Sign In

2006 OUT DVD to Definitive Collection LD comparison question?

Author
Time

I was wondering how accurate to the Definitive Collection LD picture and sound, the OUT DVD's are?

I saw the screen shots comparison thread here, and they are great pictures, but they're not being shown on a large screen tv, so I can't tell if the image would hold up on a larger display, and also I don't have the Definitive Collection LD's or a LD player to compare them to myself.

Can anyone answer the"technical" specs between the two, and if the image quality is the same, better, or worse than the LD's?

 

Thanks!

 

And btw, hello everyone!

My first post here as a new member! 

Cheers!

 

Jim

Author
Time
 (Edited)

In my opinion, the DVD's, while still being non-anamphorically enchanced, are much better than the laserdisc's image, especially on a large widescreen DVD.  It also depends on the quality of your laserdisc player.  I use a Pioneer HLD-X9, which is one of the best players ever made, and even using the X9, the DVD's are much better.  Sound quality is another matter.  The sound on the laserdiscs blows the DVD's out of the water.  The lasers have full uncompressed PCM sound compared to the GOUTS 192kbps dolby surround.  So for video quality, the DVD's win easily over the laserdiscs, even when using high end laserdisc players.  For sound, the lasers far and away. 

Author
Time

That's cool.

I was also trying to find out if the "Faces" THX LD's are the same transfer as the Definitive Collection LD's, or are they yet another remastering of them?

Author
Time

They are the same transfer.  However, in my opinion, the definitive collection had better picture quality easily, at least they do on my HLD-X9.  The Faces set are all CLV format laserdiscs, whereas the Definitive Collection were in CAV format.  I always tend to find CAV as having richer colors and less noise than the Faces CLV versions.  Of course, the definitive set has issues of it's own, such as possibility of laser rot, missing seconds of footage from Empire Strikes Back. 

Author
Time

Watching the '06 GOUT ANH disc, I noticed a considerable amount of grain in alot of the scenes.

Especially the Tantive attack, and on Tatooine.

I don't have a LD player anymore, so I can't put the Faces LD's I have in, for direct comparison.

But I don't remember the LD's having that much grain.

Is it simply because the DVD reveals the imperfections of the transfer?

I had read on one of the other SW forums that some people think that Lucas intentionally "grained" up the GOUT DVD's in order to further detract their quality from the 2004 SE DVD's.

That seems silly to me, but with Lucas I never rule out anything.

 

Author
Time

Perhaps it is just because you are so used to seeing the crystal clear, clean and bubbly, overly bright, wet & soapy 2004 versions?

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
C3PX said:

Perhaps it is just because you are so used to seeing the crystal clear, clean and bubbly, overly bright, wet & soapy 2004 versions?

 

If anything the DVDs are too dark and high contrast with botched colors, they are no way "overly bright". The restoration is actually great aside from the crushed blacks and whites and the color correction. The GOUT DVDs on the other hand, are grainer than any LD preservation...maybe it's just because they are sharper, maybe not. There is certainly some dupe grain on them.

Author
Time

Does anyone have any direct screen shots from the LD's themselves? Not the bootlegs of the LD's, to compare them to?

 

Author
Time
Octorox said:
C3PX said:

Perhaps it is just because you are so used to seeing the crystal clear, clean and bubbly, overly bright, wet & soapy 2004 versions?

 

If anything the DVDs are too dark and high contrast with botched colors, they are no way "overly bright". The restoration is actually great aside from the crushed blacks and whites and the color correction. The GOUT DVDs on the other hand, are grainer than any LD preservation...maybe it's just because they are sharper, maybe not. There is certainly some dupe grain on them.

I agree.  The GOUT DVD's are grainer than the lasers.  That I think is because the lasers are so soft, the grain isn't as noticeable.  When you get to DVD with more resolution and a sharper image, the grain is more apparent. 

I also agree that the "special edition" dvd's are no good.  Way to dark, messed up color, switched surround channels on  A New Hope, bad sound overall on A New Hope, etc,  just overall a mess.  I took the GOUT DVD's and used the avisynth script that G-Force created and I love the results.  The image quality far surpasses the lasers, and I use a Pioneer HLD-X9 player.  Sound quality on the lasers is still far superior to the DVD's though. 

 

Author
Time
gltaylor74 said:
Octorox said:
C3PX said:

Perhaps it is just because you are so used to seeing the crystal clear, clean and bubbly, overly bright, wet & soapy 2004 versions?

 

If anything the DVDs are too dark and high contrast with botched colors, they are no way "overly bright". The restoration is actually great aside from the crushed blacks and whites and the color correction. The GOUT DVDs on the other hand, are grainer than any LD preservation...maybe it's just because they are sharper, maybe not. There is certainly some dupe grain on them.

I agree.  The GOUT DVD's are grainer than the lasers.  That I think is because the lasers are so soft, the grain isn't as noticeable.  When you get to DVD with more resolution and a sharper image, the grain is more apparent. 

I also agree that the "special edition" dvd's are no good.  Way to dark, messed up color, switched surround channels on  A New Hope, bad sound overall on A New Hope, etc,  just overall a mess.  I took the GOUT DVD's and used the avisynth script that G-Force created and I love the results.  The image quality far surpasses the lasers, and I use a Pioneer HLD-X9 player.  Sound quality on the lasers is still far superior to the DVD's though. 

 

 

So what is the process involved in using the avisynth script?

 

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Clean, bubbly and soapy are good adjectives. That's exactly how I would describe the 2004 transfers too. I don't think it was a good restoration because they removed too much film grain.

I much prefer the 2006 gout because that looks like an actual film transfer with grain. Not great but at least it feels authentic.

EDIT: someone mentioned 192kbps dolby surround. Isn't under 200 kbps pretty lousy? Is that low or high for most dvd releeases? What about the 2004 versions?

As for the grain, I have a theory why it's so prominent. I think the blacks were taken down in a quick adjustment to make the black bars finally be black. This would make dark grain on bright surfaces such as Hoth more apparent.

Take back the trilogy. Execute Order '77

http://www.youtube.com/user/Knightmessenger

Author
Time

It's 192kbps because it's only 2.0 and not 5.1.

The 2004 version is 5.1, which I presume is 448kbps.