Is DVD to Laserdisc what CD was to Records?
Doug
accepting the fact that a better video format has arrived.
DVD is superior to laserdisc. Just like CD is superior to records.
Now some of you may say that, it depends on the DVD. Well haven't we all
seen some very bad laserdiscs in our time.
DVD's are lower in price to the laserdisc counterpart. Lighter in weight.
Smaller size = easier storage. No need to flip a movie in the middle of it,
depending on the DVD.
About the only advantage laserdisc has over DVD is the size of the cover
art.
But people embrassed CD and that had smaller cover art, and people are
embracing DVD. People weigh the benefits over formats and cover art is not a
very big issue to most people.
On the newsgroup alone I see lots of people selling or auctioning off their
laserdisc players and/ or movies.
On the DVD newsgroup most of the posts are in regards to titles and rumors
of future releases.
And stores are selling off their laserdiscs at bargain prices, and usually
replacing the previous are with DVD's.
Even Pioneer sent out a flyer selling lots of laserdiscs at low prices.
They don't want to be stuck with lots of inventory for something they might
not be able to sell in a year or so.
I know that I may get flamed for this, but this is just my 2 cents.
And for your information. I am the proud owner of a laserdisc player for
well over 12 years now, but I bought a DVD player last year and it beats
laserdisc in every way.
And I don't have to worry about laser rot either.
Just my 2 cents.
HeadLizard
Doug <doug...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<7fl7mo$36pg$1...@newssvr03-int.news.prodigy.com>...
> It just that it seems that a few Laserdisc owners have some trouble
> accepting the fact that a better video format has arrived.
HDTV? Oops, DVD doesn't cut it for that any better than LD.
> DVD is superior to laserdisc. Just like CD is superior to records.
Superior copy protection.
Superior dearth of old titles.
Superior (shorter) time to obsolescence.
The only way your statement holds up is that the quality of the playback
equipment is somewhat irrelevant with the digital medium, whereas the
analog ones reward the owners of high end equipment. A cheap DVD player is
a bettter investment than a cheap LD player.
> Now some of you may say that, it depends on the DVD. Well haven't we all
> seen some very bad laserdiscs in our time.
And the shortcomings of the "superior" DVD are replicated on every disc
sold. Any time you go digital you leave something out. Anytime you go
digital and compress the hell out of the information, you leave more out.
Without compression a DVD disc will deliver about 12 minutes of NTSC per
side. The loss associated with this ratio would be unacceptable for any
kind of valuable data. Of course if you want to watch a video game and call
it a movie it makes no difference.
> DVD's are lower in price to the laserdisc counterpart. Lighter in weight.
> Smaller size = easier storage. No need to flip a movie in the middle of
it,
> depending on the DVD.
Nor with a high end LD Player. What are you going to say if they have to
go back to 12 inch form factor to get 1000 lines of resolution?
> About the only advantage laserdisc has over DVD is the size of the cover
> art.
From where I sit it's remarkable how little an improvement DVD is,
especially considering that LD is 1972 technology. As posted on this NG
before you are trading analog artifacts for digital artifacts. The analog
artifacts will vary with software and playback equipment, the digital ones
will be baseline. Until we see commodity priced RDVD (to replace VHS), the
only big advantage I see is for automotive installations.
> On the newsgroup alone I see lots of people selling or auctioning off
their
> laserdisc players and/ or movies.
Thank God, I never would have paid retail for this stuff! Who the hell was
buying this at $50/disc? Oh that's right, you were!
> On the DVD newsgroup most of the posts are in regards to titles and
rumors
> of future releases.
So when is Ben-Hur coming out? How about La Dolce Vita or Lawrence of
Arabia?
> And stores are selling off their laserdiscs at bargain prices, and
usually
> replacing the previous are with DVD's.
> Even Pioneer sent out a flyer selling lots of laserdiscs at low prices.
> They don't want to be stuck with lots of inventory for something they
might
> not be able to sell in a year or so.
Not as long as lemmings are dumping their collections.
> I know that I may get flamed for this, but this is just my 2 cents.
> And for your information. I am the proud owner of a laserdisc player for
> well over 12 years now, but I bought a DVD player last year and it beats
> laserdisc in every way.
I'd be delighted to buy your library for fifty cents /disc. I'll buy your
DVDs for the same figure in 2008. Just like the clean LPs I bought for a
dime or a quarter five years ago, the LDs will be worth more then. Your
willingness to be swayed by the marketing of a watered-down transitional
technology is very patriotic and good for the economy.
I can't account for why you want to preach here, except to show us that you
kept a substandard LD player for 12 years. I've been into it for less than
two and have deployed five players. The differences between them are
significant and obvious. AFAIK nobody is making industrial DVD players; why
make a ten year player when the format won't be around that long. The only
use I have for DVD is playing movies in my van from a laptop. That and
copying them to DLT tape, because a lossy-compressed bitstream looks just
as good from anything that can stream fast enough.
> And I don't have to worry about laser rot either.
Neither do I, I've only seen it on one rental.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
No I said 50 cents! Now and eight years from now. Do you happen to own any
SuperBeta, SVHS or 3/4 inch professional recording equipment? DVD has made
them obsolete as well and I'd be glad to haul them off for you. I bet you
can't understand why they still use film in Hollywood?
Burbank74
which reflect the reasons why I still collect laserdiscs (still buying both
used and brand new) - and still have no intention of jumping on the DVD
bandwagon.
Long live laserdisc.
I don't collect DVD's - I collect LASERDISCS.
"What one loves about life are the things that fade." - Michael Cimino's
HEAVEN'S GATE
Madwolf909
HeadLizard wrote in message <01be8c1f$4f4eed40$c89c2dc7@danschoe>...
>> And I don't have to worry about laser rot either.
>Neither do I, I've only seen it on one rental.
Either you have a very small collection or are VERY lucky. And obviously
have never bought any discs pressed by Sony.
gzoo...@my-dejanews.com
"HeadLizard" <ht...@tesser.com> wrote:
> The only
> use I have for DVD is playing movies in my van from a laptop. That and
> copying them to DLT tape
Did you actually try to copy a DVD to a streamer and did it work? I thought
DVD were encoded to prevent that.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
jayembee
Hogwash. In my 11 years of buying laserdiscs, I must've bought
somewhere on the order of 1200 (I don't have that many now, since
many were upgrades, or ones I didn't want any more and traded in).
Of those 1200, I've probably encountered laser rot on about 12
discs max. That's 1%. Not a significant number to me.
And as for Sony pressings, I've got a bunch of them, and not a one
has rotted. Of all the discs I have that have been mentioned in
this ng as being Notorious Rotters, my copies are still pristine
as the day I bought them.
--- jayembee (Jerry.B...@eds.com)
"There's a Malibu Barbie that needs to meet Mr. Guillotine...head on."
gzoo...@my-dejanews.com
Jerry.B...@eds.com (jayembee) wrote:
> "Madwolf909" <madwo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Hogwash. In my 11 years of buying laserdiscs, I must've bought
> somewhere on the order of 1200 (I don't have that many now, since
> many were upgrades, or ones I didn't want any more and traded in).
> Of those 1200, I've probably encountered laser rot on about 12
> discs max. That's 1%. Not a significant number to me.
>
> And as for Sony pressings, I've got a bunch of them, and not a one
> has rotted. Of all the discs I have that have been mentioned in
> this ng as being Notorious Rotters, my copies are still pristine
> as the day I bought them.
Play the lottery! With such a luck, you may win the main prize... Of all the
discs I have that have been mentioned as being Notorious Rotters, more than
half of my copies have rotted.
Statistics, statistics...
William L. Griffin IV
I'm constantly amazed at the slavish worship of all things digital. Why
is it that everyone assumes that digital is better?!?
Perhaps one day they will ban live performances at the great opera
houses of the world. They can install state of the art digital
equipment and just play DVD-Audio for a performance. Life is analog, so
therefore inferior to a digital recreation.
<snort>
This sounds like a bad 70's sci-fi movie...
There are pros and cons to everything. I truly believe that when failry
evaluated LD is marginally better that DVD - when taking ALL aspects of
the format in to consideration. I mean we are dealing with many issues
- from technical to political.
As you intimated - DVD is an interim format. I wonder how many of the
current devotees will howl when the "next" version of home video is
introduced and supplants DVD? It sure as hell wont take 20 years for
that to happen....
Bill
Dan Helmick
: There are pros and cons to everything. I truly believe that when failry
: evaluated LD is marginally better that DVD - when taking ALL aspects of
: the format in to consideration. I mean we are dealing with many issues
: - from technical to political.
So, Bill...*you* must be the guy who's going around saying LD is the
"ultimate" format! I've never recalled seeing anybody making that statement
here, yet according to recent claims, it seems to be the reason behind the
DVD cops swarming this newsgroup.
It's all your fault. It's all your fault. :-)
Dan
--
KAMCGANN
>current devotees will howl when the "next" version of home video is
>introduced and supplants DVD?
We will just take a lesson from this group
and pretend that the new format is inferior
and recommend that people buy a $10000.00
DVD player. LD supporters brag about how
long LD was without competition and that
DVD will be threatened by a new format
very soon. If LD had been successful,
more than a niche item, I believe it would
have warranted earlier replacement. DVD's
success will pave the way for an even better format. I think DVD is superb but
not the
ultimate format. It is the best format available
now.
Kraig
Jake Patterson
next. They will take baby steps until we have a system that resembles
DIVX. It will be people like you that fall for it hook line and sinker.
I'll still be using my laserdisc player, and cheap DVD's that I'll get
from ebay once they've been declaired obsolete by you.
KAMCGANN (kamc...@aol.com) wrote:
> We will just take a lesson from this group
> and pretend that the new format is inferior
> and recommend that people buy a $10000.00
> DVD player. LD supporters brag about how
> long LD was without competition and that
> DVD will be threatened by a new format
> very soon. If LD had been successful,
> more than a niche item, I believe it would
> have warranted earlier replacement. DVD's
> success will pave the way for an even better
> format. I think DVD is superb but not the
> ultimate format. It is the best format available
> now.
-- ,
,@[
,@@@[
,@@@@'@@@@'
`@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@',@@@' ,@@@@',@@@'
`@@@@@@@@@@@@',@@@',aa. ,aa. ,@@[ ]@@',@@@' ,aa.'aaaaaaa, aa'
`@@@@@@@@',@@@|@@@@@@@' ,@@@@@@' ]@@[ ]',@@@',@@@@@@@''@@@@',@'
`@@@@',@@@']@7`,@@',@[]@@@@@',@@[]@@[ ]@@[ ]@7`,@@',@[ '@@@'
`@a@@@' ]@,@@',@@@[]@@@' ,@@@[]@@[ ]@@[ ]@,@@',@@@[ ,@@@,
`@' `@@@@@@@' `@@@@@@@' ]@@[ ]@@[ `@@@@@@@',@@@',@@,
`~' `~' `~~' `~~' `~' '~~' ~~~~~'
.....................................GCE Vectrex - Entertaining New Ideas
email...................jpatters@zoo.uvm.edu / ranma_s...@hotmail.com
Joe
Jake Patterson wrote in message <7fo33c$brmh$1...@swen.emba.uvm.edu>...
> If you like regon codes and Macrovision, you'll love what they give us
>next. They will take baby steps until we have a system that resembles
>DIVX. It will be people like you that fall for it hook line and sinker.
>
On a related note, here's a direct quote from one of the trade publications
(Caps mine):
"Among current DVD users, preferences for widescreen and full-frame are
almost equally split, studio executives say, the percentage of widescreen
fans is DECREASING as the format reaches a broader audience.
'I think DVD will be a mass-market format and then you'll have less
discerning viewers,' says Fox Lorber Home Video President Michael Oliveri.
"Despite the cries of WS aficionados, who note over and over again how
reformatted versions butcher scenes, mass audiences continue to demonstrate
a dramatic preference
for pan-and-scan, studio executives say."
As DVD grows, ( VP Charlie Katz) says Universal will re-evaluate the
widescreen market, including the "confusion" caused by the different
offerings."
KAMCGANN
>next. They will take baby steps until we have a system that resembles
>DIVX. It will be people like you that fall for it hook line and sinker.
>
I do not support DIVX. Does anyone?
I hear this whining about Macrovision and region codes but who wouldn't buy a
DVD just because they cannot make illegal
copies of it? I support the artists, film and
music, that I enjoy by purchasing or renting
their work legally. Bootleg friendly formats
should be discouraged to protect the artists.
Kraig
they can tape it
code
Richard Parker
in trying to make illegal copies. My VCR had an extra input, my amp did
not. The DVD was not viewable when connected thru the VCR and I did not
have "record" turned on. So, it's not just an issue of making illegal
copies (or legal backups).
KAMCGANN
>fans is DECREASING
>discerning viewers,'
>a dramatic preference
>for pan-and-scan,
Thank you for a very disheartening post.
I think we can agree that Widescreen versions are imperative for our home video
enjoyment. I don't mind DVDs that include
a Pan & Scan version WITH the WS. For
the record, I will never buy a P&S only DVD.
Kraig
LD/DVD fan
faster growing) is widescreen....
I know that I would not buy a P&S only DVD....
--
Richard
Post-Age Collectibles
http://www.post-age-collectibles.com/
KAMCGANN wrote in message <19990422182925...@ng-cn1.aol.com>...
Joe
William L. Griffin IV wrote in message
<7fnhfo$i...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
>As you intimated - DVD is an interim format. I wonder how many of the
>current devotees will howl when the "next" version of home video is
>introduced and supplants DVD? It sure as hell wont take 20 years for
>that to happen....
>
This might be an opportune time to mention some recent developments. At a
trade show held Wednesday, Pioneer announced that, by years end, they will
no longer be manufacturing
NTSC-Only monitors. All Pioneer product will be either HD or digital
HD-ready sets. A bold statement this early on.
This will also be the last year that Pioneer will manufacture the 606 LD
player. Only the low-end 406 will still be made. So for those who don't
want the refurbished Elites and simply must have a newly manufactured
player, you'd better get the 606 while you can.
Also this week, NBC has signed a deal with Intel to facilitate and provide
HD broadcasts. CBS is also looking to team up with hardware providers to
help provide HD funding.
D-VHS should become more available later this year, and perhaps also HD-VHS
(if they can ever resolve the operational problems.)
Most have already heard of the RCA HD-DIVX player announcements. We'll have
to see how that pans out. But at least two different studio reps have
mentioned to me that there is some interest. It's not that they are so in
love with DIVX, but they do appreciate the encryption.
And HD software (format yet to be determined) should find it's way into
homes in approx. 2 years, with a major SF epic (don't ask) still slated to
be one of the first releases.
Jake Patterson
resons to make copies from DVD's. Maybe you are producing a public access
tv show that reviews new release DVD's and you want to show portions of the
movie in the context of a review. IANAL, but I think this would fall under
fair use, and it would be necessary to circumvent the Macrovision in order
to do this.
As far as region coding goes, I simply don't see this as a ligitimate
protection for the artists. I should be able to buy an imported DVD and
play it, it is one planet we are on, after all.
--
|@ ]@[ @|
|@ ]@[ @| /@@@@@\ |@@@@@@@@@| /@@@@@\ +@@@@@@@@K |@@@|
J@ ]@[ @K ;@@@^@@@;|@@@@@@@@@|;@@@^@@@; |@@@| \@@@L |@@@|
.@| ]@[ |@. J@@' `@@K |@@@| J@@' `@@K |@@@| /@@@K |@@@|
J@' ]@[ `@K ;@@@@@@@@@; |@@@| ;@@@@@@@@@; |@@@@@@@@L |@@@|
J@F ]@[ `@K J@@@@@@@@@K |@@@| J@@@@@@@@@K |@@@|\@@@\ |@@@|
J@@' ]@[ `@@K ;@@@@ @@@@; |@@@| ;@@@@ @@@@;|@@@| `@@@L |@@@|
J@@P ]@[ 9@@K J@@@V ?@@@K |@@@| J@@@V ?@@@K|@@@| \@@@|@@@|
@@P ]@[ 9@@K
email....................jpatters@zoo.uvm.edu / ranma_s...@hotmail.com
KAMCGANN
For the record, I will never buy a P&S only DVD.
Kraig
Dear Richard
Did we accidently agree on something?
Kraig
KAMCGANN
on, after all.
>Richard P
I agree with your sentiment. I think an incombatibility of international
copyright
laws and enforcement may have led to
the Region coding.
Kraig
Norman Wilner
>
> It is also worth mentioning that there are ligitimate fair-use
>related resons to make copies from DVD's. Maybe you are
>producing a public access tv show that reviews new release
>DVD's and you want to show portions of the movie in the
>context of a review. IANAL, but I think this would fall under fair
>use, and it would be necessary to circumvent the Macrovision
>in order to do this.
Nope, not fair use -- that would be a public broadcast of material licensed
for private use only. Studios supply clip tapes to the media for the
purpose of reviews.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
Nick Lindley
<Snipped>
Wow! That was a great post! :-)
Right on brother Lizard!
Cheers,
Nick
Randy Shackelford
: HeadLizard wrote in message <01be8c1f$4f4eed40$c89c2dc7@danschoe>...
:>> And I don't have to worry about laser rot either.
:>Neither do I, I've only seen it on one rental.
: Either you have a very small collection or are VERY lucky. And obviously
: have never bought any discs pressed by Sony.
Chalk it up to clean living. I have both Alien boxes and a slew of Tri Star
discs in my collection of ~280 discs and never seen a bit of rot.
--
Offsite mail to this host gets nuked.
Randy Shackelford
: I think one of the main reasons for the success of LD and now DVD (even
: faster growing) is widescreen....
: I know that I would not buy a P&S only DVD....
That means there are plenty of Warners you won't be buying.
Jake Patterson
> Nope, not fair use -- that would be a public broadcast of material licensed
> for private use only. Studios supply clip tapes to the media for the
> purpose of reviews.
Again, IANAL, but my understanding is that fair use law specifically
allows for you to use _portions_ of copyrighted material in the context of
a review. Of course the studios want reviewers to use only the clips that
they supply, but I don't think they would supply clips to a public access
producer anyway. Are you a lawyer? If not, is there an actual lawyer on
here who can clear this up?
William L. Griffin IV
It also has to do with release windows. The reason that the originally
planned release of 101 Dalmations on LD was nixed was that it was
playing in theaters overseas. The studios have broken the world down
into tidy little regions purely for marketing reasons. It was seriously
believed that encoding DVDs with Macrovision and Zones would be a
panacea. Now that players with those "features" deactivated are
available, it gives the studios some concern. Disney is terrified of
it's lucrative moratorium cycles being obliterated. Doesn't it seem
strange that NO Classic Animation titles are available in Zone 1? They
are quietly testing the waters with Alice in Wonderland in Japan to see
what happens. As much as I like the Disney Company, I hope the whole
thing blows up in thier face. Re-releasing the same titles over and
over again is no substitute for developing new stories. As indicated by
Pocahontas and some of the newer releases, there is a lack of true
originality and wit at that studio now. Every title is so formulaic
it's pathetic.
This really mirrors the industry at large. Rather than taking the risk
to develop new properties, they simply franchise exsisting ones.
See this is one of the problems I have with DVD. New technologies,
whether they be home video or computing, have so many issues attached
to them that have nothing to do specifically with the technology. A
variant like DIVX is a perfectly normal outgrowth of this trend. Simply
put DIVX looks to re-write the home video model. I'm not going to get
in to an argument about DIVX here, I'm just mentioning it with
relationship to the non-technical issues. You can be sure that the
"next" format will have DES encription as standard. No one has been
able to crack a DIVX disc yet and they possibly might not. The
encription on future formats will be formidable. Yet all this has
nothing to do with movies.
Movies are becoming less an entertainment and more a marketing and
merchandising tool. From product placements to merchandise tie-ins it
is a cold hard money machine.
Somehow I don't think that Griffith, Chaplin and Pickford had this in
mind when they created United Artists. Likewise Marcus Loewe really did
have a concern for quality films - something we can see today in the
legendary MGM titles. Lucas seems more concerned with the merchandising
of the Star Wars saga that with legitimate filmmaking. Perhaps then it
is fitting that his works will come be released in this Brave New World
of entertainment...
Bill
LD/DVD fan
Damn......
--
Richard
Post-Age Collectibles
http://www.post-age-collectibles.com/
KAMCGANN wrote in message <19990422235054...@ng-fx1.aol.com>...
>>I know that I would not buy a P&S only DVD....
Norman Wilner
>Norman Wilner (xnwi...@xhome.xcom) wrote:
>>
>> Nope, not fair use -- that would be a public broadcast of
>> material licensed for private use only. Studios supply clip
>> tapes to the media for the purpose of reviews.
>
> Again, IANAL, but my understanding is that fair use law
> specifically allows for you to use _portions_ of copyrighted
> material in the context of a review. Of course the studios
> want reviewers to use only the clips that they supply, but I
> don't think they would supply clips to a public access producer
> anyway. Are you a lawyer? If not, is there an actual lawyer
> on here who can clear this up?
I'm not a lawyer; I'm a movie critic who works in TV and print. "Fair use"
is more of a print consideration, allowing reviewers to quote portions of a
novel or a song lyric in the context of a newspaper or magazine review, but
it doesn't extend to playing a portion of a VHS tape or DVD on the air.
That's why the studios supply broadcast-quality cassettes of clips and
B-roll -- and they're usually pretty liberal with them, since public-access
review shows might reach an audience that wouldn't otherwise know about one
of their pictures.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
M. Talley
<gzoo...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7fmsm4$358$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
> In article <7fmr6j$1rb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> Jerry.B...@eds.com (jayembee) wrote:
> > "Madwolf909" <madwo...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
>
> > Hogwash. In my 11 years of buying laserdiscs, I must've bought
> > somewhere on the order of 1200 (I don't have that many now, since
> > many were upgrades, or ones I didn't want any more and traded in).
> > Of those 1200, I've probably encountered laser rot on about 12
> > discs max. That's 1%. Not a significant number to me.
> >
> > And as for Sony pressings, I've got a bunch of them, and not a one
> > has rotted. Of all the discs I have that have been mentioned in
> > this ng as being Notorious Rotters, my copies are still pristine
> > as the day I bought them.
>
>
> Play the lottery! With such a luck, you may win the main prize... Of all
the
> discs I have that have been mentioned as being Notorious Rotters, more
than
> half of my copies have rotted.
>
> Statistics, statistics...
>
rot and I have had lasers since 84. I agree with the poster you replied to.
Andy Bates
IV <bill...@ix.netcom.com(William> wrote:
> Bravo!
>
> I'm constantly amazed at the slavish worship of all things digital. Why
> is it that everyone assumes that digital is better?!?
>
> Perhaps one day they will ban live performances at the great opera
> houses of the world. They can install state of the art digital
> equipment and just play DVD-Audio for a performance. Life is analog, so
> therefore inferior to a digital recreation.
See, now you're just being silly. Of course the original source is
superior to any reproduction. However, it is also faulty to assume that
because the source is analog, any analog reproduction will be superior
to any digital reproduction. Specifically, analog laserdiscs suffer
from NTSC compression, among other things, that DVD does not have to
deal with.
> There are pros and cons to everything. I truly believe that when failry
> evaluated LD is marginally better that DVD - when taking ALL aspects of
> the format in to consideration. I mean we are dealing with many issues
> - from technical to political.
I guess it all depends on how you weigh such issues. For my tastes,
price is a large factor in why I decided to go with DVD. And the MPEG
compression artifacts I have seen are not as prevalent as the NTSC
artifacts I have seen on laserdisc.
> As you intimated - DVD is an interim format.
Every format is an interim format.
> I wonder how many of the
> current devotees will howl when the "next" version of home video is
> introduced and supplants DVD? It sure as hell wont take 20 years for
> that to happen....
I'm sure that most of us will be thrilled when a new, better home video
format comes around! You mistakenly assume that if you love DVD now,
you will automatically love it more than any other format to come. I
see no reason why that would be the case.
--
Andy Bates.
McBarron1
purchase (and return) a disc (THE TINGLER) that was rotted out of the wrapper.
William L. Griffin IV
<and...@corp.webtv.net> writes:
>
>In article <7fnhfo$i...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>, William L. Griffin
>IV <bill...@ix.netcom.com(William> wrote:
>
>> Bravo!
>>
>> I'm constantly amazed at the slavish worship of all things digital.
Why
>> is it that everyone assumes that digital is better?!?
>>
>> Perhaps one day they will ban live performances at the great opera
>> houses of the world. They can install state of the art digital
>> equipment and just play DVD-Audio for a performance. Life is analog,
so
>> therefore inferior to a digital recreation.
>
>See, now you're just being silly. Of course the original source is
>superior to any reproduction. However, it is also faulty to assume
>that because the source is analog, any analog reproduction will be
>superior to any digital reproduction. Specifically, analog laserdiscs
>suffer from NTSC compression, among other things, that DVD does not
>have to deal with.
My point was perhaps unclear. It isn't to say that an analog
reproduction is superior to a digital one because of the source. It is
a commentary on the way everyone is so obsessed with digital forms.
There is no such thing as NTSC *compression* in the sense that DVD's
used compressed imformation. LD's are an analog waveform. The
frequencies might be compressed to fit in a narrower spectrum, but in
that case you tend to loose information that is outside human senses.
DVD on the other hand mandates compression to fit the contents of a 2
hour movie on 1 disc. Without compression it could handle about 10-12
minutes. Unfortunately this type (I,P,B) of compression can manifest
itself in very obvious ways. Have you seen the starfield in the
beginning of Anchor Bay's Black Hole. (This isn't a lets bash Anchor
Bay comment) For whatever reason the compression gives way to the wierd
undulating effect. THAT is a compression artifact. Unlike a NTSC
artifact which will generally manifest itself throughout an entire disc
(and thereby becoming "invisible" psychologically), DVD compression
artifacts c CAN be painfully obvious.
Either way, each format has it's share of technical gaffes. My comment
has been that in taking ALL aspects of the two formats into
consideration, LD comes out slightly ahead...
>
>> There are pros and cons to everything. I truly believe that when
failry
>> evaluated LD is marginally better that DVD - when taking ALL aspects
of
>> the format in to consideration. I mean we are dealing with many
issues
>> - from technical to political.
>
>I guess it all depends on how you weigh such issues. For my tastes,
>price is a large factor in why I decided to go with DVD. And the MPEG
>compression artifacts I have seen are not as prevalent as the NTSC
>artifacts I have seen on laserdisc.
Price is a legitimate issue - but also take into account the current
retail environment. DVDs are "artificially" low priced because of the
developing arena of e-commerce. Firms like DVD Express are selling
product below cost just to build market share. Personally I think it is
a wise investment in the future even if their bottom line is
hemmoraging right now. No one ever used LD in any serious attempt at
e-commerce since it just wasn't a reality then. Combine the DVD's
production (not mastering) costs with that kind of price slashing and
it's no wonder we see the prices we do.
But then again - look at the types of titles that are being released.
DVD has a markedly different title profile than LD. Remember the claim
was that DVD was targeted against VHS sell-thru - a different type of
title base.
>
>> As you intimated - DVD is an interim format.
>
>Every format is an interim format.
At this point in history, it seems only because of the needs of
manufacturers to keep creating and growing market share. Once sales in
one format flatten and fall it is quickly replaced with a new profit
center. The cycles just keep getting faster though - not to OUR
advantage as consumers though...
>
>> I wonder how many of the
>> current devotees will howl when the "next" version of home video is
>> introduced and supplants DVD? It sure as hell wont take 20 years for
>> that to happen....
>
>I'm sure that most of us will be thrilled when a new, better home
video
>format comes around! You mistakenly assume that if you love DVD now,
>you will automatically love it more than any other format to come. I
>see no reason why that would be the case.
>
But would the current crop of DVD supporters, upon the release of a new
format, turn around and defile DVD as crap?!? This is the problem with
LD. People never complained and trashed it when it was the only game in
town. DVD comes along and all of a sudden LD is a bastard at a family
reunion. I would not want to have such fickle treatment from friends...
Bill
KAMCGANN
>one format flatten and fall it is quickly replaced with a new profit
>center. The cycles just keep getting faster though - not to OUR
>advantage as consumers though...
>
being able to buy a superior movie format,
DVD, at the price it is offered. LD became
"old in the tooth" and was stagnant with DTS
its only recent innovation. Unfortunately, most
LDers didn't upgrade and cannot take advantage of DTS.
>But would the current crop of DVD supporters, upon the release of a new
>format, turn around and defile DVD as crap?!?
LD's poor showing vs. DVD for most
does not mean LD is "crap". DVD has certainly "broken the spell" for most
LDers.
LD on its own merits is very good. My criticism of LD is from a comparative to
DVD
standpoint only. The clear clean DVD resolution has made it my format of choice
for now.
Kraig
Andy Bates
IV <bill...@ix.netcom.com(William> wrote:
> In <230419991009576975%and...@corp.webtv.net> Andy Bates
> <and...@corp.webtv.net> writes:
> >
> >Specifically, analog laserdiscs
> >suffer from NTSC compression, among other things, that DVD does not
> >have to deal with.
>
> My point was perhaps unclear. It isn't to say that an analog
> reproduction is superior to a digital one because of the source. It is
> a commentary on the way everyone is so obsessed with digital forms.
> There is no such thing as NTSC *compression* in the sense that DVD's
> used compressed imformation. LD's are an analog waveform. The
> frequencies might be compressed to fit in a narrower spectrum, but in
> that case you tend to loose information that is outside human senses.
I agree that NTSC compression is different from digital compression,
but they are both still forms of compression.
> DVD on the other hand mandates compression to fit the contents of a 2
> hour movie on 1 disc. Without compression it could handle about 10-12
> minutes.
Among other things, the bandwidth of the red picture information is
limited to fit into the NTSC signal, just as compression is used on
DVDs to allow them to fit an entire movie on one disc. The difference
is that with DVDs, the compression can be raised and lowered depending
on the source material and the available space. However, with NTSC, the
same amount of compression must always be used.
> Unlike a NTSC
> artifact which will generally manifest itself throughout an entire disc
> (and thereby becoming "invisible" psychologically), DVD compression
> artifacts c CAN be painfully obvious.
Well, I don't know about NTSC artifacts becoming "invisible"; maybe you
get used to them, but they are always there. And while a good comb
filter can lessen the problems of decoding an NTSC signal, you still
have the chroma/luminance crossover problems. DVD compression artifacts
can also be painfully obvious, but again, it depends on the amount of
compression used, and the source material.
> Price is a legitimate issue - but also take into account the current
> retail environment. DVDs are "artificially" low priced because of the
> developing arena of e-commerce.
I agree that this happens, but I also know that the lower production
costs of DVDs allow prices to drop lower than laserdisc. Also, you
don't have the problem of a two-disc movie costing more than a one-disc
movie.
> But then again - look at the types of titles that are being released.
> DVD has a markedly different title profile than LD. Remember the claim
> was that DVD was targeted against VHS sell-thru - a different type of
> title base.
It took a while for laserdisc to get the kind of obscure titles that
are now prevalent. It takes a certain amount of time for a lot of the
A-list titles to be produced before studios get to the less popular
titles. Every new format will probably have 2001 within the first few
years, and it will probably take a lot longer for things like Duel to
show up. That's just the way the market works. The reason that LD and
DVD have different titles is because laserdisc has been around for
twenty years, not because they are targeted at different markets.
> >Every format is an interim format.
>
> At this point in history, it seems only because of the needs of
> manufacturers to keep creating and growing market share. Once sales in
> one format flatten and fall it is quickly replaced with a new profit
> center. The cycles just keep getting faster though - not to OUR
> advantage as consumers though...
How is it not to our advantage? You don't have to buy the new format,
and the titles on your old format continue to play as well. I'd be glad
to find a new format that offered better resolution and sound!
> >I'm sure that most of us will be thrilled when a new, better home
> video
> >format comes around! You mistakenly assume that if you love DVD now,
> >you will automatically love it more than any other format to come. I
> >see no reason why that would be the case.
>
> But would the current crop of DVD supporters, upon the release of a new
> format, turn around and defile DVD as crap?!? This is the problem with
> LD. People never complained and trashed it when it was the only game in
> town.
That's because it WAS the only game in town! If you have nothing to
compare it to, then of course you're going to say that it's the best
format! It's like computers; the new 200-MHz machine is "blazing fast,"
until the 400-MHz machines roll around. Then the 200-MHz machine is
"slow." It's all about comparison. No, it's not any slower than it once
was, but it's no longer the fastest machine out there.
> DVD comes along and all of a sudden LD is a bastard at a family
> reunion. I would not want to have such fickle treatment from friends...
See, that's part of the problem: you anthropomorphize the laserdisc
format. Yes, laserdisc is a great format, and offers many advantages
over VHS. But I don't love it like a friend, who I have to stick with
through thick and thin. When it was a choice between laserdisc and VHS,
of course I chose to go with laserdisc. I wished that they were
cheaper, and I wished that I didn't have to flip sides as often, but I
found those tradeoffs to be minimal when compared to the improvements
in video and sound. But now that DVD is out, and I DON'T have to pay
the high laserdisc prices, and I DON'T have to flip sides, then I am
less tolerant of those drawbacks of laserdisc. And when a new HD format
comes out that improves on DVD's video and sound, I will probably be
less tolerant of DVD's lower resolution. But it doesn't mean that I'm
abusing a "friend"; it just means that I have chosen to go with the
newer, better format. Why is that so difficult to understand?
--
Andy Bates.
Adam Gott/usenet
(KAMCGANN)
>I hear this whining about Macrovision and region codes but who wouldn't buy a
>DVD just because they cannot make illegal
>copies of it? I support the artists, film and
>music, that I enjoy by purchasing or renting
>their work legally. Bootleg friendly formats
>should be discouraged to protect the artists.
Bootleg friendly formats can also be consumer unfriendly. Try hooking
up your DVD player to a VCR and watching it on a tv (that has no
S-Video or RCA inputs, which is why you need to do it through a VCR).
I do agree with what you said but I did want to let you, and others,
know that there are other problems with Macrovision.
========================================
Laserdiscs were good but DVD is better!
Graeme Nattress
> comes out that improves on DVD's video and sound, I will probably be
> less tolerant of DVD's lower resolution. But it doesn't mean that I'm
> abusing a "friend"; it just means that I have chosen to go with the
> newer, better format. Why is that so difficult to understand?
>
> --
> Andy Bates.
The problem being that DVD should have eliminated all of Laserdiscs, without
introducing some really nasty ones of their own. I've seen skin textures
shimmer, jerky motion, pixilation, all nasty and new. What crap! A new
format should be better in all areas. DVD is just about getting people to
buy stuff they have on VHS, and controlling amrkets with regional coding.
It's not about quality at all.
--
"Expansion leaves the ashes of change."
Graeme Nattress: nattress at dircon dot co dot uk
Randy Shackelford
:>I hear this whining about Macrovision and region codes but who wouldn't buy a
:>DVD just because they cannot make illegal
:>copies of it? I support the artists, film and
:>music, that I enjoy by purchasing or renting
:>their work legally. Bootleg friendly formats
:>should be discouraged to protect the artists.
: Bootleg friendly formats can also be consumer unfriendly. Try hooking
: up your DVD player to a VCR and watching it on a tv (that has no
: S-Video or RCA inputs, which is why you need to do it through a VCR).
Yep, since picture in picture is built into my VCR instead of the tube, I
can't do pic in pic with my 909 playing a DVD but can playing an LD. That
is not until the warranty is up and I get the macrovision killing mod done.
: I do agree with what you said but I did want to let you, and others,
: know that there are other problems with Macrovision.
Yep I'm not in the habit of bootlegging discs but macrovision is lame.
KAMCGANN
>: know that there are other problems with Macrovision.
>Yep I'm not in the habit of bootlegging discs but macrovision is lame.
My Dad invented Macrovision. I think it is
wonderful.
Kraig
TheCentralSc...@pobox.com
<natt...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>The problem being that DVD should have eliminated all of Laserdiscs, without
>introducing some really nasty ones of their own. I've seen skin textures
>shimmer, jerky motion, pixilation, all nasty and new. What crap! A new
Your player must be a real piece of crap. My player has none of those
attributes.
LD/DVD fan
--
Richard
Post-Age Collectibles
http://www.post-age-collectibles.com/
KAMCGANN wrote in message <19990424151932...@ng-fv1.aol.com>...
Anthony Poole
<TheCentralSc...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:slrn7i44tg.pkp.TheCe...@edison.chisp.net...
Take a look at Sudden Fear and come back. I know it's old and in B&W but it
retails at $5 higher than Casablanca (which has extras) and that film has
none of the problems which affect Sudden Fear. Joan Crawford looks like
she's got weavels on her face. Unfortunately, not every company gives
enough attention to remastering their back catalogues.
KAMCGANN
Dear Richard
I was going for a laugh. Did I make it?
Kraig
gzoo...@my-dejanews.com
"M. Talley" <mta...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> How many discs do you have? I have 600+ and I only have had 8-10 that show
> rot and I have had lasers since 84. I agree with the poster you replied to.
>
>
I have 166 laserdiscs and had rot on 8 of them.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
William Hufford
format you prefer. In my case, I prefer B westerns and serials to other
forms of film fare. They are not available yet on DVD, which I have,
and are no longer being made available on LD, which I also have. As a
result, I have hundreds of VHS tapes simply because I can get what I
want on them. My point is that the title I want, dictates the format I
use. It would be easy if all my titles were in one format but that is
not the way it is now or likely to be in the future. So to me, a debate
as to which format is better, is a meaningless academic exercise as long
as this situation exists.
Trevor
>It just that it seems that a few Laserdisc owners have some trouble
>accepting the fact that a better video format has arrived.
>DVD is superior to laserdisc. Just like CD is superior to records.
>Now some of you may say that, it depends on the DVD. Well haven't we all
>seen some very bad laserdiscs in our time.
>DVD's are lower in price to the laserdisc counterpart. Lighter in weight.
>Smaller size = easier storage. No need to flip a movie in the middle of it,
>depending on the DVD.
>About the only advantage laserdisc has over DVD is the size of the cover
>art.
Hi,
I see you hedge your statement by saying "about the only advantage" is
the size of the cover art. I purchase both LDs and DVDs, and its
nothing to do with the cover art. I find the sonics of LDs (like LPs)
to sound more natural and lifelike than the digital equivalent. The
result is that during and after viewing a DVD I feel a slight, but
noticable, discomfort in reaction to the sonics. When viewing most
LDs, I feel comfortable and relaxed. I find this to be personally
compelling. The main disadvantage is LDs are more variably mastered
(sometimes the picture is not far removed from VHS), which is rarely
the case with DVD. But the aural comfort factor is a killer for me.
So how about being a good fellow and enjoy your DVDs without trying to
tell others they are misguided. You aren't God.
Best regards -- Trevor
>But people embrassed CD and that had smaller cover art, and people are
>embracing DVD. People weigh the benefits over formats and cover art is not a
>very big issue to most people.
>On the newsgroup alone I see lots of people selling or auctioning off their
>laserdisc players and/ or movies.
>On the DVD newsgroup most of the posts are in regards to titles and rumors
>of future releases.
>And stores are selling off their laserdiscs at bargain prices, and usually
>replacing the previous are with DVD's.
>Even Pioneer sent out a flyer selling lots of laserdiscs at low prices.
>They don't want to be stuck with lots of inventory for something they might
>not be able to sell in a year or so.
>I know that I may get flamed for this, but this is just my 2 cents.
>And for your information. I am the proud owner of a laserdisc player for
>well over 12 years now, but I bought a DVD player last year and it beats
>laserdisc in every way.
>And I don't have to worry about laser rot either.
>Just my 2 cents.
alt...@my-dejanews.com
oa...@voicenet.com wrote:
> "Doug" <doug...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >It just that it seems that a few Laserdisc owners have some trouble
> >accepting the fact that a better video format has arrived.
>
> >DVD is superior to laserdisc. Just like CD is superior to records.
>
> >Now some of you may say that, it depends on the DVD. Well haven't we all
> >seen some very bad laserdiscs in our time.
>
> >DVD's are lower in price to the laserdisc counterpart. Lighter in weight.
> >Smaller size = easier storage. No need to flip a movie in the middle of it,
> >depending on the DVD.
>
> >About the only advantage laserdisc has over DVD is the size of the cover
> >art.
>
>
> >But people embrassed CD and that had smaller cover art, and people are
> >embracing DVD. People weigh the benefits over formats and cover art is not a
> >very big issue to most people.
>
> >On the newsgroup alone I see lots of people selling or auctioning off their
> >laserdisc players and/ or movies.
>
> >On the DVD newsgroup most of the posts are in regards to titles and rumors
> >of future releases.
>
> >And stores are selling off their laserdiscs at bargain prices, and usually
> >replacing the previous are with DVD's.
>
> >Even Pioneer sent out a flyer selling lots of laserdiscs at low prices.
>
> >They don't want to be stuck with lots of inventory for something they might
> >not be able to sell in a year or so.
>
> >I know that I may get flamed for this, but this is just my 2 cents.
>
> >And for your information. I am the proud owner of a laserdisc player for
> >well over 12 years now, but I bought a DVD player last year and it beats
> >laserdisc in every way.
>
> >And I don't have to worry about laser rot either.
>
> >Just my 2 cents.
> I find the sonics of LDs (like LPs)
> to sound more natural and lifelike than the digital equivalent.
>
> Best regards -- Trevor
Unless you're saying that you listen EXCLUSIVELY to OLD laserdiscs that have
only analog soundtracks, or the analog soundtracks of recent laserdiscs (a
pointless exercise with Dolby Digital soundtracks, since the sound would be in
mono), you're making no sense. With the above exceptions, laserdiscs have
digital sound. Laserdisc fans can HARDLY claim to be analog "purists".
Trevor
>> Best regards -- Trevor
Hi,
You are misinterpreting, though I can see how you could have been
confused. I definitely prefer the digital tracks on LDs to the very
limited fidelity analog tracks. But as I said, I find the LD sonic
quality to more enjoyable than the DVD Dolby Digital tracks.
Best regards -- Trevor
Robert Dewar
gzoo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Play the lottery! With such a luck, you may win the main
> prize... Of all the discs I have that have been mentioned
> as being Notorious Rotters, more than
> half of my copies have rotted.
Maybe it is you who have the *bad* luck. I have seen
negligible problems from Laser rot in a large collection
of laser disks (2 rotted discs in about 800, both dirt
cheap second hand discs from a local second hand store).
Robert Dewar
kamc...@aol.com (KAMCGANN) wrote:
> I hear this whining about Macrovision and region codes
> but who wouldn't buy a
> DVD just because they cannot make illegal
> copies of it? I support the artists, film and
> music, that I enjoy by purchasing or renting
> their work legally. Bootleg friendly formats
> should be discouraged to protect the artists.
Hmmm! It is not at all clear that making a single copy
for your own use is an illegal copy, what gives you that
idea? The Sony decision, and the GO decision would suggest
otherwise. After all one major function of VCR's is to
make private copies of things for your own use. This is
pretty clearly fair use ...
Robert Dewar
kamc...@aol.com (KAMCGANN) wrote:
> I agree with your sentiment. I think an incombatibility
> of international copyright
> laws and enforcement may have led to
> the Region coding.
Much more likely is that it means that you can charge
different appropriate market prices in different markets,
and not worry about gray market cross-over. For example,
you can sell things more expensively (than the US) in
Europe, where people seem used to high prices, and less
expensivly (than the US) in Asia, where people are used
to cheap bootleg prices.
Robert Dewar
"Norman Wilner" <xnwi...@xhome.xcom> wrote:
> Nope, not fair use -- that would be a public broadcast of
> material licensed for private use only. Studios supply
> clip tapes to the media for the
> purpose of reviews.
Please quote case law on this one, the only case law I
am aware of is in the opposite direction (that brief
excerpts for the purpose of review are indeed fair use).
Robert Dewar
reasons:
1. On my system they look better. Someone said that LD's,
being analog are more sensitive to the quality of the
player. Since I have a top end player for my LD's (an
HLD-X9, cost about $2800), I guess I get to see the best
LD has to offer -- certainly the quality is WAY better than
the Pioneer combi player I was using before.
I have a Mitsubishi CD fed through a Transscanner, and
people can of course tell me that I could do better. I
have also tried hooking up an Mpact setup directly to my
D-ILA projector. Both paths are quite high quality, but
marginally and sometimes significantly inferior to what
I see from LD's
2. LD's are so much cheaper than DVD's. It is simply
wonderful that DVD has come along and is persuading
everyone to dump new and used LD's. I am buying hundreds
of disks at the moment at dirt cheap prices, far less than
I would pay for corresponding DVD's.
3. There seem to be a lot of movies I can find only on LD.
Perhaps that will change over time, we will see ...
I have no objection to DVD's, and I buy a DVD if it is
significantly cheaper than the LD and I want the title,
but otherwise I will favor the LD choice.
This is not a matter of stick-your-head-in-the-sand
determination to ignore "progress", simply an observation
of what I see on my system.
Robert Dewar
KAMCGANN
guess I get to see the best LD has to offer -- certainly the quality is WAY
better than the Pioneer combi player I was using before.
People that drop $2800 on an LD player certainly aren't seeing too clearly
to begin with. Spend the same on
a DVD player and have another comparison. LD decided to " stand pat" in
an era of interactivity and digital progress.
Not a winning strategy. Aren't any of the
diehard LD supporters angry or disappointed
that LD didn't even put up a fight? I had
hoped for a Next Generation of LD. Possibly
a less compressed digital LD for the true
enthusiast. DVD has been criticized for its
broader base appeal while LD is forgiven
for abandoning its committment to being
a state of the art format.
Kraig
Phillip
market go down the drain. Many disc manufactured in the past were done so
horribly and without any thought of where to "cut" the movie for the side
breaks. I don't want to admit it, but the laser format will be a thing of
the past in a few short years.
It will be interesting to see if Disney, a great proponent of the laser
market, will release "A Bug's Life" in the laser format. Somehow, I don't
think they will, and that will be a sure sign of another nail in the laser
disc coffin.
Phil
William L. Griffin IV
Whoa there Kraig...
The HLD-X9 is a reference player that people generally think long and
hard about purchasing. There are legitimate reasons for it's purchase -
none of which involve "not seeing clearly" For people with truly high
end setups, the X9 is a logical addition and it is not that expensive
in the context of a $50,000+ system. The fact that it can sometimes
eliminate completely some of the artifacts that people deride LD for
combined with its Hi-Vision capability make it a star. The X9 was
designed for Hi-Vision, that it's playback of convential discs is
outstanding was a secondary benefit.
I'm going shopping in Tokyo this weekend. IF the dollar continues up
(119 at last check) I might pick up another X9 along with the discs I
plan on picking up. To see a Hi-Vision disc in all it's glory can't be
beat...
Bill
KAMCGANN
>
>The HLD-X9 is a reference player that people generally think long and
>hard about purchasing.
Whoa yourself Bill
I was just teasing in the first two lines of
my post. I would love to have a HLD-X9.
Any comment on the "meat" of my post? BTW what is a Hi-Vision disc?
Kraig
glam...@gateway.net
Robert Dewar <robert...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> I give the edge to LD's over DVD's for the following
> reasons:
>
> 1. On my system they look better. Someone said that LD's,
> being analog are more sensitive to the quality of the
> HLD-X9, cost about $2800), I guess I get to see the best
> LD has to offer -- certainly the quality is WAY better than
> the Pioneer combi player I was using before.
Robert,
Thanks for your post. What combi player were you using prior to the X9?
George Lambert
William L. Griffin IV
I am interested in the programming itself, so any interactivity is lost
on me. That isn't a judgement on it's appropriateness for all
situations. A 35mm print offers nothing "interactive" yet it suits it's
intended purpose. LD took the concept of "extras" and experimented with
it to some degree of success. Let's be realistic - LD has physical
limitations to what can be done - the inability to add Macrovision due
to the use of the VBI is one.
Because DVD has the ability to have so many features doesn't mean that
they are needed or good. In the initial "concept" there was to be one
disc for worldwide distribution. That would have made good use of the
multitude of language and subtitle tracks. Adding Zone Coding makes
those features almost useless. Yes they can be used for commentary -
but how many serious commentary tracks are needed for 99% of the movies
out there? I've heard some of the blather that pass for "commentary"
and it borders on the ridiculous. When you get in to the area of extras
like out-takes, still frame archives, etc., Criterion made good use of
such things in sets like Brazil, Blade Runner and Robinson Cruesoe on
Mars. On one hand DVD is rather limited in the amount of true still
frame information it can accomodate (Ammageddon is 2 discs) which
precludes the prospect of a set like Brazil being identically
duplicated on 1 disc (DV-18 *maybe*). On the other hand - is the
marketplace at large really looking for stuff like this? In spite of
what we think of ourselves (the LD and DVD NGs), our opinions are very
much in the minority. Joe Rusnak was right when he mentioned how as
penetration of DVD grows, demand for widescreen presentation is
projected to drop. 99% of the population do not care about a directors
commetary. As if anything interesting could be said about "Rugrats: the
Movie"?!?
I posted several years ago the hypothesis that if LD was wiped out by
DVD, there was a chance that DVD might not live up to the expectations
of the true film buff. That isn't to say that some interesting things
aren't being released (the upcoming Ghostbusters DVD). The problem is
that the current state of affairs is no indicator where the market will
be in 5 years. There were LD's in the past that experimented with
interactivity. Clue, Close Enccounters Box, Many Roads Lead To Murder.
These were crude in comparison to the current DVD offerings in terms of
"slickness", but there was absolutely no consumer driven demand to
develop any further capabilities. A movie is a movie. I don't expect to
hear a running commentary in a theater, nor do I generally want one in
my own home environment. Don't get me wrong - I do have a background in
serious film history (NYU), I personally would rather pick up a book to
use a guide. Then again, how many "serious" film scholars are out there
buying DVD for study and analysis?
Aside from all this,
The HLD-X9 is a Hi-Vision player as well as conventional LD player.
Hi-Vision is a true High Definition playback standard developed in
Japan. It is an analog system, but once people see it in action, it
doesn't really matter. It was eschewed here in the US due to a "not
invented here" mentality. The Feds decided that in order to keep the
American consumer electronics manufacturers healthy we had to develop
our own system. Funny - we don't even HAVE a true domestic CE company
anymore. RCA is French and Zenith is Korean. It was purely a political
gesture. And typical of a political gesture - look how long it's been
taking to get it off the ground, and the patchwork of "standards" we
have...
In a word - pathetic...
Bill
Andy Bates
<natt...@dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> > And when a new HD format
> > comes out that improves on DVD's video and sound, I will probably be
> > less tolerant of DVD's lower resolution. But it doesn't mean that I'm
> > abusing a "friend"; it just means that I have chosen to go with the
> > newer, better format. Why is that so difficult to understand?
>
> The problem being that DVD should have eliminated all of Laserdiscs, without
> introducing some really nasty ones of their own.
Yes, DVD should have eliminated all of the disadvantages of laserdiscs,
but then again, most new formats have a few drawbacks in addition to
the benefits. That's just the way things go. It's a question of whether
or not the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. In DVD's case, I believe
that they do.
> I've seen skin textures
> shimmer, jerky motion, pixilation, all nasty and new.
Is this a problem with the format in general, or just specific titles?
I haven't seen most of these problems.
> What crap! A new
> format should be better in all areas. DVD is just about getting people to
> buy stuff they have on VHS, and controlling amrkets with regional coding.
> It's not about quality at all.
Right. Which explains the higher resolution and better color fidelity
of DVDs.
--
Andy Bates.
Brian Hedden
"William L. Griffin IV" wrote:
>
> I'm going shopping in Tokyo this weekend. IF the dollar continues up
> (119 at last check) I might pick up another X9 along with the discs I
> plan on picking up. To see a Hi-Vision disc in all it's glory can't be
> beat...
>
> Bill
The more that Bill posts like this the more I'm thinking that there's
going to be an "After AVL Dinner Movie" at Bill's place. :-)
Brian
Robert Dewar
kamc...@aol.com (KAMCGANN) wrote:
> People that drop $2800 on an LD player certainly aren't
> seeing too clearly to begin with. Spend the same on
> a DVD player and have another comparison.
I have seen high end DVD players in action, they don't seem
worth the money to me, and in particular, the best DVD
picture I have seen still comes from the MPACT card.
On the other hand, the difference made by the HLD-X9 is
really amazing. I would not have believed it till I saw it.
Maybe you should take the trouble to see it for yourself
before deciding that it makes no sense to buy it.
As for me buying a high end DVD player, what's the point?
I have a large LD collection, and only a few DVD's at this
stage. I buy a DVD only if it is MUCH cheaper than the
LD, or is a title I cannot get on LD. There are some titles
in this category, so I have maybe fifty DVD's at this stage
and expect the collection to grow.
LD decided to " stand pat" in
> an era of interactivity and digital progress.
> Not a winning strategy. Aren't any of the
> diehard LD supporters angry or disappointed
> that LD didn't even put up a fight? I had
> hoped for a Next Generation of LD. Possibly
> a less compressed digital LD for the true
> enthusiast. DVD has been criticized for its
> broader base appeal while LD is forgiven
> for abandoning its committment to being
> a state of the art format.
> Kraig
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
KAMCGANN
there was a chance that DVD might not live up to the expectations of the true
film buff.
Dear Bill
I think it is probable that most DVDs like
most LDs will be movie only or movie/trailer
only. I think film buffs will be as pleased with
the deluxe DVDs tailored to them as the box LDs of the past. They might be
$50.00 but
LD boxes have listed for $125.00. Thanks for
the info on the X9 and the Hi-Vision format.
Kraig
KAMCGANN
getting people to
It's not about quality at all.
>Right. Which explains the higher resolution and better color fidelity
>of DVDs.
Andy Bates.
Dear Andy
A lot of these posters are still in shock. DVD was only touted as better
than VHS.
Many of us were surprised by just how brilliant DVD turned out. I never
predicted
that DVD would kill LD and even imagined some healthy competition between
formats.
LD surrendered without a fight. Sad.
Kraig
KAMCGANN
>really amazing. I would not have believed it till I saw it. Maybe you should
take the trouble to see it for yourself before deciding that it makes no sense
to buy it.
Dear Robert
I was only teasing. I would love to check
out an 'X9 in action. I am not skeptical of a
fine LD presentation on a high or super high
end player. I am even less skeptical that a
mid or high end DVD player with a 16x9 TV
and a WS enhanced disc will win any "shoot
out" with LD.
Kraig
Joshua Zyber
>>Since I have a top end player for my LD's (an HLD-X9, cost about $2800), I
>guess I get to see the best LD has to offer -- certainly the quality is WAY
>better than the Pioneer combi player I was using before.
>
>People that drop $2800 on an LD player certainly aren't seeing too clearly
>to begin with. Spend the same on
>a DVD player and have another comparison. LD decided to " stand pat" in
>an era of interactivity and digital progress.
>Not a winning strategy. Aren't any of the
>diehard LD supporters angry or disappointed
>that LD didn't even put up a fight? I had
>hoped for a Next Generation of LD. Possibly
>a less compressed digital LD for the true
>enthusiast. DVD has been criticized for its
>broader base appeal while LD is forgiven
>for abandoning its committment to being
>a state of the art format.
> Kraig
Kraig, why do you still post here if you have such a grudge against
laserdisc? I just don't get it.
Here you are again showing your ignorance.
You claim not to understand why LD didn't go digital with some form of
next-generation laserdisc product. What the hell do you think DVD is,
Kraig? The same people who designed and manufactured LD did DVD as
well. DVD *is* a digital laserdisc, just compacted in size and given a
new name. DVD is supposed to be the next generation of laserdisc, it's
just unfortunate that it's only a small step rather than a big one
given that it has been made totally incompatible with the old
equipment and software.
And speaking of your desire for a "next generation" machine. Next year
Toshiba will put their 480p DVD players on the market and then
suddenly your old unit is totally obsolete and you have to spend
another $1000 or more for a new player to keep up. And then of course
that machine will be totally obsolete when the HD-DVD machines start
coming out. And then like a good lemming you'll keep spending all your
hard-earned money to get the latest and greatest only to find out that
you've been scammed, that the manufacturers had no intention of their
product lasting more than a year or two before the next one comes out.
Hooray for progress!
PS. I'm still waiting for you to respond to my question about which
laserdiscs you're watching that look so crappy.
- Josh Z
KAMCGANN
>laserdisc? I just don't get it.
Dear Josh
If not sharing any of your views on LD
or DVD is "ignorance" then it is bliss. My
post reads to me more like a lament than a
grudge. You must not have been aware of
proposals floated around about a 12 inch
digital disc whose players would be backward
compatible with current LD's. As for your
query about crappy LDs. None of my LD's
look better than my DVDs. However, I was impressed with the Halloween Criterion
CAV I recently acquired. You left one of my
questions unanswered as well. What are your
DVD credentials? Maybe you just have a
grude, eh?
Kraig
Clyde Coffey
IV) wrote:
>The HLD-X9 is a Hi-Vision player as well as conventional LD player.
>Hi-Vision is a true High Definition playback standard developed in
>Japan. It is an analog system, but once people see it in action, it
>doesn't really matter. It was eschewed here in the US due to a "not
>invented here" mentality.
Hi-Vision *was* invented in Japan. There are daily broadcasts, optical
and magnetic home-video systems, and plenty of other equipment for
both producers and consumers. And yet, they're dumping it in favor of
an all digital system. If all-digital holds no advantage over
Hi-Vision/MUSE, why would they do that?
Timothy Fay
Good points about "next generation" DVDs. For such a new and "cutting
edge" format, it sure seems susceptible to good, old-fashioned planned
obsolescense.
But forget about new and unplayable DVD formats. In five years or
so mechanical video devices, like DVDs, will be obsolete. You will
buy your digital movies on big RAM chips in cartridges similar to a
Sega or a Nintendo game. That, along with video-on-demand will likely
to do DVDs what DVDs are doing to LDs (the only area where DVDs have
succeeded, i.e., killing off LDs). For now, I have little interest
(and even less money) to invest in yet another incompatible video
format.
Dan Helmick
: Hi-Vision *was* invented in Japan. There are daily broadcasts, optical
: and magnetic home-video systems, and plenty of other equipment for
: both producers and consumers. And yet, they're dumping it in favor of
: an all digital system. If all-digital holds no advantage over
: Hi-Vision/MUSE, why would they do that?
Because they're pandering to an American market which doesn't have the
facilities to manufacture a product under its own standards?
Dan
--
William L. Griffin IV
Narita on a new 777 for $30.34!!!!!
I love being a One Pass member!!!!
Bill
(it only required 25,000 miles)
William L. Griffin IV
<7C387C08C7262766.F1AD1C36...@library-proxy.airne
s.net> cl...@airmail.net (Clyde Coffey) writes:
>
>On 26 Apr 1999 18:39:40 GMT, bill...@ix.netcom.com(William L. Griffin
>IV) wrote:
>
>>The HLD-X9 is a Hi-Vision player as well as conventional LD player.
>>Hi-Vision is a true High Definition playback standard developed in
>>Japan. It is an analog system, but once people see it in action, it
>>doesn't really matter. It was eschewed here in the US due to a "not
>>invented here" mentality.
>
>and magnetic home-video systems, and plenty of other equipment for
>both producers and consumers. And yet, they're dumping it in favor of
>an all digital system. If all-digital holds no advantage over
>Hi-Vision/MUSE, why would they do that?
>
>
system and touted it as the next thing. The US refused to entertain
even the idea of it since it wasn't an American system.
By going to a digital system, they can use compression which would
reduce the bandwidth requirements tremendously allowing for terrestrial
as opposed to satellite broadcasting.
Bill
KAMCGANN
on buying 3000 DVDs like the some of the
LDers have. I will continue to buy the DVDs that I can enjoy now and after
their "obsolescence".
Kraig
Andy Bates
<jzy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> And speaking of your desire for a "next generation" machine. Next year
> Toshiba will put their 480p DVD players on the market and then
> suddenly your old unit is totally obsolete and you have to spend
> another $1000 or more for a new player to keep up.
There are so many errors with this statement, I don't know where to
begin. First of all, how do you define "obsolete"? Even after the new
480p players are out, the old DVD players will continue to play all old
and new DVD software. If it plays new software, it's not obsolete.
Secondly, why would someone "have to" keep up? Unless you have a
progressive-scan display, a 480p player won't do you any good. But if
you DO choose to get a better television, then the option is there to
get better pictures from your current DVDs.
> And then like a good lemming you'll keep spending all your
> hard-earned money to get the latest and greatest only to find out that
> you've been scammed, that the manufacturers had no intention of their
> product lasting more than a year or two before the next one comes out.
You mistakenly assume that 480p players will make current DVD players
obsolete. They won't. In fact, a 480p player would make a great
purchase for someone with a progressive-scan television, since all of
their old DVDs would be compatible with the progressive-scan output!
Sounds like a good deal to me!
--
Andy Bates.
Andy Bates
<fayxx001@delete..this..maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
> But forget about new and unplayable DVD formats. In five years or
> so mechanical video devices, like DVDs, will be obsolete. You will
> buy your digital movies on big RAM chips in cartridges similar to a
> Sega or a Nintendo game.
Why do you think this is the case? Have you compared the prices between
Nintendo 64 (cartridge) and Playstation (CD) games? The cartridges are
around $60, and the CDs are around $30. A cartridge costs much more to
manufacture, and it has much less storage than a CD. I think it will be
quite a while (if ever) before RAM chips replace DVDs as the dominant
video format.
--
Andy Bates.
Clyde Coffey
IV) wrote:
>In
><7C387C08C7262766.F1AD1C36...@library-proxy.airne
>s.net> cl...@airmail.net (Clyde Coffey) writes:
>>Hi-Vision *was* invented in Japan. There are daily broadcasts, optical
>>and magnetic home-video systems, and plenty of other equipment for
>>both producers and consumers. And yet, they're dumping it in favor of
>>an all digital system. If all-digital holds no advantage over
>>Hi-Vision/MUSE, why would they do that?
>>
>>
>I never said it was invented here.
And I never said you said it was invented here. You missed the point.
>The Japanese developed the MUSE
>system and touted it as the next thing. The US refused to entertain
>even the idea of it since it wasn't an American system.
Not true. NHK was invited to the FCC's HDTV trials, where they showed
a 6MHz variant of MUSE. Its performance was the poorest of the five
systems considered.
>By going to a digital system, they can use compression which would
>reduce the bandwidth requirements tremendously allowing for terrestrial
>as opposed to satellite broadcasting.
And what exactly do you think MUSE is? For those who don't know, it is
the compression scheme used with Hi-Vision to allow for terrestrial
broadcast and home-video systems. It's even digital compression, as
all Hi-Vision material is captured digitally and MUSE compression is
applied, when needed, in the digital domain, before conversion to
analog for broadcast or WVHS or Laserdisc.
You seem to be arguing against yourself. You say the only reason MUSE
was not considered for the US *terrestrial broadcast* HDTV system is
that it is not American. Then above you say Japan want an all digital
system because it is better for terrestrial broadcast. Why is it that
America and Japan can look at the same data and reach the same
conclusion, yet Japan's decision comes from sound technical reasoning,
and America's is indicitive of some mental illness?
Clyde Coffey
>Clyde Coffey (cl...@airmail.net) wrote:
>: Hi-Vision *was* invented in Japan. There are daily broadcasts, optical
>: and magnetic home-video systems, and plenty of other equipment for
>: both producers and consumers. And yet, they're dumping it in favor of
>: an all digital system. If all-digital holds no advantage over
>: Hi-Vision/MUSE, why would they do that?
>
>Because they're pandering to an American market which doesn't have the
>facilities to manufacture a product under its own standards?
Apparently not, as the American and Japanese digital HDTV systems are
not the same. The Japanese need to make different equipment to sell to
us either way. What system we have has no bearing on what system they
have.
trotsky
Andy Bates wrote:
>
>
> Right. Which explains the higher resolution and better color fidelity
> of DVDs.
>
I just finished watching "Firestorm" on DTS LD, and I can say beyond a shadow of a
doubt that a DVD will never, ever, ever sound that good.
Joshua Zyber
>>Kraig, why do you still post here if you have such a grudge against
>>laserdisc? I just don't get it.
>
>Dear Josh
> If not sharing any of your views on LD
>or DVD is "ignorance" then it is bliss.
Again I ask, why exactly do you hang around the laserdisc newsgroup if
you don't like laserdiscs?
Oh wait, that's right.... You're a troll. Duh!
> My
>post reads to me more like a lament than a
>grudge. You must not have been aware of
>proposals floated around about a 12 inch
>digital disc whose players would be backward
>compatible with current LD's.
No, I am fully aware of those plans. Plans that were scrapped in favor
of making the discs smaller and more user friendly. So basically my
point remains. Technicians develop a digital version of laserdisc,
shrink it down to 5", and give it a new name.
Now, let's just suppose that they had decided to go through and make a
digital 12" laserdisc. You point out that the new players would be
backwards compatible with existing discs. But my point is that the
existing players would *not* be compatible with the new discs. Hell, a
Pioneer combi-player is compatible with both DVD and LD, but I've
still got to shell out a hell of a lot of money for a new machine only
to get slightly better performance from the new format.
You know, it may not seem like it when I'm trying to set a troll like
you straight, but I actually do like DVD. I admit that it is a good
product and that it has some points in its favor over laserdisc. For
my friends who are just getting into home theatre for the first time,
I have to recommend that they go with DVD first. It is not, however,
such a dramatically wonderful improvement that it justifies having to
go out and buy a whole new player which is incompatible with existing
software. Nor does it justify making almost two decades of that
existing software obsolete overnight. I'm sorry, but I need something
really special to justify that, and 60 lines of resolution with a
smaller package just don't cut it. High Definition, which is very much
almost here, will make the grade because it will be *dramatically*
better than anything we have right now, LD or DVD included.
> As for your
>query about crappy LDs. None of my LD's
>look better than my DVDs. However, I was impressed with the Halloween Criterion
>CAV I recently acquired.
Is that supposed to be a sneaky way of still not answering my
question? You didn't do a very good job. You've posted to this board
on NUMEROUS occasions with snide little remarks about how laserdiscs
look worse than cable and are consistently noisy as hell. Well, name
some of them.
"None of my LD's look better than my DVDs." Well, duh Kraig! DVDs are
newer, usually have fresher transfers, and as stated above have a few
extra lines of resolution. What I want to know is which of your LDs
looks bad. Not which ones look good but the DVD counterpart is a
little better, but which ones you think are bad. You come to this
group and tell everyone how lousy laserdiscs look and how foolish we
all are for sticking with them, yet you don't back that up with
anything. I'm getting goddamned tired of this.
> You left one of my
>questions unanswered as well. What are your
>DVD credentials? Maybe you just have a
>grude, eh?
That's funny, I don't recall you ever asking that question. So how
could it have gone unanswered?
Two points:
#1 - What do I need DVD credentials for? I don't troll around in the
DVD newsgroup telling people how lousy their favorite toy is the way
you do here. I'm here in the LASERDISC NEWSGROUP minding my own
business when I find myself having to defend LD from idiots like you
spreading blatant lies about it.
#2 - As I said above, I actually *like* DVD! Which makes this all the
more infuriating. DVD is a good product and I have no qualms with it
in theory. (Except of course for the occasional pixelation,
downconversion artifacts, or those goddamned horrendously annoying
menus! But these are things that I can live with, just as I live with
side breaks or the occasional bit of chroma noise in intense reds on
laserdisc).
My "grude" as you call it (meant 'grudge', did you?) is that DVD is so
clearly a transition product when the next better thing is right on
top of us waiting to be dropped on our heads. Do I have a problem with
DVD and laserdisc coexisting? No. Do I have a problem with DVD killing
off laserdisc only to go obsolete itself in a year or two? YES!
So, to recap for your tiny little troll brain which probably didn't
bother to read most of what I just said:
Laserdisc = GOOD
DVD = GOOD TOO
DVD zealots coming to this newsgroup to tell us how lousy laserdiscs
are = VERY VERY BAD
- Josh Z
Andy Bates
What are you talking about? DTS DVDs are already available! Or are you
saying that the DTS bitstream on LD is somehow different than the DTS
bitstream on DVD?
--
Andy Bates.
Joshua Zyber
>> of a
>> doubt that a DVD will never, ever, ever sound that good.
But look what you're watching! It's 'Firestorm' for chrissakes! No
matter what format you watch it on, the movie's still gonna stink.
I guess I just don't get this "let's buy any piece of crap so long as
it's got a really really loud soundtrack" mentality.
- Josh Z
Dan Helmick
: Again I ask, why exactly do you hang around the laserdisc newsgroup if
: you don't like laserdiscs?
: Oh wait, that's right.... You're a troll. Duh!
All the evidence points to Kraig being Bill Stanton in drag.
Dan
--
Joe
Andy Bates wrote in message <270419991819204796%and...@corp.webtv.net>...
Anyone interested in A/B comparisons of DTS LDs and DVDs can read a few
already published by Doug Pratt in the past two issues of The DVD/LD
Newsletter. Or check his website. www.DVDLaser.com
KAMCGANN
>business when I find myself having to defend LD from idiots like you
>spreading blatant lies about it.
>
Dear Crusader Josh Z (sounds anime)
Thanks for straightening me out. Allow
me to clarify a few things for your superior
billy goat brain (get it? troll, billy goat's gruff
story). I have supported both formats, LD and
DVD. I even bought an expensive LD player. You only have LD. Who would you
imagine is more qualified to express an opinion comparing the two formats?
I find LDs to be noisy. That is true even
though my CLD-99 does a good job filtering
it out. My expectations are lower for LD now
so I can say that many look very good "for an LD". If that makes you feel
better. In your
language:
Kraig = LD/DVD owner/collector who prefers DVD and is
not shy about
expressing his opinions.
Josh = LD supporter only. Who "in theory"
has no qualms with DVD but thinks those that do not
worship LD are "ignorant" or "idiots".
Kraig
KAMCGANN
>Dan
Hey Dan
Give me back my dress. Preferably without stains and quit being a
sidekick.
I remember when you used to have some
"game" of your own.
Kraig
Joe
KAMCGANN wrote in message <19990428005108...@ng-fv1.aol.com>...
>
I have supported both formats, LD and
>DVD. I even bought an expensive LD player. You only have LD. Who would you
>imagine is more qualified to express an opinion comparing the two formats?
Your statement is meaningless. One does not need to own DVD to have an
opinion. It can be seen for oneself elsewhere. I've owned it for more than
two years and I can certainly verify that you are hardly qualified to
express an opinion on Dan (or many of the other contributors to this group,
as you have done), LD/DVD, or the value of the Yen. Since you don't post in
alt.video.dvd, it would appear that trolling is the only way you can justify
your "opinions."
If that is how you find happiness in life, enjoy.
KAMCGANN
only way you can justify your "opinions."
F.Y.I. I now post in alt.video.dvd also. Pointing out Josh's lack of
credibility, in my opinion, is consistent with his accusation that I am
ignorant about LD vs DVD. Now that
you have "verified that I am hardly qualified
to express opinions" in this NG, what will
I do? We all need your approval to " justify
our opinions", don't we?
Kraig
Joe
KAMCGANN wrote in message <19990428134750...@ng-fb1.aol.com>...
>
We all need your approval to " justify
>our opinions", don't we?
> Kraig
>
fact with no flexibility and zero tolerance for the more insightful opinions
of others. Or you try to cover it by claiming
that you were being humorous. (Don Rickles will not be losing any sleep over
the all the competition you mgiht give him.)
But you know what they say about opinions and what everyone has.
Personally, I agree with Harlan Ellison, who has stated that everyone does
not have a right to an opinion. Everyone does have a right to an informed
opinion. There is a difference.
I have no interest in fanning a war here, but if you are getting the type of
performance from
an Elite 99 as you indicate, something is wrong somewhere....either with
your TV and its settings , your player and settings, your
cables......something. Might be time to call ISF for a once over.
Speaking of cables (and to change the topic), Bill Griffin mentioned some
time back that most systems don't benefit much from expensive cables.
However, I've noticed differences in video performance from a variety of
cables. Monster's M-1000 cable, for example (one of the best known), seems
to have the weakest performance, particularly undefined blacks, while MIT
cables have deep blacks and stronger contrasts. I'm curious as to what
observations other LD users out there have regarding video cable
effectiveness. There are so many different types, from Kimber, Transparent,
Tributaries, etc. What connections are you using and why did you ultimately
decide on them?
KAMCGANN
>fact with no flexibility and zero tolerance for the more insightful opinions
of others.
I have never declared my opinions to be
anything but my opinions. I do mix in some humor, sarcasm, and spoofiness to
keep things interesting. I thought that you would
respect my opinons at least to the point that I did give LD " more than a shot"
and supported it a lot before DVD. I still enjoy LD for what it is, but it is
no DVD. Do I have to
disclaim with "In my opinion"?. You seemed
to be playing "nice" in your post and hope I
reciprocated.
Kraig
Joe
>KAMCGANN wrote in message <19990428190423...@ng-ce1.aol.com>...
>I still enjoy LD for what it is, but it is no DVD.
Thank God.
glam...@gateway.net
I agree. Thank goodness for rare side breaks, no chroma noise, better color
and sharper picture with an easier to handle disc. All that, and you don't
have to be $2500+ for a grey market player
Thank goodness for new 5.1 audio remastering that even LD has been able to
take advantage of.
LD's been a great format...thank goodness something even better came along in
DVD.
Thank goodness I get to enjoy them both.
:-)
George Lambert
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Joe
glam...@gateway.net wrote in message <7g8qn2$l4e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>> >I still enjoy LD for what it is, but it is no DVD.
>>
>> Thank God.
>
>and sharper picture with an easier to handle disc. All that, and you don't
>have to be $2500+ for a grey market player
As many here have already documented, color noise is virtually
indistinguishable on many domestic players, sharpness is equal on many LDs,
audio is easily equal and more often superior on LD (particularly on DTS),
and durability as well.
>Thank goodness for new 5.1 audio remastering that even LD has been able to
>take advantage of.
You're saying DVD created 5.1 audio remastering?!?! George, meet Kraig.
>LD's been a great format...thank goodness something even better came along
in
>DVD.
A view not shared by many, including both some creative and technical
personnel
age...@my-dejanews.com
But standard RSDL Layer changes
> no chroma noise, better color and sharper picture with an easier to handle
disc.
Instead it has shimmering, wavering background images, artifacts, occasional
break-ups into checkerboard patterns (I know if you scan back and repeat the
sequence, it doesn't reoccur. But when it happens while viewing a film, it's
a hell of lot more annoying than anything I've ever seen from LD). Get a
decent player. On my $500 Elite 79, I notice no color noise on well-mastered
discs. Even the saturated reds on Crimson Tide are stable. And Armageddon (No
movie rebviews please) looks a hell of a lot better on the LD than the DVD.
All that, and you don't
> have to be $2500+ for a grey market player
Of course, to take advantage of DVD, you must buy new software. According to
reports here, people are getting a much better picture than DVD provides on
pre-existing software. There's a savings.
>
> Thank goodness for new 5.1 audio remastering that even LD has been able to
> take advantage of.
Oh. Now I get it. You don't know what you're talking about.
>
> Thank goodness I get to enjoy them both.
>
Doesn't sound like you get too much enjoyment from LD to me.
S,Barry
KAMCGANN
>and sharper picture with an easier to handle disc. All that, and you don't
>have to be $2500+ for a grey market player
Dear George
Are you spoofing me or are you in partial agreement with a part of my
posts?
I do not know how to handle someone
not flaming me.
Kraig
glam...@gateway.net
"Joe" <joe.r...@gte.net> wrote:
>
> glam...@gateway.net wrote in message <7g8qn2$l4e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >>> >I still enjoy LD for what it is, but it is no DVD.
> >>
> >> Thank God.
> >
> >and sharper picture with an easier to handle disc. All that, and you don't
> >have to be $2500+ for a grey market player
>
> indistinguishable on many domestic players, sharpness is equal on many LDs,
> audio is easily equal and more often superior on LD (particularly on DTS),
> and durability as well.
OK, you and who else? Why are you pining to get an X9, then?
The only point you make that I agree with seems to be the DTS business. I
wonder if the difference comes form DTS mastering LDs, while the studios
master their DTS DVDs. Maybe the rumors of DTS the company 'juicing' their
mixes has some credibility.
>
> >Thank goodness for new 5.1 audio remastering that even LD has been able to
> >take advantage of.
>
> You're saying DVD created 5.1 audio remastering?!?! George, meet Kraig.
Actually, you misread what I wrote. A number of WHV soundtracks have been
remixed for 5.1 channels for DVD, the tracks for which make it to some LD
releases. Clear now?
As for Kraig, I rather enjoy his posts. He's sure got some of you guys going.
I remember Dan Balogh once saying he thought Helmick is a pretty funny guy.
Well, Kraig's simply the anti-helmick, only funnier.
>
> >LD's been a great format...thank goodness something even better came along
> in
> >DVD.
>
> A view not shared by many, including both some creative and technical
> personnel
Some. But they seem to be a minority.
I'm really not here to get into yet another pissing contest with you. I'm
pretty clear on your views. My post was tongue in cheek, and included a
smiley for the humor impaired.
Lighten up. This is home video...not Kosovo.
George Lambert
glam...@gateway.net
age...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <7g8qn2$l4e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> glam...@gateway.net wrote:
> > >
> >
> > I agree. Thank goodness for rare side breaks,
>
> But standard RSDL Layer changes
Which take less time than side flips or disc changes.
>
> > no chroma noise, better color and sharper picture with an easier to handle
> disc.
>
> Instead it has shimmering, wavering background images, artifacts, occasional
> break-ups into checkerboard patterns (I know if you scan back and repeat the
> sequence, it doesn't reoccur. But when it happens while viewing a film, it's
> a hell of lot more annoying than anything I've ever seen from LD).
And you're suggesting I get a better player? Give me a break.
> Get a
> decent player. On my $500 Elite 79, I notice no color noise on well-mastered
> discs. Even the saturated reds on Crimson Tide are stable. And Armageddon (No
> movie rebviews please) looks a hell of a lot better on the LD than the DVD.
Well, goody. Funny that we have just the opposite experience on the very
titles you mention. But enjoy your LDs.
>
> All that, and you don't
> > have to be $2500+ for a grey market player
>
> Of course, to take advantage of DVD, you must buy new software. According to
> reports here, people are getting a much better picture than DVD provides on
> pre-existing software. There's a savings.
In order to take advantage of LD, you had to buy new software at some point.
Where's the beef?
According to other reports here, people are getting greater enjoyment from DVD
than they did LD. Take a stroll over to the Home Theater Forum sometime.
There's lots of former denizens of this group rapping away on DVD and not
talking too much about LD (although they, like I, retain a fondness for it.)
What do you suppose happened?
> >
> > Thank goodness for new 5.1 audio remastering that even LD has been able to
> > take advantage of.
>
> Oh. Now I get it. You don't know what you're talking about.
Buzz. Thanks for playing. A number of DVDs were produced with remastered
5.1 audio from 4,2, and mono original soundtracks. WHV has done the most
with this type of work. Occasionally, one of these re-worked soundtracks
make their way onto a new LD also.
Seems as though you get very little.
> >
>
> > Thank goodness I get to enjoy them both.
> >
>
> Doesn't sound like you get too much enjoyment from LD to me.
Now you really don't know what you're talking about. I prefer filet mignon.
I occasionally eat a rib-eye. I enjoy both. The same applies to DVD and LD
respectively.
Some of you guys are WAYYYY too sensitive about this stuff.
glam...@gateway.net
kamc...@aol.com (KAMCGANN) wrote:
> >Thank goodness for rare side breaks, no chroma noise, better color
> >and sharper picture with an easier to handle disc. All that, and you don't
> >have to be $2500+ for a grey market player
>
> Are you spoofing me or are you in partial agreement with a part of my
> posts?
> I do not know how to handle someone
> not flaming me.
Go with the flow.
Last I checked, this is alt.video.laserdisc, not
alt.video.laserdisc.and.you'd.damn.well.better.love.it.above.all.other.home.t
hea ter.media.
As such, it should be a perfectly good place to discuss the relative merits of
the format vis a vis other home video formats. While I won't start a DVD/LD
thread, I'll occasionally comment one way or the other if I see something that
seems to be peculiar. Hence my tongue in cheek response to Joe's 'Thank God'
post. Joe and I have had enough arguments, I know his views, he knows mine.
We're pretty opposed on most topics (although we have agreed here and there),
and there's really not much need for me or him to waste our time trying to
convince each other of anything.
Thad Floryan
| >Thank goodness for rare side breaks, no chroma noise, better color
| >and sharper picture with an easier to handle disc. All that, and you don't
| >have to be $2500+ for a grey market player
|
| Dear George
| Are you spoofing me or are you in partial agreement with a part of my
| posts?
| I do not know how to handle someone
| not flaming me.
Happy to oblige you; simply reply to this article and you'll get lots
of flames from "interesting" people.
:-)
Thad
Joe
glam...@gateway.net wrote in message <7gam5j$al5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>> >
>> As many here have already documented, color noise is virtually
>> indistinguishable on many domestic players, sharpness is equal on many
LDs,
>> audio is easily equal and more often superior on LD (particularly on
DTS),
>> and durability as well.
>
>OK, you and who else? Why are you pining to get an X9, then?
If you have to ask..... And an X9 will, according to most reports will
provide imagery
beyond anything that DVD has presented.
>
>>>
>Actually, you misread what I wrote. A number of WHV soundtracks have been
>remixed for 5.1 channels for DVD, the tracks for which make it to some LD
>releases. Clear now?
Ah. Along with titles such as PAPILLON, EXCALIBUR, THE BUTCHER BOY, etc.
>
>As for Kraig, I rather enjoy his posts. He's sure got some of you guys
going.
>I remember Dan Balogh once saying he thought Helmick is a pretty funny guy.
>Well, Kraig's simply the anti-helmick, only funnier.
>
This response does not surprise me.
KAMCGANN
>alt.video.laserdisc.and.you'd.damn.well.better.love.it.above.all.other.home.t
>hea ter.media.
It sure seems like the latter George. As you
know, I have editorialized for a more "healthy" relationship with LD. ....I am
not
worried about you. Take care.
Kraig
KAMCGANN
>going.
>>I remember Dan Balogh once saying he thought Helmick is a pretty funny guy.
>>Well, Kraig's simply the anti-helmick, only funnier.
>This response does not surprise me.
>
Dear Joe
Can you imagine anything more entertaining than sitting down and having
a cup of coffee with George and I? We can
even invite the "Dans".
Kraig