More of a comparison really....

Just to be a real saddo, I recnetly put into my HD DVD player my copy of MISSION IMPOSSIBLE. I then played my NTSC Laserdisc of the same film and stopped both at identical points to compare them,

Laserdisc against HD DVD at full 1080p, you tell me...

HD DVD Scene One.
Laserdisc Scene One.

HD DVD Scene Two.
Laserdisc Scene Two.

HD DVD Scene Three.
Laserdisc Scene Three.

Please keep in mind that the three scenes from my Laserdisc player are before I ran the Video Essentials Disc through it and calibrated my panel. They are very much a 'by eye' guess at what should be about right, so please bare that in mind. That and the fact that my HD DVD AV channel on my panel has been calibrated using the basic THX calibration system found on several DVDs, not perfect but it is the best that I have for now.

Lack of proper calibration aside, I find the Laserdisc image perfectly watchable and by comparison, it is not too bad at all. I find that it is actually very good considering that most people these days make the mistake of trying to compare it to today's technology, systems which it cannot nor was ever designed to compete with.

That's why I laugh when I look at sites like the AVForums, where they spout pontifical about how awful and unwatchable LD pictures look on their TVs. And yet these are supposed to be the videophiles.

Is the picture quality different? Yes of course it is.
Is it terrible/unwatchable/awful? Don't be silly.

Don't get me wrong, I love all things HD and have embraced it (for once) fully and pretty much ahead of the curve - makes a change - so I, like many others, really was one of the pioneer (hehe, see what I did there?) early adopters of HD DVD and Bluray that made cheaper players move several steps closer, sooner.

That however, does not mean that I am going to be foolish enough to display an HD-snob attitude by claiming that anything non-HD is unwatchable. That is just plain lunacy.

Nice pics. Have you noticed a big improvement since calibration?

Actually. yes I have. In the shot of Ethan Hunt, some of the lights looked a little overly bright, not actually flared as such, just a shade over bright. If you get my drift.

But now, and its a shame that I don't have more up to date screen pix to display this (but you can bet that I am working on it ), with an adjustment of teh brightness and especially the contrast, the picture does seem much more film like and better.

I emphasise again the contrast because on a flat panel LCD TV, I have now found that aspect of it to be the hardest thing to get right.

Update pictures on the way.

I were a total HD-geek for about a year ago. But now, I really don't care about it. I bought the Back To The Future-box on Blu-Ray which was possibly my final Blu-Ray purchase. Watching a movie in HD isn't that interesting to me anymore, it doesn't impress me at all and I can't live without the awesome packages that the LD's came with.

Some people say that they rather buy a Blu-Ray player because it's cheaper to get good HD-quality then good LD-quality, but what a big joke. To even get HD, you need an HDTV (which I don't have) and if you really want to get wow'ed by HD, the size should atleast be 40" and that's not cheap. If you want to get good LD-quality, all you need is an old CRT (they're nearly free nowadays). I don't find any reason for me to go back with Blu-Ray, LD offers what I need.

nissling wrote:I were a total HD-geek for about a year ago. But now, I really don't care about it. I bought the Back To The Future-box on Blu-Ray which was possibly my final Blu-Ray purchase. Watching a movie in HD isn't that interesting to me anymore, it doesn't impress me at all and I can't live without the awesome packages that the LD's came with.

Some people say that they rather buy a Blu-Ray player because it's cheaper to get good HD-quality then good LD-quality, but what a big joke. To even get HD, you need an HDTV (which I don't have) and if you really want to get wow'ed by HD, the size should atleast be 40" and that's not cheap. If you want to get good LD-quality, all you need is an old CRT (they're nearly free nowadays). I don't find any reason for me to go back with Blu-Ray, LD offers what I need.

Totally agree with you. I sold my Blu-Ray player and discs over a year ago and don't miss it one bit. The LD experience is far superior.

I had a very similar experience too. I embraced HD but soon realised that for some reason, it has no soul

OK, Let's see how these turn out and if you can see a difference. These are approx the same stills form MISSION IMPOSSIBLE on Laserdisc. One using a "fly by eye" 'looks OK to me' guess work. The second set is from being calibrated using a "Video Essentials Calibration Laserdisc".

One thing to note, it is now Autumn and the light into our living room hits the window from a slightly different angle so the is a minor area of light hitting the lower left quarter of the screen, it is not a fault with the TV or LD player.

Ving Rames...
The Uncalibrated Disc
The Calibrated Disc

Jean Reno
The Uncalibrated Disc
The Calibrated Disc

Thomas Cruise Mapother IV
The Uncalibrated Disc
The Calibrated Disc

Random Rainy Night Time Shot.

Though the images do appear very dark by comparison, the pictures are actually alot more film like, with more detail and better lighting effects. The light bloom on Jean Reno's head no longer looks flared but more like how a light would refelct off man's head.

I still need to ticker maybe just a tiny bit more to get the contrast/brightness balance correct, not any easy thing to do on these HD LCD all digital panels, but by ingo, it looks good.

looks like a huge improvement on the calibrated shots to me. Colours and contrast look deeper.

I need to get one of those calibration discs. Looks like it makes a big difference.