Laser offers more Advantages than DVD.

[Marvingj]

Laser Discs offer true full-bandwidth uncompressed, uncopyguarded video. When used with an analog video line doubler and data- grade video display, a good laser disc can easily outperform it's (unprocessed) DVD counterpart. Laser Discs recorded in 16 bit digital matrix surround usually sound better than many DVDs that only contain Dolby-Digital 5.1 or compressed 2-channel audio. A laser disc player will play back at about 425 lines of resolution. Now who is better, think about this its a Older Technology. Of Course DVD is not Truly Digital 100%.

[davideck]

You might change your mind after seeing a GOOD DVD Player with digital output that decodes MPEG-2 to the native resolution of a GOOD Projector onto a GOOD screen. I never imagined that MPEG-2 could look so great!

Compared to NTSC or PAL composite video? No contest...

[edDV]

Comparing a good commercial DVD to the latest generation commercial Laserdisc (also available with AC-3 5.1 digital audio), I'd say the DVD wins the contest mostly on the following specs despite DVD's MPeg2 compression.

1. Component YUV and progressive scan vs composite NTSC or PAL.
2. Signal to Noise.
3. Capacity (assuming dual layer DVD). A full feature CAV laserdisc offers only 30 min. per side.
4. Physical disc size.

Laserdisc links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laserdisc
http://www.oz.net/blam/LaserDisc/FAQ/

[Marvingj]

DVDs use MPEG-2 compression to store the video information. Discs that are not mastered to exacting standards can show some compression "artifact" distortion. Contrary to advance expectations, DVD video artifacts usually show up as grey-scale distortions or "shade rings" in otherwise soft pastel tones, and not in "fast motion" sequences. Artifacts are most noticeable in poorly encoded "fade to blacks" where the increasing darkness will take on a stair-step quality. DVD's MPEG-2 digital video does not work well with analog video line doublers. However, good results may be obtained with computer based digital enhancement to obtain higher resolutions.

[dphirschler]

The LDs suffer from dot crawl. I suppose this is due in part to them being stored as a composite signal. Also anamorphic widescreen beats letterbox widescreen hands down. And there are very few anamorphic LDs. Lastly, you can't find LDs in the store anymore and no more new movies are being pressed. I love LDs too, but I recognize it's time to move on.


Darryl

[gshelley61]

Have a look at a properly encoded, high quality film to DVD tranfer (like Lord of the Rings, for example)... played back on an upscaling DVD player with digital video output (DVI, HDMI) displayed on a nice fixed pixel digital TV (like a Samsung DLP). There's no comparison.

LD's have inherent video grain and noise, lower resolution, and use a letterbox widescreen format. They simply don't look as good as a high quality DVD. Audio... well, that's another matter. LD's definitely have a technical advantage with their uncompressed digital audio. In the real world, it doesn't amount to much, though. Many DVD's sound terrific, with stunning surround mixes... some in higher quality DTS.

[waheed]

Have a look at a properly encoded, high quality film to DVD tranfer (like Lord of the Rings, for example) There's no comparison

T2, Extreme DVD (Region 1 Edition) looks superb, being a digital transfer from 1080P.

[Marvingj]

Laser rot is a manufacturing defect whereby the two halves of a laserdisc are improperly glued together, allowing air and other impurities to get in between. This causes a visible degradation of the image in the form of multi-colored speckles on screen. It usually starts from the edge and works its way inwards, meaning the beginning or ending of a side first. In extreme cases, it can make the disc unwatchable and may even affect the audio with pops and distortion. It is a condition without a cure, and it gets worse over time. A disc you last watched several years ago may have rotted to the point of unplayability in the meantime. Conversely, there have been cases (I had one) where a disc might be fully rotted as soon as you pull it out of the shrinkwrap.

A rule of thumb is that signs of laser rot will manifest themselves within two years of a disc's manufacture. Since all laserdiscs were manufactured at least that long ago, any disc you watch now without seeing signs of rot will probably not develop them.

It is estimated that the average laserdisc collection will experience 1 - 2% rot. My own collection of about 250 discs only has two verifiable cases of rot, one extreme and one mild, and one disc with some suspicious dropouts that I'm keeping my eye on. Some collectors have experienced higher percentages depending on the type of material that they collect and the manufacturing plant that a number of their discs come from

[jman98]

I'm not really sure what the purpose of this thread is. Is it a troll? Is Marvingj simply bored?

Laserdisc resolution was 528x576 PAL and either 528x480 NTSC or 544x480 NTSC. That is less than DVD offers, certainly much less than high def DVD will offer. As far as audio goes, DVD does support PCM audio, which is what laserdisc used. Many concert DVDs use PCM audio and such audio is just as good as anything laserdisc offered.

I have quite a few laserdiscs and was a big fan of the format at the time. I went to DVD very reluctantly. Laserdiscs were quite good in their time, but the large size and high cost of discs and players turned a lot of people off. If you think DVDs are inferior, that's certainly your right to do so, but I would point out that not all DVDs have compression artifacts. Although I live in America, I have plenty of DVDs from other regions, usually PAL discs, that I am quite easily able to watch on my TV or PC thanks to software or standalone players that ignore region coding. I know that PAL/NTSC laserdisc players existed, but they were expensive imports and I don't know that they were able to convert the video format. They may have just simply passed through the same video as the disc, which isn't too good for those of us with NTSC TVs.

Talking about laserdisc is an excerise in nostalgia since no new discs have been made since (I think) the late 1990s. It's kind of like arguing that Betamax was better than VHS. So what? It's dead. I know some people are absolutely convinced that music simply cannot be accurately reproduced by anything other than a ridiculously expensive record player, despite the fact that vinyl has limitations in dynamic range, frequency response and can have surface noise. Every dead or dying format probably has some die hard who supports it. I'm amazed at how many people in developed countries still act like VCD is some kind of wonder disc, despite the fact that SVCD/CVD and DVD long ago surpassed it in terms of quality.

[TooLFooL]

what is a troll?

[vhelp]

Sorry for the long post..

Laserdisc quality is definately better than VHS quality, but I don't
think it is so when it comes to DVD's.

Sure there are plenty of poorly "encoded" Commercial DVD's, but that
*is* the point. I mean, the format is better than Laserdisc, but what
we (you) really need to look into, is the encoding method/process used
in the transfer *too* Commercial DVD. That is where the problem is.

A lot of DVD's (still) today, are poorly encoded, and in most cases,
a tipicle sized tv set will show the results, usually noticed as such,
macroblocks (pixelation) etc.

As was mentioned earlier in this thread, Laserdisc has some noise in it,
but I believe that this is mostly on account of the player; and capture
device; being used. As for the wire connections, that is a matter of
opinion.. and is dependant upon the given user's setup and experience.

For instance, it is my belief (as well as others) that Laserdisc mainly
has a lot of dot-crawl, probably due to the way the source was transfered
to the medium (actual laserdisc disk) and past history has been incorrect
about a few things/issues such as dot-crawl and how they are the results
thereof, in the past.

Dot-crawl is (in short) embeded (or a part of the transfer) into the video
transfered to the Laserdisc's disk service or whatever.
When you capture from this player, in most cases, and depending upon your
given capture card (NOT capture wires) you will or may, end up with a lot
of dot-crawl in your final AVI file.

S-Video vs. Composite, and dot-crawl ...

It is my opinion that dot-crawl is not caused by the connection used in
the capture.. ie, s-video vs. composite. In this case, (especially) when
the source is Laserdisc, you will encounter dot-crawl in your final capture
AVI file.. but (levels) will vary from user to user setup.

For instance, in my given setup..

** ATI-TV Wonder VE -- composite only connections
** ATI-Rage Fury Pro - composite only connections

My VE will capture everything w/out much filter (if any) from the capture
device. And, the result will inculde most of the dot-crawl being captured
in the AVI file.

My Rage Fury Pro card is another story. Still composite connections, but
with a better filter system on the card, it produces almost NO dot-crawl
in the final capture AVI file.

Thus, what is happening here, is this.. the capture card's hardware is
usuing a (hardware) filter, to filter out the dot-crawl (not that it is
aiming at it, ..or it is) as well as other things being filtered out.

Two things can/will happen on account of (hardwaer) filtering ...

A) When a given capture card has a good (hardware) filter system, your AVI
file will be (in a sense) smoother in grain, but softer in sharpness.
This is good for the MPEG encoding process, but bad for the final product
on account of the lack of sharpness. Sure, you can add in a touch of
sharpness filtering in your editirng/encoding software stage. But, you
can only go so far, (if noticable in the first place) before you make
things worse, by adding/introducing non-video related information to your
AVI (or mpeg) file.

B) Or, should you have a less active (hardware) filter on your given
capture card, you will have more detail, including the dot-crawl, *but* your
MPEG encoder will have to work harder in providing good quality, *and* will
require higher bitrate as such. The good part in this (the way I see it) is
that (assuming you used a high bitrate to begin with) when you output this
to your given dvd player (after authoring to dvd) the chances of your TV
set's circuitry having a good (or better, hardware) filter to filter out
dot-crawl, (among other things that it filters) and produce near-quality as
your original Laserdisc to begin with.

As dumb-founded as it may seem to you all, I'm theorizing on B) because
I feel that this is the best method to use when transfering from Laserdisc, to
DVD, and quality is expected to be near perfect or 100% on the mark.

Remember, the goal is to transfer to a new medium, no-holds-bar rules. That
means, your aim should be maximum quality, and not space-per-disk, as in the
majority of the many users heres' aim is currently. From my experience here,
VBR rules the way. But, (some of you already know) I disagree, but mainly
on account of the current software and there limitations out there in use
today, that suffer in this area. It is my opinion, based on my own many trails
with experiences, that CBR and a high bitrate is what should rule in these
cases. Quality is the goal.

Using A) as your prefered/assumed better method commonly tought ...

Have you all used this approach in your every day captures, and encoded to
MPEG, and then proceeded to view on your PC monitor, or better yet, TV set ??
And, have you noticed how "soft" the picture looks ??

This is on account of the given capture cards's (hardware) filter in use.
That is, those that you know get rid of the dot-crawl. These are those
devices that will in the end, result in "softer" looking MPEG's.

As I've mentioned above, this may work better in the long-run for your
MPEG's encoding (quality'wise, in the noise dept) and reduce the bitrate
requirements, hence, fitting more on a given DVD disk.. but at a price.

I'm still researching the best approach, Composite vs. S-Video. At the
moment, I'm torn between the two, when it comes to Laserdisc. I think
that the final answer will largely depend on the player and capture device
and it's (hardware) filter.

But those capture devices that have lesser (hardware) filter abilities
will result in better detail. The secret to your success, is to
use B) and use CBR and a high enough bitrate that will produce
little, to zero pixelation in your final MPEG's. This is the secret
to a successful transfer and expecting maximum quality. But, using VBR
and your best-fit bitrate calcualtiong (per dvd disk) will deminish your
final returns. Anyways..

Thus, these are comprimises that we make every day.

So, after all this, could Laserdisc be *better* than DVD's that are put out
commercially ??

The answer, No.

DVD's have more to offer. Forget about sound/audio. We are mainly concirned
with video. The resolution is greater, and the MPEG is a good format. But, the
process, including the software/hardware used to encode to a final MPEG has to
be up to the job, however. This is subject to the given user who is responsible
for the Cinema movie to Commercial DVD. So, you can't go blaiming the MPEG
format for the poorer quality resulted on the/those Commercial DVD's.

A good Commercial DVD is one that is not riddled with pixelation. There are
two formats that are in use today. Standard DVD, and SuperBIT DVD.

SuperBIT DVD offer better quality (less, to almost zero pixelation) hence are
better quality video, than Laserdisc.. in my opinion

To recap:

** Composite vs. S-Video, answer: for laserdisc, (IMO) composite (pendant on cap dev)
** A) vs. B) answer: B) if you want quality, A) if space-per-disk
** Hardare Filter (good vs. poor) answer: Go w/ B) if quality, else A) if space
** Laserdisc vs. DVD, answer: Commercial DVD (dependant upon user/sys setup)
** SuperBIT vs. Standard DVD, answer: superBit

-vhelp 3590

[Forum Troll]

what is a troll?

I am a troll.

OTOH, I have experienced the Laserdisc and DVD scene. I've noticed that the sound on some of my old lasers is a bit more dynamic and richer that the DVD mix of the same track. That's about the only thing better.

[edDV]

...
For instance, it is my belief (as well as others) that Laserdisc mainly
has a lot of dot-crawl, probably due to the way the source was transfered
to the medium (actual laserdisc disk) and past history has been incorrect
about a few things/issues such as dot-crawl and how they are the results
thereof, in the past.

Dot-crawl is (in short) embeded (or a part of the transfer) into the video
transfered to the Laserdisc's disk service or whatever.
When you capture from this player, in most cases, and depending upon your
given capture card (NOT capture wires) you will or may, end up with a lot
of dot-crawl in your final AVI file.

S-Video vs. Composite, and dot-crawl ...

It is my opinion that dot-crawl is not caused by the connection used in
the capture.. ie, s-video vs. composite. In this case, (especially) when
the source is Laserdisc, you will encounter dot-crawl in your final capture
AVI file.. but (levels) will vary from user to user setup.

For instance, in my given setup..

** ATI-TV Wonder VE -- composite only connections
** ATI-Rage Fury Pro - composite only connections

My VE will capture everything w/out much filter (if any) from the capture
device. And, the result will inculde most of the dot-crawl being captured
in the AVI file.

My Rage Fury Pro card is another story. Still composite connections, but
with a better filter system on the card, it produces almost NO dot-crawl
in the final capture AVI file.

Thus, what is happening here, is this.. the capture card's hardware is
usuing a (hardware) filter, to filter out the dot-crawl (not that it is
aiming at it, ..or it is) as well as other things being filtered out.

...

-vhelp 3590

Laserdisc uses composite NTSC or PAL where the color U and V components are modulated about a subcarrier (3.58MHz for NTSC and 4.43MHz for PAL). In this way, the color information is overlayed into the Y (luminance) information as a single signal capable of transmission on a single wire.

The problems with composite video (e.g. dot crawl, color beats, etc.) come from crosstalk between Y and UV (chroma). A comb filter is required for best separation of Y, U and V during NTSC or PAL decoding. See this excellent overview: http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/vidcomb.htm

S-Video is also NTSC or PAL but Y and subcarrier (containing U and V) are carried on separate wires for complete separation.

[vhelp]

@ edDV

Thank you for the reminder of the subcarreir and other actualities
of the video nuounces of which I realized then and currently, and this is
mainly the reason for the dot-crawl on Laserdisc in the first place

I think my point above, was specifically w/ Laserdisc, but can also
be applied to other sources when the source already has the dot-crawl
imbeded on account of whatever method used to process the given source..
meaning, that.. ie, if cable/satellite etc were to exhibit this dot-crawl
already in its source, then it would fall into the catagory of Laserdisc
and their pheoniminas of issues that I mentioned above.. that composite
is probably the best method to use, pending your capture device and it's
(hardware) filter capabilities.

(But, I think that s-video, in the long run, [for max detail] would be
best utilized even for Laserdisc reproduction, but as I mentioned above,
that [in so many words] your mileage will vary from user to user, and
capture device to capture device and its capabilities. That is why it is
important to try both, as others have suggested, before making a final
decision on which direction to take.. comp or s-video)

Weather comp. or s-video, if the source is contaminated w/ dot-crawl,
(before capturing it) then even s-video will carry it. This has been my
experience with my many trials and tribulations with Laserdisc capture
processes.. from Analog Captures; to MPEG-2 captures; to DV captures..
using Composite *and* S-Video connections. Again, I stress, depending
upon your given capture device's (hardware) filter capabiliies.

-vhelp 3592

[gshelley61]

Dot crawl and other Y/C separation artifacts occur when the luma and chroma are split from a composite source using an inferior comb filter, especially a high bandwidth composite video source like laserdisc. These artifacts are not embedded in the original signal.

Modern digital multi-line, motion adaptive comb filters (like those found in name brand DVD recorders) usually do an outstanding job of Y/C separation and artifacts like dot crawl are generally not much of a factor. However, some computer capture cards have poor quality comb filters and it is not uncommon to see separation artifacts when transferring to digital using that method.

[vhelp]

Adding on to what I mentioned above and dot-crawl and throwing
away old tradition and practices, consider this ...

In other words, if you want to maintain the "originality' of the source
Laserdisc, then the best method to use is probably the one that will
actually reproduce the dot-crawl and everything else. Because,
there will be no filtering, hence softness addedd to the final captured
AVI file.

I know it sounds like going against the grain, not to mention, the old
teachings of such nuounces in the processes of video.

My point w/ capturing even the dot-crawl is this.. if your given
TV (or dvd player) is equipted with an even better (hardware) filter,
then, the chances are, you will not see them when you watch the final
transfer and encoded to MPEG and authored to DVD media and played on your
given dvd player or tv set.. hence, approaching the chances of the video
showing the source as close to the original's detail.

In other words, when you play your given Laserdisc connected to your tv
set, you are subject to your Laserdisc's (hardware) filter, *and* your
tv sets (hardware) filter to finally display the end product. The chances
are, that you are pretty damn satisfied with this given setup.

NOW, you want to transfer this Laserdisc to DVD media, and reproduce it
as closest to the Laserdisc. This can be possible, but only after realizing
everything I mendtioned above and then some.. ie, your skills, etc.

-vhelp 3593

[Marvingj]

The single most important thing you can do to improve laserdisc picture quality is hunt down a copy of the Video Essentials laserdisc and carefully calibrate your television for the LD signal. Laserdisc and DVD require separate calibration. You may have tuned up your set with an Avia DVD or similar and think it looks great, but the settings you've chosen for DVD may be radically different than what you'll need for laserdisc.

For one thing, laserdisc players output (and the discs are mastered for) a black level at 7.5 IRE. If you have a progressive scan DVD player, on the other hand, this will output black level at 0 IRE. The DVD picture is by default darker than the laserdisc picture. Calibrating your set by DVD standards means that you will be raising your Brightness and Contrast values higher to compensate for the darker picture. Therefore, when you play a laserdisc at the same settings the picture will look washed out and dull, and will have poor black levels. The image will lack the "pop" you see with a properly calibrated picture. The simple solution to this is to save separate settings for each format, properly adjusted by Video Essentials standards. This should restore a better contrast balance, improving depth and making the picture look a little more vibrant, with better color saturation.

Contrast values set too high will also have the unfortunate side effect of emphasizing video noise and other flaws in the analog signal (just as it would emphasize compression artifacts in a DVD picture if your Contrast was too high for that format), making the movie you watch look really grainy and ugly. Unfortunately, the Video Essentials test patterns for Contrast calibration are geared specifically for CRT displays, which cause blooming or geometric distortion at high settings. These patterns aren't much use for fixed panel digital displays such as LCD, DLP, or plasma. In this case, you'll just have to eyeball it. Lower your Contrast so that whites still look pure white, but fixed pattern noise doesn't jump out at you.

If your LD player offers the control, you will also wind up playing with digital noise reduction (DNR) variables to clean up a noisy analog signal. Composite video can be inherently noisy, and DNR can be a very good thing. But it also has its drawbacks. Adding too much DNR will soften and blur a movie image, as well as cause fine details to smear when in motion. That is obviously not a goal to aim for, as the DNR artifacts may be more distracting than the noise they were cleaning up. Some people dislike the look of DNR and turn it off entirely, but in my experience almost all laserdiscs require at least some measure of noise reduction. Just be sure you don't over-apply it. The better laserdisc players will offer separate control over the YNR and CNR variables. I find that generally it is best to keep YNR set low to avoid smearing, while CNR can be moved a little higher. The way that noise reduction reacts with a video image will vary from display type to display type, so you will probably have to play around with the settings to fine-tune them for that balance where noise in the signal is reduced without smearing important picture details.