Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

HDTVs with 2 DVI inputs?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 3:37:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Is anyone making an HD set 40 inches or smaller with 2 DVI inputs yet? I'd
really like to be able to utilize DVI both from a DSS box and a DVD player
without the need for an inline switcher.

More about : hdtvs dvi inputs

June 5, 2004 3:37:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Why? DVI doesn't offer any particular improvement over component...just
copy protection for the software maker.

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040604193710.16625.00000424@mb-m15.aol.com...
> Is anyone making an HD set 40 inches or smaller with 2 DVI inputs yet? I'd
> really like to be able to utilize DVI both from a DSS box and a DVD player
> without the need for an inline switcher.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 4:13:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Curmudgeon wrote:

> Why? DVI doesn't offer any particular improvement over component...just
> copy protection for the software maker.

This guy has been pestering alt.video.laserdisc for well over a year
about which lasderdisc player he should get. It's best to ignore him. He
seems to have no real interest in the answers given to him.

> "Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20040604193710.16625.00000424@mb-m15.aol.com...
>
>>Is anyone making an HD set 40 inches or smaller with 2 DVI inputs yet? I'd
>>really like to be able to utilize DVI both from a DSS box and a DVD player
>>without the need for an inline switcher.

Matthew

--
If the war in Iraq was over oil, we lost.
Related resources
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 6:05:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>This guy has been pestering alt.video.laserdisc for well over a year
>about which lasderdisc player he should get

My initial batch of questions only lasted about 2 weeks. And in light of the
NG's advice, I borrowed a CLD-79, nearly identical to the D704 you guys
reccomended that I start with. Now that the owner wants me to return his 79 I'v
strted asking about higher-end units, so that I may purchase one for myself.
The guys on the LD NG rarely ever seem to agree about anything, and if my line
of questioning lasts more than one or two posts they get pissed off at me. Of
course that isn't enough, Matthew needs to be here tarnishing me as well.

>It's best to ignore him. He
>seems to have no real interest in the answers given to him.

He says this because I continued to ask questions for awhile rather than run
out on a whim and buy the first player the LD NG reccomended to me. I think
anyone would take their time when spending hundreds of dollars or more on a
technology they know very little about.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 6:06:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>Why? DVI doesn't offer any particular improvement over component...just
>copy protection for the software maker.

There's no improvement in picture quality?
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 6:19:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> >Why? DVI doesn't offer any particular improvement over component...just
> >copy protection for the software maker.
>
> There's no improvement in picture quality?

Depends on the set, but in general you should see a minor improvement.
Biggest advantage is being able to use an upscaling DVD player to get a
great viewing experience.

Anyway, go for a set that uses HDMI, not DVI. DVI will be fading away this
year.

If you go with DVI, make sure it also supports HDCP. Otherwise many of the
new DVD players won't drive it.
June 5, 2004 12:56:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Not 1 person in 100 will be able to identify ANY picture quality
improvement.


"Keith Jack" <kjack2@video-demystified.com> wrote in message
news:10c340o7lplj1f0@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > >Why? DVI doesn't offer any particular improvement over
component...just
> > >copy protection for the software maker.
> >
> > There's no improvement in picture quality?
>
> Depends on the set, but in general you should see a minor improvement.
> Biggest advantage is being able to use an upscaling DVD player to get a
> great viewing experience.
>
> Anyway, go for a set that uses HDMI, not DVI. DVI will be fading away
this
> year.
>
> If you go with DVI, make sure it also supports HDCP. Otherwise many of the
> new DVD players won't drive it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 5:22:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Curmudgeon" <gary@nospam.com> wrote in
news:Y08wc.6182$1s1.4834@bignews4.bellsouth.net:

> Why? DVI doesn't offer any particular improvement over
> component...just copy protection for the software maker.
>

If you have a TV with a digital processor (DLP, LCD, etc.), using DVI saves
you one or more analog-to-digital (and vice versa) conversions.
Anonymous
June 5, 2004 5:47:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Steve Grauman wrote:

>>This guy has been pestering alt.video.laserdisc for well over a year
>>about which lasderdisc player he should get
>
>
> My initial batch of questions only lasted about 2 weeks. And in light of the
> NG's advice, I borrowed a CLD-79, nearly identical to the D704 you guys
> reccomended that I start with. Now that the owner wants me to return his 79 I'v
> strted asking about higher-end units, so that I may purchase one for myself.
> The guys on the LD NG rarely ever seem to agree about anything, and if my line
> of questioning lasts more than one or two posts they get pissed off at me. Of
> course that isn't enough, Matthew needs to be here tarnishing me as well.

I was noting you well established behavior, which you have admitted, above.

>>It's best to ignore him. He
>>seems to have no real interest in the answers given to him.
>
>
> He says this because I continued to ask questions for awhile rather than run
> out on a whim and buy the first player the LD NG reccomended to me.

You keep asking the same questions and get the same answers. Many
different player recommendation were given to you, almost all of them
excellent. You keep coming back for more recommendations, which might be
acceptable if LD players were still being made, but there hasn't been a
new LD player design in more than five years. Why would you expected the
respondents to enjoy being ignored, repeatedly?

> I think
> anyone would take their time when spending hundreds of dollars or more on a
> technology they know very little about.

If you had any interest in buying an LD player, given the advice you
have been received over the course of many months, you would have done
so. If you had decided not to buy one, you would have stopped asking
questions.

Matthew

--
If the war in Iraq was over oil, we lost.
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 5:54:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Keith Jack (kjack2@video-demystified.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > There's no improvement in picture quality?
>
> Depends on the set, but in general you should see a minor improvement.
> Biggest advantage is being able to use an upscaling DVD player to get a
> great viewing experience.

Depending on the quality of the scaling, this might not be a plus.

I use the MyHD card and its 19-tap scaler to watch DVDs upconverted to
1080i (my display can only do 480p as the best progressive mode, so I'll
take resolution over progressive scan), and it looks great via component.

People who have the MDP-120 and the DVI daughtercard *and* don't have
a fixed-pixel display report that the difference between component and
DVI is pretty much insignificant.

--
Jeff Rife |
SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/FoxTrot/Blackboard.gif
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
uce@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 6:15:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Curmudgeon" wrote:
> Not 1 person in 100 will be able to identify ANY picture quality
> improvement.

Are you referring specifically to HDTV sets only? Otherwise I would be one
person that definitely sees an improvement in PQ when using DVI connection
over component! You would also find hundreds, if not thousands of folks
just like me who have posted similar results at the AVS forum. I own a Sony
LCD front projector and there is no doubt that keeping the signal digital
from source to display makes a difference when you own a true digital
display. Component video connections convert the signal to analog and that
alone degrades the image from what you would get if you used a DVI or HDMI
connection. Now if you own a CRT HDTV set whether it be directview or RPTV,
then your argument holds true because those sets are analog and the DVI is
provided so that you can conveniently use a single connection to an HDTV
satellite receiver.

borromini
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 3:30:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040604193710.16625.00000424@mb-m15.aol.com...
> Is anyone making an HD set 40 inches or smaller with 2 DVI inputs yet? I'd

How about slightly larger? The new Samsung HLP series of DLP rear-projector
sets starts at 46" and has two DVI inputs (one of them HDMI..)

Folks using the older one-DVI model say it does make a noticeable difference
in image quality. I'm not speaking from first-hand experience, but they're
getting mighty tempting.

There's a group buy in the AVS Forum for the new 46" at $2700 delivered,
which is several hundred bucks lower than the clearance sales on last year's
model in the brick-and-mortar stores. If the size of the set is a concern,
these have speakers at the bottom and measure just 40" wide.
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 3:31:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

How do I know if I need a DVI-I or DVI-D?

Is there somewhere you can buy a DVI switch?

"Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b2c7bb8dad50ae99896b5@razor.nabs.net...
> Keith Jack (kjack2@video-demystified.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> > > There's no improvement in picture quality?
> >
> > Depends on the set, but in general you should see a minor improvement.
> > Biggest advantage is being able to use an upscaling DVD player to get a
> > great viewing experience.
>
> Depending on the quality of the scaling, this might not be a plus.
>
> I use the MyHD card and its 19-tap scaler to watch DVDs upconverted to
> 1080i (my display can only do 480p as the best progressive mode, so I'll
> take resolution over progressive scan), and it looks great via component.
>
> People who have the MDP-120 and the DVI daughtercard *and* don't have
> a fixed-pixel display report that the difference between component and
> DVI is pretty much insignificant.
>
> --
> Jeff Rife |
> SPAM bait: | http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/FoxTrot/Blackboard.gif
> AskDOJ@usdoj.gov |
> uce@ftc.gov |
Anonymous
June 6, 2004 10:53:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

DVI is a true digital interface where as component is still
(technically) analog. So DVI siginal is untainted and better. How much
of a difference you'll see visually is something of debate.



"Keith Jack" <kjack2@video-demystified.com> wrote in message news:<10c340o7lplj1f0@corp.supernews.com>...
> > >Why? DVI doesn't offer any particular improvement over component...just
> > >copy protection for the software maker.
> >
> > There's no improvement in picture quality?
>
> Depends on the set, but in general you should see a minor improvement.
> Biggest advantage is being able to use an upscaling DVD player to get a
> great viewing experience.
>
> Anyway, go for a set that uses HDMI, not DVI. DVI will be fading away this
> year.
>
> If you go with DVI, make sure it also supports HDCP. Otherwise many of the
> new DVD players won't drive it.
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 3:57:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> So DVI siginal is untainted

Another urban myth....

Ignoring the D/A and A/D conversion, there is just a much video processing
when DVI input or output is used as with analog component.


"JDeats" <jeremy@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:b0738dc6.0406061753.6b276af9@posting.google.com...
> DVI is a true digital interface where as component is still
> (technically) analog. So DVI siginal is untainted and better. How much
> of a difference you'll see visually is something of debate.
>
>
>
> "Keith Jack" <kjack2@video-demystified.com> wrote in message
news:<10c340o7lplj1f0@corp.supernews.com>...
> > > >Why? DVI doesn't offer any particular improvement over
component...just
> > > >copy protection for the software maker.
> > >
> > > There's no improvement in picture quality?
> >
> > Depends on the set, but in general you should see a minor improvement.
> > Biggest advantage is being able to use an upscaling DVD player to get a
> > great viewing experience.
> >
> > Anyway, go for a set that uses HDMI, not DVI. DVI will be fading away
this
> > year.
> >
> > If you go with DVI, make sure it also supports HDCP. Otherwise many of
the
> > new DVD players won't drive it.
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 5:14:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Keith Jack" <kjack2@video-demystified.com> wrote in message
news:10c340o7lplj1f0@corp.supernews.com...
> Biggest advantage is being able to use an upscaling DVD player to get a
> great viewing experience.

Some DVD players, like the Zenith DVB318 (available for as little as $160),
can upconvert to 1080i over both DVI and component-video.
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 8:16:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>Some DVD players, like the Zenith DVB318 (available for as little as $160),
>can upconvert to 1080i over both DVI and component-video.

But most of the modern HD sets uoconvert anyway, don't they? I'm looking at 34"
16:9 tubes. Primarily the JVC, Toshiba Cinema Series and Sony XBR product.
Also, as it seems that on a tube set there will be little or no difference
between HDMI/DVI and component, I'm not as concerned with having 2 inputs.
However, I would like to make some use of the single input I'll be getting. Is
the HDMI/DVI input better utilized for DVD or for HD-DSS?
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 8:23:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>I was noting you well established behavior, which you have admitted, above.

Yea, my well established fetish for getting information...gee, sorry.

>You keep asking the same questions and get the same answers

Sort of. One person tells me that player A will work best, while another tells
me that player B will work best. Kraig seems to think that an X9 will work best
in and HDTV but I've already said I'm not gonna spend $5k on a LD player so his
advice is essentially useless. People keep responding to my posts, so that must
mean something.

>If you had any interest in buying an LD player, given the advice you
>have been received over the course of many months, you would have done
>so.

Not under the circumstances. I took the group's advice and borrowed a 79, which
is again nearly identicle to the 704 you reccomended. I like the player, and
now, as my time to return the unit has come, I want to step up a little. You
might not have anything better to do than run around and B.S. about people, but
I certainly do.
Anonymous
June 7, 2004 8:25:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> If the size of the set is a concern,
>these have speakers at the bottom and measure just 40" wide.

Yea, it is. I think a 46" set is to big but I'll take a look at it. The only
other problem is I really still don't like the look of LCD and DLP sets. I
prefer tubes or RPTVs that use CRT lenses.
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 1:47:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Steve Grauman wrote:
>>I was noting you well established behavior, which you have admitted, above.
>
>
> Yea, my well established fetish for getting information...gee, sorry.


The same information, over and over and over and over and over.
>
>>You keep asking the same questions and get the same answers
>
>
> Sort of. One person tells me that player A will work best, while another tells
> me that player B will work best. Kraig seems to think that an X9 will work best
> in and HDTV but I've already said I'm not gonna spend $5k on a LD player so his
> advice is essentially useless. People keep responding to my posts, so that must
> mean something.

For the most part it means there is virtually nothing else to talk
about on a.v.l

>>If you had any interest in buying an LD player, given the advice you
>>have been received over the course of many months, you would have done
>>so.
>
>
> Not under the circumstances. I took the group's advice and borrowed a 79, which
> is again nearly identicle to the 704 you reccomended. I like the player, and
> now, as my time to return the unit has come, I want to step up a little. You
> might not have anything better to do than run around and B.S. about people, but
> I certainly do.

Anyone who cares to google up your posting history will see otherwise.

Matthew

--
If the war in Iraq was over oil, we lost.
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 2:59:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>Anyone who cares to google up your posting history will see otherwise.
>

Sure, I've had arguments before. And sure, I've said/done stupid things before.
Of course these are human traits and at least I'll admit to them. And as I've
pointed out on other boards, I'm only 21. Many of the posts that come up when
searching my name were made between the ages of 13 and 18 and were largly the
result of childishness and adolescent stupidty. But again, I'm will to admit to
that, and apologize for them. If you're sick of my questions, don't read my
posts. If you're tired of me, forget I exist. Why you feel as though I've
targeted you or the LD group in general for "mischeif" is beyond me. I'm young,
I don't make much money and buying a high-end LD player can be expensive still.
There are a lot of differences between players and I don't know about most of
them. I need the experience and knowledge of the board to help me.
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 9:20:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Lawrence G. Mayka" wrote:
> Some DVD players, like the Zenith DVB318 (available for as little as
$160),
> can upconvert to 1080i over both DVI and component-video.

Unless the DVD player manufacturer ignores current licensing restrictions,
there are no players that upscale DVDs via component video. Component video
is limited only to 480p. You'd have to rely on a separate video processor
unit, HDTV or HD projector to do the upscaling.

borromini
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 9:38:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Keith Jack" wrote:
>>"JDeats" wrote:
> > So DVI siginal is untainted
>
> Another urban myth....

It's NOT an urban myth! If you have anything smaller than 60" diagonal
image, it's hard to appreciate the quality gain when using DVI or HDMI
connections. However I have a Sony VPL-HS20 LCD front projector that
produces a 100" diagonal image fed by a Bravo D1 DVD player via DVI and a
Samsung HDTV receiver via HDMI and the image is SUPERIOR to using component
video connections on those same devices.

> Ignoring the D/A and A/D conversion, there is just a much video processing
> when DVI input or output is used as with analog component.

The problem with this statement is that you can't "ignore" the D/A
conversion! It's the root of many PQ issues because you've converted a
digital source signal to analog. Smaller HDTV's can still look very good,
but the larger you go with the size, the more noticeable the quality drop
becomes and the more you rely on post-processing electronics to get the
image to look good. The current standard rule of thumb: If you have a
large-scale (60"+) true digital TV or Projector like Plasma, LCD, DLP or
LCOS and have digital source equipment like HDTV receivers and DVD players
with DVI and/or HDMI then you should use those connections and forego using
component video, S-Video or any other analog connections. This rule of
thumb does not apply to CRT direct-view/RPTV units.

borromini

borromini
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 9:38:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"borromini" <asdf@asdf.com> wrote in message
news:enxxc.68654$RT.1525@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> "Keith Jack" wrote:
> >>"JDeats" wrote:
> > > So DVI siginal is untainted
> >
> > Another urban myth....
>
> It's NOT an urban myth!

Calm down -- I was referring to the statement that the DVI signal is
untainted as being a myth.

And yes, I am a DVI fan.
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 10:41:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

> This rule of
>thumb does not apply to CRT direct-view/RPTV units.

Why not? I figure that keeping the signal digital for as long as possible is of
benefit even on CRT Lens/Tube sets. There will need to be a D to A conversion
inside the set, but you'e avoided an unneccesary A to D conversion inside the
player. I figure that a good HD RP or tube set will have superior A to D
conversion than most any DVD player.
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 3:47:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I don't get it, why do you want a LD player? This does mean LaserDisc,
right? I thought that these were antiquated.

Patrick

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040607185955.15320.00000518@mb-m26.aol.com...
> >Anyone who cares to google up your posting history will see otherwise.
> >
>
> Sure, I've had arguments before. And sure, I've said/done stupid things
before.
> Of course these are human traits and at least I'll admit to them. And as
I've
> pointed out on other boards, I'm only 21. Many of the posts that come up
when
> searching my name were made between the ages of 13 and 18 and were largly
the
> result of childishness and adolescent stupidty. But again, I'm will to
admit to
> that, and apologize for them. If you're sick of my questions, don't read
my
> posts. If you're tired of me, forget I exist. Why you feel as though I've
> targeted you or the LD group in general for "mischeif" is beyond me. I'm
young,
> I don't make much money and buying a high-end LD player can be expensive
still.
> There are a lot of differences between players and I don't know about most
of
> them. I need the experience and knowledge of the board to help me.
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 6:07:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Patrick wrote:
> I don't get it, why do you want a LD player? This does mean LaserDisc,
> right? I thought that these were antiquated.

It depends upon your definition of "antiquated". LD is not antiquated
in the way CED, U-Matic, and consumer Beta are antiquated.

LD is "antiquated" in that there is only one LD player currently being
manufacturered, and that manufacturer has stated that this will be its
last LD player. There is also not much in the way of new releases in LD.

LD is technically capable of better performance than DVD, although in
practice this was rarely the case. LD records more or less a complete
analog signal while DVD uses lossy compression. Both LD and DVD are SD
formats.

The most important reason today why people would want an LD player is that
they have a large library of LD media that is irreplaceable in DVD (or is
not cost-effective to replace).

In the case of videotape, VHS quality largely caught up with Beta and
videotapes in general have a finite lifetime. LD and DVD media, once the
"rot" problem (which both have experienced) was addressed, do not have
this problem. As long as working players exist there is no reason to
replace LD or DVD media with the "next best thing".

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 1:50:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Steve Grauman" wrote:
> Why not? I figure that keeping the signal digital for as long as possible
is of
> benefit even on CRT Lens/Tube sets. There will need to be a D to A
conversion
> inside the set, but you'e avoided an unneccesary A to D conversion inside
the
> player. I figure that a good HD RP or tube set will have superior A to D
> conversion than most any DVD player.

The rule of thumb is for keeping the signal purely digital and taking
advantage of the visual clarity when enlarging an image beyond 60" TV sets.
Yes you can use the provided DVI/HDMI on a player or HD receiver and connect
it to your CRT TV/PJ, but everyone I know who has done this say they don't
see a difference from component video. Now if you can afford very expensive
video processing equipment then you come pretty damn close, but we're
talking about $$ to do that.

borromini
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 1:55:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Keith Jack" wrote:
> "borromini" <asdf@asdf.com> wrote in message
> news:enxxc.68654$RT.1525@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
> > "Keith Jack" wrote:
> > >>"JDeats" wrote:
> > > > So DVI siginal is untainted
> > >
> > > Another urban myth....
> >
> > It's NOT an urban myth!
>
> Calm down -- I was referring to the statement that the DVI signal is
> untainted as being a myth.

Notice I only capped the word "not"...I wasn't necessarily yelling in
response to your post. However, I believe the statement that a "DVI signal
is untainted" is true if we're talking about analog artifacts, which is one
of the most basic of problems people experience on large HD displays, even
with very good progressive scan DVDs using component video.

borromini
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 2:02:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

>I don't get it, why do you want a LD player? This does mean LaserDisc,
>right? I thought that these were antiquated.

LD has only been dead in the United States since 1998. The technology had
existed for over a decade prior, meaning that many, many movies were released
on it. And the quality is good enough that people are often surprised by it.
There were dozens upon dozens of released to LaserDisc that have either not
been re-printed as DVDs or which offer some level of supplemental material not
avaliable on the DVD version. That makes these titles desireable. Plus,
everything is a trade-off. Thanks to the Mpeg-2 codec used to compress
DVD-Video, DVDs are host to new problems that LD never suffered through. So
nothing is perfect.
Anonymous
June 12, 2004 3:25:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Mark Crispin <MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in
news:p ine.WNT.4.61.0406091353310.3540@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU:

> On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Patrick wrote:
>> I don't get it, why do you want a LD player? This does mean
>> LaserDisc, right? I thought that these were antiquated.
>
> It depends upon your definition of "antiquated". LD is not antiquated
> in the way CED, U-Matic, and consumer Beta are antiquated.
>
> LD is "antiquated" in that there is only one LD player currently being
> manufacturered, and that manufacturer has stated that this will be its
> last LD player. There is also not much in the way of new releases in
> LD.
>
> LD is technically capable of better performance than DVD, although in
> practice this was rarely the case. LD records more or less a complete
> analog signal while DVD uses lossy compression. Both LD and DVD are
> SD formats.
>

http://www.dvdscan.com/The%20Laserdisc%20FAQ%20by%20Leo...
20Introduction.htm

<BEGIN QUOTE>
Now, let me make this one thing absolutely crystal clear to all who
haven't had the chance to see DVD in a proper environment: DVD does have
better picture quality than LD. Period. There is no need to argue over
this. Here are some reasons:

* Horizontal resolution. NTSC DVD has a resolution of 500 lines
against NTSC LDs 420 lines. This is a 19% improvement.
* Vertical resolution. While the vertical resolution of a 4:3
transfer is the same for both of the systems, an anamorphic transfer of
a widescreen film on DVD has a 33% higher vertical resolution than its
LD counterpart.
* Component picture. While laserdiscs are recorded in the composite
domain, DVDs are not. Thus using a DVD player with Y/C or component
connections avoid the need to use comb filters, greatly improving
picture quality both in pureness and resolution.
* Chroma resolution. On NTSC LD, chroma resolution is 10% of the
luma resolution horizontally, and 100% vertically (actually less because
of comb filtering). In DVD chroma resolution is 50% of luma in both
directions. Also, chroma noise is a non-issue with DVD. It simply
doesn't exist.
* Luma dynamic range. DVD has a slightly higher dynamic range than
LD. This makes blacks richer. This is however a small point compared to
the previous ones.
<END QUOTE>

I have never heard anyone claim LD was superior at its best to DVD with
adequate compression settings. The fact that you are recording a
composite NTSC signal with all its defects versus a component YPrPb
separated signal would seem a big deal. Is it actually possible to get
superior performance from something like Joe Kane's original LD Video
Essentials compared to the newly mastered DVD version (Digital Video
Essentials), using the various test patterns, such as frequency sweeps
on properly set up displays? I don't have an LD player, so I can't try
this out, but I would be surprised if this were the case.

Angry Rabbit
!