Ask questions to The Digital Bits team (Bill Hunt, Jeff Kleist et.al.)

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

Doc, can you give us the details on this?

Oh, DVD always won quite handily. The component-sourced color made a huge difference and, contrary to your info, the DVD format definitely carries more spatial resolution (especially 16:9 discs) than LD.

[Doctorossi]

I put some value in Squid's taste, particularly, so I'm gonna play it safe and check out the DVD.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by cjamescook

Doc, can you give us the details on this?

As a laserdisc owner, I evaluated it thusly:
Laserdisc was a digital recording of an analog signal with no compression.
DVD is a digital recording of a digital signal with lossy compression.

Initial reviews were that laserdisc had a few more lines of resolution, IIRC, but visually, there wasn't much difference or a possible plus for laserdisc since it was non-lossy (no artifacts, no posterization, no contrast compression).

What were your results? What would be attributed to different scans for the two different issues of the same movie?

Cheers!
-Jim

I was (and am) a laserdisc owner too, and have done extensive A/B comparisons between LD and DVD titles to compare both picture and sound.

here are some of the facts to set the stage of discussion:

* Laserdisc has an ANALOG picture. It's an FM signal representing a composite video signal. Analog. In fact, the laserdisc technology was invented in the 1970s and remained realtively unchanged throughout its lifecycle... even old 1970s discovision discs play on the latest generation of LD players.

* Laserdisc audio started out with 2-channel analog sound. But in the mid 80s 2-channel PCM was added as well (16/44.1 resolution). DTS later invented a way to "pack" their DTS compressed signal into the space of the 2.0 PCM. Dolby Digital found a way later to pack their raw RF stream (then called AC-3) into the space of the right analog channel, but you needed an external RF decoder to convert this to a Dolby Digital bitstream for your receiver (a few devices may have had this built in).

* DVD stores a component image in digital form using MPEG2. It may be lossy compressed, but it has none of the inherent limitations of an NTSC composite signal as does Laserdisc.

* DVD can store PCM 2.0 audio as well as Dolby Digital and DTS audio. Most folks don't know, but the DVD spec allows for 24/96 2.0 PCM.


Ok, with those basics out of the way...

Image quality:

Laserdisc does not have MPEG artifacts or color-banding. That's good. But laserdisc in no way compares with the resolution/detail offered by DVD. Laserdisc maxes out at about 425 (vertical) lines of resolution, DVD gets closer to 500. Bottom line is horizontal detail is better on DVD.

Also, laserdisc is inherently composite on the disc, which means it needs to get pushed through a comb filter to separte the luminance from chrominance channels and then a color decoder to separate the color channels to obtain YUV prior to display. DVD is inherently component. These limitations of laserdisc are important because just because it's "not compressed" doesn't mean that it's of high-quality, there are compromises one cannot escape with comb filters and color decoders that all have trade offs.

There are a few laserdiscs that due to their exceptional mastering quality *and* because the DVD counterparts were improperly or poorly transfered/mastered, offer better image quality. But the vast majority of comparisons yield an obviously better image with the DVD counterpart. Since DVDs can offer 16x9 native encoding, you also get more vertical resolution with 16x9 discs versus 4x3 lbxed lasers (there were a few anamorphic lasers, but they are rare as LDs didn't build-in 16x9 -> 4x3 downconversion for 4x3 owners).

Audio is a different matter. Most laserdiscs have 2.0 PCM tracks that sound better than the compressed multi-channel Dolby on the DVD *if* you're comparing the sound quality of the front main channels and listening in the sweet spot. In some cases, the deficiences of Dolby Digital on DVD are more perplexing... like in cases where the AC-3 on the laserdisc also sounds better, and closer to PCM, despite being at a lower bit-rate than the DD on the DVD. I've often wondered if LD has lower jitter due to its mass and if this affects d/a conversion sound quality, as the PCM tracks on LD often sound better than the PCM from compact disc even though the two are of equivilent resolution.

[Alan Gordon]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

Yeah- I have everything I want that's out, save maybe four or five very recent releases and my per-disc average is hovering around $11.

Wow! I wish I could say the same...

BTW, I'm MOSTLY happy with the pricing. The great thing about now... is that if I don't want to pay a certain price for something, I can always wait until it hits a price I want to get it for.

~Alan

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Alan Gordon

The great thing about now... is that if I don't want to pay a certain price for something, I can always wait until it hits a price I want to get it for.

Yeah, that's another nice advantage of the mainstream DVD/BD era- discounts galore.

In the LD days, if you didn't want to pay MSRP, you had Ken Crane's and that's about it. After shipping, this meant roughly a 10% discount.


- $50 (in 1992 dollars) for Blade Runner on LD with a trailer

- $8 (in 2008 dollars) for 5 cuts of Blade Runner in HD on BD with hours and hours of extras

Both purchases made me grin like a cheshire cat, but evaluated outside the context of time, one could be argued to be orders of magnitude greater value than the other. I could've paid hundreds for that BD set and been pleased with the price.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

* DVD can store PCM 2.0 audio as well as Dolby Digital and DTS audio. Most folks don't know, but the DVD spec allows for 24/96 2.0 PCM.

Not sure about the 24/96 part but I do know the DVD spec actually has 6-channel PCM in there...which is 4.6Mbps for those who doubt the bandwidth could take it. Of course this was never utilized, just as "optional" SDDS (ATRAC-PRO).

Audio is a different matter. Most laserdiscs have 2.0 PCM tracks that sound better than the compressed multi-channel Dolby on the DVD *if* you're comparing the sound quality of the front main channels and listening in the sweet spot.

To some, maybe. But once you take that 2 channel signal, filter and separate it, the results are below the full bandwidth 5.1 discrete DD on DVD.

In some cases, the deficiences of Dolby Digital on DVD are more perplexing... like in cases where the AC-3 on the laserdisc also sounds better, and closer to PCM, despite being at a lower bit-rate than the DD on the DVD. I've often wondered if LD has lower jitter due to its mass and if this affects d/a conversion sound quality, as the PCM tracks on LD often sound better than the PCM from compact disc even though the two are of equivilent resolution.

Different encoding styles, and I find higher bitrate DD more "analog" sounding. Jitter is not an issue with packed signals (DD, TrueHD, DTS, MA) because it's reclocked by the decoder in the pre-amp/receiver.

[patrick99]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Fabulous cinematography, costumes and sets.

For me, it lacked focus. Meandered too much. I was underwhelmed.

I was less than underwhelmed. Very disappointing as a movie.

[DaViD Boulet]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Not sure about the 24/96 part but I do know the DVD spec actually has 6-channel PCM in there...which is 4.6Mbps for those who doubt the bandwidth could take it. Of course this was never utilized, just as "optional" SDDS (ATRAC-PRO).

in 1996 Bob Stuart from (then) Meridian got the 24/96 provision into the DVD spec. Several mobile-fidelity DVDs were issued with 2.0 24/96 PCM and these were red-book video DVDs though they didn't really have any/much video content. Cool about those other two points, I wasn't aware.

Different encoding styles, and I find higher bitrate DD more "analog" sounding. Jitter is not an issue with packed signals (DD, TrueHD, DTS, MA) because it's reclocked by the decoder in the pre-amp/receiver.

Unless one uses a system with a truely asynchranous D/A time-clock, some degree of jitter will always be maintained because of the need to keep the incoming data stream in sync (the case with almost every reclocking system in present day decoders and d/a converters). Genesis had a device that was a true de-coupler, but most reclocking systems, even those used when decompessing compressed bitstreams, use phase-lock-loop designs which do reduce jitter, but don't eliminate it completely.

Genesis found that many transports actually varied surprizingly from the formal standard with their master time-clocks (as in too fast or too slow) which wouldn't really be noticable by simple listening on its own, but these variations were large enough that the they had to supply a generous RAM buffer to act as a tank that could either be slowly filled or slowly emptied to absorb the difference between the two clocks while listening... over the course of a 74 minute music CD they used a large enough RAM buffer that could handle most of these variations without over-filling or running empty based on the transport clock variations they found. However, they had a special "film mode" on their jitter filter which actually did use a phase-lock-loop design when watching movies to ensure that the incoming and outgoing audio signals would remain in constant sync, as even a very small variation in time clocks between two asynchranous devices would compound to a noticable lip-sync problem over the course of a 2 hour movie.

These points don't touch on how audible jitter may or may not be in these varioius situations, but they do illustrate that mere act of decompressing audio does not eleminiate jitter entirely as phase-lock-loops still maintain electrical links between incoming and outgoing time clocks.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

Audio is a different matter. Most laserdiscs have 2.0 PCM tracks that sound better than the compressed multi-channel Dolby on the DVD *if* you're comparing the sound quality of the front main channels and listening in the sweet spot.

The first time I heard PotC:CotBP in uncompressed multi-channel PCM, it brought a smile to my face. It had been a long time since I heard quality audio like that on my HT setup.

Originally Posted by DaViD Boulet

In some cases, the deficiences of Dolby Digital on DVD are more perplexing... like in cases where the AC-3 on the laserdisc also sounds better, and closer to PCM, despite being at a lower bit-rate than the DD on the DVD. I've often wondered if LD has lower jitter due to its mass and if this affects d/a conversion sound quality, as the PCM tracks on LD often sound better than the PCM from compact disc even though the two are of equivilent resolution.

I still believe there were a lot of remixes done in the early days of DVD. I remember some users slogging on DVD because they blew up speakers due to 'cranking it' with inadequate equipment.

I think many LDs used the theatrical mixes that were designed to run the surrounds at hotter levels. I could be wrong, but I agree that there were some significant difference in quality between LD and DVD DD tracks. Usually, the LD counterpart sounded better and typically it was more than a subtle difference.

[Jeff Kleist]

I think many LDs used the theatrical mixes that were designed to run the surrounds at hotter levels. I could be wrong, but I agree that there were some significant difference in quality between LD and DVD DD tracks. Usually, the LD counterpart sounded better and typically it was more than a subtle difference.

Most LDs used the theatrical mix for the DD, DVDs tended to be re-eq'd for TV speakers and HTiBs so they wouldn't blow them out. That's a big part of where the DTS cult started, because the DTS would usually retain the theatrical mix because they knew that anyone running DTS would have good enough equipment. Ironically there are a bunch of Dolby mixes out of New Line that are hotter and louder. LOTR:FOTR theatrical, Blade 2 and some others

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

Ironically there are a bunch of Dolby mixes out of New Line that are hotter and louder. LOTR:FOTR theatrical, Blade 2 and some others

Hotter and louder may be an understatement with those. I remember popping in both of those titles when they were released and wondering what the hell was going on!!

[Esox50]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Hotter and louder may be an understatement with those.

Just how I like my women!

[Jeff Kleist]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

Hotter and louder may be an understatement with those. I remember popping in both of those titles when they were released and wondering what the hell was going on!!

The opening bass on FOTR rattled a speaker loose from my friends parents tv when Sauron died

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kleist

The opening bass on FOTR rattled a speaker loose from my friends parents tv when Sauron died

Sauron didn't die, his essence/spirit are tied to the One Ring, which is why they had to destroy it.

[captveg]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

Sauron didn't die, his essence/spirit are tied to the One Ring, which is why they had to destroy it.

If you make that statement message board bylaws require a emoticon.

[Doctorossi]

Holy crap! Nausicaa first out the gate?!

Sing it with me:

"I ****ed in my pants..."

[Jeff Kleist]

I'd expect some more by Christmas in Japan, and some more in the spring when Borrowers would come out on video).

[horseflesh]

Jeff, do you think that Nausicaa coming first is an indication that they may be issued in release sequence?

[Jeff Kleist]

No, I wouldn't necessarily.

[johndoyle123]

hello jeff

is there any news regarding the special edition terminator 1 release you spoke off on your site ?

also a tough one for you do you think eventually blu-ray will overtake dvd

regards jon