Blu-ray vs. Laserdisc DTS (Yes... Laserdisc)

[Peaky]

Originally Posted by LaserD

Hi Peaky,
If you haven't already subscribed to the Official LaserDisc thread here, be sure to. It's an active sticky thread here but the folks who are on that thread might not also be checking this one out as well. You might want to re-post your message there for more responses:
Official LaserDisc Thread

Thanks for the heads up

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Don't do it! Why do you want to go back in time, using old technology? Laserdisc is obsolete! With blu-ray, you don't need a Laserdisc Player.

Ya....imagine people still listening to music on Vinyl.....

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

I am.

I'll take The Sixth Day if you have it....

[drummerboy_2002]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

Ya....imagine people still listening to music on Vinyl.....

That's not a very good analogy. As vinyl is analog, is has the capability of higher resolution than digital. LD, DVD and BD are all digital, so it's capabilities come down to storage capacity and bandwidth. BD beats LD in both. The only possible advantage LD can have is content. Is there an equivilent BD version of the movie? Does it have all the original extras? Does the BD version have an inferior soundtrack mix? If the answers are Yes, Yes, No, then there are no reasons to continue down the LD track.

[bhampton]

I would compare my Laserdisc audio tracks to my Blu Rays except I can't stand the sight of the Video from a laserdisc.

Maybe if I go blind and stuff.

-Brian

[benmbe]

Originally Posted by Ranger-R

I'm glad there are some LD lovers on here. I have 3 different Pioneer LD players and about 100 discs. Some pretty rare. For those that are looking, yes Ebay you can find specific titles you are looking for, but i've picked up some big sets from people on Craigslist. Plus some old mom and pop video stores sell them.

Hello Ranger,

I have only just come accross your message, yes there are still plenty of us around who truly enjoy this much loved format.

I to have a number of players because of the investment of all the movies I wanted the hardware to last me, of which it certainly will.

I havn't purchased any disc's for a while because of my employment being very changable, but hopefully I shall be able to pay off a few titles that are reserved with a seller within the next few months.

Sincerest Regards

[Reinbo]

Coooooool japanese discs

[Reinbo]

Originally Posted by drummerboy_2002

That's not a very good analogy. As vinyl is analog, is has the capability of higher resolution than digital. LD, DVD and BD are all digital, so it's capabilities come down to storage capacity and bandwidth. BD beats LD in both. The only possible advantage LD can have is content. Is there an equivilent BD version of the movie? Does it have all the original extras? Does the BD version have an inferior soundtrack mix? If the answers are Yes, Yes, No, then there are no reasons to continue down the LD track.

Only if you prefer rasersharp glossy image to the nice videolook of laserdisc. To watch my old 70's and 80's horrormovies I prefer the latter. It's not just bites and bytes. There is a feel to laserdisc that can't be beaten Just like a painting by Rembrandt still is nice even though has less pixels than a HD image from a Canon D1.

[Reinbo]

And blu ray can't beat the artwork

[invenio]

I have about 500 LD's and one of the things I love about them is the great cover art and packaging. I have not seen any other format come close.

[drummerboy_2002]

Originally Posted by Reinbo

Only if you prefer rasersharp glossy image to the nice videolook of laserdisc. To watch my old 70's and 80's horrormovies I prefer the latter. It's not just bites and bytes. There is a feel to laserdisc that can't be beaten Just like a painting by Rembrandt still is nice even though has less pixels than a HD image from a Canon D1.

Also not a great analogy. You could say you prefer the image of a Rembrandt taken from a cheap digital camera, but there's no denying the image taken from a Canon 1D will more closely resemble the original. Do you prefer the LD transfer over the original film? I have a feeling most peoples fondness for the format has more to do with nostalgia than the capabilities of the format itself.

[invenio]

Originally Posted by drummerboy_2002

Also not a great analogy. You could say you prefer the image of a Rembrandt taken from a cheap digital camera, but there's no denying the image taken from a Canon 1D will more closely resemble the original. Do you prefer the LD transfer over the original film? I have a feeling most peoples fondness for the format has more to do with nostalgia than the capabilities of the format itself.

I think that one reason why people may prefer the look of LD compared to digital formats like DVD is that the signal is analog. Although "resolution" may be higher with DVD, you also get things like digtal artifacts that are very unpleasent to the eye. With LD there are non of these banding, macroblocking.. etc artifacts which are very displeasing to the eye. I'm not arguing that one is better or worse than the other, but the "look" of analog vs digital is different.

This is much like the arguement of what is better, CD or LP. Many/most audiophiles actually prefer to listen to LP. (I do not want to make this into a CD vs LP thread)

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by invenio

I think that one reason why people may prefer the look of LD compared to digital formats like DVD is that the signal is analog. Although "resolution" may be higher with DVD, you also get things like digtal artifacts that are very unpleasent to the eye. With LD there are non of these banding, macroblocking.. etc artifacts which are very displeasing to the eye.

Instead we get color (chroma) noise, herringbone, rolling dropouts, speckling, and other artifacts. Much more noticeable than the occasional digital artifacts.

You get LDs that look decent pressed at one plant (Pioneer, DADC) and horrid at another (Technidisc, WEA).

I was banned at a couple stores for excessive exchanges trying to get a decent pressing of my favorite films. I do NOT miss those things.

[invenio]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

Instead we get color (chroma) noise, herringbone, rolling dropouts, speckling, and other artifacts. Much more noticeable than the occasional digital artifacts.

You get LDs that look decent pressed at one plant (Pioneer, DADC) and horrid at another (Technidisc, WEA).

I was banned at a couple stores for excessive exchanges trying to get a decent pressing of my favorite films. I do NOT miss those things.

You are 100% correct! However, keep in mind that you may find chroma noise very distracting compared to macro blocking, somebody may find the opposite to be true. I think this is where the personal preference arguement comes in. Which particular limitations of each format do YOU find most irritating? There is no right or wrong answer, IMHO.

As for particular LD's being of different quality.... this is true for modern formats like blu-ray. There are really exceptional transfers and ones which are terrible. Just look at something like the Fifth Element blu-ray that they had to re-release 1 year after the original pressing due to it's so many problems. 5th Element re-mastered review

[Reinbo]

Originally Posted by drummerboy_2002

Also not a great analogy. You could say you prefer the image of a Rembrandt taken from a cheap digital camera, but there's no denying the image taken from a Canon 1D will more closely resemble the original. Do you prefer the LD transfer over the original film? I have a feeling most peoples fondness for the format has more to do with nostalgia than the capabilities of the format itself.

And my analogy was more about the texture than the pixels. And I would not say that staying closer to the original look is better persé. I just love the videolook even if it has less dynamics, range, deep blacks, whatever. And that might be because of nostalgic reasons, but they are just as valid as any other. You learn to love what you grow up with.

Besides that the artwork is much nicer. Why buy blu-ray when you can just download the HD files?

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Reinbo

Besides that the artwork is much nicer. Why buy blu-ray when you can just download the HD files?

How about no extras?

And I don't know about you but I don't have unlimited space on my HDDs. After the factory floods HDDs are still not as cheap as they once were. Not to mention one crash can wipe out your library.

[Reinbo]

Well I don't care very much about the extra's on most blu rays. Only Criterion offers really interesting ones and some other films, but for watching a hd file will do. And the next format will offer even better picture and sound, but none of them will beat the art work, the stuff you can hold, feel and watch. Besides that I love the nostagia of it.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by Lucy Diamond

It is sooooooooo funny you mention this NOW because I JUST got into laserdiscs and not only are they still around...they are around with a vengeance.

Really! What new movies, and other home video content are they releasing on laserdisc?

[invenio]

Originally Posted by slimdude

Really! What new movies, and other home video content are they releasing on laserdisc?

I think he means there is an active laserdisc community where you can buy and sell laserdiscs. I collect and enjoy watching LD's. If you go on ebay and LDDB.com you can see 1,000's of LD's on sale at any given moment. It's a small community but a very active one.

[Pondosinatra]

Something not mentioned is that some movies I don't want to see in HD. I've been watching Space 1999 on DVD and there's some scenes I wouldn't want to see on Blu-ray - I can already see the wires attached to the actors when they're supposed to be weightless on the DVD lol.

I imagine something like the original Star Trek TV series would also be cringeworthy on Blu due to the higher resolution.

Some of those older movies would lose some of the fantasy aspect if all the warts normally hidden at a lower resolution were revealed IMO.