LD higher quality than DVD ?

A friend of mine was argueing that LD is actually higher quality picture and
sound, but ended up being too expensive to produce (as LD's need a "clean room"
to be made) and thus DVD was invented... any thoughts ?

A

ZoulonFire

LD's do seem better to me in some respects. The spirit of LD lives on. They
would have big jackets and all sorts of literature on the back. Some DVD's
don't even have inserts. It is quite a movie experience watching LD's. I wish
Norm Wilner were here to offer his critique.

-DVDfanatico

> (ZoulonFire)
>Date: 9/1/2004 1:13 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <>
>
>
>A friend of mine was argueing that LD is actually higher quality picture and
>sound, but ended up being too expensive to produce (as LD's need a "clean
>room"
>to be made) and thus DVD was invented... any thoughts ?
>
>A

DVDfanatico

"ZoulonFire" <> wrote in message
news:...
> A friend of mine was argueing that LD is actually higher quality
picture and
> sound, but ended up being too expensive to produce (as LD's need a
"clean room"
> to be made) and thus DVD was invented... any thoughts ?

LD often has better sound, but DVD usually has better picture. See link
below:

www.mindspring.com/~laserdiscforever

Joshua Zyber

(ZoulonFire) wrote:

>
>A friend of mine was argueing that LD is actually higher quality picture and
>sound, but ended up being too expensive to produce (as LD's need a "clean room"
>to be made) and thus DVD was invented... any thoughts ?
>
>A
From memory Laser Disk was too expensive to buy and DVD offered a
cheaper media for the public. Also LD's were large in size compared to
DVD's.
Megabit DVD's have a very high quality picture.
DTS on DVD's offers a very high quality sound.
Both of these would exceed what was offered by LD.

Regards Brian

Brian

LD was analog video, and its at a lower resolution than DVD. Many LD titles
had DD, which would sound pretty much identical to the DD on DVDs. A few
LDs had DTS sound that was typically at a higher bitrate than what tehy use
on DTS DVDs today, so it could potentially sound better, but the equipment
needed to playback LDs was prohibitively expensive for many.


You can draw your own conclusions from here


"ZoulonFire" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> A friend of mine was argueing that LD is actually higher quality picture
and
> sound, but ended up being too expensive to produce (as LD's need a "clean
room"
> to be made) and thus DVD was invented... any thoughts ?
>
> A

Biz

http://www.dvdreview.com/faq/dvdfaq.shtml#2.7

[2.7] How does DVD compare to laserdisc?

Features: DVD has the same basic features as CLV LD (scan, pause,
search) and CAV LD (freeze, slow) and adds branching, multiple camera
angles, parental control, video menus, interactivity, etc., although
some of these features are not available on all discs.
Capacity: Single-layer DVD holds over 2 hours, dual-layer holds over 4
hours. CLV LD holds one hour per side, CAV holds half an hour. A CAV
laserdisc can hold 104,000 still images. DVD can hold thousands of
still pictures accompanied by hundreds of hours of audio and text.
Convenience: An entire movie fits on one side of a DVD, so there's no
need to flip the disc or wait for the player to do it. DVDs are
smaller and easier to handle. DVD players can be portable, similar to
CD players. Discs can be easily and cheaply sent through the mail. On
the other hand, laserdiscs have larger covers for better art and text.
Noise: Most LD players make a whirring noise that can be heard during
quiet segments of a movie. Most DVD players are as quiet as CD
players.
Audio: LD can have better quality on Dolby Surround soundtracks stored
in uncompressed PCM format. DVD has better quality on Dolby Digital or
music only (PCM). LD has 2 audio tracks: analog and digital, whereas
DVD has up to 8 audio tracks. LD uses PCM audio sampled with 16 bits
at 44.1 kHz. DVD LPCM audio can use 16, 20, or 24 bit samples at 48 or
96 kHz (although PCM is not used with most movies). LD has surround
audio in Dolby Surround, Dolby Digital (AC-3), and DTS formats.
5.1-channel surround sound is available by using one channel of the
analog track for AC-3 or both channels of the digital track for DTS.
DVD uses the same Dolby Digital surround sound, usually at a higher
data rate of 448 kbps, and can optionally include DTS (at data rates
up to 1536 kbps compared to LD's 1411 kbps, but in practice DTS data
rates are often 768 kbps). DVD players convert Dolby Digital to Dolby
Surround. The downmixing, combined with the effects of compression,
often results in lower-quality sound than from LD Dolby Surround
tracks.
Video: DVD usually has better video. LD suffers from degradation
inherent in analog storage and in the composite NTSC or PAL video
signal. DVD uses digital video, and even though it's heavily
compressed, most professionals agree that when properly and carefully
encoded it's virtually indistinguishable from studio masters. This
doesn't mean that the video quality of DVD is always better than LD.
Only that it can be better. Also keep in mind that the average
television is of insufficient quality to show much difference between
LD and DVD. Home theater systems or HDTVs are needed to take full
advantage of the improved quality.
Resolution: In numerical terms DVD has 345,600 pixels (720x480), which
is 1.3 times LD's approximately 272,160 pixels (567x480). Widescreen
DVD has 1.7 times the pixels of letterboxed LD (or 1.3 times
anamorphic LD). As for lines of horizontal resolution, DVD has about
500 whereas LD has about 425 (more info in 3.4.1). In analog output
signal terms, typical luma frequency response maintains full amplitude
to between 5.0 and 5.5 MHz. This is below the 6.75 MHz native
frequency of the MPEG-2 digital signal. Chroma frequency response is
one-half that of luma. Laserdisc frequency response usually begins to
fall off at 3 MHz. (All figures are for NTSC, not PAL.)
Legacy titles: Some movies on laserdisc will probably never appear on
DVD (see Julien Wilk's Laserdisc Database).
Availability: DVD players and discs are available for purchase and
rental in thousands of outlets and on the Internet. LD players and
discs are becoming hard to find.
Price: Low-cost DVD players are cheaper than the cheapest LD player.
Most movies on DVD cost less than on LD.
Restrictions: For those outside the US, regional coding (see 1.10) is
a definite drawback of DVD. For some people Macrovision copy
protection (see 1.11) is an annoyance. Laserdisc has no copy
protection and does not have regional differences other than PAL vs.
NTSC.
Recordable: DVD recorders are increasingly affordable. Laserdisc
recording, at a low of $250 per disc, was never available to general
consumers.
For more laserdisc info, see Leopold's FAQ at
<www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FAQ/index.html>, and Bob Niland's FAQs and
overview at <www.access-one.com/rjn/laser/laserdisc.html> (overview
reprinted from Widescreen Review magazine).


On 01 Sep 2004 10:55:30 GMT, (DVDfanatico) wrote:

>LD's do seem better to me in some respects. The spirit of LD lives on. They
>would have big jackets and all sorts of literature on the back. Some DVD's
>don't even have inserts. It is quite a movie experience watching LD's. I wish
>Norm Wilner were here to offer his critique.
>
>-DVDfanatico
>
>> (ZoulonFire)
>>Date: 9/1/2004 1:13 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: <>
>>
>>
>>A friend of mine was argueing that LD is actually higher quality picture and
>>sound, but ended up being too expensive to produce (as LD's need a "clean
>>room"
>>to be made) and thus DVD was invented... any thoughts ?
>>
>>A







"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
-- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
- Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_

Allan

BEAT that dead horse...

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 17:05:51 -0400, Allan
<> wrote:

>http://www.dvdreview.com/faq/dvdfaq.shtml#2.7
>
>[2.7] How does DVD compare to laserdisc?
>
>Features: DVD has the same basic features as CLV LD (scan, pause,
>search) and CAV LD (freeze, slow) and adds branching, multiple camera
>angles, parental control, video menus, interactivity, etc., although
>some of these features are not available on all discs.
>Capacity: Single-layer DVD holds over 2 hours, dual-layer holds over 4
>hours. CLV LD holds one hour per side, CAV holds half an hour. A CAV
>laserdisc can hold 104,000 still images. DVD can hold thousands of
>still pictures accompanied by hundreds of hours of audio and text.
>Convenience: An entire movie fits on one side of a DVD, so there's no
>need to flip the disc or wait for the player to do it. DVDs are
>smaller and easier to handle. DVD players can be portable, similar to
>CD players. Discs can be easily and cheaply sent through the mail. On
>the other hand, laserdiscs have larger covers for better art and text.
>Noise: Most LD players make a whirring noise that can be heard during
>quiet segments of a movie. Most DVD players are as quiet as CD
>players.
>Audio: LD can have better quality on Dolby Surround soundtracks stored
>in uncompressed PCM format. DVD has better quality on Dolby Digital or
>music only (PCM). LD has 2 audio tracks: analog and digital, whereas
>DVD has up to 8 audio tracks. LD uses PCM audio sampled with 16 bits
>at 44.1 kHz. DVD LPCM audio can use 16, 20, or 24 bit samples at 48 or
>96 kHz (although PCM is not used with most movies). LD has surround
>audio in Dolby Surround, Dolby Digital (AC-3), and DTS formats.
>5.1-channel surround sound is available by using one channel of the
>analog track for AC-3 or both channels of the digital track for DTS.
>DVD uses the same Dolby Digital surround sound, usually at a higher
>data rate of 448 kbps, and can optionally include DTS (at data rates
>up to 1536 kbps compared to LD's 1411 kbps, but in practice DTS data
>rates are often 768 kbps). DVD players convert Dolby Digital to Dolby
>Surround. The downmixing, combined with the effects of compression,
>often results in lower-quality sound than from LD Dolby Surround
>tracks.
>Video: DVD usually has better video. LD suffers from degradation
>inherent in analog storage and in the composite NTSC or PAL video
>signal. DVD uses digital video, and even though it's heavily
>compressed, most professionals agree that when properly and carefully
>encoded it's virtually indistinguishable from studio masters. This
>doesn't mean that the video quality of DVD is always better than LD.
>Only that it can be better. Also keep in mind that the average
>television is of insufficient quality to show much difference between
>LD and DVD. Home theater systems or HDTVs are needed to take full
>advantage of the improved quality.
>Resolution: In numerical terms DVD has 345,600 pixels (720x480), which
>is 1.3 times LD's approximately 272,160 pixels (567x480). Widescreen
>DVD has 1.7 times the pixels of letterboxed LD (or 1.3 times
>anamorphic LD). As for lines of horizontal resolution, DVD has about
>500 whereas LD has about 425 (more info in 3.4.1). In analog output
>signal terms, typical luma frequency response maintains full amplitude
>to between 5.0 and 5.5 MHz. This is below the 6.75 MHz native
>frequency of the MPEG-2 digital signal. Chroma frequency response is
>one-half that of luma. Laserdisc frequency response usually begins to
>fall off at 3 MHz. (All figures are for NTSC, not PAL.)
>Legacy titles: Some movies on laserdisc will probably never appear on
>DVD (see Julien Wilk's Laserdisc Database).
>Availability: DVD players and discs are available for purchase and
>rental in thousands of outlets and on the Internet. LD players and
>discs are becoming hard to find.
>Price: Low-cost DVD players are cheaper than the cheapest LD player.
>Most movies on DVD cost less than on LD.
>Restrictions: For those outside the US, regional coding (see 1.10) is
>a definite drawback of DVD. For some people Macrovision copy
>protection (see 1.11) is an annoyance. Laserdisc has no copy
>protection and does not have regional differences other than PAL vs.
>NTSC.
>Recordable: DVD recorders are increasingly affordable. Laserdisc
>recording, at a low of $250 per disc, was never available to general
>consumers.
>For more laserdisc info, see Leopold's FAQ at
><www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/FAQ/index.html>, and Bob Niland's FAQs and
>overview at <www.access-one.com/rjn/laser/laserdisc.html> (overview
>reprinted from Widescreen Review magazine).
>
>
>On 01 Sep 2004 10:55:30 GMT, (DVDfanatico) wrote:
>
>>LD's do seem better to me in some respects. The spirit of LD lives on. They
>>would have big jackets and all sorts of literature on the back. Some DVD's
>>don't even have inserts. It is quite a movie experience watching LD's. I wish
>>Norm Wilner were here to offer his critique.
>>
>>-DVDfanatico
>>
>>> (ZoulonFire)
>>>Date: 9/1/2004 1:13 AM Pacific Standard Time
>>>Message-id: <>
>>>
>>>
>>>A friend of mine was argueing that LD is actually higher quality picture and
>>>sound, but ended up being too expensive to produce (as LD's need a "clean
>>>room"
>>>to be made) and thus DVD was invented... any thoughts ?
>>>
>>>A
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
>because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
>-- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
>- Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_

Richard

"Brian" <> wrote in message
news:...
> DTS on DVD's offers a very high quality sound.
> Both of these would exceed what was offered by LD.

Laserdisc also offered Dolby Digital and DTS. The DTS was encoded at a
higher bit-rate than most DVDs.

Joshua Zyber

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 01:09:57 +1200, Brian <> wrote:

> (ZoulonFire) wrote:
>

>Megabit DVD's have a very high quality picture.
>DTS on DVD's offers a very high quality sound.
>Both of these would exceed what was offered by LD.
>
>Regards Brian
DTS on LD, where available is generally higher quality than DVD, due
to higher bandwidth used.
John.

John C.

On Wed, 01 Sep 2004 20:09:35 -0400, Richard <>
wrote:

>BEAT that dead horse...


???






"Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
-- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
- Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_

Allan