-
They Shoot Laserdiscs Don't They?
Here's a question...
Why did a superior format like the 12" Laserdisc die? It was superior in all aspects when compared to the VHS format, except for it's size and perhaps the fact that you had to change sides or put in another disc, but even that was remedied with later players being able to play both sides.
Was it a lack of promotion? Was it a lack of knowledge? What was it? Maybe people just weren't ready to give up their beloved VHS tapes for something new just yet. This could be the same thing that happens to the HD formats. They are superior in sound, picture, and in time...extra features. Are people ready to get rid of their beloved DVD's? I still have about 70 Laserdiscs that I will not part with. I never owned a single VHS tape and I have over 1200 DVD's. I would love to get an HD player, but am waiting patiently for all the bugs to get worked out and for a player that can handle both formats beautifully. Until then....I stand in the corner with DVD.
-
good point Skies, I think that laser was just a bit out of the average joe price range back in the day. I remember seeing my first laser disk back in 79 or 80 and I thought then that was the next step. But I think the studio's back the VHS more and left the laser to died in the high end graveyard.
And for Mark, I can tell your a bit young to understand what I was saying in my earlier post. I was not comparing VHS to DVD as sources, but as the edge of technology to each generation. Please learn to read something and think about the impact of the words and not just the right and wrong of the message.
-
I wish...
Quote:
Originally Posted by recoveryone
good point Skies, I think that laser was just a bit out of the average joe price range back in the day. I remember seeing my first laser disk back in 79 or 80 and I thought then that was the next step. But I think the studio's back the VHS more and left the laser to died in the high end graveyard.
And for Mark, I can tell your a bit young to understand what I was saying in my earlier post. I was not comparing VHS to DVD as sources, but as the edge of technology to each generation. Please learn to read something and think about the impact of the words and not just the right and wrong of the message.
my join date was 1969....that's so awesome!!!! lol.
-
a laserdisc was only a laserdisc, nothing more, and that's all it would ever be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
Here's a question...
Why did a superior format like the 12" Laserdisc die? It was superior in all aspects when compared to the VHS format, except for it's size and perhaps the fact that you had to change sides or put in another disc, but even that was remedied with later players being able to play both sides.
Was it a lack of promotion? Was it a lack of knowledge? What was it? Maybe people just weren't ready to give up their beloved VHS tapes for something new just yet. This could be the same thing that happens to the HD formats. They are superior in sound, picture, and in time...extra features. Are people ready to get rid of their beloved DVD's? I still have about 70 Laserdiscs that I will not part with. I never owned a single VHS tape and I have over 1200 DVD's. I would love to get an HD player, but am waiting patiently for all the bugs to get worked out and for a player that can handle both formats beautifully. Until then....I stand in the corner with DVD.
Did you ever time-shift with TV programs with that laserdisc? I did it all the time with a VHS recorder. That's the beauty of having a recordable media.
These magical 5 1/4" digital media storage devices, however, can be whatever it needs to be. It's a digital tablea rosa that cen be whatever the burner is programed to put on it. that same piee of plastic and aluminum can be a CD ROM, a redbook audio CD, an SACD. a DVD-Audio disc, a HD-DVD, a Blu-ray DVD, and most likely more that I forgot to mention. And, odds are it will be even more in another few months.
-
Young? Well, thank you, sonny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by recoveryone
And for Mark, I can tell your a bit young to understand what I was saying in my earlier post. I was not comparing VHS to DVD as sources, but as the edge of technology to each generation. Please learn to read something and think about the impact of the words and not just the right and wrong of the message.
I was born in '49, watched the golden age of TV on first run shows and built my first tube amp in '62. ,,.and my oldest grandchild (out of five) is only 12, so I don't expect too many gifts from him yet, but his daddy knows what I like ;).
I subscribed to Audio, Hi-fidelity and Stereo Review (or wharever it was back then) and immirsec myself in this whole AV circus over the following 4+ decades, from both the inside and as a consumer.
And, as for impact vs. meaning of your words, I did consider them. You were simply wrong, that's all. Something I think you failed to notice in your time following this hobby is that it's convenience that rules the marketplace, not SOTA performance. That's the only reason that cassettes, and eventually CD's, did away with vinyl as a mainstream leader. And. while we're at it, VHS tapes had this in spades over laserdiscs as well. If SOTA was the main criteria, DAT would be common today and they would sell hi-end stereos at Wal-Mart, not $70 HTIB sets.
As for laserdics, it's biggest downfall was simply that you couldn't record on it. simple as that. If you could, it might still be around but. alas, you couldn't and it ain't. Time for it to join AM stereo, quadraphonic sound, elcassettes. two-speed cassettes and all the other outdated, unwanted, unneeded technology that served for a short period of time until more suitible means arrived.
At this time, the DVD, (Digital Versatile Disc) is truly the state of tangible media source. And, since it was designed from the get-go to be able to handle many different sources, it will most likely stay the common factor for quite some time to come.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD
-
The cable company can't tell me if our HDMI is activated but that would be easy enough to find out. If I may hijack for a moment, I also have a Motorola (Moxi) cable box, in the set up it has 1080i, 720p, 480p&i and you check what your TV can display, I checked all of them, is this wrong? I'm using component out into my Toshiba DLP. I was thinking, "well if I only check 720p or 1080i, what would happen on the SD stations". I don't know if the box can upconvert, so I checked them all.
-
Not sure about your cable box, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Peabody
The cable company can't tell me if our HDMI is activated but that would be easy enough to find out. If I may hijack for a moment, I also have a Motorola (Moxi) cable box, in the set up it has 1080i, 720p, 480p&i and you check what your TV can display, I checked all of them, is this wrong? I'm using component out into my Toshiba DLP. I was thinking, "well if I only check 720p or 1080i, what would happen on the SD stations". I don't know if the box can upconvert, so I checked them all.
...I've got comcast with a Motorola HD box (dunno the model #) and it does output 1080i and it does upconvert any and all stations to that. The reason I can verify this is that I get about 20+ OTA stations and the 7 local network affiliates transmit OTA HD in either 720 or 1080 and, naturally, the SD stations are in 480. When these stations come in via cable, the box spits 'em out to the TV in 1080 and, if I say so myself, they all look pretty durn good. Not as good as HD, naturally, but they do NOT suck either.
And, when I power up the box, it displays the resolution it's outputting. I would hope yours does the same but, yes, the customer service reps I've encountered seem to be zombies for all the help they provide.
Oh, my STB does not have HDMI output but component is all it really needs as long as your TV accepts HD via component, and I think most do. And, for what it's worth, you lose nothing by using the cable box's component output, assuming it has one. That frees up a HDMI for another input, should you have one.
-
On my motorolla you turn it off, hit MENU, and there are a whole slew of options, including rez, pick a rez not compatible with your set and the pic disapears.
Before I had this box I had one with componet, and a TV that showed
the rez you were receiving, and that box output everything in 1080i, so I assume my new box with HDMI/DVI does also.
As for the "HOMELESS LADY " on the customer service line mentioned by one customer, well, I have had similar experiences, look,
cable service people, electronics sales people , most are minimum wage idiots who know NOTHING about electronics, I let the "service
tech" hook my new box up with the coax cable like he insisted on doing, and when he left I set my system up the way I like it.
I always wire my house the way I like it, replacing the quite often inferior splitters, cables, etc, with my own stuff. When I get sattelite
I always install it myself, Micheal fremmer once told a tale of a friend who watched sat for a year on his megabuck system, unaware that the sat box was hooked up with a COAX CABLE!
Not getting a good enough pic on your cable? Rerwire it with rg-6
and decent splitters, and assume it was installed by a high school dropout, IT PROBABLY WAS.
lOOK, AN ENGINEER WONT ANSWER YOUR PHONE WHEN YOU CALL THE CABLE COMPANY, or come to your house to help you.
Not that I mind, half the fun of this stuff is hooking it up yourself
-
I think the current market is a bit younger, and more tech savvy than when VHS, Laserdisc or even DVD were first introduced. To that effect, adopting new formats is more "palatable". Not necessarily more desireable, but there'll always be that portion of the market that wants the latest gadgets.
All I'm saying, is they more you do it, the easier it gets. I don't expect DVD to go belly up fast, I expect it to continue on indefinitely, but slowly, HD formats will replace them.
Face it, these same electronics companies built those DVD players, I'm sure the average joe mass market DVD player won't last 10 years...so in a few years, people will look at replacing them anyway. When the walk in the store, much like when I needed to replace my VHS player, they'll see an HD format for around the same price, or maybe they won't be able to find many DVD players. The gradual transition cycle continues.
We've been a victim of this orchestrated formula of planned-obsolescence for decades now with plenty of products. It's nothing new. HD is coming. If HDTV's werent' selling and becoming the standard I'd question it, but making the switch is going to become very easy for everyone in a few years.
As for Laserdisc. I don't know about studio support etc, but I know I was an early buyer, and regretted it. Couldn't find many good titles. And from the day I bought it I knew that DVD was lurking in the background and promised to be much better in several years. It happened sooner than I expected.
-
Hd-ld
Few people are aware of the fact that they experimented around with doing HD Laserdiscs and they easily could have made LD a recordable format. The beauty of LD still is the fact that you can do better freeze-frame than DVD and the audio compression is far less. There are still a few LD's that are worthy of ownership as there is YET to be a better edition in one way shape or form. They are (and not limited to)...
BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA (Criterion Ed.) the only edition of this film to actually have color accuracy throughout the entire film. The DVD releases in ALL forms including Superbit edition. The LD is the only version which accurately gets the greens and oranges correct.
RONIN DTS Unless you get the Region 2 UK edition of the DVD you get jipped on the US editions of this incredible film with the lack of DTS. This is a stellar DTS LD that is uncompressed glory and will blow away majority of any DVD's out there. This was also an HDCD CD soundtrack.
BLADE DTS this is the last DTS edition laserdisc issued and sadly was one of the reference discs of the format. Unless you have the Region 3 Japanese limited issue of this DVD than you also get ripped off from the superb DTS for this film. Region 1 misses out, fortunately the sequels DO have DTS, but the original film is in need of the DTS soundtrack as well.
BLADE RUNNER (Criterion Edition) The European theatrical release (also available on Criterion Laserdisc) is 117 minutes long and more explicit/violent than the original American version, with a few additions/differences from the US release.
-Batty kills Tyrell by pushing his thumbs in his eyes, which bleed copiously.
-Pris lifts Deckard up by his nostrils when she beats him up.
-Deckard shoots Pris a third time; there are also more shots of Pris kicking and screaming when she is shot by Deckard.
-Roy is shown while actually pushing the nail through his hand
-Deckard and Rachael are seen riding into the sunset
TAXI DRIVER (Criterion Ed.) One of the few films containing commentary by Scorsese, at least that is HIS films, he often does commentary for Powell&Pressburger films, this is the only commentary track that he has done for this film and was exclusive for Criterion, the DVD is owned by ColumbiaTristar and does not have rights to the commentary, which is superb.
The following are LD that have DTS soundtracks that have yet to be issued in Region 1 with that soundtrack, although some of these are available in other regions with DTS. They are:
INDEPENDENCE DAY
RANSOM
THE GAME
TRUE LIES
SHINE
ARMAGEDDON
VERTIGO
THE GETAWAY
THE ENGLISH PATIENT
EVITA
PHENOMENON
CRIMSON TIDE
THE LONG KISS GOODNIGHT
RED CORNER
FLUBBER
TIMECOP
CON AIR
HERCULES (Disney)
MOST WANTED
HEART AND SOULS
SPAWN: The Movie
HARD TARGET
LOST IN SPACE
MORTAL KOMBAT
FROM DUSK TIL DAWN
DEEP RISING
MIMIC
SCREAM 2
KULL THE CONQUEROR
THE MASK
VOLCANO
IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS
RUSH HOUR
SUDDEN DEATH
MAN IN THE IRON MASK
STRANGE DAYS
FIRESTORM
HALLOWEEN H20
LAST MAN STANDING
GREAT EXPECTATIONS
BOOGIE NIGHTS
VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED
HOODLUM
MR NICE GUY
FIRST STRIKE
HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (Disney)
KINGPIN
STREET FIGHTER
you may notice that many of these titles are owned by Disney, New Line, or are crappy Jean Claude Van Damme films.
-
And, your point is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
...and they easily could have made LD a recordable format.
...But they didn't. By not doing so, videotape won by default. Game over. The fat lady has sung. It coulda been a contenda, but it threw in the towel. End of story.
You can gnash your teeth and wail all you want, but it's a dead format (and medium)
-
What's your problem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
...But they didn't. By not doing so, videotape won by default. Game over. The fat lady has sung. It coulda been a contenda, but it threw in the towel. End of story.
You can gnash your teeth and wail all you want, but it's a dead format (and medium)
I don't understand your aggression against me. I never said anything towards you to start a debate. I am simply stating the facts of the past. To some, LD is NOT dead. It still have viable use. Yes, it lost out to VHS in the end, but to real videophiles it never went away. While DVD has been a bridge to cross into the HD market...it will be interesting to see if they finally get some of these titles right the first time, unlike DVD. My post simply shows that DVD did not correct or for that matter improve upon quite a few LD, which is why they are still going for out-of-sight prices on eBay.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
I don't understand your aggression against me.
I have no aggression against you. I just think you need a dose of reality to spice up your life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
I never said anything towards you to start a debate.
No, but you did ask why laserdisc died, both as a format and a medium. I simply answered that question and it seems that you and another fanboy didn't like my answer and decided to jump on me, implying my "ignorance" was due to my lack of age, knowledge and experience in these matters. Sorry to disappoint you. but it was exactly that age, knowledge and experience that was able to quantify, in one simple sentence, why it died virtually stillborn.
It didn't record. QED.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
I am simply stating the facts of the past.
And I'm simply stating facts of the present. Audrey Hepburn was a beautiful lady but, alas, she's gone and nothing will change that. But I can still watch her on the movies (which are available on VHS and DVD) and wax poetically about her beauty and how it will never be equalled or surpassed. ...but that won't bring her back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
To some, LD is NOT dead. It still have viable use.
And some still play 8-tracks as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
Yes, it lost out to VHS in the end, but to real videophiles it never went away.
"real" videophiles? You certainly don't harbor any unrealistically high opinions of yourself now, do you? But thanks for putting up with us lowly, ignorant peons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
While DVD has been a bridge to cross into the HD market...it will be interesting to see if they finally get some of these titles right the first time, unlike DVD. My post simply shows that DVD did not correct or for that matter improve upon quite a few LD, which is why they are still going for out-of-sight prices on eBay.
It's guys like you that live in the past that drive those prices up, not any qualitative reason. That quite a bridge. It seems that your main reason for liking laserdiscs is less of a technical nature as opposed to some additional footage so "getting it right" is more of a personal opinion than a hard fact.
And, like I said before, had laserdisc been planned correctly, with future growth and flexibility in mind, perhaps it would have gained a foothold with the public. As it is, those that did buy into it were quick to see the benefits of the DVD (and VHS recording ability) and jumped ship quite quickly.
And, I've seen laserdiscs. I sold them. I had them in my home, but I didn't have to buy them.
As I said, most people wanted to record and went tape. A few did prefer the picture (it was better than tape) but most wanted to be able to record. Likewise, had the rental shops shown an interest (or hada financial incentive) in stocking laserdiscs, that might have helped but again, better marketing of tape won out.
And, fwiw, these new HD formats beat the bejeezus out of laserdisc any day and guess which format/medium supports that? ..and will continue to evolve, improve and, most likely, still be able to play plain vanilla DVD's for the forseeable future as well.
What's that line from Star Trek? Oh yeah, "He's dead, Jim."
-
HEY! HEY! HEY!!! say what you will but leave the majestic 8-track out of it. 8-track was the beginning of "continuous play" man. And, it still is the apitomy of warm lush sounds. And! what other format, EVER, invented will allow you to sometimes listen to two songs at the same time?
-
Let's get a few things straight...
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
I have no aggression against you. I just think you need a dose of reality to spice up your life.
THANKS FOR THINKING YOU KNOW ME BETTER THAN I DO.
No, but you did ask why laserdisc died, both as a format and a medium. I simply answered that question and it seems that you and another fanboy didn't like my answer and decided to jump on me, implying my "ignorance" was due to my lack of age, knowledge and experience in these matters. Sorry to disappoint you. but it was exactly that age, knowledge and experience that was able to quantify, in one simple sentence, why it died virtually stillborn.
It didn't record. QED.
DON'T BLAME ME FOR OTHERS, I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT YOUR AGE, WHY DON'T YOU READ WHO WRITES WHAT SO THAT YOU ARE NOT HOLDING THE WRONG PERSON RESPONSIBLE. I NEVER SAID ANYTHING AGAINST YOU OR YOUR AGE.
And I'm simply stating facts of the present. Audrey Hepburn was a beautiful lady but, alas, she's gone and nothing will change that. But I can still watch her on the movies (which are available on VHS and DVD) and wax poetically about her beauty and how it will never be equalled or surpassed. ...but that won't bring her back.
And some still play 8-tracks as well.
THE FACTS OF THE PAST ARE NECESSARY IN KNOWING THE ONES OF THE PRESENT.
"real" videophiles? You certainly don't harbor any unrealistically high opinions of yourself now, do you? But thanks for putting up with us lowly, ignorant peons.
JUST STATING THE FACT THAT LD WAS GENERALLY FOR THE VIDEOPHILE GROUP.
It's guys like you that live in the past that drive those prices up, not any qualitative reason. That quite a bridge. It seems that your main reason for liking laserdiscs is less of a technical nature as opposed to some additional footage so "getting it right" is more of a personal opinion than a hard fact.
I LIVE IN THE PAST? I'M 27 YEARS OLD. I DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH OF A PAST. LD WENT OUT OF STYLE WHEN I WAS 18.
And, like I said before, had laserdisc been planned correctly, with future growth and flexibility in mind, perhaps it would have gained a foothold with the public. As it is, those that did buy into it were quick to see the benefits of the DVD (and VHS recording ability) and jumped ship quite quickly.
And, I've seen laserdiscs. I sold them. I had them in my home, but I didn't have to buy them.
GOOD FOR YOU.
As I said, most people wanted to record and went tape. A few did prefer the picture (it was better than tape) but most wanted to be able to record. Likewise, had the rental shops shown an interest (or hada financial incentive) in stocking laserdiscs, that might have helped but again, better marketing of tape won out.
And, fwiw, these new HD formats beat the bejeezus out of laserdisc any day and guess which format/medium supports that? ..and will continue to evolve, improve and, most likely, still be able to play plain vanilla DVD's for the forseeable future as well.
What's that line from Star Trek? Oh yeah, "He's dead, Jim."
WOW, DID YOU MEMERORIZE THAT LINE ALL BY YOURSELF?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
WOW, DID YOU MEMERORIZE THAT LINE ALL BY YOURSELF?
You do know that he only picks on you because you get so upset, right?
-
Hey skies, you just learn a good lesson, remember what I said in my post about reading the words for their impact and not the message of right and wrong. I saw this coming from this guy and just walked away. In time my friend you too will learn to see the writing on the wall before it falls on you.:ihih: Hey Mark its all good partner no disrepect intended but you response lead me to believe you were younger. (The cunning the wise walks off into the sunset to search out more audio/video knowledge and to share his wealth of it to others so they too may live to enjoy HT) lol................:5: :16: :16: my theme music.........
-
I just don't understand...
Quote:
Originally Posted by recoveryone
Hey skies, you just learn a good lesson, remember what I said in my post about reading the words for their impact and not the message of right and wrong. I saw this coming from this guy and just walked away. In time my friend you too will learn to see the writing on the wall before it falls on you.:ihih: Hey Mark its all good partner no disrepect intended but you response lead me to believe you were younger. (The cunning the wise walks off into the sunset to search out more audio/video knowledge and to share his wealth of it to others so they too may live to enjoy HT) lol................:5: :16: :16: my theme music.........
why people can't be argumentative without being attackful. I love a good debate, but the lack of class with some people is amazing, especially when they are debating with you over something you never said or did.
-
what is also interesting...
Quote:
Originally Posted by recoveryone
Hey skies, you just learn a good lesson, remember what I said in my post about reading the words for their impact and not the message of right and wrong. I saw this coming from this guy and just walked away. In time my friend you too will learn to see the writing on the wall before it falls on you.:ihih: Hey Mark its all good partner no disrepect intended but you response lead me to believe you were younger. (The cunning the wise walks off into the sunset to search out more audio/video knowledge and to share his wealth of it to others so they too may live to enjoy HT) lol................:5: :16: :16: my theme music.........
Is how he got all defensive about you thinking he was young and yet acts like I am living in the past, when I am a fraction of his age. Funny how that works.
-
No problem. Just answer one question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by recoveryone
Hey skies, you just learn a good lesson, remember what I said in my post about reading the words for their impact and not the message of right and wrong. I saw this coming from this guy and just walked away. In time my friend you too will learn to see the writing on the wall before it falls on you.:ihih: Hey Mark its all good partner no disrepect intended but you response lead me to believe you were younger. (The cunning the wise walks off into the sunset to search out more audio/video knowledge and to share his wealth of it to others so they too may live to enjoy HT) lol................:5: :16: :16: my theme music.........
What, in my posts, caused you to arrive at the conclusion that I was young, inexperienced and ignorant of the facts involved?
Again, as close as I can tell, a question was asked and I answered it. Unfortunately, it just wasn't the answer some wanted to hear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laserdisc (sec. 5 in particular)
As I said, it coulda been a contenda but between the non-recordable thing the way it was marketed here pretty much insured it's downfall. One of the good things about living through the era under discussion (and having sold it as well) is that it's really hard to argue with first-hand experience. ..but that doesn't matter to some people. They would rather go on believing what they choose.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
Is how he got all defensive about you thinking he was young and yet acts like I am living in the past, when I am a fraction of his age. Funny how that works.
Ahn , the ignorance and arrogance of youth. I remember it well. I came as quite as shock to me also that there are people who know more than me.
But, don't get too cocky. You ain't one of them.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
Ahn , the ignorance and arrogance of youth. I remember it well. I came as quite as shock to me also that there are people who know more than me.
But, don't get too cocky. You ain't one of them.
Pffff.. A moment ago you thought I was living in the past, suddently I am just a dumb kid. Maybe you are confused or surprised by the fact that someone of my age knows a thing or two about things prior to my time. There are very few 27 year olds who even know what a Laserdisc even is, let alone owns quite a few.
Also, I am hardly arrogant, but you'll have to forgive me for defending myself against your attacks on me that came from nowhere. Once again, I never said anything negative against you. Do you need to re-read this thread?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
Pffff.. A moment ago you thought I was living in the past, suddently I am just a dumb kid.
The two are not mutually exclusive. Only a dumb kid wouldn't be able to se that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
Maybe you are confused or surprised by the fact that someone of my age knows a thing or two about things prior to my time.
Anybody can read and pick up choice facts of past history to support their beliefs. Living through the period provides a fuller, more balanced perspective, particularly when one was involved in marketing these babies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
There are very few 27 year olds who even know what a Laserdisc even is, let alone owns quite a few.
And many people my age collect 78's, which pretty much predate us boomers, but you don't hear too many bemoaning their replacement by superioer media. They know better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
Also, I am hardly arrogant, but you'll have to forgive me for defending myself against your attacks on me that came from nowhere. Once again, I never said anything negative against you. Do you need to re-read this thread?
No, I don't need to re-read this thread.Yes, you are arrogant. You think you know more and better than anyone else. You asked a question. I answered it. By ignoring the FACTS I presented to you in order to answer the answer to the question YOU posed, you tried to justify their (laserdiscs) continued existance in an argumentative style and inplied that anyonwe who doesn't see your point is, well, less than worthy of consideration.
Hey, don't argue with me. I didn't make the decision to make 'em obsolete. Argue with history. Facts are facts, even though they transpired before you were aware of them. There's that bit about selective history again. And, if you read that link you'll see that your beloved laserdiscs were not without their own problerms either.
You would rather believe what you want rather than accept what is. Yeah, the rest of the world is wrong, aren't they.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by markw
No, I don't need to re-read this thread.Yes, you are arrogant. You think you know more and better than anyone else. .
This coming from the person who's a self-proclaimed ELITIST JERK. I couldn't agree more.
-
Hey mark, The part that gave me the thought of you being a bit young was your opening statement about why was I comparing VHS to DVD, when my post did nothing of the sort. The only referance of comparing was towards my parents generation and mine and the thinking of why do we need to change to another format. The message I wrote was for KEX and he seem to follow the line of thought I was going. But you saw somthing totally that was not there and added this VHS vs DVD thing.
For your age I would have guess you would be able to see where I was going more than others since you too have seen the changes in audio and video over the last 40 years. I'm sure your parents may have felt the same way about the TV when it first came on the scene. Why switch when the radio has all the programs I like and this new TV thing only has a few. As I was trying to point out each generation will get to a point that they will not be willing to jump ship so fast just because its a new shiny toy, unless it a real leap in technology. If you remember my last sentence I made a remark about one day I hope my kids/grandkids will buy me my first 3d/hologram viewer. Which would be the next real step in video technology. This is all I was saying Mark. So no I was not thinking you were ignorant, I would never say that about anyone on this forum, just not old enough to see where I was coming from. I hope this will ease things between you guys......
-
respect...
Quote:
Originally Posted by recoveryone
Hey mark, The part that gave me the thought of you being a bit young was your opening statement about why was I comparing VHS to DVD, when my post did nothing of the sort. The only referance of comparing was towards my parents generation and mine and the thinking of why do we need to change to another format. The message I wrote was for KEX and he seem to follow the line of thought I was going. But you saw somthing totally that was not there and added this VHS vs DVD thing.
For your age I would have guess you would be able to see where I was going more than others since you too have seen the changes in audio and video over the last 40 years. I'm sure your parents may have felt the same way about the TV when it first came on the scene. Why switch when the radio has all the programs I like and this new TV thing only has a few. As I was trying to point out each generation will get to a point that they will not be willing to jump ship so fast just because its a new shiny toy, unless it a real leap in technology. If you remember my last sentence I made a remark about one day I hope my kids/grandkids will buy me my first 3d/hologram viewer. Which would be the next real step in video technology. This is all I was saying Mark. So no I was not thinking you were ignorant, I would never say that about anyone on this forum, just not old enough to see where I was coming from. I hope this will ease things between you guys......
Now you see this is the sign of a true gentleman who is willing to explain his remarks and try to resolve things in order to bring order to this chaos. I have alot of respect for recoveryone and have never had any beef with him in our time together on this site. I too am willing to accept my mistakes and even explain myself if I feel that I 'wronged' someone, but in this case I am not backing down because I never meant any harm or foul. I'll admit when I am wrong, but in this case I am not in the wrong. I would like to get along with all members of this site and I have only met a few people that seem far too difficult to deal with. I've had my share of arguments with Florian over the past year or so and while I don't always agree with him I still respect him as a person and his accomplishments. Sometimes it's just simply misunderstandings and if you can point out in this thread where I offended someone before getting into this fight than I would certainly re-visit my actions.
-
To all who want to know. "Format" and "media" are not the same.
Media is what the content is stored on. It's what we physically hold in our hands.
Format is how the data is stored on that media.
Vinyl is one "media" and the only "format" it accepts is those wiggly groves that are on what we call records.
Likewise, magnetic tape is another media. Depending on how it's packaged, it can store sounds or it can store video, or it can store both. As you might guess, this "media" is more flexible than vinyl.
DVD's, or "digital versatile discs" were a media designed simply as repositories of burned holes, which represent digital data. As such, it's usefulness is limited by only the scientists and engineers imagination. So far, the "formats" it's been used to store is computer data, audio (several flavors) video (also several flavors) and who knows whatelse will be put on hte rin the future. Now, a lot of the hardware designed for these "formats" are downward compatible. i.e SACD and DVD-Audio players can play redbook CD's, Hi Def video players can play standard DVD's and, I believe, redbook CD's as well,
Aside from their total inability to record (which was the biggie), laserdiscs were a media that was limited to only one format and, it seems, there were even several of those that were incompatible with each other. So, like recors, you could only play laserdiscs on one player. But, at least with records you could play any record on any player. Laserdiscs had several competing formats going against it as well, just like SACD/DVD-Audio and HD-DVD/Blu-Ray. But this pales in comparison tho their one fatal flaw. They couldn't record!
So, while offering a superior picture to videotapes at their time of release, they failed to address the one thing that tapes did that they could not do and that was the cause of their slow decline into a niche market and eventually oblivion. That's like the beginning of "Spies Like Us" where they design a missle that only has one minor flaw.. .it doesn't work in water. Then someone said "Didn't you ever hear of rain?"
Aas vor DVD's, well, since most new hardware products are "downward compatible", it stands to reason that as long as they can make money off a certain format, it will behoove them to continue to offer it. And, as long as they follow that trend, one should be able to continue to enjoy their CD's and DVD's on virtually any player made in the forseeable future.
DVD's offered a superior picture to laserdiscs from first the day they were introduced. That alone justified the new "format", although the "media" had been around for almost twenty years by now. Tapes limped on for a few more years as a cheap recordable media but soon that would change. Heck, I still use VHS for recording TV shows and probably will for the forseeable future.
While DVD's were initially they were not recordable, it was promised that they soon would be and after a few years they made good on their word and offered recordable DVD's.
In the laserdisc's almost twenty years of existance it never did offer recordability. Now, with DVD's superior picture and it's ability to record, laserdisc's days were numbered.
Such is the beauty of a "media" that has been designed to allow various "formats". From the day CD's were released in this world, all other "media" that had one media, one format, and one player was facing the eventual end. Since then we've seen the virtual end of vinyl and tape. While it still exists in a niche market (partucularly vinyl), the world had embraced DVD's,
I'm sure there will be even further "formats" released on DVD's in the future. The market demands improvements. We've seen that in audio with SACD and DVD-Audio and video and it's HD-DVD and Blu-Ray formats. But, both still play the plain vanilla versions of what was initially released, redbook CD and DVD's as originallty released.
While the format may change, the media stays the same and what plays on hardware today will most likely be playable in the forseeable future on newer iterations of hardware.
So, boys, perhaps this is what I should have said first? I would have thought that "it didn't record" would have been sufficient, but I guess not, eh?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
Slow down, there, pard'ner, I may just have to call bulls</>h!t on that.
Were these people Morlocks or something? I don't know what the Sears are like there, but I do frequent quite a few a/v stores on my travels and one constant I've always observed is that HD discs on any system configured even halfway properly is far, far superior to DVD.
And I'm going to have to call reverse bullsh<a>it on that -- I get to watch nicely line-doubled DVD pretty much every weekend at a friend of mine's, and you cannot tell the difference between that and HD, unless it's a live feed such as Leno or ESPN. A well set up DVD system will compete with a HD system.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty Chalk
And I'm going to have to call reverse bullsh<a>it on that -- I get to watch nicely line-doubled DVD pretty much every weekend at a friend of mine's, and you cannot tell the difference between that and HD, unless it's a live feed such as Leno or ESPN. A well set up DVD system will compete with a HD system.
amen, and because theres not really that much difference.
AS for laserdisc, I am glad peruvian brought this up, because this is the point I was trying to make , the new high-def formats arent replacements for DVD, they are replacements for LASERDISC.
A nice market item with high performance that the mass market doesnt
really care about, aimed at collectors of movies who want sterling quality, I mean, really, most of my friends were wowed by my laserdiscs in the 80's and 90's, but not enough to buy one, and really,
it wouldnt have helped them much, hooked up to their plastic
"shelf systems" and wallmart tvs, anymore than todays plastic "HTIB"
crap from the last boat in from china will benefit from todays HD PLAYERS
Glad you brought up LASERDISC, I was there, this format was really nice, even beating early DVDS, the people who wanted VHS instead so they could "record" on it couldnt even figure out how to set the clock, most times, much less record anything, they came out with a TALKING VCR and people STILL couldnt figure out how to use it.
And lets not forget S-VHS, people stayed away from this format in droves in spite of the better picture, just like they're gonna stay away from these new formats in droves, the increased quality wont be enough for most people to write off the investment in their 40$
PLASTIC PLAYERS from the far east
-
My better judgment tells me to stay out of this discussion when the authorities on the subject have plainly spoken, but why be self-judgmental at a time like this? First of all, those of you who claim that high definition isn't much more resolved than "line doubled" standard definition either haven't seen much high definition (or high definition set up correctly), are watching small displays, are sitting far enough away from displays to make any questions of resolution otiose, or simply don't want it to be. Line doubling (for the purposes of this point, scaling/ deinterlacing) doesn't increase resolution; it is nothing but an attempt to make lower-resolution material compatible with the larger pixel counts and progressive capability of digital screens. If done well, it doesn't suffer too many visible indignities; if not, it will bleed like a stuck pig. If you find it satisfactory, more power to you, but it ain't HD.
Laserdisc was certainly an enthusiasts' medium that far exceeded the resolution of VHS tape at the time and offered the kind of extra features that have become all but routine on DVDs. However, laserdisc was an analog format that tapped out at about 425 lines of resolution (as we used to put it in the old days). When DVD first reared its head as a replacement for VHS (not for laserdisc, which didn't count since it had barely made a dent in the market), LD afficionados were skeptical that any format could look better than its current holy grail and worried that, as a mass medium, DVD wouldn't support LD's elevated extras. I was among them. This concern in large part anticipated the kind of anxiety that many people here express about the new hi def DVDs and about hi def in general; they don't want to leave their comfort zone for something new and unknown. But it became apparent rather quickly that the better DVDs easily exceeded the performance of LD; still, we worried that DVD performance would decline with market saturation. It did in some cases, but, if truth be told, LD had its share of dogs, too. Certain specialty companies--notably, Criterion--offered product as consistently good as the negatives and interpositives at their disposal allowed, but many disks were run of the mill, especcially in comparison with the better DVDs. Moreover, LD's CAV disks were the toast of the format, but since CLV disks were cheaper, easier to manufacture, and more convenient, they won the day. In short, LD was sterling quality in the days of VHS, and it still may carry for some an aura of videophile non plus ultra, but the facts of the case make its supercession completely understandable. Its time is gone. DVD trumped it because it represented progress in every sense (though without the rarefied elite air that LD carried for some), just as hi def in some form will eventually trump DVD, regardless of who is still holding out for whatever reasons when the time comes.
-
I think most of us need to keep in mind that many of us with "HD", really are not getting an HD signal. Those with HD DVD or BR are the minority.
Cable and Satellite have compressed the HD signal, by as much as half, from some of the articles I have ran across. And, as edtyct pointed out, smaller displays really are not a true test of a formats limitations. Stretch SD and DVDs to 100+ inches and their short comings really start to become apparent. Now, I have to admit, some of the better recordings on DVD today do look pretty damn good and rival much of the "HD" content via satellite, but it is usually the exception, than the norm. And, as I pointed out earlier, it is not true HD. HD video does widen the distance between DVD and HD and this is when it becomes readily apparent that HD is the wave of the future. Just wish the format war had an immediate solution so that I could justify spending my hard earned cash on a player now. HDCP is really killing the sales efforts of HD players, IMO. Without good content, the best picture in the world is not going to entice me into spending a lot of money for it. Until the studios can be assured that they can protect the classics in their library, we are not going to see them. And that is not going to happen until HDCP is implemented IMO.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by westcott
I think most of us need to keep in mind that many of us with "HD", really are not getting an HD signal. Those with HD DVD or BR are the minority.
Cable and Satellite have compressed the HD signal, by as much as half, from some of the articles I have ran across. And, as edtyct pointed out, smaller displays really are not a true test of a formats limitations. Stretch SD and DVDs to 100+ inches and their short comings really start to become apparent. Now, I have to admit, some of the better recordings on DVD today do look pretty damn good and rival much of the "HD" content via satellite, but it is usually the exception, than the norm. And, as I pointed out earlier, it is not true HD. HD video does widen the distance between DVD and HD and this is when it becomes readily apparent that HD is the wave of the future. Just wish the format war had an immediate solution so that I could justify spending my hard earned cash on a player now. HDCP is really killing the sales efforts of HD players, IMO. Without good content, the best picture in the world is not going to entice me into spending a lot of money for it. Until the studios can be assured that they can protect the classics in their library, we are not going to see them. And that is not going to happen until HDCP is implemented IMO.
I agree with Westcott and Edtyct completely on this one!!!
-
I knew there was something special about Ed, thats why we call him Special Ed....lol
Good points Ed
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty Chalk
And I'm going to have to call reverse bullsh<a>it on that -- I get to watch nicely line-doubled DVD pretty much every weekend at a friend of mine's, and you cannot tell the difference between that and HD, unless it's a live feed such as Leno or ESPN. A well set up DVD system will compete with a HD system.
And I'll call a triple, double-stampsies, no-erasies...er...whatever.
A well set up DVD system like mine doesn't even compete with my equally well setup HD cable system. I've only got a 51" set. Any bigger and it's almost painful to go back to DVD. Especially once your start reaching 40 + inches in screen size. It's not even close and not debatable. We can pull all the deinterlacing line doubling upscaling enhancements off we want to - in my experience they remind me too much of audio DSP's destructive as much as constructive - it still not up to par. Not to mention the audio quality enhancement on the new formats...
Are you only comparing compressed HD cable broadcasts with DVD? I suppose if the services was terribly crappy, I could see it. Also, the majority of programming still isn't filmed, recorded, and broadcast in HD, it just plays on an HD channel. IE the less than stellar Seinfeld on Fox.
Put simply, play a typical movie scene inHD-DVD and DVD on the same set, and I could pick the 2 apart in seconds, 100% of the time. To me, it's far more noticeable than the differences in most audio formats. I'm not one make mountains out of molehills when it comes to differences in electronics, but this is just one area where the hype is true. Now, differences in 1080i vs 1080p - we're starting to hit diminishing returns aweful fast...
I've only seen HD on screens 32" or larger, but they've always been big fat improvements. Maybe on a 19" black and white screen we're splitting hairs - but...
Edit...by the way, you actually took the time to go and went out of your way to insert empty tags around the i in sh!t? You badass. :D
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
And I'll call a triple, double-stampsies, no-erasies...er...whatever.
A well set up DVD system like mine doesn't even compete with my equally well setup HD cable system. I've only got a 51" set. Any bigger and it's almost painful to go back to DVD. Especially once your start reaching 40 + inches in screen size. It's not even close and not debatable. We can pull all the deinterlacing line doubling upscaling enhancements off we want to - in my experience they remind me too much of audio DSP's destructive as much as constructive - it still not up to par. Not to mention the audio quality enhancement on the new formats...
Are you only comparing compressed HD cable broadcasts with DVD? I suppose if the services was terribly crappy, I could see it. Also, the majority of programming still isn't filmed, recorded, and broadcast in HD, it just plays on an HD channel. IE the less than stellar Seinfeld on Fox.
Put simply, play a typical movie scene inHD-DVD and DVD on the same set, and I could pick the 2 apart in seconds, 100% of the time. To me, it's far more noticeable than the differences in most audio formats. I'm not one make mountains out of molehills when it comes to differences in electronics, but this is just one area where the hype is true. Now, differences in 1080i vs 1080p - we're starting to hit diminishing returns aweful fast...
I've only seen HD on screens 32" or larger, but they've always been big fat improvements. Maybe on a 19" black and white screen we're splitting hairs - but...
Edit...by the way, you actually took the time to go and went out of your way to insert empty tags around the i in sh!t? You badass. :D
preach on Kex preach on!!!!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by edtyct
First of all, those of you who claim that high definition isn't much more resolved than "line doubled" standard definition either haven't seen much high definition (or high definition set up correctly), are watching small displays, are sitting far enough away from displays to make any questions of resolution otiose, or simply don't want it to be.
You're wrong. Visually, this is simply one of the finest HT setups I have ever seen. My friend has a background in television, and connections to the industry, so don't try to tell me he doesn't know what he's doing, he spends as much time tweaking his video system as the rest of us spend on our audio systems. The line-doubler is many years old at this point (ancient by the rate at which technology matures), but was a top-of-the-line jobber in its day -- I think he said it retailed for US$20K when new (that's of course not what he paid for it). Or maybe that was the projector...I forget...but it's really good and very film-like. Stuff like Finding Nemo is just exquisite, and when I was arguing about how badly Blade Runner looked, he pulled out his copy and made me watch the opening sequence, and I have to admit to not being able to see any artifacts. Setup is everything with these systems, and I'd put my friend's system up against any HD system any day.
Let's compare to CD -- CD is only just finally becoming mature as an audio format. Sure SACD and DVD-Audio are better, but most of us haven't heard what CD is capable of, and those of us who have, haven't until the last couple of years. I think the digital mastering technology is only finally hitting the ceiling, and it has yet to propagate to the entire market. And DVD is a less mature technology than CD.
I'm not saying HD isn't better, I'm just saying it's not far better. It'll be a while before I can afford a system (or that technology trickles down to the point where it's widely accessible) of the caliber I describe, and sure, HD will be a big improvement against most people's systems (if one includes laypeople) -- but that's not a fair comparison. Compare well setup against well setup, and I think you'll find that the differences are not as glaring as is being said.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by kexodusc
We can pull all the deinterlacing line doubling upscaling enhancements off we want to - in my experience they remind me too much of audio DSP's destructive as much as constructive - it still not up to par.
I would like to believe you'd rethink your position if you ever saw my friend's system. I agree that most people don't know what they're doing -- not this guy.
Quote:
Are you only comparing compressed HD cable broadcasts with DVD?
No, as I mentioned -- Leno and ESPN look exquisite -- and yes, they do look better than upscaled DVD. But it's more a function of the source material (think PCM-mastered SACDs) -- when comparing digitized film to digitized film (which is what most television shows are), then they look equally good (he has them on the same system, so they're both going through the same processors, except for the upscaler in the case of HD television). I'll ask him if he knows about the HD feeds being compressed -- I'm sure he does, we just haven't discussed it.
And we compared movie to movie -- it had to be something we had access to, for fair comparison's sake.
Quote:
Put simply, play a typical movie scene inHD-DVD and DVD on the same set, and I could pick the 2 apart in seconds, 100% of the time.
I guarantee you, you would falter on this system. I don't know if you're a goldeneyes, so I won't say you won't be able to tell the difference, but I couldn't. He could (I think), but he's happy with his system, so is willing to compromise. He's a long way off from needing to go high-def. (His only true high-def source is cable -- he doesn't have a player.)
Quote:
Edit...by the way, you actually took the time to go and went out of your way to insert empty tags around the i in sh!t? You badass. :D
Dude, it was three keystrokes. If I'm a badass, I'm a lazyass badass.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty Chalk
I would like to believe you'd rethink your position if you ever saw my friend's system. I agree that most people don't know what they're doing -- not this guy.No, as I mentioned -- Leno and ESPN look exquisite -- and yes, they do look better than upscaled DVD. But it's more a function of the source material (think PCM-mastered SACDs) -- when comparing digitized film to digitized film (which is what most television shows are), then they look equally good (he has them on the same system, so they're both going through the same processors, except for the upscaler in the case of HD television). I'll ask him if he knows about the HD feeds being compressed -- I'm sure he does, we just haven't discussed it.
And we compared movie to movie -- it had to be something we had access to, for fair comparison's sake.I guarantee you, you would falter on this system. I don't know if you're a goldeneyes, so I won't say you won't be able to tell the difference, but I couldn't. He could (I think), but he's happy with his system, so is willing to compromise. He's a long way off from needing to go high-def. (His only true high-def source is cable -- he doesn't have a player.)Dude, it was three keystrokes. If I'm a badass, I'm a lazyass badass.
Until such a time as I see this system, I'm remaining in disbelief. I've seen far too many examples of the opposite. If nothing else, it's easier to get a better picture for the vast majority using HD formats then. And if we suped up HD with double lines deinterlacing etc, etc, I'm sure it'd still be ahead.
I dunno. If Leno looks better, HD-DVD will make the DVD look broken. Leno and ESPN are not on par with an HD disc. You have me curious now though. What's he got for a system? And why isn't it catching on? Until it does, HD-DVD or BluRay remain more attractive options from my perspective.
-
No disrespect to you or your friend, or your sensibilities, but I'm of a different mind. But I also would never deny that viewing standard definition films under the right conditions can be a hugely rewarding experience--even in the HD era--especially those films rendered well, like Nemo. However, any video expert will tell you that animation has an advantage in its filmlike appearance over more demanding kinds of real-world material, but we'll leave that aside. Notwithstanding ties to the industry, and old line doublers, HD is measurably, and visibly, more of a window on the world than SD, except to those who go out of their way to scuttle it, either perceptually or conceptually. Fudging the difference by saying that it's better but "it's not far better" leaves the door wide open to anything and nothing. HD is simply as superior in performance to SD as the particular comparative and personal circumstances allow. I'll say it again: No champion of HD should have a gripe against anyone who is happy with SD in the HD age, however well s/he sets it up. It isn't a moral issue. If you say the gap isn't wide to you, I'm content to leave it at that (eventually, talking about video is a little like dancing about architecture); I, however, find no compelling reason to second the motion. But when the matter enters the realm of rigorous analysis (watching and measuring), apart from financial or other extraneous considerations, SD line-doubled, calibrated, and shown on the best equipment, even at ISF headquarters, is no match for the sharpness of genuine HD on a level playing field. And I'm well aware that SD has seen some absolutely exquisite DVD players (like the Accuphase, which doesn't even bother to offer scaling of its 480p feed). On the right display (not necessarily one costing an arm and a leg), at a proper distance, the eye could well be fooled into thinking that it's viewing HD, but changing the conditions a little could well put a stop to that.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by edtyct
Fudging the difference by saying that it's better but "it's not far better" leaves the door wide open to anything and nothing.
No it doesn't, it has a very specific meaning. It's meant to contradict those who say things like this:
Quote:
First of all, those of you who claim that high definition isn't much more resolved than "line doubled" standard definition either haven't seen much high definition (or high definition set up correctly), are watching small displays, are sitting far enough away from displays to make any questions of resolution otiose, or simply don't want it to be.
...or maybe to reinforce the opinion that yes, high definition isn't much more resolved than line-doubled/upscaled standard definition video. It's a matter of diminishing returns, like the same mastered recording on HDCD vs. redbook CD.
And why isn't it catching on? Because people are stupid.
No, seriously, it is catching on, but in a too-little-too-late fashion. For example, I have heard good things about this upscaler, but CRTs are going out (his projector is a CRT projector).
|