Bias Against LaserDisc Format
Dear Gary: This is a letter to Widescreen Review in reference to Jim Taylor’s “Digital Pie In The Sky: Why There Will Never Be A Digital LaserDisc” article in Issue 34. After two years of silent fuming (at least to my friends, not the industry) I have finally been prompted to write. You may choose to not print this, but this is your only chance for input from someone who is also part of the AV home market, and not simply a consumer. I also can honestly say that I speak for many who love movies and the related technology. If you do print this, you may (and probably will) tear me apart afterwards. You will most likely dismiss me as another fanatic so devoted to a format like analog LaserDisc as to never accept any new technology. So be it, though it is hardly the case. For what it is worth, the truth is that I love technology. Working closely with the NTSC system for many years, I am very impressed with the genius that created our current NTSC system. However, I now primarily concern myself with the reproduction of NTSC in the home theatre market, both myself and my work. Broadcast NTSC does not interest me personally, as I have not watched it for almost twenty years. Since movies were my entertainment, and I did not seem to have good luck in movie theatres, I bought movies on LaserDisc. I have lived with the LaserDisc format for over ten years. I watched the seemingly future-hungry disc devour new technologies and mature from a clumsy format to its latest 5.1 channel audio glory. (I kept waiting for a Y/C or YUV upgrade to appear (Super-LaserDisc?), but it never did.) I witnessed the jump to CLV and the addition of digital sound. I was there when Dolby® Digital AC-3® was introduced to the public, and yes, even DTS® Digital Surround™. I purchased my fair share of poorly mastered and defective discs. I also enjoyed a vastly superior picture and sound quality while everyone else was content to watch the shabby VHS format. It was well worth it. I was ready to jump from the analog LaserDisc to any superior format when it came, but it would have to be clearly better. When HD loomed, then appeared, I was very excited. I had never seen anything like it, and I had been a technician on broadcast-quality NTSC equipment for a long time. I was ready to make the jump. Somehow, it seemed natural that the jump to HD would be made on the faithful twelve-inch disc, which had an incredible potential for digital storage. Of course, it would require all-new hardware (as opposed to retrofit upgrades like AC-3 for LD), because we would no longer have analog LD at all, but an entirely new twelve-inch optical format. When I first heard of the NTSC-DVD format, I thought it would be a writable format to replace the VHS 1/2-inch tape format (which I consider an insult to those who created the NTSC system). The technology certainly existed, and it was relatively cheap. As I discovered that it was a NTSC-only format merely to reduce the size of the disc, and that there would not be an HD optical format at all, I was stunned: The DVD format is not only completely inadequate for HD delivery, it cannot even present a NTSC movie without lossy video compression schemes like MPEG. What in the world is this? It is a staggering contradiction and a huge letdown for any fan of high-technology. It is also a highly greed-driven and profit-motivated format which seemingly exists to bilk the public. Mind you, I have nothing against anyone making billions of dollars legitimately, and I believe in free enterprise; but like most Americans, I pay many dollars in taxes to supposedly help regulate and deliver formats and technology that are based on a little more than just sheer greed. This is certainly not the case of the DVD format, which has destroyed much of my enthusiasm and interest in the home theatre market, as well as the powers that bring us such technology for our money. With analog LaserDiscs now very difficult to obtain locally, and HD material nonexistent, my new movie purchases have dropped to almost zero. Due to this, the loss of new movies, I cancelled my purchasing of a new Sony CRT projector. My enthusiasm for home theatre and for my work has faded, and my interest in movies in general is starting to follow. I am certainly willing to trade in my expensive LD collection, but not for a disposable “ad-hoc” format like DVD. I know enough of the technology to understand that it will take a large technical miracle to put an entire HD movie on a single-sided 5-inch disc. If it does indeed happen, I will buy it; but it will not be DVD as we know it today. The article by Jim Taylor is what prompted me to write this letter, but it is now typical of your magazine in general (and most other lesser publications), who have jumped firmly on the DVD bandwagon. This letter is not as much a renouncement of the DVD format, or even debate in favor of the existing Laser Disc standard, but rather, the bias against the twelve-inch disc itself as a true-HD home video carrier. (When I say “true HD” I mean 1080i or above.) I apologize to anyone in your staff who may feel insulted. I am expressing my extreme frustration with an industry governed strictly by greed, and I feel that it has let me (and my customers and all other home-movie fans) down a treacherous path of deceit. A good example of this bias can be found in your LaserDisc reviews. Why do you even bother reviewing analog LaserDiscs, when virtually every LD review includes “.. of course, the DVD, when viewed in anamorphic mode through the component outputs, makes the (non-anamorphic) LD pale in comparison...?” You are not even comparing format to format here, but instead comparing mastering process to process, and you are being unfair and misleading. The simple fact is, the industry could have been supplying anamorphic LDs any time it wanted to. Instead, you help perpetuate the myth that anamorphic compression is a process unique to DVD, and you are being insulting to everyone while doing it. As for the article by Jim Taylor, I will now comment directly. Please note that arguments here for the LD format also include any twelve-inch optical disc format, assuming a similar manufacturing process. First, you say that you are surprised by the constant whining for a twelve-inch digital/HD format. Why? You admit that it will easily handle even the longest, most boring Cameron film ever made on a single side in true HD. It would also easily hold all the menu-driven feature stuff which would doubtless plague the format. This IS what you want—a true HD format, is it not? You seem to be so firm in your statement that a twelve-inch HD-capable disc will never happen, that I truly wonder if you may personally be part of the real reason why. I ask you, is it a personal grudge you have against twelve-inch optical disc formats, or do you really believe that greed is the one and only reason for new technology? You then give a list of what you think is wrong with a twelve-inch disc. While reading this, I actually flipped the magazine back to its front cover, to confirm what I was reading —was this really Widescreen Review? I knew the magazine had gone mostly DVD, but this article was an insult to a publication which I regarded as an essential source of information. You claim that a twelve-inch disc is “simply too big.” Too big for what? Carrying around stuck on a finger? Do you really carry around your DVDs and CDs that way? Could that be one reason I see so many damaged DVDs and CDs? I have handled CDs and LDs for a long time and have never had problems inserting, removing or discs being damaged. A LD is easily handled with a thumb on the outer edge and a finger on the inner hole. This is so easy that I cannot understand why you have a problem with it. Do you have thumbs? (I myself find it irritating that a CD has a spindle hole too small to enable holding it as I do a LD.) Besides, is the size of the spindle hole really a reason to suppress an HD optical format? Is it really because HD is “simply too good?” OK, so LDs cost more to mail. I cannot argue with that, though I am certain the cost and solutions are almost trivial. I myself can only say that I have obtained only a small fraction of my LD collection through the mail (in spite of the difficulty in getting discs locally). LDs are fragile, in direct comparison to DVDs? I had to read this part several times. Well, yes, they are fragile. So is every other electronic device made by man. I have never damaged a LaserDisc by handling it (though I am certain people without thumbs probably would constantly be dropping their discs). OK, so the LD isn’t invincible. Far from it, but the DVD is far more easily damaged by clumsy people than a LD. Even if an HD twelve-inch format were to go strictly single sided (like an audio CD) the substrate layer would be no more susceptible than that on a DVD or CD. The .6mm-thick DVD is VERY easily damaged by flexing (and so many clumsy people flex them while removing or inserting them!) I really doubt I could flex a LD to the point of serious damage while holding it with one hand. Of course, I could slam it against something, but when it comes to intentional damage, ALL formats are fragile. The fact that you even mention “laser rot” is sufficient proof to me that you don’t know nearly as much about the twelve-inch Laser Disc format as you claim to know about DVD. Either that, or you are simply being intentionally insulting. Anyone who had collected LaserDiscs in the earliest days of the format knows that it was a serious issue. Most of the earliest discs failed. I still have a single DiscoVision CAV disc, a lone survivor of those hard times. But unlike the CED-disc medium, LD was a true revolution in technology. It was the first laser-optical format offered to the public. So what if the twelve-inch disc wasn’t perfect from the start? All of those problems (along with dismal manufacturing) were solved long ago. (Of course, nobody has EVER purchased a defective DVD or VHS tape.) Mastering techniques varied widely in quality, and I sometimes had to return LDs that were defective when purchased, but I have not had a single disc fail in over ten years now. In spite of this, pro-DVD fanatics still dig-up this long-dead-and buried horse and continue to flog it. DVDs haven’t been around long enough to develop any sort of “DVD-rot” (though I cannot imagine why a DVD would rot, since LDs haven’t “rotted” in maybe fifteen years or so now). Of course, I am very surprised that I would have to explain all of this to a staff member of Widescreen Review, as everyone there must certainly know all of this. Why do you keep making it an issue? I agree that a twelve-inch disc is difficult to make portable. Do you really, truly think that is an issue? How many movies do you watch while driving or jogging? People are very willing to tape CDs at home and take the taped copy on the road for a trip, so why not their home movie collection, if they must have it on a trip? Digital, compact ,high-quality formats like DVCam and Digital 8mm are much smaller than a LD, and they exist NOW. Granted, they don’t offer 5.1 channel capability, and they aren’t HD, but hey, then you may have another reason to release writable DVDs, which would probably be capable of handling any portable needs. My top-of-the-line LD machine makes a silent hum that is quieter than the fans in my rac, or the fans in most video projectors. Plus, larger motors tend to be more durable. I have replaced the CD spindle in my machine twice, but I have never had to replace the LD spindle. I know this is a single example, but I really think machine noise is a trivial concern considering the equipment found in most real home theatre systems. As far as jewel cases for twelve-inch discs go, this is absurd. Why use a jewel case then? Who ever buys a DVD in a jewel case anyway? CDs, sure, but five-inch DVDs mostly come in those nasty black-plastic holders. I’ve seen plastic packaging for LDs, usually rental discs. Plus, what is wrong with the existing twelve-inch disc packaging? I’ve never had a problem with it, but I admit I do have two thumbs. None of my discs show any kind of significant wear from contact with the soft liner, some even after ten years or so. Of course, I do take reasonable care of my twelve-inch discs. Anyway, the only valid point here is that better cases for twelve-inch discs could be designed as easily as a better CD or DVD case, and if packaging is a real reason to keep true HD out of the home, then we all may as well give up and go back to wax cylinders and scanning-discs. I feel that NONE of the reasons you gave were valid. If you want to put up with NTSC for years while the eggheads try to squeeze the HD signal hard enough to even come close to fitting an HD movie on DVD, fine. I would rather have HD now, thank you, even if that means having to deal with a bulky, fragile, expensive, poorly packaged twelve-inch optical disc. What is even more important, so would most of my customers. I would even probably bet that most home theatre owners would rather have HD on a twelve-inch carrier than no HD at all. (Which is what we have now, while you muck around with that precious DVD.) The Real REAL Reason Standing Up (in one simple sentence): The media and industry who promote the DVD format, while purposely holding back true HD home formats, for the sake of greed at taxpayer expense. Your magazine’s Mission Statement makes it quite clear: The focus of WSR is to promote the DVD format. Not HD, or any of the many other alternatives to DVD. This is a shame, because HD (even at 1080i) is well worth the cost. You know it, but you perpetuate the DVD format anyway. This is also a shame, as WSR was easily my favorite magazine. I continue to read the excellent technical and cinema articles and commend those of you who present them most highly (but I no longer bother with the useless software reviews). I still could not exist without WSR. However, I shall mourn the loss of the soul of this magazine, as that of a good friend who has died. Widescreen Review, what has happened to you?
Eric Starr, Raleigh, North Carolina
Widescreen Review’s DVD Zealot Jim Taylor & Editor Gary Reber Comments
DVD Zealot Jim Taylor: With all due respect to Eric Starr, his attitude is exactly what prompted me to write the article explaining why there will never be a mainstream 12-inch HD movie disc. I used to have the same attitude as Mr. Starr. I was captivated by LaserDisc in 1979, when I played the First National KidDisc on a DiscoVision player that was only slightly smaller than a washing machine. There was something magical about those big solid discs, big heavy players and big beautiful picture. But just as American muscle cars of the ’60s were superceded by sophisticated imports of the ’80s, LaserDiscs no longer fit today’s technological realities. I have faced those realities and focused my efforts in areas where I expect to actually accomplish something, rather than spitting into the wind with fantasies of HD LaserDiscs. I wrote the article in hopes of helping others reach the same conclusion. Those who are fans of movies can make the paradigm shift, while those who are merely fans of LaserDisc will have a harder time. The heart and soul of Widescreen Review has always been about the very best home theatre experience—not about any particular technology. Certainly LaserDisc deserves our esteem, since it was a brilliant innovation that created the home theatre market, but it must now pass the reigns to newer and better formats. It all comes down to what looks better and sounds better. And everyone who has conscientiously compared LaserDisc to DVD has reached the same conclusion. I won’t bother to rebut Mr. Starr’s points since I stand by everything I said in my article. However, I will point out that my acquaintances at disc manufacturing companies still deal occasionally with laser rot problems, largely due to substandard acrylic. I will also point out that it’s true that anamorphic LaserDiscs could have been released (a few have been); but unlike DVDs, they would not work on 99 percent of the TVs in use. But of course laser rot and anamorphic widescreen are not of themselves major factors in this argument. The point is that 12-inch media is doomed by the weight of dozens of small reasons, plus the enormously weighty reason that 12-inch discs don’t fit in computers. Like it or not, the future of entertainment is digital. Computers will play an ever-increasing role as they come to look less and less like the unwieldy boxes we are accustomed to today. I am baffled by a few of Mr. Starr’s claims. DVD is not an “NTSC-only format merely to reduce the size of the disc,” motivated entirely by “greed at taxpayer expense.” DVD was developed by engineers and artists who are passionate about video and audio technology. Sure they want to make a living, but these engineers had a goal to do for video what CD has done for audio. And by in large they succeeded. DVD, which can be decoded and displayed in a digital, progressive-scan format that goes far beyond NTSC, is closer to HD than any available pre-recorded consumer format. And since “true” HD is still a decade away from moving into the average home theatre, DVD is an excellent bridge between the old, analog world and the new, high-definition, digital world. Since there are literally over a billion NTSC/PAL/ SECAM TVs in the world, compared to a few hundred thousand HDTVs, creating a mass-market product that only served a teeny niche would have made little sense. Mr. Starr is free to wait for “true” HD in the next generation of DVD. And there undoubtedly will be an HD version of DVD once shorter wavelength lasers, better optics and improved media are available. But one thing is irrefutable—the next great version of video disc will still use compressed video, and it will still come on 4.7-inch discs. Editor Gary Reber Comments: Eric, there is no doubt that you are frustrated. Since the industry abandoned the LaserDisc, we too at Widescreen Review have been frustrated. You perhaps have not been a long time reader of Widescreen Review, otherwise you would know that we advocated component video for LaserDisc, and Laser Disc has the platform with the “size” to fully support high-definition. Do you recall the articles I wrote personally that were supported with the illustration caption “If I Had Your Size I Could Have Been Somebody?” Now that it is certain the industry will no longer support a next generation consumer LaserDisc for high-definition, we are advocating high-definition DVD. Read Joe Kane’s editorials on 720p DVD in Issue 35 to see the extent of support we are lending to the creation of a high-definition DVD format without resorting to expensive blue or violet lasers. Still, with the issue of the protection of the rights of content owners not near to resolution, high-definition on optical disc, whether DVD or LaserDisc, is doubtful any time soon. It is laughable that you believe the media, and by reference WSR, is holding up high-definition. We have been at the forefront as an advocate for true high-definition since inception of the concept. You need to read previous issues of WSR to refresh your perspective. Actions in the pursuit of high-definition need to be directed at the studios, not at WSR. Our Mission Statement clearly directs our focus on both DVD and HDTV mediums. LaserDisc no longer has widespread industry support for new releases and next generation technology. In the meantime, DVD in the anamorphic format is clearly superior to the non-anamorphic LaserDisc format. Had LaserDisc adopted anamorphic processing, which we advocated but never happened, then the differences in picture quality would have been far less dramatic as numerous of our reviews state. Even so, when comparing format to format, or non-anamorphic DVD to LaserDisc, even though the DVD technically has slightly more resolution, at times the LaserDisc picture, in fact, is superior to the DVD picture, depending on source quality (notwithstanding component video output). The reality, though, is that DVD supports anamorphic processing and component video output and LaserDisc doesn’t (though it could have and still can). The undeniable end result: DVD is clearly superior to LaserDisc. You state that: “So what if the twelve-inch disc wasn’t perfect from the start? All of those problems (along with dismal manufacturing) were solved long ago.” That same statement applies to DVD. Given the same 20-year development period that LaserDisc has had, the technology is sure to deliver a “true” high-definition optical disc format or some other compelling packaged recorded format. At the end of Jim Taylor’s provoking article, I asked for comments. I wanted to see what our readers thought about LaserDisc, DVD and/or other optical formats as viable delivery mediums for high-quality, if not high-definition pictures. Thank you for responding and venting your frustrations, which we have experienced as well. But now the time is to “make the best that it can be” with what we have to work with—and at this moment in time, the medium is DVD.
You can E-mail Widescreen Review @ mailto:editorgary@widescreenreview.com