Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

LD quality differences

Last response: in Home Theatre Legacy
Share
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 4:56:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

Laserdisc folks,

Why do some laserdiscs look terrible(1st season ST:TNG), but others look
great(Rolling Stones: Voodoo lounge). I don't understand how a company can
release such a poor looking disc while another company, their competition,
releases a crisp looking disc.

Sunstreaking Penguin

More about : quality differences

Anonymous
May 9, 2004 4:56:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

On Sun, 09 May 2004 00:56:16 GMT, Sunstreaking Penguin <jlurcott@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Laserdisc folks,

>Why do some laserdiscs look terrible(1st season ST:TNG), but others look
>great(Rolling Stones: Voodoo lounge). I don't understand how a company can
>release such a poor looking disc while another company, their competition,
>releases a crisp looking disc.

duh.. uh... perhaps laser disc mastering isn't a trivial process.
Anonymous
May 9, 2004 6:05:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

Probably for all the same reasons why some DVDs look great and others look like
trash.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 12:03:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>I don't understand how a company can release such a poor looking disc while
another company, their competition, releases a crisp looking disc.>

It simply didn't matter. LDers demonstrated that they would blindly
accept anything released on their beloved format.....and that is what they got.
LDers lovingly endured years of P&S, rot/speckling, crosstalk, poor bang for
the buck, "white dots," chroma noise, etc. and would still be willing to
purchase far inferior LDs today for twice the price of state of the art DVDs.
There was no limit to the compromise LDers were willing to accept for their
underachieving clunky format. Thankfully, consumers and non format obsessed A/V
enthusiasts alike have made DVD, the true high performance standard definition
format, the format of choice worldwide and have relegated the obsolete LD
format to the obscurity it so richly deserves.

Kraig
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 2:08:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

In article <20040509160302.19095.00000814@mb-m21.aol.com>,
kamcgann@aol.com (KAMCGANN) writes:
>>I don't understand how a company can release such a poor looking disc while
> another company, their competition, releases a crisp looking disc.>
>
> It simply didn't matter. LDers demonstrated that they would blindly
> accept anything released on their beloved format.....and that is what they got.
> LDers lovingly endured years of P&S, rot/speckling, crosstalk, poor bang for
> the buck, "white dots," chroma noise, etc. and would still be willing to
> purchase far inferior LDs today for twice the price of state of the art DVDs.
> There was no limit to the compromise LDers were willing to accept for their
> underachieving clunky format. Thankfully, consumers and non format obsessed A/V
> enthusiasts alike have made DVD, the true high performance standard definition
> format, the format of choice worldwide and have relegated the obsolete LD
> format to the obscurity it so richly deserves.
>
Before reading further, please recognize that I am 100% a DVD supporter,
and only have LDs for copying onto newer formats and for legacy purposes!!!

But, I have seen LDs have such variable quality that seems to be
related BOTH to the quality of the LD itself and also the mastering.

For example, my GWTW LD is very damned good (as good as one might
expect from composite video.) Its video noise is well below irritating.

On the other hand, I have some DVDs that were obviously mastered from
inferior sources (perhaps 3/4" masters.) They look 'mediocre.'
In one case, I have a DVD and a LD of the same material, and the
LD and DVD were almost indistingushable (because of being sourced
from the essentially same tape.) When CAREFULLY comparing the two,
I might give the DVD a very slight thumbs-up, but mastering is
very important. On the scale of LD quality, the LD material wasn't
100%, and the DVD didn't look significantly different.

On the VERY VERY best day, a good LD could look damned good for the
timeframe that they were common. I have some stuff (music videos)
that I'll probably never be able to buy on DVD (mastered directly from
a 2nd generation master tape or somesuch.) I lament not having a good
quality DVD of the out-of-date material.

So, LD still has value when the material has no other place to be. However,
I agree that well mastered DVD is the way to go.

John
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 3:50:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>I have some stuff (music videos)
>that I'll probably never be able to buy on DVD (mastered directly from
>a 2nd generation master tape or somesuch.)

In my mind, this is the primery reason behind the fact that LD still has any
support. I find the quality on good LDs to be quite fine, in fact I've seen
some LDs that looked better than many DVDs. But what I think keeps LD going is
that there was so much material released to the format and that so many titles
aren't being panned over to DVD. In addition, the avaliability of supplemental
material may be a consideration. I love having Criterion Editions when
avaliable, but many of the Criterion LDs either havn't been re-released or were
re-released on DVDs that pale by comparison where the supplements are
concerned. I'd almost always rather own the Criterion LD than the bare-bones
DVD. I have encountered a few issues with having to double-buy though. I
already own the 2-disc "super" special edition of Seven on DVD and now also
want the Criterion LD. They have some independant supplemental material and I
want all of it. Although this has happened with DVDs as well - for example, I
own 2 copies of T2: Judgement Day for the purpose of getting the supplemental
stuff.
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 6:46:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

"KAMCGANN" <kamcgann@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040509160302.19095.00000814@mb-m21.aol.com...
> >I don't understand how a company can release such a poor looking disc
while
> another company, their competition, releases a crisp looking disc.>
>
> It simply didn't matter. LDers demonstrated that they would
blindly
> accept anything released on their beloved format.....and that is what they
got.
> LDers lovingly endured years of P&S, rot/speckling, crosstalk, poor bang
for
> the buck, "white dots," chroma noise, etc. and would still be willing to
> purchase far inferior LDs today for twice the price of state of the art
DVDs.
> There was no limit to the compromise LDers were willing to accept for
their
> underachieving clunky format. Thankfully, consumers and non format
obsessed A/V
> enthusiasts alike have made DVD, the true high performance standard
definition
> format, the format of choice worldwide and have relegated the obsolete LD
> format to the obscurity it so richly deserves.
>
> Kraig
>

Who pulled your string?
Is it painful to be seething with hate the way you seem to be?
At least the posts following yours were informative and interesting unlike
yours......and now mine, I guess :-)
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 1:16:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

"Great White North" <ziegfield@mounty.com> wrote in message news:<52Cnc.16777$iF6.1742522@attbi_s02>...
> "KAMCGANN" <kamcgann@aol.com> wrote in message
> > Thankfully, consumers and non format
> > obsessed A/V
> > enthusiasts alike have made DVD, the true high performance standard
> definition
> > format, the format of choice worldwide and have relegated the obsolete LD
> > format to the obscurity it so richly deserves.
> >
> > Kraig
> >
>
> Who pulled your string?
> Is it painful to be seething with hate the way you seem to be?
> At least the posts following yours were informative and interesting unlike
> yours......and now mine, I guess :-)

You must be new to the group! Kraig has been posting his 'bash LD,
love DVD' blather for years. I understand he enjoys an honorable
place in many folks' killfile. You are correct ~ his posts add
nothing. If nothing else, it is interesting how, for a format he
despises, he spends a lot of time hanging out here and injecting his
valuable 2 cents.
Anonymous
May 10, 2004 11:16:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>Thankfully, consumers and non format
>obsessed A/V
>> enthusiasts alike have made DVD, the true high performance standard
>definition
>> format, the format of choice worldwide and have relegated the obsolete LD
>> format to the obscurity it so richly deserves.
>>
>> Kraig
>>
>
>Who pulled your string?
>Is it painful to be seething with hate the way you seem to be?
>At least the posts following yours were informative and interesting unlike
>yours......and now mine, I guess :-)

Kraig has always been like that and has been going with his clap-trap for
years!

He's the resident troll so it's best to just ignore him. - Reinhart
Anonymous
May 11, 2004 5:51:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

"Sunstreaking Penguin" <jlurcott@earthlink.net> writes:
> Why do some laserdiscs look terrible(1st season ST:TNG), but others look
> great(Rolling Stones: Voodoo lounge). I don't understand how a company can
> release such a poor looking disc while another company, their competition,
> releases a crisp looking disc.

I think it's the source elements. I think the 1st season ST:TNG on
DVD don't look so hot, either. But I see a fair amount of compression
artifacts on them, though.

--
Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412
Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com> Phone: (760) 499-9142
President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152
My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B
Anonymous
May 11, 2004 7:23:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>>There was no limit to the compromise LDers were willing to accept for their
underachieving clunky format.>>

>Is it painful to be seething with hate the way you seem to be?>

I feel neither hate nor love for any format. I reserve such passion for
the content stored on the discs, tapes, etc.
Though I am not shy about commenting on the limitations of the LD format
or the silly worship it receives here, I use the LD format for its exclusive
content and even purchased an HLD-X9 to get the most from the performance
challenged format. I also use DVD for its superb delivery of standard
definition material on my 16x9 HD TV. When "HD-DVD," arrives, I will
enthusiastically upgrade. I will not whine about the good ol' days of DVD like
those that desperately try to sentimentally rewrite the history of the obscure
LaserDisc format; the format that nearly proved that there was insufficient
consumer demand for OAR, 5.1, SEs, etc.

Kraig
Anonymous
May 11, 2004 7:30:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>Kraig has been posting his 'bash LD,
love DVD' blather for years.>

Reality has "bashed" LD far more than any of my posts.

>If nothing else, it is interesting how, for a format he despises, he spends a
lot of time hanging out here and injecting his valuable 2 cents.>

Firstly, I do not spend a lot of time with this NG. Does anyone?
Secondly, as this is a NG dedicated to a defunct format, unless you want to
only read posts from newbies wondering why LD looks so bad or people with
machines that need servicing, you shouldn't be so quick to complain about my
posts.

Kraig
Anonymous
May 11, 2004 7:46:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

I think the laserdisc format is nifty. People get a kick out of checking
the player and a disc out. They usually go "woah! That looks pretty good!
How long have these been out for?" Ignorance of the format certainly didn't
help..


"KAMCGANN" <kamcgann@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040509160302.19095.00000814@mb-m21.aol.com...
> >I don't understand how a company can release such a poor looking disc
while
> another company, their competition, releases a crisp looking disc.>
>
> It simply didn't matter. LDers demonstrated that they would
blindly
> accept anything released on their beloved format.....and that is what they
got.
> LDers lovingly endured years of P&S, rot/speckling, crosstalk, poor bang
for
> the buck, "white dots," chroma noise, etc. and would still be willing to
> purchase far inferior LDs today for twice the price of state of the art
DVDs.
> There was no limit to the compromise LDers were willing to accept for
their
> underachieving clunky format. Thankfully, consumers and non format
obsessed A/V
> enthusiasts alike have made DVD, the true high performance standard
definition
> format, the format of choice worldwide and have relegated the obsolete LD
> format to the obscurity it so richly deserves.
>
> Kraig
>
Anonymous
May 11, 2004 8:06:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

In article <m38yfzfisi.fsf@yakisoba.forte-intl.com>,
Ronald Cole <ronald@forte-intl.com> writes:
> "Sunstreaking Penguin" <jlurcott@earthlink.net> writes:
>> Why do some laserdiscs look terrible(1st season ST:TNG), but others look
>> great(Rolling Stones: Voodoo lounge). I don't understand how a company can
>> release such a poor looking disc while another company, their competition,
>> releases a crisp looking disc.
>
> I think it's the source elements. I think the 1st season ST:TNG on
> DVD don't look so hot, either. But I see a fair amount of compression
> artifacts on them, though.
>
The ST:TNG DVDs aren't the whole problem, but that series was done
in a composite post environment. I seem to remember one of the
episodes that didn't have gross NTSC artifacts. (I had always
blamed it on my local TV station, where they might have done multiple
encode/decode cycles in their delay... I was wrong.) (I have
some high quality component decks -- better than BetaSP, and found
that the composite encode/decode cycles on high quality decks don't
create the specific artifacts anyway.)

The DVDs have the same artifacts, and those do make the compression
algorithm work more poorly. (Their NTSC decoders seem to have worked
worse than mine at home, makes me wonder if they care about quality
at all.)

John
Anonymous
May 11, 2004 8:12:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>But what I think keeps LD going is that there was so much material released to
the format and that so many titles aren't being panned over to DVD.>

Keeps LD going? Respectfully, that is a stretch. I do not perceive that
LD is still "going" as it "went" long ago.
I am surprised that those that care to deal with the LD format have not
been able to acquire the LD content exclusive to the format by now. It has been
years since the last new LD release and most LDs were unceremoniously dumped
long ago. Though I still find a few import and/or obscure LDs that
interest me now and again, for the most part, it is the continuing release of
superior DVDs that allow me to further prune my well maintained LD garden and
add titles on DVD that never were and never will be released on LD.

Kraig
Anonymous
May 11, 2004 9:23:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

In article <20040511121200.09214.00000298@mb-m01.aol.com>,
kamcgann@aol.com (KAMCGANN) writes:
>>But what I think keeps LD going is that there was so much material released to
> the format and that so many titles aren't being panned over to DVD.>
>
> Keeps LD going? Respectfully, that is a stretch. I do not perceive that
> LD is still "going" as it "went" long ago.
> I am surprised that those that care to deal with the LD format have not
> been able to acquire the LD content exclusive to the format by now. It has been
> years since the last new LD release and most LDs were unceremoniously dumped
> long ago.
>
There are DEFINITELY some materials that are not available on DVD. That
is sad, but an artifact of pop culture (volume would be quite low.) I'd
guess that the licensing and mastering costs would be higher than the
potential profit in some cases. For example, I happen to have a taste
for early 1980's music videos, and there are SOME available on DVD, but
not enough. LD is only one kind of source material for that stuff, but
DVD seems quite poor. All too often, the material has been overly edited
(bent, folded, spindled or multilated in a video sense) no matter if
available on DVD, LD or elsewhere. Sometimes, even when a DVD might
be available, it might have been mangled relative to a more pristine
copy.

John
Anonymous
May 11, 2004 10:44:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

In article <c7r26v$2b0m$1@news.iquest.net>,
toor@iquest.net (John S. Dyson) writes:
> In article <20040511121200.09214.00000298@mb-m01.aol.com>,
> kamcgann@aol.com (KAMCGANN) writes:
>>>But what I think keeps LD going is that there was so much material released to
>> the format and that so many titles aren't being panned over to DVD.>
>>
>> Keeps LD going? Respectfully, that is a stretch. I do not perceive that
>> LD is still "going" as it "went" long ago.
>> I am surprised that those that care to deal with the LD format have not
>> been able to acquire the LD content exclusive to the format by now. It has been
>> years since the last new LD release and most LDs were unceremoniously dumped
>> long ago.
>>
> There are DEFINITELY some materials that are not available on DVD. That
> is sad, but an artifact of pop culture (volume would be quite low.) I'd
> guess that the licensing and mastering costs would be higher than the
> potential profit in some cases. For example, I happen to have a taste
> for early 1980's music videos, and there are SOME available on DVD, but
> not enough. LD is only one kind of source material for that stuff, but
> DVD seems quite poor. All too often, the material has been overly edited
> (bent, folded, spindled or multilated in a video sense) no matter if
> available on DVD, LD or elsewhere. Sometimes, even when a DVD might
> be available, it might have been mangled relative to a more pristine
> copy.
>
Correction: I didn't mean that the technical quality of DVD is necessarily
poor (of course not), but the quality of the mastering and the content
is often corrupted.

DVD can be quite beautiful (given the quality of SDTV).

John
Anonymous
May 12, 2004 1:54:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

John S. Dyson wrote:

> There are DEFINITELY some materials that are not available on DVD. That
> is sad, but an artifact of pop culture (volume would be quite low.) I'd
> guess that the licensing and mastering costs would be higher than the
> potential profit in some cases. For example, I happen to have a taste
> for early 1980's music videos, and there are SOME available on DVD, but
> not enough.

Same here. I have a small mobile DJ business as a sideline. My niche
is my video setup where I can project music videos as part of the show
every 2 or 3 songs. I have *many* collections of music videos released
on LD, but in perusing the availability of those on DVD the selection is
sadly lacking in comparison. LD wins hands down in this area.

--

Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me

Have you heard about the pregnant belly dancer who had to give
up her job? She just didn't have the stomach for it any more.
Anonymous
May 12, 2004 6:59:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

> Keeps LD going?

I meant in the sense that people are still buying and selling used discs. There
is still an active (albeit small) LD community. BTW, there's no need to go on
with the rant on DVD superiority. I'm not an anti-DVD person, in fact I agree
in that DVD is superior, at least from a technical standpoint. And most of the
films I own are on DVD. Preaching to the choir does no good.
Anonymous
May 12, 2004 8:54:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>The ST:TNG DVDs aren't the whole problem, but that series was done
>in a composite post environment.

Mentioning that, I recall that earlier episodes of "The Simpsons" were also
edited in a composite post environment. I'm not sure, but the dallies were put
on LaserDiscs after the film elements were transferred to video from the
telecine and the episode pieced together from those elements.

Of course, being animated, I'm betting that it was easier to deal with
correcting NTSC anomolies in "The Simpsons" than with ST:TNG. My DVDs of all
the first season eqisodes are very cleanly transferred. - Reinhart
Anonymous
May 12, 2004 11:25:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

I have been selling thousands of laserdisc on eBay (selling not just listing).
They go all over the world, though most go to the US and Canada. Many go for
big bucks. point Blank sold for ober $100.00 and Howard The Duck went for over
$80.00. Not bad for an obsolete format.
Anonymous
May 13, 2004 12:11:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

if it wasn't for ld and the optical format there would be no DVD today.



"KAMCGANN" <kamcgann@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040509160302.19095.00000814@mb-m21.aol.com...
> >I don't understand how a company can release such a poor looking disc
while
> another company, their competition, releases a crisp looking disc.>
>
> It simply didn't matter. LDers demonstrated that they would
blindly
> accept anything released on their beloved format.....and that is what they
got.
> LDers lovingly endured years of P&S, rot/speckling, crosstalk, poor bang
for
> the buck, "white dots," chroma noise, etc. and would still be willing to
> purchase far inferior LDs today for twice the price of state of the art
DVDs.
> There was no limit to the compromise LDers were willing to accept for
their
> underachieving clunky format. Thankfully, consumers and non format
obsessed A/V
> enthusiasts alike have made DVD, the true high performance standard
definition
> format, the format of choice worldwide and have relegated the obsolete LD
> format to the obscurity it so richly deserves.
>
> Kraig
>
Anonymous
May 13, 2004 12:33:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>I happen to have a taste for early 1980's music videos, and there are SOME
available on DVD, but not enough. >

Me too, John. I have a lot of music videos on LD. Some of my faves
are the Taylor Dayne and Belinda Carlisle video collections. If you haven't
noticed, there have been quite a few DVD video collections popping up recently,
some for the first time on any format, i.e., No Doubt, Sheryl Crow, and Olivia
Newton John. I am hoping for a definitive DVD collection of KISS videos.
Kraig
Anonymous
May 13, 2004 1:26:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

In article <20040512163309.10762.00001108@mb-m01.aol.com>,
kamcgann@aol.com (KAMCGANN) writes:
>>I happen to have a taste for early 1980's music videos, and there are SOME
> available on DVD, but not enough. >
>
> Me too, John. I have a lot of music videos on LD. Some of my faves
> are the Taylor Dayne and Belinda Carlisle video collections. If you haven't
> noticed, there have been quite a few DVD video collections popping up recently,
> some for the first time on any format, i.e., No Doubt, Sheryl Crow, and Olivia
> Newton John. I am hoping for a definitive DVD collection of KISS videos.
>
My favorite for early 1980's videos were the 'Cars.' Their stuff was
avant-garde, yet not totally without taste. There was some real creativity
going on in some of the early 1980's in general. Even some of the
later 1980's Paula Abdul stuff was pretty good (as videos, not necessarily
music, per se.) Geesh even some of the (dare I say) Michael Jackson
stuff was good (video wise), and Madonna was pretty good in her own way.
Perhaps it would be cool to have a full collection of Wierd Al on DVD --
just for the fun of it...

I have successfully 'restored' some of the Cars stuff from LD to make
it look pretty close to a slightly fuzzier than optimum DVD (but fairly
clean, noise wise.) The noise reduction technologies are PRETTY
GOOD (not perfect) nowadays. Too bad (for example) I don't have a
good (or any copy) of Cars, Tonight She Comes (???) I suspect that
trolling MTV2 or somesuch for a few years might be successful, but
the quality of over compressed MPEG2 or OTA NTSC isn't something that
is worthwhile to me.

John
Anonymous
May 13, 2004 1:53:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>Perhaps it would be cool to have a full collection of Wierd Al on DVD

This was just recently released.
Anonymous
May 13, 2004 1:54:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>Howard The Duck went for over
>$80.00. Not bad for an obsolete format.
>

Obsolete or not, who would pay $80 for Howard The Duck?
Anonymous
May 13, 2004 7:35:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

<<Thankfully, consumers and non format
obsessed A/V enthusiasts alike have made DVD, the true high performance
standard definition format, the format of choice worldwide and have relegated
the obsolete LD format to the obscurity it so richly deserves.>>

>if it wasn't for ld and the optical format there would be no DVD today.>

....and if it were not for the Wright Brothers, there would be no airplanes
today, right?
Kraig
Anonymous
May 13, 2004 8:00:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040512175456.11380.00001465@mb-m18.aol.com...
> >Howard The Duck went for over
> >$80.00. Not bad for an obsolete format.
> >
>
> Obsolete or not, who would pay $80 for Howard The Duck?

Good or not, Howard The Duck is a huge cult classic...
Anonymous
May 14, 2004 5:38:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>Good or not, Howard The Duck is a huge cult classic...
>

You'd think a "huge" cult classic would find it's way to DVD.
Anonymous
May 14, 2004 7:56:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040513213855.23031.00000887@mb-m25.aol.com...
> >Good or not, Howard The Duck is a huge cult classic...
> >
>
> You'd think a "huge" cult classic would find it's way to DVD.

It was Ex. Produced by George Lucas, now do you know one big reason why it
hasnt been released?
Anonymous
May 14, 2004 8:20:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>It was Ex. Produced by George Lucas, now do you know one big reason why it
>hasnt been released?

No. At the very least, we knew that Indiana Jones and Star Wars were coming.
It's taken long enough, but everyone knew they were coming nonetheless. There
hasn't even been an announcement for HTD, and there's no expectation of a DVD
release. Besides, Indiana Jones and the SW flicks are Lucas' babies. HTD is so
poorly regarded by 90% of everyone, I can't believe he's holding off a DVD
version so that he can include special extras.
Anonymous
May 14, 2004 3:48:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040514002052.11161.00001348@mb-m14.aol.com...
> No. At the very least, we knew that Indiana Jones and Star Wars were
coming.
> It's taken long enough, but everyone knew they were coming
nonetheless. There
> hasn't even been an announcement for HTD, and there's no expectation
of a DVD
> release. Besides, Indiana Jones and the SW flicks are Lucas' babies.
HTD is so
> poorly regarded by 90% of everyone, I can't believe he's holding off a
DVD
> version so that he can include special extras.

He is busy digitally replacing Howard with a new CGI version, convinced
that the costume effect was the only reason for the movie's box office
failure.

(And I'm only half-kidding here.)
Anonymous
May 14, 2004 11:28:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>He is busy digitally replacing Howard with a new CGI version, convinced
>that the costume effect was the only reason for the movie's box office
>failure.
>
>(And I'm only half-kidding here.)

LOL! I haven't seen that movie since I was 12 or 13 and even then, I can
remember thinking it was weird. If I saw it again now, I'm fairly sure I'd hate
it, but you never know. In any case, that movie flopped for good reason, and I
can't understand why people are paying $80 a pop for the LD. Hell, I don't
think the Criterion release of Blade Runner goes that high.
June 13, 2004 7:49:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

On 09 May 2004 02:05:26 GMT, oneactor1@aol.com (Steve Grauman) wrote:

>Probably for all the same reasons why some DVDs look great and others look like
>trash.

Depends if they use "masters" or bad/analog duplicates ?
or bad quality equipment? or remaster ? digitaly enhance ?
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 7:56:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.video.laserdisc (More info?)

>Depends if they use "masters" or bad/analog duplicates ?
>or bad quality equipment? or remaster ? digitaly enhance ?

All of it has an effect. As a side note, many early DVDs, (a good number of
which have yet to be replaced with newer versions) were basically direct ports
of older LDs. The increase in resolution from LD to DVD can help, but even so,
a poor mastering for the older LD will transfer to a poor DVD. What makes the
picture good depends largly on the quality of the original source material and
what was or was not done to improve quality. If the technology had existed in
the late 80s and early 1990s to do down-conversions from prepped and cleaned
1080p remasters (as was done with the Extreme Edition of T2 on DVD), I'm sure
many LDs would've looked much better.
!