[Nagnagnag] [ot:reply] -> _more_media_issues_

-1 rajg at nol.net
Sun Jan 12 15:31:48 EST 2003


[ot:reply]

hi mr kolmar,

you make some very good points....

i just wanted to clarify a few
issues though..


>Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2003 12:17:52 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
>From: Mark Kolmar <mark@burningrome.com>
>To: nagnagnag@hollyfeld.org
>Subject: Re: [Nagnagnag] _media_issues_
>On Sat, 11 Jan 2003, Clive Harris wrote:

>The players are inexpensive.  You can pay a premium for one with better
>specs, if your display is good enough for that to make a difference.  But
>in the USA you can get a remote-hackable, all-region player for under $100
>that will also convert PAL to NTSC.  (There are issues with anamorphic,
>i.e. enhanced for widescreen TVs, that I won't get into here.)

inexpensive (sub US$100) is relative i guess,
if i had a working VHS, and didn't buy movies,
or had something else, the price isn't really
the issue..especially since they can't record,
(and the ones that can are very expensive)..
i guess digital recorders such as TIVO have
taken over there...
(however, there are a lot less releases coming
out on VHS though lately.)

i think to fully experience DVD-quality video,
and sound, you really DO NEED to have a large
screen, or widescreen, with surround sound,
otherwise is the quality really that much
better?

on our 27" inch tv, the picture isn't any
better than most of my laserdiscs...(and
in some cases equal or worse quality for
older transfers)...

i have a ton of laserdisc ONLY releases,
that will never come on DVD, or are
taking a long time (ie: original star
wars trilogy)....so there's even less
of a reason for me..VHS is ok for me also..


>The discs can hold a variety of audio, video, and data.  Most of the
>players can play MP3s on CD-Rs, so you aren't tied to your computer for
>that anymore.  The form factor is more convenient than VHS or LaserDisc.  
>The discs are durable and do not wear (though go to any rental shop and
>wonder...)  Acceptance has been very fast.  DVD is not going away any time
>soon, no more than CDs have.

while that may be an optimistic look for dvd-Video discs,

they'be a pretty big failure for data, how many
games/programs/etc come on DVD-ROM? hardly any..

also DVD+/-R/RW/RAM may good for back-ups, but since there
isn't one standard yet, they haven't really
been accepted as widely as CD-R's...also burners are
currently 2x (with 4x coming out), which take quite
awhile to burn...

playing mp3's through a DVD player is an iffy-affair at best,
since they have to be created in different ways for
different players..i don't use that feature...

>Any future format is totally up in the air.  People will demand players
>that handle all discs of the same form factor, so future players will
>surely handle CDs and current DVDs.

anybody can demand backwards comptability,
but that doesn't mean that it will happen..
as it turns out, the lasers required for
reading higher density disks CAN'T read
the current DVD disks...(unless you made a
player with both in them, which would
be expensive)..you would just end keeping
your DVD player as a legacy piece of
equipment..

and what about current players?

most DVD players can play VCD's,
although some can't play DVD-R+R-RW/CD-R/CD-RW...
so you have to check to see which player
is compatible with what..
http://www.vcdhelp.com has a good listing..

>As for HDTV, acceptance has been very slow.  I got a widescreen TV to
>watch DVD movies with progressive display (*).  It looks much better than
>a traditional analog display, and quite acceptable and good.  Frankly I am
>surprised in many ways that the movie studios have been willing to release
>films even in the current DVD resolution, considering how paranoid and
>backward they are.  I don't think higher resolution would add much.  
>Consider that the state-of-the-art digital George Lucas (**) used is
>something like 1280x1024, for projection on a big screen, vs. 720x480 for
>the little screen.  The traditional analog sets can't resolve even that
>much.

>Good point about ice hockey, though!  Sports will generate some demand.  
>I doubt anyone will bother with high-res sitcoms and such.

>--Mark

as far as HDTV goes in the US, they're slowing coming along,
but the more important issue is that there is a mandate that
all broadcasts will go digital in 2006...this will have a
much bigger impact on peoples acceptance, as prices fall
people will adapt to newer technology..

although, it may not be needed to see current television
shows, or older shows in HDTV resolutions, why should we
be chained to the past?

isn't the point of progress ?

when you say 'you don't think higher resolution would add much'..
surely you don't think we should just keep things as they are
now? what about when large screen flat panels become cheaper,
and everyone has one????

also, the entertainment, and media companies love the idea
of new formats, and new markets.. an issue with this
is that it will be harder to pirate (the file sizes will be
huge)... and a lot of the content will protected, in an
attempt to prevent people from backing up/saving their property
digitally ..(as was supposed to be the case with dvd's)...

this is causing a lot of conflict between the computer
manufacturers who want open standards, and media, and
allow people to use their data as how they see it, compared
to the media industry which wants to restrict how we view
things, and how we play/save/backup the media...

at least we have some choices now..
i'm not so sure how the future ones will be like..

later

| | || | || | ||
ne ga ti  ve   1


More information about the Nagnagnag mailing list