|
It is currently 11 May 2024, 16:40
|
View unsolved topics | View unanswered posts
|
|
|
|
Author |
Message |
nissling
|
Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD Posted: 25 Oct 2017, 22:50 |
Absolute fan |
|
|
Joined: 24 Jun 2010, 10:23 Posts: 1645 Location: Sweden Has thanked: 11 times Been thanked: 80 times
|
I find this discussion kind of funny... We're currently in the age of digitizing and most countries have started major restoration efforts of their films. Currently the Swedish Film Institute is restoring Det sjunde inseglet in 4K (original negative scan) and their goal is to make the film look like it did when first released back in 1957. If there's damage, they'll try to fix it. If something's missing, they'll try to fix it. If the audio has high-frequency noise, they'll try to fix it. And the list goes on. Some may say that this is altering history. All I have to tell these people is that they have absolutley no idea of what they're talking about nor any idea how these restorations are made. If they come to a point where the damages cannot be repaired without it looking repaired, they'll just leave it as it is. Or if they cannot find any of the eventually missing frames, they won't put in any new ones unless the final results look like it was originally supposed to. With high enough resolution (2K is actually enough for most productions), as well as uncompressed scans to work with and good source material, there are incredible possibilites for a re-release. Dirt, damages, scratches and mold were never intended to be seen in a feature film, just like chroma noise from Laserdisc isn't making the final result look anywhere near the intended image of that very same feature. DVD was certainly a step up but not really preferable on modern displays. Blu-Ray is decent but really not more. And UHD-BD... Well, now we're talking. So please, get out of your trenches and see the possibilites with digital instead of the obstacle of it not being analog (which is the most illogical statement ever). I mean... third gen theatrical 35mm prints didn't look very pretty. A 2K DCP would give you results much closer to the intended look.
|
|
|
|
|
ertoili
|
Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD Posted: 26 Oct 2017, 05:37 |
Advanced fan |
|
|
Joined: 27 Jun 2014, 07:12 Posts: 560 Location: France Has thanked: 224 times Been thanked: 31 times
|
Nissling....BD decent ? BD is an astonishing format (when there is no DNR applied...you know they love that s**t) Im in this LD vs DVD thread.....agree DVD is a general step up over LD until you find these scenes I'm talking about (intense action,hundreds of particles, smoke, movie lenght) where Laserdisc delights perfectly and the DVD lone disc seems to be bitrate retarded to solve the pixelation
|
|
|
|
|
forper
|
Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD Posted: 26 Oct 2017, 10:10 |
Absolute fan |
|
|
Joined: 01 May 2016, 06:38 Posts: 2040 Location: Australia Has thanked: 334 times Been thanked: 222 times
|
nissling wrote: I find this discussion kind of funny... We're currently in the age of digitizing and most countries have started major restoration efforts of their films. Currently the Swedish Film Institute is restoring Det sjunde inseglet in 4K (original negative scan) and their goal is to make the film look like it did when first released back in 1957. If there's damage, they'll try to fix it. If something's missing, they'll try to fix it. If the audio has high-frequency noise, they'll try to fix it. And the list goes on. Some may say that this is altering history. All I have to tell these people is that they have absolutley no idea of what they're talking about nor any idea how these restorations are made. If they come to a point where the damages cannot be repaired without it looking repaired, they'll just leave it as it is. Or if they cannot find any of the eventually missing frames, they won't put in any new ones unless the final results look like it was originally supposed to. With high enough resolution (2K is actually enough for most productions), as well as uncompressed scans to work with and good source material, there are incredible possibilites for a re-release. Dirt, damages, scratches and mold were never intended to be seen in a feature film, just like chroma noise from Laserdisc isn't making the final result look anywhere near the intended image of that very same feature. DVD was certainly a step up but not really preferable on modern displays. Blu-Ray is decent but really not more. And UHD-BD... Well, now we're talking. So please, get out of your trenches and see the possibilites with digital instead of the obstacle of it not being analog (which is the most illogical statement ever). I mean... third gen theatrical 35mm prints didn't look very pretty. A 2K DCP would give you results much closer to the intended look. Resolution isn't the only factor. Smoothness and filmic quality is more important and LD has it in spades. Like Sooty said, LD is like the finest pencil drawn on the finest paper with the finest hand but DVD and blu ray are just a guy watching a movie of the guy doing that drawing and trying to redraw it but only using a square tipped marker...
_________________ SONY MDP-355GX, DVDO iscan VP50, SONY KVHR-M36
|
|
|
|
|
nissling
|
Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD Posted: 26 Oct 2017, 14:04 |
Absolute fan |
|
|
Joined: 24 Jun 2010, 10:23 Posts: 1645 Location: Sweden Has thanked: 11 times Been thanked: 80 times
|
signofzeta wrote: Seriously, who’s the real idiot? Forper or someone who shoves the same facts down his neck every 6-8 weeks on command with zero results? First of all, what makes you think my post was aimed to Forper? And second, if you've stated that Blu-Rays on CRT is like "Laserdisc with more colors", I would dissuade you from asking who's an idiot. Ertoili: Blu-Ray has too many flaws to be any more than decent if you ask me. 4:2:0 sub-sampling and 8-bit color depth are certainly limitations that affects the final image, but it's actually possible to watch a well-mastered Blu-Ray in a movie theater without hurting your eyes so it's certainly watchable. Personally I rather see less sub-sampling and higher bit depth than higher resolution, but since UHD-BD has it all I am certainly fond of that medium.
|
|
|
|
|
signofzeta
|
Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD Posted: 26 Oct 2017, 22:40 |
Jedi Knight |
|
|
Joined: 14 Jan 2010, 09:44 Posts: 6008 Location: Ann Arbor Has thanked: 1307 times Been thanked: 1116 times
|
nissling wrote: signofzeta wrote: Seriously, who’s the real idiot? Forper or someone who shoves the same facts down his neck every 6-8 weeks on command with zero results? First of all, what makes you think my post was aimed to Forper? And second, if you've stated that Blu-Rays on CRT is like "Laserdisc with more colors", I would dissuade you from asking who's an idiot. Ertoili: Blu-Ray has too many flaws to be any more than decent if you ask me. 4:2:0 sub-sampling and 8-bit color depth are certainly limitations that affects the final image, but it's actually possible to watch a well-mastered Blu-Ray in a movie theater without hurting your eyes so it's certainly watchable. Personally I rather see less sub-sampling and higher bit depth than higher resolution, but since UHD-BD has it all I am certainly fond of that medium. I’d like you talk more about my idocy regarding BR on CRT. I see nothing wrong with my explanation since I was using it to explain to someone extremely crude concepts. We all know taking to forper is pointless so there is some thick headedness in anyone who keeps doing it. As for why I thought you were doing that, just read the thread. It was pretty much done but was weirdly necroposted to talk about Transformers 5 for some reason and then forper once again turned it into another HD vs SD debate, then you posted. He’s obviously delighted you’ve engaged him. Keep posting.
_________________ All about LD care, inner sleeves, shrink wrap, etc.
https://youtu.be/b3O-vHpHRpM
|
|
|
|
|
nissling
|
Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD Posted: 27 Oct 2017, 08:38 |
Absolute fan |
|
|
Joined: 24 Jun 2010, 10:23 Posts: 1645 Location: Sweden Has thanked: 11 times Been thanked: 80 times
|
signofzeta wrote: I’d like you talk more about my idocy regarding BR on CRT. signofzeta wrote: You can watch BRs on CRT. I’ve done it 1000 times. It looks like LD with more color, or DVD with no macroblocking. If the only improvement from LD to Blu-Ray would be the color space, it would be much more difficult to justify an upgrade than it already is. ruinatokyo wrote: i have read elsewhere that DVD can go to 720 horizontal resolution. Is that not correct? i always assumed it was 640x480 (and either 480i or 480p) as most DVDs I have ripped become video files at 640x480. In any case, both those figures are far above 500. He put the numbers in perspective. With analog signals, the horizontal resolution is measured in TVLs. It's simply the maximum amount of visible, distinguishable lines in horizontal lead within a square in the center of the screen. Basically it's the horizontal resolution in contrast with the height of the image and not the total amount of lines that the signal is delivering. In other words, if the frequency response remain the same throughout the entire image you'll get a total of 565 horizontal lines (425*1,33) in a best-case scenario for Laserdisc (not counting chroma). This is the only real way to measure resolution for an analog medium (including celluloid). Since DVD is a digital format it uses a fixed, pixel-based resolution. The oddity with DVD is that the total horizontal resolution is 720 pixels but only 704 of these are active. This is a problem for many modern players as those usually process the image based on a 720 pixel count, making diagonal lines non-linear and causing other sorts of scaling artifacts. DVD also supports various vertical resolutions (480 and 576 vertical lines) and pixel aspect ratios (standard (1.33:1) an anamorphic (1.78:1) but the horizontal, visible lines are always 704. The only possible exception would, in theory, be if MPEG-1 was stored in a resolution if 320*240, which is only supported for backward compability with Video CD but from my knowledge it has never been used on any DVD. And DVDs should be considered interlaced. The only way to store a feature film in a progressive field order would be to use 25PsF, since the 3:2 cadence simply prevents it from being anything but interlaced when stored in a vertical resolution of 480 lines. Also, the decoded MPEG-stream is in fact either in 480i or 576i, always. This alone makes native progressive video an impossibility on DVD. It is always possible to de-interlace the signal afterwards of course.
|
|
|
|
|
elahrairrah
|
Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD Posted: 27 Oct 2017, 15:41 |
Young Padawan |
|
|
Joined: 30 Aug 2005, 15:38 Posts: 3425 Location: New Jersey Has thanked: 79 times Been thanked: 152 times
|
ruinatokyo wrote: i have read elsewhere that DVD can go to 720 horizontal resolution. Is that not correct? i always assumed it was 640x480 (and either 480i or 480p) as most DVDs I have ripped become video files at 640x480. In any case, both those figures are far above 500. There was a push to get 720p DVDs standardized to take advantage of HDTV resolution well before HD-DVD and Blu-ray were in the planning stages. I read about this many times in Widescreen Review magazine in articles by Joe Kane back in the late 90s and early 00s. It would have been backward compatible with existing DVD players of the time as it still would use MPEG-2 compression, but I can't remember if it would utilize higher bit rates. If they were, I can't imagine it would have been a much higher bit rate because of the storage limits of DVD at the time. It sounded nice on paper, but in reality, it sounded analogous to VHS vs S-VHS--an upgrade, but not a true upgrade. As history turned out, the rest of the industry thought so too. I think I have this issue of Widescreen Review where Joe Kane talks about 720p DVD: http://shop.widescreenreview.com/produc ... 99%29.htmlI'll see if I can dig it up.
Last edited by elahrairrah on 27 Oct 2017, 22:17, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
alien
|
Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD Posted: 28 Oct 2017, 10:49 |
Advanced fan |
|
|
Joined: 18 Apr 2012, 10:13 Posts: 814 Location: Australia Has thanked: 4 times Been thanked: 6 times
|
forper wrote: Geepers I'd sure rather watch Star Wars definitive on LD than Predator on Poo Ray. Star Wars Definitive sucks. DNR crap, especially on A New Hope. Widescreen CBS Fox and Japanese Special Collection releases of Star Wars on LD are better than Definitive.
|
|
|
|
|
ertoili
|
Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD Posted: 28 Oct 2017, 14:14 |
Advanced fan |
|
|
Joined: 27 Jun 2014, 07:12 Posts: 560 Location: France Has thanked: 224 times Been thanked: 31 times
|
signofzeta wrote: There is no need to keep talking about it. I think you covered the entire topic right there. DVD sucks, MPEG2 sucks, we all know this, who cares? Especially now that DVD is only being kept alive to keep Red Box in business and things like that. It’s almost an afterthought now for studios. It’s over. We won. We complained when LD died and we kept complaining until we got something better. Good for all of us. well..ok,agree
|
|
|
|
|
ertoili
|
Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD Posted: 02 Dec 2017, 15:11 |
Advanced fan |
|
|
Joined: 27 Jun 2014, 07:12 Posts: 560 Location: France Has thanked: 224 times Been thanked: 31 times
|
Transformers the last knight Pal 576p ....watched yesterday the movie is boring The picture of the DVD has a subtle green tint and is dark also noticed some kind of motion diffusion maybe to trick pixelation,bitrate is high but detail and chromatism are a joke........just buy the Laserdisc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|