HLD-X0 vs HLD-X9, best of the best!

[Guest]

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

>Again, you have maliciously twisited the meaning of my post in order to create
a point of attack.>

I quoted Steve's post!
Here it is again in all of its eloquent splendor. "The Fifth Element DVD
is very well liked in terms of it's quality, my SuperBit version looks
fantastic, is the laserdisc as good?"

Steve's retort is just as tasty:

"If you cannot find the implied meaning in these simple statements, you
should refrain from reading them."

How about if you cannot adequately communicate the meaning of your
statements, perhaps you should refrain from writing them?

Though there are posters here that disagree with me, very few, if
any, have seriously called me a liar or accused me of lying. Accusing me of
being a liar appears to be Steve's only response to every post that exposes his
inanity. I understand that Steve's not having to face the person he is accusing
provides him with an intoxicating false bravado. However, as a courtesy, I will
give him some advice. Be ready for something far more substantive than a post
ridiculing you, should you ever muster the courage to call someone a liar to
their face.
Kraig

 

[Guest]

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

>I believe your newbie/LDer
>wannabe/schwenke-esque posts are already testing the patience of your new
>"friends" in the group.

I see I've touched a nerve. Although your continual claims that I'm here in
some vein attempt to make friends couldn't be more wrong headed.

>Isn't it a requirement that posters own at least 10 LDs before they
>start speaking for the entire alt.video.laserdisc NG?

I'm really only repeating what's been made clear by numerous people. You aren't
well liked here. I may not be either, but it doesn't have anything to do with
my being a malicious troll.
Steve Grauman

 

[Guest]

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

nin@beta.telenordia.se (Mattias Karlsson) wrote in message news: kamcgann@aol.com (KAMCGANN) wrote in message news:
>>>>>So do anyone have any reference LD they think I should use?
>
>>>>How about the Anamorphically Enhanced Squeeze THX Terminator 2
>
>>>Yes, I was thinking about the T2 disc, if I can get it for a good
price.
>>
>> Would you care to borrow my T2 Squeeze THX LD (PILF-2555)
for your
>> testing?
>
> It would be great! I let you know if I don't get a copy for myself.

If you are testing the anamorphic T2, why don't you test the
anamorphic MUSE T2, since the X0 and X9 both play MUSE discs? I have
T2 MUSE, and always wondered how it compares to the best looking DVD,
or the HD-VHS.

But back to the original question of which is best, the X0 or X9 - I
originally heard that the X9 has a better picture than the X0 when
playing regular NTSC discs, but the X0 is substantially better at
playing MUSE discs. I bought the X9 because I wanted to have the best
possible machine for playing regular NTSC discs. Has this been voted
to be true, based on the comparisons from your website test?

 

[Guest]

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

"Scott Balph" <scott_balph@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:649b95bc.0410271448.28b17846@posting.google.com...
> If you are testing the anamorphic T2, why don't you test the
> anamorphic MUSE T2, since the X0 and X9 both play MUSE discs?

In addition to a MUSE-compatible player, they would also need a MUSE
decoder in order to play the disc.

 

[Guest]

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

Will the "Squeeze" version of T2 capture properly? I was under the impression
that a widescreen display was neccesary to unsqueeze the picture. Similar to
how movie projectors need special lenses when showing movies shot in anamorphic
2.35:1.
Steve Grauman

 

[Guest]

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

>If you are testing the anamorphic T2, why don't you test the
>anamorphic MUSE T2, since the X0 and X9 both play MUSE discs?

I think that'd be interesting, but potentially unfair. I think the MUSE T2 is
perhaps better compared to the D-VHS version. Also, I noticed a minor but
suffcient difference in picture quality between the Ultimate and Extreme
Editions of T2 on DVD. It's my understanding that the picture on the Ultimate
Edition was taken directly from the late laserdisc, which is considered
"Reference Quality", while the Extreme Edition got the benefit of a newer HD
transfer. Which two versions we should compare could be an interesting debate.
Comparing the laserdisc to the Ultimate DVD may be the better comparison
because they represent the LD and DVD versions of the same transfer. However it
seems to me that the Extreme Edition is a better indicator of DVD's higher
capabities.
Steve Grauman

 

[Guest]

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

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041027213525.03671.00003045@mb-m04.aol.com...
> Will the "Squeeze" version of T2 capture properly? I was under the
> impression
> that a widescreen display was neccesary to unsqueeze the picture.
> Similar to
> how movie projectors need special lenses when showing movies shot in
> anamorphic
> 2.35:1.

"Squeeze LDs" work exactly the same as anamorphic DVDs, except that they
don't offer non-anamorphic downconversion for people with 4:3 TVs.

 

[Guest]

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

scott_balph@hotmail.com (Scott Balph) wrote in message news:<649b95bc.0410271448.28b17846@posting.google.com>...
>
> If you are testing the anamorphic T2, why don't you test the
> anamorphic MUSE T2, since the X0 and X9 both play MUSE discs? I have
> T2 MUSE, and always wondered how it compares to the best looking DVD,
> or the HD-VHS.

The MUSE T2 is not anamorphic.

MUSE LDs are not anamorphic, they are inherently 16:9, the same way
NTSC is inherently 4:3. I guess the same can be said to all HD 16:9
formats. The only reason anamorphism exists in the NTSC world, is to
better store a 16:9 image on a 4:3 medium, something that became
necessary with the advent of 16:9 NTSC displays. As HD displays were
16:9 from the very beginning, all HD medium are 16:9 as well. In fact
you could have anamorphism in an HD world but the other way round:
storing a 4:3 program in 16:9, then compressing the output on the
display to get it back to the proper aspect while increasing the
definition. Same principle, the less black bars (be they vertical or
horizontal) you store, the more space you keep for the picture.