|
||||||||
Mediocre quality DVD's |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,102
|
Mediocre quality DVD's
Has anyone updated a VHS title with its DVD counterpart and thought that the latter is not really any better, in terms of picture quality?
I recorded some tapes on a top notch unit with time base corrector etc and the commerical DVD version looks no better. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 572
|
"Has anyone updated a VHS title with its DVD counterpart and thought that the latter is not really any better, in terms of picture quality?"
Is it 1999? |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,102
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,006
|
Quote:
I took it as meaning that there were a lot of mediocre transfers when DVDs first came out in the late 90s, and this wasn't really the case nowadays(?)I do know that some of the early DVDs were nothing special. Mastering technology was probably less advanced then, and they probably weren't as experienced at it. (Some of the early DVDs compared unfavourably to Laserdisc due to obvious compression artifacts and stupid things like it being squeezed into a single layer 4.7GB). But I'm guessing there was also some rush to get product out on DVD, and later on they had the time, proven market and better technology to justify doing a better job. The first release of Blade Runner on DVD was apparently very poor, whereas the more recent remaster was much better. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,102
|
Ah right....
Well I am more of a TV than movie person, so am replacing stuf that I taped off the TV or bought on VHS. Old series and comedy shows will not be given the makeover treatment because it isn't cost effective. I made the mistake of discarding VHS tapes before checking the DVD's and in some cases found that the latter to be no better or even slightly poorer looking. Still, it has cleared some shelf space! I was genuinely puzzled as to how a DVD transfer from a BBC master could look no better than a recording off analogue TV onto VHS and then dubbed to DVD-R
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 43,524
|
no not really. there are some films i have bought on bluray and thought that they weren't significantly better that the dvd.
old films are generally recorded on film and the quality is pretty good. old tv shows i guess are recorded on tape, though not vhs, so the quality isn't always great. and worse all that noise is difficult to store digitally and uses up valuable bandwidth. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Scouser in Chilterns
Posts: 711
|
My efforts at copying old VHS tapes from Crystal Palace TV to DVD have resulted in DVDs which when showing the Last Royal Tournament ..poss 1990.. in London..
are seen as no better than modern day transmission by several women watchers.. The close ups of the Horses..the uniforms and the Brass instruments are hardly different to HD broadcasts from my HDDs this year at 12 feet away from 42Inch Pan TV.. I did not tell the watchers which was which because i was genuinely interested whether it was just me that thought that the VHS DVDs were in parts 'Superb' I was going to input that possibly it is to do with the Upscalers in the Panasonic equipment?..What ones do the BBC use or have they their own patent i wonder? Equally I suspect that the music into a cheapo PAN cinema system equally helps to fool the brain that it's real good stuff
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,102
|
Quote:
My efforts at copying old VHS tapes from Crystal Palace TV to DVD have resulted in DVDs which when showing the Last Royal Tournament ..poss 1990.. in London..
are seen as no better than modern day transmission by several women watchers.. The close ups of the Horses..the uniforms and the Brass instruments are hardly different to HD broadcasts from my HDDs this year at 12 feet away from 42Inch Pan TV.. I did not tell the watchers which was which because i was genuinely interested whether it was just me that thought that the VHS DVDs were in parts 'Superb' I was going to input that possibly it is to do with the Upscalers in the Panasonic equipment?..What ones do the BBC use or have they their own patent i wonder? Not all of them look better than their commercial counterparts but in the vast majority of cases, there's very little difference. DVD is not really blowing me away. This begs the question....are DVD's poorly mastered or did VHS technology really become formidable in its latter years? On paper the specs quote VHS 240 lines. DVD 500. The (subjective) reality is somewhat different |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: S.West England.
Posts: 18,037
|
not seen a single dvd which looked the same as vhs. I played a vhs tape the other day which was recorded of the tv and there was no detail in the picture whatsoever. Nowhere near dvd quality. I would say the pic gap between vhs and dvd is greater than between dvd and bluray.
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 108
|
I'v seen a real shocker - the 2nd Highlander film.
The original UK transfer was in 4:3, and looked for all the world like it was taken from the RF out of a VCR at the mastering plant. truly dreadful |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The garden of earthly delights
Posts: 4,512
|
Some of the late issue VHS tapes (2003-2005) are astoundlingly good. Low video noise, crisp and good colour. When comparing those to DVD, the DVD looks no better at all.
Sadly we never got a really clean RF signal (always some slight ghosting) so home taped material is 'just OK'. That said, I have given up with buying DVD's of older TV shows as the quality of those DVD's is disgusting - I'm looking at you Bergerac series 1. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,102
|
I wonder if they use excessive noise reduction (which reduces detail) when mastering DVD's.
I know with audio, I've heard Vinyl that makes CD's sound detail deficient (and I'm not from the 'Vinyl is better than CD' camp) |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,006
|
Quote:
I have given up with buying DVD's of older TV shows as the quality of those DVD's is disgusting - I'm looking at you Bergerac series 1.
However, I'm guessing it's possible (and indeed likely in a lot of cases) that DVDs and present-day transmissions of some shows simply use the old/original film-to-videotape transfers made years ago. I've seen shows on ITV3 that this would explain- you can tell they were shot on film, but the picture quality has a "mediocre analogue" feel. From what I've heard, the quality of film transfers years ago was much lower than it is today (e.g. colour balance, bleached highlights, general quality), probably a combination of available technology and the fact that people weren't as obsessive with picture quality back then. With shows that have obsessive fanbases (e.g. Doctor Who) it's probably worth their time re-transferring the original elements and tidying things up, which they do. But I doubt this would be cost-effective for things like Bergerac and Last of the Summer Wine (which is a mix of video and film on the older shows anyway). Of course, it's also possible that the original film wasn't that great in the first place. Some quickly-shot 16mm location footage for a run-of-the-mill show probably wouldn't have been Hollywood cinema quality anyway. (And wouldn't have had to have been if it was only intended for transfer to SD PAL videotape for consumption on a 24" wood-grained late-70s colour set or whatever...) And maybe the original film might have deteriorated or been lost. But my gut reaction is that the Bergerac DVDs were done from old, mediocre transfers. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,006
|
Quote:
I'v seen a real shocker - the 2nd Highlander film.
The original UK transfer was in 4:3, and looked for all the world like it was taken from the RF out of a VCR at the mastering plant. truly dreadful
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The garden of earthly delights
Posts: 4,512
|
Kodaz, my main gripes are pretty much as you say, but also the disks often have digital noise (compression?) visible along with the messy analogue look so it ends up looking nothing like what I saw when I watched it first time around.
Also the '2 Entertain' company that brings out the disks seems to be content to issue edited versions so sometimes the stories don't even make sense. About VHS, I was astonished to see that my recent VHS recording of an HD broadcast showed transmission artefacts - blocking on backgrounds, showing that 240 line resolution lossy and analogue tape is still outclassing HD in some respects. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Yorks
Posts: 6,180
|
Quote:
About VHS, I was astonished to see that my recent VHS recording of an HD broadcast showed transmission artefacts - blocking on backgrounds, showing that 240 line resolution lossy and analogue tape is still outclassing HD in some respects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,230
|
Some old DVD's were crap thanks to bad transfer, bad compression and low bit rates used. Unfortunatly I think that the format is going that way again, because the film studios want you to buy overpriced Blu-Rays instead. It creates an artificial effect of Blu-Ray looking better than it actually is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,006
|
Quote:
Kodaz, my main gripes are pretty much as you say, but also the disks often have digital noise (compression?) visible along with the messy analogue look so it ends up looking nothing like what I saw when I watched it first time around.
So you get a double whammy of noise looking bad in itself *and* its detrimental effect on digital compression on top of that. Also, the kind of DVDs that are using low-quality sources are probably putting less effort into mastering the DVD too. Quote:
I was astonished to see that my recent VHS recording of an HD broadcast showed transmission artefacts - blocking on backgrounds, showing that 240 line resolution lossy and analogue tape is still outclassing HD in some respects.
Also, I'm not convinced that this says as much about the quality of digital HD (or SD) as you think. Blocking is a different style of artifact to the softening/low-resolution of VHS so less likely to be obscured by the latter in the way that (e.g.) a slightly soft HD transmission's defects would be covered up by the much greater softening of VHS. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The garden of earthly delights
Posts: 4,512
|
Yes, the recording was made from a downscaled HD broadcast (BBC HD channel) on FreeView. The blocking that shows up on my CRT TV and VHS recordings of HD are like areas of colour - say brown - with subtle variations of tone so one area will be a solid colour with the next shade of colour shimmering next to it with a 'blocky' edge.
To be honest I was suprised that VHS showed any issues from HD - but VHS is quite revealing in that respect. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,102
|
Quote:
Some old DVD's were crap thanks to bad transfer, bad compression and low bit rates used. Unfortunatly I think that the format is going that way again, because the film studios want you to buy overpriced Blu-Rays instead. It creates an artificial effect of Blu-Ray looking better than it actually is.
I also think that Freeview is looking more and more soft these days (and I always though analogue was better). It couldn't be an attempt to flog everyone HD could it? |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,145
|
Quote:
not seen a single dvd which looked the same as vhs. I played a vhs tape the other day which was recorded of the tv and there was no detail in the picture whatsoever. Nowhere near dvd quality. I would say the pic gap between vhs and dvd is greater than between dvd and bluray.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: S.West England.
Posts: 18,037
|
have to see that to my eyes at least the vhs-dvd was greater than dvd-bluray. How come so many people say dvd is nearly as good as bluray.
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,006
|
Quote:
Yes, the recording was made from a downscaled HD broadcast (BBC HD channel) on FreeView. The blocking that shows up on my CRT TV and VHS recordings of HD are like areas of colour - say brown - with subtle variations of tone so one area will be a solid colour with the next shade of colour shimmering next to it with a 'blocky' edge.
Quote:
To be honest I was suprised that VHS showed any issues from HD - but VHS is quite revealing in that respect.
The question is how the *original* transmission looked under normal viewing conditions before it was recorded to VHS. If the problems you described weren't clear there, then VHS isn't really showing up a deficiency of the HD transmission per se. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: West Yorks
Posts: 6,180
|
Quote:
You would be wrong as the later is a greater jump in resolution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,102
|
Quote:
have to see that to my eyes at least the vhs-dvd was greater than dvd-bluray. How come so many people say dvd is nearly as good as bluray.
DVD's of cinematic film can look great and push the limits of the technology. DVD's of TV material (especially old stuff) is often just VHS quality (minus a bit of noise) on a plastic disc, to my eyes. No 'TV' DVD's have impressed me. I still buy them though because I no longer want to own VHS. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:00.



