Quote:
Originally Posted by Damnation
I don't know, just reminded of the silly argument I've heard before that analog formats like VHS and LaserDisc are "purer" or closer to film because film stock is also an analog medium. That might work for audio but it's laughable for video. Like eating racid dog food and believing it's your mother's home made recipe because both are labeled as "beef stew".
And I don't get what DVD being around for twenty years has anything to do with anything. It's not like both VHS and LD weren't around for decades.
|
I disagree. I'm not going to argue much for VHS (though I could argue for S-VHS) since it's resolution limits and noise detract from the advantages of analog.
At non-HD resolution (if you can find a good analog HD source to drag this in to the 21st century I'd like to see it) LD is usually better than DVD in terms of motion capture quality...One of the compression algorithms of DVD is to take only one frame of background then record only a certain threshold of motion as motion differences to apply to the initial frame...The compression algorithm fundamentally makes coarse motion look less natural, and discards fine motion. Compressed digital video makes live action look more cartoonish than real, add mosquito noise that compression creates, and compression artifacts (we've all seen a digital video device inject some random rectangles in our picture before) and you can really see the difference.
Uncompressed digital can be as good as analog, but that is a rare bird.