Posted by Hugh Doherty on 09/08/06 14:53

My first experience with using a DVD recorder to transfer from VHS has been
disappointing. I have a large VHS collection. Many of the tapes are more than
15 years old, many were recorded at the 6 hour speed, and their quality is
quite acceptable. Far superior to single-layer DVD recorded at 6-hour speed,
which is virtually unwatchable. Even 4-hour DVD speed results in poor quality.
This may have something to do with my DVD recorder, a modestly-priced LiteOn
LVW 5005, but I gather from reading this newsgroup that anything recorded at
longer than single-layer 2-hour speed on a DVD recorder, regardless of the
source or the price or make of the machine, will result in much worse video
quality than the equivalent VHS.

Hugh Doherty



In article <J595r4.243u@wjv.com>, bv@wjv.com says...
>
>
>In article <wetraprock-FBE427.10183217082006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
>Walter Traprock <wetraprock@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"bert" <bertwoo@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> > is the picture quality from a 6 hour dvd ram disc recorded on a $200
>>> > dvd recorder as good as the picture from a 6 hour ep vhs tape recording?
>>> DVD > SVCD >VHS > VCD, as a media storage interface, not recommand to
>>> use VHS
>
>>Don't be ridiculous; VHS never pixillates or interferes with motion
>>like compressed formats do. It must be a better format; I suppose
>>it must be cutting-edge, and therefore the only technology worth
>>using. DVD recorders are dead. VHS is better technology.
>
>But virtually all the roatry head video machines exhibit some
>motion that is not in the original. I have a TBC in my VHS and I
>didn't know VHS could look that good - but few machines have
>TBC's in them.
>
>Bill
>
>--
>Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

[Back to original message]