Talk:LaserDisc

message: Many sites go along saying reflective discs have decisive advantages over transmissive ones, but few if any care to mention what those advantages
are.
Granted, transmissive disc are known to be sensitive to dust and fingerprints, but this appears to be taken care of with the use of caddies.
On the other hand:
* ability to read both sides without turning the disc : looks like an overwhelming advantage for video as well as for data
* no metalization, hence no possible rot
* no need to glue both sides together
* without those two operations, less machinery and time needed, and probably a much higher yield, hence reduced costs. It seems possible to get much closer to the initial MCA dream of stamping them out like vinyls. Clean rooms would still be needed, but since they need to house much less machinery, they could do with a reduced area.
One thing i am wondering about is, the discs seem to be curved in the reader, that would mean any point on the disk would undergo two bending and unbending events per rotation. Would that wear out the material? Though if it is designed to sustain that for the time it takes to read a disc, it can probably do it forever.
I'd love to see one of those Thomson-CSF transmissive systems in operation, though the He-Ne lasers are probably no longer functional. They were short lived on the market, but a few french and US institutions seem  to have tried it. Probably some solid state laser replacement could be designed.
But one thing that keeps amazing  me is that those flexible discs are so reminiscent of those little advertising 33 rpm discs you could find in magazines, yet instead of poor audio, they are able to produce high quality video and sound.
Surviving Laserdisc collectors still seem to discover new cases of rot in their stock these days. Will there remain readable discs in the future ? I'm beginning to think transmissive discs would have been more resilient, especially if stored without much use.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metazoaire (talk • contribs) 21:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transmissive vs. reflective 

message: I have once again corrected the following claim:
"
The variable quality of analog media are theoretically capable of higher quality than the fixed quality of digital A/V carriers such as CD and DVD (example: ED Betamax produces over 500 lines of resolution, while DVD is commonly reported as only 480 lines by manufacturers).  
"
One: no, there is no inherent advantage (or disadvantage) of analog over digital, assuming that the basic specs such as analog bandwidth (resolution) and signal to noise ratio are the same. Please see Nyquist, Shannon, et al. 
Two: The example given of ED betamax over DVD is irrelevant, because the basic specs are different. It is obviously possible to show opposite examples: digital media with far superior performance to analog.  But if you match the basic specs, and if lossy compression is not involved, then the performance will be the same.  
The LD/DVD issue is confused because lossy compression IS involved on the DVD side. But this has nothing to do with "digital media." It has to do with the storage and processing requirements of lossless-compressed video, which made it impractical to use such on a DVD-sized disc.  Please, don't make this into an analog vs. digital (or head contact vs. air bearing) war. Jeh (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  I have eliminated the phrase "analog media" and "digital media" to focus on the Laserdisc versus DVD comparison.  -----  BTW digital media is not perfect.  If you take into account the Kell factor (~0.8 horizontal), that reduces resolution.  As does the lossy compression (which you mentioned).  ---- Theaveng (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  An excellent rewording. Thank you. Jeh (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I never said digital was "perfect", nor is perfection required here: Only that the claim of inherent superiority due to analog's "continuous" nature is unfounded. A digital signal chain with a given bandwidth (Flow, Fhigh, tolerance) and SNR will, within that tolerance, reproduce any signal that an analog chain of similar specs can reproduce - and, of course, vice versa. Jeh (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: BTW Kell factor is much more about stationary test patterns than real moving images. But even WITH Kell factor of 0.8, DVD's 720 pixels per screen width supports horizontal resolution of 432 line pairs PPH, so LD still doesn't have an edge.  Then there is chroma performance, in which DVD is far superior, although again because of digital compression and 4:2:2 sampling and all that, it is different and difficult to compare directly. Nevertheless DVD can usually "resolve" details across a horizontal line that differ only in color much better than LD can. Jeh (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A DVD at 432 lines (not pairs) would be only slightly better than laserdisc's 425 lines.  If that DVD has been compressed to squeeze more video into 4.5 gigs, it's measurable resolution might fall below 400... inferior to laserdisc.  (Overall the best format was actually ED Betamax with over 500 lines.)  ----  Theaveng (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn! I can't believe I made that "line pairs" goof!  I know better, and I've even quoted the relevant part of the RS-170 specs at people who didn't believe that "tv lines" counted both the white and black lines, unlike photography's "line pairs"!  Argh.  Thanks for the gentle correction. Anyway, yes, very true.  On the other hand, as the article states, LD performance isn't always right at the edge of the spec either.  And very few images need that much detail everywhere at once -- the whole point of the compression algorithms is that they can put the bits where they're needed.  And sometimes they do too much of that, or they do it too sloppily, resulting in blockies... Jeh (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate blocks.  On one of my DS9 dvds, there's a dark scene lit by a fire.  The fire looks like it was made from orange-colored Legos instead of a natural plasma.  :-(  I wish the engineer had spent more time cleaning that up.  ----  Theaveng (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laserdisc vs. DVD, analog vs. digital 

message: :Image:PILF-2193.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:PILF-2193.jpg

message: It says in the article that a citation is needed to account for the statement on the rot of some of the early LD discs.
There is an excellent discussion mainly on this topic that took place in 2003 here:
It also has one contribution from someone who has rot on his LD of the Clint Eastwood film Unforgiven issued by Warner Brothers - which dates to 1992 (which may or may not be the year of the production of his LD copy).
Now this would indicate that some production plants still (1992-ish) manufactured discs that would develop laser rot in as little as 10 years, before 2003.
Not to confuse the concept laser rot with a similar defect found with some DVDs, the laser rot on LD occurs because some humidity was trapped between the sandwiched layers of the LD. While the DVD rot is a different beast, by which the discs aluminum surface is contaminated and develops corrosion.
Both may render discs unplayable. Or affected audio tracks that are digital beyond listening while the analog audio track remains less affected. One of the benefits of the LD format is the level of backward compatiblity which enabled both digital and analog versions of the soundtracks on many discs. Although the NTSC format would allow for ocasional mastering of alternative audio track such as commentr on the analog audio track, it may make a film viewable one last time, or perhaps at a transfer to VHS, which - all faults aside - is a slightly more viable media, being entirely analog and not suspectible to the mares of the digital rot.
I do not know the etiquette and protocol of what constitutes a reliable source for a citation, but the discussion is made several years ago and remains quite sober and informative, and also gets around other subject of life with LD, offering an insight into the wealth of knowledge several of the contributors of the discussion has on the matter of LD. 
As a newcomer to the LaserDisc format myself - I reckon have owned 8 films for less than 36 hours at time of writing as very new - reading the discussion linked to above left a very positive impact on me. Also I have owned a nice working Pioneer CLD-D515, unfortunately wo the remote, for little over half a year with no way to test it until now. 
83.73.92.144 (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laser rot 

message: "...and that company is still the world leader in optical disc mastering technology."
If this is true, why isn't there even a stub for the company?  I'm removing this, as it doesn't contribute to the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.165.196.84 (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ODC 

message: I think that DiscoVision should be merged into this article cause discovison is a very small article and most of it just talks about the background of Laser/discovison and how Pioneer bought DiscoVision Associates. It should be easy to merge into the laserdisc history Speer320 (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: There's an old Computer Chronicles episode that shows how LDs are made in a few video clips:
http://www.archive.org/details/computerchronicles
It's somewhere on that list.
Coffee4binky (talk) 12:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Computer Chronicles Episode

message: The article lacks any significant info on the low-level format used to physically store the signal(s) on the disk surface. Does it use the same "pits and lands" as a CD? Please add. -- 92.229.113.185 (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for information, this is largely answered above, though with one or two errors.  The video information is frequency modulated onto a carrier wave which is then converted from a sine wave into a square wave.  The square wave can be written to the disc using a pit on the disc to represent the high level of square wave and a land to represent the low level (it would work equally well the other way around).  The replay laser detects the lands which reflect the beam into a detector, appearing light, and the pits which scatter the beam and thus appear dark.  The resultant recovered frequency modulated square wave can then be directly demodulated to recover the original video signal.  It is not necessary to filter the square wave back to a sine wave as either can be demodulated equally well.  Indeed in an analogue FM receiver, the sinusoidal carrier (at the intermediate frequency) is passed through a limiter which clips off the tops of the sine wave turning the signal ito something more closely resembling a square wave.  Although the modulated square wave signal would appear, at first glance, to have inherent digital characteristics, it fails to qualify as digital because the pits and lands don't just represent 1's and 0's.  The length of the pit or land is important and thus the signal is resolutely analogue. 86.180.84.186 (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is complete nonsense.  Mainly because the signal is not frequency modulated as you claim.  It is pulse width modulated (completely different).  86.144.88.101 (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The frequency modulated carrier is pulse width modulated onto the disc.  That is what was said above (though it was in a round about way).  86.171.173.14 (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low-level format? 

message: Could someone clarify this:
"One important factor in newer DVD releases' small advancement over Laserdiscs is their opting for 16bit/44kHz sound in lieu of the DVD standard's little-known 24bit/96kHz capabilities."
It's under LD vs DVD - advantages. This statement is so confusing I don't know where to start.
--Victoria h (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. I don't know what point it was trying to make either. Lowest resolution DVD audio is 16-bit 48 kHz for starters. --Zilog Jones (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that the DVDs' advantage would be a lot greater if they used the maximal capability instead of skimping at the minimum specifications. 81.226.241.215 (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantage or Disadvantage? 

message: "All of these timing parameters are based on the NTSC standard of 29.97fps. The PAL and SECAM standards of 25fps increases the playback capacity of all the various formats by 20%."
I'm pretty sure this is wrong! While NTSC has 20% more frames per second than PAL, the latter has 20% more lines per frame than the former, so that the total bandwidth is virtually identical. Actually, since the NTSC frame rate is 30 * (1000/1001), or ~29.9700, fps, NTSC should take up ~0.1% less space than PAL, but that's only a difference of 3.6 seconds per hour.
Since I'm only about 6 hours old here on Wikipedia, I'm not going to make any changes to the actual page yet. If nobody else does it first or shows me to be wrong, I'll soon just delete the quoted sentences from the article. Since I won't be adding any content, I won't be adding any citations either. Aarons510 (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical information 

message: I read in the article that laser rot in LaserDiscs are caused by some stuff in the adhesive between the two halves of the disc. That stuff then makes its way into the aluminum layer, making it unreflective. Because the laser of the player probably has nothing to do with that problem, I suggest the name might be a misnomer. 210.4.120.4 (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laser rot - A misnomer? 

message: The article neglects to mention that, as helium passes easily through glass, He-Ne lasers can slowly deteriorate. Owners with this problem would remove the laser and stuff it in a helium balloon for several days. This would usually restore sufficient helium to get the laser working again. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Deteriorating He-Ne Lasers

message: The following is broadly incorrect...
"Laserdiscs were cheaper than videocassettes to manufacture, because they lack the moving parts and plastic outer shell that are necessary for VHS tapes to work, and the duplication process was much simpler. A VHS cassette has at least 14 parts including the actual tape while laserdisc has one part with five or six layers. A disc can be stamped out in a matter of seconds whereas duplicating videotape required a complex bulk tape duplication mechanism and was a time-consuming process."
Though it's true LVs could easily be stamped out, two were required for almost every recording, and they had to be carefully centered before being glued together. This largely offset any production-cost advantage. Though videocassettes had to be turned out one at time, this could be done with a bank of dozens of recorders, and the only "post-processing" required was sticking a label on the cassette. (By the way, LVs intended for use in "industrial" environments -- such as commercial video games -- were often glued to aluminum disks, to keep them from warping from the heat.)
LaserDiscs also use a different plastic than CDs and DVDs. The article doesn't discuss this, or the reason for it, though it might be better-covered in article on optical disks. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, as for the industrial LDs, was the aluminum disk portion used as the "dead side" of the disc, much like how white plastic was used for the dead side of later consumer single-sided LDs? misternuvistor (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Manufacturing Cost

message: Why are there two sections in this article about disadvantages? Somebody ought to merge them, preferably to the section right near the Advantages. 76.19.4.2 (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One is disadvantages compared to VHS and the other is disadvantages compared to DVD. The article is messy, though, and anyone is more than welcome to try to clean it up.--Jorfer (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have merged the two disadvantages sections under a common heading. Jarl82 (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I have begun to clean up the article to remove redundant information and make the tone more consistent. Jarl82 (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disadvantages...and disadvantages. 

message: Since 2004, I've noticed many of my LaserDiscs, made at least since 1993, are starting to get these "squiggly lines". I can't find any information on the Internet about these occurring on other LDs, but I have many, many movies with these problems. It could damage caused by extreme temp. variations, or discs being stacked. I don't know. Apple8800 (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squiggly lines 

message: Does anyone know exactly how long is the track of a laserdisc? After doing a little math, my calculations appear to suggest 31 miles (49 km). However, I'm not sure if this is accurate. 119.93.67.178 (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I make it 21.25 miles. (for a CAV 525 line disc playing for 30 minutes). 86.180.84.186 (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of LD track 

message: There is a need for this article to be edited and cleaned up as the LD format retreats further into the past I see a need for a clearer and more concise article that is less an omnibus with so many technical particulars and more a good general overview for readers.  Currently, some sections read too much like a technical manual.  Anyone have some ideas or suggestions?  I also see the potential to split off a lot of the content from some sections into new articles.  Jarl82 (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Following from my original call for action I have made some initial changes to this article to start the process.  I’ve cleaned up the Introduction and worked primarily on improving the Comparison to Other Formats section as I think this would be of particular interest to readers unfamiliar with LD.  Previously this was split into VHS and DVD sections and I’ve merged this into one section with subsections for VHS, DVD, Advantages and Disadvantages.  I also removed the former Comparison to other media section as it was overly technical listing resolution information that is easily found elsewhere without adding much to the article.  I added a link to the relevent section of the video resolution wiki article in place of this section.  I also removed the video game information from the Advantages subsection as there is covered elsewhere in the article under Variations and I edited the computer game information in this section. Any reactions or comments on these edits?  Suggestions for further improvements? Jarl82 (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for Editing 

message: I just reverted a number of edits that were changing the spelling from Laserdisc to Laser Disc.  The editor also uploaded his own artwork showing the different spelling, but I'm pretty sure that can't "prove" the spelling itself.  I don't actually edit here, so uninvolved, but reverted solely because it was such a huge change from the consensus version and it looked incorrect, and under the spirit of WP:BRD, feel like now a discussion should take place.  Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted 

message: The article woule benefit from a bit more technical details about the used encoding, similar to what can be found in the VHS article. How do you even record an analog signal using pits and lands? Does it use "color under" with the subcarrier recreated by the player, like VHS? Does it use FM? How is digital audio stored inside an analog video track? Does LD use specific frequency bands for color, luma and audio just like VHS? How is the motor speed regulated? Etc.
Also, what picture formats were common on LD? Were there anamorphic discs? Or was it mostly either 4:3? and if so, what was more common, pan&scan or letterboxing? Thanks! -- 92.226.3.37 (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encoding details? Picture formats? 

message: The logo clearly reads "LaserDisc" as one word, with a capital L and a capital D. All occurrences of "laser disc", "laserdisc" and "Laserdisc" should therefore be corrected, in my opinion. 78.22.96.22 (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: I hate to be that pedant everybody gets tired of, but I think describing laserdisc as being encoded in a "binary nature" ("although the encoding is of a binary nature...") is sort of inaccurate.  The pits and lands do represent on/off and there's only two states, but they're not numeric, which I believe would be required to consider it to be "of a binary nature".  Perhaps a more accurate way to phrase it would be "although the encoding does rely on pits and lands to represent states of 'on' and 'off' much like the binary encoding required for digital media" or something similar?  I just don't think you can call something binary unless it's representing numbers in a base 2 manner.Cmactaggart (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just reread the above and realized that I must have been sick or something because that doesn't make any sense.  I retract the above. Cmactaggart (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Binary Nature" 

message: How come the 2002 Laser Juke LDs are not mentioned as the last produced (assuming there were not later produced LDs)?  2002 is more recent than 2001 right? 27.32.141.11 (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: References needed. Jeh (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  References needed for what? I have no need to provide a reference to a fact - an encyclopedia should be as factual as possible... And... a reference to another website isn't fact either. Go get a Pioneer Laser Juke catalogue if you can find one still, or their promotional material 60.242.142.84 (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP does not regard things as "facts" just because someone claims they are facts. Please see WP:RS, WP:V, WP:OR, etc. Quick summary: If you want this information to appear in the article you're going to have to provide sources that meet WP's criteria. (Some web sites do, many do not.) In the meantime, we can't just take your word for it. But if a ref can be found it is indeed something that should be in the article. I should mention that claims of "last produced example of a product category" are often hard to reference; it's a little like proving a universal (one counterexample anywhere in the world disproves your "proof") and it's not as if the manufacturers of LD are likely to brag about the ending of their businesses. Personally, I never heard of "Laser Juke", so I'm probably not the best person to try to find their catalog. Please note though that catalogs and other promotional material are often prepared and published long before the product is shipped, so a product's appearance in such is not proof that the product ever existed, only that it was planned. Jeh (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's then pretend Laser Juke exist and let's also note that whoever made up the fact that the current mentioned laser LD was the last (actually it does state last in each region - but decides to ignore the last within Australia - that the fictitious laser juke i guess... didn't exist)... I would rather NOT provide references that you could easily find on Google or heck... ebay for the sake of knowing that this is yet another 'take with a grain of salt' article on Wikipedia - because their rules as quoted even if followed do NOT prove anything, they only lead to potential greater credibility. 27.32.141.11 (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  It appears that you are suggesting that I do your research for you. Well, I'm not the one wanting to add what you want to add to the article. You could of course add the material you want but include  tags; perhaps others will find the needed refs. Otoh, they may simply revert you. Much of the rest of the above, I find simply argumentative. Let me just say that you will not get much of anywhere arguing that your edits somehow do not need to meet WP's policies. With that, I'm withdrawing here. Jeh (talk) 13:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the 2002 Laser Juke LDs? 

message: This article used to contain 15 "however"s. The "Design" section, though, needs a bit more than just pruning "however"s; it needs a major rewrite. Working on it. Jeh (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just one of many "filled pause" type of junk words, that bears its own editorial mention! These redundancies accumulate with multiple myopic incremental editors. Or I guess, speakers of gratuitously formal antiquity. ;) Also, I tend to perform "de-also-ification". Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 09:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  However, there's more to do here than simply removing this oft-used word 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on LaserDisc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150428093625/http://laserdiscplanet.com/museum2.html to http://laserdiscplanet.com/museum2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015071453/http://dlib.indiana.edu/~brancoli/videostatus.html to http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/~brancoli/videostatus.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.access-one.com/rjn/laser/legacy/ld96.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on LaserDisc. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150620023653/http://home.online.no/~espen-b/ld/ to http://home.online.no/~espen-b/ld/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080117152955/http://www.ovalgon.com/gh/Matrox/what.htm to http://www.ovalgon.com/gh/Matrox/what.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: By which I mean, I don't understand the description of how PWM is used. The article states that the system has a 50% duty cycle, but isn't the whole point of PWM that variation of the duty cycle is what creates the signal? Either that bit is erroneous or some more explanation is needed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:2CE0:B7B:C4D7:EBBC:5763:6E7 (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It has a 50% duty cycle long-term. But short-term variations occur. Jeh (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Don't Understand The Design Section 

message: Can someone have a look at this and figure out if this unknown user just said that from its mind or if a source can be found to collaborate this idea?
(cur | prev) 04:22, 11 June 2010‎ 24.20.86.224 (talk)‎ . . (74,000 bytes) +115‎ . . (→‎Comparison with VHS) (undo)
He added the following:
(though later in VHS' lifespan, engineering improvements allowed tapes to be made and played back without contact)
It would be great if this text, if true, could be clickable to forward us to the page where we can learn some more about that special technique that allows to read a vhs tape without touching it!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by VeganTommy (talk • contribs) 05:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No contact VHS Tapes? 

message: The French page contains a useful [image of LaserDisc modulation](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laserdisc#/media/Fichier:LaserdiscModulation.png) that I remembered from a brochure, and that really caught my imagination back then, but now that I thoroughly understand modulation techniques I had trouble finding it online.  Maybe it is a useful addition to this page [but I don't read French, so I cannot translate the content].  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:93A5:1:15C3:5FA6:A45C:30B6 (talk) 07:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laserdisc Modulation 

message: Including a link to laser phonographs might be just about justifiable, but I think replacing the "Videodisc" link with Phonograph record is pushing it. Anyone else agree/disagree? 
Ubcule (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phonograph record link? 

message: proposes deleting swaths of this article because material is unsourced. There are  and  tags on the article as a whole but the specific material has not previously been challenged and there is no stated objection to the material other than it being unsourced. We generally don't delete unsourced material unless the content is challenged. A similar deletion was proposed and is being discussed at Talk:Cassette_deck#Decline_in_popularity. ~Kvng (talk) 15:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting unsourced material 

message: This statement "Optical video recording technology, using a transparent disc, was invented by David Paul Gregg and James Russell in 1963 (and patented in 1970 and 1990). The Gregg patents were purchased by MCA in 1968" is puzzling. How could MCA purchase 1970 and 1990 patents in 1968? Or have I misunderstood something? 86.161.218.84 (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patents and sale