| LaserDisc Database https://forum.lddb.com/ |
|
| How the Hell Do You Guys Sell 80s Discs? https://forum.lddb.com/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=893 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | flcl4evr [ 09 Mar 2012, 04:37 ] |
| Post subject: | How the Hell Do You Guys Sell 80s Discs? |
I've got a box of mainly early to mid 80s laserdiscs. I don't necessarily believe I have anything rare, but I'm wondering - how would you guys go about selling the worst of the worst. These discs are sometimes rotted, pan and scanned, and have analog audio. Who honestly wants these discs? |
|
| Author: | rein-o [ 09 Mar 2012, 04:51 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: How the Hell Do You Guys Sell 80s Discs? |
People want them and can't get enough |
|
| Author: | yazorin [ 09 Mar 2012, 05:14 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: How the Hell Do You Guys Sell 80s Discs? |
not to mention crappy covers lol |
|
| Author: | firehorse_44 [ 09 Mar 2012, 07:47 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: How the Hell Do You Guys Sell 80s Discs? |
Seems to me the way to sell is by lots or groups of titles together. Individually might not be the way to go with your stock. Let us know how it goes if you will....... |
|
| Author: | mikeystoyz [ 09 Mar 2012, 09:18 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: How the Hell Do You Guys Sell 80s Discs? |
Lots of 50 seem to work for me. I charge 80 bucks which includes shipping. I usually make about 1 dollar per disc and get rid of a lot of rubble. |
|
| Author: | benmbe [ 09 Mar 2012, 09:25 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: How the Hell Do You Guys Sell 80s Discs? |
Hi Guys, I must admit the the covers for the pre-Laserdisc era do nothing for me personally I hope that your able to sell your titles flcl4evr. Sincere regards |
|
| Author: | elahrairrah [ 09 Mar 2012, 15:30 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: How the Hell Do You Guys Sell 80s Discs? |
Just do what every other seller on ebay does when they have old LDs. Just put "RARE!" and "OOP!" in the title I do disagree about some of the old covers though. Some. Like the old Columbia Pictures releases were cool as they looked just like the movie posters . . . ![]() ![]()
|
|
| Author: | yazorin [ 10 Mar 2012, 16:40 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: How the Hell Do You Guys Sell 80s Discs? |
the battlestar galactica cover is pretty nice too i must admit |
|
| Author: | laserdisc_fan [ 10 Mar 2012, 17:32 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: How the Hell Do You Guys Sell 80s Discs? |
Many of the early laserdiscs did not even have chapter stops however that would not put me off buying them. In cases where films have not been re-issued on DVD, the old laserdisc version still represents the best possible copy available particularly if you are after the soundtrack as many early 80's soundtracks only got issued on cassette or LP so no CD version exists. I'd still rather listen to analogue audio from an old laserdisc than a worn out LP or cassette any day. The covers of many of the old US laserdisc releases are often nicer than their Japanese counterparts (assuming they even exist) although I'd agree that Japanese covers are usually superior quality. |
|
| Author: | laserdiscoking [ 13 Mar 2012, 01:45 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: How the Hell Do You Guys Sell 80s Discs? |
It also depends on the popularity of the movie in question. Films like Videodrome, The Elephant Man, Star 80, and Prince of the City only got washed out early 80s pan and scan releases in the US, but since they hold cult attraction then they usually sell. I mean for $5, not anything mind boggling... The hardest laserdiscs to offload are from the early 90s glut from Paramount and Universal. A seller asking $5 for The Hunt For Red October is like asking $1 for a single M&M. |
|
| Author: | flcl4evr [ 13 Mar 2012, 02:36 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: How the Hell Do You Guys Sell 80s Discs? |
laserdiscoking wrote: It also depends on the popularity of the movie in question. Films like Videodrome, The Elephant Man, Star 80, and Prince of the City only got washed out early 80s pan and scan releases in the US, but since they hold cult attraction then they usually sell. I mean for $5, not anything mind boggling... The hardest laserdiscs to offload are from the early 90s glut from Paramount and Universal. A seller asking $5 for The Hunt For Red October is like asking $1 for a single M&M. That analogy up there might be the greatest thing I've ever heard |
|
| Author: | nextwednesday [ 27 Mar 2012, 15:41 ] |
| Post subject: | Defence of Pan and Scan |
"Pan & Scan = Bad" is not accurate. If one can do anamorphic, then fine, you may as well preserve as much of the full aspect ratio as you can, but in the non-anamorphic (mostly) world of LDs, P&S is often the best solution. LD is a pretty low resolution format and letterboxing just wastes the little vertical resolution that we have. It would be nice to "preserve the director's intentions" and all that, but when you're pushing a 2.35:1 (say) shape peg through a 4:3 hole, something's got to give. So, in this example, if you insist on keeping the entire width of the picture, then you can only devote 56% of the picture to the film! The rest has to be black bars. Great for captions not overlapping the picture, but otherwise, not so clever. NTSC LDs have only 425 vertical lines, so this leaves only 240 lines to get your picture in. Now we're back in VHS-land, resolution wise. It doesn't matter what size or shape your monitor device is, there are only 240 lines of non-null information stored on that disc and coming down the cable. It's hard to tell the difference between minor characters moving about in the background, bits of text are illegible, things look generally small. Non-cinefile people coming into the room say "Why is the picture so small?". Stupid people!, the highbrows retort. But in truth, they're right - it doesn't look great. At least P&S lets you use all the lines that the format allows. Yes, you lose the director's framing and I wouldn't advocate it for films in which that's important, but they’re not that many. This is the movies and the movies are broadly about human emotion. And human emotion is partly about being able to read faces clearly and to do that I’d rather be able to see as many wrinkles as possible and that means keeping the resolution up! Basically, you have to make compromises and a skilled operator doing P&S is ... often, not always ... the best solution for our old non-anamorphic technology. (We can’t all have SQZ LD!) It’s a relief that we now have higher resolution formats, anamorphic video transfers and wider-aspect TVs so that we get closer to the cinema experience and this argument goes away to a large extent, but when choosing between two LD editions of a favourite film, don’t dump the P&S just because it’s P&S! |
|
| Author: | ratkins [ 28 Mar 2012, 17:05 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: How the Hell Do You Guys Sell 80s Discs? |
And then there are people like me (and I'm not the only one), that collect the early discs. There are quite a few P&S and Open Matte discs that I'm willing to pay more for than the letterbox version. You never know. Ron |
|
| Author: | jjhunsecker [ 29 Mar 2012, 00:59 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Defence of Pan and Scan |
nextwednesday wrote: "Pan & Scan = Bad" is not accurate. If one can do anamorphic, then fine, you may as well preserve as much of the full aspect ratio as you can, but in the non-anamorphic (mostly) world of LDs, P&S is often the best solution. LD is a pretty low resolution format and letterboxing just wastes the little vertical resolution that we have. It would be nice to "preserve the director's intentions" and all that, but when you're pushing a 2.35:1 (say) shape peg through a 4:3 hole, something's got to give. So, in this example, if you insist on keeping the entire width of the picture, then you can only devote 56% of the picture to the film! The rest has to be black bars. Great for captions not overlapping the picture, but otherwise, not so clever. NTSC LDs have only 425 vertical lines, so this leaves only 240 lines to get your picture in. Now we're back in VHS-land, resolution wise. It doesn't matter what size or shape your monitor device is, there are only 240 lines of non-null information stored on that disc and coming down the cable. It's hard to tell the difference between minor characters moving about in the background, bits of text are illegible, things look generally small. Non-cinefile people coming into the room say "Why is the picture so small?". Stupid people!, the highbrows retort. But in truth, they're right - it doesn't look great. At least P&S lets you use all the lines that the format allows. Yes, you lose the director's framing and I wouldn't advocate it for films in which that's important, but they’re not that many. This is the movies and the movies are broadly about human emotion. And human emotion is partly about being able to read faces clearly and to do that I’d rather be able to see as many wrinkles as possible and that means keeping the resolution up! Basically, you have to make compromises and a skilled operator doing P&S is ... often, not always ... the best solution for our old non-anamorphic technology. (We can’t all have SQZ LD!) It’s a relief that we now have higher resolution formats, anamorphic video transfers and wider-aspect TVs so that we get closer to the cinema experience and this argument goes away to a large extent, but when choosing between two LD editions of a favourite film, don’t dump the P&S just because it’s P&S! I have to disagree. I never had a problem with a 2:35.1 widescreen movie letterboxed on a 4x3 TV set. (I could see that being a problem if one had a small TV set.) I prefer seeing the whole image of the movie. A pan and scanned Cinerama movie has an uncomfortable "feel" to me; they tend to look like the actors don't have enough room to move about. Then there's the awkward compositions that can arise from P&S, where the camera favors one actor at the expense of another, so that a costar may only be halfway in the frame. I guess I've been spoiled from watching movies in their correct aspect ratio. I can never go back to viewing a pan and scanned video again. |
|
| Author: | nextwednesday [ 29 Mar 2012, 10:03 ] |
| Post subject: | Re: How the Hell Do You Guys Sell 80s Discs? |
jjhunsecker, I have a lot of symphathy for your view. P&S creates composition problems, no argument. It's just a question of what's most important - the lesser of two evils. In the limited resolution non-anamorphic video world, what's worse, occasionally dodgy framing or loss of effective resolution? I don't think there's a fixed answer to this. Hey, it gives us sad b*****ds a reason to collect multiple LD versions, and that's a good thing, right? |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|