Got my Fight Club LD!
ALIENS 74
night on my newly aquired Pioneer LD-S9 and all I can say is "WOW"! I've never
been so impressed by a laserdisc transfer as I'm with this one. The Japanese
really know how to present the LD format at its best! And the Dolby Digital 5.1
soundtrack is simply outstanding, it sounded even better than when I saw this
film in the theater. If you love LD...then by all means get this disc now!
I highly recommend that if you're dedicated to LD and plan to purchase
more Japanese imports in the future, then you should really think about
investing in a Japanese LD player....To be perfectly honest, let's face it,
Japan is the last and only place newer films on LD will ever be produced. So
why not invest in a stand alone LD player that is equiped with the newest
laserdisc technology? Assuming you prefer LD over DVD like myself, so I don't
want to hear those DVD guys respond and say, "because you can buy a DVD player
for much less". I have a DVD player and I'm not that impressed, enough said. As
for my new LD-S9, I'm simply blown away by the picture quality! This player is
miles ahead of the CLD-99 and CLD-97 and completely eliminates all noise
inherent on LD's. Until you've seen the picture quality that the LD-S9 or the
HLD-X9/X0(I personally haven't seen this model yet) can produce, you'll never
witness what LD can really offer. Another aspect that's great about the LD-S9
is that it has LDG-graphics, this feature allows you to remove the Japanese
subtitles from the bottom black bar. I really love that one!
Do I sound kind of overly excited about my new player? I am, but it took over
2 months and hours of web searching until I finally got it. :) Same goes for
Fight Club. :)
Edward
Chris Vila
Dvd's look better that laserdisc's, it a fact that has been proved and
confirmed by both science and the consumers.
Lasers where and are great, but the have been surpassed
With the type of money you spent on that player you could have bough a kick
ass dvd player for 1/2 maybe even a quarter of the price and a shite load of
films to enjoy in all their anamoprhic splendor.
Keep your 925's for your lucas film / spielbug films , but don't burn your
money!
ALIENS 74 <alie...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000601130622...@ng-xb1.aol.com...
Jcbanville1
>confirmed by both science and the consumers.
>Lasers where and are great, but the have been surpassed
I must agree, although I do own a LD player and a handful of discs :)
Jim
KAMCGANN
personally haven't seen this model yet) can produce, you'll never witness what
LD can really offer.>
Yeah but I saw a tricked out CED player at Area 51 and it was even better!
Watch DVD's Best: Anamorphic WS, through component video and you Will be
impressed. I like High End LD but am willing to give DVD its due.
Kraig
m_st...@hotmail.com
like laserdiscs (on an LD newsgroup yet!) and four DVDers come a
runnin'! That says a lot! I may order this LD after all!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
DeepRed85
>laserdisc is censored. But if that's your idea of presenting a
>movie at its best, you're welcome to it.
Aren't you wise enough to know that you can't believe everything you read? Do
you own this disc personally? I think not, so keep your comments to yourself.
It's not censored in any way and it's the exact same cut as it appeared in
theaters.
Edward
George Lee
"Chris Vila" write:
>Dvd's look better that laserdisc's, it a fact that has been proved and
>confirmed by both science and the consumers.
>Lasers where and are great, but the have been surpassed
Sorry to say, that's not entirely true. Although DVDs surpass LD's picture
quality, LDs definitely sound better. Yes, lasers were great, but DVDs didn't
surpass LDs in every way.
Geo
ALIENS 74
>like laserdiscs (on an LD newsgroup yet!) and four DVDers come a
>runnin'! That says a lot! I may order this LD after all!
You really should, I think you will be quite impressed. These new laserdisc
pressings from Japan are top-notch. Too bad these type of pressings weren't
standard say 3 years ago.
I'm glad to hear you to find it a little perplexing that these "DVD guys"
have to always but in and try to ruin our interest in LD's. Makes you think.
Edward
Wielgosz
>
> Just curious if I'm the only one who's received there's? I watched it last
> night on my newly aquired Pioneer LD-S9 and all I can say is "WOW"! I've never
> been so impressed by a laserdisc transfer as I'm with this one. The Japanese
> really know how to present the LD format at its best! And the Dolby Digital 5.1
> soundtrack is simply outstanding, it sounded even better than when I saw this
> film in the theater. If you love LD...then by all means get this disc now!
>
> I highly recommend that if you're dedicated to LD and plan to purchase
> more Japanese imports in the future, then you should really think about
> investing in a Japanese LD player....To be perfectly honest, let's face it,
> Japan is the last and only place newer films on LD will ever be produced. So
> why not invest in a stand alone LD player that is equiped with the newest
> laserdisc technology? Assuming you prefer LD over DVD like myself, so I don't
> want to hear those DVD guys respond and say, "because you can buy a DVD player
> for much less". I have a DVD player and I'm not that impressed, enough said. As
> for my new LD-S9, I'm simply blown away by the picture quality! This player is
> miles ahead of the CLD-99 and CLD-97 and completely eliminates all noise
> HLD-X9/X0(I personally haven't seen this model yet) can produce, you'll never
> is that it has LDG-graphics, this feature allows you to remove the Japanese
> subtitles from the bottom black bar. I really love that one!
>
> Do I sound kind of overly excited about my new player? I am, but it took over
> 2 months and hours of web searching until I finally got it. :) Same goes for
> Fight Club. :)
>
> Edward
>
Out of curiosity, how well does the LD-S9 deal with disc defects?
(especially inclusions and drop outs). I saw a CLD-704 at someone's
house once that showed every little defect on my copy of "Indiana Jones
and the Last Crusade", defects that never showed themselves on my
DVL-700 (don't gasp too loudly). I was considering upgrading to a
CLD-704, assuming I could find one, but I was scared off by the
transparency that the player gave to the defects. I'd rather put up
with a softer, slightly noisy image rather than one that had waves of
red/blue streaks running through the image during certain scenes...
CPJ2000
> >Wow. Someone posts some information of interest to those of us who
> >like laserdiscs (on an LD newsgroup yet!) and four DVDers come a
> >runnin'! That says a lot! I may order this LD after all!
>
> You really should, I think you will be quite impressed. These new laserdisc
> pressings from Japan are top-notch. Too bad these type of pressings weren't
> standard say 3 years ago.
Agree -- the Japanese LD of "Phantom Menace" is, to say the least, awesome.
I do note (and so does my ISF technician) it looks darker compared with most
LDs, and I'm wondering if this has something to do with Japanese television
setting black at 0IRE -- which I prefer: initially the picture looks a bit
dark, but increasing the black level doesn't bleach the color as happens with
almost all NTSC video (broadcast and home video) in the US and Canada.
I also find that with with my VX1000 DV camera, set at 0IRE, using additional
neutral density filters (on top of the camera's built-in one) enables exposure
latitude in bright outdoor light, along with deeply saturated, but low-noise
color (reds are unbelievable) that is matched only by the best industrial
digital units. Why the !@#$%^&*+ can't _all_ TV and video be this good?
The incredible rich color (also reduced perception of scanline structure,
compared with most LDs) blew me away. The "PM" LD is still a tad noisier and
less satin smooth (even played from my D704) than the best DVDs (at least on my
XBR100), but this doesn't bother me. Bottom line: if _all_ video I watched was
this good I'd have few complaints.
> I'm glad to hear you to find it a little perplexing that these "DVD guys"
> have to always but in and try to ruin our interest in LD's. Makes you think.
The best DVDs, IMO, outperform LD, but there sure are a lot of stinkers! I just
got the DVD set of the complete season one of "sex and the city" -- terrible
noise and grain (unless this was deliberate), though color is excellent.
CPJ2000
CPJ2000
I think the problem, as well as shortcomings in less steller LDs, was the display. A
dead-accurate color decoder _and_ a 3D comb filter are mandatory to get the best (or
near-best) obtainable video from LD. What kind of set were you watching at your
friend's house?
(BTW, are you related to a person named Wielgosz who works for NRCS in Toronto?)
CPJ2000
Topcoder
DeepRed85 wrote in message <20000601223110...@ng-cp1.aol.com>...
|
|Aren't you wise enough to know that you can't believe everything you read? Do
|you own this disc personally? I think not, so keep your comments to yourself.
|It's not censored in any way and it's the exact same cut as it appeared in
|theaters.
|
is to provide a forum for the free exchange of ideas, opinions, comments
and any other pearl of wisdom which happens to flow from the scribe's
fertile fountain of unparalled intelligensia at that particular time.
Usenet posters soon learn that anyone can slice and dice anyone else's
posts and come up with something to criticize, at the expense of the intent
and integrity of the original thread.
Telling people to keep their opinions to themselves in a newsgroup
is about as intelligent as watching a laserdisc with the TV turned off.
If you want to tell me that you consider your opinions, likes and dislikes
more relevant and/or valid that anyone else's, let me know,
so that I can killfile you and your delusions of grandeur.
If you consider your opinions to be as good as anyone else's,
then the corollary is true, and you therefore have no business
telling anyone to keep their opinions to themselves.
I do realise that you have the right to express your opinion
that Altair4 should do a literary Marcel Marceau act.
However, if everybody could muffle the posters
with whom they disagree, it would get very quiet in here.
"Agree to disagree" is probably the best approach.
So, the "wise up" advice is good advice. You start.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken".
ALIENS 74
In one simple word "INCREDIBLE". I really wasn't expecting the type of quality
that I got when I watched my first LD on it. It also works wonders on
laserdiscs that were produced about 10 to 15 years ago.
Before I got this unit, I had a Pioneer CLD-D703 and a CLD-97. Now, both
of these LD players are great players and I would easily recommend them to
anyone interested in getting into LD, but the LD-S9 is just miles ahead of
anything ever produced in states. The main feature that seems to seperate the
Japanese LD players from the U.S. Elites (97,79,99) is the HIGH RESOLUTION 3-D
YC seperation filter. I know the CLD-99 is equipped with a 3-D YC filter, but
it's a first generation conventional type one. The LD-S9 comes with a
HIGH-RESOLUTION 3rd generation real 3-dimensional YC filter(composed of
horizontal 1-dimensional filter and non-separable vertical-temporal
2-dimensional filter), as a result crosscolor is very much suppressed even for
slowly moving pictures.
Bottom line the LD-S9 or the HLD-X9 are currently the best laserdisc
players available and are every bit worth their pricetags! But if you don't
want to spend the cash for a Japanese player, then the CLD-D704 is a great
choice and even is as good as the CLD-99.
>I saw a CLD-704 at someone's
>house once that showed every little defect on my copy of "Indiana Jones
>and the Last Crusade", defects that never showed themselves on my
>DVL-700 (don't gasp too loudly
Maybe your friends set-up wasn't calibrated correctly? Was he using the s-video
or RCA output? From my own experience with my CLD-D703, I discovered that I got
a better picture using the RCA output then the S-Video. What type of television
did he have?
Edward
Chris Vila
Your just one of these people who are crying because everybody can now have
a DVD player. Because of your own insecure feeling of a need to be elitist
you are investing in a largely inferior format in its last dying days.
The fact is you are burning money and any person who buys say a $400 DVD
player using a decent disc, connected up to a widescreen TV will get a
better, RGB, anamophic picture than any non HD Laserdisc. It is a fact.
Just for the record I do own and still occasionally buy laser's, but film
wise I make sure I buy the best.
So go see your shrink, and stop wasting money is such a childish manner.
ALIENS 74 <alie...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000601225551...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
> >Dvd's look better that laserdisc's, it a fact that has been proved
>
> In your eyes, but not mine. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but
for me
> I prefer LD's.
>
> >With the type of money you spent on that player you could have bough a
kick
> >ass dvd player
>
> I have a so called "kick ass" DVD player that you describe. Does a Pioneer
> Elite DV-09 qualify as "kick ass" player in your almighty eyes? As hard
for
> you as it's to accept(get over it), I still prefer LD. :) :)
>
> >Keep your 925's for your lucas film / spielbug films , but don't burn
your
> >money!
>
> My money is not being burned buddy and I'll spend it anyway I damm well
please.
> Ever see a LD movie on a LD-S9 or HLD-X9? Doubt it? So how would you even
know
> for a fact that DVD's look better than Laserdisc's as you call claim? Oh,
I
> forgot you're an expert.
>
> >confirmed by both science and the consumers.
>
> LOL. :) :) Science. Yeah the complicated science of electronics.
>
> Edward
>
>
Starman
luck...@aol.com (George Lee) wrote:
> >
> "Chris Vila" write:
>
> >Dvd's look better that laserdisc's, it a fact that has been proved and
> >confirmed by both science and the consumers.
> >Lasers where and are great, but the have been surpassed
>
> Sorry to say, that's not entirely true. Although DVDs surpass LD's
> picture
> quality, LDs definitely sound better. Yes, lasers were great, but DVDs
> didn't
> surpass LDs in every way.
Oh, UGH...this only holds true in the Pro-Logic arena. The 5.1 on LD and
DVD are exactly the same.
Mike
--
ICQ: 6426785
AOL IM: StarmanTHX
UT stats: Starman - 385187
Starman
alie...@aol.com (ALIENS 74) wrote:
> >Dvd's look better that laserdisc's, it a fact that has been proved
>
> In your eyes, but not mine. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but
> for me
> I prefer LD's.
>
> >With the type of money you spent on that player you could have bough a
> >kick
> >ass dvd player
>
> I have a so called "kick ass" DVD player that you describe. Does a
> Pioneer
> Elite DV-09 qualify as "kick ass" player in your almighty eyes? As hard
> for
> you as it's to accept(get over it), I still prefer LD. :) :)
>
> >Keep your 925's for your lucas film / spielbug films , but don't burn
> >your
> >money!
>
> My money is not being burned buddy and I'll spend it anyway I damm well
> please.
> Ever see a LD movie on a LD-S9 or HLD-X9? Doubt it? So how would you even
> know
> for a fact that DVD's look better than Laserdisc's as you call claim? Oh,
> I
> forgot you're an expert.
Again, someone's gotta bring out the ultra-expensive LD player as an
excuse to justify the format.
How predictable.
Jeff Rife
> Oh, UGH...this only holds true in the Pro-Logic arena. The 5.1 on LD and
> DVD are exactly the same.
Well, maybe. The bitrate for LD Dolby Digital is available and used on DVD,
but there are also lower and higher bitrates for DD in the DVD standard.
In addition, let's not even get into the fact that DVD DD5.1 might get
re-mixed to perform better on a 2-channel system.
--
Jeff Rife |
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/CloseToHome/NamespcePollution.gif
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 |
Home: 301-916-8131 |
Work: 301-770-5800 Ext 5335 |
Starman
<we...@nabs.net> wrote:
> Starman (sta...@iamdigex.net) wrote in alt.video.laserdisc:
> > Oh, UGH...this only holds true in the Pro-Logic arena. The 5.1 on LD
> > and
> > DVD are exactly the same.
>
> Well, maybe. The bitrate for LD Dolby Digital is available and used on
> DVD,
> but there are also lower and higher bitrates for DD in the DVD standard.
>
> In addition, let's not even get into the fact that DVD DD5.1 might get
> re-mixed to perform better on a 2-channel system.
Yes, the almighty word 'might'.
age...@my-deja.com
Starman <sta...@iamdigex.net> wrote:
> Oh, UGH...this only holds true in the Pro-Logic arena. The 5.1 on LD
and
> DVD are exactly the same.
>
> Mike
That is utter BS and most of us know it. If you can't hear any
difference, good for you. But most everyone else (including EVERY single
person who has heard both formats that I've talked to in the real
world) notices the difference. So do publications like the DVD
Newsletter. Only on this board does one hear otherwise, and always from
the same desperate DVD pushers who live by numbers and stats and
whatever else they can repeat from home theatre groups. Even DTS on DVD
only serves to bring DVD audio up to the level of a Dolby Digital LD.
S. Barry
Starman
> In article <starman-7259E9...@news.iamdigex.net>,
> Starman <sta...@iamdigex.net> wrote:
>
> > Oh, UGH...this only holds true in the Pro-Logic arena. The 5.1 on LD
> and
> > DVD are exactly the same.
> >
> > Mike
>
> That is utter BS and most of us know it. If you can't hear any
> difference, good for you. But most everyone else (including EVERY single
> person who has heard both formats that I've talked to in the real
> world) notices the difference.
Is it a difference because of the FORMAT or the MASTERING? Please give
us irrefutable proof of this before you say what the facts are.
> So do publications like the DVD
> Newsletter. Only on this board does one hear otherwise, and always from
> the same desperate DVD pushers who live by numbers and stats and
> whatever else they can repeat from home theatre groups. Even DTS on DVD
> only serves to bring DVD audio up to the level of a Dolby Digital LD.
Says you.
Jeff Rife
Sorry, I meant "might" as in "some DVDs have had their 5.1 re-mixed for
better downmix performance", rather than "it may be that some DVDs have
been re-mixed".
The "might" was there to indicate that without talking about specific titles,
there is no way to know what we are comparing.
--
Jeff Rife | "I feel an intense ambivalence, some of which
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane | doesn't border entirely on the negative."
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 |
Home: 301-916-8131 | -- Ned Dorsey, "Ned and Stacey"
Work: 301-770-5800 Ext 5335 |
ALIENS 74
>a DVD player
First off, I don't give a rats ass about what you or everybody else wants or
gets. It's clearly obvious that this concept doesn't seem to pertain to you,
because you seem to care way too much as to what others purchase. What I do
care about is what I want. And what I want and have gotten is one of the best
LD players money can buy.
>Because of your own insecure feeling of a need to be elitist
You're the one that sounds insecure, ever hear of the mine is better syndrome?
If you actually took the time to read my original post, you'll clearly see that
I stated that I personally PREFER laserdisc's over DVD's. The key word here is
PREFER. I never said LD was a superior format over DVD but that I personally
prefer them. And since I prefer LD's over DVD in most cases, why shouldn't I
try and get the best available player to watch my LD's on? The only BRAND NEW
LD players you can buy now are the Japanese models and this is why I decided to
get one. If this makes me an "elitist" then so be it
.>The fact is you are burning money
Who the hell are you to say how and what I should spend my money on? Oh yeah, I
forgot that you know it all as to what people should buy when it comes to the
science of DVD's and LD's. LOL :)
>any person who buys say a $400 DVD
>player using a decent disc, connected up to a widescreen TV will get a
>better, RGB, anamophic picture than any non HD Laserdisc. It is a fact.
It's a fact is it? Have you seen a laserdisc played on a LD-S9 or HLD-X9
compared to a DVD played on a DV-09? Again I doubt it, just like so many of
your other DVD buddies that troll around in this LD newsgroup, your purely
making assumptions as to what you perceive to be true. The differences, if any,
are extremely minor and the LD presentation is always more film-like in my
eyes. Digital compression artifacts and compressed audio on DVD's clearly
doesn't make it a "FACT" that you will always get a better picture and sound
than an LD. Get your facts straight before you open your mouth!
>but film
>wise I make sure I buy the best.
Well good for you. Sounds like kind of a contradiction to me. First you
complain about me being an "elitist" then you state "I make sure I buy the
best". Make up your mind.
>So go see your shrink, and stop wasting money is such a childish manner.
Well I finally realize I bickering with a total moron.
Starman
alie...@aol.com (ALIENS 74) wrote:
> >Your just one of these people who are crying because everybody can now
> >have
> >a DVD player
>
> First off, I don't give a rats ass about what you or everybody else wants
> or
> gets. It's clearly obvious that this concept doesn't seem to pertain to
> you,
> because you seem to care way too much as to what others purchase. What I
> do
> care about is what I want. And what I want and have gotten is one of the
> best
> LD players money can buy.
I might like cars, but I'm not going to buy the best car money can buy.
That's stupid.
> >any person who buys say a $400 DVD
> >player using a decent disc, connected up to a widescreen TV will get a
> >better, RGB, anamophic picture than any non HD Laserdisc. It is a fact.
>
> It's a fact is it? Have you seen a laserdisc played on a LD-S9 or HLD-X9
> compared to a DVD played on a DV-09?
I'm so SICK of people using the X9 as the LD 'standard'. It's an
EXCEPTION, not the RULE.
Why should it take a $2500 LD player to make LDs look good?
Here's a challenge for you: a $400 LD player vs. a $400 DVD player.
Guess which will win? Not the LD player...not by a long shot.
Randy Shackelford
Jeff Rife <we...@nabs.net> wrote:
>Starman (sta...@iamdigex.net) wrote in alt.video.laserdisc:
>> Yes, the almighty word 'might'.
>
>Sorry, I meant "might" as in "some DVDs have had their 5.1 re-mixed for
>better downmix performance", rather than "it may be that some DVDs have
>been re-mixed".
>
>The "might" was there to indicate that without talking about specific titles,
>there is no way to know what we are comparing.
That's why I'm glad that Paramount and others put a plain surround track on,
and discs default to it. That'll keep the analog crowd happy while people
who can use a 5.1 don't have to compromise.
--
Offsite mail to this host gets nuked.
Chris Vila
with such vigour and become so upset. You do care and just want to appear
different.
I do care what people think and hate 'Im different and Im the best' people
like you when you are so blatently wrong.
You wasted your money you sad fucking retard! Hahahahahahahahahahaha
And as for trying to call me elitist for buying dvd's as the best, i don't
think so - the whole thesis behind DVD's is it does away with elitism and it
also appears to be doing away with elitist pricks like you.
You see my $20 DTS DVD copy of saving private ryan that arrived today. It
better than your laser copy - haha!
ALIENS 74 <alie...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000602132838...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
> >Your just one of these people who are crying because everybody can now
have
> >a DVD player
>
> First off, I don't give a rats ass about what you or everybody else wants
or
> gets. It's clearly obvious that this concept doesn't seem to pertain to
you,
> because you seem to care way too much as to what others purchase. What I
do
> care about is what I want. And what I want and have gotten is one of the
best
> LD players money can buy.
>
> >Because of your own insecure feeling of a need to be elitist
>
> You're the one that sounds insecure, ever hear of the mine is better
syndrome?
> If you actually took the time to read my original post, you'll clearly see
that
> I stated that I personally PREFER laserdisc's over DVD's. The key word
here is
> PREFER. I never said LD was a superior format over DVD but that I
personally
> prefer them. And since I prefer LD's over DVD in most cases, why shouldn't
I
> try and get the best available player to watch my LD's on? The only BRAND
NEW
> LD players you can buy now are the Japanese models and this is why I
decided to
> get one. If this makes me an "elitist" then so be it
>
> .>The fact is you are burning money
>
> Who the hell are you to say how and what I should spend my money on? Oh
yeah, I
> forgot that you know it all as to what people should buy when it comes to
the
> science of DVD's and LD's. LOL :)
>
>
> >any person who buys say a $400 DVD
> >player using a decent disc, connected up to a widescreen TV will get a
> >better, RGB, anamophic picture than any non HD Laserdisc. It is a fact.
>
> It's a fact is it? Have you seen a laserdisc played on a LD-S9 or HLD-X9
Lasernut23
best out there. I can name a load of disadvantages that DVD has, but I can
also name a load of disadvantages that LD has. But I'll talk about DVD. At
its best, DVD can really provide an incredible home theatre experience. But a
lot of the software I've seen had annoying aliasing artifacts, and some players
deal with it better than others. For example, "The Matrix" DVD played poorly
on a Pioneer DVD player, but played exceptionally on a Sony DVD player.
Results on individual players will vary, since no two player will ever be
completely alike. And also, it looks like the standards for DVD have not been
finalised, especially when you consider the fact that there have been constant
firmware updates for the players. And then you have those damned territorial
discriminations and Macrovision encoding routines in the hardware. - Reinhart
>You really should, I think you will be quite impressed. These new laserdisc
>pressings from Japan are top-notch. Too bad these type of pressings weren't
>standard say 3 years ago.
> I'm glad to hear you to find it a little perplexing that these "DVD guys"
>have to always but in and try to ruin our interest in LD's. Makes you think.
>
>Edward
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jeff Rife
> The differences, if any,
> are extremely minor and the LD presentation is always more film-like in my
> eyes. Digital compression artifacts and compressed audio on DVD's clearly
> doesn't make it a "FACT" that you will always get a better picture and sound
> than an LD. Get your facts straight before you open your mouth!
Although it goes against some of the opinions expressed here, I saw a marked
increase in quality, especially the "more film-like" part, when I moved from
a CLD-D504 to a DVL-919.
Before, my $180 Sharp DV-600U could whip the picture (but not the sound) from
the CLD-D504. Now, the DVL-919 LD vs DVD is *much* closer, and I can't give
a clear edge to DVD in anything but less side changes. Now that I have
digital field memory, I can use CLV discs for everything, and in many cases
I don't have to get up anymore to finish a movie, so it is much closer than
before.
Also, even though the DVL-919 is marketed as a DVD player, the special effects
(fast forward, fast reverse, variable forward and reverse, freeze frame) are
all at least as good, and in most cases *far* better, when viewing an LD.
The reverse effects are, of course, the most noticable, but I also don't think
the DVD can fast scan forward as quickly.
--
Jeff Rife | Coach: Beer, Norm?
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane |
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 | Norm: Naah, I'd probably just drink it.
Jeff Rife
> That's why I'm glad that Paramount and others put a plain surround track on,
> and discs default to it. That'll keep the analog crowd happy while people
> who can use a 5.1 don't have to compromise.
You'd think that would make a difference, but at least _Top Gun_ does not
have anywhere near the same 5.1 track as the LD, at least as far as the
LFE channel is concerned.
Now, that *was* an early effort, so things are probably better now, but
I don't have a lot to do comparison with, since a *lot* of the good
Paramount catalog came out early on DVD, and if I have a good LD copy,
why would I get a non-anamorphic DVD?
Titles like:
- Escape from L.A.
- The Hunt for Red October
- Patriot Games
- Clear and Present Danger
- Mission: Impossible
- Star Trek: Generations
- Titanic
- Top Gun
These are in my personal collection of laserdiscs. Each was a THX-certified
laserdisc, and each is a non-anamorphic, non-THX DVD. From the few times
I've gotten to see bits of these DVDs (I've only had Top Gun in my home),
it shows. A decent quality LD player will easily outdo the DVD (even on an
expensive player), and as you improve your display/monitor, the DVD looks
even worse.
*All* of these need re-visited by Paramount, but I don't think they'll sell
many copies of any of them unless they do some SE sort of features. An
upgrade to anamorphic will get the videophiles, but not the average buyer.
--
Jeff Rife |
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/Understaffed.gif
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 |
Lasernut23
effort to support Edward's post. Not meant for the experienced DVD and LD
people, nor is it meant for Edward, although a copy was sent to him.
The DV-09 is a pretty expensive machine. It's also heavy as hell, a good forty
pounds! It also features an "airtight" self-sealing drawer, a heavy duty
clamp, and a high performance video processor. To add to it, it has passed THX
equipment certification. To those DVD "afficiandos" who are unfamiliar with
this model, it's one of the most expensive DVD players in the market. At $2000
plus, it better be a good machine. However, I do have one complaint about it,
and that's the possibility that it may have the Pioneer firmware problem that
has affected many Pioneer machines. - Reinhart
Lasernut23
content of the material. What surprises me is the possibility that the LD may
be censored. It's a contradiction since the Japanese constitution seems to ban
the use of censorship from their media. - Reinhart
Lasernut23
ALIENS 74
>That's stupid.
And this guy has the nerve to question my mentality? Sounds like a 5 year old
trying to make a point. Was I even addressing you Mike? Before you "but in" to
everyone's arguments, at least learn to expand on your thoughts without
resorting to childish words like, "That's stupid".
>I'm so SICK of people using the X9 as the LD 'standard'. It's an
>EXCEPTION, not the RULE.
>
If you're so sick of hearing about it then why don't you just kill file me
right now. The bottom line is this, this is a LD newsgroup and discussions
about the best available LD technology are bound to come up. The HLD-X9 and
LD-S9 are the best LD players money can buy and for some unknown reason you
just don't seem to comprehend that point. As to the X9 or LD-S9 being
exceptions, I ain't going deny that one, but these machines are highly relevent
when people are disscussing topics as to which is a benchmark of what real LD
can produce.
>Why should it take a $2500 LD player to make LDs look good?
Ever hear of the phrase "you get what you pay for"? Quality of anything is
always associated with a high price tag. Are you going to say a $200.00 to
$300.00 DVD player outperforms my $2,000.00 DV-09 in both quality of picture
and sound?
>Here's a challenge for you: a $400 LD player vs. a $400 DVD player.
>Guess which will win? Not the LD player...not by a long shot.
Gee, you got me on that one smart guy. Let's see if I got your point straight,
20 year old low-end technology gets marginally beat by a more advanced newer
technology. Doesn't take a brain scientist to figure that one out? The fact
that you resort to childish attempts to prove that you're better than me, only
goes to show how pathetic you really are. Get over it, some of us prefer
laserdiscs and will always stand by that.
Edward
Lasernut23
Please maintain decency in this newsgroup and refrain from using such vulgar
expressions. - Reinhart
"">You wasted your money you sad fu**ing retard!""
sma...@my-deja.com
And it's a benchmark that's surpassed by a $500 DVD player.
> >Why should it take a $2500 LD player to make LDs look good?
>
> Ever hear of the phrase "you get what you pay for"? Quality of
anything is
> always associated with a high price tag. Are you going to say a
$200.00 to
> $300.00 DVD player outperforms my $2,000.00 DV-09 in both quality of
picture
> and sound?
I wouldn't bet money against it.
> >Here's a challenge for you: a $400 LD player vs. a $400 DVD player.
> >Guess which will win? Not the LD player...not by a long shot.
>
> Gee, you got me on that one smart guy. Let's see if I got your point
straight,
> 20 year old low-end technology gets marginally beat by a more advanced
newer
> technology.
I wouldn't say marginally- more like convincingly.
> Doesn't take a brain scientist to figure that one out? The
fact
> that you resort to childish attempts to prove that you're better than
me, only
> goes to show how pathetic you really are. Get over it, some of us
prefer
> laserdiscs and will always stand by that.
You know, if money's no object to you when it comes to something like
this, why don't you just buy a 35MM projector and watch real FILMS?
Sticking with Laserdisc when it clearly is not the best way to watch
films at home- when money's no object- is not only stupid, it's asinine.
--
"Don't mess with the volcano my man, 'cause I will go Pompeii on your...
butt."
sma...@my-deja.com
laser...@aol.com (Lasernut23) wrote:
> Again, the intelligence factor of the trolls demonstrated to us once
again.
> Please maintain decency in this newsgroup and refrain from using such
vulgar
> expressions. - Reinhart
Like anyone would notice it in this dead newsgroup.
deathboy
ALIENS 74 wrote:
>
>
> Gee, you got me on that one smart guy. Let's see if I got your point straight,
> 20 year old low-end technology gets marginally beat by a more advanced newer
> technology.
one would think 20 year old technology should be less expensive than a new
technology, no? sometimes the people on this group remind of a guy I went to
college with. He had a 486 SX-33 (this was 1994-95, when pentiums at about 120 MHZ
was high end). He loaded his computer up with all sortsa memory doubling software
and crap and was constantly trying to find ways to tweak it. to him it was the
greatest computer in the world, even though just about any other common computer of
the day you could buy would totally smoke it.
George Lee
>That is utter BS and most of us know it. If you can't hear any
>difference, good for you. But most everyone else (including EVERY single
>person who has heard both formats that I've talked to in the real
>world) notices the difference. So do publications like the DVD
>Newsletter. Only on this board does one hear otherwise, and always from
>the same desperate DVD pushers who live by numbers and stats and
>whatever else they can repeat from home theatre groups. Even DTS on DVD
>only serves to bring DVD audio up to the level of a Dolby Digital LD.
Yes, I wholeheatedly agree with you Barry! Anyone who says DD on DVD is equal
or superior to LD obviously has not done any listening tests between the two
formats for themselves. There's a big difference between the two.
Geo
m_st...@hotmail.com
Starman <sta...@iamdigex.net> wrote:
> Even DTS on DVD
> > only serves to bring DVD audio up to the level of a Dolby Digital
LD.
>
>
Says others too. Putting aside my own DTS comparisons, in a comparison
of SPR done in the DVD/LD Newsletter, I know they noticed that the DTS
DVD didn't quite equal the quality of the LD. It came close but not
quite. And I sure as hell never heard a DTS DVD that was as good as an
equivalent LD counterpart either. You'll say it's not so...but then,
you always do.
m_st...@hotmail.com
alie...@aol.com (ALIENS 74) wrote:
> Do I sound kind of overly excited about my new player? I am, but it
took over
> 2 months and hours of web searching until I finally got it.
Could you post the URL of the website where you found this player? I'd
like to know more about. Would like a second player to back-up my HLD-
X9, but I can't afford a second X9. Thanks.
mlma...@my-deja.com
You are aware that the DTS DVD of SPR was encoded at 768Kbps, 50% of the
normal DVD rate and 65% of the LD data rate. If the LD and DVD sound is
so similar, it would seem logical that the DVD, at a much lower data
rate, is the superior media.
Matthew
--
Matthew L. Martin Thermodynamics for Dummies:
First Law: You can't win
Second Law: You can't break even
Third Law: You can't get out of the game
mlma...@my-deja.com
luck...@aol.com (George Lee) wrote:
> age...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >That is utter BS and most of us know it. If you can't hear any
> >difference, good for you. But most everyone else (including EVERY
single
> >person who has heard both formats that I've talked to in the real
> >world) notices the difference. So do publications like the DVD
> >Newsletter. Only on this board does one hear otherwise, and always
from
> >the same desperate DVD pushers who live by numbers and stats and
DVD
> >only serves to bring DVD audio up to the level of a Dolby Digital LD.
>
is equal
> or superior to LD obviously has not done any listening tests between
the two
> formats for themselves. There's a big difference between the two.
As one who _has_ done careful listening comparisons of DVD to LD sound,
I disagree.
ALIENS 74
>like to know more about. Would like a second player to back-up my HLD-
>X9, but I can't afford a second X9. Thanks.
Do you have a Japanese translator program installed onto your computer? You
will to have this type of program before you can understand the Japanese only
language web pages.
Edward
Jeff Rife
> You are aware that the DTS DVD of SPR was encoded at 768Kbps, 50% of the
> normal DVD rate and 65% of the LD data rate. If the LD and DVD sound is
> so similar, it would seem logical that the DVD, at a much lower data
> rate, is the superior media.
Actually, the SPR laserdisc is encoded at 384Kbps, the standard for Dolby
Digital on laserdisc, since there is no DTS laserdisc of SPR.
The comparison was therefore Dolby Digtal at 384Kbps on laserdisc vs. DTS
at 768Kbps on DVD, so to take your conclusion and correct it:
If the LD and DVD sound is so similar, it would seem logical that the LD,
at a much lower data rate, is the superior media.
--
Jeff Rife | "I'm reading a great John Grisham novel...it's
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane | about a young Southern lawyer who fights an
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 | evil corporate giant."
Home: 301-916-8131 | -- Dick Solomon, "3rd Rock from the Sun"
Work: 301-770-5800 Ext 5335 |
hitomi
you can watch violence and sexual situations on Japanese TELEVISION (even in
the form of CARTOONS) that would make an American mom pee her pants!
Don't believe me? Go pick yourself up a copy of the Japanese Ranma1/2,
Dragonball, Escaflowne, Evangelion, Battle Athletes Victory, Lain, or
pretty much any Japanese anime tv show. If they can watch stuff like that
one television, I seriously doubt the release of Fight Club would have to be
censored....
Just my two-cents....
Altair4 wrote in message <02190ab8...@usw-ex0105-036.remarq.com>...
>>I've never been so impressed by a laserdisc transfer as I'm
>>with this one. The Japanese really know how to present the LD
>>format at its best!
>
>I've just read from someone who lives in Japan that the
>laserdisc is censored. But if that's your idea of presenting a
>movie at its best, you're welcome to it.
>
>* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network
*
>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
Altair4
>censored....
It's already been acknowledged that it's censored by someone who
owns the disc. It's been verified by another person who lives
in Japan.
Lasernut23
Acording to DIC, the English language broadcast version of this series is the
most censored version. Censored to satisfy the Television Code here in the
States and censored to satisfy the ITC in the United Kingdom. - Reinhart
Lasernut23
stock. While the estimated shelf life of an optical disc is essentially
unknown and theorised to be beyond the life of the user, film stock can
deteriorate in a matter of years. Also, film will wear out through normal use
sometimes more so than videotape. It'll be a big pain watching a 35mm movie in
SDDS only to have the decoder switch between SDDS and Westrex/Dolby Stereo
becuase the outer edges of the film, where the SDDS coding is located, is worn
out. Another would be Dolby Digital, since the coding for DD is stored between
the sproket holes. The only thing that would stand up to the punishment would
be DTS, since the coding is on a separate CD-ROM. Only a DTS timecode is on
the film itself to help the decoder maintain sync with the film. However, that
still doesn't prevent wear and tear of the film from physical, thermal, and
prehaps even environmental stresses. In terms of comparisons between hardware,
it does help with credibility if you have acutally experienced using a high-end
LaserDisc player to help with your assumptions. Besides that, it's always been
my experience to let every person love what they enjoy, whether it be LaserDisc
or DVD, and not try to change their mode of thinking just because it does not
correspond with my thoughts. Ignore the facts for once and let preference
prevail. DVD and LaserDisc will live on to those who enjoy it. As far as the
best way to watch a movie, there is no best way as every single format, every
single configuration, and every single piece of equipment will always have a
flaw that will be critical to those who try too hard to notice. Watch the
movie, be it on LD, DVD, or VHS, and try not to notice the asthetic quality of
the presentation. Concentrate on the experience, not the technology. Altough
it makes it more enjoyable, the communication of emotion should always be the
most important aspect of a production, whether it be live, or a motion picture.
- Reinhart
Chris Vila
> >I might like cars, but I'm not going to buy the best car money can buy.
> >That's stupid.
>
> And this guy has the nerve to question my mentality? Sounds like a 5 year
old
> trying to make a point. Was I even addressing you Mike? Before you "but
in" to
> everyone's arguments, at least learn to expand on your thoughts without
> resorting to childish words like, "That's stupid".
>
> >I'm so SICK of people using the X9 as the LD 'standard'. It's an
> >EXCEPTION, not the RULE.
> >
>
> If you're so sick of hearing about it then why don't you just kill file me
> right now. The bottom line is this, this is a LD newsgroup and discussions
> about the best available LD technology are bound to come up. The HLD-X9
and
> LD-S9 are the best LD players money can buy and for some unknown reason
you
> just don't seem to comprehend that point. As to the X9 or LD-S9 being
> exceptions, I ain't going deny that one, but these machines are highly
relevent
> when people are disscussing topics as to which is a benchmark of what real
LD
> can produce.
>
>
> Ever hear of the phrase "you get what you pay for"? Quality of anything is
> always associated with a high price tag. Are you going to say a $200.00 to
> $300.00 DVD player outperforms my $2,000.00 DV-09 in both quality of
picture
> and sound?
You know what I will stand up and say that at least for picture (not sound
but still) that my bedroom pioneer 626 gives a prettier picture that your
laser or your mother!!
> >Here's a challenge for you: a $400 LD player vs. a $400 DVD player.
> >Guess which will win? Not the LD player...not by a long shot.
>
> Gee, you got me on that one smart guy. Let's see if I got your point
straight,
> 20 year old low-end technology gets marginally beat by a more advanced
newer
> technology. Doesn't take a brain scientist to figure that one out? The
fact
> that you resort to childish attempts to prove that you're better than me,
only
> goes to show how pathetic you really are. Get over it, some of us prefer
> laserdiscs and will always stand by that.
>
> Edward
m_st...@hotmail.com
alie...@aol.com (ALIENS 74) wrote:
> Do you have a Japanese translator program installed onto your
computer? You
> will to have this type of program before you can understand the
Japanese only
> language web pages.
It appears that I do. Just need the URL.
Thad Floryan
| In article <20000603133023...@ng-xb1.aol.com>,
| alie...@aol.com (ALIENS 74) wrote:
| > Do you have a Japanese translator program installed onto your
| computer? You
| > will to have this type of program before you can understand the
| Japanese only
| > language web pages.
|
| It appears that I do. Just need the URL.
Checkout the following URL; they translate web pages, email, etc. in realtime
between English, Japanese, Chinese, and many other languages:
ALIENS 74
Okay M_Stiles here the URL:
You must understand that although I deciphered these web pages, the only way I
was able to communicate with the actual vendor that I got mine from, was
because I have a friend who speaks, reads, and writes Japanese. He was the one
that actually dealt with the vendor through e-mails and telephone for me, in
terms of paying, dealing with customs, shipping, etc. If you don't have a
friend or know anyone who can read and write Japanese, It'll be nearly
impossible to get one of these machines.... that's if you can find a vendor who
has anymore in stock and will actually sell one to you.
http://www.nedan.co.jp/LD.htm
You should e-mail questions in Japanese. There's also a telephone # if you
navigate around the site.
Other websites concerning LD-S9.
wwwl.odn.ne.jp/~cac82600/dvdldplayer/DVDPLAYER.htm
Naviagate to the bottom on this one. The LD players are at the bottom. Just
noticed they now have a listing for a CLD-R5. This looks like to be an updated
version of the CLD-D704. It probably more reasonable in terms of price for most
people that don't want to go for the LD-S9 or HLD-X9. It also has the
LD-Graphics features, a must for us laserdisc fans who must now buy Japanese
imports if we want to still get new films released on LD.
www.pioneer.co.jp/ld/newpro-2/index.html
Good informative site about LD-S9
webclub.kcom.ne.jp/ma/umazaki/av/S9.htm
I hope all this information helps you out.
Good luck!
Edward
Lasernut23
then you cannot make your assumptions pass as a good testimony. Besides, the
Pioneer DVD players cannot compare to a Sony DVD player anyhow, nor will it
compare to a Toshiba, or a Panasonic. - Reinhart
m_st...@hotmail.com
th...@thadlabs.com (Thad Floryan) wrote:
> Checkout the following URL; they translate web pages, email, etc. in
realtime
> between English, Japanese, Chinese, and many other languages:
>
> http://www.e-lingo.com/
Thanks for the link, Mr. Floryan. I couldn't find an option to
translate from Japanese there, but I'm glad to know the site is there
for other applications. I'm picking up the software that both
translates both from and to Japanese. Can't wait to try it out. Very
curious about the CLD-R5.
Starman
<we...@nabs.net> wrote:
> mlma...@my-deja.com (mlma...@my-deja.com) wrote in alt.video.laserdisc:
> > You are aware that the DTS DVD of SPR was encoded at 768Kbps, 50% of
> > the
> > normal DVD rate and 65% of the LD data rate. If the LD and DVD sound is
> > so similar, it would seem logical that the DVD, at a much lower data
> > rate, is the superior media.
>
> Actually, the SPR laserdisc is encoded at 384Kbps, the standard for Dolby
> Digital on laserdisc, since there is no DTS laserdisc of SPR.
>
> The comparison was therefore Dolby Digtal at 384Kbps on laserdisc vs. DTS
> at 768Kbps on DVD, so to take your conclusion and correct it:
>
> If the LD and DVD sound is so similar, it would seem logical that the LD,
> at a much lower data rate, is the superior media.
It would seem, all things being equal, that it's just your opinion.
Mike
--
ICQ: 6426785
AOL IM: StarmanTHX
UT stats: Starman - 385187
Starman
alie...@aol.com (ALIENS 74) wrote:
> >I might like cars, but I'm not going to buy the best car money can buy.
> >That's stupid.
>
> And this guy has the nerve to question my mentality? Sounds like a 5 year
> old
> trying to make a point. Was I even addressing you Mike? Before you "but
> in" to
> everyone's arguments, at least learn to expand on your thoughts without
> resorting to childish words like, "That's stupid".
Is it? Why spend $80k on a Porsche when I can get something that's less
money and more practical? Now, I know people with Porsches and they're
self-made millionares so they can afford it, but they don't go around
bragging that their Porsche will beat everyone else's car.
> >I'm so SICK of people using the X9 as the LD 'standard'. It's an
> >EXCEPTION, not the RULE.
> >
>
> If you're so sick of hearing about it then why don't you just kill file
> me
> right now. The bottom line is this, this is a LD newsgroup and
> discussions
> about the best available LD technology are bound to come up. The HLD-X9
> and
> LD-S9 are the best LD players money can buy and for some unknown reason
> you
> just don't seem to comprehend that point. As to the X9 or LD-S9 being
> exceptions, I ain't going deny that one, but these machines are highly
> relevent
> when people are disscussing topics as to which is a benchmark of what
> real LD
> can produce.
Again, WHY should people use an overpriced player to show what a LD
player can do? I can get a $400 DVD player that outshines any LD player.
> >Why should it take a $2500 LD player to make LDs look good?
>
> Ever hear of the phrase "you get what you pay for"? Quality of anything
> is
> always associated with a high price tag. Are you going to say a $200.00
> to
> $300.00 DVD player outperforms my $2,000.00 DV-09 in both quality of
> picture
> and sound?
I sure do. First off, laserdiscs are inherently faulty. They're mastered
in three phases where DVDs are mastered in two. That last phase where
the picture is converted to an analog signal just kills any chance LD
has in looking as good as DVD. Second, don't even think about talking
about sound. You'll get the same bitstream from a $300 LD player than
your precious $2500 LD player.
> >Here's a challenge for you: a $400 LD player vs. a $400 DVD player.
> >Guess which will win? Not the LD player...not by a long shot.
>
> Gee, you got me on that one smart guy. Let's see if I got your point
> straight,
> 20 year old low-end technology gets marginally beat by a more advanced
> newer
> technology. Doesn't take a brain scientist to figure that one out? The
> fact
> that you resort to childish attempts to prove that you're better than me,
> only
> goes to show how pathetic you really are. Get over it, some of us prefer
> laserdiscs and will always stand by that.
So let me get this straight..you paid $2500 for a player that plays 20
year old technology instead of investing in something better?
Starman
> In article <20000602200716...@ng-fd1.aol.com>,
> alie...@aol.com (ALIENS 74) wrote:
<snip>
> I wouldn't say marginally- more like convincingly.
>
> > Doesn't take a brain scientist to figure that one out? The
> fact
> > that you resort to childish attempts to prove that you're better than
> me, only
> > goes to show how pathetic you really are. Get over it, some of us
> prefer
> > laserdiscs and will always stand by that.
>
> You know, if money's no object to you when it comes to something like
> this, why don't you just buy a 35MM projector and watch real FILMS?
> Sticking with Laserdisc when it clearly is not the best way to watch
> films at home- when money's no object- is not only stupid, it's asinine.
Good point. I invested 40% of what this guy did on his X9 and I get
better picture and sound than he will any day of the week.
Go up against 35mm film on a 9ft. screen and THEN tell me that your X9
is awesome.
Starman
laser...@aol.com (Lasernut23) wrote:
> That's cars, not video equipment. Keep the subject within line. -
> Reinhart
>
> >I might like cars, but I'm not going to buy the best car money can buy.
> >That's stupid.
> >
The point remains the same.
ALIENS 74
>Are you going to say a $200.00 to $300.00 DVD player outperforms my $2,000.00
DV-09 in both quality of picture
and sound?>
STARMAN'S ANSWER
>I sure do. First off, laserdiscs are inherently faulty. They're mastered in
three phases where DVDs are mastered in two. That last phase where the picture
is converted to an analog signal just kills any chance LD has in looking as
good as DVD.
Second, don't even think about talking
about sound. You'll get the same bitstream from a $300 LD player than your
precious $2500 LD player.>
Huh?? Can read Mike? I wasn't comparing a DVD player to a LD player smart ass.
I was questioning your earlier ridiculous comment about why it takes alot of
money to make LD's look great. I used the analogy of a $300.00 DVD player to a
$2,000.00 DVD player and you didn't seem to get my point. Which one is better
is what I'm trying to get at? Don't tell me you think the $300.00 DVD player is
better in both picture quality and sound. High quality of anything is always
associated with a high price tag, this goes for DVD and LD. The fact that you
refuse to accept that the LD-S9 or HLD-X9 is equvilent or comes very close to
DVD is your own hang-up, but since you've never personally witnessed it with
your own eyes it's some- what understandable.
>So let me get this straight..you paid $2500 for a player that plays 20
year old technology instead of investing in something better?>
Poor pathetic Mike still can't seem to read. If you've actually took the time
to read my previous posts, you would've noticed that I already own and have a
DVD player(Pioneer Elite DV-09). And my preference is still LD over DVD if I
can get the LD version of a film. Rather than go into another drawn out
discussion of which is better, let's just say in my eyes I find LD to be more
"film-like" in its appearance and that's why I prefer it. Enough said.
Edward
ALIENS 74
>better picture and sound than he will any day of the week.
I don't own a X9 smart ass, I own a LD-S9. Know the facts before you spew out
your thoughts. As for better picture and sound, I'm tired of trying to prove my
point to a DVD troll.
>Go up against 35mm film on a 9ft. screen and THEN tell me that your X9
>is awesome.
Yeah that is real practical?
Do the same with your DVD and THEN tell me that your DVD is awesome.
Edward
Altair4
>Go up against 35mm film on a 9ft. screen and THEN tell me that
>your X9 is awesome.
>Do the same with your DVD and THEN tell me that your DVD is
>awesome.
I haven't done such a comparison myself, but I have read posts
from a guy who has. He has 35 mm film projectors, a CLD97 LD
player, and a Panasonic A310 DVD player, hooked up to a Faroudja
processor and a Runco Projector displayed on a 12 foot by 5 foot
screen. He says DVD is easily closer to film.
Starman
<altair4...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
> >Go up against 35mm film on a 9ft. screen and THEN tell me that
> >your X9 is awesome.
>
> >Do the same with your DVD and THEN tell me that your DVD is
> >awesome.
Thanks to my (soon to be old) ISP, I can't find the original followup to
my post, but anyway....
Since I own a DVD player, a LD player, and a 35mm projector, I think I
can say more than others what looks more like film, and it's not LD.
ALIENS 74
>can say more than others what looks more like film, and it's not LD.
>
Of course, don't you use a DVL-700 as your benchmark of what LD can achieve?
Until you view a laserdisc through a LD-S9 or HLD-X9 your assumptions don't
really have any weight when it comes to this issue.
Edward
Starman
alie...@aol.com (ALIENS 74) wrote:
Nice try.
Remember, I had a D704 and D703 before the DVL-700.
And _AGAIN_ I'll point out that I get more from a $400 DVD player than a
$1200 -DEDICATED- LD player.
You do the math.
age...@my-deja.com
Starman <sta...@iamdigex.net> wrote:
>
>
> Since I own a DVD player, a LD player, and a 35mm projector, I think I
> can say more than others what looks more like film, and it's not LD.
>
Probably true, using a 700. Others with top-end performance get
different results.
S. Barry
Jeff Rife
> It would seem, all things being equal, that it's just your opinion.
Not really. I have no opinion about which sounds better.
But, since the original poster made a conclusion based on false data, I
feel that using the same logic with the correct data is quite valid.
--
Jeff Rife |
19445 Saint Johnsbury Lane | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/Dilbert/StupidCoWorkers.gif
Germantown, MD 20876-1610 |
Home: 301-916-8131 |
Work: 301-770-5800 Ext 5335 |
Matthew L. Martin
Jeff Rife <we...@nabs.net> wrote:
> Starman (sta...@iamdigex.net) wrote in alt.video.laserdisc:
> > It would seem, all things being equal, that it's just your opinion.
>
> Not really. I have no opinion about which sounds better.
>
> But, since the original poster made a conclusion based on false data,
I
> feel that using the same logic with the correct data is quite valid.
And I thank you for your correction. BTW, I wouldn't advise getting into
a discussion about codecs with people who don't know the difference
between a preference and real superiority.
Matthew
--
Matthew L. Martin mmart...@my-deja.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Starman
> In article <starman-0AC69D...@news.iamdigex.net>,
> Starman <sta...@iamdigex.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Since I own a DVD player, a LD player, and a 35mm projector, I think I
> > can say more than others what looks more like film, and it's not LD.
> >
>
> Probably true, using a 700. Others with top-end performance get
> different results.
I spent less on the projectors and three movies than others have on the
X9 alone.
And AGAIN, may I remind you that I did have a 703 and 704.
Richard Kilpatrick (PC)
>In article <starman-0AC69D...@news.iamdigex.net>,
> Starman <sta...@iamdigex.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Since I own a DVD player, a LD player, and a 35mm projector, I think I
>> can say more than others what looks more like film, and it's not LD.
>>
>
>Probably true, using a 700. Others with top-end performance get
>different results.
You can find statistics to prove anything.
Mike has a point, although he's pretty rabid about it. From a consumer
point of view, DVD and Laser are close, and $400 and $1200 are not.
Personally, I would pay the $1200, but that's because I like big shiny
things ;)
Richard, who if he won the lottery would pre-order the minimum required
LDs for most movies just to ensure they were pressed, then re-sell them
at cost plus shipping.
--
Richard Kilpatrick |\ _,,,---,,_
Atari XL/XE, Pioneer CLD-D925, retrotech /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,
E-Mail: Richard<at>lovecraft.demon.co.uk |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'::.
http://www.lovecraft.demon.co.uk/retrotech '----''(_/--' `-'\_)Morticia
ALIENS 74
Those LD players are great machines, but the LD-S9 and HLD-X9 are the lastest
generation of LD players and are greatly more advanced then the CLD-D704/703.
The CLD-D703 incorporates 7 year old technology and CLD-D704 5 year old
technology. Now don't you think by the end of the decade the manufactuers of LD
players would have made major advancements in the circuitry and performance of
their units? Those of us that have personally used the LD-S9 or HLD-X9 aren't
just blowing smoke out of our asses to piss you off, they really are incredible
LD players! This brings me back to my previous statement, until you use a
player with advanced LD technology your argument has no real clout.
Edward
ALIENS 74
>LDs for most movies just to ensure they were pressed, then re-sell them
>at cost plus shipping.
LOL.:) : Thanks for the laugh. Damm great idea to.
Edward
Randy Shackelford
I dunno, anyone doing that might end up having a Pioneer/Image style fire
sale to get rid of 'em.
--
Offsite mail to this host gets nuked.
Starman
alie...@aol.com (ALIENS 74) wrote:
> >And AGAIN, may I remind you that I did have a 703 and 704.
>
> Those LD players are great machines, but the LD-S9 and HLD-X9 are the
> lastest
> generation of LD players and are greatly more advanced then the
> CLD-D704/703.
And AGAIN I'll remind you that a $400 DVD player outshines a $400 LD
player, and only when you get into the post-$1000 range do you get to
DVD quality.
Hardly practical.
> This brings me back to my previous statement, until you use a
> player with advanced LD technology your argument has no real clout.
Until I find that investing a large amount of cash into a dead
technology, I think that you're going to have to live with my arguments.
Matthew L. Martin
I was thinking the same thing, but I was just going to wait to see if it
would happen:-) IIRC, I bought over 200 LDs from Lumi-vision (where they
bottomed out at $3.00 each), Pioneer and Image during their "inventory
reduction" sales.
Richard Kilpatrick (PC)
<sh...@southwind.net> writes
>In article <20000606132244...@ng-fe1.aol.com>,
>ALIENS 74 <alie...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Richard, who if he won the lottery would pre-order the minimum required
>>>LDs for most movies just to ensure they were pressed, then re-sell them
>>>at cost plus shipping.
>>
>>LOL.:) : Thanks for the laugh. Damm great idea to.
>
>I dunno, anyone doing that might end up having a Pioneer/Image style fire
>sale to get rid of 'em.
Not if the minimum pre-order is really 1,000 units. What's the cost
price? $50-60 or so? $60,000. As a lottery winner, I could probably make
that in interest between movies, and I'm fairly sure worldwide I could
find 1,000 disc buyers - hell, enough people went to Sazuma for an
inferior style of transfer of TPM, I'm sure as the sole pre-order I
could request an AC-3, Anamorphic 16:9 master :)
Richard
Joshua Zyber
news:starman-1D6ACC...@news.iamdigex.net...
> And AGAIN I'll remind you that a $400 DVD player outshines a $400 LD
> player, and only when you get into the post-$1000 range do you get to
> DVD quality.
>
> Hardly practical.
Depends on how you're looking at it and what you consider practical.
For those of us who already have a large investment in a sizeable library of
laserdiscs, spending some extra money on a one-time purchase of a high-end
LD player is easier and more personally satisfying than dumping all of those
discs and rebuying them on DVD (at least the ones that are actually
available, anyway).
Who was talking about being practical anyway?
> Until I find that investing a large amount of cash into a dead
> technology, I think that you're going to have to live with my arguments.
You invest in what you consider important. LD is only a "dead technology" if
you stop watching the discs.
- Josh
---------------------
Joshua Zyber
Curator, Laserdisc Forever Review Archive
www.mindspring.com/~jzyber/laserdiscforever.htm
Altair4
>technology" if you stop watching the discs.
People can continue to enjoy a given format or technology when
the era of that format has passed, of course. But I think it's
quite reasonable to define the death of a format as the point at
which it ceases to be produced. If that weren't true, you could
argue that RCA CED discs, consumer Beta tapes, or 78 rpm records
aren't dead technologies either, since people still watch/listen
to them.
Lasernut23
>Again, WHY should people use an overpriced player to show what a LD
>player can do? I can get a $400 DVD player that outshines any LD player.
The original poster claimed that his $2000+ reference DVD player didn't
outshine his reference LD player, so what would make a $400 DVD player better
than a $2000+ DVD player besides the affordability?
>I sure do. First off, laserdiscs are inherently faulty. They're mastered
>in three phases where DVDs are mastered in two. That last phase where
>the picture is converted to an analog signal just kills any chance LD
>has in looking as good as DVD. Second, don't even think about talking
>about sound. You'll get the same bitstream from a $300 LD player than
>your precious $2500 LD player.
>
No complaint about this. The digital signal must be converted into analogue in
order to be written according to the LaserVision standard. But, the signal is
usually converted and transmitted with utmost care to the laser etcher. But,
keeping the digital signal in its original form still maintains better quality
since the original signal doesn't have to go through additional processing. In
the claim about sound, the bitstream is the same, but a cheap player and an
expensive player handles that bitstream differently to achieve the same
results. The difference lies to how well it's refined. Let's face it, a basic
LD player with a regular 1-bit single D/A converter and an 8 times oversampling
filter may not be as good as a player with an 18-bit dual D/A with a 16 times
oversampling filter. Different brands and models may use different converters.
Different converters may process the signal differently to achieve the same
end result, with varying levels of quality.
>So let me get this straight..you paid $2500 for a player that plays 20
>year old technology instead of investing in something better?
>
The original poster stated that he purchased a Pioneer ELITE DV-09, which is a
40lbs. $2000+ THX certified DVD player. - Reinhart
Lasernut23
have a chiminey for the lighthouse on the projector? Do you have a projection
room? Do you have the sound equipment for SDDS, DTS, DD? Do you have a decent
sized screen? Do you have the reel platters? Do you have a splicing station?
Do you have a room configured for film storage? Do you know how to maintain
your equipment, or do you hire a professional to maintain it for you? I do not
mean to sound rabid, and forgive me if I do. Film will deliver the best
quality, but it's not a practical solution for most people. It's far easier to
use a DVD, an LD, and/or a videotape than it is to use 35mm equipment, and far
less expensive. You said you spent less for a projector and three films, but
what about everything else that's needed for a decent experience with the
equipment you have, unless you use the standard Dolby Stereo connected to a
home Pro-Logic receiver. To get DD from your films, you need the appropriate
film reader. To get SDDS from your films, you need amplification equipment for
all the nine channels, nine speakers, the SDDS processor, and the appropriate
film reader. For DTS, you need the DTS film reader for the timecode signal,
and a DTS processor/CD drive. This adds up to a big pricetag for the sound
equipment alone. Film is not a practical means for watching cinematic
productions at home unless you have the resources to make the configuration
possible, decent, and safe. - Reinhart
Starman
<jzy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Starman <sta...@iamdigex.net> wrote in message
> news:starman-1D6ACC...@news.iamdigex.net...
> > And AGAIN I'll remind you that a $400 DVD player outshines a $400 LD
> > player, and only when you get into the post-$1000 range do you get to
> > DVD quality.
> >
> > Hardly practical.
>
> Depends on how you're looking at it and what you consider practical.
>
> For those of us who already have a large investment in a sizeable library
> of
> laserdiscs, spending some extra money on a one-time purchase of a
> high-end
> LD player is easier and more personally satisfying than dumping all of
> those
> discs and rebuying them on DVD (at least the ones that are actually
> available, anyway).
>
> Who was talking about being practical anyway?
Speak for yourself. Anything that allows me to watch a movie without
side breaks and/or disc changes and still gives me DD/DTS with a digital
picture is worth buying, and replacing my LDs with.
> > Until I find that investing a large amount of cash into a dead
> > technology, I think that you're going to have to live with my
> > arguments.
>
> You invest in what you consider important. LD is only a "dead technology"
> if
> you stop watching the discs.
Um, so would you consider 8-track to not be dead if you were still
listening to it? How about 78's?
Farenheit
>
> >I've never been so impressed by a laserdisc transfer as I'm
> >with this one. The Japanese really know how to present the LD
> >format at its best!
>
> I've just read from someone who lives in Japan that the
> laserdisc is censored. But if that's your idea of presenting a
> movie at its best, you're welcome to it.
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Make sense! japan shows XXX material in cartton form, and yet they'd
censor a regualr movie... I don't think So!
Farenheit
>
> Your just one of these people who are crying because everybody can now have
> a DVD player. Because of your own insecure feeling of a need to be elitist
> you are investing in a largely inferior format in its last dying days.
but see, thast just it.. its not "INFERIOR"...the picture quality is
only marginally better than DVD, better color, less noise(although i
still cant stand digital artifacts).. and the sound is actually better
on laserdisc..
> The fact is you are burning money and any person who buys say a $400 DVD
> player using a decent disc, connected up to a widescreen TV will get a
> better, RGB, anamophic picture than any non HD Laserdisc. It is a fact.
>
> Just for the record I do own and still occasionally buy laser's, but film
> wise I make sure I buy the best.
>
> So go see your shrink, and stop wasting money is such a childish manner.
>
> ALIENS 74 <alie...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000601225551...@ng-fd1.aol.com...
> > >Dvd's look better that laserdisc's, it a fact that has been proved
> >
> > In your eyes, but not mine. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but
> for me
> > I prefer LD's.
> >
> > >With the type of money you spent on that player you could have bough a
> kick
> > >ass dvd player
> >
> > I have a so called "kick ass" DVD player that you describe. Does a Pioneer
> > Elite DV-09 qualify as "kick ass" player in your almighty eyes? As hard
> for
> > you as it's to accept(get over it), I still prefer LD. :) :)
> >
> > >Keep your 925's for your lucas film / spielbug films , but don't burn
> your
> > >money!
> >
> > My money is not being burned buddy and I'll spend it anyway I damm well
> please.
> > Ever see a LD movie on a LD-S9 or HLD-X9? Doubt it? So how would you even
> know
> > for a fact that DVD's look better than Laserdisc's as you call claim? Oh,
> I
> > forgot you're an expert.
> >
> > >confirmed by both science and the consumers.
> >
> > LOL. :) :) Science. Yeah the complicated science of electronics.
> >
> > Edward
> >
> >
Altair4
It's been acknowledged that the disc is censored not only by the
person I referred to in Japan, but the person I quoted who
bought the LD. Try reading the other thread on this LD.
Farenheit
reason, a good reason.. its for discussing LASERDISCS, not DVDs
all you Pro-DVD people out there, go away.. you aren't wanted here..go
promote your format elsewhere..
Altair4
Want some cheese and crackers to go with your whine?
Farenheit
> Guess which will win? Not the LD player...not by a long shot.
>
sorry, but that is the most IGNORANT statement i have ever heard..
a $400 laserdisc player will have better sound than a $400 DVD player
and the DVD has only a very small edge in picture as far as noise and
color accuracy.. and i perosnally cant stand digital artifacts anyways..
and all DVDs have them.. some worse than others..but i will watch a
poorlly mastered laserdisc before i watch a porrly mastered DVD.. as
they are horrrible..
glam...@gateway.net
age...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <starman-7259E9...@news.iamdigex.net>,
> Starman <sta...@iamdigex.net> wrote:
>
> > Oh, UGH...this only holds true in the Pro-Logic arena. The 5.1 on LD
> and
> > DVD are exactly the same.
> >
> > Mike
>
> That is utter BS and most of us know it. If you can't hear any
> difference, good for you. But most everyone else (including EVERY
single
> person who has heard both formats that I've talked to in the real
> world) notices the difference. So do publications like the DVD
> Newsletter.
I just looked at the latest edition of Widescreen Review the other day.
Their three LD reviews all stated that the DD mix is exactly the same as
the one found on the DVD, a finding which matches my experience.
George Lambert
Starman
wrote:
Sorry, but that is the most IGNORANT statement I ever heard.
How does a LD have better sound? On Dolby Stereo, yes. DD and DTS, no.
LD and DVD are exactly the same. If different masters were used (and
nobody here including you knows that for a fact), then that MIGHT be the
cause of the difference.
And as for digital artifats, I haven't seen any in quite some time, and
I have over 400 DVDs.
Starman
wrote:
What's wrong...can't take a little discussion? A little debate? If you'd
like the pro-DVD people to go away, then please start your own moderated
newsgroup.