Not sure if any "good" VCDs exist outside of that in my experience, but if anyone can get one that's close to DVD quality, then I'll still have to say that Laserdisc wins. Because analog > digital.
LOL! Blanket statement like “analog > digital”
Is this passionate believer you?
I came across this old 2001 posting when I was searching for information about Laserdisc versus VHS:
"The truth is that for all practical purposes, VHS is a better all-around home theater format than DVD."
"When your friends with DVD players smile at you condescendingly and tell you that you'll probably buy a DVD player soon, you can smile right back at them and point them at this article. Tell them that they are corporate shills who are living a hateful lie."
Not sure if any "good" VCDs exist outside of that in my experience, but if anyone can get one that's close to DVD quality, then I'll still have to say that Laserdisc wins. Because analog > digital.
LOL! Blanket statement like “analog > digital”
Is this passionate believer you?
I came across this old 2001 posting when I was searching for information about Laserdisc versus VHS:
"The truth is that for all practical purposes, VHS is a better all-around home theater format than DVD."
"When your friends with DVD players smile at you condescendingly and tell you that you'll probably buy a DVD player soon, you can smile right back at them and point them at this article. Tell them that they are corporate shills who are living a hateful lie."
Um, no that's not me? lol
I wansn't meaning in general, digital does have some things going for it in some cases. Hell, I'll take DVD over VHS any day.
But, as far as LD vs. DVDs (which was I was referring to), analog > digital.
Not sure if any "good" VCDs exist outside of that in my experience, but if anyone can get one that's close to DVD quality, then I'll still have to say that Laserdisc wins. Because analog > digital.
LOL! Blanket statement like “analog > digital”
Is this passionate believer you?
I came across this old 2001 posting when I was searching for information about Laserdisc versus VHS:
"The truth is that for all practical purposes, VHS is a better all-around home theater format than DVD."
"When your friends with DVD players smile at you condescendingly and tell you that you'll probably buy a DVD player soon, you can smile right back at them and point them at this article. Tell them that they are corporate shills who are living a hateful lie."
Um, no that's not me? lol
I wansn't meaning in general, digital does have some things going for it in some cases. Hell, I'll take DVD over VHS any day.
But, as far as LD vs. DVDs (which was I was referring to), analog > digital.
So, a composite video format is > a digital video format with analog component or digital video and progressive scan? You do realize that DVDs can output analog, right? LD doesn't even have chroma/luma. Even DVD over S-Video is measurably superior to LD. Heck, even apples to apples with DVD over composite, DVD is superior.
Not sure if any "good" VCDs exist outside of that in my experience, but if anyone can get one that's close to DVD quality, then I'll still have to say that Laserdisc wins. Because analog > digital.
LOL! Blanket statement like “analog > digital”
Is this passionate believer you?
I came across this old 2001 posting when I was searching for information about Laserdisc versus VHS:
"The truth is that for all practical purposes, VHS is a better all-around home theater format than DVD."
"When your friends with DVD players smile at you condescendingly and tell you that you'll probably buy a DVD player soon, you can smile right back at them and point them at this article. Tell them that they are corporate shills who are living a hateful lie."
Um, no that's not me? lol
I wansn't meaning in general, digital does have some things going for it in some cases. Hell, I'll take DVD over VHS any day.
But, as far as LD vs. DVDs (which was I was referring to), analog > digital.
So, a composite video format is > a digital video format with analog component or digital video and progressive scan? You do realize that DVDs can output analog, right? LD doesn't even have chroma/luma. Even DVD over S-Video is measurably superior to LD. Heck, even apples to apples with DVD over composite, DVD is superior.
I'm talkin' about compression and format of the disc itself, not overall video output. I can run a PS4 via a composite converter and play it on a CRT, it doesn't mean the PS4 is an analog system.
Gosh, are you and your brother bored today? Am I being targeted for some reason? lol
Not sure if any "good" VCDs exist outside of that in my experience, but if anyone can get one that's close to DVD quality, then I'll still have to say that Laserdisc wins. Because analog > digital.
LOL! Blanket statement like “analog > digital”
Is this passionate believer you?
I came across this old 2001 posting when I was searching for information about Laserdisc versus VHS:
"The truth is that for all practical purposes, VHS is a better all-around home theater format than DVD."
"When your friends with DVD players smile at you condescendingly and tell you that you'll probably buy a DVD player soon, you can smile right back at them and point them at this article. Tell them that they are corporate shills who are living a hateful lie."
Um, no that's not me? lol
I wansn't meaning in general, digital does have some things going for it in some cases. Hell, I'll take DVD over VHS any day.
But, as far as LD vs. DVDs (which was I was referring to), analog > digital.
So, a composite video format is > a digital video format with analog component or digital video and progressive scan? You do realize that DVDs can output analog, right? LD doesn't even have chroma/luma. Even DVD over S-Video is measurably superior to LD. Heck, even apples to apples with DVD over composite, DVD is superior.
I'm talkin' about compression and format of the disc itself, not overall video output. I can run a PS4 via a composite converter and play it on a CRT, it doesn't mean the PS4 is an analog system.
Gosh, are you and your brother bored today? Am I being targeted for some reason? lol
Composite video throws out the separate chroma and luma signals and is much worse "compression" in every sense. Hook both up to an ocilloscope if you don't believe it.
I wouldn't have responded except you kinda made your position even worse in response to Ichinisan (digging in your heels? ). I wasn't defending him or anything, just trying to steer things back toward the truth before we influence anyone else or go any deeper with that fundamental misunderstanding ("blanket statement" Ichinisan was worried about). It seems that you misspoke and said you were talking about LD vs DVDs when you were actually talking about LD vs VCDs. I responded to that because saying LD is better than DVD since analog>digital was just as wrong as saying the same for VHS vs DVDs.
Yes, comparing analog to digital can sometimes be an apples-to-oranges comparison (especially in the realm of film), but not in this case where the composite signal from the LD is demonstrably inferior to the analog output of a DVD (again, as even an analog ocilliscope can demonstrate).
If you were arguing in favor of 72mm IMAX film over whatever digital cinema 8K camera a movie might be filmed on, I'd agree, but that isn't how it works here where LD is already significantly degraded analog compared to the analog output from a typical DVD player.
Not sure if any "good" VCDs exist outside of that in my experience, but if anyone can get one that's close to DVD quality, then I'll still have to say that Laserdisc wins. Because analog > digital.
LOL! Blanket statement like “analog > digital”
Is this passionate believer you?
I came across this old 2001 posting when I was searching for information about Laserdisc versus VHS:
"The truth is that for all practical purposes, VHS is a better all-around home theater format than DVD."
"When your friends with DVD players smile at you condescendingly and tell you that you'll probably buy a DVD player soon, you can smile right back at them and point them at this article. Tell them that they are corporate shills who are living a hateful lie."
Um, no that's not me? lol
I wansn't meaning in general, digital does have some things going for it in some cases. Hell, I'll take DVD over VHS any day.
But, as far as LD vs. DVDs (which was I was referring to), analog > digital.
So, a composite video format is > a digital video format with analog component or digital video and progressive scan? You do realize that DVDs can output analog, right? LD doesn't even have chroma/luma. Even DVD over S-Video is measurably superior to LD. Heck, even apples to apples with DVD over composite, DVD is superior.
I'm talkin' about compression and format of the disc itself, not overall video output. I can run a PS4 via a composite converter and play it on a CRT, it doesn't mean the PS4 is an analog system.
Gosh, are you and your brother bored today? Am I being targeted for some reason? lol
Composite video throws out the separate chroma and luma signals and is much worse "compression" in every sense. Hook both up to an ocilloscope if you don't believe it.
I wouldn't have responded except you kinda made your position even worse in response to Ichinisan (digging in your heels? ). I wasn't defending him or anything, just trying to steer things back toward the truth before we influence anyone else or go any deeper with that fundamental misunderstanding.
Yes, comparing analog to digital can sometimes be an apples-to-oranges comparison (especially in the realm of film), but not in this case where the composite signal from the LD is demonstrably inferior to the analog output of a DVD.
If you were arguing in favor of 72mm IMAX film over whatever digital cinema 8K camera a movie might be filmed on, I'd agree, but that isn't how it works here where LD is already significantly degraded analog compared to the analog output from a typical DVD player.
How about saying that in the first place instead of throwing a bunch of esoteric stuff my way in sort of a condescending manner? Nobody learns from that, man.
I kinda feel bad now. You really insulted my intelligence on this one.
I guess it's just whatever now. Thanks for the info.
Not sure if any "good" VCDs exist outside of that in my experience, but if anyone can get one that's close to DVD quality, then I'll still have to say that Laserdisc wins. Because analog > digital.
LOL! Blanket statement like “analog > digital”
Is this passionate believer you?
I came across this old 2001 posting when I was searching for information about Laserdisc versus VHS:
"The truth is that for all practical purposes, VHS is a better all-around home theater format than DVD."
"When your friends with DVD players smile at you condescendingly and tell you that you'll probably buy a DVD player soon, you can smile right back at them and point them at this article. Tell them that they are corporate shills who are living a hateful lie."
Um, no that's not me? lol
I wansn't meaning in general, digital does have some things going for it in some cases. Hell, I'll take DVD over VHS any day.
But, as far as LD vs. DVDs (which was I was referring to), analog > digital.
So, a composite video format is > a digital video format with analog component or digital video and progressive scan? You do realize that DVDs can output analog, right? LD doesn't even have chroma/luma. Even DVD over S-Video is measurably superior to LD. Heck, even apples to apples with DVD over composite, DVD is superior.
I'm talkin' about compression and format of the disc itself, not overall video output. I can run a PS4 via a composite converter and play it on a CRT, it doesn't mean the PS4 is an analog system.
Gosh, are you and your brother bored today? Am I being targeted for some reason? lol
Composite video throws out the separate chroma and luma signals and is much worse "compression" in every sense. Hook both up to an ocilloscope if you don't believe it.
I wouldn't have responded except you kinda made your position even worse in response to Ichinisan (digging in your heels? ). I wasn't defending him or anything, just trying to steer things back toward the truth before we influence anyone else or go any deeper with that fundamental misunderstanding.
Yes, comparing analog to digital can sometimes be an apples-to-oranges comparison (especially in the realm of film), but not in this case where the composite signal from the LD is demonstrably inferior to the analog output of a DVD.
If you were arguing in favor of 72mm IMAX film over whatever digital cinema 8K camera a movie might be filmed on, I'd agree, but that isn't how it works here where LD is already significantly degraded analog compared to the analog output from a typical DVD player.
How about saying that in the first place instead of throwing a bunch of esoteric stuff my way in sort of a condescending manner? Nobody learns from that, man.
I kinda feel bad now. You really insulted my intelligence on this one.
I guess it's just whatever now. Thanks for the info.
Ugh. Read my post again and realize that I asked it as a question because it was AFTER you dug your heels in and repeated the exact same statement that you were already challenged on while limiting it to something equally wrong (said as a blanket statement or just in relation to LD vs DVDs). Asking it as a question forces you to consider the logical contradiction required to support your earlier assumption and, presumably, to realize where you are
Saying that it insults your intelligence when supporting your argument gets too technical is basically admitting that you didn't understand it enough to make the claim in the first place but in the worst way possible (putting words in my mouth). I feel insulted that you would attack me for being "esoteric" to deflect from admitting that you were wrong.
I said it exactly how it needed to be said and was not condescending or mean about it. When people double-down after being told something was wrong it's very difficult to continue without sounding like it's getting personal, but that's entirely on you after how you chose to double down). I guess the only right answer from your perspective would be two drop it instead of trying to point out that the LD has already destroyed the extra information from chroma/luma that still exists in the analog DVD output. Heck, DVD has even more analog bandwidth with component.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the issue is not one of people being too mean, it's one of people being too sensitive and expecting to be agreed with or handled delicately when they are wrong. This is why they might think someone is a jerk for not tip-toeing around the issue or pretending that the statement has more merit than it does. Sure, people don't like being told that they are wrong, but that doesn't make me a d*ck for stating the truth. If you were more open and didn't dig your heels in we wouldn't be having this conversation and you wouldn't feel this way toward me. More evidence that sensitivity and defensiveness is a bigger issue than sounding friendly while correcting someone. Seriously.
These discussions are exactly the kind of place to correct such thinking before we start another trend where hipsters insist on LD over DVD "because analog>digital, man."
Not sure if any "good" VCDs exist outside of that in my experience, but if anyone can get one that's close to DVD quality, then I'll still have to say that Laserdisc wins. Because analog > digital.
LOL! Blanket statement like “analog > digital”
Is this passionate believer you?
I came across this old 2001 posting when I was searching for information about Laserdisc versus VHS:
"The truth is that for all practical purposes, VHS is a better all-around home theater format than DVD."
"When your friends with DVD players smile at you condescendingly and tell you that you'll probably buy a DVD player soon, you can smile right back at them and point them at this article. Tell them that they are corporate shills who are living a hateful lie."
Um, no that's not me? lol
I wansn't meaning in general, digital does have some things going for it in some cases. Hell, I'll take DVD over VHS any day.
But, as far as LD vs. DVDs (which was I was referring to), analog > digital.
So, a composite video format is > a digital video format with analog component or digital video and progressive scan? You do realize that DVDs can output analog, right? LD doesn't even have chroma/luma. Even DVD over S-Video is measurably superior to LD. Heck, even apples to apples with DVD over composite, DVD is superior.
I'm talkin' about compression and format of the disc itself, not overall video output. I can run a PS4 via a composite converter and play it on a CRT, it doesn't mean the PS4 is an analog system.
Gosh, are you and your brother bored today? Am I being targeted for some reason? lol
Composite video throws out the separate chroma and luma signals and is much worse "compression" in every sense. Hook both up to an ocilloscope if you don't believe it.
I wouldn't have responded except you kinda made your position even worse in response to Ichinisan (digging in your heels? ). I wasn't defending him or anything, just trying to steer things back toward the truth before we influence anyone else or go any deeper with that fundamental misunderstanding.
Yes, comparing analog to digital can sometimes be an apples-to-oranges comparison (especially in the realm of film), but not in this case where the composite signal from the LD is demonstrably inferior to the analog output of a DVD.
If you were arguing in favor of 72mm IMAX film over whatever digital cinema 8K camera a movie might be filmed on, I'd agree, but that isn't how it works here where LD is already significantly degraded analog compared to the analog output from a typical DVD player.
How about saying that in the first place instead of throwing a bunch of esoteric stuff my way in sort of a condescending manner? Nobody learns from that, man.
I kinda feel bad now. You really insulted my intelligence on this one.
I guess it's just whatever now. Thanks for the info.
Ugh. Read my post again and realize that I asked it as a question because it was AFTER you dug your heels in and repeated the exact same statement that your were already called out on while limiting it to something equally wrong (said as a blanket statement or just in relation to LD vs DVDs). Asking it as a question forces you to consider the logical contradiction required to support your earlier assumption and, presumably, to realize where you are wrong.
I said it exactly how it needed to be said and was not condescending or mean about it. When people double-down after being told something was wrong it's very difficult to continue without sounding like it's getting personal, but that's entirely on you after how you chose to respond to Ichinisan (double down). I guess the only right answer from your perspective would be two drop it instead of trying to point out that the LD has already destroyed the extra information from chroma/luma that still exists in the analog DVD output. Heck, DVD has even more analog bandwidth with component.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the issue is not one of people being too mean,it's one of people being too sensitive and expecting to be agreed with or handled delicately when they are wrong. This is why they might think someone is a jerk for not tip-toeing around the issue or pretending that the statement has more merit than it does. Sure, people don't like being told that they are wrong, but that doesn't make me a d*ck for stating the truth. If you were more open and didn't dig your heels in we wouldn't be having this conversation and you wouldn't feel this way toward me. More evidence that sensitivity and defensiveness is a bigger issue than sounding friendly while correcting someone. Seriously.
These discussions are exactly the kind of place to correct such thinking before we start another trend where hipsters insist on LD over DVD "because analog>digital, man."
Okay, no you are actually right... NOW you're being condescending. I stand corrected. My bad.
No, what you're saying isn't mean, it's exasperating. There are are better ways to correct someone without sounding like a dick. If you didn't mean to be one, fine. But now how you are choosing to respond is pretty much the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it? You're JUST as sensitive if you think you can expound your words in a wall of text calling a person "too sensitive". Seriously, humility isn't an alien concept.
Okay, no you are actually right... NOW you're being condescending. I stand corrected. My bad.
No, what you're saying isn't mean, it's exasperating. There are are better ways to correct someone without sounding like a dick. If you didn't mean to be one, fine. But now how you are choosing to respond is pretty much the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it? You're JUST as sensitive if you think you can expound your words in a wall of text calling a person "too sensitive". Seriously, humility isn't an alien concept.
So im MY optinion, wrong or otherwise...
Laserdisc wins. Because analog>digital, man.
I was still actively editing that post when you responded but couldn't get it to take with my mobile browser. Please re-read.
Let's be clear here: your own solution to how I should have handled it was to replace the substance of my post with "just" the statement of mine that you bolded, which would have been meaningless fluff without the substance of my original post. *facepalm*
...and there you have it folks: impossible to change someone's mind or inform them without insulting them or handling with kiddie gloves because we can't take a correction without perceiving it as an insult to our intelligence. We all have to agree or ignore each other when we disagree because we can't have harmony in light of truth since we are all such delicate snowflakes.
Again, the problem is not how "nice" people are. The problem is how delicate people are. Thick skin is a virtue for people who hope to learn. If you don't know what something means then look it up or bow out, but don't expose yourself to further correction ("insult") by digging your heels in and then taking offense when corrected. This is going nowhere.
Okay, no you are actually right... NOW you're being condescending. I stand corrected. My bad.
No, what you're saying isn't mean, it's exasperating. There are are better ways to correct someone without sounding like a dick. If you didn't mean to be one, fine. But now how you are choosing to respond is pretty much the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it? You're JUST as sensitive if you think you can expound your words in a wall of text calling a person "too sensitive". Seriously, humility isn't an alien concept.
So im MY optinion, wrong or otherwise...
Laserdisc wins. Because analog>digital, man.
I was still actively editing that post when you responded but couldn't get it to take with my mobile browser. Please re-read.
Let's be clear here: your own solution to how I should have handled it was to replace the substance of my post with "just" the statement of mine that you bolded, which would have been meaningless fluff without the substance of my original post. *facepalm*
...and there you have it folks: impossible to change someone's mind or inform them without insulting them or handling with kiddie gloves because we can't take a correction without perceiving it as an insult to our intelligence. We all have to agree or ignore each other when we disagree because we can't have harmony in light of truth since we are all such delicate snowflakes.
Again, the problem is not how "nice" people are. The problem is how delicate people are. Thick skin is a virtue for people who hope to learn. If you don't know what something means then look it up or bow out, but don't expose yourself to further correction ("insult") by digging your heels in and then taking offense when corrected. This is going nowhere.
Oh, that "esoteric" part wasn't a deflection or an act of insulting you. So it sounded mean and it offeneded you?
Y'see, the problem isn't how "nice" people are. The problem is how delicate people are....
We're digging in each other's heals. Nobody's better than the other, nobody can postulate one another and nobody can teach one another. Stop talking like you're any different than who you think I am. If you want to continue this discussion, PM me
Okay, no you are actually right... NOW you're being condescending. I stand corrected. My bad.
No, what you're saying isn't mean, it's exasperating. There are are better ways to correct someone without sounding like a dick. If you didn't mean to be one, fine. But now how you are choosing to respond is pretty much the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it? You're JUST as sensitive if you think you can expound your words in a wall of text calling a person "too sensitive". Seriously, humility isn't an alien concept.
So im MY optinion, wrong or otherwise...
Laserdisc wins. Because analog>digital, man.
I was still actively editing that post when you responded but couldn't get it to take with my mobile browser. Please re-read.
Let's be clear here: your own solution to how I should have handled it was to replace the substance of my post with "just" the statement of mine that you bolded, which would have been meaningless fluff without the substance of my original post. *facepalm*
...and there you have it folks: impossible to change someone's mind or inform them without insulting them or handling with kiddie gloves because we can't take a correction without perceiving it as an insult to our intelligence. We all have to agree or ignore each other when we disagree because we can't have harmony in light of truth since we are all such delicate snowflakes.
Again, the problem is not how "nice" people are. The problem is how delicate people are. Thick skin is a virtue for people who hope to learn. If you don't know what something means then look it up or bow out, but don't expose yourself to further correction ("insult") by digging your heels in and then taking offense when corrected. This is going nowhere.
Oh, that "esoteric" part wasn't a deflection or an act of insulting you. So it sounded mean and it offeneded you?
Y'see, the problem isn't how "nice" people are. The problem is how delicate people are....
We're digging in each other's heals. Nobody's better than the other, nobody can postulate one another and nobody can teach one another. Stop talking like you're any different than who you think I am. If you want to continue this discussion, PM me
Alternatively, would you mind publicly telling everyone what you hoped to accomplish by repeating this?
Okay, no you are actually right... NOW you're being condescending. I stand corrected. My bad.
No, what you're saying isn't mean, it's exasperating. There are are better ways to correct someone without sounding like a dick. If you didn't mean to be one, fine. But now how you are choosing to respond is pretty much the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it? You're JUST as sensitive if you think you can expound your words in a wall of text calling a person "too sensitive". Seriously, humility isn't an alien concept.
So im MY optinion, wrong or otherwise...
Laserdisc wins. Because analog>digital, man.
I was still actively editing that post when you responded but couldn't get it to take with my mobile browser. Please re-read.
Let's be clear here: your own solution to how I should have handled it was to replace the substance of my post with "just" the statement of mine that you bolded, which would have been meaningless fluff without the substance of my original post. *facepalm*
...and there you have it folks: impossible to change someone's mind or inform them without insulting them or handling with kiddie gloves because we can't take a correction without perceiving it as an insult to our intelligence. We all have to agree or ignore each other when we disagree because we can't have harmony in light of truth since we are all such delicate snowflakes.
Again, the problem is not how "nice" people are. The problem is how delicate people are. Thick skin is a virtue for people who hope to learn. If you don't know what something means then look it up or bow out, but don't expose yourself to further correction ("insult") by digging your heels in and then taking offense when corrected. This is going nowhere.
Oh, that "esoteric" part wasn't a deflection or an act of insulting you. So it sounded mean and it offeneded you?
Y'see, the problem isn't how "nice" people are. The problem is how delicate people are....
We're digging in each other's heals. Nobody's better than the other, nobody can postulate one another and nobody can teach one another. Stop talking like you're any different than who you think I am. If you want to continue this discussion, PM me
Alternatively, would you mind publicly telling everyone what you hoped to accomplish by repeating this?
Oh, it's obvious. They can read. They come up with their own conclusions.
Comparing the two (DVD and LD) has always seemed somewhat silly IMHO - especially considering the topic of the thread. In it's day, LD was pretty clearly the best commercially available system if one is looking at quality of picture and sound as the main factors. DVDs didn't exist until the end of the LD era (I will grant that they were instrumental in ending LDs - not so much on quality issues as on price since most monitors/receivers weren't very big nor as sophisticated as they would become) so they don't really qualify in terms of the thread title.
For those of us who like LDs (and I have been watching/buying them since 1982 so I take umbrage at being written off as a hipster - I just recognized a good thing when I saw (as it were) it long before someone decided they were retro cool) it really is not a matter of which is better - I view them as complementing each other. I don't know a whole lot of other LD fans but none of them I know don't have dvds etc. also. So I have a really (i mean seriously large) large library of both dvds and lds. But both formats do have distinct advantages. I don't have a strong preference - I am more interested in what is on the discs (of whatever type) than what format it is on.
If one wants to persist in comparing the two it would be more fair to compare Muse Hi-Vision LDs to DVDs since the Muse Hi-Vision discs were much closer in time to DVDs then LDs were. They never had a chance to be on the market long enough for the prices to drop to the point where they could make any market penetration. But they were decidely at the top of the game for that technology.
Comments
...
Not sure if any "good" VCDs exist outside of that in my experience, but if anyone can get one that's close to DVD quality, then I'll still have to say that Laserdisc wins. Because analog > digital.
LOL! Blanket statement like “analog > digital”
Is this passionate believer you?
I came across this old 2001 posting when I was searching for information about Laserdisc versus VHS:
http://adequacy.org/stories/2001.8.24.112921.289.html
His summary is very funny:
"The truth is that for all practical purposes, VHS is a better all-around home theater format than DVD."
"When your friends with DVD players smile at you condescendingly and tell you that you'll probably buy a DVD player soon, you can smile right back at them and point them at this article. Tell them that they are corporate shills who are living a hateful lie."
...
Not sure if any "good" VCDs exist outside of that in my experience, but if anyone can get one that's close to DVD quality, then I'll still have to say that Laserdisc wins. Because analog > digital.
LOL! Blanket statement like “analog > digital”
Is this passionate believer you?
I came across this old 2001 posting when I was searching for information about Laserdisc versus VHS:
http://adequacy.org/stories/2001.8.24.112921.289.html
His summary is very funny:
"The truth is that for all practical purposes, VHS is a better all-around home theater format than DVD."
"When your friends with DVD players smile at you condescendingly and tell you that you'll probably buy a DVD player soon, you can smile right back at them and point them at this article. Tell them that they are corporate shills who are living a hateful lie."
Um, no that's not me? lol
I wansn't meaning in general, digital does have some things going for it in some cases. Hell, I'll take DVD over VHS any day.
But, as far as LD vs. DVDs (which was I was referring to), analog > digital.
...
Not sure if any "good" VCDs exist outside of that in my experience, but if anyone can get one that's close to DVD quality, then I'll still have to say that Laserdisc wins. Because analog > digital.
LOL! Blanket statement like “analog > digital”
Is this passionate believer you?
I came across this old 2001 posting when I was searching for information about Laserdisc versus VHS:
http://adequacy.org/stories/2001.8.24.112921.289.html
His summary is very funny:
"The truth is that for all practical purposes, VHS is a better all-around home theater format than DVD."
"When your friends with DVD players smile at you condescendingly and tell you that you'll probably buy a DVD player soon, you can smile right back at them and point them at this article. Tell them that they are corporate shills who are living a hateful lie."
Um, no that's not me? lol
I wansn't meaning in general, digital does have some things going for it in some cases. Hell, I'll take DVD over VHS any day.
But, as far as LD vs. DVDs (which was I was referring to), analog > digital.
So, a composite video format is > a digital video format with analog component or digital video and progressive scan? You do realize that DVDs can output analog, right? LD doesn't even have chroma/luma. Even DVD over S-Video is measurably superior to LD. Heck, even apples to apples with DVD over composite, DVD is superior.
...
Not sure if any "good" VCDs exist outside of that in my experience, but if anyone can get one that's close to DVD quality, then I'll still have to say that Laserdisc wins. Because analog > digital.
LOL! Blanket statement like “analog > digital”
Is this passionate believer you?
I came across this old 2001 posting when I was searching for information about Laserdisc versus VHS:
http://adequacy.org/stories/2001.8.24.112921.289.html
His summary is very funny:
"The truth is that for all practical purposes, VHS is a better all-around home theater format than DVD."
"When your friends with DVD players smile at you condescendingly and tell you that you'll probably buy a DVD player soon, you can smile right back at them and point them at this article. Tell them that they are corporate shills who are living a hateful lie."
Um, no that's not me? lol
I wansn't meaning in general, digital does have some things going for it in some cases. Hell, I'll take DVD over VHS any day.
But, as far as LD vs. DVDs (which was I was referring to), analog > digital.
So, a composite video format is > a digital video format with analog component or digital video and progressive scan? You do realize that DVDs can output analog, right? LD doesn't even have chroma/luma. Even DVD over S-Video is measurably superior to LD. Heck, even apples to apples with DVD over composite, DVD is superior.
I'm talkin' about compression and format of the disc itself, not overall video output. I can run a PS4 via a composite converter and play it on a CRT, it doesn't mean the PS4 is an analog system.
Gosh, are you and your brother bored today? Am I being targeted for some reason? lol
...
Not sure if any "good" VCDs exist outside of that in my experience, but if anyone can get one that's close to DVD quality, then I'll still have to say that Laserdisc wins. Because analog > digital.
LOL! Blanket statement like “analog > digital”
Is this passionate believer you?
I came across this old 2001 posting when I was searching for information about Laserdisc versus VHS:
http://adequacy.org/stories/2001.8.24.112921.289.html
His summary is very funny:
"The truth is that for all practical purposes, VHS is a better all-around home theater format than DVD."
"When your friends with DVD players smile at you condescendingly and tell you that you'll probably buy a DVD player soon, you can smile right back at them and point them at this article. Tell them that they are corporate shills who are living a hateful lie."
Um, no that's not me? lol
I wansn't meaning in general, digital does have some things going for it in some cases. Hell, I'll take DVD over VHS any day.
But, as far as LD vs. DVDs (which was I was referring to), analog > digital.
So, a composite video format is > a digital video format with analog component or digital video and progressive scan? You do realize that DVDs can output analog, right? LD doesn't even have chroma/luma. Even DVD over S-Video is measurably superior to LD. Heck, even apples to apples with DVD over composite, DVD is superior.
I'm talkin' about compression and format of the disc itself, not overall video output. I can run a PS4 via a composite converter and play it on a CRT, it doesn't mean the PS4 is an analog system.
Gosh, are you and your brother bored today? Am I being targeted for some reason? lol
Composite video throws out the separate chroma and luma signals and is much worse "compression" in every sense. Hook both up to an ocilloscope if you don't believe it.
I wouldn't have responded except you kinda made your position even worse in response to Ichinisan (digging in your heels? ). I wasn't defending him or anything, just trying to steer things back toward the truth before we influence anyone else or go any deeper with that fundamental misunderstanding ("blanket statement" Ichinisan was worried about). It seems that you misspoke and said you were talking about LD vs DVDs when you were actually talking about LD vs VCDs. I responded to that because saying LD is better than DVD since analog>digital was just as wrong as saying the same for VHS vs DVDs.
Yes, comparing analog to digital can sometimes be an apples-to-oranges comparison (especially in the realm of film), but not in this case where the composite signal from the LD is demonstrably inferior to the analog output of a DVD (again, as even an analog ocilliscope can demonstrate).
If you were arguing in favor of 72mm IMAX film over whatever digital cinema 8K camera a movie might be filmed on, I'd agree, but that isn't how it works here where LD is already significantly degraded analog compared to the analog output from a typical DVD player.
...
Not sure if any "good" VCDs exist outside of that in my experience, but if anyone can get one that's close to DVD quality, then I'll still have to say that Laserdisc wins. Because analog > digital.
LOL! Blanket statement like “analog > digital”
Is this passionate believer you?
I came across this old 2001 posting when I was searching for information about Laserdisc versus VHS:
http://adequacy.org/stories/2001.8.24.112921.289.html
His summary is very funny:
"The truth is that for all practical purposes, VHS is a better all-around home theater format than DVD."
"When your friends with DVD players smile at you condescendingly and tell you that you'll probably buy a DVD player soon, you can smile right back at them and point them at this article. Tell them that they are corporate shills who are living a hateful lie."
Um, no that's not me? lol
I wansn't meaning in general, digital does have some things going for it in some cases. Hell, I'll take DVD over VHS any day.
But, as far as LD vs. DVDs (which was I was referring to), analog > digital.
So, a composite video format is > a digital video format with analog component or digital video and progressive scan? You do realize that DVDs can output analog, right? LD doesn't even have chroma/luma. Even DVD over S-Video is measurably superior to LD. Heck, even apples to apples with DVD over composite, DVD is superior.
I'm talkin' about compression and format of the disc itself, not overall video output. I can run a PS4 via a composite converter and play it on a CRT, it doesn't mean the PS4 is an analog system.
Gosh, are you and your brother bored today? Am I being targeted for some reason? lol
Composite video throws out the separate chroma and luma signals and is much worse "compression" in every sense. Hook both up to an ocilloscope if you don't believe it.
I wouldn't have responded except you kinda made your position even worse in response to Ichinisan (digging in your heels? ). I wasn't defending him or anything, just trying to steer things back toward the truth before we influence anyone else or go any deeper with that fundamental misunderstanding.
Yes, comparing analog to digital can sometimes be an apples-to-oranges comparison (especially in the realm of film), but not in this case where the composite signal from the LD is demonstrably inferior to the analog output of a DVD.
If you were arguing in favor of 72mm IMAX film over whatever digital cinema 8K camera a movie might be filmed on, I'd agree, but that isn't how it works here where LD is already significantly degraded analog compared to the analog output from a typical DVD player.
How about saying that in the first place instead of throwing a bunch of esoteric stuff my way in sort of a condescending manner? Nobody learns from that, man.
I kinda feel bad now. You really insulted my intelligence on this one.
I guess it's just whatever now. Thanks for the info.
...
Not sure if any "good" VCDs exist outside of that in my experience, but if anyone can get one that's close to DVD quality, then I'll still have to say that Laserdisc wins. Because analog > digital.
LOL! Blanket statement like “analog > digital”
Is this passionate believer you?
I came across this old 2001 posting when I was searching for information about Laserdisc versus VHS:
http://adequacy.org/stories/2001.8.24.112921.289.html
His summary is very funny:
"The truth is that for all practical purposes, VHS is a better all-around home theater format than DVD."
"When your friends with DVD players smile at you condescendingly and tell you that you'll probably buy a DVD player soon, you can smile right back at them and point them at this article. Tell them that they are corporate shills who are living a hateful lie."
Um, no that's not me? lol
I wansn't meaning in general, digital does have some things going for it in some cases. Hell, I'll take DVD over VHS any day.
But, as far as LD vs. DVDs (which was I was referring to), analog > digital.
So, a composite video format is > a digital video format with analog component or digital video and progressive scan? You do realize that DVDs can output analog, right? LD doesn't even have chroma/luma. Even DVD over S-Video is measurably superior to LD. Heck, even apples to apples with DVD over composite, DVD is superior.
I'm talkin' about compression and format of the disc itself, not overall video output. I can run a PS4 via a composite converter and play it on a CRT, it doesn't mean the PS4 is an analog system.
Gosh, are you and your brother bored today? Am I being targeted for some reason? lol
Composite video throws out the separate chroma and luma signals and is much worse "compression" in every sense. Hook both up to an ocilloscope if you don't believe it.
I wouldn't have responded except you kinda made your position even worse in response to Ichinisan (digging in your heels? ). I wasn't defending him or anything, just trying to steer things back toward the truth before we influence anyone else or go any deeper with that fundamental misunderstanding.
Yes, comparing analog to digital can sometimes be an apples-to-oranges comparison (especially in the realm of film), but not in this case where the composite signal from the LD is demonstrably inferior to the analog output of a DVD.
If you were arguing in favor of 72mm IMAX film over whatever digital cinema 8K camera a movie might be filmed on, I'd agree, but that isn't how it works here where LD is already significantly degraded analog compared to the analog output from a typical DVD player.
How about saying that in the first place instead of throwing a bunch of esoteric stuff my way in sort of a condescending manner? Nobody learns from that, man.
I kinda feel bad now. You really insulted my intelligence on this one.
I guess it's just whatever now. Thanks for the info.
Ugh. Read my post again and realize that I asked it as a question because it was AFTER you dug your heels in and repeated the exact same statement that you were already challenged on while limiting it to something equally wrong (said as a blanket statement or just in relation to LD vs DVDs). Asking it as a question forces you to consider the logical contradiction required to support your earlier assumption and, presumably, to realize where you are
Saying that it insults your intelligence when supporting your argument gets too technical is basically admitting that you didn't understand it enough to make the claim in the first place but in the worst way possible (putting words in my mouth). I feel insulted that you would attack me for being "esoteric" to deflect from admitting that you were wrong.
I said it exactly how it needed to be said and was not condescending or mean about it. When people double-down after being told something was wrong it's very difficult to continue without sounding like it's getting personal, but that's entirely on you after how you chose to double down). I guess the only right answer from your perspective would be two drop it instead of trying to point out that the LD has already destroyed the extra information from chroma/luma that still exists in the analog DVD output. Heck, DVD has even more analog bandwidth with component.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the issue is not one of people being too mean, it's one of people being too sensitive and expecting to be agreed with or handled delicately when they are wrong. This is why they might think someone is a jerk for not tip-toeing around the issue or pretending that the statement has more merit than it does. Sure, people don't like being told that they are wrong, but that doesn't make me a d*ck for stating the truth. If you were more open and didn't dig your heels in we wouldn't be having this conversation and you wouldn't feel this way toward me. More evidence that sensitivity and defensiveness is a bigger issue than sounding friendly while correcting someone. Seriously.
These discussions are exactly the kind of place to correct such thinking before we start another trend where hipsters insist on LD over DVD "because analog>digital, man."
...
Not sure if any "good" VCDs exist outside of that in my experience, but if anyone can get one that's close to DVD quality, then I'll still have to say that Laserdisc wins. Because analog > digital.
LOL! Blanket statement like “analog > digital”
Is this passionate believer you?
I came across this old 2001 posting when I was searching for information about Laserdisc versus VHS:
http://adequacy.org/stories/2001.8.24.112921.289.html
His summary is very funny:
"The truth is that for all practical purposes, VHS is a better all-around home theater format than DVD."
"When your friends with DVD players smile at you condescendingly and tell you that you'll probably buy a DVD player soon, you can smile right back at them and point them at this article. Tell them that they are corporate shills who are living a hateful lie."
Um, no that's not me? lol
I wansn't meaning in general, digital does have some things going for it in some cases. Hell, I'll take DVD over VHS any day.
But, as far as LD vs. DVDs (which was I was referring to), analog > digital.
So, a composite video format is > a digital video format with analog component or digital video and progressive scan? You do realize that DVDs can output analog, right? LD doesn't even have chroma/luma. Even DVD over S-Video is measurably superior to LD. Heck, even apples to apples with DVD over composite, DVD is superior.
I'm talkin' about compression and format of the disc itself, not overall video output. I can run a PS4 via a composite converter and play it on a CRT, it doesn't mean the PS4 is an analog system.
Gosh, are you and your brother bored today? Am I being targeted for some reason? lol
Composite video throws out the separate chroma and luma signals and is much worse "compression" in every sense. Hook both up to an ocilloscope if you don't believe it.
I wouldn't have responded except you kinda made your position even worse in response to Ichinisan (digging in your heels? ). I wasn't defending him or anything, just trying to steer things back toward the truth before we influence anyone else or go any deeper with that fundamental misunderstanding.
Yes, comparing analog to digital can sometimes be an apples-to-oranges comparison (especially in the realm of film), but not in this case where the composite signal from the LD is demonstrably inferior to the analog output of a DVD.
If you were arguing in favor of 72mm IMAX film over whatever digital cinema 8K camera a movie might be filmed on, I'd agree, but that isn't how it works here where LD is already significantly degraded analog compared to the analog output from a typical DVD player.
How about saying that in the first place instead of throwing a bunch of esoteric stuff my way in sort of a condescending manner? Nobody learns from that, man.
I kinda feel bad now. You really insulted my intelligence on this one.
I guess it's just whatever now. Thanks for the info.
Ugh. Read my post again and realize that I asked it as a question because it was AFTER you dug your heels in and repeated the exact same statement that your were already called out on while limiting it to something equally wrong (said as a blanket statement or just in relation to LD vs DVDs). Asking it as a question forces you to consider the logical contradiction required to support your earlier assumption and, presumably, to realize where you are wrong.
I said it exactly how it needed to be said and was not condescending or mean about it. When people double-down after being told something was wrong it's very difficult to continue without sounding like it's getting personal, but that's entirely on you after how you chose to respond to Ichinisan (double down). I guess the only right answer from your perspective would be two drop it instead of trying to point out that the LD has already destroyed the extra information from chroma/luma that still exists in the analog DVD output. Heck, DVD has even more analog bandwidth with component.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the issue is not one of people being too mean, it's one of people being too sensitive and expecting to be agreed with or handled delicately when they are wrong. This is why they might think someone is a jerk for not tip-toeing around the issue or pretending that the statement has more merit than it does. Sure, people don't like being told that they are wrong, but that doesn't make me a d*ck for stating the truth. If you were more open and didn't dig your heels in we wouldn't be having this conversation and you wouldn't feel this way toward me. More evidence that sensitivity and defensiveness is a bigger issue than sounding friendly while correcting someone. Seriously.
These discussions are exactly the kind of place to correct such thinking before we start another trend where hipsters insist on LD over DVD "because analog>digital, man."
Okay, no you are actually right... NOW you're being condescending. I stand corrected. My bad.
No, what you're saying isn't mean, it's exasperating. There are are better ways to correct someone without sounding like a dick. If you didn't mean to be one, fine. But now how you are choosing to respond is pretty much the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it? You're JUST as sensitive if you think you can expound your words in a wall of text calling a person "too sensitive". Seriously, humility isn't an alien concept.
So im MY optinion, wrong or otherwise...
Laserdisc wins. Because analog>digital, man.
Okay, no you are actually right... NOW you're being condescending. I stand corrected. My bad.
No, what you're saying isn't mean, it's exasperating. There are are better ways to correct someone without sounding like a dick. If you didn't mean to be one, fine. But now how you are choosing to respond is pretty much the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it? You're JUST as sensitive if you think you can expound your words in a wall of text calling a person "too sensitive". Seriously, humility isn't an alien concept.
So im MY optinion, wrong or otherwise...
Laserdisc wins. Because analog>digital, man.
I was still actively editing that post when you responded but couldn't get it to take with my mobile browser. Please re-read.
Let's be clear here: your own solution to how I should have handled it was to replace the substance of my post with "just" the statement of mine that you bolded, which would have been meaningless fluff without the substance of my original post. *facepalm*
...and there you have it folks: impossible to change someone's mind or inform them without insulting them or handling with kiddie gloves because we can't take a correction without perceiving it as an insult to our intelligence. We all have to agree or ignore each other when we disagree because we can't have harmony in light of truth since we are all such delicate snowflakes.
Again, the problem is not how "nice" people are. The problem is how delicate people are. Thick skin is a virtue for people who hope to learn. If you don't know what something means then look it up or bow out, but don't expose yourself to further correction ("insult") by digging your heels in and then taking offense when corrected. This is going nowhere.
Okay, no you are actually right... NOW you're being condescending. I stand corrected. My bad.
No, what you're saying isn't mean, it's exasperating. There are are better ways to correct someone without sounding like a dick. If you didn't mean to be one, fine. But now how you are choosing to respond is pretty much the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it? You're JUST as sensitive if you think you can expound your words in a wall of text calling a person "too sensitive". Seriously, humility isn't an alien concept.
So im MY optinion, wrong or otherwise...
Laserdisc wins. Because analog>digital, man.
I was still actively editing that post when you responded but couldn't get it to take with my mobile browser. Please re-read.
Let's be clear here: your own solution to how I should have handled it was to replace the substance of my post with "just" the statement of mine that you bolded, which would have been meaningless fluff without the substance of my original post. *facepalm*
...and there you have it folks: impossible to change someone's mind or inform them without insulting them or handling with kiddie gloves because we can't take a correction without perceiving it as an insult to our intelligence. We all have to agree or ignore each other when we disagree because we can't have harmony in light of truth since we are all such delicate snowflakes.
Again, the problem is not how "nice" people are. The problem is how delicate people are. Thick skin is a virtue for people who hope to learn. If you don't know what something means then look it up or bow out, but don't expose yourself to further correction ("insult") by digging your heels in and then taking offense when corrected. This is going nowhere.
Oh, that "esoteric" part wasn't a deflection or an act of insulting you. So it sounded mean and it offeneded you?
Y'see, the problem isn't how "nice" people are. The problem is how delicate people are....
We're digging in each other's heals. Nobody's better than the other, nobody can postulate one another and nobody can teach one another. Stop talking like you're any different than who you think I am. If you want to continue this discussion, PM me
Okay, no you are actually right... NOW you're being condescending. I stand corrected. My bad.
No, what you're saying isn't mean, it's exasperating. There are are better ways to correct someone without sounding like a dick. If you didn't mean to be one, fine. But now how you are choosing to respond is pretty much the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it? You're JUST as sensitive if you think you can expound your words in a wall of text calling a person "too sensitive". Seriously, humility isn't an alien concept.
So im MY optinion, wrong or otherwise...
Laserdisc wins. Because analog>digital, man.
I was still actively editing that post when you responded but couldn't get it to take with my mobile browser. Please re-read.
Let's be clear here: your own solution to how I should have handled it was to replace the substance of my post with "just" the statement of mine that you bolded, which would have been meaningless fluff without the substance of my original post. *facepalm*
...and there you have it folks: impossible to change someone's mind or inform them without insulting them or handling with kiddie gloves because we can't take a correction without perceiving it as an insult to our intelligence. We all have to agree or ignore each other when we disagree because we can't have harmony in light of truth since we are all such delicate snowflakes.
Again, the problem is not how "nice" people are. The problem is how delicate people are. Thick skin is a virtue for people who hope to learn. If you don't know what something means then look it up or bow out, but don't expose yourself to further correction ("insult") by digging your heels in and then taking offense when corrected. This is going nowhere.
Oh, that "esoteric" part wasn't a deflection or an act of insulting you. So it sounded mean and it offeneded you?
Y'see, the problem isn't how "nice" people are. The problem is how delicate people are....
We're digging in each other's heals. Nobody's better than the other, nobody can postulate one another and nobody can teach one another. Stop talking like you're any different than who you think I am. If you want to continue this discussion, PM me
Alternatively, would you mind publicly telling everyone what you hoped to accomplish by repeating this?
Okay, no you are actually right... NOW you're being condescending. I stand corrected. My bad.
No, what you're saying isn't mean, it's exasperating. There are are better ways to correct someone without sounding like a dick. If you didn't mean to be one, fine. But now how you are choosing to respond is pretty much the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it? You're JUST as sensitive if you think you can expound your words in a wall of text calling a person "too sensitive". Seriously, humility isn't an alien concept.
So im MY optinion, wrong or otherwise...
Laserdisc wins. Because analog>digital, man.
I was still actively editing that post when you responded but couldn't get it to take with my mobile browser. Please re-read.
Let's be clear here: your own solution to how I should have handled it was to replace the substance of my post with "just" the statement of mine that you bolded, which would have been meaningless fluff without the substance of my original post. *facepalm*
...and there you have it folks: impossible to change someone's mind or inform them without insulting them or handling with kiddie gloves because we can't take a correction without perceiving it as an insult to our intelligence. We all have to agree or ignore each other when we disagree because we can't have harmony in light of truth since we are all such delicate snowflakes.
Again, the problem is not how "nice" people are. The problem is how delicate people are. Thick skin is a virtue for people who hope to learn. If you don't know what something means then look it up or bow out, but don't expose yourself to further correction ("insult") by digging your heels in and then taking offense when corrected. This is going nowhere.
Oh, that "esoteric" part wasn't a deflection or an act of insulting you. So it sounded mean and it offeneded you?
Y'see, the problem isn't how "nice" people are. The problem is how delicate people are....
We're digging in each other's heals. Nobody's better than the other, nobody can postulate one another and nobody can teach one another. Stop talking like you're any different than who you think I am. If you want to continue this discussion, PM me
Alternatively, would you mind publicly telling everyone what you hoped to accomplish by repeating this?
Oh, it's obvious. They can read. They come up with their own conclusions.
For those of us who like LDs (and I have been watching/buying them since 1982 so I take umbrage at being written off as a hipster - I just recognized a good thing when I saw (as it were) it long before someone decided they were retro cool) it really is not a matter of which is better - I view them as complementing each other. I don't know a whole lot of other LD fans but none of them I know don't have dvds etc. also. So I have a really (i mean seriously large) large library of both dvds and lds. But both formats do have distinct advantages. I don't have a strong preference - I am more interested in what is on the discs (of whatever type) than what format it is on.
If one wants to persist in comparing the two it would be more fair to compare Muse Hi-Vision LDs to DVDs since the Muse Hi-Vision discs were much closer in time to DVDs then LDs were. They never had a chance to be on the market long enough for the prices to drop to the point where they could make any market penetration. But they were decidely at the top of the game for that technology.