Phantom Menace DVD vs. Phantom Menace Laserdisc (1 Viewer)

[Aaron Garman]

Hello all. I by no means have reference LD playback but I do prefer the LD of Episode I over the DVD. First of all, I like the contrast and the color moreso on the Laserdisc. Even though I'm using an average CLD-D406, I still think the picture on the laserdisc looks more like film. The DVD looks tremendous but it doesn't look like film to me as much as the laserdisc does. The main reason I got the DVD was for the supplements. Whenever I watch the film, it's the laserdisc I am watching. As for someone mentioning Braveheart, it's a tough call. I like the audio on both DVD and LD, but the picture is kinda split. On one hand the LD has better color to me, but lacks the contrast and noise free look of the DVD. Overall, I enjoy having both for my viewing pleasure.

AJ Garman

MY Reference System:

Sony 27" V-Series Trinitron
Pioneer CLD-D406 LD Player
Pioneer DV-414 DVD Player
RCA 4 Head Hi-Fi VCR
Yamaha HTR-5280 Dolby/DTS Reciever
Sony SDP-E8000 Processor (used for AC3-RF demodulation)
Klipsch and Sony Sattelites
JBL PB-12 250 Watt Subwoofer

Sony Playstation
NES
Super NES
N64

Calibrated with Radio Shack SPL and A Video Standard LD and Video Essentials DVD.

Room Dimensions: Tiny (Imagine a dorm room with one person in it).

 

[Chris Brown]

Rachael, I notice that you only ever mention Pioneer brand players when talking/referring to good players vs. so-so players, etc… Since you said you also own a Panasonic LX-1000 (which is the one I have), how would you rank it compared to some of the other Pioneer’s you’ve mentioned?
People can argue that DVD is better than Laserdisc, but Laserdiscs will always be more fun

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I'm with Terrell on this one, i've seen 'SW EP1' on both LD and dvd, no contest IMO. The dvd slams the LD into the ground in terms of clearity, cleanliness, absense of video noise, color accuracy you name it. I can see the EE in the video, but i'm not bothered by it as much as most people.
One member above brought up a very good point too, he said that if it's necessary to go hunting to the ends of the earth for a high end LD player just to beat out the dvd's video on any average dvd player you can buy, that's not a very good argument for the merits of LD IMO. In fact, it proves the point actually...
The 'SW EP1' LD video looks better DEPENDING ON WHAT KIND OF LD PLAYER YOU PLAY IT ON, the 'SW EP1' dvd video looks better ON JUST ABOUT ANY DVD PLAYER. It doesn't even win when comparing resolution between the two, so that arguments out the window as well. So you see Rachael, by citing all of these high end LD players that you've seen this film on, you've inadvertantly shot your argument in the foot.
As for the audio, again i'm with Terrell. The LD is INSANLY loud and harsh, the dvd is more refined and pleasing with no loss of the intended sonic impact the sound mixers had in mind.
You have to keep this in mind, just because an audio mix is louder and contains more LFE as the LD does in this case, it does not necessarily mean that it is correct. Even though the audio on the LD was THX certified, they went overboard with it big time.
A mix can be subtle and still be thrilling.
I love a good audio mix as much as anyone here, but not at the expense of bleeding eardrums and damaged building foundations.

 

[Terrell]

I certainly don't think the DVD in question reaches it's potential or it would look better than the LD.

Well, it doesn't reach it's potential, but then it doesn't need to in order to look better than the LD. But the AOTC DVD will.
I personally think the best LD player I've seen is the Runco LJRII. But the leap in performance doesn't justify the cost. My LDs are being replaced by DVDs as days go by. If only the original Star Wars trilogy would come out.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Also, their will be no LD of 'SW EPII' to compare it with either, so we won't see these arguments over that title.

If everything i've been reading about that dvd is true, and i'm sure it is, anyone who finds fault with THAT transfer needs to have their eyes examined.

 

[Mattias_ka]

One member above brought up a very good point too, he said that if it's necessary to go hunting to the ends of the earth for a high end LD player just to beat out the dvd's video on any average dvd player you can buy, that's not a very good argument for the merits of LD IMO. In fact, it proves the point actually...

...that you cannot get superb sound from a cheap 500$ speaker set-up...and you will not get a superb car for 10 000$...So what's your point? Of course the average guy will not see what I see, but who cares? I think we where talking about the difference between two FORMAT, and then we should look at them with the best of gear we can get.
I have almost 800 LD's. Of course if I have the money (and that I have) I want to see them as good as it can. The same with my hifi set-up. Most people can say something bad about tube amplifiers, that they are low on watt, colored, etc. But I don't agree, because my 11K$, 2x150Watt tube amplifier is a killer! I has all the power I need and colored? NO!
Well, all in all, I'm with Rachael on this one. Sure 95% or more of the 2.35:1 movies look better on DVD, the ones that don't are the ones that the DVD transfer is to blame.
DVD has the better spec's but spec's are nothing if the people behind the transfer are not doing their job. I must say that in the last year the DVD transfer got a lot better, with less digital artifacts. As my "personal" dislike against ANY digital artifact, I find this great. Because I will prefer (if anything else is about the same) lesser resolution during a whole movie instead of better resolution and some digital artifacts...But that's MY preferences.
I have many 1.33:1 to 1.85:1 movies that I think are better on LD than the DVD version. And that I mostly see most old and and odd movies on LD, movies that will not get "super-deluxe" re-mastering work on DVD, if it ever show!?
I will not say too much about the sound, but DVD are not using the spec's too good, I think. Low 192kbps DD 1.0/2.0 for mono or stereo soundtrack is not even close as good as PCM. But, I will not go there again...

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Mattias,
just about everything in your first paragraph in your response to me is completly false, but I won't go into that here as it's not the place to do so.
My point is very simple, the video on the dvd is superior to the ld's and you don't need a high end ld player to see that.
LD cannot touch dvd on a properly calibrated progressive scan, and anamorphic set-up. To argue the contrary is futile and even a bit silly.
Listen, this entire thread boils down to this, LD just doesn't have the resolution to compete with dvd. You can list all your equipment until the cows come home, but none of that will change that simple fact.
LD can step all over dvd when it comes to audio, but for video, LD belongs in the analogue museum with the other fossils. I say that like it's a bad thing but it's not, it'll be in fine company along with vinyl records and 8-tracks.

 

[Terrell]

but I think the LD has better contrast, color and less EE.

Of course the DVD has more EE. EE was applied to the DVD and not the LD. As for contrast, not a chance. Color, it could go either way.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

As a sidenote, i'm making it sound as if I hate LD, absoutely not true. I had a modest collection of about 90 discs when dvd launched and was skeptical when I first heard of dvd. I thought to myself "How the hell can anything be better than this!?"

But I have eyes, and the proof stared me in the face when I saw my first demo of dvd. I can understand liking LD as a source of nostalgia and the only format to have the 'SW' trilogy and other gems not available on dvd yet.

But as a dead serious competitor to dvd, it just doesn't cut it anymore.

 

[Jay Sylvester]

...LD belongs in the analogue museum with the other fossils. I say that like it's a bad thing but it's not, it'll be in fine company along with vinyl records...

You better hope vinyl lovers (of which I am one) don't get wind of this comment. Otherwise we'll have a huge analog vs. digital throwdown

 

[Iain Lambert]

You better hope vinyl lovers (of which I am one) don't get wind of this comment. Otherwise we'll have a huge analog vs. digital throwdown

Sorry, I must have missed the part where this one wasn't a huge analogue vs. digital throwdown
All I know is that with the equipment I currently have (a lowly CLD-925 and DV-515) the DVD looks better, and sounds (once you've played with the volume a bit) just about the same. Cheap person that I am, I'm not buying a fourth LD player to get the most out of my remaining discs. If you've got a laserdisc player so good it can extract that last ounce of image definition from the disc, then I envy you, but I'm not really in a position to join you (not least because I need a player that does PAL as well!)

 

[Rachael B]

Guys, we were not talking about if LD is better than DVD in general. It certainly can be, should be, but isn't always. We were talking about a particular LD that does compete with the DVD of same title. Mattias and I have told you in very plain terms what player/s and equipment it takes to fully exploit this LD. Visually, this particular DVD is no better, IMO a little worse, than this particular LD. DVD is frequently, usually better than LD. That's why I own hundreds of DVD's.
Chris, the Panasonic LX-1000U is a very good player. The LX-900 is a little better. I got my 1000U for an extra player because it was in nearly new condition. I think the 900 & 1000 compete very well with the Pioneer 704/79. I think the 900 is a little better, actually. The 900 & 1000 cut video noise quite well but lack the colour detail of the great players. Panasonic made even better Muse capable players for the Asian market. Same as Pioneer, they didn't send their best to the U.S. The previously mentioned Runco player is a modified LX-900, BTW. Best wishes!

 

[Dave H]

I don't see how anyone can not say that the DVD looks better than the LD. While I understand some people have an emotional attachment to LDs, there really is no comparison based on those pics posted above, looking at it objectively.

 

[Matt Stone]

there really is no comparison based on those pics posted above, looking at it objectively.

Chris has said that the pics are not a good comparison on numerous occasions. I suggest that you read the whole thread before complaining about something that has been address.

Never seeing the TPM LD on a reference quality player, I'm going to plead ignorance here...and I'm surprised more of you aren't as open-minded.

 

[Matthew Furtek]

I think you guys are beating a dead horse on this one. Unless we can really see anything with our own eyes, we're skeptical of it. You all seem to be in agreement with each other also. What matters to each of us is our own equipment. That is why a person who doesn't own one of the high-high end Japanese LD players won't see the same picture that Rachael and Mattias and others see.

99.9% of the people on this forum probably think the DVD looks better than the LD. But, its probably true that for the .1% who have an LD player capable of super high reference video, the LD actually looks better.

Matthew Furtek

 

[Chris Farmer]

I don't know enough about to LD to really comment, but what about a super high-end DVD player? If it takes an absolute top-of-the-line LD player to compete with only an above average DVD player, then what happens when you compare the best LD to the best DVD?

 

[Terrell]

I haven't seen your 720HD in person, so I'll assume that it sucks.

Who said the HDL-X9 sucks. My point is I've seen the LD on good enough equipment that I feel able to say without a doubt that TPM DVD looks better no matter what But you're right, my 720HD probably does suck.

 

[Jay Sylvester]

I've seen the LD on good enough equipment that I feel able to say without a doubt that TPM DVD looks better no matter what...

And yet you've never seen it on an LD-S9 or HLD-X9. Nor have you seen it on a projector, which would surely emphasize any differences even further--including emphasizing flaws in the LD transfer.

It would be a lot easier to accept your opinion if you qualified it properly, i.e., "On my CLD-99 and 720HD, the Phantom Menace LD is inferior to the DVD." Since you've formulated your opinion on incomplete data, your opinion is invalid.

It's the matter-of-fact way in which you present your findings that makes it so annoying. Rachael, who actually owns, or has owned, all of the LD players in question, states that the image quality on the HLD-X9 is 10%-20% better than the CLD-99. Your response: "Well, I don't believe that."

I think that pretty much sums up your debating style right there. No need for facts when denial is so readily available.

Your 720HD doesn't suck. It's kinda small by my standards, but certainly not sucky.

 

[Dave H]

Never seeing the TPM LD on a reference quality player, I'm going to plead ignorance here

If you have never judged this for yourself on a reference LD player, then who are you to judge?

 

[Terrell]

I stand by my opinion. But I'll qualify it for you. On my equipment, the DVD is easily superior image-wise to the LD, enough so that I don't think it matters what LD player you get. If Rachel believes I'm wrong, then so be it. The LD looks soft, it looks less detailed, and it's less vivid, again on my setup. The only problem I see the DVD having when compared to the LD is the EE.
By the way, blowing up a format with even less resolution would seem to make it look even softer. So I don't see how projecting a lower resolution format on a larger screen would bolster the argument. Sort of like blowing up digital on a larger screen when compared to film.