In article <1992Nov19.181328.20755@cs.ucla.edu> reiher@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher) writes:
>>Finally, the picture
>> quality on a laserdisc is far better then anything that you willl see in a movie theatre. Take it from me, I have done my homework and laserdisc quality surpasses anything I've ever seen.
>
>Then they must have piss-poor theaters in your area. None of the laserdisk
>and big screen TV's I've seen demoed can compare with the picture quality of
>a half-decent theater. And a lot of theaters around here are considerably
>better than half-decent. The picture quality of the best theaters in LA
>make the best laserdisk player shown on the best TV look pitiful. As far as
>surround sound goes, I regard it as tertiary in importance, not even secondary.
>In addition to which, the best theaters in Los Angeles *do* have genuine
>surround sound.
The fact _is_ that a laserdisc image scans 425 lines of resolution on a television screen (vcr is 250 for comparison) and a film at the theater is being projected from a small piece of film and being blown up to an enormous size creating a grainy picture at best. Sure, I prefer a huge screen to a 40 inch television screen but I also prefer a sharper image. An interesting fact about the sound at theaters is that the sound is recorded on the edge of the film and to read it they shine a light through this.
Whatever light makes it through is transformed into sound. Compare this to the digital quality sound from a laserdisc and you get a low fidelity sound system.
