CED VideoDisc and Player Discussion

Rixrex · Joined: 28 May 2004 Posts: 1222

Sorry to cause bad feelings, but please realize that's how others feel when their comments are specifically taken to task bit-by-bit.

I don't think there's any need to stop posting, just that it's considerate to post replies to comments that you think need some sort of clarification or additional information as a full-bodied comment rather than as what appears as merely rebuttal to itemized quotes in a piecemeal manner.

Technical knowledge is a great thing to share, and can be ultimately helpful. It's not so pleasant when it's directed more personally rather than generally, and consequently just seems condescending. That could be unintended certainly, but one never knows the effect until it's mentioned.

Please accept my apologies for any offense, and I hope you continue to post your helpful comments regardless.

Caroline · Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:32 am Post subject:

Oh, I am not hypersensitive. As a women who has studied electronics,
with 95% male students, I know how to assert myself.
So please all calm down. Dont want to loose anybody here. Wink

Ive no problem with this conversation style.

My Superbeta is a SL-HF-950 ES. I dont know the exact model of my S-VHS, because it is in the attic, with 1000 other things, but it was one of the first JVC models.
From the feeling, I would prefer the Super Beta, especially
when I use the High Grade tapes. Maybe its only a "positive discrimination", dont know, the picture looks sharper as the JVC.

S-VHS was never popular in the Netherlands, almost unknown.
You still can buy beta blank tapes, and a dutch company is even offering
VCC-2000 blank video tapes again, but only very few carry S-VHS.

Back to CED :

When using a new stylus, picture is much better as a VHS vcr from
the 80s ( but cant compete with the superior latest JVC high end models ).

Sadly I dont have a scanner, so I had been able to include a picture of the
strange EURO/German prototype CED Player, that looked different
from the US/UK models.

Ive also had heard many people complaining about the NTSC Laservision
Players. Strangely, the PAL versions were very good. I still have the
first Philips model, that my father had bought. No problem at all.
But a Samsung NTSC model, produced in 1995 (!), is out of order and almost beyond repair.
( Prices for spare parts, especially laser lenses etc. have skyrocketed )

cedmagic · Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:50 pm Post subject: A Winner Emerges?

Contrary to Warner's statement back in September 2007 (see the link in my previous post in this topic), the studio has now decided to release exclusively on the Blu-ray format:

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/boost-for-blu-ray-warner-bros-will-release-high-def-titles-exclusively-in-that-format/

This gives Blu-ray even more studios than HD-DVD and an estimated 70% market share.

--Tom Howe

Glenn · Joined: 09 Jun 2004 Posts: 27 Location: San Diego, CA

Warner Bros just announced they will be making hi-def DVD's in Blu Ray only, no more HD DVD's. They feel "the future" is Blu Ray.

Caroline · Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:18 am Post subject:

In the Netherlands, Blue Ray is more popular.
In Germany, more new movies are released on HD-DVD. 80% of the new XXX movie releases are on HD-DVD, only 20% on Blue Ray.
Most video stores there, if they already carry it, offer HD DVD, only very, very few Blue Ray.

I am neiter interested in HD DVD, nor Blue Ray. The movies are too expensive. Most of the movies I like were made before 1980. And it doesnt make sense ( or ? ) to buy "Citizen Kane" on HD.

7jlong · Joined: 01 Jun 2004 Posts: 187

Caroline · Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 7:03 am Post subject:

I like Citizen Kane. But the master isnt in High Definition. I have "King Kong" on LaserDisc too, the original master is only moderate minus. On LD, some scenes are sharper, but you also see more scratches etc, that I havent noticed on VHS. I doubt, that this is such a quality improvement, if we watch old movie classics on Blue Ray. Or they have to digitally edit it frame by frame. But this would cost a fortune.

7jlong · Joined: 01 Jun 2004 Posts: 187

- I like Citizen Kane too, but if by master you mean an original film print of it, yes, it is miles more detailed than high definition. Again, HD at its finest equals about 2 megapixels of detail. A frame of average 35mm motion picture film has about 5-7 megapixels of detail.

If you are talking about a video master, however, whatever might already exist could be considered irrelevant depending on when the transfer was performed. The transfer is only as good as the technology it was done with at the time (see our very own Selectavision discs for ample evidence of this - and many of them were excellent for the available technology!)

None - I repeat, none - of the available video formats match the depth and detail of an original motion picture print or negative. Is this something we want to save? Or is TV-quality "good enough"? If film wasn't an organic, volatile format (prone to fading, crumbling, burning, and all kinds of other problems) it would be no big deal. But it is. All our old films fall apart a little more every day.

- I love my LaserDiscs, but they are far from any kind of gold standard.

- It is possible that you don't notice subtle image artifacts on VHS because it is a crummy, low resolution format.

- Film restoration is a very, very successful industry and classic films are indeed dealt with on a frame-by-frame basis if the condition of the film calls for it.

- I'm not a resolution junkie. I still have a 13" Sony CRT because I frankly don't want to make any television investments right now. All is well. But perhaps the mistake was in bringing up Citizen Kane. This is a film that we should fight to preserve in the best possible quality. Do I think this is necessary for all films? No. But there are some works of art that should be treated as gold.

Try here for a very brief intro to the topic of the film restoration industry.

I suppose this is all subjective. Some people are happy looking at web galleries of a photographer's work; I'd prefer to go see an original print. There are those that enjoy the sound of 128k MP3 files; I think they sound wretched and prefer other formats. I'm happy with my 13" TV, though others insist on the sexiest, flattest, biggest plasma they can find. Great.

So why do I worry about HD if I have such a silly television, you ask? I'm not concerned with my own perceptions - I'm talking about preserving history and making it available to current and future generations. The bigger picture. Higher resolution theater projectors are on their way, and the day will come when studios abandon costly film prints entirely in favor of sending digital files. Are we ready?

I think our global film history is worth throwing every trick in the book at to preserve with all the detail and depth of a fine print. But there's no convincing anyone else of that. So be it.

Sorry, Rixrex, for point-by-point dissection. That's how it goes.

Rixrex · Joined: 28 May 2004 Posts: 1222

What you wrote was informative. It wasn't a point-by-point dissection of the type I'd previously groused about, where another posting is divided into sections and each section replied to with smug commentary, intended to exalt the replier's level of intelligence and expertise to the detriment of the initial poster.

You weren't doing that as far as I could tell.

Jesse Skeen · Joined: 28 May 2004 Posts: 575 Location: Sacramento, CA

Well, since nobody else has mentioned this yet, I'll be the one to note that HD-DVD died today. I don't have either hi-def format yet but did buy a few of the combo discs that I can watch on regular DVD players. I'm hoping Toshiba will make a machine that plays both formats; depending on how cheap the discs get I might think about getting every title like I did with CED. Might at least try to get all the combo discs.
_________________
Videodisc and stereo sound- there's no better value around!

cedmagic · Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 7:46 pm Post subject: Comparison of HD DVD and CED

Since both these formats became obsolete after a rather short time on the market, I thought some comparisons would be interesting:

Delays:
This thread started back in January 2005 with the announcement of HD DVD and Blu-ray at CES, but the formats were delayed quite a while - HD DVD until 4/18/2006 and Blu-ray until 6/15/2006. In the case of CED, RCA left the technology press to speculate until making their definitive announcement in January 1979 that the system would be introduced, with that happening on 3/22/1981.

Time on Market (from intro to announcement of demise):
HD DVD - 22 months
CED - 37 months
But CED still had another two years of disc pressing, while it sounds like HD DVD will cease around June 2008.

Number of Players:
CED - 750,000 (almost all North American)
HD DVD - 1,300,000 (this includes 600,000 US players, 100,000 European, and 600,000 drives inside computers or with Xbox 360's).

Number of Titles:
CED - 1,700
HD DVD - 578
This is from amazon.com which at the same time lists 677 Blu-ray and 243,183 regular DVD titles.

If you want to get some cheap HD DVD stuff for your collections, this site is listing some of the clearance bargains that have been announced:

http://www.hddvd.com

I may try to pick up the RCA-branded clone of the Toshiba HD-A1 model.

--Tom Howe