My S-VHS now a doorstop?

I hope you'll forgive a very elementary question. I'm new to HD and this is my first post. I'm not even sure if I'm posting in the correct category.

Last week I bought a new HDTV (Sony KDL-32S3000) and traded in my old digital cable box for a new HD-DVR (provider is TW Cable in NYC). Everything is working splendidly. Needless to say, I'm as shocked as most newbies seem to be that SD looks so poor now that I have a display that shows the flaws, but much of the SD programming on TWNYC isn't bad at all.

Here's the issue: Despite now using an HD-DVR (Scientific Atlanta Explorer 8300HDC) I am accustomed to recording programs in S-VHS, particularly for my friends and family abroad. I've tried feeding the composite signal out of the cable box, the S-video signal, and even the RF (my S-VHS unit has no component inputs). Of these, the S-video is slightly better, but still, imo, unwatchable. The image quality is truly horrendous. What is more, archive tapes I made using my previous digital cable box (which I also output to the S-VHS using S-video, and which looked great on my old SD CRT) are similarly unwatchable on my new HDTV.

I realize that my S-VHS deck, despite being one of the best in its class, is incapable of producing a signal that's up to the resolution of the HDTV. But is it now and forever useless, or is there some sort of adaptation I can make, or a work-around, that can at least allow me to produce tapes that are of reasonable SD quality?

If this discussion is already in place elsewhere, sorry. Please feel free to direct me. If not, I'm grateful for any advice, and thanks again for reading an elementary question. DGI

I experienced the same sort of thing when I traded my 25" tube screen using a Tivo 2nd Series for a 50" Plasma HD TV. The cable company gave me a new DVR capable of recording HD and also
connected via HDMI.

For a few weeks I still had my Tivo Connected but the quality was so horrible on my new TV I just ended up unplugging it.

Tivo Makes a new HD DVR that would look good on my TV, but I just really couldn't justify spending 800 dollars for it considering the DVR Cox cable gave me for an extra 6 dollars a month was doing essentially the same thing.

Watch your S-VHS recordings on an old 25" tube SD TV-- are they an worse than were before?

Certainly they will not look good on a new HD TV-- but on an old TV set for which the S-VHS was designed, they should look like they did before . . .

I'm as shocked as most newbies seem to be that SD looks so poor now that I have a display that shows the flaws, but much of the SD programming on TWNYC isn't bad at all.
I don't see why Super VHS would look any worse than a standard-def DVD. DVD == 480 lines of horizontal resolution and SVHS == 420 lines, so they are very close in quality.

Here are ideas that might make it look better:
- Use the "SP" mode (it only lets you record 2-3 hours,
but it provides a beautiful picture)
- Use Super VHS tape (not standard vhs)
- Use Digital VHS tape (the best tape you can buy)

I'm using Super VHS and I'm happy with it. Of course, my set's only 30 inches, so that hides a lot of flaws which might be visible on a larger screen.

I also find SVHS unusable on a big screen HDTV. I am using most of my SVHS tapes to record HDTV using a D-VHS VCR so at least I am doing my part to keep videotape out of landfills. SVHS still looks fine for an old 19" analog TV, but not worth using for the new displays. There is no solution to the problem in my opinion. SVHS doesn't even come close to DVD quality, there is more to a good picture than lines of resolution and anamorphic DVD blows SVHS out of the water in that regard as well for a widescreen display.

Chris

My VCR is now in a closet. I'd sell it if it were worth anything. I can record programming on my DVR for watching at a convenient time. I'm afraid that's where things are now. There is no going back. Welcome to HDTV.

ob·so·les·cence
noun the state, process, or condition of being or becoming obsolete.

rotor dial telephones
full service gas stations
honest politicians
VHS/VCRs
Analog TV broadcast (well almost anyway)

Ah the price of progress....:eek:

I'm afraid that's where things are now. There is no going back. Welcome to HDTV.

The message is clear, and I appreciate everyone's replies. In response to the person who suggested recording on digital S-VHS tape at SP, I've tried all that. I can't say why, but it still looks like a mushy mess to me. It may be that the signal output on the HD-DVR is somehow just not good, and I'm going to try to find a knowledgeable tech at Time Warner to ask about this. (They have a separate division for these boxes, as they've only been out a month, and they're still updating software very regularly - firmware's buggy).

I believe that what I'll do is purchase the least expensive DVD burner I can get away with. I'd imagine that the component signal out to that will produce a very clean image. I'll do my homework in the meantime. Friends in Japan have recommended a quite good Panasonic tuner/dvd burner/dvr, but I've tapped my finances for the present. Instead, I'll stick with this hd-dvr and find a quality tunerless recorder.

Thanks again. I'm not going to toss my old videotapes or player, but I'm pretty sure I won't be viewing them for a very long time.

DGI

The best-possible input you can use to your VCR is S-video which provides two separate lines rather than just one, and thus a cleaner picture.

Also: The biggest flaw with VHS formats is the color. The color resolution is only 40 x 480 so it would give a "mushy" appearance as the color is heavily blurred. (DVD is 360 x 240... much clearer.) It may be that the signal output on the HD-DVR is somehow just not good..... That makes sense. I've noticed that Digital equipment often sticks "lackluster" analog portions into the mix. They figure Composite and S-video are obsolete formats, so why bother outputting a clean signal?

Anyway:

I still think SVHS almost as good as DVD (standard 4:3 framed movies/tv shows). I was just watching a SVHS tape on my Digital VCR and was amazed at how crystal clear it looks. ----- But then I'm not as picky as others. I also download movies that have been squeezed onto CDs, and enjoy them, despite the fact they are only 700 megabytes in size.

The best-possible input you can use to your VCR is S-video which provides two separate lines rather than just one, and thus a cleaner picture.

Also: The biggest flaw with VHS formats is the color. The color resolution is only 40 x 480 so it would give a "mushy" appearance as the color is heavily blurred. (DVD is 360 x 240... much clearer.) That makes sense. I've noticed that Digital equipment often sticks "lackluster" analog portions into the mix. They figure Composite and S-video are obsolete formats, so why bother outputting a clean signal?

Anyway:

I still think SVHS almost as good as DVD (standard 4:3 framed movies/tv shows). I was just watching a SVHS tape on my Digital VCR and was amazed at how crystal clear it looks. ----- But then I'm not as picky as others. I also download movies that have been squeezed onto CDs, and enjoy them, despite the fact they are only 700 megabytes in size.

In another thread I thought you mentioned the D-VHS VCR didn't do a very good job with SVHS. You can think SVHS looks almost as good as DVD but I sure don't. SVHS and LaserDisc looked close enough that I was happy with both, given a good source to record from. Once I saw DVD, both of those looked bad in comparison. When I saw TiVo for recording, SVHS became basically useless to me, and that is before I had an HDTV.

I still have a couple of analog displays and I might get an SVHS VCR out to use with one of those for nostalgia purposes.

Chris

I could show you several DVDs that look bad. Like the Star Trek DS9 discs. (Mainly a result of too much compression.) In another thread I thought you mentioned the D-VHS VCR didn't do a very good job with SVHS. I was wrong. I fiddled with the settings (turned on stabilization), and now everything looks good. I'm thinking maybe I should keep this 30000 unit rather than sell it.

QUESTIONS:
- How come watching 420-line laserdisc was acceptable in the 1990s, and now suddenly it is not? It's the same stuff you watched before.

- Do you think ED betamax or W-VHS look bad on a large screen?

I could show you several DVDs that look bad. Like the Star Trek DS9 discs. (Mainly a result of too much compression.) I was wrong. I fiddled with the settings (turned on stabilization), and now everything looks good. I'm thinking maybe I should keep this 30000 unit rather than sell it.

QUESTIONS:
- How come watching 420-line laserdisc was acceptable in the 1990s, and now suddenly it is not? It's the same stuff you watched before.

- Do you think ED betamax or W-VHS look bad on a large screen?

SVHS still looks fine on a small analog screen. I have stated it doesn't look good on a big screen HDTV. W-VHS is HD and looks great on a big screen, better than DVD. EDBeta would look similar to SVHS, not very good and nowhere near DVD.

Chris

SVHS still looks fine on a small analog screen. I have stated it doesn't look good on a big screen HDTV. W-VHS is HD and looks great on a big screen, better than DVD. EDBeta would look similar to SVHS, not very good and nowhere near DVD.

(scratching head). But ED betamax has 690x480 pixels of resolution; it should be nice and clear. Right?

So to summarize:

VHS << SVHS/ED beta << DVD << W-VHS (in terms of increasing quality)

[QUOTE=electrictroy;348697
VHS << SVHS/ED beta << DVD << W-VHS (in terms of increasing quality)[/QUOTE]

I can state that with absolute certainty having owned all. I might even give EDBeta a slight advantage over SVHS, but clearly below DVD. That is just video quality and doesn't consider audio quality, all W-VHS has is analog audio, the VHS Hi-Fi method. To carry your little chart out to include all of the videotape formats I have owned:

VHS << Beta << Hi-8<< SVHS << EDBeta << W-VHS << D-VHS

Including the disc based formats:

VHS << Beta << Hi-8<< SVHS << EDBeta << DVD << W-VHS << D-VHS << HD DVD << Blu-ray

Chris

VHS << Beta << Hi-8<< SVHS << EDBeta << DVD .....

There are two surprises here:
- You rate Betamax higher than VHS. Why? Every spec I've read shows they have the same resolution (250 lines luma/40 lines chroma). There shouldn't be any difference in quality.

- You rate SVHS higher than Hi8 which surprises me because most people say Hi8 has better picture quality. (I've not reviewed the specs; so I have no opinion here.)

So how come the difference?

thanks.

There are two surprises here:
- You rate Betamax higher than VHS. Why? Every spec I've read shows they have the same resolution (250 lines luma/40 lines chroma). There shouldn't be any difference in quality.

- You rate SVHS higher than Hi8 which surprises me because most people say Hi8 has better picture quality. (I've not reviewed the specs; so I have no opinion here.)

So how come the difference?

thanks.

There are technical specifications that support what I see with my eyes, both of those comparisons are close but none of the 4 formats are good enough to use today. I stand by my ratings, you can research the technical reasons and come to an objective conclusion I am correct easily enough.

Chris

There are technical specifications that support what I see with my eyes,....
May I see them?

I hope you'll forgive a very elementary question. I'm new to HD and this is my first post. I'm not even sure if I'm posting in the correct category.

Last week I bought a new HDTV (Sony KDL-32S3000) and traded in my old digital cable box for a new HD-DVR (provider is TW Cable in NYC). Everything is working splendidly. Needless to say, I'm as shocked as most newbies seem to be that SD looks so poor now that I have a display that shows the flaws, but much of the SD programming on TWNYC isn't bad at all.

Here's the issue: Despite now using an HD-DVR (Scientific Atlanta Explorer 8300HDC) I am accustomed to recording programs in S-VHS, particularly for my friends and family abroad. I've tried feeding the composite signal out of the cable box, the S-video signal, and even the RF (my S-VHS unit has no component inputs). Of these, the S-video is slightly better, but still, imo, unwatchable. The image quality is truly horrendous. What is more, archive tapes I made using my previous digital cable box (which I also output to the S-VHS using S-video, and which looked great on my old SD CRT) are similarly unwatchable on my new HDTV.

I realize that my S-VHS deck, despite being one of the best in its class, is incapable of producing a signal that's up to the resolution of the HDTV. But is it now and forever useless, or is there some sort of adaptation I can make, or a work-around, that can at least allow me to produce tapes that are of reasonable SD quality?

If this discussion is already in place elsewhere, sorry. Please feel free to direct me. If not, I'm grateful for any advice, and thanks again for reading an elementary question. DGI

Great post!

It hits right to the heart of the endless HD-DVD vs Blu Ray debate that goes on and on ad nauseum.

Why you ask? Because technology changes quicker than a man's waist line over 40.

Ah, VHS, Beta, Laserdisk or for that matter the transistor radio, black and white television and so.

Many of us spent small fortunes buying products only to see them fill our trash cans or sell for nickles and dimes at garage sales.

Well, there goes the store bought VHS collection.

It happens. What are you going to do, scream, commit suicide, go to Baskin Robbins?

No. You adapt.

Goodbye VHS and in your case, super VHS.

Time for the new and improved HD DVD or Blu Ray until one format wins and then is eventually replaced with who knows what.

You don't drive a 10-20 year old car, you trade it in and move on.

Same with the old player.

Anybody for an IPOD? Or is it the IPOD phone now?

Many of us spent small fortunes buying products only to see them fill our trash cans or sell for nickles and dimes at garage sales. Well, there goes the store bought VHS collection. Goodbye VHS and in your case, super VHS. I'd rather keep using Super VHS. Its 560x480 resolution is perfectly fine for taping the latest episodes of 24 or Battlestar Galactica. i.e. The VCR is still useful for timeshifting. You don't drive a 10-20 year old car, you trade it in and move on. I drive my car until I die. My last car had 340,000 miles when the engine finally blew (part of the piston broke-off). My current cars are 10 and 20 years old respectively. I see no reason to waste $20,000 buying a new one when the older models are still getting me to work every day.

Troy

(still hoping to retire at age 40)

I'd rather keep using Super VHS. Its 560x480 resolution is perfectly fine for...

I've honestly tried everything, and the quality of the S-VHS recordings out of the back of the HD-DVR is like looking through wax paper.

DGI

I asked this before, but didn't really get an answer:

How clear is the SOURCE signal? i.e. If you plug the S-video directly from the settop box to the TV, how does it look? (The reason I ask is, maybe the problem is your box not the vcr.)

I asked this before, but didn't really get an answer:

How clear is the SOURCE signal? i.e. If you plug the S-video directly from the settop box to the TV, how does it look? (The reason I ask is, maybe the problem is your box not the vcr.)


Sorry. When I plug the S-video into the display it naturally does not look as good as the HDMI out from the box. For example, looking at an HD channel the picture automatically letterboxes, rather than filling the screen (HD translates to SD). The image is not as clear, there are artifacts, and so on. Yet it is a better image than I get from the recorded tape. If I could get even that diminished-quality image on the tape I'd consider it watchable.

So you're on to something, in that the S-video out of the back of the HD-DVR is definitely of a far lower quality than the HDMI (is S-video even capable of transmitting an HD signal? I am new to this).

My goal is simply to reproduce the quality of the signal I see on the display when I watch live TV or a DVR recording, and I'm trying to do that in any way short of buying a brand new DVR with digital tuner and DVD burner built in. I just can't have that expense at the moment. For now, I cannot archive anything, and that's giving me headaches.

Thanks for the advice. DGI

The S-video image is not as clear, there are artifacts, and so on. Yet it is a better image than I get from the recorded tape. If I could get even that diminished-quality image on the tape I'd consider it watchable. Hmmm. An S-VHS tape running at full speed (SP) should be almost-identical to the S-video image. That's odd.
So you're on to something, in that the S-video out of the back of the HD-DVR is definitely of a far lower quality than the HDMI Which is normal. S-video maxes-out at ~640x480, while HDMI can go to higher resolutions.

As you've probably noticed:

- The manufacturers are making it really difficult for consumers to capture & store HD in their libraries. D-VHS is probably the only practical solution right now. (Or else download the HD rips off the internet.)

So why would anyone want to continue attempting to use ANY tape system for recording new material? There is no new product development going on for tape products, no processing enhancements, tapes are bulky, no program skip, gotta rewind, and compared to DVD, the quality sucks.

You can upgrade to a damn nice DVD/R for $120 - $100, archive from HD DVR as well as archive old tape material. Output is handled digitally from the getgo, so bye-bye to all that analogue circuitry in the tape machines. Everything that I have archived from my DVR to my DVD/R looks IDENTICAL whether I view from the DVR or from the DVD/R.

So why would anyone want to continue attempting to use ANY tape system for recording new material? Tape may have a bad name in the consumer market, but all HDTV and Digital Movies are still stored on tape by the professionals. Tape has proven itself to be a very reliable format over the last 50 years.

You can upgrade to a damn nice DVD/R for $120 - $100, archive from HD DVR as well as archive old tape material. How? Aren't the DVR-HD programs encoded to prevent copying to external devices? Output is handled digitally from the getgo, so bye-bye to all that analogue circuitry in the tape machines. A D-VHS or DV or Digital8 machine doesn't have any analog circuitry. It's all digital from the Firewire/USB inputs to the recording head to the tape.

Your statement is false.

Tape may have a bad name in the consumer market, but all HDTV and Digital Movies are still stored on tape by the professionals. Tape has proven itself to be a very reliable format over the last 50 years.



To be fair, pro digital video is recorded to tape because of tape's huge capacity to hold content, not because it is more reliable. In fact, optical disk is more reliable.

Aren't the DVR-HD programs encoded to prevent copying to external devices?

Nope. At least not on my Motorola DCT3412 from Comcast.


DeadHead68

Tape may have a bad name in the consumer market, but all HDTV and Digital Movies are still stored on tape by the professionals. Tape has proven itself to be a very reliable format over the last 50 years.

I don't think that we are talking about professional tape systems in this thread. Buy, yes, it has been, in general, a very reliable format over the last 50 years - it's just that its days for popular consumer use are now over.

How? Aren't the DVR-HD programs encoded to prevent copying to external devices?

mmm, guess you heard wrong. I do it all the time. Use S-video from HD-DVR to DVD/R and press record. No problems.

A D-VHS or DV or Digital8 machine doesn't have any analog circuitry. It's all digital from the Firewire/USB inputs to the recording head to the tape.

I said nothing about D-VHS, DV, or Digital8 - this thread is all about S-VHS if you hadn't noticed.

Your statement is false.

Well, let's see, I said (in the context of this thread which has been totally about S-VHS, with a few allusioins to beta) that "Output is handled digitally from the getgo, so bye-bye to all that analogue circuitry in the tape machines." What is false about that, other than you have now introduced D-VHS, DV and Digital8, none of which were being discussed.

Besides, While your statement is correct, D-VHS was a "last hurrah" for VHS and while the D-VHS system is seen by its few and dwindling fans as a highly versatile recorder, it should be noted that the other tape-based formats, DV and Digital8, never gained any consumer interest except as camcorder mediums. So, given the wholesale move to DVD and then hard disk drive (HDD) recording, the digital tape format failed to make any headway into the consumer video market. These aren't even significant formats in today's world.

So why would anyone want to continue attempting to use ANY tape system for recording new material? There is no new product development going on for tape products, no processing enhancements, tapes are bulky, no program skip, gotta rewind, and compared to DVD, the quality sucks.

You can upgrade to a damn nice DVD/R for $120 - $100, archive from HD DVR as well as archive old tape material. Output is handled digitally from the getgo, so bye-bye to all that analogue circuitry in the tape machines. Everything that I have archived from my DVR to my DVD/R looks IDENTICAL whether I view from the DVR or from the DVD/R.

Agreed, except that there is program skip, commercial skip and even 30 second skip with tape. I use the 30 second skip to skip over commercials or trailers. There is no reason to suggest anybody should get involved with videotape now, just wait for a practical solution for the PC or disc. I am going to make videotape work for the long haul, but don't recommend it to anybody now.

I can stay completely digital with the HM-DH5U. Source by firewire to the VCR and playback by HDMI to the display.

Chris

Everything that I have archived from my DVR to my DVD/R looks IDENTICAL whether I view from the DVR or from the DVD/R.

The statement is not totally correct. It is correct, of course, for SD content.

However, since HD content must be recorded using the S-video out from the HD-DVR, two things happen. The first, obviously, is that it is no longer HD, and so when viewed cannot possibly look IDENTICAL to the original HD content; indeed, the PQ is not nearly as good. The second, is the recorded program will display in "windowbox" format with black bars on all four sides - one solution to this distraction that I have used is to use the DVD/R zoom capability to fill the screen vertically giving a decent 4:3 representation of the original program.

mmm, guess you heard wrong. I do it all the time. Use S-video from HD-DVR to DVD/R and press record. No problems. You can't use S-video to transfer HD video. I was referring to the ability to archive high-def from a DVR. D-VHS was a "last hurrah" for VHS and while the D-VHS system is seen by its few and dwindling fans as a highly versatile recorder, it should be noted that the other tape-based formats, DV and Digital8, never gained any consumer interest except as camcorder mediums. Plagiarist. You stole that entire paragraph from wikipedia without proper citation/giving credit.

I kinda wondered when these two would butt heads....

You can't use S-video to transfer HD video. I was referring to the ability to archive high-def from a DVR.

Really?? Seems to me that you queried: "Aren't the DVR-HD programs encoded to prevent copying to external devices?" (in your post #25); to which I commented: "mmm, guess you heard wrong. I do it all the time. Use S-video from HD-DVR to DVD/R and press record. No problems." (in my post #28) Nowhere in this thread has there been any prior reference to "HD video" or to archiving actual high-def, until your most recent post.

Also, had you been reading this thread, you would have read my clarrification of this matter in my post #30 which clearly states that recorded HD content is clearly no longer retains its original HD quality. So there wall little need for the further mistatement that you made above.

You can, in fact, transfer HD video using S-video from a DVR for the purpose of archiving high def programs, only they will indeed be in SD format. Maybe you didn't understand that the first time around.

Plagiarist. You stole that entire paragraph from wikipedia without proper citation/giving credit.


Well, on the one hand, I always agreed with Seneca: "Whatever is well said by another is mine."

Nonetheless, the paragraph in question is a brief exerpt from a long article in wiki, which I considerably revised from the orginal, which I post here for all who require edification:
"As a "last hurrah" for VHS, the D-VHS system is seen by its fans as a highly versatile domestic recorder (the other tape-based formats are DV and Digital8, which never gained any traction except as camcorder mediums), but given the wholesale move to DVD and then hard disk drive (HDD) recording, the format has failed to make any headway into the video market." Source: Wiki

Shame on me!

Really?? Seems to me that you queried: "Aren't the DVR-HD programs encoded to prevent copying to external devices?" (in your post #25); to which I commented: "mmm, guess you heard wrong. I do it all the time. Use S-video from HD-DVR to DVD/R and press record. No problems." (in my post #28) Nowhere in this thread has there been any prior reference to "HD video" or to archiving actual high-def, until your most recent post.


FALSE. Here is the complete conversation. As you can see, I was discussing "storing HD" not SD.

ELECTRICTROY WROTE: "- The manufacturers are making it really difficult for consumers to capture & store HD in their libraries. D-VHS is probably the only practical solution right now. (Or else download the HD rips off the internet.)"

BILLPRINCE REPLIED: "So why would anyone want to continue attempting to use ANY tape system for recording new material? ..... You can upgrade to a damn nice DVD/R for $120 - $100, archive from HD DVR"



To which I now respond (and repeat myself): For storing HD, D-VHS is probably the only practical solution right now. You can not copy HD off a DVR, because it's encoded to prevent copying.

I kinda wondered when these two would butt heads....

Not completely sure why, but this statement made me laugh my ass off.:lol:

FALSE. Here is the complete conversation. As you can see, I was discussing "storing HD" not SD.

mmm, hard to imagine how you can yell FALSE when the material was quoted verbatim (including post numbers). In the actual context, my statement was both true and accurate.

What I have a problem with now is that you follow with something that you call "the complete conversation" . . .

ELECTRICTROY WROTE: "- The manufacturers are making it really difficult for consumers to capture & store HD in their libraries. D-VHS is probably the only practical solution right now. (Or else download the HD rips off the internet.)"

BILLPRINCE REPLIED: "So why would anyone want to continue attempting to use ANY tape system for recording new material? ..... You can upgrade to a damn nice DVD/R for $120 - $100, archive from HD DVR"

. . . which is taken completely out of context as my statement was in response to the broader context of the entire thread and not in direct reply to your statement. If it had been in direct reply, I would have quoted you to make that clear. Since I did not quote you ahead of my query, it would be preferable to consider the entire context of the thread.

To which I now respond (and repeat myself): For storing HD, D-VHS is probably the only practical solution right now. You can not copy HD off a DVR, because it's encoded to prevent copying.

EGAD!!! Talk about fabrication. You have taken two statements separated by additional content and presented them as a single continuous statement in a very deceptive manner. So, the fact is, that is NOT what you said. You said:

" . . . for consumers to capture & store HD in their libraries . . . D-VHS is probably the only practical solution right now."(your post #23) And it should be pointed out that there was no direct reply to this statement by me nor anyone else.

and then later (in your post #25) you ASKED: "Aren't the DVR-HD programs encoded to prevent copying to external devices?" Interesting that you refered here to "external devices", and indeed two further posts in respose were 100% accurate and correct:
The first was from deadhead68 in his post #27 "Nope. At least not on my Motorola DCT3412 from Comcast."
And the second was my post #28 - "mmm, guess you heard wrong. I do it all the time. Use S-video from HD-DVR to DVD/R and press record. No problems."

At least I have no need to misquote nor distort.
Give it up troy

my statement was in response to the broader context of the entire thread and not in direct reply to your statement. If it had been in direct reply, I would have quoted you to make that clear. Perhaps true. However your reply about tape-based systems (24) also followed *directly* after mine about Digital VHS (23), so it's easy to see how/why I interpreted your post as a response to my post. At least I have no need to misquote nor distort. Give it up troy No YOU give it up. I didn't deliberate distort; I merely misinterpreted your post (24) as a response to my post (23).

That's all.

fini . . .

You can upgrade to a damn nice DVD/R for $120 - $100, archive from HD DVR as well as archive old tape material. Output is handled digitally from the getgo, so bye-bye to all that analogue circuitry in the tape machines. Everything that I have archived from my DVR to my DVD/R looks IDENTICAL whether I view from the DVR or from the DVD/R.

I've had to be away from this forum for a while, but this is exactly what I'd like to learn more about.

Would you mind posting the equipment you're using and the way it's connected?

I'd be most grateful. DGI

I've had to be away from this forum for a while, but this is exactly what I'd like to learn more about.

Would you mind posting the equipment you're using and the way it's connected?

I'd be most grateful. DGI

Sure, glad to share.

My HD DVR is Motorola 6416-2 (Verizon FIOS) connect with S-video to a Philips DVDR3475/37 (I bought this about 6 months ago at BB for $130; I believe walmart has it now for $120).

When you record SD, it is very straight forward and recorded DVD content plays identical to playback off of the DVR. Proper finalizing of disc will make them playable on ANY other DVD player or computer that I have so far tried.

If you archive HD programs in this manner, there is one small issue. Playback of the recorded DVD will play in windowbox (black bars on sides and top/bottom) which is not very desirable. You can, at some sacrifice in pq, use the zoom feature to increase the picture to fill the tv screen vertically which is, in my opinion, "not bad" . . . or should I say satisfactory.

Hope this has helped.

If you archive HD programs in this manner, there is one small issue. Playback of the recorded DVD will play in windowbox (black bars on sides and top/bottom) which is not very desirable. You can, at some sacrifice in pq, use the zoom feature to increase the picture to fill the tv screen vertically which is, in my opinion, "not bad" . . . or should I say satisfactory.

Hope this has helped.


It has, indeed. Thanks very much. The Windowboxing is a bit of a disappointment, but until I can afford to invest in a device that will record HD as one would like to see it, this seems a fair solution for sharing programs with my family overseas (many of which are in SD anyway).

DGI

Sure, glad to share.

My HD DVR is Motorola 6416-2 (Verizon FIOS) connect with S-video to a Philips DVDR3475/37 (I bought this about 6 months ago at BB for $130; I believe walmart has it now for $120).

Incidentally, I looked this model up on the Philips site and it says the unit offers "1080p HDMI with true high definition video upconversion". As I say, I'm new to this, but the way I'm interpreting it is that if you connect the box and recorder via HDMI cable you avoid the windowboxing.

I'm very possibly wrong about that. I'm learning as I go.

DGI

Incidentally, I looked this model up on the Philips site and it says the unit offers "1080p HDMI with true high definition video upconversion". As I say, I'm new to this, but the way I'm interpreting it is that if you connect the box and recorder via HDMI cable you avoid the windowboxing.

I'm very possibly wrong about that. I'm learning as I go.

DGI

Yes, these things can be confusing:

The Philips statement, "1080p HDMI with true high definition video upconversion", is technically true and correct, but it is only talking about resolution and saying nothing about aspect ratio. It's apples and oranges.

First, let's clarrify a bit about the Philips statement (which could be misleading to the "uninformed"), cuz, frankly I don't like their use of the words "true high definition video" - that's gobblediegoop, but since everybody does it, we have to live with it. A standard DVD has content encoded at 480i. That's it, period, fini!!! What the Philips player does (as does any other upconverting DVD player) is interoplate additional pixels required to fill all of the pixels on a HD screen. Well, 480i on a widescreen format is about 400,000 pixels. A 1080 HD screen needs a bit over 2,000,000 pixels to fill the screen. The upscaling DVD player uses hardware based algorithms to "fill in" the missing pixels, calculating intensity, color, even motion, and etc. to do this. So, it is important for the consumer to understand that "nothing is free" and "you can't make something from nothing"; which is to say: assume two identical sources (a hollywood movie); processed with the best equipment and converted to digital using the best equiment and algorithms; compressed using the same compression hardware and software to both 1080i and 480i. First, we must admit that the 1080i based content contains about 2 million pixels per frame of compressed data and the 480i content contains only 400,000 pixels per frame of compressed data. Now, let's burn the 1080i into an HD DVD; it's still all there. Next, let's burn the 480i content into a conventional DVD; it's still all there as well . . . only much less than on the HD version. We can do this because the HD DVD contains about 6 times the data capacity of a conventional DVD and the content being recorded is roughly 5 times greater in our example. Finally, let's play them both back on identical equipment; what conclusions can we expect to draw?
1) It is likely that the HD version will always provide higher picture quality because the picture is represented by 5 times as much "original" data as the conventional version. How great this difference is and how perceptible it is to the viewer is an issue of some debate, but with current technology it is probably perceiptible to most viewers to some degree.
2) It is likely possible that a poorly mastered HD DVD could look worse than a well mastered conventional DVD.
3) Final viewing quality is dependent on a number of factors including BOTH source and display.
4) Philip's promotional statement is technically correct in terms of number of pixes being sent to the display, but can be easily misunderstood since it avoids any mention of source material.

Now, moving on: As for window boxing; consider another example, it is not uncommon for SD programming to be sent out in "letterbox" format so that it displays on a 4:3 display with black bars at the top and bottom giving a (yuck!) "cinema" effect. Guess what happens when that same programming is displayed on a 16:9 display - - - it has black bars on the top, and the bottom, AND on both sides! Same is the case with DVD players, with proper encoding, an upscaling DVD player "knows" that the 480i content should be processed so that it plays in full screen 16:9; unfortunately when you and I record HD content, we have no way to tell it to do that, so we get windowboxing.

Why can't program suppliers send out stuff that will "best fit" any format; why can't equipment "know" what is being sent to it and have the ability to scale it to "best fit" its capabilities; why can't DVD/R machines redisplay recorded HD content in full screen mode, even 16:9 . . . . why not???? All of these are, I believe, within the realm of technical capability, but they have simply not been implimented, I am sure, for a myriad of reasons, both technical and economic and perhaps even legal. However, we have what we have.

So, even connecting the Philips DVD/R with HDMI you still get windowboxing. If I figure some way around this (other than "zoom" as I wrote earlier) I will be delighted and happy to share with you. Likewise, if someone comes out with a new (reasonably priced) machine that would address this single issue, I would strongly consider purching it. Sorry to be the bearer of "bad" tidings.

Why can't program suppliers send out stuff that will "best fit" any format; why can't equipment "know" what is being sent to it and have the ability to scale it to "best fit" its capabilities; why can't DVD/R machines redisplay recorded HD content in full screen mode, even 16:9 . . . . why not???? All of these are, I believe, within the realm of technical capability, but they have simply not been implimented, I am sure, for a myriad of reasons, both technical and economic and perhaps even legal.

That is perplexing. But thanks so much for the very thorough explanation. It really helps a great deal.

DGI