who likes laserdisc flipping ?
jason
I have been into laserdisc since 1995 and think it is a very good format.
When I first got into them it was obvious to see the picture and sound
improvement over vhs.
However, we all know that DVD only offers slight picture improvement and has
the same high quality sound as laserdisc. But I think the biggest
improvement DVD has to offer for home cinema fans is the fact that you have
not got to : FILP OR SWAP DISC'S halfway through a film, this has always
irritated me and now i find watching a film on DVD is a lot less hassle.
I still have my Laserdisc player and discs , i dont think i will ever sell
them.
In my opinion DVD 's success has grown from the support of Laserdics fans
who swiched to DVD at its launch.
Thanks for reading,
Jason UK
Clark7652
>irritated me and now i find watching a film on DVD is a lot less hassle.
>
This has never bothered me,since it was always a good time to break and use the
bathroom.(besides this, my pioneer 79 switches automatically in just a few
seconds).I do like the dvd feature of not having to flip, but the ironic thing
is ,when I have a bunch of folks over to watch a dvd,there is always one or two
who want to stop the dvd and use the bathroom at some point.So I dont see the
flipping issue as a good argument aganist laserdisc.It is great on dvd though
to be able to just hit stop and when you hit play later,it starts up at the
same point where you left off.
vila
hours?!
Clark7652 <clar...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010224105139...@ng-ba1.aol.com...
Clark7652
>hours?!
No I dont,but alot of other people do.
rr
jason wrote in message <978d0d$ls0$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>Hi Laser fans,
>...
>the same high quality sound as laserdisc. But I think the biggest
>improvement DVD has to offer for home cinema fans is the fact that you have
>not got to : FILP OR SWAP DISC'S halfway through a film, this has always
>irritated me and now i find watching a film on DVD is a lot less hassle.
>
>Thanks for reading,
> Jason UK
There are players that will automatically flip sides if this is a problem
for you. There are also machines that will hold 2 discs and play all 4 sides
if this is a problem. Are you planning on watching all 8 hours of The
Frighteners boxed set without getting up?
Flipping discs have not been a big issue for me and so I never sought out
one of these players. Some albums come packaged on 2 CDs and yet there are
still single tray CD players selling. I guess that those artists must have
intended the listener to get up and put in a different album after listening
to "Disc 1" since no one could be expected to listen to both CDs in a single
sitting...
In the 1980s the biggest gripe I heard was "can't record on it" which is an
oddly not heard from the people who adopted DVD. They came late to the game
of home video and do not want to admit their error (wow there are
commentaries, cut scenes, true aspect ratio, digital sound, etc.). Some of
those qualities have been expanded on with DVD but flipping discs wasn't the
only reason people stayed away from laser disc.
You Die Joe
> >have you got a weak bladder or something, films are generally about 2
> >hours?!
>
> No I dont,but alot of other people do.
Good thing Hitchcock didn't take them into account.
YDJ
Mac Breck
news:978d0d$ls0$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Hi Laser fans,
>
> I have been into laserdisc since 1995 and think it is a very good format.
> When I first got into them it was obvious to see the picture and sound
> improvement over vhs.
>
> However, we all know that DVD only offers slight picture improvement and
has
> the same high quality sound as laserdisc. But I think the biggest
> improvement DVD has to offer for home cinema fans is the fact that you
have
> not got to : FILP OR SWAP DISC'S halfway through a film, this has always
> irritated me and now i find watching a film on DVD is a lot less hassle.
Haven't you ever had to pause a DVD, to make a snack run, visit the
"facilities", let the dog out (I swear dogs wait 'till the middle of the DVD
to have to "go".), etc. I view the disc swap as Intermission.
> I still have my Laserdisc player and discs , i dont think i will ever sell
> them.
I'm never selling mine.
> In my opinion DVD 's success has grown from the support of Laserdics fans
> who swiched to DVD at its launch.
Switched to it? No. Supported it? Yes.
Mac
Mac Breck
> > FILP OR SWAP DISC'S halfway through a film, this has always
> >irritated me and now i find watching a film on DVD is a lot less hassle.
> >
>
> This has never bothered me,since it was always a good time to break and
use the
> bathroom.(besides this, my pioneer 79 switches automatically in just a few
> seconds).I do like the dvd feature of not having to flip, but the ironic
thing
> is ,when I have a bunch of folks over to watch a dvd,there is always one
or two
> who want to stop the dvd and use the bathroom at some point.
Exactly! When I took my "Ronin" over to my cousin's house, while we were
watching it, there were two bathroom breaks, three dogs that wanted out (at
different times), and two phone calls.
> So I dont see the
> flipping issue as a good argument aganist laserdisc.It is great on dvd
though
> to be able to just hit stop and when you hit play later,it starts up at
the
> same point where you left off.
DVD has the advantage in storage (fits on a tape shelf), and usually price.
Mac
Mac Breck
No, the real reason was lack of local places to rent or buy Laserdiscs, the
high cost of the Laserdisc players, *and* the fact that most people put
"cheap" ahead of "high quality". Most people I know who criticize Laserdisc
have never owned a Laserdisc. When they see one on my system, it's funny
how their attitudes change. I value opinions based on experience, not
hearsay, or the "facts" of the DVD salesperson.
Mac
Richard Kilpatrick
<j...@runbox.com> grabbed chalk and scrawled:
>However, we all know that DVD only offers slight picture improvement and has
>the same high quality sound as laserdisc. But I think the biggest
>improvement DVD has to offer for home cinema fans is the fact that you have
>not got to : FILP OR SWAP DISC'S halfway through a film, this has always
>irritated me and now i find watching a film on DVD is a lot less hassle.
You have to flip discs? You need a better player, mate ;)
Richard
--
Retrotech status: Atari XL, XE, Lynx, CompaqPort 386 |\ _,,,---,,_
Audio: SH101, S50, JV50, D50, JD800, Falcon030, DX7 /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,
Music: http://www.mp3.com/RichardKilpatrick/ |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'::.
Visual: CLD-D925, Toshiba SD2109. lovecraft.d.c.u '----''(_/--' `-'\_)Morticia
Richard Kilpatrick
Clark7652 <clar...@aol.com> grabbed chalk and scrawled:
>It is great on dvd though
>to be able to just hit stop and when you hit play later,it starts up at the
>same point where you left off.
I'm sure my CLD-D925 does that.
I now have 2 DVD players and my CLD-D925. One DVD player is really a
Playstation 2, and much to my horror that blasted Macrovision system
somehow senses that my PS2 is connected through the VCR (even though it
isn't recording) and messes up the contrast - either way, it would
appear the PS2 simply isn't a very good DVD player. The Toshiba SD2109 I
got almost by accident is.
I've got six movies on DVD, and 80 on Laserdisc ;)
The coolest extra feature I've found on the Toshiba is the Zoom
function. A lot of the extras on DVDs seem to include stills galleries,
so for peering in the background of a still shot, it's fun! Though it
doesn't make it any sharper, so I can't read the numberplates of the
cars around the set of Rocky Horror Picture Show :(
Sinjin
to remind myself of the 10-20 second hiccup I used to get with my LD with the
black screen and A --> B message every 50 minutes or so and if the movie was
really long having to get up and swap discs - sometimes more than one on CAV
sets.
>"jason" <j...@runbox.com> wrote in message
>news:978d0d$ls0$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>> Hi Laser fans,
>>
>> I have been into laserdisc since 1995 and think it is a very good format.
>> When I first got into them it was obvious to see the picture and sound
>> improvement over vhs.
>>
>> However, we all know that DVD only offers slight picture improvement and
>has
>> the same high quality sound as laserdisc. But I think the biggest
>> improvement DVD has to offer for home cinema fans is the fact that you
>have
>> not got to : FILP OR SWAP DISC'S halfway through a film, this has always
>> irritated me and now i find watching a film on DVD is a lot less hassle.
--------------------
Sinjin
www.SinjinSolves.com
Your Guide to Success
Todd Spangler
three of my seven LD players are single sided play only--one of those
three is an ancient top loading VP-1000. Honestly, though, I tend to
use these machines for watching a Star Trek episode or perhaps one
side's worth of movie serial episodes, neither of which requires a side
change anyway. On a two-sided player. I do find inserting the second
disc in a movie over 120 minutes a little annoying, however.
Todd
Joe
> flipping issue as a good argument aganist laserdisc.It is great on dvd
though
> to be able to just hit stop and when you hit play later,it starts up at
the
> same point where you left off.
Laserdisc players do the same thing.
Kurtis Bahr
LD player, I put the LD in, search in time mode to the exact point I want and
hit play. With my DVD player I have to wait for the commercials, then go
through the chapter selection and then scan to the point I want. I've
completely viewed the whole sceen by the time the DVD gets there. I have a
Toshiba SD3109 DVD player.
This is a shortfall in the interface of DVD in my opinion. This would need
to be corrected to make me happier. Of course Hollywood loves making us
watch the commercials. After all they killed LD and pushed DVD as the
standard. LD has no copyguard, no timecode, a Hollywood nightmare.
Kurtis
KAMCGANN
watch the commercials. After all they killed LD and pushed DVD as the
standard. LD has no copyguard, no timecode, a Hollywood nightmare.>
Dear Kurtis
With all due respect, low sales and extremely low consumer acceptance of
the LD format "killed" it. Hollywood's "nightmare" is to invest in a project
and Not have a significant return. This applies to its home video "departments"
as well. LaserDisc was not sponsored by PBS and was Not intended to be a
non-profit venture. (It just worked out that way)
Laserdisc, DVD, and HD-whatever will have to win or lose its place in
the real world of market forces. LD barely treaded water commercially at its
peak and had gone down "for the fourth time" before DVD was even announced.
You brought up the commercial issue,
I have LDs that have a trailer and/or a THX, DTS, Dolby Digital, Image, etc,
commercial "spots," sometimes many of the above before the Content begins.
Do these upset you? I always prefer a choice in viewing added trailers, etc.,
but many enthusiasts, like us, like trailers, yes?
Kraig
MDT
> when I want to watch a certain segment to test a
> LD player, I put the LD in, search in time mode to the exact point I want
and
> hit play
I can do exactly the same thing with both of the DVD players I've owned.
Joe Anstett
> Hi Laser fans,
>
> I have been into laserdisc since 1995 and think it is a very good format.
> When I first got into them it was obvious to see the picture and sound
> improvement over vhs.
>
> However, we all know that DVD only offers slight picture improvement and has
> the same high quality sound as laserdisc.
Well, I think the picture improvement is more than slight, especially because I
have a 16:9 VGA presentation display so I get not only anamorphic enhancement
and RGB picture quality, but 3:2 pulldown-free progressive images at 72Hz.
> But I think the biggest
> improvement DVD has to offer for home cinema fans is the fact that you have
> not got to : FILP OR SWAP DISC'S halfway through a film, this has always
> irritated me and now i find watching a film on DVD is a lot less hassle.
True, but it didn't bother me that much, and technically, there are DVD flippers
(like the upcoming Ben Hur).
> I still have my Laserdisc player and discs , i dont think i will ever sell
> them.
> In my opinion DVD 's success has grown from the support of Laserdics fans
> who swiched to DVD at its launch.
True, though there were a lot of LD fans who were very apprehensive about DVD at
launch. But I think DVD is what it is because of LD.
Joe
Mac Breck
news:20010225195938...@ng-ch1.aol.com...
> >Of course Hollywood loves making us
> watch the commercials. After all they killed LD and pushed DVD as the
> standard. LD has no copyguard, no timecode, a Hollywood nightmare.>
>
> Dear Kurtis
> With all due respect, low sales and extremely low consumer
acceptance of
> the LD format "killed" it.
Guess what? If there aren't a lot of stores selling Laserdisc players,
Laserdisc titles, and renting Laserdisc titles, they're NOT going to sell in
big numbers. Big surprise there, huh? Even at it's peak, Laserdisc players
and titles were available at only one store, 50 miles away from me (thru
lots of city/suburbs traffic), and you had to be a dedicated fan of
Laserdisc to know about the store, let alone find it. I knew about it
through word of mouth. At the time I had CED Disc, and a buddy of mine at
work got me interested in Laserdisc.
What killed Laserdisc was lack of availability, inability to record, and
lack of promotion. DVD is getting tons more promotion that Laserdisc ever
got. Laserdisc was marketed as a videophile's player, and was available
almost nowhere. VHS was marketed as everyman's player/recorder, and was
available everywhere. VHS rental tapes were available all over the place.
With these choices, what family was going to buy *both* a Laserdisc player
and a VHS player/recorder?
> Hollywood's "nightmare" is to invest in a project
> and Not have a significant return. This applies to its home video
"departments"
> as well. LaserDisc was not sponsored by PBS and was Not intended to be a
> non-profit venture. (It just worked out that way)
Because they didn't PROMOTE Laserdisc. Didn't make it available to most
people.
> Laserdisc, DVD, and HD-whatever will have to win or lose its place
in
> the real world of market forces. LD barely treaded water commercially at
its
> peak and had gone down "for the fourth time" before DVD was even
announced.
They're promoting DVDs. Hell, they're putting commercials on the DVDs
themselves. They're putting DVD commercials on VHS pre-recorded tapes.
With these differences in the marketing/promotion of DVD and Laserdisc, is
it really any surprise that DVD is selling? No. Finally, they woke up and
smelled the coffee.
> You brought up the commercial issue,
> I have LDs that have a trailer and/or a THX, DTS, Dolby Digital, Image,
etc,
> commercial "spots," sometimes many of the above before the Content begins.
> Do these upset you?
Only if the player won't let me fast forward/skip past them.
> I always prefer a choice in viewing added trailers, etc.,
> but many enthusiasts, like us, like trailers, yes?
Yes, sometimes, but sometimes I just want to go right to the movie.
Mac
MDT
> > Hollywood's "nightmare" is to invest in a project
> > and Not have a significant return. This applies to its home video
> "departments"
> > as well. LaserDisc was not sponsored by PBS and was Not intended to be a
> > non-profit venture. (It just worked out that way)
>
> Because they didn't PROMOTE Laserdisc. Didn't make it available to most
> people.
This assumes that all that's needed for something to succeed is to promote
it. There are many historical examples (New Coke, the Edsel) that show that
this is not the case. A more recent example is DIVX. I saw a HUGE amount
of promotion for it, more so than DVD. It was resoundingly rejected by
videophiles.
While it's true that laserdisc wasn't effectively promoted, don't assume
that it would have been much more successful if it had been.
KAMCGANN
Laserdisc titles, and renting Laserdisc titles, they're NOT going to sell in
big numbers.>
Why would there be a lot of stores selling LDs, players, etc., if
even after five years consumers were still indifferent? In LD's case, the
indifference lasted 20 years.
If LD is still such a wonderful state of the art format that offers
so much more than DVD and would obviously be a slam dunk if only consumers knew
about it, why is there no relaunch planned?
>>LaserDisc was not sponsored by PBS and was Not intended to be a non-profit
venture. (It just worked out that way)>>
>Because they didn't PROMOTE Laserdisc. Didn't make it available to most
people.>
The Best Promotion is word of mouth/testimonials. Only here, were reality is
skewed, is there astonishment at DVD's well earned success. DVD promises a lot
and delivers. LD is just too much of a reminder of Formats past.
Kraig
Douglas Bailey
> Laserdisc was marketed as a videophile's player, and was available
> almost nowhere.
Laserdisc was certainly much rarer than VHS, but I wouldn't go so far as
to say it was "available almost nowhere". They were, after all, sold at
Suncoast Video, which is a big national one-per-mall chain store.
And I know this... because the Suncoast in the Greendale Mall in
Worcester MA was where I first encountered LDs, and -- shame! horror! --
where I bought my first four discs: the Criterion MONTY PYTHON AND THE
HOLY GRAIL, the TERMINATOR 2: SE box set, and two copies of ROSENCRANTZ
AND GUILDENSTERN ARE DEAD.
And it *was* marketed as a videophile's player, but I don't think that
was what put people off. Speaking from my own experience, the two main
reasons I couldn't persuade my friends to buy LD players were (a) the
necessity of side and disc flips; and (b) the high prices of discs.
(These obviously weren't enough to dissuade *me*, though...)
doug
--
--------------douglas bailey (trys...@ne.mediaone.net)--------------
this week dragged past me so slowly; the days fell on their knees...
--david bowie
Joe Zollner
> With all due respect, low sales and extremely low consumer acceptance
> of the LD format "killed" it. Hollywood's "nightmare" is to invest in a
> project and Not have a significant return. This applies to its home video
> "departments" as well. LaserDisc was not sponsored by PBS and was Not
> intended to be a non-profit venture. (It just worked out that way)
>
> Laserdisc, DVD, and HD-whatever will have to win or lose its place
> in the real world of market forces. LD barely treaded water commercially
> at its peak and had gone down "for the fourth time" before DVD was even
> announced.
Kraig:
So if DVD did not exist, where do you think LD would be today? If DVD
truly did not "kill" LD, then your answer should be that LD would be in
the same state (99% dead) that it is in today.
Joe Zollner
jo...@execpc.com
--
Richard Kilpatrick
Zollner <jo...@earth.execpc.com> grabbed chalk and scrawled:
>So if DVD did not exist, where do you think LD would be today? If DVD
>truly did not "kill" LD, then your answer should be that LD would be in
>the same state (99% dead) that it is in today.
If DVD did not exist, it would have still taken a huge marketing push to
get Laserdisc accepted by the general consumer. Just before DVD came
out, they were marketing Widescreen videos.
I don't think that it would have worked. Too many people remembered
Laserdisc as a 1970s format. It's cool, it's good, but it's not
/modern/.
Richard, who hates Macrovision. Because my PS2 is connected through the
VCR scart socket, the Macrovision system cuts it. I'm reaching the point
where I seriously doubt I need a VCR at all ;) Not that it matters, as I
have a DVD player anyway, but I admit to being curious as to what
standard the UK PS2 manages.
Thad Floryan
| macb...@access995.com wrote:
|
| > Laserdisc was marketed as a videophile's player, and was available
| > almost nowhere.
|
| Laserdisc was certainly much rarer than VHS, but I wouldn't go so far as
| to say it was "available almost nowhere". They were, after all, sold at
| Suncoast Video, which is a big national one-per-mall chain store.
|
| And I know this... because the Suncoast in the Greendale Mall in
| Worcester MA was where I first encountered LDs, and -- shame! horror! --
| where I bought my first four discs: the Criterion MONTY PYTHON AND THE
| HOLY GRAIL, the TERMINATOR 2: SE box set, and two copies of ROSENCRANTZ
| AND GUILDENSTERN ARE DEAD.
|
| And it *was* marketed as a videophile's player, but I don't think that
| was what put people off. Speaking from my own experience, the two main
| reasons I couldn't persuade my friends to buy LD players were (a) the
| necessity of side and disc flips; and (b) the high prices of discs.
| (These obviously weren't enough to dissuade *me*, though...)
Interesting. I purchased my first two LDs at a local Suncoast (ROBINSON
CRUSOE ON MARS and ALIENS) before I even had my first LD player. And over
the years I got about 50+ free LDs at that same Suncoast as part of their
LD Club (noting the manager was giving me 2x the normal number of stamps
for LD purchases because I (almost literally) kept that store in business
during the period when I was buying VHS releases of movies).
Now, 4000 LDs later, I still have every one I ever purchased or received,
and fortunately there are still stores selling LDs in Silicon Valley and
N. California.
KAMCGANN
real world of market forces. LD barely treaded water commercially at its peak
and had gone down "for the fourth time" before DVD was even announced.>>
>So if DVD did not exist, where do you think LD would be today? If DVD truly
did not "kill" LD, then your answer should be that LD would be in the same
state (99% dead) that it is in today.>
I believe "that" is what I inferred "With all due respect, low sales and
extremely low consumer acceptance of the LD format "killed" it." DVD did not
need to kill LD and it did not. Consumers were not impressed with LD 20 years
ago. In 2001, LD is a joke, unless you love the format unconditionally. To most
consumers, Technology needs to be associated with compact, versatile, and
inexpensive. LD was none of those things. DVD appeals to consumers and
enthusiasts alike. It is a recipe for success, and That success will insure
that WS, DTS, DD, and SEs will continue to be offered/featured.
Kraig
Douglas Bailey
> "Douglas Bailey" <trys...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote in message
> > Laserdisc was certainly much rarer than VHS, but I wouldn't go so far as
> > to say it was "available almost nowhere". They were, after all, sold at
> > Suncoast Video, which is a big national one-per-mall chain store.
>
> Our local big mall (15 miles away, 30 miles round trip) only got a Suncoast
> Video a couple of years ago, and never had Laserdiscs.
Still, the fact that Suncoast (and Media Play, now that I think of it)
carried LDs means that the format doesn't meet my definition of
"available almost nowhere". I'd agree with "rare"...
> > and (b) the high prices of discs.
>
> Not compared to the prices of new releases on VHS. I don't know what new
> VHS releases were going for back then, but they go for $70 to $110 now.
> Laserdiscs usually go for about half that.
Again, you're preaching to the converted here. But most of my friends,
and I dare say most VHS buyers, don't buy VHS releases when they're at
the rental-pricing stage. They wait for the movie to hit the "sell-
through" price of $15-$20.
And LD, for all that it was cheaper than rental VHS, was *much* more
expensive than sell-through VHS. Remember Fox's featureless discs of the
STAR WARS movies priced at $70 list, *each*? Those alone were enough to
frighten off some of the people that I tried to sell on the LD format,
even after I pointed out that *no-one* ever paid list prices...
JT
> macb...@access995.com wrote:
>
> > Laserdisc was marketed as a videophile's player, and was available
> > almost nowhere.
>
> Laserdisc was certainly much rarer than VHS, but I wouldn't go so far as
> to say it was "available almost nowhere". They were, after all, sold at
> Suncoast Video, which is a big national one-per-mall chain store.
>
> And I know this... because the Suncoast in the Greendale Mall in
> Worcester MA was where I first encountered LDs, and -- shame! horror! --
> where I bought my first four discs: the Criterion MONTY PYTHON AND THE
> HOLY GRAIL, the TERMINATOR 2: SE box set, and two copies of ROSENCRANTZ
> AND GUILDENSTERN ARE DEAD.
>
> And it *was* marketed as a videophile's player, but I don't think that
> was what put people off. Speaking from my own experience, the two main
> reasons I couldn't persuade my friends to buy LD players were (a) the
> necessity of side and disc flips; and (b) the high prices of discs.
> (These obviously weren't enough to dissuade *me*, though...)
>
You forgot (c) LDs AND LD PLAYERS WERE EXCEEDINGLY EXPENSIVE IN THOSE EARLY
YEARS.
Mac Breck
> macb...@access995.com wrote:
> > "Douglas Bailey" <trys...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote in message
>
> > > Laserdisc was certainly much rarer than VHS, but I wouldn't go so far
as
> > > to say it was "available almost nowhere". They were, after all, sold
at
> > > Suncoast Video, which is a big national one-per-mall chain store.
> >
> > Our local big mall (15 miles away, 30 miles round trip) only got a
Suncoast
> > Video a couple of years ago, and never had Laserdiscs.
>
> Still, the fact that Suncoast (and Media Play, now that I think of it)
> carried LDs means that the format doesn't meet my definition of
> "available almost nowhere". I'd agree with "rare"...
I gather that the Suncoast or Media Play locations that you frequent, no
longer carry LD?
> > > and (b) the high prices of discs.
> >
> > Not compared to the prices of new releases on VHS. I don't know what
new
> > VHS releases were going for back then, but they go for $70 to $110 now.
> > Laserdiscs usually go for about half that.
>
> Again, you're preaching to the converted here. But most of my friends,
> and I dare say most VHS buyers, don't buy VHS releases when they're at
> the rental-pricing stage. They wait for the movie to hit the "sell-
> through" price of $15-$20.
The problem is that most of the rental places I've seen, *purposely* do NOT
carry Widescreen versions of the VHS tapes. They're all 4:3 P&S. The
$15-$20 tapes you mention, *and* the $14.96 bargain DVDs at Wal-Mart are
also 4:3 P&S.
> And LD, for all that it was cheaper than rental VHS, was *much* more
> expensive than sell-through VHS. Remember Fox's featureless discs of the
> STAR WARS movies priced at $70 list, *each*? Those alone were enough to
> frighten off some of the people that I tried to sell on the LD format,
> even after I pointed out that *no-one* ever paid list prices...
Did you ever point 'em to Ken Crane's?
Mac
Mac Breck
news:rdtp9t02th1bto3nt...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:59:07 GMT, "Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Except that DVD is getting more promotion than LD *ever* got.
>
> I think LD was in the wrong place at the wrong time. It had less
> promotion and cost more than dvds do now.
LD was ahead of it's time. Consumers weren't in a position to appreciate it
when it was launched.
Mac
KAMCGANN
when it was launched.>
What exactly were consumers supposed to appreciate about a Lp looking
additional P&S format that could not record? Remember, Discovision on early
players was Manual flip every 30 minutes and movies required at least Two 12"
platters. LDers want to remember LD's early days as if all releases were WS,
THX, SEs, with Digital Sound. This was simply not the case. All formats,
including DVD, bumble at their onset. A high percentage of DVDs are now RSDL
and enhanced for 16x9.
Kraig
Joshua Zyber
> LDers want to remember LD's early days as if all releases were WS,
> THX, SEs, with Digital Sound. This was simply not the case. All formats,
> including DVD, bumble at their onset.
Kraig once again disregards the fact that the entire home video market was
in its infancy during "LD's early days". Consumers and manufacturers were
learning the benefits of a quality video presentation as they went. There
were no predefined goals or expectations to be met. Laserdisc had to set
those standards, and it evolved over time as it needed to, changing the
market with it.
DVD was not released at such a time. It was released onto a matured and
sophisticated market that made it perfectly clear exactly what it had to be.
It had over 15 years of prior experience to build off and, as you yourself
just said, it still bumbled.
It still bumbles today. Anyone want to buy the re-released Special Edition
Deluxe PAN&SCAN copy of Space Jam, when the first (and only) laserdisc
edition got it right with a properly letterboxed presentation years earlier?
There is NO excuse for that kind of bumble. I might understand if they
released dual copies simultaneously, one widescreen and one pan&scan. I
might understand the first DVD release being pan&scan so long as the Special
Edition re-release were corrected. I might even understand had the laserdisc
been pan&scan as well. But as it is, this is a shameful state of affairs.
- Josh
---------------------
Joshua Zyber
Staff Reviewer, DVDFile
www.dvdfile.com
Curator, Laserdisc Forever Review Archive
**New Review 1/21/2001: Dolby Digital Experience/DTS Experience.**
www.mindspring.com/~jzyber/laserdiscforever.htm
KAMCGANN
sophisticated market that made it perfectly clear exactly what it had to be. It
had over 15 years of prior experience to build off and, as you yourself just
said, it still bumbled.>
The little known LD "market" was able to make the home video
marketplace Mature and Sophisticated? The most important things DVD learned
from LD are what NOT to do. But, alas DVD has made mistakes, but its triumphs
far outweigh them. Take a look at the DVD SEs of Fight Club, Gladiator, Se7en,
T2, A Bug's Life, Disney's Tarzan. No LD box set can touch them.
DVD's success with Enthusiasts and Consumers alike will insure the
future of WS, 16x9, DTS, DD, and SE title releases. LD's failure in the
marketplace made a strong case for P&S Movie only releases. VHS never had a
problem selling "them." Thank DVD for keeping high end home theater formats
viable.
I hope Josh can find it in his bleeding heart to pardon WB for making
an error with Space Jam. An important film like that should be given the proper
respect.
Kraig
Joshua Zyber
> The little known LD "market" was able to make the home video
> marketplace Mature and Sophisticated? The most important things DVD
learned
> from LD are what NOT to do.
Oh, I see. So now it's your contention that DVD also invented letterboxing,
Dobly Digital, DTS, audio commentaries, supplements, etc?
Revisionist history is a fascinating thing, but it tells you more about the
person doing the revising than anything else.
> But, alas DVD has made mistakes, but its triumphs
> far outweigh them. Take a look at the DVD SEs of Fight Club, Gladiator,
Se7en,
> T2, A Bug's Life, Disney's Tarzan. No LD box set can touch them.
Riiiiiggghtt.
Do I need to now list off all the hundreds of triumphant LD box sets that no
DVD will ever replicate?
Oh, that's right. Those never existed in your version of history. All
laserdiscs were always pan&scan movie-only releases with analog sound, right
up to the end.
> DVD's success with Enthusiasts and Consumers alike will insure
the
> future of WS, 16x9, DTS, DD, and SE title releases. LD's failure in the
> marketplace made a strong case for P&S Movie only releases.
Yeah, I guess that's why starting since the early 90s there has been an
upsurge in letterboxed VHS releases. I guess that's also why it was decided
that DVD should be widescreen from the start, with 'added-value' content.
Because LD proved there was no market for these things. Right.
> I hope Josh can find it in his bleeding heart to pardon WB for
making
> an error with Space Jam. An important film like that should be given the
proper
> respect.
Oh good, when all else fails just attack the movie that happens to be on the
disc we are talking about.
If you want the studios to start being selective about which movies can get
ADEQUATE presentations, I think you should start fearing for the vast
majority of B-movie titles that you've been awaiting.
- Josh
Jeff Rife
> Take a look at the DVD SEs of Fight Club, Gladiator, Se7en,
> T2, A Bug's Life, Disney's Tarzan. No LD box set can touch them.
You mean like the LD box set of T2 that had *more* content than the UE DVD
set?
Or the Criterion Seven LD box set that had at least as much (although
different) content as the SE DVD set?
All the rest of the discs you list had no domestic release on laserdisc, so
it's hardly fair to compare, but we understand that you must, so you can feel
superior in your choice of FORMAT vs. CONTENT.
And, no, that's not backwards, because you do choose format over content. If
you actually chose and cared about content, you would also speak of the
Toy Story laserdisc box, again with more content than the Toy Story portion
of the extras in the Ultimate Toy Box DVD.
Or you would talk about the Psycho (1960) laserdisc box set, again with *more*
content than the DVD, even though both were released by Universal.
Or you would talk about the Alien laserdisc box, again with more content than
the DVD, and again both released by the same studio (Fox, this time).
Then, of course, I could pull your kind of stunt, and argue about how much
better the Frighteners LD box set is than the DVD box set...oh, yeah, there
isn't one. And then there are all the Disney box sets of movies that are
in the "Gold Collection" for DVD, and thus will *never* get as much content
as the laserdisc had...we know, because we've already seen the movie-only
(or maybe movie plus trailer) releases.
So, if you want to be a CONTENT person, you'd list both sides of the story,
but since you want to be a FORMAT person, you will continue to make
patentedly absurd statements like:
> No LD box set can touch them.
--
Jeff Rife | Coach: How's life treating you, Norm?
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane |
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 | Norm: Like it caught me in bed with its wife.
Home: 301-916-8131 |
Work: 301-770-5800 Ext 5335 |
Mondo Kane
Kraig, I stated the other day that I feel it's best to no longer respond
to your VERY ignorant posts here, and I intend to abide by that pledge.
But please, for others sake, do NOT bother commening on "the early days
of LDs... blah, blah, etc", as with your most recent post above (that
Josh responded too) -- buddy you prove you know ZILCH about "the early
days of LDs".
If you desire to know the true history of the early days of home video
(especially as it concerns LD), then please ask me, or Ty, Blaine, or
somebody else who are much more qualified to give answers and info, than
a "Johnny-come-Lately-Elitus", such as yourself.
Mr. Kraig -- LD: content valuable, format worthless -- McGoofus!
Or, has another recently wrote me... Kraig McGoon!
Regards.... MondoKane
Mac Breck
news:97k5ci$o92$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> KAMCGANN <kamc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010228120935...@ng-mi1.aol.com...
> > LDers want to remember LD's early days as if all releases were WS,
> > THX, SEs, with Digital Sound. This was simply not the case. All formats,
> > including DVD, bumble at their onset.
>
> Kraig once again disregards the fact that the entire home video market was
> in its infancy during "LD's early days". Consumers and manufacturers were
> learning the benefits of a quality video presentation as they went. There
> were no predefined goals or expectations to be met. Laserdisc had to set
> those standards, and it evolved over time as it needed to, changing the
> market with it.
>
> DVD was not released at such a time. It was released onto a matured and
> sophisticated market that made it perfectly clear exactly what it had to
be.
> It had over 15 years of prior experience to build off
This is exactly what I meant. In the years since the launch of LD,
comsumers and the industry have both grown more sophisticated. To compare
the early LDs to the early DVDs, and then say that the LDs were crude, and
nothing special in comparison, is ridiculous. LDs were in sync with the
market *at the time*. So are DVDs. The thing is that the times are vastly
different, as are the comsumers and the industry of those times.
Mac
Mac Breck
> >DVD was not released at such a time. It was released onto a matured and
> sophisticated market that made it perfectly clear exactly what it had to
be. It
> had over 15 years of prior experience to build off and, as you yourself
just
> said, it still bumbled.>
>
> The little known LD "market" was able to make the home video
> marketplace Mature and Sophisticated?
No, of course not. The movie industry kept advancing with each new
theatrical release, and the consumers were exposed to these releases, both
in the theaters and on VHS. As the industry advanced, the consumers
expectations advanced with it. People started to put in modest home
theaters with HiFi VCRs and Surround Sound systems.
> The most important things DVD learned
> from LD are what NOT to do.
Yeah, make players and titles available everywhere, like VHS. I can even
rent DVDs in Giant Eagle for crying out loud!
In the early days of LD, weren't most people deciding on the purchase of a
VCR? At that time, they didn't already have the capability to record, and
so that ability was important to them. They wanted to record their favorite
TV shows. Beta and VHS were vying for their money. Once they had their
VCR, they could rent movies at their local rental store cheaper than they
could buy a LD. That's what killed LD, the prolifetation of VHS. At the
time, the consumer was happy just to have a VCR, and likely never had the
opportunity to see how good LD was. However, even if the average comsumer
had the opportunity to see the higher quality of LD, the CHEAP of VHS would
still have won out over the QUALITY of LD. To the majority of the
population, CHEAP is the most important thing.
For example, my cousin's family has a ~50" Hitachi Projection TV, that's fed
by a $69.95 Zenith VCR and a pseudo-surround sound (Zenith) system. When I
bought my new DVD player, I gave them my old one. When he asked what cables
to use between the DVD and TV, I said Monster Cables (Video, Audio-Left,
Audio-Right). We went to Radio Scrap where he almost bought the cheapest
unshielded cables. I got him to buy their "better" cables.
> But, alas DVD has made mistakes, but its triumphs
> far outweigh them. Take a look at the DVD SEs of Fight Club, Gladiator,
Se7en,
> T2, A Bug's Life, Disney's Tarzan. No LD box set can touch them.
> DVD's success with Enthusiasts and Consumers alike will insure
the
> future of WS, 16x9, DTS, DD, and SE title releases.
> LD's failure in the
> marketplace made a strong case for P&S Movie only releases.
This statement makes absolutely no sense. There *is* no reason to have P&S
Movie only releases. I have no idea why these are made on DVD. What
half-wit would want to buy them? I see this crap on sale at Wal-Mart for
$14.96. As soon as I see it's P&S only, I drop it like it's covered with
some deadly virus.
> VHS never had a
> problem selling "them."
No, and the local store where I rent most of my VHS (to preview a movie if I
missed it in the theater, before buying the DVD), gets NOTHING BUT P&S
versions. What ignorant morons want to watch P&S of something that was shot
in Widescreen???
> Thank DVD for keeping high end home theater formats
> viable.
Also thank the LDs of the last few years for this as well. Almost all of my
LDs are Widescreen.
Mac
KAMCGANN
from LD are what NOT to do.>>
>Oh, I see. So now it's your contention that DVD also invented letterboxing,
Dobly Digital, DTS, audio commentaries, supplements, etc?>
You missed my contention by a mile. All the wondrous things that you think LD
created such as moving pictures, sound, color, jacket art, etc were not my
point. If we had had to count on LD to carry the flag for the features that are
prevalent in Theatrical presentation, LDs, and DVDs, we would be in trouble.
BTW, I thought WS was invented and used by Theatrical Projection before
LD and that DTS and DD were also created for Theatrical Presentation. LDs were
Not the first venue for behind the scenes and exploration of film supplements,
either. DVD has done many things that LD never could and does a better job at
the things LD could do. But the pest part is: Enthusiasts and Consumers care.
>> DVD's success with Enthusiasts and Consumers alike will insure the future of
WS, 16x9, DTS, DD, and SE title releases. LD's failure in the marketplace made
a strong case for P&S Movie only releases.>>
>Yeah, I guess that's why starting since the early 90s there has been an
upsurge in letterboxed VHS releases.>
Yeah. I went to Blockbuster and saw thousands of WS VHS tapes for rent. Your
fantasy about LD's influence is just that.
Kraig
KAMCGANN
it's hardly fair to compare, but we understand that you must, so you can feel
superior in your choice of FORMAT vs. CONTENT.>
My choice is Content first and not restricted to or by Format. When the LD and
DVD releases contain different content and it is a film I care about, I
purchase and/or keep both. I happily own the LD and DVD SE releases of the
titles you mentioned, Toy Story, Alien, and Psycho (1960). How can that trouble
you? You clowns seem to want to paint me as a
"DVD only CONTENTer." That is patently untrue. LD Box Sets and Criterions are
still very well represented in my "collection."
Kraig
KAMCGANN
releases.>>
>This statement makes absolutely no sense. There *is* no reason to have P&S
Movie only releases. I have no idea why these are made on DVD.>
LD released Thousands of titles in P&S, even when it "knew" better.
My "statement" referred to a hypothetical "doomsday scenario" for Home
video that I am happy did Not come to pass. As you know, LD WS releases
continued to drop in sales even before DVD's arrival.
VHS remained popular in spite of its mere fraction of titles being
released in WS. It could be extrapolated that Consumers' well established
demand for P&S VHS should be factored into the direction of future home video.
Please do not misake me for either a VHS or P&S fan, but LD's failure with
Consumers and luke warm acceptance by many enthusiasts did not bode well for
the future of WS, DTS, DD, and SEs.
Look how fast so called Enthusiasts dumped LD in favor of DVD.
Luckily, DVD has proved that there is demand for a more versatile higher
capability format that appeals to modern Enthusiasts and Consumers alike.
DVD is better than ever and continues to deliver far more than LD ever
wanted to or could have, and for far less.
Kraig
Jeff Rife
> represented in my "collection."
Why?
Since you say:
|> Take a look at the DVD SEs of Fight Club, Gladiator, Se7en, T2, A Bug's
|> Life, Disney's Tarzan. No LD box set can touch them.
This must mean you feel that the CONTENT of any your LD boxes is cannot
approach the CONTENT of even the lowliest of DVD sets.
> I happily own the LD and DVD SE releases of the
> titles you mentioned, Toy Story, Alien, and Psycho (1960).
No, you do not "happily own" any of them. You tolerate them, because you are
convinced that the DVD content for each of these sets is much better, because
"no LD box set can touch them".
Or, when you said that, was it just your typical exaggeration (meaning "lie")
that *all* DVD is always better than *any* LD? Again, the T2 LD box has
content that the DVD does not, but the DVD is still so much better in CONTENT
that "no LD box set can touch [it]".
> How can that
> trouble you?
Because you essentially state that no LD box set is worth keeping, even if
it has more content than the equivalant DVD disc/set, yet you keep LDs box
sets. Either you do this because you secretly like the LD format but are
ashamed of it (for which you compensate by insulting as often as you can),
or you do it because the DVDs aren't as good (content-wise), but you won't
admit that.
In addition, if you own LD box sets that you believe are not as good
(content-wise) as the DVDs, and say you "happily own" them, you must be a
FORMATter, not a CONTENTer, or you would have gotten rid of the LD sets.
No matter how you slice it, this makes you a hypocrite, and hypocrites are
liars, and liars who post to USENET about anything in which I am interested
(DVD and LD in this case) trouble me. THAT's how your owning laserdisc box
sets troubles me.
--
Jeff Rife | Coach: Would you like a beer, Norm?
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane |
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 | Norm: I'd like to see something in a
Home: 301-916-8131 | size-54 sudsy.
Work: 301-770-5800 Ext 5335 |
Joshua Zyber
news:slrn99thq8.6...@linux1.linux.bogus...
> DVD sucks, just like all digital media. I sure as hell will never buy
> one of the damned things. Just another way for greedy manufacturers
> to separate fools from their money.
The computer that you used to type your message is a digital medium.
Think about that, and when you are done be sure to mop your brains up off
the floor.
- Josh
Joshua Zyber
news:MPG.15089a613...@news.nabs.net...
> No matter how you slice it, this makes you a hypocrite, and hypocrites are
> liars, and liars who post to USENET about anything in which I am
interested
> (DVD and LD in this case) trouble me. THAT's how your owning laserdisc
box
> sets troubles me.
I feel like applauding.
If Kraig is so desperate to act smugly superior to someone, perhaps he
should confine his wrath to the true numbskulls like Roger "Digital is Evil"
Blake. No one (except Rog) would blame him for that.
- Josh
KAMCGANN
the damned things. Just another way for greedy manufacturers to separate fools
from their money.>>
>The computer that you used to type your message is a digital medium.
Think about that, and when you are done be sure to mop your brains up off
the floor. Josh>
You should be nicer to your allies Josh.
Kraig
KAMCGANN
approach the CONTENT of even the lowliest of DVD sets.>
Dear Jeff
Can you and your new sidekick, Josh, just ask a question instead of your
incorrect surmising?
You illogically crept from comparing Content, to comparing the
Perfomance of Content. LD Box sets are cumbersome and the require extra
handling to locate a desired extra. That is a Fact, but that was not what we
were talking about.The performance of a DVD SE "Box" set easily surpasses it's
LD counterpart, but if there is Content exclusive to either format, I will
consider owning both, and do.
>Because you essentially state that no LD box set is worth keeping, even if
it has more content than the equivalant DVD disc/set, yet you keep LDs box
sets. >
I Never said that "No LD Box Set was worth keeping." In fact, I am far
more likely to Keep a "Special" LD (box set, criterion, rarity, content
exclusive to LD, or a film that I am passionate about), and do.
"Just" LDs mean very little to me. Owning hundreds of P&S and/or movie
only examples of a defunct format does not interest me. I hope that is okay
with you and Josh. Your attempts at logic are as screwy as Josh's emotional
gushing that he thinks is logic.
Kraig
Joshua Zyber
You should learn not to be so obnoxious. I guess we've both got some
schooling left to go.
It is the loons like Roger that we BOTH have legitimate cause to ridicule.
But you, in your deluded mind, have to lump everyone into the same category.
Can't possibly enjoy watching a laserdisc without being a Luddite moron, can
we Kraig? Can't possibly acknowledge and accept both the strengths and
weaknesses of a format, and still want to use it, without being a "Digital
is Evil" nutcase?
Of course not, because the real fruitcakes like Roger don't post often
enough for Kraig to ridicule them. He so desperately needs attention, and to
feel smugly superior to everyone else, that he has to invent a conspiracy of
"LD Loonies" plotting to overthrow the Amazing Progress of DVD, the Wonder
Product. Anyone who should so much as dare to suggest... ::gasp::... "Hey,
laserdisc is pretty good too", suddenly becomes one of THEM, the evil
mindless hordes, out to get him.
Whatever. Someday, perhaps, he'll look back and feel ashamed of himself.
- Josh
Mondo Kane
Oh man, here is another 'beauty'... yet another completely IGNORANT and
FALSE statement about the history of LD....
Kraig McGoofus wrote....
<"LD released thousands of titles in P&S, even when it 'knew' better".>
Hey Kraig... do you even KNOW when the first widescreen LDs were
available and what titles they were?
Of course not! Yet you state the above.
Well, Kraig by the time of the first early widescreen LDs (the
mid-to-late '80s), there were NOT "THOUSANDS" of LD titles in P&S....
because, quite obviously there were NOT thousands of LD Titles even in
existence!!!!
I have ALL of the LD software catalogs from the early-to-late '80s --
(when LD "took off" somewhat, the 1st time / the '90s were the 2nd time)
-- and there were less than even 1000 titles here in the USA, by the
time of the first widescreen LDs released in the USA:
AMARCORD (1974 Best Foreign Film / Italy -- also the first CED
Widescreen release)
MANHATTAN (Woody Allen, with the infamous GRAY bars on the top & bottom
of the image, VHS also widescreen)
INNERSPACE (directed by Joe Dante, & produced by Steven Spielberg, VHS
also widescreen).
There Kraig, I've educated your so-lame LD knowledge! Of course, the VHS
folks screamed like hell about Manhattan & Innerspace, and both Woody
Allen and Steven Spielberg soon relented, and shortly after those above
allowed regular P&S VHS versions to be released.
By 1986, the first Japanese Widescreen LDs were beginning to be
produced, and the first one I viewed that year (that a friend of mine
purchased), was RAMBO: First Blood Part 2 -- a stunning Widescreen
transfer, Digital or Analog (CX) Dolby 2.0 Surround sound (original
English soundtrack), with Japanese subtitles conveniently located below
the image.
The first major USA "blockbuster" Widescreen movie on LD was DIE HARD,
unless someone knows of another that might have released shortly before
it.
This was 1988 to early 1989. OK, probably by THEN, the LD catalog had
passed a 1000 titles (USA), and was now actively releasing software by
many companies, yet widescreen was soon to become a large part of the
releases!!
In conclusion, what you need to understand is that your statement above
is bunk! The movie studios did not deliberately release "thousands of
P&S titles," yet all the while knowing better. That's your imagination!
First, there were no "thousands of P&S titles" available on LD, and even
when widescreen started growing (regular new releases), the studios did
NOT "knowingly" (or deliberately) release "thousands" of LDs in P&S
after the widescreen was now becoming preferred. In fact by this time
(early '90s onward), the widescreen format was becoming the NORM!!
Again, second request. PLEASE do not comment on the LD format before say
the mid-'90s because you are constantly prooving your ignorance of the
earlier era.
MondoKane
Mac Breck
> >>LD's failure in the marketplace made a strong case for P&S Movie only
> releases.>>
>
> >This statement makes absolutely no sense. There *is* no reason to have
P&S
> Movie only releases. I have no idea why these are made on DVD.>
>
> LD released Thousands of titles in P&S, even when it "knew"
better.
Yes, but I didn't *buy* them unless they were not available in WS, and I
happened to really want that title right now. As soon as the WS version
came out, I replaced the P&S version with the WS version.
> My "statement" referred to a hypothetical "doomsday scenario" for
Home
> video that I am happy did Not come to pass. As you know, LD WS releases
> continued to drop in sales even before DVD's arrival.
If so, it's because they were bad-mouthed by VHS people and because
marketing hype that was spread prior to DVD's actual retail availability.
People stopped buying Laserdiscs in anticipation of switching over to buying
their new titles on DVD. A perfect example was the VHS Video Store owner I
mentioned. Before DVD was ever even mentioned in the press, he knew I owned
Laserdisc, and he'd take every opportunity to argue against it. "Why did
you own it? You can't rent movies anywhere, can you?" I'd tell him it was
for movies I wanted in Widescreen, for my own collection, and I wanted to
have them in the highest quality format. After DVD news started to leak, he
was always ready to laud DVD and pan Laserdisc, never mind the fact that he
had personal experience with NEITHER. Evidently his distributor was trying
to get him to buy DVDs, and had given him a sales pitch, so he had to use it
on me.
Now, I do have some 4:3 stuff on LD, mostly the Babylon 5 episodes that
Warner Brothers released. However, these are the BEST versions available.
It's too bad Warner Brothers didn't see fit to FINISH the release.
I have the remixed version of the Pilot movie "The Gathering" (the only
thing that was shot in 4:3), all 22 episodes of Season 1, the first 12
episodes of Season 2, the last 6 episodes of Season 4, all of Season 5, and
the prequel movie "In the Beginning".
Babylon 5 was shot in Super35 (1.77:1), but nothing of importance was put in
the left and right edges of the frames (so when it was presented in 4:3, no
P&S would not be needed). However, the CGI was rendered in 4:3. When the
Sci-Fi Channel commissioned Warner Brothers to come up with the Widescreen
versions for broadcast, they went the CHEAP route and then screwed up on top
of it.
The company that Warner Brothers commissioned to do the work:
1. Messed up some of the cuts between the live action and the CGI in Season
1.
2. Used the 4:3 masters to make the Widescreen versions of "The Gathering"
and Seasons 2 thru 4, so foreheads and chins are missing. Basically they
took the 4:3 and added the black bands to the top and bottom of the screen
(masking out necessary picture content).
3. Didn'r re-render the CGI to fit 1.77:1, so even in the Season 5 episodes,
which are "done right" and 100% of the live action frame is shown, the CGI
is now cropped.
On top of that, Sci-Fi screwed up the sound during broadcast.
So after all this, what do you think the odds are that Warner Brothers will
go back and actually DO THE RIGHT THING for the summer Babylon 5 DVD
releases? By this I mean:
1. Use the Super35 Masters to create the WS DVDs.
2. RE-RENDER the CGI to 1.77:1 format to match.
3. Assemble the live action and CGI carefully, under the watchful eye of the
series creator, using real quality control.
My partial collection of LDs (which is 100% of what was released), is
probably the best that will ever be produced.
> VHS remained popular in spite of its mere fraction of titles being
> released in WS. It could be extrapolated that Consumers' well established
> demand for P&S VHS should be factored into the direction of future home
video.
No, consumers should be educated, and weaned off of P&S crap.
> Please do not misake me for either a VHS or P&S fan, but LD's failure with
> Consumers and luke warm acceptance by many enthusiasts did not bode well
for
> the future of WS, DTS, DD, and SEs.
Due to the lack of promotion, high price of the players, and lack of places
to buy players and rent discs (compared to VHS).
> Look how fast so called Enthusiasts dumped LD in favor of DVD.
What do you mean by "dumped"? To me, that means that means selling off your
LD player and all your LDs. I have no intention of *ever* doing that.
> Luckily, DVD has proved that there is demand for a more versatile higher
> capability format that appeals to modern Enthusiasts and Consumers alike.
Because the players can be had for a cheaper price (~$220 to $250), discs
are cheaper (not by very much, but, on average they *are* cheaper), and both
discs and players are more widely available than LD ever was.
> DVD is better than ever
True, but it'd be sad if they weren't getting better.
> and continues to deliver far more than LD ever
> wanted to or could have,
Not true. They *could* have made less expensive LD players, just like
they're making inexpensive ($250) DVD players now. If they would have come
out with nothing but WS LDs and WS VHS, all this P&S crap could have been
avoided. WS should be the standard, *not* P&S.
> and for far less.
more true for players than for disc prices
Mac
Mac Breck
news:8593-3A...@storefull-611.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
And yet there were a lot of LDs that were released only in P&S. Why?
I own the following examples:
Cliffhanger (came with my Pioneer CLD-D704, bought new*)
Dead Bang
Dead Zone, The
Halloween 4 - The Return of Michael Myers
Halloween 5 - The Revenge of Michael Myers
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation
Scrooged
* Had a 2nd hand old top-load Pioneer unit before that.
I've since purchased "The Dead Zone" on DVD in WS, and will be replacing
them all with WS versions at my earliest convenience.
Mac
Mac Breck
news:h6Pn6.2115$Ry6.9...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
> Babylon 5 was shot in Super35 (1.77:1), but nothing of importance was put
in
> the left and right edges of the frames (so when it was presented in 4:3,
no
> P&S would not be needed).
should have said "no P&S would be needed" (just a straight crop)
Mac
Jeff Rife
> Perfomance of Content.
No, this is what *you* are doing.
I'm taking one statement from you:
|> Take a look at the DVD SEs of Fight Club, Gladiator, Se7en, T2, A Bug's
|> Life, Disney's Tarzan. No LD box set can touch them.
There can be only *one* meaning for "no LD box set can touch them". No is an
absolute. This means that there is nothing about *any* LD box set that
is better than those DVDs. Since the CONTENT of the T2 and Seven LD box sets
*is* better in some way (as you grudgingly admit below), this means that
CONTENT is not enough for you--delivery of lesser content is all you require
to claim that a DVD is better than any LD.
In addition, since you said "no LD box set can touch them", we can compare
LD box sets that do not have a DVD release, and, in that, it is obvious that
*many* LD box sets have superior content to the DVDs you listed. But, again,
that's not enough for you--delivery of lesser content is, though.
> LD Box sets are cumbersome and the require extra
> handling to locate a desired extra. That is a Fact, but that was not what we
> were talking about.
Correct, we were not talking about it, but you must bring it up anyway to get
a dig at laserdisc in. We were also not talking about the FACT that I can
load a laserdisc, press "+10 +10 7" on my remote, and instantly be taken to
the trailer for the movie, while I would have to wait for the DVD to do its
load shtick. The Se7en Platinum DVD is a *classic* example of how this is
done wrong, expecially on the "extras-only" disc 2.
What you were talking about was that you made a statement which says that you
believe that, in all respects, there was never a single LD made that is
superior in any way (content *or* presentation) than the "DVD SEs of Fight
Club, Gladiator, Se7en, T2, A Bug's Life, Disney's Tarzan".
We *know* you don't actually believe this, and you state it below.
No matter how you slice it, this makes you a hypocrite, and hypocrites are
liars, and liars who post to USENET about anything in which I am interested
(DVD and LD in this case) trouble me. THAT's how your owning laserdisc box
sets troubles me.
> The performance of a DVD SE "Box" set easily surpasses it's
> LD counterpart,
In your opinion. I was watching _Se7en_ on DVD, and wanted to look at the
extras, and damn if I didn't have to eject the DVD and load another one (and
then wait for the load shtick). Funny, except for the waiting for the
loading, this is exactly the same thing I had to do when watching the LD.
I guess you should start working out more if lifting laserdiscs is too hard
for you, but DVDs are not a problem.
> but if there is Content exclusive to either format, I will
> consider owning both, and do.
But, of course, you would never recommend this to someone. Your only posts
are "Why would you want the laserdisc? The DVD is available at any store
for much less."
--
Jeff Rife | "Only one human captain has ever survived battle
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane | with a Minbari fleet...he is behind me...you are
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 | in front of me. If you value your lives,
Home: 301-916-8131 | be somewhere else."
Work: 301-770-5800 Ext 5335 | -- Ambassador Delenn, 2260
Jeff Rife
> And yet there were a lot of LDs that were released only in P&S.
Define "only in P&S". I ask because:
> Cliffhanger (came with my Pioneer CLD-D704, bought new*)
I have the widescreen LD:
Cliffhanger: Pioneer Special Editions (PSE95-56: Pioneer USA), CLV, 1:55,
2.35 : 1, Digital Sound, Dolby Surround, Commentary on Analog
Right. Production information, theatrical trailer, outtakes.
> Dead Zone, The
The only release of this was in 1984, well before the beginnings of
widescreen. Why they didn't re-release it, well, that's another question.
> Halloween 4 - The Return of Michael Myers
> Halloween 5 - The Revenge of Michael Myers
> National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation
> Scrooged
These were all released on the cusp, just after the first widescreen
releases, so there are many possibilities here. I don't like it much either,
and I never bought _Scrooged_ because of it. It was my first DVD, BTW.
--
Jeff Rife |
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/CloseToHome/NamespcePollution.gif
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 |
RAJ
<JpPn6.2119$Ry6.9...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net> :
>> the mid-'90s because you are constantly prooving your ignorance of the
>> earlier era.
Heck, he's shown he's ignorant of LD in ANY era.
>And yet there were a lot of LDs that were released only in P&S.
>I own the following examples:
>
>Cliffhanger (came with my Pioneer CLD-D704, bought new*)
Actually, CLIFFHANGER had a simultaneous P&S and WS release.
Both discs came out at the same time. Guess Pioneer didn't want
consumers thinking something was wrong with their new LD players
by including a letterboxed disc as a freebie.
_______________________________________________
Submitted via WebNewsReader of http://www.interbulletin.com
Thad Floryan
| Mac Breck (macb...@access995.com) wrote in alt.video.laserdisc:
| > And yet there were a lot of LDs that were released only in P&S.
|
| Define "only in P&S". I ask because:
|
| > Cliffhanger (came with my Pioneer CLD-D704, bought new*)
|
| I have the widescreen LD:
| Cliffhanger: Pioneer Special Editions (PSE95-56: Pioneer USA), CLV, 1:55,
| 2.35 : 1, Digital Sound, Dolby Surround, Commentary on Analog
| Right. Production information, theatrical trailer, outtakes.
I have that one, too, and also the 16:9 Anamorphic LD (aka "SQEEZE LD") version
with AC-3/Dolby Digital released by Pioneer circa 1995.
The mass-consumer marketplace, as written before, feels cheated if their TVs
aren't filled top-bottom and side-side. Granted that "feeling cheated" is
due to ignorance on the consumer's part, but if the producers/manufacturers
didn't cater to consumers' demands they'd be seeling NO product. Hence, the
P&S releases.
There's a good discussion of anamorphic and P&S vs. Letterbox in PDF format
(16 pages) at www.thedigitalbits.com that should be mandatory reading for
those who don't understand the evolution of the home video market over the
past 20+ years.
Letterbox (or, more properly, OAR = Original Aspect Ratio) presentations for
the home video marketplace debuted on LaserDisc a long time ago. There's
even been an increasing release of letterbox VHS releases over the past 5
years now as consumers are becoming better educated in this regards.
KAMCGANN
Content.>>
>No, this is what *you* are doing.
I'm taking one statement from you:
"Take a look at the DVD SEs of Fight Club, Gladiator, Se7en, T2, A Bug's
Life, Disney's Tarzan. No LD box set can touch them." There can be only *one*
meaning for "no LD box set can touch them." No is an absolute. This means that
there is nothing about *any* LD box set that is better than those DVDs.>
YOU get to determine the meaning of my statements??? Though it is
true No LD Box set can touch the DVD SEs from a performance and capability
standpoint, Content exclusive to either format makes both worthy of
considerarion. I have consistently said that and live it. I own T2, Alien,
Aliens, Toy Story, The Abyss, etc. SEs on BOTH LD and DVD. Ask Josh, he may
choose to tell the truth for variety.
>>but if there is Content exclusive to either format, I will consider owning
both, and do.
>>
>But, of course, you would never recommend this to someone. Your only posts
are "Why would you want the laserdisc? The DVD is available at any store for
much less.">
Those are Not quotes of me. Content First, Format Second. Get it? I
have NEVER recommended excluding ANY format from consideration for Content
collectors.
You whined about me not mentioning poor DVDs in this NG. I own a
few and have seen a few more but did not think it relevant because I did not
own the LD counterpart or there is no LD counterpart. For example, The Shining
on DVD. I had never owned or seen it on LD but like the film and wanted to see
the documentary. It looks worse than VHS. I am not going to say the LD is
better or worse because I do not know. Not that YOU would question my
credibility as long as a complimented an LD, even if I had not seen it.
Kraig
Jeff Rife
No, I don't. The definition of the word "no" is quite simple.
> Though it is
> true No LD Box set can touch the DVD SEs from a performance and capability
> standpoint,
No, it isn't true, but that's OK, we'll let you have your delusion.
> Content exclusive to either format makes both worthy of
> considerarion.
Gee, maybe if you would put this into the original statement, we wouldn't
think you were such an ass.
How about:
"Take a look at the DVD SEs of Fight Club, Gladiator, Se7en, T2, A Bug's
Life, Disney's Tarzan. From a technical standpoint, no LD box set can
touch them."
Hey, people may not agree with this, either, but at least you wouldn't get
laughed at for it.
Your original statement included content as well as presentation in the
blanket statement. This is one of the many reasons people are annoyed with
you: you say something derogatory to *all* laserdiscs, then defend yourself
by backpedaling.
> Content First, Format Second. Get it?
Hey, if you meant that, we'd be OK with you.
> I
> have NEVER recommended excluding ANY format from consideration for Content
> collectors.
Except when you deride people for buying things like the _Fight Club_ import,
which has content that the DVD does not: better Dolby Digital audio.
> Not that YOU would question my
> credibility as long as a complimented an LD, even if I had not seen it.
Compliment a laserdisc...you? ROTFLMAO
This would be why you get such well-deserved abuse in a laserdisc newsgroup...
you don't say anything good about any laserdisc, unless you are using it
as a defense of your "content-oriented" behavior. You never volunteer
anything good, and you know the old saying...if you can't say anything nice,
shut the hell up.
--
Jeff Rife | "You fell victim to one of the classic blunders,
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane | the most famous of which is 'Never get involved
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 | in a land war in Asia', but only slightly less
Home: 301-916-8131 | famous is this: 'Never go in against a Sicilian,
Work: 301-770-5800 Ext 5335 | when death is on the line!'"
| -- Vizzini, The Princess Bride
Jeff Rife
> Letterbox (or, more properly, OAR = Original Aspect Ratio)
I'm beginning to lean towards the acronym IAR: Intended Aspect Ratio.
This covers things like the Criterion Robocop, where Verhoeven wanted the
mattes opened to 1.66:1, instead of the 1.85:1 that was originally shown
in theaters.
Of course, with the Kubrick stuff, OAR, IAR, and even the freaking film
aspect ratio (he used hard mattes quite a bit) are tough to call.
--
Jeff Rife |
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane | "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 | to take pan & scan anymore."
Joshua Zyber
> YOU get to determine the meaning of my statements??? Though it
is
> true No LD Box set can touch the DVD SEs from a performance and capability
> standpoint, Content exclusive to either format makes both worthy of
> considerarion. I have consistently said that and live it. I own T2, Alien,
> Aliens, Toy Story, The Abyss, etc. SEs on BOTH LD and DVD. Ask Josh, he
may
> choose to tell the truth for variety.
But why do you own them, Kraig? You said in your previous post that no LD
can possibly touch the DVD versions. Why would you want to keep those lasers
if they are worthless in comparison to the DVDs?
- Josh
Jeff Rife
> The only thing "extra" on the T2 LD Boxset is a music video.
Agreed.
> On the
> other hand, the new DVD extras include a new anamorphic transfer, 3
> versions of the film, new EX mix, new ES mix, and T23D feature.
The "third" version of the film is on the laserdisc, just as an extra (since
branching doesn't exist on LDs).
> I'd
> say improvements in the audio/video quality of the movie itself, takes
> precedence over the addition of a single music video.
Well, I never said the T2 DVD sucked. As a matter of fact, I'm a happy owner.
It's just that Kraig's statement implied that there was *no* reason to own
the LD box set, as the DVD was superior in all ways. If you are a T2 fan,
and want everything put out (like Kraig wants everything about _Night of
the Living Dead_), you would want the LD as well.
In addition the _Se7en_ Criterion boxset most certainly *can* hold a candle
to the New Line Platinum DVD release, even with the anamorphic enhancement
and the newly re-mastered soundtrack.
BTW, if your equipment can't handle anamorphically enhanced disks without
downconversion, and you don't have an EX/ES-capable decoder, what value are
those things right now? I agree that they are great future-proofing, but
one of the things Kraig does is compare those features that make DVDs higher
quality than LD, yet he can't even directly view/hear the effects on his
system.
--
Jeff Rife |
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/NoWorkInternet.gif
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 |
Thad Floryan
| [...]
| And yet there were a lot of LDs that were released only in P&S. Why?
| I own the following examples:
|
| Cliffhanger (came with my Pioneer CLD-D704, bought new*)
| Dead Bang
| Dead Zone, The
| Halloween 4 - The Return of Michael Myers
| Halloween 5 - The Revenge of Michael Myers
| National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation
| Scrooged
|
| * Had a 2nd hand old top-load Pioneer unit before that.
|
| I've since purchased "The Dead Zone" on DVD in WS, and will be replacing
| them all with WS versions at my earliest convenience.
I suppose it depends on the studios' perception of the market given so
many people feel cheated if their [4:3] TV isn't filled with imagery top-to-
bottom and side-to-side.
Like it or not, VHS has dominated the home video market for a l-o-n-g time
and the people who buy/rent that stuff prefer [due to ignorance] the P&S
versions of movies.
Widescreen TVs didn't start appearing in the USA until circa 1995 and since
then many people (and studios :-) are better-informed in this regards.
Yet, here's a weird one for you: why is the DVD of CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG in
P&S when the much-earlier-released LD (13-Jan-1993) is properly letterboxed?
My guess is the studio felt anyone wanting that movie in a mass-market video
format would prefer filling their TV screen and wouldn't understand letterbox.
Thad Floryan
| Brent Geery (fast...@hotpop.com) wrote in alt.video.laserdisc:
| > The only thing "extra" on the T2 LD Boxset is a music video.
|
| Agreed.
|
| > On the
| > other hand, the new DVD extras include a new anamorphic transfer, 3
| > versions of the film, new EX mix, new ES mix, and T23D feature.
|
| The "third" version of the film is on the laserdisc, just as an extra (since
| branching doesn't exist on LDs).
Believe it or not, branching DOES exist with LD players -- one can program
playback sequence of chapters, chapter by chapter, to reassemble a movie in
various forms. This was actually required with several LD titles to get the
several versions and/or alternate endings as part of the playback (though the
specific titles escapes me at the moment (it's been a l-o-n-g week :-)).
Chapter playback programming exists for [at least] the CLD-D704, CLD-99, and
the HLD-X9, and based on others' comments here over the years it exists on
many/most other LD players, too.
Mondo Kane
Mac, no one is denying that there have been P&S LDs (or Full-screen - FS
- as I like to call it).
What I am refuting is the ignorance of Kraig's posts, and his totally
FALSE claim that the studios issued "thousands of P&S titles, even when
they 'knew' better" - sorry, but that is just crap!
And while we are on the subject of P&S LDs, while I love widescreen
myself, I am a little shocked at the very negative opinions about "P&S",
or FS as I call it.
Many times a movie looks just fine in P&S, and very little *important*
detail of the original composition is missed, depending on how the move
was shot. Obviously, the many widescreen 2.35:1 films don't look good in
FS.
And even then, because of the Super 35 format, the P&S version actually
includes MORE of the image shot (top, & bottom especially).
This irony has been shown on various websites, comparing WS vs FS.
James Cameron's movies were mostly shot in Super 35, and I have several
of them in widescreen & fullscreen, just to check out the top-to-bottom
extra image detail that are omitted from the widescreen frame.
This past year I picked up discounted LDs of THE ABYSS (both LBX & FS,
the AC-3 Director's Cut for each), plus TERMINATOR 2: Longer Version FS,
and now I am trying to locate the FS version of TITANIC, to go along
with my LBX copy (& yes I own the non-anamorphic DVD - viewed just
once).
I watched one of my favorite full-screen LDs again the other day, the
original OUT-OF-TOWNERS (starring Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis) -- it
looks great in FS, and you don't miss a thing.
And except for a dark bedroom scene from the FS LD of the original "Day
of the Jackal" movie, the image looked excellent, and just as "clean" as
the non-anamorphic widescreen DVD (which I previously owned & sold).
What many need to realize is often there is very LITTLE "pan and
scanning" actually *needed* (or done) on FS LDs, or VHS & DVD editions.
I think both of the WS & FS LDs of "Back to the Future" look just fine,
but obviously I prefer the widescreen overall, because it contains the
original aspect ratio. And, of course, widescreen should be the norm!
In conclusion, some FS films look stunning, especially my LDs of Stanley
Kubrick's FULL METAL JACKET and DR. STRANGELOVE. I wonder how well they
will *look* this year when the _new DVD Box Set_ of his films is
released, this time with all new anamorphic widescreen ratios (& DD 5.1
"new" soundtracks), to the films above, plus THE SHINING, etc.
MondoKane
Thad Floryan
|
| Mac, no one is denying that there have been P&S LDs (or Full-screen - FS
| - as I like to call it).
|
| What I am refuting is the ignorance of Kraig's posts, and his totally
| FALSE claim that the studios issued "thousands of P&S titles, even when
| they 'knew' better" - sorry, but that is just crap!
Hmmm. Having had put that sociopath in my newreader's killfile a l-o-n-g
time ago I'm not privy to any of his recent ravings. I suppose he's just
as loony as always, eh?
As I recall, he's so pathetic it's actually tragic; maybe someone near him
should make a 911 call and make sure he's taking his meds. Seriously.
Before he becomes apoplectic.
Thad Floryan
| On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:09:48 GMT, "Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com>
| wrote:
|
| >LD was ahead of it's time.
|
| I agree fully.
How true.
We had AC-3/DD (aka Dolby Digitial) on LDs before most (~99%) theaters even
knew it existed (based on my attendance at theaters in Silicon Valley).
Anamorphic (16:9) LDs were produced for sale by Pioneer circa 1995, and that,
too, was ahead of its time.
And, most importantly, HDTV 16:9 LaserDiscs have been available for YEARS in
the form of MUSE/HiVision LDs. And too bad for the NIH (Not Invented Here)
syndrome -- HDTV could bave been more common in the USA by now (thanks to
the pioneering (no pun :-) efforts we've seen on LaserDisc). The "problem"
seems to be lack of control with LaserDiscs:
-- no MacroVision
-- no region encoding
-- no "control" (by the studios)
Here's a "Post from the Past" I posted here years ago in 1997:
+From thad Sun Jun 8 07:24:34 PDT 1997
+Newsgroups: alt.video.laserdisc,alt.video.dvd
+Subject: DVD Mastering (the Sony story), and some DVD and HDTV "gotchas"
+Keywords: DVD, Orwellian, production costs
+
+The enclosed article appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle's HOME section
+last Wednesday, June 4, 1997, on page 8. For some reason, Harry Somerfield's
+HOME ENTERTAINMENT articles do not appear on the Chronicle's web pages
+(http://www.sfgate.com/), so I'm unable to simply point you at a URL for the
+article in the SFC's on-line archives.
+
+Besides writing for the Chronicle, Harry also is a writer and technical editor
+for {one or several} of the A/V magazines and he and I have exchanged email in
+the past. He can be reached via his Web page (http://www.e-town.com), or via
+email per Somer...@aol.com
+
+Harry Somerfield is a syndicated columnist based in San Francisco, and the
+following article is (c) Copyright 1997 by Chronicle Features. Any typos
+are my own. I've flagged interesting passages with "===>" in the left margin
+re: cost of DVD production and re: DVD and HDTV programming are inherently
+insidious and Orwellian.
+
+{begin quoted article}
+``
+ BEHIND THE SCENES OF A DIGITAL DISC
+
+ Harry Somerfield
+
+
+ Recently, I attended a tour of the DVD (digital versatile disc)
+ manufacturing facilities at Sony Pictures in Los Angeles.
+
+ As we all know, a theatrical motion picture is the starting point
+ for most of the "software" (prerecorded VHS tape, laserdisc or DVD)
+ that is available for sale or rental these days.
+
+ But before a DVD can be made, the movie must be converted from the
+ analog film format into a digital format.
+
+ Sony understands that high definition television (HDTV) is not only
+ the look of things to come and a wonderful archival method for today's
+ motion pictures, but also the highest quality digital format that's
+ available now. So the first step in the process of converting a movie
+ to a DVD (at least for Sony) is to transform the film to an HDTV
+ master tape.
+
+ This is ideal because HDTV, like all digital formats, can be replicated
+ (copied, as often as needed) without any degradation.
+
+ The conversion is pretty simple. It's done with a machine called a
+ "telecine converter" -- a film projector set up to shine right into
+ the lens of a high definition television camera.
+
+ The tape made on this machine is routed through several departments
+ on the Sony Pictures lot, for color-correction, sound enhancement and
+ finally, a variety of check and recheck stages -- including the
+ original director's approval -- before a fully-sanctioned HDTV
+ videotape results.
+
+ Forty or 50 hours can be spent on color-correction alone in the
+ transfer of an important title.
+
+ This digital master tape will eventually become the grandparent of
+ several different versions of software.
+
+ Next, a high-definition copy of the film is sent to the DVD "authoring"
+ suite for transformation. It is here that the various additional
+ language tracks, closed captioning for the hearing impaired, subtitles,
+ multichannel soundtracks, audio (Dolby Digital) encoding and DVD menus
+ are inserted into the presentation.
+
+ While these tasks are under way in one area, in another, the video
+ program is undergoing encoding and compression to reduce the data bulk
+ so it can fit in the space available on a DVD disc.
+
+ In the last stage of DVD authoring, the encoded data is blended with
+ the audio, subtitles, menus, etc., into the completed DVD master tape.
+
+ It then undergoes rigorous quality-control reviews before it is given
+ final approval for shipping to the plant where the discs are manu-
+ factured.
+
+ Remember, a lot of versions of these masters must be prepared because
+ of the different TV formats used by some countries in addition to the
+ three possible aspect ratios (letterbox, pan and scan, and wide screen)
+ that can be found on a DVD.
+
+ ===> It can take more than 30 hours to perform these tasks. In some cases,
+ ===> hundreds of thousands of dollars can be spent on a DVD release.
+
+ ===> I noticed that the user can not fast forward through the FBI anticopy
+ ===> warning at the beginning of some DVDs.
+
+ ===> I asked about this and was told by the engineers at Sony that, yes,
+ ===> a digital format, such as DVD, can allow programmers to insert a
+ ===> variety of commands that cannot be overridden by the player's operator.
+
+ ===> For example, when digital television (HDTV) arrives next year, it's
+ ===> conceivable that commercials could be programmed in such a way that it
+ ===> would not be possible for the home viewer to change channels -- or even
+ ===> mute the sound -- while the commercial is running! Wow -- George Orwell
+ ===> must be shaking his head.
+
+ I think public outcry probably would stop something like this rather
+ quickly, but I thought you'd find it interesting to know that it's
+ possible to override user commands.
+''
+{end quoted article}
Mac Breck
> Mac Breck (macb...@access995.com) wrote in alt.video.laserdisc:
> > And yet there were a lot of LDs that were released only in P&S.
>
> Define "only in P&S". I ask because:
>
> > Cliffhanger (came with my Pioneer CLD-D704, bought new*)
>
> I have the widescreen LD:
> Cliffhanger: Pioneer Special Editions (PSE95-56: Pioneer USA), CLV,
1:55,
> 2.35 : 1, Digital Sound, Dolby Surround, Commentary on
Analog
> Right. Production information, theatrical trailer,
outtakes.
Didn't know about the WS version of Cliffhanger. I thought if a WS version
would have been available at the time, Pioneer would have included *that*
version with my CLD-D704. After all, LD owners are "supposed" to be
videophiles/collectors. Why would they include a P&S version with a new LD
player? Makes no sense.
Mac
Mac Breck
news:3A9FDC19...@interbulletin.com...
> "Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com> wrote in article
> <JpPn6.2119$Ry6.9...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net> :
> >> Again, second request. PLEASE do not comment on the LD format before
say
> >> the mid-'90s because you are constantly prooving your ignorance of the
> >> earlier era.
>
> Heck, he's shown he's ignorant of LD in ANY era.
>
>
> >And yet there were a lot of LDs that were released only in P&S.
> >I own the following examples:
> >
> >Cliffhanger (came with my Pioneer CLD-D704, bought new*)
>
> Actually, CLIFFHANGER had a simultaneous P&S and WS release.
> Both discs came out at the same time. Guess Pioneer didn't want
> consumers thinking something was wrong with their new LD players
> by including a letterboxed disc as a freebie.
Anybody buying a Laserdisc player should know better. For Pioneer to
include a P&S instead of a WS LD, is to foster ignorance. This is something
the industry should be active avoiding. Instead, the industry should be
coming out with nothing but WS on LD and DVD (or P&S on the flip side of the
DVD), and leave a few P&S titles for the VHS-only crowd. Even they should
be weaned off P&S.
Mac
Mac Breck
news:DKSn6.481$Up.2...@sea-read.news.verio.net...
> Jeff Rife <we...@nabs.net> wrote:
> | Mac Breck (macb...@access995.com) wrote in alt.video.laserdisc:
> | > And yet there were a lot of LDs that were released only in P&S.
> |
> | Define "only in P&S". I ask because:
> |
> | > Cliffhanger (came with my Pioneer CLD-D704, bought new*)
> |
> | I have the widescreen LD:
> | Cliffhanger: Pioneer Special Editions (PSE95-56: Pioneer USA), CLV,
1:55,
> | 2.35 : 1, Digital Sound, Dolby Surround, Commentary on
Analog
> | Right. Production information, theatrical trailer,
outtakes.
>
> I have that one, too, and also the 16:9 Anamorphic LD (aka "SQEEZE LD")
version
> with AC-3/Dolby Digital released by Pioneer circa 1995.
>
> The mass-consumer marketplace, as written before, feels cheated if their
TVs
> aren't filled top-bottom and side-side.
They should feel cheated if the left and right part of the picture (actual
content) is cropped, which is what's happening, but of course they can't
tell.
> Granted that "feeling cheated" is
> due to ignorance on the consumer's part, but if the
producers/manufacturers
> didn't cater to consumers' demands they'd be seeling NO product. Hence,
the
> P&S releases.
If they'd *educate* the consumers, they could eliminate all the P&S versions
and be able to concentrate on the intended aspect ratio of the film.
> There's a good discussion of anamorphic and P&S vs. Letterbox in PDF
format
> (16 pages) at www.thedigitalbits.com that should be mandatory reading for
> those who don't understand the evolution of the home video market over the
> past 20+ years.
>
> Letterbox (or, more properly, OAR = Original Aspect Ratio) presentations
for
> the home video marketplace debuted on LaserDisc a long time ago. There's
> even been an increasing release of letterbox VHS releases over the past 5
> years now as consumers are becoming better educated in this regards.
99.99% of the VHS tapes I see for purchase or rental have the dreaded
"Modified to fit your screen." message. Wal-Mart has lots of sale priced
DVDs in the aisles, and they are all P&S, for $14.96. This perpetuates the
problem, and lets consumers *stay* ignorant. I wish they'd label them all
"Left and Right Picture Information Cropped/Panned/Scanned to Fit Your 4:3
TV", then maybe they wouldn't sell as well. WS versions should be listed as
"Original Aspect Ratio of the Film/No Cropping". Granted, these
descriptions may not always be exactly correct for all the films under those
banners, but at least the point would get across to the masses, full content
vs. missing content. I'd take full content, any day.
I've been educating my cousin's family and exposing them to WS DVDs. Now
they actually *prefer* WS over P&S.
Mac
You Die Joe
MDT <Please...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:t9lepcd...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> > > Hollywood's "nightmare" is to invest in a project
> > > and Not have a significant return. This applies to its home video
> > "departments"
> > > as well. LaserDisc was not sponsored by PBS and was Not intended to be
a
> > > non-profit venture. (It just worked out that way)
> >
> > Because they didn't PROMOTE Laserdisc. Didn't make it available to most
> > people.
>
> This assumes that all that's needed for something to succeed is to promote
> it. There are many historical examples (New Coke, the Edsel) that show
that
> this is not the case. A more recent example is DIVX. I saw a HUGE amount
> of promotion for it, more so than DVD.
A) This is doubtful on the face of it, unless you happened to work for
them.
B) Divx promotion ended when Divx did. DVD promotion continues.
YDJ
You Die Joe
Douglas Bailey <trys...@ne.mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1504c038e...@nntp.ne.mediaone.net...
> macb...@access995.com wrote:
>
> > Laserdisc was marketed as a videophile's player, and was available
> > almost nowhere.
>
> Laserdisc was certainly much rarer than VHS, but I wouldn't go so far as
> to say it was "available almost nowhere". They were, after all, sold at
> Suncoast Video, which is a big national one-per-mall chain store.
Wow are there really that many suncoasts? Were there that many eight years
ago? I'm seriously asking here, I've only got one available and it's way
across town. I bought most of my locally-purchased new LD's at Camelot
Music.
YDJ
You Die Joe
> >LD was ahead of it's time. Consumers weren't in a position to appreciate
it
> when it was launched.>
>
> What exactly were consumers supposed to appreciate about a Lp looking
> additional P&S format that could not record?
Yeah, everyone knows that in the late seventies people were abandoning the
shitty fidelity of vinyl for the amazing audio quality of cassette. Why the
hell would people be down on an "LP looking format" in 1980?
YDJ
>Remember, Discovision on early
> players was Manual flip every 30 minutes and movies required at least Two
12"
> platters. LDers want to remember LD's early days as if all releases were
WS,
> THX, SEs, with Digital Sound. This was simply not the case. All formats,
> including DVD, bumble at their onset. A high percentage of DVDs are now
RSDL
> and enhanced for 16x9.
> Kraig
Joshua Zyber
> Believe it or not, branching DOES exist with LD players -- one can program
> playback sequence of chapters, chapter by chapter, to reassemble a movie
in
> various forms. This was actually required with several LD titles to get
the
> several versions and/or alternate endings as part of the playback (though
the
> specific titles escapes me at the moment (it's been a l-o-n-g week :-)).
The Criterion editions of Close Encounters and Halloween are programmed like
that, with the extra scenes at the end of every side so you can
(non-seemlessly) edit them in. Kind of a nuisance if you just want to watch
the regular version of the movie straight through, though.
- Josh
---------------------
Joshua Zyber
Staff Reviewer, DVDFile
www.dvdfile.com
Curator, Laserdisc Forever Review Archive
**New Review 1/21/2001: Dolby Digital Experience/DTS Experience.**
www.mindspring.com/~jzyber/laserdiscforever.htm
You Die Joe
> Thad Floryan (th...@thadlabs.com) wrote in alt.video.laserdisc:
> > Letterbox (or, more properly, OAR = Original Aspect Ratio)
>
> I'm beginning to lean towards the acronym IAR: Intended Aspect Ratio.
>
> This covers things like the Criterion Robocop, where Verhoeven wanted the
> mattes opened to 1.66:1, instead of the 1.85:1 that was originally shown
> in theaters.
You mean European theaters or American theaters?
YDJ
Joshua Zyber
> And while we are on the subject of P&S LDs, while I love widescreen
> myself, I am a little shocked at the very negative opinions about "P&S",
> or FS as I call it.
>
> Many times a movie looks just fine in P&S, and very little *important*
> detail of the original composition is missed, depending on how the move
> was shot.
Mondo, let's not start that debate here. It still rages every day on
alt.video.dvd.
It doesn't matter how *important* the extra detail is, or how much (more)
info is presented on open-matte full-screen, the simple fact is that the
shots were COMPOSED for one ratio and should be seen in that ratio. Anything
else is a bastardization, no matter how competently or adequately it may
have been compromised.
> In conclusion, some FS films look stunning, especially my LDs of Stanley
> Kubrick's FULL METAL JACKET and DR. STRANGELOVE. I wonder how well they
> will *look* this year when the _new DVD Box Set_ of his films is
> released, this time with all new anamorphic widescreen ratios (& DD 5.1
> "new" soundtracks), to the films above, plus THE SHINING, etc.
Actually, Warner has gone back on that. Now the new DVDs will only have the
5.1 remixes but will still be in 1.33:1 ratio (though supposedly
re-transferred from better elements). I find it amusing that they want to
"respect Kubrick's wishes" regarding the aspect ratio issue, but have no
hesitation to screw around with his intended monaural soundtracks.
Joshua Zyber
news:gQ8o6.720$6A6.4...@typhoon2.ba-dsg.net...
> Didn't know about the WS version of Cliffhanger. I thought if a WS
version
> would have been available at the time, Pioneer would have included *that*
> version with my CLD-D704. After all, LD owners are "supposed" to be
> videophiles/collectors. Why would they include a P&S version with a new
LD
> player? Makes no sense.
Maybe they were just trying to get rid of their excess supply of pan&scan
discs that nobody was buying?
Kind of like DVD players coming with coupons for free copies of Mrs.
Doubtfire and My Best Friend's Wedding. They don't want them cluttering up
their warehouses anymore.
Gene E. McCluney
>
> Wow are there really that many suncoasts? Were there that many eight years
> ago? I'm seriously asking here, I've only got one available and it's way
> across town. I bought most of my locally-purchased new LD's at Camelot
> Music.
>
> YDJ
I remember, the local Camelot pulled their laserdiscs quite some time
before DVD became widely available. I was really miffed. They always
had huge bins of cut-outs at reasonable prices, they had the laserdisc
club, where you got a free disc for ever $500 of purchase, or was it
$250?? Plus they had sales on their cut-outs. It was cool while it
lasted.
Gene McCluney
KAMCGANN
consistently said that and live it.>>
>But why do you own them, Kraig? You said in your previous post that no LD
can possibly touch the DVD versions. Why would you want to keep those lasers
if they are worthless in comparison to the DVDs?>
Dry your eyes and blow your nose. One More Time for the Format
Impaired.... NO LD box set can touch DVD SEs' perfomance or capability,
HOWEVER, (see above) "Content exclusive to either format makes both worthy of
consideration."
Keeping certain SEs on both LD and DVD is Consistent with my policy of
inclusion regarding "Special" LDs, which include Box Sets, Criterions, releases
with content exclusive to format, or a film that I am Ga Ga about. Does any of
that ring a bell?
Kraig
Mac Breck
news:20603-3A...@storefull-613.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
>
> - as I like to call it).
>
> What I am refuting is the ignorance of Kraig's posts, and his totally
> FALSE claim that the studios issued "thousands of P&S titles, even when
> they 'knew' better" - sorry, but that is just crap!
I didn't refute it because I didn't have the information available to do
that. I was going strictly on personal experience. I got into LD ~1989
with a used player and some discs borrowed from a friend. The experience
was not very good. The player wasn't very good, and the discs were warped
(cone shaped, due to not being stored correctly I guess). I got rid of the
player and stayed away from LD until I bought my new player (CLD-D704) in
~1996. Since then I've only collected 70 titles. Then in June 1999, I got
a DVD player, and am now up to 75 DVD titles.
> And while we are on the subject of P&S LDs, while I love widescreen
> myself, I am a little shocked at the very negative opinions about "P&S",
> or FS as I call it.
>
> Many times a movie looks just fine in P&S, and very little *important*
> detail of the original composition is missed, depending on how the move
> was shot. Obviously, the many widescreen 2.35:1 films don't look good in
> FS.
Agreed, but it would seem to me to be a "no-brainer" to want to see the
original aspect ratio as was shown in theaters. After all, then you
wouldn't have to be worried about *any* picture information being cropped
out, i.e. what was seen on the screen in the theater, and what you see on
your TV screen should be the same, content-wise.
> And even then, because of the Super 35 format, the P&S version actually
> includes MORE of the image shot (top, & bottom especially).
>
> This irony has been shown on various websites, comparing WS vs FS.
>
> James Cameron's movies were mostly shot in Super 35, and I have several
> of them in widescreen & fullscreen, just to check out the top-to-bottom
> extra image detail that are omitted from the widescreen frame.
If they were shot in Super 35 (1.77:1), the WS presentation should be
1.77:1, not 2.35:1 or 1.85:1. A WS Presentation should have NO cropping,
and should show the full frame.
> This past year I picked up discounted LDs of THE ABYSS (both LBX & FS,
> the AC-3 Director's Cut for each), plus TERMINATOR 2: Longer Version FS,
> and now I am trying to locate the FS version of TITANIC, to go along
> with my LBX copy (& yes I own the non-anamorphic DVD - viewed just
> once).
>
> I watched one of my favorite full-screen LDs again the other day, the
> original OUT-OF-TOWNERS (starring Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis) -- it
> looks great in FS, and you don't miss a thing.
>
> And except for a dark bedroom scene from the FS LD of the original "Day
> of the Jackal" movie, the image looked excellent, and just as "clean" as
> the non-anamorphic widescreen DVD (which I previously owned & sold).
>
> What many need to realize is often there is very LITTLE "pan and
> scanning" actually *needed* (or done) on FS LDs, or VHS & DVD editions.
>
> I think both of the WS & FS LDs of "Back to the Future" look just fine,
> but obviously I prefer the widescreen overall, because it contains the
> original aspect ratio. And, of course, widescreen should be the norm!
Yes. Original Aspect Ratio should be the norm. That way nothing is
cropped. Film makers should decide on an aspect ratio to show their film in
the theaters, and then stick with it through all the LD/DVD/VHS releases.
Then there would be none of this ridiculous confusion. Make a decision and
stick with it.
Mac
Mac Breck
> pepto...@lycosmail.com wrote:
> | On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 15:09:48 GMT, "Mac Breck" <macb...@access995.com>
> | wrote:
> |
> | >LD was ahead of it's time.
> |
> | I agree fully.
>
> How true.
>
> We had AC-3/DD (aka Dolby Digitial) on LDs before most (~99%) theaters
even
> knew it existed (based on my attendance at theaters in Silicon Valley).
>
> Anamorphic (16:9) LDs were produced for sale by Pioneer circa 1995, and
that,
> too, was ahead of its time.
>
> And, most importantly, HDTV 16:9 LaserDiscs have been available for YEARS
in
> the form of MUSE/HiVision LDs. And too bad for the NIH (Not Invented
Here)
> syndrome -- HDTV could bave been more common in the USA by now (thanks to
> the pioneering (no pun :-) efforts we've seen on LaserDisc). The
"problem"
> seems to be lack of control with LaserDiscs:
>
> -- no MacroVision
> -- no region encoding
> -- no "control" (by the studios)
Agreed, but I view those problems as features. :-)
Mac
KAMCGANN
detail of the original composition is missed, depending on how the move
was shot. Obviously, the many widescreen 2.35:1 films don't look good in
FS.>
Kraig
KAMCGANN
<<the studios issued "thousands of P&S titles, even when | they 'knew' better"
- sorry, but that is just crap!>>
Then who was it that issued all those P&S titles on LD?
>Hmmm.Having had put that sociopath in my newreader's killfile a l-o-n-g time
ago I'm not privy to any of his recent ravings.>
Thad should just shut up and go watch his $300 MUSE disc of Dances with
Wolves and continue his dreaming of a world of 36'' LDs with a MSRP of 499.99.
Thad has become the poster child for obsolete format syndrome.
Kraig
Kraig
KAMCGANN
itself, takes precedence over the addition of a single music video.>
>Well, I never said the T2 DVD sucked. As a matter of fact, I'm a happy owner.
It's just that Kraig's statement implied that there was *no* reason to own the
LD box set, as the DVD was superior in all ways. If you are a T2 fan, and want
everything put out (like Kraig wants everything about _Night of the Living
Dead_), you would want the LD as well.>
Dear Jeff
I NEVER impiled, suggested, or even hinted that the T2 LD Box Set,
though now made obsolete by the superior performance and capabilities of the
new DVD, is not worth owning.
As a The Terminator fan primarily, but also a T2 fan, I own BOTH the T2
LD Box Set and the T2 Ultimate DVD. The LD Box set is quite remarkable for an
LD. It is "Special" and is a keeper. My "Movie Only" T2 disc is long gone. Want
to use that as "proof" that I hate LDs?
Kraig
Jeff Rife
> You mean European theaters or American theaters?
Well, I don't *know* that it wasn't 1.85:1 even in European theaters on
first-run. Since *many* countries there would heavily cut it anyway, I would
be surprised if there were ever a first-run showing that had the 1.66:1
aspect ratio *and* the full content.
Jeff Rife
> One More Time for the Format
> Impaired.... NO LD box set can touch DVD SEs' perfomance or capability,
Granted, the specifications for DVD *are* better than that on LD, so I'll give
you "capability", but as to "performance":
- And the explanation for the _Toy Story_ SE DVD sound, which is universally
recognized as being worse than that on the LD box set is?
- And the explanation for the poor 5.1 sound on the SE DVD releases of
_Jurassic Park_ (both DTS and DD), compared to the sound on the DD laserdisc
is?
(I know, I know, that laserdisc isn't technically a "box set", so that
your comparison of DVD SEs to box sets doesn't 100% apply, but you'd think
that if no LD box set could match a DVD SE, how could a mere "regular"
laserdisc have a hope)
- And the explanation for the poor quality video on the _Highlander_ SE DVD
as compared to that on the laserdisc set is?
Of course, now that I think about it, since one of DVDs great capabilities is
multiple audio tracks, I still wonder why SE DVDs like _Jaws_ and _Psycho_
(1960) didn't bother to include all the soundtracks that the LD sets had.
Maybe DVD *does* have better capabilities, but when studios keep failing to
use them when they have the source material, those capabilities become useless.
--
Jeff Rife |
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/ArloNJanis/manure.gif
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 |
Jeff Rife
> >to the New Line Platinum DVD release, even with the anamorphic enhancement
> >and the newly re-mastered soundtrack.
>
If you are interested at all, since the DVD release, the Criterion LD price
is reasonable on eBay. You can get it for less than $25 shipped, if you are
patient (about a month of auctions would be my guess).
--
Jeff Rife | "...the flames began at a prophylactic recycling
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane | plant, near the edge of the forest..."
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 |
Home: 301-916-8131 | -- "WarGames"
Work: 301-770-5800 Ext 5335 |
Jeff Rife
> though now made obsolete by the superior performance and capabilities of the
> new DVD, is not worth owning.
Huh. What, then, would you say this means:
|> Take a look at the DVD SEs of Fight Club, Gladiator, Se7en, T2, A Bug's
|> Life, Disney's Tarzan. No LD box set can touch them.
I'd say that was pretty much saying that there is no LD box set of T2 that is
worth owning, if you have the T2:UE DVD. I don't think that any reasonable
human being would disagree with that assessment, either.
I expect you to disagree, though.
--
Jeff Rife |
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/Olympic1.gif
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 |
Home: 301-916-8131 |
Work: 301-770-5800 Ext 5335 |
Joshua Zyber
> <<the studios issued "thousands of P&S titles, even when | they 'knew'
better"
> - sorry, but that is just crap!>>
>
> Then who was it that issued all those P&S titles on LD?
That evil conspiracy of "LD Loonies", of course. The ones who are trying to
take over the world and steal away your DVD collection.
Booga Booga.
- Josh
Joshua Zyber
> If they were shot in Super 35 (1.77:1), the WS presentation should be
> 1.77:1, not 2.35:1 or 1.85:1.
The exposed negative area on a Super35 frame is in the 1.37:1 ratio, the
same as regular 35mm film. It is composed with the intention of being matted
down to 2.35:1 (unlike regular 35mm film, which is usually composed to be
matted to either 1.85:1 or 1.66:1). It is not 1.77:1, and even if it was
that doesn't mean it should be presented that way if it weren't COMPOSED for
that ratio.
> A WS Presentation should have NO cropping, and should show the full frame.
No, not at all. It should show the original COMPOSITION, as chosen by the
filmmakers, regardless of how much extra space if available above or below
the intended frame line.
Joshua Zyber
What most sane people realize, Jeff, but which Kraig will never see, is that
just because something CAN be better doesn't necessarily mean that it IS
better.
If the studios releasing the discs don't put the proper effort into them, it
doesn't matter that they MIGHT have been better. They just aren't.
- Josh
Joshua Zyber
> >But why do you own them, Kraig? You said in your previous post that no LD
> can possibly touch the DVD versions. Why would you want to keep those
lasers
> if they are worthless in comparison to the DVDs?>
>
> Dry your eyes and blow your nose. One More Time for the Format
> Impaired.... NO LD box set can touch DVD SEs' perfomance or capability,
> HOWEVER, (see above) "Content exclusive to either format makes both
worthy of
> consideration."
I see that you enjoy rewriting your own posts as much as you enjoy rewriting
history. I'm surprised that you don't respect George Lucas more. The two of
you have a lot in common.
What you said was, "No LD box can ever touch them". You didn't say, "...can
touch DVD SE's performance or capability". You said that they CAN'T be as
good as DVD, no matter what. Ever.
> Keeping certain SEs on both LD and DVD is Consistent with my policy
of
> inclusion regarding "Special" LDs,
The discs are just inanimate objects, Kraig. They don't need your pity. If
you don't like them, you don't have to keep them.
- Josh
Jeff Rife
> What most sane people realize, Jeff, but which Kraig will never see, is that
> just because something CAN be better doesn't necessarily mean that it IS
> better.
I know, I know. It's a lot like his touting of anamorphic enhancement, when
he has never seen its effects at home. For me, I want to see anamorphic
discs because I know that it's the future, and my current player is one of
the best at down-conversion, so I lose nothing and gain future-proofing, but
it really isn't an issue when a new purchase or re-purchase comes along...I
don't count it very heavily towards the content on the disc, while OAR, a 5.1
track re-mastered from original stems, and extra features count heavily.
I also have a *lot* of laserdiscs with less real content, and also less
"performance" than the DVD of the same title, and am keeping both, because
the sound performance on the DVD is so poor, but the DVD form factor has
its advantages. The latest like this was _U.S. Marshals_.
I also got rid of the 16:9 enhanced DVD of _Blown Away_ in favor of the DD LD,
which has noticably better sound, and overall as good a picture when down-
converted, and the LD doesn't have subtitle-based title cards. I really need
to track down the DTS LD, now that I can do DTS.
--
Jeff Rife | Coach: How's life, Norm?
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane |
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 | Norm: Not for the squeamish, Coach.
Mondo Kane
With a bozo like Kraig, responding to his bizarre comments is just too
easy...
I know I promised to stop replying to each of his ignorant comments, but
it's really hard not to!
Again, I was refuting this comment by Klueless Kraig: <<the studios
issued "thousands of P&S titles, even when they 'knew' better.">>
And out of my lengthy and detailed post, Kraig can only say: <<Then who
was it that issued all of those P&S titles on LD?">>
Is that it Kraig? Nice "twist" goofus! But where is the 'timeline' for
your claim of... "thousands of P&S titles released, even when they
'knew' better." ??
You must give evidence of:
1) the time of regular widescreen releases being produced.
2) a timeline furthur where the studios then released "thousands of P&S
titles".
3) proof that there was indeed "thousands of P&S titles" (by the
studios) ever released after widescreen was the norm.
4) and that these said studios actually "knew better" about the new
popularity of widescreen, and still decided to produce "thousands of P&S
titles".
Like I said before, you are full of crap, and your comment is based on
your imaginary revisionist false history, from the klueless brain of
Kraig McGann.
As I clearly stated above, regarding USA LD history...
1) when the first early widescreen LDs were released between 1986-87,
there was NOT even in existence "thousands of P&S titles" on the LD
format!
2) furthur, that when widescreen started becoming the *norm* for LD
releases from 1990-onward -- (and the number of titles in the USA LD
catalog was now over 1000) -- the studios did NOT furthur release
"thousands of P&S titles, when they 'knew' better" -- this is bull shit!
See Kraig, you don't have a period of time where the historical fact
could exist for your imaginary claim, because before widescreen became
the norm, there were no "thousands of P&S LDs".... + once widescreen LDs
DID become the norm, the facts are AGAINST your claim, because, instead
it was the WIDESCREEN ratio which was now "knowingly" being promoted
with releases on LD.
Don't you know that only PARAMOUNT was the one studio who were somewhat
unsure of LD fans' viewing preferences, so for a few years they released
their titles in both Widescreen & Full-screen.
But this didn't last long (2-3 years tops). And Paramount could not have
by themselves released "thousands of P&S titles". And all of the other
studios released the majority of their titles in widescreen from then
on... not your stupid claim of "thousands of P&S titles on LD, when they
'knew' better" -- this is a 100% fairy tale.
KK, where do you think the DVD format got it's inspiration for the
proper home video viewing CONTENT? Duh! from the LaserDisc!
And think about this Klueless Kraig... I will use your own words against
your 1-sided DVD defenses! Here it is 2001 and, here we go everyone
(listen to Kraig).... "the studios are releasing ?nds of P&S DVDs(!),
when they should 'know' better".
How's that KK? Why it's the beloved DVD format right here and now in
2001 daring to release Full-screen P&S titles.... on DVD!!!!!!
The Horror....the horror....
Furthur refuting you, I'm not "defending" P&S, just clarifying some
points against some of the just & unjust bias. As I said, often times
there is very LITTLE actual "pan-and-scanning" even done to the
Full-screen releases on VHS, LD, & DVD -- depending on the OARatio of
the film's composition.
With some comparisons, you simply are NOT "missing" important details
from the OAR camera angle, and I gave examples of THE OUT-OF-TOWNERS,
FULL METAL JACKET, DR. STRANGELOVE etc.
And yes, without replying directly to both Brent, Mac, and Thad, I
appreciate and understand their comments.
And I wish I knew the link to post, but there has been comparisons
screen shots of the WS vs FS images from many of James Cameron's films.
And indeed, their is MORE image on the top & bottom in the FS image,
than what appears in the same shot of the WS image, because of the
cropping transition for the various viewing ratios (theater, and home
video in WS & FS).
But, of course, the FS image cannot show the beauty of films shot with
extensive widescreen OAR, and with action & effects that are composed
specifically for widescreen viewing. So I obviously prefer WS as the
best, but don't mind too much watching some LD CONTENT in FS.
Another "full-screen" movie that I remember looks just fine without a
letterbox transfer - MILLER'S CROSSING.
MondoKane
KAMCGANN
above) "Content exclusive to either format makes both worthy of
consideration.">>
>I see that you enjoy rewriting your own posts as much as you enjoy rewriting
history.>
Clarifiying is not rewriting. Since you and your new buddy Jeff, feel that you
can determine the meaning of MY posts better than their author, the record
needs to be set straight.
>What you said was, "No LD box can ever touch them". You didn't say, "...can
touch DVD SE's performance or capability". You said that they CAN'T be as good
as DVD, no matter what. Ever.>
If I wanted to post what you think I meant to post, I would have. The
context of the partial quote that you like to extrapolate the meaning of, is
though DVD has produced some extremely poor efforts, to ignore the
breakthroughs and superb efforts (That no NTSC LD can touch from a performance
or capablility stand point) would be, well JUST LIKE an LDer.
>>Keeping certain SEs on both LD and DVD is Consistent with my policy
of inclusion regarding "Special" LDs,
>>
>The discs are just inanimate objects, Kraig. They don't need your pity. If
you don't like them, you don't have to keep them.>
You know that I do not keep discs that I do not want to.
You may want to keep in mind that Formats are just delivery systems and
do not need your unconditional love.
Kraig
KAMCGANN
just because something CAN be better doesn't necessarily mean that it IS
better.>
Does that apply to your beloved LD format as well?
I do not judge either LD or DVD by their lesser or botched efforts.
Kraig
Joshua Zyber
> I know, I know. It's a lot like his touting of anamorphic enhancement,
when
> he has never seen its effects at home. For me, I want to see anamorphic
> discs because I know that it's the future, and my current player is one of
> the best at down-conversion, so I lose nothing and gain future-proofing,
but
> it really isn't an issue when a new purchase or re-purchase comes
along...I
> don't count it very heavily towards the content on the disc, while OAR, a
5.1
> track re-mastered from original stems, and extra features count heavily.
I do have anamorphic enhancement available, something I had to jury-rig
myself through my set's service menu. It is a nice improvement and does make
a noticeable difference in sharpness, but frankly it is not the end-all and
be-all of video quality. Whether or not the disc is anamorphically-enhanced
is not the most important factor I evaluate. The quality of the color
transfer is still more important.
I suppose for those who have gigantic projection TVs, the issue makes more
of a difference because they are trading off screen size for video
stability. On a direct-view set (32" or less) it is only a slight
difference.
> I also got rid of the 16:9 enhanced DVD of _Blown Away_ in favor of the DD
LD,
> which has noticably better sound, and overall as good a picture when down-
> converted, and the LD doesn't have subtitle-based title cards.
I hate MGM. I really do. That title card replacement strategy of theirs is a
total fiasco. How many James Bond movies have they ruined because of that?
Not to mention the truly crummy audio quality of their DVDs.
KAMCGANN
made obsolete by the superior performance and capabilities of the new DVD, is
not worth owning. >>
<Huh?. What, then, would you say this means: "Take a look at the DVD SEs of
Fight Club, Gladiator, Se7en, T2, A Bug's Life, Disney's Tarzan. No LD box set
can touch them." I'd say that was pretty much saying that there is no LD box
set of T2 that is worth owning, if you have the T2:UE DVD.>
Your use of "Pretty Much" above shows that You are NOT even absolutely sure
what the meaning of my post was. LD box sets not "Worth Owning?" I NEVER
suggested and obviously do not believe that. I own quite a few LD box sets.
What you gleaned from DVD's best outperforming LD's best, astounds me.
Kraig
KAMCGANN
>and out of my lengthy and detailed post, Kraig can only say: "Then who
was it that issued all of those P&S titles on LD?">
Mondy is struggling again. Let's try playing True or False.
1. The LaserDisc Format released thousands of titles in P&S. T or F?
2 The LaserDisc format continued to release P&S titles, even after trying to
position itself as a WS and/or proper aspect ratio niche format. T or
F?
No Future or Current (DVD) format will ever release more than a small
fraction of the amount of P&S titles that LD did.
Kraig
Norman Wilner
>
>>> the studios issued "thousands of P&S titles, even when
>>> they 'knew' better."
>
>> and out of my lengthy and detailed post, Kraig can only say:
>> "Then who was it that issued all of those P&S titles on LD?"
>
> Mondy is struggling again. Let's try playing True or False.
>
> 1. The LaserDisc Format released thousands of titles in P&S.
> T or F?
False. Hundreds, maybe, but not thousands. And that's only if you're
stretching "P&S" to include full-frame transfers accomplished by unmatting a
flat film source, rather than true panning and scanning.
> 2 The LaserDisc format continued to release P&S titles, even
> after trying to position itself as a WS and/or proper aspect ratio
> niche format. T or F?
True, but only if you qualify the hell out of that statement. For one thing,
you can't say that laserdisc "tried to position itself" as anything, since
the format wasn't a single entity.
What's undisputable is that the majority of software producers went to
widescreen between 1988 and 1990, and by 1991 full-frame releases were the
exception, not the rule.
> No Future or Current (DVD) format will ever release more
> than a small fraction of the amount of P&S titles that LD did.
That's a statement of opinion, not of fact.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
http://www.zap2it.com/movies/videodvd
Jeff Rife
> > No Future or Current (DVD) format will ever release more
> > than a small fraction of the amount of P&S titles that LD did.
>
> That's a statement of opinion, not of fact.
Norm, do you know of a database which has information on the OAR/IAR of the
film as well as the aspect ratio(s) on the DVD?
Since there have been *so* many region-1 releases, I'd expect that the number
of non-OAR-only DVD releases in just 4 years is close to that of LD in all
of its 15+ year life.
--
Jeff Rife | "Hey, Brain, what do you wanna do tonight?"
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane |
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 | "The same thing we do every night, Pinky...
Home: 301-916-8131 | try to take over the world."
Work: 301-770-5800 Ext 5335 |
Norman Wilner
> Norman Wilner (xnwi...@xhome.xcom) wrote in alt.video.laserdisc:
>>
>>> No Future or Current (DVD) format will ever release more
>>> than a small fraction of the amount of P&S titles that LD did.
>>
>> That's a statement of opinion, not of fact.
>
> Norm, do you know of a database which has information on the
> OAR/IAR of the film as well as the aspect ratio(s) on the DVD?
>
> Since there have been *so* many region-1 releases, I'd expect
> that the number of non-OAR-only DVD releases in just 4 years
> is close to that of LD in all of its 15+ year life.
You're probably right, especially when you factor in all those
straight-to-video titles that ended up as full-frame rather than widescreen.
(Simitar must have put out a hundred of them, with no LD equivalent.)
But no, I don't know of any database that's that specific, expect perhaps
the IMDb, which isn't accurate enough for my taste.