|
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
|
Author
|
Topic: The Laserdisc Appreciation Thread
|
Evans A Criswell
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1579
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 07-20-2005 01:13 PM
I still have 2 LD players but they seldom get used. I transferred many LDs to DVD just to preserve the material in case the players break. I do not agree that LD looks better than DVD. LD was composite and had the evil mixing of the chrominance into the higher frequencies of the luminance, which DVD does not have, unless the source it came from was that way. The chrominance bandwidth was small (0.6 MHz) compared to DVDs done properly (how many TVs can actually decode wideband I, and how many LDs actually had wideband 1.5 MHz I, something that was abandoned long ago in TV receivers anyway for composite decoding?), and you're forgetting no anamorphic encoding to give that extra vertical resolution on letterboxed wisescreen movies. LD also suffered from time-base errors.
Yes, LD was great for its time, but once the studios learned to make good anamorphically-encoded discs with minimal visible compression artifacts, and component cables became the standard way to hook DVD players to TVs (allowing the full color bandwidth of DVD (half the luminance bandwitdh in both the horizontal and vertical directions, but still way higher than 0.6 MHz), and conversion to 480p began being done in the digital domain in the players, DVD became clearly superior.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-21-2005 08:19 AM
I've got about 200 and am looking to get another player, possibly two lest 5, 10 years down the road my player dies (NO ONE can fix these things, not even Pioneer's owned and operated Service Center when it was out in NJ). So you'd better have a spare if you like LDs and want to be able to play your collection.
I am not sure I agree in practice about Evans assesment. In theory you may be right, but I have seen some LD versions that look demonstrably better than the DVD counterpart. CAROUSEL, for example has a very artificial, enhanced look on DVD, while the LDs has more of a "film look." I know it's difficult to explain how this happens other than the variance in the quality of the transfers, but it does happen. And I agree, LD sound can blow DVD away on certain discs. BTW, the DVD of CAROUSEL for some strange reason is letterboxed more extreme than the LD. You are correct in that DVDs move to anamorphic compression is a real advantage. I wish they did it in ALL DVD scope releases. Fact is, anamorphic DVDs are few and far between.
Then there is the pixilation from Hell on DVD. How is it no one goes crazy looking at this abomination? When I bought my first top-of-the-line Pioneer player (DTS, SRD decoding built in), the first disk I poped in was 2001. I couldn't believe what I saw. In ever fade in and fade out (of which there are many in the first 20 minutes), the DVD could not resolve the gray scale necessary to have a smooth fade-to-black or fade-from-black. The second the fade begins, you see millions of blocks of different shades of black, not one smooth fade. WTF?!!!! It is so bad that I assumed it had to be my player so I brought it to a friends house and sure enough, there it was a DVD, possibly even the format itself, which simply didn't have enough resolution to do a smooth fade. I see it now in dozens of other DVDs. Ever watch EYES WIDE SHUT? Take a good look at all the dancing blocks of various shades of black in Tom Cruse's tux. Is this inherent in the DVD format (and if so, is this a case of the emperor has no cloths?) or is is just atrocious, inferior DVD production? And if it is, shouldn't you be able to walk right back into the store and demand your money back or a DVD that doesn't have the defect?
So what's this claim of DVD's 2 BILLION colors it proports to be able to show? Yah, 2 billion colors, but they can only be displayed in big blocks the size you can see sitting 20 feet from the screen. It's so disgusting that I will not play 2001 in my home theatre. I use the LD copy which I purchased as an import from Japan because at the time, our half-wit American decision-makers saw fit to offer ONLY a pan/scan release in the US. So I also had to buy a charater generation so mask off the Japanese subtitles which luckily were below the image (thanks so much, MGM Home Video). BTW, the Japanese artwork and triple sleeve ablum was much more elaborate than the American counterpart. Of course it cost me a fortune, but it was worth it. And this 2001 LD CAN resolve the fades, it HAS no video artifacts in the DVD and like I see in DVDs all the time.
How come I've never heard any complaint about this pixilation crap before? Surely it bothers SOMEONE besides me, no?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bruce Hansen
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 847
From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-21-2005 01:40 PM
Compression = CRAP. There is a max. data rate on DVD, and when the entire picture changes at once, such as in a fade to black, there is just not enough data bandwidth to encode the change. MPEG2 works using "macro blocks". The picture is dived into blocks, and the pixels in a block are defined as change values within that block. As more compression is needed, the change values within a block are reduced further and further. If there is a lot of motion, or a lot of moving detail, such as in a fade to black, the change values may have to be all reduced to zero within each macro block, so the entire block is just one value (brightness and color). This makes the blocks very visible. Even with variable rate incodeing, there is still a max data rate of 10 Megs. Note that the uncompressed data rate for NTSC video is around 170 Megs.
I know what you are talking about, Evans, but I still say that in over all quality, LD puts DVD to shame. The picture from a DVD looks "less real" due to the effects of compression getting rid of some of the slight changes in color and brightness, in order to make the stuff fit on the disc.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Andy Summers
Master Film Handler
Posts: 397
From: Bournemouth Dorset United kingdom
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 07-21-2005 01:54 PM
Did you know the DVD version of “2001: A Space Odyssey” as what I will call a major sound fault, oh yeah the re-mix of it is crap those vulture sound mixers have re-positioned the dialogue panning.
That real pissed me off, as well as “Top Gun” Special edition; there was a right channel dialogue pan that was removed.
“Star Trek the motion picture” directors cut, had some sound effects removed where Captain Kirk knocks his knuckle gentle down on a table, this is on chapter 24 I think, from the English version but not the German version, god dame foreign films….
“Lawrence of Arabia” has got a music bodge where Lawrence walks on-top of the train carriage, oh but the German version for the music sounds ok, check this out….
“Alien” directors cut all the sound mix on this is now starting to really fucking piss me off, we are all consumers, well thank goodness I still have the first edition DVD and the CAV laserdisc…
A&B Alien first edition and the new version directors cut, that’s only fit for clay pigeon shooting.
PULL….
BANG!!!!!
Get the picture, guys….
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evans A Criswell
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1579
From: Huntsville, AL, USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 07-21-2005 02:58 PM
Frank, I have seen blocking and artifacting on DVDs and agre that some of the discs (especially the early ones from 1997 and 1998) did have terrible compression artifacts. The early Crying Game DVD, and the Hunt for Red October were especially horrible.
A Laserdisc transfer of a high quality source will look better than a DVD transfer from a lousy source, or a DVD with the compression done poorly. However, a properly-done DVD will beat the quality of a Laserdisc easily.
I was used to viewing DVDs on my TV using the same setting used to view other media, and I quickly found that not setting the sharpness properly (having it too high) really makes the compression artifacts stand out, because false edge enhancement is being added to the compression artifacts, which are themselves , false high-frequency ripples. Set the sharpness to the point where it gives a flat frequency response and the artifacts are nowhere nearly as noticeable. As for the blockiness in dark areas, it is noticeable sometimes, but is much more noticeable if the black level on the monitor is turned up too high.
Frank, I've watched tons of DVDs and have never noticed artifacts to the degree you mention. I have a 57-inch rear-projection widescreen (the kind with 3 CRTs), which scales everything up to 1080i or 540p, whichever I choose, and most DVDs look amazing. The black-level is set so that black is black, and I seldom notice the "black and dark gray blockiness".
Laserdisc looks good, but for a widescreen movie, there are only 360 lines being magnified up to the screen height as opposed to 480 for anamorphic DVD. If a DVD is mastered well from a digital source or high-quality film source, an LD cannot touch it in terms of video quality. A letterboxed LD of a movie, when compared to a well-done anamorphic DVD of the same movie, usually looks noticably unsharp and the colors usually seem muted in comparison to the DVD.
HOWEVER, its is very possible that an LD of a TV show that was videotaped using Quadruplex or Type C, or some other "direct color" videotape format could look better than a DVD from the same material, because the DVD would not be able to give more resolution than the source, and the DVD would require separating the luminance and chrominance for encoding, while the LD would encode the original composite signal directly. The DVD would lose half the color information in the vertical direction, while the Laserdisc would not. The DVD would have the 600 KHz color limitation in the horizontal because of the source, just like the LD would. So for TV shows originating on "direct color" videotape formats, an LD with good time-base correction could easily win.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joe Redifer
You need a beating today
Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99
|
posted 07-21-2005 05:27 PM
Yes, DVD does have a maximum bit rate. It is 9mbps and that is just for the video alone. You will never see any noticeable artifacting on fades or dissolves when the bit rate is this high. 2001 might be a single layer DVD, and probably runs at 2 to 3mbps for the entire movie. Or is that one of those movies that is like 9 hours long (or just feels like it)? Either way, I'm sure the bit rate is excessively low. I have always hated Stanley Kubrick and I hope that the maggots are enjoying his flesh and that he is burning in hell. Also, if you love bad movies so much that you just had to import it from Japan, there is no need for a generator to mask off the Japanese subtitles. Just use the zoom mode on your widescreen TV and it'll fill the whole thing... that is if it is in flat. It's 2001, so you should just throw it away and maybe even urinate on it for good measure.
I used to be a big LaserDisc fan, but all of the LaserDiscs that I have ever watched have been really noisy. Pisses me off. And in widescreen they look like ass due to the inferior resolution. Plus LaserDiscs are composite by nature! Even Super VHS is better! How lame! If you like dot crawl, poor color bandwidth and things that look like crap, you'll LOVE LaserDisc!
| IP: Logged
|
|
Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug
Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 07-21-2005 07:03 PM
quote: Joe Redifer
It's 2001, so you should just throw it away and maybe even urinate on it for good measure.
I certainly agree with that. That has to be the most boring and stupit film ever made. I have yet been able to stay awake thru the whole thing...including the 1968 70mm opening. Yucky Poo Poo!
quote: Joe Redifer
I have always hated Stanley Kubrick and I hope that the maggots are enjoying his flesh and that he is burning in hell.
Joe, Joe, Joey. WTF are you smokin'? And to think I always respected you... not only as a moderator, a talented artist/animator, and an overall "nice person" but as a wise and smart person as well. I was proud to brag to my friends that I knew *Joe Redifer* and he was my friend.
But, when I see dumbass, stupit, heartless, and un-enlightened comments like the above, it seems like I'll have to re-evaluate my idol and hero criteria.
While Kubrick certainly has had his share of POS films like "2001", "Full Metal Jacket", and "Barry Lyndon", he has had many hits and classics like "Lolita" and "Spartacus" for example.
...AND to mention my 2 favorite "hits": "Eyes Wide Shut" and "A Clockwork Orange".
I'm ***VERY*** disappointed, Joe. Very disappointed.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank Angel
Film God
Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-22-2005 09:23 AM
Oh come on guys, bashing 2001? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) My first experience of it was in single-lens Super Panavision 70. I also saw it in three strip Cinerama, and yah, I admit I was a very impressionable kid, and yah, someone MAY have passed a joint to me, and granted, I may be a generation or two away from your guys and you may have evaluate what's a great movie a little differently than us older guys do, but even still, how could anyone who claims they love movies NOT be awed by this film? Ah, the perils of the MTV generation where every shot needs to be less than 3 seconds long or you get bored or if something is more compilcated that a linear story-line like LEGALLY BLOND. Even if you measure it against today's CGI stuff, it still beautifully holds its own, and IMHO, it has a "real" quality that none of that computer crap can even hope to come close to. And it is so visually intense -- it is able to convey ideas with nary more than a few pages of dialogue. It is multi-layered; it is both an epic and an extremely personal vision at the same time, something that is rarely acheived. It's totally original and unique -- you don't see it mimic anything that has gone before it. Even a good deal of the technology to put it on the screen was literally invented by Trumbull and Kubrick. There is nothing predictable as it unfolds before you.
2001 is one of those milestone leaps in filmmaking which set a new benchmark that others needed to meet. There wouldn't be a STAR WARS if there wasn't a 2001. It propelled the art to new heights.
Over the years I've run it for at least five engagements (all change-over) probably for a total of 15 times, and I have seen it as a patron at least five. I can tell you, I never tire of it. How can you NOT be awed by the scope of this epic work? Of course if you insist on using fast-pace speed as the measuring rod by which you judge quality, then I admit, 2001 isn't for you, and I leave you to revel in all that is special about THE PUKES OF HAZARD. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 8 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic