It is currently 20 Oct 2019, 15:04




 Page 2 of 3 [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
PostPosted: 25 Oct 2017, 22:50 
Absolute fan
Absolute fan
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2010, 10:23
Posts: 1582
Location: Sweden
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 26 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.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
PostPosted: 26 Oct 2017, 02:14 
Confirmed Padawan
Confirmed Padawan
User avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 2010, 09:44
Posts: 3774
Location: United States
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 215 times
How many times do you have to be told that you are not explaining anything to anyone? You are feeding a troll. That’s it. The rest of the membership understands what you said already, has no real problem with it, and is already overall convinced of the value of it. Then there is this guy who needs weird stimuli and all your typing gives him exactly what he craves.


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?
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
PostPosted: 26 Oct 2017, 05:37 
True fan
True fan
User avatar

Joined: 27 Jun 2014, 07:12
Posts: 455
Location: France
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 5 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
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
PostPosted: 26 Oct 2017, 10:10 
Absolute fan
Absolute fan
User avatar

Joined: 01 May 2016, 06:38
Posts: 1546
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 124 times
Been thanked: 58 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-650, Sony MDP-355GX, Sony KVHR M36, DVDO VP-50
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
PostPosted: 26 Oct 2017, 14:04 
Absolute fan
Absolute fan
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2010, 10:23
Posts: 1582
Location: Sweden
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 26 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.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
PostPosted: 26 Oct 2017, 20:36 
True fan
True fan
User avatar

Joined: 27 Jun 2014, 07:12
Posts: 455
Location: France
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 5 times
BD on 600/800 line CRTs (Loewe/Hr Trinitron) look impressive
I mean resolution,colors,lights....but I sold my ps3 (rgb cable)

The DVD 25/30fps on a lag free CRT or Plasma also look great.

The Laserdisc is a CRT "natural" and that smoothness, beauty, texture is difficult to leave even in 2017 with these 4K discs on the store
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
PostPosted: 26 Oct 2017, 22:40 
Confirmed Padawan
Confirmed Padawan
User avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 2010, 09:44
Posts: 3774
Location: United States
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 215 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. :)
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
PostPosted: 27 Oct 2017, 07:51 
Serious fan
Serious fan
User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2014, 07:26
Posts: 167
Location: Japan
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 6 times
substance,
thanks for the info!

you said "Dvd has over 500 lines or horizontal resolution and Ld has 425 (theoretical) lines of horizontal resolution."

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.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
PostPosted: 27 Oct 2017, 08:38 
Absolute fan
Absolute fan
User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2010, 10:23
Posts: 1582
Location: Sweden
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 26 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.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
PostPosted: 27 Oct 2017, 10:08 
Absolute fan
Absolute fan
User avatar

Joined: 01 May 2016, 06:38
Posts: 1546
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 124 times
Been thanked: 58 times
I lace my sneakers and DVD and BD sucks that's all I know.
_________________
Sony MDP-650, Sony MDP-355GX, Sony KVHR M36, DVDO VP-50
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
PostPosted: 27 Oct 2017, 14:10 
True fan
True fan
User avatar

Joined: 27 Jun 2014, 07:12
Posts: 455
Location: France
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 5 times
Glad that pal DVD are 25fps then...

Movies with black bars reduce DVD visible resolution on "pixel structured tv panels" let's say to 720×304.....you get some extra juice from DVD with HDMI upscaling but Laserdisc through a high quality av receiver is even better....

Let's discuss SD formats....remember that Muse LD can also send DVD to hell easily!
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
PostPosted: 27 Oct 2017, 15:41 
Young Padawan
Young Padawan
User avatar

Joined: 30 Aug 2005, 15:38
Posts: 3090
Location: Pennsylvania
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 31 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.html

I'll see if I can dig it up.


Last edited by elahrairrah on 27 Oct 2017, 22:17, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
PostPosted: 27 Oct 2017, 21:03 
True fan
True fan
User avatar

Joined: 27 Jun 2014, 07:12
Posts: 455
Location: France
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 5 times
DVD to 720p with higher bitrate is....Bluray man ! we re talking digital ! forget that discussion ! Let's return to demonstrate that Laserdisc and Xvid(mpg4) movie archives are better SD resolution formats
than DVD !
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
PostPosted: 28 Oct 2017, 01:21 
Confirmed Padawan
Confirmed Padawan
User avatar

Joined: 14 Jan 2010, 09:44
Posts: 3774
Location: United States
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 215 times
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.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
PostPosted: 28 Oct 2017, 10:49 
Advanced fan
Advanced fan
User avatar

Joined: 18 Apr 2012, 10:13
Posts: 817
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.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
PostPosted: 28 Oct 2017, 14:14 
True fan
True fan
User avatar

Joined: 27 Jun 2014, 07:12
Posts: 455
Location: France
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 5 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
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
PostPosted: 02 Dec 2017, 15:11 
True fan
True fan
User avatar

Joined: 27 Jun 2014, 07:12
Posts: 455
Location: France
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 5 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 :)
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2017, 01:04 
Advanced fan
Advanced fan
User avatar

Joined: 18 Apr 2012, 10:13
Posts: 817
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 6 times
Studios over the last few years have put less and less effort into the mastering quality of DVD and rightfully so. That's because they know by now that consumers who care about the presentation will opt to buy the BD or UHD. Only ignorant people, old people or people with poor vision would settle with DVD in 2017.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2017, 05:48 
Absolute fan
Absolute fan
User avatar

Joined: 01 May 2016, 06:38
Posts: 1546
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 124 times
Been thanked: 58 times
Only young suckers would even bother buying blu ray, the "elite" format that is in every bargain bin in the country. It's DNRed to hell for the masses who think they're the elite but demand sub $10 prices. You see the mastering on Poo Ray isn't better than DVD it's just processed a lot to make it look more "computery" to satisfy the idiots who think a 30 year old film should look like the latest Michael Bay release.
_________________
Sony MDP-650, Sony MDP-355GX, Sony KVHR M36, DVDO VP-50
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Laserdisc vs DVD
PostPosted: 03 Dec 2017, 12:45 
True fan
True fan
User avatar

Joined: 27 Jun 2014, 07:12
Posts: 455
Location: France
Has thanked: 86 times
Been thanked: 5 times
Well....not all BD are DNRed...have watched recently "Venus Wars" (1986) it keeps all the original grain if you like that I recommend you.

Recent DVD releases like "Star trek into darkness" and "Stars W force awakens" that I purchased are really really good on CRT and plasma where I tried them...."Transformers 5" just show how limited DVD is compared to LD.

HDR BD with 1.000 nits screens are the next LD on a broadcast HR Trinitron no doubt (if we forget the motion issues) best natural skin tones,clean white,iron blacks,deep greyscale
Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 2 of 3 [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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

Search for:
Jump to: