HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
Subject: Re: Pausing a damn LaserDisc player! or TRYING to!
Date: 19 Nov 92 19:06:43 GMT
Reply-To: brown@vidiot.UUCP (Vidiot)
Organization: Vidiot's Hangout

In article <64TDuB1w165w@amigans.gen.nz> batman@amigans.gen.nz (Kerry Emerson) writes:
<Are there any LaserDisc players out there in the wide wide world which 
<actually PAUSE withOUT just bringing up a blank screen?  I recently 
<(about 1 week ago) purchased `Terminator 2' on LaserDisc.  Now this movie 
<is INCREDIBLE on LaserDisc, and as I have just bought DCTV for my Amiga, 
<I wish to capture some of those brilliant morphing sequences and save 
<them in 8million colours and create a really cool animation, but out of 
<the 3 different LaserDisc players I have seen (of different makes), none 
<of them pause the movie with the image still on the screen like a normal 
<video.  Why is this?  Is this to stop pirates or something, or is it 
<impossible to freeze a LaserDisc period?

Try pushing the STILL button instead of the PAUSE button.  The STILL button
may also be labeled STEP.

If you have a LD player without digital field store and you purchased the CLV
disc (is there a CLV T2?), then you probably won't get a still picture since
the LD player can't get you one.

If, on the other hand, you have the CAV T2 discs, then push STILL/STEP, not
PAUSE.

Also keep in mind, that if you get a LD player with digital memory and you
use a CLV laserdisc and STILL it, you will lose 1/2 of the vertical resolution.
The ONLY way to get full resolution out of a consumer LD player is to get the
CAV copy.
-- 
      harvard\                          spool.cs.wisc.edu!astroatc!vidiot!brown
Vidiot  ucbvax!uwvax..........!astroatc!vidiot!brown
      rutgers/            INTERNET:vidiot!brown%astroatc.UUCP@spool.cs.wisc.edu
                                   brown@wi.extrel.com
From: amcalind@cs.strath.ac.uk (Anthony McAlinden IE91)
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
Subject: Why you _need_ Widescreen....
Date: 17 Nov 92 16:54:33 GMT
Organization: Comp. Sci. Dept., Strathclyde Univ., Glasgow, Scotland.
Originator: amcalind@simpson-05

In an earlier message, tony.camara@canrem.com (tony camara), prattles on
and basically asks :

Why would you want widescreen?

He goes on to say that he just bought a 52 inch TV, and wants to use ALL of
the picture area. In fact, he's just defeated his own argument, for on a
TV that size, he'll really get the effect.

I don't have time to mess about attempting ASCII graphics showing why
releasing in the original aspect ratio is a GOOD THING, so maybe
somebody else could.

The question is, when this guy sees a movie in a cinema, does he complain
when its a non 4:3 format.... If so, maybe he ought to stick to olden
day Academy Ratio (which you still won't see in full, fullscreen....)

Tony.

- A Panavision fan, and proud....
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
From: Stephen Jonke <jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Pausing a damn LaserDisc player! or TRYING to!
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A73012F105025C5D@joe.gsfc.nasa.gov>
X-Xxdate: Wed, 18 Nov 92 20:34:09 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 20:34:13 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.192601.23723@trl.oz.au> Glenn Wallace,
wallace@titan.trl.OZ.AU writes:
>2) You have the CAV copy of T2 and you are pressing the pause button
>instead of the "frame step" button. On, for example, a CLD-1450, the
>pause button causes a nice blank screen and the word "pause", i.e.
>"thanks Dilbert, I paused".

That's one thing I don't like about Pioneer players -- my Sony MDP-333
actually still frames when you hit pause (if it's a CAV disc -- no CLV effects
on the 333.)  It's completely counter intuitive that you MUST press frame step
to get a still picture.  There's nothing worse then a bad user interface --
now if only Sony would work on their remotes!

Steve
------------------------
jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov
------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
From: whitefox@eng.umd.edu (M.S. Pope)
Subject: Converting VHS tapes to S-VHS tapes
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 01:35:35 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity von Uniland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Originator: whitefox@pepsi.eng.umd.edu


I just bought a S-VHS vcr a month ago, but I haven't used the
S-VHS recording mode much because the tapes for that mode are so 
expensive.  However, a friend showed me how to drill a hole on
the bottom of a high-grade VHS tape to "converts" it to a
S-VHS tape.  It seems to work well, and I can't tell a difference
between the one tape I drilled and a regular S-VHS tape.  However,
before I go crazy and start drilling every tape in sight, I was
wondering why I am able to converts a VHS tape.  Also, I wonder
whether it is actually safe for my vcr to record or play on these
ex-VHS tapes.  Does anyone know the answer?

					M. Steven Pope
					univ of md
					college park
From: jrm@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Jeff Mason)
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
Subject: Re: Woo's "The Killer" out on US video
Date: 19 Nov 92 18:55:36 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <40981@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> smah@sdcc13.ucsd.edu (Steve Mah) writes:
>The latest issue of Premiere magazine lists the following entry in
>their new video section:
>
>"The Killer
> Complex Chinese actioner about a ruthless assassin.
> Fox Lorber Video, $89.95; subtitled or dubbed"
>

I saw the film version (subtitled) in the theatre, and it was fantastic and 
wonderful, when I saw it from video it was on a 27" TV screen and was the 
dubbed version.  The picture quality of the film transfer was quite good, the
action scenes were great, but it lost quite a bit when they dubbed it, the
emotional scenes between main characters were quite flat because of what I 
consider weak dubbing.  If you can choose, I would definitely reccomend getting
it in the subtitled version!
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
Subject: Chameleon Street
Date: 17 Nov 92 13:58:25
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: panther.ai.mit.edu


Much to my surprise, I find out that _Chameleon Street_ has been out
on video for abotu a month.  Does anyone know if it's available on
laserdisc? 

--
Peace.
                                "Some positions must be challenged."
                                        -Dr. David Ray
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-
From: raible@cbmvax.commodore.com (Bob Raible - LSI Design)
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
Subject: Re: Digital capacity on LD?
Date: 20 Nov 92 19:05:11 GMT
Organization: Commodore

In article <1992Nov18.203022.24632@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov> jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke) writes:
>In article <4450@vidiot.UUCP> Vidiot, brown@vidiot.UUCP writes:
>>How can the 16 bit 44.1 kHz audio of this system be better than a regular CD,
>>which is EXACTLY the same format.
>
>Oops!  I thought that CD was at 22 kHz or there abouts.  So, scratch that
>claim (that was mine, not New Video Corps.....)
>
>At any rate, the point is that with existing technology we could have digital
>video on laser disc.
>
>Steve
>------------------------
>jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov
>------------------------

Has to do with our friend Mr. Nyquist who states that one must digitally
sample at a frequency at least 2x of the highest frequency one wishes to
recreate. Therefore 44.1KHz sampling rate yields a maximum frequency of
about 22KHz (at least in theory).
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________________
Robert J. Raible		EMAIL:raible@cbmvax.commodore.com
VLSI Program Manager		 or: {uunet|rutgers|pyramid}!cbmvax!raible
Commodore Business Machines     "my comments, not Commodore's, ok ?"
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
From: Stephen Jonke <jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Why you _need_ Widescreen....
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A7302C444D015C5D@joe.gsfc.nasa.gov>
X-Xxdate: Wed, 18 Nov 92 22:22:12 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 22:22:19 GMT

In article <SS.92Nov17181256@bigwpi.WPI.EDU> Scott Streeter, ss@bigwpi.WPI.EDU
writes:
>If you want a great example of this I have a GIF comparing 2 scenes
>from Star Wars. One LBX. The other P&S. Just FTP to wpi.wpi.edu and go
>to the /starwars/Pictures/gif directory. The file is called:
>LBX_vs_PnS.gif
>
>You can see just how much of the picture you loose with P&S.

While I think this is a good GIF to look at, it is very important to point out
that at least the bottom of the two examples is somewhat deceiving (don't
blame Scott for this -- he didn't create them!).  The problem is that the pan
& scan scene is a slightly different frame from the letterbox one and the
scene is closer to the planet in the background.  I suspect that this is not
intentional -- the originator likely had a hard time hitting the same exact
frames (this is probably from a CLV laser disc on a player with digital frame
store which isn't frame addressable or a tape from it, because the picture is
rather grainy.)  Anyway, the cropping is exaggerated a bit as a result of this
when comparing the two.  If you want to get a better idea of what it's like,
open this picture up in your favorite draw program and create a rectangle that
has a 1.33:1 aspect ratio and has the same height as the letterbox scene and
place it over top of the image.

Also, the two scenes depicted are not the best choices -- the action is mostly
going on in the center of the screen and while personally I still believe you
lose a lot by cropping the other background info (at least a lessened sense of
motion), there are certainly a lot of scenes in Star Wars where the whole
width of the film is used to it's fullest.  It's too bad one of those scenes
wasn't chosen.

Anyway, the ideal comparison would be a pair of QuickTime movies of the same
scene.  One in p&s and the other letterboxed.  You could even run them
simultaneously, side by side.  This would be a very dramatic comparison as you
could demonstrate time based stuff like the extra jump cuts and panning that
goes on in p&s versions.  How much interest is there in such a comparison?  I
plan to do this for my own use (and for some friends at work), but if there's
enough interest I'll post them somewhere (probably without audio, to save
space.)  Email me if you're interested.

Now that IBM PCs with Windows will be able to play QT movies (as well as Macs,
of course), I presume more people will be interested?

Steve
------------------------
jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov
------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
From: Stephen Jonke <jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Digital capacity on LD?
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A730120BEF015C5D@joe.gsfc.nasa.gov>
X-Xxdate: Wed, 18 Nov 92 20:30:19 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 20:30:22 GMT

In article <4450@vidiot.UUCP> Vidiot, brown@vidiot.UUCP writes:
>How can the 16 bit 44.1 kHz audio of this system be better than a regular CD,
>which is EXACTLY the same format.

Oops!  I thought that CD was at 22 kHz or there abouts.  So, scratch that
claim (that was mine, not New Video Corps.....)

At any rate, the point is that with existing technology we could have digital
video on laser disc.

Steve
------------------------
jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov
------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
From: kimp@rpi.edu (Phil Kim)
Subject: Re: Why you _need_ Widescreen....
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 03:45:11 GMT

In article <92322.200445EMW107@psuvm.psu.edu> Young Indy <EMW107@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
[stuff deleted]
>    By the way, are Star Wars, tESB, RotJ, Raiders, Temple and Last Crusade
>in the 2.33:1 ratio? I have them, but I don't know the "exact" ratio of numbers
>......thanks. What are the LBX ratios that pop up most?

Majority of my LDs have an aspect ratio of 1.85:1.  On my Sony TV, 
Star Wars is 2.1:1, The Empire Strikes Back is 2:1, Return of the 
Jedi is 2.15:1, and Indiana Jones trilogy are 2:1.
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
From: fag2@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Farul A Ghazali)
Subject: Re: analog on a laserdisc
Reply-To: fag2@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Farul A Ghazali)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 06:36:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.025949.2174@bilver.uucp> bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes:
>To encode digital video (oh how I wish) on an LD, would give us
>loutess than
>
>only about 5 minutes of video on a 12" disk.   Digital video
>specs currently are approximately 14MB/sec - which without
>compression could give about a minute on a 5" CD.

Wouldn't there be a problem with transferring the data from the disc
to the TV at 25/30 fps too? As far as I know, CD/LD players can
contain quite a lot of digital information, but are relatively slow
when compared to hard disks and the like.

        farul ghazali.
        columbia university in the city of new york.
From: fineberg@win31.nas.nasa.gov (Samuel A. Fineberg)
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
Subject: Re: Pausing a damn LaserDisc player! or TRYING to!
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:51:27 GMT
Reply-To: fineberg@nas.nasa.gov
Organization: CSC, NASA Ames Research Center, NAS Division

In article <BxxLr4.E7s@fc.hp.com>, rjn@FC.HP.COM (Bob Niland) writes:
|> Stephen Jonke (jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
|> 
|> > That's one thing I don't like about Pioneer players -- my Sony MDP-333
|> > actually still frames when you hit pause (if it's a CAV disc 
|> 
|> Not trying to defend Pioneer, but what do you do on the Sony if you WANT
|> to suspend CAV play and have a blank screen?
|> 
|> Regards,                                              Hewlett-Packard
|> Bob Niland      Internet: rjn@FC.HP.COM               3404 East Harmony Road
|>                 CompuServe:  71044,2124               Ft Collins CO 80525-9599
|> 
|> This article represents only the opinion[s] of its author, and is not an
|> official or unofficial position of, or statement by, the Hewlett-Packard
|> Company.  The text is provided for informational purposes only.  It is
|> supplied without warranty of any kind.
I can't imagine why you would WANT to pause a CAV with a blank screen.  However,
if this is a desirable feature, I guess you are SOL with a Sony.

Sam
From: glazier@isr.harvard.edu (Andrew Baker Glazier)
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
Subject: CoolWorld
Date: 24 Nov 92 00:50:58 GMT
Distribution: ne
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

anyone know when this is coming out?

It's theater release was July, I'm hoping soon.....
-- 
"A horse! A horse! Somebody give me a horse, man, because|glazier@ 
I come to bury this dirtball, not to praise him. Whaddya |harvard.isr.edu
think I am? Whether it's nobler for the mind to make people suffer with all
these totally outrageous arrows arrows for a fortune, or what!" -- D.R.
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
From: Stephen Jonke <jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: 2001 and Dr. S. on TNT
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A73292C6C1015C5D@joe.gsfc.nasa.gov>
X-Xxdate: Fri, 20 Nov 92 18:04:06 GMT
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 18:04:10 GMT

Does anyone know if TNT was showing 2001 in it's full width or a only
partially letterboxed version?  I thought 2001 was supposed to have a real
wide ratio, but that presentation didn't appear to be as wide as Blade Runner.
 What is the aspect ratio of "Super Panavision" and/or "Cinerama" (it claimed
both.)

Secondly, was TNT's presentation of Dr. Strangelove afterward the new mixed
ratio Criterion version?  I didn't stay up to watch all of it, but I thought I
saw some "hard (fuzzy) matte" examples in their talky sequences with Hugh H. 
Anyway, my primary point is that even with the small bit I watched it was
painfully obvious that Kubricks insistence on the open matte presentation is
bizarre.  Yes, I know he's the director, but there were lots of scenes even in
the bit I saw where overhead lighting became the most prominent feature in a
scene and even more obvious were the editing marks (whatever they are called
-- the round blotches that indicate a cut) were about 1/4 of the way down the
screen!  They always appear in the upper right corner, thus they must indicate
where the originally intended upper right corner is.  Kubrick must of have
gotten his head caught in a trash compactor or something.  Are there any plans
to releases a fully matted version?

Steve
------------------------
jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov
------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
From: KCSCHIE@vm.cmp.ilstu.edu
Subject: Re: "Dances with Wolves" Extended Video
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 10:18:24 EDT
Organization: Illinois State University

In article <5898@naucse.cse.nau.edu>
daf@sunset.cse.nau.edu (David Frautnick) writes:
 
>
>Could somebody please tell me if an extended video version of "Dances with
>Wolves" has been released and if so, where I can get a copy?  I read an
>article a while ago that Orion Home Video was planning on releasing a 4-hour
>plus version of the film.
>
 
What I have read is that it was originally planned to release the 4 hour
version of the film when it first came out on home video, but instead
the studio changed its mind and sold the rights to the four hour version
to one of the TV networks who plan on showing the film as a mini-series.
I believe it is supposed to be on in the spring. I seem to remember seeing
something about it being on TV in the fall preview issue of TV Guide.
Anyway, supposedly the extended film will be released on video, but not
until after its network television debut. Don't know if either the mini-
series or the later video release will be LTX (Probably not on TV) as
they should be.
 
Kyle C. Schiebel
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
From: "tony camara" <tony.camara@canrem.com>
Subject: list of uk widescreen vid
Reply-To: "tony camara" <tony.camara@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: rec
Date: 17 Nov 92 08:24:38 EST

I notices you mentioned something about the letter box format. It's not
the first time i have heard it being mentioned . Just wondering are you
for/against . If you're for it why ? I work in a video store here in
toronto so i get to see all the people complaing "i could only see half
the picture """ there is something wrong with the movie" ."do you have
the whole movie "" ? This is the type of questions i get from my
customers regarding letter box. I can''t understand why anyone would
like this though . I have told my suppliers to warn me of anything that
is in letter box and to cancell any orders that i have if any such
videos show up . I recently bought a 52" tv. Now the studio onlly want;s
to let me see half of my screen . If i wanted to see only 30" i
wouldn''t have paid  $5000.00...........
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
From: rjn@FC.HP.COM (Bob Niland)
Subject: Re: Digital capacity on LD?
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:51:59 GMT
Reply-To: rjn@FC.HP.COM
Organization: Hewlett-Packard/WSY Ft.Collins,CO,USA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.8 PL6]

Phil Kim (kimp@rpi.edu) wrote:

> If LDs were purely digital, how much data could it store?  I know that
> CDs store about 680MB (for CD-ROMs anyway).

Since the peak frequency stored on an LD is about 10Mhz, that would be 36
Giga bits or 4.5 Gbytes per 60 minute CLV side.  Tossing away 50% for ECC
and overhead, 2 Gbytes is a reasonable figure.

Curiously, if LDs stored digital video, they'd need to have a capacity of
about 50 Gbytes (before ECC and overhead).

Regards,                                              Hewlett-Packard
Bob Niland      Internet: rjn@FC.HP.COM               3404 East Harmony Road
                CompuServe:  71044,2124               Ft Collins CO 80525-9599

This article represents only the opinion[s] of its author, and is not an
official or unofficial position of, or statement by, the Hewlett-Packard
Company.  The text is provided for informational purposes only.  It is
supplied without warranty of any kind.
Newsgroups: rec.video.releases
From: bverreau@netcom.com (stargazer)
Subject: Re: Why you _need_ Widescreen....
Summary: the problem is not the bars
Organization: Last of the P&S Bears
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:13:19 GMT

In article <11009@baird.cs.strath.ac.uk> (Anthony McAlinden IE91) writes:

Apologies to those who tire of the neverending LBX wars, but I have to
say a word in defense of the opposition.  'Silence gives consent' and 
all.  I'll try to keep it noninflamatory.

> I don't have time to mess about attempting ASCII graphics showing why
> releasing in the original aspect ratio is a GOOD THING, so maybe
> somebody else could.

Why is laserdisc a better medium for home video that videocassette?  There
are many reasons, but for me it's mainly the improvement in resolution.
Even with LD, the resolution still falls short of the original, but it's
an acceptable compromise, given the greater convenience and choice that's
possible with home viewing.  Still, it is a compromise.  The question is
do you want to compromise resolution even further by reducing the number
of vertical scan lines for extra horizontal footage?

I do not.  I don't like watching a picture where it's hard to pick out
background detail, where titles are sometimes illegible, where moire
patterns intrude.  I *have* watched the same title in both formats
and found the loss of detail in facial expressions for 90 minutes much
more disconcerting than the 90 seconds or so of lost peripheral action.
Some films are obviously intended to be seen in widescreen format.  I
will be the first to concede that a work like "How the West Was Won"
cannot be cropped without major damage.  Those films are best left for
viewing at the cinema.  I don't think this is true for the majority of
films people rave about being "full, glorious, widescreen, as-god-intended
-them-to-be-seen movie epics", however.

Cropping is just another form of editing.  Sometimes cropping actually
improves an image.  Anyone who works with still photography knows this.  
There's good panning and scanning, and then there are the hack jobs.
Unfortunately, the current infatuation with LBX will probably dissuade
studios from putting a lot of effort into future P&S releases.  On the
other hand, it makes it easier to find good P&S's in the used bins. :)

> The question is, when this guy sees a movie in a cinema, does he complain
> when its a non 4:3 format.... If so, maybe he ought to stick to olden
> day Academy Ratio (which you still won't see in full, fullscreen....)

I can't speak for the original poster, but I'm not bothered by the
widescreen format - when it's presented at full resolution.  I'm also
not bothered in the least by the black or colored, or patterned bars
I see on the television screen for LBX discs.  It's the lost resolution
that I have a problem with.  As for 'olden day Academy Ratio', some of
us actually prefer those 'relics' which emphasized good acting and
direction to some of today's special effects extravaganzas, but that's
a whole other argument.

>- A Panavision fan, and proud....

Bernie Verreau - A fan of good movies, not 'correct' aspect ratios
Netcom - Online Communication Services 		Redwood City, CA