Walmart to stop Selling VCR's in 2006

[shelbyGT]

And dvds dont get chewed up like vhs tapes do.

You must not have a dog or a cat at home!

[ROF]

I can interrupt playback, watch something else, pop the previous tape back into the VCR and continue watching from where I was previously. Try doing that with any DVD!

I can do this with DVD. I have this set to default on my DVD. I can take a disc out, put another one in and it will automatically play from where I left off.

The neat thing about this is, even if the DVD isn't even the same copy, as long as it's the same DVD (Same Movie) it will continue playing from where I left off. Great for quickly fixing errors found on DVD-RWs.

[raffie]

Oddly I was having this exact conversation last weekend - about people saying that old technology is rubbish etc. 78s, 45s, LPs, Reel to Reel tapes, Cassette Tapes, CDs; VHS/Beta, Laserdisc, DVD. There is always a natural progression, but there is no need to hate something because it has been surpassed. Looking around, we all have some kind of MP3 player, but (space allowing) how many of us would love an old Wurlitzer in our living rooms?

Reel to reels don't suck. They rule! The quality of my Pioneer RT909 and a CD is barely distinctable. And it looks alot cooler than my Philips 737 player!


And OT, I think that once HiDef / Blu-ray kicks in, no one is ever gonna buy a vcr anymore. The difference in quality is just too great.

[dvdguy]

And dvds dont get chewed up like vhs tapes do.

You must not have a dog or a cat at home!

No dogs or cats here. The money Ill spend on cats and dogs can be spent in a better way like blank media and more dvds

[VideoTechMan]

My mom is very resistant to DVD's as well. She is still a heavy VHS user and she told me that there will be always someone somewhere that will still make VHS. One thing is for sure my mom is not a DVD person at all and will not even consider buying one.

Myself on the other hand, the only VCR I have left is a high-end SVHS Sony model....and its not going anywhere no time soon. Although I am phasing out recording VHS material myself, I still have alot of VHS and SVHS material to transfer to DVD, and once I am done with the tapes I simply give them away to my mom so that she wont have to buy any new tapes. But I will always keep my VCR around just in case...you just never know.

Nowadays I record my material direct to my laptop and transfer it to my desktop PC for processing, as far as I know its the best picture quality I can get until the newer formats become more affordable and within reach.

To Raffie: I still have a reel to reel deck myself and I love it! Always wanted one of those because their sound quality was equal to that of CD's....only problem is, I dont know where I would be able to take my unit if it needed cleaning or tuning though.

And yes I still use my 45's and LP collection as well as cassette tapes, I dont think turntable will be going anywhere yet either as alot of DJ's and audiophiles still use them. I found several sites where you can still buy a turntable.

VTM

[Xylob the Destroyer]

my DVD player also has a resume playback feature, but only remembers 5 discs....
and, as I have so many devices, I have opted for a monster universal remote that does not allow me to control the playback in the manner that the 'real' remote does (despite being a "Full Feature!" universal, they never really are...)
rewinding does take a pretty serious toll on VCR's, but that's what cheapo $6 rewinder units are for!
and although DVD's don't get 'eaten' like VHS, they're still far more fragile

[Cole]

Oddly I was having this exact conversation last weekend - about people saying that old technology is rubbish etc. 78s, 45s, LPs, Reel to Reel tapes, Cassette Tapes, CDs; VHS/Beta, Laserdisc, DVD. There is always a natural progression, but there is no need to hate something because it has been surpassed. Looking around, we all have some kind of MP3 player, but (space allowing) how many of us would love an old Wurlitzer in our living rooms?

Reel to reels don't suck. They rule! The quality of my Pioneer RT909 and a CD is barely distinctable. And it looks alot cooler than my Philips 737 player!

I never said that it did 'suck'. In fact I was saying quite the opposite.

I was merely pointing out the progression of technology. Each new media is a product of its time and serves its purpose but just because new media comes along, shouldn't automatically confine 'older' media to being considered rubbish.

However, I was actually referring to the home reel to reel tape players of the sixties/early seventies.

[raffie]

^^I understand what you were saying, I was just illustrating your point

[Scoobs8]

I still use my VCR for day to day recording. There is no sense in me recording a DVD of something that I am just gonna watch one time. But I am glad to see VCR's on the way out because that means standalone DVD Recorders will get cheaper. As far as what Wal Mart is doing it sounds like they are just trying to keep up with the other superstores.

[Cole]

^^I understand what you were saying, I was just illustrating your point

Apologies. Thanks for the support though

[Tom81]

Vcrs we be available in combo/dvd units for the forseeable future. There has been billions of dollars of vhs software sold. People will want to play them back.
I still prefer timeshifting with a vcr than a dvd recorder.

[Nilfennasion]

VHS looks like something my mother's pet silky terrier vomited on first play. And gets worse with repeat plays.

DVD looks as good as anything can ever hope to look on standard-def equipment. And won't get any worse unless you scratch it, in which case the actual video information inside won't have changed, just the surface outside is so damaged that the player cannot read it. Unless you scratch it so bad that light shines through the data layer (which is in fact so thin you can flap it about like paper).

Even holdouts won't be able to support VHS forever. They will realise what they are missing out on (especially if they have very minor hearing problems like myself). Either that or they will drop dead. And with children being exposed to technology of great visual/audio panache early in life these days, the latter factor counts a hell of a lot more in the timetables of consumer goods manufacturers.

[bokkasrealm]

I still have my DVD player from 97'. Philips player that will run -R's, and audio cd's. No MP3, no +R, no dual layer. I dont really think it will ever break.

I have owned a total of 5 VCR's in my life and I am only 26. VCR's are far more fragile and more difficult to fix than a DVD unit.

DVD's can be rewound and fast forwarded and skip chapters! But Im not really trying to sell anyone here on it. My mom is no longer a holdout as of last year. She only buys movies on DVD now and realizes it's a smart thing to do. My Aunt, wotn give up her VCR and her son is a huge movie collector. He is a movie companies dream as he tends to buy the most popular movies on VHS and DVD (the vhs just for her).

[DereX888]

Im sure we all knew some people with their VCR's display always flashing "12:00"?
IMO its those people who are 'opposing' DVDs (in general). Its the 'complicated' menus, the multiaudio options, the multiple subtitles, angles, extras, trailers, twice as many buttons on remotes - abundance of all the options, while all they want is to just watch a movie is what is scaring these people away from dvd players.
I heard only once my Grandpa saying F word aloud, yes, you guessed it right - when we bought him dvd player and tried to explain all the option
I realised back then that dvds, with all of its options combined with almost always cumbersome, unfriendly remotes - it might be too much for some folks. Specially the older ones, who couldn't even figure out how to set the clock on a VCR...

BTW - if you wanna know how my Grandpa finally was 'won' for the dvds, here it is:
I got him small, simple tv-dvd combo for his bedroom, and a bunch of movie-only dvd copies without menus etc

[Nilfennasion]

Then there are the people who realise that more options means more control (funnily enough, these are the same people who try to tell Microsoft to get nicked when they attempt to introduce a propietary HD-DVD format), and embrace it. We outnumber them now, and we will continue to do so until old age finally makes them extinct. The future is here and now.

I often have my alarm clock flashing 12:00 at times. Not because I can't operate it, but because it is designed to be cumbersome (read: hand-hurting) to operate! :P

[Gargoyle]

I can't resist jumping in here.

And I can interrupt playback, watch something else, pop the previous tape back into the VCR and continue watching from where I was previously. Try doing that with any DVD!

I do it all the time with my JVC N50 DVD player - it has a memory/bookmark feature that can handle up to 30 DVDs: I stop a disk, play another, put in the first disk, and it starts up right where I left off. It's great for TV show DVDs; you don't have to sit through all the intro/warnings/menu crap.

[ROF]

.

I have owned a total of 5 VCR's in my life and I am only 26. VCR's are far more fragile and more difficult to fix than a DVD unit.

You ain't kidding there. Open the case of your VCR, insert a tape and hit play. Watch as the tape is pulled out of the cassette and wrapped around so many different moving and non-moving parts it's enough to make you dizzy.

Before I dumped analog in the last years of the 20th century I can't begin to tell you how many VCRs I went through. They are worthless to me. I can record and re-record over the same disc hundreds of time without a single loss in quality. I don't even have to know when something is on TV anymore. All I do is set the TV Box to scan for whatever show I want to record and everytime it's on, it gets recorded to a hard drive. If I want to watch this somewhere other than my house, I insert my "TV DVD" and hit record.

[VideoTechMan]

.

I have owned a total of 5 VCR's in my life and I am only 26. VCR's are far more fragile and more difficult to fix than a DVD unit.

You ain't kidding there. Open the case of your VCR, insert a tape and hit play. Watch as the tape is pulled out of the cassette and wrapped around so many different moving and non-moving parts it's enough to make you dizzy.

Before I dumped analog in the last years of the 20th century I can't begin to tell you how many VCRs I went through. They are worthless to me. I can record and re-record over the same disc hundreds of time without a single loss in quality.

Well for the uninitiated, watching a VCR tape go through so many parts may seem like a nightmare to you, but the fact is all VCR's did the same thing, even the high-end decks.

Most people who go through VCR's like napkins either dont take care of them (for the most part) or they buy such a cheap unit that it doesnt hold its salt's worth. I have only owned 2 VCR's....one a VHS unit and the other the SVHS high end unit, same brand (Sony), and they both still work very well and they are several years old. Course the only VCR I use now for transferring and occasional timer recording is the SVHS unit.

And as for quality, many people got addicted to using the SLP mode (or EP) when they did their recordings. Even I for many years used EP until I finally started using SP.

Also keep in mind that alot of production studios and video editing suites still use VHS as well for backups (the church I go to does) as well as SVHS so I dont think VHS is going anywhere yet. Even the BetacamSP machines are still in use. There are still alot of online retailers that sells those tapes in bulk so if local stores dont carry them, then you can go online to find them, and I dont mean Ebay either.

I agree DVD will be the future eventually as it has made its way into many homes now, but I am sure there will always be a small market of VCR's for people that refuse to move to DVD (like my mom).

VTM

[Nilfennasion]

Correction. VHS still looks ghastly regardless of whether you've recorded on it once or a million times. On a commercial VHS tape of a film, there is so much edge enhancement that a good 10-20% of your resolution is wasted on "enhancements" merely to differentiate the "important" parts of the picture from the background. Let's not forget that widescreen on VHS is a sick joke, much like foolscreen on any format.

If you want a good description of why digital is the future, check out http://www.restoration-team.co.uk/. Some of the stories they have there about how serials that have been loved by audiences of all ages (yes, really have been, as opposed to being claimed to) were saved from destruction only by a hair's breadth. Some restorations have involved the team repainting frames pixel by pixel in a computer. This is basically VHS' and videotape's legacy - people running around TV studios, working their butts off to correct the major mistakes of the past, rather than working on something more viable for the future. When you read this site, you have to bear in mind that TV stations were looking into digital storage when most of us were marvelling at how the blocks were put together in C64 graphics.

[Cole]

If you want a good description of why digital is the future, check out http://www.restoration-team.co.uk/. Some of the stories they have there about how serials that have been loved by audiences of all ages (yes, really have been, as opposed to being claimed to) were saved from destruction only by a hair's breadth. Some restorations have involved the team repainting frames pixel by pixel in a computer. This is basically VHS' and videotape's legacy - people running around TV studios, working their butts off to correct the major mistakes of the past, rather than working on something more viable for the future. When you read this site, you have to bear in mind that TV stations were looking into digital storage when most of us were marvelling at how the blocks were put together in C64 graphics.

Firstly, Nilfennasion, I totally agree that digital is the future, but I will still echo my previous post about media of their day serving their purpose.

Now since you brought Steve Roberts and the restoration team up, I also think that you are being a tad harsh on the recorded media of that day.

The majority of the work that is carried out by the team is not entirely through the legacy of VHS and videotape but by other instances too:

Quatermass Seeing as this was a [milestone] production from the 1950s, digital simply didn't exist, or if it did would have been horrendeously expensive. The quality of the restoration work is breathtaking and yes some work was required because of the age of the tapes, but it is still valid that this is down to recording ability of the age. But what else existed in those days apart from film? This was after all over fifty years ago now and to a cash strapped television station, video tape was re-useable.

Doctor Who The various tales of restoration can be summed up in a couple of reasons:

- Age:
As with Quatermass - where the tapes have just got a bit old or were not kept in the condition that they should have been, whether by the BBC or by individuals.

- Source:
The BBC dumped (or wiped) lots of the early Doctor Who stories (and also a huge amount of the sixties/early seventies ouput; a real tragedy... ). Reasons they were dumped:
i. They didn't think that they had any commercial value and negotiated overseas sales contract times with the Actors' Union had expired.
ii. They wanted to use the video tapes again.
iii. Storeage space and costs.
iv. A communication breakdown between The BBC film library and the BBC Enterprises. In short one thought the other was responsible for archiving.

Then suddenly, the BBC wanted them all back. So therefore a hunt started (and still goes on) where they tried to recover any copies that were sold abroad or that were in the hands of private collectors (this applies to any 'lost' BBC production. There have been some sucesses here with Dad's Army and Steptoe and Son). BUT there is no doubt that there is a large portion of the BBC archives that are lost forever.

In many cases what did come back was not in a very good condition for the following reasons:

(a) Black and White copies of colour stories.
(b) Reels of film that was not cared for very well. 16mm FILM by the way, not video tape.
(c) Home VHS copies from PSB stations in the USA in NTSC recorded in the late 70s, which invariably were the only colour copies for (a)

Details here: http://archive.whoniversity.co.uk/av_faq/av_faq.html#1.1
this includes some more about the restoration of some episodes.

In two of the cases above, there were simply no home digital media to record to. So to the people in the USA who held the only VHS colour copies of said stories actually saved some aspects of the programme's history by the only means at their disposal. Arguabley the quality of the recordings are poor, but they are better than nothing. Not such a legacy of VHS but more the fact that if it wasn't available, there would be another part of Doctor Who's history lost forever.

Interestingly, alot of the resoration work was carried out to be initially released on VHS (but may be down to completing the set!), which also leads me on to another reason (admitedly brought up on this thread before) for certain people to hang onto a VCR as with Doctor Who, it took something like twenty years for all of the [remaining] stories to be released onto VHS. I assume this was down to clearances/copyright/classification. The BBC only started to release the DVDs about four years ago and the release rate is much slower (or so it seems). Not everyone has the time/patience/knowlegde to convert to DVD.

To sum up: far from VHS and Videotape being "mistakes of the past", it was all they really had, to be broadcast to the lower quality televisions of the day. The Restoration Team are only able to put the quality back into these damaged/aged recordings because the technology is now available for them to do so.

My view of the Restoration Team: they are working very hard to correct the faults of a very careless BBC!

An interesting parrallel - the [what is now called] classic Doctor Who, was a cheap and cheerful production. Tonight in the UK (18 June) is the last episode of the new series. I won't spoil it for those who haven't got that far in the series yet, but from the teaser trailers, this episode is going to be visually magnificent. The ability to create this quality is something else not available to Doctor Who (or indeed the BBC) up until now...

...were previous cheap production values a mistake of the past? No, it was all they had back then...


(Glad I learned how to type in college!)

[Nilfennasion]

Oh, I knew I was being somewhat extreme, but my statement that this could have all been avoided with some careful work on either film or digital still stands. Moments of carelessness are forgiveable, but to hear it from some sources, you would think that the BBC wanted these old episodes destroyed.

One irony of the new DVDs of this series is that if the BBC should happen to lose the serials that have been released, this time there will be archive-quality copies of the episodes in every home. In far better condition than the 16mm film archives (which, as I've been told by Steve Roberts himself, were often simply made by pointing a camera at the TV as the episodes ran).

Either way, it is hard to ignore that videotape is prone to rotting from all sorts of ridiculous sources that wouldn't faze an optical disc. Oxygen being my favourite example.

[lordsmurf]

In far better condition than the 16mm film archives (which, as I've been told by Steve Roberts himself, were often simply made by pointing a camera at the TV as the episodes ran).

I guess you're not familiar with kinescopes.

[dcsos]

RCA still manufactures 8 Track players

can you post a link?
I can't find them!

Kinescoppes on the other hand were cheaper than "Quadruplex Video Recording Tape" (2"Magnetic Tape) so a Film Camera, usually 16mm sound
was set up to film the best color monitor in the house at a precise distance on a tripod.
the result is called a KINESCOPE RECORDING
many were transfered back to video when tape became 1' or less

[BJ_M]

I dont think they still make them - though there is old new stock still being sold around ...

[Nitemare]

I've always maintained that VHS will never die. I could be wrong, I admit it... but I really beliveve that VHS will still be around right alongside all of the newest technologies.

My reasons for believing this are simple:

1. Blu-ray is already preparing to "replace" DVD. People know that another new technology will come along and replace blu-ray eventually. Why buy new equipment every time another technology comes out when good old VHS can time-shift your viewing for you on existing equipment?

2. Most DVD recorders are not making full DVD spec recordings but some hybrid crap thing that may or may not play back on other DVD players. (usually it's the audio that's out of spec) A VHS tape recorded in SP mode will play in any VCR.

3. One scratch or spec of dust on your DVD can ruin it. Yes, VHS is lower quality and yes, they lose quality over time AND the tape may get eaten by a dirty player... but the shelf life of a VHS tape is easily ten times that of a DVD when watched an equal number of times. (this numer reduces drastically if you have no children)

I'm not technophobic, but neither am I a mindless lemming to jump on the bandwagon of the latest and greatest technologies every time some chucklehead uses the words "wave of the future!" Maybe the people using them don't really know how, but so far all of the DVD recorded stuff I've seen looks as bad as VHS or worse... that may be low end equipment also. But from the real life examples I've seen with my own eyes, DVD recorders just aren't impressive.

I have, and always will maintain that VHS is the TIMEX of home video. I love DVDs and I look forward to blu-ray and whatever follows it, but I'll alwasy own a VCR. I'd love a DV camcorder but as soon as I made my DVD I'd "back it up" to VHS to make sure that I always had a copy.

It bothers me to hear that companies are starting to eliminate VCRs from their shelves. It's a mistake. Think of all of the home video footage that will be lost forever thanks to our new available technologies. Maybe I should buy a few in case of an emergency!

Regards,
Nitemare

[Shocker Milwaukee]

Let's not forget that widescreen on VHS is a sick joke, much like foolscreen on any format.

Classic.

[Cole]

Moments of carelessness are forgiveable, but to hear it from some sources, you would think that the BBC wanted these old episodes destroyed.

Sadly, because there was no video home playable media at the time en masse when the junking occured, the BBC didn't think that there was a commercial advantage of keeping the archive.

The irony here is that if VHS was available in the early to mid 1970s and to a wide audience (as it was a mere seven to ten years later), then a potential commercial market would have been seen and IMHO no junking would have occured at all.

Admitedly, this was very short sighted of the BBC, but then we are looking at this with hindsight.

The only commercial releases of television programmes back in the 1970s tended to be vinyl/audio cassette. These mostly consisted of comedy programmes or drama music soundtracks. AFAIK the only BBC audio release of a drama television programme on vinyl/cassette was Genesis of the Daleks and that wasn't until 1979 (and I still have my copy )

[Nilfennasion]

Commercial advantages is one thing. There are, however, other considerations to think of. Selling advert space for repeats, especially when it is of a popular program (Star Trek comes to mind) is a big factor in television. Not to mention that sometimes, the families of actors might want to be given footage that said actor appeared in, after the actor passes away. A good example was when one of the children who appeared in You Can't Do That On Television died. Then the parents had to hear the shocking news that all footage of the child that appeared on the show was gone. Not that the child was alone in this. Nickelodeon didn't even bother to save the episodes Alanis Morrisette appeared in when they acquired the show.

And yeah, I can see how VHS being available in the 1970s might have changed this situation. However, in those days, technology was usually regressed more by commercial or technical considerations than by a massive installed userbase of old technology.

Oddly enough, you can buy Doctor Who episodes on CD nowadays. Some of the old actors have even recorded new episodes on CD (I own one that was made with Jon Pertwee before he died). But it just isn't the same without the visuals.

In reality, by the way, DVD's shelf-life is a thousand times that of VHS. VHS lovers don't even like to mention that you cannot put more than 140 minutes on one tape without the major possibility of tape breakage (a common complaint when Braveheart hit the rental market). A 180 minute film will fit on a 7.9 GB DVD quite easily, although you won't want to try putting more than one soundtrack on to go with it. But even without children, I watch my DVDs so often that, were they VHS tapes, they would be worn transparent by now. Not to mention that with the sudden market to make backup copies, the scratch factor will diminish rapidly.

On a similar note, all it will take is someone complaining to Disney that they cannot make a copy of Dumbo for their children to watch while not destroying the original, and this useless hunting down of those who make the tools to make the copies will come to an abrupt end.

EDIT: No, I am not familiar with kinescopes, but my statement still stands. Roberts himself told me in an email regarding the reviews I had been doing of the product he supervised the making of that many archival film reels of DW serials were simply made with 16mm film cameras pointed at a screen.

[Cole]

Commercial advantages is one thing. There are, however, other considerations to think of. Selling advert space for repeats, especially when it is of a popular program (Star Trek comes to mind) is a big factor in television.

Doesn't apply in this case as the BBC does not carry advertising.

In actual fact, it is only fairly recently that the BBC have been able to show an increased number of 'out of date repeats', negotiated with the Actors' Union. AFAIK (although this may be a bit out of date now), the length of time that a programme can be repeated before it becomes out of date is two years.

However, in those days, technology was usually regressed more by commercial or technical considerations than by a massive installed userbase of old technology.

Hmmm, not so sure what you mean there, but if I have understood correctly: I did mention the audio cassette/vinyl releases, which were only worth doing if people already had record players and cassette players. Also at the time we are talking about, VCRs would have been current technology, not old.

Mind you - when the first Doctor Who release, Revenge of the Cybermen came out in 1984, I rushed out and bought it, even though I didn't yet have a VCR. The BBC were a bit late joining the VHS market, but again that was AFAIK because of negotiations with the Actors' Union.

Oddly enough, you can buy Doctor Who episodes on CD nowadays. Some of the old actors have even recorded new episodes on CD (I own one that was made with Jon Pertwee before he died). But it just isn't the same without the visuals.

These are the audio soundtracks of missing episodes - recorded in the sixties by then fans using old reel to reel audio tape recorers with a microphone in front of the TV speaker - again the only real home recording item that was available in those days.

Seems to all track back to media was available to the public of the day...

[Marvingj]

I still like the vhs vcr, I can remember 20 years ago when no one could figure out how to work it or how to read the manual. IN WITH THE NEW OLD WITH THE OLD!