Originally posted by: stilleon
Acutally, that is not true. The master for the LD would be inferior to today's component masters for DVD. I have several DVDs that are made form LD masters, 2001 for instance. In all cases they just don't hold up to even the most plebian of 16x9 masters today. The most important difference is that Laser Disc's were not mastered to component devices. A DVD is a component disc, separating th luminance (black and white signal) and the three color signals so there is no crosstalk. In 1993 there was a component video format called D1, but it was much more likely to be placed on the less expensive D2 composite master because there is no reason to pay for the overkill in the master. This crosstalk causes strange dot crawls aganst adjacent colors between lines. Also, this master would have 3:2 pulldown recorded in, and not transferred as they are today as a 23.976 progressive flagged to output a 3:2 pulldown. This is how progressive DVD players today output progressive sources and the old transfers will not come out progressive if this is the case.
Acutally, that is not true. The master for the LD would be inferior to today's component masters for DVD. I have several DVDs that are made form LD masters, 2001 for instance. In all cases they just don't hold up to even the most plebian of 16x9 masters today. The most important difference is that Laser Disc's were not mastered to component devices. A DVD is a component disc, separating th luminance (black and white signal) and the three color signals so there is no crosstalk. In 1993 there was a component video format called D1, but it was much more likely to be placed on the less expensive D2 composite master because there is no reason to pay for the overkill in the master. This crosstalk causes strange dot crawls aganst adjacent colors between lines. Also, this master would have 3:2 pulldown recorded in, and not transferred as they are today as a 23.976 progressive flagged to output a 3:2 pulldown. This is how progressive DVD players today output progressive sources and the old transfers will not come out progressive if this is the case.
You aren't paying attention to my full statement. Jim Ward said that they would use video that was state of the art in 1993. He never said they were going to use a "Laserdisk master" from 1993. You assume too much.
I believe the digital master they will be using from 1993 was a result of the cleaning process used before the last home-release of the original films in 1995. The Laserdisk and VHS masters were then probably transfered from from that, in my estimation. If I'm right, that means the source master could very well be superior to any possible DVD master, and if that is the case it can then be mastered on DVD in anamorphic widescreen and still be very high quality.