From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: LD vs Broadcast TV
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:39:59 GMT

In article <1440@seqp4.sequoia.com> cantrell@seqp4.sequoia.com (Paul Cantrell) writes:
>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.

The best performance on my cable company comes from such things a HBO,
etc - cable providers.   The over-the-air can be good, but it is not
quite up to the other specs.   Nashville Network had some of the best
video I have seen as regards noise, etc.

I use that channel for testing.   The interesting part is that the
tuners my EDV9500 or SHLF-1000 are not as good as the tuner in my
monitor.  (35" direct view private label built by Sanyo/Fisher -
spec'ed at 700+ lines - 3 video inputs).

>> 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 I was talking video inputs, I was refering to the LD.  I had not
run across anyone who thought the over the air was better so I thought
he was using the RF output of the player.    And my comment included
some line along the lines of you can't build a good rf modulator cheap
enough to put in an LD or VCR and keep the price in line.  I remember
talking to some engineer at a video peripherals company about 8 or 9
years ago (things have probably improved) who felt you could not build
a decent modulator for under about $1500.

>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.

I agree with this except as stated above I find the cable providers to
be a bit better than over the air.


>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???)

ED-Beta is amazing.   The tape that Sony distributed with ED-7500 and
ED-9500 shows that NTSC can be really good.   Using the wedges on the
test patterns I am getting about 500-525 lines of resolution with
ED-Beta.

>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.

On the LD-101 I get about 385 lines of resolution usind and LD-838 or
my LD-W1.  The LD-W1 shows a very slight degradation when everything is
passed through the digital section.   It has a much quieter video than
the 838.

>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 :-)

Well - the local stations don't look as good as high-quality cable.
That tends to vary also.

Locally things are getting better but some of the cleanest local
broadcast is from the network news.  The anchor cameras at NBC and CBS
deliver some of the best broadcast I have seen over the air.

I have noticed that recently some of my more recent video disks, while
very low in noise level, appear to have lower resolution.   Can't tell
for sure without a test pattern, but detail seems to be missing.
Things look too smooth - as if they were bandwidth limited more than
some of my older disks.

A side note on local broadcast.  Up until a few years ago I could
sometimes tell which station I was watching when they were showing
local movies by the patterns on the ground glass in their film chains.
They typically weren't cleaned properly and there were faint patterns,
somewhat like a smudged window.  One station actually had a couple of
black flecks on one chain.

I have some video disks that looks like the transfer was done through
and standard tele-cine unit using ground glass imaging.   You will
notice on video where the camera moves.   There will be a slight
overlay, sort of like looking through a screen door - but not that
obvious.   Most people don't notice that until it is actually pointed
out.   The Rank transfers, being of an arial image type transfer, don't
have this problem.

A friend of mine who has a production house, says he was always
disappointed at the quality of reproduction coming off his 1" C type
machines when compared to the output of his Rank.   Thank goodness we
are getting more digital transfer that give us less noise.

If I get time I am going to dig out a pair of old players I have and
check their resoltuions.  Have an LD660, and an intersting unit a
Pioneer 1810.  The latter was a semi-industrial unit.  It would play
things that others would not.   Had a tube laser. I never did put the
LD101 on it.

But for my eyes over the air hasn't matched laser, although some cable
transmissions do.


-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org  bill.vermillion@oau.org
                - bill@bilver.uucp 
                - ..!{peora|ge-dab|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill

Newsgroups: rec.video