Why?

[VenusFly]

This should give you a good idea of the quality that you can get from an ordinary VHS tape that was recorded from a VHF source in 1997 off of an unknown quality VCR that has been played back on a 6-head Panasonic without any DNR or other such nonsense, only processing for the uploaded videos has been deinterlacing (no denoise) then encoding in H.265 with Intel Quicksync, the still photos are from the raw catured video files, should be noted that I've gotten other tapes which were recorded in 1992 and before with an equal level of quality.

"Its a Sony" fly fishing Ad from 1997 (203 MB): Uploadfiles.io - 9Th June 1997 Sony Trinitron Boat It's A Sony Advert-1.mkv

Jack Daniel's "Jack lives here" Ad from 1997 (169 MB): Uploadfiles.io - 9Th June 1997 Jack Daniels Ad 1997.mkv

Commonwealth Bank Running Bull Ad from 1997 (190.3MB): Uploadfiles.io - 9Th June 1997 Commonwealth Bank Running Bull Advert-1.mkv


All in PAL, captured as raw then re-encoded into Intel Quicksync H.265 using Handbrake at a constant quality of 0. No DNR at all just a deinterlace Tape stock was Mitsubishi.

If your tv can't produce this good of a quality from SD video then something is very very wrong.

 

[leadbelly]

Funny this should come up as I recently set up a VCR in the living room for the 1st time in ages. I scored a 6 head Panasonic for free at a garage sale a month ago, intending to scavenge the knobs. Then this past weekend we got a bunch of disney VHSs for free at a garage sale as my daughter was in tow and my wife was too polite to say no. Doesn't look half bad on a 50" plasma.

 

[VenusFly]

This guy on youtube nailed the fascination with VHS that some groups have today: YouTube

 

[VenusFly]

I scored a 6 head Panasonic for free at a garage sale a month ago, intending to scavenge the knobs.

cool what model is it?


I picked up a PAL Betamax Hi-Fi deck for really cheap ($79). Brings back memories waiting for it to arrive in the mail.

 

[waxx]

Because the sound is better to our ears on a good setup. It's technical inferior, but the mono bass, the soft rollof of the topend and the lower dynamic range sounds better than the mathematical precision of a digital file. With other words, digital is to clean and sterile to sound natural.

That' also why a lot of high end studio's still record on tape and use old tube equipment and old mics, and tube amps and fullrange speaker drivers are so popular in the high end world... It's not all about accuracy, it's about sound that we love.

And yes, next to my large vinyl collection i have also a lot of hi res digital files and a good dac. As it's often more convienent in some situations. Or there is no vinyl version, not made or not found for a reasonable price...

 

[scott wurcer]

If your tv can't produce this good of a quality from SD video then something is very very wrong.

The 4:3 world view. Frankly none of these images rock my world. The best I had back in the day was the two box Teac VCR ($1500 1982 $$). MGM's two tape release of Ken Russel's "The Devils" was one of the reference films. Still no match for the 35mm X rated version I screened at MIT. I would never watch it now on anything but the anamorphic DVD remaster.

 

[VenusFly]

The 4:3 world view. Frankly none of these images rock my world.

How sad. You think that Hollywood should command your mind so much that you are willing to give up your right to even see entertainment in any other way besides what they dictated should be the aspect ratio for everybody in a time of the dark ages of human visual understanding.

What is the aspect ratio of human vision? - Quora


This guy sums up my thoughts on this topic:

We used to use 4:3 as an aspect ratios for screens because that was what ratio human were thought to see in. 4:3 is not particularly tiring on the eyes, especially if you are watching something rather simple, like two people talking. The thing is, movie makers didn't find 4:3 a very nice ratio to work with.

So as a result, a sort-of rumor was spread via marketing departments and PR firms saying that 16:9 is the viewing ratio that humans have and that you should have that as the ratio for your TV. Most of us have brought into that idea and got a widescreen TV. 16:9 and other even wider aspect ratios, such as 2:1 and wider, are certainly more 'immersive', from a viewer's and an artist's perspective, but they certainly aren't the aspect ratio that your eyes use.

But really, the aspect ratio of your eyes is somewhere between the two aspect ratios of 4:3 and 16:9. We're all a bit different, but most of us tend to be closer to 4:3.

I hate my widescreen television. Wish I just had a big stinking 4:3 CRT Sony Trinitron in the room but nobody makes one at 4K resolution.

Know why? Because I like to see my actors faces and not have to squint just to recognize them because they are so far away on a widescreen television, even at 44 inches I still see the scenery to the right and the left to be pointless and the only thing on my mind is what the actor is doing with his face or with whatever gun he is holding and the texture of said gun, clothing, his makeup, etc. We've lost that finer detail of the actors as the image has gotten wider and wider over time.

And if you stick a huge 44 inch television or larger in a room you are basically saying to your mind "when you are in front of the television you have nothing else to concentrate on except for the film itself and nothing else." which means that the entertainment that is being shown on the television will become boring and overpowering at the same time. Leading to fatigue in the viewing experience. At least that is how I feel when watching films on large widescreen televisions. But that might be because its neither OLED or CRT, but I doubt it.

Which having an overpowering "cinematic experience at home" every single night then leaves nothing to the imagination, nothing to romance about if you are viewing a scene of venice, nope, nothing to imagine that is there anymore because you see venice and you see that it is just a dull and boring place like downtown Los Angeles.

By increasing the aspect ratio and resolution of the ordinary home cinema experience we have essentially killed the imagination of kids and teenagers and killed the romance of adults the entire world over. But how would I know I'm not a kid.

Movies and tv shows are now no longer a novel to be read once and tossed away, to be excited about and talked about amongst your friends, now they are never even watched and I personally yawn at their very existence.

oh yeah and Captain America is gay. So is every other superhero movie that has been released today. Modern Superhero movies are a great example of what I'm talking about, the cinematic experience is best left in the cinema, I miss the old much quieter home video market experience where the television's dynamic range was limited to much quieter levels and where people would rug up with one another and enjoy a movie in peace and quiet, while imagining that Freddy was coming through the back door and was in the kitchen right now...


Dynamic audio sucks.
Cinematic experience in the home sucks.
Widescreen sucks.

This guy summed it up pretty well, we used to be afraid of films and now we just yawn at them: YouTube

35mm

Sadly as you already mentioned DVD is the best we've got for great transfers. I still haven't bought into DVD even after all of this time because I'm waiting out (fruitlessly) for the great artistic films to be released on Bluray, which may never happen.

 

[gasboss775]

This guy on youtube nailed the fascination with VHS that some groups have today: YouTube

Interesting....you have challenged my VHS prejudices!

Dare I love analogue video again?

Scott W I recommend you watch that you tube video.





Now "Videodrome" that was surely one of the most bizarre films made.

 

[VenusFly]

I'll give you another good example of why widescreen televisions don't belong in the household. Remember The X-Files? It used to be a regular event for millions of americans to sit down and watch things on a little black box with friends and family and ponder about what the hell is out there in the woods.


Now, go and watch the modern X-Files, its a full on cinematic experience now with too much visual information entering the old noggin' and leaving nothing to the imagination anymore. You don't get scared as much anymore and you get bored to death with the constant hammering of your eardrums with dynamic audio and jump scares and OH MY GOD DRAMATIC MUSIC! every 5 seconds....


YouTube

YouTube

DRAMATIC MUSIC! BANG! BOOM! Amazing emotional speeches given by Martin Luther King's Hologram. Amazing cinematic camera angles. Constant buildups and inspirational musical tones.

Just for a kids movie....


Everything has turned hyper-emotional and cynical. The future sucks! Burn the future!

 

[scott wurcer]

How sad. You think that Hollywood should command your mind so much that you are willing to give up your right to even see entertainment in any other way besides what they dictated should be the aspect ratio for everybody in a time of the dark ages of human visual understanding.

The most pleasing aspect ratio to human perception is Phi (~1.61 the golden mean) far closer to 16:9, this has been known for thousands of years and has been accidentally discovered again and again by the greatest artists in history. You can pan and scan all the wonderful work of dozens of cinematographers go for it leave me out. Don't mistake content with presentation. That Quora answer is typical made up Quora BS, everything is a conspiracy. I quit after one to many argument about fresh fish and cheese are illegal in the US.

 

[scott wurcer]

Scott W I recommend you watch that you tube video.

I did, so why bother with your 6 head recorders at SD? The cheapest recorder at 6hr. speed should be even better. Transfer all your CD's to 64K MP3 while you're at it. BTW that guy in the video watched "The Time Bandits" in it's original aspect ratio lowering the rez even more.

Films, at their best, are a first generation artistic expression. They are meant to projected in their original form where all that the artist intended can be appreciated. Many of the impairments mentioned actually are present in this process.

Recorded music OTOH is inherently a second hand experience.

 

[TheGimp]

VHS always looked grainy to me. Super Beta slightly less so. I thought Hi-8 was even better.

 

[nigel pearson]

I think the [(5^0.5+1)/2 : 1 ratio ] is the biggest bit of nonsense we get fed. Try it yourself. Draw various rectangles that are either side of it and see if you can spot the real one. Most rectangle shapes do much the same, some I am sure are nicer. I think what happened in time is this remarkable number has said to mathamatical types it has devine magic in it. I can see why as it is the most real number in many ways. Take Phi^10 as an example.

Phi = 1.6180339887499
1/Phi = 0.6180339887499
Phi ^2 = 2.6180339887499
Phi ^10 = 123 ( 122.99186938125 )
Phi.( 5^0.5 ) = 3.6180339887499

What my eyes tell me is that 5 is more than a quirk of how many fingers we have. Phi^10 seems to suggest base 10 is a reasonable counting system and base 12 might not be. The latter provides too many patterns. Sun Flowers, Bees, and Hunting Dogs seem to know this number. For the dogs it gives the greatest range to their ability to smell things quickly ( I went hunting in France against my nature to see this, At least it's for eating when there ). Bees use it to get the most honey from flowers.

To a good approximation

1.2 [Phi^2] = Pi or 3.141641

Also for curiousity.

Pi^3 = 31 or 31.0063

The main reason many do not like 16:9 is the TV is too large for the room. If you go very close to the TV you will see how much better it looks given enough distance. Repeat it in SD and HD. You would think SD a non starter. However when you get to the Goldilocks position SD isn't bad. If the TV has good contrast and black levels that can matter more.

My son has a last ever Trinitron and laughs at modern TV's. I am so use to the latter I don't like the Trinitron as much as I did these days. The glass bit puts me off. His room is 10 x 10 feet, so the 32 inch Sony is fine. It's a two man lift.

 

[VenusFly]

The most pleasing aspect ratio to human perception is Phi (~1.61 the golden mean) far closer to 16:9, this has been known for thousands of years and has been accidentally discovered again and again by the greatest artists in history. You can pan and scan all the wonderful work of dozens of cinematographers go for it leave me out. Don't mistake content with presentation. That Quora answer is typical made up Quora BS, everything is a conspiracy. I quit after one to many argument about fresh fish and cheese are illegal in the US.

You are completely right. Then why are you complaining and arguing in this thread? Why did you even engage the thread?

I'm not looking for a cinematic experience, I'm here to be entertained by a romantic fascination with the notion that we all once sat down in front of a 4:3 or wider older television , I don't want to be overloaded with information when I'm watching anything that is entertaining but I also don't want to be bored to death at the same time. That is where the whole VHS and CRT craze began.

When I am sitting down relaxing and watching something on the television my mind is so fatigued from working all day that I don't want to see the outside world anymore all I want to see is my favourite artists face and a closeup shot of whatever they are doing with their hands because my mind is so tired from working all day that I just don't care about watching a massive cinematic masterpiece. That is why 4:3 is so amazing. All of the stuff that happens to the left and to the right and the constant "artistic" camera angles and shots in modern day shows and movies is EXHAUSTING. That exhaustion is gone when watching a VHS tape on a 4:3 screen.

But with a 4:3 display your mind literally has to focus on one thing in the room and one thing only instead of this stupidly huge television that is bigger than a single mattress.

And have you seen the quality of modern tv shows and movies? There is no substance at all to any of them, none of the stories are engaging and no show ever explains the plot ever. All of it is just franchise peddling ********. No one ever explains anything to the viewer anymore.

The main reason many do not like 16:9 is the TV is too large for the room. If you go very close to the TV you will see how much better it looks given enough distance. My son has a last ever Trinitron and laughs at modern TV's.

Exactly.



Large Widescreen tv's are nothing more than rich people showing off. The more the better. I've seen inside of some peoples houses and they all have 4-5 tv sets, all massive, and they all light up the room like they are advertising a billboard with the brightness turned up to maximum. None of them ever even consider the existence of a goldilock's distance.

You see this everywhere if you go for a walk at about 6-9pm in the afternoon and peek into peoples houses.

 

[KaffiMann]

I think the high resolution of modern formats are very tiring because it requires a significantly higher framerate to work properly.
30 fps is absolutely horrible, 60 fps is better/passable on full hd, but on a big screen with more than 1080p you really need over 90 fps and up towards 120 fps to make it really good. It requires a stupid amount of processing power and fast storage.

On PC I really miss the CRT I had some years ago, because 60hz is just not enough, 90hz is fine, but cross 110hz and I had hardly any eye fatigue after full days of working... I got to get a new pc monitor, they have 144hz monitors with insane resolution now

 

[nigel pearson]

My friend sort a Pioneer Plasma after not liking modern types. He is a mathamatician and was telling me how complex it is to fool the eye. More so with plasma. As far as I know the colour parts are much like CRT. The Pioneer always was one I liked. The black is really black. Paul pointed out to me why some don't like the Pioneer. Football was a problem. To me it looked fine. Football is like paint drying, not my big ask.

I like the number Phi. I don't go with it's the one we like best. 1hi^0.5 looks good. 3 x 3.82. A4 paper 1 x 1.43 I think.

 

[Max Headroom]

Old VHS tapes are straight up junk compared to modern digital video.
Sure there can be digital compression artifacts according to the resolution class, but there is no picture noise.
For example try watching a modern David Attenborough documentary.....VHS would be a very pale comparison, noisy and hopeless resolution in comparison.
VHS/ Beta recorders belong in museums only.

Dan.

 

[gasboss775]

Technically I don't think there is really any argument for the superiority of VHS/ Beta over modern digital formats, with the exception of very low bandwidth digital video.

The appeal is for me largely a trip down nostalgia lane, besides I don't have the space to replace 400+ DVDs with bulky VHS tapes!

 

[nigel pearson]

Hi Dan, gasboss.

The wonderment is how the engineers of modern TV haven't turned their backs on the legacy inputs. Somehow the experiance of VHS is better than I remember it when using modern HD TV. Sometimes I have used high quality AM tuners like my Sony ST3950. If everything that can be right is right I drift away into thinking it's FM. What's more impressive this can be on Short Wave also. VHS has one trait I find difficult. It wobbles like a jelly. I swear even that seems better. A HD TV should make a VHS dreadful, to me it's OK. It's like it has 1 MHz more bandwidth now, likelyhood is just getting that last drop of what's there. My friend and I like watching 1990's adverts. They seem written by more intelligent people. I miss them!!!!! We have 50 VHS tapes at a guess. Sometimes we buy extra ones.

 

[TheGimp]

I need to digitize my VHS tapes before the player craps out.