is like going to a jazz club. You won't get the usual crowd of idiots, but likely have a great opportunity to meet some interesting people and have an intelligent conversation.

    Oooooh, so the jazz (or "music") is played as if someone hooked up a saxophone to a horse and tortured it to keep out the kids? It makes so much sense!

  28. Rose colored glasses? by Migraineman · · Score: 1
    I seem to have a different recollection ...

    'Essentially, the rental market expanded, because of voracious consumer demand,...

    ... caused primarily by monopolistic market-control practices of the big studios ...

    ... into non-blockbuster, off-Hollywood video content ....

    ... aka "prOn" ...

    ... which would never have had a theatrical life otherwise ...

    ... because the big media cartels wouldn't allow it due to either a perceived threat or risk aversion.

    The biggest advantage videotape created was the ability to copy and distribute your work without involving the distribution cartels. That's one of the reasons they beat on recordable media so bad. Their business model is predicated on creating an artificial shortage by creating a choke point in the distribution chain. My wife was watching "The Voice" the other day, and I laughed myself out of my chair when they offered the winner a recording contract with a big studio. That's like having an anchor chained to your neck. "But it's a chromed, Limited Edition, hand-forged Anchor!"

    1. Re:Rose colored glasses? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No, not just porn. There are a ton of non Hollywood niche markets; which includes porn, but it isn't any way limited to it.

      Not all recording contracts are the same.
      If that anchor has a lot of money attached to it, then what's the problem?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Rose colored glasses? by Migraineman · · Score: 1

      If that anchor has a lot of money attached to it, then what's the problem?

      I'll start with Ben Franklin, and finish with Jonathan Coulton:

      "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

      (Works with financial safety as well as physical safety.)

      "Here are some things I do differently from some other artists: I own all my music 100%, which means I have complete control over how I sell it (or not). I can give it away, I can bundle it on a USB key or in a zip file, I can allow people to make and post music videos, and I don’t have to deal with lawyers or labels to do any of that. I also get all the profits." - Jonathan Coulton

      Currently, a record label contract is the equivalent to indentured servitude.

  29. Re:VHS Tapes From Rental Stores had ond disadvanta by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

    Not a precursor at all. It was the MPAA, and Macrovision. It's a simple method, where the tape has junk data between frames. When played back on a TV you'll never see them, but if another VCR tries to record it, it will try to record the entire data stream, and end up with artifacts when played back.

  30. Video Cassettes are the future. by Kaenneth · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Red Dwarf: Back to Earth (Part Two) (#9.2)" (2009)
      Dave Lister: What are these things?
    Kryten: They're Digital Versatile Discs, sir. DVDs for short. They were very popular in the early part of the 21st century before they died out and were replaced with what we use now.
    Dave Lister: Oh, you mean videos?
    Kryten: Precisely. Back then no one knew that the human race were utterly incapable of putting the DVDs back in their cases. Case in point: over 2 trillion went missing in just over 20 years. Videos are just too big to lose.
     

  31. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

    While home video was certainly a net gain in availability of obscure films nationwide/worldwide, at a local level it destroyed many local cinemas who ran classic art films. It used to be that you could go to a screening of, say, an Ingmar Bergman film from several years prior, meet other cinephiles in your neighbourhood, and walk out of the cinema having passionate discussions with your peers about what you just saw.

    I'm really not sure VHS is the sole cause of this. There was another concurrently-developing technology - cable television - that may have had a hand in it as well.

    Back the 1980s I fell in love with a channel called "American Movie Classics" - at the time it really was showing classic American films (okay, obviously that doesn't mean Bergman) all the time, and with no commercial interruptions! The host, Bob Dorian, would lead into the movie with a little 2-minute piece that would sometimes be about the movie's place in cinema history and at other times be some back-stage story. Over the course of the 80s and 90s I saw lots of John Ford, lots of post-1940 Alfred Hitchcock, Astaire and Rogers, film noir classics - all the sorts of movies you used to have to go to a movie house to watch! It was great. I will admit I taped a lot of it for no quantifiable reason... (and the tapes are still around, gathering dust out in our family room)

    I realize AMC technically still exists; but it's not even close to what it was back then.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  32. Tapeworms! by tunapez · · Score: 1

    When there are 20, 30, 40 million of these VCRs in the land, we will be invaded by millions of â(TM)tapeworms,â(TM) eating away at the very heart and essence of the most precious asset the copyright owner has, his copyrightâ

    Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders): Hearing on S. 1758
    Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess., 459
    (1982) (testimony of Jack Valenti, president, Motion Picture Association of
    America, Inc.).

    --
    Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
  33. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    As tech fans, we should realize that every single thing ever invented has it's upsides and downsides. Everything. Except possibly for vaccines, those are the closest we've come to inventing something with no downsides. Everything else I can think of had at least a few negative consequences, VHS and then digital included.

  34. Immune to Kid Destruction by jjp9999 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I partially moved back to VHS (but still have plenty of DVDs). It was more because of my 2-year-old who likes playing with the disks - around half my DVDs are scratched to the point of being barely watchable. Honestly though, after starting to pick up VHS again, there are some upsides. Videos sell for a dollar or less and they're just about invincible to kids. Of course, I still use DVDs though. I just have to keep them in high places.

    1. Re:Immune to Kid Destruction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not nearly as immune as a youtube link, or a .torrent though.

    2. Re:Immune to Kid Destruction by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      Yeah but what about the computer you use to access that content? GP is right, VHS is if nothing else sturdy as shit.

    3. Re:Immune to Kid Destruction by dkf · · Score: 1

      Videos [on VHS] sell for a dollar or less and they're just about invincible to kids.

      That reminds me of one of my brothers unwinding the tape from inside a VHS cassette and getting it wrapped around lots of furniture. Yes, that takes some doing as there's a catch to make it tricky to do that; you need to insert some sort of tool into a fairly small hole to disable the ratchets on the reels (there's another mechanism for the guard that's lifted out of the way when bringing the magnetic heads close to the tape). But definitely not kid-proof, not with even very slightly ingenious kids.

      At least it was just one of the programs recorded for him that was ruined, and not something that everyone else cared about.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    4. Re:Immune to Kid Destruction by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      Just wait for your kid to grow older. He'll be able to destroy anything.

    5. Re:Immune to Kid Destruction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just use a media streaming server? Rip everything to a file, put it on the server, and make it available on the network or locally to the television. Then you just need to stock up on extra remotes to replace the ones that get lost or destroyed.

    6. Re:Immune to Kid Destruction by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      The tapes are but not the players. My dad about killed me for tripping and dropping orange juice on a VCR.

    7. Re:Immune to Kid Destruction by Nimey · · Score: 1

      I stuck a peanut butter sandwich in our VCR once. My mother was /pissed/.

      As to the robustness of the tapes: that depended. Some mfrs used decent quality plastic for the housings, while some others used the thinnest possible junk that would break with the slightest pressure, and it was also possible for the tape to catch on something and then the VCR would eat the tape.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    8. Re:Immune to Kid Destruction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That reminds me of when we did the same thing in the hallway of my dorm in college, wrapping the tape from an old data tape around the garbage cans at each end a few times. I just provided the tape and the idea, the rest of them did the deed and took the blame.

  35. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

    In short, fuck the public experience. It stopped working when the "it's all about me" crowd arrived.

    Don't know what type of rose-colored nostalgia glasses you have on, but that wasn't a recent development. Cell phones, that's a new thing, but before that there was still crying kids, noisy cracker-jacks and people talking. Every generation thinks they invented sin, and every generation thinks the next one invented bad manners.

  36. audio quality by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
    The second link mentions that "bands are releasing full albums on VHS. Which, if youâ(TM)re an analog fetishist, is great news! Video tape contains audio of a quality just below that of DAT and far greater than your garden variety cassette tape."

    So there are reasons for using VHS, beyond pure nostalgia, or access to videos that aren't digitised.

    Though you can also use DVDs to get very high quality audio. You can use PCM audio or AC3 at 640 kbps and play it in a standard DVD player through your hifi. (I know there is a dedicated DVD audio standard, but it never took off and not all hardware supports it, and the encoders are absurdly expensive). I put all 14 Beatles' albums on one DVD in AC3 at 640 with space to spare.

  37. For movies unreleased on DVD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have videotapes of movies that were never released on DVD, except as hacked together bootlegs. Movies like Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, for example.

  38. Something that's always bugged me by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    I'm an 80s movie fanatic, and so many movies that were R-rated that I remember watching have been hacked up so bad for TV play that some of the best scenes are incomprehensible; e.g. the "f*gs in the shower!" scene from Once Bitten. This happens even with some commercial-less cable movie channels as well with modern releases. And, if it's a flick very unlikely to be purchased or rented, it's almost like the original content has been lost to time.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  39. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by mug+funky · · Score: 1

    you'll find that people who grew up with cinema have the respect you crave.

    it's precisely the home video, VoD, netflix generations that have fucked the cinema experience.

  40. And as with all analogue by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    Particularly magnetic tape, it is suffer to wear as it is played. Each time you watch something, it gets worse due to wear. The more you watch, the worse it looks.

    That and no generation loss are the big reasons digital formats are so totally superior. Even if VHS was a high end pro format, it still would suck compared to a similar digital format. The benefit of perfect reproduction of digital is just too massive.

    That aside, DVD is superior to VHS quality. DVD gets you quality around Betacam SP. It gets you higher luma and chroma resolution than VHS, no ringing or overshoot, no bleed, and so on.

  41. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by gmhowell · · Score: 1

    Those places were always a rarity in most of the United States and destined to become more rare as real estate prices and rents continued to rise. Far, far, far more people are exposed to those films via P2P and home video than a handful of art houses ever achieved.

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  42. VHS had mediocre audio quality by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    Better than cassette? Ya sure, but then that's not hard. "Just below DAT?" no, not so much. With Hi-Fi enhancements yes it could get about 70dB SNR (CD and DAT are 96dB) on a new, unused tape. As with all analogue, it degraded over time and suffered generation loss.

    In terms of digital it isn't hard to do better than DAT/CD if you like either. You can use DVDs, but not like you think. The DVD-A standard allows for 6-channels of 24-bit, 96kHz audio to be stored. 144dB SNR, DC-48kHz response. In other words, way beyond human hearing, and also the limits of recording technology. Blu-ray players all support it (the MLP coding it uses is what Dolby TrueHD uses) and for that matter you can get more audio and even higher sample rates on Blu-ray discs.

    It is just more hipsterish bullshit of "Oh analogue is better." No, it isn't. You can have digital formats that capture more detail, and more importantly don't suffer from playback degradation and generation loss.

    1. Re:VHS had mediocre audio quality by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      The point is that VHS players are still cheap and common, DAT players never took off. Lots more people have VHS players or can get them for peanuts, and they're easy to hook up to a stereo.

      Musicians may like them because they're not so convenient to just copy and upload as digital media.

    2. Re:VHS had mediocre audio quality by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      yes I can record better than DAT on a VHS tape.

      it is called ADAT, and they still sell them. it puts the audio on the tape using the video track.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:VHS had mediocre audio quality by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Better than cassette? Ya sure, but then that's not hard. "Just below DAT?" no, not so much. With Hi-Fi enhancements yes it could get about 70dB SNR (CD and DAT are 96dB) on a new, unused tape. As with all analogue, it degraded over time and suffered generation loss.

      I'm not sure about actual quality, but at least there is an important technical difference between regular and Hifi audio on VHS. One uses a portion of the tape in the same way as audio cassettes, the other encodes audio into the video storage area, where there is more bandwidth.

      Incidentally, some early digital audio systems used videotape as their storage medium, again because of the high bandwidth. An encoder/decoder was used along with a regular VCR. DAT uses a similar mechanism with rotating heads to achieve the necessary bandwidth.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    4. Re:VHS had mediocre audio quality by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

      That's not VHS. It is, well, ADAT, as you noted. I can't release an ADAT tape to the masses and have people able to play it. Also it requires S-VHS, not VHS, tapes.

  43. Dumb... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've watched more movies streaming, that I would have totally breezed past in a video store. I've given foreign films a try, loads of documentaries and other oddities that I can enjoy with my monthly subscription to Netflix or through some of the other portals on my google TV. VHS can die. Seems to me this is just a bunch of elitist crap from people afraid of change or who can't let go of the past.
     

  44. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by captjc · · Score: 2

    Turner Classic Movies channel still exists and presents classic movies (as in ~1930's to ~1960's with the occasional contemporary film) commercial free.

    --
    Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
  45. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 0

    > (including the film experience, which can't practically be replicated at home

    Which is what exactly? To be entertained? I don't go to a movie theater to watch a documentary.

    Methinks you can take your grainy & choppy 24 Hz "film" and keep it. I'll stick with my 120 Hz plasma with its vivid colors and hope someday movies grow beyond shitty 24 FPS.

    Some people film, some like DLP, some like LED/OLED, some like Plasma. They all suck -- its about which Picture Quality (PQ) compromises are you willing to make.

  46. Just wish the quality was better.. by PortaDiFerro · · Score: 1

    I have found some of my favorite series as a kid on dvd lately, but still there's plenty of stuff I'd love to show my kids. Problem is that I don't have a tv anymore, only a projector with 135" screen, and even the dvds from the 70's-80's shows look rather horrible. Granted many Internet streams have the same problem. In the end it's often better to just let them watch the videos on the laptop or tablet.

    1. Re:Just wish the quality was better.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Piss off, Dad, we don't care about your crappy h-b cartoons.

      -- your kids

  47. oh God no!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tracking... tracking... The horror. The Horror.

  48. Yeah something got lost... by StefanWiesendanger · · Score: 1

    Poor quality, wear out and lots of problems. I'm not too unhappy about that.

  49. durability and popularity by pickin_grinnin · · Score: 1

    As a librarian, I have been amazed at the durability of VHS tapes. We have tapes that are 20 years old and have circulated hundreds of times, but show no sign of breaking or wearing down. The shelf-life of a DVD or Blu-Ray in our library is closer to 2 years. We recently got rid of our adult VHS collection because it wasn't circulating anymore. The children's VHS collection continues to circulate well, though, including the titles that we also have on DVD. Many families have retained their old VHS players because the tapes are less likely to be ruined by small children, and can be purchased for next to nothing.

  50. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by MasaMuneCyrus · · Score: 1

    It used to be that you could go to a screening of, say, an Ingmar Bergman film from several years prior, meet other cinephiles in your neighbourhood, and walk out of the cinema having passionate discussions with your peers about what you just saw.

    I don't think that this doesn't happen anymore due to lack of demand... I'd love to be able to go to the movies and see old classics on the big screen, and I'd love even more to be able to go and watch TV on the big screen. Sunday Night Football on an IMAX with 7.1 surround? Heck yeah!

    I get the sneaking suspicion, however, that there is a lot of movie/tv industry money blocking the way of this happening, though. Also, nobody is going to pay $15 for tickets to an old movie.

  51. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by DavidD_CA · · Score: 1

    The downside to vaccines is that they allowed Jenny McCarthy to have the spotlight far longer than she ever should have.

    --
    -David
  52. Real men whistle their own tunes by Mister+Liberty · · Score: 1

    and don't tell me that sucks.

  53. Missing from DVD/BluRay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I miss most about VHS (and Betamax, for that matter) is the simple ability to fast-forward through all that security/copyright warning/unskippable trailer/etc that's starting to build up on DVD & BluRay. "This Operation is not permitted by disc" or words to that effect really annoy me. Sure, I could rip the movie and store it on a monster hard disk somewhere in the house, stream when required, but when you just want to watch a movie, they're irritating as hell.

  54. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by dkf · · Score: 1

    (including the film experience, which can't practically be replicated at home

    Which is what exactly? To be entertained? I don't go to a movie theater to watch a documentary.

    The film experience involves having a large moving image at a distance that is comfortable for the eyes. Normal TV is a little close if you're making it apparently large enough (i.e., subtending a large enough angle to your eyes). You can replicate the film experience at home, but only if you've got a proper home cinema setup. I haven't, and I don't have the spare space to make one.

    Other parts of the film experience are a mixed bag. The sound is worth replicating (and the easiest to do) but the oversalted popcorn, watery cola, surly youths pretending to be staff and usurious prices can all be safely omitted.

    --
    "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  55. Slashdot coders are morons. by rdebath · · Score: 0

    I managed to resist in that message, but I still want to know why the slashdot programmers are happy looking like complete morons.

    Will they ever get unamerican character sets working, or are they just bigots.

    I've heard they think they have a problem with unicode control and composing characters, give me a break! A level 1 filter to filter everything that isn't a graphic LTR character is a couple of minutes work!!

    Slashdot is advert supported (in part) the next line is what they are losing.

    Â¥  £  â  $    â  â  ⣠ â  ⥠ ⦠ â  â  ⩠ â  â  â  ⮠ â

  56. Tapes weren't *that* bad. by clickclickdrone · · Score: 2

    I'm surprised that so many people are complaining about their tapes. Sure, the cheaper brands sucked but then they would, they were cheap. I only ever bought decent/high grade Fuji, Sony and TDK tapes and I'm finding I'm pleasantly surprised as I work through my VHS tapes (going back to 1981) as to how good they still look as I copy them to DVD. There were very few that had gone super grainy anbd those were typically cheap tapes. Like eveyrything, if you paid for quality, you got better results. Ditto for the decks themselves. If your only experience of VHS is a £40 machine from Dixons, no wonder you think it sucked but if you had say a Panasonic £500 deck, you'd find it wasn't too bad. That said, colour bleed on the reds still looks awful :-(

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
    1. Re:Tapes weren't *that* bad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mention Dixons suggesting you are in the UK ergo you were using PAL, ignoring the "quality" arguments about frame rates et al the colour wasn't constantly drifting from red to green like the US slashdotters had to live with. Using decent quality tapes for recording also likely means you were using the 180 tapes not the thin & nasty 240 variety. I remember seeing recordings from analogue TV from a poor ly installed aerial on a 240 tape on long-play = 1/2 speed...

  57. Ownership is highly overrated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would I want to own a movie, when I have seen it once it has already been consumed and reduced to near uselessness.

    1. Re:Ownership is highly overrated by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

      You clearly don't have kids. My friend's son watched back to the future every day for 5 years. I'll agree that most films are done after single view but OTOH, a dvd is way cheaper than seeing it at the cinema if you can wait a few months.

      --
      I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  58. "browsing isles" ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which "isles" would that be? The Western Isles? The Isle of Skye? The Scilly Isles?

    AISLES!

  59. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by mrsurb · · Score: 1

    The downside of the invention of vaccines was the unintended consequence of anti-vaccination nutters.

  60. WTF? WHY? by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    VHS is inferior in EVERY WAY to DVD. From the format it's self, you need at LEAST SVHS to get even 1/2 way to DVD. to the durability to the workflow for editing and creating a movie on tape.

    Only complete morons would be "gong back" to VHS. I'm glad it's gone, dead, buried. Hell I'm happy that DV, HDV, Umatic, and Beta are dead.

    Tape sucks, After working with Tape for 20+ years... I am glad it is dead.

    Head alignment causing the camera to not record correctly, crap tape clogging heads, head maintenance, belt replacement, pinch roller replacement, oh god no.

    Plus let's look at resolution. Regular VHS records and plays back 320X240 resolution MAX. SVHS doubled that. It's why all recordings looked smeared compared to the live broadcast. By the end of it's life Mass produced VHS was a lot better but still nothing like even a crappy made DVD. A SuperBit DVD will fake someone into believing they are watching a BluRay.

    Shelf life of Tape is horrid, I have had to spend days trying to figure out how to get a tape to play one last time after sitting in a controlled vault for 12 years. Many tapes would adhere to themselves.

    I can see an advantage with records, I can see an advantage with some other older stuff, but VHS was crap from day 1. It wasn't even the better format from day 1.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:WTF? WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Good job reading the summary.

      While researching the documentary Palmer found something interesting: there is a resurgence taking place of people going back to VHS because a massive number of films are 'trapped on VHS' with 30 and 40 percent of films released on VHS never to be seen again on any other format.

  61. Re:VHS Tapes From Rental Stores had ond disadvanta by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    The copy protection signal is inserted in the vertical blanking interval, and it contains extra sync pulses and fake video data. Since the TV is not displaying anything during the blanking interval, nothing shows up on the screen. That's why it looks okay on the TV. A VCR, on the other hand, is trying to make a faithful recording of the entire signal that it sees. It therefore tries to record the signal containing the extra sync pulses. The AGC sees the extra sync pulses and the fake video data and sets its level incorrectly as a result. The real video information in the frame gets recorded at a much lower level than it normally would, so the screen turns black instead of showing the movie. You'll still hear the sound, however, because a completely separate circuit records the audio.

    it's not data, you cant have Data on an analog medium. It's a signal. and they simply Blasted the hell out of the video on the blanking to make the AGC start turning down, then a 1/2 second later they make it go away so the agc over compensates.

    It was easily defeated by simply turning down the AGC on the motherboard of the VHS deck, or if you were afraid of the insides, you bought a device for $59.95 that did the same thing.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  62. Re:VHS Tapes From Rental Stores had ond disadvanta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Specifically it put the noise in the blanking, which is supposed to be a fixed reference voltage that VCRs use for gain control. Put noise in there and their gain control is completly ruined. It's actually quite simple to remove with a little electronics knowledge - doesn't even need surfacemount skills, all stripboard will do - so never stopped commercial pirates. Just those who liked to copy tapes for friends or rent-and-copy to make a collection.
     
    The DMCA actually has a very narrow section that relates only to macrovision, requiring that all video recorders manufactured in or imported into the US be disabled by macrovision - either as a property of their design, or in the event their design is macrovision-resistant by the inclusion of an extra chip to detect it and disable recording. [1201](k)(1)/

  63. Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reading this makes me want to go home tonight and watch my original Star Wars trilogy on VHS. It's not remastered, not special edition, and hasn't been tampered with or changed in any way. Those films do not exist on DVD or BluRay.

    1. Re:Star Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, I should read the more of the comments. I didn't know they provided a theatrical version with the DVDs. Is that available on the BluRays? I would be interested in that. I'll probably still buy the BluRays eventually anyway as I don't hate the special editions. I just like being able to have the choice!

  64. The tapes were pretty robust, but not the players by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    Back in the 80s, I had a couple part-time jobs at repair shops fixing VCRs, and kids jamming stuff into the front-load slots was a CONSTANT source of work. Matchbox cars, small stuffed animals, PB&J sandwiches, you name it...

    Top-loaders were more resistant to the problem, and generally cheaper/easier to fix if the kid did manage to get something in there.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  65. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol Americans, self-censoring the word "hell"...

  66. What's not available? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many of the so-called "lost movies" or "trapped on vhs" movies. Aren't. They are not "legitimate" transfers. But the news service providers have thousands of these movies ripped from original vhs in excellent quality uploaded and available for the internet saavy. In fact, I can't think of one, ever released on video that cannot be found. alt.binaries.lostmovies - alt.binaries.disney - alt.binaries.multimedia - alt.binaries.moovee.

    1. Re:What's not available? by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      For example, there is a movie called "So I Married a Witch". it's actually a cute little movie but it was never released on DVD or Blu-Ray and I haven't found it online to date except for sale on VHS!

      It's a very old black and white movie and no one has bothered to move it to modern formats.

  67. i use vhs regularly by buddyglass · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Because, short of building my own machine, there's no good DVR solution for over-the-air content and I don't have cable. I can stream it for free, but this often forces me to wait some period of time after the original broadcast. Usually a day. Also, the streaming sites often fail to properly support captioning. My wife has hearing loss, so captioning is of premium importance. So we pipe the digital TV signal through a digital-to-analog converter and record shows on VHS.

    1. Re:i use vhs regularly by doconnor · · Score: 1

      If you are in the USA or Canada all over-the-air TV is digital and any USB dongle video capture device should be able to record it for you, probably with captioning.

    2. Re:i use vhs regularly by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Why isn't TiVo a good solution?

      " Also, the streaming sites often fail to properly support captioning"
      \yes, this is a problem.
      I want an easy way to rip DVD/Blu-Ray to my disk so that it platys exactly as if I had put a disk in. Sub titles on or off, language changes, etc.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:i use vhs regularly by buddyglass · · Score: 1

      Doesn't it cost money? There's also the captioning thing. I'd really, really need that to work, or my wife would prefer to just keep doing what we're doing.

  68. Line-by-line rebuttal to the buggy-whip advocate by J'raxis · · Score: 1

    Future generations may know little of the days when buying a movie meant you owned it even if the Internet went down ...

    That's why intelligent people don't patronize services that don't "sell" movies but either sell access to streaming content, or sell downloadable files locked up in some sort of network-dependent DRM. Everything I've downloaded from The Pirate Bay works just fine when the Internet goes down. :)

    ... and when getting a movie meant you had to scour aisles of boxes in search of one whose cover art called back a story that echoed your interests.

    And nowadays I use a search engine. But I suppose some people miss the days where traveling meant feeding and grooming a horse, cleaning up its crap, and riding on its back exposed to the elements, rather than riding in an enclosed, climate-controlled automobile where one just pours gas in or plugs the thing in.

    Josh Johnson, one of the filmmakers behind the upcoming documentary 'Rewind This!' hopes to tell the story of how and why home video came about, and how it changed our culture giving B movies and films that didn't make the silver screen their own chance to shine. 'Essentially, the rental market expanded, because of voracious consumer demand, into non-blockbuster, off-Hollywood video content which would never have had a theatrical life otherwise,' says Palmer.

    And nowadays, people don't even need the minimal budgets or producer interest that a B movie needed to get made. Anyone with a camera and a YouTube account can produce, upload, promote, and distribute a movie now. The advent of the Internet has expanded the number of movies out there by an even larger percentage than the advent of VHS did.

    While researching the documentary Palmer found something interesting: there is a resurgence taking place of people going back to VHS because a massive number of films are 'trapped on VHS' with 30 and 40 percent of films released on VHS never to be seen again on any other format.

    I find plenty of VHS rips on The Pirate Bay. Google yields 43,000 results. Just because the companies that make profit off of distributing content don't see any reason to re-distribute old direct-to-VHS movies as downloads doesn't mean the movies are not available. If there be any contemporary interest in an old movie, it has probably been uploaded to TPB or a similar service. And if not, and you have the VHS copy of it... go rip it and upload it!

  69. I miss VHS by morgauxo · · Score: 1

    No, I'm not nostalgic about some particular mode of analog distortion like some old guy stuck on tube amplifiers. Yes, DVD, Blueray look better. When they work that is... Way too many times I've rented some movie just to find it is scratched beyond readability so many minutes into it, usually just as it starts getting interesting. Yes, VHS wears out. But it degrades gradually, it doesn't just stop playing. I remember crappy looking pictures on rented tapes that had been viewed too many times. So what? I still got to watch the whole movie! I could see the whole thing that night, without driving back to a store which may not be open by the time I get to the scratch. Or waiting days to send it back and get a possibly better copy from Netflix!

    Then there is the players. If I can get a DVD or Blueray player to last 6 months I think I am doing good. I don't know what it is, they just stop. I suspect maybe the lasers? I remember using VHS players for 5 or 6 years at a time!

    Sure, now I just use Netflix over the internet for movie rentals. It's convenient, that's great. It's really great for watching shows. The movie selection is still much smaller than it was at the stores. At any given time what is available is what is available. If you want to see some specific older movie you probably cannot. And you can't 'own' a copy of a movie this way. At least not legally. For that you have to buy the DVD or Blueray. Then it's back to scratch land. Yes, that doesn't happen so much if you take care of them. That's easy for all you single people. Try keeping the scratches off your discs when you have a messy wife (doesn't put them away) and a 2 y/o kid! Good luck with that! Yes, kids and wives could kill a VHS tape too but it seems much less likely. We still have some old movies around on VHS and none have died that way yet.

    1. Re:I miss VHS by PhotoJim · · Score: 1

      That's something people forget about analog technologies.

      A few years ago I still had an analog bag phone in my car (I had a digital phone too but I had the analog phone on another network because I knew it would have better coverage and, well, I'm a geek and I though it was cool to have a bag phone that still worked and had active service). One day, in rural Saskatchewan, out on some remote highway where my digital phone didn't work, my wife called me. My bag phone rang. I answered. The call was badly staticky but I could understand her, and she could understand me, and we could have a conversation. On the coverage map, there wasn't even any coverage there but an analog phone could sometimes work well enough that you could still use it.

      This aspect of analog isn't always good - the static and noise of analog TV is pretty annoying, and I love getting beautiful HD ATSC signals now - but if you had bad signal, noisy analog was always better than the unusable signal you'd get using a digital technology.

      It's the same with photography to some degree. A scratched negative can be salvaged, but a corrupted digital file is probably not usable at all.

      I like digital technologies fine, but the point about a worn VHS tape being annoying as compared to a worn DVD being unusable is a completely valid one.

  70. Why VHS will always be superior. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's so many ways to kill a person contained inside one little box.
    VHS could beat the crap out of CDs/DVDs any day of the week.

  71. Tapes ARE better then DVDs if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't want to be forced to wait through 20 mins of commercials to watch something you just paid for.

    If you want the luxary of falling asleep during a movie and not have a 30 second menu screen audio clip repeat until you are annoyed enough to turn it off.

    If you don't want a tiny scratch to completely bring your movie to a hault.

    If you don't want an unnoticed piece of smudge forcing you to stop your movie and start it again, possibly being forced through another 20 mins of commercials.

    If you use a universal remote and believe DVD functionality shouldn't be left to random menu screen implementations.

    If you want the medium to still work 20 years later.

    If you want your medium to most likley work 10 years later.

    If you have kids and you want at least 6 months usage before someone messes it up.

    if once your watching a movie, you are into the story and discontinue judgements on video quality.

    Want medium that is protected by a plastic encasing (why couldn't DVDs be like floppy discs?!)

  72. Warm Video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love the "warm video" you get with VHS, all those staticy horizontal lines. Digital video just doesn't give you the same feel.

  73. Re: Provability of artifacts by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

    There is a way, but it requires some (expensive) lab equipment most people don't have. You would need two versions of the same recording, one without artifacts (uncompressed), the other one run through the usual encoders with artifacts.
    Then show both versions to a test group and ask them in blind testing which one is better.

    I remember a similar experiment from the audiophile world, about the audibility of digital artifacts in the CD system. The german magazine Stereoplay set up a high end analog stereo system consisting of turntable, pre-amplifier, power ampilfier and some very nice speakers. There were two configurations:
    1) pre-amplifier directly connected to power amplifier
    2) pre-amplifier connected to A/D converter connected to D/A converter connected to power amplifier
    So the difference was that setup 2) had the signal digitized and conveted back.

    In the listening test, the test group was unable to detect a difference ;-)

    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
  74. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by guttentag · · Score: 1
    Passionate discussion with your peers? Im sorry, I think I hear Woody Allen and Marshall McLuhan weighing in on this:
    (pulls Woody Allen video clip out of his back pocket and plays it)

    Alvy Singer: He can give it... do you have to give it so loud? I mean, aren't you ashamed to pontificate like that? And the funny part of it is, Marshall McLuhan, you don't know anything about Marshall McLuhan!
    Man in Theatre Line: Oh, really? Well, it just so happens I teach a class at Columbia called "TV, Media and Culture." So I think my insights into Mr. McLuhan, well, have a great deal of validity!
    Alvy Singer: Oh, do ya? Well, that's funny, because I happen to have Mr. McLuhan right here, so, so, yeah, just let me...
    [pulls McLuhan out from behind a nearby poster]
    Alvy Singer: come over here for a second... tell him!
    Marshall McLuhan: I heard what you were saying! You know nothing of my work! You mean my whole fallacy is wrong. How you got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing!

    Pretentious Frauds and idiots with loud opinions existed before the Web. When Allen filmed this scene over 30 years ago, I think he was really dreaming about having a phone with a YouTube app in his pocket so he could refute them all.

  75. Completely stupid and wrong by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    It's like these people don't know that piracy and self-publishing (or viewing self-published movies) exist. No movies are lost, it's easier to release and spread low-budget movies than ever, the available collection is bigger than ever. If you only work within the law and pretend you can't view self-published movies then you're living in the world of RMS' Right to Read and it's your own cowardly fault for boxing yourself in.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  76. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by Pope · · Score: 1

    Ah, you just live in the wrong place. Any decently sized city will have a Repertory cinema or two around. And if you're really fortunate, you get something like Bell Lightbox: http://tiff.net/films/winter

    --
    It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
  77. Conversion by muckracer · · Score: 1

    Never dealt with this issue so be gentle...

    1. What's it take to convert/digitize VHS tape on a computer?

    2. What's the best, or most appropriate, format to 'rip' the tapes into?

    3. What programs do you need to do so (Linux preferred)?

    4. Does PAL vs. SECAM matter?

    5. Any experiences/stories from folks having done so?

    Thanks!

  78. AMEN Brother! by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

    To watch a movie in peace you have to go to the 10:00 showing on a Monday night. And you better bring a bag of cash to buy the tickets.

    The last movie I saw at the the theater, was the final Harry Potter. I took my kids and after tickets, a barrel of popcorn, a pretzel and a bucket of flat cola, I was out $50. Throughout the entire movie I kept getting an annoying bright blue light shining in my face every three minutes by some jerk who couldn't wait until the movie was over to answer his texts, or update his Facebook or whatever. A 50 inch plasma costs less than 11 trips to the theater and you can rent the blue ray for $1 from Redbox. I don't need to see the crap the day it hits the theater anymore.

  79. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

    TCM is one reason why AMC is the way it is today. AMC simply couldn't compete with Turner's larger movie archives, so they went to showing newer contemporary films and later, original programming.

  80. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  81. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Nope. It's movie theaters getting lax on who they toss out.

    In the 70's, people would be told to be quite or asked to leave.
    Return to that, and the problem will go away.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  82. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

    In real life, you simply couldn't see that the people you were talking to couldn't spell :)

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  83. Except: by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

    Betamax failed depite technical superiority because VHS offered better:

    1) Total maximum capacity of the individual tapes (Which mattered when blank tapes were $25 each in 1980)
    2) Availability of rental titles
    3) Cost of record/playback machines

    1. Re:Except: by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      As a kid, I was not aware of aspects #1 and #3, but I sure as heck was aware of #2 when I'd go to the video store and have one shelving section of Beta movies and the entire rest of the store was VHS.

  84. Parents of Small Children by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know of many parents of small children that deliberately keep VHS around. VHS tapes of the old children's classics can be found at Goodwill and garage sales for cheap. They have the added benefit of being virtually indestructible. If the tape sits on the floor for a week, getting kicked around, it's basically still good as new (albeit needing a decent dusting). A DVD/BluRay would be unusable after that.

  85. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But that's what made going to the art houses so cool--you could look down on all those people living in benighted communities without cool art houses.

  86. You'll never know. You can't get past the headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ha ha this text is never gonna be seen by Lumpy because he can only read and respond to subject lines and headings. Oh Lumpy! I slept with your mom and refused to give her $20 for it.

    VHS is inferior except that the content being talked about IS NOT AVAILABLE ON DVD. Had Lumpy bothered to read the article summary he might have realized it's about the content rather than the medium. Oh well, he'll never know because I didn't put it in the subject line.

    The content has value despite it's low quality medium. See also: Youtube. The the quality of videos certainly didn't make the site. It was unique content that wasn't available elsewhere.

    From the summary that Lumpy couldn't bother to read:

    because a massive number of films are 'trapped on VHS' with 30 and 40 percent of films released on VHS never to be seen again on any other format.

  87. VCR Tip: Get an old one. by NotBorg · · Score: 1

    I had a large collection of VCR tapes that I recently decided to preserve in digital format. Everything from kids cartoons, recordings of birthday parties and family gatherings, to the Stargate and Terminator movies.

    My advice? Don't buy a new VCR. It will eat your tapes and break after about ten plays. Go find a used one from the 80's or early 90s at a yard sale or online. We found one and it has worked spectacularly despite its age. The new ones are designed to fail. Like many things, "they don't make 'em like that anymore."

    --
    I want this account deleted.
  88. VHS: The Movie (Japanese 'documentary') by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    I heard of a series seen in Japan of where they do movies based on actual developments and put it together like a documentary. I've not seen it but one episode was of the guys who developed the VHS deck. It had scenes where their lab has stacks of o-scopes and other test equipment (old stuff of late 60s early 70s). Empty boxes of take out food, they worked and worked of all-nighters so the place was really trashy. Much effort was put into loading mechanism to reduce tape jams. They approached Sony (who turned them down) and eventually went to Victor Corp of Japan and got them to also license the format to other companies. One scene I heard is an engineer was assigned to this project with overall mission to fire the people involved (I haven't seen this so I may not have the full story), the engineer feels like committing hari-kari or what samurais do when given "opportunity to honorably kill themselves." Talked to someone that saw it, it sounds amazing.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
  89. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

    > You can replicate the film experience at home, but only if you've got a proper home cinema setup.
    Oh please. It's not rocket science.

    You _do_ realize that the viewing angle for THX is:

    THX requires that the back row of seats in a theater have at least a 26 degree viewing angle and recommends a 36 degree viewing angle.

    This tells you the optimal distance from screen to seats to replicate the EXACT viewing feeling.
    http://myhometheater.homestead.com/viewingdistancecalculator.html

    > I haven't, and I don't have the spare space to make one.
    Even a shitty little 42" screen CAN replicate the film experience -- why don't you actually try defining the exact nature of what the problem is before blowing it off.

  90. Star Wars... Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only times I want to watch a VHS are the original Star Wars Trilogy. Mainly because George Lucas had
    to go and add a bunch of CGI nonsense to the greatest story ever told. Also Hayden Christennsen. I don't know
    if that's how you spell his name and I don't care. He's a douche. But yeah VHS is the only way to watch Star
    Wars. Actually someone could probably make a lot of money by releasing not fucked with blu ray versions of
    those movies.

  91. Back when pirates were real pirates by Tyrannosaur · · Score: 1

    and sailed the high seas browsing the isles for films to plunder!

  92. Games by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the same reasons, future generations may know little of the days when buying a game meant you owned it and could install it and play it even if the Internet was down.

    I don't use Steam and I never will.

  93. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, yes! TCM, the true place for catching a replay of Soylent Green, Logan's Run and other sci-fi classics not seen practically anywhere.

  94. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Is it bad that I remember all those movies?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  95. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately TCM is not part of my Comcast tier - I'd rather spend the money on Netflix. But I've heard TCM is pretty good.

    Back in the day, AMC was part of the base package from McCaw Cablevision or whatever the name of our provider was.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  96. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by captjc · · Score: 1

    If it is, it is worse that I have all those movies on DVD.

    --
    Slow Down Cowboy! It's been 1 hour, 47 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment
  97. Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    I still remember Farrah Fawcett's awful, AWFUL acting in Logan's Run.

    On the other hand, I always liked Charlton Heston - even though he sometimes makes William Shatner seem subdued by comparison.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  98. Not bitrot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Laserdisc was an analog format. analog implies no bits, implies the degradation of the media was not technically bitrot

    1. Re:Not bitrot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC correctly, they called it "laser rot" back in the day...

  99. Re:video artifacting by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    In addition to encoding and DVD players causing artifacting, the television itself could be introducing artifacting during a post-processing routine. I was reading a review on a 1 year old plasma that the reviewer had some blocky artifacting on some quick transitions before he disabled the 600mhz interpolation mode.

  100. Re:Color banding by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    They call that color banding and is definitely a problem for older and less expensive HDTVs.

  101. Re:Color banding by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

    Thanks. I had an analog TV at the time, so I guess it was the result of a low quality DAC on the component jacks out or poor encoding.

  102. Re:You'll never know. You can't get past the headl by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

    I wish I had mod points to give you, especially since his post garnered a +5 - apparently he's not the only one that has reading comprehension issues.

    Unique Content. That's what it's really all about. People who relate primarily by the lowest common denominators are not people who care about unique content, or even about variety. The VHS revolution was a big deal because of all the obscure media people were finally able to share, and to watch whenever they wanted to, with whomever they wanted to.