Does anyone watch VHS tapes at all today?

Yep - we gotta boatload of kiddie tapes my son enjoys...

 

I bought a TV with a built in VCR for the purpose of watching my "Urgh - A Music War" video, which will never be released on DVD.

 

I still use VHS for taping off TV, though DVD-R is getting more tempting with time.

I prefer DVD over VHS for pre-recorded movies, but there's some I haven't gotten around to replacing. Some VHS titles are still worth keeping. Some don't stand a chance of being reissued on DVD (My Man Adam, Fast Food) and some VHS tapes have an excellent picture (The Blues Brothers anniversary edition, Tommy Boy) and some VHS titles make you swear that you've developed glaucoma (Rainman, Casino, War Of The Roses.)

 

Anything I've kept is for archival purposes, and as Dave says, if it hasn't been put out on DVD yet, or that version sucks....given a choice, though, the laserdiscs will be the last to go, the hell with VHS....

 

Some, not most, but some movies actually look better on VHS than DVD. A good example is Kevin Smith's film Clerks. A very grainy black and white-shot movie, the DVD exposes all of it's technical shortcomings(and there are plenty), so much so, that the VHS version is much easier on the eyes.

Evan

 

Never bought a videocassette or owned a VCR. I was a little ahead of the DVD wave in my generation, but I expect there's more kids a few years younger than me who are the same way...

 

I think the current Clerks DVD is more the victim of a crummy transfer than anything else. I've always seen this odd blue haze on each side of the picture.

Smith is working on a multi-disc 10th anniversary DVD of Clerks for release later this year, hopefully they'll be able to do a better job of transferring the film this time around.

Back on topic, I do often notice folks storming out of Best Buy after being told that they don't carry VHS anymore, and to "Try Wal-Mart".

 

That alternate ending on the Clerks DVD kinda ruined it for me.

Dante' was already having a bad enough day as it was!

 

I don't even have a DVD player yet. Never felt any compelling need to -- VHS is fine for the kids' videos, and I can certainly live with VHS for the dozen or so videos that I rent each year. (No, no home theatre setup either.) However, now that our local video rental store is only stocking DVDs for some flicks, especially for artsier films with a limited audience, I'm gonna have to bite the bullet...

 

I still archive PBS shows on S-VHS...for the moment. I want to get a DVD burner soon.

 

You can't even get VHS at Wal-Mart anymore. The only place I see new tapes is, ironically enough, at my local supermarket.

Hopefully, Kevin Smith can get a better transfer done for Clerks on DVD. The original issue just looks like crap.

Evan

 

Are you referring to VHS Blanks? Our Walmart has tons of VHS blanks & pre-records! Interesting.

 

I meant pre-recorded tapes, Michael. You can still find blanks everywhere, as I think the main purpose for most people having a VCR now, in the DVD era, is for TV program time-shifting.

Evan

 

I finally got a DVD player 1-1/2 years ago, and haven't played a VHS tape since -- I might as well unhook it.

 

I watch VHS daily because I tape the shows I like and watch them when it's convenient

 

Reply with attached rant

You bet I use my VHS. It gives me great satisfaction to tape a network show and then FF through the barrage of commercials, promos and other garbage that has reduced an hour show to 35 min. It isn't TIVO but it works for me. Now if I can only figure a way to delete those damned on screen promos.

 

I never owned a VCR. I skipped straight from laserdisc to DVD.

 

After reading the thread on the blasphemous changes George Lucas is making to the first Star Wars trilogy, I'm going to be keeping my widescreen Special Edition VHS box! They were modified too, but certainly not as egregiously as what's rumored for the DVD's coming out this fall.

 

My wife bought me the VHS box set of the original films (the blue/black one, the special edition one was gold/black) and I guess I better take good care of it.

 

We still use the VCR to tape shows and will continue to use it as long as it works and we have tapes. I like the concept of TiVo, but I object to the fact that you have to pay for a "subscription service" in order to use it. As far as I'm concerned, if I've shelled out a couple hundred dollars for the unit, I've paid for it - end of story.

I always get a chuckle when I see new VHS releases and wonder to myself "Does anybody still buy those...?" In some cases, the price is nearly as much as the DVD - but with no extras.

 

Suit yourself. I paid lifetime sub on my first D-TiVo over three years ago when DirecTV still offered that option for $199. Even though the sub cost for the D-TiVo units dropped to $5 a month in Nov. 2002, I'm well past the break even point. I had a standalone that I paid lifetime for, but I gifted that to a couple celebrating their 25th anniversary. I do have an unsubbed S1 standalone that can do manual recordings for two over the air networks I couldn't get waivers for. It has very limited features and if I were using it for more than just two channels and I could get a price break on a second lifetime sub from TiVo, I spring for it.


IMO, once you go DVR, you don't go back. You don't have to dig out a tape, every recording is stored on a menu, you don't have to put in and cue up a tape or set the timer. If there's something you want to save outside the unit, you can edit out commercials. Yeah, the sub might be a deterent to some. But hey, you still gotta buy tapes for a VCR so you could say there's a subscription cost for that as well.

 

I thought about that, but figured I wouldn't mention it.

From what I've read and heard, DVR does sound much better. I just feel that once I take home the unit, I should be able to do what I want with it without paying further costs. Just a principle thing with me.

Of course, when I do get one, I'm sure I'll be saying "What the hell did I wait so long for..?"

 

I can understand your logic in so far as that's how I'd feel about a DVD/SACD/CD player or VCR that I'd buy. I would be the one providing content to play in those machines, I would be the one who buys the medium. The thing w/ TV recorded to a hard drive is because there's a hard drive I see a parallel w/ a computer. I could use my computer for other things besides web surfing, but to get that content I need an ISP. In order to keep up w/ changes in network schedules, I pay TiVo/DirecTV to keep my guide current, or rather I PAID them to do that. As I mentioned and Ken echoed, there are certain Series 1 TiVos that can be used for manual recording, but it does take away the best of TiVo's functionality.

I can understand why the $12.95mo./$299lifetime service charges would be a stumbling block. That monthly charge would rob me of HBO. Why would I want a DVR if I couldn't record "The Sopranos" or "Curb Your Enthusiasm"? If you have DirecTV, or are thinking about switching, the D-TiVo is a much better option. It has dual tuners, the capacity to record & output DD5.1 brdcsts. (HBO, Starz!, etc.), and a $5mo. DVR charge which is even waived if you sub to the highest programming tier. Of course, there's a good chance that your cable co. will be offering their own DVR. The benefits of that would be no one time expensive equipment charge. The downside would be since you don't own it, you can't upgrade/tweak it. If you do decide to take the plunge, I think you will end up saying what you said in your post. In the meantime, may your VCR serve you well.