Old Tech

[xianjiro]

Okay, Blu-ray is a bit tongue and cheek, but I'm also thinking ahead to a time in the not too distant future when most stuff is streamed ...

While there isn't a lot we can do with the information, if, for example, someone had a way to rip from VHS, that might be interesting to know.

I still have two working VHS players, but no way to digitize from them, well, other than placing a cam in front of the screen. Wish I did since some of our official checks only seem to exist on VHS or film. I often can get those VHSs but then only I can get the check.

[Pretentious Hipster]

I'll just copy and paste an older post of mine from the film lounge:

"However, I have newer films on VHS. You can get newer films. You gotta tape them off of the tv. If you have a bluray player, and you try to tape something off the tv with that you can't do it. There's no record button and you end up with nothing. So it's kind of strange to me that they think bluray is so much better. Well it doesn't even record. I also believe it's debatable when people say that the quality of bluray is so much better than VHS."

[xianjiro]

let me know when we're ready for a poll

[xianjiro]

I'll just copy and paste an older post of mine from the film lounge:

"However, I have newer films on VHS. You can get newer films. You gotta tape them off of the tv. If you have a bluray player, and you try to tape something off the tv with that you can't do it. There's no record button and you end up with nothing. So it's kind of strange to me that they think bluray is so much better. Well it doesn't even record. I also believe it's debatable when people say that the quality of bluray is so much better than VHS."

I don't get a decent signal and refuse to pay for cable, so no TV comes into my home that isn't on disc. I used to record on VHS most every day before the digital conversion.

BTW, I've ordered a couple of my favorite movies on Bluray for next week. I did creep a bit further into the 21st century this week - the old 32" tube final gave up the last cathode ray or something like that and I was left with only a too small screen to chase checks with. So I'm really curious to compare the DVD experience to Bluray now that I've got something that is higher def to watch them on. If anything, poorer quality things didn't suck quite so much on the old analog device, even at such a large size. Now I get to see just how horrible those uToob rips are!

So, lost a good friend and gained a flatscreen.

Nothing to be happy about, but I will say I will think of her each and every day. BTW, she was the friend who'd watch three TVs at one time. Only one migrated to my home.

[Knaldskalle]

There is a way to digitize VHS, but the sites I've seen dedicated to it all emphasize that you need good VHS players, some fairly expensive intermediate equipment (image stabilizers) and then some digital recording equipment.

To my eyes blu-rays especially "beat" DVD's in terms of the clarity of background details and a (to me) surprising image stability.

[sol]

It is actually pretty easy to rip VHS. All you need is a hard disk DVD recorder (exactly what you'd use to record off TV these days). Hook up your VCR to the AV inputs on the DVD recorder, push play on the VCR and push record on the DVD recorder. Afterwards, insert a DVD-R (writable disc) into your DVD recorder and copy the new file to disc. This might not work for newer (say mid-90s onwards) VHS due to Macrovision and other media protection systems in place that disrupt dubbing, but of course the rare stuff is what made it to home video in the 1980s and that can easily be backed up by this means.

It is a time consuming process though, which is why I haven't really bothered to do this much myself - but I know that I should. I still have over 750 films on VHS in my collection which I have not yet been able to upgrade to DVD or Blu-ray at an affordable price. Of that 750, I'd estimate that around half have never been released on DVD or Blu-ray anywhere in the world and having things on VHS is not really ideal.

The biggest issues with VHS are (a) wear and tear (b) the fact that it is not a permanent data storage medium. With regards to the latter issue, there still seems to be a lot of debate over just long VHS and Beta programming will last on a magnetic tape before it disappears. I still have several videos from the 1980s myself that play quite acceptably. That said, I have read that the lifespan of a video is anywhere from 25 to 40 years. Obviously I should be taking action soon then to avoid permanently losing some of the films in my collection, but it's so time consuming, and so many films are making it to studio DVD releases these days, that putting effort into it is hard.

All that said and done, the one thing better about VHS (than DVD or Blu-ray) is the ability to stop a movie and quickly resume it where you left off. This can be done with some DVDs depending on the type of player that you have, but with Blu-rays, it seems to depend on how the disc is encoded. If you push the 'stop' button when watching a Blu-ray, there is around a 50% chance that when you push play the disc with restart from the beginning and as anyone who has a Blu-ray player will know, these devices take a long time to load. The picture quality on Blu-ray is really that much better though. Everything has its pluses and minuses, I guess.

[Nopros]

I also believe it's debatable when people say that the quality of bluray is so much better than VHS.

Not sure if irony or not.

[GruesomeTwosome]

I'll just copy and paste an older post of mine from the film lounge:

"However, I have newer films on VHS. You can get newer films. You gotta tape them off of the tv. If you have a bluray player, and you try to tape something off the tv with that you can't do it. There's no record button and you end up with nothing. So it's kind of strange to me that they think bluray is so much better. Well it doesn't even record. I also believe it's debatable when people say that the quality of bluray is so much better than VHS."

This was supposed to be funny, right?

[sol]

I also believe it's debatable when people say that the quality of bluray is so much better than VHS.

Depends on how fussy you are when it comes to picture quality, I guess. The counter-argument though is the more sensible thing to debate. I mean, the greatest achievement of Blu-ray is the clarity of skin tone, however, did 20th century filmmakers really intend for us to be able to make out the skin pores of their actors and actresses when viewed in close-up?

[xianjiro]

That was one reason why I was in no hurry to spend scarce $ on a new TV. Yes, hi-def is pretty, but do I really need to be able to count so-and-so's nose hairs in that close up?

And then, of course, there are the issues with, well, that Noir wasn't exactly filmed in high def to begin with so what kind of print has been used to make that Bluray disc? Yes, a lot of the big titles are remastered and I'm curious to see how they will look, but I also know companies rush things to market and I won't put it past someone (low-end 'distributors' that sell out-of-copyright material for example) to just copy VHS to Bluray and say something about imperfections or whatever.

But will hi-def really be a life changer for me? Probably not. Pretty doesn't make up for horrible acting and lackluster writing but in terms of design it might be a bit more fun. Still, to catch all that little stuff, don't we have to rewatch a given movie a few times to let our eyes wander (forget about subtitled films) and I don't rewatch anything like I used to - not when I have so many things I still haven't seen.

[OldAle1]

I suppose part of it depends on your experiences; nearly every film I watched between 1983 and 2000 - especially after 1987 - was in 35mm, and I'm sure I saw more films in 16mm and 70mm and IMAX in the 90s than I did on VHS or TV. So I got used to that quality and saw the enormous quality differential between a crisp new quality print and even the best that VHS or cable could offer, and while BluRay is good, it still doesn't match 35mm let alone 70. There are films I've never watched at home like 2001 and Blade Runner because I just can't bring myself to experience them in what is to me a vastly inferior condition. Perhaps when I someday have a 60" or bigger TV I'll feel different but as is I feel like the best possible home viewing experience is still immeasurably less pleasurable or involving than a cinema experience with a good print. And VHS, hah! I still have some VHS tapes but no working player and every once in a while I think about getting one but...pretty hard to go back to that abysmal quality, unless I know there's no likelihood of ever seeing a film in better conditions.

Of course I no longer live in a big city and can't watch all the new films I would want to on the big screen - let alone old stuff. So video has it's place, but there's more than one film that is high on my list to see but which I won't bother with until I can get what I consider a reasonable quality copy. And plenty of films every year that I at least consider watching more than once in the cinema, because seeing them at home is still only a pale imitation, if less pale than 20 years ago.

[3eyes]

I still have a few VHS tapes and the means to play them if I want.

I still have a landline and use WordPerfect for that matter.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

And then, of course, there are the issues with, well, that Noir wasn't exactly filmed in high def to begin with so what kind of print has been used to make that Bluray disc?

Yes it was, what the heck? Even low budget noirs filmed in 16mm would be roughly 1080p as far as resolution is concerned, most were filmed in 35mm. Whether the difference is one you care about is another issue, and certainly the quality of the print used for the transfer, and the quality of the transfer itself, makes a difference. But nearly all movies benefit from a 1080p vs a 480p presentation even if not remastered. I can understand saying the benefit is subject to diminishing returns and not important, but the argument that films weren't made or meant to be seen in 1080p or above is wrong.

[monk-time]

Even low budget noirs filmed in 16mm would be roughly 1080p as far as resolution is concerned, most were filmed in 35mm.

Yeah, from what I can tell from quick googling (there are many technical variables that go over my head), 35mm can be up to 20 MP of detail, and you get what, 6 MP for an Academy ratio film on a 4K TV?

[Knaldskalle]

This might not work for newer (say mid-90s onwards) VHS due to Macrovision and other media protection systems in place that disrupt dubbing,

Hence the mentioning of "image stabilizers". Apparently they "strip" (or ignore) the Macrovision system and send a clean signal to the recording device. I seem to remember them costing about $500, which is pretty pricey for a gizmo you might not use all that much.

[Knaldskalle]

I still have a few VHS tapes and the means to play them if I want.

I still have a landline and use WordPerfect for that matter.

WordPerfect? 4.2 or 5.1?

I ditched my VHS stuff when I moved to the US (all PAL and with VHS being obsolete it seemed pointless to drag it across the Atlantic to NTSC country).

[Pretentious Hipster]

I also believe it's debatable when people say that the quality of bluray is so much better than VHS.

Not sure if irony or not.

I'll just copy and paste an older post of mine from the film lounge:

"However, I have newer films on VHS. You can get newer films. You gotta tape them off of the tv. If you have a bluray player, and you try to tape something off the tv with that you can't do it. There's no record button and you end up with nothing. So it's kind of strange to me that they think bluray is so much better. Well it doesn't even record. I also believe it's debatable when people say that the quality of bluray is so much better than VHS."

This was supposed to be funny, right?

It's a quote from On Cinema at the Cinema.

[xianjiro]

I still have a few VHS tapes and the means to play them if I want.

I still have a landline and use WordPerfect for that matter.

did a couple jobs for a lawyer so he gave me a site license for WordPerfect - it's changed a bit since I last used it in the 80s

[blueboybob]

Does my iPod Classic count yet? I still use the 160GB model.

[xianjiro]

And then, of course, there are the issues with, well, that Noir wasn't exactly filmed in high def to begin with so what kind of print has been used to make that Bluray disc?

Yes it was, what the heck? Even low budget noirs filmed in 16mm would be roughly 1080p as far as resolution is concerned, most were filmed in 35mm. Whether the difference is one you care about is another issue, and certainly the quality of the print used for the transfer, and the quality of the transfer itself, makes a difference. But nearly all movies benefit from a 1080p vs a 480p presentation even if not remastered. I can understand saying the benefit is subject to diminishing returns and not important, but the argument that films weren't made or meant to be seen in 1080p or above is wrong.

not a techno-weenie, so am glad you pointed that out.

So, would one expect even low quality film stock to provide a good quality Bluray?

Would be willing to bet that some DVD content came off a VHS. My point is it happens, it's just 'caveat emptor'. I am sure some of the same stuff will show up on Bluray in the future. You know, in those 50 genre movie packs that sell for $5.99 at the carwash.

I also have utter confidence in the statement that a lot of what went onto VHS in 80s and even 90s didn't come from quality prints and no one was worried. To say the VHS copy came from an imperfect print was an understatement.

The one thing I did find difficult about the transition from VHS to DVD was as the media degraded (think of things borrowed from the library), I could still watch to some degree the VHS. Picture might fade or turn to snow for a second, but the sound would still come through. Sure, not how I would watch Satantango, but if you're trying to figure out whodunnit on Poirot, skipping digital media really scortches my grits.

Alas, while the promise with Bluray was that the discs were to be more durable than DVD, I've still had library Blurays skip. Might have been a bum disc or my older player - don't have access to a second machine to test the discs.

[sol]

Alas, while the promise with Bluray was that the discs were to be more durable than DVD, I've still had library Blurays skip. Might have been a bum disc or my older player - don't have access to a second machine to test the discs.

Blu-rays are a thicker disc, so they are harder to snap. They also have a surface that is harder to scratch, but no, it's not impossible to scratch. And sure, anything that you borrow (or buy as ex-rental) might have problems with it, but at least if a disc is faulty, it won't cause any damage to your player. The same is not true of VHS.

[GruesomeTwosome]

I also believe it's debatable when people say that the quality of bluray is so much better than VHS.

Not sure if irony or not.

I'll just copy and paste an older post of mine from the film lounge:

"However, I have newer films on VHS. You can get newer films. You gotta tape them off of the tv. If you have a bluray player, and you try to tape something off the tv with that you can't do it. There's no record button and you end up with nothing. So it's kind of strange to me that they think bluray is so much better. Well it doesn't even record. I also believe it's debatable when people say that the quality of bluray is so much better than VHS."

This was supposed to be funny, right?

It's a quote from On Cinema at the Cinema.

Ah, I see. Never seen it.

[Minkin]

Some companies do still sell new films / new editions on VHS! - sold as limited editions or as like a nostalgic package. I bought the Severin package of House on Straw Hill (to get the bonus documentary about banned films) - and it came with a VHS of the film (titled Expose). Still haven't watched the film yet, but I needed the documentary for my thesis.

You can buy Miami Connection on VHS. Sometimes the garbage VHS quality just adds to the charm / not every film really needs a 4k remaster.

I went into a Rite-Aid (pharmacy / convenience store) last year, and they had a new copy of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets on VHS for $20 (I think it had been sitting around a long time).

Then there's the resurgence of Vinyl, which makes sense, but then there's also been a resurgence of Cassette Tapes! I can't really explain that one. I don't think Beta / 8-track will have a similar revival ever (too obscure / too old). I guess people get nostalgic for old media. I think there's even a bit of a collector's market for old Disney VHS tapes.

So, this old media has a life-cycle, and nostalgia brings it back.

[xianjiro]

Just got an email from Microsoft reminding me that Windows 7 end-of-life is coming in January next year. Anyone else still running a Windows 7 box? I will probably just take it offline as my scanner isn't supported by Windows 10 and I don't use it enough to justify buying a new one. Of course MS is only to happy to sell me another computer! (lol)

My 'main' computer is Windows 10, so it's not a big deal.

[Knaldskalle]

Just got an email from Microsoft reminding me that Windows 7 end-of-life is coming in January next year. Anyone else still running a Windows 7 box? I will probably just take it offline as my scanner isn't supported by Windows 10 and I don't use it enough to justify buying a new one. Of course MS is only to happy to sell me another computer! (lol)

My 'main' computer is Windows 10, so it's not a big deal.

You could give Linux a try. It often runs really well on older hardware and will also often run older peripherals (such as scanners) that Windows no longer supports.

Try installing Virtualbox and then download a Linux distro (Zorin or Linux Mint would be my choice) and install it in Virtualbox (tutorial 1, tutorial 2). That way you can "try before you buy" so to speak, just running things in a virtual machine and if you don't like it, you just click a button and it's wiped. If you do end up liking it, I'd do a dual-boot install with Win7, where you pick which OS you want to run when you start the computer. That way you don't lose out on the "Windows only" programs/games you have and can play around with Linux on a more permanent basis.

Speaking of older hardware, I just bought an old server motherboard and am planning/hoping to build a "new" home server to supplement our existing NAS. Our NAS is 85% full and sends me emails complaining about it. So next will be a "home server" with a shitload of hard drives, probably running SnapRAID and Mergerfs to provide redundancy and simplicity with future expand-ability. The motherboard should be able to run up to 30 hard drives with an expansion card or two, so I hope that it'll be enough for the next decade or so (assuming the hardware holds up).

[xianjiro]

Just got an email from Microsoft reminding me that Windows 7 end-of-life is coming in January next year. Anyone else still running a Windows 7 box? I will probably just take it offline as my scanner isn't supported by Windows 10 and I don't use it enough to justify buying a new one. Of course MS is only to happy to sell me another computer! (lol)

My 'main' computer is Windows 10, so it's not a big deal.

You could give Linux a try. It often runs really well on older hardware and will also often run older peripherals (such as scanners) that Windows no longer supports.

Try installing Virtualbox and then download a Linux distro (Zorin or Linux Mint would be my choice) and install it in Virtualbox (tutorial 1, tutorial 2). That way you can "try before you buy" so to speak, just running things in a virtual machine and if you don't like it, you just click a button and it's wiped. If you do end up liking it, I'd do a dual-boot install with Win7, where you pick which OS you want to run when you start the computer. That way you don't lose out on the "Windows only" programs/games you have and can play around with Linux on a more permanent basis.

Speaking of older hardware, I just bought an old server motherboard and am planning/hoping to build a "new" home server to supplement our existing NAS. Our NAS is 85% full and sends me emails complaining about it. So next will be a "home server" with a shitload of hard drives, probably running SnapRAID and Mergerfs to provide redundancy and simplicity with future expand-ability. The motherboard should be able to run up to 30 hard drives with an expansion card or two, so I hope that it'll be enough for the next decade or so (assuming the hardware holds up).

Yeah, have thought about moving to Linux, but will have to hold off on that for a while. I've got a number of old boxes that I need to revisit to see what's left on HDs and if any HW can be salvaged before taking it off to the recycler. Got a new TV/monitor last week for super cheap, so am finally able to get rid of two of three CRTs in the apartment (next Tuesday). Talk about freeing up valuable real estate! But once I get rid of that old machinery, I can focus on what to do with what's left.

The other thing I need to do is watch what I've got on the HDs ...

[maxwelldeux]

Just got an email from Microsoft reminding me that Windows 7 end-of-life is coming in January next year. Anyone else still running a Windows 7 box? I will probably just take it offline as my scanner isn't supported by Windows 10 and I don't use it enough to justify buying a new one. Of course MS is only to happy to sell me another computer! (lol)

My 'main' computer is Windows 10, so it's not a big deal.

Yeah, I'm running two, still. I'll probably keep them online as long as the hardware holds out, as I have software installed that I still need.

[mightysparks]

My computer still has Windows 7. I was looking at upgrading to Windows 10 just last night but it was too expensive so I decided against it. Nothing has alerted me to the fact that 7 is dying, but I guess I’ll be upgrading

[xianjiro]

Anyone still running XP, ME, or 2000?

What I can't quite figure out is how much of the - no support/updates = hacker magnet - stuff is a real threat (especially for a machine that's off more than on) and how much is MS scare tactics hoping to either get people to buy and upgrade or new computer.

Forced obsolescence is another 'pet hate'.

[maxwelldeux]

Anyone still running XP, ME, or 2000?

What I can't quite figure out is how much of the - no support/updates = hacker magnet - stuff is a real threat (especially for a machine that's off more than on) and how much is MS scare tactics hoping to either get people to buy and upgrade or new computer.

Forced obsolescence is another 'pet hate'.

I mean, my grandmother-in-law runs an XP box (not well, but still - it works), and at my old job, they were still running an XP machine in one of the conference room years after MS stopped supporting it. My casual research into it at various times leads me to believe its mostly fearmongering, at least for us lowly individuals. Use good browsing habits and don't store super secure info on there. You'll be fine.

[albajos]

Anyone still running XP, ME, or 2000?

What I can't quite figure out is how much of the - no support/updates = hacker magnet - stuff is a real threat (especially for a machine that's off more than on) and how much is MS scare tactics hoping to either get people to buy and upgrade or new computer.

Forced obsolescence is another 'pet hate'.

I still like Windows 98. No need to keep the computer online though. It's just to play older games

[xianjiro]

While they spend much more time waxing nostalgic than answering their headline question, it seems some are trying to make VHS a think. You know, like vinyl (and I don't mean pants).

Who Is Still Buying VHS Tapes?
Despite the rise of streaming, there is still a vast library of moving images that are categorically unavailable anywhere else. Also a big nostalgia factor.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/20/style/vhs-tapes.html

'money' quote:

On Instagram, sellers tout videos for sale, like the 2003 Jerry Bruckheimer film “Kangaroo Jack,” a comedy involving a beauty salon owner — played by Jerry O’Connell — and a kangaroo. Asking price? $190. (Mr. O’Connell commented on the post from his personal account, writing, “Hold steady. Price seems fair. It is a Classic.”)

If $190 feels outrageous for a film about a kangaroo accidentally coming into money, consider the price of a limited-edition copy of the 1989 Disney film “The Little Mermaid,” which is listed on Etsy for $45,000. The cover art for this hard-to-find copy is said to contain a male anatomical part drawn into a sea castle.

I think I've got a Little Mermaid VHS still, but have no idea what the cover art might be. Hmmmmm.

edit: oh yeah, I remember now (image is the one referenced in the article and from Etsy - not in my secret cache of VHS)

[OldAle1]

I spend quite a bit of time on eBay - and have also watched at least three docs on VHS over the last several years - so I guess I'm as versed in this as most people. Certainly there are a lot of folks - and I am one of them - who love physical media and collecting, and that's a big part of the appeal. Stuff that has never made it to digital media is of course the primary focus for a lot of people - there was an infamous low budget horror film called Tales of the Quadead Zone that at one point routinely went for over $500, though it has since been released on DVD (now also OP) and I don't think it goes for as much anymore. Not that people aren't going to keep trying:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Tales-From-The ... Sw8KRgIXcr

There are also people who are into the history of the medium who like collecting the very early tapes from companies like Magnetic Video (remember them?), and I'm sure there are particular VHS that are collectible because of the box covers. I had a copy of that particular Little Mermaid myself at one time - sold it for, if memory serves, about $50 in 2000 or 2001. Which was - and still is - the going rate in reality. Beware all the stories about the Disney "Black Diamond" tapes, the $45 k price listing referenced - it's a big ol' scam, and while you routinely see "sales" for thousands of dollars, it is apparently some kind of money-laundering scheme - the tapes are of course not even remotely rare and while they do sell legitimately to Disney collectors, the real prices they obtain are from what I've read typically in the $20-50 range with Aladdin I think being slightly higher for some reason. Pretty sure snopes did something on this once.

But the main thing is nostalgia as it always is with recent-vintage collectibles, and that has especially been true over the past year with COVID keeping a lot of physical stores closed, and a certain percentage of people having more money to spend on this kind of stuff because they're not spending it on other luxuries like restaurants and vacations. Star Wars, Ninja Turtles, G.I. Joe and Transformers collectibles - comics, toys, video games - have been among the hottest things, because the manchildren of the 80s-90s in particular are now in their 40s and 50s and many of them have a lot of money and want to reclaim their childhoods. As someone sitting on a stack of TMNT comics I'm not unhappy to see this - one of the few positive impacts of COVID on my life.

[xianjiro]

I still occasionally get VHS via ILL and have https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/die+bleierne+zeit/ right now. There were a limited number of DVD copies, but none included EN subs, so I opted for VHS.