AntcuFaalb said:

MaximRecoil said:

the question of objective video quality

The use of the DVNR1000 was not only heavy-handed in 1993, it was unnecessary*. I can see the smearing on my 13" 4:3 CRT (Sony KV-13FS110). This looked like shit in 1993 (DefCol LDs), 1995 (Faces LDs), 2006 (GOUT DVDs), and now.

And, yes, people complained about it in 1993 on Usenet; mostly on alt.video.laserdisc.

I know this is just my opinion, so it's certainly subjective, but I think it comes a lot closer to being objective than many of assessments given in previous posts.

(* FWIW, I've seen the pre-DVNR1000 master used for the DefCol ANH. It's not that dirty; certainly not dirty enough to make the use of the DVNR1000 a requirement for release. I think this is just a case of George&co. wanting to play with toys again.)

At least your opinion isn't self-contradictory, unlike the opinions of people who praised the '93 and '95 LD releases, and fan-made DVD transfers from them, yet bash the quality of the GOUT.

Harmy said:

No, but it is "unwatchable" and "horrendous" and "terrible" by today's standards and it was at least "horrendous" by 2006 standards.

Which means that, according to you, the GOUT-source parts of your "Despecialized Editions" are "unwatchable" and "horrendous" and "terrible". Actually, they go beyond those things, because they've been upscaled and re-encoded (among other things I'm sure), all of which results in inevitable loss relative to the source.