Star Trek Insurrection and The Matrix on laserdisc?
Thermo Dynamic
I have the DVDs but, quite frankly, laserdisc doesn't use compression or
LD compression beats the living daylights out of DVD.
Thanks!
David W. Anderson
You'll never find Matrix at an on-line LD shop - sold out long ago.
Insurrection isn't listed at Ken Cranes so I assume that is gone at most
places too.
Insurrection can be had for cheap on ebay. Matrix LD is rare and goes
for a pretty penny. I had a used, ex-rental copy of Matrix that I sold
on ebay for $60. I've seen sealed copies go for $100+
--
David W Anderson - da...@horrordvds.com
Webmaster - www.horrordvds.com
Chris Vila
than laserdisc, there are more freaking lines end of story - or go get a
pair of glasses.
Thermo Dynamic <dpc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:699H4.25$s5....@news7.onvoy.net...
ike
Chris Vila <vi...@dtn.ntl.com> wrote in message
news:obhH4.93$a24....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
: this is pathetic - I like lasers but the simple fact is DVD looks better
: than laserdisc, there are more freaking lines end of story - or go get a
: pair of glasses.
Simple fact is, many folks do not have the equipment that exploits the DVD
advantage. Hence, uncompressed video without the edge enhancements and
artifacts of many DVDs doesn't make the "more freaking lines" theory hold
water.
Chris Vila
freaking tv- same as laser - and whoop what a surprise dvd looks better -
your either stubborn a 3 day old shit or as blind as my grandmother!
ike <ikeb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1RmH4.726$q2.25...@news.wctc.net...
Altair4
<ikeb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Chris Vila <vi...@dtn.ntl.com> wrote in message
>news:obhH4.93$a24....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>: this is pathetic - I like lasers but the simple fact is DVD
looks better
>: than laserdisc, there are more freaking lines end of story -
or go get a
>: pair of glasses.
>:
>
>Simple fact is, many folks do not have the equipment that
exploits the DVD
>advantage. Hence, uncompressed video without the edge
enhancements and
>artifacts of many DVDs doesn't make the "more freaking lines"
theory hold
>water.
>
Not sure what you mean by "many folks do not have the equipment
that exploits the DVD advantage". It's true that differences
between the two formats are minimized if all you have is, say, a
27 inch Panasonic with composite input. But if you have a
properly adjusted set with svideo input, DVD's inherent
advantages are clearly shown (such sets typically have
resolution that shows DVD's advantage). This is hardly an
elitist setup.
Of course, DVD's biggest advantages are best seen with a 16:9
progressive capable set with component inputs. Such a setup
hopelessly outclasses LD, especially on a price/performance
basis, considering the extra line doubler and comb filter one
would have to buy with LD to even get close. All the posts I've
seen from people who own ISF calibrated CRT front projectors
clearly favor DVD. Incidentally, this "you need a really good
TV to show DVD's advantages" contention blows the "DVD is for
the masses" claim all to hell.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Chris Vila
piece of shit tv is now Svideo and RGB compatible through a scart socket
<grins> we are also used to anamorphic because most tv programmes are
broadcast this way if you chosse to watch them in widescreen. - but most big
dumb ass amercians only care about 1 thing a BIG screen, even if it has not
inputs or decent features/ 16:9 compression or even if even in the y2k it is
a 4:3 set, most people in europe have a tv with a decent set of inputs that
is also 16:9 compatable (I dont mean the set is widescreen but can take
advantage of the added resolution.) And now in the stores there are very few
convetional 4:3, id say 80% of new sets being manufactered are
idescreen. - amercians might learn one day!
P.S - I feel Im allowed to say this without any racism - why I am a US
citizen, I just currently live in the UK :-)
Altair4 <altair4...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0318b46c...@usw-ex0105-035.remarq.com...
Randy Shackelford
Altair4 <altair4...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
>Not sure what you mean by "many folks do not have the equipment
>that exploits the DVD advantage". It's true that differences
>between the two formats are minimized if all you have is, say, a
>27 inch Panasonic with composite input. But if you have a
>properly adjusted set with svideo input, DVD's inherent
>advantages are clearly shown (such sets typically have
>resolution that shows DVD's advantage). This is hardly an
>elitist setup.
Yeah but you keep seeing people who want to connect a player via an RF
antenna hookup. They won't see much improvement.
>Of course, DVD's biggest advantages are best seen with a 16:9
>progressive capable set with component inputs. Such a setup
>hopelessly outclasses LD, especially on a price/performance
>basis, considering the extra line doubler and comb filter one
>would have to buy with LD to even get close. All the posts I've
>seen from people who own ISF calibrated CRT front projectors
>clearly favor DVD. Incidentally, this "you need a really good
>TV to show DVD's advantages" contention blows the "DVD is for
>the masses" claim all to hell.
Regardless of what you watch 'em on, "DVD is for the masses" still applies.
LD was always the domain of high end specialty stores, while Best Buy,
Cct City, K Mart, you name it sells DVD discs/players. Even in the heyday of
LD, you had to look around for players. And of course, only stores like Tower
sold the discs. And that's saying nothing of the price difference. DVDs can be
had at stores for prices similar to music CDs nowadays. Only during fire sales
at stores ditching LD or going out of business could prices resembling DVD
prices be found on LDs.
--
Offsite mail to this host gets nuked.
Altair4
>Best Buy, Cct City, K Mart, you name it sells DVD discs/players
DVD is ALSO sold in "high end specialty stores", and is now the
preferred medium for showing high end projectors at their best.
In other words, DVD is easily able to serve both the Kmart crowd
AND the High End movie collector aficionado crowd (ie, beat LD
at its own game).
In short, it serves the entire market in a way that LD WANTED
to, but couldn't.
Altair4
Actually, it's more accurate to say that most prefer DVD and a
small minority prefer LD :)
Mark Walker
it some people will prefer LD some people will prefer DVD. I have both and
prefer LD that is my opinion.
Altair4 <altair4...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:00be09e8...@usw-ex0105-035.remarq.com...
> >LD was always the domain of high end specialty stores, while
> >Best Buy, Cct City, K Mart, you name it sells DVD discs/players
>
> DVD is ALSO sold in "high end specialty stores", and is now the
> preferred medium for showing high end projectors at their best.
>
> In other words, DVD is easily able to serve both the Kmart crowd
> AND the High End movie collector aficionado crowd (ie, beat LD
> at its own game).
>
> In short, it serves the entire market in a way that LD WANTED
> to, but couldn't.
>
ike
: what do you mean - the *equipment* all you need is a dvd player and a
: freaking tv- same as laser - and whoop what a surprise dvd looks better -
: your either stubborn a 3 day old shit or as blind as my grandmother!
Nice mouth on ya kid. BTW, next time you send a virus to a few hundred
people at once, maybe think about keeping your own house in order.
David W. Anderson
altair4...@my-deja.com.invalid says...
> >some people will prefer LD some people will prefer DVD
>
> Actually, it's more accurate to say that most prefer DVD and a
> small minority prefer LD :)
>
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
>
It's more accurate to say: Who gives a rats ass?
Mark Walker
Altair4 <altair4...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:069c7b2d...@usw-ex0105-035.remarq.com...
Altair4
>It's more accurate to say: Who gives a rats ass?
True. It's becoming less of a big deal and fewer people are
giving "a rat's ass" every day.
The Doctor [Louis]
I enjoy both formats. There are pros and cons in regards to either
format.
Hey, if I could afford to build my own home movie theater with a large
screen, projector, seats, and yes even a curtain -- I would... and then
I would be concerned about getting my favorite films on FILM -- the
actual medium itself...
I guess I would have to also add a digital projector as well since some
new films now will be using the digital medium instead of film (sure
they will be transferred onto film as well since the majority of
theaters today do not have digital projectors)....
Well since none of these options are in the deck right now for me, I am
content enough with LD and DVD -- I just want to have the OPTION of
both.
--
-- Louis
______________________________________________________________
Posted via Uncensored-News.Com, http://www.uncensored-news.com
Only $8.95 A Month, - The Worlds Uncensored News Source
glam...@gateway.net
heyday of
> LD, you had to look around for players.
Not true. LD players were quite available at Good guys and Circuit
City...even Radio Shack carried them for a while. They were readily
available yet largely ignored.
LD was 'for the masses' too. The 'masses' just never obliged.
George Lambert
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
glam...@gateway.net
da...@horrordvds.com (David W. Anderson) wrote:
> In article <069c7b2d...@usw-ex0105-035.remarq.com>,
> altair4...@my-deja.com.invalid says...
> >
> > Actually, it's more accurate to say that most prefer DVD and a
> > small minority prefer LD :)
> >
> >
>
Well YOU did for quite some time, David.
michael allen
through a rgb scart connector is as god as any dvd player that i have seen
or owned. The only advantage that dvd has over laser disc is the fact that
it holds a lot more, it can be copied, but why spend money on a film to
then take it home and copy it.
Dvd may be the way forwards, but i prefer laser disc, because they don't
suffer picture break down, are not region controled and It does not matter
if you have ac3 as they seem to work find on dolby pro logic equipment with
out any messing around with the sound setting.
LONG LIVE LASER DISC THE ULTIMATE MOVIE FORMAT.
AMSNYD
From: "michael allen" micha...@michael1971.screaming.net
Date: Fri, Apr 7, 2000 6:38 PM
Message-id: <38ee...@news.screaming.net>
I respect your opinion, I love laserdisc too, but c'mon you guys, flipping?
That can get really annoying (it's not too bad, but it's still annoying,
definitely beats vhs though). Also, comparing picture quality, DVD's picture
is superior to laserdiscs (not much, but it's visable). I was watching Star
Wars lately with some friends and whenever a side break came the replys were
all "Laserdiscs suck". Now of course, you can't watch Star Wars on DVD so I
disagree with them, and I ESPECIALLY don't want to watch it on vhs (ugh!), so
laserdisc does have a few advantages over DVD (no region coding, macrovision,
better selection, etc), but DVD is still miles ahead.
--
Aaron Snyder
asn...@mail.usmo.com or ams...@aol.com
Visit my homepage: http://www.angelfire.com/pe/aaronthegreat
"I weigh about 140 pounds, naked. I mean, if that scale at the train station
is anything to go by." -Emo Phillips
Thermo Dynamic
of compression so certain details don't look all scrunched up and stuff?
Even by pausing the DVD and staring at a standard 21" TV screen, it's rathre
obvious to see the differences between LD and DVD. I'm sorry you don't have
adequate glasses.
DVD is better in some ways. LD is better in other ways. Problem is, LD is
better in the ways which I prefer. :-)
Chris Vila <vi...@dtn.ntl.com> wrote in message
news:obhH4.93$a24....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> this is pathetic - I like lasers but the simple fact is DVD looks better
> than laserdisc, there are more freaking lines end of story - or go get a
> pair of glasses.
>
>
>
>
>
T Berk
>
> this is pathetic - I like lasers but the simple fact is DVD looks better
> than laserdisc, there are more freaking lines end of story - or go get a
> pair of glasses.
>
> Thermo Dynamic <dpc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:699H4.25$s5....@news7.onvoy.net...
> > Hi! Where can I find the above two stated titles on laserdisc?
> >
> > I have the DVDs but, quite frankly, laserdisc doesn't use compression
> or
> > LD compression beats the living daylights out of DVD.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> >
BS- The facts on paper don't equal the reality onscreen. Why are
you all ticked off anyway?
TBerk
T Berk
>
> Hi! Where can I find the above two stated titles on laserdisc?
>
> I have the DVDs but, quite frankly, laserdisc doesn't use compression or
> LD compression beats the living daylights out of DVD.
>
> Thanks!
OK,
so the Matrix is sold out online. Anybody have one for sale?, or
is it EBay only? <bleagh>
tia,
TBerk
Chris Vila
people say they prefer laser of dvd just becuase they are annoyed that dvd
is a mass product - by sticking to ld they can still pretent to be part of
the elite few - when in fact the elite have exactly the same film on the
same format as the masses now.
I have both Ld and dvd and is is slightly more that fucking obviouse when I
watch both / compare on the odd film that I have on both formats - that DVD
looks better! - What the hell dvds have you ever seen - Highlander?!
T Berk <tb...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:38EFC80B...@mindspring.com...
> Chris Vila wrote:
> >
> > this is pathetic - I like lasers but the simple fact is DVD looks better
> > than laserdisc, there are more freaking lines end of story - or go get a
> > pair of glasses.
> >
> > Thermo Dynamic <dpc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:699H4.25$s5....@news7.onvoy.net...
> > > Hi! Where can I find the above two stated titles on laserdisc?
> > >
> > > I have the DVDs but, quite frankly, laserdisc doesn't use
compression
> > or
> > > LD compression beats the living daylights out of DVD.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > >
>
Demian Phillips
>>some people will prefer LD some people will prefer DVD
>
>Actually, it's more accurate to say that most prefer DVD and a
>small minority prefer LD :)
>
Really it's more accurate to say your presence here is nothing but a
troll.
You use a fake addy.
Constantly post in a trollish manner.
And add nothing to this group.
Why don't you go play in avd instead of posting here?
*PLONK*
I should have don't this ages ago when I plonked that kraig guy but I
had hopes for you.
---
^_^
Demian Phillips
PGP KEY ID 0x5BC4FCB4
Altair4
Phillips <dem...@cmhcsys.com> wrote:
>Altair4 <altair4...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>some people will prefer LD some people will prefer DVD
>>
>>Actually, it's more accurate to say that most prefer DVD and a
>>small minority prefer LD :)
>>
>Really it's more accurate to say your presence here is nothing
nothing to this group.
I think my posts and what I've contributed here are less
trollish than your devoid-of-meaningful-content post.
>You use a fake addy.
Ever hear of spam sheilding?
>Why don't you go play in avd instead of posting here?
You sound like another LD zealot who's too insecure to stomach
the presence of someone who doesn't hew to the party line.
>*PLONK*
>Demian Phillips
*YAWN*
Ronald Cole
> this is pathetic - I like lasers but the simple fact is DVD looks better
> than laserdisc, there are more freaking lines end of story - or go get a
> pair of glasses.
Think you need to side-by-side compare "Life of Brian" on DVD and
Laserdisc.
Points of fact: DVD *can* look worse than laser. DVD can also sound
worse than laser. This has been rehashed here over and over. DVD is
not intrinsically immune to shoddy production and has bandwidth
limitations (compression quality suffers if too many soundtracks are
present).
--
Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412
Ronald Cole <ron...@forte-intl.com> Phone: (760) 499-9142
President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152
My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B
Altair4
<ron...@forte-intl.com> wrote:
>DVD is not intrinsically immune to shoddy production
This is very true, but I haven't seen anyone claim otherwise.
And the same is true of LD. It doesn't change the fact that DVD
at its best beats LD at its best.
Anthony Agpaoa
>this is pathetic - I like lasers but the simple fact is DVD looks better
>than laserdisc, there are more freaking lines end of story - or go get a
>pair of glasses.
>
>
>
>
>
>Thermo Dynamic <dpc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:699H4.25$s5....@news7.onvoy.net...
>> Hi! Where can I find the above two stated titles on laserdisc?
>>
>> I have the DVDs but, quite frankly, laserdisc doesn't use compression
>or
>> LD compression beats the living daylights out of DVD.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>
>
IMHO, The Matrix LD is one of those few instances that LD looks and
sounds better than the DVD. I had both (LD and DVD). Kept the DVD
since it was free with an order I placed at bigstar.com and scould'nt
resist selling my LD for $85.00
The LD did not show the greenish tint on the DVD and the sound IMHO
was a distinctively better on the LD than the DVD.
Equipment used (SONY 32 inch, Harmon KArdon AVR 75, Polk Audio
Speakers all around and 2 Subs)
That is why the OLD is much more in demand than the DVD although the
DVD is in existence and LD price is way up there.
OTH, I love the ALIENS DVD set and watch it exclusively, although I
still have both ALIEN and ALIENS box sets and they don't fetch the
same rpices it used to be (Over $100) as it used to. I think y9ou can
get both Box sets now for around $40.00 for both.
To Reply, remove nospam* from address
-------------------------SIG-----------------------------------------------------
Pls. view my LD Auctions (around 100 at a time) on ebay at
http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/the_laserdisc_guy/
Also maintain my wifes Online Store for Religious Statues at
www.pacificheritage.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPRocks221
>I think my posts and what I've contributed here are less
>trollish than your devoid-of-meaningful-content post.
Bullshit. You are a troll plain and simple.
Thad Floryan
| In article <m3em8dd...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>, Ronald Cole
| <ron...@forte-intl.com> wrote:
|
| >DVD is not intrinsically immune to shoddy production
|
| This is very true, but I haven't seen anyone claim otherwise.
| And the same is true of LD. It doesn't change the fact that DVD
| at its best beats LD at its best.
At its best? A MUSE/HiVision HDTV LaserDisc will blow any DVD away.
This is why so many of us really aren't enamored of DVDs (even though
we may buy some).
Given LaserDisc debuted back in 1978 when the only displays possible then
were 4:3 and before the era of VHS and even CDs, one would have thought that
DVD's debut almost 20 years later with HDTV clearly on the horizon would have
presented us with a radical step forward for home movies; it didn't.
Regular anamorphic 16:9 laserdiscs were being produced in 1995; and the
MUSE/HiVision LDs were available before then. AC-3/DD was available on LD
beginning in 1995, and DTS LDs were available not long afterwards (and before
DVD's debut).
DVD simply is not a breakthrough technology (as was LD in 1978); its touted
features are solely engineering evolution due to wider acceptance/incorporation
of computer technology in consumer products. Even the higher freq/narrow-beam
laser diodes for DVDs (at 650nm) had already been used for MUSE/HiVision LDs.
And MPEG2 was already an existing technique long used on computers with its
lineage going back to MPEG1, JPEG, GIF and even LZW 20+ years ago (in the
UNIX compress program).
Thad Floryan
| [...]
| DVD simply is not a breakthrough technology (as was LD in 1978); its touted
| features are solely engineering evolution due to wider acceptance/incorporation
| of computer technology in consumer products. Even the higher freq/narrow-beam
| laser diodes for DVDs (at 650nm) had already been used for MUSE/HiVision LDs.
|
| And MPEG2 was already an existing technique long used on computers with its
| lineage going back to MPEG1, JPEG, GIF and even LZW 20+ years ago (in the
| UNIX compress program).
I was just curious to see how far back I've been using MPEGs, so I took a
look in one of my directories (and take a wild guess what movie is encoded in
the file "raiders.mpg" starring Harrison Ford):
polaris bash 5285/5286> cd /usr/local/src
polaris bash 5285/5286> ll -d mpeg_play
drwxr-sr-x 3 thad staff 512 Jan 1 1994 mpeg_play/
polaris bash 5285/5286> cd mpeg_play/
polaris bash 5285/5286> ls
mpeg_play-2.0/
polaris bash 5285/5286> cd mpeg_play-2.0/
polaris bash 5285/5286> ls
24bit.c Makefile fs2.c hybriderr.c ordered2.c
2x2.c Makefile.proto fs2.h jrevdct.c parseblock.c
ANNOUNCE PLATFORMS fs2fast.c main.c proto.h
BUGS README fs4.c mb_ordered.c util.c
CHANGES VERSION fs4.h mono.c util.h
INSTALL decoders.c gdith.c motionvector.c util32.c
Imakefile decoders.h gray.c mpeg_play.1 video.c
Imakefile.proto dither.h hybrid.c ordered.c video.h
polaris bash 5285/5286> ll ANNOUNCE
-r--r--r-- 1 thad staff 4577 Feb 2 1993 ANNOUNCE
polaris bash 5285/5286> cat ANNOUNCE
Sent to:
alt.graphics.pixutils, comp.compression, comp.compression.research,
comp.graphics.animation, comp.graphics, comp.mail.multi-media,
comp.multimedia, comp.sources.x, comp.windows.x, comp.windows.x.announce
The Berkeley Plateau Research Group is happy to announce the
release of Version 2.0 of its software-only MPEG decoder.
The player is available via anonymous ftp from toe.cs.berkeley.edu
(128.32.149.117) in /pub/multimedia/mpeg/mpeg-2.0.tar.Z.
You'll find many MPEG streams in the subdirectory movies.
Changes from v1.2 include:
o Fixed green artifact bug.
o Fixed sequence end code bug.
o Many bug fixes.
o Performance tweaks.
Below is a copy of the README file:
MPEG Video Software Decoder
(Version 2.0; Jan 27, 1993)
Lawrence A. Rowe, Ketan Patel, and Brian Smith
Computer Science Division-EECS, Univ. of Calif. at Berkeley
This directory contains a public domain MPEG video software
decoder. The decoder is implemented as a library that will
take a video stream and display it in an X window on an 8, 24
or 32 bit deep display. The main routine is supplied to
demonstrate the use of the decoder library. Several dithering
algorithms are supplied based on the Floyd-Steinberg, ordered
dither, and half-toning algorithms that tradeoff quality and
performance. Neither the library nor the main routine handle
real-time synchronization of audio streams.
The decoder implements the standard described in the Committee
Draft ISO/IEC CD 11172 dated December 6, 1991 which is
sometimes refered to as "Paris Format." The code has been
compiled and tested on the following platforms:
HP PA-RISC (HP/UX 8.X, X11R4) (i.e., HP 9000/7XX and 9000/3XX)
Sun Sparc (SunOS 4.X, X11R5)
DECstation 5000 and Alpha
IBM RS6000
Silicon Graphics Indigo
MIPS RISC/os 4.51
Sequent Symmetry
Sony NEWS
and more than we can list here.
If you decide to port the code to a new architecture, please let
us know so that we can incorporate the changes into our sources.
This directory contains everything required to build and
display video. We have included source code, a makefile, an Imakefile,
installation instructions, and a man page. Data files can
be obtained from the same ftp site this was located in.
See the INSTALL file for instructions on how to
compile and run the decoder.
The data files were produced by XING. XING data does not take
advantage of P or B frames (ie, frames with motion compensation).
Performance of the player on XING data is significantly slower
(half or less) than the performance when motion compensated MPEG
data is decoded. We are very interested in running the software
on other MPEG streams. Please contact us if you have a stream
that does not decode correctly. Also, please send us new streams
produced by others that do utilize P and B frames.
NOTE: One particular XING data file: raiders.mpg, is not a
valid MPEG stream since it does not contain a sequence
header.
We have established several mailing lists for messages about
the decoder:
mpeg-li...@CS.Berkeley.EDU
General information on the decoder for everyone interested
should be sent to this list. This should become active after
11/20/92
mpeg-lis...@CS.Berkeley.EDU
Requests to join or leave the list should be sent to this
address. The subject line should contain the single word
ADD or DELETE.
mpeg...@CS.Berkeley.EDU
Problems, questions, or patches should be sent to this address.
Our future plans include porting the decoder to run on other
platforms, integrating it into a video playback system that
supports real-time synchronization and audio streams, and
further experiments to improve the performance of the
decoder. Vendors or other organizations interested in supporting
this research or discussing other aspects of this project should
contact Larry Rowe at Ro...@CS.Berkeley.EDU.
We also plan on producing an MPEG encoder. The encoder will NOT be
a real time digitizer, but will be intended for offline processing
of video data.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
We gratefully thank Hewlett-Packard, Fujitsu, the Semiconductor
Research Corporation for financial support.
We also want to thank the following people for their help:
Tom Lane of the Independent JPEG Group provided us with
the basic inverse DCT code used by our player.
(tom_...@g.gp.cs.cmu.edu)
Reid Judd of Sun Microsystems provided advice and assistance.
Todd Brunhoff of NVR provided advise and assistance.
Toshihiko Kawai of Sony provided advise and assistance.
Altair4
>
> This is very true, but I haven't seen anyone claim otherwise.
> And the same is true of LD. It doesn't change the fact that
>DVD
>at its best beats LD at its best.
>At its best? A MUSE/HiVision HDTV LaserDisc will blow any DVD
>away.
You've done this sort of thing before. Everyone else assumes we
are referring to the NTSC laserdisc. MUSE LDs are too miniscule
a factor in the marketplace to consider. But thanks for
implicitly agreeing with me about the superiority of DVD to the
NTSC laserdisc by resorting to trotting out MUSE. :)
Starman
Floryan) wrote:
> Altair4 <altair4...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
> | In article <m3em8dd...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>, Ronald Cole
> | <ron...@forte-intl.com> wrote:
> |
> | >DVD is not intrinsically immune to shoddy production
> |
> | This is very true, but I haven't seen anyone claim otherwise.
> | And the same is true of LD. It doesn't change the fact that DVD
> | at its best beats LD at its best.
>
> At its best? A MUSE/HiVision HDTV LaserDisc will blow any DVD away.
Uh...can we stick to NTSC? You keep throwing this MUSE crap out but
you're not playing fair. It's like comparing sports cars that 99% of the
people would buy and then throwing a Countach into the mix that NOBODY
would want/afford.
I don't think there are 3 people on this group that own MUSE, and I
seriously doubt at this stage of the game that anyone else ever will buy
it.
Mike
--
ICQ: 6426785
AOL IM: StarmanTHX
UT stats: Starman - 385187
Altair4
>its touted features are solely engineering evolution
Yes, DVD is an evolutionary advance over NTSC laserdisc. I'm
glad you agree. HDDVD will be another evolutionary step (and of
course will make MUSE utterly and completely irrelevant, in
addition to its current insignificance).
<long technical post discussing MPEG history snipped>
Yes, we know you have an excellent computer background. It
doesn't change the technical and marketplace reality of DVD's
advantages.
Thad Floryan
| >DVD is not intrinsically immune to shoddy production
| >
| > This is very true, but I haven't seen anyone claim otherwise.
| > And the same is true of LD. It doesn't change the fact that
| >DVD
| >at its best beats LD at its best.
|
| >At its best? A MUSE/HiVision HDTV LaserDisc will blow any DVD
| >away.
|
| are referring to the NTSC laserdisc. MUSE LDs are too miniscule
| a factor in the marketplace to consider. But thanks for
| implicitly agreeing with me about the superiority of DVD to the
| NTSC laserdisc by resorting to trotting out MUSE. :)
The qualifier "at its best" was used, so that means no holds barred.
The "problem" with 1995's 16:9 anamorphic LDs and MUSE/HiVision HDTV LDs
was they were too far ahead of their time (both before 16:9 displays and
HDTV were commonly available) and thus too expensive because the mass
consumer market moves too slowly re: new technology.
BTW, you should review what Benny Hill said about the word "assume". :-)
Thad Floryan
| In article <38f2d63e$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, th...@thadlabs.com (Thad
| Floryan) wrote:
|
| > Altair4 <altair4...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
| > | In article <m3em8dd...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>, Ronald Cole
| > |
| > | >DVD is not intrinsically immune to shoddy production
| > |
| > | This is very true, but I haven't seen anyone claim otherwise.
| > | And the same is true of LD. It doesn't change the fact that DVD
| > | at its best beats LD at its best.
| >
| > At its best? A MUSE/HiVision HDTV LaserDisc will blow any DVD away.
|
| you're not playing fair. It's like comparing sports cars that 99% of the
| people would buy and then throwing a Countach into the mix that NOBODY
| would want/afford.
|
| I don't think there are 3 people on this group that own MUSE, and I
| seriously doubt at this stage of the game that anyone else ever will buy
| it.
|
| Mike
The qualifier "at its best" was used, so that opened the door. And though
it's not a Countach, Randy Chase races Ferraris.
Since you used the "car ananology", compare a Jugo with a Rolls-Royce to
see the "validity" of your whining.
BTW, more than "3 people on this group" have posted they have MUSE systems.
Altair4
Hmmm, then you're wrong, since HDDVD has been demonstrated. And
I agree with you--DVD has done a much better job of timing the
market than LD, with its less than a dozen or so 16:9 titles,
and its MUSE system, which has probably sold fewer systems in
its entire product cycle in this country than DVD will sell on
my lunch break today.
Starman
Floryan) wrote:
And I owned a DeLorean and currently own a Camaro. So? I used it as an
analogy, not as a "who owns what" statement.
> Since you used the "car ananology", compare a Jugo with a Rolls-Royce to
> see the "validity" of your whining.
Yeah..I see what you mean...with the Yugo (Jugo?) being LD :).
> BTW, more than "3 people on this group" have posted they have MUSE
> systems
4 people?
Mark Walker
be more LD's for my collection.
Anthony Agpaoa <NOSPAM*agp...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:38f264d2....@news.earthlink.net...
Norman Wilner
news:m3em8dd...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com...
> "Chris Vila" <vi...@dtn.ntl.com> writes:
>
>> this is pathetic - I like lasers but the simple fact is DVD
>> looks better than laserdisc, there are more freaking lines
>> end of story - or go get a pair of glasses.
>
> DVD and Laserdisc.
Which one? The 4:3 Anchor Bay release, or Criterion's 16:9 special edition?
And which laserdisc are you using for the comparison, Paramount's
decade-old full-frame transfer or Criterion's 1995/6 SE?
Some laserdiscs look better than some DVDs. But some DVDs look better than
some laserdiscs. "Life of Brian" is a particuarly thorny example.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
Mark Walker
Altair4 <altair4...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:006e77b0...@usw-ex0106-045.remarq.com...
> >th...@thadlabs.com (Thad Floryan) wrote:
> >its touted features are solely engineering evolution
>
> Yes, DVD is an evolutionary advance over NTSC laserdisc. I'm
> glad you agree. HDDVD will be another evolutionary step (and of
> course will make MUSE utterly and completely irrelevant, in
> addition to its current insignificance).
>
>
> <long technical post discussing MPEG history snipped>
>
>
> Yes, we know you have an excellent computer background. It
> doesn't change the technical and marketplace reality of DVD's
> advantages.
>
Randy Chase
Thad Floryan wrote:
> The qualifier "at its best" was used, so that opened the door. And though
> it's not a Countach, Randy Chase races Ferraris.
Under Siege II has been very good to me. 8-) I just want to note that I
get to race OTHER people's cars. But I agree with the point that all
things like this are relative. My friend with the Ferrari Spyder also
owns a Diablo Sport Veloce, Viper, two different new Mercedes, and more.
And he is 24 years old and not a drug dealer. 8-)
This is me in a Spyder (but not a Ferrari!) (first 10-15 seconds and in
the blue car)
http://www.isthistoyota.com/mr2/high/movie2.htm
Randy Chase (aMUSEd)
mlma...@my-deja.com
Only if MUSE/HiVision discs can be played on NTSC laserdisc players. If
they can't they are a _different_ format on very similar media.
Muse/Hivision is to NTSC laserdisc as DVD is to VCD. The media is very
similar, but the high resolution discs won't play on low resolution
devices.
Matthew
--
Matthew L. Martin Thermodynamics for Dummies:
First Law: You can't win
Second Law: You can't break even
Third Law: You can't get out of the game
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ronald Cole
> "Ronald Cole" <ron...@forte-intl.com> wrote:
> > "Chris Vila" <vi...@dtn.ntl.com> writes:
> >> this is pathetic - I like lasers but the simple fact is DVD
> >> looks better than laserdisc, there are more freaking lines
> >> end of story - or go get a pair of glasses.
> >
> > Think you need to side-by-side compare "Life of Brian" on
> > DVD and Laserdisc.
>
> Which one? The 4:3 Anchor Bay release, or Criterion's 16:9 special edition?
> And which laserdisc are you using for the comparison, Paramount's
> decade-old full-frame transfer or Criterion's 1995/6 SE?
>
> Some laserdiscs look better than some DVDs. But some DVDs look better than
> some laserdiscs. "Life of Brian" is a particuarly thorny example.
<sarcasm>
Yes, DVD's component video output renders the compression artifacts
with exceptional clarity! Thank the Maker that the 16:9 down-convert
removes most of those artifacts!!
</sarcasm>
Norman Wilner
> "Norman Wilner" <xnwi...@xhome.xcom> writes:
>> "Ronald Cole" <ron...@forte-intl.com> wrote:
>>> "Chris Vila" <vi...@dtn.ntl.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> this is pathetic - I like lasers but the simple fact is
>>>> DVD looks better than laserdisc, there are more
>>>> freaking lines end of story - or go get a pair of glasses.
>>>
>>> Think you need to side-by-side compare "Life of Brian"
>>> on DVD and Laserdisc.
>>
>> Which one? The 4:3 Anchor Bay release, or Criterion's 16:9
>> special edition? And which laserdisc are you using for the
>> comparison, Paramount's decade-old full-frame transfer or
>> Criterion's 1995/6 SE?
>>
>> Some laserdiscs look better than some DVDs. But some DVDs
>> look better than some laserdiscs. "Life of Brian" is a particuarly
>> thorny example.
>
> <sarcasm>
> Yes, DVD's component video output renders the
> compression artifacts with exceptional clarity! Thank
> the Maker that the 16:9 down-convert removes most
> of those artifacts!!
> </sarcasm>
Think you missed my point there.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
Thad Floryan
| glad you agree. HDDVD will be another evolutionary step (and of
| course will make MUSE utterly and completely irrelevant, in
| addition to its current insignificance).
Where did I write DVD "is an evolutionary advance over NTSC laserdisc"? I
do NOT agree. DVD's lineage is from a different path rooted in the JPEG and
MPEG origins on computer workstations which led to VCDs and then to DVD-Video.
When LD debuted it was completely new technology.
When DVD debuted there was nothing new at all, just bits and pieces from other
areas and disciplines slapped-together to prod the slumping overall consumer
entertainment equipment sales, hence my "engineering evolution" comment.
Even DVD's media can be directly traced back to the first audio CDs which later
begat computer CD-ROMs and then VCDs. DVD is digital and LD is analog; the
fact both use a laser is interesting but not a mark of commonality.
And before anyone picks on my usage of "slapped-together", think for a moment
of all the software bugs amd incompatibilities of various DVD player and disc
combinations as reported multiple times hourly in the DVD newsgroups.
Thad Floryan
| >that means no holds barred.
|
| Hmmm, then you're wrong, since HDDVD has been demonstrated.
But not available for purchase anywhere and not for some time to come.
I've seen 3D holographic movie presentations at a Silicon Valley "think tank"
and it'll probably be 30-40 years before that ever enters the consumer arena.
The technology for ICs I was designing and manufacturing at the EDL back in
the 1960s using GaAs and Yttrium/Garnet on diamond and sapphire substrates
operating well into the GHz range still hasn't (after 30+ years) hit the
commercial sector except for a very few exotic "devices" manufactured by
Hewlett-Packard and, perhaps, in the computers used by the NSA for Echelon.
FWIW, the commercially-available MUSE/HiVision HDTV laserdiscs have shown
HDTV technology could have been in the USA a decade ago.
| I agree with you--DVD has done a much better job of timing the
| market than LD, with its less than a dozen or so 16:9 titles,
| and its MUSE system, which has probably sold fewer systems in
| its entire product cycle in this country than DVD will sell on
| my lunch break today.
Solely because the market is different now than even a few years ago along
with the perceived need for more control by the studios.
Altair4
>| market than LD, with its less than a dozen or so 16:9 titles,
>| and its MUSE system, which has probably sold fewer systems in
>| its entire product cycle in this country than DVD will sell
on
>| my lunch break today.
>Solely because the market is different now than even a few
>years ago along with the perceived need for more control by the
>studios
Solely? I think it has more to do with DVD's lower cost (MUCH
lower than the $140 to over $300 MUSE discs, which means we
WON'T be seeing a flood of interest in them as HDTV TV sales
increase), the better marketability of a 5" format over a 12"
format (again, leading to improved economies of scale because of
how much DVD has in common with the well established and
extremely successful CD format), and the technical fact that DVD
can easily serve the 4:3 market AND take full advantage of 16:9
displays, something LD couldn't and CAN'T do.
Altair4
Yes, and when it debuted it was rife with "bugs and
incompatibilities", much more so than DVD was upon introduction,
which by your logic makes LD a "slapped together" technology.
Demian Phillips
>why the hell dont you piss off to the DVD newsgroup then
Please do not quote the troll. it defeats me kil filtering him.
---
^_^
Demian Phillips
PGP KEY ID 0x5BC4FCB4
Farenheit
>
> In article <m3em8dd...@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>, Ronald Cole
> <ron...@forte-intl.com> wrote:
>
> >DVD is not intrinsically immune to shoddy production
>
> This is very true, but I haven't seen anyone claim otherwise.
> And the same is true of LD. It doesn't change the fact that DVD
> at its best beats LD at its best.
not when it comes to dolby digital
I have yet to hear a DVD who's dolby digital track sounded better, or
even equal to its laserdisc counterpart..
Farenheit
>
> glad you agree. HDDVD will be another evolutionary step (and of
> course will make MUSE utterly and completely irrelevant, in
> addition to its current insignificance).
>
>
> Yes, we know you have an excellent computer background. It
> doesn't change the technical and marketplace reality of DVD's
> advantages.
do you realize that for an HDTV movie to be put on a 5 inch disc, they
are gonan have to come out with essentially a new format again. From
what Ive read, a double-sides 2-layer DVD still doesnt have enough
capacity to hold a whole compressed HDTV movie.
Altair4
>>
>> glad you agree. HDDVD will be another evolutionary step (and
of
>> course will make MUSE utterly and completely irrelevant, in
>> addition to its current insignificance).
>
>
disc, they
>are gonan have to come out with essentially a new format again.
From
>what Ive read, a double-sides 2-layer DVD still doesnt have
enough
>capacity to hold a whole compressed HDTV movie.
>
>
That's true. The good part is that it will be backwards
compatible, so you'll be able to play your current DVDs on it.
Altair4
<aaro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
But there are others who don't hear this kind of difference, and
I've even read a post from a very strongly pro LD person who
said that he's heard at least one DVD that sounds just as good
as the LD. This makes it clear that the perceived differences
are not due to the inherent technical differences between the
two formats in the way they handle sound (as opposed to the
video, which IS handled quite differently). No one has ever
shown that there's an inherent difference in the way the two
formats handle DD, other than the bit rate (the max bit rate on
DVD is 448k, vs. 384k for LD). There's some other mechanism at
work.
Ronald Cole
> Think you missed my point there.
What? That you're a bigger pedant than I am? Didn't miss it at all!
Norman Wilner
> "Norman Wilner" <xnwi...@xhome.xcom> writes:
>
>> Think you missed my point there.
>
> What? That you're a bigger pedant than I am? Didn't
> miss it at all!
Oh, okay.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
www.chapters.ca/wilner/
Thad Floryan
| In article <38f34c45$0$2...@nntp1.ba.best.com>, th...@thadlabs.com (Thad
| Floryan) wrote:
| > Since you used the "car ananology", compare a Jugo with a Rolls-Royce to
| > see the "validity" of your whining.
|
| Yeah..I see what you mean...with the Yugo (Jugo?) being LD :).
Heh. When one speaks multiple languages and does some work for a company
that does computerized translations of web sites, email, etc. it's too easy
to type phonetically. FWIW, "Jugo" and "Yugo" are pronounced the same if
one speaks German and related languages.
Thad Floryan
| >th...@thadlabs.com (Thad Floryan) wrote:
| >its touted features are solely engineering evolution
|
| Yes, DVD is an evolutionary advance over NTSC laserdisc. I'm
| glad you agree.
Nope, you misread again. I did not use the word "advance" because DVD
simply incorporates existing technology that has been around for years
before DVD's debut in 1997.
The packaging of all those disparate technologies together as "DVD-Video"
is new, hence it's only simply engineering evolution, nothing breakthrough
like laserdisc was when it debuted in 1978.
| HDDVD will be another evolutionary step (and of
| course will make MUSE utterly and completely irrelevant, in
| addition to its current insignificance).
Only in the USA with its idiotic 18 different DTV standards.
Sounds like you're jealous that laserdisc has been capable of true HDTV
for a decade. Besides being available on LDs in Japan, MUSE has also been
a broadcast format for a long time.
In fact, the success of MUSE/HiVision is what stimulated digital (just to
be different) HDTV interest in the USA because the Japanese clearly greatly
embarrassed the USA by being first with HDTV discs and broadcasts.
And, ironically, the Japanese also "invented" DVD, again to the embarrassment
of the USA. Face it, as regards video and audio entertainment, the USA is a
poor 3rd-rate power, further confirmed by an idiotic wishy-washy FCC who
couldn't even come up with a single coherent DTV standard.
Thad Floryan
| >When LD debuted it was completely new technology.
|
| Yes, and when it debuted it was rife with "bugs and
| incompatibilities", much more so than DVD was upon introduction,
| which by your logic makes LD a "slapped together" technology.
How so? It was all new at the time and kinks need to be worked out of
any new product.
One would think the DVD consortium member companies would have learned,
yet we find (in the DVD newsgroups) that DVD disc and player compatibility
is fraught with disaster and there are more bugs in DVD players than in any
Bill Gates product.
Thad Floryan
| In article <38F581...@mindspring.com>, Farenheit
| <aaro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
| >I have yet to hear a DVD who's dolby digital track sounded
| better, or
| >even equal to its laserdisc counterpart..
|
| But there are others who don't hear this kind of difference, and
| I've even read a post from a very strongly pro LD person who
| said that he's heard at least one DVD that sounds just as good
| as the LD. This makes it clear that the perceived differences
| are not due to the inherent technical differences between the
| two formats in the way they handle sound (as opposed to the
| video, which IS handled quite differently). No one has ever
| shown that there's an inherent difference in the way the two
| formats handle DD, other than the bit rate (the max bit rate on
| DVD is 448k, vs. 384k for LD). There's some other mechanism at
| work.
Precisely.
When one buys an AC-3/DD laserdisc it is presumed one has AC-3/DD5.1 playback
capability and thus the full mix with LFE is on the laserdisc.
The vast majority of DVD buyers/renters do NOT have DD5.1 playback capability
and most DD5.1 DVDs do NOT also have an explicit DD2.0 audio track so there is
a different DD mix for DVDs with some LFE spread over to the L and R channels
and LFE is generally attentuated since most DVD users play their movies through
modest systems.
Feed 30 Hz though TV speakers (which most people seem to use) and it'll sound
like your TV is farting, which is why LFE is attenuated (i.e. anemic bass as
compared to the LD mix) for DVD releases that don't also have a DD2.0 track.
Note also the DPL downmix performed by DVD players removes all LFE.
This situation is reminiscent of $500,000 worth of studio equipment for audio
releases feeding the final mix through a 4"x6" oval speaker mounted in a
cardboard box for mastering because that's how most people listen to music.
Sad, but true.
Jeff Rife
> The vast majority of DVD buyers/renters do NOT have DD5.1 playback capability
> and most DD5.1 DVDs do NOT also have an explicit DD2.0 audio track so there is
> a different DD mix for DVDs with some LFE spread over to the L and R channels
> and LFE is generally attentuated since most DVD users play their movies through
> modest systems.
So, do you suspect that DVDs with both a DD2.0 and a DD5.1 track *don't*
have a castrated DD5.1 track? I don't.
After seeing the general lack of quality in mastering for DVDs, I would guess
that only sometimes would the full DD5.1 mix be placed on such a disk.
Even the DVD fanatics acknowledge the general poor mastering of DVDs, and a
really good example is the fact that I own more unique THX certified
laserdisc titles (83) than the total amount of DVD titles that have been
THX certified (71), and we all know what a joke some of those are, and most
of the DVDs that really deserve the certification use the same masters as the
laserdisc.
As your hint in your other posts, Thad, the designers and implementers of
DVD have fallen *far* short of what could have been an astounding medium.
As it is, I see it as a stopgap.
--
Jeff Rife |
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/Evaluation.jpg
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 |
Home: 301-916-8131 |
Work: 301-770-5800 Ext 5335 |
Altair4
make MUSE utterly and completely irrelevant, in >addition to
its current insignificance).
>Only in the USA with its idiotic 18 different DTV standards.
It sounds like you wish this country had adopted MUSE. Once
again, this attitude of "why should market realities intrude on
what I like" by an LDphile. You may not like what the US
adopted, but that's the system it made economic and practical
sense for this country to have. The only significant problems
people in this country (except maybe the half dozen or so MUSE
fans) have with HDTV are availability of programming and the
cost of the sets. Those will fade over time. In practical
terms, 1080i IS the US HDTV standard (virtually all HDTV
programming is native 1080i or upconverted to it), so the
situation is hardly the "chaos" you imply. It's a system
Japanese manufacturers are happy to go along with, because of
its better marketability (again, a concept that seems to bother
you).
>Sounds like you're jealous that laserdisc has been capable of
true HDTV for a decade.
Hardly. Its market presence is far too minuscule (it barely
registers at all) to be jealous of.
>And, ironically, the Japanese also "invented" DVD, again to the
embarrassment of the USA. >Face it, as regards video and audio
entertainment, the USA is a poor 3rd-rate power, further
>confirmed by an idiotic wishy-washy FCC who couldn't even come
up with a single coherent >DTV standard.
Your injection of nationalism into this debate is quite
irrelevant and rather silly. It means nothing to me where
technology comes from. The Japanese "invented" VHS. A non
Japanese company, (Philips) "invented" LD. The
Japanese "invented" DVD. And the Japanese will "invent"
HDDVD. So WHAT? If YOU decide to turn up your nose at HDDVD
because it caters to the US market, and doesn't use the "home
grown Japanese MUSE system", that'll be your problem. The rest
of us will enjoy it.
Thad Floryan
| >HDDVD will be another evolutionary step (and of >| course will
| make MUSE utterly and completely irrelevant, in >addition to
| its current insignificance).
| >Only in the USA with its idiotic 18 different DTV standards.
|
| It sounds like you wish this country had adopted MUSE.
Not particularly. I don't really care for any broadcast programming
with its incessant commercials and butchered/hacked/trimmed airings of
movies, and it has been trivial to import from Asia whatever I wanted
in the way of A/V entertainment.
And, FWIW, I've already long confirmed that USA HDTV is 100% compatible
with my present HDTV setups so I don't need to buy anything more except
whatever fully-HDTV-compatible-new-media players that come down the pipe
in the future.
| Once again, this attitude of "why should market realities intrude on
| what I like" by an LDphile. You may not like what the US
| adopted, but that's the system it made economic and practical
| sense for this country to have. The only significant problems
| people in this country (except maybe the half dozen or so MUSE
| fans) have with HDTV are availability of programming and the
| cost of the sets. Those will fade over time.
So what. 8-track tapes have faded over time, too.
Point is, I've been enjoying tomorrow's technology yesterday.
And your "half dozen or so MUSE fans" comment repeated so often is so
patently absurd I wonder if you have any clues at all. Many companies
make the players, the displays, the broadcast satellites (yes, plural)
that I can only conclude again (as I wrote before):
Sounds like you're jealous that laserdisc has been capable of
true HDTV for a decade.
| In practical terms, 1080i IS the US HDTV standard (virtually all HDTV
| programming is native 1080i or upconverted to it), so the
| situation is hardly the "chaos" you imply. It's a system
| Japanese manufacturers are happy to go along with, because of
| its better marketability (again, a concept that seems to bother
| you).
You have no idea what might possibly bother me, and you clearly are ignorant
of the MUSE and HiVision specs. Feel welcome to read some of the articles
archived at URL:
http://www.thadlabs.com/LD_info/
As I proved (to myself) some time ago, USA HDTV is fully compatible with
my present MUSE setups, so nothing has become obsolete or will fade away,
so I can only conclude again (as I wrote before):
Sounds like you're jealous that laserdisc has been capable of
true HDTV for a decade.
| Hardly. Its market presence is far too minuscule (it barely
| registers at all) to be jealous of.
But it proved the concept of HDTV and pushed the USA-market to begin to
embrace what others have had for a long time. Your (and several others')
prior writings clearly make one wonder about your agenda and the apparent
"hiding one's head in the sand".
| >And, ironically, the Japanese also "invented" DVD, again to the
| embarrassment of the USA. >Face it, as regards video and audio
| entertainment, the USA is a poor 3rd-rate power, further
| >confirmed by an idiotic wishy-washy FCC who couldn't even come
| up with a single coherent >DTV standard.
|
| Your injection of nationalism into this debate is quite
| irrelevant and rather silly. It means nothing to me where
| technology comes from. The Japanese "invented" VHS. A non
| Japanese company, (Philips) "invented" LD. The
| Japanese "invented" DVD. And the Japanese will "invent"
| HDDVD. So WHAT? If YOU decide to turn up your nose at HDDVD
| because it caters to the US market, and doesn't use the "home
| grown Japanese MUSE system", that'll be your problem. The rest
| of us will enjoy it.
Nationalism is irrelevant? Then you're not concerned the USA may this
century become the equivalent of a 3rd-world power dependent on other
countries for everything? The trend is clear and I don't like it, but
I'll agree this off-topic discussion doesn't belong in this newsgroup.
And when have I *EVER* written that HDDVD was "bad"? Do you also have a
memory-lapse problem?
Just last night I wrote that I was anticipating DVD-Video's debut to have
had HDDVD capability and the fact it didn't is why so many of us are so
"ho hum" about the present DVD-Video because there's really nothing that
can be considered a breakthrough leap forwards (as HD-DVD will be).
Beginning in 1996 in this newsgroup I was writing favorably in anticipation
of future HD technology and media and expressing my disappintment that the
[then] pending DVD-Video debut was not going to herald that [true] technology
leap given how MUSE/HiVision clearly demonstrated years before that HDTV is
practical and desirable for the home.
Also back then nearly everyone else responding in this newsgroup was poo-pooing
HDTV in whatever form (MUSE or USA-HDTV).
FWIW, I'll probably have one of the first HD-DVD setups in the USA given how
I usually receive "stuff" before it hits the consumer marketplace. Some other
video display technologies I've seen in private showings have excited me but
it'll probably be 20-30 years before they're ready for the mass markets, yet
I'll embrace them the moment I can get them.
You're barking up and pissing on the wrong tree with your ill-conceived and
misdirected rebuttals, and you should realize that the present DVD-Video is
primarily directed and marketed at the people who presently only have VHS.
Thad Floryan
| Thad Floryan (th...@thadlabs.com) wrote:
| > The vast majority of DVD buyers/renters do NOT have DD5.1 playback capability
| > and most DD5.1 DVDs do NOT also have an explicit DD2.0 audio track so there is
| > a different DD mix for DVDs with some LFE spread over to the L and R channels
| > and LFE is generally attentuated since most DVD users play their movies through
| > modest systems.
|
| So, do you suspect that DVDs with both a DD2.0 and a DD5.1 track *don't*
| have a castrated DD5.1 track? I don't.
Generally I don't either. I made the "discovery" quite by accident last
November with releases such as THE MATRIX, THE PEACEMAKER, and others.
| After seeing the general lack of quality in mastering for DVDs, I would guess
| that only sometimes would the full DD5.1 mix be placed on such a disk.
|
| Even the DVD fanatics acknowledge the general poor mastering of DVDs, and a
| really good example is the fact that I own more unique THX certified
| laserdisc titles (83) than the total amount of DVD titles that have been
| THX certified (71), and we all know what a joke some of those are, and most
| of the DVDs that really deserve the certification use the same masters as the
| laserdisc.
|
| As your hint in your other posts, Thad, the designers and implementers of
| DVD have fallen *far* short of what could have been an astounding medium.
| As it is, I see it as a stopgap.
Beginning in 1996 I was writing here that DVD-Video is but an interim format.
That doesn't mean it's necessarily "bad", but it's clearly not what could have
debuted in 1997 and is why so many of us are "ho hum" about DVD-Video even
though I presently own:
polaris bash 25752/25753> ls -l *base
-r--r--r-- 1 thad staff 53422 Apr 19 06:03 DVD.database
-r--r--r-- 1 thad staff 312222 Apr 19 05:56 LD.database
polaris bash 25752/25753> wc -l < DVD.database
729
polaris bash 25752/25753> wc -l < LD.database
4131
That's 729 DVD-Video titles and 4131 LD titles. And the LD count will go
up again today (Saturday) as I will stop by Videoscope since I need to stop
by Beverages'N'More to restock my beer fridge for tomorrow's Easter BBQ with
spit-roasted bunny rabbits and baby chickens for the kiddies and a DVD-shoot
(in my backyard) for the adults. Pull, fling, *B*L*A*M*. And don't worry,
I restrict the event to .410" shotguns to avoid hitting the neighbors' horsies
with lead and/or polycarbonate fragments. :-)
Altair4
>irrelevant and rather silly. It means nothing to me where >
>technology comes from. The Japanese "invented" VHS. A >non >
>Japanese company, (Philips) "invented" LD. The >
>Japanese "invented" DVD. And the Japanese will "invent" >
>HDDVD. So WHAT?
>dependent on other countries for everything?
You're contradicting yourself. First you grumble that the US
developed its own HDTV system (instead of the Japanese system)
for nationalistic reasons, then you express fear that the US may
be too "dependent" on other countries, again for nationalistic
reasons.
> I'll agree this off-topic discussion doesn't belong in this
>newsgroup.
I agree as well.
>you should realize that the present DVD-Video is primarily
>directed and marketed at the people who presently only have
>VHS.
Is that why the vast majority of LD owners have embraced DVD?
Altair4
charles...@aol.com (CharlesMcBarron) wrote:
>>you should realize that the present DVD-Video is primarily
>>directed and marketed at the people who presently only have
VHS.<<
>
>>>>Is that why the vast majority of LD owners have embraced DVD?
<<
>
It's proven easily enough by the relative sales figures of DVD
and LD since DVD's introduction (LD sales and production have
shrunk to the vanishing point in this country---500 count
preorders can't even be filled--, and former LD producers such
as Criterion have switched to DVD). It's also proven by polls
taken by such publications as the DVD/LD Newsletter, asking its
readers who are LD owners what they now prefer. They prefer
DVD. And it's proven still further by posts from individual LD
owners all over the Internet. I realize you and a few others
hate having to face up to this fact, but it's a fact
nevertheless.
it has nothing to do
>the the statement that "DVD-Video is primarily directed and
marketed at the
>people who presently only have VHS" which obviously is a true
statement, as the
>LD market is far smaller than the VHS market.
>
>Just another example of the LD haters trying to start an
argument where there
>is nothing to argue about.
How little you understand my attitude about LD. I don't hate it
at all. I just think DVD is better. And I'll reiterate--MOST
people who used to favor LD (including myself) now favor DVD.
Get over it.
If you really want to know what I hate, it's the rather elitist
attitude that only VHS owners could POSSIBLY think DVD is better
than LD. As I've shown, that's not true, whether you like it or
not.
Joshua Zyber
news:0a6d1c78...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com...
> If you really want to know what I hate, it's the rather elitist
> attitude that only VHS owners could POSSIBLY think DVD is better
> than LD. As I've shown, that's not true, whether you like it or
> not.
I think it's a fair assumption that all of us here own VHS. We may not like
it, but we are all "VHS owners".
And I'm tired of everyone throwing out the "elitist" term like it's a bad
thing. So what? I like being an elitist.
- Josh
---------------------
Joshua Zyber
Curator, Laserdisc Forever Review Archive
www.mindspring.com/~jzyber/laserdiscforever.htm
Altair4
Zyber" <jzy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Altair4 <altair4...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:0a6d1c78...@usw-ex0103-024.remarq.com...
>> If you really want to know what I hate, it's the rather
elitist
>> attitude that only VHS owners could POSSIBLY think DVD is
better
>> than LD. As I've shown, that's not true, whether you like it
or
>> not.
>
>I think it's a fair assumption that all of us here own VHS. We
may not like
>it, but we are all "VHS owners".
>
>
I think you missed, or chose to avoid, the point. By "VHS
owners" is meant people who don't own anything better than that,
be it DVD or LD or 35mm film. Plenty of people who own LD and
even some who own 35 mm film projectors have decided that DVD is
better than LD. Again, you sound like a person who's trying
very hard not to face up to that fact.
>And I'm tired of everyone throwing out the "elitist" term like
>it's a bad
>thing. So what? I like being an elitist.
>
>- Josh
>
Hey, if you want to take the Dan Helmick attitude that people
with an opinion that differs from yours have such an opinion
simply because they're inferior to you (ironic, in view of your
proper outrage at the Farenheit crack), go right ahead. People
will then have a better idea of where you're coming from--that
the primary motivation for the dislike of DVD is that it let
the "riffraff" (as you define it) into the country club.
Robert
CharlesMcBarron
>directed and marketed at the people who presently only have VHS.<<
>>>Is that why the vast majority of LD owners have embraced DVD?<<
Even if that's true (it might be but you can't prove it) it has nothing to do
Joshua Zyber
> >> If you really want to know what I hate, it's the rather
> elitist
> >> attitude that only VHS owners could POSSIBLY think DVD is
> better
> >> than LD. As I've shown, that's not true, whether you like it
> or
> >> not.
> >
> >I think it's a fair assumption that all of us here own VHS. We
> may not like
> >it, but we are all "VHS owners".
>
> I think you missed, or chose to avoid, the point. By "VHS
> owners" is meant people who don't own anything better than that,
> be it DVD or LD or 35mm film. Plenty of people who own LD and
> even some who own 35 mm film projectors have decided that DVD is
> better than LD. Again, you sound like a person who's trying
> very hard not to face up to that fact.
I'm not trying to face up to anything. I was just correcting your grammar.
Perhaps you should say "VHS-only owners" or something like that.
> >And I'm tired of everyone throwing out the "elitist" term like
> >it's a bad
> >thing. So what? I like being an elitist.
>
> Hey, if you want to take the Dan Helmick attitude that people
> with an opinion that differs from yours have such an opinion
> simply because they're inferior to you (ironic, in view of your
> proper outrage at the Farenheit crack), go right ahead. People
> will then have a better idea of where you're coming from--that
> the primary motivation for the dislike of DVD is that it let
> the "riffraff" (as you define it) into the country club.
Now who's being smug?
It was an elitist attitude that formed the whole home theatre hobby in the
first place. Some people just don't like to settle for what everyone else
has.
Altair4
There was nothing wrong with my grammar. However, I'll agree
that "VHS-only owners" is more precise.
>It was an elitist attitude that formed the whole home theatre
hobby in the
>first place. Some people just don't like to settle for what
everyone else
>has.
>
>- Josh
>
There's a difference between wanting the best and worrying about
whether other people have it too. If, for example, I buy a DVD
that's considered to have outstanding picture and sound by
myself and by others who have excellent CRT front projectors and
sound systems (I express it that way to differentiate such
opinion from the "average Joe"), then that's all that matters to
me--Whether *I* think it's excellent.
However, I get the distinct impression from you that it bothers
you that "average Joes" (however you define them) ALSO like and
have access to those titles. It doesn't seem to be enough for
you that you think it's excellent. It sounds like you say to
yourself "ewwww...this title was also bought by someone at
Walmart!"
That's what I mean by "elitist"--a rather unreasonable and
frankly silly attitude I perceive on the part of some LD owners.
glam...@gateway.net
George Lambert
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
glam...@gateway.net
> >directed and marketed at the people who presently only have VHS.<<
>
> >>>Is that why the vast majority of LD owners have embraced DVD?<<
>
> Even if that's true (it might be but you can't prove it) it has
nothing to do
> the the statement that "DVD-Video is primarily directed and marketed
at the
> people who presently only have VHS" which obviously is a true
statement, as the
> LD market is far smaller than the VHS market.
Well, the LD market wasn't much of target, unfortunately.
Thad Floryan
You should occasionally visit the DVD newsgroups where you'll read the
problems DO exist as can be found in the 1000s of daily articles on just
these subjects (player bugs, and player:disc incompatibilties).
Even my SONY DVP-S7000, after recalibration, cannot play two DVDs:
BEYOND REDEMPTION, and
THE HARDCORE COLLECTION (R. Kern)
which play fine on my Toshiba DVD player, so it's just about time I divest
myself of the last remaining piece of SONY crap here and get something else.
glam...@gateway.net
product. It's been written that Microsoft 2000 comes to market with
about 20,000+ bugs. I don't deny that DVD is bug free, but there's
nowhere near that many problems reported against it. Hence my comment
about your excursion to the land of hyperbole.
:-)
Bill Spahn
>Well, let's go back to your original statement regarding Bill Gates'
>product. It's been written that Microsoft 2000 comes to market with
>about 20,000+ bugs. I don't deny that DVD is bug free, but there's
>nowhere near that many problems reported against it. Hence my comment
>about your excursion to the land of hyperbole.
>
>:-)
>
>George Lambert
>
>
The number is more like 63000 bugs...but to consider it in context you
need to look at defects per line of code which for Win2K is less than
2 per 1000 lines of code. Considering the size of the ROM chips on
most DVD players, I think Thad's assessment is pretty accurate.
Bill
REF:
http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/columns/0,4351,2440173,00.html
glam...@gateway.net
Bill Spahn <sp...@flash.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2000 17:44:42 GMT, glam...@gateway.net wrote:
>
> >Well, let's go back to your original statement regarding Bill Gates'
> >product. It's been written that Microsoft 2000 comes to market with
> >about 20,000+ bugs. I don't deny that DVD is bug free, but there's
> >nowhere near that many problems reported against it. Hence my
comment
> >about your excursion to the land of hyperbole.
> >
> >:-)
> >
> >George Lambert
> >
> >
> The number is more like 63000 bugs...but to consider it in context you
> need to look at defects per line of code which for Win2K is less than
> 2 per 1000 lines of code. Considering the size of the ROM chips on
> most DVD players, I think Thad's assessment is pretty accurate.
Thanks, Bill. Unfortunately, Thad didn't put any relative
qualifications to his statement. He simply said that DVD has more bugs
than any of ol' Bill's products. Therefore Thad's statement taken at
face value certainly isn't true (hence hyperbole).
Now to your assessment. A lot of folks complain about problems they're
experiencing, but many of those are rehashes of the same problem...just
reported by somebody else. That doesn't make each reported problem a
unique bug. And, without proper root cause analysis (which we don't
have), multiple reported symptoms could all be related to the same bug.
Therefore, unless you're in the business of performing RCA's on DVD ROM
chips, you have no way of knowing if your assessment is correct or not.
Thad Floryan
| [...]
| Well, let's go back to your original statement regarding Bill Gates'
| product. It's been written that Microsoft 2000 comes to market with
| about 20,000+ bugs. I don't deny that DVD is bug free, but there's
| nowhere near that many problems reported against it. Hence my comment
| about your excursion to the land of hyperbole.
|
| :-)
|
| George Lambert
Sheesh, 20,000! I recall when OS/360 had some 10,000 outstanding bugs that
IBM just said (paraphrased) "screw it, leave 'em be and just document them
since so many people are dependent on workarounds and fixing anything will
bring down the world."
Thad Floryan
| [...]
| Now to your assessment. A lot of folks complain about problems they're
| experiencing, but many of those are rehashes of the same problem...just
| reported by somebody else. That doesn't make each reported problem a
| unique bug. And, without proper root cause analysis (which we don't
| have), multiple reported symptoms could all be related to the same bug.
| Therefore, unless you're in the business of performing RCA's on DVD ROM
| chips, you have no way of knowing if your assessment is correct or not.
|
| George Lambert
OK. what's "RCA" in the context of your last sentence above? That's a new
one to me.
As regards my assessment of bugs (Gates' and/or DVD's), my comment was a
seat-of-the-pants guesstimageneralization based on what I hear/read, and I
hear/read of more DVD bugs than Gates bugs (which in NO way is to be construed
as any endorsement of MS products :-).
mlma...@my-deja.com
Oh, yes, those were the days:-(
When one encountered a bug in any IBM mainframe OS that didn't totally
crash it or CICS (those bugs tended to get fixed), one filed a bug
report and implemented a workaround. Then the workaround would be
documented as part of the corporate programming standards, since IBM was
expected _never_ to fix it.
It was like the conversation between a patient and a doctor:
Patient: "Doctor, it hurts when I do this"
Doctor: "Don't do that"
Even worse were those who exploited the unplanned "features". They would
file bug reports on the few fixes that IBM did.
Matthew
--
Matthew L. Martin Thermodynamics for Dummies:
First Law: You can't win
Second Law: You can't break even
Third Law: You can't get out of the game