> Mmmmh ok, that reads well... > Just like some advertising catalogue from microsoft: 4k, enhanced, amazing etc.
These are engineering and industry terms. Not marketing terms. If you want me to explain any of the points I described please ask.
> If i read all this, it sounds like capturing is a catastrophe.
My argument is that it is not a proper method for data preservation of a specific video medium. It is a proper method for analog-to-digital video conversion. Those two goals are different.
> Mind you, it was one > of the four points plan you mentioned.
Yes, and one that I don't endorse. My hope was to get some kind of idea on what people want.
> All the stuff you bring in, doesnt change the > fact, that you marginal will see any difference (i doubt if any).
That's not the issue here. There is no perceptible difference between high quality AAC and FLAC but I'll only use FLAC or another lossless conversion method for archiving and preservation.
> Maybe you come to > that thought, seeing all the captures that are done already, with hacked, ancient > equipment more than a decade ago and in a wrong way. > Nuances in timing? possibly, but not visible to a human eye or hearable.
Two things: do you even know what timing is? and regardless human perception is not the issue here.
> Regarding > all the other stuff, we can philosophize.
I don't philosophize. This is engineering.
> If i see how the captures where made in the > past and especially how wrong the VBI data was treated, i would also say, how amazing > it would be, to do conversion instead. You self wrote "is theoretically perfect", but > practically it will make near zero difference, but i admit you have advertized it > perfectly. The MAME LDverify tool is/was only good to see, how the different > LDP-systems treat VBI data, but practically its unprofessional, in that way that no > normal person can send you proper capturings, for all the reasons i wrote already. > Especially treating VBI-data (which is the most important stuff) like > picture-content. > > I am not writing all of this to debate with you, that conversion is the best, because > i agree with you in that point. My concern is, the effort you need for that > conversion method vs. proper capturing vs. the outcoming result.
Sampling a video signal is a solved problem and won't require anymore effort from someone who knows what she is doing anymore than capturing video is for someone who knows what she is doing. The only efficiency argument here is cost.
> You may have > preserved the LD better, until somebody come along and say "no, 40-bit conversion is > the real thing". Which in theory would be true, but visibly its nothing. I hope you > realize this at least.
And I can explain to that moron about SNR, SQNR, and why there is a finite limit of bits that you can quantize at, after which you will no longer gain any more information. 10-bit is sufficient for LD composite out because the video SNR is around 50 dB.
> Regarding the arcade part of the LD stuff, i ask you if you > have ever seen the footage? i guess not. There are so many threads where people say > the same. Have you seen "Quarter Horse" for example? Thats crappy VHS footage on a LD > medium and many games are done the same way. So you can come with proper antialiasing > filtering that change picture, no distorted phase information and what not, it will > still look like shit, even with the best conversion process.
Again you fundamentally don't understand the issue of contention here. The issue is we want to preserve information stored on a Laserdisc. That means we preserve ALL the information. Not just the picture and VBI.