Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Why use DLP?

This is topic Why use DLP? in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=000146

Posted by Nick Catalano (Member # 1296) on 05-27-2002, 04:54 PM:

A) This is my first post ever on this forum. My name is Nick Catalano, I am 15 and live in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. I have done a bit of research into the film/movie market (I would love to own a theatre someday, or at least make films) when I find the time, and I figured this would be the logical next step. I hope to make meaningful contributions to these forums.

B) There is so much talk about studio's installing TI's DLP projectors into their theatres. I have to ask, WHY??? Why not go with the solid-state D-ILA from JVC (which, btw, can support the full 1080p res and will soon have QUXGA res (4K by 2K) which is getting very close to film-quality res. Intstead you are using millions of tiny mirrors with large gaps between the mirrors (which means less gets reflected) at a lower res than true 1080p.

Correct me if I am wrong, but what is the big deal going with TI when JVC requires less light and provides a larger res?

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-27-2002, 06:15 PM:

Nick, welcome. There's a lot of discussion about the deficiencies of DLP -- search around here, you will find many opinions (mostly negative).

Like you, many (most?) film-techers are wondering the same thing. Why such a big rush? I'm far from an expert, but from what I've read, I think the reasons include: 1) TI-based 1280x1024 DLP systems are available now; 2) They more or less work; 3) The DLP proponents want to seed the market with as many units as possible to establish DLP as the benchmark and beat the competition; 4) It seems as though theaters are not paying for the DLP hardware -- they may be getting DLP for free right now or at least they are heavily subsidized for being early adopters. This goes back to seeding the market. 5) And of course the proponents say DLP & 1280x1024 is "good enough" and there's no need for higher resolution.

Have you read about Kodak's digital system? It's D-ILA and seems to have a lot of promise: Kodak Digital

Posted by Nick Catalano (Member # 1296) on 05-27-2002, 06:44 PM:

From that Kodak Site:
We believe there are significant advantages for originating on film today in terms of image quality, creative latitude, and [b]archivability[b]

Hmm, if there are higher res telecline machines wouldn't it be best to store the film digitally so there is little chance of the film degrading? Figure 6000K Silver Atoms, doesn't seem like it would be that hard to get all of that into digital form for long-term storage.

------------------
- Nick Catalano

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-27-2002, 06:44 PM:

Kodak is deveoping a cinema system using the D ILA technology

Posted by Dennis Atkinson (Member # 345) on 05-27-2002, 06:57 PM:

The Library of Congress is running out of room because it now has to keep the associated hardware with the media.
Film has not changed very much, video has quite a bit over its life.
What format can you store a movie on that you can guarentee will be usuable in 10-50 years? Remember when 5 1/4" floppies were advanced?

Dennis

Posted by Nick Catalano (Member # 1296) on 05-27-2002, 07:06 PM:

In digital form it is either on or off, a 1 or a 0. That can be transfered to any new storage medium that supports binary code (and until quantum computing all there will be is a 1 or a 0).

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-27-2002, 07:21 PM:

Already some digital media has no reproducing equipment in good repair

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-27-2002, 07:49 PM:

"Already some digital media has no reproducing equipment in good repair"

This is a long-term major problem for all digital archiving including films.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-27-2002, 08:00 PM:

There are several issues associated with digital storage. The first is the physical storage of bits. While we could, in theory, chisel 1's and 0's into stone tablets, this is simply not practical for real-world applications, due to the quantity of data required. Instead, we must use a more "standard" type of digital storage media, all of which have significant flaws in and of themselves (magnetic tape can get erased, optical disks can get damaged easily through poor handling, etc.).

Even if a physical storage medium carrying digital data survives over time without damage, it remains essentially useless without a) hardware to read it and b) documentation of the file format of its contents. One of the disadvantages of the rapid advances in computer technology is that hardware becomes obsolete very quickly, including storage devices. Think about how hard it would be to find something to read 8" floppy disks (a common format 20 years ago); this should give some idea of how hard it might be to find a DLT drive in twenty years.

The file format issue is also critical, since digital data will still be useless without the knowledge needed to write software which is capable of interpreting the data and turning it into pictures, sound, etc. This is why the use of proprietary (and, almost by definition, undocumented) file formats and, worse, encryption schemes to store information of long-term significance (e.g. movies, photographs, music, etc.) scares me. It's safe to assume that whatever hardware and software is being used to encode the data will not exist in the medium-term future (20 years or so), and we will need both talented programmers and file-format documentation in order to make any sense out of whatever digital data may survive from the present time. These data will then need to be converted to suit whatever type of display device is in use in the future; conversion often causes degredation in digital images, and will definitely cause degradation if lossy compression techniques are used at any stage.

All of these issues are serious and are mostly avoided by using standard 16mm and 35mm film formats. The format is essentially self-documenting (you can hold it up to a light source and see an image; an optical soundtrack is a depiction of the sound waveform) and the guages have been standardized for years (and won't change anytime soon). Further, it is very simple to convert film to nearly any display or storage format which might be needed in the future, with minimal quality loss. Film also has the advantage that it degrades slowly in easily identifiable stages, so that, with care (a big assumption, admittedly), it can be preserved before it is lost completely. By contrast, most digital formats will degrade suddenly and go straight from giving great quality to a complete loss of information.

No matter what happens with DLP on the exhibition side, I sincerely hope that filmmakers and photographers have the foresight to preserve physical copies of their work on film for the long-term future, as it is the only format which has proven itself to be recoverable a full century after it was produced. Contrast this with the many reels of 7-track and 9-track computer tape of data which NASA collected in the 1960s and 1970s which are all but unusable today due to either tape degradation or (more significantly) the lack of hardware and software capable of reading the data stored on them. The same situation exists with 2" quad videotape--a common format through the 1970s--which is very difficulat and expensive to view today on the limited number of machines which still exist in working order.

Maybe John P. can give some insight on the long-term storage characteristics of film. The good thing is that most of the major historical issues with film storage (nitrate decomposition, vinegar syndrome, and color fading) seem to have been significantly reduced in the current generation of film stocks.

Note that I'm saying all this as one who works with computers and data storage on a daily basis. I do attempt to ensure long-term data stability by using standard tape formats (dump and tar, mostly), standard physical media with a history of long-term (which, in the computer industry, generally means more than a year or two) storage ability (DLT tape), and regularly attempting to read older tapes to ensure readability. Having said that, I'd be amazed if tonight's backup tapes will be readable in ten years.

Posted by Nick Catalano (Member # 1296) on 05-27-2002, 08:14 PM:

This isn't tape storage, this is solid state storage for long-term reliability. Storing these movies on tapes would be more foolish than storing them on tape. Storing them on pressed CDs or DVDs with seprate disks of parity to ensure long term reliability would be best.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 05-27-2002, 09:01 PM:

But will we have CD or DVD drives in twenty years? In fifty? And even if the physical medium survives and the bits are readable, what about file format issues and conversion loss?

The digital-storage proponents like to perpetuate a lovely myth that as long as someone makes bit-for-bit copies of the recording every few years, digital storage is "perfect." The problem is that a) this doesn't happen (look at all the nitrate film that we still have that has yet to be preserved--and that is a format which has not been manufactured for fifty years) and b) file formats change and information is almost always lost (or new information is artifically introduced) in the conversion.

No, film isn't perfect, but it is a mature format which has a proven record of archival stability under a wide range of conditions. Note that I'm not saying that we _shouldn't_ store films and photographs electronically _in_ _addition_ to storing the film, just that this should be considered a supplement and not a replacement for film storage.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 05-27-2002, 09:12 PM:

The problem of disappearing playback hardware is one that is often cited but really seems rather silly. If you have a library of thousands of reels of 9-track tape then obviously you must keep a 9-track drive in good repair. As you gradually begin to notice that this is becoming difficult to do then it's time to migrate the data to a newer medium. Yes, a big and expensive job but at least the data remains perfect (at least as long as you can read the tapes) unlike, say, copying nitrate to safety. If the job is too huge and too expensive then there is reason to keep the old 9-track drive working, even if it means custom made parts. It's not like the technology itself has disappeared.

That said, I do question the longevity of CD-R's given their dye-based technology. I've toyed with the idea of someday, once I've accumulated a vast number of digital photographs, having someone write them out to 35mm film, either color negative (subject to fading but at a very low and predictable rate) or B&W color separations.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 05-27-2002, 09:14 PM:

Welcome aboard, Nick.

Posted by Nick Catalano (Member # 1296) on 05-27-2002, 09:16 PM:

When the technology allows us to store film-quality reproductions, a standard can be created and kept to. As technology improves this standard can evolve.

I dunno, it isn't a top priority in my life to change the way film is archived.

Posted by David Rowley (Member # 1202) on 05-27-2002, 09:30 PM:

quote:
The problem of disappearing playback hardware is one that is often cited but really seems rather silly.

Every major library I've ever been into still uses microfiche.

quote:
That said, I do question the longevity of CD-R's given their dye-based technology.

Longevity of CD-Rs vary greatly, depending on the media and activation energy used. According to Kodak http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/digital/cdr/tech/lifetime.jhtml , their Kodak Ultima media, with 2.10 eV activation energy will last more than 5000 years. Even if they are off by a factor of 10, that should be long enough. Typical dye CD-R media on a typical recorder will only last 2 to 10 years. I wouldn't put anything important on cheap CD-Rs.

Printed CDs will last about as long as the disc itself stays whole. They don't degrade the same way that CD-Rs do...

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-27-2002, 11:30 PM:

Here's my take on the archival issue, approaching it from a computer graphic artists' view:

Not only are there many storage formats to use (all with their advantages and disadvantages --and reliability problems on long term storage and data recovery), but then you have consider HOW the data will be stored.

For instance, there's lots of stock image banks like Corbis, PhotoDisc and others. They all have their opinions on what is an appropriate resolution for "high res" archival quality. There are differences in opinion on what image res is good enough. Some think 2K is just fine while others like myself point out a 35mm 4-perf frame can hold over 12 million pixels of real image detail. How far do you go in devoting data space per frame for archival?

On top of that, you have other issues in how the film image is digitally aquired. Some archival places prefer to make a well balanced high res drum scan and then do nothing to the image. Others may want to "correct" the color or adjust sharpness, etc.

Anyway, the whole business of digitally archiving films opens up many cans worms, to use an old cliché. Many people, including myself, believe the film stock itself is the real piece of archival media.

Decades from now the original data tapes of "Star Wars: AOTC" may be lost. To counter, some analog 70mm film prints of other movies like "2001" may be in good condition and able to be used for some super high res home video format of that age. I think Hollywood should be shooting its movies on VistaVision and 70mm film formats if they truly want to future proof their product for much more highly advanced formats of home digital entertainment.

Posted by Nick Catalano (Member # 1296) on 05-28-2002, 12:28 AM:

In all honesty when I start making films I would love to do it all 70mm, but if there is a digital alternative that provides better quality, then I will go with that. Film just costs too much.

AOTC costs $18,000 in tapes, it would have cost something like $3.2 million (or was it 6.2) if they shot it in film.

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 05-28-2002, 12:34 AM:

You get what you pay for.

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 05-28-2002, 12:46 AM:

...the cost of film stock is the cheapest aspect in any Hollywood production.

Consider that AOTC cost $US120M to make WITHOUT film. So what if they saved $US2M?

Kenneth Branaugh's 'Hamlet' was filmed and released in 70MM and the budget was $US18M!!!!!!!!

...and which do you suppose might look better?

BTW, welcome to Film-Tech...

Posted by John Hazelton (Member # 898) on 05-28-2002, 02:52 PM:

Nick asked why DLP instead of D-ILA. I don't know if you've been able to do an A/B with both systems. At the moment, to my eyes, the DLP has a much better looking picture. Better contrast ratio, truer color rendition, blacker blacks (or should I say blacker greys?).

There are newer D-ILA based projectors out there, but I haven't been able to compare them side-by-side. I'd love to check the Kodak system, but for some reason you have to go to Rochester to see it. TI is also rumored to have an HD resolution chip in the works.

Personally, I don't care which technology gets used, as long as it looks great.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-28-2002, 07:13 PM:

A 6000:1 contrast ratio (or whatever term the marketing people invent) does nothing for creating real image detail. A DLP image, like it or not is never more than 1280 x 1024 pixels --if even that when you consider the cropping of a 2.35:1 frame.

I'm sorry, but I chuckle at folks blowing $7,000 to $20,000 on flat screen TVs thinking they've got the best possible thing when they only deliver at best a little over 50% of a 1080i HDTV image. That's DLP for you. Impressive contrast ratio, whatever that means. Native pixels however --the low number sucks much ass.

As to an earlier comment about "a better digital alternative to film" --there is none. At least not from a standpoint of image quality. 5-perf 65mm/70mm is the highest reference standard of any theatrical exhibition process (not including special venue, which is mostly even larger formats of 70mm). Anything digital sucks compared to 70mm. When a videotape process and digital projection system is invented which can show at least 4,000 X 9,000 native pixels of real data, then we can talk about there being a real digital alternative to 5/70. Until then 70mm is the highest quality thing going even though it is icky analog.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 05-29-2002, 06:55 AM:

A practical test for "contrast ratio" is to try to cast a shadow on the screen when the projector is projecting "black". The more complex the optical system, the more likely there will be contrast-reducing stray light, and a clearly defined shadow able to be cast in the areas of the image that are supposed to be truly black. The "blackness of space" should not be dark gray!

A release print made with KODAK VISION Premier Color Print Film 2393 from a well exposed negative can have black densities well above 4.0, or over a 10,000:1 brightness range on the print itself:
http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/motion/products/curves/2393Char.pdf

Standard SMPTE 196M specifies "Screen luminance due to stray light shall be less than 0.16% (600:1 theater screen contrast ratio) for review rooms and primary theaters. For all other theaters, the luminance due to stray light shall be less than 0.25% (400:1) theatre screen contrast ratio)." So stray light from the projection optics and port glass, as well as the ambient light in the theatre, tend to reduce the contrast ratio considerably from that available on the film itself:
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/newsletters/reel/december99/pytlak.shtml

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 09-23-2002, 02:37 AM:

I have not heard hardly a "peep" out of the DLP technology since EP-2 died. (Good riddance, George)

Did the engineers decide it was a POS, or are they licking their wounds?

Just curious....

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-23-2002, 03:22 AM:

I remember reading an article a couple of years ago about the NASA tape library which is a good case in point re: digital storage media. is at NASA where alot of the Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury digital archive is no longer playable due to either tapes going bad on them or lack of the older equipment to be able to play them back. Much satelite data is in the same state. Most of these are telemetry type archives but never the less they have deteriorated to a point that they are no longer useful. NASA kept these in archival storage through the years but to no avail. Early mag tape is just too touchy plus the obsolescence of equipment is also a big problem. This same thing could also happen to large Hollywood productions done digitally. Even if stored on optical digital disk no one really knows the true lifespan of these either. I don't think there is a permanent storage system yet devised for digital data...... Also in 75 years time will the drives and equipment still be around to play them back?
Mark

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-23-2002, 05:45 AM:

Hasn't anyone in the industry learned anything from history? Basically that we rarely get reliable information about the longevity of storage media until you actually get there; i.e., as much as you think you can predict to a scientific certainty what a physical entity will do 50 years down the road (or even 10), you don't REALLY know its reactions until you've had it stored in a closet that length of time. Who knew what nitrate and later acetate would do 20 years out (VS), or what emulsion dyes would do 10 years out (fade to magenta)? And remember the claims that Laserdiscs would remain pristine FOREVER...."forever" being about 5 years before laser-rot set it obliterating the visual and aural information? Seems the physical world isn't as stable as we would have hoped. And the possibility, or perhaps even the probability, that digital storage may face the same long-term problems should be obvious to anyone who takes a moment to ponder the real world.

Frank

PS -- Ever try to play a 2 inch quad video tape recorded only as short a time ago as the 60s? Good luck.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 09-23-2002, 09:14 AM:

Although film is certainly not perfect, it does have an established "track record", with countless examples that have "stood the test of time". Procedures for proper processing, storage, and restoration are well-established and understood, if not always followed.

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 09-23-2002, 01:16 PM:

Frank, your comment about the Laser-disk is interesting. Do you think the same will happen with CD/DVD's or is the medium a different material?

Could you expand on what "Laser-rot" is?

Thanks
Paul

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 09-23-2002, 01:26 PM:

>>Could you expand on what "Laser-rot" is?<<

It is caused by corrosion of the aluminum data surface of the disc, usually making the disc unplayable. Here is a site with a good picture of a CD with Laser Rot: http://www.rdrop.com/~half/General/CDRot/CDRot.html

I have read reports of it affecting DVDs as well.

-Aaron

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-23-2002, 01:35 PM:

With regard to 12" LaserDiscs, I think the term "laser-rot" refers to a phenomenon where the layers of the disc are not properly sealed air-tight during manufacturing. Air or humidity seeps in and causes corrosion of the aluminum center layer that contains the laser "pits". At least that's what I read somewhere.

CDs and DVDs are less-susceptible to laser-rot due to their small size and surface area, reduced tendency to warp, and improved mfg. techniques. But they're not immune.

[oops - I got pulled away from the computer in the middle of writing my post, came back and finished, then discovered Aaron had already answered the question]

Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 09-23-2002, 02:59 PM:

About the laser rot concerns: I have 60 to 70 12" Laserdiscs and haven't come across any that show signs of "rotting" that people have reported, and have over 2000 CDs and have not come across any that have deteriorated or won't play. Have I just been lucky?

Evans

------------------
Evans A Criswell
Huntsville-Decatur Movie Theatre Information Site

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 09-23-2002, 03:08 PM:

Early 12" Laserdiscs were more susceptible to laser rot. Like the Disco-Vision ones (love that name). I've seen it many times. In fact my Joe Kane A/V calibration disc developed laser-rot.

Although it's claimed that CDs and DVDs can also "rot", I've never run into one that wouldn't play because of it. I have the very first issue of the Springsteen "Born To Run" CD (circa 1982?), which still plays fine. Most of my CD collection was purchased before about 1990, and they all still play OK. CDs and DVDs might be more likely to conceal a minor "rot" problem with their digital error correction, but even a minor "rot" problem will be easily discernible in the analog video output of a LaserDisc.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 09-23-2002, 04:48 PM:

Depends on who did the pressing--some pressing facilities were worse than others in this regard. Out of the 200 or so LDs that I have, about 10 of them are showing signs of rot, with two of them unplayable now on some tracks. Old posts on the LD usegroups identified the bad plants.

Also the type of plastic used in LDs was hygroscopic--it absorbed moisture! The plastic used in CDs and DVDs is different and doesn't have this characteristic.

Paul

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-23-2002, 05:40 PM:

I have a number of DVDs that have "rotted". I left my digital camera at the office, so I cannot immediately post a photo of what my DVDs of "American Beauty" or "The Crow" look like. But they are rotted in a strange way. It appears the dual data layers have separated around the edge of the disc. This milky looking stuff is all around the edge under the plastic. My DVD of "Three Kings" has become unplayable even though I cannot find any visible flaws to the disc.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 09-23-2002, 08:27 PM:

Bobby, how long did it take for your DVD's to "rot?"

I was not aware of this happening. Now that I am aware of it, I am somewhat shocked! Luckly, I don't have that large of a collection, and just by the sound of things, it is not going to get much larger.

Back to S-VHS and the best quality of tape for me....

I wonder if this was a "known problem" with the disks. I am glad this thread came back to life. Maybe we found something out that was not supposed be generally known.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-23-2002, 10:55 PM:

I had my copy of the Awards Edition of "American Beauty" since it was first released on DVD (wasn't that the fall of 2000?). The disc became unplayable by the end of 2001. I've had my copy of "The Crow" for less time than that. Same goes for "Three Kings".

In the case of "American Beauty", I just went over to Wal-Mart and got another copy for $14. Universal offered to replace the thing, but I didn't feel like waiting 4 months for the trade. I may send my copy of "The Crow" in for a replacement movie disc since I can't simply buy another 2 disc set for real cheap.

The thing that really worries me about all this rot is other DVDs in my collection now out of print rotting. I'll be really upset if my Criterion "Robocop" DVD rots. Same goes for my 2 disc DTS DVD version of "Dances With Wolves". The 2 disc version of "Fight Club" is being phased out and replaced with a single disc pan and scan version.

I suspect some DVD replication plants getting cheap on their materials or quality control procedures. Even if my DVD costs less than an ordinary music CD to purchase, I still want the thing to last as long as the CDs in my collection.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 09-24-2002, 01:53 AM:

Here is a comparison of two DVD's in my collection. One was "Tora Tora Tora!", and the other was "The Rock."

I suspect "The Rock" will have a difficult time playing the final chapter, but I have not tried it yet.

Check this out:

Bobby said:

quote:
"I suspect some DVD replication plants getting cheap on their materials or quality control procedures."

...And Paul Mayer said:

quote:
"Depends on who did the pressing--some pressing facilities were worse than others in this regard."

Gentlemen, I believe you both are right on target.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-24-2002, 04:21 AM:

I have some cds that were purchased in the mid 80's that won't play in normal cd players any more, but FORTUNATELY will still read good enough on my cdrom drive in my computer. So a dime later I have a copy that will last another few years. CD audio is easy to backup (even though it's a nuisance that none of us should have to do to save our collection from "rot"), but what about DVDs? Is there an anti-copy scheme that prevents a computer from burning an identical copy? I'm betting there is.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-24-2002, 07:16 AM:

Good question, Brad. And that leads to the other side of the coin, that being the format. I have a large collection of Laserdisc, starting from the first Disco-Vision releases (yes, they were on coke when they dreamed up that name) through to the last available titles a few years ago and I have gone through 4 players, from the very first Pioneer Model 1000 to the last Panasonic Prism model. If that player dies (given the rather wanting longevity of the earlier models, it certainly will), what do I play this extensive library on? Do I have to replace the entire library? Even within the history of Laserdiscs, I have already replaced the same titles two and three times -- first to replace the ones that rotted, then to get the letterbox versions instead of P&S, then to get the digital sound versions, then to get the THX Mastered versions. Now I may have to buy DVD versions? It certainly would seem that 20th Century Fox has sucked out way beyone its rightful share of royalties out of me for my fifth purchase of SOUND OF MUSIC to even THINK about copy protecting the DVD I will have to buy to get DTS or Dolby Digital sound.

And as far as never seeing any problems with CDs -- I have hundreds of them and so far see no major problems, but then again, perhaps that is because the consumer players don't have digital quality numbers in the display like they do on Dolby Digital Cinema processors; we might not be so content with their stability if we could see that CDs which started off playing at 7-9 are now playing at 3-4.

Frank

PS -- Just an aside: the reason why I had to replace the Pioneer players each time was because once they crashed, even the Pioneer owned and operated repair center out in NJ couldn't repair them. My second model was kept for 6 months until they finally just said, we have to send you a new replace, but only a model LOWER on the quality level because the newer ones had features my broken one didn't, and, gee, they couldn't replace it with a "better" model.

So even when that format was in its prime, the technology was so dense that the manufacturer itself couldn't deal with repairing it. Imagine that scenario once the technology has been obsolete for a decade or two.

Even if the medium itself hasn't degraded, what about the equipment needed to retrieve it? When I realized the predicament I would be facing 10 years from now with my Laserdisc library and a player that might die before I do, I though, I'd better buy a second player and just keep it in storage until the current one crashes. To late -- no more new players to be bought any longer.

I doubt that will ever happen with CDs or DVDs because of their penetration of the planet (Laserdiscs never caught on in any major way), but the stability issues still remain to be seen.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-24-2002, 10:10 PM:

Remember the RCA Selectavision format? 12" discs in cartridges that were played with a record player like stylus. My Aunt Patricia has a couple of those players (don't know if they still work at all) and at least 300 or 400 discs --including movies like the "Star Wars" trilogy, which can never seem to get on DVD).

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 09-25-2002, 12:10 AM:

Bobby: Here is a great CED format site:
http://www.cedmagic.com/selectavision.html

-Aaron

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 09-25-2002, 01:01 AM:

My friend came across a few Selectovision discs at Goodwill for $0.50 each. (Firestarter and a couple others). I also vaguely remember a hotel resort we stayed at in the 80's that had a player in every villa, and you could rent the discs from the front desk. Funky technology!

=TMP=

Posted by Justin McLeod (Member # 1329) on 09-25-2002, 01:42 AM:

I have only one Lazer Disc ( out of 100 ) that has what I think to be Laser rot.My Jonny Neumonic <---can't spell it( may that movie rest in peace, it was a rotten movie.I got it for free from a laser disc store. Their are alot of video distortions on the disc where none were evident when I first got it.All of my other laser disc's seem to be in great shape. My oldest laser discs date back to 95.

Was'nt the topic on this thread about DLP?

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 09-25-2002, 12:31 PM:

We go where the thread takes us.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 09-25-2002, 02:20 PM:

I discovered a new way to destroy dud CD's. I made a couple of "coasters" last night when I was recording some old 1960 33-1/3 records to a CD. After the burner spit the dud "coasters" out at me, I sprayed them with Parts Plus Non-Chlorinated Brake Cleaner.

Normally, If I botch a burn job, I usually scratch the surface with a sharp object or take a scissors and cut them in half.

I mention this because there was one time I tried to break one apart. They will break in a violent SNAP and plastic schrapnel flys all over the place, and some of the shards can very eassily embed themselves into your skin - clear on down to the bone! I was very lucky. It is very dangerous. Don't break a disk, you might not be so lucky.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 09-25-2002, 02:42 PM:

QUOTE

quote:
The 2 disc version of "Fight Club" is being phased out and replaced with a single disc pan and scan version.

Actually, the specs on the back of the single disc version state that it is Anamorphcic widecreen 2.40. It looks like the single disc is the same as disc 1 of the SE.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-25-2002, 08:50 PM:

Here is a JPEG image (reduced down from original 3.1 megapixel size) showing the playing surface of my rotted "American Beauty" Awards Edition DVD:

As you can see, even in this low res image, it appears like the bonding glue between data layers has given way forming this liquidy looking gunk near the edges. If you want to see higher res versions of this, e-mail me and I'll send you a copy of the high res image (800K file size for the JPEG).

To address an earlier question about the thread getting off topic, it really isn't off topic. In the push for making all things digital, some folks are excited about archiving films in digital form. Some of us have been making the argument that certain analog formats, like film, might actually be more stable. Dead disc and tape storage formats are one warning for the digital archiving mess. The situation with storage media degrading is an even worse factor. The talk of laser rot and DVD rot is just another example.

One could have problems with the CMY layers in a color film strip. Yet one can still project the thing, or digitize the film frames and color correct the images and output to another film strip using a laser film recorder. When the bonding layers give way on a RSDL DVD disc, your disc is toast. There's no restoring that. Harm the right point on a CD-ROM and all your data will be destroyed. When magnetic tapes develop "tape sweat" or turn to vinegar or dry out, they're going to be screwed up bad --especially if digital data was stored on them.