Batman (1989) - Laser vs. DVD
Mark Zolton
I own both a laser disc player and a dvd player. I
am thinking of purchasing Batman (1989) for one of
them. I have read several reviews that say the DVD
transfer of the film is somewhat poor (mostly
grainy). Unfortuantly, I cannot find any reviews for
Batman on laser. Can anyone here give me a
comparison of the two disc so I know which one to
choose?
Thanks a bunch.
Mark
D. Carroll
I don't own the Batman DVD (although I own the LD) so I can't make too
many comparisons between it and the LD. However, I have seen the DVD
demoed at stores and, as a result, I have watched portions of the film
on DVD. I don't remember being too impressed with the DVD picture
quality. Most of the early DVD releases are marred by really visible
compression artifacts. In fact, the pan and scan side was pretty bad but
I suspect you are not interested in the pan and scan side.
The LD looks pretty good considering its age (9 years old). The
widescreen picture (1.85:1 aspect ratio) is sharp and the remarkably
grain free considering how dark the movie is. The colors are also
stable with little bleeding and chroma noise. If I have to fault this
transfer, it is that the blacks are ocassionally a little milky. The
LD's soundtrack is decent although not outstanding. In addition, the LD
contains no extras, side three is in CLV (instead of CAV - a missed
opportunity) and the cover is NOT gatefold (another missed
opportunity). Thankfully, WB used Pioneer USA to press this disc
instead of Sony or WEA so the pressing quality is good.
The DVD has a "remastered" Dobly Digital soundtrack (because the movie
was never Dolby Digital in the theaters.) In addition, the DVD also has
both WS and FF versions on the same disc.
Both the LD and the DVD have a MSRP of $24.98.
I hope this helps.
P.S. I am happy with my Batman LD and never felt compelled to get the
DVD.
--
D. Carroll
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.crosswinds.net/~discdude/laserdiscs/index.html
Check out my site for:
-a LaserDisc mini-FAQ
-a decent (at least I think so) links page
-LaserDisc News
---------------------------------------------------------
To reply, remove the ***no spam*** from my email address
D. Carroll
>
> In article <37B9DDFD...@linuxmail.org>, blak...@linuxmail.org wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I own both a laser disc player and a dvd player. I
> > am thinking of purchasing Batman (1989) for one of
> > them. I have read several reviews that say the DVD
> > transfer of the film is somewhat poor (mostly
> > grainy). Unfortuantly, I cannot find any reviews for
> > Batman on laser. Can anyone here give me a
> > comparison of the two disc so I know which one to
> > choose?
>
> having to get up and change discs where on the DVD it's all on one side
> with no breaks. The picture on the DVD is fine, so long as your TV is
> properly calibrated. I had the LD and currently own the DVD. I've never
> noticed any artifacts on the DVD and am glad that I replaced the LD with
> the DVD.
>
> Mike
Yeah, I forgot about sides breaks. To ME (note empahsis on me) they are
a non-issue. I knew about them when I go into LD and they have never
bothered me at all (and my player doesn't have both-sides play).
However, I know they drive some people nuts. To each his own. The
artifacts are a lot worse on the P/S side which is the side I was
compaining about.
Starman
Mark Zolton
> Yeah, I forgot about sides breaks. To ME (note empahsis on me) they are
> a non-issue. I knew about them when I go into LD and they have never
> bothered me at all (and my player doesn't have both-sides play).
> However, I know they drive some people nuts. To each his own. The
> artifacts are a lot worse on the P/S side which is the side I was
> compaining about.
I feel the same way. Its more of a non-issue than
anything else. I own quite a few DVDs that are RSDL
and pause for a split second to access the other
layer. I understand that some DVD players are
capable of making this pause much quicker, however,
that is not the case with mine.
As far as the Batman LD goes, I've been a huge fan
of this movie even before it came out. It only
recently occurred to me that I do not have a decent
copy in my collection. So, chapter breaks aside,
what I'm hearing is that the LD could possibly have
a better transfer than the DVD, but the audio is
only DSurround and not DD5.1. Hmmmm.... theres no
compelling reason to choose one over the other from
what I hear so far.
However, the previous post mentioned properly tuning
my television. As I am without any sort of video
test disc, can anyone suggest a good way of
calibrating this without one?
Also, is there any way to find out which masters
were used to for both the LD and DVD transfers?
Thanks,
Mark
--
<-> Mark Zolton <->
<-> Kansas State University - Manhattan, KS USA <->
<-> blak...@linuxmail.org <->
<-> http://www.cis.ksu.edu/~mcz0339 <->
Starman
> > Yeah, I forgot about sides breaks. To ME (note empahsis on me) they are
> > a non-issue. I knew about them when I go into LD and they have never
> > bothered me at all (and my player doesn't have both-sides play).
> > However, I know they drive some people nuts. To each his own. The
> > artifacts are a lot worse on the P/S side which is the side I was
> > compaining about.
>
> I feel the same way. Its more of a non-issue than
> anything else. I own quite a few DVDs that are RSDL
> and pause for a split second to access the other
> layer. I understand that some DVD players are
> capable of making this pause much quicker, however,
> that is not the case with mine.
I don't understand why side breaks would be a 'non-issue' when you have
the chance to get the DVD with no side breaks. The break between side 2
and 3 is TERRIBLE. It happens right after the Batmobile blows up the
factory and right before the parade. Very jarring.
> As far as the Batman LD goes, I've been a huge fan
> of this movie even before it came out. It only
> recently occurred to me that I do not have a decent
> copy in my collection. So, chapter breaks aside,
> what I'm hearing is that the LD could possibly have
> a better transfer than the DVD, but the audio is
> only DSurround and not DD5.1. Hmmmm.... theres no
> compelling reason to choose one over the other from
> what I hear so far.
Well, you were given two: side breaks and DD 5.1 audio. If that isn't
enough to compell you to get the DVD, then I don't know what is.
> However, the previous post mentioned properly tuning
> my television. As I am without any sort of video
> test disc, can anyone suggest a good way of
> calibrating this without one?
Impossible without a test disc. Get either Video Essentials or Avia.
They're both very good. I prefer Avia myself.
> Also, is there any way to find out which masters
> were used to for both the LD and DVD transfers?
I belive the same master was used for both, but I'm not 100% sure about
that. It was speculated back when they were first released. I KNOW that
they used the same master for Ladyhawke since the same spot on the
telecine transfer shows up on both the LD and the DVD, so there's no
reason why Warner wouldn't have done the same for Batman.
Mike
--
Current DVD list: http://www.dvdtracker.com/~starman.asp
Current LD list: http://www.laserdisctracker.com/~starman.asp
ICQ 6426785: <img src="http://wwp.icq.com/scripts/online.dll?icq=6426785&img=2">
AOL IM: StarmanTHX
mlma...@my-deja.com
sta...@iamdigex.net (Starman) wrote:
> In article <37BA4CE7...@linuxmail.org>, blak...@linuxmail.org
wrote:
>
about
> that. It was speculated back when they were first released.
Ken Cranes website says that "Batman" is 16:9 enhanced. It was probably
from a new master. It was certainly a new telecine transfer.
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/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
D. Carroll
> I don't understand why side breaks would be a 'non-issue' when you have
> the chance to get the DVD with no side breaks. The break between side 2
> and 3 is TERRIBLE. It happens right after the Batmobile blows up the
> factory and right before the parade. Very jarring.
>
A side break when the scene changes is not very jarring to me. In
addition, film reel changes happen at those points in the theaters
anyway. What is jarring is a side break in middle of a scene or in
middle of dialog (both are rare thank god). I guess side breaks don't
bother me because I filp almost all formats I own, LD, compact cassette,
LP and, yes, even DVD.
> > As far as the Batman LD goes, I've been a huge fan
> > of this movie even before it came out. It only
> > recently occurred to me that I do not have a decent
> > copy in my collection. So, chapter breaks aside,
> > what I'm hearing is that the LD could possibly have
> > a better transfer than the DVD, but the audio is
> > only DSurround and not DD5.1. Hmmmm.... theres no
> > compelling reason to choose one over the other from
> > what I hear so far.
>
> Well, you were given two: side breaks and DD 5.1 audio. If that isn't
> enough to compell you to get the DVD, then I don't know what is.
>
> > However, the previous post mentioned properly tuning
> > my television. As I am without any sort of video
> > test disc, can anyone suggest a good way of
> > calibrating this without one?
>
> Impossible without a test disc. Get either Video Essentials or Avia.
> They're both very good. I prefer Avia myself.
>
Not impossible, but difficult. Black level(brightness) can be set by
looking at the letterbox bars and matching them with the black in
Batman's suit (both should be a nice dark black). Color's should be
bright but not bleeding or smeary. Turn the sharpness control down
(either to 0 or less than 1/4 point).
Tint and contrast are hard to set without a test pattern. I managed to
set my controls almost perfectly with this method. When I got Video
Essentials and conmpared the settings to what I had before, I had to
change little.
> > Also, is there any way to find out which masters
> > were used to for both the LD and DVD transfers?
>
> I belive the same master was used for both, but I'm not 100% sure about
> that. It was speculated back when they were first released. I KNOW that
> they used the same master for Ladyhawke since the same spot on the
> telecine transfer shows up on both the LD and the DVD, so there's no
> reason why Warner wouldn't have done the same for Batman.
>
> Mike
>
They definetly use different masters although the transfer used is
probably the same.
> --
> Current DVD list: http://www.dvdtracker.com/~starman.asp
> Current LD list: http://www.laserdisctracker.com/~starman.asp
> ICQ 6426785: <img src="http://wwp.icq.com/scripts/online.dll?icq=6426785&img=2">
> AOL IM: StarmanTHX
--
age...@my-deja.com
blak...@linuxmail.org wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I own both a laser disc player and a dvd player. I
> am thinking of purchasing Batman (1989) for one of
> them. I have read several reviews that say the DVD
> transfer of the film is somewhat poor (mostly
> grainy). Unfortuantly, I cannot find any reviews for
> Batman on laser. Can anyone here give me a
> comparison of the two disc so I know which one to
> choose?
>
to 1.66, NOT 1.85 as someone else indicated. The DVD is close to 1.78,
losing picture information on all four sides.
Also, as is often the case with DVDs, the some colors have been altered
from the theatrical version for the DVD (they did this with ALIENS to).
As an example, look at the pool table at the Wayne Benefit party. It's
green on one disc and blue on the other.
As for artifacts, they are plentiful. There's a ringing effect noticable
on some scenes. And images shimmer like mad. (As an example,
there are shots in the Joker's lair of a table filled with photo
cut-outs. The DVD can't keep the image steady, especially as the camera
moves. The LD is rock solid.)
The person who indicated that blacks weren't as defined on the LD is
correct. The DVD betters it there. Since the film was indeed remastered
for the DVD, it is a bit sharper and cleaner than the LD. But again, the
LD has a more stable image (and more image to view as well).
As for the audio, I didn't notice much difference between the Pro-logic
and 5.1 tracks. Remember, many DVDs that claim to be 5.1 are really not
(The ALIEN DVD for example), so the differences may be negligible.
If the remastered version were ever released on LD, it would be easy to
recommend it over the DVD (side-breaks aren't an issue for me either).
But they didn't, so you'll have to determine your own preferences.
S. Barry
D. Carroll
the Batman LD and DVD are pretty much the same picturewise The Dolby
Digital soundtrack on the DVD could sway some people toward the DVD.
Buy which ever is easier to find and is cheaper. Or since Mike seems to
hate his copy of Batman, ask him if he still has it. Then buy it for
$10.
Starman
> In article <starman-1808...@nj-1-dhcp35.nj.efi.com>,
> sta...@iamdigex.net (Starman) wrote:
> > In article <37BA4CE7...@linuxmail.org>, blak...@linuxmail.org
> wrote:
> >
> > I belive the same master was used for both, but I'm not 100% sure
> about
> > that. It was speculated back when they were first released.
>
> Ken Cranes website says that "Batman" is 16:9 enhanced. It was probably
> from a new master. It was certainly a new telecine transfer.
Well, that would do it. I didn't think they did 16x9's so early.
Mike
mlma...@my-deja.com
sta...@iamdigex.net (Starman) wrote:
> In article <7pee4j$u67$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, mlma...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <starman-1808...@nj-1-dhcp35.nj.efi.com>,
> > sta...@iamdigex.net (Starman) wrote:
> > > In article <37BA4CE7...@linuxmail.org>,
blak...@linuxmail.org
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I belive the same master was used for both, but I'm not 100% sure
> > about
> > > that. It was speculated back when they were first released.
> >
> > Ken Cranes website says that "Batman" is 16:9 enhanced. It was
probably
> > from a new master. It was certainly a new telecine transfer.
>
> Well, that would do it. I didn't think they did 16x9's so early.
>
16:9 enhancement was present very early on. One of my first DVDs (May
1997) was "Blade Runner" which is 16:9 enhanced.
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
Starman
<dokks@***nospam***zdnetmail.com> wrote:
> Anyway, to answer Mark's question, I think like many LD's and DVD, both
> the Batman LD and DVD are pretty much the same picturewise The Dolby
> Digital soundtrack on the DVD could sway some people toward the DVD.
> Buy which ever is easier to find and is cheaper. Or since Mike seems to
> hate his copy of Batman, ask him if he still has it. Then buy it for
> $10.
Sold it a LONG time ago.
geena phillips
>to 1.66, NOT 1.85 as someone else indicated.
Is your overscan that poorly adjusted? If you pay as little attention to the
rest of your tv settings, that would explain your utter BS complaints about the
DVD.
Geena P.
But no matter who you think you are/
there's always someone with a different view/
Someone who thinks he's got a right to say what's good for you.
---from "Man In The Street" by Joe Jackson
Mark Zolton
>
> A number of differences. First, the aspect ratio of the LD is close
> to 1.66, NOT 1.85 as someone else indicated. The DVD is close to 1.78,
> losing picture information on all four sides.
>
I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean
here. As I understand it, the greater the
aspect ratio is, the more picture you can see
at one time. For instance, a film that has a
2.35:1 ratio it much wider on the left and
right than say 1.85:1. So in the case of
Batman LD, wouldn't it's 1.66:1 ratio chop
off more on the left and right than the DVDs
1.78:1? If this movie was filmed 1.33:1, as
some are, and then matted for theatrical
viewing, then I could see how a 1.66:1 would
show more of the film. However, sometimes
this is not the intended ratio that the film
maker has set. The calssic example being Pee
Wee's Big Adventure where you can see the
chain being fed from under the bike. Clearly,
this film was meant to be seen in its matted
form. I don't have problem with matting when
it is designed to be viewed that way,
however, if it's just some cheap way of
attracting collectors by calling it
"widescreen" then I am not impressed.
> Also, as is often the case with DVDs, the some colors have been altered
> from the theatrical version for the DVD (they did this with ALIENS to).
> As an example, look at the pool table at the Wayne Benefit party. It's
> green on one disc and blue on the other.
>
Really? This is the first time I have heard
about this. Why would this be done - an error
perhaps? And when you say it is blue on one
disc and green on another, I assume you mean
that some DVDs show it in blue and some show
it in geen? That's weird. I can't understand
what would compel someone to make a change
like that unless it was a problem with the
transfer or some other mistake. Also, where
does this occur in the Aliens DVD? I don't
have an older copy of Aliens to compare my
DVD to.
> As for artifacts, they are plentiful. There's a ringing effect noticable
> on some scenes. And images shimmer like mad. (As an example,
> there are shots in the Joker's lair of a table filled with photo
> cut-outs. The DVD can't keep the image steady, especially as the camera
> moves. The LD is rock solid.)
Is this similar to the sequence in Anchor
Bay's original release of Halloween where the
camera pans past a white picket fence and the
fence seems to glow?
> The person who indicated that blacks weren't as defined on the LD is
> correct. The DVD betters it there. Since the film was indeed remastered
> for the DVD, it is a bit sharper and cleaner than the LD. But again, the
> LD has a more stable image (and more image to view as well).
Being such a dark film and all, it would seem
like this is a reason to purchase the LD.
Thanks again,
Mark
Starman
> In article <37B9DDFD...@linuxmail.org>,
> blak...@linuxmail.org wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I own both a laser disc player and a dvd player. I
> > am thinking of purchasing Batman (1989) for one of
> > them. I have read several reviews that say the DVD
> > transfer of the film is somewhat poor (mostly
> > grainy). Unfortuantly, I cannot find any reviews for
> > Batman on laser. Can anyone here give me a
> > comparison of the two disc so I know which one to
> > choose?
> >
> A number of differences. First, the aspect ratio of the LD is close
> to 1.66, NOT 1.85 as someone else indicated. The DVD is close to 1.78,
> losing picture information on all four sides.
>
> Also, as is often the case with DVDs, the some colors have been altered
> from the theatrical version for the DVD (they did this with ALIENS to).
> As an example, look at the pool table at the Wayne Benefit party. It's
> green on one disc and blue on the other.
HUH? Do you have a 35mm print to show WHICH version is correct? What's
your reference point for the colors? A friend of mine has a 35mm print of
the movie so maybe I'll bug him to check.
> As for artifacts, they are plentiful. There's a ringing effect noticable
> on some scenes. And images shimmer like mad. (As an example,
> there are shots in the Joker's lair of a table filled with photo
> cut-outs. The DVD can't keep the image steady, especially as the camera
> moves. The LD is rock solid.)
Again, this is NOT an issue on a properly calibrated TV. I see NO
artifacts on my copy. None. Zero.
> The person who indicated that blacks weren't as defined on the LD is
> correct. The DVD betters it there. Since the film was indeed remastered
> for the DVD, it is a bit sharper and cleaner than the LD. But again, the
> LD has a more stable image (and more image to view as well).
>
> As for the audio, I didn't notice much difference between the Pro-logic
> and 5.1 tracks. Remember, many DVDs that claim to be 5.1 are really not
> (The ALIEN DVD for example), so the differences may be negligible.
There's a better balance of front and rear audio on the DVD. The Pro-Logic
version is good for people with better decoders than don't 'bleed' the
audio like some crappy Pro-Logic receivers do. The DD version stands out
here.
geena phillips
>> from the theatrical version for the DVD (they did this with ALIENS to).
>> As an example, look at the pool table at the Wayne Benefit party. It's
>> green on one disc and blue on the other.
>>
>
>about this.
That's because it's total horseshit.
geena phillips
>> correct. The DVD betters it there. Since the film was indeed remastered
>> for the DVD, it is a bit sharper and cleaner than the LD. But again, the
>> LD has a more stable image (and more image to view as well).
>
>like this is a reason to purchase the LD.
It would if it were true.
age...@my-deja.com
m...@wheat.ksu.edu wrote:
>
>
Well, as you can see, the DVD zealots are plentiful here. I'll answer
their comments in this one response. They will respond negatively. In
the end, you must see for yourself.
If this movie was filmed 1.33:1, as
> some are, and then matted for theatrical
> viewing, then I could see how a 1.66:1 would
> show more of the film.
It does, on the top and bottom. Burton, as I understood it when the film
was released, shot it at approx. 1.37. It is definitely not hard-matted.
> Really? This is the first time I have heard
> about this. Why would this be done - an error
> perhaps? And when you say it is blue on one
> disc and green on another, I assume you mean
> that some DVDs show it in blue and some show
> it in geen? That's weird. I can't understand
> what would compel someone to make a change
> like that unless it was a problem with the
> transfer or some other mistake.
If you can, do your own comparison. DVDs are often tinkered with by
technicians to make them more "eye-popping." I'll provide another
example. JASON & THE ARGONAUTS had a number of night scenes
(day-for-night) as was intended (and approved) by Harryhausen on the
Criterion LD. The DVD has changed that, making it more of a sunset time
of evening (with no input from Harryhausen). Yes, it's pretty, but not
what Harryhausen intended.
Also, where
> does this occur in the Aliens DVD? I don't
> have an older copy of Aliens to compare my
> DVD to.
Check the clothing of Paul Reiser and the corporate execs grilling
Ripley. (By the way, on my copy of ALIENS DVD, the layer change cuts
into dialogue.)
> > As for artifacts, they are plentiful. There's a ringing effect
noticable on some scenes. And images shimmer like mad. (As an example,
> > there are shots in the Joker's lair of a table filled with photo
> > cut-outs. The DVD can't keep the image steady, especially as the
camera moves. The LD is rock solid.)
>
> Is this similar to the sequence in Anchor
> Bay's original release of Halloween where the
> camera pans past a white picket fence and the
> fence seems to glow?
Haven't seen the disc, so I can't comment. But check the DVD BATMAN
sequence I mentioned on your player. See for yourself. Anyone who says
there are no artifacts is in denial. I've never met anyone who hasn't
noticed them. (Except on this board.) I sometimes use it (among many
other titles) to show others who claim that "it's all BS."
Also, my monitor is professionally calibrated by ISF every year. And no,
I don't own a print of the film. But I had seen it in theatres a few
times (most recently two years ago, after I had the DVD).
As I said, if you can, rent the DVD and let your own eyes be the judge.
Joshua Zyber
Starman <sta...@iamdigex.net> wrote in message
news:starman-1808...@nj-1-dhcp35.nj.efi.com...
> I belive the same master was used for both, but I'm not 100% sure about
> they used the same master for Ladyhawke since the same spot on the
> telecine transfer shows up on both the LD and the DVD, so there's no
> reason why Warner wouldn't have done the same for Batman.
For what it's worth, here's what the DVD-Laserdisc Newsletter said in their
review:
"The improvements to the picture on Tim Burton's Batman (12000, $25) are
fairly interesting. The DVD picture, apparently taken from a new transfer,
is darker than the laser disc (Feb 90)--it is almost impossible to watch the
movie in a well-lit room--but the picture is clearly more accurate. The
laser disc looks too bright, as if intentional shadows had been compromised
for the sake of the video presentation, and the balance of dark and light on
the DVD feels much more accurate and more artistically satisfying. The
colors and fleshtones are also more accurate and the image is crisper. The
picture is presented in letterboxed format on one side and in full screen
format on the other. The letterboxing has an aspect ratio of about 1.85:1,
adding some picture information to the sides of the image and masking off
some from the bottom compared to the full screen image. The stereo surround
sound is said to have been remastered for Dolby Digital. The regular stereo
track sounds excellent and the 126 minute film is presented in English and
French (though the Dolby Digital is apparently only in English). "
- Josh
PeterTHX
Starman <sta...@iamdigex.net> wrote
> > Ken Cranes website says that "Batman" is 16:9 enhanced. It was probably
> > from a new master. It was certainly a new telecine transfer.
>
> Well, that would do it. I didn't think they did 16x9's so early.
>
>
Yep, new transfer. Stunning too, some may say very dark, but EXACTLY the way
it was theatrically. The shadow detail is VERY impressive.
The "remastered" DD 5.1 is from the discrete 70MM 6-track masters (4.1),
again sounding the way it did theatrically (not too impressive, but better
than Pro-Logic).
Warner started archiving 16:9 transfers around the time of "Batman Returns"
in 1992.
PeterTHX
<age...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7pfh1d$pvs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <37BAF000...@wheat.ksu.edu>,
> m...@wheat.ksu.edu wrote:
> >
> >
> Well, as you can see, the DVD zealots are plentiful here. I'll answer
> their comments in this one response. They will respond negatively. In
> the end, you must see for yourself.
>
> If this movie was filmed 1.33:1, as
> > some are, and then matted for theatrical
> > viewing, then I could see how a 1.66:1 would
> > show more of the film.
>
> It does, on the top and bottom. Burton, as I understood it when the film
> was released, shot it at approx. 1.37. It is definitely not hard-matted.
>
It IS definately hard-matted at 1.66. There are NO full-frame shots that
don't lose information at the sides.
PeterTHX
<age...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:7pemdd$55j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <37B9DDFD...@linuxmail.org>,
> blak...@linuxmail.org wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I own both a laser disc player and a dvd player. I
> > am thinking of purchasing Batman (1989) for one of
> > them. I have read several reviews that say the DVD
> > transfer of the film is somewhat poor (mostly
> > grainy). Unfortuantly, I cannot find any reviews for
> > Batman on laser. Can anyone here give me a
> > comparison of the two disc so I know which one to
> > choose?
> >
> A number of differences. First, the aspect ratio of the LD is close
> to 1.66, NOT 1.85 as someone else indicated. The DVD is close to 1.78,
> losing picture information on all four sides.
>
> Also, as is often the case with DVDs, the some colors have been altered
> from the theatrical version for the DVD (they did this with ALIENS to).
> As an example, look at the pool table at the Wayne Benefit party. It's
> green on one disc and blue on the other.
>
> As for artifacts, they are plentiful. There's a ringing effect noticable
> on some scenes. And images shimmer like mad. (As an example,
> there are shots in the Joker's lair of a table filled with photo
> cut-outs. The DVD can't keep the image steady, especially as the camera
> moves. The LD is rock solid.)
>
> The person who indicated that blacks weren't as defined on the LD is
> correct. The DVD betters it there. Since the film was indeed remastered
> for the DVD, it is a bit sharper and cleaner than the LD. But again, the
> LD has a more stable image (and more image to view as well).
>
> As for the audio, I didn't notice much difference between the Pro-logic
> and 5.1 tracks. Remember, many DVDs that claim to be 5.1 are really not
> (The ALIEN DVD for example), so the differences may be negligible.
>
> If the remastered version were ever released on LD, it would be easy to
> recommend it over the DVD (side-breaks aren't an issue for me either).
> But they didn't, so you'll have to determine your own preferences.
>
> S. Barry
>
>
Patman
this to it being an early DVD transfer/pressing, and that it wasn't
RSDL to take advantagous of a higher bitrate. To those who don't see
the artifacts, well, I guess you're happy with your copy, I'm not.
In article <7pemdd$55j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <age...@my-deja.com> wrote:
--
************** A random quote from Heathers: ************
"People love you, but *I* know you."
*** My WWW home page: http://www.io.com/~patman/ *****