Rant: Why old VHS rips beat these new digital remasters every time

I watched a bootleg of "The Room" from 2003 last night on a crummy VHS transfer... and it looked way more fun than the Blu-ray copy my buddy owns. The tracking lines and fuzzy colors actually made the bad acting feel more alive somehow. The remaster scrubbed all that character out, made it look too clean and boring. Has anyone else noticed that the nastier the print, the better a bad movie actually plays?

3 comments

3 Comments

adamk9524d ago

Did you catch that thing Wisecrack or RedLetterMedia did about how old VHS tapes actually compress the contrast and make everything look more "cinematic" by accident? I read an article that said the warbly tracking lines trick your brain into thinking the movie has more texture and energy than it really does. The Room on a clean digital transfer just looks like a boring soap opera with bad acting, but on VHS it feels like a weird found footage artifact. All that noise and grain adds a layer of separation that makes the cheese hit different.

wendysanchez24d ago

Gotta disagree @adamk95, bad acting is bad acting no matter what you watch it on.

joel_hall1721d ago

Ugh yeah I know exactly what you mean. If you really want to nail that look on purpose, try tracking down an old VCR with the tracking knob on the front instead of automatic. You can twist it a little while playing and get that warbly line effect without ruining the whole picture. Another trick is to record a digital rip onto a blank VHS tape through an old VCR, then play it back. The double pass of loss makes everything look softer and gives it that weird glow. Just don't spend too much on the VCR, I got one at a thrift store for 8 bucks and it does the job fine.