S VHS vs DVD vs HD recorders

flashgordon1952 · 08-08-2008, 12:01

this is an interesting one because the first S VHS came out around 88/87. they was capable of around 400 lines + compared with 260 lines onVHS.
Eventhough you cannot compare DVD with S VHS in real terms as one is digital the other is not. But visually they compare well .(in my opinion) . On a standard sized tv say up to 37 inches there is very little difference. Its probably only when the screen is bigger that they would be a diffference. With a S connector or SCART gold connectors the S VHS .
The next generation DVD recorders ( HD and Blu-Ray) appear to be very good. the problem is the lack of recorders on the market and offcourse the price.
Again i remember paying £900 in 1988 for a S VHS recorder this compared with a standard VHS recorder being 300-400 notes. times have changed ?
The price of the Blu-Ray recorders appears to be anything over 600-1000 . In my view they are too expensive !
What are other forums members think ??

lala · 08-08-2008, 12:42

Erm........ I like butterflies?

RebelScum · 08-08-2008, 12:49

Quote: "The price of the Blu-Ray recorders appears to be anything over 600-1000 . In my view they are too expensive !"

They will come down in price, these things usually do. I dont mean this in a rude way but you appear to have a reasonable understanding of the market and its history so I would have thought you'd have know that already.

Cornucopia · 08-08-2008, 12:49

I think:[LIST][*]We're being seduced into needing better and better video sources to support bigger and bigger screens. (When I were a lad, the typical living room had a 22inch set - 26, if you were posh).[*]Technology prices will come down over time.[*]The 625 lines UHF standard was very impressive for its time, and it wasn't until DVD recorders came out (30 years later) that you could record it (domestically) without loss of picture information.[*]Technology is at risk of developing/diverging faster than the average person can keep up with it. (Think about how many people have been watching 16x9 sets with stretched analog pictures).[/LIST]

whoever,hey · 08-08-2008, 12:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by flashgordon1952

Eventhough you cannot compare DVD with S VHS in real terms as one is digital the other is not. But visually they compare well .(in my opinion) . On a standard sized tv say up to 37 inches there is very little difference. Its probably only when the screen is bigger that they would be a diffference. With a S connector or SCART gold connectors the S VHS .

I think that is very incorrect. Visually its like compare digital to analog TV when the signal is good. Digital is perfect, and analog never can be. And its visually noticable even on small TVs.

Oh and if you want a cheap and still quality bluray player, get a PS3.

atvproduction · 08-08-2008, 22:28

SVHS is about the same as dvd at 4 hour level.

DVD in SP mode is equal to broadcast quality - so DVD is far better than SVHS.

Of course SVHS was really designed for recording directly from s-video sources like camcorders and not from broadcast sources - so SVHS recordings from tv are not the best that format could offer.

10000maniacs · 09-08-2008, 00:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by whoever,hey

Digital is perfect, and analog never can be.

That is totally incorrect. Digital can only be perfect if every pixel of every frame is broadcast. For standard definition that would be 704 x 480 x 3 x 50 baud per second. Obviously this is not possible given the bandwidth needed, so therefore this data is compressed using MPEG2 or MPEG4.
This compression causes the picture to degrade. Have you ever watched a soccer match on ITV digital? Even on Sky HD you can see the digital artefacts.

Analogue will always be perfect if you have a perfect analogue signal coming from the perfect analogue transmitter. Thats all that is needed for the perfect picture. Nothing more. The only trouble with this is it uses up too much bandwidth.

The best recording device at the moment is Sky+. The reason is that when you play back a recording on Sky+, you are actually playing back an identical stream to what was broadcast originally. This is not the case with other PVRs and DVD recorders.

chrisjr · 09-08-2008, 00:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10000maniacs

The best recording device at the moment is Sky+. The reason is that when you play back a recording on Sky+, you are actually playing back an identical stream to what was broadcast originally. This is not the case with other PVRs and DVD recorders.

DVD recorders yes. but not PVRs. They, like Sky+, record the raw digital data stream. DVD has to recode it to the DVD format which causes some degradation of the picture.

10000maniacs · 09-08-2008, 00:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrisjr

DVD recorders yes. but not PVRs.

In the case of Virgin media and Freeview, their streams are sourced from the Sky Digital Satellite feed, unencrypted, re- encoded using their own MPEG compressor, re-transmitted and un-encoded using the PVR set top boxes. Which to all intents and purposes is the same process as what DVD recorders do.

bobcar · 09-08-2008, 02:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10000maniacs

In the case of Virgin media and Freeview, their streams are sourced from the Sky Digital Satellite feed, unencrypted, re- encoded using their own MPEG compressor, re-transmitted and un-encoded using the PVR set top boxes. Which to all intents and purposes is the same process as what DVD recorders do.

All sources can be encoded and decoded several times before they get broadcast, there is nothing special about Sky+ in that respect. Freeview frequently has less compression and a better picture (BBC) so in that case a Freeview PVR is better than Sky+.

The point made by Chrisjr was perfectly valid in that after broadcast other PVRs as well as Sky+ do not degrade the PQ at all. Your comment that Freeview sources their streams from Sky Digital satellite is very sweeping and in many cases just plain wrong.

Nigel Goodwin · 09-08-2008, 10:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobcar

Your comment that Freeview sources their streams from Sky Digital satellite is very sweeping and in many cases just plain wrong.

I don't think they do that in any cases do they?, certainly it would be a rarity, and only in very exceptional circumstances.

techsmedders · 09-08-2008, 11:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

I don't think they do that in any cases do they?, certainly it would be a rarity, and only in very exceptional circumstances.

I think it only happens on a few channels on MUX C and D - i think it was either TMF or The Hits back many years ago when they were first 'put on' to Freeview, there were screens referring to transponder numbers that appeared occationally.

Channels like BBC and ITV don't as evident from the superior quality on some of their channels on Freeview to Satellite, if Freeview was fed from satellite signal, the quality of the picture on Freeview would be the same or less than the Satellite

meltcity · 09-08-2008, 15:32

I think 10000maniacs is correct as far as cable is concerned: non-terrestrial channels are sourced from Sky Digital. AFAIK the only Freeview channel to do it is Five. I don't really see what this has got to do with PVRs vs DVD recorders, though: DVD recordings will always be inferior to PVR because they re-record the stream (and at lower bit rate).

atvproduction · 09-08-2008, 21:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10000maniacs

In the case of Virgin media and Freeview, their streams are sourced from the Sky Digital Satellite feed, unencrypted, re- encoded using their own MPEG compressor, re-transmitted and un-encoded using the PVR set top boxes. Which to all intents and purposes is the same process as what DVD recorders do.

If thats the case you have to wonder why ITV1 on Virgin and Freeview is acceptable but on satellite is absolutely dreadful

atvproduction · 09-08-2008, 21:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin

I don't think they do that in any cases do they?, certainly it would be a rarity, and only in very exceptional circumstances.

FIVE have always picked up terrestrial broadcasts from a satellite feed since day one

In the early days it was from an encrypted transmission on 27.5 W- it would seem to make sense to use the Astra broadcast now.

But there's no way every other Freeview channel rebroadcasts a sat feed

Nigel Goodwin · 10-08-2008, 13:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by atvproduction

FIVE have always picked up terrestrial broadcasts from a satellite feed since day one

In the early days it was from an encrypted transmission on 27.5 W- it would seem to make sense to use the Astra broadcast now.

Five still supply the analogue transmitters in that way, they also have backup capacity on a totally different satellite.

08-08-2008, 12:01	#1
flashgordon1952 Inactive Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: brentwood essex Posts: 3,634	S VHS vs DVD vs HD recorders this is an interesting one because the first S VHS came out around 88/87. they was capable of around 400 lines + compared with 260 lines onVHS. Eventhough you cannot compare DVD with S VHS in real terms as one is digital the other is not. But visually they compare well .(in my opinion) . On a standard sized tv say up to 37 inches there is very little difference. Its probably only when the screen is bigger that they would be a diffference. With a S connector or SCART gold connectors the S VHS . The next generation DVD recorders ( HD and Blu-Ray) appear to be very good. the problem is the lack of recorders on the market and offcourse the price. Again i remember paying £900 in 1988 for a S VHS recorder this compared with a standard VHS recorder being 300-400 notes. times have changed ? The price of the Blu-Ray recorders appears to be anything over 600-1000 . In my view they are too expensive ! What are other forums members think ??

08-08-2008, 12:42	#2
lala Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 20,184	Erm........ I like butterflies?

08-08-2008, 12:49	#3
RebelScum Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Aberdeen Posts: 12,226	Quote: "The price of the Blu-Ray recorders appears to be anything over 600-1000 . In my view they are too expensive !" They will come down in price, these things usually do. I dont mean this in a rude way but you appear to have a reasonable understanding of the market and its history so I would have thought you'd have know that already.

08-08-2008, 12:49	#4
Cornucopia Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 15,568	I think:[LIST][]We're being seduced into needing better and better video sources to support bigger and bigger screens. (When I were a lad, the typical living room had a 22inch set - 26, if you were posh).[]Technology prices will come down over time.[]The 625 lines UHF standard was very impressive for its time, and it wasn't until DVD recorders came out (30 years later) that you could record it (domestically) without loss of picture information.[]Technology is at risk of developing/diverging faster than the average person can keep up with it. (Think about how many people have been watching 16x9 sets with stretched analog pictures).[/LIST]

08-08-2008, 12:49	#5
whoever,hey Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 30,072	Quote: Originally Posted by flashgordon1952 Eventhough you cannot compare DVD with S VHS in real terms as one is digital the other is not. But visually they compare well .(in my opinion) . On a standard sized tv say up to 37 inches there is very little difference. Its probably only when the screen is bigger that they would be a diffference. With a S connector or SCART gold connectors the S VHS . I think that is very incorrect. Visually its like compare digital to analog TV when the signal is good. Digital is perfect, and analog never can be. And its visually noticable even on small TVs. Oh and if you want a cheap and still quality bluray player, get a PS3.

08-08-2008, 22:28	#6
atvproduction Banned User Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 180	SVHS is about the same as dvd at 4 hour level. DVD in SP mode is equal to broadcast quality - so DVD is far better than SVHS. Of course SVHS was really designed for recording directly from s-video sources like camcorders and not from broadcast sources - so SVHS recordings from tv are not the best that format could offer.

09-08-2008, 00:12	#7
10000maniacs Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 740	Quote: Originally Posted by whoever,hey Digital is perfect, and analog never can be. That is totally incorrect. Digital can only be perfect if every pixel of every frame is broadcast. For standard definition that would be 704 x 480 x 3 x 50 baud per second. Obviously this is not possible given the bandwidth needed, so therefore this data is compressed using MPEG2 or MPEG4. This compression causes the picture to degrade. Have you ever watched a soccer match on ITV digital? Even on Sky HD you can see the digital artefacts. Analogue will always be perfect if you have a perfect analogue signal coming from the perfect analogue transmitter. Thats all that is needed for the perfect picture. Nothing more. The only trouble with this is it uses up too much bandwidth. The best recording device at the moment is Sky+. The reason is that when you play back a recording on Sky+, you are actually playing back an identical stream to what was broadcast originally. This is not the case with other PVRs and DVD recorders.

09-08-2008, 00:31	#8
chrisjr Forum Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Reading Posts: 27,916	Quote: Originally Posted by 10000maniacs The best recording device at the moment is Sky+. The reason is that when you play back a recording on Sky+, you are actually playing back an identical stream to what was broadcast originally. This is not the case with other PVRs and DVD recorders. DVD recorders yes. but not PVRs. They, like Sky+, record the raw digital data stream. DVD has to recode it to the DVD format which causes some degradation of the picture.

09-08-2008, 00:51	#9
10000maniacs Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 740	Quote: Originally Posted by chrisjr DVD recorders yes. but not PVRs. In the case of Virgin media and Freeview, their streams are sourced from the Sky Digital Satellite feed, unencrypted, re- encoded using their own MPEG compressor, re-transmitted and un-encoded using the PVR set top boxes. Which to all intents and purposes is the same process as what DVD recorders do.

09-08-2008, 02:08	#10
bobcar Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 14,718	Quote: Originally Posted by 10000maniacs In the case of Virgin media and Freeview, their streams are sourced from the Sky Digital Satellite feed, unencrypted, re- encoded using their own MPEG compressor, re-transmitted and un-encoded using the PVR set top boxes. Which to all intents and purposes is the same process as what DVD recorders do. All sources can be encoded and decoded several times before they get broadcast, there is nothing special about Sky+ in that respect. Freeview frequently has less compression and a better picture (BBC) so in that case a Freeview PVR is better than Sky+. The point made by Chrisjr was perfectly valid in that after broadcast other PVRs as well as Sky+ do not degrade the PQ at all. Your comment that Freeview sources their streams from Sky Digital satellite is very sweeping and in many cases just plain wrong.

09-08-2008, 10:16	#11
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by bobcar Your comment that Freeview sources their streams from Sky Digital satellite is very sweeping and in many cases just plain wrong. I don't think they do that in any cases do they?, certainly it would be a rarity, and only in very exceptional circumstances.

09-08-2008, 11:23	#12
techsmedders Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Chesterfield Posts: 422	Quote: Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin I don't think they do that in any cases do they?, certainly it would be a rarity, and only in very exceptional circumstances. I think it only happens on a few channels on MUX C and D - i think it was either TMF or The Hits back many years ago when they were first 'put on' to Freeview, there were screens referring to transponder numbers that appeared occationally. Channels like BBC and ITV don't as evident from the superior quality on some of their channels on Freeview to Satellite, if Freeview was fed from satellite signal, the quality of the picture on Freeview would be the same or less than the Satellite

09-08-2008, 15:32	#13
meltcity Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 1,770	I think 10000maniacs is correct as far as cable is concerned: non-terrestrial channels are sourced from Sky Digital. AFAIK the only Freeview channel to do it is Five. I don't really see what this has got to do with PVRs vs DVD recorders, though: DVD recordings will always be inferior to PVR because they re-record the stream (and at lower bit rate).

09-08-2008, 21:06	#14
atvproduction Banned User Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 180	Quote: Originally Posted by 10000maniacs In the case of Virgin media and Freeview, their streams are sourced from the Sky Digital Satellite feed, unencrypted, re- encoded using their own MPEG compressor, re-transmitted and un-encoded using the PVR set top boxes. Which to all intents and purposes is the same process as what DVD recorders do. If thats the case you have to wonder why ITV1 on Virgin and Freeview is acceptable but on satellite is absolutely dreadful

09-08-2008, 21:08	#15
atvproduction Banned User Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 180	Quote: Originally Posted by Nigel Goodwin I don't think they do that in any cases do they?, certainly it would be a rarity, and only in very exceptional circumstances. FIVE have always picked up terrestrial broadcasts from a satellite feed since day one In the early days it was from an encrypted transmission on 27.5 W- it would seem to make sense to use the Astra broadcast now. But there's no way every other Freeview channel rebroadcasts a sat feed

10-08-2008, 13:19	#16
Nigel Goodwin Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: North Derbyshire Posts: 41,789	Quote: Originally Posted by atvproduction FIVE have always picked up terrestrial broadcasts from a satellite feed since day one In the early days it was from an encrypted transmission on 27.5 W- it would seem to make sense to use the Astra broadcast now. Five still supply the analogue transmitters in that way, they also have backup capacity on a totally different satellite.

DS Forums

S VHS vs DVD vs HD recorders