When will X9s price go down?

[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 never found rewinding a tape after I was finished to be much of a
hassle. It never interrupted playback and the tape can be rewound while I
stretch and visit the bathroom. I have always been far more annoyed by side
changes and platter swaps.

>I also don't need an HDTV to watch LDs in full-quality.>

What a strange comment. You sound pleased that LD's limited
"full-quality" can be enjoyed on "square" analog standard definition TVs of the
80's.

>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.>

Thanks to DVD's relentlessly ever-growing catalog, I have been able to
upgrade some my "curios" to digital discs, but there are still some gems in my
collection still mired in VHS; for example, LAST OF THE GLADIATORS.
I am using the same logic I did for my purchase of the HLD-X9.
Because there is content that is exclusive to formats, I wanted to get the most
out of even the convenience and performance challenged LD format, so I bought
the finest LD player for NTSC LDs. I now have a superb player for VHS, S-VHS,
and D-VHS.

>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.>

If you are really interested, search for reviews over the net. I
believe Widescreen Review and/or Sound and Vision mentioned it and my
experience backs it up. The D-VHS deck has improved my A/V playback of regular
VHS. The video signal is passed through component video and the audio through
optical digital. It is not earth shattering performance, but I am pleased and
the deck cost me only $650. In addition to the improved playback mentioned
above, I am getting my feet wet with HD. It is fun even if it is only state of
the art A/V playback of the material.

>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.>

Enjoying uninterrupted playback of "state of the art" HD A/V
performance is quite convenient via D-VHS. In fact, it is far more convenient
and offers far better performance than any LaserDisc ever did.

>you've also completely discounted the many good LDs that were avaliable.>

I have? I likely own most of LD's best efforts. I would love to have
you over so you could see just how much I disrespect LD. You could see the
outrageous insult that my HLD-X9 is to the format and feel the below the belt
blow that my ELITE CLD-99 has landed on the poor pitiful LD format. You could
witness the horror of my filled $500 Boltz LD racks that are prominently placed
in my home theater. You would simply be aghast at the atrocity that my
collection of 400+ LDs, that include rare $500 box sets, has visited on your
favorite obsolte format.

>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.>

Nerd alert! But seriously, I am passing on the corrupted versions of
STAR WARS on DVD. I am content to enjoy the "original" versions in the
Definitive Collection and the individually released THX versions on LD. The
extras on the DVDs may be nice, but I do not wish for Geor Geor Luca$ to feel
rewarded for his sins, at least by me.

> I see no reason why a serious collector cannot own and appreicate both
formats.>

I do not waste time appreciating formats. If a format has content
that I want, I use it. I reserve my appreciation for the material, its
presentation, and extras if included.

Kraig

 

[Guest]

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

>Nerd alert! But seriously, I am passing on the corrupted versions of
>STAR WARS on DVD. I am content to enjoy the "original" versions in the
>Definitive Collection and the individually released THX versions on LD.

What you've done here is agree with my point. Although I'm not sure you know
it, nor would you ever admit to it. You're passing up "superior" DVD releases
because you're more interested in the presentation offered by the LD version.
Not only does this agree with me, it almost completely flies in the face of
your stated feelings that the presentation quality is more important than
anything else.

>I do not waste time appreciating formats. If a format has content
>that I want, I use it.

You mis-interpreted what I said, and then agreed with me. I want the content
avaliable on certain LDs, content that isn't avaliable on the DVD versions.
It's content that I want, so why not use it? This is why I'm often tempted to
own both DVD and LD releases of a film.

 

[Guest]

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

>>I am passing on the corrupted versions of STAR WARS on DVD. I am content to
enjoy the "original" versions in the Definitive Collection and the individually
released THX versions on LD. >>

>What you've done here is agree with my point. Although I'm not sure you
know
it, nor would you ever admit to it. You're passing up "superior" DVD releases
because you're more interested in the presentation offered by the LD version.>

You are incorrect. I have always put content, including version
integrity, far above format. My passing on the corrupted versions of Star Wars,
being released on DVD, and keeping of the LDs, that offer higher integrity
versions but lesser A/V performance, proves that I am choosing content over
format as I have always advised.

>Not only does this agree with me, it almost completely flies in the face
of your stated feelings that the presentation quality is more important than
anything else.>

Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. I have always put the
integrity of the content first. If two or more formats offer a "pure," intact
version of a film, I choose the format that presents said uncompromised version
with the highest quality A/V presentation. In the case of Star Wars eps 4-6,
the LaserDisc format best satisfies my criteria. Its finest "original" version
releases can be found in my collection. How is that for an example of my bias
against the LaserDisc format?

>>I do not waste time appreciating formats. If a format has content that I
want, I use it.>>

>I want the content avaliable on certain LDs, content that isn't avaliable on
the DVD versions.It's content that I want, so why not use it? This is why I'm
often tempted to own both DVD and LD releases of a film.>

There are several films that are represented on multiple formats in my
collection. I am not sure why you thought I would ever exclude content that I
wanted because of its format. Though I will not compromise for any format, I
will use any format that offers something I want.
You have mentioned LD box sets that you are so enthralled with. I
pointed out that NO LaserDisc box set ever offered anamorphic enhancement or
5.1 discrete sound, a fact that renders them unacceptable to me for reference
playback. My solution has been to keep LD box sets that are worthy for their
version, extras, and/or memorabilia value and pick up the DVD for playback. Of
course, if the DVD (or D-Theater) release does not offer a high integrity
version, I do not care at all about its A/V performance.
Kraig

 

[Guest]

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

"Steve Grauman" <oneactor1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040622030024.25527.00000452@mb-m29.aol.com...

> I'm sick of this, sick enough that I'm not going to bother Googleing up
your
> posts and quoting you, but this certainly is NOT what you've been saying.

Steve just give up and 'killfile' him, I did. God knows why he even bothers
to write in a 'Laserdisc' forum anyway, he obviously hasn't got much of a
life.

--
Italo

 

[Guest]

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

>Steve just give up and 'killfile' him, I did.

I think I will. We're going in circles and now he's claiming to have said
things he never said. I'm sure it'll degrade into insult tactics where he'll
claim that I'm an imbecile and somehow incapable of understanding his points,
but I'm farily sure anyone who's followed our "discussion" would see otherwise.
I'm finished.

 

[Guest]

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

>God knows why he even bothers to write in a 'Laserdisc' forum anyway, he
obviously hasn't got much of a life.>

Another refreshingly original and thoughtful comment from Idiotalo. He
must have a very full life because he loves LaserDiscs and only reads posts by
people that love LaserDiscs, too. I hope he may someday get the courage to peek
out of his blinds and catch a glimpse of the real world. However, there is no
killfile for real life so he should just continue to keep the covers over his
head and enjoy his own passed gas.
Kraig

 

[Guest]

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

> I'm sure it'll degrade into insult tactics where he'll claim that I'm an
imbecile and somehow incapable of understanding his points, but I'm farily sure
anyone who's followed our "discussion" would see otherwise. I'm finished.>

I am a bit disappointed as I did not take Steve for one who would try
claiming victory while looking back over his shoulder in mid flee. Oh well.
Best wishes, Steve. "Next!"

Kraig

 

[Guest]

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

>I am a bit disappointed as I did not take Steve for one who would try
>claiming victory while looking back over his shoulder in mid flee.

I'm sorry if that's what you think I'm doing. This is certainly a not a
"victory" as far as I'm concerned. I'm simply walking away from the discussion.

 

[Guest]

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

>I think I will. We're going in circles and now he's claiming to have said
>things he never said. I'm sure it'll degrade into insult tactics where he'll
>claim that I'm an imbecile and somehow incapable of understanding his points,
>but I'm farily sure anyone who's followed our "discussion" would see
>otherwise.
>I'm finished.

Welcome to freedom from Kraig McGann! - Reinhart

 

[Guest]

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

>Welcome to freedom from Kraig McGann! - Reinhart>


LOL! Whinehart shows off his freedom from me by posting my name in the
NG. What a maroon!
I have always been tickled by the killfile crybabies' inability to
control their compulsion to post about people they so proudly claim to ignore.

Kraig

 

[Guest]

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

I don't think the price for HLD-X9 will go down in a neatr future. As
long as people know that they can have their HLD-X9 repaired, then the
price will not go down. As there still are people that KNOW that many
movies ARE better on LD than DVD, and off course, the still strong nr
of movies not on DVD at all.

So I will keep my two HLD-X9 and one HLD-X0 spinning for a long time,
and even think about getting one more X0 and a LD-s9.

/Mattias

 

[Guest]

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

>there still are people that KNOW that many movies ARE better on LD than DVD>

There are also people that KNOW the Earth IS flat.

DVD's still aggressively growing catalog makes the LD format's
exclusive/obscure material less and less worth the effort of dealing with LD's
obsolete high maintenance machines and the playback compromises demanded by the
poorly designed defunct LD format.

>So I will keep my two HLD-X9 and one HLD-X0 spinning for a long time, and
even think about getting one more X0 and a LD-s9.>

Batty Matty must really have unconditional love for the LD format. His
HLD-X0 is single side play and none of his expensive discontinued machines can
outperform a $99 DVD player.

Kraig

 

[Guest]

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

kamcgann@aol.com (KAMCGANN) wrote in message news:<20040706170349.19087.00001158@mb-m06.aol.com>...
> >there still are people that KNOW that many movies ARE better on LD than DVD>
>
> There are also people that KNOW the Earth IS flat.

Well, I would guess that the troll would write again. But, you must
suffer from something strange illness because even YOU have said that
some LD's ARE better then the DVD version. If you cannot understand
this simple thing I don't know why you are here?
Because, I did NOT say that LD ARE better than DVD. But, then again,
you cannot even read.


>
> DVD's still aggressively growing catalog makes the LD format's
> exclusive/obscure material less and less worth the effort of dealing with LD's
> obsolete high maintenance machines and the playback compromises demanded by the
> poorly designed defunct LD format.

Well, I STILL have 100's and 100's of LD's NOT on DVD anywhere in the
world. And many LD's that have better picture quality or/and sound
quality than the DVD version. Of course I have many LD's that are
worse than the DVD, but that I thought all understood


>
> >So I will keep my two HLD-X9 and one HLD-X0 spinning for a long time, and
> even think about getting one more X0 and a LD-s9.>
>
> Batty Matty must really have unconditional love for the LD format. His
> HLD-X0 is single side play and none of his expensive discontinued machines can
> outperform a $99 DVD player.


You still don't understand the most simple line of word do you? Even
with a Krell DVD player or any high-end player, you will not
outperform my HLD-X9 when I play my Japanese disc of Holy Mountain
over the PAL DVD. Simple, because the LD are better mastred. But, you
cannot understand this simple

 

[Guest]

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

>I did NOT say that LD ARE better than DVD. But, then again, you cannot even
read.>

Did Matty realize that he attempted to insult someone that he believes
cannot read with a typed message?


>Of course I have many LD's that are worse than the DVD, but that I thought all
understood>

I believe you.


>>Matty's HLD-X0 is single side play and none of his expensive discontinued
machines can outperform a $99 DVD player.>>

>Even with a Krell DVD player or any high-end player, you will not
outperform my HLD-X9 when I play my Japanese disc of Holy Mountain over the PAL
DVD.>

Either Matty's interpreter for English into his native gibberish is
letting him down, he is simple minded, or both. I point out the fact that a $99
DVD player has higher A/V playback capability than the best LD player ever made
and he rebuts with an odd off subject specific example; a comparison of a
censored LaserDisc with a likely far from reference quality PAL DVD. Using his
"logic," I suppose I could insist any machine that can play an offering that is
superior to the LD release is a better performing machine than any LD player.
In that case, I have an old 2-head mono VCR that is better than an HLD-X0.

Kraig

 

[Guest]

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

Kraig wrote "Either Matty's interpreter for English into his native
gibberish"
_____________________________________

Kraig, when you make bigoted, high-handed comments like this, it's no
wonder people are hostile towards you.
Personally, I have no problems with you, but I hate goddamned ELITIST
jabs like "your native gibberish."
Just because a person's native language isn't English DOES NOT make
him a lesser person than you.
Kraig, if you really think you are better than everyone else, then you
can go.....
Kevin.

 

[Guest]

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

>I hate goddamned ELITIST jabs like "your native gibberish." Just because a
person's native language isn't English DOES NOT make him a lesser person than
you.>

Dear Kevin
You are certainly entitled to assume whatever you wish. However, I was
not making a statement about the English language or any other known spoken or
written language. You do not even know if English is my "native" language! I
was referring to Matty's innate "language," the product of his mixed up
notions, poor logic, and general aphasia. I do not know what Matty's
nationality is or what spoken or written language is indigenous to his
upbringing and I do not care.
Where is your outrage that Matty tried to demean me with an accusation of
illiteracy, as if a person that could not read is a lesser person than he?


>Kraig, when you make bigoted, high-handed comments like this, it's no
wonder people are hostile towards you.>

I am disappointed that you would jump to the conclusion that I would
make a bigoted comment. I find that low-handed and did not expect that from
you.


>Kraig, if you really think you are better than everyone else, then you can
go.....>

Anyone that knows me would not be able to back up your accusation that I
am an elitist.....although I do own an ELITE LD player. Have you forgotten how
I have outspokenly celebrated how DVD has brought high performance A/V to the
masses and have railed against such truly elitist jabs as "Joe six pack?"
I have never thought that I was "better than everyone else" and your
contention sounds suspiciously like a projection of inferiority. I have game
and bring it. When my "opponents" are skillful the game is more rewarding. I
always keep in mind that this forum is nothing more than a NG. People agree and
disagree here. Some people here like each other some do not. Arguments are won
and loss here. Some threads are interesting and some are not. I am proud of my
participation in this NG. I have kept it clean (for the most part), have never
killfiled anyone, and have never asked anyone to stop posting here. I will
grapple with any poster and give it my all. I feel this forum needs clever word
play and some edge to be entertaining.
I am well aware that my views, their expression, and NG persona are not
for every taste. I also find that the more secure a person is in their self and
what they offer the NG, the less hung up they are about my contribution to this
NG. I always thought that you understood that more than the average poster.

Kraig

 

[Guest]

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

>You still don't understand the most simple line of word do you? Even
>with a Krell DVD player or any high-end player, you will not
>outperform my HLD-X9 when I play my Japanese disc of Holy Mountain
>over the PAL DVD. Simple, because the LD are better mastred. But, you
>cannot understand this simple

Well. Kraig appears to be thinking of formats overall while you are thinking
of individual titles made with different levels of dilligence and care.

There have been LD titles made where the actual transfers were done with
greater care than what was done for a DVD of the same title. Of course, there
are also titles where the exact opposite is true. There are also titles to
where a high resolution copy is available only on LD, such as the original Star
Wars films as opposed to the Special Edition releases, which are to see a DVD
release on September 21 of this year.

Technically, DVDs are superior to LDs, but this discussion has been taking a
turn talking more about *content and asthetics* of some DVD titles versus some
LD titles and not really about the formats themselves.

The simple fact of the matter is that there is quite a few worthwhile content
that's still available only on LaserDisc and could remain that way for quite
some time if not indefinitely, hence the reasoning of still owning an LD player
if you are a movie buff, regardless of the fact that it's not better than DVD.


If a movie that's out on LaserDisc and VHS is still not out on DVD, would you
settle for the VHS copy? I wouldn't. If it's not on DVD, I'll try to locate
an LD copy because almost anything is better than VHS.

Of course, there are special exceptions, like "Buck Rogers in the 25th
Century," to where the 1990 MCA Home Video VHS reissue is better than the
DiscoVision issue of the same title on LaserDisc. It doesn't take much to
outdo a DiscoVision release.

But, it takes a lot to outdo a Criterion issue on LaserDisc, including DVD, due
to **sheer amount of extra material**, not due to almost anything even remotely
technical except maybe the quality of the source materials and the telecine
transfer for better or worse. - Reinhart

 

[Guest]

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

Nicolas Santini wrote:

"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."

I am convinced that D-VHS wins the contest easily. Although I have
never seen MUSE compressed LD, I do have a few DTheater HD tapes. I
also own a W-VHS VCR and can certainly compare analog W-VHS recordings
with D-VHS recordings I make of DirecTV HD broadcasts using a 169time
system. The D-VHS recording is sharper, colors are better, and there
is less noise. The analog W-VHS recording is very good and certainly
watchable but anybody should be able to see the difference.

I was surprised to still see the debate of LD v DVD continues. I can
only assume horse and buggy advocates sounded similar years after the
automobile gained acceptance. DVD is a great success in the market
and a far superior product. Anybody that argues differently is just
silly in my opinion. I do concede that are a few examples of LDs that
are better than the DVD. Most anamorphic OAR DVDs are so good that I
often don't care if I have an HDTV recording of a movie to watch as
the improvement isn't so great to give up the convenience and features
of DVD. DVD is a great product and a surprise that it was such a big
success since I assumed the market would stick with inferior VHS.
Having owned Beta, SVHS, LaserDisc, DVD, TiVo, and D-VHS to play
movies it is my opinion that the improvement of DTheater over DVD is
less than the improvement of DVD over LaserDisc.

I don't know if anybody else feels the same but I am planning on
sticking with DVD and D-VHS even when HD DVD or Blu-ray is available.
It is my position that I should continue to use videotape to help
reduce the tons of VCRs and videotape that will end up in landfills.
I could probably fill one on my own right now if I tossed all of my
SVHS, D-VHS, W-VHS, MiniDV, and Hi-8 stuff. DVDs are such a great
value and replacing them with HD versions just won't be worth the
cost. I am hopeful that DVDs will become even cheaper in a year or so
since the cost to manufacture is so low now. 480p DVD performance
provides the best bang for the buck of any home video format I have
ever seen.

Chris

 

[Guest]

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

In article <5985103.0407221437.169369ce@posting.google.com>,
chris_gerhard@my-Deja.com (Chris Gerhard) writes:
> Nicolas Santini wrote:
>
> "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),
>
WVHS does use a traditional, analog form of compression (and a kind
of video dolby thing, where it predistorts the video motion, thereby
allowing the subsequent averaging to avoid artifacting.) WVHS has
about 1/2 of the theoretical horizontal limit resolution of 1080i,
and chroma resolution that implies 1/2 of the theoretical limit
imposed by the scanning structure (not alot different from 4:2:0
for the chroma.)

>
> I am convinced that D-VHS wins the contest easily. Although I have
> never seen MUSE compressed LD, I do have a few DTheater HD tapes. I
> also own a W-VHS VCR and can certainly compare analog W-VHS recordings
> with D-VHS recordings I make of DirecTV HD broadcasts using a 169time
> system. The D-VHS recording is sharper, colors are better, and there
> is less noise. The analog W-VHS recording is very good and certainly
> watchable but anybody should be able to see the difference.
>
I would definitely expect that DVHS would look better than WVHS. The
MPEG2 compression used on DVHS is expected to work reasonably well
with a payload of 19mbps, but DVHS has significantly greater space
(room for more coefficients) than OTA ATSC.

Some of the side-effects for WVHS 'compression' include a significant
loss of horizontal resolution. In a way, part of the compression is
done in the 'fourier' domain. With DVHS, the 'compression' is done
in the DCT domain, and thereby better at removing redundancy with
less effect on apparent detail


>
> I was surprised to still see the debate of LD v DVD continues.
>
I suspect that most of US believe that the advantage of LD is mostly
based upon the availablility of material. I have spent alot of time
to clean up the LD noise.


>
> I don't know if anybody else feels the same but I am planning on
> sticking with DVD and D-VHS even when HD DVD or Blu-ray is available.
>
I am fully neutral on the 'formats'.

>
> It is my position that I should continue to use videotape to help
> reduce the tons of VCRs and videotape that will end up in landfills.
>
.

>
> I could probably fill one on my own right now if I tossed all of my
> SVHS, D-VHS, W-VHS, MiniDV, and Hi-8 stuff.
>
I have 'D9', and its quality blows away all of the non-HD formats,
except for the fully uncompressed stuff (and DigiBeta). The quality
of that format doesn't overcome the (lack of) availability of material. In
my case, the purpose for D9 is to act as a temporary medium while editing
and producing archival quality images.

>
> DVDs are such a great
> value and replacing them with HD versions just won't be worth the
> cost.
>
For me, if material is available on HD, and I believe that the higher
image quality is worth it, then I upgrade to HD. If the movie isn't
significantly benefitted by HD, then I certainly don't care to acquire
an upgrade.

DVDs look good, but at least on my HDTV, HD quality material can look
much better. I am fully neutral, and upgrading for upgradings sake is
wasteful. When purchasing new movies, if the cost of the HD material
is below 2X, I'll strongly consider HD.

John

 

[Guest]

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

chris_gerhard@my-Deja.com (Chris Gerhard) wrote in message news:<5985103.0407221437.169369ce@posting.google.com>...
>> Having owned Beta, SVHS, LaserDisc, DVD, TiVo, and D-VHS to play
> movies it is my opinion that the improvement of DTheater over DVD is
> less than the improvement of DVD over LaserDisc.
> Chris



Well, this I find kind of strange. Do you really say that the
difference between a DVHS and a DVD is less than the difference
between a LD and DVD?
Well, I don't find that correct. DVHS is 1080i and DVD is 480, thats
over double the resolution. LD have 425 lines of resolution and even
with a non-anamorphic LD in widescreen (when we lose 33% resolution)
we are still not at all close to have half the resolution of DVD. And
then we should not talk about VF that make most DVD's losing
resolution!

So, I would say that for example, Star Wars Ep1 LD are closer to the
DVD (with the right player) than most DVD's are to the DVHS issue.

So, maybe you have used a bad ld player when comparde. To me,
DVHS/HDTV is a much bigger step in quality over DVD than DVD was over
LD.


/Mattias