- rockcity
- Jan 16, 2004
-
|
This long and no one has posted Laserdiscs?
Let's see where it went wrong...
- GIANT MEDIA - Though I guess you could re-purpose an old vinyl record holder. But they were still awkward to use, and a lot heavier than they look.
- EXPENSIVE - Since they didn't get adopted at a very fast rate like VHS or DVD, players and movies stayed up there in price.
- FRAGILE - A VHS tape could be tossed around, dropped even, and probably not suffer damage. Also, being pure analog, it had no error correction, so small scratches and dust that wouldn't be a problem on a DVD will cause errors on a Laserdisc.
- POOR SELECTION - Relatively few movies were released on Laserdisc.
- QUALITY - The disc is an analog video. It was better than VHS, but not by a lot, and DVD surpassed it.
- LOW AMOUNT OF SPACE - Each side had, at best, 60 minutes. So you'd have to flip the thing over halfway through a movie. Is the movie more than two hours? It would need a second disc.
It did have a few advantages going for it, but they were far outweighed by the negatives. I only ever knew one person who had one, a cousin of my mother's who had a "sweet entertainment set up" in his basement. The only movie I watched on Laserdisc there was Twister, and having to get up to flip the disc made me realize Laserdisc was dumb.
I do remember a few people saying they thought DVDs were going to fail when they first came out, because after-all, they're just like a small Laserdisc, and that failed.
They got a quick mention in the OP. I personally never met anyone who actually owned one of them. My school had a whole bunch of them, but I've never seen one outside of school use. How much did those things go for anyway, and what did a disc itself cost? I was about 8 when I remember them, so I wasn't that up to speed on price back then.
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2012 16:32
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2024 23:09
|
|
- rockcity
- Jan 16, 2004
-
|
Ever since, tennis gives me a raging headache.
I'm getting neck pain just looking at it. We owned one and I couldn't play that thing for more than like 15 minutes without getting the worst neck cramps, no matter how I adjusted the stand or how I was sitting/laying.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2012 19:54
|
|
- rockcity
- Jan 16, 2004
-
|
The cool thing about laserdisc is that, up until the dvd release that contained the original theatrical versions, the laserdisc versions of the original star wars trilogy were regarded as the best. I'm sure true star wars fans have some argument that it's still the best.
Original content: for me, it's film cameras. It wasn't that film didn't get good results. I really don't want to start a film vs. digital war here, but it wasn't until recently that digital cameras really matched the capability of a good 35mm camera, and digital is still miles away from matching medium format film. Of course the ease of use of digital is awesome, plus the fact that you don't have to use a scanner to get pictures onto a computer. But I like film and I still have a Canon EOS 500 and an Olympus OMG that I still regularly shoot film with. It has a lot of charm as a hobby, but I certainly wouldn't want to shoot everything that way.
To add to that, slide film. It was awkward and not practical for regular use, but I'll be damned if I haven't seen gorgeous photos done on it. I scuba dive and one of the members of my dive club recently brought in slides from the time he spent diving in the Red Sea about 15 years ago and the photos he took were gorgeous.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2012 20:14
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2012 16:32
