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.'"

35 of 446 comments (clear)

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

  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
  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.

  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 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.

    2. 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?
    3. 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.....

    4. 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.

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

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

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

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

      Sure.

      LOL.

    7. Re:LOL! by walshy007 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    8. 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* :-)

    9. 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!

    10. 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
    11. 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.

    12. 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.
    13. 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!

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

      You'll never beat the warmth of phonovision discs.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    15. 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.

    16. 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!
    17. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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 ..

  12. 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.

  13. 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.
     

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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

  17. 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.