Recently, there was a LD PCM vs DVD Audio comparison with some great info about the differences, but I was wondering if some of you with a better grasp on the technology could explain to me why DVD has a better picture quality than LD. Before you answer though, I'll post what I think it is, and hopefully someone can elaborate. I understand that DVD has the ability to read and playback anamorphically encoded video. I completely understand the concept of anamorphic widescreen, so for this example, lets just compare an excellent non-anamorphic DVD like The Abyss versus a Laserdisc transfer. Secondly, I understand the PAL and NTSC standards. NTSC is 720x480 lines of resolution, and its interlaced. Since I live in North America, I'll just use NTSC for my examples. What I dont understand is that since both LD and DVD are limited to the physical standards of NTSC and both are stored in a digital medium, shoudln't LD and DVD theoretically have the same picture capabilities? As a matter of fact, the increased disk space and uncompressed video of LD should have allowed for BETTER picture quality? Is the overall picture quality more of an effort thing? DVD has been a huge seller and money maker for the studios, so its in their best interests to take the original film negative, master a hi-def transfer, and then scale it back down to 480 for DVD release with high attention to detail. Whereas Laserdisc was a niche market in the 80s and 90s and the studios just threw something together. Sorry for the long post, but I was hoping someone could elaborate on why LD looks so much "less good" than DVD.