Is DVD to Laserdisc what CD was to Records?

31 views
Skip to first unread message

Doug

unread,
Apr 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/21/99
to
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.


HeadLizard

unread,
Apr 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/21/99
to

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

unread,
Apr 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/21/99
to
Thank you "Head Lizard" for your down to earth and insightful comments - all of
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

unread,
Apr 21, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/21/99
to

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

unread,
Apr 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/22/99
to
In article <01be8c1f$4f4eed40$c89c2dc7@danschoe>,

"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

unread,
Apr 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/22/99
to
"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.


--- jayembee (Jerry.B...@eds.com)

"There's a Malibu Barbie that needs to meet Mr. Guillotine...head on."

gzoo...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Apr 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/22/99
to
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...

William L. Griffin IV

unread,
Apr 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/22/99
to
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.

<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

unread,
Apr 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/22/99
to
William L. Griffin IV (bill...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: 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

unread,
Apr 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/22/99
to
>I wonder how many of the
>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

unread,
Apr 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/22/99
to
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.

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

unread,
Apr 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/22/99
to

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

unread,
Apr 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/22/99
to
> 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.
>
Dear Jake
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

unread,
Apr 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/22/99
to
One problem I had with Macrovision was in trying to hook up the DVD, not
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

unread,
Apr 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/22/99
to
>he percentage of widescreen
>fans is DECREASING
>DVD will be a mass-market format and then you'll have less
>discerning viewers,'
>mass audiences continue to demonstrate
>a dramatic preference
>for pan-and-scan,

Dear Joe
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

unread,
Apr 22, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/22/99
to
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....

--
Richard
Post-Age Collectibles
http://www.post-age-collectibles.com/
KAMCGANN wrote in message <19990422182925...@ng-cn1.aol.com>...

Joe

unread,
Apr 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/23/99
to

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

unread,
Apr 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/23/99
to
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.

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

unread,
Apr 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/23/99
to
>I know that I would not buy a P&S only DVD....
>Richard

For the record, I will never buy a P&S only DVD.
Kraig

Dear Richard
Did we accidently agree on something?
Kraig

KAMCGANN

unread,
Apr 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/23/99
to
> I should be able to buy an imported DVD and play it, it is one planet we are
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

unread,
Apr 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/23/99
to
Jake Patterson wrote in message <7fomq6$c58l$1...@swen.emba.uvm.edu>...

>
> 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

unread,
Apr 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/23/99
to
HeadLizard wrote:
<Snipped>

Wow! That was a great post! :-)
Right on brother Lizard!

Cheers,
Nick


Randy Shackelford

unread,
Apr 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/23/99
to
Madwolf909 <madwo...@earthlink.net> wrote:

: 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

unread,
Apr 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/23/99
to
LD/DVD fan <richard...@post-age-collectibles.com> wrote:
: 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

unread,
Apr 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/23/99
to
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?

William L. Griffin IV

unread,
Apr 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/23/99
to
In <19990423001306...@ng-fx1.aol.com> kamc...@aol.com


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

unread,
Apr 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/23/99
to
I guess so...
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

unread,
Apr 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/23/99
to
Jake Patterson wrote in message <7fpvd3$dj7k$1...@swen.emba.uvm.edu>...

>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

unread,
Apr 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/23/99
to

<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...
>
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.

Andy Bates

unread,
Apr 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/23/99
to
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.

> 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

unread,
Apr 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/23/99
to
I have about 350 and have never had a disc rot in my collection, though I did
purchase (and return) a disc (THE TINGLER) that was rotted out of the wrapper.

William L. Griffin IV

unread,
Apr 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/23/99
to
In <230419991009576975%and...@corp.webtv.net> Andy Bates

<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

unread,
Apr 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/23/99
to
>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 disagree. As a consumer I am excited about
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

unread,
Apr 23, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/23/99
to
In article <7fqhhh$a...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, William L. Griffin
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

unread,
Apr 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/24/99
to
Dateline: 22 Apr 1999 22:19:20 GMT -- Author: kamc...@aol.com
(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

unread,
Apr 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/24/99
to
> 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.

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

unread,
Apr 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/24/99
to
Adam Gott/usenet <g...@srv.net> 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.

: 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

unread,
Apr 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/24/99
to
>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.

My Dad invented Macrovision. I think it is
wonderful.
Kraig

TheCentralSc...@pobox.com

unread,
Apr 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/24/99
to
On Sat, 24 Apr 1999 18:49:30 +0100, Graeme Nattress
<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

unread,
Apr 24, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/24/99
to
Kraig, you are so far off the wall...........

--
Richard
Post-Age Collectibles
http://www.post-age-collectibles.com/

KAMCGANN wrote in message <19990424151932...@ng-fv1.aol.com>...

Anthony Poole

unread,
Apr 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/25/99
to

<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

unread,
Apr 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/25/99
to
>Kraig, you are so far off the wall.........
>->Richard

Dear Richard
I was going for a laugh. Did I make it?
Kraig

gzoo...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Apr 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/25/99
to
In article <7fqa33$mb$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>,
"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

unread,
Apr 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/25/99
to
The real problem is whether the title you want is available on the
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

unread,
Apr 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/25/99
to
"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.

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

unread,
Apr 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/25/99
to
In article <SFEU2.193$hU2....@news2.voicenet.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

unread,
Apr 25, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/25/99
to
alt...@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>> 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

unread,
Apr 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/26/99
to
In article <7fmsm4$358$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
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

unread,
Apr 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/26/99
to
In article <19990422181920...@ng-cn1.aol.com>,

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

unread,
Apr 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/26/99
to
In article <19990423001306...@ng-fx1.aol.com>,

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

unread,
Apr 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/26/99
to
In article <tETT2.21$w4.3...@news1.rdc1.on.wave.home.com>,

"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

unread,
Apr 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/26/99
to
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
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

unread,
Apr 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/26/99
to
>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

Phillip

unread,
Apr 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/26/99
to
I agree with you. It is the industry that has helped the laser disc
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

unread,
Apr 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/26/99
to
In <19990426011915...@ng-ft1.aol.com> kamc...@aol.com


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

unread,
Apr 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/26/99
to
>Whoa there Kraig...
>
>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

unread,
Apr 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/26/99
to
In article <7g0fg0$758$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,

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
> 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.

Robert,

Thanks for your post. What combi player were you using prior to the X9?

George Lambert

William L. Griffin IV

unread,
Apr 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/26/99
to
In <19990426131101...@ng-fw1.aol.com> kamc...@aol.com

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

unread,
Apr 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/26/99
to
In article <3722...@newsread3.dircon.co.uk>, Graeme Nattress
<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

unread,
Apr 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/26/99
to

"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

unread,
Apr 26, 1999, 3:00:00 AM4/26/99
to
In article <19990426011915...@ng-ft1.aol.com>,
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 t