Page 1 of laser disc v dvd

if laser discs are so good why dvd?
so come on,which is best,overall?
shnozzer

Schnozz,

Laserdiscs,whilst better than vhs,are certainly no match for dvd in picture. Whilst sound quality on some laserdiscs-namely Titanic DTS(and,im reliably informed-Fight Club)can better their dvd counterparts due to less sound compression,what you`re forgetting is that they are sooo inefficient. Dvd can store masses of data on a single disc,whereas a comparable LD will spread it over two humongous dinner plates! Laserdisc only shares one thing with dvd and thats digital sound-and bar the fact that some bear some(admittedly good) extras- there`s no real cause for judgement.
Yes, you can get the Star Wars Trilogy in Dolby 5.1 on LD,plus some utter classics like The Lion King, but the pros for dvd outweigh the cons. You just know Star Wars will be good on dvd,and its user friendliness cannot be denied. Ld,like ive said before, will always have a place in enthusiasts hearts, and was the first real glimpse of the way forward-but sadly it never really got off its feet outside the U.S, so dvd is here to stay for the forseeable future.
If you`re feeling indulgent and fancy one(and you reaaly MUST have Star Wars),then by all means get one cheap,but i`ll be sticking with my trusty dvd for now.

Any others?

Westy

I don`t really mind the size element of LDs; most of my music collection is on vinyl so I`m used to it, and those gorgeous gatefold sleeves more than make up for the space they take up. But let`s face it, Joe Public was never going to accept it. It was too expensive, too big and bulky (for CD-era consumers) and too inconvenient to use.

Really, the only things LD had going for it were (a) picture quality (b) sound quality and (c) random access. When the DVD bandwagon came along and actually improved on (a) and (c), and gave you a shiny, convenient little disc to boot, it was obvious that LD would be killed off very quickly.

LD is an amazing technology for its time - it was first demonstrated in 1972, so actually predates VHS - but its time has long since gone. That said, it`s still worth having a player for those titles that aren`t yet available on DVD.

If you`re interested in the history of the LD format, have a look at this excellent site - http://www.oz.net/blam/DiscoVision/

Mike

I`m not sure the comments about picture quality being worse on LD than DVD - lets not forget that DVD`s are compressed video where as LD`s are not - so that means no compression artifacts ever ! (and no black level problems - LD`s black is black - DVD`s black can be several shades of black / grey-ish depending on the encoding)
It`s not as much of a difference now because DVD`s are made a LOT better than they used to be but I have to stand up in defence for the LD!

If you have a top of the range LD player models LD-S9 or the High definition players with filter seperation then LD look just as good as DVD`s. Get a LD player just for the novelty value.

i remember a freind of mine having a laser disc player some twenty odd years ago.it must have cost a fortune,but it lost out to vhs in the end because of disc availability and price.plus it could`nt record.
whats the availability and price of discs and machines at the moment?
shnozzer.

The main problem with LD is that the video is stored in composite format, with consequent implications for colour bandwidth and cross-colour interference. Although LD can look stunning given a high-end player and a well-mastered disc, a high-bitrate DVD watched through a RGB or Component connection will usually blow it out of the water. (I`m talking about standard def. LD by the way - I haven`t seen HDLD so can`t really comment on that.)

Yes, there are some pretty shoddy and compressed looking DVDs in existence, but there are some ropey and fuzzy LDs too - this (along with the black level issue) is entirely dependent on the original source material and disc mastering. Some older (1970s-early 80s) LDs are extremely woolly, with black level way off spec.

Mike