Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tapeheads and the Quiet Return of VHS

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the what-won't-hipsters-do-next dept.

Media 446

Hugh Pickens writes "Joshua Phillips writes that something was lost when videos went from magnetic tape and plastic, to plastic discs, and now to digital streams as browsing aisles is no more and the once-great video shops slowly board up their windows across the country. Future generations may know little of the days when buying a movie meant you owned it even if the Internet went down and when getting a movie meant you had to scour aisles of boxes in search of one whose cover art called back a story that echoed your interests. Josh Johnson, one of the filmmakers behind the upcoming documentary 'Rewind This!' hopes to tell the story of how and why home video came about, and how it changed our culture giving B movies and films that didn't make the silver screen their own chance to shine. 'Essentially, the rental market expanded, because of voracious consumer demand, into non-blockbuster, off-Hollywood video content which would never have had a theatrical life otherwise,' says Palmer. While researching the documentary Palmer found something interesting: there is a resurgence taking place of people going back to VHS because a massive number of films are 'trapped on VHS' with 30 and 40 percent of films released on VHS never to be seen again on any other format. 'Most of the true VHS fanatics are children of the 1980s,' says Palmer. 'Whether they are motivated by a sense of nostalgia or prefer the format for the grainy aesthetic qualities of magnetic tape or some other reason entirely unknown, each tapehead is unique like a snowflake.'"

cancel ×

446 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Onion did a report on VHS (4, Funny)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949775)

Courtesy of the Onion:

Blockbuster Offers Glimpse Of Movie Renting Past [youtube.com]

LOL! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38949813)

grainy aesthetic qualities of magnetic tape

Grainy? Has this moron ever SEEN a video off VHS? How about blurry with messed up tint? How about seeing annoying streaks across the screen from where the tape has worn?
 
I can see the motive behind records and audio tapes (not my thing), but this is RETARDED.

Re:LOL! (2)

skids (119237) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949895)

Well, I suppose the leet retro-format people are into LD [wikipedia.org] instead, which is still analog but doesn't wear so much. Of course, while there are some things that were only released on LD, more was released on VHS, so if getting at un-transcribed publications is the goal, one just has to hope there's well preserved stock.

Re:LOL! (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950171)

That is actually why I still sell analog capture cards because while folks can just get the new shows off of the net you'd be surprised how many folks have older shows they'd like to convert that simply weren't ever released, or more importantly videos of their families. I myself am gonna have to drop a couple of VHS tapes over to a friend's house or borrow his player for a day or two because i recently found a couple of old VHS tapes of me from the 90s playing with my old band and i'd like a copy but don't have a VCR anymore.

Re:LOL! (3, Funny)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950259)

Don't let the MPAA hear you say that. They'll throw you in jail.

Re:LOL! (4, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950007)

I'd group the vinyl and tape people in with the vhs heads.. it's all nostalgia and or generational insecurity, with the new converts just trying to differentiate themselves socially with their peers. obviously it's legitimate to go to those older formats when the recording doesn't exist on the newer ones (or it's a bad transfer), but otherwise it's pure snobbery. properly done digital is superior to all those formats.

Re:LOL! (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950131)

the transfer would have to be pretty bad for the VHS to be superior.

like if it came off a VHS or something...

i've used VHS recently in production as a special effect. there is something cool about deliberately creasing the tape, then resetting the timer on the resulting glitch, so you can record something on the tape which will then glitch out on that exact spot.

but there's nothing intrinsically good about the format whatsoever. the only worse format was U-matic, and that's mainly due to the size of the tapes more than anything else. quality was the same or slightly better.

J-format is the way to go if you want vintage cred. there's only a handful of working decks in the world. and by deck, i mean stand-in prop for a '60s computer - size of a catering fridge, massive reel-to-reel setup.

Re:LOL! (4, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950155)

properly done digital is superior to all those formats

That is very rare. In many ways I view the quality of DVDs and Blurays as equivalent to that of VHS tapes. It's Apples and Oranges really. With VHS you had degradation and quality issues inherent to the format. With digital, which is usually done poorly, even on high end Blurays, you have the "waterfall effect" where the blocks become noticeable in high speed movement in the scene, most noticeably on water falls.

If we had a nearly loss less compression algorithm, or better methods of dealing with such artifacts that would be nice, but for now it is not like digital is perfect fidelity.

If I had to choose I would go with my 300 pound Pioneer LaserDisc player. It was expensive as hell, and I did not have to flip the discs. The quality though was just shy of DVD and still analog video. That meant no artifacts and no degradation (well a heck of lot less without laser rot). It was a nicer looking picture to me.

Not to mention the audio was in many cases digital and the Elite players had optical connectors to your stereo system.

I know it may sound crazy, but it really pisses me off when I see a $20+ Bluray title, with super high resolution compared to the LD, and yet still have bullshit encoding artifacts in high speed motion scenes. LD did not have that.

One of the many reasons why I won't spend a dime on Bluray.

LD is too much of a pain in the ass though, not to mention new titles are not exactly being sold either. Never did see a burner or blank ones around either.....

Re:LOL! (4, Funny)

flapped (2444604) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950197)

Don't. There's not really any other point in tapes and vhs than nostalgia, but vinyl is in many ways superior to newer formats. Vinyl and mp3 are actually the only two formats anyone needs. Vinyl for home listening as it has superior sound quality, cover art you can actually see and lasts forever if handled properly, but on the flipside, is a pain in the ass to take away with you. Mp3 for traveling as it has no weight and you can easily listen to it anywhere, but has bad sound quality and no cover art whatsoever. What CD does better than mp3, vinyl does even better, and what CD does better than vinyl, mp3 does even better.

Re:LOL! (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950261)

Vinyl for home listening as it has superior sound quality

No, it doesn't.

CD audio is perfectly able to capture audio just as well as vinyl. There is nothing inherently superior about vinyl. Vinyl also wears out over time.

There is no need for physical media. If you are getting a nice 'warm' sound from your vinyl, that is an artifact of the sound distortion being introduced by your amp, or other parts of your equipment, maybe even the mastering of the album. All of these things can be captured and played back digitally.

Your love of an old data storage format is just weird.

Re:LOL! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38950273)

Yeah, no. Vinyl captures a greater spectrum of sound than CDs do.

Re:LOL! (3, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950277)

What, the sounds above 22kHz, the ones humans aren't capable of hearing?

Sure.

LOL.

Re:LOL! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38950379)

You obviously haven't spent a lot of time listening to vinyl if you even have ever. CDs can clip audio pretty aggressively resulting in distortion if the music is improperly mastered. There's no clipping in vinyl since it's an analog format, a lot of records do end up sounding better than CDs. It's not always the case. If a CD is well mastered, I'd rather have that, but a lot of the time someone did a crappy lazy job with the mastering.

Re:LOL! (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950299)

Except... uncompressed or lossless digital audio is now superior to vinyl, since the master copy theses days is always digital. Its like those proponents of valve amplifiers. The "warm" sound they produce is caused by distortion being added to the signal by the valves. Like that pick-up being dragged through the groove on the vinyl record... The only reason it works in the first place is the wiggles in the groove are larger than the imperfections.

Re:LOL! (1)

GrahamCox (741991) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950281)

I'd group the vinyl and tape people in with the vhs heads

VHS is really a very poor quality video format. Just look at it! You can't really say that about vinyl and tape for audio, both of which are capable of high fidelity.

I'm not a golden-eared vinyl afficionado, and in general I much prefer CDs, but there's a big difference between a good CD and a bad CD, much bigger than the difference between a good and bad vinyl recording. That's because of the stupidity of the labels over the last 15 years in insisting that everything is mastered as loud as possible, reducing the effective dynamic range of CDs to often less than 10dB! You can't attempt that with vinyl because it won't physically work.

Properly done digital is indeed superior to all those formats - but show me a properly done CD and I'll show you 9 others that are garbage.

Re:LOL! (4, Informative)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950133)

In fact, the author even gave the real reason for "going back to VHS":

because a massive number of films are 'trapped on VHS' with 30 and 40 percent of films released on VHS never to be seen again on any other format

If you want to see one of those movies, you really have no other choice but VHS. If they were released on DVD, I'm sure there would be no such thing as a "return of VHS".

Re:LOL! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38950179)

So you digitize them, do what you can to clean it up, compress with x264. You can ditch the VHS then.

(Optional, but recommended: share it. If the copyright holder complains, tell 'em they should have made a DVD release.)

Pffff, whatever. (3, Funny)

DWMorse (1816016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949783)

Wannabes. The religious hipster cool kids have been getting their media via STONE TABLET for several millenniums now.

Re:Pffff, whatever. (4, Funny)

ToThoseOfUs (2377416) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949803)

Wannabes. The religious hipster cool kids have been getting their media via STONE TABLET for several millenniums now.

Stone tablet... the really cool kids have been using the walls of caves.

Content, not the Technology (5, Insightful)

afabbro (33948) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949789)

I have no desire to "go back to VHS" or even to own any VHS tapes. But as the article points out, there are several good movies that have not been released on DVD.

In those cases, I'd much rather have someone's mp4 conversion off piratebay than a fresh VHS tape because VHS tapes do not last the way digital files do.

Same is true for a number of good movies and TV series that were never released on VHS. You want to watch the original Batman '66? Be prepared for some TV Land logos in your mp4s.

The only reason every video ever made is not available on demand is idiotic IP laws and greed. That is what we all want, not this piecemeal idiocy.

Re:Content, not the Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38949847)

Same is true for a number of good movies and TV series that were never released on VHS. You want to watch the original Batman '66? Be prepared for some TV Land logos in your mp4s.

The only reason every video ever made is not available on demand is idiotic IP laws and greed. That is what we all want, not this piecemeal idiocy.

For example a lot of japanese anime was broadcast in Italy in the late seventies, early eighties and the biggest and most famous franchises were never released on VHS, let alone DVD or BR. The reason ? As stated above IP laws and greed from the rights owners. But in this case p2p comes to the rescue.

Re:Content, not the Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38950235)

The reason ? As stated above IP laws and greed from the rights owners.

That and there can't be much of a market for Japanese cartoons rebroadcast in Italy 30+ years ago in the first place. Are you really going to go to all the trouble to restore and reprint a series just because 3 or 4 Italian basement-dwellers want to relive their childhood? I was a big He-Man fan as a kid, doesn't mean I'd go buying a DVD rerelease of the cartoon.

Re:Content, not the Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38950297)

The reason ? As stated above IP laws and greed from the rights owners.

That and there can't be much of a market for Japanese cartoons rebroadcast in Italy 30+ years ago in the first place. Are you really going to go to all the trouble to restore and reprint a series just because 3 or 4 Italian basement-dwellers want to relive their childhood? I was a big He-Man fan as a kid, doesn't mean I'd go buying a DVD rerelease of the cartoon.

Ha ha ha you have no idea what you're talking about. Grendizer is an anime that managed to get 100% share on the French national tv channel back in the early eighties. Although not for all episodes of course. Some animes in France and Italy although 30 years old have transcended their "cartoon" status and have become real cultural icons. But thats something that americans just can't comprehend because you got what 10 animes and that hack fest of Robotech in during the 80's ? Please.

Re:Content, not the Technology (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950255)

great. more robots and panty shots.

Re:Content, not the Technology (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949903)

Same is true for a number of good movies and TV series that were never released on VHS. You want to watch the original Batman '66? Be prepared for some TV Land logos in your mp4s.

I listen to and love live DJ mixes. One of the broadcasts that I have been enjoying for a number of years now is A State of Trance. Now, while the current episodes are filled with people sharing, finding older sets is down right impossible. However, once I do manage to get them, I let them seed. No point in sharing what everyone else has out there, but for the folks that really do want to hear what was being played years ago (or perhaps the poor sods with OCD and the "Got to get them all" mentality) I think it is a nice thing to do.

Some contain advertising from the radio station that they were recorded off (though not many) and I think it is hilarious. It makes me wonder whether those shops or companies are even still around or whether the advertising I am hearing is just a memory of what once was.

Re:Content, not the Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38950103)

Content? 80's? Really?

Re:Content, not the Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38950117)

You are also clearly not a customer of the thousand dollar HDMI cables.

Re:Content, not the Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38950217)

... I'd much rather have someone's mp4 conversion off piratebay....

MP4 is for playback on those damn proprietary devices. MKV is the proper container for P2P. Convert it if you must conform to some corporate master.

Re:Content, not the Technology (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950249)

not exactly.

the main gotcha is supply and demand.

how much cash is a licensor/distributor going to make from a DVD release of batman '66?

how much cash would it cost to hunt down the film reels (if they exist), tapes, whatevers?

how much would it cost to transfer the films to something good (even digibeta, which is 20 years old this year, is the best standard def has to offer)?

how much would it cost to assemble everything into watchable form (ie, the film reels will have transfer notes, timing info, etc that needs to be recreated on modern gear, and episodes need to be re-cut to how they were screened.

you'll find with anything that's not on DVD already (remember DVD's been around since 1998), you can safely guess that someone's done the maths above and it's come out negative.

On the other hand, it killed community cinephilia (5, Insightful)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949793)

While home video was certainly a net gain in availability of obscure films nationwide/worldwide, at a local level it destroyed many local cinemas who ran classic art films. It used to be that you could go to a screening of, say, an Ingmar Bergman film from several years prior, meet other cinephiles in your neighbourhood, and walk out of the cinema having passionate discussions with your peers about what you just saw.

Sure, nowadays you can torrent the film or get it from Netflix, and then go on IMDB or Flixster to post a review or get into a masturbatory flame war with anonymous people who can't spell, but that in-real-life community aspect is gone except in a very few places.

Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38949853)

I wouldn't go to a regular theater if someone paid -me-. People have lost the ability to understand that their behavior in a quiet movie theater affects others. Gum chompers, bag rattlers, talkers, cell phone texters et al, have ruined the experience with the exception of over 21 theaters.

Now, in my nice home theater, I can still invite friends, or converse with them afterwards on the subject matter. Without having to deal with what is frankly an unwashed, noisy, ill behaved mob easily provoked to confrontation when their behavior is pointed out to them.

In short, fuck the public experience. It stopped working when the "it's all about me" crowd arrived.

Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949925)

In short, fuck the public experience. It stopped working when the "it's all about me" crowd arrived.

That crowd doesn't go to see an Ingmar Bergman film from several years prior. You should expand your cinematic horizons and stop watching the newest teen vampire movie as it comes out.

Going to a cinema like this is like going to a jazz club. You won't get the usual crowd of idiots, but likely have a great opportunity to meet some interesting people and have an intelligent conversation.

Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil (0)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950041)

Going to a cinema like this is like going to a jazz club. You won't get the usual crowd of idiots, but likely have a great opportunity to meet some interesting people and have an intelligent conversation.

Oooooh, so the jazz (or "music") is played as if someone hooked up a saxophone to a horse and tortured it to keep out the kids? It makes so much sense!

Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil (4, Insightful)

penguinchris (1020961) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949971)

That's not what he's talking about. Those people who don't know how to behave are not going to Ingmar Bergman films or even English-language arthouse/indie films, so the experience is only ever positive if you find a place showing such films - because for people who really like movies, the theater experience (including the film experience, which can't practically be replicated at home) is a big part of the enjoyment.

There are still such places - theaters that show classic films, new foreign films, and indie and art films. The Dryden Theater at the George Eastman House in Rochester NY (where I went to university) is my favorite, though I don't live there anymore. Yeah you can get it all on DVD, but it's still worth going if you're into movies - and if you're not into movies, you're not watching those kinds of films anyway.

Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950203)

In short, fuck the public experience. It stopped working when the "it's all about me" crowd arrived.

Don't know what type of rose-colored nostalgia glasses you have on, but that wasn't a recent development. Cell phones, that's a new thing, but before that there was still crying kids, noisy cracker-jacks and people talking. Every generation thinks they invented sin, and every generation thinks the next one invented bad manners.

Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950263)

you'll find that people who grew up with cinema have the respect you crave.

it's precisely the home video, VoD, netflix generations that have fucked the cinema experience.

Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950099)

While home video was certainly a net gain in availability of obscure films nationwide/worldwide, at a local level it destroyed many local cinemas who ran classic art films. It used to be that you could go to a screening of, say, an Ingmar Bergman film from several years prior, meet other cinephiles in your neighbourhood, and walk out of the cinema having passionate discussions with your peers about what you just saw.

I'm really not sure VHS is the sole cause of this. There was another concurrently-developing technology - cable television - that may have had a hand in it as well.

Back the 1980s I fell in love with a channel called "American Movie Classics" - at the time it really was showing classic American films (okay, obviously that doesn't mean Bergman) all the time, and with no commercial interruptions! The host, Bob Dorian, would lead into the movie with a little 2-minute piece that would sometimes be about the movie's place in cinema history and at other times be some back-stage story. Over the course of the 80s and 90s I saw lots of John Ford, lots of post-1940 Alfred Hitchcock, Astaire and Rogers, film noir classics - all the sorts of movies you used to have to go to a movie house to watch! It was great. I will admit I taped a lot of it for no quantifiable reason... (and the tapes are still around, gathering dust out in our family room)

I realize AMC technically still exists; but it's not even close to what it was back then.

Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950185)

As tech fans, we should realize that every single thing ever invented has it's upsides and downsides. Everything. Except possibly for vaccines, those are the closest we've come to inventing something with no downsides. Everything else I can think of had at least a few negative consequences, VHS and then digital included.

Re:On the other hand, it killed community cinephil (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950285)

Those places were always a rarity in most of the United States and destined to become more rare as real estate prices and rents continued to rise. Far, far, far more people are exposed to those films via P2P and home video than a handful of art houses ever achieved.

You never owned it (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38949795)

Future generations may know little of the days when buying a movie meant you owned it even if the Internet went down and when getting a movie meant you had to scour aisles of boxes in search

Ownership means you can do what you want. Like make copies and sell the copies of the contents of the tape as an example.

You were a share cropper in the tape days, just like now.

Re:You never owned it (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949953)

At one time, however crappy the deal, you at least owned the license fair and square. Now even that may be revoked on a whim.

Re:You never owned it (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950183)

That's why I still buy DVDs (on sale from Amazon, natch), even though the first/only thing I do with them is rip to h264 so they are accessible from the DVR.

Re:You never owned it (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950233)

Personally, I can't imagine why anyone does otherwise. I can more or less see it if the download is completely DRM free, but even then if it's going to cost as much or more than the same thing on physical media, why do it?

Re:You never owned it (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950353)

Because you need a certain amount of geekiness to think about doing it, and technical acumen to actually set it up.

Re:You never owned it (1)

skids (119237) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950031)

Ownership of media conveys more rights than licensing it, in that the First-Sale Doctrine [wikipedia.org] is entrenched case law for hard product, wheras applying it to digitally streamed media is still subject to some legal churn, so only applies to those than can afford the tort. Also given current trends, first-sale rights are only likely to erode. [eff.org]

Trapped films (1)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949817)

Some great films are indeed effectively trapped on VHS. In some cases they are never transferred to DVD/Blu-Ray, in other cases the quality of the transfer is pitiful compared to the VHS. In others, they are only available for a limited number of regions.

One example: They Might Be Giants [amazon.com]

(I was going to mention The Lighthorsemen [amazon.com] , but there is allegedly a Blu-Ray that exists now - but is it truly available?)

Re:Trapped films (5, Interesting)

evilsofa (947078) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950265)

It's not a film, but a very significant example of being trapped on VHS is CNN's Cold War documentary. 24 hour-long episodes covering the whole Cold War, start to finish, with an unbelievable roster of interviews including Fidel Castro, Walter Cronkite, Henry Kissinger, Robert MacNamara, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Lech Walesa, Aldritch Ames, Mikhail Gorbachev, and more. Never released to DVD, because the series came out in 1998. Then 9/11 hit, and material in episodes 19 and 20 that covered the Russian Afghan war were re-classified by the Bush administration; CNN would not be allowed to republish that material. The DVD market went big-time shortly after, and CNN decided not to transfer an incomplete product. If you ever get a chance to see it, do so. It's worth your time. It's a pity that you pretty much can't obtain it legally anymore.

Re:Trapped films (5, Informative)

monzie (729782) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950361)

But we have youtube. And there are a lot of people who have taken pains to put up such documentaries on the site. The Cold War documentary that you mentioned can be seen at Cold War Full Length Documentary [youtube.com]

Thanks Macrovision (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38949819)

Its returning thanks to Macrovision and George Lucas.

I have the real trilogy, with Han shooting first, on VHS, nicely locked away on Macrovision.

Help digitizing that would be nice.

Re:Thanks Macrovision (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38949907)

Look for the Star Wars Despecialized Edition.

You can thank me after you finish downloading it.

Well I for one won't be going back to VHS.. (1)

Billlagr (931034) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949837)

I had a Beta. Yeah, that's right. Beta top-loader.

I think we all know the real driver (0)

paiute (550198) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949861)

If there were no porn, we would still be using Beta. The kids would be rewatching that tape of The Last Unicorn that you bought for $120 over and over and over.

Re:I think we all know the real driver (1)

Billlagr (931034) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949899)

I'd forgotten about that - not the porn, but movies WERE about the $100 mark initially, which is probably one driver behind video hire stores really taking off initially. Back on to the porn, I had a friend bring back a copy (of a copy of a copy..) of a porno from the USA when he went on a visit..we were gutted when we discovered that it wouldn't play back on a PAL player..

Re:I think we all know the real driver (1)

godel_56 (1287256) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950009)

I'd forgotten about that - not the porn, but movies WERE about the $100 mark initially, which is probably one driver behind video hire stores really taking off initially. Back on to the porn, I had a friend bring back a copy (of a copy of a copy..) of a porno from the USA when he went on a visit..we were gutted when we discovered that it wouldn't play back on a PAL player..

Most of the more modern PAL VHS recorders will play back NTSC tapes, but not record them.

aisles, not isles (3, Informative)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949869)

"browsing isles is no more"

TFA (http://techzwn.com/2012/02/interview-filmmakers-tell-of-the-home-video-revolution/ ) says "Something was lost when videos went from magnetic tape and plastic, to plastic discs, and now to digital streams. Browsing aisles is no more, as the once-great video shops slowly board up their windows across the country."

So the submitter actually changed it.

Sigh.

Re:aisles, not isles (1)

penguinchris (1020961) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949979)

Or, the original site spotted and fixed the mistake after the submitter copied and pasted it.

Re:aisles, not isles (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950301)

Or the slashdot editor 'corrected' it.

(Unknown lamer? Who the fuck is that?)

Re:aisles, not isles (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950315)

"Or the slashdot editor 'corrected' it."

I checked the submission, it had "isle"; the Slashdot "editor" was equally illiterate and didn't notice.

Re:aisles, not isles (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950357)

"Or the slashdot editor 'corrected' it."

I checked the submission, it had "isle"; the Slashdot "editor" was equally illiterate and didn't notice.

You're just trying to do extra work to make up for those of us who don't bother reading the summaries half the time, let alone the articles. Investigating the submission? Inconceivable!

Stupid (2, Insightful)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949875)

Stupid article, stupid person, stupid premise, stupid argument. Stupid stupid stupid. Video has followed the same trajectory as audio, from analog to to digital physical to downloads. Except that analog video sucks just as much as, if not more so than, analog audio tapes. I know there's something of a vinyl resurgence, and I even think there's something to it (not audio quality, experience), but there's a reason nobody ever wants to screw around with audio tapes again. They're a pain in the ass, there's static, you need to rewind them, etc. Except video is even more finicky. Remember screwing with the tracking? Pulling the tape out of the box and finding it not rewound? Finding a particular scene?

And is he seriously arguing that obscure films are *more* obscure now that you can watch them online, as opposed to finding them tucked away somewhere in the local video store? I'm also pretty sure that those obscure films have been digitized and are easy to "acquire" if you wanted to watch them.

DVDs are superior to VHS in literally every respect. You don't have to rewind them, random access is as easy as sequential access, quality is better, audio is better (5.1 channels), smaller media, smaller players, quieter players, no static, no head cleaning, no moving parts in the media, cheaper media, extra features... the list goes on and on.

Stupid.

Re:Stupid (3, Insightful)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949901)

I should add that I understand and accept that VHS was revolutionary for giving people the ability, for the first time, to consume media on their own schedule. Being able to record something to watch it later is a big deal, and we've actually taken a step backwards in that respect - less people have DVRs than had VHS recorders (though I'm not sure most people taped much - I know I only did it occasionally because it was a pain).

But we moved away from VHS as soon as possible, much like we did with the hand-starter in a car. And that's a good thing.

Re:Stupid (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950101)

A lot of people who taped taped religiously though. It meant people could watch a daytime only show while going to work. People from that age group are generally baffled by DVR's though, and any of the rest of the technology I take for granted.

Trying to explain to someone in their late 70's how to record with the 'push of a button' (ya right...) on one box, that they may or may not be able to access in another room on a different TV is not trivial. So I still see a lot of people with VCR's and stacks of fresh VHS tapes from a few years ago because they can't figure out modern technology. The analogue to digital conversion hurt these users a lot because a lot of VHS players won't behave the same way with their converters and they can't get their shows the way they want.

Re:Stupid (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950311)

I'm sympathetic to that argument, but not with VHS/DVR. VHS is an astonishing pain to set up to record in advance. Substantially harder than setting the clock (which as we all know is nearly impossible, apparently). And even more difficult now that they're no longer publishing the "VCR+" codes (remember those?) that made it only mildly unpleasant instead of quite unpleasant. Recording a show that's currently on is equally easy for each - just hit the "record" button - except that the DVR will start from where you tuned to the channel, if you've been watching for 5 minutes, and automatically "labels" the recording with the name and time.

Frankly, I can't believe that somebody can set a recording to happen in the future can't find the same show at the same time on the guide and hit "record" there instead. Compare "Menu->Schedule recording->Time/Date/Channel/Duration" to "Guide-> (Scroll to channel, date and time, channel and show helpfully named for your convenience) -> Record". Of course, some will refuse to do it merely because it's different, but I'm not particularly interested in catering to them (and it says more about the person than their age).

Re:Stupid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38949937)

DVDs are superior to VHS in literally every respect.

Actually, there's at least one technical respect in which VHS is better: vertical chroma resolution. DVDs use 4:2:0 subsampling, so there is only row of samples for every two scanlines (and for interlaced content, the result can be a mess), whereas VHS retains the full vertical resolution.

Re:Stupid (1)

slimjim8094 (941042) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949969)

Fair enough, but that's a pretty subtle difference compared to other image quality metrics. Even on an old 480i CRT, where VHS arguably looks its best, there's noticeably less definition than a DVD.

Re:Stupid (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950363)

I'll tell you what is not subtle between digital and analog. Compression artifacts. Those actually bother me more since DVD, being digital and all, is supposed to have more "fidelity". In most cases DVDs are pretty okay. Where it gets downright ridiculous is Bluray that I have seen. Can those retards not encode properly? Even on the best set ups I have seen embarrassing artifacts on high speed motion scenes.

It should be nice, clean, and smooth. Anything else is a compromise, and to me similar to VHS in that respect.

Definition is one thing, but artifacts is like that one dropping of rat shit on an otherwise perfect New York Cheesecake.

I agree with you that it is pretty stupid to go back to VHS when there is an alternative, but analog video reached its peak with LD. That was quality on par with DVD every day of the week. LD had easily at least 90% of the definition of DVD and none of the drawbacks of VHS.

When I can get proper encodings of video I will agree with your statement about digital "fidelity".

Re:Stupid (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950077)

DVDs use 4:2:0 subsampling, so there is only row of samples for every two scanlines (and for interlaced content, the result can be a mess), whereas VHS retains the full vertical resolution.

Of course DVDs have several times the horizontal chroma resolution, which is why VHS colors bleed like crazy.

Re:Stupid (1)

jpwilliams (2430348) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950069)

Technically better doesn't mean superior to everyone. Some, as the article says, are into the nostalgia. Nothing wrong with that.

I would never go back to VHS (2)

xQuarkDS9x (646166) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949887)

Although VHS was very useful back in the 80's and 90's for recording various TV shows there was always playback issues between various brands of VHS machines simply because of how one machine recorded the show, the next one might have issues with grainy playback, fast forwarding or rewinding, or even audio issues. And remember the fun of buying the VHS cleaning tapes to try and keep the head(s) clean for optimal playback? Fun times!

Re:I would never go back to VHS (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949963)

Wow, you must have bought some really crappy VCRs!

Re:I would never go back to VHS (1)

xQuarkDS9x (646166) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949985)

Wow, you must have bought some really crappy VCRs!

I seem to recall in the household growing up we had common name brands like Hitachi, JVC, Sony, etcetera, so it wasn't like my family was buying the most cheapest brands around at the time. Mind you though if you wanted crappy VCRs, the ones made by RCA in the early 80's that were heavy enough to kill someone and weighed about 60 pounds would certainly qualify!

Re:I would never go back to VHS (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950021)

I said that because my experience with perfectly run of the mill VCRs has been that they inter-operated fine and needed a minute spent once a year or so running a cleaning tape through. I still have 2 working VCRs from the '90s that I actually use. One was built in to an inexpensive TV and the other was a $40 standalone.

Re:I would never go back to VHS (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950267)

Maybe you didn't rent videos much? A single bad video was all it took to dirty up a freshly cleaned VCR.

Although, I seem to remember VCRs lasted a long time. The one we had lasted around 15 years, so maybe the OP had more than one VCR at a time, and that's why he had trouble transferring from one VCR to another?

Re:I would never go back to VHS (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950139)

Although VHS was very useful back in the 80's and 90's for recording various TV shows there was always playback issues between various brands of VHS machines simply because of how one machine recorded the show, the next one might have issues with grainy playback, fast forwarding or rewinding, or even audio issues. And remember the fun of buying the VHS cleaning tapes to try and keep the head(s) clean for optimal playback? Fun times!

What I remember about VHS tapes is how they wear out. Our daughter had a handful of favorite tapes that she'd always want to watch - some I suspect were played 100 times, easy. Whether or not they were technically wearing down, or the magnetic bits were getting realigned, or whatever - after a certain point they'd always start to degrade.

Oh, and remember the alignment issues? And the little dials you'd use to fine-tune the channels?

I guess that means me. (2)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949917)

I guess this means me. I fit the demographic. I was born in the early 1980s.

There is something 'missing' in the digital remasters of films, though arguably it's of a non-quantifiable aesthetic. Arguably, it's something of nostalgia, and I'd grant someone who argues it that way.

I remember, as a child, watching The Lone Ranger. Not the black and white, but the movie made in the 1980s (or early 90s). It'd come off television and had the start and finish of the ad segmens; my grandfather had recorded it for us, carefully stopping/recording at the appropriate parts - but we still had parts of he "We now return you to USA's Friday Night Movie".

My brother and I also had an VHS 'copy' of the original Batman serials from television in the late 1940s ( I think). The cars were big, there was no color, and the "Batmobile" was no different than any of the other cars. (Much better than the 1950s Batman, IMO.) The same goes for the b&w Superman, which we recorded off of reruns off TV, at some point. The Batman serials, we'd somehowmanaged to record about 20 seconds over the middle - some Micromachines commercial, right in the middle of a fight scene.

Flashing forward, I saw most of my favorite movies first on VHS: Die Hard, The Saint, Braveheart, Terminator, Commando. A favorite VHS had character, of sorts. You could tell it was well watched when the colors had started to fade and there was static or muddled audio. There was no jumping around randomly for favorite scenes. Many of them had been recorded off the TV by one person or another and passed around amongst friends. It wasn't until over a decade later that saw the full, non-edited-for-TV version of Commando (awesome!).

And then there was rainy days, snow days, or really-bad-storm days. You'd sit at home with the generator on (if you had one) and maybe watch movies while someone made food. You'd sort through a dozen different movies to find one that didn't suck, and you'd look for something to like or something to make fun of: it'd end up becoming a favorite for one reason or another.

That said: most of these people need to get a life. :) While I will grant you that the 1980s was the last great decade of America (for some time to come, at least), if you get too wrapped up in 1980s VHS films, you've got something wrong with you. I believe the term is "reality avoidance".

Re:I guess that means me. (2)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950001)

While I will grant you that the 1980s was the last great decade of America (for some time to come, at least), if you get too wrapped up in 1980s VHS films, you've got something wrong with you. I believe the term is "reality avoidance".

Especially since everybody who grew up in the 1980s knows that Betamax was better than VHS in every way.

How about? (1)

arsemonkey (1970712) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949919)

Remember the seemingly outrageous fines for destroying a tape? Remember getting home from the video store to find you had artifacts on the lower 2/3 of the screen? How about the video cassette rewinding machine, god knows that JVC vcr was built to last eons. don't miss it at all.. not one bit.

Technology is sometimes democritizing (1)

cervesaebraciator (2352888) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949921)

[...] how it changed our culture giving B movies and films that didn't make the silver screen their own chance to shine.

The advance in technology has helped this more than harmed it. These days, put it up on Youtube to get known. Hell, put up a concept on a website [ironsky.net] just in hopes of funding. The passing of VHS and the arrival of streaming has been democratizing. If you're afraid of losing it, burn it onto a DVD. That DVD you burned will outlast any VHS tape and will do so through many, many plays. How many of us who grew up in the 80's didn't suffer the disappointment of losing our favorite film to a hungry VCR (I suspect my family, who were sick of rewatching the same movie rigged the thing to destroy the tape).

Edited for clarity (4, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949927)

$HIPSTERS and the $MEANINGLESS_ADJECTIVE return of $OBSOLETE_KITSCH

I am not a VHS fanatic. Even in the 80's, I hated the format. VHS tapes are/were made to the cheapest possible materials, so they wore out very easily and were highly susceptible to heat warping. Much like audio tapes, the sound tends to warble and even distort on overly bright video frames... such a kludgey format!

I do think we need to preserve the content of these tapes, but not the medium itself. I've been an all-streaming guy for 8-9 years and have no desire to go backward.

Re:Edited for clarity (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950075)

I do think we need to preserve the content of these tapes, but not the medium itself.

Copyright: 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.
Legally, we can't preserve these tapes and we'll all be dead by the time someone legally can.

I've been an all-streaming guy for 8-9 years and have no desire to go backward.

As an all streaming guy, you'll never have the opportunity to go backwards and neither will your children.
Imagine a world where Disney can stop streaming a version of their film before the copyright expires and it disappears forever.
Then, you can only stream the new remastered edition. And by "remastered" I mean "another 95 years of copyright".

And as with all analogue (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950271)

Particularly magnetic tape, it is suffer to wear as it is played. Each time you watch something, it gets worse due to wear. The more you watch, the worse it looks.

That and no generation loss are the big reasons digital formats are so totally superior. Even if VHS was a high end pro format, it still would suck compared to a similar digital format. The benefit of perfect reproduction of digital is just too massive.

That aside, DVD is superior to VHS quality. DVD gets you quality around Betacam SP. It gets you higher luma and chroma resolution than VHS, no ringing or overshoot, no bleed, and so on.

Reminds me to archive my stuff from 1980s (3, Interesting)

k6mfw (1182893) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949941)

I have several VHS tapes from 1980s I need to transfer as magnetic tape does not keep its contents forever (and pushing 30 years is risky). Few months ago I viewed one, a movie shown on late night TV from a Los Angeles station. One of the commercials has Cal Worthington and his "dog" Spot (car dealer who had various animals from armadillos to bears). Probably can no longer do that these days. Tape also has when CNN had a interview with astronauts on the Shuttle, they only had a short window via ground stations as this was before TDRSS. Much of it was ironing out some technical issues. Crew could not hear audio from CNN though CNN anchors could hear them. They eventually got it to work. It was interesting because it seemed more authentic. Nowadays it's seems so staged. What I noticed is how anchors were more like journalists rather than celebrities. Other commercials had Federated stereo stores with goofy antics, and a lawyer commercial that begins with a car accident (staged with stills and sound effects of a crash) followed by a lawyer who says, "If your involved in serious accident, you need to seek legal advice immediately!" [don't bother calling paramedics]. Fasinating stuff of what was and used to be.

Hope you stored them well (2)

BagOBones (574735) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949949)

http://kingtapes.net/index.php/faq/2-do-vhs-tapes-degrade-over-time [kingtapes.net]

VHS degrades very quickly at room temperature and regular viewing... I know I could not stand watching some of my old ones after watching DVD for a few years, the color was so faded, it was awful!.

Not really missing it myself .. (4, Interesting)

n5vb (587569) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949961)

.. VHS was such poor quality that the fact that it won out over Beta always amazed me. Chroma channel of such poor bandwidth that the best you could say of VHS color is that you'd maybe get a blob of more or less the right color around that black and white object in the luma channel. Longitudinal audio tracks that did a record wipe effect any time a kink in the tape went over the audio head (granted, the RF audio on later stereo VHS was somewhat better). I thought about trying to edit on it once, but decided I didn't want to bother without any way to implement a timecode track. Even the 2 hour mode was crummy enough to not be anywhere close to broadcast quality, and that was in the analog vestigial-sideband 480i SD NTSC-M days of composite video.

And cleaning tape heads, and aligning transports, and dreading the day the pinch roller got a bit too sticky and unwound your only copy of your favorite movie into a rat's nest inside the VCR. (And yes, I've extracted a few such tape nests from family members' VCR's. Entirely too many of them learned that I knew how to fix the things.)

Beta was better. 3/4" U-Matic showed me what good was when it came to videotape formats. I was happy to leave VHS behind when I was able to record on Digital-8 format in broadcast quality, and once I got a camera that would record on an SD card in 720p I never looked back. I have heard that VHS tape makes reasonably good magnetic card stripes, though ..

VHS Advantage (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 2 years ago | (#38949967)

With a VHS cassette, you can deliver a good smack upside the head. Now, it won't bust anyone's skull, but still pretty satisfying.

What you got with a DVD? Sure, maybe you can bust it in half, and try to stab'em in the eyes with the pieces, but that's a lot of work, certainly not as satisfying as a good-ole solid smack upside the head.

Hard to believe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38950003)

If you have an old film on VHS, you'd be insane not to rip it to your hard disk. I recently tried to play some old VHS tapes, and some of them were so stuck together that I was afraid they would wreck my player. The ones that I was able to play were all wobbly and some (color films) only played in black and white.

And what is this:

the days when buying a movie meant you owned it even if the Internet went down

Ever heard of downloading? Or ripping a DVD/BD? If people are stupid enough to "buy" something they can only access as a stream, that's their problem. The alternative are certainly not VHS tapes.

VHS Tapes From Rental Stores had ond disadvantage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38950019)

The disadvantage was that if you had a second machine hooked up to the first and tried to record the show from the rental tape on to your own blank tape it would be a badly scrambled image that looked like dark blobs of crap but yet the audio wasn`t affected. Not sure how they did that but a ``descrambler`` device (not sold in most stores obviousely) between both machines was very easily able to fix the cheesy form of copy protection they had on the VHS tapes in the late 80`s and 90`s.

Always did wonder how they achieved that form of copy protection back in the day... perhaps the precurser of the RIAA

Re:VHS Tapes From Rental Stores had ond disadvanta (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950073)

Not a precursor at all. It was the MPAA, and Macrovision. It's a simple method, where the tape has junk data between frames. When played back on a TV you'll never see them, but if another VCR tries to record it, it will try to record the entire data stream, and end up with artifacts when played back.

I miss the old WOW Cable PPV ad makeing fun (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950023)

I miss the old WOW Cable PPV ad makeing fun of the video rental store with the video store guy saying Dude You Hit The Jack POT!! A late fee and a rewind fee.

Rose colored glasses? (1)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950065)

I seem to have a different recollection ...

'Essentially, the rental market expanded, because of voracious consumer demand,...

... caused primarily by monopolistic market-control practices of the big studios ...

... into non-blockbuster, off-Hollywood video content ....

... aka "prOn" ...

... which would never have had a theatrical life otherwise ...

... because the big media cartels wouldn't allow it due to either a perceived threat or risk aversion.

The biggest advantage videotape created was the ability to copy and distribute your work without involving the distribution cartels. That's one of the reasons they beat on recordable media so bad. Their business model is predicated on creating an artificial shortage by creating a choke point in the distribution chain. My wife was watching "The Voice" the other day, and I laughed myself out of my chair when they offered the winner a recording contract with a big studio. That's like having an anchor chained to your neck. "But it's a chromed, Limited Edition, hand-forged Anchor!"

Video Cassettes are the future. (4, Funny)

Kaenneth (82978) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950087)

"Red Dwarf: Back to Earth (Part Two) (#9.2)" (2009)
  Dave Lister: What are these things?
Kryten: They're Digital Versatile Discs, sir. DVDs for short. They were very popular in the early part of the 21st century before they died out and were replaced with what we use now.
Dave Lister: Oh, you mean videos?
Kryten: Precisely. Back then no one knew that the human race were utterly incapable of putting the DVDs back in their cases. Case in point: over 2 trillion went missing in just over 20 years. Videos are just too big to lose.
 

Tapeworms! (1)

tunapez (1161697) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950157)

When there are 20, 30, 40 million of these VCRs in the land, we will be invaded by millions of â(TM)tapeworms,â(TM) eating away at the very heart and essence of the most precious asset the copyright owner has, his copyrightâ

Copyright Infringements (Audio and Video Recorders): Hearing on S. 1758
Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess., 459
(1982) (testimony of Jack Valenti, president, Motion Picture Association of
America, Inc.).

Immune to Kid Destruction (5, Interesting)

jjp9999 (2180664) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950189)

I partially moved back to VHS (but still have plenty of DVDs). It was more because of my 2-year-old who likes playing with the disks - around half my DVDs are scratched to the point of being barely watchable. Honestly though, after starting to pick up VHS again, there are some upsides. Videos sell for a dollar or less and they're just about invincible to kids. Of course, I still use DVDs though. I just have to keep them in high places.

Re:Immune to Kid Destruction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38950341)

not nearly as immune as a youtube link, or a .torrent though.

audio quality (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950221)

The second link mentions that "bands are releasing full albums on VHS. Which, if youâ(TM)re an analog fetishist, is great news! Video tape contains audio of a quality just below that of DAT and far greater than your garden variety cassette tape."

So there are reasons for using VHS, beyond pure nostalgia, or access to videos that aren't digitised.

Though you can also use DVDs to get very high quality audio. You can use PCM audio or AC3 at 640 kbps and play it in a standard DVD player through your hifi. (I know there is a dedicated DVD audio standard, but it never took off and not all hardware supports it, and the encoders are absurdly expensive). I put all 14 Beatles' albums on one DVD in AC3 at 640 with space to spare.

VHS had mediocre audio quality (2)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950323)

Better than cassette? Ya sure, but then that's not hard. "Just below DAT?" no, not so much. With Hi-Fi enhancements yes it could get about 70dB SNR (CD and DAT are 96dB) on a new, unused tape. As with all analogue, it degraded over time and suffered generation loss.

In terms of digital it isn't hard to do better than DAT/CD if you like either. You can use DVDs, but not like you think. The DVD-A standard allows for 6-channels of 24-bit, 96kHz audio to be stored. 144dB SNR, DC-48kHz response. In other words, way beyond human hearing, and also the limits of recording technology. Blu-ray players all support it (the MLP coding it uses is what Dolby TrueHD uses) and for that matter you can get more audio and even higher sample rates on Blu-ray discs.

It is just more hipsterish bullshit of "Oh analogue is better." No, it isn't. You can have digital formats that capture more detail, and more importantly don't suffer from playback degradation and generation loss.

For movies unreleased on DVD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38950237)

I have videotapes of movies that were never released on DVD, except as hacked together bootlegs. Movies like Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, for example.

ownership is a delusion. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38950239)

For the most part ownership is a delusion.

Your home, you rent or you pay property tax on it annually.

Your car, you pay for a tag to drive it, and a probably an annual tax as well.

Sure you theoretically own the stuff in your home or apartment, but you still have to pay for someplace to store it, unless you're living in your parents basement like many gamer /.ers.

Captcha: Cavern

Something that's always bugged me (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 2 years ago | (#38950253)

I'm an 80s movie fanatic, and so many movies that were R-rated that I remember watching have been hacked up so bad for TV play that some of the best scenes are incomprehensible; e.g. the "f*gs in the shower!" scene from Once Bitten. This happens even with some commercial-less cable movie channels as well with modern releases. And, if it's a flick very unlikely to be purchased or rented, it's almost like the original content has been lost to time.

Dumb... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38950347)

I've watched more movies streaming, that I would have totally breezed past in a video store. I've given foreign films a try, loads of documentaries and other oddities that I can enjoy with my monthly subscription to Netflix or through some of the other portals on my google TV. VHS can die. Seems to me this is just a bunch of elitist crap from people afraid of change or who can't let go of the past.
 

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?