Maximum PC ran an article about cleaning your keyboard in a dishwasher a few months ago, and I learned you could do that from an IT buddy years ago. That was a standard practice at the university he went to. Did this reporter just hear about this from a friend who read the Maximum PC article? Or read it themselves and steal it? My past career in mass media leads me to think so. Not to mention, some of wording echos the forementioned article.
After spending 10 years as a video engineer, I am confused by the blind trust that is given to comments such as ". . . non-anamorphic transfers from the laser discs. So basically, they look terrible." I do agree that the picture is not the apex of quality, but many movies have been tranfered from laserdisc to DVD without much loss of quality. Most people have probably never watched a laserdisc to have a accurate baseline for comparison. I have done side by side comparisons with releases that I own on both laserdisc and dvd, using a WFM700HD waveform monitor, and the only significant quality difference was in the chroma levels (color saturation). Running the laserdisc signal through a time base corrector and cranking up the chroma produced a picture that wsa the same quality as dvd when viewed on a average television set (27" 4:3 standard definition) and my HD set (30" 16:9 CRT 1080i). A difference was noticed when viewed on a 63" 16:9 screen, but I think the standard def video format had more to do with that than format factors. In short, I don't think people should be turned off by comments along the lines of, "non-anamorphic transfer from laserdisc." I am sure that the movies are of acceptable quality. If you don't think they are, get out your VHS versions and watch those for a comparison. Even though there are quality differences between dvd and laserdisc, they are minor when compared to VHS or a compressed cable signal.
Slashdot Mirror
Maximum PC ran an article about cleaning your keyboard in a dishwasher a few months ago, and I learned you could do that from an IT buddy years ago. That was a standard practice at the university he went to. Did this reporter just hear about this from a friend who read the Maximum PC article? Or read it themselves and steal it? My past career in mass media leads me to think so. Not to mention, some of wording echos the forementioned article.
After spending 10 years as a video engineer, I am confused by the blind trust that is given to comments such as ". . . non-anamorphic transfers from the laser discs. So basically, they look terrible." I do agree that the picture is not the apex of quality, but many movies have been tranfered from laserdisc to DVD without much loss of quality. Most people have probably never watched a laserdisc to have a accurate baseline for comparison. I have done side by side comparisons with releases that I own on both laserdisc and dvd, using a WFM700HD waveform monitor, and the only significant quality difference was in the chroma levels (color saturation). Running the laserdisc signal through a time base corrector and cranking up the chroma produced a picture that wsa the same quality as dvd when viewed on a average television set (27" 4:3 standard definition) and my HD set (30" 16:9 CRT 1080i). A difference was noticed when viewed on a 63" 16:9 screen, but I think the standard def video format had more to do with that than format factors. In short, I don't think people should be turned off by comments along the lines of, "non-anamorphic transfer from laserdisc." I am sure that the movies are of acceptable quality. If you don't think they are, get out your VHS versions and watch those for a comparison. Even though there are quality differences between dvd and laserdisc, they are minor when compared to VHS or a compressed cable signal.