From: cantrell@seqp4.sequoia.com (Paul Cantrell)
Newsgroups: rec.video
Subject: Re: LD vs Broadcast TV
Date: 13 Aug 92 16:27:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sequoia Computer Systems

In article <1992Aug8.143943.12805@bilver.uucp>, bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) writes:
> Steve - it sounds as if your experience with laser disk players
> is that they have seen through the RF input of the TV set.
> 

At the risk of being labeled as one of unwashed masses, I agree with
Steve; broadcast can be almost indistinguishable from LD. Unlike Steve,
I've seen really good performance from our cable company.

> That way it limits the signal to the same bandwidth as
> broadcast.  However the really big problem is that to build a
> GOOD RF modulator - video to channel 3 for example - it is not
> cheap.  And a really good modulator could/would cost more than
> an entire LD player or VCR.
> 
> The only way to judge quality is to use video inputs.   Doing
> that there is NO comparison - providing however that your TV
> set can handle the bandwith.

In my case, I'm comparing a Pioneer 3070 through the video inputs to cable
TV which bypasses the cable box via a splitter, into one of the two RF
inputs of the set. (the other side of the splitter goes through the cable
box and then into the other RF input - thus I don't have to degrade the
signal for unencoded channels) The set is a Hitachi 32" direct view,
spec'd at 800 lines of resolution. (which *must* be true - they wouldn't
exaggerate a thing like that! :-)

When watching cable through the cable box (for encoded channels such as
HBO) there is a severe decrease in quality associated with using the cable
box. However, watching some unencoded channels directly off the cable
(local Boston stations such as WCVB, as well as remote stations such as
TBS, TWC, WPIX) usually are excellent quality in both resolution and S/N.
Other channels are not nearly as nice. Watching the news, I would say that
a lot of the noise and artifacts are source problems, as it's easy to
notice large differences in quality between different film clips. Some
sequences, especially studio scenes with the anchor people, can be *very*
clean.

Finally, connecting the output of my Hi8 camcorder directly into the
monitor via S-video blows LD away. (Well, it's *noticably* better) Playing
tapes on the Hi8 is about the same as LD, although lack of a TBC on the
Hi8 occasionally causes some problems. Someday I'd like to try ED-Beta
to see what *that* looks like. (anyone in the Boston area want to bring
one over sometime???)

Using LD-101, I see resolutions around 325-350 from the 3070. By no
stretch of my imagination can I claim 400 lines. I don't believe this is
the monitor because the Hi8 camera produces much better results. Comparing
some of the clips from LD-101 (Female model during hokey lighting
sequence, ski slopes, supermarket, kitchen) to the evening news, I'd say
the resolution of the LD is probably not much better than broadcast,
although S/N is somewhat better.

I have visited several homes including my parents' where the quality of the
cable TV is horrible. My parents would get better results with rabbit
ears. Perhaps Bill Vermillion just hasn't compared really nice broadcast
to LD. Or perhaps I just don't have the discrimination to see the obvious
advantages of LD :-)

					PC
-- 
cantrell@sequoia.com
Newsgroups: rec.video