From: hafner@ifi.unizh.ch (Michel Hafner)
Subject: LD vs. Film ( was Re: Dracula - Francis Ford Coppola )
Organization: University of Zurich, Department of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 11:42:19 GMT

In article <Bxyzx1.LwJ@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> vaughan@fe744.cc.purdue.edu (jake vaughan) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.174824.9672@athena.mit.edu> eprice@sybase.com writes:
>>from SUSPIRIA) but still, it's becoming very annoying that it is
>>impossible to see so many films the way they were intended to be in a
>>theater, on the Big Screen (at least in the United States).
>>Laserdiscs are ok but can't compare to the real thing.

I fully support this view! It's a shame these versions are not made available
to the public in form of a few decent 35mm/70mm prints.

#Laserdiscs are 'OK`!?  Yes, it is true that nothing can compare with seeing a
#film on a big screen but the quality that your getting from watching a
#laserdisc far outweighs what your getting in most theatres.

Dear Mr. Vaughan, either you have a funny definition of quality or atrocious 
cinemas in your neighbourhood or both. There is absolutely no question wether
a high quality LD is image quality wise inferior/equal or superior to a high
quality 35mm ( or even 16mm ) print. It is by far inferior concerning relevant
image quality measures as spatial resolution ( sharpness ), colour rendition
( colour gamut ) and contrast. Unless you compare a first rate LD with a x-th
generation print in a pitiful condition, on cheap material and sloppily pro-
jected there is no way the LD can win image quality wise. Period.

#The fact _is_ that a laserdisc image scans 425 lines of resolution on a
#television screen (vcr is 250 for comparison) and a film at the theater is

The theoretical limit of horizontal resolution for NTSC LDs is about 425 lines,
but actual LDs are below 400 lines in most cases. The horizontal resolution of
decent 35mm prints is well above that ( at least in the 1500-2500 lines range ).
The same goes for the vertical resolution ( ~480 vs 1000-2000 ).

#being projected from a small piece of film and being blown up to an enormous
#size creating a grainy picture at best.  Sure, I prefer a huge screen to a 40

There is more or less grain depending on the film speed and format, print gene-
ration etc.. If you compare the same print projected with a 35mm projector or
via an LD by a Video projector on the same screen, you will notice that the LD
image

- looks downright fuzzy and unfocused
- has all kinds of video technology artefacts ( visible scanlines, bad colour
  separation/rendition etc. )

I see the difference almost every day when I compare the commercials that are
projected in the cinemas here ( transfers from video masters that are better 
than LD to 35mm film ). These video commercials look abysmal in comparison!
The question is not if LD can rival with 35mm, the question is if digital
HDTV can replace 35mm or if we need an even better standard for that, if we
want to keep 35mm image quality.

#inch television screen but I also prefer a sharper image.  An interesting fact

35mm is much sharper when both sources project an image of the same size. 
Besides how can LD be sharper than 35mm if it's mostly transferred from the
very same projection prints?

#Contrary to what most believe, most theatres don't have Surround sound.
#Yes, they do have "multi-channel stereo," and the speakers _do_ surround you,
#but this is not surround sound.  Finally, the picture quality on a laserdisc

I agree that digital surround from an LD is a better sound source than
35mm ( optical ) or 70mm ( magnetical ) conventional soundtracks. But the 
overall performance also depends on the amplifier and speaker systems installed
and the room acoustics. Maybe you get better sound at home with LD, maybe you
won't. The new digital systems for theaters ( CDS, Dolby-Digital-SR ) remove
this potential disadvantage.

#is far better then anything that you will see in a movie theatre.  Take it
#from me, I have done my homework and laserdisc quality surpasses anything
#I've ever seen.

Compared to other home video technologies, yes, otherwise ( studio video tech-
nology, 16mm/35mm/70mm film, HDTV ), rubbish.
							Michel Hafner
From: gph@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (G. Paul Houtz)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:00:33 GMT
Subject: Re: BSD did NOT SUCK!!!!
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server