> Again my bad... cheap is not the right term... better said a only SD capable card. I > guess Aaron did use such a card (because HD was not common at that time and/or really > expensive) and i guess the capturings have broken fields.
Question (and this is for anyone who may be able to provide some insight, not specifically directed at uman):
What would be the advantage of a high-definition capture of laserdisc frames over capturing it at the standard definition it was originally stored at on the disc?
Here's my thinking behind this: if the goal is preservation, then we presumably want to capture in an as-close-to-original-as-possible format. In this case, that would mean at standard definition as determined by the broadcast standard the disc was manufactured for, so either 525 lines for NTSC or 625 lines for PAL and in a 4:3 aspect ratio.
I understand that advances in display technology mean that display standards will only continue to move to higher resolutions over time (note that it took less than a decade to go from 1080p to 4K, and 16:10 aspect ratio displays aren't uncommon) so having captures at a resolution capable of anticipating those improvements makes sense. But doing so moves away from using as-close-to-source-as-possible material.
This is something I'm genuinely curious about as I don't have any good answers to the question and can see advantages and disadvantages both ways.