When will X9s price go down?

[Guest]

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

>Please define viable with regard to the defunct LaserDisc format and
>please give an example of a "complete package" LD that is superior to a DVD
>complete package,

Criterion Edition "The Player" LD
Criterion Edition "The Game" LD
Pioneer Speical Edition "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" LD
Criterion Edition "Akira" LD
Criterion Edition "2001: A space odyssey" LD
Criterion Edition "Dr. No" LD
Criterion Edition "Dr. Strangelove" LD
Should I keep going? All of these LD offer supplements, either in number or of
type not avaliable on the DVD versions. The Criterion of Blade Runner is easily
superior to the early DVD release, which I also own.

>enthusiasts as it would sell them a P&S version first, eventually a WS
>version,
>then a WS Deluxe Edition (with trailer) then a WS Special Edition, then maybe
>a
>box set, then possibly an AC-3...

Gee, studios are never known for their multiple DVD releases. Pitch Black is
now on it's 3rd incarnation. Spiderman is on it's 2nd. So is The Usual
Suspects. T2 has had 3 releases, should I go on? The studios will screw us over
and over, regardless of the format. And 90% of every movie that comes out on
DVD is released in Pan & Scan. And I happen to know that it still acounts for
most of the DVD sales.

 

[Guest]

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

> I think the public at large will not
>accept to use tapes anymore due to the obvious annoyance of rewinds
>and lack of direct access.

That's a big part of why I've largely abondonded the format. DVD is to much
better and to much easier.

 

[Guest]

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

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040607191129.15320.00000521@mb-m26.aol.com...
> >Please define viable with regard to the defunct LaserDisc format and
> >please give an example of a "complete package" LD that is superior to a
DVD
> >complete package,

.... and also
'Raging Bull' Criterion Collection
'Midnight Cowboy' Criterion Collection
'Twilight Zones' Box sets
'Boogie Nights' Criterion Collection
'Bram Stoker's Dracula' Criterion Collection
'Glengarry Glenn Ross' Pioneer Special Edition
etc... etc...

--
Italo

 

[Guest]

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

kamcgann@aol.com (KAMCGANN) wrote in message news:<20040607165247.11585.00000669@mb-m04.aol.com>...
>
> MUSE was an obscure quasi HD 12" disc format that played $300 disc
> sets; another format that only an LDer could love. I have no doubt that HD-DVD
> will blow MUSE away as VHS's HD format certainly can.

MUSE was obscure outside of Japan, but within the country i think it
was known to most consumers, not because of MUSE LDs, but because MUSE
was also the encryption used for HD satellite analog broadcasts (BS
channel 9) which started in the early 90s and still exist.

I don't know why you call it "quasi" HD. It is not less HD than
present day digital HD which gets compressed by other means than MUSE
but compressed anyway. The Hi-Vision signal it compresses and
decompresses is 1080i, just like present day HD (to which it is
entirely compatible; ie MUSE LDs can be played on any HDTV).

HD-DVD may well surpass MUSE LDs if the compression is done properly,
we can have this debate in a few years when they come out. It surely
will be priced a lot lower, but that is justified by 10 years or more
of time lapse. In particular, i think we may see a similar price ratio
on DVD (HD/NTSC) as we saw on LD (MUSE/NTSC), it happened to be 3 to
4.

What do you call "VHS's HD" ? D-VHS ? I don't know how to compare
specs of analog MUSE with those of digital D-VHS, can you ? I have all
the specs for MUSE, if someone wants to help.

Nicolas

 

[Guest]

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

>... and also
>'Raging Bull' Criterion Collection
>'Midnight Cowboy' Criterion Collection
>'Twilight Zones' Box sets
>'Boogie Nights' Criterion Collection
>'Bram Stoker's Dracula' Criterion Collection
>'Glengarry Glenn Ross' Pioneer Special Edition

Yupp. The primary reason I want a LD player is for the Criterion titles. Most
of them have not been re-released as Criterion DVDs and I want the supplements.
Plus a few of those Pioneer Special Editions that're so good. And I can add the
Star Wars Trilogy to the list. I'll be buying the DVDs in September, but LD
will remain the only way to own the non special edition versions of the film. I
plan on getting the 1995 THX releases because they were restored, but not
tampered with.

 

[Guest]

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

"Nicolas Santini" <nsa@dk.catv.ne.jp> wrote in message
news:13d89e92.0406090535.3599f103@posting.google.com...
> What do you call "VHS's HD" ? D-VHS ? I don't know how to compare
> specs of analog MUSE with those of digital D-VHS, can you ?

It is particularly amusing to hear a person who admits to owning a D-VHS
deck complain about another obscure niche format based on an antiquated
delivery system, whose software is overpriced and undersupplied.

 

[Guest]

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

>>Please define viable with regard to the defunct LaserDisc format and please
give an example of a "complete package" LD that is superior to a DVD complete
package,>>

>Criterion Edition "The Player" LD
Criterion Edition "The Game" LD
Pioneer Speical Edition "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" LD
Criterion Edition "Akira" LD
Criterion Edition "2001: A space odyssey" LD
Criterion Edition "Dr. No" LD
Criterion Edition "Dr. Strangelove" LD
Should I keep going? >

No, especially because not one of the sets you listed above offers
either Anamorphic WS or 5.1 sound. That just does not cut it in the DVD era.

>All of these LD offer supplements, either in number or of type not avaliable
on the DVD versions. The Criterion of Blade Runner is easily superior to the
early DVD release, which I also own.>

The Criterion CAV LD of BladeRunner, that I own also, was certainly not
superior in video or audio to the DVD, but it is the version that I prefer, so
I treasue it in my collection. The extras are not stellar and are certainly
below Criterion's average.

>And 90% of every movie that comes out on DVD is released in Pan & Scan. And I
happen to know that it still acounts for most of the DVD sales.>

Not even a very good guess, Steve. Although there are Full Frame DVDs
released in addition to OAR releases, the highest selling DVDs of all time have
been OAR. The DVD format has easily sold more OAR, SE, anamorphically enhanced,
and 5.1/6.1 releases than any other format.
Kraig

 

[Guest]

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

>It is particularly amusing to hear a person who admits to owning a D-VHS deck
complain about another obscure niche format based on an antiquated delivery
system, whose software is overpriced and undersupplied.>

The poster is only amused because he is ignorant. I explained my
reasoning for my nominal support of D-VHS/D-Theater in a post that his killfile
prevented him from reading. I find the uninformed very amusing.

However, is the poster correct about D-VHS/D-Theater being an
"antiquated delivery system?" Absolutely.

Is the software "overpriced and undersupplied?" Overpriced? I don't
think so. DTS D-Theater tapes are cheaper than DTS LaserDiscs were, but offer
1080i High Definition, 1509kbps DTS with full dynamic range and can play movies
uninterrupted by side changes and disc changes. Though the number of D-Theater
titles available is very limited, I never intended to purchase many anyway. I
wanted a D-VHS deck to get the most out of the playback from my more obscure
content stored on VHS.
Kraig

 

[Guest]

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

>>MUSE was an obscure quasi HD 12" disc format that played $300 disc sets;
another format that only an LDer could love.>>

>MUSE was obscure outside of Japan, but within the country i think it was
known to most consumers, not because of MUSE LDs, but because MUSE was also the
encryption used for HD satellite analog broadcasts>

Dear Nicolas
I was wrong. I was referring to the failed Hi-Vision disc format,
not MUSE.

> don't know why you call it "quasi" HD. It is not less HD than present day
digital HD which gets compressed by other means than MUSE but compressed
anyway.>

I am no Matthew Martin, but my understanding is that Hi-Vison/MUSE is
quite a bit "less" than digital HD because of its analog limitations and its
video bit rate.

>What do you call "VHS's HD" ? D-VHS ?>

The prerecorded HD tapes that I am referring to are called
D-Theater. They have tested much better than satellite HD in the articles I
have read.

Kraig

 

[Guest]

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

>>The $499 Denon 1600 passed and failed the exact same tests as the $299 XP30.
Funny that Steve would try to criticize my XP30 when his player's video
performance was identical.>>

>I'm not picking on your player Kraig. I'm simply pointing out that even the
best DVD players are prone to format-specific problems, just like LD.>

Every player of every format has its pros and cons. I consider the
Denon 1600 and the XP30 to be top notch players that offer much greater A/V
performance than any LD player of any price. For example, the $3500 HLD-X9 is
the best player for NTSC LD playback, so I purchased it and agree, but even the
X9 lacks component video, cannot play CDs or SACDs, has slow side changes, and
no black screen option while it interrupts playback and changes sides every
thirty or sixty minutes.

>However, Josh seems to feel that the 1600 is a better player than your
XP30....
>

"Better" would be hard to demonstrate as they share the same video
processors and their video performance was identical. If he considers a
particular unit "better" simply because it offers something another model does
not for an additional $200, fine. But a more valuable opinion would be if he
had compared his beloved Denon 1600 with Panasonic's comparably equipped model,
the XP50. Just to be clear, I would not hesitate to praise or recommend the
Denon 1600 or any other nicely executed chroma bug corrected player.

Kraig

 

[Guest]

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

> No, especially because not one of the sets you listed above offers
>either Anamorphic WS or 5.1 sound. That just does not cut it in the DVD era.
>

This is just defeatist bullshit Kraig. You asked me to provide the names of LDs
which represented better "overall packages" than the newer DVD versions. In
every single of one those instances the LDs I listed offer a better total
package than the DVD version, and no increase in audio/video quality changes
that FACT. For reference, my X-Men 1.5 DVD is a FAR better "overall package"
than your D-Theater version, despite the D-Theater releases' obviously superior
A/V quality.

> Not even a very good guess, Steve. Although there are Full Frame DVDs
>released in addition to OAR releases, the highest selling DVDs of all time
>have
>been OAR.

I'd wager that those titles were vastly offered ONLY in widescreen. I manage a
Suncoast video store for the time being while I finish school. I can tell you
that our numbers, both for my individual store and for the company as a whole
(and we're not a small company), show that Fullscreen DVDs sell in greater
number. And according to what I saw run through the registers at Best Buy, this
is true everywhere.

>The DVD format has easily sold more OAR, SE, anamorphically enhanced,
>and 5.1/6.1 releases than any other format.

That's because most of the films released to DVD are OFFERED in anamorphically
enhanced widescreen and with 5.1 sound. The same cannot be said of LD or
(obviously) of VHS.

 

[Guest]

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

>>not one of the sets you listed above offers either Anamorphic WS or 5.1
sound. That just does not cut it in the DVD era.>>

>This is just defeatist bullshit Kraig.>

Please look up the word defeatist and have another go at expressing your
thought.

>In every single of one those instances the LDs I listed offer a
better total package than the DVD version, and no increase in audio/video
quality changes
that FACT.>

I disagree completely. Any credible "package" must start with a
reference quality, high integrity version of the material. The "extras" are
EXTRAS! I like extras, too, but the enjoyment of the movie/film/work is
paramount to me.

>For reference, my X-Men 1.5 DVD is a FAR better "overall package" than your
D-Theater version, despite the D-Theater releases' obviously superior
A/V quality.>

Comparing the "overall packages" of a DVD SE with a D-Theater
offering is more challenging than comparing DVD SEs with obsolete cumbersome LD
SEs. The DVD "package" in this example starts with a superb anamorphically
enhanced WS version of the film that offers DTS sound and then adds extras. I
support that kind of offering and own the X-Men 1.5 DVD, too. Although I would
lean toward picking the DVD over the D-Theater offering as the "overall
package" winner in this instance, I do tend to watch the films more than the
extras and the A/V presentation of the D-Theater is unquestionably superior. I
just will not discount the value of a credible A/V presentation of content. It
has to start there.

>>The DVD format has easily sold more OAR, SE, anamorphically enhanced, and
5.1/6.1 releases than any other format.>>

>That's because most of the films released to DVD are OFFERED in
anamorphically enhanced widescreen and with 5.1 sound.The same cannot be said
of LD or (obviously) of VHS.>

Instead of celebrating the DVD format's OAR and discrete channel sound
efforts, your response sounds like a complaint followed by some nice defeatism
toward the LD format. Nicely done.

Kraig

 

[Guest]

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

KAMCGANN wrote:
>>>MUSE was an obscure quasi HD 12" disc format that played $300 disc sets;
>
> another format that only an LDer could love.>>
>
> >MUSE was obscure outside of Japan, but within the country i think it was
> known to most consumers, not because of MUSE LDs, but because MUSE was also the
> encryption used for HD satellite analog broadcasts>
>
> Dear Nicolas
> I was wrong. I was referring to the failed Hi-Vision disc format,
> not MUSE.
>
>
>>don't know why you call it "quasi" HD. It is not less HD than present day
>
> digital HD which gets compressed by other means than MUSE but compressed
> anyway.>
>
> I am no Matthew Martin, but my understanding is that Hi-Vison/MUSE is
> quite a bit "less" than digital HD because of its analog limitations and its
> video bit rate.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but my name came up. If you care to
read about the significant resolution/terrestrial braodcast problems of
the Japanese analog HD offering take a look here:

<http/www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/hdtv/95x5.htm>

"The NHK HDTV signal is initially sampled at 48.6 Ms/s". ...

"What is happening here is that the subsampling results in successive
transmission of signals representing every third picture element. Thus,
three adjacent picture elements in the receiver actually represent three
successive scans of the same line. Stationary objects are not bothered
by this, and appear at their full resolution. However, moving objects do
not reoccur in their proper positions and create a smearing effect. This
is not a real problem with moving objects in the scene (as the human eye
is not very sensitive to this either). However, it does present a
problem during camera panning, where the overall image suffers about a
50% drop in resolution -- while the human eye does not".

Matthew

--
If the war in Iraq was over oil, we lost.

 

[Guest]

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

>I disagree completely. Any credible "package" must start with a
>reference quality, high integrity version of the material. The "extras" are
>EXTRAS! I like extras, too, but the enjoyment of the movie/film/work is
>paramount to me.

This is going to go in endless circles and I'm just as happy to let you have
your opinion and be done with the argument. Never once did I claim that LD was
a superior format. The only claim I've yet made is that in certain instances,
LD releases are better packages than the DVD versions - if you consider "bonus"
materials to be as important as A/V quality. I stand by that opinion.

 

[Guest]

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

kamcgann@aol.com (KAMCGANN) wrote in message news:<20040610002522.16952.00000723@mb-m10.aol.com>...
> >>MUSE was an obscure quasi HD 12" disc format that played $300 disc sets;
> another format that only an LDer could love.>>
>
> >MUSE was obscure outside of Japan, but within the country i think it was
> known to most consumers, not because of MUSE LDs, but because MUSE was also the
> encryption used for HD satellite analog broadcasts>
>
> Dear Nicolas
> I was wrong. I was referring to the failed Hi-Vision disc format,
> not MUSE.

Ok, let's recap:

- Hi-Vision is the word pinned by NHK to describe HDTV, originally
analog; today's digital HDTV is called "digital Hi-Vision" in Japan
- pure Hi-Vision LDs do exist, they hold 15 minutes per side, are not
compressed, and are used by museums and in other professional
applications, cannnot be played by an X9
- for consumer applications, it was necessary to use an encoding, that
is MUSE, so that an LD could hold 1 hour per CLV side and a broadcast
satellite could emit with the available technology/power at the time

You can say that MUSE LDs did fail commercially: too early, too
expensive. Hi-Vision as a whole was seen as a dead-end from the start
simply because it was analog. Yet, thx to that technology, several
olympic games and a lot of events from the 1990s have been recorded in
HD for posterity.

Technically, i'd be interested to know how the same program would
compare on a broadband Hi-Vision disc, a W-VHS pre-recorded tape (that
is also analog HD and uncompressed), a MUSE compressed LD, and a D-VHS
pre-recorded tape. Unfortunately, i don't think any program is
available in more than two of these forms, making comparison
difficult. I am not convinced at all that D-VHS would win the contest.

>
> > don't know why you call it "quasi" HD. It is not less HD than present day
> digital HD which gets compressed by other means than MUSE but compressed
> anyway.>
>
> I am no Matthew Martin, but my understanding is that Hi-Vison/MUSE is
> quite a bit "less" than digital HD because of its analog limitations and its
> video bit rate.
>

From what i have heard, digital HD broadcasts suffer from pixelisation
and compression artifacts, typical of the digital era, while MUSE at
its best does not exhibit those, and uncompressed Hi-Vision should not
either. Your next sentence de facto acknowledges such problems with
broadcast digital HD. I suppose those are very much dependent on the
operator and other distribution issues. An interesting test would be
to compare an analog Hi-Vision broadcast with the simulatenous digital
Hi-Vision broadcast, as we have both now here, though this might only
reveal whatever effort is put by NHK in them; i suspect that HD
broadcasts by private carriers in the US are suffering more of
compression than those by NHK in Japan.

> >What do you call "VHS's HD" ? D-VHS ?>
>
> The prerecorded HD tapes that I am referring to are called
> D-Theater. They have tested much better than satellite HD in the articles I
> have read.
>

These are pre-recorded D-VHS, right ? It is very interesting that they
are being on sale in the US and *not* in Japan, whereas i am sure the
Japanese market for D-VHS decks may be larger than that of the US. I
can think of several reasons why, but these are my guesses. Does
anybody know exactly why ?



> Kraig

 

[Guest]

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

I ask a Home Theater shop owner in Tokyo recently.

He looked at me like I said something stupid:

<< Buy prerecorded DVHS tapes? But why? All you have to do it subscribe to
Wowow and other HDTV channels and record your movie directly. Why *buy* it
when you can simply record it? >>

More contents available for broadcast that would kill the DVHS sales?

Rgds,
Julien


> These are pre-recorded D-VHS, right ? It is very interesting that they
> are being on sale in the US and *not* in Japan, whereas i am sure the
> Japanese market for D-VHS decks may be larger than that of the US. I
> can think of several reasons why, but these are my guesses. Does
> anybody know exactly why ?

 

[Guest]

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

>>Any credible "package" must start with a reference quality, high integrity
version of the material. The "extras" are EXTRAS! >>

>The only claim I've yet made is that in certain instances, LD releases are
better packages than the DVD versions - if you consider "bonus" materials to be
as important as A/V quality. I stand by that opinion.>

Dear Steve
Hello. Sorry for the delay in my response. I just returned from a
pleasure trip to London. It was FAB.
I will try not to rehash our discussion but wish to ask for a tiny
clarification. Are you stating that you consider the "bonus" materials of an LD
or DVD release to be as important as the A/V quality of the presentation?

Kraig

 

[Guest]

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

> I will try not to rehash our discussion but wish to ask for a tiny
>clarification. Are you stating that you consider the "bonus" materials of an
>LD
>or DVD release to be as important as the A/V quality of the presentation?

If the quality and quantity of the "extras" are of the proper level, for me,
those materials are just as important as A/V quality. The Criterion editions of
many LDs are preferable to me than many of thier DVD counterparts. Many of
which have been given hardly a touch-up since their re-release and don't have
the quality or quantity of bonus material. Obviously you feel differently, but
I suppose anyone who would buy into D-VHS isn't overly concerned with bonus
materials OR convienence of use.

 

[Guest]

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

>I suppose anyone who would buy into D-VHS isn't overly concerned with bonus
materials OR convienence of use.>

Nice try. But you unwisely brought up "convenience of use." The
limitations and clunkiness of the LaserDisc format made it far from convenient
to use. The defunct LD format could not even play movies without interruptions
every 30 or 60 minutes and required platter changes for films and material over
120 minutes and even every 60 minutes for CAV presentations. LD's "bonus"
materials often had to be placed on separate platters, requiring the use of the
flimsy cardboard jackets or a paper insert to find them. How convenient!
VHS/D-VHS at least can play films without interruption and record. As
you read, but somehow did not understand, my nominal support of the D-VHS
format was primarily for improving the playback quality of some of the most
obscure material in my content collection; stuff I bought or recorded on
regular VHS that is not available and likely will not be available on any other
format.
I have purchased two D-Theater tapes, both offer 1509 kbps DTS in
addition to 1080i. Even though the tapes offer the highest A/V performance of
any home format to date, l cannot imagine owning more than 10 D-Theater tapes.
I will wait for the HD-DVD format, a format that you will also be undoubtedly
unimpressed with compared to your beloved LD format.

In closing, before you incorrectly assume that I do not care about
bonus materials, you should have a look at my LD and DVD collection. Criterion,
SEs, and deluxe imports, make up a significant majority of my collection.
However, like I have said before, it is the integrity and A/V quality of the
presentation of a film/movie/show that is of paramount importance to me. You
are obviously willing to compromise for a format.......if you like it.

Kraig

 

[Guest]

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

>The
>limitations and clunkiness of the LaserDisc format made it far from
>convenient
>to use.

Although you're correct, I still never need to rewind LDs when I'm finished
with them. I don't need to worry about tracking forward or back to find scenes
I want, and they won't degrade in quality over time as long as they aren't
laser-rotted. I also don't need an HDTV to watch LDs in full-quality.

>LD's "bonus"
>materials often had to be placed on separate platters, requiring the use of
>the
>flimsy cardboard jackets or a paper insert to find them. How convenient!

I'll give you the same "nice try" you gave me. The vast majority of DVDs I own
that contain significant bonus materials store that content either on side 2 of
a single disc or on a 2nd supplemental disc. Meaning that access to that
material will always require a manual side change or disc change. In addition,
my copies of The Godfather, Part II and Once Upon A Time In America both
require disc-changes to view the entire movie. And D-VHS tapes don't seem to
have any bonus material at all.

> As
>you read, but somehow did not understand, my nominal support of the D-VHS
>format was primarily for improving the playback quality of some of the most
>obscure material in my content collection;

I understood it just fine. But I have a hard time beliveing that there's any
signifcant amount of material that wasn't made avaliable on LD and is not or
will not be avaliable on DVD, forcing you to maintain VHS copies. Beyond that,
I've never seen or read anything indicating that D-VHS decks maintain any
quality difference over much cheaper S-VHS decks when playing back standard VHS
tapes. Especially tapes dubbed from TV on older equipment.

> I have purchased two D-Theater tapes, both offer 1509 kbps DTS in
>addition to 1080i

So? Your most convincing anti-LD argument is the one involving the format's
inherent inconvienences, and D-VHS has plenty of them too. Looking great isn't
all that matters, at least to many of us.

>I will wait for the HD-DVD format, a format that you will also be undoubtedly
>unimpressed with compared to your beloved LD format.

Of course you're again assuming (or for some reason fabricating) that I dislike
DVD and am somehow un-impressed by the format and it's capabiltities. I love
DVD, I've bought into the format heavily and I cherish the mostly very-good
releases that I own. There's no doubt in my mind that DVD is superior to LD
when it comes to the general quality of sound and picture. However, you've also
completely discounted the many good LDs that were avaliable. Again, my only
argument with you is that LD will continue to be a viable format as long as
supplemental materials - some of which are regarded as being very important to
a percentage of consumers, are avaliable on LD that are avaliable nowhere else.
I've already reserved and given payment for my copies of the SW Trilogy on DVD,
and I plan on being in the store on September 21st when they arrive to pick
mine up. But I still want the LD versions both for content they may have that
the DVDs might not, as well as for the fact that Lucas has again choosen to
tinker with the films. I see no reason why a serious collector cannot own and
appreicate both formats. However, you seem to see this as some sort of LD-bias
driven by an illogical need to continue to support the format in light of
"better" alternitives.