I have noted a few threads in the past where members were very disappointed with the results.
I have recently rekindled my interest in laserdisc as I am a fan of the widely available, cheap titles and still appreciate the picture quality. In my opinion, the slight increase in resolution provided by DVD doesn't entirely make up for that certain something, that warmth if you will, that good analog video can provide. And of course, there is something romantic about that 12" disc.
That's not to say that I am a champion of analog sources... I will take Blu-Ray over Laserdisc any day of the week. However, after the excitement over digital video that relegated so many Laserdisc players and disc to pawn shops has cooled, I look at the merits of Laserdisc again and feel that it still deserves a spot in my home theater.
So, I have again made room in my entertainment room for a Onkyo DX-V801 and, after a few frustrations and a little calibration, I am actually happy with the results. The quality of the comb filter in my TX-SR605 was clearly garbage, but the comb filter in my Samsung PN63A760 is significantly better and, although I doubt the quality would excite the X0 crowd, I feel quite comfortable watching discs on this display.
I post this here in the hopes that a few other member may drag their players out of the closets, basements, or garages as it appears that some newer digital displays finally do justice to our older analog sources. Keep in mind of course that these were taken off screen with a digital camer but, without further ado, here are a few screenshots from Fantasia on my PN63A760.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=156709&stc=1&d=1257025574
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=156710&stc=1&d=1257025574
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=156711&stc=1&d=1257025574
Please feel free to share your results!

You should check out Josh Z's site as he directly address the issue of LaserDisc on digital displays.

You may be able to find satisfaction, but it is going to cost, big time (you'll need the upper tier of LD player and VP).

You didn't mention what player and VP you're using.


Jeff

You should check out Josh Z's site as he directly address the issue of LaserDisc on digital displays.

You may be able to find satisfaction, but it is going to cost, big time (you'll need the upper tier of LD player and VP).

You didn't mention what player and VP you're using.


Jeff

I've noted some helpful information from him on the topic.
I am using an Onkyo DX-V801 laserdisc player and no outboard video processing unit. I've always done video processing on the receiver side, but since I, like many, was in haste to do away with my analog sources in this digital world, about 2 years ago I replaced my older Sony ES-series receiver that had excellent analog video processing with a HDMI-capable Onkyo TX-SR605 that, unbenownst to me at the time, simply does not. As such, I'm connecting the composite out directly to my Samsung PN63A760 plasma.
I am actually pretty pleased with the results demonstrated above considering the lack of any additional expenditures.
I actually created this thread less as a reason to complain about the quality and more as an opportunity for others, who were still enjoying their laserdisc on modern displays, to share their results. :)

I am a plasma fan and I tried Philips. Vizio, another brand from Sams Club and Pioneer and Pioneer was the only brand where the picture looked good and shaded areas stayed their natural color and did not have a green tint. If you want to keep old sources like Laserdisc I'd recommend finding a Pioneer before they are all gone.

I am a plasma fan and I tried Philips. Vizio, another brand from Sams Club and Pioneer and Pioneer was the only brand where the picture looked good and shaded areas stayed their natural color and did not have a green tint. If you want to keep old sources like Laserdisc I'd recommend finding a Pioneer before they are all gone.

If I remember right, you used to also have a 530HD Pioneer CRT. Which do you think has the better image with laserdisc, the older CRT 530 or the Pioneer Plasma?

Yes I do still have the 530HD. I have a Philips CDV-488 directly on the 111FD and a CLD-97 with Faroudja NRS scaler at 540p on the 530HD. I'm happy with both. Most flat panels tend to wash out facial detail for example, just no details. Both the 111 and 530 keep the detail like analog TV's had. Both have the digitized look but have the best laserdisc picture on a digital TV I've seen.

Run a composite signal from a 51db player (Pioneer 79/99 or 97 or better) to a
Silicon Optix or Marvell enabled processor and you will be quite pleased.

Outboard processors can work magic even with LD sources. Not BD quality for sure but certainly not bad either.

its been discussed many times before that composite over s-video does not provide a pure signal path on 97/99/79. These players seperates y/c for digital noise reduction and time base correction then recombine for composite output therefore the damage has already happened in these players inferior comb filters, there is no need to combine y/c and re-seperate again. I would suggest S-video out with digital video noise reduction switched off to a marvel qdeo or hqv realta based line-doubler, scaler, noise reduction then hdmi to a pioneer plasma.

its been discussed many times before that composite over s-video does not provide a pure signal path on 97/99/79. These players seperates y/c for digital noise reduction and time base correction then recombine for composite output therefore the damage has already happened in these players inferior comb filters, there is no need to combine y/c and re-seperate again. I would suggest S-video out with digital video noise reduction switched off to a marvel qdeo or hqv realta based line-doubler, scaler, noise reduction then hdmi to a pioneer plasma.

Uderman:

So reading this correctly you recomend that users with a CLD-79,99 or 97 use S-Video and NOT composite for the best picture with a digital set?

(Side note - anyone on the formum have an owners manual lying around for the 79. I can't remember how to adjust a setting on mine).

its been discussed many times before that composite over s-video does not provide a pure signal path on 97/99/79. These players seperates y/c for digital noise reduction and time base correction then recombine for composite output therefore the damage has already happened in these players inferior comb filters, there is no need to combine y/c and re-seperate again. I would suggest S-video out with digital video noise reduction switched off to a marvel qdeo or hqv realta based line-doubler, scaler, noise reduction then hdmi to a pioneer plasma.

True for the 79, 99 and many others but the 97 actually has composite and Y/C digital signals out of the processing chips and the composite has it's own D/A. The 97 is not a crude combination of the Y and C analog signals.

If anyone out there still cares, I'm planning on posting some more, hopefully better, examples from a few other discs. However, I was hoping to wait until my Epson HC8500UB arrives first. As soon as it does, I'll post some result on a modern digital projector to compare/contrast with the plasma results.

A fun video for LD fans:

http://gizmodo.com/5406696/one-day-someone-will-post-the-blu+ray-version-of-this-video

I love the tiny TV they're watching on. :)

Now that link was fun.....

Laserdisc had a great run... I'd say it was accurate that is was the future for movie buffs when that segment was made. :)

I still use them quite often on my 1080p projector. It actually ended up being the main deciding factor for which projector I chose.

Svideo, no video processor... CLD99 player.

One thing i can tell you guys, the Laserdisc picture (with Pioneer HLD X9) it's fantastic in Pioneer KRP-500A/600A Plasma.
The Pioneer Plasma Last Generation has Very High Quality Detail in both SD and HD picture.

Pioneer never let's us down... ;)

Experimenting with the snapshots provided, it seems that there are no details beyond 512x384 pixels [found by resizing/upsizing in Irfanview with lanczos]. Even when downsized to 384x288 and then upsized the pics looks almost identical to the original. It makes LD picture closer to VCD than DVD.

Experimenting with the snapshots provided, it seems that there are no details beyond 512x384 pixels [found by resizing/upsizing in Irfanview with lanczos]. Even when downsized to 384x288 and then upsized the pics looks almost identical to the original. It makes LD picture closer to VCD than DVD.

Anyone who has actually had experience with the three formats will tell you that LD looks nothing like VCD.

The downscaling->upscaling method of picture analysis is dubious at best.

In fact, the snapshots in this thread were literally that, snapshots from a digital camera pointed at a screen. They are not "screen caps" ripped direct from a DVD. (Laserdisc has no digital video data to rip anyway.)

Laserdisc video is analog, and cannot be directly measured in terms of pixels. A laserdisc has 425 lines of horizontal resolution. This compares to the 480 lines on DVD. VCD is more like 240.

Anyone who has actually had experience with the three formats will tell you that LD looks nothing like VCD.

The downscaling->upscaling method of picture analysis is dubious at best.

In fact, the snapshots in this thread were literally that, snapshots from a digital camera pointed at a screen. They are not "screen caps" ripped direct from a DVD. (Laserdisc has no digital video data to rip anyway.)

Laserdisc video is analog, and cannot be directly measured in terms of pixels. A laserdisc has 425 lines of horizontal resolution. This compares to the 480 lines on DVD. VCD is more like 240.

Exactly.
The shots above are displayed on a plasma, captured with a digital camera, the cropped, scaled, and compressed in photoshop. There potential for some loss of detail at each step. Additionally, the inherent resolution of the source may be lower- especially considering that the original source material is from 1940.
The only way to "capture" a laserdisc screen shot directly to PC would be to connect the player directly to a video capture device (mostly designed to import video from VCRs and HI8 camcorders) and then selecting a single frame for capture.
Unfortunately, since laserdisc is an interlaced format, doing so results in a half-resolution capture that shows even less resolution that the screen shots above.
Although laserdisc has no specific resolution, if we force a digital/analog comparison, then laserdisc would produce the equivalent of about 80% of DVDs resolution.

Although laserdisc has no specific resolution, if we force a digital/analog comparison, then laserdisc would produce the equivalent of about 80% of DVDs resolution.

I would doubt that: LD is an interlaced analog format with nominal 425 lines. It is definitely not equivalent of good progressive 425 lines of the DVD (Krell factor anyone?). It may be though equivalent to 80% of early crappy inter-laced DVDs.

N.B. Some VCDs are not totally bad:) I have a small collection which I compare to other formats for fun.

I would doubt that: LD is an interlaced analog format with nominal 425 lines. It is definitely not equivalent of good progressive 425 lines of the DVD (Krell factor anyone?). It may be though equivalent to 80% of early crappy inter-laced DVDs.

DVD is a 480i interlaced format. Any progressive scan image gotten from a DVD comes from deinterlacing the video after MPEG decoding.

Experimenting with the snapshots provided, it seems that there are no details beyond 512x384 pixels [found by resizing/upsizing in Irfanview with lanczos]. Even when downsized to 384x288 and then upsized the pics looks almost identical to the original. It makes LD picture closer to VCD than DVD.

I would doubt that: LD is an interlaced analog format with nominal 425 lines. It is definitely not equivalent of good progressive 425 lines of the DVD (Krell factor anyone?). It may be though equivalent to 80% of early crappy inter-laced DVDs.

N.B. Some VCDs are not totally bad:) I have a small collection which I compare to other formats for fun.

@Jurid/Jurid001: How many of you are there, anyway? :D

A fun video for LD fans:

http://gizmodo.com/5406696/one-day-someone-will-post-the-blu+ray-version-of-this-video

I love the tiny TV they're watching on. :)LOL @ Ron Hendren's afro; what the heck ever happened to him? Mary Hart is still on ET to this very day. That was back before the show went totally "gossipy" and did more behind-the-scenes features.

DVD is a 480i interlaced format. Any progressive scan image gotten from a DVD comes from deinterlacing the video after MPEG decoding.

That's interesting:) 480i/60 refers to how frames are stored, not to how the DVD was mastered. 95%+ DVDs are of progressive source, i.e., 480p/24 originally [probably more like 100% of recent DVDs]. the original 480p/24 frames are split, and some frames are repeated, that's all. that means that any minimally intelligent player or TV can properly reassemble it and show as a progressive source. Same as HD-DVD, btw. It does not make HD-DVD 1080i :)

That's interesting:) 480i/60 refers to how frames are stored, not to how the DVD was mastered. 95%+ DVDs are of progressive source, i.e., 480p/24 originally [probably more like 100% of recent DVDs]. the original 480p/24 frames are split, and some frames are repeated, that's all. that means that any minimally intelligent player or TV can properly reassemble it and show as a progressive source. Same as HD-DVD, btw. It does not make HD-DVD 1080i :)

That is not correct. I work in one of the largest mastering facilities. The source for SD DVD is 480i/60 or good old NTSC timing paramaters except in component video form. There is no SMPTE standard for 480P/24. In the late 1990s before HDTV took over SD home video masters were often made at 625/48i for seamless worldwide compatability thus saving the time needed for two transfers from the film, one for NTSC and one for PAL. Not to mention saving on additional transfers for P&S and wide screen. But the DVD encoders still took in 480i/60 or 576i/50. The digital formats of the day, D1 and Digital Betacam, could run at 48i.

BluRay is mastered at 1080P/24 if film origionated or 1080i/60 if video origionated. Exception is some video production work at 24P. The SD DVD is just another encode from the HD master.

I would doubt that: LD is an interlaced analog format with nominal 425 lines. It is definitely not equivalent of good progressive 425 lines of the DVD (Krell factor anyone?). It may be though equivalent to 80% of early crappy inter-laced DVDs.

N.B. Some VCDs are not totally bad:) I have a small collection which I compare to other formats for fun.

Let's go a little deeper here. If a DVD was made from a COMPONENT video re-transfer of a film, then yes, the DVD is clearly superior to the Laserdisk.

However there exists many video origionated events like concerts that were recorded on NTSC 1 inch tape - perhaps even 2in quad video tape if before 1980. These are forever locked into an NTSC footprint. In this case a Laserdisk is the superior format. In order to make a DVD, the origional tape must be decoded to component video then go through the MPEG compression process. This is far more degrading then keeping the material archived in NTSC. Since the world has largly gone component video on the production side and with ATSC now the standard, engineering developement on good NTSC decoders is no more. The decoder chip sets in consumer gear is at a developement level today of what was broadcast grade equipment in the 1990s. IOW, running an NTSC sourced laser disk through a good scaler will trounce a DVD of the same program anytime. There is a noise penalty with Laserdisk but as it's a direct NTSC recording process, just as in Quad or 1inch tape, it's as close to the origional master you can get. Sure DVDs from NTSC sources are always quieter but also gone is the fine low level detatil which the MPEG process throws away when faced with a lower S/N. 1 inch tape could only do 54db on a perfect day. Laserdisk is about 48db S/N.

That is not correct. I work in one of the largest mastering facilities. The source for SD DVD is 480i/60 or good old NTSC timing paramaters except in component video form. There is no SMPTE standard for 480P/24.

This should help clarify the issue of progressive DVDs:
"There's enormous confusion about whether DVD video is progressive or interlaced. Here's the one true answer: Progressive-source video (such as from film) is usually encoded on DVD as interlaced field pairs that can be reinterleaved by a progressive player to recreate the original progressive video." (from Taylor, http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#1.40 )

And here are some more details:
http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#3.8 (Taylor)
and
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/dvd-benchmark-part-5-progressive-10-2000.html (Munsil)

Thus, DVD from a progressive source is only presented as 480i/60, and the original 480p/24 can be reconstructed from it. So 480i/60 is just a container format for 480p/24.

Here is a good quote that should help clarify the issue:
"There's enormous confusion about whether DVD video is progressive or interlaced. Here's the one true answer: Progressive-source video (such as from film) is usually encoded on DVD as interlaced field pairs that can be reinterleaved by a progressive player to recreate the original progressive video." (from http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#1.40 )

And here are some more details:
http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#3.8
and
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_7_4/dvd-benchmark-part-5-progressive-10-2000.html

So the issue is that DVD from a progressive source is only presented as 480i/60, but that the original 480p/24 can be reconstructed from it. So 480i/60 is just a storage format for 480p/24.

Well any film transfer using 3/2 pulldown can be reversed back to a progressive image - even if on VHS tape. But the data on SD DVD is still stored in a field based format. The 3/2 process is not unique to DVD. It's been in use since the late 1970s for film to tape transfers.

FWEIW, even today's progressive broadcast HD VTRS still break up the progressive image into fields to record on tape. But as with 3/2 breaking a progressive image into fields is not the same as true interlaced capture from a interlaced video camera.

Well any film transfer using 3/2 pulldown can be reversed back to a progressive image - even if on VHS tape. But the data on SD DVD is still stored in a field based format. The 3/2 process is not unique to DVD. It's been in use since the late 1970s for film to tape transfers.


I am not sure what your argument here is. Please reread my post. Munsil explains a bit on interlaced and progressive sources and how it impacts deinterlacing. A useful read. You are not telling us that a VHS or LD player can reconstruct an analytically exact progressive image corresponding to two interlaced frames, are you [you know those motion vectors could be hard to predict?]? With DVD it is quite different, a DVD player can do it because the DVD standard is designed to accomplish that. The progressive DVDs are analytically equivalent to their progressive source even though they use a 480i/60 container. To indicate progressive source DVD uses progressive_frame flag. Quoting Taylor again: "There's enormous confusion about whether DVD video is progressive or interlaced. Here's the one true answer: Progressive-source video (such as from film) is usually encoded on DVD as interlaced field pairs that can be reinterleaved by a progressive player to recreate the original progressive video."

I You are not telling us that a VHS or LD player can reconstruct an analytically exact progressive image corresponding to two interlaced frames, are you [you know those motion vectors could be hard to predict?]? With DVD it is quite different, a DVD player can do it because the DVD standard is designed to accomplish that. The progressive DVDs are analytically equivalent to their progressive source even though they use a 480i/60 container. To indicate progressive source DVD uses progressive_frame flag. Quoting Taylor again: "There's enormous confusion about whether DVD video is progressive or interlaced. Here's the one true answer: Progressive-source video (such as from film) is usually encoded on DVD as interlaced field pairs that can be reinterleaved by a progressive player to recreate the original progressive video."

Yes I am saying just that but let me explain further as you are correct in that no VHS player has a progressive component output.

An external scaler such as a DVDO or Lumagen can reverse 3/2 pulldown form any source, be it broadcast, VHS, or Laserdisk. Even some higher end Plasmas and LCDs can also do this. Yes a DVD does it much better as it uses a flag as you pointed out. But a scaler can do it by analyzing the two frames and detecting any differences. Once the cadance is detected it's simple counting to maintain it. Now of course a bad 3/2 edit and the scaler must start over. ANd it's a bit more complicated as not to be too picky but yet still resolve the progressive image. It's got nothing to do with motion vectors.

What I am saying about film transfers is that there is nothing special done for DVDs. All film to 30frame (60i) transfers use 3/2 pulldown and always had. The DVD format just encodes the cadence count so there is no video analysis needed to reconstruct a progressive image.

Again I work in the business and know very well how it works.

What I am saying about film transfers is that there is nothing special done for DVDs.

Let me try once more. Are you saying that VHS transfers can be reconstructed as progressive source just as progressively sourced DVDs? I.e. without any motion-adaptive and motion-compensation algorithms [even that would be only an approximation of progressive frame]?

To display a perfect progressive image from a film-sourced DVD, the deinterlacer just combines fields 1 and 2 to make one progressive image, outputs that for 3 progressive frames, then combines fields 4 and 5 to make another progressive image, and outputs that for two frames. Then it repeats the process with the next 5 fields. It's a simple procedure with no information loss.

If the DVD is not film-sourced, then there is no way to get a perfect progressive frame. One can only approximate it, then you need to worry about motion vectors to get anything decent. VHS has the same problem as non-progressive DVD.

N.B. I trust by now we have established that a film-sourced DVD is equivalent [meaning a one to one correspondence] to a 480p/24 stream. Or, in other words, a progressive DVD is 480p/24 stored in 480i/60 container. (In line with Taylor)

VHS has the same problem as non-progressive DVD.



No it does not. Like I said above 3/2 pulldown has been in use for film transfers since at least the late 1970s. The video signal spread across the fields and frames is exactly the same as modern SD DVDs (barring lower bandwidth for VHS). The only difference with DVD is that they provide a flag to set the cadence whereas a VHS or Laserdisk through a scaler must find it by analyzing fields - an error prone process but still workable.

The point is the LaserDisk or VHS is also from a film source just as the SD DVD in the case of a movie transfer. The SD master to which DVD and at one time VHS and Laserdisks were made is the same.

DE-interlacing only becomes problematic where there is motion between the fields. A proper 3/2 film transfer does not allow this. Therefore a scaler can put the progressive frames back together once the cadence is found. If a VHS tape was made from a 3/2 film transfer, then it has the same foot print as the DVD and can be made back into a progressive frame.

Consider this: If I take a non progressive DVD player and feed the component output into a scaler like a DVDO or Lumagen can I get a progressive image as good as the progressive DVD player? The answer is yes! The only drawback is the progressive DVD player can use the cadence flag to ensure proper 3/2 reversal which the scaler option must analyze the video to set the cadence. Now let's take this one step further. What If I feed the scaler Svideo or Composite video from the non progressive DVD player. Will I still be able to make progressive frames? Yes! because again the frame and field foot print is not altered by NTSC encoding. Now the resolution will be less but a progressive frame can still be assembled just as with using the component output. This is why a Laserdisk or VHS can still make a progressive upscaled image from a proper 3/2 480i source.

Note that some videophiles were enjoying progressive viewing in the late 1980s from Laserdisk AND even VHS/Betamax. The used early consumer scalers like a Faroudja and fed it to an industrial grade CRT projector that could run 480P or even higher.

Many of us ecentric videophiles basically use a similar process today. We have DVD players that are modified to get a digital signal output right after the MPEG decoder. This is called SDI and is a public standard for broadcast eqiuipment. But it is still a 480i signal. We then feed this to our scaler (that has an SDI input option) which detects the 3/2 by frame/field analysis and gives us our progressive image. The goal here is an all digital path versus feeding a scaler a component analog feed or even using a progressive DVD player feeding a scaler/TV 480P.

The only difference with DVD is that they provide a flag to set the cadence whereas a VHS or Laserdisk through a scaler must find it by analyzing fields - an error prone process but still workable.


I think we cleared all the points now. Essentially, two interlaced frames from a film-sourced VHS can be reconstructed as a progressive frame by a good external deinterlacer. There will be a degradation due to analogue nature of the signal, but in theory, yes, this can be done.

i bought star trek the next generation season 1 on dvd. its full screen and the pq is equal to average to good transfered ld. if any of you have any star trek tng lds could you please tell me how they compare to the dvd version? if they are above average lds they must be real close to dvd editions. i did a little research they were shot in 35mm in full screen and stereo for audio. i like the ld cover arts and if the pq is similar to dvds i will collect the ld versions. i also prefer the uncompressed original stereo audio vs lossy dd5.1 on dvds

The issue of 3:2 flags embedded in MPEG-2 DVD is purely academic as **NO** DVDs ever produced have proper 3:2 flags ALL of the time. Feel free to provide a proper rebuttal and I'll be more than willing to concede.

External DI hardware (including embedded **competent** DI HW in the player) will get this right more often than not).



Jeff

The issue of 3:2 flags embedded in MPEG-2 DVD is purely academic as **NO** DVDs ever produced have proper 3:2 flags ALL of the time. Feel free to provide a proper rebuttal and I'll be more than willing to concede.

External DI hardware (including embedded **competent** DI HW in the player) will get this right more often than not).

Jeff
Quite true!

And that flag must be set via timecode or by human intervention. Translation: It may not be accurate.

Quite true!

And that flag must be set via timecode or by human intervention. Translation: It may not be accurate.

In this regard I wonder how softwares like DVD2AVI do that. They seem to be very accurate in reconstructing original progressive frames.

I was wondering if I have my laserdisc player optimally set up with a digital display. I have a HLD-X9 hooked up to a Sony 32" LCD XBR2 720P display via the S-Video output. I took two captures from the S-Video input via a canopus ADVC -110. Note the aspect ratio may be a bit off since it captures in DV format (720x480). I took two pictures, one of a close up shot of a person which obviously looks better under scrutiny and a far away shot in which there is less resolution to deal with details in the faces of the people. Would I benefit by hooking up a processor/scalar/line-doubler in between the laserdisc player and the display or should I leave well enough alone since I have a small display anyway? I have all the noise reduction settings set to the middle values. Thanks in advance for your advice. It's always interesting to read threads abt. laserdiscs!

I have all the noise reduction settings set to the middle values.

What I will say right off the bat is that you probably want to reduce your NR settings. Specifically, YNR should be kept very low. That setting introduces a lot of smeariness and color banding. You'll have more flexibility with CNR, but I would never put it above the mid-point.

Laserdisc don't look good in Sony LCD's...that's a fact.
To enjoy Laserdiscs the best way is a Pioneer Plasma or a CRT Projector at the momment.
Of course there are the new Barco DLP's but those are ultra expensive...

What I will say right off the bat is that you probably want to reduce your NR settings. Specifically, YNR should be kept very low. That setting introduces a lot of smeariness and color banding. You'll have more flexibility with CNR, but I would never put it above the mid-point.

That is easy enough to try. Thanks...

Laserdisc don't look good in Sony LCD's...that's a fact.
To enjoy Laserdiscs the best way is a Pioneer Plasma or a CRT Projector at the momment.
Of course there are the new Barco DLP's but those are ultra expensive...

I'd like to try to keep the Sony because 32" is all I can fit in my bedroom. Is there something about Sony LCD's that make them worse than other brands of LCD (ie. the electronics inside) or is LCD in general just not the way to go with a laserdisc player? I read one particular comment in these forums that a person added a entech CVSI-1 between the HLD-X9 and my exact LCD display and it made a world of difference. Is this because the comb filter on the Sony display is poor? That device is probably hard to find these days but I am still curious.

That is easy enough to try. Thanks...

A good test case for DNR is the opening to Star Wars. If DNR is too high, the stars in the background of the scene disappear, and color banding intrudes on the planet below. Also keep an eye on the pointy things around the mouth area of Vader's mask. They'll leave smearing trails as he walks.

A good test case for DNR is the opening to Star Wars. If DNR is too high, the stars in the background of the scene disappear, and color banding intrudes on the planet below. Also keep an eye on the pointy things around the mouth area of Vader's mask. They'll leave smearing trails as he walks.

Does it matter if I use the CLV version or is the CAV version the way to go? I am assuming there may be less artifacts in the CAV version of movies.

Since the electronics in my Sony XBR2 LCD are not considered good for laserdisc playing, I would be interested to know if I pick up one of the older video processors on the cheap (maybe a DVDO iscan HD or HD+) would that make a noticable difference? Or is my 32" LCD just too small and I would need a projector to notice any improvements the processor would make? Thanks in advance...

....Is there something about Sony LCD's that make them worse than other brands of LCD (ie. the electronics inside) or is LCD in general just not the way to go with a laserdisc player....

It's the electronics, not the LCD. Sony never did have very good processing in their sets. With BluRay and HDTV being the new norms, they feel even less compelled to put good upscaling and de-interlacing processing in their TVs. Same goes for most of the other competing brands. Probably any decent quality external VP will give noticeably better results than what you are getting right now.

Does it matter if I use the CLV version or is the CAV version the way to go? I am assuming there may be less artifacts in the CAV version of movies.

For the DNR example I gave above, it really doesn't matter. The NR controls will affect the picture in the same way regardless of CAV vs. CLV.