Why DVD sucks:
DaViD Boulet/Don Harley
I've had a bad day and just can't help myself:
DVD sucks! I heard that DVD's are 12 bits wheras CD's and LD's are 16!!!
That's why the AC-3 sounds so good on LD but not on DVD. I'll stick with
my LD's/CD's. And the picture of a laserdisc uses no compression...but
DVD's can't even do a still-frame they are missing so much picture!!!
Besides, all that MPEG 2 compression filters out all the detail (detail
is the first thing to go), so laserdisc should have a picture *way* more
detailed than DVD. And besides, I'd rather watch a movie with
chroma-noise obscuring all the fine detail from start to finish rather
than watch a DVD that might have *one* artifact if I looked hard enough
in the background at just the right time. No thank-you, why trade
several problems for the possiblity of one problem (if it exists on a
particular titles at all)? I'll stick with LD.
And besides, even if DVD and LD had the same picture quality
detail-wise, I'd rather have my LD's. Why? because there are 9000 movies
on LD and only five on DVD! It doesn't make any sense to by the
director's cut of "Blade Runner" on DVD when you can only get "Speed" on
LD. Plus, If I haven't got a widescreen TV with component inputs and an
AC-3 ready receiver, I can't watch DVD!!! Besides, having DVD's all
cropped for a 16:9 TV is pretty stupid if you ask me. "Mars Attacks" is
alot wider than 1.77, and the DVD package says "16:9"...that means
you're loosing lots of picture! No thank-you, I'll stick to my
LD's...(and don't try and tell me that a 16:9 TV is in my future. When
16:9 HDTV's come out...I plan in ignoring them completely and will keep
watching my interlaced 4:3 TV until I cannot get parts to repair it).
About HDTV--if DVD's were HDTV, I'd buy them! Even though HDTV uses MPEG
2 compression just like current DVD does, that wouldn't matter. But DVD
just offers me no advanatges what-so-ever. BTW, I better finish this
soon. After all, I'm always saving my money for my $30-$40 a peice
laserdisc titles and have to watch the time I spend on the internet...
And besides, I think that there *should* be a pause or two in the middle
of a movie...just like the reel-changes in a theater. If you watch the
movie from start to finish, when are you going to get snacks and use the
restroom? I'll stick to my LD.
And Besides, With LD you get great cover art. Why, I don't even *watch*
most of my LD's. I just stare at the covers for a couple of hours a
night (I go use the restroom and get snacks when I flip the cover over
to look at the other side). With DVD, you'll loose those great big 12"
covers!!!
And besides, DVD's don't record!!! I'll stick to my LD's and CD's (which
don't record either...but DVD still sucks). And besides, VHS people
won't see any advantage with DVD's since they don't need to be rewound,
can skip to any chapter and never wear out. They proved this when they
all ignored CD's. And videophiles won't like DVD becuase getting an
anamorphic, component digital transfer of an image with 500 horiz. lines
of resolution is pretty dumb when you can already get 425 horizontal
res. analog-composite lines of widescreen movies in 4:3 LBX on LD (with
the built-in toilet breaks, just like the director intended).
Well, I think I've proved it. DVD sucks big-time and will fail. And I
saw a demo in the store today that *proves* how bad the artifacts were.
The sharpness was turned all the way up so you wouldn't miss any
detail...after all, turning the sharpness down would only make the DVD
blurry and filter-out all the comrpession artfiacts. No thank you, I'll
stick with my LD's...
-dave :)
Silv...@apple.com, Tony wrote:
>
> It just gets me that these people know how to access a NG (it took me a
> while) but they can't figure out how to read a FAQ. There could be
> potential DVD buyers who haven't read the FAQ and that will now take what
> this guy wrote as scripture instead of reading the FAQ.
>
>Let's save the RSDL DVD's for the advanced class ;)
>
> Tony
>
> P.S. I'm not TOUCHING the 12 bit argument...
>
> >Subject: Re: VSDA Report
> >Sent: 07/19 6:58 PM
> >Received: 07/19 11:44 AM
> >From: DaViD Boulet/Don Harley, dha...@bellatlantic.net
> >To: Tony Silveira, silv...@apple.com
> >
> >Tony Silveira wrote:
> >>
> >> Hey look everyone, another "I don't have a clue and I'll spread
> >> misinformation" guy...
> >>
> >> Tony
> >>
> >> Laurence Chiu wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > If a disc has P&S on one side and anamorphic widescreen on the other,
> >> > then unless you have a 16:9 TV(and I would think this is not a large
> >> > number comparitively speaking) then you either have to watch the P&S
> >> > version or very tall people :-) Neither sounds attractive to me. What
> >> > about regular Letterbox - is that available also?
> >
> >Now, now, my first reaction was a flame or two as well, but lets see if
> >once he *learns* that DVD players (all of them) were *designed* to
> >down-convert 16:9 framing to 4:3 framing for 4:3 TV's, perhaps his eyes
> >will be opened to the world of "have your DVD cake and eat it too".
> >
> >Should we also tell him about RSDL DVD's or save that for the next time?
> >
> >-dave
> >
> >p.s. I'll let *you* be the one to explain to him that DVD's aren't 12
> >bits... :)
Jack May
Gee what can all the lunatics and freaks say now that you have put all
their rantings in one message. I guess they will just save this to
randomly copy and paste from when they are creating their own messages :-)
> I've had a bad day and just can't help myself:
>
> DVD sucks! I heard that DVD's are 12 bits wheras CD's and LD's are 16!!!
> That's why the AC-3 sounds so good on LD but not on DVD. I'll stick with
> my LD's/CD's. And the picture of a laserdisc uses no compression...but
> DVD's can't even do a still-frame they are missing so much picture!!!
> Besides, all that MPEG 2 compression filters out all the detail (detail
> is the first thing to go), so laserdisc should have a picture *way* more
> detailed than DVD. And besides, I'd rather watch a movie with
> chroma-noise obscuring all the fine detail from start to finish rather
> than watch a DVD that might have *one* artifact if I looked hard enough
> in the background at just the right time. No thank-you, why trade
> several problems for the possiblity of one problem (if it exists on a
> particular titles at all)? I'll stick with LD.
> ... and so on
Chris Seaman
DaViD Boulet/Don Harley <dha...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
[...Why DVD "sucks"...]
Well done!
ROTFLOL!
Regards,
Chris
--
From the account of Chris Seaman
=====Reply_to...@worldnet.att.net=====
ZapperZ
It's ironic that you LIKE CD's, because if you remember correctly, the very
same argument that you are espousing about DVD is almost identical to the
complaint some people had with CDs when they first came out, especially from
phonograph purists! The first CDs being produced were harsh, filled with
glitches, revealing flaws in the playback AND the original recording. The
first generation of CD players were cumbersome, and in general were not very
good. But look how it has evolved!
As far as "missing so much picture" is concerned, you should also remember
that digital sampling, BY DEFINITION, only sample discrete section of the full
spectrum. So if you are concerned about "missing" information, you shouldn't
be buying CDs and LDs either! Data-compression does NOT "miss" any
information. It merely "recreates" by clever algorithms what is supposed to be
there.
I wouldn't be so quick to judge.....
Zz.
Dick Schardt
DaViD Boulet/Don Harley <dha...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in article
<33D3CC...@bellatlantic.net>...
> I've had a bad day and just can't help myself:
This guy should get the rationalization prize of the year.
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <33D3CC...@bellatlantic.net> dha...@bellatlantic.net writes:
>I've had a bad day and just can't help myself:
>DVD sucks! I heard that DVD's are 12 bits wheras CD's and LD's are 16!!!
"The Nixon you sent to China is not the same one we sent back".
So what?
You've heard wrong.
Next please?
--
Copyright alice!jj 1997, all rights reserved, except transmission by USENET
and like facilities granted. This notice must be included. Any use by a
provider charging in any way for the IP represented in and by this article
and any inclusion in print or other media are specifically prohibited.
Johnny Y Boey
Brian Paulsen wrote:
>
> Why suffer with LD when you can get a nice VCR instead? I got a two
> head VCR for cheap and I can record on it! I now have a collection
> of over 50,000 movies on tape - let's see you do that with LD or DVD!
>
> Sure, you might say that LD and DVD have more color information or
> better resolution, but it doesn't affect me!
Let me guess: you have a shitty TV and a shitty sound system :)
> Better resolution? Ha! Sure, DVD and LD may have better resolution
> (I can't see it) but they lose all of that resolution when they put
> those stupid black bars on the screen. Who cares if I get a finer
> resolution black bar?
Ignorance is bliss. That's the so-called widescreen experience. Your
pan-and-scan version crops out many details.
JB
Tony D. Gelskey
On Wed, 23 Jul 1997 12:15:02 -0500, Johnny Y Boey
<jb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Not true. AC3 sounds as good on DVD. I have compared extensively in my
>home system.
Have you done these same tests with Pro-Logic? If so, what did you
come up with?
>that's your opinion. DVD pictures look much better to me. Much more
>vibrant color and sharpness.
Agreed.
>> And besides, I think that there *should* be a pause or two in the middle
>> of a movie...just like the reel-changes in a theater. If you watch the
>> movie from start to finish, when are you going to get snacks and use the
>> restroom?
>
>
>You are seriously misinformed. Who the hell tell you that you can't
>pause DVD? YES, YOU CAN!!!
I think he meant he wished DVD had side breaks like LD.. (DUMB)
>> Well, I think I've proved it. DVD sucks big-time and will fail. And I
>> saw a demo in the store today that *proves* how bad the artifacts were.
>> The sharpness was turned all the way up so you wouldn't miss any
>> detail...after all, turning the sharpness down would only make the DVD
>> blurry and filter-out all the comrpession artfiacts.
>
>
>some stores do bad demos. That's all.
>
>
>JB
Agreed again.. That was the studios' and the hardware companies' fault
not to mention people that screwed it up at the store.
--
Tony Gelskey
tgel...@XX.escape.ca
Remove the "XX." from address in reply
Robert F. Nee
Mindless crap deleted...
>
>Plus I can record with my VCR. If I don't like a movie with DVD or LD,
>I'm stuck with it. With my VCR, if I don't like a movie, I can put
>a good episode of "Friends" on it. (at EP, of course)
I thought this guy was just an idiot but this confirms he is a troll.
Rob
Brian Paulsen
Why suffer with LD when you can get a nice VCR instead? I got a two
head VCR for cheap and I can record on it! I now have a collection
of over 50,000 movies on tape - let's see you do that with LD or DVD!
Sure, you might say that LD and DVD have more color information or
better resolution, but it doesn't affect me! I refuse to buy any new
technology that the "industry" tries to pawn off on us, so I watch all
of my movies on a 13" black-and-white TV. Color TV's are a scam -
there's no way that they can represent color correctly. Everytime I
go into a dealer's showroom, I see TV's with totally wrong colors on
the screen. No thanks, I'll stick with black-and-white. Don't even
get me started on HDTV!
Better resolution? Ha! Sure, DVD and LD may have better resolution
(I can't see it) but they lose all of that resolution when they put
those stupid black bars on the screen. Who cares if I get a finer
resolution black bar? Besides, when you sit 15 feet away from the
screen like I do, the remaining picture looks so incredibly tiny.
Now, I heard that DVD's were supposed to have alternative endings. So
far I haven't heard of one movie that does this. With my VCR, if I
don't like an ending of a movie I can just tape another ending over it.
Let's see you do that with DVD or LD!
Plus I can record with my VCR. If I don't like a movie with DVD or LD,
I'm stuck with it. With my VCR, if I don't like a movie, I can put
a good episode of "Friends" on it. (at EP, of course)
In all, I would have to say that those people who support LD or DVD
must be paid by the "industry" to try to dupe unsuspecting fools into
spending their hard-earned cash in a doomed format. I've looked at
both LD and DVD, and all I can say is that they won't see my money!
:)
--
Brian Paulsen
Johnny Y Boey
DaViD Boulet/Don Harley wrote:
>
> I've had a bad day and just can't help myself:
>
> DVD sucks! I heard that DVD's are 12 bits wheras CD's and LD's are 16!!!
> That's why the AC-3 sounds so good on LD but not on DVD. I'll stick with
> my LD's/CD's.
Not true. AC3 sounds as good on DVD. I have compared extensively in my
home system.
And the picture of a laserdisc uses no compression...but
> DVD's can't even do a still-frame they are missing so much picture!!!
> Besides, all that MPEG 2 compression filters out all the detail (detail
> is the first thing to go), so laserdisc should have a picture *way* more
> detailed than DVD. And besides, I'd rather watch a movie with
> chroma-noise obscuring all the fine detail from start to finish rather
> than watch a DVD that might have *one* artifact if I looked hard enough
> in the background at just the right time.
that's your opinion. DVD pictures look much better to me. Much more
vibrant color and sharpness.
> And besides, even if DVD and LD had the same picture quality
> detail-wise, I'd rather have my LD's. Why? because there are 9000 movies
> on LD and only five on DVD!
there are more than 100.
Besides, having DVD's all
> cropped for a 16:9 TV is pretty stupid if you ask me. "Mars Attacks" is
> alot wider than 1.77, and the DVD package says "16:9"...that means
> you're loosing lots of picture!
Not true. Many DVD discs also have a widescreen option besides the
anamorphic transfer.
> And besides, I think that there *should* be a pause or two in the middle
> of a movie...just like the reel-changes in a theater. If you watch the
> movie from start to finish, when are you going to get snacks and use the
> restroom?
You are seriously misinformed. Who the hell tell you that you can't
pause DVD? YES, YOU CAN!!!
> Well, I think I've proved it. DVD sucks big-time and will fail. And I
> saw a demo in the store today that *proves* how bad the artifacts were.
> The sharpness was turned all the way up so you wouldn't miss any
> detail...after all, turning the sharpness down would only make the DVD
> blurry and filter-out all the comrpession artfiacts.
Jeff Ulmer
NO JOKES ALLOWED ON THE INTERNET
Congress today passed a bill that prohibits the use of humour on the
internet.
"My constituants are darned upset by the proliferation of humour on the
internet. For gosh sakes, kids can download this stuff!"
In a unanimous motion to ban all acts of satire, ridicule and jesting,
the IP (Internet Police) are cracking down on newsgroups worldwide.
"Some people just don't get it. Humour is a serious thing. We must
eradicate it and free up the bandwidth for serious discussion of why DVD
sucks. Hell, I know a lot of people who have never even seen DVD and
they know it sucks."
A new task force has been set up to monitor humour on the net. The INF
(It's Not Funny) will be hunting down abusers of the system and
punishing them-primarily by forcing them to watch VHS.
"This is a serious threat to our seriousness."
Brought to you by 3CP1.
Keith Hill
Johnny Y Boey wrote in article <33D63C...@ix.netcom.com>...
>You are seriously misinformed. Who the hell tell you that you can't
>pause DVD? YES, YOU CAN!!!
Relax. David is only satiring all the DVD naysayers. Good one - David.
Keith Hill
Vandit Kalia
You forgot to add one major argument in favor of VCRs:
You can record with them.
Vandit
Brian Paulsen (bpau...@lehman.com) wrote:
: Why suffer with LD when you can get a nice VCR instead? I got a two
: head VCR for cheap and I can record on it! I now have a collection
: of over 50,000 movies on tape - let's see you do that with LD or DVD!
: Sure, you might say that LD and DVD have more color information or
: better resolution, but it doesn't affect me! I refuse to buy any new
: technology that the "industry" tries to pawn off on us, so I watch all
: of my movies on a 13" black-and-white TV. Color TV's are a scam -
: there's no way that they can represent color correctly. Everytime I
: go into a dealer's showroom, I see TV's with totally wrong colors on
: the screen. No thanks, I'll stick with black-and-white. Don't even
: get me started on HDTV!
: Better resolution? Ha! Sure, DVD and LD may have better resolution
: (I can't see it) but they lose all of that resolution when they put
: those stupid black bars on the screen. Who cares if I get a finer
: resolution black bar? Besides, when you sit 15 feet away from the
: screen like I do, the remaining picture looks so incredibly tiny.
: Now, I heard that DVD's were supposed to have alternative endings. So
: far I haven't heard of one movie that does this. With my VCR, if I
: don't like an ending of a movie I can just tape another ending over it.
: Let's see you do that with DVD or LD!
: Plus I can record with my VCR. If I don't like a movie with DVD or LD,
: I'm stuck with it. With my VCR, if I don't like a movie, I can put
: a good episode of "Friends" on it. (at EP, of course)
: In all, I would have to say that those people who support LD or DVD
: must be paid by the "industry" to try to dupe unsuspecting fools into
: spending their hard-earned cash in a doomed format. I've looked at
: both LD and DVD, and all I can say is that they won't see my money!
: :)
: --
: Brian Paulsen
--
========================================================================
Vandit Kalia || LET'S GO FLYERS!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"With the first link, a chain is forged. The first speech censured, the
first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all
irrevocably"
Shred
What a waste of bandwidth
Shred ;(
Johnny Y Boey
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch wrote:
>
> In article <33D63A...@ix.netcom.com> Johnny Y Boey <jb...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> >Brian Paulsen wrote:
> >>
> >> Why suffer with LD when you can get a nice VCR instead? I got a two
> >> better resolution, but it doesn't affect me!
> --
guess you're right. I didn't read carefully because I'm sick of all
those uninformed DVD bashes. I didn't even notice the name of the
writer. David has shown his support for DVD before.
JB
Johnny Y Boey
Tony D. Gelskey wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Jul 1997 12:15:02 -0500, Johnny Y Boey
> <jb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >home system.
>
> come up with?
>
Never. Since I am not a reviewer and I have AC3, so there is no reason
for me to listen to pro-logic on an AC3-encoded material.
JB
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch
In article <33D63A...@ix.netcom.com> Johnny Y Boey <jb...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Brian Paulsen wrote:
>>
>> Why suffer with LD when you can get a nice VCR instead? I got a two
>> Sure, you might say that LD and DVD have more color information or
>> better resolution, but it doesn't affect me!
>Let me guess: you have a shitty TV and a shitty sound system :)
Um, I think you're replying to a satire, Johnny m'Boey.
--
Dan Helmick
jj, curmudgeon and all-around grouch (j...@research.att.com) wrote:
: I heard that Elvis is alive, the moon is made of green cheese, and that
: "The Nixon you sent to China is not the same one we sent back".
When is John Adams' opera "Nixon in China" coming out on DVD?
Dan
--
Jay B. Haider
On 24 Jul 1997 16:22:45 GMT, oob...@ripco.com (Dan Helmick) wrote:
>When is John Adams' opera "Nixon in China" coming out on DVD?
>Dan
Don't know, but if it does, I'll have to buy a damned DVD player....
In the meantime, I'll just chill to "El Dorado" (which just
supplanted Rush's "Counterparts" in my CD player. No, I'm not fickle
or anything...8)
--
Jay B. Haider
Class of 2001, Sam Nunn School of International Affairs (Georgia Tech)
"Science, like Nature, must also be tamed
With a view towards its preservation.
Given the same state of integrity,
It will surely serve us well." -Neil Peart
Simon Blears
In article <jackmay-2207...@smx-ca9-11.ix.netcom.com>,
jac...@smtp.svl.trw.com says...
> Gee what can all the lunatics and freaks say now that you have put all
> their rantings in one message. I guess they will just save this to
> randomly copy and paste from when they are creating their own messages :-)
>
>
> >
> > DVD sucks! I heard that DVD's are 12 bits wheras CD's and LD's are 16!!!
> > That's why the AC-3 sounds so good on LD but not on DVD. I'll stick with
I simply can't believe that so many people (not singling you out, Jack,
you're just the one I'm replying to) cannot or could not see that this
was a JOKE! Sheesh.
Simon....
Simon Blears
> I've had a bad day and just can't help myself:
>
> DVD sucks! I heard that DVD's are 12 bits wheras CD's and LD's are 16!!!
> That's why the AC-3 sounds so good on LD but not on DVD. I'll stick with
> my LD's/CD's. And the picture of a laserdisc uses no compression...but
> DVD's can't even do a still-frame they are missing so much picture!!!
> Besides, all that MPEG 2 compression filters out all the detail (detail
> is the first thing to go), so laserdisc should have a picture *way* more
> detailed than DVD. And besides, I'd rather watch a movie with
> chroma-noise obscuring all the fine detail from start to finish rather
> than watch a DVD that might have *one* artifact if I looked hard enough
> in the background at just the right time. No thank-you, why trade
> several problems for the possiblity of one problem (if it exists on a
> particular titles at all)? I'll stick with LD.
You had me going until I'd got to the next paragraph. Well done.
Kevin Jacques
DaViD Boulet/Don Harley <dha...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>I've had a bad day and just can't help myself:
<Extensive satiristic rambling whacked>
DVD is better, LD is better... big deal. DVD is barely toddling
along. Normally, I like to early adopt. Watch a format evolve and be
a part of it. But DVD doesn't impress me to any great degree yet. I
had one of the first laserdiscs that were released in December of
1978. I had a first generation CD player in the early Spring of 1983.
I know what it is like not to have titles available and poor quality.
DVD will move ahead or it will die like many other formats before it.
But quite honestly, in direct comparisons on calibrated monitors, I
don't see enough improvement over LD in any area to make it worth
adopting a dicey format. Especially one with no titles that I want to
watch. Some DVD titles look good, some look mediocre. Same with
Laser. Blade Runner does look great on DVD. But I did every thing to
keep from walking out of the theater when the movie was first
released. I am not interested any more in video wallpaper. Although
I do admit a widescreen of Blazing Saddles would be fun to watch.
What has amused me the most is how passionate some people can be over
such a passive viewing experience. What a bore.
Kevin Jacques
http://www.mindspring.com/~sunhawk
Ahhh...Endless Summer afternoons, sunlight flickering along a heartbreaking
curve of red paint and the basso profundo roar of a Ducati.
The world is not enough.
- Ian Fleming
Wylab
>
>DVD sucks! I heard that DVD's are 12 bits wheras CD's and LD's are 16!!!
>That's why the AC-3 sounds so good on LD but not on DVD. I'll stick with
The AC-3 decoder in a DVD player is a cut down version of the chips in a
"real" AC-3 decoder. That is why the DVD players are so cheap. The audio
sounds great with a good decoder!
Keith Johnson
Do people even read things before they post? I mean geez.. this is
a thread completely based on satire (good satire, btw) and you
follow up with a comment about something he forgot... BUT
He didn't forget it.. It is right there in black and white "Plus I can
record with my VCR". Arghh.. You remind me of the guy that
used to be in everyone's college class that asks a question that the
professor just answered. Or the person that asks you a question,
you answer it, then they ask you the same question again because
they forgot what you answered... Man.. I feel like getting a job at
the post office. At least I could take out my agression and
frustration.
I'm just kidding by the way.. The whole message... Don't wig out or
anything, just read more!
:)
Vandit Kalia wrote:
> You forgot to add one major argument in favor of VCRs:
> You can record with them.
>
> Vandit
>
> Brian Paulsen (bpau...@lehman.com) wrote:
> : Why suffer with LD when you can get a nice VCR instead? I got a two
>
> Vandit Kalia || LET'S GO FLYERS!!!
> ------------------------------------------
> -----------------------------
Kenneth T. Saroka
DaViD Boulet/Don Harley wrote:
>
> Brilliance...pure brilliance!
>
> -dave :)
>
> Brian Paulsen wrote:
> >
> > Why suffer with LD when you can get a nice VCR instead? I got a two
> > head VCR for cheap and I can record on it! I now have a collection
> > of over 50,000 movies on tape - let's see you do that with LD or DVD!
> > ...
> > Brian Paulsen
Yep those video tapes...which will last at best 5 years if properly
stored and maybe 10 years if you are lucky will be worth crap in 20 as
the magnetic particles flake away in a psoriasis that even Neutragena
T-gel cannot cure.
"Reality...what a concept!" Robin Williams
Pete Cockerell
Simon Blears wrote:
>
> In article <jackmay-2207...@smx-ca9-11.ix.netcom.com>,
> jac...@smtp.svl.trw.com says...
> I simply can't believe that so many people (not singling you out, Jack,
> you're just the one I'm replying to) cannot or could not see that this
> was a JOKE! Sheesh.
Just exlain again why you thought Jack didn't know the original post was
a joke. Or maybe *your* post was a joke too! Gee, this is getting
confusing. My mother *told* me never to use irony on the Internet...
--
Pete Cockerell
California, USA
subz...@ix.netcom.com
--------------63FC31A97FE506207108BF3F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > Why suffer with LD when you can get a nice VCR instead? I got a two
> > head VCR for cheap and I can record on it! I now have a collection
> > of over 50,000 movies on tape - let's see you do that with LD or DVD!
> > ...
> > Brian Paulsen
>
Uh huh. Yea. 50,000. And I though I had no life. :) Thats ok I
wouldn't want that many movies. I'll settle for my measly 400 titles.
:)
--------------63FC31A97FE506207108BF3F
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<PRE>> Why suffer with LD when you can get a nice VCR instead? I got a two
> head VCR for cheap and I can record on it! I now have a collection
> of over 50,000 movies on tape - let's see you do that with LD or DVD!
> ...
> Brian Paulsen</PRE>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Uh huh. Yea. 50,000. And I though I had no life.
:) Thats ok I wouldn't want that many movies. I'll settle for
my measly 400 titles. :) </HTML>
--------------63FC31A97FE506207108BF3F--
Jesse Skeen
In alt.video.laserdisc Kenneth T. Saroka <tai...@erols.com> wrote:
: Yep those video tapes...which will last at best 5 years if properly
: stored and maybe 10 years if you are lucky will be worth crap in 20 as
: the magnetic particles flake away in a psoriasis that even Neutragena
: T-gel cannot cure.
Well, I guess I must be REAL lucky since I have a VHS tape from 1979 that
looks very good, it only has a bit of a tracking problem on my VCR since
it's recorded in LP speed but still looks better than anything from
Goodtimes. I also have 2 Beta tapes from 1978 that are absolutely
PERFECT- they show NO signs of aging whatsoever.
I love tapes of old TV, it's the next best thing to time travel (except
for some bastards who edited out the commercials!)
"Flight test the new 1978 Thunderbird. When Americans need a better idea,
Ford puts it on wheels!"
Sir Sucker MC
Jesse Skeen wrote:
>
> In alt.video.laserdisc Kenneth T. Saroka <tai...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> : Yep those video tapes...which will last at best 5 years if properly
> : stored and maybe 10 years if you are lucky will be worth crap in 20 as
> : the magnetic particles flake away in a psoriasis that even Neutragena
> : T-gel cannot cure.
i had a met's 86 tape i recorded of the parade, and had not watched
untill this year, thats almost 11 years..
in fact, i had not rewinded it or played it..
apart from the tape being very slow to fast foward, almost sticking, and
then cured after done once or twice, the picture was perfect!
i think this particle stuff is true, but the time it takes to effect the
tape is way off!
mat.
PaulS19344
Enough of this nonsense. Here's the facts....
NOBODY KNOWS how long a video tape will actually last. Why? Because,
believe it or not, it is really still a new technology. I have had 1963 2"
inch B&W QUAD tapes that have played back without clogging, and also tapes
from 1973 that I could not play at all. Do your best to store them, that's
all you can do. If you have irreplaceable "home family tapies", you should
perhaps "bump them up" to a newer higher format. Use a TBC if you can. I'm
sure someday we will be able to store them on a disc, but right now, let's
enjoy what we have. Paul
Ben Pearre
>> Brian Paulsen wrote:
>> >
>> > Why suffer with LD when you can get a nice VCR instead? I got a two
>> > head VCR for cheap and I can record on it! I now have a collection
>> > of over 50,000 movies on tape - let's see you do that with LD or DVD!
>> > ...
>> > Brian Paulsen
That's a lot of tapes. How much do blanks cost? You could buy a
house for that. And you'll have to. Stacked normally like books on a
bookshelf, 50000 tapes take up about 1.3 kilometers. Assuming one
movie per tape... on DVD they'd take up so much less space that you
could fit them all into a single (big) room. Take the money you save
through reduced storage costs and buy a small movie-rental company,
which will let you make a living on your hobby. And it would be one
of the world's biggest movie-rental companies after you added your
collection to it.
50000, huh?
--
Benjamin Weste Pearre <benj...@marimba.com>
http://www.marimba.com/people/benjamin
David P. McGroty
Folks, this thread was a joke! Turn off your damn sarcasm filters!
(Have you all had your senses of humor surgically lobotomized?)
--
David P. McGroty
Surreal Estate Graphics
Public Key on Keyservers
Barry Waldron
DaViD Boulet/Don Harley <dha...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in article
<33EB1B...@bellatlantic.net>...
> Ben Pearre wrote:
> > >> Brian Paulsen wrote:
> Why suffer with LD when you can get a nice VCR instead? I got a two
> head VCR for cheap and I can record on it! I now have a collection
> of over 50,000 movies on tape - let's see you do that with LD or DVD!
> > >> > Brian Paulsen
> I record my 50000 VHS movies in LP speed! And my movies look
> great on my mis-calibrated/sharpness maxed/27"/4:3 TV!!!
> Most LD and DVD movies have missing picture on the top and bottom where
> black-bars go instead...with VHS I can get the whole picture! Besides, I
> wouldn't want the AC-3 audio on DVD's because it uses compression. I'll
> stick with the analog sound on my VHS which is linear.
> -dave ;)
Boy, if this isn't an eclectic approach to audio and video.
On the one hand you poo-poo the compression of AC-3
while on the other you are willing to put up with non-hi-fi
sound when for a few more dollars you could have had
an inexpensive VCR with high fidelity sound tracks.
As for preferences in video quality, I guess it is for
similar reasons that I prefer to continue recording
important programs with my two Beta Hi-Fi machines.
I have put up with the lack of sharpness and brilliance
on my projector for far too long. This weekend my ol'
Kloss gets three new projection tubes. Yahooooo!!
It is much more economical to reoutfit and realign it
than to buy a new TV.
Finally, AC-3 may be the latest and greatest, but for
what little I get out of Home Theater, I sure do like
my passive Hafler ambient decoder. ;-) Isn't it
curious were each of us chooses to place our priorities?
Barry
ESL Information eXchange
Placerville, CA 95667
Jim Beane
> Most LD and DVD movies have missing picture on the top and bottom where
> black-bars go instead...with VHS I can get the whole picture! Besides, I
> wouldn't want the AC-3 audio on DVD's because it uses compression. I'll
> stick with the analog sound on my VHS which is linear.
>
> -dave ;)
off the bottem and top of the picture to make the black bars. thats
letter box. the way you would see it in a theater. vhs cuts off the
sides (most of the time)to fill up the screen of your tv. so you loose
the picture. as for compression I guess pkzip is horible because of all
the stuff It takes off your files to make it that small. did your neck
grow a bubble or did the brain you sit on fart?
DaViD Boulet/Don Harley
Ben Pearre wrote:
>
> >> Brian Paulsen wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Why suffer with LD when you can get a nice VCR instead? I got a two
> >> > head VCR for cheap and I can record on it! I now have a collection
> >> > of over 50,000 movies on tape - let's see you do that with LD or DVD!
> >> > Brian Paulsen
>
> That's a lot of tapes. How much do blanks cost? You could buy a
> house for that. And you'll have to. Stacked normally like books on a
> bookshelf, 50000 tapes take up about 1.3 kilometers. Assuming one
> movie per tape... on DVD they'd take up so much less space that you
> could fit them all into a single (big) room. Take the money you save
> through reduced storage costs and buy a small movie-rental company,
> which will let you make a living on your hobby. And it would be one
> of the world's biggest movie-rental companies after you added your
> collection to it.
>
> 50000, huh?
I record my 50000 VHS movies in LP speed! I can get three movies per
tape!!! DVD and LD suck because you can't do that. And my movies look
great on my mis-calibrated/sharpness maxed/27"/4:3 TV!!!
Most LD and DVD movies have missing picture on the top and bottom where
Dick Schardt
It would take a month to read the whole thread. A lot of people got sucked
in. I agree this is the troll of the month.
--
---------------
Regards,
Dick
Dean Stevenson <deanst...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<33EB7F...@worldnet.att.net>...
> Jim Beane wrote:
> >
> > > Most LD and DVD movies have missing picture on the top and bottom
where
> > > black-bars go instead...with VHS I can get the whole picture!
Besides, I
> > > wouldn't want the AC-3 audio on DVD's because it uses compression.
I'll
> > > stick with the analog sound on my VHS which is linear.
> > >
> > > -dave ;)
> > Oh my god. Ive never heard someone argue like that. ld does not chop
> > off the bottem and top of the picture to make the black bars. thats
> > letter box. the way you would see it in a theater. vhs cuts off the
> > sides (most of the time)to fill up the screen of your tv. so you loose
> > the picture. as for compression I guess pkzip is horible because of
all
> > the stuff It takes off your files to make it that small. did your neck
> > grow a bubble or did the brain you sit on fart?
>
> I nominate this thread for Troll of the year. I have been laughing
> throughout the whole thing. This last bit just sealed its nomination
> to a somewhat dubious honor. I hope others have enjoyed it as much as
> I have. Some, it seems, haven't read the whole thread.
>
> Dean.
>
TODD J PIERCE
> Ben Pearre (m...@bach.marimba.com) wrote:
> : >>> > of over 50,000 movies on tape - let's see you do that with LD or DVD!
> :
> : Oh yeah, and did I forget to mention that if you acquired 50000 movies
> : over the last, say, 20 years, that means that on average you had to
> : acquire almost 7 movies a _day_, every day, for 20 years. ....
>
> I thought that this was an obvious conclusion but since people refuse
> to let it go: I really think the guy threw on an extra zero by mistake.
>
No mistake. That sounds right to me. There are roughtly 10000 titles on
laserdisc, so 5 times that would be about right. Anyway the point is not
that anyone should own 50000 titles on VHS (or 10000 on LD), but that on
either format there are SO MANY more titles to choose from. Even if DVD
takes off (a big if: see Zoom TV, Sony's forthcoming 5" disc, the
pervasive VHS culture) that it will take years for DVD to offer the type
of choices already available in other media, such as laserdisc or VHS.
That, to me, is the one HUGE reason why I'm not buying into DVD. The
quality may be a little better, but it offers nothing new. AT least, not
in its catalogue. I went for LD because LD had--and still has--many
titles and extras not available elsewhere.
Todd
Joe S
Ben Pearre wrote:
>
> >>> Brian Paulsen wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > Why suffer with LD when you can get a nice VCR instead? I got a
> two
> >>> > head VCR for cheap and I can record on it! I now have a
> collection
> DVD!
> >>> > Brian Paulsen
>
> Oh yeah, and did I forget to mention that if you acquired 50000 movies
> over the last, say, 20 years, that means that on average you had to
> only the average. How many times have you acquired more than 12
> movies in a single day? If you eat and sleep, you have never had time
> to watch a single one of them twice. By your tone, I would estimate
> that you're not old enough to have stretched your hobby out for much
> longer than 20 years (or half of that).
Come onnnn...Mr. Paulsen's statement is either a (not-very-witty) joke
or a case of the Wilt Chamberlain syndrome.
Joe
Dean Stevenson
Magnar Strand Olsen
Jim Beane wrote:
>
> > Most LD and DVD movies have missing picture on the top and bottom where
> > black-bars go instead...with VHS I can get the whole picture! Besides, I
> > wouldn't want the AC-3 audio on DVD's because it uses compression. I'll
> > stick with the analog sound on my VHS which is linear.
> >
> > -dave ;)
> Oh my god. Ive never heard someone argue like that. ld does not chop
> off the bottem and top of the picture to make the black bars. thats
> letter box. the way you would see it in a theater. vhs cuts off the
> sides (most of the time)to fill up the screen of your tv. so you loose
> the picture. as for compression I guess pkzip is horible because of all
> the stuff It takes off your files to make it that small. did your neck
> grow a bubble or did the brain you sit on fart?
Seems like someone didn't notice dave's pretty obvious irony...
--
Magnar.
G.L.
I like vhs and have a big room full of them. But I welcome the new format. I
can fit 25 movies in a little holder the size of one vhs tape. And if I play a
DVD 7 times they quality is the same every time. I played Billy Madison on VHS
about 10 times and its all distored now. The sound espically! I like my stuff
to be durable. Im planning to have both. Everytime I get a movie on DVD that I
already have on VHS..i'll just sell my vhs copy or record over it with porno
or something.
>I record my 50000 VHS movies in LP speed! I can get three movies per
>tape!!! DVD and LD suck because you can't do that. And my movies look
>great on my mis-calibrated/sharpness maxed/27"/4:3 TV!!!
>
>Most LD and DVD movies have missing picture on the top and bottom where
>black-bars go instead...with VHS I can get the whole picture! Besides, I
>wouldn't want the AC-3 audio on DVD's because it uses compression. I'll
>stick with the analog sound on my VHS which is linear.
>
>-dave ;)
G.L.
I'm thirsty
Please email reply to: gl...@mid-night.com
Daemon Thread
On Fri, 8 Aug 1997 17:40:16 -0400, TODD J PIERCE <tjp...@mailer.fsu.edu> wrote:
% > Ben Pearre (m...@bach.marimba.com) wrote:
% > : >>> > of over 50,000 movies on tape - let's see you do that with LD or DVD!
% > :
% > : Oh yeah, and did I forget to mention that if you acquired 50000 movies
% > : over the last, say, 20 years, that means that on average you had to
% > : acquire almost 7 movies a _day_, every day, for 20 years. ....
% >
% > I thought that this was an obvious conclusion but since people refuse
% > to let it go: I really think the guy threw on an extra zero by mistake.
% >
% No mistake. That sounds right to me. There are roughtly 10000 titles on
% laserdisc, so 5 times that would be about right. Anyway the point is not
% that anyone should own 50000 titles on VHS (or 10000 on LD), but that on
% either format there are SO MANY more titles to choose from. Even if DVD
% takes off (a big if: see Zoom TV, Sony's forthcoming 5" disc, the
% pervasive VHS culture) that it will take years for DVD to offer the type
% of choices already available in other media, such as laserdisc or VHS.
% That, to me, is the one HUGE reason why I'm not buying into DVD. The
% quality may be a little better, but it offers nothing new. AT least, not
% in its catalogue. I went for LD because LD had--and still has--many
% titles and extras not available elsewhere.
%
% Todd
Considering the popularity of VHS, why shouldnt DVD take of? It sucks a little
less. I am only buying a DVD player because my current LD player won't track
anymore. I will probably get it fixed sometime so I can watch my laserdiscs for a
few more years. In the meantime, I am getting the Pioneer Combi player. The only
downside, besides the price, is the video DAC is only 9 bit.
--
David Steuber
The astigmatic, myopic visionary
http://www.david-steuber.com <currently broken>
david at david-steuber.com
If I've learned anything from the Florida Tourism commercials,
it is _NEVER_ say, "Honey, pinch me."
TODD J PIERCE
>
> Considering the popularity of VHS, why shouldnt DVD take of? It sucks a little
> less. I am only buying a DVD player because my current LD player won't track
> anymore. I will probably get it fixed sometime so I can watch my laserdiscs for a
> few more years. In the meantime, I am getting the Pioneer Combi player. The only
> downside, besides the price, is the video DAC is only 9 bit.
Why shouldn't DVD take off? Well, for all the same reasons Sony MiniDisc
and DAT did not take off, desite high expectations and advertising and
software placement in stores. Simple, for the average consumer, DVD does
not represent a significant improvement over what they have, either LD or
VHS. There's just a tiny software library. In short, DVD is a neat
technology, but until we get HiDef TV, the average consumer is still going
to be happy with the VCR and the Thousands of titles at Blockbuster.
Todd
Chris Dugger
Let's keep in mind that MiniDisc and DAT have had very little support
from the major recording studios!
That does make a difference.
So far you have
NEW LINE
WARNER
MGM
LIVE
UNIVERSAL
COLUMBIA/TRISTAR
placing software at a increased rate.
Studios out
DISNEY
FOX
PARAMOUNT
all have looked into DVD and have committed to the format when certain
issues are resolved.
Chris
Jonathan Gleich
DaViD Boulet/Don Harley <dha...@bellatlantic.net> Wrote:
>I record my 50000 VHS movies in LP speed! I can get three movies per
>tape!!! DVD and LD suck because you can't do that. And my movies look
>great on my mis-calibrated/sharpness maxed/27"/4:3 TV!!!
>Most LD and DVD movies have missing picture on the top and bottom where
>black-bars go instead...with VHS I can get the whole picture!
>Besides, I wouldn't want the AC-3 audio on DVD's because it uses
>compression. I'll stick with the analog sound on my VHS which is
>linear.
-dave ;)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Dave, I hope YOU are kidding!
If not Prozac may be in order for you!
Jonathan
TODD J PIERCE
>
> Half of HOLLYWOOD??????? WHAT?
>
> The only studios that ARE NOT releasing are:
>
> Paramount
> Fox
> Disney (Touchstone, Miramax are Disney owned.... Hollywood Pic's was
> shut down by Disney)
Disney and its subsideries (miramax, touchstone, hollywood, jim henson,
etc.) release roughly one third of all movies to come out of hollywood
studios. At least they did last year. When you add in Fox and Paramount.
You have roughly have of hollywood. Not half of the hollywood studios.
But half of the films produced by the big studios last year.
T
TODD J PIERCE
On Sun, 10 Aug 1997, Chris Dugger wrote:
>
> Let's keep in mind that MiniDisc and DAT have had very little support
> from the major recording studios!
>
Paramount. Mirimax. Hollywood Pictures. Fox. Touchstone. All of them
out of DVD. No official Support. That's half of hollywood. IT's what I
call little support. Not to mention MCA which isn't really releasing much
at all. With their paltry offerings, I couldn't really *count* them in on
DVD. Not really.
Just my point of view.
T
Silly_Grin_on_Face
I've been following this thread for about a week.
There are some interesting points being made here.
but a little background to the points would be
helpful. Such as:
DAT never gained popularity because record
companies never supported it, and did their best
to kill it. Mini-disc was from Sony, only from
Sony. The record companies didn't want to split
their resources to three formats: Cassette, CD,
Mini-disc.
Record companies don't like splitting resources to
more than two formats. That's why 8-track died in
favour of cassettes, That's why vinyl died (for
the most part) in favour of CDs. Unless a system
is truely exceptional and can replace what is now
in use, it won't get the chance.
DVD has that potential.
Another point is: it took six years (85-91) before
CDs gained wide spread acceptance.
Let's see how popular DVD is in six years.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
known this week as "Silly_Grin_on_Face"
known last week as "The Smiley_Faced_Guy"
known once upon a time as "A_silly_guy"
known by his enemies as "That_F*****g_A*****e"
known by his friends as "Oh, THAT_F*****g_A*****e"
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
David Waterston
Five years after its initial release Mini-Disc is finally taking off here
in Europe - they are available in almost every high street.
This is partly because it has been repositioned as a long overdue
replacement for Compact Cassette not a competitor to CD. There are literaly
dozens of 'walkman' style MD recorders / players available from
manufacturers such as Sony, Aiwa, Sharp, JVC, etc. etc.
This mirrors what happened in Europe with LD - Pioneer single-handedly kept
the format going long after every other manufacturer had abandoned it.
From where I'm standing, DVD is in a much healthier position now (after a
few months) than both minidisc and LD were after 3/4 years of promotion.
Silly_Grin_on_Face <sillygr...@silly.grin.org> wrote in article
<5sl3cm$g...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>...
Chris Dugger
Half of HOLLYWOOD??????? WHAT?
The only studios that ARE NOT releasing are:
Paramount
Fox
Disney (Touchstone, Miramax are Disney owned.... Hollywood Pic's was
shut down by Disney)
All 3 Studios HAVE committed to DVD when the copyright issues are
finalized!
All 3 have secured Macrovision rights for DVD. All 3 have made inquiry
to pressing plants.
2 have allowed reproduction of film segments of their films for DVD
demos.
Why are you so hell and bend over trying to bad mouth DVD.
UNIVERSAL's move to DVD IS a smart move. You may not find their titles
to your liking, but the inclusion of all the kid titles in a kid titles
starved market is pretty smart.
Just my point of view.....
Chris
Eyal Sahron
It's not the collection thing, smartass...
It's the entertaiment of quality and 5.1 channels beautiful surround
sound.
I call it BREATHING TECHNOLOGY .......
Eyal.s
DaViD Boulet/Don Harley
I was in stiches when I typed that "DVD and LD chop off the picture"
line. :) Just a little humor in an otherwise heavy-handed debate forum!
-dave
Dick Schardt wrote:
>
> It would take a month to read the whole thread. A lot of people got sucked
> in. I agree this is the troll of the month.
> --
>
> ---------------
> Regards,
> Dick
>
> Dean Stevenson <deanst...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
> <33EB7F...@worldnet.att.net>...
> > Jim Beane wrote:
> > >
> > > > Most LD and DVD movies have missing picture on the top and bottom
> where
> > > > black-bars go instead...with VHS I can get the whole picture!
> Besides, I
> > > > wouldn't want the AC-3 audio on DVD's because it uses compression.
> I'll
> > > > stick with the analog sound on my VHS which is linear.
> > > >
> > > > -dave ;)
David R. Smith
now thats humor :)
Dick Schardt <dicks...@ibm.net> wrote in article
<01bca66e$3b56f820$8c5a2581@dsawrk01>...
> Hey, my DVD sucked the other day. It sucked in two easy chairs and an
> ottoman. Do you think I'll ever get them back? I still don't know why it
> did it.
> --
>
> ---------------
> Regards,
> Dick
>
> Magnar Strand Olsen <mag...@marin.ntnu.no> wrote in article
> <33EC56...@marin.ntnu.no>...
> > Jim Beane wrote:
> > >
> > > > Most LD and DVD movies have missing picture on the top and bottom
> where
> > > > black-bars go instead...with VHS I can get the whole picture!
> Besides, I
> > > > wouldn't want the AC-3 audio on DVD's because it uses compression.
> I'll
> > > > stick with the analog sound on my VHS which is linear.
> > > >
> > > > -dave ;)
> > > Oh my god. Ive never heard someone argue like that. ld does not
chop
> > > off the bottem and top of the picture to make the black bars. thats
> > > letter box. the way you would see it in a theater. vhs cuts off the
> > > sides (most of the time)to fill up the screen of your tv. so you
loose
> > > the picture. as for compression I guess pkzip is horible because of
> all
> > > the stuff It takes off your files to make it that small. did your
neck
> > > grow a bubble or did the brain you sit on fart?
> >
> >
Brian Paulsen
Joe S wrote:
> > >>> Brian Paulsen wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > Why suffer with LD when you can get a nice VCR instead? I got
> > >>> > a two head VCR for cheap and I can record on it! I now have a
> > >>> > that with LD or DVD!
> Come onnnn...Mr. Paulsen's statement is either a (not-very-witty) joke
> or a case of the Wilt Chamberlain syndrome.
Well, *I* thought it was witty when I wrote it. Unfortunately, the
humor-impaired people on this group cut out the rest of the post which
(I thought) clearly showed that the entire posting was a joke.
I'm starting to agree with the thread that humor should not be allowed
on the internet because too many people don't understand the difference
between a joke and seriousness.
By the way, when I try posting a joke, I put smiley faces in my post.
At some point, I thought this was understood terminology for "a joke
is coming up."
Also, regarding Wilt..., you can imagine what 20000 of these tapes
contain... :-) (that was a joke for you humor-impaired people out
there!)
--
Brian Paulsen
David R. Smith
Brian,
I agree somewhat with what you are saying but just last month I purchased
a new 4 head sony vcr and watched a lot of tapes on it. Just last week I
got a laserdisc player....why? For one I want the best picture I can get
with the best sound with NO PAN AND SCAN. Photography is a hobby of mine
so naturally I like to see the nice panaromics of wide screen. Ever watch
Lawrence of arabia in pan and scan? YUCK! I tried to buy all the movies
that I could in widescreen on vhs....know what? there are not that many. I
could not even find the thx version of star wars in widescreen on vhs. I
know I am rambling but there is some form here... (you cannot use this
statement against me:)) ok about the sound...there is not a huge
difference in the sound of a hi-fi vcr and a laser UNDER pro-logic, but I
would like to see you do ac-3 with a hi-fi vcr. As far as picture it is
dramatically better IMHO especially with S-video. Just yesterday I popped
in the widescreen version of die hard 3 VHS and immediately I cringed. Yes
I know I cannot record but tv sucks anyway, AND I do not like copying
things the quality stinks. I think my dad fits in the same category as you
(please dont take this as an insult) I went over to his house the other day
so he could show me his new HT. He bought a nice sony rear projection with
a nice surround system and to demo it for me he showed me a DUBBED copy of
jurrasic park..again I had to kill the cringe reflex so he would not feel
bad:) Did I have prior knowledge it was a copy? nope you can just tell.
I guess I look at it like this...if you are happy with mediocrity so be
it. But if you want the best you pay for the best, and if the best cannot
record well I always have my vcr. hope this helps!
Brian Paulsen <bpau...@lehman.com> wrote in article
<33EF354B...@lehman.com>...
Silly_Grin_on_Face
Hey, That's what my VCR did with my bean bag chair
in '84. Back then everybody said VHS sucked. Boy
was I surprised
Dick Schardt wrote:
}Hey, my DVD sucked the other day. It sucked in
two easy chairs and an ottoman. Do you think I'll
ever get them back? I still don't know why it did
it.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!
known this week as "Silly_Grin_on_Face"
known last week as "The Smiley_Faced_Guy"
known once upon a time as "A_silly_guy"
known by his enemies as "That_F*****g_A*****e"
known by his friends as "Oh, THAT_F*****g_A*****e"
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dick Schardt
Hey, my DVD sucked the other day. It sucked in two easy chairs and an
ottoman. Do you think I'll ever get them back? I still don't know why it
did it.
Jeff Ryan
Other reasons that DVD may not take off:
1. It is not programmable. People want to be able to record shows, movies,
etc. Unlikely with DVD.
2. The market can only support so many media. VHS didn't replace anything,
so it was very successful. CDs did require replacement (or at least
augmentation) of existing libraries. No one wants to got through that
again.
3. It is not backwards-compatible with CD.
4. The laser disc market is saturated and declining, an obvious proof of
No. 2, above.
Jeff Ryan
Michael Voigt
Jeff Ryan wrote:
> Other reasons that DVD may not take off:
>
> 1. It is not programmable. People want to be able to record
> shows, movies,
> etc. Unlikely with DVD.
>
Coming.
> 2. The market can only support so many media. VHS didn't replace
> anything,
> so it was very successful. CDs did require replacement (or at least
> augmentation) of existing libraries. No one wants to got through that
>
> again.
>
VHS is outdated, and not up to the demands of the digital world. It
will be replaced - whether by DVD or something yot to come, is
uncertain, but DVD will be the first real attempt at changing that.
> 3. It is not backwards-compatible with CD.
Ehhh, my CD's sound BETTER playing through my DVD player than through
any of my CD players.
>
>
> 4. The laser disc market is saturated and declining, an obvious
> proof of
> No. 2, above.
Laserdisc did not take off due to marketing problems - see Betamax, see
DAT, etc. Look at VHS, which folks supported, and it took off. But, it
too needed its startup time. Just like DVD does. LD IS a fine format.
However, DVD is, I think, destined to be its successor after some time.
Frankly, I can just hope that all that which is out on LD now will also
be out on DVD, otherwise some of our culture will be lost, possibly
forever.
I never owned an LD player - but I respect its presence as that which
made DVD possible, as I am a DVD owner. I must sya, however, that I
would have bought an LD player if DVD had not come out at this time...
due to the awful mess that VHS is.
>
>
> Jeff Ryan
--
Mike Voigt
The opinions above are mine, no one else's except by accident.
To send e-mail to me, remove the '!@nospam@#.' from the address above.
DaViD Boulet/Don Harley
Dick Schardt wrote:
> Hey, my DVD sucked the other day. It sucked in two easy chairs and an
> ottoman. Do you think I'll ever get them back? I still don't know why it
> did it.
*FINALLY* someone else confirmed my experience! I was beginning to
wonder if it was just *my* DVD's.
I haven't done a double-blind ABX test, so these are only my subjective
impressions (please, don't take them as fact), but it seems that my
DVD's which are P/S can such a whole-lot more furniture than my
widescreen versions. Discs that have both versions also suck alot (I've
taken to keeping my DVD's far away from my furniture for this reason),
but I'm starting to wonder if it's the P/S *side* of my dual-layer discs
that's doing most of the sucking. Haven't noticed if my 2-channel AC-3
discs suck more than my 5.1 channel, but I'll keep an eye out.
Could it be that the missing picture-information on the P/S versions
leaves more room available for the furniture? I wish somebody who knows
more about this than I do would respond and let us know!
-dave
> Magnar Strand Olsen <mag...@marin.ntnu.no> wrote in article
> <33EC56...@marin.ntnu.no>...
> > Jim Beane wrote:
> > > > Most LD and DVD movies have missing picture on the top and bottom
> where
> > > > black-bars go instead...with VHS I can get the whole picture!
> Besides, I
> > > > wouldn't want the AC-3 audio on DVD's because it uses compression.
> I'll
> > > > stick with the analog sound on my VHS which is linear.
> > > > -dave ;)
> > > Oh my god. Ive never heard someone argue like that. ld does not chop
> > > off the bottem and top of the picture to make the black bars. thats
> > > letter box. the way you would see it in a theater. vhs cuts off the
> > > sides (most of the time)to fill up the screen of your tv. so you loose
> > > the picture. as for compression I guess pkzip is horible because of
> all
> > > the stuff It takes off your files to make it that small. did your neck
> > > grow a bubble or did the brain you sit on fart?
> > Seems like someone didn't notice dave's pretty obvious irony...
> > Magnar.
SYNCRO
Brian Paulsen wrote:
>
> Joe S wrote:
>
> > > >>> Brian Paulsen wrote:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Why suffer with LD when you can get a nice VCR instead? I got
> > > >>> > a two head VCR for cheap and I can record on it! I now have a
> > > >>> > collection of over 50,000 movies on tape - let's see you do
> > > >>> > that with LD or DVD!
>
> > Come onnnn...Mr. Paulsen's statement is either a (not-very-witty) joke
> > or a case of the Wilt Chamberlain syndrome.
>
> Well, *I* thought it was witty when I wrote it. Unfortunately, the
> humor-impaired people on this group cut out the rest of the post which
> (I thought) clearly showed that the entire posting was a joke.
>
> I'm starting to agree with the thread that humor should not be allowed
> on the internet because too many people don't understand the difference
> between a joke and seriousness.
>
> By the way, when I try posting a joke, I put smiley faces in my post.
> At some point, I thought this was understood terminology for "a joke
> is coming up."
>
> Also, regarding Wilt..., you can imagine what 20000 of these tapes
> contain... :-) (that was a joke for you humor-impaired people out
> there!)
>
> --
When you are done recording each tape, take that head and put it in the
other position and record again, using the other half of the tape.
Thats what I did, and rather than buy all those tapes, I pasted together
some old quarter inch reel to reels that I had gotten tired of, making
half inch tape.
Tim Mullin
In article <5soe2e$k...@ecuador.earthlink.net>,
"voigtmh@!@nospam"@#.earthlink.net says...
>
>VHS is outdated, and not up to the demands of the digital world. It
This is true. This is also why I believe DVD will fail to catch on.
>will be replaced - whether by DVD or something yot to come, is
>uncertain, but DVD will be the first real attempt at changing that.
What will keep it from catching on? Consider this....the magic price
point for consumer acceptence is generally conceded to be around $200. My
guess is that DVD should reach that point just about one year from now. Just
about then HDTV will be looming large in television viewers future (in the
top 30 television markets at least). Not only will HDTV mean a new television
set, but also that the old VHS won't tape General Hospital, Letterman, or
whatever. So, the consumer is going to faced with having to dish out the
money for a HDTV tape machine sooner or later--probably sooner. So, Joe
Sixpack will be face with buying a DVD that won't record his favorite shows,
or waiting six months to a year for a DVTR that will provide probably the
same (maybe better?) quality as DVD, AND be able to record. My bet is that
the consumer will wait.
DaViD Boulet/Don Harley
Good point. Of course, the "consumers" who would only have a budget for
a video-upgrade of around $200 wouldn't be buying HDTV's.
They'd get the $100 down-converter box instead. Maybe it will fit nicely
on top of their DVD player :)
-dave
Clyde Coffey
tvph...@earthlink.net (Tim Mullin) wrote:
> What will keep it from catching on? Consider this....the magic price
>point for consumer acceptence is generally conceded to be around $200.
I don't know if this is true, but let's accept it for now...
>about then HDTV will be looming large in television viewers future (in the
>top 30 television markets at least).
Who cares? By your reasoning, it won't be accepted by consumers. You
won't be able to buy an HDTV for $200. Or for that matter, $2000.
>Not only will HDTV mean a new television
>set, but also that the old VHS won't tape General Hospital, Letterman, or
>whatever.
The flaw in this argument is that the old VHS *will* record GH,
Letterman, and everything else. The consumers who haven't accepted
HDTV will see no need for a new digital VCR.
>So, the consumer is going to faced with having to dish out the
>money for a HDTV tape machine sooner or later--probably sooner. So, Joe
>Sixpack will be face with buying a DVD that won't record his favorite shows,
>or waiting six months to a year for a DVTR that will provide probably the
>same (maybe better?) quality as DVD, AND be able to record. My bet is that
>the consumer will wait.
Will there be a DVCR that works with HDTV *and* has much prerecorded
software in six months to a year? Almost certainly not. There will not
be enough of a market to support prerecorded software for many years
to come. These things take time.
DaViD Boulet/Don Harley
Jeff Ryan wrote:
>
> Other reasons that DVD may not take off:
>
> 1. It is not programmable. People want to be able to record shows, movies,
> etc. Unlikely with DVD.
That's why DVD dealers decided *not* to require mandatory trade-in of
VHS hardware when you purchase a DVD player :) DVD players and VHS
recorders can coexist like CD player and Cassette recorder in your
stereo.
> 2. The market can only support so many media. VHS didn't replace anything,
> so it was very successful. CDs did require replacement (or at least
> augmentation) of existing libraries. No one wants to got through that
> again.
It that what's responsible for CD's lack of acceptance among consumers?
> 3. It is not backwards-compatible with CD.
Well, the glass is at *least* half-full...because I *can* play my CD's
on my DVD player. Guess what...VHS isn't backwards compatible with CD's.
When I put a VHS tape in my CD player it breaks, and when I put a CD in
my VHS player it just keeps blinking "12:00" and doesn't do anything.
> 4. The laser disc market is saturated and declining, an obvious proof of
> No. 2, above.
As obvious proof? Why not phrase that "many videophiles have backed off
from plopping down $40 a title for a format which had to be flipped when
they heard that a $20 a title format was coming out with superior
picture quality and no side-breaks." Where have all those disappearing
LD buyers gone? They're buying DVD!
So in one respect you are right...two formats sometimes have a heard
time coexising. In the case of laserdisc and DVD, since DVD's picture is
superior and so are its features, DVD has cut into the LD market and
will eventually overtake it.
And once prices on players come down a little, DVD players can be
marketed to the VHS consumer as "a CD player that also plays movies!"
(with better than laserdisc picture quality)
-dave
Julian
Why is everyone going on about Macrovision copy protection. I just set my
Xerox to auto and copy the disk I have seen no problem. And I don't even
have switches. I did have a problem when I used the sheet feeder but now I
understand to put the disk straight on the glass and lower the lid gently.
I get really good copies every time.
Jules:-)
steve
You guys should actually look at the technology and why these things are
that way before you post something that Home Theatre fanatics can laugh at!
Julian <fk...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in article
<01bca991$4ba52f00$f6fc82c1@julian>...
>
> >
> > Most LD and DVD movies have missing picture on the top and bottom where
> > black-bars go instead...with VHS I can get the whole picture! Besides,
I
> > wouldn't want the AC-3 audio on DVD's because it uses compression. I'll
> > stick with the analog sound on my VHS which is linear.
> >
> > -dave ;)
> >
>
> Exactly - my ears don't work in digital so why have a digital sound - it
> doesn't make sense does it!
>
> jules :-)
>
Julian
Jeff Ryan <jsrt...@colorado.net> wrote in article
<01bca6ae$d3458440$f30b...@jsrtheta.colorado.net>...
> Other reasons that DVD may not take off:
>
> 1. It is not programmable. People want to be able to record shows,
movies,
> etc. Unlikely with DVD.
They can use there VCR because the quality from the TV is not good enough
for DVD anyway.
>
> 2. The market can only support so many media. VHS didn't replace
anything,
> so it was very successful. CDs did require replacement (or at least
> augmentation) of existing libraries. No one wants to got through that
> again.
VHS replaced Betamax primarily but also Video 2000 and I think one or two
others like Beovision ( all such a long time ago)
>
> 3. It is not backwards-compatible with CD.
DVD players play DVD - that is backwards comaptible isn't it?
>
> 4. The laser disc market is saturated and declining, an obvious proof of
> No. 2, above.
The laser disc market is not saturated - it is growing in Europe.
Your reasons are inconclusive.
Anyway they are a bit behind the times because in some markets DVD has
taken off (Japan for instance)
Jules
Espen Braathen
vacum cleaners "sucks", DVD does not...
EspenB
Julian
Julian
Some TVs I have seen seem to be even thinner than normal. I guess they chop
off even more - right.
Jules :-)
DaViD Boulet/Don Harley <dha...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in article
<33EF1D...@bellatlantic.net>...
Julian
> I nominate this thread for Troll of the year. I have been laughing
> throughout the whole thing. This last bit just sealed its nomination
> to a somewhat dubious honor. I hope others have enjoyed it as much as
> I have. Some, it seems, haven't read the whole thread.
>
> Dean.
>
even more humour (UK spelling) formats than Video I guess
Jules
Jun Yao Robato
Julian wrote:
>
> >
> > Most LD and DVD movies have missing picture on the top and bottom where
> > black-bars go instead...with VHS I can get the whole picture! Besides, I
> > wouldn't want the AC-3 audio on DVD's because it uses compression. I'll
> > stick with the analog sound on my VHS which is linear.
> >
> > -dave ;)
> >
Actually, you don't see the whole picture in VHS. You see the WHOLE
picture in widescreen formats (the one you just described as the black
bars on the top & bottom of the picture screen) that LDs & DVDs provide.
Jun
Ming-teh Sun
>Jun
Maybe the ;) meant he was just kidding, but who knows... ;)
Anyway, one of the worst things about pan-and-scan isn't just
the lost material, but the extra "camera" movement that the editor
introduces when they're cutting the widescreen frame down to TV-
proportions. Have you seen "The Professional" in P&S? Wow, that'll
give you motion sickness...
Ming-Teh
AJ
Jeff Ryan wrote:
>
> Other reasons that DVD may not take off:
>
> 1. It is not programmable. People want to be able to record shows, movies,
> etc. Unlikely with DVD.
>
whatever they want. If DVD offers substantial quality improvements over
PRE-RECORDED media, then the argument fails. If I could buy films for
less than the price of LDs with the same or better quality, I'd be
jumping at it (I'm in Australia, we still don't have DVD yet).
> 2. The market can only support so many media. VHS didn't replace anything,
> so it was very successful. CDs did require replacement (or at least
> augmentation) of existing libraries. No one wants to got through that
> again.
>
This is really silly. You're saying that any new product is doomed to
fail if it tries to replace something that already exists. So, the
technological advance of humanity grinds to a halt, and all new SUPERIOR
technology that is introduced is no longer neccessary?? While we're on
the subject, the replacement argument is only valid if you already have
a collection to replace. For example, I am 23, and consequently only had
a few LPs when CD was introduced. I have only had an LD player for 6
months, and so the same argument applies to all the people who are
complaining about the new Star Wars LDs. I never had a chance to buy any
of the previous versions, so I am quite happy to see a new (improved
(AC-3)) version available.
> 3. It is not backwards-compatible with CD.
>
It's like the whole PC OS problem. We have the ability to design
radically different and state of the art operating systems, but we have
to maintain compatibilty with existing software, etc. There will be no
REAL progress, technologically speaking, if we have to worry about the
old systems all the time. By the way, I'm not sure I understand the
problem. As far as I know, all DVD players play CDs.
> 4. The laser disc market is saturated and declining, an obvious proof of
> No. 2, above.
>
> Jeff Ryan
So... bye bye laser? I doubt it. Not for a while yet. DVD is a
significant improvement over VHS, no doubt. But not enough over laser to
warrant its widespread replacement. Give it time. The Earth's population
is growing, the markets can surely handle a new format :)
AJ
Patrick T. Chamberlain
>>Anyway, one of the worst things about pan-and-scan isn't just
the lost material, but the extra "camera" movement that the editor
introduces when they're cutting the widescreen frame down to TV-
proportions.<<
Another terrible aspect of Pan and Scan is the resulting "blow up" of the
image. It causes fuzziness and graininess and makes the image look like a
3rd generation dupe. It's amazing to me that it took America so long to
catch on to the benifits of the letterbox format since Europe and Japan
were routinely letterboxing films for television broadcasting since the mid
70's.
The first film that made me aware that image was being eliminated due to
Pan and Scan was the MCA DiscoVision disc of EARTHQUAKE. Because of the
pan and scan, scenes take on an entirely different look, and the
destruction of LA dosen't look nearly as bad. In MCA's first pan and scan
re-release on LD, they completely "scanned off" the Capitol Records
building collapsing. It looks like the scene isn't even present in the
film. Oops!
With the "new" Widescreen release on LD, it's like a different film, with
broad vistas of destruction visible and subtle (wonderful) effects, such as
the Wilson Plaza shifting off its foundation during the 1st aftershock. And
the Capitol Records building is now visible with the side of it falling
away.
Now if MCA would just release this film on DVD with a 5.1 channel
soundtrack and the Sensurround rumble on the .1 subwoof track... that would
be COOL... (MIDWAY, ROLLERCOASTER and BATTLESTAR GALACTICA too!)
--
In Quad,
Ty Chamberlain
Visit my SQ Quadraphonic and DTS Fan Club web pages at:
http://members.aol.com/stereoboy AND
http://members.aol.com/dtsfanclub
Brian L. McCarty
In article <33F533...@adl.auslink.net>, AJ <rep...@adl.auslink.net>
writes:
> This is really silly. You're saying that any new product is doomed to
> fail if it tries to replace something that already exists. So,
> the technological advance of humanity grinds to a halt, and all
> new SUPERIOR technology that is introduced is no longer neccessary??
Jeff is more right than wrong on this point, AJ. For example, jets replaced
props in a very few years. . .because they were CLEARLY SUPERIOR. A new
product fails if it has only minimal advantages to what it intends to replace.
While the airlines all owned prop planes, they were easily converted when the
massive advantages became clear. What advantages are there vis-a vis DVD and
VHS? If you make a list of the advantages, you will see that the so-called
"quality improvements" are much less important to the general public than
recording, cheap blank media, cheap recorded media, etc. DVD fails the test
for all but just another "niche" format.
Brian
A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention in
human history....with the possible exception of handguns and Irish
whiskey . . . .
Richard Arthur
I can see the industrial, commercial and rental markets will prefer
DVD to tapes. How many times can a DVD CD be played before it is worn
out? How many times for a VHS Tape?
I can see video rental places like Blockbusters salavating at the
possiblilty of renting DVD CDs instead of Tapes.
Well..... Give five more years and we'll see.
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Formerly known as "The Smiley_Faced_Guy" & "Silly_Grin_on_Face" &
"A_silly_guy"
Known by his enemies as "That_F*****g_A*****e"
Known by his friends as "Oh, THAT_F*****g_A*****e"
known by 6.2 billion other people as "Who?"
WARNING: My Provider tracks down Spammers and KILLS them (yes,yes,yes)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
TODD J PIERCE
Actually, I've heard Blockbuster has had trouble with the DVD rentals.
They're very easy to scartch and damage.
Todd
On Sun, 17 Aug 1997, Richard Arthur wrote:
> Date: Sun, 17 Aug 1997 12:14:07 -0600
> From: Richard Arthur <the_smiley...@silly.grin.org>
> Reply-To: provider_jams_spam@your_dead.com
> Newsgroups: alt.video.dvd, alt.video.laserdisc, rec.audio.opinion,
> rec.audio.misc
> Subject: Who really prefers DVD (was Why DVD sucks:)
Mike Richter
Richard Arthur wrote:
>
> I can see the industrial, commercial and rental markets will prefer
> DVD to tapes. How many times can a DVD CD be played before it is worn
> out? How many times for a VHS Tape?
> I can see video rental places like Blockbusters salavating at the
> possiblilty of renting DVD CDs instead of Tapes.
You have it backward - unfortunately. The producers want DVD, not the
typical buyers or rental outfits. The people in ng's are atypical - and
we need to remember that. Believe me, there are far more people out
there listening to their rented tapes on the 4" speaker in their
Goldstar 19" single-field misaligned TV sets than there are with DD, AC3
or even a subwoofer. And far more watch Barney programs than Argenta
films.
(I suspect that the rental places like the fact that DVD's are not prone
to copying, but practically none of their customers knows how to do it
anyway - and those who do usually lack the hardware. Of the real
pirates, the ones who rip off films and sell the product, I have nothing
to say in a public forum such as this.)
The studios and others like the idea that DVD's are essentially
unrecordable and impossible to tape. Now if only they can figure out how
to make the rental shops pay each time a DVD goes out the door ...
Mike
mric...@mindspring.com
http://mrichter.simplenet.com
CD-R http://resource.simplenet.com
Larry Kabo
>In article <33F533...@adl.auslink.net>, AJ <rep...@adl.auslink.net>
>writes:
>> This is really silly. You're saying that any new product is doomed to
>> fail if it tries to replace something that already exists. So,
>> the technological advance of humanity grinds to a halt, and all
>> new SUPERIOR technology that is introduced is no longer neccessary??
>
>
>Jeff is more right than wrong on this point, AJ. For example, jets replaced
>props in a very few years. .
And the question is.... What are turbo-props? Are they still in use
today?
.because they were CLEARLY SUPERIOR. A new
>product fails if it has only minimal advantages to what it intends to replace.
>While the airlines all owned prop planes, they were easily converted when the
>massive advantages became clear. What advantages are there vis-a vis DVD and
>VHS? If you make a list of the advantages, you will see that the so-called
>"quality improvements" are much less important to the general public than
>recording, cheap blank media, cheap recorded media, etc. DVD fails the test
>for all but just another "niche" format.
>
Here I agree, DVD comes along and offers improvements in some areas
(video) degraded quality in others (sound, particuarly Dolby surround,
which is what the general public has if they have surround sound)
meaning overall a product which offers little to most, save they are
in on the latest marketing scheme. Yes a whole new technology
creating a whole new revenue stream for all! What will happen to
consumer confidence when they really do a serious comparison between
DVD and LD and when they find out that DVD player they own is just
another format a part of a niche market and are left holding a DVD
player with 300 whole titles wishing they had the selection of the 12"
format? The shame of it all is that may kill the LD market for the
sake of "something new" and a new revenue stream. Sad indeed.
Arny Krüger
Julian <fk...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in article
<01bca991$4ba52f00$f6fc82c1@julian>...
> >
>
> Exactly - my ears don't work in digital so why have a digital sound - it
> doesn't make sense does it!
>
I guess you have ears that are not connected to nerves with synapses. Do
you know how nerves work?
Patrick T. Chamberlain
>>Unfortunately DVD discs are allegedly more suseptible to picture
> glitches when they are scratched. They are not as robust as CDs because
> the information is stored in a more compact manner.<<
Based on my own "home" experiments, I would say that DVD is more robust
than CD. I have the NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD THX EDITION DVD, and it has
the same content on both sides, so I decided to, uh, "sacrifice" one side
in the name of science! I made radial scratches, circular scratches,
greasy finger prints and scotch tape strips on the disc, and the damage had
to be MUCH worse than even a CD could cope with before there was any
problem playing the DVD on my Pioneer DVL-700 LD/DVD player. DVD
"degrades" differently than we are used to with LD's (of course!) in that a
scratch or finger print has no effect till it reaches a certain level of
damage, then small artifacts begin to appear in the picture, such as
blocking, pixelization, and the audio and video losing synch with
eachother. Then, it will skip or stop playing alltogether. The important
thing to note however is that the level of damage needed to notice
degradation of a DVD-Video disc is much, much higher than an LD or CD could
tolerate.
Yes, the MPEG-2 data is very compressed on the disc (140:1 average
compression), but remember, a DVD is not like a CD at all except in size.
The data surface is much closer to the laser so light is not scattered as
much and the laser can "see thru" much more debris than a CD --- the low
wavelength red laser also is much better at making scratches "invisible" to
the optics than an infrared laser (one of the advantages of the old top
loading, He-Ne tube laser LD players from the late 70's -early 80's), and
the DVD format has about 4 times more redundancy than CD-Audio built in,
not to mention a much more robust error correction system, more robust
modulation scheme, etc... all of these add up to a system that can stand up
to the rigors of the rental market. Because DVD has been aimed squarely at
the mass market since the beginning, do you really think the designers
didn't take rental abuse of the disc into account when designing the
format? That's why Sony's modulation and error correction scheme from the
MMCD was chosen for the unified disc, since Toshiba's SD system wasn't
nearly as robust.
Julian
When I mentioned my analogue ears I was joking - sorry I thought it was
funny.
Jules
steve <trad...@ameritech.net> wrote in article
<01bca9ac$72aada80$28e1...@tradewind.ameritech.net>...
> You guys should actually look at the technology and why these things are
> that way before you post something that Home Theatre fanatics can laugh
at!
>
> Julian <fk...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in article
> <01bca991$4ba52f00$f6fc82c1@julian>...
> >
> > >
> > > Most LD and DVD movies have missing picture on the top and bottom
where
> > > black-bars go instead...with VHS I can get the whole picture!
Besides,
> I
> > > wouldn't want the AC-3 audio on DVD's because it uses compression.
I'll
> > > stick with the analog sound on my VHS which is linear.
> > >
> > > -dave ;)
> > >
> >
> > Exactly - my ears don't work in digital so why have a digital sound -
it
> > doesn't make sense does it!
> >
> > jules :-)
> >
>
Julian
This was a joke O.K. (Not one of my best I know!)
But since you ask I do know the currently held theory behind the workings
of nerves. I would still say that ears (not the nerves they connect to) are
predominantly analogue in terms of detection. Although you are right that
in terms of conveyance of the received signal they are digital.
Arny Krüger <ar...@pop3.concentric.net> wrote in article
<01bcabbe$af1a3ec0$8072...@crc3.concentric.net>...
>
>
> Julian <fk...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in article
> <01bca991$4ba52f00$f6fc82c1@julian>...
> > >
> >
> > Exactly - my ears don't work in digital so why have a digital sound -
it
> > doesn't make sense does it!
> >
>
Chad R Hermann
Excerpts from netnews.alt.home-theater.misc: 18-Aug-97 Re: Why DVD
sucks: by "Arny Kr~ger"@pop3.conce
> > doesn't make sense does it!
> >
>
> I guess you have ears that are not connected to nerves with synapses. Do
> you know how nerves work?
First -- this post was obviously intended as a joke.
Second -- do YOU know how nerves work?
Please tell me you're not suggesting that the human ear transmits
auditory signals in numerical code...
Big difference between ELECTRICAL and DIGITAL.
Chad R Hermann
Excerpts from netnews.alt.home-theater.misc: 18-Aug-97 Re: Why DVD
> in terms of conveyance of the received signal they are digital.
Geez. Here we go again.
Will someone please attempt to explain the logic behind "digital ears"?
Do you all have microchip implants that I don't?
Chad
Kevin Connery
In article <5t8948$g...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>,
Richard Arthur <provider_jams_spam@your_dead.com> wrote:
>I can see the industrial, commercial and rental markets will prefer
>DVD to tapes. How many times can a DVD CD be played before it is worn
>out? How many times for a VHS Tape?
>I can see video rental places like Blockbusters salavating at the
>possiblilty of renting DVD CDs instead of Tapes.
>
>Well..... Give five more years and we'll see.
You'll make a better impression if you just call it DVD. The 2nd D originally
stood for Disc, just as the D in CD does, so saying DVD CD is kinda like
saying The La Brea Tar Pits (translated: saying Digital [Video|Versatile] Disc
Compact Disc is kinda like saying "The The Tar Tar Pits">.
(I tried to mail this privately, but your anti-spam address made it
impractical.)
Mike Muise
[Followups trimmed]
Mike Richter <mric...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> The studios and others like the idea that DVD's are essentially
> unrecordable and impossible to tape. Now if only they can figure out how
> to make the rental shops pay each time a DVD goes out the door ...
The funny thing is, such a way exists, and I have no idea why it isn't used:
make DVD's (or VHS tapes) cost the same as two rentals. That way, the
rental business gets a lot smaller, and the content providers get a lot
more profit. I suspect this isn't done because of tradition: back in the
day, only a theatre could afford to "buy" a movie, and then when cheap
recording (VHS/Beta) became available, they continues this trend by
making the tapes cost $100+. They're cheaper now, but the stdios (or
whomever) still seem to have this idea that a movie should be really
expensive to purchase.
To me, a pre-recorded movie is worth *less* than a CD, because it has
so much less repeat value. How many times can you watch a movie in
one year? If the answer is more than three or four, you have a much
higher tolerance for repetition than I. A CD, however, is usually
good for at least half a dozen listens in the first month, and one
per month after that for a year or so (conservative estimates).
So... why don't movies cost $8? Huh?
cheers,
mike
--
# mike muise, Unix Guy // c-m...@mail.dec.com
perl -e 'print pack"c*",grep{$l=0;$o=96⩝for(split//){$o+=$l=($n=(9..65
,(-15..9,1..6,10)x2)[ord])>$l?$n-2*$l:$n}$_=$o}@R=(X,xxi,xix,xx,I,
xiv,xv,xx,viii,v,ixix,XVI,v,ixix,xii,VIII,i,iii,xi,v,ixix,X7654)'
# "... And it is not fine for gods to menace fools." - Stephen Crane
Rod Williams
Richard Arthur wrote:
>
> I can see the industrial, commercial and rental markets will prefer
> DVD to tapes. How many times can a DVD CD be played before it is worn
> out? How many times for a VHS Tape?
> I can see video rental places like Blockbusters salavating at the
> possiblilty of renting DVD CDs instead of Tapes.
>
> Well..... Give five more years and we'll see.
>
glitches when they are scratched. They are not as robust as CDs because
the rental life of DVDs unless every DVD renter is ultra-careful...the
condition of some VHS rental tapes I've seen tends to make this
possibility unlikely! (perhaps there can be a bond on rented discs??)
-RoD
Brian L. McCarty
> In article <5t8948$g...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, Richard Arthur
> <provider_jams_spam@your_dead.com> wrote:
>
> >I can see the industrial, commercial and rental markets will prefer
> >DVD to tapes. How many times can a DVD CD be played before it is worn
> >out? How many times for a VHS Tape?
> >I can see video rental places like Blockbusters salavating at
> >the possiblilty of renting DVD CDs instead of Tapes
Actually, this is one major reason why DVD's WON'T be successful! DVD'S are
more sensitive to abuse than CD's, including CD-ROMs. There have been many
articles about the difficulties stores have had renting CD-ROM's, usually
games for game machines. Most stores have "given up" renting CDs because of
the damage that was being done to them. . . .
So if the data is even more vulnerable on a DVD, I expect that we will shortly
hear how they are having trouble renting them.
And Blockbuster has on numerous occasions rejected the idea of rental DVD's.
Brian
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
Only two tools are necessary to disassemble a computer: A philips-head
screwdriver and the floor. Almost everything comes apart with screws, but
once in a while you have to get tough and use the floor tool.
-- from an article by Bob Parks, Wired 7/97
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=
subz...@ix.netcom.com
Richard Arthur wrote:
>
> I can see the industrial, commercial and rental markets will prefer
> DVD to tapes. How many times can a DVD CD be played before it is worn
> out? How many times for a VHS Tape?
> I can see video rental places like Blockbusters salavating at the
>
> Well..... Give five more years and we'll see.
DVD's can be played indefinately. As long as you take care of it, play
number one will be EXACLTY identical to play number 1,000,000. That is
one of the main points to laser disk and dvd. Tapes on the other hand
wear out more with each and every playing. After about 50 to 100 plays,
you might see lines on the top or bottom. This is caused by the tape
stretching amongst other things. How soon the tape degrades also
depends on the tape itself. The higher the quality of the tape the
longer it lasts. :)
Julian
I think the point is that nerves either fire or do not, i.e. 1 or 0
(digital).
Chad R Hermann <ch...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in article
<snyDVSK00...@andrew.cmu.edu>...
Dick Schardt
Here's another guy who apparently know very little about DVD, quoting and
relying on others who apparently know little about DVD. A classic example
of an exchange of ignorance.
Brian L. McCarty <opera...@worldjazz.com> wrote in article
<970818083...@pacbell.net>...
>
> > In article <5t8948$g...@ds2.acs.ucalgary.ca>, Richard Arthur
> > <provider_jams_spam@your_dead.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I can see the industrial, commercial and rental markets will prefer
> > >DVD to tapes. How many times can a DVD CD be played before it is worn
> > >out? How many times for a VHS Tape?
> > >I can see video rental places like Blockbusters salavating at
Charles L Isbell
"Julian" <fk...@dial.pipex.com> writes:
> I think the point is that nerves either fire or do not, i.e. 1 or 0
> (digital).
I think it's pretty clear (for neurons in general) that the *rate* of
a neuron's firing is as important as *whether* it is firing.
Of course, I'm no expert in the field.
The whole 1 and 0 thing is an abstraction, anyway... voltage
fluctuates. You could just as easily decide that 1 means a certain
rate of firing is happening and 0 means it isn't. Whether this
encoding contains sufficient information (from an operational point of
view) is another matter altogether.
--
Peace.
"Of course I believe in life after death.
We have only begun to suffer."
- Isaac Bashevis Singer
-\--/-
Don't just adopt opinions | \/ | Some of you are homeboys
develop them. | /\ | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
-/--\-
Steve Zipser (Sunshine Stereo, Inc.)
Bwian incorrectly spewed:
>Actually, this is one major reason why DVD's WON'T be successful! DVD'S are
>more sensitive to abuse than CD's, including CD-ROMs. There have been many
>articles about the difficulties stores have had renting CD-ROM's, usually
>games for game machines. Most stores have "given up" renting CDs because of
>the damage that was being done to them. . .
Dick Schardt wrote:
> Here's another guy who apparently know very little about DVD, quoting and
> relying on others who apparently know little about DVD. A classic example
> of an exchange of ignorance.
Dick:
Brian knows very little about anything. He fancies himself as the Don
Quixote of Bose, having once been a paid schill for the company.
He also claimed to be the producer of movie soundtracks. It turns out
he is a boom mic operator in some B-movie lot in LA.
He has made many overt racist, anti-semetic, and bigotted comments on
this newsgroup. I think it is safe tot totally disregard him.
He used to live with Andrew Cunanin.
DHowie
In article <4ny9qLG00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Chad R Hermann
<ch...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Big difference between ELECTRICAL and DIGITAL.
My nervous system is electrical. But my fingers are digital.
:-)
Simon Lee
On Mon, 18 Aug 1997 08:38:20 -0700, opera...@worldjazz.com (Brian L.
McCarty) wrote:
:Actually, this is one major reason why DVD's WON'T be successful! DVD'S are
:more sensitive to abuse than CD's, including CD-ROMs. There have been many
:articles about the difficulties stores have had renting CD-ROM's, usually
:games for game machines. Most stores have "given up" renting CDs because of
:the damage that was being done to them. . . .
Hmmm...that's strange. My local PocketBuster and all the PocketBusters
around town seem to carry Playstation and Saturn games, and yet
they're on CD's. Wonder if anyone's told them they can't rent CD
items anymore.
BTW. DVD's are LESS sensitive to abuse than CD's because when you have
a scratch on a DVD, it'll continue to play, whereas a scratch on a CD
will make it jump, and a scratch on a CD-ROM will make it fail with
corrupt file data. DVD's with scratches affect the video just as much
as a wrinkled tape. It just may look pixelated, but a wrinkled tape
will make horrible noises and have major lines running all over the
screen. Also, if some Okie gets a hold of a tape and jams it into his
1970's VHS player that hasn't been cleaned in 27 years, you'll get a
nice wrinkled tape, and once it gets pinched in the rollers, goodbye
tape. DVD's are no exception to user abuse. Should that stop rental
stores from carrying them? Stupid of them not to.
:And Blockbuster has on numerous occasions rejected the idea of rental DVD's.
Wow. An insider from Blockbuster! Can you let everyone know that
they're charging too much for old video rentals.
Thanks,
Simon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone sending unsolicited advertising to my address is subject
to a fine of $500 as described in US Interstate Commerce laws,
or face legal action in a US Small Claims Court.
Pursuant to US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/
modem/printer meets the definition of a telephone fax machine.
Sec.227(b)(1)(C) prohibits the delivery of unsolicited commercial
messages to such apparatus
Sec.227(b)(3)(C) states that a violation of the aforementioned
Section is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss,
or $500, whichever is greater, for each violation.
DHowie
In article <snyDVSK00...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Chad R Hermann
<ch...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Geez. Here we go again.
>
>Will someone please attempt to explain the logic behind "digital ears"?
>
>Do you all have microchip implants that I don't?
>
>Chad
Is it cause they are binary (binaural)?