Question:
Just had a quick look at dvdboxoffice for the first time and found at the bottom of their home page D-VHS titles!?
Apparently they have 1080 lines of resolution, which If I'm correct is twice as many as dvd!!
Sorry if this is old news or I've got it wrong somehow but I've only just seen it and am a bit stressed out!
Are our dvd's now not the best way we can view films?
:confused: :confused: :( :shocker:
No, they aren't
But DVHS won't replace DVD's, they are just aimed at the ultra high end of the market with HDTV's
Gary A
When you look at dvd titles like The Mummy and Lord Of The Rings how can you get a picture with twice the resolution of that?
Baffling!
I think D-VHS is the only home playback format for HDTV at the moment.
Does D-VHS offer any other feature above DVD other that better picture quality? If not I doubt it will replace DVD as most people don't care about picture quality.
X-MEN (DVHS) (http://www.dvdfile.com/software/review/dvhs/xmen.html)
U-571 (DVHS) (http://www.dvdfile.com/software/review/dvhs/u571.html)
Originally posted by chris21
When you look at dvd titles like The Mummy and Lord Of The Rings how can you get a picture with twice the resolution of that?
Baffling!
I've seen HDTV demonstrated side by side with normal TV using a professional source. The normal T.V. looked really good, but when they turned on the HD set the difference was amazing.
Originally posted by stephen
I think D-VHS is the only home playback format for HDTV at the moment.
Does D-VHS offer any other feature above DVD other that better picture quality? If not I doubt it will replace DVD as most people don't care about picture quality.
In my opinion the main point of dvd is improved picture quality. Certainly the reason why I switched anyway.
...and the 'choice' of D-VHS titles offered is so small as to be virtually negligible, compared to the thousands of DVD titles...
...and you have to rewind the tape (remember that from the old VHS days?!)...
...and the tape head will wear out, sooner or later...
...and it's a pain getting to a specific chapter...
...and I bet the higher resolution will not be noticeable on your average TV set - which is what the vast majority of people watch their DVDs on...
...and the tapes cost much more than your average DVD...
...and the players are not exactly cheap, either...
...and you tell me when and where you ever saw a D-VHS player (nowt 'new' about them, they've been 'on the market' since at least!!! a year) and a selection of D-VHS tapes...
...and... and... and...
...and, anyway, TAPE IS SOOO LAST CENTURY!...
DOWN WITH TAPE ! ! ! I say...
. . . :zzz: . . .
Big article (including photos of players) at thedigitalbits:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/dvhs/index.html
And their reviews of:
Terminator 2 - http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviewsdvhs/terminator2dvhs.html
Xmen - http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviewsdvhs/xmendvhs.html
and U571 - http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviewsdvhs/u571dvhs.html
from U571 review
Ultimately, the vast majority of you will stick with your DVD collector's edition versions of U-571. And you should be quite happy and secure in your decision. The DVD delivers an excellent rendition of this film for home viewing. But for those of you who demand only the absolute highest picture and sound quality from your home theater systems... and who have the income to justify the added expanse... the D-VHS version is clearly superior
Originally posted by Hendrik
[B...and I bet the higher resolution will not be noticeable on your average TV set - which is what the vast majority of people watch their DVDs on...[/B]Trivially true, since most people don't have HDTVs so couldn't possibly do 1080 lines. For comparison, NTSC DVD is 480 lines, PAL DVD is 576 lines, so its only "over 2x as many lines" compared to NTSC, not PAL;).
The successor to DVD, and undoubtly the first HDTV resolution mass market format, will almost certainly be a backwardly compatible HD-DVD format based on that "blue-ray" tech or similar.
Originally posted by chris21
Are our dvd's now not the best way we can view films?
No, and they never have been - even D-VHS can't hold a candle to a good 35mm print projected under optimum conditions.
Does anyone know what resolution is use used for things like Shrek and Toy Story, and the digital cameras used for Star Wars?
Originally posted by chris21
In my opinion the main point of dvd is improved picture quality. Certainly the reason why I switched anyway.
It is for me too, but picture quality is probably the least important aspect for the average consumer, who are more impressed with things like menus and special features.
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
No, and they never have been - even D-VHS can't hold a candle to a good 35mm print projected under optimum conditions.
...Thank you!... Thank you!!... Thank you!!!
...each time I read a review of a DVD where a reviewer enthiuses about "this movie has never looked this good - even when originally shown in theaters" (seen in reviews of "Citizen Kane", Criterion's "The Seventh Seal", "Singin' In The Rain", "Eyes Wide Shut", to name but a few...) I want to scream...
...of course, that's one of the frustrations of being a doddering old man who actually did see such movies in a cinema when they were 'new' (or 'relatively new in the case of CK, which I first saw when that movie was 'only' 9 years old)...
...sorry for the rant - I'll retire to my padded cell now...
. . . :o . . .
Originally posted by Hendrik
..each time I read a review of a DVD where a reviewer enthiuses about "this movie has never looked this good - even when originally shown in theaters" (seen in reviews of "Citizen Kane", Criterion's "The Seventh Seal", "Singin' In The Rain", "Eyes Wide Shut", to name but a few...) I want to scream...
Well, to be fair, Criterion's <I>The Seventh Seal</I> demonstrably <U>is</U> better than any of the London repertory screenings I presided over - where the best we could manage was a horribly mangled 16mm print with barely readable subtitles. Had we replaced that with a big-screen projection of the DVD, I doubt anyone would have complained!
The problem with celluloid is that it's an incredibly fragile medium - and while the ultimate viewing experience will always be a 35mm print in pristine condition (both for reasons of resolution and that intangible "feel" that you get with celluloid, especially a well-made black-and-white print), the fact is that a well-presented DVD may well offer a more satisfying viewing experience than any of the theatrical prints currently in British distribution (or anywhere else, for that matter), as such screenings of perfect prints are few and far between.
<I>North By Northwest</I> is a particularly good example - the DVD is mind-bogglingly good, but to achieve that level of quality on a 35mm print would demand a major and hugely expensive restoration job.
Apparently they have 1080 lines of resolution, which If I'm correct is twice as many as dvd!!
Sorry if this is old news or I've got it wrong somehow but I've only just seen it and am a bit stressed out!
Are our dvd's now not the best way we can view films?
:confused: :confused: :( :shocker:
Answers:
No, they aren't
But DVHS won't replace DVD's, they are just aimed at the ultra high end of the market with HDTV's
Gary A
Answers:
When you look at dvd titles like The Mummy and Lord Of The Rings how can you get a picture with twice the resolution of that?
Baffling!
Answers:
I think D-VHS is the only home playback format for HDTV at the moment.
Does D-VHS offer any other feature above DVD other that better picture quality? If not I doubt it will replace DVD as most people don't care about picture quality.
Answers:
X-MEN (DVHS) (http://www.dvdfile.com/software/review/dvhs/xmen.html)
U-571 (DVHS) (http://www.dvdfile.com/software/review/dvhs/u571.html)
Answers:
Originally posted by chris21
When you look at dvd titles like The Mummy and Lord Of The Rings how can you get a picture with twice the resolution of that?
Baffling!
I've seen HDTV demonstrated side by side with normal TV using a professional source. The normal T.V. looked really good, but when they turned on the HD set the difference was amazing.
Answers:
Originally posted by stephen
I think D-VHS is the only home playback format for HDTV at the moment.
Does D-VHS offer any other feature above DVD other that better picture quality? If not I doubt it will replace DVD as most people don't care about picture quality.
In my opinion the main point of dvd is improved picture quality. Certainly the reason why I switched anyway.
Answers:
...and the 'choice' of D-VHS titles offered is so small as to be virtually negligible, compared to the thousands of DVD titles...
...and you have to rewind the tape (remember that from the old VHS days?!)...
...and the tape head will wear out, sooner or later...
...and it's a pain getting to a specific chapter...
...and I bet the higher resolution will not be noticeable on your average TV set - which is what the vast majority of people watch their DVDs on...
...and the tapes cost much more than your average DVD...
...and the players are not exactly cheap, either...
...and you tell me when and where you ever saw a D-VHS player (nowt 'new' about them, they've been 'on the market' since at least!!! a year) and a selection of D-VHS tapes...
...and... and... and...
...and, anyway, TAPE IS SOOO LAST CENTURY!...
DOWN WITH TAPE ! ! ! I say...
. . . :zzz: . . .
Answers:
Big article (including photos of players) at thedigitalbits:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/dvhs/index.html
And their reviews of:
Terminator 2 - http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviewsdvhs/terminator2dvhs.html
Xmen - http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviewsdvhs/xmendvhs.html
and U571 - http://www.thedigitalbits.com/reviewsdvhs/u571dvhs.html
from U571 review
Ultimately, the vast majority of you will stick with your DVD collector's edition versions of U-571. And you should be quite happy and secure in your decision. The DVD delivers an excellent rendition of this film for home viewing. But for those of you who demand only the absolute highest picture and sound quality from your home theater systems... and who have the income to justify the added expanse... the D-VHS version is clearly superior
Answers:
Originally posted by Hendrik
[B...and I bet the higher resolution will not be noticeable on your average TV set - which is what the vast majority of people watch their DVDs on...[/B]Trivially true, since most people don't have HDTVs so couldn't possibly do 1080 lines. For comparison, NTSC DVD is 480 lines, PAL DVD is 576 lines, so its only "over 2x as many lines" compared to NTSC, not PAL;).
The successor to DVD, and undoubtly the first HDTV resolution mass market format, will almost certainly be a backwardly compatible HD-DVD format based on that "blue-ray" tech or similar.
Answers:
Originally posted by chris21
Are our dvd's now not the best way we can view films?
No, and they never have been - even D-VHS can't hold a candle to a good 35mm print projected under optimum conditions.
Answers:
Does anyone know what resolution is use used for things like Shrek and Toy Story, and the digital cameras used for Star Wars?
Answers:
Originally posted by chris21
In my opinion the main point of dvd is improved picture quality. Certainly the reason why I switched anyway.
It is for me too, but picture quality is probably the least important aspect for the average consumer, who are more impressed with things like menus and special features.
Answers:
Originally posted by Michael Brooke
No, and they never have been - even D-VHS can't hold a candle to a good 35mm print projected under optimum conditions.
...Thank you!... Thank you!!... Thank you!!!
...each time I read a review of a DVD where a reviewer enthiuses about "this movie has never looked this good - even when originally shown in theaters" (seen in reviews of "Citizen Kane", Criterion's "The Seventh Seal", "Singin' In The Rain", "Eyes Wide Shut", to name but a few...) I want to scream...
...of course, that's one of the frustrations of being a doddering old man who actually did see such movies in a cinema when they were 'new' (or 'relatively new in the case of CK, which I first saw when that movie was 'only' 9 years old)...
...sorry for the rant - I'll retire to my padded cell now...
. . . :o . . .
Answers:
Originally posted by Hendrik
..each time I read a review of a DVD where a reviewer enthiuses about "this movie has never looked this good - even when originally shown in theaters" (seen in reviews of "Citizen Kane", Criterion's "The Seventh Seal", "Singin' In The Rain", "Eyes Wide Shut", to name but a few...) I want to scream...
Well, to be fair, Criterion's <I>The Seventh Seal</I> demonstrably <U>is</U> better than any of the London repertory screenings I presided over - where the best we could manage was a horribly mangled 16mm print with barely readable subtitles. Had we replaced that with a big-screen projection of the DVD, I doubt anyone would have complained!
The problem with celluloid is that it's an incredibly fragile medium - and while the ultimate viewing experience will always be a 35mm print in pristine condition (both for reasons of resolution and that intangible "feel" that you get with celluloid, especially a well-made black-and-white print), the fact is that a well-presented DVD may well offer a more satisfying viewing experience than any of the theatrical prints currently in British distribution (or anywhere else, for that matter), as such screenings of perfect prints are few and far between.
<I>North By Northwest</I> is a particularly good example - the DVD is mind-bogglingly good, but to achieve that level of quality on a 35mm print would demand a major and hugely expensive restoration job.
1 2