This is no doubt a useful production tool when one needs to create the visible artifacts of VHS video for some motivated story reason but as someone who worked in the tech side of broadcast video production starting near the end of the analog era and through the transition to digital, I'm not generally a fan of doing so outside those specific contexts.
The reason is that full bandwidth 6 Mhz analog composite or component video could look wonderful. If you ever have the chance to see a 2-inch quad VTR playing a master tape on a broadcast quality monitor pleased do. I suspect you'll be shocked at how good it looks, even to modern eyes. Yes, the absolute resolution is lower, but the magic of those analog broadcast standards was how gracefully they fit so much image into 6 Mhz of bandwidth. Conversely, VHS tape recording was the absolute worst, most compromised form of that. At the time, it was the best that could be done at consumer prices. But no one ever thought it was remotely good quality in any sense other than perhaps "better than nothing", and even that was hardly unanimous.
There's something about full bandwidth broadcast quality analog composite video that can be genuinely aesthetically pleasing, even compared to digital HDTV. Sadly, very few consumers ever got to see it in its pure, unadulterated form. Even live broadcasts, after being sent up a transmitter tower and down an aerial antenna, were a decimated form of the original signal at the head end (although leagues better than VHS). Yes, modern digital IS better in almost all ways, but in a few ways there was, and still is, something uniquely 'good' about that analog head-end video signal. I won't say 'better' because that's an aesthetic and stylistic judgement but definitely 'good'. Whereas, there's literally nothing good about VHS. At no point ever did a 1980s video creator look on their equipment shelf, see a VHS camcorder next to... literally any other camera or recording system, and say "I'll take the VHS today because it's the better tool for this job."
There's one context where I'm a huge proponent of recreating our analog past and that's when viewing 1980s and early 90s computer or game console graphics created to be displayed on 15khz analog composite video displays. That's when analog CRT emulation via GPU pixel shaders should always be used. The square razor sharp, hard-edged pixels of such content as seen on modern digital flat screens is an inaccurate distortion of the past because no one in that past, like the people involved in the creation or consumption of that media, ever saw square pixels like that. The only displays we had then were CRTs and images made for 15 Khz analog CRTs look not only different but much better on the displays they were designed on and for (or a good simulation of those displays).
