I new that title would get your attention! I just invested in D-VHS and hooked it up after I got home from seeing AVP. All I can say is HOLY CRAP!!!!! It is the most amazing picture and sound there is!!!! I popped in every D VHS tape I had to sample a few minutes of each, I was floored!! I could count the stubble on The Rock's face in Scorpion King! The sound was also amazing! DTS at full bit rate (DVD's in DTS are only half a 754 kpps). Not all the tapes had DTS, but even the dolby 5.1 was better that DVD, Dolby Digital D-VHS is encouded at a higher rate than DVD's dolby digital. From what I understand, the tapes I purchased are encoded at a much higher rate than HDTV broadcasts! All I can say that if you have an HDTV, this is the way to go!

Darn, I haven't even heard of D-VHS! Sounds neat, but whats the cost though?

May-be, but since there are TWO nextgen DVD formats being introduced next year (including blue laser, the thing I thought would be out in 99), I imagine D-VHS will quickly go the way of S-VHS (and, lamentably, LD -- I am definitely an analog guy at heart.)

When I saw the first post here, I had to check the date on it. I thought this was an old thread from two or three years ago when D-VHS was a subject of discussion among some videophiles. I didn't even know this format was still in production.

You couldn't pay me to invest in D-VHS.

Well, that's not true. You could pay me. If somebody would foot the bill for this dying, interim format, I'd take one.

It's still a tape based format which automatically excludes it from my consideration. The selection of movies is absolutely awful. Oh, the selection is OK if you want mostly big, glitzy films (ICE AGE, FIGHT CLUB, LORD OF THE RINGS...). But it's almost non-existent for the more esoteric titles. The largest video store in town USED to carry D-VHS titles but they don't anymore.

I just can't conceive of paying money for D-VHS now.

I've still got the Betamax machine I bought in 1979 and it was a beter investment than D-VHS.

Aren't the tapes expensive also? I seem to remember the Terminator 2 D-VHS priced around $50 when the format was introduced.

Say what you will. D-VHS is a beautiful format. Absolutely stunning picture quality.

Laserdisk still looks better than DVD too, but I ain't buying any new ones ;).

Laserdisk still looks better than DVD too, but I ain't buying any new ones ;).
Oh John, that may have been true of the first DVDs, but these days, most DVDs are better than Laser. Granted, there are a few poorly done DVDs, but most of the major releases blow the lasers out of the water.

Steve

I can't put a D-VHS tape in my DVD drive and take screen grabs. :P

Oh John, that may have been true of the first DVDs, but these days, most DVDs are better than Laser. Granted, there are a few poorly done DVDs, but most of the major releases blow the lasers out of the water.

Steve
I guess it depends on the quality of the product, but I have yet to see a DVD to equal to image clarity and sharpness of some (and I emphasize "some") of the LDs I have.

(And as Brent Gair and scifiguy point out, it also depends on the screen - LDs are optimized for normal TVs, some DVDs are optimized for widescreen with higher scan rates, etc. - On my 32" Sony "normal" TV, some of my LDs are just breathtaking!)

I dont know Anamorphic from Anna Nichole Smith. And 5.1 might as well be a 2 by 4. But I do notice some of (what's left of) my VHS collection really does sound much better than many of my DVD titles.

Next year you'll see the first HD-DVD systems, hang tight folks there's still time to re-purchase your entire library. . . AGAIN.

A few more comments.

Cult is right about the advances made from early DVD. My neighbour just got a 51" (Toshiba) HDTV and picked up the old Universal transfer of The Last Starfighter. Although anamorphic, it looked pretty bad. We brought it over to my HDTV (Hitachi)...it still looked pretty bad. But this title (and some others I've seen), literally date back to the dawn of DVD. Things have improved dramatically since then.

As John mentioned (because I keep nagging about it!), LDs are a native 4x3 format (very small numbers of anamorphic LDs were produced). When you watch an LD on a 4x3 set, you are watching a "matched" pair. You have a 220,000 pixel LD perfectly matched to a 220,000 pixel TV set. When you watch an anamorphic DVD on a 4x3 set, you are watching a MISMATCHED pair. You have a 350,000 pixel DVD which must be DOWNCONVERTED to a 220,000 pixel set. That means removing several lines of resolution to squeeze the picture onto the set. So, if you aren't watching on a 16x9 set, you are watching a purposely limited image.

Finally, I realize my sarcastic fist post didn't add to the discussion of D-VHS. Sarcasm aside, my doubts are legitimate. Many studios don't support D-VHS and they never will. Very few electronics makers support it. The selection of older, esoteric, titles is truly awful and that's not an exaggeration. For a classic movie buff, the titles available are an extreme dissappontment. The tape format lacks the random access of digital disc. And the tapes are very expensive...although, in about 2 years they will probably sell for $2.00 at garage sales. Any new format requires an investment and D-VHS is expensive.

I simply cannot imagine any scenario in which D-VHS has any future. I read multiple home theater bb's everyday and D-VHS discussion has virtually dissappeared. Interest in the format peaked about two years. As per my earlier point, D-VHS titles WERE available locally last year but have long since gone from the shelves.

As a video oddity, I'm sure it's quite amazing. It's the only HD pre-recorded format. If you want to be really impressed with image quality, right now, it can't be beat. But the operative words are "right now". This is not going to be the HD format of the future.

Next year you'll see the first HD-DVD systems, hang tight folks there's still time to re-purchase your entire library. . . AGAIN.

As long as I'm typing away...

I'm not really worried about having to repurchase my library.

We have developed a mindset that every new technology quickly obsoletes the previous technology. And there is good, logical reason for that belief.

However, let's keep in mind that video is a SOFTWARE driven technology. Inventing HD hardware is no big challenge. But we are (I assume) interested in recorded movies and TV shows (the software).

When HD-DVD is introduced, titles will "trickle" into the market. I would expect, as with D-VHS, we will see HD-DVD launch with a torrent of big, glitzy, Hollywood titles that will look great in widescreen, color, HD-DVD. Again, that will be great for the guys who are primarily interested in Lord of the Rings, Spiderman, Independence Day and so on.

But what about the smaller titles. I'm talking specifically about so many of the older, classic titles that drive the sci-fi and horror genre. They may take YEARS and years IF EVER to be released on HD-DVD. Will MGM ever remaster I BURY THE LIVING for HD-DVD? Who will pay to remaster PROJECT MOONBASE or THE ASTOUNDING SHE-MONSTER for high defintion?

Remember fellas, DVD has been around for seven years and you still haven't got STAR WARS quite yet! Don't assume that you will be able to buy it in HD in another two years.

I'm ready for HD. Got the HDTV complete with DVI-HDCP interface and al the goodies. But, I bet that in seven years from now, if I want to watch DRACULA VS. FRANKENSTEIN, I'll have to watch it on the same DVD I own right now.

Of course, there's also the small group of us who think the only way a movie can truly be appreciated is in a movie theater. If we were truly meant to appreciate movies at home, they would have never invented the pause button (movies were meant to be enjoyed in one sitting - not stopped in the middle to allow time to go to the refrigerator!).

Jim
(a true movie lover who like to see movies when they open and is bracing himself for the posts that point out things like noisy kids, expensive popcorn, sticky floors, older theaters and - gasp - other people watching the movie)

Anything digitally remastered for DVD is ready for HD-DVD. This includes everything that is currently available in anamorphic widescreen. The digital masters used for dvd are approx. 2000 lines of resolution, almost twice that of HD. "Some" studios are thinking ahead, especially Sony/Columbia knowing that by investing in the new master for DVD they are all set up and ready to release any of that stuff immediately on HD-DVD at no extra cost. But are people ready to re-buy everything?

While I will agree with you Jim, the home theater has become a wonderful way for busy people to keep up with great entertainment. Face it, Kill Bill just wouldn't be the same on tv, chopped up with commercials. Of course, I saw it in the theatre and bought the DVD!!!!

Steve

D-VHS may have more of a future than you realize. There is a new "prosumer" HD acquisition format just coming out, called HDV. HDV uses the same bitrate as D-VHS (25 megabits per second) and records it using conventional DV and mini-DV tapes in new camcorders equipped with high definition CCD's. The format can be edited on your home computer and mastered to D-VHS without any (apparent) loss in quality.

D-VHS can also be used as a conventional recorder and recording in analog VHS/S-VHS in included. You can also record digitally in standard-definition using a D-VHS tape, which looks much better than VHS by a long shot. In side-by-side comparisons between a D5-HD master of a movie, and a digital dub in D-VHS, it was nearly impossible to tell which was which when viewing the two side-by-side.

All that can be done with dvd. There are dvd camcorders and cameras and you can edit the discs on the computer. HD versions aren't far away. You can record any NTSC/PAL signal onto DVD equal or better than the original. On a computer with the right software you can "clone" a dvd at 100% of the original. Absolutely zero quality loss. I wouldn't even call it a copy since it's same generation as original. Just copy the data files directly from the dvd to a blank. Tape formats, regardless of the quality are on the way out.

Kill Bill just wouldn't be the same on tv, chopped up ...
No pun intended :D.

D-VHS can record true HD. The DVD of the same titles look blurry compared to the same thing on D-VHS. you have got 1080 lines of resolution compared to DVDs 480. D-VHS is truely stunning! HD-DVD is going to suck! It's going to be highly compressed compared to sony's Blue Ray disc coming next year so I am going to wait for the smoke to clear from that battle before I invest in a HD disc format. The beauty of the
D-VHS deck is I can play standard VHS & S-VHS in it. The sound & picture of D-VHS is STUNNING!!! I just have to get my HD receiver for my dish now so I can record everything HD in sight! The clips I watched projected on my Da-Lite screen were better than any movie theater I have been in and I don't even have a top of the line projector!

Problem is there is not much to record in D-VHS. Which really defeats the purpose of a recordable medium. Its still going to be a couple years before a new format replaces DVD. Its not going to be another tape format. Tape is dead. People want a digital disc product.

Steve

You can record true HD on dvd also. Will be in stores this christmas. Already available in Japan. Both HD-DVD and Blue Ray will be 1080 lines of resolution. A company in Japan has developed 4000 line resolution video technology. I don't know what the images were, but the demonstration was so real it made people sick.

Tape is dead. People want a digital disc product.

Steve
Absolutely. This is true in the television broadcast industry as well.

Anything digitally remastered for DVD is ready for HD-DVD.

That simply is not true.

What IS true is, for the most part, your second statement about anamorphic widescreen. These days, high definition masters are done for widescreen anamorphic DVDs.

But the fact is that there exists huge quantities of materials for which HD masters do not exist. Digital remastering is most definitely NOT synonymous with being ready for HD-DVD. "Digital remastering" is an almost meaningless term. Look at any crappy, $4.00 PD disc from Madacy or Platinum...usally taken from an old video tape and "digitally remastered" for transfer. The worst DVD I ever saw in my entire life (a PD copy of THIS IS THE ARMY) claimed to be "Digitally remastered for optimum video quality" and it was unwatchable.

Digitally remastered doesn't mean a high def master has been created. Got a copy of the original INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS? It says, "COMPLETELY DIGITALLY REMASTERED VERSION OF THE BLACK AND WHITE FILM FROM THE ORIGINAL FILM NEGATIVE." Sounds impressive as heck. Until you realize it's an unenhanced, letterboxed 4x3 transfer. Almost certainly not created from an HD master.

This is especially a problem for 4x3 material. Probably only a tiny fraction of classic 4x3 material has an HD master.

I want to add a comment about the "forward thinking" Sony/Columbia. They are, without exception, the worst studio in the market place. God help video buffs if anybody follows their lead. They continue to put out more pan-and-scam films than ANY other studio. They just released the 2.35 Cinemascope GIDGET in pan-and-scam ONLY. They also just released the Gidget sequels in cropped full-frame. Everything from their ANNIE "Special Edition" to MIDNIGHT CLEAR are pan-and-scam.

This is why video fans are praying that Warner Brothers buys MGM and not Sony.

REGARDING WATCHING MOVIES IN THEATERS: This sorta' goes to my original theme about D-VHS. It's fine if your primary interest in the lastest, Hollywood glitz fest like SPIDERMAN or I,ROBOT. But I just finished watching the 1956 Warner Brother's movie BAD SEED. How would I ever see that in a theater? This week I've watched two Elvis Presley movies (SPEEDWAY, IT HAPPENNED AT THE WORLDS FAIR), ZOMBIE and TASTE THE BLOOD OF DRACULA. There is no realistic prospect of seeing these in a theater.

Therein lies the fundamental problem of D-VHS and the upcoming HD-DVD formats as it affects film fans. The latest movies for which there exists, new, high quality prints and masters will get immediate release. Old material requiring restoration and new masters will be at the end of the line. I'm not saying this is WRONG or unfair. Movies are a business. Studios can sell a lot more copies of Spiderman than Project Moonbase from 1953. It's just a reality. If your collection consists of modern movies, you can expect to replace them quickly with HD versions. If you like older stuff, you'll be watching standard def DVD for many, many, MANY years.

Problem is there is not much to record in D-VHS. Which really defeats the purpose of a recordable medium. Its still going to be a couple years before a new format replaces DVD. Its not going to be another tape format. Tape is dead. People want a digital disc product.
SteveSteve there are channels dedicated to showing movies in HD, plus there is broadcast TV in HD, plus discovery, and the list goes on and on.
I am old fashion I guess, I still like working with tape formats. I have a DAT recorder for on location sound recording, I have 3 analog reel to reel decks, I have a digital 8 Camcorder, and now D-VHS. I got the D-VHS deck cheap enough otherwise I would not purchased it. It will make my one of a kind VHS & S-VHS tapes look a little better. I got the D-Theater movies cheap enough and they look freakin' amazing! They are sharp, very detailed, no lines, It's just amazing! As far as the HD disc formats go, I am hoping blue ray system makes it, it makes more sense than the very compressed HD-DVD.

Jim
(a true movie lover who like to see movies when they open and is bracing himself for the posts that point out things like noisy kids, expensive popcorn, sticky floors, older theaters and - gasp - other people watching the movie)

And no adult beverages unless you smuggle your own in via your wife's purse. Not that I've ever done that of course.
;)

Tape has a lot of life left to it, yet. There are still a lot of issues that need to be worked out with recordable HD disc formats. Plus, a practical supply of both blank and prerecorded media is still at least a few years away. Sales will not be as brisk and dramatic as with the current standard-def DVD's.

Joe Sixpack is going to be mighty confused about a newfangled format that won't play on his Goldstar 20" TV. Not to mention the possible format war between the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD camps will doubly confuse and frustrate potential customers, as they both will be backwardly compatible with current DVDs, but not with each other. Some studios may release on one format or another, but not both. So, if you want to play all the new HD releases on disc, you may have to buy two HD disc players to do so!

D-VHS gives you true 1920x1080 digital HD recording and playback now for way under a thousand dollars. The quality is absolutely superb and really has to be seen to be believed. Even the very best scalers on the market cannot enhance the resolution of a standard-def DVD to come even remotely close to a true, native HD picture.

BTW, the new dual-layer DVD burners that burn over 8 gigabytes per disc have been out for several months now and you still can't get any blank media for them!

Nope. The HD DVD format is going to be a slow item to market. People will be too pissed at having to think about already replacing their relatively new DVD library and players/recorders with yet another format (or formats!), regardless of whether the new players are backwardly compatible with their current discs.

Super VHS has nearly double the picture quality of regular VHS, and how many folks have rushed out to buy them since the format was introduced in 1987? Even though S-VHS is backwardly compatible with VHS, the actual market penetration for the format has been quite small. DVD has grown because it has been shown to be a less expensive and higher quality replacement for the VHS tape rental market.

HD-DVD will remain a niche-market device far longer than DVD did. Even LaserDisc was available in the marketplace for over 20 years before being eclipsed by the DVD!

All I'm gonna say is, I'll stick with DVD thank you. :p

Trent

^I'll second that. I'm not buying yet ANOTHER format until the damn marketing geeks make it absolutely necessary.

Whether it is called a HD master or digital master is just semantics. Both are recorded at 2000 line resolution and are capable of producing product up to that limit. The master used for Invasion of the Body Snatchers can be used to make a HD-DVD that will play at 1080 with twice the quality of the regular dvd now available. Whether the title is 4x3, pan/scan, letterbox or anamorphic is moot. When HD-DVD comes along there will still be both widescreen and full screen versions of new movies released. There will always be wide variations in quality due to quality of the source film/negative, compression, and the quality of the work done when making the master. DVD is just a format not a statement of quality and anything can be used as a source and it's a dvd, where as HD-DVD is not only a format but a standard of quality. Technically, Fox could record the analog Lost in Space onto HD-DVD discs and the player's HD laser will read and play them, but they would look identical to the DVD discs and not allowed to be labeled as HD-DVD. No older movies and tv shows will ever be true hi def because they weren't filmed with hi-def cameras. They can digitaly remaster old music from now until kingdom come, but unless the artists sang and played into digital microphones onto digital tape in the studio it will never actually be digital.

Couple problems that in my humblest of opinions will keep it from ever catching on.

The primary issue is that consumers have very quickly adopted the DVD format, which they see as an extension of the CD. They love it for convince, price, durability and maybe even because it is bright and shiney. Another thing going for it is that you can pop it into your computer.

Tape is bulky, more expensive to produce, and linear. Producers of home video product will be focused on the less expensive, more consumer friendly DVD formats. They are deliberatly moving away from tape and will not be quick to re-embrace it. While D-VHS appears to be a great stroage medium, it is too little too late.

Even if there is a format war for HD-DVDs, consumers will readily adapt that technology as it is an extension of the consumer friendly DVD. New players will most assuredly be backward compatable with their CDs, DVDs, recordable media and so on. Equipment will also be cheap!

Right now, the only people that will really benefit from D-VHS are those that have HD televisions and HD programming available. That is a tiny fraction of the consumer market.

For what its worth, most of the HD satellite programming is highly compressed digial signals. It may look good, but its not as good as it should look.

D-VHS is the video equivalent of DATs.

Steve

BETA RULES! Nuff said.

Os

^I'll second that. I'm not buying yet ANOTHER format until the damn marketing geeks make it absolutely necessary.

Here here, John. I'm with you on that one as well. Unless they force us to buy this new product I'll just stick to DVD's....like stated previously I believe by Steve, that DVD movies lately their picture and sound quality are out-standing...take a look at Star Trek Nemesis, and The Matrix Trilogy etc...and let's not forget The Star Wars Trilogy WILL be out on DVD next month.

Trent

Someone watched Nemesis? I've had the DVD for 8 months and still not put it in the machine!

Steve

Did you see it in the theatre?

There will always be wide variations in quality due to quality of the source film/negative, compression, and the quality of the work done when making the master.
Here's another issue that nobody has brought up yet -- the bit rate of the DVD recording. In order to cram a bunch of information onto a DVD, not only does it have to be compressed (usually in MPEG-2 format, although MPEG-4 is out now and it looks much better), but the bit rate of the recording has to be adjusted. In other words, how fast are the ones and zeroes written onto the disk, and how fast can they be re-read by the player? For scenes with little movement (either camera or subject), a lower bit rate will give you a good looking picture. For lots of movement or detail, you need a higher bit rate. That's why a lot of the MPEG encoders out there today give you the option of using a variable bit rate. It takes a look at the picture information, decides what's going on, then uses the available disk space and program length as a guide to how fast the bit rate should be. For a really good picture, you usually use a bit rate in the 2MBps to 3MBps range. If, however, you have a three-hour movie and you don't want to split it up between two discs (or a two-sided disc), then you reduce the bit rate (or use a dual-layer DVD). When you see a soft DVD transfer, it's usually because somebody's cranked up the compression or turned down the bit rate.

Did you see it in the theatre?
Nope! It came and went too fast. First Trek movie I ever missed. Of course, the bad reviews didnt help.

Steve

Another issue with Hd-DVD is how studios utilize the extra space on the disc. If for example, they take a 2 disc SE on dvd and put it on a sing HD-DVD it will sorta defeat the purpose. Or start putting both widescreen and full screen versions on every disc. Or start doing a lot of double features or adding even more extras. The whole purpose of the extra space is the increased quality. I do hope they start putting the DTS track on every new release, too many are currently not being added.

Its worth a spin. Besides, its theatrical release at the same time as Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings was marketing stupidity at its finest and certainly contributed to the dismal box office showing.

This reviewer liked Nemesis:

http://www.dvdfile.com/software/review/dvd-video_6/startrek_nemesis.html

Also, he comments at length about the excellent video transfer and very 5.1 aggressive surround sound track

Hey! I LOVED Nemesis! Come on now!....and yes I did catch it in Theaters. I had catch Star Trek's VI-Nemesis in Theaters....I'm a Trekkie what can I say?? And I do have it on DVD and watch it. :p There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with Star Trek Nemesis...I don't know why it has gotten bad reviews...but let us not make this into an argument.

Trent

A while back I became concerned that my expensive Hi-Def TV was going to be worn out before they worked out the standards for HDTV DVD, so I broke down and bought a D-VHS vcr. I picked up a JVC on sale for under $350.00. So, it wasn't all that expensive to get started. I've bought a few movies, all for under $35.00. The picture quality is simply stunning, and actually exceeds that of broadcast HDTV. More important, the difference between D-Theater's 1080i, and DVD's 480p is quite signifigant. The sharpness and resolution of X-Men and Ice Age in 1080i darn well blew me away! Plus, I got an excellent general purpose VCR whose overall quality and build exceeds any of the "throw-away" vcrs made today.

I'm sure it'll be a dead format when high definition DVD becomes available, but I don't care. If I like that format better, I'll switch to it. I probably won't have any other choice. In the meantime, at least I can enjoy a limited amount of prerecorded Hi-Def content. It's worth it to me. :thumbsup:

There's a movie called Nemesis????

I like D-VHS because it can handle more data than a DVD. so sound and picture are light years better on D-VHS, but you are all right, it won't "catch on" only die hard videophiles like me will invest in it. Hey Steve! I love the DAT format:D It's the only high quality digital format that records that I can take with me :) after I record stuff, I dump it on to my computer then mix away :)

Don't get me wrong... I'm not knocking D-VHS. Had it come along earlier, I would have most likely jumped on it myself.

I'm a guy that actually had that old RCA CED disc format in the early 80's. I held out against DVD until the price became reasonable and I was satisfied the quality was equal to laser. Now I'm a bit of a DVD fanatic. I'm very sure that once HD-DVD is out there and within reason for price, I will bite that bullet. I've got an HDTV ready projection set and really don't utilize its capabilities yet.... When the time comes, I'll invest in HDTV sat service and HD-DVD.

I'm currently transferring chunks of my video collection to DVD. It's slow going, especially when you have 3000 video tapes. Whats even funny is how much of that stuff has finally come out on DVD. Who would have ever dreamed New Avengers would be on home video?

Cult

I am old fashion I guess, I still like working with tape formats. I have a DAT recorder for on location sound recording,
Nothing old fashioned about that.
Best thing out there for portable recording.
DAT recorders blow mini-disc out of the water every time!


As to HD DVD - 2 possible new formats!
That's all we need.
Have they even worked out a winner in the -R +R recording formats yet?!?

I wonder how difficult it would be to record high definition television signals on an 8-track tape? ;)

I did an experiment.

Now, let me preface my explanation by saying that I see the D-VHS question as a two part controversy. I can't argue picture quality. There is no doubt in my mind that it is absolutely superb. It's "part two" where D-VHS falls flat on it's face. Part two is the format's viability for collectors trying to form a broad based film library.

So here was my simple experiment. I reached into a box where I have some of my DVD "overflow" stored. Without looking at any titles, I grabbed a random sample consisting of as many discs as I could snatch at one time. I was able to grab six DVDs. These are the titles:

1)FIGHT FOR YOUR LIFE. 1977, Fightin Family Productions. DVD by Blue Underground.

2)THE HOUSE THAT DRIPPED BLOOD. Castle Hill Productions. DVD by Lion's Gate.

3)S.O.S COAST GUARD. 1937. Republic Pictures. DVD by Roan.

4)LOVE FINDS ANDY HARDY. 1938. MGM. DVD by Warner Brothers.

5)DOG SOLDIERS. 2001. Kismet Entertainment Group. DVD by Velocity.

6)Double Feature IT'S ALIVE/YEAR 2889 Circa 1967. Azalea Productions. DVD by Retromedia.

Notice that these movies don't exactly fit into the same mold as X-MEN, ICE AGE and LORD OF THE RINGS. Therein lies the heart of my disdain for D-VHS. It's a format which, even before it began it's terminal death sprial, has focused on those glitzy films that we all could have watched in theaters in the last 5 years.

Reitterating my previous comment, there's nothing wrong with that because you can make more money selling copies of ICE AGE than LOVE FINDS ANDY HARDY. But ICE AGE was in the theaters barely two years ago. X-MEN, LORD OF THE RINGS...the same.

Most of what you get on D-VHS is stuff that just came out of the movie theaters and made it's way to High Definition cable specialty channels anyway. It's a format which caters, not to film buffs, but to the regular 14-25 year old movie going crowd by re-releasing movies they just watched in the theater.

ICE AGE may be a fine movie...but I'd rather have CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON in my collection, or THE BAD SEED, CRASH OF THE MOONS, THE DEVIL COMMANDS, WILDCAT WOMEN, DEVIL GIRL FROM MARS, PHANTOM PLANET, SPIDER BABY and so on.

I don't want to spend money collecting movies I just watched at the multiplex.

Brent, you can record in true HD on D-VHS as well if those movies are broadcast in HD.