Posted by Bill Vermillion on 04/15/07 04:05

In article <1176214523.926309.204010@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
SFTVratings <SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>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.

And there are movies that TCM broadcast in the past that they have
never shown again. One that comes to mind is George Raft's Bolero.

>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.

I've found that my JVC [one of the 9000 series] with the built-in
TBC and NR really gives an amazing picture on older VHS tapes.

I have a 2700 series that I use that feeds and ADVC300 with
a built-in TBC, 3D noise reduction, and controls for sharpness,
color, contrast, etc., and really improve older tapes before I burn
them to DVD. The chip that Canopus designed and used in their
systems was so good that Thomson/GrassValley bought them out
to use in their lower end pro line.

>> But in the end, video quality just isn't anywhere near as
>> important as the content.

>Agreed.

Also agree.

>> ...., 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.

I didn't know they were still making D-VHS.

>> 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.

Even if they aren't masterpieces it's nicer to watch a good
quality print/tape than a fuzzy one. At least that's my POV.

>> 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.

At times it can be true and false. As a former recording engineer
at times I found I was more interested in the quality of the
content - particularly in direct-to-disc recordings, but then after
awhile I started notice the content wasn't anything to make me
listen to it more than a couple of times.

>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.

And there are varying levels of MP3. I've found that using a
high-bit rate gives a pretty good sound. But then when friends
send me something it seems they are more interested in the space
consumed than the quality of the sound. But then again so many
people have sound systems that don't project the true quality as so
often I've seen 'treble' and 'bass' cranked up. I've also seen
this in the high-futility stores [ of which thankfully there are
far fewer now ].

>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.

Bill

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

[Back to original message]