DVD Review: HTT Magazine
Mark Rowley
Curtco's Home Theatre Technology Magazine.
It's a pretty generalised article with little depth to it.
There is ,however, a telling paragraph at the end. I quote:
"Were there any real differences between LD's picture quality and DVD's?
Absolutely. Toshiba claims that DVD's picture quality exceeds that of
laserdisc, but in my opinion, that statement is only partially true.
DVD has the potential for lower chroma noise than LD, which means that
colors, (especially reds and magentas) will be purer. But because DVD uses
MPEG2 video compression, there is still a very slight pixellation effect
under certain program conditions, like bright flashes of light and large
expanses of same color screen area.
Being a compressionless format LD doesn't suffer from pixelation, except
occasionally as a result of digital processing inside the player, and
never to the degree you see with compressed formats.
DSS, which uses MPEG2 video compression at a slightly lower bit rate than
DVD, also has a bit of pixelation under the same conditions, as anyone
who's lived with the 18 inch dish can tell you.
Is this a serious problem? I don't think so. I'ved lived with DSS for over
a year now, and it's still one of the best things I ever bought.
So I see a tiny bit of pixelation once in a while - it's still a much
better picture than the local cable feed or off the air reception.
And DVD looks even better. So I'd have to say that DVD is better in some
ways and not better in other ways than laserdisc. To my DSS accustomed
eyes, DVD's video compression artifacts are non existent most of the time,
and innocuous when they do appear. The unprecedented data storage benefits
that result - over two hours of high quality video and 5.1 channel audio
on a single disc - are well worth the occasional compression artifacts."
Personally I cannot agree with his conclusions. I will be taking very much
a wait and see with my own eyes stance.
Hope you have found this excerpt interesting.
AlenSmithe
opinion, that's a FACT!
--------------------
AlenS...@aol.com
--------------------
There's nothing we wanna watch on TV tonight, but we're still gonna watch
something great- with our RCA VideoDisc player and VideoDiscs! Just flip a
switch, and on OUR TV we see Airplane or The Pink Panther, The Godfather
or Grease, Muppets, monsters, Mickey, MASH and 100 more, starting as low
as $15! And the player costs less than 500! Put it this way; we're
watching a GREAT MOVIE! And you're watching- us.
BRING THE MAGIC HOME ON RCA!
t...@delphi.com
>The guy who wrote that article is full of shit. And that's not an
>opinion, that's a FACT!
Toshiba needs to get that "better than LD" picture.
I wonder how much this disingenuous publication relies on members of
the Unholy Alliance for its advertising dollars.
t...@delphi.com
>format WILL replace VHS and LD. Period. DVD is the first generation. It
>will not be perfect to start, but it will likely be superior to LD right
>off the bat. Read Joe Kane's series of articles over the last few months
>in Video. The change is here. Face it.
Yes, the change is here, but whether it's good or bad remains to be seen.
Yes, Joe "Sellout" Kane is praising it; so are many other hacks. However,
better eyes than mine saw the truth at CES, and that was even before the
revelations of the line quadrupler and bogus comparison LDs. I'm sorry,
but I get very skeptiical when LIES are used to advance a cause.
>least the equal of the MCA LD. From all accounts, DVD will be far
>superior to DSS broadcasts. You can draw your own conclusions, but
>badmouthing a new product before it even appears is just plain strange
>when it is a highly desirable (and unavoidable) natural progression in
>video technology.
Badmouthing a new product before it appears is no worse than, and is a
counter to, the uncritical hype that those selling it are putting out.
I feel very leery about an unproven product when it offers the possibility
of killing off, accidentally or deliberately, a proven good performer.
And as I've said before, in my line of work hype gets people killed, so
perhaps I'm too skeptical. So be it; I'll evaluate DVD with my own eyes
when I can see it in a store, and I will not buy into the uncritical
"digital is the future" horseshit from people like you. If you don't like
it, perhaps try reading alt.video.dvd; I'm sure your sort of sycophancy
will be more than welcome there.
Just say no to compression artifacts!
Stereo Boy
used to be very critical of companys and new advances, always talking
about how we had to perfect regular NTSC before we could even talk about
new formats, let alone new delivery formats like DVD. Now he is one of
DVD's biggest advocates.
360 about face and sell out!
Ty Chamberlain
DiscoVision - THE WORLD ON A SILVER PLATTER!!
Ster...@aol.com
StereoBoy is a Registered Trademark of
Patrick T.Chamberlain
mi...@cellbio.wustl
Do you still listen to LPs rather than CDs? You sound like some fringe
audiophile fanatics who still listen to their screechy LPs with several
percent IM distortion, who insist that they are somehow superior to
digital audio. Do you want to be restricted to the resolution of LDs,
with all their inherent distortion and noise, when digital HDTV is the
norm? LDs will look worse in comparsion than VHS does now. A digital
format WILL replace VHS and LD. Period. DVD is the first generation. It
will not be perfect to start, but it will likely be superior to LD right
off the bat. Read Joe Kane's series of articles over the last few months
in Video. The change is here. Face it.
I posted a write up on this newsgroup of a direct A-B comparsion of an
MPEG encoded film viewed on a DSS receiver versus the LD version (played
on a Pioneer D704, both viewed on a calibrated 55 inch Toshiba rear
projection set). The digitally encoded version of "The Wolfman" was at
AlenSmithe
I am glad someone else has recognised that Joe Kane is a sell out too! He
used to be very critical of companys and new advances, always talking
about how we had to perfect regular NTSC before we could even talk about
new formats, let alone new delivery formats like DVD. Now he is one of
DVD's biggest advocates.
360 about face and sell out!
Kinda like the person who funded Mothers Against Drunk Driving working for
the booze industry now?
Dwayne Fujima
>Do you want to be restricted to the resolution of LDs,
>with all their inherent distortion and noise, when digital HDTV is the
>norm?
Just what universe or time warp do you live in that has commercial
digital HDTV availability *now*? I don't believe that the current
DVD specs will even come close to fulfilling HDTV bandwidth requirements.
ie *if* digital HDTV ever becomes commercially available, you're going
to need a different DVD format and perhaps drive mechanism for it (since
you're going to need *more* data throughput). I would be interested to
see if the DVD manufacturers will make up a HDDVD system to sell to their
Japanese HDTV consumers anytime soon.
>badmouthing a new product before it even appears is just plain strange
>when it is a highly desirable (and unavoidable) natural progression in
>video technology.
And gushing about a new *unseen* product before it appears is not strange?
I'll judge DVD when it comes out. OTOH I can understand the frustrations
of the group when some person who has just read a Time's article about
yet nonexistant DVD products proclaims it to be the next technological
sliced bread.
AlenSmithe
with all their inherent distortion and noise
Excuse me??? WHAT distorion and noise? The only LDs that have that are
defective pressings, mostly older ones! A perfect LD pressing has nothing
like that, and if you get one that does you can return it for a good one!
If you get a DVD and everything in the picture looks blocky, you can
return it but every copy will be exactly the same because that's how the
format works (or DOESN'T work!)
mi...@cellbio.wustl
(AlenSmithe) wrote:
>
> Excuse me??? WHAT distorion and noise? The only LDs that have that are
> defective pressings, mostly older ones! A perfect LD pressing has nothing
> like that, and if you get one that does you can return it for a good one!
> If you get a DVD and everything in the picture looks blocky, you can
> return it but every copy will be exactly the same because that's how the
> format works (or DOESN'T work!)
Try viewing some LDs on high end video equipment--preferably a front
projection set or a calibrated 55 or 60 inch rear projection set. Even
the very best LDs display analog noise--it is unavoidable. Then compare
to a D-1 or a D-2 master (similar to DVD in quality). HUGE difference.
The digital sources have no time base errors, no chroma or luminance
noise, etc. Your opinion of DVD is based on the misinformation being
shamelessly spread on this newsgroup. Wait until you can view it
yourself. Digital artefacts are virtually absent with proper MPEG-2
encoding even when viewed on a huge projection set. What little is there
is perfectly acceptable and not nearly as annoying as the noise
accompanying even the best LD transfer. DVD is not perfect, but a
definite improvement over LDs. And the algorithms will improve
rapidly--LDs will stay their same noisy self.
Paul Currie
> Just what universe or time warp do you live in that has commercial
> digital HDTV availability *now*? I don't believe that the current
> DVD specs will even come close to fulfilling HDTV bandwidth requirements.
> ie *if* digital HDTV ever becomes commercially available, you're going
> to need a different DVD format and perhaps drive mechanism for it (since
> you're going to need *more* data throughput).
Maybe they will make them 12 inches across, and put only one hour on
each side. :)
--
Paul Currie
pa...@stud.cs.uit.no
Adam Hendershot
> >norm?
>
> digital HDTV availability *now*? I don't believe that the current
> DVD specs will even come close to fulfilling HDTV bandwidth requirements.
> ie *if* digital HDTV ever becomes commercially available, you're going
> to need a different DVD format and perhaps drive mechanism for it (since
> see if the DVD manufacturers will make up a HDDVD system to sell to their
> Japanese HDTV consumers anytime soon.
He didn't say that DVD would be acceptable for HDTV, he said that it's part
of the progression from analog video to digital video (culminating in HDTV).
> >badmouthing a new product before it even appears is just plain strange
> >when it is a highly desirable (and unavoidable) natural progression in
> >video technology.
>
> And gushing about a new *unseen* product before it appears is not strange?
>
> I'll judge DVD when it comes out. OTOH I can understand the frustrations
> of the group when some person who has just read a Time's article about
> yet nonexistant DVD products proclaims it to be the next technological
> sliced bread.
No, listen to yourself: you've already judged it (as "bad," unless I've
misread your statements). I haven't seen it, but I believe that the format
might have potential (I _will_ judge when I see it, and not before). "Gushing"
about a product and being optimistic about it are two different things.
Besides, we really don't need to be discussing this here and now. If you'll
notice, everytime the DVD discussion dies down, it starts back up with a
_negative_ post about DVD (although some loon occasionally does post a "DVD
RULES!" type of thing). Just let it drop and enjoy your laserdiscs for another
year (as I will).
Adam
Dwayne Fujima
Paul Currie <pa...@stud.cs.uit.no> wrote:
>Dwayne Fujima wrote:
>> ie *if* digital HDTV ever becomes commercially available, you're going
>> to need a different DVD format and perhaps drive mechanism for it (since
>> you're going to need *more* data throughput).
>Maybe they will make them 12 inches across, and put only one hour on
>each side. :)
I don't think it's just a matter of the amount of data that HDTV will
require. I recall reading some specs that said that HDTV needs 5 Mb/sec
throughput. Since DVD averages 4 and can burst to 6-8?, it seems that
either the quality will be decreased, the amount of data will be
increased, throughput will have to be increased or a combination of
all three. Not to mention extra speed needed to decompress the greater
amount of data (1150 x 750)? in the same amount of time as normal DVD
(625 x 700)???
BTW I wonder if this is where some confusion of DVD specs come in. Is
this 625 x 700 meaning pixels (likely) in which case this ends up to be
350 horizontal lines of resolution. I think the 300% increase that is
being bandied about is comparing DVD pixels to VHS 240 lines of resolution,
which isn't the same thing.
Dwayne Fujima
>> In article <mike-20039...@128.252.206.220>, mi...@cellbio.wustl wrote:
>> >Do you want to be restricted to the resolution of LDs,
>> >with all their inherent distortion and noise, when digital HDTV is the
>> >norm?
>> Just what universe or time warp do you live in that has commercial
>> digital HDTV availability *now*? I don't believe that the current
> He didn't say that DVD would be acceptable for HDTV, he said that it's part
>of the progression from analog video to digital video (culminating in HDTV).
Ok, perhaps I misread what he meant to say. My impression when I first
read his post is that he is implying that digital HDTV is currently available,
which it obviously is not, in commercial form anyways.
>> >badmouthing a new product before it even appears is just plain strange
>> >when it is a highly desirable (and unavoidable) natural progression in
>> >video technology.
>> And gushing about a new *unseen* product before it appears is not strange?
>> I'll judge DVD when it comes out. OTOH I can understand the frustrations
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> of the group when some person who has just read a Time's article about
>> yet nonexistant DVD products proclaims it to be the next technological
>> sliced bread.
> No, listen to yourself: you've already judged it (as "bad," unless I've
>misread your statements). I haven't seen it, but I believe that the format
No I've always taken the stance that I'll judge DVD when I see it with my
own two eyes and my clinched hand on my wallet :-)
>Just let it drop and enjoy your laserdiscs for another year (as I will).
I'll probably be enjoying my laserdiscs for more than a year. If DVD
does come out in 97 and it is a great format, I'd have to be a fool to
suddenly throw away my sizable collection. DVD and LD can both peacefully
coexist in my household. On second thoughts I'd have to discuss this with
the wife before I make this statement :-)
Mark Rowley
>
You can draw your own conclusions, but
>when it is a highly desirable (and unavoidable) natural progression in
>video technology.
>
What is the difference between supposedly badmouthing a product before
it appears, to praising a product sight unseen before it appears ???
steve
Bravo. Just what needed to be said. We'll all just have to wait
until WE can play a brand new super-duper digital DVD on our TVs which
we know before we can see if DVD is a hit or is shit.
Steve
Urd-sama's Desk
I am writing an article on DVD and mainly on the hype that seems to
surround it. I need some press articles on this. There's was the article
in Billboard a few weeks ago, with the interview with Image's CEO, and now
in HTT magazine.
These are all not available here in Europe, so I am asking your help : can
anyone send me these magazines or photocopies of the relevant articles?
All costs prepaid! Thanks much in advance!
Best regards,
Jeroen
mi...@cellbio.wustl
> Yes, the change is here, but whether it's good or bad remains to be seen.
> Yes, Joe "Sellout" Kane is praising it; so are many other hacks. However,
> better eyes than mine saw the truth at CES, and that was even before the
> revelations of the line quadrupler and bogus comparison LDs. I'm sorry,
> but I get very skeptiical when LIES are used to advance a cause.
That's right, Kane's a sellout. Would you care to support that with some
facts rather than your emotional assertions? I have heard that statement
several times on this newsgroup. Do you know what Libel is? Why don't you
email your statement to Kane?
Do you know the quality of MPEG-encoded video from first hand knowledge
and experimentation?
What better eyes are you referring to? Some of the criticism has come
from experts who would tear apart the finest LD as unwatchable. That's
what the rumor mongers don't know or don't want you to know. The rest is
just rumor and plain BS.
You will see for yourself soon. DVD is as superior to LD as LD is to VHS.
This discussion will soon be pointless.
my line of work hype gets people killed, so
> perhaps I'm too skeptical. So be it; I'll evaluate DVD with my own eyes
> when I can see it in a store, and I will not buy into the uncritical
> "digital is the future" horseshit from people like you. If you don't like
> it, perhaps try reading alt.video.dvd; I'm sure your sort of sycophancy
> will be more than welcome there.
Unlike yours and most of the other posts here, mine are based on first
hand knowledge, not reactionary emotionalism. And BTW, son, the internet
was created by scientists for communication among scientists.
Unforunately, with the flood of generation Xers from aol, delphi,and the
rest of the commercial sources, the info available here is no longer
reliable.
You obviously are not used to intellectual discussion. You might try
learning some common courtesy.
mi...@cellbio.wustl
> mro...@ihug.co.nz (Mark Rowley) wrote:
>
> >In article <mike-20039...@128.252.206.220>, mi...@cellbio.wustl says:
> >>
> > You can draw your own conclusions, but
> >>badmouthing a new product before it even appears is just plain strange
> >>when it is a highly desirable (and unavoidable) natural progression in
> >>video technology.
> >>
>
> >What is the difference between supposedly badmouthing a product before
> >it appears, to praising a product sight unseen before it appears ???
The difference is the badmouthing is based on complete ignorance. All of
the info available on DVD indicates it will be superior in every way to
LD. The badmouthing is rumor, conjecture, and unfounded speculation.
Furthermore, it is simply ridiculous to "wish" a new technology to fail.
What would you do if there was a cure for cancer announced tommorrow? Bad
mouth it, or hope for the best? Get the point??
Paul Penna
> The difference is the badmouthing is based on complete ignorance. All of
> the info available on DVD indicates it will be superior in every way to
> LD. The badmouthing is rumor, conjecture, and unfounded speculation.
> Furthermore, it is simply ridiculous to "wish" a new technology to fail.
> What would you do if there was a cure for cancer announced tommorrow? Bad
> mouth it, or hope for the best? Get the point??
Your compelling analogy notwithstanding, a.v.l has seen at least one
detailed description of a DVD demo by a video professional of acknowledged
credentials (Marc Weilage) which was less than glowing in its evaluation
of the system as it now exists.
Paul Penna
> In article <xBDIt...@delphi.com>, t...@delphi.com wrote:
> my line of work hype gets people killed, so
> > perhaps I'm too skeptical. So be it; I'll evaluate DVD with my own eyes
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> And BTW, son, the internet
> was created by scientists for communication among scientists.
> Unforunately, with the flood of generation Xers from aol, delphi,and the
> rest of the commercial sources, the info available here is no longer
> reliable.
Yessireebobaroonie, you sure wouldn't see no real-live scientist-type guy
trying to do one of them there evaluate-with-my-own-eyes kinda deals,
wouldja?
Andrew Hall
>Do you know the quality of MPEG-encoded video from first hand knowledge
>and experimentation?
I don't know about the other guy, but I know what shit looks like. And
digital shit at that.
>
> What better eyes are you referring to? Some of the criticism has come
>from experts who would tear apart the finest LD as unwatchable. That's
>what the rumor mongers don't know or don't want you to know. The rest is
>just rumor and plain BS.
>
>You will see for yourself soon. DVD is as superior to LD as LD is to VHS.
>This discussion will soon be pointless.
>
What the fuck? Do you work for Sony or something? Can the supreme
attitude. Your just making yourself sound like an asshole.
Personally, I think all DVD discussions should be taken the the
appropriate newsgroup.
alt.bitch.whiny-shit.dvd
Andy
Jeff Raynor
: Then compare
: to a D-1 or a D-2 master (similar to DVD in quality).
Neither have any video compression. BTW the data rate on D1 is 216Mbits
second, rather more than DVDs 4.5MBits/second (*48 more!). Comparison
is very unfare.
: HUGE difference.
Between what? D1 and D2, I doubt it. D1 and DVD, yes, factor 48.
: The digital sources have no time base errors, no chroma or luminance
: noise, etc.
You have not designed/build/tested/measured video ADC and DAC systems
as I have. They have quantizing noise ( 6*NoBits +12 dB), integral-
non-linearity, differential non-linearity, missing bits (even from
convertors "guaranteed no missing bits"). On the DAC side, they _all_
have DAC glitches (even with "anti-glitching" circuitry).
: Your opinion of DVD is based on the misinformation being
: shamelessly spread on this newsgroup.
By people like yourself
: Wait until you can view it
: yourself.
Agreed. I'm waiting for the _first_, _final-spec_ machine to
be available.
: Digital artefacts are virtually absent with proper MPEG-2
: encoding even when viewed on a huge projection set.
"Virtually absent" = not absent = present = annoying.
I have seen MPEG-2 encoding/transmission reception/decoding at
various bit rates. 4Mbits/sec showed some artifacts.
: DVD is not perfect, but a
: definite improvement over LDs.
Obviously more hype as _no-one_ has yet seen output from the final
DVD spec. What people have seen is similar systems & they
don't seem to perform well.
: And the algorithms will improve
: rapidly
What is the basis of this claim?
: --LDs will stay their same noisy self.
And the DVDs you'll buy will have the same motion-artifacts.
These are introduced in the _encoding_ stage, the _encoding_
algorithm might improve with time, but the decoding is fixed
(until a newer, incompatible version becomes available).
No. DVD has no chance. DVC (cassette), is here (in camcorders),
with a higher data rate, fewer artifacts and a standard accepted
by professionals. DVC can _record_, a longer duration than VHS,
better quality, smaller. RIP DVD
Jeff
--
Email: ray...@psi.ch
Web: http://psizs1.psi.ch/~raynor/
Tom Kuchar
: Do you still listen to LPs rather than CDs? You sound like some fringe
: audiophile fanatics who still listen to their screechy LPs with several
: percent IM distortion, who insist that they are somehow superior to
: digital audio.
But are you watching DVDs and not LDs, now? (couldn't resist the
temptation)
: Do you want to be restricted to the resolution of LDs,
: with all their inherent distortion and noise, when digital HDTV is the
: norm? LDs will look worse in comparsion than VHS does now. A digital
: format WILL replace VHS and LD. Period. DVD is the first generation.
Yes, but will DVD be replaced when digital TV comes on the market
(what in 5 - 10 years?)? If not the software, at least the hardware
will be obsoleted.
The real issue for many of us is that we've bought into LDs. We have
thousands of dollars invested in the software. We've bought special
editions for videophiles and movie buffs that aren't available in any
other format. DVD is said to compete with VHS video rentals, when it
eventually hits the consumer electronics market. Although there is
overlap here, I don't see the DVD industry appealing to the niche
market that LD does now, regardless of the merits of the format or
technology.
I think of all the movie buffs that say they won't buy anymore LDs now
that DVD is here (?), or that their confused which tecnology to buy
into so they are not going to enter the market quite yet. We've all
seen those posts here. In the meantime their favorite movies are
coming out in limited, special editions, without a guarentee of
being duplicated in DVD.
So many of us will continue to buy LDs, because their available now,
and they satisfy our consumer demand for special editions. When DVD
does the same, then we'll switch to the new technology.
Tom...
Stereo Boy
seen it first hand, and it SUCKS! You are 100% correct that it is digital
shit.
And, like Marc Wielage said, "I work with D-1, I know D-1 and DVD aint no
D-1!"
Keep up the fight for LD.
Actually, I dont think we will really have to fight too much once DVD hits
the streets. Its gonna fail anyway, so we dont have much to worry about.
t...@delphi.com
>Try viewing some LDs on high end video equipment--preferably a front
>projection set or a calibrated 55 or 60 inch rear projection set. Even
>to a D-1 or a D-2 master (similar to DVD in quality). HUGE difference.
Except of course for the fact that DVD has compression artifacts, which
to some of us are far more objectionable.
t...@delphi.com
>RULES!" type of thing). Just let it drop and enjoy your laserdiscs for another
>year (as I will).
Why? Are my LDs going to mysteriously self-destruct? Or is some little pinhead
glick from a member of the Unholy Alliance going to confiscate them?
t...@delphi.com
>That's right, Kane's a sellout. Would you care to support that with some
>facts rather than your emotional assertions? I have heard that statement
>several times on this newsgroup. Do you know what Libel is? Why don't you
>email your statement to Kane?
to Video at present. As someone else put it, Joe Kane used to be critical
of television technology, but now praises DVD to the high heavens, sight
unseen. He rambles on and on about its potential, while ignoring its
very real flaws. There is no discernible reason for this about-face, hence,
"sellout".
>Do you know the quality of MPEG-encoded video from first hand knowledge
>and experimentation?
video at the many electronics dealers in the area. I was decidedly underwhelmed.
> What better eyes are you referring to? Some of the criticism has come
>from experts who would tear apart the finest LD as unwatchable. That's
>what the rumor mongers don't know or don't want you to know. The rest is
>just rumor and plain BS.
made "Toy Story". He has no vested interest in the success of DVD, and was
at WCES, and commented on how bad DVD looked. And this was even before the
revelation of the line quadrupler.
>You will see for yourself soon. DVD is as superior to LD as LD is to VHS.
>This discussion will soon be pointless.
about DVD as I see fit. I'm sorry that you find open discourse so objectionable.
As I said, uncritical acceptance will more likely be found in alt.video.dvd.
>Unlike yours and most of the other posts here, mine are based on first
>was created by scientists for communication among scientists.
>Unforunately, with the flood of generation Xers from aol, delphi,and the
>rest of the commercial sources, the info available here is no longer
>reliable.
address in the header of his posting too. I'm _so_ impressed. And BTW,
my other account is from the domain that originated the net, and it wasn't
academia either.
I do agree with your comments on unreliability, though. Since seeing all
the unsubstantiated hype about DVD posted by the Unholy Alliance and its
sycophants it's hard to find the truth. I guess we'll have to wait until
later this year. Or next year. Or the year after.....
>You obviously are not used to intellectual discussion. You might try
>learning some common courtesy.
you must be wrong" is obviously a stranger to both intellectual discussion
and common courtesy. Not to mention common sense.
t...@delphi.com
>The difference is the badmouthing is based on complete ignorance. All of
>the info available on DVD indicates it will be superior in every way to
>LD. The badmouthing is rumor, conjecture, and unfounded speculation.
are all to be dismissed?
David Linwood Pearce
In article <Gx8UxgCj...@gol.com>, tot...@gol.com (Dwayne Fujima) writes:
>I don't think it's just a matter of the amount of data that HDTV will
>require. I recall reading some specs that said that HDTV needs 5 Mb/sec
>throughput. Since DVD averages 4 and can burst to 6-8?, it seems that
>either the quality will be decreased, the amount of data will be
>increased, throughput will have to be increased or a combination of
>all three. Not to mention extra speed needed to decompress the greater
>amount of data (1150 x 750)? in the same amount of time as normal DVD
>(625 x 700)???
Decoding capability is not a problem. If Windows 95 running ona Pentium 90
can do 30fps, HDTV on a assembly coded decoder program will not be a problem
for the typical mid-80's 16bit processor (with floating point processing).
Later,
TurboDave
dlpe...@eos.ncsu.edu
David L. Pearce
1984 Laser XE Turbo
AlenSmithe
years to come (in my psychic vision). Have you ever even seen an LD
or player at KMART? Don't think so.
If they pushed the format enough and got them into places like KMart, I
think its sales would go up. On the other hand, a proliferation of idiots
might get into the format and demand only pan and scan movies, and hook
them up in mono.
--------------------
AlenS...@aol.com <---Yes, I know AOL sucks; I'm working on getting rid
of it!
steve
>
>So many of us will continue to buy LDs, because their available now,
>and they satisfy our consumer demand for special editions. When DVD
>does the same, then we'll switch to the new technology.
>Tom...
We argue and argue. DVD is a mass-market item such as VHS, if we
videophiles wanted to be mass-market, we would be buying the Pulp
Fiction Special for $19.98, instead of the carefully designed
Criterion Collection. LDs will continue to be the elite format for
years to come (in my psychic vision). Have you ever even seen an LD
or player at KMART? Don't think so. That is the target of DVD, not
the video rental store. KEEP BUYING LDs OR WE'LL ALL LOSE!
Steve
Paul Currie
> Decoding capability is not a problem. If Windows 95 running ona Pentium 90
> can do 30fps, HDTV on a assembly coded decoder program will not be a problem
> for the typical mid-80's 16bit processor (with floating point processing).
I suppose you have never looked at the decoded stream closely. The fast
decoders are okay to watch with a really big resolution, because then
you can't see the details. The better decoders use a long time to
decode, but they apply a lot of different algorithms to smoothe the
picture. These do NOT do 30fps on a P90. They use about a minute or so
to decode one frame on a P90.
--
Paul Currie
pa...@stud.cs.uit.no
Disc Burner
>The difference is the badmouthing is based on complete ignorance. All of
>the info available on DVD indicates it will be superior in every way to
>LD. The badmouthing is rumor, conjecture, and unfounded speculation.
>Furthermore, it is simply ridiculous to "wish" a new technology to fail.
>What would you do if there was a cure for cancer announced tommorrow? Bad
>mouth it, or hope for the best? Get the point??
-----
Mike:
I have known Marc Wielage personally for over ten years now, and when
it comes to evaluation of hardware/software video performance and
evaluation, his opinion is unimpeachable.
He has worked in the telecine business most of his adult life, and
this man KNOWS what good video looks like.
Implying that Mr. Wielage speaks from "ignorance" only serves to
reinforce the impression that you have a financial stake in the
success of the DVD format....I sure as heck knows that Marc certainly
does not.
B. Sherris
Dwayne Fujima
dlpe...@unity.ncsu.edu (David Linwood Pearce) wrote:
>In article <Gx8UxgCj...@gol.com>, tot...@gol.com (Dwayne Fujima) writes:
>>all three. Not to mention extra speed needed to decompress the greater
>>amount of data (1150 x 750)? in the same amount of time as normal DVD
>>(625 x 700)???
>Decoding capability is not a problem. If Windows 95 running ona Pentium 90
>can do 30fps, HDTV on a assembly coded decoder program will not be a problem
>for the typical mid-80's 16bit processor (with floating point processing).
I hope you're not saying that decompressing QuickTime (or whatever that
horrid ugly little excuse for video that I saw was called) is the equivalent
to an HD DVD decompression. Or has full screen video finally come to PCs (I
admit that I don't keep up on this stuff).
Mark Rowley
>Furthermore, it is simply ridiculous to "wish" a new technology to fail.
>What would you do if there was a cure for cancer announced tommorrow? Bad
>mouth it, or hope for the best? Get the point??
>
eventuated! Get the point! A certain amount of skepticism is healthy.
I do not believe that hoping for the best is a very good way to advance
science or technology. Surely it is best to develop a product (or cure)
which can deliver before launching it on an unsuspecting public.
I have in no way bad mouthed DVD. I have an open mind on the subject and
certainly I will be first in line if and when the format delivers all that
it promises. But so far I am far from convinced.
I have read as many articles and opinions on DVD as I can find (including
arguments from both sides in the latest issue of Widescreen Review) and
there has been a deluge of information and misinformation from both sides.
All reviewers who have actually seen the product report that visible
artifacts and blocking are noticeable. To what degree depends on the point
of view of the individual and the display equipment. How this can be said
to be an improvement over
laserdisc, confounds me. I note that Joe Kane states that DVD has the
potential to deliver superior quality due to its component nature. Hence
the very good display at the Toshiba CES. But this raises other questions.
How many people can afford the sophisticated and expensive equipment used
there and would not laserdisc look superb when run through the same
system?
I understand that the Toshiba DVD player featured a component output for
hook up to TVs that accept component input. Apparently very few folk have
this sort of display device in their homes. This component output also
puts the player up in the projected $1200.00 price bracket.
I also get back to one of the basic questions which tends to indicate that
DVD will have a hard time establishing itself. Even if it delivers all
that is promised. That is:
Who will purchase this product? The average consumer has had years to
invest in optical disc technology but most have not. What would make them
change their mind now?
I am one who does not blindly and unquestiongly accept all that is thrown
at me by the media and electronics companies but try and evaluate it as
best I can and reach my own conclusions.
mark
AlenSmithe
Well, hey, I gotta have something else to collect once I get every CED
title ever made!
David Stankus
> LDs will continue to be the elite format for
>years to come (in my psychic vision). Have you ever even seen an LD
>or player at KMART? Don't think so. That is the target of DVD, not
>the video rental store. KEEP BUYING LDs OR WE'LL ALL LOSE!
>
>Steve
>
>
This is indicative of why LD is/will be a niche product, like $5K
turntables, $15K speakers, etc.. Perhaps if LD had some mass market
distribution efforts, or advertising they would have a more certain
future.
LD's have been around for many, many years, but at this point, I'm
sure that more people know that DVD exists than LD!
Dave
-Petroit,R.G.
were prototype machines. It is useless to condemn a format before
we see the actual consumer machines. We can rant and rave about
how good it is..or is not..., but until the real units ship what's
the point.
I have an LD player...and I like it. I have DSS...and I like it.
I don't have a DVD player, never even saw one...don't know if I'll
like it.
Bob
(And remember, DVD is aimed at the average consumer...not us, we are
LD owners, we are better than the average consumer :) )
In article <R5JrF...@delphi.com>, <t...@delphi.com> wrote:
><mi...@cellbio.wustl> writes:
>
>>The difference is the badmouthing is based on complete ignorance. All of
>>the info available on DVD indicates it will be superior in every way to
>>LD. The badmouthing is rumor, conjecture, and unfounded speculation.
>
>
David Stankus
>
big snip
>
>I also get back to one of the basic questions which tends to indicate that
>DVD will have a hard time establishing itself. Even if it delivers all
>that is promised. That is:
>
>Who will purchase this product? The average consumer has had years to
>invest in optical disc technology but most have not. What would make them
>change their mind now?
Mark, I agree with most of your post, but this last section is
curious. Some answers to the basic question "Why have people not
bought into optical video technology?"
1. Pioneer has done very little to promote it. Outside of some ads
in the video press, I can't recall having seen ads in other areas.
2. The discs are too expensive. One of the oft-repeated benefits of
DVD is that the sell-through prices _can_ be comparable to tape, as
opposed to the $40-50 for LD. I've got to believe that they _could_
get the price of LD down, but by keeping it high, they are insuring
that they will remain a niche product.
3. Even once people learn about LD, they are turned off by the
inconvenience of the format; most movies are on two or more discs,
with breaks to change sides, and longer breaks to change discs.
Again, one of the benefits of DVD is that most movies will fit on one
side of one disc.
Remember when CD's first started? They sounded terrible, even in
comparison to the cheapo turntables. Why did people buy them?
CONVENIENCE! EASE OF USE!
I have no financial or emotional stake in either format, but let's not
have blinders on when discussing mass market acceptance.
David
c. whiting
Dave wrote:
>LD's have been around for many, many years, but at this point, I'm
>sure that more people know that DVD exists than LD!
This is highly unlikely...most non-audio/video phile people have no
idea that DVD is coming or even what it is. Laserdisc has been around
long enough that people are more likely to know the format.
Claude
AlenSmithe
comparison to the cheapo turntables. Why did people buy them?
CONVENIENCE! EASE OF USE!
The only CDs that sounded terrible were because of the mastering job. It
had nothing to do with the format itself- it just reproduced any flaws in
the master tapes; garbage in, garbage out. DVD on the other hand does NOT
accurately reproduce the picture that's put on to it; instead it
approximates it in a bunch of squares.
Mike Farren
A number of misconceptions, including:
>2. The discs are too expensive. One of the oft-repeated benefits of
>DVD is that the sell-through prices _can_ be comparable to tape, as
>opposed to the $40-50 for LD.
The *average* selling price of disks is still relatively comparable to
the *average* selling price of tape - and for most of LD's life, the
price was much, much, lower. The advent of the $19.95 VHS tape is
very recent; before that, VHS tape went for much higher prices,
typically in the $60-$100 range. What caused that to change was
the development of the mass market in VHS tape, which in turn was
a product of widespread rentals, as much as anything else. This
also impacts your first statement, not repeated here, about publicity -
when did you ever see an ad for a VHS recorder? When are you likely
to see one even now?
>3. Even once people learn about LD, they are turned off by the
>inconvenience of the format; most movies are on two or more discs,
>with breaks to change sides, and longer breaks to change discs.
>Again, one of the benefits of DVD is that most movies will fit on one
>side of one disc.
But at what cost? The current DVD specs are marginal in terms of
truly high video quality and playing time when considered together.
Certainly without relatively huge production cost, at any event.
>Remember when CD's first started? They sounded terrible, even in
>comparison to the cheapo turntables. Why did people buy them?
>CONVENIENCE! EASE OF USE!
Except in the minds of a few fanatics, CDs had, and have, far higher
audio quality than LPs, and this was true at the very beginning. The
first market which CDs entered, and the one which set the stage for the
format's later success, was the classical music market, whose
consumers are far more concerned with quality than average; and they
went for CD, and digital in general, in a very big way almost
immediately. A *few* CDs were the victims of bad digital transfers,
but only a very few; for the most part, a CD pressing was instantly
superior to the LP pressing of the same title. And, for the most
part, people bought CDs for the same reason they bought LPs - because
they didn't have much of a choice after the big record companies
started pushing CD and eliminating LP because of the vastly higher
profits to be made with the new format.
For what it's worth, I was there. The first LD player I ever saw
was a unit purchased in the initial market trials, before any
widespread availability, and the first CD player I heard was owned
by a man who also possessed more than 85% of *all* CDs then
available - which amounted to less than 100 titles. I *do*
remember those times; it would appear that you do not, or not
well, at any rate.
>I have no financial or emotional stake in either format, but let's not
>have blinders on when discussing mass market acceptance.
I agree - but the blinders go both ways. Reinventing the history of
LD and CD in order to score rhetorical points isn't a good idea,
either.
--
Michael J. Farren, Ex-Lemmings Manager | All standard disclaimers apply.
Currently unemployed - know anyone |
looking for a good game programmer? | Are we not Lemmings? If you click
far...@shore.net, far...@well.com | us, do we not ... Oh, no!
Stereo Boy
from $5.95 to $15.95. They were still ignored by the mass market, despite
MASSIVE promotion by Pioneer, Magnavox, and DiscoVision. So, the theory
that LD is not a success because of pricing simply dosent hold water.
Stereo Boy
DiscoVision was priced from $5.95 to $15.95 for the first year, and then
$5.95 to $24.95 till 1982 and it was STILL ignored by the mass market.
Untill the late 80's, the average price of an LD was $24.95, and it is
still $29.95. The average price of a new VHS release is $60.00 and yet,
LD is still stuck as a niche format. Price has NOTHING to do with the
consumer acceptance of a format. If it did, CD would have NEVER succeded.
The first CD I bought for my player in winter of 82 cost me $27 dollars!
(Billy Joel:The Nylon Curtain) CD's are still 16 dollars and up, and the
prices keep increasing! Yet they sell in the billions.
People do care about percieved quality somewhat when it comes to audio,
but with video, they dont give a damn. If they can see the picture, its
good enough. Also, except for a very few select films and childrens
programming, people just do not want to own films. This has been proven
again and again.
In regards to DVD, I have seen it and I was HORRIFIED by the terrible
picture quality. And, the rep giving the demo said the SD format disc I
was watching had a slightly BETTER picture than the final DVD format that
had been specified. So, all indications are that the actual releases will
look WORSE than what I saw. Truely scary! I would chose VHS over DVD
anytime!
But, we dont have to worry. LD is not going to die, and DVD will fail
massively.
Keep up the support for LD fellow pioneer!
Adam Hendershot
GEEEZZZZZZZ! LET IT DROP! If you've been paying any attention to me
at all, I've said the same exact thing you just said numerous times.
What I suppose I should have EXPLICITLY STATED IS: the imminent arrival
of DVD is not a reason to not enjoy your laserdiscs "for the next year"
(in other words, to stop buying them, etc). I just bought a new LD
player, and I'm on the optimistic side of DVD (not the zealot side, the
optimistic, "if it turns out to suck no skin off my back" side).
Adam
Merch
> GEEEZZZZZZZ! LET IT DROP! If you've been paying any attention to me
> at all, I've said the same exact thing you just said numerous times.
> What I suppose I should have EXPLICITLY STATED IS: the imminent arrival
> of DVD is not a reason to not enjoy your laserdiscs "for the next year"
> (in other words, to stop buying them, etc). I just bought a new LD
> player, and I'm on the optimistic side of DVD (not the zealot side, the
> optimistic, "if it turns out to suck no skin off my back" side).
>
I kind of agree. Although I'd like DVD to fall flat on it's face, it may
not happen. The LD market may diminsh to the point of 8mm - not an
obsolete format (such a beta), but still much not the standard. You can
buy movies on 8mm, but they are obviously not widely available. I just
hope that Laserdiscs stand their own. I can't imagine buying a DVD boxed
set - it just wouldn't feel impressive enough to spend $100+ dollars on.
Now pick up the Lion King Boxed Set - some heft, no?
merch
David Linwood Pearce
In article <4jjp17$4...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ster...@aol.com (Stereo Boy) writes:
>LaserDiscs started out cheaper than ANY format. Discs were ALL priced
>from $5.95 to $15.95. They were still ignored by the mass market, despite
>MASSIVE promotion by Pioneer, Magnavox, and DiscoVision. So, the theory
>that LD is not a success because of pricing simply dosent hold water.
>
in my own opinion, which is a collective of others I know who both own and
don't own Laserdisc players, it plays a big factor now. Many of the pop.
the 'philes here call Blind Joe Smoe Consumer, read the new HT publications,
think that Laserdisc is superior, and even see a difference in a store
demo. Yet they do not commit because of the expense. The quality is nice,
but not worth it to them when they can wait a few months and buy it for
only 11.99 at Walmart. Heck, they may only watch it once or twice anyway.
I am told I am strange all the time for wanting to watch any movie (not
just the bad ones :-) ) more than once. The only movies that get played
to warrant that kind of cash are kid movies, and kids grow up quick, no need
to invest in a LDplayer for that, in their minds.
If you want to fix this problem, the Laserdisc patents are expiring in
droves. Someone with enough capitol could start for film what Mobile
Fidelity is to music/sound, and sell it for 11.99. IF you could meet
production requirements and produce a high quality disc, LD might actually
obtain great status in HT. However, it may be too late for that now, and
the two production conditions above are hard to meet.
In my own opinion, LD was a great product promoted at the wrong time.
Now is the time it could make waves, but the money was spent when it
couldn't, and they (the companies) are not about to try again with the advent
of DVD.
There are people who see much more in a picture than I do. I can accept that
fact easily. However, DVD (it may take 10 years) will be the best choice
even for them eventually. There is the 32Gig disc in development by Toshiba,
much better computer technology coming down the pipe, and readers that can
flow the data required for a 32Gig minimum compression disc, and this is
just scratching the surface. These technologies will be available someday
because computer users demand them yesterday, and it will be cheaper to
build a better DVD system than maintain an old one.
I will save $500 dollars, and when I hit the mark, the technology with the
best base will be owned by me. Since summer school and food is expensive,
it will be late July or August, just when things are beginning to get hot
in the DVD vs LD battle ground in consumer electronics. If DVD has said
250+ available titles, and these titles are movies I like, then DVD will
have won for me, if not, Laserdisc Player it is.
Of course like I tell my friends, when I graduate from this place and get a
real job, I plan to enjoy both formats, along with a nice DSS receiver to
top it all off.
Richard M. Anderson
another standard 12 months from now. Get ready to dump the DVD
machine.
sinc;
Rich
Bill Davidson
Stereo Boy <ster...@aol.com> wrote:
>LaserDiscs started out cheaper than ANY format. Discs were ALL priced
>from $5.95 to $15.95. They were still ignored by the mass market, despite
>MASSIVE promotion by Pioneer, Magnavox, and DiscoVision. So, the theory
>that LD is not a success because of pricing simply dosent hold water.
I don't know about that "massive promotion". A year ago, before I took
my LD player to my parents house, they had never heard of laserdisc.
They asked if it was some new thing. These are intelligent educated
people who do watch TV and read newspapers and pretty much always
have. Apparently the word didn't get out so well.
--Bill Davidson
Bill Davidson
>Nice to see someone else was at the Atlanta Launch! Everyone forgets that
>DiscoVision was priced from $5.95 to $15.95 for the first year, and then
>$5.95 to $24.95 till 1982 and it was STILL ignored by the mass market.
>Untill the late 80's, the average price of an LD was $24.95, and it is
>still $29.95.
Try $39.95 list. Titles aimed at the children's market are often
priced around $29.95. Most real movies are $39.95. Most places don't
discount that much either. There's 32 stores on my San Diego LD
resources list that will sell new discs and only 5 of them have regular
discounts on all new titles. Others have occasional sales or selected
titles on sale but that only works if they have what you want.
> The average price of a new VHS release is $60.00 and yet,
>LD is still stuck as a niche format.
How many people buy $60 VHS movies? Hardly any outside of rental
stores. Sell through VHS is a big business when the tapes get under
$20. I just picked up the Pulp Fiction special edition VHS for $11. I
don't think I'd have paid $20 for it. I know I wouldn't pay $60. The
VHS collector need only wait until the price comes down. New VHS sales
are much larger than new LD sales because a hell of a lot of VHS movies
are available cheap and, of course, a lot more people have VHS decks.
I'd own a lot more LD's if they cost $15. As it is, I've never paid
more than 20% off on a new LD and I paid less than that for more than
half my collection. My collection consists of a my favorites that I
tend to have paid in the higher ranges for and a few movies I like and
was able to get super cheap.
> Price has NOTHING to do with the
>consumer acceptance of a format. If it did, CD would have NEVER succeded.
> The first CD I bought for my player in winter of 82 cost me $27 dollars!
>(Billy Joel:The Nylon Curtain) CD's are still 16 dollars and up, and the
>prices keep increasing! Yet they sell in the billions.
Price has a lot to do with it. CD took several years to really catch
on. Part of it was that the first players were very expensive. CD's
were also pricey. It caught on when the price of players came down and
the price of CD's was brought down to something only a little bit more
than LP's. Everyone liked the elimination of cracks and pops but it
had to get reasonable in price before people would buy it. Now that CD
is king, they have brought the price back up. Now we have no real
choice.
--Bill
Stereo Boy
charge $1.50 for UPS Blue Label.
Gareth Randall
> Also, except for a very few select films and childrens
>programming, people just do not want to own films. This has been proven
>again and again.
I may be speaking from a very European perspective here, but if this
is the case, why is the market for sell-through movies so huge?
>In regards to DVD, I have seen it and I was HORRIFIED by the terrible
>picture quality. And, the rep giving the demo said the SD format disc I
>was watching had a slightly BETTER picture than the final DVD format that
>had been specified. So, all indications are that the actual releases will
>look WORSE than what I saw. Truely scary! I would chose VHS over DVD
>anytime!
Are you sure you weren't looking at CD-Video? =;-)
The demos I have seen have blown LD into a cocked hat, and I'm used to
working with broadcast-quality pictures, so I know a good image when I
see it. Once we start seeing THX-mastered DVD movies, I expect the
perceived quality to go up a further notch or two. And do you
seriously believe that sell-through DVD will look worse than VHS???
Sure, there'll be badly-mastered material, just as there is with LD
and VHS, but in the absence of an industry-wide THX-style initiative,
that's an inevitability.
>But, we dont have to worry. LD is not going to die, and DVD will fail
>massively.
Why should it? It's far more consumer-friendly than LD - smaller discs
that can store a complete average-length movie on one side with better
picture quality (which consumers *can* be educated to care about). The
public always wants it smaller, "better", and preferably shiny - DVD
fulfils all three criteria admirably.
And at the end of the day, why get so hot under the collar about it?
LD is such old technology, it was only a matter of time before the
next generation appeared, and if it's priced properly (and all the
indications are that it will be) people will buy it. Public perception
of audio/video product has come a long way in the last few years, with
more and more non-AV-philes buying into the "home cinema" concept. As
the price of equipment continues to fall, this trend can only grow,
and given that the public (in Europe at least) can't seem to buy
enough sell-through movies, DVD will be a hit - assuming that it's
backed up with the software, of course. I for one fully intend to
retire my LD player and switch to DVD at the appropriate time - after
all, I want the best picture quality I can get for my money, and the
demonstrations I have seen have led me to the conclusion that DVD will
deliver this more effectively than LD.
Plus I just like having new toys to play with... =;-)
Gareth
Bill Davidson
>I get ALL my LaserDiscs for 20% off from Ken Cranes. And, they only
>charge $1.50 for UPS Blue Label.
That's not the point. If you want to get pedantic, that makes a disc
0.8 * $39.95 + $1.50 = $33.46 which is still greater than the $29.95
you stated.
I also get all my movies at least 20% off. I have a local store that
doesn't have Crane's selection but will order anything at 20% off. My
parents also live about 3 miles from Ken Cranes so I often visit the
store when I visit my parents.
The fact remains that the list price that most people pay is $39.95 or
more for most movies; not $29.95. That's a significant difference;
especially when you're trying to make a point that LD's are not that
expensive, which is what you were doing.
So far I've found 31 stores in San Diego that will sell new discs (I
maintain a periodic posting of San Diego County stores that carry
LD's). Only 4 have a regular discount on all discs. 3 of those are
10% and one is 20% (I also list Ken Crane's just because it's only
about an hour or so from San Diego). I also buy discs at Tower
sometimes because while they don't have a regular discount, they always
have about 30-40 popular titles available at 10-25% off. I usually go
for the 25% off.
The reason I look for sales so much is because the discs are
expensive. Price is a problem in my mind. Apparently you also look
for the big discounts so price is obviously a problem for you as well.
That is my point. $39.95 is too much to pay for most movies.
--Bill Davidson
Phillip C. Saunders
I'm not sure that I agree with Gareth that many LD owners are anti-DVD.
Many have urged caution, and stated that the there is no guarantee that
production full length movies and players will equal the quality of the
demo units and disks currently being displayed. (Some have gone further
and argued that the use of specially tweaked demos, line doublers,
rigged comparisons, etc make any comparisons suspect). This seems a
reasonable position. Once DVD is released and production players and
full-length movies are available, we can all stop speculating and make
informed comparisons and reach our own judgements.
There are some good reasons to be cautious. DVD uses compression
technology that throws away a lot of the picture (and also a lot of the
sound). DVD has both storage and bandwidth limititations that will
affect picture quAlity. These limitations will show up most in dealing
with action sequences where large portions of the picture are changing
rapidly and with long movies that push the limits of how much can be
stored on a DVD. Few of the demos have shown either action sequences or
full length features, so we don't really know how these limitations will
affect real world image quality. We probably haven't seen the
worst-case images (Why would they use the worst case for demos?)
As for the market prospects for DVD (and how this will affect the LD
market) this is all speculation. While DVD has some very nice technical
features that will appeal to videophiles (multiple aspect ratios,
soundtracks, etc), in my opinion the biggest single factor for the
videophile market is picture quality, followed by sound quality,
followed by availability of software. It is not clear that DVD will
have a definite advantage in either of the first two areas, and it will
be inferior in the third for some time. Without a significant
improvement in image and sound quality over laserdiscs, I don't see
videophiles buying in, especially if they are already committed to
laser.
The consumer market is where DVD needs to succeed. DVD clear has better
picture and sound quality than VHS, but it isn't clear that this is a
major factor for the consumer market. Many believe that price,
software availability, and convenience will be bigger factors. Others
say DVDs inability to record will be a significant negative. In my
opinion, if DVD is seen as supplementing VHS (rather than replacing it)
it will have a very tough time. This implies that availability of
software (for rent and ownership) along with somewhat better than VHS
quality will be important (along with price). Software availability
seems to be a big unknown at this point, with many key players taking a
"wait and see" attitude. DVD's prospects for success in the consumer
market seem to be cloudy at best. I don't see a compelling reason for
consumers to buy one now, though if the format succeeds (and software
availability follows) this may change.
Despite the plans for a big marketing push, I don't see a compelling
reason for either consumers or videophiles to buy in the first year.
Higher quality AUDIO DVDs could be compelling to Audiophiles, though the
format still isn't locked down and I haven't heard of any music
companies committed to the new format. Audiophiles would be happy to
pay $500-1000 for a better sounding CD, and this is a market DVD should
try to tap. The video features would just be a bonus.
The final market is the computer market, which is behind DVD in a big
way. If DVD becomes the new CD-ROM, this could provide the economies of
scale needed to jump start the format. Moreover there seems to be a
vaguely defined "multimedia market" that could use DVD's higher storage
capacity (and eventual recording capability). How long it will take the
computer industry to adopt DVD is an open question, but it might be
faster than most people think.
I hope DVD DOES succeed, but I think prospects in the audio and computer
markets are better than in the videophile and consumer markets. I would
like to be pleasantly suprised by DVD's picture quality, but I remain
skeptical about lossy compression. I'll wait and see what the
production units look like. But ultimately, success will not be defined
by the manufacturers or the press, but by the public and the market. I
think whether DVD succeeds or fails is still an open question, but the
key will be who wants to buy it and why, not who wants to sell it.
AlenSmithe
affect picture quAlity. These limitations will show up most in dealing
with action sequences where large portions of the picture are changing
rapidly and with long movies that push the limits of how much can be
stored on a DVD. Few of the demos have shown either action sequences or
full length features, so we don't really know how these limitations will
affect real world image quality. We probably haven't seen the
worst-case images (Why would they use the worst case for demos?)
Actually, I'm most impressed when they DO use worst cases for demos. That
shows the potential of the product. If they try to HIDE worst cases, like
they're doing here, that only breeds suspicion.
mi...@cellbio.wustl
(AlenSmithe) wrote:
> Actually, I'm most impressed when they DO use worst cases for demos. That
> shows the potential of the product. If they try to HIDE worst cases, like
> they're doing here, that only breeds suspicion.
I agree, but who would buy an LD player if you showed them the worst LD
you've ever seen? How about Superman I? Horror of Dracula? Worse than
the VHS tapes..
CMesser993
DVD-CON: It's gonna look like shit...
Preston Clegg
>
> t...@delphi.com wrote:
> >
> > Adam Hendershot <ada...@ids.net> writes:
> >
> > >RULES!" type of thing). Just let it drop and enjoy your laserdiscs for another
> > >year (as I will).
> >
> >
> > Why? Are my LDs going to mysteriously self-destruct? Or is some little pinhead
> > glick from a member of the Unholy Alliance going to confiscate them?
>
> at all, I've said the same exact thing you just said numerous times.
> What I suppose I should have EXPLICITLY STATED IS: the imminent arrival
> of DVD is not a reason to not enjoy your laserdiscs "for the next year"
> (in other words, to stop buying them, etc). I just bought a new LD
> player, and I'm on the optimistic side of DVD (not the zealot side, the
> optimistic, "if it turns out to suck no skin off my back" side).
>
I am a graduate student in the Japanese language teaching area.
Laserdiscs have been a Godsend because it allows students to interact
more effectively with the material. Videotapes don't do this very well.
Also, some players can be connected to a computer so that individual
frame locations can be addressed via a computer program in the CAV
format. The problem lately is that companies are reluctant to pursue new
projects because they are afraid that they will spend all this money on
creating a LD format, only to have that investment be a waste of money.
However, they don't want to use a format that has not been commercially
tested. Therefore DVD is a "Wait and See" issue.
They have been talking about HDTV for about 10 years now, and yet no
product penetration has occurred. What will probably happen is that DVD
will just be getting popular when they will say, "The cutting edge is
HDTV. Your old TV is obsolete." Not only your TV, but VCRs, LDs, etc.
This is the way the electronic corporations keep us buying their
products, by making older products obsolete.
The CD didn't really begin to penetrate the US market until about 1987,
almost 5 years after initial release. LD is just beginning to penetrate,
and now they want to kill it in favor of something "better?" I think
I'll hold out until I know more.
Just my 2 cents,
Preston