Watching sum TNG

[CaptainStoner]

fun to watch a bit of Trek again after several years of seeing none of it -
for this endeavor we are looking at mostly original DVD release episodes, so 480p at best, running on a 47" plasma TV. I am finding the plasma display rather ideal for the earlier, DVD quality stuff. It doesn't have that garish sort of look 480p can have on modern displays.

then for audio, we've got a fairly nice 5.1 system going, with a subwoofer large enough to be felt.

Settling in to an old favorite for starters, "Darmok" -

 

[tomswift2002]

fun to watch a bit of Trek again after several years of seeing none of it -
for this endeavor we are looking at mostly original DVD release episodes, so 480p at best, running on a 47" plasma TV. I am finding the plasma display rather ideal for the earlier, DVD quality stuff. It doesn't have that garish sort of look 480p can have on modern displays.

then for audio, we've got a fairly nice 5.1 system going, with a subwoofer large enough to be felt.

Settling in to an old favorite for starters, "Darmok" -

The DVD’s are not in 480p. They are 480i, the same as the 80’s/90’s Composite masters. Your DVD/Blu-Ray player is probably de-interlacing the video to progressive. Really the DVD’s probably look as good as the old Laserdisc releases.

 

[Qonundrum]

The DVD’s are not in 480p. They are 480i, the same as the 80’s/90’s Composite masters. Your DVD/Blu-Ray player is probably de-interlacing the video to progressive. Really the DVD’s probably look as good as the old Laserdisc releases.

Having lived through LaserDisc in the past, DVD was superior to it - LD was often artificially oversaturated and was definitely fuzzy/blurry by comparison, but LD was miles above VHS. LD was analog (not digital), had less 'resolution', more expensive to manufacture for such a (in hindsight) little benefit, weighed a ton so they cost more to ship, and LD had the bit rot problem far worse to DVD. There's also quality of material conversion and I'm about to digress, some DVD releases were mastered with the color grading altered to a gaudy teal/orange palette (so denim blue jeans became a laughable shade of teal, among other issues and you'll find the same "artistic alteration" in some blu-ray releases too) instead of leaving the tones the way they originally were, post-remastering. Early-release DVDs did have other issues and mistakes in encoding that made LD look better (e.g. Star Trek Insurrection was horribly jaggy on DVD but despite looking fuzzier on LD it looked better overall on the older medium... some movies were undersaturated, leaving people to believe "Like vinyl for audio, laserdisc is superior because it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarm" - which is utter bunkum. It's all about the encoding. And post-remastering alteration. Analog was a wildcard. Remember the acronym NTSC regarding shows recorded on analog videotape? "Never The Same Color" being the pejorative description. Analog sucks, though back in the day when it was the only way it was actually pretty cool - as long as people didn't pick up the slight shift in hue between studio camera 1 and camera 3... among other issues...)

 

[tomswift2002]

Having lived through LaserDisc in the past, DVD was superior to it - LD was often artificially oversaturated and was definitely fuzzy/blurry by comparison, but LD was miles above VHS. LD was analog (not digital), had less 'resolution', more expensive to manufacture for such a (in hindsight) little benefit, weighed a ton so they cost more to ship, and LD had the bit rot problem far worse to DVD. There's also quality of material conversion and I'm about to digress, some DVD releases were mastered with the color grading altered to a gaudy teal/orange palette (so denim blue jeans became a laughable shade of teal, among other issues and you'll find the same "artistic alteration" in some blu-ray releases too) instead of leaving the tones the way they originally were, post-remastering. Early-release DVDs did have other issues and mistakes in encoding that made LD look better (e.g. Star Trek Insurrection was horribly jaggy on DVD but despite looking fuzzier on LD it looked better overall on the older medium... some movies were undersaturated, leaving people to believe "Like vinyl for audio, laserdisc is superior because it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarm" - which is utter bunkum. It's all about the encoding. And post-remastering alteration. Analog was a wildcard. Remember the acronym NTSC regarding shows recorded on analog videotape? "Never The Same Color" being the pejorative description. Analog sucks, though back in the day when it was the only way it was actually pretty cool - as long as people didn't pick up the slight shift in hue between studio camera 1 and camera 3... among other issues...)

Yeah, however, the DVD’s were still using the same Composite Video masters as the Laserdiscs. And both Laserdisc and DVD have sufficient resolution to have been considered, for standard definition, broadcast level video devices (I know that in the 90’s CFL broadcasts (and even NHL broadcasts on the CBC) used Laserdisc for replays, and in some Cable company community channels used DVD, just like they had used S-VHS for broadcast). Suffice it to say, TNG’s DVD’s are no better than a Betacam SP or Digital Betacam dub from the 1/2-inch Composite or D2 Composite Digital original masters. You are still splitting a Composite signal into a Component signal, so who’s 3-D Comb Filter does it best? Paramount made those transfers for DVD back in 2001-2002 using Comb filters that would’ve been good for then, however comb filters have improved a lot over the last 17-18 years so a 2018 or 2019 TV would produce a much cleaner picture from a composite source like Laserdisc or a DVD player hooked up by composite.