Indiana Jones - Raiders Of The Lost Ark

Your ;posts are getting more and more silly as we go on.
VHS is capable of 240ish lines at best so your starting from an incorrect assumption.

As anyone with half decent eyesight will testify there's not a VHS on the planet that could be confused for dvd - unless the dvd is copied from a VHS tape in the first place
 
They're not getting more and more silly. I suppose you think HD always look better than SD too...?

I suggest that if my comments urk you so much, you start your own thread about this...
 
What absolute rubbish.

I've seen some people claim that the upgrade from dvd to Bluray is not worth it which in some cases is understandable when the Blu transfer has been done badly but I've never heard such nonsense as VHS being as good as dvd.

Even in the early days of dvd with some companies dishing out shoddy transfers the improvement was like night and day.

Back to Raiders:
The dvd will be widescreen .
Assuming you have 16:9 tv any VHS will look dreadful.

Not sure if you can get the film on it's own so if you shell out for the boxset get the R1 edition for its uncut Temple Of Doom
 
HD does always look better than SD.
You could go down the argument of crap transfers, tv channels have added compression, which tv you use, how it's set up etc etc, but the fact still remains that HD is and always will be better than SD and that will never change.
 
It isn't "absolute rubbish". Theoretically speaking, DVD does have the capacity to be better than VHS and often is. But that isn't always the case.

I love HD & Blu-ray. They're awesome! But, there are some Blu-ray transfers that, simply put, do not look any better than their DVD equivalent. The same can be said of some VHS to DVD transfers.

It's really not that much to get wound up about, it's just one of those things.
 
While I can go along with the Bluray/dvd comparison the dvd/vhs one really is nonsense if you are talking commercially released discs.

Obviously a VHS tape transferred to dvd will still be VHS quality but I don't think that's what you were referring to.

I've been with dvd for nearly 13 years and have several thousand so I've seen my share of below par discs but none have ever got even close to a VHS.

Even the very worst early discs that were taken from the same masters as they had used for the VHS were much better than the VHS ever could be.

Flight of the Navigator is one such average disc and could by no means be described as good but compared to the VHS its much better.

I even have material on SVHS and once again dvd is also clearly better than that (when it comes to non camera material)

I would be interested in any dvd titles that you know that are VHS quality .

Even Arrows appalling dvd's of The Brood and Scanners were better than the VHS tapes , even though Arrow used the master that was used to create the tapes.
 
One that springs to mind is the 1997 Star Wars releases. I had them first on VHS and then on DVD. I was incredibly underwhelmed with the DVD versions. They did not look any different from the VHS versions.
 
I am being serious and no need for a trip to specsavers.

What I'm (deliberately) highlighting is that there are so many factors which contribute towarRAB picture quality. The type of TV used, player used, viewing distance, etc., all contribute to this.

I've said a few times before and I'll say it again;

SD on CRT vs. HD on LCD
VHS on CRT vs. DVD on LCD
DVD upscaled vs. Blu-ray
Plasma vs. LCD
VHS vs. DVD
DVD vs. Blu-ray
Laserdisc vs. DVD
Attention paid to transfer

The results can be different, which is why I'm now fairly relaxed about other people's opinions. If you disagree, that's fine, but you weren't there.

I wasn't meaning for my comment to create such a tangent, but it is true, stating that a DVD version will always be better than a VHS version is a bit presumptive.
 
It may well have been my telly. But I compared VHS and DVD on the same (CRT) TV and there was no difference. I'm sure if I did the same test today on my current TV, there would be a difference.
 
Yes , genuine HD always looks better than sd although your earlier posts mean its no surprise that you don't think so.

I suppose you can switch between BBC1 and BBCHD and not see the difference.

Although I would expect that you view sd material on HD channels and are unaware that its not HD .

It IS possible to switch between ITV1 and ITVHD and see no difference - but only when the broadcast is an sd programme.

Why do I get the feeling that you think something is HD simply because its on an HD channel?
 
So basically what you said really was "absolute rubbish", and now you're backpedaling because you've came up against people who actually know what they're talking about.
 
Back
Top