Connect with us

bye bye HD DVD

Discussion in 'Electronic Repair' started by Bob Urz, Feb 19, 2008.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. NewsGroups

    NewsGroups Guest

    Same death as Beta VCR. A better system but more advertising weight on the
    quality machines.
  2. James Sweet

    James Sweet Guest

    "Better" in the case of Beta is debateable, I still remember when movies
    came on one VHS or two Beta tapes, that right there is enough to push me to

    The ironic thing is that in this recent case "Beta" won, BD is the more
    expensive proprietary Sony standard, with higher storage capacity, but in
    terms of picture quality and other features I can't tell the difference and
    doubt most consumers will either.
  3. Whats better about HD-DVD?? Blue ray is higher capacity. Thats better in my
    book although I really don't care about either format except for data
    storage. DVD is plenty high resolution for me.
  4. HD DVD may be a bit cheaper, though I can't see that it's dramatically
    so. The similarities far outweigh the differences. It came down to:
    In order not to repeat the Beta/VHS fiasco, one had to win, and early

    Blu-ray sounds cooler. :).

    --- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ:
    Repair | Main Table of Contents:
    +Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ:
    | Mirror Sites:

    Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
    ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
    subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.
  5. "Better" in the case of Beta is debateable, I still remember
    There were never any two-tape Beta movies. BII was introduced before
    recorded movies became common (as far as I remember).

    Blue-ray won among the studios for two reasons -- it had greater capacity,
    and it could NOT be manufactured on DVD equipment. The latter meant that it
    would take longer -- perhaps much longer -- before pirated BD disks
  6. James Sweet

    James Sweet Guest

    Exactly. I was rooting for HD-DVD all along, but at some point it became
    clear that something had to give, I'm just glad somebody won so I can
    eventually think about buying HD, I was holding out before not wanting to be
    screwed. As you say, the formats are so similar that I don't really care one
    way or another so long as there aren't multiple competing standards.
  7. James Sweet

    James Sweet Guest

    Video West in Woodinville had loads of them in the early 80s. I was a little
    kid, but I clearly remember the glass cases they kept the then expensive
    rental videos in, one VHS tape beside two Beta tapes and when you'd ask for
    a movie, they asked whether you wanted VHS or Beta.

    BII was a case of too little, too late, VHS already had a foothold, and the
    equipment was cheaper, partly due to being less sophisticated, but partly
    also due to not having to pay royalties to Sony.
  8. I must not be a tv addict like most everyone else. I really don't care if
    they stopped producing all HD tv equipment tomorrow. I do have a LCD
    projector I use for movies sometimes but even that is only 800x600.
    Honestly, I think a good quality hi-fi VCR produces an acceptable picture.
    I'm more picky about the sound quality than the picture and stereo VHS has
    quite good sound.

  9. James Sweet

    James Sweet Guest

    I quit watching TV years ago, but I do have a 56" widescreen HD rear
    projection set that I got for free and I watch a lot of movies. Having used
    DVD for years, VHS looks awful to me, I have a nice high end Sony VCR, but
    the resolution and dynamic range of the format are just not adequate. HD
    compared to standard DVD is a much more marginal improvement, it's night and
    day on a plasma or LCD panel which has to scale lower resolutions, but on a
    CRT projector I can see much less difference.

    The sound of a good hi-fi VHS deck is good, but it lacks 5.1 surround.
  10. HD DVD can't be manufactured on normal DVD equipment either.

    --- sam | Sci.Electronics.Repair FAQ:
    Repair | Main Table of Contents:
    +Lasers | Sam's Laser FAQ:
    | Mirror Sites:

    Important: Anything sent to the email address in the message header above is
    ignored unless my full name AND either lasers or electronics is included in the
    subject line. Or, you can contact me via the Feedback Form in the FAQs.

  11. Yeah I have to agree, I sort of cringe everytime I see that "Beta was

    I worked on a lot of machines since the dawn of consumer recorders and seen
    some betas with really good pictures along with some vhs machines with
    really good pictures. But an equal amount of crap from both.

    To me beta was destined to fail because of the mechanics of the machine, was
    too complicated and too fragile for a consumer product. Even if you wanted
    to give total credit for "having a better picture", it was sort of like
    owning a Jaguar of the time, if it ran, it was a really nice car, if it
    didn't, was an expensive trip to the repair shop.

    I don't remember how many revisions to that "rewind kit" Sony and Zenith
    distrubuted but it never worked well even with them selling it at cost. Was
    more of a waste of time to install it. Didn't fix the problem.

    And that's what I remember the most, damn near all the betas that came in
    for repair was some mechanical problem, it doesn't rewind or fast forward
    unless it's in play and I hold the scan down, can't count the number of
    times I heard that one.

    I think one thing that pushed vhs into the plus column via word of mouth was
    simply that many repairs were quick and really fixed the problem. On those
    early machines "during the war", replacing the video heads on most was a 20
    minute job. Some half that if the idler had to be replaced. Belt kits to
    install were mostly straight forward except for a few connected to the
    mechanical counter.

    The betas on the other hand failed in all these areas, the heads were hard
    and complicated to replace, some idlers were ok but some were "over and
    under", half on the top of the chassis with the other half on the bottom.
    Many had belts in them that must of been designed by a sadist.

    Worse was, even if you got everything to spec and working properly, you knew
    it likely was going to come back in 6 months to a year with exactly the same
    problem. Like the Jaguars, was the nature of the beast.

    So in my book I wouldn't put all the blame on marketing, rental stores or
    price cutting on why vhs came up as the winner, betas were just crappy
    machines by design even if they had better pictures.

    But like I said, I've seen as many "good" vhs decks as beta with picture
    performance so I never bought into the global "beta is better" thought. On
    paper beta did have "better numbers" but like anything else that ends up in
    mass production, those numbers didn't translate into better performance as a
    sure thing.

  12. Yeah I have to agree, I sort of cringe everytime I see that "Beta
    I've never seen any VHS machine with what could remotely be called a "good"
    picture -- even by the standards of 30 years ago. (I'm ignoring S-VHS.)

    Beta had slightly wider video bandwidth (just enough to be acceptable --
    about 3MHz), considerably less line jitter, and better color -- both in
    terms of bandwidth and phase accuracy. Sony would not license its polarity
    inversion technology, and JVC was forced to use a more-complex quadrature
    system that really screwed up the color signal.

    Beta was a brilliant compromise of cost versus quality. VHS was utter crap
    from the word go.

    I don't see where Beta was significantly more complex. It did wrap the tape
    around the drum -- which was a bit more complex than JVC's (very) partial
  13. James Sweet

    James Sweet Guest

    This is starting to sound like an audiophile argument. I have a couple of
    high end Sony VHS VCRs, one of which I just hooked up for the first time in
    years last night and on the Sony 27" CRT the picture quality surprised me,
    certainly better than I remember. It's no DVD, but on a moderate size SD CRT
    it looks very good to me, and I'm much more picky than the average consumer.
    Look at all the Emerson, Funai, Orion, etc junk you see in typical houses,
    most people just don't care.
  14. I've never seen any VHS machine with what could remotely be
    My view of VHS is that it is _inherently_ bad -- that it is an unduly
    compromised system. If the Sony unit had a "decent" picture, it would have
    been because Sony paid close attention to things other manufacturers did
  15. Meat Plow

    Meat Plow Guest

    VHS looks like crap on my 32" LCD HDTV. Even 2 hour recordings on a stand
    alone DVDr look grainy. Standard cable shows lots of mpeg compression
    artifacts while sat shows the least.
  16. James Sweet

    James Sweet Guest

    Everything that isn't the native resolution will look bad on an LCD TV, it's
    the nature of the beast. SD content looks far better on an analog CRT, it
    isn't until you get good HD content that the LCD pulls ahead under many
  17. This is simply not true. Properly converted signals look quite good on high
    quality LCD sets as they do on other technologies. Lousy conversions,
    overcompressed video, or low resolution noisy sources look bad on any
    technology. Analog CRTs often look "better" with lousy sources because they
    do not reveal as much detail and soften the crap.

    Lousy LCDs look lousy on even good HD sources, as do lousy examples of other
    technologies. Some sets are more forgiving of certain types of signals than
    others, but it has more to do with the signal processing, calibration of the
    display, and the source than the technology of the display.

  18. Well what James said holds true to LCD computer monitors also. If you set
    the resolution to a non native resolution there are obvious artifacts where
    the picture is not as clear.
    Anothe example, my friend has a very nice 32" Samsung LCD TV which cost
    about $1500. It has a great picture for HD content and DVDs but standard
    input of any kind, be it TV, video games etc look much less clear than on a
    standard good quality CRT TV. He actually bought the tv to play games and
    doesn't use it for that because the quality is so much worse except with
    newewer consoles which support HD.

  19. James Sweet

    James Sweet Guest

    I work in the industry, we have a LOT of LCD, DLP, plasma, CRT, you name it
    sets of brands ranging from low end junk to high end stuff, and a lot of
    different SD and HD sources. I have yet to see an LCD, DLP, or to a slightly
    lesser extent, plasma set that looked as good displaying SD content as an SD
    CRT. When you scale video on a display that has rigidly defined pixels, you
    WILL get artifacts. Some scaling looks much better than others, but it still
    looks scaled. A good plasma set displaying high quality HD content at the
    native resolution looks stunning, but display SD content that looks fine on
    an SD display and it looks awful. The same effect can be clearly seen with
    an LCD computer monitor, set it to a non-native resolution and it looks bad
    to horrible depending on the quality of the monitor, but run it at the
    native res and it looks razor sharp.

    Whatever the reason behind it, in the real world, typical SD content looks
    bad on flat panel HD sets, it looks significantly better on an LCD SD set
    than LCD HD set, but it looks best on a CRT. Whether that's because the CRT
    doesn't reveal as much detail or not is irrelevant, it looks better.
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day