LD vs DVD "Who wants to go 15 rounds?" (1 Viewer)

[Stephen Pate]

There is one more postscript on this thread - Cover Art and Boxed Editions.

Who can read the cover art printing on a DVD. There is less printing than on a CD. Get with better liner notes and covers! LD covers are generous and descriptive.

LD Box editions are sometimes the real thing. Gettysburg includes a map of the battle, real booklet and a replica of the bullet type that was used in the battle. Try stuffing that in to a DVD case.

Operas on DVD are great. Opera on LD usually contains the libretto in both English and the sung language (Italian, French, German). These box sets greatly enhance the viewing experience.

 

[Brian Fitterman]

Boy How did I miss this one. I know I am chiming in late, but I cannot see how anyone on a new set that is capable of displaying anamorphic video can say LD looks as good. I collected LDs for about 2 years before DVD came out. I loved them, but DVD is just so much better. Maybe if you had a 32 inch TV that has a kick ass comb filter and cannot do the anamorphic thing, then maybe, you can say that. And that would have to be on a disc by disc basis.

When the first wave of DVDs came out..you remember those 20 titles WB released, I could not believe the picture on my set (32 inch sony XBR100). Way better than the LDs.

Also, some said that LD sounds better...this puzzles me. Is the bitrate of the DTS/DD streams different on LD? If so then I can see one having an advantage over the other. If they are the same bitrate, then wouldn't they be the same bitstream? How could one be better? They should be identical. Most older LD's do have a PCM track when they are mono or stereo (before there was 5.1) and yes if they remake of that movie on DVD is in DD Mono or DD Stereo, then it will have an advantage, but that is certainly not a Format disadvantage for DVD. Its just the studio making a mistake when they made the DVD. A DVD by rule has to have either a PCM or DD track on it. Most pick DD so they can save space.

One of the compasons listed in this thread was Stargate LD vs Stargate DVD. This by no means is representational of the real world. Stargate is non-anamorphic (bastards!!!) and DD. The LD was DTS. How can you say one is better? Its apples and oranges for the sound comparasons.

I can see keeping a LD player around for the older movies but in now way can anyone say LD is even close to DVD in picture quality.

Again, sorry for ringing in so late, but I never say this thread before.

 

[Brian-W]

but in no way can anyone say LD is even close to DVD in picture quality

Re-read all the articles that talk about the high-end Pioneer HLD series (and LD-S9) and the high-end Sony HIL-C2EX series.
If you haven't seen LD with these specific players (regardless if 20" TV or 100" projection screen), you can't say that LD isn't close to DVD in picture quality.

 

[Mattias_ka]

Brian Wiklem, AMEN!!!

 

[Lewis Besze]

In other word, you might wanna take out another mortgage to buy those,and if you intersted on new releases then good luck!
Oh ,this just in: there are zillions of old movies and B and C horror pictures on LD,damn I better buy 2 of those then!

 

[Mattias_ka]

In other word, you might wanna take out another mortgage to buy those
Well, a used LD-S9, 900$, used HLD-X9, 1500$.
My DVD player cost about 1800$, so wow!!
and if you interest in new releases then good luck!
New movies that interest ME, around 5-6 each year! I have a dvd player.
Oh ,this just in: there are zillions of old movies and B and C horror pictures on LD
Yes, is that not great!??

 

[Brian Fitterman]

If you haven't seen LD with these specific players (regardless if 20" TV or 100" projection screen), you can't say that LD isn't close to DVD in picture quality.

I had never even heard of those players before I read this thread. My point is that when you compare apples to apples...that is the same movie done with the same care at the studio DVD is far superior. Not compare the SE on LD to the Non-anamorphic 1997 release of the DVD.

Are you telling me that if I take the svideo or composite output of one of those LD players, and compare it to lets say the 9000ES DVD player, which can be had new for under $800 now, and plug them both into a nicley calibrated new TV, of lets say 65 inches, the LD will look as good, or better than the DVD? I just cannot see that.

DVD -> 480p anamorphic (the anamorphic adds about 20% resolution to the picture)

LD -> 400i (I believe this about correct)

How can the LD look better or even as good? I know there are some side effects of MPEG, but the studios have now learned how to use it better and I do not see these artifacts any more. Like I said before, take away the anamorphic, and only use svideo on the DVD player, and you might have shot at it, but when DVD takes full advantage of what it has to offer, LD cannot touch the video quality.

Does anyone have the info about audio bit rates on LD's vs. DVD's. I know years ago WSR talked a bunch about this when DVDs first came out.

And yes, if you want those older B movies, you gotta go with LD. But you sure are not going to get any kind of picture quality out of those movies.

Also, someone compared those LD players to Krell amps. I have not seen those players, and they may have superior build qualtiy, but they have many moving parts, they will break eventualy. I saw one person say they were recording all the movies to DVD-R, smart move (not to mention this is on advantage LD has, most movies are not copy protected), because no matter how well it is made, if the parts move, they will break.

I am not an old B movie buff, and most of the LDs I had have been long replaced with DVD. Star Wars is the only one I had that has not come out yet (Stupid LUCAS). I sold my D504 player about 3 years ago with all the discs (60 or so - about 10 special edition ones that cost over $50) for about $750. The Demodulator was worth the most for some reason, I got $150 for that and I only paid $100. I guess they do not make those any more. I lost alot, but I still consider myself lucky to have got that much.

I guess if I had been collecting as long as some of you must have been (just by looking at the sheer count of movies you guys own on LD) I might feel differently. But most of mine were being redone on DVD so I sold out.

 

[Brian-W]

Are you telling me that if I take the svideo or composite output of one of those LD players, and compare it to lets say the 9000ES DVD player, which can be had new for under $800 now, and plug them both into a nicley calibrated new TV, of lets say 65 inches, the LD will look as good, or better than the DVD? I just cannot see that.

Hmmm.......
Let's see:
In theater #1 (primary) I've got the Pioneer HLD-X0 hooked up to an Extron DVS-204 scaler. Also connected to this scaler is a Pioneer DV-47a w/SDI output being scaled digitally and output to a calibrated JVC D-ILA projector on a 120" 16:9 screen. P
theater #2 consists of a 42" NEC plasma calibrated and hooked up to a Sony HIL-C2EX which runs to a iScan doubler. On the same display is a Sony DVP-9000ES running 480p
theater #3 consists of an uncalibrated Sony KL-W7000 37" 16:9 LCD monitor. Sony HIL-C1 laserdisc player and a Sony NS500V is hooked up. Both run direct s-video into the monitor.
In all cases, a lot of laserdiscs looked almost as good if not as good as it's DVD counterpart regardless of anamorphic enhancement. Keep in mind, not every laser was a great transfer or even a good pressing. And, it takes considerably more expense on the laser side to equal the DVD side.
This isn't a "LD is better than DVD" thread, nor is it a thread to keep LD alive. But there are a)many films not yet on DVD (and may never appear) and b) many who have invested considerable amounts of money long before DVD who don't see the need to abandon their investment.
And one of our regulars (Rachael, pipe in here) along with others feel the Star Wars Episode 1 looks better on LD vs. the anamorphic DVD.
Other points of issue are many films were shot in 4:3 early on, and unless a digital restoration is executed (not a given), the LD version with PCM sound will be a better bet.
Plus, the LD players mentioned also play HDTV laserdiscs released in Japan. Not for the faint at heart (at ~ $200 per film), so our players often are doing double duty.
Again Brian, until you've seen it with your own eyes, don't discount the capability of laser (which is 425 lines vs. 400....I've measured it with my players). Anamorphic while a big benefit isn't the end all be all as Rachael pointed out.
We're film lovers, not format lovers, and thus our interest in LD. There are still a ton of great films on LD that can't be had on DVD. Who know's if they'll all eventually be made available

 

[Brian-W]

BTW Brian, basically all the LD players released in the U.S. were garbage as far as picture quality (including the Pioneer Elite series).

Many people who thought the same way you did changed their tune after seeing one of the players we've mentioned.

if you have no desire to collect LD or watch LD anymore, there's not much point in trying to convince any of us LD sucks, because it doesn't.

 

[Lewis Besze]

We're film lovers, not format lovers, and thus our interest in LD. There are still a ton of great films on LD that can't be had on DVD. Who know's if they'll all eventually be made available

You know I've been hearing that "song" for the last 5 years,don't you think that it's relevance is getting "thinner" and thinner"?..........I already know that answer.

 

[Adam Barratt]

don't discount the capability of laser (which is 425 lines vs. 400....I've measured it with my players).

This is LaserDisc vs. DVD? How did you measure this; DVD is a ~500 line format.

Brian F, Datarates:

LaserDisc PCM: 1411kbps (16-bit, 44.1kHz)
LaserDisc DTS 5.1: 1235kbps
LaserDisc Dolby Digital 5.1: 384kbps

DVD PCM: 1536kbps (16-bit, 48kHz) to 4608kbps (24-bit, 96kHz)
DVD DTS 5.1: 754kbps (usually) or 1509kbps
DVD Dolby Digital 5.1: variable, but usually 384kbps or 448kbps.

Bear in mind that numbers alone don't tell the story.

Adam

 

[Mattias_ka]

And one of our regulars (Rachael, pipe in here) along with others feel the Star Wars Episode 1 looks better on LD vs. the anamorphic DVD.

I'm also one of those that think the Japanese LD looks better. Yes, the DVD has a little more resolution, but not so much I would thought. But I think that the LD has better color saturned (is it spelled so?), and have better contrast. And the sound is better for me. Well, that MY preference.
Like Brian Wiklem said, there cost much more money to get perfect picture from LD, so it's not for 99,999% of the HT crowed. But for me it's really worth all the money.
But I don't understand how so many people can comment on something they have not SEEN!! Because these players DO a big different. But maybe I should get a first generation, non brand DVD player that will make the picture on DVD's look like shit and compare it to my high-end LD players. Because this is what YOU do to LD.
I will also say that one of the main reason I love LD over DVD is that almost all the time there is a PCM track. As I have a 11 000$ tube 2-channel amplifier I get a superior sound over DD. I'm not interested in surround sound and I get more out from a PCM track! That's my preference AGAIN!
Hell, I even don't think PCM sound is the best, as I'm a vinyl guy, but it's a hell lot better than DD IMNSHO

 

[Chris Brown]

On my LD player, there are a few discs that really sound great using PCM. Also, it seems to me that now days with the popularity of 5.1 the studios seem to have slacked off encoding their 2.0 tracks for Pro-Logic. In my HT I can take advantage of all kinds of sound formats, but in the living room, we are still using an old Pro-logic receiver. The sound when watching movies on cable, VHS, or DVD’s sounds somewhat bland and coming mostly from the center channel with some stuff coming from the surrounds every once in a while (sometimes the wrong things)… But when I hooked up the LD player in there for the first time, watching James Bond: Goldeneye totally sprung the entire room to life. The Dolby surround encoded PCM 2.0 track was simply stunning, and produced what sounded like almost discrete sounds coming from the rears, and didn’t seem to crowd the front sound to the center either. Almost made me re-think upgrading that 10 year old receiver… almost It’s not that it sounded “Better” than a DD or DTS DVD, but it sounded “Clearer” and almost easier to listen to. I just had no idea how much discrete surround sounds a well encoded Dolby surround disc could produce.
Another thing to think of, and this occurred to me the other day at the used video store… is all the movies that you can get really cheap on Laserdisc, that aren’t really worth it to pay the full DVD price. I got the movie “Twins” which is one of my favorites, for $3. As much as I love the movie, it wouldn’t have been worth it for me to replace my VHS copy with a DVD that costs $20+… but at $3, the laserdisc provided me with more picture and more sound than I could ever have wanted from this movie. If it’s a movie where the slight increase in picture quality provided by DVD is going to have an impact on my movie experience (Jurassic Park, 5th element, Die hard, Saving Private Ryan, etc…) then by all means I’m going to get it… but if I’m just sitting back enjoying an old comedy I’m not going to start thinking about how the 50 less lines of picture quality ruins the picture, etc… after all Laserdisc is what, twice the resolution of VHS, and that format still entertains tens of millions of people every day.
All my favorite movies, I usually end up buying the DVD and the laserdisc, if not multiple versions of each. I have the regular versions of the Jurassic Park LD, and the DTS version, as well as the regular version and the DTS version of the DVD. Sometimes when watching a movie I’ve already seen, it adds a little more fun to alternate between formats and tracks each viewing. One night the DTS DVD, other night PCM LD, etc… And no one can deny it’s cool when you have your friends over about to watch a movie and you pull this HUGE disc out of it’s elephant condom and they ask, “What the heck is that?”

 

[Brian-W]

This is LaserDisc vs. DVD? How did you measure this; DVD is a ~500 line format

I have test pattern discs, both 4x3 and 16X9 enhanced laserdiscs with test patterns on them.

I have yet to see DVD resolve 500 lines, even using SDI output. miniDV/DV can resolve 500 lines. And most DVD players are capped in the higher frequency ranges and thus don't resolve even 480 lines.

As for Lewis, I'm not even going to bother arguing the point. It's easy for somoene to dismiss something they haven't seen, especially something they don't want to believe, fact or not.

 

[Rachael B]

2.35 to 1 films usually always look better on A-morph DVD. STIR WARZ PHANTOM MENACE is an exception. It looks more or less the same on either format if you have an HLD-X9 to play the LD on. I'd give the LD the edge for less edge haloing. 1.85 to 1 and even narrower aspect ratios can look better on LD. They don't always but they can. Anamorphic enhancement is no end all. Robert Harris has said as much. I've heard people complain on this forum because a 1.66 to 1 film wasn't anamorphic. Gee, they might have lost 1 or 2% of percieved or believed resolution, or did they? Other authoring and source material factors are likely more important on 1.66 to 1 material.
DVD technology was carefully crafted not to exceed LD technology by too much. Most of the studios had no intention of supplying us with A-morph DVD's in the early days. Us peasants and serfs didn't deserve such good treatment! The DVD standard should of been set higher with HDTV on the near horizon.
Why didn't the Japanese export the best LD technology to the U.S.? We snubbed them on Hi-Vision HDTV technology. First we said we'd take it and then reneged. We could of all had higher definition, wider TV ten years ago. We could of had Muse LD and/or anamorphic NTSC LD ten years ago. The MPAA and broadcasters have fought hard for your right to watch fuzzy, low-grade television and home video! I think the Japanese basically gave up trying to sell their best stuff here.
Pioneer Elite LD players are good up to a point. Pioneer pushed sound features over video features/quality because they thought that was all Americans were concerned with. Pioneer quit exporting it's best video technology to the U.S.in the early 90's. The vaunted CLD-99, or it's Japanese market equivalent, was the forth best Pioneer player over there. Just a middle of the pack player for all practical purposes.
The HLD-X9 takes NTSC LD technology pretty close to it's limits. The quality of the LD software is the limiting factor. Most of the folks on this forum haven't seen true reference quality LD playback. Against the X9 DVD does not have a huge colour advantage. The LD format tends to have less edge haloing than the DVD format. Anamorphic LD's, the one I have anyway (T2), would pass for a DVD with most folks on this forum.
Academy ratio material looks awesome on my HLD-X9! Restored DVD's like Criterion's THE THIRD MAN might be the best Academy Ratio, old timey B & W DVD I've seen...? I have LD's in Academy Ratio that look that good. If Criterion pressed the restored TTM to LD I bet it would be hard to tell the two apart provided you had a reference quality LD player. It would be very close.
Sure I like DVD just fine despite it's audio short-commings. I really like the very wide films on DVD! There are LD's like say BEN HUR that I absolutely was gleeful to replace with a DVD. But, there are alot of narrower titles that are pretty much a wash or the DVD looks a few percent better or the LD looks a few percent better.
People are clamoring for HD-DVD, myself included, because the DVD standard was set too low. Pretty much everything that you can find wrong about LD's you can find wrong about DVD's, thankfully, usually in lesser doses. They both be NTSC....
Haven't we beat this subject into a bloody pulp?

 

[Mattias_ka]

Haven't we beat this subject into a bloody pulp?

You are sooo right, Rachael!! Some swedish fishing this winter?? :b

 

[Lewis Besze]

I have yet to see DVD resolve 500 lines, even using SDI output. miniDV/DV can resolve 500 lines. And most DVD players are capped in the higher frequency ranges and thus don't resolve even 480 lines.

Which players you talking about?
Most published measured Luminance frequency response[at 6.75mhz]suggests that it clocks at 540 or close, lines of resolution,reagardless of price!

 

[Rachael B]

Mattias, what are we going for frozen herring? Frozen Salmon? Cool Barracudas?
Lewis, what is the best LD player you've had? Best wishes guyz!

 

[Jim Douglas]

Chris,
You are thinking just like I am. I have bought allot of movies in the $1.99 to $5.99 range on LD that I would not buy for $15.00 to $20.00 on DVD. Some I have bought I really enjoyed and some were so so but if I didn't like it I haven't lost that much and could probably resale it for the same price. I just won 19 more discs on e-bay for a total price of $57.00. I'll enjoy watching these over the next couple of weeks for a very small investment.
Later
Jim

 

[Lewis Besze]

My DVD player cost about 1800$, so wow!!

What kinda player is that?
Is that US retailer price?
Remember our taxes a bit lower