>> My response was simply stating a FACT that digitising LaserDiscs is unavoidably lossy >> as they are analog.
>Generational loss is something we can't control, compression loss is something we can >control.
>Generational loss has a minor impact on the video signal, compression loss has a major >impact on the video signal.
>Which of the two do you think we should worry the most about?
>We also can't control laser rot, but we can try to preserve as much of the signal as >possible & keep looking for discs in better shape and try to remaster it.
>> Nope, assuming you agree that the criticism (that I've never agreed with, but >> whatever) was that it needed to be exact (i.e. lossless) to be in MAME. >> Even this approach is actually still lossy.
>The previous dumps for MAME were done using loss less compression. The problem was they >were made with video capture cards, which don't capture all the data on the disc. This >has made it impossible to emulate some of the games.
from Aaron Giles' site
- In 2008 I extended the CHD format to support laserdiscs, in order to enable MAME to support the handful of laserdisc-based games that came out in the 1980s. During this process I investigated how laserdiscs worked and developed tools to extract the frame metadata that was encoded in the vertical blanking interval. -
It's too bad Aaron's older site isn't around (maybe retained on Archives?) that explained the procedure for capturing data from discs from his wip blog from 2009.
Someone that handles the MAME FAQ section could add material explaining how the laser disc data capture was done in 2009 and what is being done these days and why the current supported laser discs in MAME need to be redone again.
It should (hopefully?) resolve some of the confusion that new users might be wanting to ask.....in case any return later wanting to see what the fuss is about with possibly more laserdisc game support possibly taking place within coming months.