What high-definition will do to DVDs.

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Allan, Jan 31, 2005.

  1. Allan

    Allan Guest

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4210551.stm


    BBC NEWS
    What high-definition will do to DVDs
    By Jo Twist
    BBC News science and technology reporter

    First it was the humble home video, then it was the DVD, and now
    Hollywood is preparing for the next revolution in home entertainment -
    high-definition.

    High-definition gives incredible, 3D-like pictures and surround sound.

    The DVD disks and the gear to play them will not be out for another
    year or so, and there at are still a number of issues to be sorted
    out.

    But when high-definition films do come out on the new format DVDs, it
    will profoundly change home entertainment.

    For Rick Dean, director of business development for digital content
    company THX, a high-definition future is an exciting prospect.

    He has worked on the Star Wars DVD trilogy, Finding Nemo, The
    Incredibles and Indiana Jones.

    "There was a time not so long ago when the film world and the video
    world were two completely separate worlds," he told the BBC News
    website.

    I would love to be able to show people what projects that we
    worked on really look like in the high-def world and I find it very
    exciting
    Rick Dean, THX
    "The technology we are dealing with now means they are very much
    conjoined.

    "The film that we see in theatres is coming from the same digital file
    that we take the home video master," he says.

    But currently, putting a master feature film onto DVD requires severe
    compression because current DVD technology cannot hold as much as
    high-definition films demand.

    "As much as you compress the picture data rate wise, you also take
    qualities away from the picture that we fight so hard to keep in the
    master," he explains.

    "I would love to be able to show people what projects that we worked
    on really look like in the high-def world and I find it very
    exciting."

    More to a disk

    High-definition DVDs can hold up to six times more data than the DVDs
    we are used to.

    It will take time though to persuade people who spent money on DVD
    players to buy the different players and displays required to watch
    high-definition DVDs in 18 months' time.

    Mr Dean is confident though: "I think if they see real HD
    [high-definition], not some heavily compressed version of it, there is
    such a remarkable difference.

    "I have heard comments from people who say the images pop off the
    screen."

    High-definition will mean some changes for those working behind the
    scenes too.

    On the whole, producing films for high-definition DVDs will be easier
    in some ways because less compression is needed.

    Equally, it may mean Hollywood studios ask for more to be put onto the
    average DVD.

    "When we master movies right now, our data rates are running at about
    1.2 gigabits per second," says Mr Dean.

    "Our DVDs that we put out today have to be squashed down to about five
    or six megabits per second.

    "That's a huge amount of compression that has to be applied - about
    98%. So if you have anything that allows more space, you don't have to
    compress so hard."

    Studios could fit a lot more marketing material, games, and features,
    onto high-capacity DVDs.

    Currently, an entire DVD project can take up to three months, says Mr
    Dean.

    Although the step of down-converting will be bypassed, this will
    realistically only save a day's work, says Mr Dean.

    One of the most time consuming elements is building DVD navigation and
    menu systems.

    On the fairly complex Star Wars disks, making sure the menu buttons
    worked took 45 human hours alone.

    If studios want to cash in on the extra space, it could mean extra
    human hours, for which someone has to pay.

    "If the decision on the studio side is that they are going to put a
    lot more on these disks, it could be more expensive because of all the
    extra navigation that is required."

    And if studios do focus on delivering more "added value content",
    thinks Mr Dean, ultimately it could mean that they will want more
    money for it.

    Those costs could filter down to the price ticket on a high-definition
    DVD. But if the consumer is not willing to pay a premium price,
    studios will listen, thinks Mr Dean.

    Death Star filing cabinets

    High-definition throws up other challenge to film makers and DVD
    production alike.

    More clarity on screen means film makers have to make doubly sure that
    attention to detail is meticulous.

    "When we did the first HD version of Star Wars Episode I, everybody
    was very sun-tanned, but that was make-up.

    "In the HD version of Episode I, all these make-up lines showed up,"
    explains Mr Dean.

    The restoration of the older Star Wars episodes revealed some
    interesting items too.

    "There are scans of a corridor [on the Death Star] and fairly plainly
    in one of those shots, there is a file cabinet stuck behind one of the
    doorways.

    "You never used to be able to see it because things are just blurred
    enough during the pan that you just didn't see it."

    What high-definition revolution ultimately means is that the line
    between home entertainment and cinema worlds will blur.

    With home theatre systems turning living rooms into cinemas, this line
    blurs even further.

    It could also mean that how we get films, and in what format, will
    widen.

    "In the future we are going to look towards file delivery over IP
    [internet protocol - broadband], giving a DVD-like experience from the
    set-top box to the hard drive," says Mr Dean.

    But that is some time off for most, and for now, people still like to
    show off something physical in their bookshelves.
    Story from BBC NEWS:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/technology/4210551.stm

    Published: 2005/01/31 08:27:58 GMT

    © BBC MMV







    "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
    because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
    -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
    - Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
    Allan, Jan 31, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Allan

    Jordan Guest

    Hmmm.... I dunno what to say here. So much of the article is clearly
    crap ("High-definition gives incredible, 3D-like pictures and surround
    sound.")

    I think we will see things we've never seen before but I don't think it
    will be anything earth shattering (like finally being able to see the
    potato in Empire.) Using current technology we can go back to the old
    Star Trek episodes and see that the "monitors" on the bridge are
    clearly back-lit sheets of plastic (you can even see the bubbles.)
    - Jordan
    Jordan, Feb 1, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Allan

    Allan Guest

    On 31 Jan 2005 16:14:59 -0800, "Jordan" <> wrote:

    >Hmmm.... I dunno what to say here. So much of the article is clearly
    >crap ("High-definition gives incredible, 3D-like pictures and surround
    >sound.")


    Have you actually seen HD?







    "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
    because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
    -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
    - Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
    Allan, Feb 1, 2005
    #3
  4. Allan

    Robin Guest

    "Allan" <> wrote in
    message news:...
    > On 31 Jan 2005 16:14:59 -0800, "Jordan"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Hmmm.... I dunno what to say here. So much of the article
    >>is clearly
    >>crap ("High-definition gives incredible, 3D-like pictures
    >>and surround
    >>sound.")

    >
    > Have you actually seen HD?
    >


    Yes, and I had the same thoughts as Jordan as I was reading
    the article.


    >
    > "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a
    > sucker's game
    > because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be
    > indistinguishable from
    > -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite
    > amounts of free time."
    > - Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
    Robin, Feb 1, 2005
    #4
  5. Allan

    Morgan Guest

    I'm sort of excited about HD-DVDs or Blu-Ray or whatever the hell they're
    gonna throw at us. But at the same time, I'm not wetting my pants for it.
    I have a HDTV and it's amazing! But you can tell when something's been
    converted to HD rather than shot in HD. Even though both look quite
    spectacular, I'm not sure older films will benefit that much from being
    up-convereted (?). In my opinion, I don't care if movies are that clear (HD
    clear)--in some strange way, I think it distracts the eye and makes the
    movie less believable. How clear is too clear? What I worry about is when
    HD-DVD's come down in price, how will they justify a bonus disc or boxed
    sets or double-dipping with such a large capacity? I'm sure they'll find a
    way to get people to buy the same crap all over again.

    Morgan



    "Jordan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hmmm.... I dunno what to say here. So much of the article is clearly
    > crap ("High-definition gives incredible, 3D-like pictures and surround
    > sound.")
    >
    > I think we will see things we've never seen before but I don't think it
    > will be anything earth shattering (like finally being able to see the
    > potato in Empire.) Using current technology we can go back to the old
    > Star Trek episodes and see that the "monitors" on the bridge are
    > clearly back-lit sheets of plastic (you can even see the bubbles.)
    > - Jordan
    >
    Morgan, Feb 1, 2005
    #5
  6. Allan

    Steve K. Guest

    > What high-definition will do to DVDs...

    It will raise the price.
    Steve K., Feb 1, 2005
    #6
  7. Allan

    Allan Guest

    On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:50:22 -0800, "Morgan"
    <> wrote:

    > Even though both look quite
    >spectacular, I'm not sure older films will benefit that much from being
    >up-convereted (?).


    Older films do not need to be up-converted. Film is far higher
    quality than what we can currently show on any TV.

    From the article:

    "Our DVDs that we put out today have to be squashed down to about five
    or six megabits per second.

    "That's a huge amount of compression that has to be applied - about
    98%. So if you have anything that allows more space, you don't have to
    compress so hard."

    98% compression with current DVD's.







    "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
    because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
    -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
    - Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
    Allan, Feb 1, 2005
    #7
  8. Allan

    Allan Guest

    On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 02:37:57 GMT, "Robin" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Allan" <> wrote in
    >message news:...
    >> On 31 Jan 2005 16:14:59 -0800, "Jordan"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Hmmm.... I dunno what to say here. So much of the article
    >>>is clearly
    >>>crap ("High-definition gives incredible, 3D-like pictures
    >>>and surround
    >>>sound.")

    >>
    >> Have you actually seen HD?
    >>

    >
    >Yes, and I had the same thoughts as Jordan as I was reading
    >the article.


    Curious what you have seen.






    "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
    because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
    -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
    - Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
    Allan, Feb 1, 2005
    #8
  9. Allan

    Helllo Guest

    And maybe forece some people to buy new TVS. The ones without the HDMI
    or DVI inputs on their TV :(


    On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 02:53:30 GMT, "Steve K." <>
    wrote:

    > > What high-definition will do to DVDs...

    >
    >It will raise the price.
    Helllo, Feb 1, 2005
    #9
  10. Allan

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Allan wrote:
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4210551.stm
    >
    > BBC NEWS
    > What high-definition will do to DVDs
    > By Jo Twist
    > BBC News science and technology reporter
    >
    > First it was the humble home video, then it was the DVD, and now
    > Hollywood is preparing for the next revolution in home entertainment -
    > high-definition.
    >
    > High-definition gives incredible, 3D-like pictures and surround sound.


    Right there, with that statement, I stop taking this "article" seriously.
    It sounds like something out of a marketing pamphlet, and is mostly
    non-sensical.

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

    Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary, Feb 1, 2005
    #10
  11. Allan

    Allan Guest

    On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:18:10 -0800, "Mike Kohary" <>
    wrote:

    >It sounds like something out of a marketing pamphlet, and is mostly
    >non-sensical.



    On the whole, producing films for high-definition DVDs will be easier
    in some ways because less compression is needed.

    Equally, it may mean Hollywood studios ask for more to be put onto the
    average DVD.

    "When we master movies right now, our data rates are running at about
    1.2 gigabits per second," says Mr Dean.

    "Our DVDs that we put out today have to be squashed down to about five
    or six megabits per second.

    "That's a huge amount of compression that has to be applied - about
    98%. So if you have anything that allows more space, you don't have to
    compress so hard."

    Studios could fit a lot more marketing material, games, and features,
    onto high-capacity DVDs.







    "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
    because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
    -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
    - Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
    Allan, Feb 1, 2005
    #11
  12. Allan

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Allan wrote:
    > On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:50:22 -0800, "Morgan"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Even though both look quite
    >> spectacular, I'm not sure older films will benefit that much from
    >> being up-convereted (?).

    >
    > Older films do not need to be up-converted. Film is far higher
    > quality than what we can currently show on any TV.
    >
    > From the article:
    >
    > "Our DVDs that we put out today have to be squashed down to about five
    > or six megabits per second.
    >
    > "That's a huge amount of compression that has to be applied - about
    > 98%. So if you have anything that allows more space, you don't have to
    > compress so hard."
    >
    > 98% compression with current DVD's.


    I'm beginning to think you're a techie wannabe that doesn't actually know
    any tech. ;) Do you know what 98% compression would look like? It
    wouldn't look like any current DVD, not even Madacy DVDs. It would be some
    large moving blocks on your screen, literally.

    Hell, don't take my word for it. Pick up a copy of Studio or something
    similar, download some public domain DV file, then burn a DVD (I assume you
    have a burner) at 98% compression, or about 2% of the original quality.
    View the final product, then tell me a commercial DVD is 98% compressed.

    I don't know who said that or where he got that number, but it's flat-out
    wrong. Look up "mpeg2 compression" and educate yourself.

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

    Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary, Feb 1, 2005
    #12
  13. Allan

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Allan wrote:
    > On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:18:10 -0800, "Mike Kohary" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> It sounds like something out of a marketing pamphlet, and is mostly
    >> non-sensical.

    >
    > On the whole, producing films for high-definition DVDs will be easier
    > in some ways because less compression is needed.

    (snip other benefits)

    Of course - what does that have to do with what I said? The writer's
    statement was silly.

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

    Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary, Feb 1, 2005
    #13
  14. Allan

    Allan Guest

    On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:45:50 -0800, "Mike Kohary" <>
    wrote:

    >>> Even though both look quite
    >>> spectacular, I'm not sure older films will benefit that much from
    >>> being up-convereted (?).

    >>
    >> Older films do not need to be up-converted. Film is far higher
    >> quality than what we can currently show on any TV.
    >>
    >> From the article:
    >>
    >> "Our DVDs that we put out today have to be squashed down to about five
    >> or six megabits per second.
    >>
    >> "That's a huge amount of compression that has to be applied - about
    >> 98%. So if you have anything that allows more space, you don't have to
    >> compress so hard."
    >>
    >> 98% compression with current DVD's.

    >
    >I'm beginning to think you're a techie wannabe that doesn't actually know
    >any tech. ;)


    Starting to think that myself..... :eek:)

    >Do you know what 98% compression would look like?


    Current DVD's.

    >It >wouldn't look like any current DVD, not even Madacy DVDs. It would be some large moving blocks on your screen, literally.


    Well... it would appear you didn't actually read the article.

    The Gentleman was saying that he wished folks could see what he sees,
    Uncompressed HD.

    And how much storage does uncompressed HD take?

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/wi...andingHDFormats.aspx#storageneedsforhdcapture


    1920 x 1080/60i 4:2:0 410 GB's per hour.

    So a two hour Uncompressed HD file.. 810G. Current DVD's....
    4G.

    You do the math.

    >then tell me a commercial DVD is 98% compressed.


    As he states...

    " I would love to be able to show people what projects that we
    worked on really look like in the high-def world and I find it very
    exciting"

    >I don't know who said that or where he got that number,


    Simple math.

    >but it's flat-out wrong.


    Ah .. no it isn't.

    >Look up "mpeg2 compression" and educate yourself.


    Have a boo at the link above to learn about uncompressed HD.







    "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
    because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
    -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
    - Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
    Allan, Feb 1, 2005
    #14
  15. Allan

    Allan Guest

    On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:41:11 -0800, "Mike Kohary" <>
    wrote:

    >Allan wrote:
    >> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:18:10 -0800, "Mike Kohary" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> It sounds like something out of a marketing pamphlet, and is mostly
    >>> non-sensical.

    >>
    >> On the whole, producing films for high-definition DVDs will be easier
    >> in some ways because less compression is needed.

    >(snip other benefits)
    >
    >Of course - what does that have to do with what I said? The writer's
    >statement was silly.


    .... but true none the less.







    "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
    because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
    -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
    - Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
    Allan, Feb 1, 2005
    #15
  16. Allan

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Allan wrote:
    >
    > Have a boo at the link above to learn about uncompressed HD.


    Look, you don't have to convince me - or anyone else in here - how great HD
    looks. We all know that. What you seem to be arguing is that because you
    can and apparently will adopt early, that the mainstream American consumer
    public will also. I think that's a head-in-the-clouds outlook at best, and
    certainly your circumstances and willingness to adopt are not at all the
    norm. It's not a big deal, a trivial disagreement over nothing, really.
    But it's amusing nonetheless. :)

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

    Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary, Feb 1, 2005
    #16
  17. Allan

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Allan wrote:
    > On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 20:41:11 -0800, "Mike Kohary" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Allan wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:18:10 -0800, "Mike Kohary" <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> It sounds like something out of a marketing pamphlet, and is mostly
    >>>> non-sensical.
    >>>
    >>> On the whole, producing films for high-definition DVDs will be
    >>> easier in some ways because less compression is needed.

    >> (snip other benefits)
    >>
    >> Of course - what does that have to do with what I said? The writer's
    >> statement was silly.

    >
    > ... but true none the less.


    It was basically content-free, so I'm not sure what was "true" about it.

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary mike at kohary dot com http://www.kohary.com

    Karma Photography: http://www.karmaphotography.com
    Seahawks Historical Database: http://www.kohary.com/seahawks
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Mike Kohary, Feb 1, 2005
    #17
  18. Allan

    Alpha Guest

    "Allan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:50:22 -0800, "Morgan"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Even though both look quite
    >>spectacular, I'm not sure older films will benefit that much from being
    >>up-convereted (?).

    >
    > Older films do not need to be up-converted. Film is far higher
    > quality than what we can currently show on any TV.
    >
    > From the article:
    >
    > "Our DVDs that we put out today have to be squashed down to about five
    > or six megabits per second.
    >
    > "That's a huge amount of compression that has to be applied - about
    > 98%. So if you have anything that allows more space, you don't have to
    > compress so hard."
    >
    > 98% compression with current DVD's.



    WRONG.
    Alpha, Feb 1, 2005
    #18
  19. Allan

    Guest

    Allan <> wrote:
    : On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:18:10 -0800, "Mike Kohary" <>
    : wrote:
    :
    :>It sounds like something out of a marketing pamphlet, and is mostly
    :>non-sensical.
    :
    :
    : On the whole, producing films for high-definition DVDs will be easier
    : in some ways because less compression is needed.
    :
    : Equally, it may mean Hollywood studios ask for more to be put onto the
    : average DVD.
    :
    : "When we master movies right now, our data rates are running at about
    : 1.2 gigabits per second," says Mr Dean.
    :
    : "Our DVDs that we put out today have to be squashed down to about five
    : or six megabits per second.
    :
    : "That's a huge amount of compression that has to be applied - about
    : 98%. So if you have anything that allows more space, you don't have to
    : compress so hard."
    :
    : Studios could fit a lot more marketing material, games, and features,
    : onto high-capacity DVDs.

    Aren't y'all forgetting that DVDs have a resolution of 720x480 pixels
    whereas HD will have 1920x1080? That's potentially six times more
    information per frame compared to DVD. A DVD holds about 9GB but I
    don't think hi-def DVDs hold > 54GBs, do they? So compression
    artifacts could in fact be more likely to appear in HD DVDs...
    So much for "less compression" :)


    J
    --
    "I'd give my soul to be where I was a year ago...
    ....if I had a soul left to give"
    , Feb 1, 2005
    #19
  20. Allan

    Allan Guest

    On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:42:24 -0800, "Mike Kohary" <>
    wrote:


    >>> Of course - what does that have to do with what I said? The writer's
    >>> statement was silly.

    >>
    >> ... but true none the less.

    >
    >It was basically content-free, so I'm not sure what was "true" about it.


    Ah the part that you ignored:


    "Well... it would appear you didn't actually read the article.

    The Gentleman was saying that he wished folks could see what he sees,
    Uncompressed HD.

    And how much storage does uncompressed HD take?

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/wi...andingHDFormats.aspx#storageneedsforhdcapture


    1920 x 1080/60i 4:2:0 410 GB's per hour.

    So a two hour Uncompressed HD file.. 810G. Current DVD's....
    4G.

    You do the math."







    "Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game
    because they almost always turn out to be -- or to be indistinguishable from
    -- self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time."
    - Neil Stephenson, _Cryptonomicon_
    Allan, Feb 1, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mark Spatny

    Re: High Definition TV question

    Mark Spatny, Aug 11, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    467
    Grand Inquisitor
    Aug 13, 2003
  2. Steve Jackson

    Re: High Definition TV question

    Steve Jackson, Aug 12, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    373
    Steve Jackson
    Aug 12, 2003
  3. The Plumply Perverse Pool Guy

    Ultra High Definition Video

    The Plumply Perverse Pool Guy, Sep 29, 2003, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    926
    Sydney Assbasket
    Oct 1, 2003
  4. Ablang
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    510
    Ablang
    Jul 13, 2004
  5. rishil
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    747
    Lamey
    Apr 12, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page