🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec24.132337.12978@waikato.ac.nz> ldo@waikato.ac.nz (Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Waikato University) writes:
>
>Any comments on subjective quality? Would you compare it to VHS? Broadcast?
>S-VHS?

Subjective video quality: 'better than VHS'.
I have seen more than 6 different samples now:
- James Bond (fair, artifacts in the cargo space of the Landrover)
- the Three Tenors (fair)
- Pink Floyd (good)
- NFL (bad, lot of artifacts)
- CD-I commercials (fair)
- some others I don't recal (fair)
(fair = slightly better than VHS; good is a lot better; bad is yeccchh)

Subjective audio quality: 'a lot better than VHS'.  It is somewhat better
than MiniDisc, about the same as DCC, slighty inferior to CD or DAT.

Quality depends completely on:
- quality of source material: Get first generation copies, it is worth the
  effort.
- carrier of source material: D1 is best, stay away from any composite video;
- specific encoder used: There will be a lot of competition out there. Some
  encoders will do some material better than others. Even when real-time
  encoders are available, the slow, software decoders might remain to be
  used since their quality can be more up-to-date.

Lex van Sonderen
Philips Interactive Media
Manager Knowledge Transfer
lex@aimla.com
CompuServe: 71552,2204