Jay G.

I don't completely understand this sentence; it seems like part of it is missing. If you mean that the " increase in quality in display systems" mad VHS unviable, I'll agree, to a point. What's more likely the cause of VHS's demise was its high replication cost, meaning VHS couldn't drop below a certain price point, and demand dropped to point that continuing to produce it didn't make sense.

Look at vinyl. It's debatable whether any digital format has truly replaced it in terms of quality, yet it lost mainstream support an languished for a few decades with limited and hard-to-find releases.

On the other hand, look at VCD. It's still sold in the Asian markets it had made it big in, even though DVD is sold right next to it. VCD isn't much better than VHS in quality, yet it still sells because distributors are able to manufacture it and sell it cheap.

When demand for DVD drops, it will either become a heavily-discounted item, or studios will drop support.

I agree with all these statements.

bsmith

I was talking about viability from a consumer stand point, not from a manufacturing perspective. Basically, all my VHS tapes have been replaced or disposed of, primarily because the resolution is to low to watch on my projection system. Even if I had no replacement yet on DVD they went. However, DVDs are more then acceptable on my system so there is no reason to part with any, unless I decide a BR replacement is worth the additional cost.

While not everyone has a projection system, display devices on average are bigger then they were in the mid 90's. I think very few could be happy watching VHS now based on size and the lack of anamorphic transfers back then. But like I stated previously, many can live happily with DVDs output now and in the future. However, as BRs come down in price the cost difference will become minimal with respect to the BR benefits, so there will be no reason for DVDs to continue to be produced. Some feel the benefits of BR already out weight the lower cost of DVDs. Others will in time.

Jay G.

You're still watching VHS quality video on those VHS-to-DVD transfers, though. The DVD transfer makes the viewing more convenient: no need for a separate player, chapter stops, etc. It also halts any further degradation of the image from repeated playback. However, unless you're not watching those transferred DVDs on your projector, you're watching VHS-quality on it.

PatrickMcCart

DVD can enhance VHS to an extent. The image quality will remain the same (no degredation) and you can convert to progressive. I've transfered a few tapes to DVD-R with 24p conversion and it looks quite good. Not nearly as good, but not unwatchable.

bsmith

How do you know I'm watching any VHS to DVD type transfers? I'm curious, what DVDs you are refferring to that were transferred from VHS quality tapes?

I also don't understand your last statement, what VHS quality are you referring to that I am supposedly watching on my projector?

Jay G.

Wow, I completely misread one of your posts. I read this statement:
As: "Even if I had no replacement, yet on DVD they went." That's my bad.

I'll reply to the 2 paragraph instead now:
As has been pointed out, the majority of TV owners still have only SD televisions (60-70%). Then VHS phased out, it was probably still +90% SDTV-only.

Now? Yes. In the future? Maybe. Again, people were content with VHS-level output for near 20 years, then dropped it like a bad habit when DVD came around, even though the quality of VHS didn't change and their TV didn't change. I also know from first-hand experience that right up to the end there were quite a number of people who still thought VHS was "good enough" and only bought a DVD player because VHS tapes had stopped being available.

If VHS had a lower cost price-point, it still might be in production today.

I agree with this. There's also the factor of initial price: studios don't like offering a new title for a new price significantly lower that what it's being offered for now. I remember that VHS started out cheaper in retail for new releases, but then retailers started price-cutting the DVD in addition to or instead of the VHS, and so the price difference between the new formats for a new release was negligible.

Carcosa

Back in the day, I remember going into the local high-end audio/video shop and looking at a copy of CITIZEN KANE (all tapes kept in the locked case) in either VHS or Beta for the modest price of 89.99....back in the day. Yikes.

This past Thursday FRY'S ELECTRONICS had a few BD titles on sale....of note were the recent release of GHOSTS OF MARS, and HELLBOY for $11.99 each, and THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST for $14.99. THE SEARCHERS and BATTLE OF THE BULGE seems be a standard price of $14.99 there.

bsmith

I can see that a comma, or lack thereof, can obviously change the meaning quite a bit.

True, but didn't someone say earlier that studios are targeting 10% as the main consumers that purchase their product. I bet the percentage of HDTV's in that 10% is pretty high.

On another forum I frequent I've see many times where individuals are just now replacing trusted VHS copies of old TV shows that are now finally coming out on DVD. So some still are surviving on VHS when no other medium exists.

In addition to other factors being brought up, there may be a generational side to the equation that needs to be considered. Having a collector mentality, I bought up tapes as soon as the prices became reasonable. As you put it, I dropped them like a bad habit when DVD came out. However, on my third go around it's just not that easy. If I was in my 30's or younger I might feel about BR like I did about DVD. However, at 48 I really don't see the need to hope that 10 years from now they might release some of the catalog titles I have been getting on DVD now on BR. So like the person 15 years ago saying VHS is "good enough" on his 26" screen, I guess I'm saying DVD is "good enough" on my 92" screen.

Now as I previously stated, I will move up to BR for certain content based on availability and price/value ratio to me. For example, I bought some of the earlier Bond transfers several years ago. During a sale in the past year or so I pircked up the remastered sets for like $4 a film and sold the old ones. So far I have only watched one or two. The current Bonds on BR are a pretty good price, but I just don't feel a need to upgrade once again when these look better then I have ever seen before. Same with the Star Trek TOS. So future may have to be caveated with how long in the future. For my future I think that I can live with having titles on DVD going forward.

Carcosa

After I purchased my BD player, I sat down and compared a couple of the James Bond films between BD and 1080p upscaled DVD (on my XD-E500 player) and STRUGGLED as to whether or not to upgrade to BD. I could see a bit of an improvement but not particularly substantial. After chewing on it and going back and forth I did opt for the upgrade, and have had regrets about doing so I admit. Not every film is worth replacing.

However....I recently purchased BD imports of ZULU from the early 1960's and David Lean's GREAT EXPECTATIONS. The highly admired MGM DVD and the Criterion package respectively cannot hold a candle to the picture quality of the Blu-ray discs.

About 80% of my DVDs are movies made before 1950, many of them looking about the best they are going to because of the condition of surviving prints, etc. Am I going to be replacing my MR MOTO or UNIVERSAL HORROR titles or FRANK CAPRA COLLECTION discs with Blu-ray? Highly doubtful to say the least. But I WILL be picking up BEN HUR, GONE WITH THE WIND, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA on Blu-ray in a nanosecond as soon as they are available. Its definitely a title by title decision.

DVD Polizei

Zulu does look rather amazing. A tad "pasty", but I'm wondering if this is because of the make-up and less to do with processing.

orangerunner

I agree with you here. I started my VHS collection when I was 11 years old in 1984 when I bought a used copy of Raiders of the Lost Ark for $30!

By 1995, I had about 300 tapes in my collection. In the eighties & early nineties, unlike today, owning pre-recorded VHS movies was expensive & somewhat of a novelty for most VCR owners.

I quit buying VHS in 1995, toyed with Laserdisc mostly as rentals and then slowly sold off all my VHS tapes and bought into DVD in 2003.

I'm 35 and having sold off my (formerly cherished) VHS collection, I can't see myself ditching DVD six years later for a format that, based on my TV set at the moment, gives you a marginally better picture & sound.

When the Blu-Ray players come down to the $100 mark, I'll entertain buying one and then continue my movie collection from there.

When the Halloween Criterion Collection arrived on Laserdisc in 1994, it was enough incentive for me to purchase a $300 laserdisc player. It was such a vast improvment in picture, sound and extra features.

Halloween arrived on Blu-Ray & I have no interest in re-purchasing it once again after I already bought the VHS, Laserdisc and 2 different DVD versions.

bsmith

My pre-1950's collection has been steadly growing over the past two years and is probably a solid 60% of my entire collection. Another reason I just don't see BR taking the place of for quite a few years. I'm sure there are going to be some absolute favorites I will have a hard time not upgrading. On a side note, thank goodness for the Costco deals on older sets because that's how I discovered the Mr. Moto series. Fun flicks.

Interestingly, one of the first BR's I will be getting for my wife is the Pride and Prejudice miniseries that just came out. Not a show piece BR in any way, but considering the source and the quality of the previously released DVDs, it is a major improvement. For me, I've been holding out for Iron Man. Just like the comic book stuff and figure it will maximize what BR had to offer.

Carcosa

Costco has had some phenomenal deals on box sets the last few years. I purchased most of my Warner Bros sets and Fox sets there at pretty substantial savings. Right now now they have a slew of them, including the newest Bette Davis set for $24.99.

They do. I have the recent BDs of IRON MAN and the new HULK film and they are standouts. While its unlikely I will upgrade many older films, most new choices are typically Blu-ray for me if the option is available. My most recent non-Blu-ray disc purchase was FOX HORROR CLASSICS Vol 2. Not the kind of thing I have much interest in replacing with BD later down the road.

pro-bassoonist

Actually, aside from Criterion's In the Realm of the Senses, this is hands-down the biggest show-off title to be released on Blu-ray in Region-A during the last two years.

Pro-B

bsmith

I agree with what you are saying, I wasn't meaning to infer my opinion. I was trying to state more of what I had heard average BR buyers say that really don't know the origins of the film and try to compare it to some of the best quality video releases out on BR today. As one user reviews said: It doesn't look any better then a DVD.

Carcosa

The local Fry's Electronics had a slew of catalog Blu-ray discs on sale this week for $9.99. Among the 20 or so were the two UNDERWORLD films, 7th VOYAGE OF SINBAD, BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA and quite a few others. I picked up GROUNDHOG DAY.

That's pretty amazing considering where things were even 6 months ago.

toddly6666

Now that most Blu-rays have a DTS option, is it just me or has anyone else noticed that DVDs are rarely getting the DTS option nowadays? Is this another cruel way of movie companies trying to force the DVD consumer to convert to Blu Ray?

Jay G.

Did DVDs ever get DTS tracks all that often?

More likely it's a cost-saving measure as DVDs continue to drop in price. DTS takes up a lot of space. Instead of a 2-disc SE with DTS, a studio can remove the DTS track and cram everything on one disc.

toddly6666

More DVDs had DTS (pre-Blu Ray) than the DVDs released during Blu Ray times...

DVDs used to do the DD 5.1 on the single disc and have DD 5.1 AND DTS on the 2-disk. Nowadays, it seems like it's just DD 5.1 on both versions...

Jay G.

Do you have a list or anything to back up this assertion, or is this just a "gut feeling" you have?

jjcool

I think it is more than likely the latter. I dont remember dts being on all too many discs, and only a couple that I have in my collection.

Jay G.

I found a list of R1 DVDs with DTS released through March of 2008:
http://www.spannerworks.net/reference/10_6a.asp

It has 504 titles on it. Considering that there's around 100,000 DVD titles released in R1, that's a really small percentage.

WMAangel

No....

DTS is an optional audio selection for DVD, like a "bonus feature"....all DVDs are still required to have either a Dolby Digital or PCM audio track...
However, Blu-ray Disc included DTS as one of three usable choices in their required audio specifications (DTS, Dolby Digital, or PCM)....therefore a BD can only contain a DTS track and not need any other as well....

Due to its "core + extension" architecture, many companies are now choosing DTS-HD Master Audio as their soundtrack of choice on BD since it provides both lossless audio compression (for those who can take advantage of it), as well as high-quality "full bitrate" lossy DTS for those with only legacy equipment.....plus there may also be some cash changing hands to influence studios to quit using Dolby as well....

jjcool

Off the top of my head, the only titles in my collection that I think have DTS tracks are Saving Private Ryan, Apollo 13, U-571, Bone Collector and The Eagles: Hell Freezes Over. There may be more, But that is all I can think of right now.

In looking at that list, there are several more that I either didnt know about, or forgot about. Interestingly enough, The Eagles dvd isnt listed. And I dont see any music dvds listed. Surely there must be some that have a DTS track, no?

toddly6666

just a gut feeling...I'm thinking of FOX dvds mainly...for example, the WOLVERINE: X-MEN ORIGINS dvd would normally have a DTS audio if Blu Ray didn't exist...