On 22 Feb 2001 04:08:56 GMT, iromeoi@aol.com (I romeo I) wrote:

>I've been reading lots and lots of FAQs and tutorials, and I'm still confused
>on some vaguely covered issues:

And, I trust I'm awake enough to answer coherently/correctly
enough...;-)

>Everybody compares the picture quality of broadcast to DVD and VCD and VHS...
>but is the quality limited to the TV or the amount of information stored on
>each medium? DVD packing a lot of visual info versus a VHS tape...but they are
>using the same Television and its mechanics.

The problem with being very specific is similar to one in
still photography, where it seems reasonable to ask if
the resolution limit is placed by the performance of
the film or by the lens... The answer is that it is neither
by itself, but an interaction that leaves the max. res.
of the combination always less than the max of the
less-sharp part. As a result, for instance, a lens with
a resolution of 200-lines/mm at X f-stop in the image center
placed on a film with a max. res. of 100-lines/mm will
produce an image of less than 100-l/mm - but improving the
lens resolution to, say, 400-l/mm, will produce a sharper
image on the same film (but still less than 100-l/mm...).
And, if the lens remains at 200-l/mm, but the film max.
res. is improved to, say, 150-l/mm, the resolution on
film again improves by some, but does not become
150-l/mm... With video, DVD may max out around 500 lines(?),
Mini-DV at 540 lines, Hi-8/SVHS at 400 lines, broadcast
at 330 lines, VHS/8mm at 240 lines (total horizontal, NTSC,
under ideal conditions), but combine the media, and
the results, AFAIK, are also interactive: VHS copied to
VHS results in poorer results than Mini-DV copied to
VHS, for instance (even though the VHS res. is by far
the lower, its resolution is not the limit - improve
the source resolution and you will improve the VHS
copy [though without exceeding the 240-line limit,
just more closely approaching it...]). This is partly
why commercial VHS copies of movies can look so good - the
source is VERY much better than the average source material
fed to VHS by the consumer-level copier...

>So, does the tv itself have a max resolution like a computer screen/video card?
>Since a DVD and a VHS are playing on the same screen.

Yes - TVs vary in their max. res., and improving that
will improve the image sharpness a bit.

>If the media is the limiting agent -- would hooking your DV camera(with video
>on the tape, obviously) directly into the VCR(or TV av in/out) [like many
>consumer cameras allow] and playing it that way, produce a better picture, than
>transferring it from the DV camera to VHS, and then watching it?

Yes - again, if you fix one side of the combination, you
will improve the product, but you will never reach the
max.res. of the lower-res. part... In this case, though,
you will generally see a big improvement with the best
Mini-DV connected by an "S" cable to a good TV compared
with viewing a VHS copy through the RCA composite
connection, all else being equal - BUT, Mini-DV camcorder
max. res. can vary considerably, depending on model;
some VHS decks make better copies than others; some TVs
are better than others - and the results are not predictable
without knowing more about the specifics (optimize
everything, for best results...).

>Sorry if this seems a lot, but I never saw anything covering the issue of what
>is causing the quality bottlenecks that seem to thwart lots of video
>enthusiasts..

That's 'cuz, other than the known low. res. capability of
VHS/8mm, the capability of the other elements could be
almost anything, short of their format max. res. - and even
so, well-made commercial VHS copies of movies can look
wonderful, even on this poor medium...