Don't Throw Out Those Videotapes - Converting VHS Tapes to CDs, DVDs Involves More Crash Than Burn

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Wednesday, July 30, 2003 | WALTER S. MOSSBERG

[TroutStalker]

Millions of people have committed their family memories to videotape -- either the small tapes used in camcorders or larger ones used in VCRs. But videotapes can start losing color and disintegrating after a few years. So there's huge interest in transferring these coveted memories to DVDs or CDs, which have a longer life span and are easier to navigate.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Because the price of 27 inch monitor is around the price of a 50 inch TV. Plus when you watch movies on the computer it's a little tough to also play games at the same time.

Actually with the newer CPUs, AMD's XP Barton dual-processing CPU or Intel's quad-processing CPU, you can watch a video and play a game at the same time without a problem.

[WhiteGuy]

Good Info Bump

Thanks Troutstalker

[discostu]

It's not the processor, it's the software. Most games run full screen thus you can't watch anything but the game. If you do run in window you're going to need a really big monitor to have enough screen space to make the movie watchable and game playable. Much cheaper to use a TV for your movies.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Actually I sometimes record movies off the TV (which is legal) at my computer to a super high bit rate (see post 35 of this thread). Later I use Virtualdub to edit out the commercials and I recompile them to a much lower bit rate, but I can still maintain most of the quality.

Then after backing them up to a Data CD, I use Windows Media Player 7.1 to create playlists and I watch them on my computer like someone people listen to MP3s Winamp playlists on their computer. It is very cool. ;D

[Biblical Calvinist]

Ok.. this is great information ! I'll save your post for future reference..although I've not used VirtualDub that much..having had some trouble in the past when using it to get audio back into synch with Video...takes some patience! Thanks much for the information ! :>)

[Paul C. Jesup]

It's not the processor, it's the software. Most games run full screen thus you can't watch anything but the game. If you do run in window you're going to need a really big monitor to have enough screen space to make the movie watchable and game playable. Much cheaper to use a TV for your movies.

Actually to do that right you need that type of CPU (some both programs can run at the same time) and you need a computer video card that has a two-screen/split-screen option. I use ATI video card, but I know that some 'GeForce' video cards offer that option.

[firewalk]

.

[Prince Charles]

I use a Dazzle Hollywood DV Bridge (it accepts analog signals and outputs digital via a FireWire cable). Last night I finished mastering my 24th VHS and 8mm conversion; each DVD is about an hour long.

The DV bridge works great and can also reverse the process, i.e., it can send analog signals back to the VCR from a digital source. And I haven't made any coasters.

The cost was about $200; installation was an easy matter of just connecting the power and patch cables.

Power Mac G4, Pioneer DVR-104, iMovie, iDVD.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Save all the information I posted on this page, it will come in handy. Also, if you have any other question, private message me and ask.

[discostu]

Still cheaper to buy a TV, and you'll get bigger pictures of both.

[webstersII]

?That?s a good question. I don?t think that I have tried yet. I would not be surprised. My new Sony VCR wouldn?t tape a few DVD?s that I own that my old VCR had no problem with. That?s a new ?feature? that I could do without.?

I was just curious. My capture card ignores it.

[Elliott Jackalope]

I have a virtually identical setup, and I've transferred dozens of old VHS movies into DVDs. Easy as pie. No problems, no hassles. Thanks, Apple!

[6323cd]

Bump for Reference

[Paul C. Jesup]

Still cheaper to buy a TV, and you'll get bigger pictures of both.

Bigger but not better. ;p

[discostu]

Not better in terms of pixels per inch? Sure. Better in terms of general visibily, TV has the monitor beat hands down. A lower resolution on a larger device is more visible, easier to watch and gives less strain to the eyes. As a 23 year-old I'm sure you won't buy into that, I didn't back then either. Then my love of tiny little pixels crammed in tight led to my needing glasses and I've learned the error of my ways. Come back in 11 years when you've had a chance to learn why TV resolution at 27 inches is infinitely better than the finest computer resolution at 21 (and remember for the price of a 21' monitor you can get a handful of 27' TVs, or just one and a big pile of DVDs to go with it).

[Paul C. Jesup]

A lower resolution on a larger device is more visible, easier to watch and gives less strain to the eyes. As a 23 year-old I'm sure you won't buy into that, I didn't back then either. Then my love of tiny little pixels crammed in tight led to my needing glasses and I've learned the error of my ways.

Oh, well I'm near sighted and I used glasses to see more clearly when I drive (but legally I don't need them to drive).

Actually a computer monitor, LCD screen, or HDTV is easier on the eyes that a TV in both text and video because you can change the settings to make it easier on the eyes. Right now I have my 17 inch computer monitor set at a resolution of 800 by 600 pixels at 85hz with the bright settings set slightly lower than it originally was set. At these settings it is easier for me to look at my computer screen than the TV.

[discostu]

Deeper pixelization is good for the eyes. Forcing the eyes to focus on smaller images (which is the way computer software always handles deeper pixelization, and also what happens with the smaller screen you're forced to by using a monitor over a TV) is bad on the eyes. That's why HDTV is nice, you get the good trade off, big screen and deep pixels.

[Paul C. Jesup]

800 by 600 is not that deep a pixelation, your talking about 1600 by 1200 pixelation.

[PhilipFreneau]

And I made this purchase because of Dell's wonderful reputation for quality! Trying to get the problems fixed showed me that the Dell reputation for service was equally untrue.

A few months ago I would have argued with you. I own 4 Dells (3 desktops and a server), and they are superb, as was the minor service I had performed. But recently I purchased a high-end laptop and it failed right out of the box. After much frustration trying to reach a service representative (I was routed, and re-routed many times), more frustration when the service rep could not fix the problem, and even more frustration trying to get a return authorization, Dell had the nerve to deduct over 80$ of our credit for "either restocking, or shipping, or missing parts" (take your pick, I guess). No parts were missing in our return shipment, so Dell must have charged us shipping and/or a "restocking fee" for their faulty computer (would they really "restock" a faulty computer?). But that is not the worst of it: I found out later (by reading Dell's message boards) the problem with my laptop had been a recurring problem with that particular model.

[discostu]

I can't even focus on 1600 by 1200 with any monitor I tried it on, even before the glasses. 1024 on 17", maybe as high as 1280 if I ever get a 21". I really wish Windows would increase pixel density without decreasing the size of everything. It would be great to hit 1600 depth at 1024 icon size.