|
|
Posted by SFTVratings on 04/10/07 14:15
electrochrome wrote:
> Kevin babbled incoherently:
> "What's your point? That you don't know how to operate a DVD player?"
>
> What's my point?
> My point is that transferring old VHS tapes to DVD usually
> reduces noise and enhances the picture, especially if you do it
> with a decent proc amp and a video enhancer like the
> Vidicraft Detailer III. It helps to have an excellent VCR, too,
> like a Toshiba w808 or Toshiba M785 or a JVC HR9911. So
> it's especially worth doing for classic old films that will never
> be released on the new hi-def formats.
Never? Don't say never. If you're looking for rare films like the
Silents, maybe you should check out TCM's online (or offline)
catalog? They've got literally thousands of rare movies on DVD.
As for copying VHS-to-DVD, I don't recommend. The process of copying
introduces "copy errors" such that the copy is of lesser-quality of
the original. (For an illustration, copy a typed report. Now make a
copy of the copy. And a copy of that copy. Pretty soon you'll have
an unreadable smudge, due to progressive degradation.) IMHO it's
wiser to keep the original VHS if you want the best-possible quality
of your "master" tape.
> But in the end, video quality just isn't anywhere near as
> important as the content.
Agreed.
> ...., I've forgotten a lot more about
> capturing and processing video and authoring DVDs
> than you'll ever know, Kevin. You want to know what
> my point is? That's my point, newbie. Here's a nickel,
> kid. Go get yourself a real AVID setup.
That was rude & uncalled for.
You can make your point without attacking the person.
leo86@my-deja.com wrote:
> So what? ... If I'm trying to find a line in a subtitle on a
> foreign film, it's much harder to do with a DVD than a VHS tape.
You misunderstood my point. I was not denigrating VHS. In fact, I
still use S-VHS as my main workhorse for taping of daily/nightly
television shows, and review later-on. (I will soon be upgrading to D-
VHS after the analog broadcasts stop.) I was merely sharing the
available information regarding resolutions.
> Do I care about the visual quality of a film? Yes, of course.....
> But, guess what? I watch a lot of movies just to see them, things that
> are not masterpieces and don't really need optimum format.
Ditto.
> To all the people who spend tens of thousands of dollars on high-tech,
> state-of-the-art ...... Watching something that's actually good on a
> 13-inch TV set is a much more meaningful and enriching experience
> than watching crap on a 50-inch screen with surround sound...
Ditto.
> But Techies never show any interest in content, do they?
False.
Don't be prejudiced (prejudging). I'm an engineer, and I too am more
interested in content than the tech. I am still using a 27" analog
set, with Super VHS as my main workhorse. No desire to upgrade to
anything better (HD, wall-sized set, Bluray disc), since I think the
DVD/27"/S-VHS combo is "good enough" for watching my favorite tv or
movies.
> Oh, and I still listen to music on audiocassettes played on a Sony
> Walkman. And guess what? It sounds just as good as the sound on a CD.
> (I don't know how it compares to MP3's because I haven't gotten that
> far yet, have I?)
Cassettes often sound better than MP3, because MP3 is a "lossy" format
that throws away ~90% of the audio, in order to squeeze the sound into
a teeny-tiny computer file. And MP3s never sound equal to CD-quality.
As for DVDs: I like them because I can aquire my favorite tv shows
(Star Trek, 24) for $40-50. Back when these shows were only available
on VHS, they cost ~$200 per season. DVD has provided an inexpensive
way to get my favorite shows w/o emptying my wallet.
And movies:
If you're looking for rare films like the Silents, maybe you should
check out TCM's online (or offline) catalog? They've got literally
thousands of rare movies on DVD.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|