Was LaserDisc a scam?
>>214437171No, it was just too big and unwieldy to succeed.
>>214437290>too big to succeedExplain the success of deluxe manga
>>214437311What the fuck kind of reply do you expect to this?
>>214437311Because you actually look at the product constantly while reading it instead of putting it into a device.
>>214437380What about the renewed popularity of vinyl music?
>>214437437Vinyls sound better because they compress the music less. There's no benefit to a laser disc
>>214437437Perhaps the biggest meme on earth
>>214437643>Vinyls sound better because they compress the music less
>>214438128Go listen to whatever no name SoundCloud shitter using your cheap headphones, earlet
A lot of cuts and exclusive bonuses ended up on laserdisc that have never been released elsewhere. It's a bit silly.
>>214437437lmao she gets "lo-fi hiphop" on vinyl. I would leave her apartment if I saw this
It was better than VHS (DVD didn't exist yet) and the sound was CD quality. I had the entire twin peaks collection on LD.
>>214438474And unlike later CDs and DVDs, laser discs were actually analog.
>>214437171They had great sound.
>>214437643Only fresh vinyl copies. Even after just 2-3 listens, vinyls get close to 320kbps MP3 quality.
>>214439004Rotational velocidensity is a bitch.
>>214437437People getting more and more fed up with the unreliable and flimsy nature of streaming platform, and vinyl being more collector-friendly than CDs which were driven to near-extinction by mp3s and then streaming services as well as disc drives starting to be obsolete on PCs.
>>214437171No, it was incredible. The problem was they were incredibly expensive comapred to vhs, and people couldn't record onto them at home. Plus, people still went to the movies constantly back then, so a high quality at home setup simply wasn't as desirable as it would be later.
They were by far the best option if you needed them, but 99.99% of people didn't need them. Unless you had a home theater set up with a projector blowing up an image to cover a whole wall, you'd never notice the increase in quality, but if you did no other format could compare.
>>214437171my friend had a laser disc player in the late 90s. he only had like 3 or 4 movies. I think we watched goodfellas. At the time I was pretty impressed with the quality. He had one of the big screen sony t.v's. livin large
>>214440358picrel
>>214440425Kek, reminds me of my old CRT TV. Took a minimum of two guys to move the thing more than a couple of feet.
>>214437171>one copy of Whore, please.
Aren't there still a lot of deleted scenes and commentaries on LDs that were never duplicated anywhere else?
>>214440425Kino mid-late 90’s big screen. My friend had one and we crushed N64 and PS1 on it every weekend.
>>214437437100% industry driven nonsense for morons who can't into .mp3s
>>214437437Vinyl records actually last a long time, and can even be glued back together (to a degree). I have records my grandparents owned from the Great Depression, and they're still listenable, not even rare enough to be collectable. I have CDs that are less than 20 years old than skip and fuzz out into static, despite having superficial (at best scratches). CDs sucked, people who bitched about em in the 80s were correct. Tapes sucked worse tho, and you can't listen to vinyl in the car. The large format album art and lyrics sheet you can actually read are nice too. LPs are also a great way to smuggle LSD around the world.>>214439004>Even after just 2-3 listensI highly doubt this, unless you're deliberately using the shittiest needle you can and measuring frequencies the human ear can't detect.>>214438474Weren't they really expensive at the time? Only LD collector I knew was a rich friend of my Grandad's who had a projector too. Introduced me to Buster Keaton and Laurel and Hardy. But like >>214439151 points few people had tvs larger than 26" in the CRT era.
>>214441024Everyone used LP covers to sort the seeds and trash out of their shitty weed too.t. boomer
>>214437171objectively better quality than vhs / dvdsmall storage size, had to flip disc half way through a movieexpensive discsincredibly expensive players
>>214437171haha what a rascally segment producer
>>214439118>No, it was incredible. The problem was they were incredibly expensive comapred to vhs, and people couldn't record onto them at home. Plus, people still went to the movies constantly back then, so a high quality at home setup simply wasn't as desirable as it would be later.Basically this. I remember being amazed when laser disc players got down in price to $400-$500, (or maybe a bit more), in some major electronics catalog. Before that when I had looked, Laser Disc players had usually been at least $700, and $900-$1,200 had been common. Blockbuster also charged more for renting LaserDiscs, I think two or three dollars extra per rental, plus you had to actually deposit money with Nlovkbuster to get to rent the LaserDiscs, when other rentals just required having a credit card on file. The LaserDisc section was also right next to the cashier, to prevent theft. This would have been the early 1990s. The $3 rental fee at Blockbuster was equivalent to $6-$40 nowadays depending on the inflation calculator you use, but $15-$20 is probably a good estimate, so it was the equivalent of maybe $10-$30 just to rent a LaserDisc, plus a deposit fee, and actually buying a LaserDisc player was probably the equivalent of a few thousand dollars nowadays. I went to camp with some kid who raved about the sound and picture quality, but my parents had barely even purchased a VHS player for a few years at that point.
>>214437311You dont need to spend $1000 on the device to read manga
>>214439004>>214437643>>214441024Elcaset and DCC were both the peak of audio technologyElcaset made the quality of reel-to-reel portable, better quality than both tape and vinyl combinedDCC gave CD-quality audio on a fucking cassette tape You all hated both of them
>>214440425imagine the sound when it turns on
>>214440840>Aren't there still a lot of deleted scenes and commentaries on LDs that were never duplicated anywhere else?Allegedly there were, but at this point, audio and movie nerds have probably transferred a bunch of the content unofficially to other sources. The major video release companies likely haven’t bothered, because getting the rights to content made for a different video release format, probably involves lots of legal crap and rights tracking, that isn’t considered worth the effort. A bunch of older PBS documentary episodes from shows like Nova, got transferred to Archive, and before that, a bunch of the episodes had actually been considered “Lost” by PBS, so maybe some LaserDisc holder will do that, and the rights holders will just ignore it.
>>214441024Yes, LaserDiscs were expensive, and the players were even more expensive, with the price easily being four or five times the price of a quality VCR, and ten times the cost or mire of a basic VHS player that didn’t have a record function.Even the kid I knew whose dad owned an actual satellite dish, (not the small Dish type, the larger expensive “Miami Vice” type satellite dish), didn’t have a LaserDisc player.
>>214442486CDs also existed around the same time and showed you could make a disc smaller and cheaperI'd even go as far as saying Laserdisc manufacturers lobbied to delay the rollout of the DVD standard
>>214437311tranny epidemic
>>214440804Underrated Ken Russell joint
>>214442542>CDs also existed around the same time and showed you could make a disc smaller and cheaper>I'd even go as far as saying Laserdisc manufacturers lobbied to delay the rollout of the DVD standardLaserdisc players were way too expensive for the average consumer, and so were the actual LaserDiscs. The major advantage to production companies of the laserdiscs, if the discs were made similar to later CDs, is how cheaply the Laserdiscs could be made, or theoretically be made, compared to VHS tapes. The How It’s Made episode on CD production claimed 100,000 CDs could be printed per day on the production line.https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sAKxHYnI13cVHS tapes on the other hand were way more complicated, and involved by the actual tape body, involving 20 or more parts, including complex molded plastic parts, and metal screws, and springs, and the tape reels, which were premade with leader tape, before a large continuous reel of recoded tape was continuously recorded, before being chopped down, and individual film sections cut and fastened into the VHS cassette bodies. Smaller movie release companies used to have walls of VHS recorders, and would individually feed blank VHS tapes into the VCRs to record the individual movies they were selling. Even if LaserDisc producers had production lines that could only produce LaserDiscs at 1/10th the CD production rate, it would still likely have been far cheaper to produce the LaserDiscs than VHS tapes meaning profit margins could be higher on LaserDisc sales, even without the higher retail cost. The higher cost of the LaserDisc players meant there weren’t enough consumers to realize the potential of the extra profit margins.
>>214437171>Only $398Holy fuck that was cheap.>But le inflation!!!Not real.
>>214442323>You dont need to spend $1000 on the device to read mangaDon't look up how much each of those hardbacks costs.
>>214437643Wasn't Laserdisc better than VHS? I would assume there would be no wear and tear like a VHS. Aka the part where you see the actress' tits/bush isn't fucked up when you rent it.
>>214437171What a terrible format for shelf space and visibility of titles on said shelf space
>>214443270It's not different than vinyl, dude.
>>214443183There were CD-V discs at the time which were backward-compatible with Laserdisc players, but maxed out at 5 minutes of informationLaserdisc easily could have evolved into a "DLD" (Digital LaserDisc) format, and its larger size would have allowed higher storage capacity than even DVDs, possibly even allowing for earlier adoption of 1080i and 1080p high-definition video
>>214437437I've never seen a mid-wall pajeeta. They are usually young and fuckable or horrid ogres. I give this one maybe 6 more months.
>>214438128>music is digital>place it on physical medium, which diminishes the quality from the jump>it gets worse with each play>retards try to convince themselves this is better because it's old techI have to respect the people making bank of charging 30+ for vinyl. People's retardation should be used against them.
>>214443267I'd imagine warping of LDs would be an issue over time.
>>214437643>Vinyls sound better because they compress the music lesswut?!
>>214443450>I've never seen a mid-wall pajeeta.It's insane how drastic their aging is. I remember doing a paper in highschool about the shuttle program at the time and seeing Suinita Williams in the mid 2000s and thinking she was holding it together surprisingly well for a 40yo. Then I didn't think about her at all until the shitshow last year with the Starliner. It's shocking how she straight up transformed into the wicked witch of the west from this in the intervening 20 years.
>>214443525Higher density would fix warping issues. at the cost of added weight
>>214443552Maybe he means shit from soundcloud at 96 kb/s. Only a moron would try to argue vinyl is more accurate than digital. There is a case to be made that it might sound better since vinyl might in some cases filter less pleasant aspects of the music. That's up to the consumer. You could make the same case that FM radio makes some songs sound better than on a CD because the masters were mixed specifically for radio play.
>>214443267>Wasn't Laserdisc better than VHS? I would assume there would be no wear and tear like a VHS. Aka the part where you see the actress' tits/bush isn't fucked up when you rent it.LaserDisc had way better sound, and better way better picture than VHS. To appreciate the sound, you really needed a good multi speaker system, and there weren’t really “cheap” options for that at the time, like the later small systems that came out around the time the original iMac came out. You would probably have had yo spend the same amount for a quality speaker system during the peak LaserDisc era, as you would for the Laserdisc players, and then even more for a large enough, higher quality TV to appreciate the picture quality. The first flat plasma TVs from manufacturers like Pioneer came out in 1997 or 1998, and from what I recall, the high end audio visual place that sold the TVs, had a 40” or so widescreen TVs around 1999 when “The Matrix cane out on video, wanted around $10,000 for the standard definition version, and $20,000 for the “high definition” 1080 version, and I’m not sure whether the 1080 was interlaced or not. In the 1990s, there was still a local shop in the city I lived in, were custom audio installations would be planned and custom installed, and I think the guy charged $10,000 or more for custom audio rooms. His business disappeared in the 1990s when cheaper, easier to set up, off the shelf systems came out, and the place selling the $10,000-$20,000 Pioneer flat panel TVs disappeared when you could buy an even larger LCD TV in 1080p resolution at Walmart for $500 or less.
>>214437171There was a decade from the first laserdisc to the first dvd. I remember going to a Japanese friends house as a kid to watch laserdisc and that shit was magical in the early 90s.
>>214443619That is a thing tho. Why wouldn't you want to hear analog instruments through analog microphones on an analog format? It's like older video games. Yes, they are technically digital, but the hardware was built with analog video output in mind so they look much better on a CRT than LCD.
>>214443671About half of records after the 80s were mastered with a digital recording.
>>214443671All headphones and mics are analog unless they use a digital output and integrated ADC
>>214443671Analog instruments --> Analog microphone --> digital capture. That digital capture is the most accurate way of doing so. There is no way of arguing against this. Similarly, the digital copy of that is the most accurate capture of that signal. Whether or not it sounds the best to your taste is a different matter and not way proponents of vinyl argue. Like I said, sometimes remastering for digital isn't as palatable because music is often recorded/mixed to sound best through certain mediums. Like songs created for mono airplay often sound like shit on modern systems. But this is all subjective and has nothing to do with the quality of the medium itself. It's just pic related.
>>214443447>Laserdisc easily could have evolved into a "DLD" (Digital LaserDisc) format, and its larger size would have allowed higher storage capacity than even DVDs, possibly even allowing for earlier adoption of 1080i and 1080p high-definition videoMaybe. I suspect the size might have actually been the issue though. A regular Laserdisc was just under 12 inches in diameter. A CD is just under 5 inches in diameter with DVDs being the same. I think a LaserDisc has a surface area of around 109 square inches. A CD/DVD has a surface area of around 17 square inches. Even if the surface area of the Laserdisc is larger, and can therefore hold more information, the player for the discs would need to be able to spin more than 6 times the mass, if the discs were of equal thickness, which would require larger motors, and sturdier construction, and the discs might even need to be stronger, doubling this 6x mass, and the reading laser, would need to travel longer distances, and the balancing of the discs would need to have been better, or the damping of vibration in the players better. Basically, by using smaller discs, all the extra costs of the LaserDisc players were cut down, making DVD players, when introduced, half the cost of the cheapest LaserDisc player, and the internals of those DVD players, could be much smaller, to the point were a computer DVD drive could basically just be mounted in a larger outside box, that fit in a stereo set up of the time. The capacity issues of DVDs were initially fixed with double sided DVDs, and then later with dual layer DVDs.
>>214437171>400 fucking dollarsfuck you, i'll give you a hundy at the most
>>214437171Didn't some Laserdiscs have commentary tracks that didn't appear on the DVDs or, as that was a new thing, the people involved were too honest and said unsanctioned stuff that you can't find anywhere else now?
>>214437437Marketing departments
>>214437171I saw some LD penthouse/Playboy rips on archive.com they seemed ok. VHS was pretty good. Hard drives should have replaced it. DVDs scratch too easily. Video rental stores were too good to lose.The DVD of Blade Runner (Director's Cut) is perfect to me though. So worth it kind of.I hate 16:9. CRT TV's were small and probably bad for your eyes, caused headaches.A lot of work went into old tech. It was inadequate, but not intentionally so. Not made in the united states of asia.
>>214437437People use it as decoration.
>>214437171discs too fucking expensive and the DVD revolution followed too quickly
>>214443635LaserDisc was long dead by the late 90s. It was a high quality format in a time when high end TVs still pretty much looked like shit.
>>214445018It had a solid 16 year run before DVD
>>214444293>DVDs scratch too easilyDo you think the disc is HARDER to scratch when it's 10x bigger?
>>214443447>Laserdisc easily could have evolved into a "DLD" (Digital LaserDisc) format, and its larger size would have allowed higher storage capacity than even DVDIt couldn't or it would've. History is littered with the corpses of optical formats that worked in the lab but couldn't hack it as a mass production consumer format. See also 'massive increase in battery capacity just around the corner'
>>214445251I've never seen one my whole life outside of the shops.
>>214445613Probably because very few people could afford it until it was nearly obsolete. Think about how baller you had to be to buy those fuckoff huge AV disc players 4 years before working class people couldn't afford CD players.
>>214440937>.mp3lmao look at this earlet. .FLAC or gtfo
