D-VHS and D-Theater

[superpanavision70mm]

Ha...I just wanted to see if anyone remembers this glorious format. Did anyone actually buy into this crap???

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Ha...I just wanted to see if anyone remembers this glorious format. Did anyone actually buy into this crap???

I remember it. It came on the scene just as I got rid of my last video tape. My response here was " I don't care how much Widescreen review plays up this format, I am never going back to tape".

I went to a demo of the format at Widescreen Reviews audio Lab in Southern California.. Walked away very impressed on what I saw and heard. But my response remained "I don't care how good it looks and sounds, I am never going back to video tape".

[superpanavision70mm]

Ditto! Widescreen Review...what a rag! They push titles like it's crack candy. Fact of the matter is that they limited themselves with their reviews because they handed out 5's and 5+'s on titles that didn't deserve it...then (just like with LD) they have something that comes out that sounds or looks better...well, please explain then Widescreen Review...how do you go above your highest rating? So what ended up happening as I am sure you are aware is that the older editions received higher marks than the newer ones, despite the total opposite being true in terms of picture and sound. Darn that rag! I stopped paying attention to their nonsense once they made their website a subsciption. I don't mind reading their garbage for free, so forget paying for it.

[Woochifer]

Yup, my local Tower Video store actually carried the tapes and rented them out as well. D-VHS/D-Theater served its purpose as an interim format, but keep in mind that for four years it was the only HD home video format and it basically bridged the gap between the introduction of HDTV and HD broadcasts, and the introduction of HD-DVD and Blu-ray. So, I wouldn't go so far as to call it "crap" given that it can do true HD, while the more "advanced" DVD format is limited to 480p. The format was targeted towards early adopters that wanted a video player/recorder capable of HD resolution to go with their HDTVs.

And even now, it remains the only HD format that you can use for archiving until the HD-DVD and/or Blu-ray recorders start coming out. A HD DVR can only go so far if you're looking to build a library of HD broadcasts. And thus far, the only consumer-grade HD calibration tools I've seen are in the D-Theater format (DVE also makes a professional disc set that includes HD tests encoded in the WMA format).

The trade off of course is the disadvantages associated with video tape. Sure, D-VHS is less convenient than a random access optical disc, but it serves functions that at this point remain unmet by other formats and HD devices. As I said, it's an interim format, and once HD-DVD and/or Blu-ray recorders get introduced, then its usefulness will terminate at that point (that is, unless HD-DVD or Blu-ray decide to put all sorts of downconversion requirements onto the recorders). For most of the buying public, the inconvenience of video tape has been enough to keep them on the sidelines and wait for other HD options to come onto the market.

[superpanavision70mm]

Well, if you are such a fan than why don't you have one? Or maybe you do. Whatever the case...it's still crap. Just because the other formats are not yet ready that doesn't mean anything. Fact is no-one wants tape again....no one!

[Woochifer]

Well, if you are such a fan than why don't you have one? Or maybe you do. Whatever the case...it's still crap. Just because the other formats are not yet ready that doesn't mean anything. Fact is no-one wants tape again....no one!

Maybe you should try reading my entire post, it's hardly an unqualified endorsement of the format. I said that D-VHS is an interim format that serves specific functions that are otherwise unmet by a single format right now, i.e. HD home video, HD recording, and HD archiving. For the niche market that wants all of those functions, D-VHS is the only current format that can do all of the above. If it's such crap, then show me a less crappy format that can perform all of those functions RIGHT NOW.

When you say "no one"^2 wants to tape, are you saying that nobody has ever bought a D-VHS machine? Unless that's true, then your statement is less of a "fact" and more of an unsubstantiated exaggeration.

[superpanavision70mm]

Actually I meant NO ONE as in NO ONE that has a brain. Sure D-Theater served a purpose as you mentioned, but was it really necessary? I realize that you were not trying to endorse, but you also came across as someone talking down to me with an elitist attitude like I don't know what I am talking about.

[Woochifer]

Actually I meant NO ONE as in NO ONE that has a brain.

So, somebody that wants to be able to buy movies in HD for home viewing and create an archive library of HD broadcasts, and bought the ONLY device capable of providing that functionality for the last four years has no brain?


Sure D-Theater served a purpose as you mentioned, but was it really necessary?

Well, nothing in home entertainment is ever necessary. Companies create the formats, and then put them out into the market in hope that they gain traction. Obviously, JVC saw a niche for D-VHS, otherwise they would never have developed it in the first place. They probably calculated that HD-DVD and Blu-ray would not be ready for several years, while thousands of HDTVs would get sold in the interim with no HD home video content and no means by which to record and archive an increasing number of HD broadcasts. How accurate their market forecast was depends on whether they attained the unit sales needed to justify whatever investment they made.

The same necessity argument could be made with the DVD. The HDTV standards were finalized back in 1992, so why not wait until the disc and/or data compression technology was ready to deliver HD resolution before introducing the DVD? Was it necessary to introduce the 480p DVD format knowing full well that the HDTV broadcast standards would go with 720p and 1080i, and TVs were already in development that would support those resolutions? As it stands, we now have dueling HD disc formats coming out into a very uncertain market, and a consumer base that might be too entrenched in the DVD format to migrate over to HD-DVD or Blu-ray. If both formats fail in the market, then consumers who want a HD disc format are stuck with 480p in much the same way that music fans are basically stuck with the two-channel 44.1 kHz/16-bit CD format after SACD and DVD-A failed to gain mainstream acceptance.

With 1080p resolution and lossless high res audio formats built in, I want to see these HD formats succeed. But, for these formats to be successful, the studios and manufacturers basically have to convince the buying public that the DVD was nothing more than an interim format, i.e. that HD-DVD and Blu-ray represent the real future of home video. And IMO, that's going to become a tougher sell in the coming years as the number of other HD viewing options multiply with broadcasts going HD, and the emergence of on-demand and downloading services.


I realize that you were not trying to endorse, but you also came across as someone talking down to me with an elitist attitude like I don't know what I am talking about.

Elitist? Hardly. Just pointing out that your off-the-cuff assessment of D-VHS does not take into account what the format actually does. If you want to look for examples of "attitude" maybe you need to read your own posts, since you're the one arguing that D-VHS is for people with no brains, how it's crap, etc. While D-VHS has no use for me whatsoever (and judging by the number of titles available, not too many others either), I certainly don't see the point of putting down anyone for whom that format meets THEIR specific needs. In the rhelm of home entertainment, I can certainly think of many more wasteful ways to spend $400.

[superpanavision70mm]

What argument are you even trying to make? I simply started this particular thread as a jab to D-theater since it flopped. It's about as great of an idea as Divx was. The reality is that the format was almost dead before it even was started and I doubt very many people that were suckered into buying the equipment are jumping for joy over their decision in hind sight. I don't think you are picking up on the sarcasm in my remarks. I don't see too many people coming to D-theaters defense here....at least people that actually HAVE the equipment.

[Woochifer]

What argument are you even trying to make? I simply started this particular thread as a jab to D-theater since it flopped. It's about as great of an idea as Divx was. The reality is that the format was almost dead before it even was started and I doubt very many people that were suckered into buying the equipment are jumping for joy over their decision in hind sight. I don't think you are picking up on the sarcasm in my remarks. I don't see too many people coming to D-theaters defense here....at least people that actually HAVE the equipment.

Pretty simple, you decided to mock the format by calling it crap and questioning the intelligence of anyone who chose to buy one, and I pointed out that it fills a gap in the market that no other device or format currently does. Divx provided no such functionality, so the analogy does not fit.

You're making an awful lot of presumptions about someone else's buyer's remorse considering that you probably don't know anyone who's actually purchased a D-VHS VCR. "Suckered"? Doubt it. Most of what I was reading about D-VHS at the time it came out described it as an interim format that would form a stopgap until HD video discs came along. Like I said, if anyone wants to archive their HD broadcasts in the meantime, what other options are out there? Just because you don't see the utility in what D-VHS does, does not mean that everybody else shares that view, in much the same way that not everybody sees the value in DTS that you do.

The person I know who bought one is a typical early adopter. He was one of the first to purchase a HDTV, and bought a D-VHS VCR so that he could watch HD movies and record HD broadcasts. Since then, he's added a HD DVR and will probably be one of the first guys to buy into HD-DVD and Blu-ray. He knew that it was an interim format, but bought the D-VHS VCR so that he would have HD functionality in the meantime. He's had that unit for more than three years, which is not that far off from the typical lifespan for a DVD player or VCR. If the thing lasts another couple of years, then the HD-DVD and Blu-ray recorders might be ready by then, and he'll finally have a potentially better alternative for HD recording and archiving -- alternatives that do not currrently exist.

[superpanavision70mm]

We seem to be going in circles just like with the DTS debate. I should have known better...are you a spy for Dolby? I usually have conversations that go nowhere with people that are not fans of DTS...it's a short list, but a list at that. I guess if you can't hear the difference between DTS and Dolby than there is nothing that I can possibly say that is going to matter....it's a lost cause. I could go on and on about how some of the best DTS examples are on Laserdisc and even the Dolby ProLogic on LD sound better than the 5.1 on DVD's. Fuller, more detailed...etc etc. However, you have already made up in your mind that I know very little...hmmmm.

[Woochifer]

We seem to be going in circles just like with the DTS debate. I should have known better...are you a spy for Dolby? I usually have conversations that go nowhere with people that are not fans of DTS...it's a short list, but a list at that. I guess if you can't hear the difference between DTS and Dolby than there is nothing that I can possibly say that is going to matter....it's a lost cause. I could go on and on about how some of the best DTS examples are on Laserdisc and even the Dolby ProLogic on LD sound better than the 5.1 on DVD's. Fuller, more detailed...etc etc. However, you have already made up in your mind that I know very little...hmmmm.

Try reading my posts again. I have never said that there's no difference between DD and DTS, simply that the audible differences are not as huge as they are frequently cracked up to be if the listenings are done under comparable conditions. And outside of a handful of discs, the DD and DTS tracks are usually not transferred under comparable conditions. Using overseas versions as the basis for doing DD/DTS comparisons is also problematic because a greater proportion of overseas DVDs use the 384k version of DD, which joins the channels at 10 kHz and creates noticeably less focused imaging compared to the 448k bitrate DD.

Format debates IMO are pointless because what consumers hear with the discs that they buy will typically incorporate many other variables outside of the format itself (i.e. CDs and LPs are mastered under completely different conditions; SACD and DVD-A use different time alignment and bass management approaches; DD and DTS differ due to DD's use of dialog normalization offsets and audible channel joining with the lower bitrate 384k version, and DTS doing all of the transfers in-house until a few years ago, etc.); and because neither soundtrack can be directly compared to the master source itself.

[superpanavision70mm]

and which overseas DVD discs have you heard?

[Woochifer]

and which overseas DVD discs have you heard?

Primarily Hong Kong films because those are all region discs and I use a R1 player. The DTS option doesn't matter with most of those films because the soundtracks are typically not very well done in the first place.

A better question for you would be whether you've compared a 384k DD track with a 448k track. Clearly audible differences between the two bitrates because of the differences in the channel joining frequencies used. On a DVD reissue, the audio can improve by simply switching to the higher DD bitrate on the newer version. R1 releases have primarily gone to 448k the last few years (almost all of the early Warner and Universal releases used 384k DD), while 384k is still used on some overseas titles (e.g. the R4 release of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory). 384k DD is also the standard used with 5.1 HDTV broadcasts.

[superpanavision70mm]

Yes, I've heard both...i've also heard very good PCM as in the case on DO THE RIGHT THING released by Criterion. My ears don't need the bit rate to know or hear a difference. Obviously DVD's have been getting better and Dolby had to pump up it's bit rate in order to compensate and to compete with DTS, whether you want to believe it or not.

[Woochifer]

Yes, I've heard both...i've also heard very good PCM as in the case on DO THE RIGHT THING released by Criterion. My ears don't need the bit rate to know or hear a difference. Obviously DVD's have been getting better and Dolby had to pump up it's bit rate in order to compensate and to compete with DTS, whether you want to believe it or not.

Have you actually had a chance to compare a 384k track vs a 448k track with the same movie? I wasn't asking whether you've heard both, so I should have been clearer about that.

PCM is uncompressed audio with resolution on the DVD standard up to 96 kHz/24-bit, so it should sound better than DD and DTS if identical master sources are used.

"Dolby" did not "pump up" the bitrate in order to compete with DTS. Why would they need to if DD is a mandatory part of the DVD format while DTS is only an optional extension? And how did Dolby "pump up" their bitrates when the 448k bitrate has been a part of the DVD format from the beginning, and DD decoders have been able to read bitrates up to 640k since the AC-3 days? The 384k version was used more with early DVDs releases because a lot of them used single layer disc media and had to conserve as much space as possible.

Which version of DD to use is not something that Dolby mandates, but a decision made by the studio, producer, and/or engineer. If anything, DTS had to cut their resolution in half in order to compete with DD, since their full bitrate version took so much disc space and attracted little interest outside of their major stakeholder Universal. Only when the half-bitrate version was introduced did DTS tracks start appearing on DVDs with greater regularity.