Laserdisc vs DVD

[Randall Flagg]

PQ wise were Laserdisc's better? I'm watching Jimmy Fallon right now and Tom Cruise said he used to love Laserdiscs because the PQ was so good.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Randall Flagg

PQ wise were Laserdisc's better? I'm watching Jimmy Fallon right now and Tom Cruise said he used to love Laserdiscs because the PQ was so good.

It would depend on the particular title but LaserDisc had a lower resolution than DVD does and I don't think they offered anamorphic titles, so technically no. The sound was better if I remember reading, LD used uncompressed 2.0. I'm sure a LD user can elaborate a bit more.

They had nicer packaging. I love the LP sized sleeves and artwork. BD would be awesome in LP sized cases (and you'd have massive storage!). I'm always envious when I see galleries of collections.

[Chloenator]

I never got into the Laserdisc format. I pretty much went from VHS to DVD to Blu-ray. However, I do think it's pretty cool that people collect them. They do look nice.

[Blu-Dog]

Originally Posted by Sad Beautiful Tragic

I never got into the Laserdisc format. I pretty much went from VHS to DVD to Blu-ray. However, I do think it's pretty cool that people collect them. They do look nice.

I had to leap from VHS to DVD (money was tight back then) and they seemed to charge a huge premium at the time. My brother in law has one, and though switching disks was a hassle, they were nice.


I knew their lifespan was limited - technology moves too fast - so I didn't regret missing the format, but it was a huge leap at the time. I give Laserdisc credit for pushing things forward.

[Tekka]

Picture wise they were LEAPS and bounds better than VHS or Beta and the sound quality was awesome. A lot of things factor into if the picture quality was better or not. The early laserdiscs, even though they looked great, didn't always use good quality masters for the image. It often took a decade or two for a good restoration process to bring the source material up to snuff. Which is true even to this day.

The connection type to the tv also mattered. When laserdisc first came out most televisions only used RF connections. If you had a nice TV you could output composite video. It looked great and the laserdisc format maxed out the data that could be transmitted through composite, but that wasn't ideal. In the late 80s, high end laserdisc players could output s-video, which split the chroma and lumia signals up for better color and contrast. Toward the very end of laserdiscs lifespan in the late 90s. The reeeeeeeeeally really insanely high end MUSE laserdiscs and their players would output high def component video to a tv. That stuff was on par with bluray today.

Overall though they were basically as good as DVD... though DVD from the get go was better because of its ability to output progressive video and its wider range of video output options (such as component).

[Scarface32]

What about Capacitance Electronic Disc (CED)? Anyone use them?

[Michael24]

I never really experienced Laserdisc. Only one person I knew actually had them, and whenever my parents went to his house I'd stare at his collection. In my 8th grade English class, we watched a couple movies on Laserdisc as well, but otherwise I largely missed out on that whole format.

Originally Posted by Scarface32

What about Capacitance Electronic Disc (CED)? Anyone use them?

My parents had probably around three dozen titles on CED. I watched our copy of Star Wars so many times that it literally stopped working properly. Haha!

Funny enough, a few years ago I went into a local Goodwill, and I was drawn to a bin in the corner that appeared to have vinyl records. As I walked up and started to flip through them, I was shocked to discover they were CEDs. Hundreds of them!

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

Originally Posted by Randall Flagg

PQ wise were Laserdisc's better?

No, the PQ on Laserdisc's was not as good as the PQ on DVD's. I remember watching some LD's in the '90's & will admit the PQ was superior to VHS tape, but not as good as DVD PQ. IMHO the super-expensive price (an average new LD was roughly $70), and the size/bulkiness/awkwardness (i.e., a LD was the size of a Vinyl, and you had to flip it around in order to watch the whole film) contributed heavily to it's demise...

[IndyMLVC]

As someone who had lots and lots of LD's, no, the picture quality wasn't nearly as good or as stable as DVD. The audio, on the other hand, blew DVD out of the water. It was uncompressed and i longed for the days of getting back to that. DVD always sounded thin, unfortunately.

[Xtempo]

I hate both cruise and fallon-I don't watch tv anymore unless its on disc or tape or as a book since I love to read. but anyway...

the LaserDisc was started in the 70s and had a nice long lifespan that lasted depending on the country or area a little beyond 2000. The Matrix is one of the later discs to made and is somewhat rare.

DVDs in the beginning were crap on par with VHS so the picture quality was a lot better on LD. Also it tended to have the content in its OAR which DVDs like VHS put everything practically in pan and scan.