#LQ-4000 vs PAR
17 messages in this thread
Anyone,
Which would be better? A laser disc recorder (Panasonic LQ-4000) or a PAR.
I'm trying to get all the advantages and disadvantages to each one (besides
price).
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks,
Mike C.
<< (Panasonic LQ-4000) or a PAR >>
Hi Mike, I missed you last week. I don't have a laser video recorder, but they
purportedly are pretty quick with minimal wear and tear. Am I right that you
have a Targa+ for output? A framebuffer is of course neccesary and deck
control. I can demo the PAR for you if you have questions about quality or
functionality. If you have a Targa, then you have frame capture. If not then
the TBC option for the PAR gives you added functionality. Good luck
Paul Lempke -Rising Star Graphics
This is not a good comparison. Like comparing a Like comparing a Ford Mustang
with an offshore sport fisherman as a mode of transportation.
If considering a Laser Disk recorder you should compare it with an Abekas DDR,
not the PAR.
Michael,
I can say the PAR is quick, convenient, has some basic cuts-only editing
capabilities, and is CHEAP. Add Razor Pro and you have some very good editing
capabilities. The quality is adequate for corporate/industrial video, and even
broadcast at a pinch (depending how brave you are). It will also improve with
the next generation of Micropolis IDE video-quality hardrives.
I'm not familiar with the Panasonic LQ4000, but I'll assume it's similar to the
Sony LVR series. It should also be quick, not-so convenient, has no built in
editing, and is very expensive. If you screw up a sequence you'll have to do it
all again (and again) until you get a clean sequence to lay off in realtime.
You'll also need a Vista or Illuminator Pro framebuffer to get good quality
output with it. The quality would probably be noticably better with one of the
aforementioned framebuffers.
You said to ignore the money part of it, but it's hard to when they are worlds
apart. I'd guess the second solution would be 4 times more money than the PAR
solution.
I'd recommend the PAR. If you clients depend better quality use the PAR for
previews and for final output get an Exabyte tape backup to send your images to
an Abekas-D1, D2, BetaSP etc.
Martin
Hi Martin,
>> …the next generation of Micropolis IDE video-quality hardrives. <<
I'm buying a PAR soon. Any idea when the new drives will be out?
TIA,
Paul S.
Paul,
>> I'm buying a PAR soon. Any idea when the new drives will be out? <<
not a clue. Greg Pyros might know. He seems to have his finger on the pulse of
PAR related factoids 🙂
Another consideration in the LASER DISK vs PAR equation is backup cabability.
With LASER DISK your images are safe. With the PAR, if it crashes you may be
out hundreds of hours of work. I have not found a good backup solution for my
PAR system. DPS could care less, I guess they still live in the
Land-of-Amigas! Also don't count on DPS for help if you get in a bind (I'm not
BITTER). You will probably get better help here.
Cal Haines, 70302,3153
Cal,
>> PAR …. backup cabability <<
what exactly is the problem? I didn't think backing up the PAR was a problem. I
know people who use DAT and Colorado 250. I personally just copy the PAR files
(in native format) to another DOS drive. No problem. To restore I just copy
them back and they work fine.
I spoke to someone today who has a Sony LVR3000 and they'd like to get a PAR
too, but can't afford one because of their investment in the former. They don't
use the LVR for tests, they just use it for final animations. Their tests are
flic files – which are definetly an inferior way of testing than rendering
tests to the PAR, where you can do accurate motion tests AND check NTSC colours
simultaneously.
I agree with you. I use a jumbo 250 and back up my *.ani files across
a network. The ONLY problem is I can't use the Jumbo 250 compression
on *.ani files. But that is a complaint of format limitation, not a
bug or problem with DPS. The Jumbo 250 is good for about 100 meg
files per tape. I have never had a problem with backup or restore.
My procedure is I beackup first to my client directory on a dos drive
and hold there until I get final payment on the project. Then, I
backup across my network to the tape for archive. I never treat the
Par drive as another dos drive. I think of it as RAM and that
satisfies me just fine.
My previous message re Laser disk vs. PAR was a little terse but I
think if one has a budget for a Laser disk he would be better
comparing it with something more in line with the same dollars cost,
at least a MAX.
Don,
>> Par …. I think of it as RAM and that satisfies me just fine <<
not a bad idea.
Martin,
Thanks for the reply. I can get a used LQ4000 for around $2000. A PAR
would cost me around $2500. I already have SoftVTR and a VIGA+32
(Same as TARGA+32). With the LQ4000, I will get one rewritable
disc. They say that the Panasonic is the same as the Sony LVR's as
far as quality output and pretty much the same for everything else. I
do understand the convenience factor and the editing features the PAR
has over the Laser, but as fas as quality for VHS, S-Video, and BETA,
who wins? I will be using either one for previews and possibly for
final products.
With all this in mind, which one would you recommend, assuming the
$500 difference in price did not make too much of a difference?
Thanks,
Mike C.
I'd think that the PAR would have better quality than the laser
disk/targa+ compatible combo – mainly because of the 512×486
resolution. Now if you got an AT/Vista board then I'd say it would be
the other way around.
Overall, I'd recommend the PAR because I've used both (PAR and Sony
LVR technology) and the PAR's convenience is just so hard to beat.
Also, you'd need a Vista to get the best out of the LQ-4000.
Mike:
>> With all this in mind, which one would you recommend…?
I have both the Sony recordable laserdisc (through and AT-Vista) and a
PAR. The PAR is fantastic for tests, and for output where the client
requires 3/4", SVHS, or VHS. However, whenever we have a client
requiring BetaSP, we do notice a slightly better quality on the laser
disc mostly due to the fact that it uses uncompressed images.
I would find the laser a difficult deal to pass up – you can purchase
the PAR next month or the one after, but it sounds like this laser
will be hard to beat. In fact, if you decide not to, let me know,
because I'll take it!
Hi Mike,
I've been using an LQ-4000 as well as the TQ-3031F (write once Panasonic
lasers) for about 2-1/2 years. they are solid machines. Last week I purchased a
PAR and I can, without ANY doubt say that the PAR blows the LQ-TQ's away.
I've always been a little annoyed at the poor quality of those units,
manifested in a grainy recorded image and unusual color pixelation at the edges
of objects. Also, you need a VTR controller and if you dont have a board with
Y/C or component output… well, what I'm saying is the PAR does (animation
wise) everything the LQ can do and then some. ie: Splitting, joining, and
deleting frames in the middle of an animation. I also like the ability to
render truecolor-truemotion previews to the par at 1/4 or 1/8 scale. Sorta
gives you a semi-instantaneous WYSIWG preview. Great for viewing lighting
changes over time.
Finally, if you like having a 60-70 pound piece of equipment laying around and
a whole bunch of really expensive re-writable disks in your office then by all
means get the LQ! <g>
You can tell I'm sold on the PAR,
Steve – Vivid Animation
Steve,
As far as quality for VHS, SVHS, and BETA, which is better. You said you have
color problems with the Laser? I'm curious to know what video board you used
for video out and what type of output you used (ie. composite, s-video, BNC)?
Thanks,
Mike C.
I have also had problems with the Lase quality not being as good as I would
have liked, outputting through a Vista card, looks great straight to BetaCAM,
but a bit iffy on the Laser..Hmmmmmm…
<<as far as quality for VHS, SVHS and BETA, which is better.>>
I'm assuming we're talking about which machine, LQ or PAR is better
for each format? From what I've seen and been told about my PAR
output at the local Post house, my recent output quality is way, way
up now that I'm taking the PAR down there. I take the computer
because I can't afford my own BETAsp deck … yet! They take
component out from the back of the PAR and the image quality is
great. But in all formats, the quality of the final image will be
affected by the quality of the original. (tihs in tihs out, the
saying goes). Get your master image as high as you can.
<<what type of video board…output board do you use?>>
With the LQ, I was using a Genoa 7900 video card ( not the top of any
class! 🙂 ) and an external "TV-Link" brand NTSC converter through a
rack mounted DPS TBC IV using SVHS cables.
That setup in itself had many flaws which lowered the quality. For low end to
quasi-industrial quality, it was ok, but it just failed miserably on the
quality-o-meter when it came time to do broadcast work. I think the LQ played a
major role in that because it is SVHS quality.
Steve – Vivid