So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[LizzieMaine]

I actually record very little off TV these days -- I think the last thing I recorded was the 2013 World Series. I've got several bins full of movies and such that I recorded off TNT and TCM in the '90s, and I dip into these from time to time. My VCR dates to that era, and it looks fine on my 63-year-old TV set. To be honest, my eyes are so bad that ultra high resolution would be wasted on me.

What I don't like about modern TV gear is the capability it has for surveillance. I don't care to have the Boys From Marketing taking note of whatever I happen to be watching whenever I happen to be watching it, and while it's impossible to fully avoid this now that cable has gone digital, I can certainly make it very difficult for them.

 

[Lean'n'mean]

The boys from Google know more about you than anybody else on the planet, including yourself.

 

[vitanola]

I notice no difference in quality at all between the VCR and the DVR when watching the set in my library.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The boys from Google know more about you than anybody else on the planet, including yourself.

I like to mess with Google and search regularly for random topics for which I have no interest whatever. 16th Century architectural fads! Gourmet plankton! Competitive nail-filing! Nepalese underpants woven from 100 percent yak hair!

 

[Lean'n'mean]

I like to mess with Google and search regularly for random topics for which I have no interest whatever. 16th Century architectural fads! Gourmet plankton! Competitive nail-filing! Nepalese underpants woven from 100 percent yak hair!

That already says a lot about you but now they know they can modify their files.

 

[sheeplady]

We have no television recording devices (No DVR, no VCR). If we want to watch something, it's broadcast or the Rubbermaid tote with our DVD collection. We technically have basic non-HD cable (it's included in our internet package) but the box isn't hooked up. The quality is honestly better on broadcast the 2 times we hooked up the box.

I'm not a luddite, either. I own the latest smartphone (of the brand I prefer), a "smartish" activity tracking watch, etc. I simply don't think we'd use cable or a DVR or Netflix enough to get anything out of it. Basically all we watch is PBS or the local news. We've talked about getting Netflix in the past, but honestly at this point in our lives we wouldn't use it enough to justify the price.

 

[tonyb]

View attachment 81306

It's stunning how much less expensive electronics are now than they were back then, eh? That, and air travel.

 

[tonyb]

I actually record very little off TV these days -- I think the last thing I recorded was the 2013 World Series. I've got several bins full of movies and such that I recorded off TNT and TCM in the '90s, and I dip into these from time to time. My VCR dates to that era, and it looks fine on my 63-year-old TV set. To be honest, my eyes are so bad that ultra high resolution would be wasted on me.

What I don't like about modern TV gear is the capability it has for surveillance. I don't care to have the Boys From Marketing taking note of whatever I happen to be watching whenever I happen to be watching it, and while it's impossible to fully avoid this now that cable has gone digital, I can certainly make it very difficult for them.

I lived without TV for something more than a decade. Maybe a couple of decades. Now we have four of the things, with a combined 166 or so inches of screen width. And a cable bill pushing $200 a month, which includes internet and WiFi and all that, which has become a necessity.

We got two of those TVs free (long story), one of which is a 60-inch job that I'm told is a real gee-whiz item. But most of its technological superiority is wasted on me. I suppose it's better than our "old" (maybe nine-year-old) 720 DPI Vizio, but unless they were side by side I doubt I could tell the difference.

 

[2jakes]

Unless you were born in the mountains
somewhere in Shangrila... the moment
you got your behind slapped, your fingerprints
stamped on paper and were issued a
“social security" number,
your life is not as private as you think.

My favorite movies are on DVD.
DVD disks are sensitive and with
time may damage from frequent use.

Knowing this, I have downloaded the
DVDs to Mac. My DVD disks stay new.
Mac is connected to HD TV to watch.
Excellent picture viewing.

Back-up system has made it possible to
save important documents, photos and
favorite movies in case my Apple gets rotten.


And high-definition is far superior.
Whether you can or cannot tell the difference...
depends on your eyesight.

 

[2jakes]

I notice no difference in quality at all between the VCR and the DVR when watching the set in my library.

View attachment 81306

I’m so happy for you!

 

[belfastboy]

It's stunning how much less expensive electronics are now than they were back then, eh? That, and air travel.

My first flight to Europe in the 1960's cost me just under $500 when I was making somewhere around $1 an hour. AND that was the first era of the cheap "charter" flights that brought Europe into the realm of possible for this working class kid. I can almost fly to Europe or at least Iceland for about the same $ today. A flight just came up Vancouver to Delhi for $500 Canadian all taxes and fees included. All of a sudden India is a possibility!

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think the thing for me is, even if my eyes were capable of resolving super-duper high definition, why would I want to? The stuff I watch doesn't look all that much better resolved to the micron -- I have no particular interest or desire to see every droplet of dribbling spit running down the chin of a baseball player, or seeing the dried coffee stains on Mr. Spock's uniform tunic, so who needs it?

It's sort of like the people who go on and on about their audiophile sound systems and how they reproduce notes that only dogs can hear thanks to their gold-foil capacitors and gas-charged hand-woven cables. That's all well and good for the dogs, but the music I listen to was recorded eighty years ago on systems that topped out at 12kc. I don't *need* notes that only dogs can hear. Besides, I have a cat.

As far as surveillance goes, sure, we all know that in keppitalist Amerika internet surf you, but that doesn't mean you should just roll over and make it easy for them. Creative misdirection can be fun.

 

[2jakes]

My first flight to Europe in the 1960's cost me just under $500 when I was making somewhere around $1 an hour. AND that was the first era of the cheap "charter" flights that brought Europe into the realm of possible for this working class kid. I can almost fly to Europe or at least Iceland for about the same $ today. A flight just came up Vancouver to Delhi for $500 Canadian all taxes and fees included. All of a sudden India is a possibility!

Haven’t flown in a while.
Last time was to cover the presidential elections in Mexico (Salinas de Gortari)
and the Zapatista movement in Chiapas for the TV news. (late 80s, early 90s)

I’ve heard that airlines no longer provide meals.
What do you do in case of long distance air travel?

 

[Fading Fast]

I think the thing for me is, even if my eyes were capable of resolving super-duper high definition, why would I want to? The stuff I watch doesn't look all that much better resolved to the micron -- I have no particular interest or desire to see every droplet of dribbling spit running down the chin of a baseball player, or seeing the dried coffee stains on Mr. Spock's uniform tunic, so who needs it?

It's sort of like the people who go on and on about their audiophile sound systems and how they reproduce notes that only dogs can hear thanks to their gold-foil capacitors and gas-charged hand-woven cables. That's all well and good for the dogs, but the music I listen to was recorded eighty years ago on systems that topped out at 12kc. I don't *need* notes that only dogs can hear. Besides, I have a cat.

As far as surveillance goes, sure, we all know that in keppitalist Amerika internet surf you, but that doesn't mean you should just roll over and make it easy for them. Creative misdirection can be fun.

For me, it's a continuum. I don't care about being at the apex of visual clarity - your audiophile analogy is spot on - but VHS tapes were never great and they do degrade over time. And now having watched the original Star Trek in "whatever they did to make them so much clearer" format, I'll admit that I do find them more enjoyable.

What's funny (or odd) is that, IMHO, movies and TV from the '50s and '60s were and still are clearer than those from the '70s on. In many ways, DVRs / digital TV and cable are simply getting us back to where we were half a century ago in clarity.

I have a Samsung TV and DVD, basic cable and whatever DVR comes with that - nothing high end or special - but it really is impressive how much better this stuff is than my old TV (an analog one from the '90s) and VHS tapes were.

And while keppitalist America wants your info - you'll get no argument from me about that - Big Gov't America is the same, just less efficient about it as it is about everything. All power corrupts and all power wants to protect its power.

 

[belfastboy]

Haven’t flown in a while.
Last time was to cover the presidential elections in Mexico (Salinas de Gortari)
and the Zapatista movement in Chiapas for the TV news. (late 80s, early 90s)

I’ve heard that airlines no longer provide meals.
What do you do in case of long distance air travel?

I am thankful that airlines no longer provide meals....saves me the indigestion. I buy lots of water on the other side of security and snacks, almonds, peanuts and a chocolate bar.

 

[belfastboy]

For me, it's a continuum. I don't care about being at the apex of visual clarity - your audiophile analogy is spot on - but VHS tapes were never great and they do degrade over time. And now having watched the original Star Trek in "whatever they did to make them so much clearer" format, I'll admit that I do find them more enjoyable.

What's funny (or odd) is that, IMHO, movies and TV from the '50s and '60s were and still are clearer than those from the '70s on. In many ways, DVRs / digital TV and cable are simply getting us back to where we were half a century ago in clarity.

I have a Samsung TV and DVD, basic cable and whatever DVR comes with that - nothing high end or special - but it really is impressive how much better this stuff is than my old TV (an analog one from the '90s) and VHS tapes were.

And while keppitalist America wants your info - you'll get no argument from me about that - Big Gov't America is the same, just less efficient about it as it is about everything. All power corrupts and all power wants to protect its power.

I have a Samsung TV just under 50" that I love. The pic quality is so good and our chairs so comfortable that we rarely bother to go the cinema any more. With Netflix and cable there is a world of choice for us, watching in our PJ's under a blanket with my own damn popcorn and no dufus sitting beside me that won't shut up. We do go to the cinema 3 times a year on Saturday mornings to see the Live at the Met opera. If we could do that at home we would.

 

[LizzieMaine]

35mm film has always been capable of better visual resolution than any form of video -- they're only just now getting to the point where it's close. But the better the resolution of film is on modern video systems the more you run into an interesting dilemma: you will begin to see things that you were never intended to see. In many old films, you'll be able to distinguish, for example, a bookshelf that's merely a painting of books on a canvas wall flat instead of actual books. The barely-perceptible flicker in film projection would have masked that when viewing the film in a theatre, but viewing it home, in high-resolution video, up close on a large screen, will reveal it.

This is even more noticeable in watching old TV programs remastered for Blu-Ray. Many programs depended on the kick-down in resolution from the original film to NTSC television transmission to mask shortcomings in special effects. Not only do you now see the coffee stain on Spock's shirt, but very often you also will notice the makeup seam on his ears, the nail heads on the edges of his plywood console, and the matte line around whatever he sees on his view screen. You were never intended to see these things, because the program you're watching was filmed for the demands of television transmission and reception fifty years ago, and with the knowledge that none of these defects would ever be seen by any viewer. I would expect that many people would find their enjoyment of such a program compromised by this. "How cheesy this looks! How could I have ever thought it was any good!"

 

[Zombie_61]

...As far as surveillance goes, sure, we all know that in keppitalist Amerika internet surf you, but that doesn't mean you should just roll over and make it easy for them. Creative misdirection can be fun.

Sure, as long as you don't give the Men In Black a reason to show up at your doorstep unannounced.

35mm film has always been capable of better visual resolution than any form of video -- they're only just now getting to the point where it's close. But the better the resolution of film is on modern video systems the more you run into an interesting dilemma: you will begin to see things that you were never intended to see. In many old films, you'll be able to distinguish, for example, a bookshelf that's merely a painting of books on a canvas wall flat instead of actual books. The barely-perceptible flicker in film projection would have masked that when viewing the film in a theatre, but viewing it home, in high-resolution video, up close on a large screen, will reveal it.

This is even more noticeable in watching old TV programs remastered for Blu-Ray. Many programs depended on the kick-down in resolution from the original film to NTSC television transmission to mask shortcomings in special effects. Not only do you now see the coffee stain on Spock's shirt, but very often you also will notice the makeup seam on his ears, the nail heads on the edges of his plywood console, and the matte line around whatever he sees on his view screen. You were never intended to see these things, because the program you're watching was filmed for the demands of television transmission and reception fifty years ago, and with the knowledge that none of these defects would ever be seen by any viewer. I would expect that many people would find their enjoyment of such a program compromised by this. "How cheesy this looks! How could I have ever thought it was any good!"

For as long as I can remember I've been able to spot such "defects", even while watching movies and television shows in the 60s and 70s. Before my age reached double digits I knew it was all "make believe" anyway, so it didn't bother me as long as the story held my interest. Sure, there have been times when my disbelief had reached the limits of my abilities to suspend it, but whatever I was watching had usually lost me before those moments occurred.

 

[2jakes]

35mm film has always been capable of better visual resolution than any form of video -- they're only just now getting to the point where it's close. But the better the resolution of film is on modern video systems the more you run into an interesting dilemma: you will begin to see things that you were never intended to see. In many old films, you'll be able to distinguish, for example, a bookshelf that's merely a painting of books on a canvas wall flat instead of actual books. The barely-perceptible flicker in film projection would have masked that when viewing the film in a theatre, but viewing it home, in high-resolution video, up close on a large screen, will reveal it.

This is even more noticeable in watching old TV programs remastered for Blu-Ray. Many programs depended on the kick-down in resolution from the original film to NTSC television transmission to mask shortcomings in special effects. Not only do you now see the coffee stain on Spock's shirt, but very often you also will notice the makeup seam on his ears, the nail heads on the edges of his plywood console, and the matte line around whatever he sees on his view screen. You were never intended to see these things, because the program you're watching was filmed for the demands of television transmission and reception fifty years ago, and with the knowledge that none of these defects would ever be seen by any viewer. I would expect that many people would find their enjoyment of such a program compromised by this. "How cheesy this looks! How could I have ever thought it was any good!"

35mm & my Nikon Photonic FTN.
I remember...

 

[tonyb]

My first flight to Europe in the 1960's cost me just under $500 when I was making somewhere around $1 an hour. AND that was the first era of the cheap "charter" flights that brought Europe into the realm of possible for this working class kid. I can almost fly to Europe or at least Iceland for about the same $ today. A flight just came up Vancouver to Delhi for $500 Canadian all taxes and fees included. All of a sudden India is a possibility!

We're old enough to remember when air travel was a BFD. My first commercial flight, via Northwest Orient Airlines, came in my 13th year. (I had flown in light aircraft, piloted by my stepfather.) I recall people getting gussied up for the flight and expensive EVERYTHING in the passenger terminals. Even the vending machines charged twice what you could get the goodies for at the gas station half a mile away.

Air travel was for the well-to-do and those whose employers were picking up the tab. Deregulation of the industry killed many of the carriers and diminished service to some locales, but it's been an overall boon to the public. We moan about being herded like cattle at the airports and packed in like sardines aboard the planes, but dang, you can fly from coast to coast for what a not-rich person sees for a day's efforts. For that, I don't expect white glove service.