DIVX REBORN......THIS SUCKS...

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by Joseph S. Powell, III, Jun 3, 2005.

  1. Joseph S. Powell, III, Jun 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Kubez Guest

    Kubez, Jun 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. The market for high-density digital media, if it is not supported by the
    entertainment industry, will continue to be incited by the consumer
    computer market. The result will be MORE of a nightmare for the
    entertainment industry than if they had cooperated with hardware
    manufacturers to achieve a REASONABLE level of copyright control and a
    good video standard. I already have a computer that's capable of playing
    high definition component video on my TV, on demand. The only thing it
    needs is a file in readable format (DIVX is fine) and player software and
    I can stick it right on my TV screen at 1080i resolution.

    Industry moguls are only fooling themselves if they think that they can
    control the hardware genie by choking it.


    --
    Dave Oldridge+
    ICQ 1800667

    A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
    God is an evolutionist.
     
    Dave Oldridge, Jun 3, 2005
    #3
  4. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Nightspirit Guest

    They plug up one hole in the dyke and don't realize that it is full of
    holes. The bean counter will take a look at this standard and realize
    that it is a good way to lose money.

    --
    ---
    Have Fun
    Night Spirit

    Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and quite
    good with ketchup.

    Blog: http://www.livejournal.com/~hipdale/
     
    Nightspirit, Jun 3, 2005
    #4
  5. Joseph S. Powell, III

    RichA Guest

    The same minds behind that are the kind of people who own TiVo.
    They want the absolute ability to revoke the "permission"
    they've granted you to view movies and TV programs.
    Who knows? At some point in the future you could be looking at
    retro-actively censored discs because the moral climate changes.
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Jun 3, 2005
    #5
  6. Joseph S. Powell, III

    napalm68 Guest

    It worked out so well for divx. You'd think the fools would learn their
    lesson...
     
    napalm68, Jun 3, 2005
    #6
  7. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Goro Guest

    They had to relearn that lesson with EZ-DVD or FlexPlay or whatever the
    fsck that was called.

    Likely they will again.

    btw, how many times has Sony tried to create a proprietary format?

    -goro-
     
    Goro, Jun 4, 2005
    #7
  8. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Barf Guest

    At least 5, since they have a proprietary format for the PSP's. I
    wonder if Nintendo or XBox will come with hand held movies, too.

    However, I prefer my movies on screens that are a little bigger. Also,
    many of the movies that Sony has released are not movies I want to
    see. Many I wouldn't pay to see once!
     
    Barf, Jun 4, 2005
    #8
  9. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Rick M. Guest

    Don't be so sure. The RIAA practically killed DAT as a general consumer
    item years ago, relegating DAT decks to the pricey 'prosumer' and pro
    audio recording markets only.

    On top of that, now the hollywood moguls have the additional legal
    leverage of special protectionism afforded them by the DMCA to back them up.

    Orwell was right on the money... only 20 years too soon.


    -Rick
     
    Rick M., Jun 4, 2005
    #9
  10. It was not quite that simplistic.

    The DAT was slowed down as regulation was being formed for taxing
    tapes, but what killed DAT as the CD.

    I remember when the battle was starting. Sony and Philips were
    pushing CD very hard. They feared that if they did not reach
    5% market penetration by the time the DAT arrived the CD would fail
    in the marketplace.

    The reasoning was that cassettes had replaced the LPs as the medium
    of choice, and they assumed that most buyers would want something
    upon which they could record also.

    I was handling a recording session [ex-audio engineer and saw the
    first CD presentation at the AES] when one of the other people
    commented on my CD player. He said something like "It will never
    be popular because you can't record on it. I won't buy one because
    of that".

    Those who were too close to technology often make mistakes similar
    to that. By the time DAT [called R-DAT then] was in the market
    the CD had far exceeded sales expectations, going on to be the
    fastest growing consumer electronics item until the release
    of the DVD.

    The DAT recorders stayed pricey because the volume never ramped up,
    and rotating head tape media in the small form factor was not an
    easy thing to make. The first couple of years of that format -
    particularly in the data field - was not very robust. It took until
    the DDS-3 format to became reliable.

    I always used data certified tapes in my audio DAT. The shells
    were better made as the data versions were expected to be
    shuttled back and forth during backups, as machine typically
    couldn't feed the data fast enough to keep the data streaming,
    while audio tapes were assumed to be put into play and listened to
    until the end.

    Recordable CDs were still a long way off at that time.
    I don't think he was that far off. :)

    Bill
     
    Bill Vermillion, Jun 4, 2005
    #10
  11. That only worked because the consumer computer industry was not really up
    to the level where it could sustain the technology by itself. DAT
    backups were more the territory of major commercial servers than of home
    computer users.
    These kinds of monopolies always break of their own weight eventually.
    Of course we might have to put up with a lot of trashy stuff in the
    meantime. And the worst of it is, I'd BUY some HD content if I had
    assurance that I could continue to play it. I have a couple of shelves
    full of paid-for DVD content now. But I'll NOT be buying anything that
    can be turned off on a whim by someone I don't even know.

    --
    Dave Oldridge+
    ICQ 1800667

    A false witness is worse than no witness at all.
    God is an evolutionist.
     
    Dave Oldridge, Jun 4, 2005
    #11
  12. Joseph S. Powell, III

    Rick M. Guest

    DAT was dead as a general consumer technology long before *recordable*
    CDs arrived, but even then, this was more of a 'final nail in the
    coffin' than anything. Basically, the RIAA sought special protectionism
    via DRM-like hardware based, copyright protection scheme in the form of
    a copyguard chip in DAT decks so that it would not be bought by general
    consumers, and would appeal only to the prosumer/pro audio market. The
    'Tax-the tapes' movement came later and was aimed more at the VCR market.`



    R-DAT wasn't the only DAT technology. There was S-DAT as well.
    Basically R-DAT was the "VHS" variant employing a rotating head, and
    S-DAT was the "Beta" variant with a stationary head. Basically, both
    were little more than mini VCRs minus video recording capability, but
    with digital encoding (PCM based, IIRC, although MPEG was under
    development even then).

    This is true, but CDs weren't a competing technology at that time. They
    became a competing technology long after DAT was killed. Recordable CD
    technology was very experimental at that point, and very pricey, even
    compared with DAT. By the time recordable CD technology became even
    *quasi* affordable, DAT was dead as a general consumer technology for a
    few years already, and it died because of the RIAA's lobbying efforts
    more than anything. True, it was hoped that DAT would be the general
    consumer's preferred recording medium, but recordable CD technology was
    still years away in any *affordable* manner, hence this is an apples -
    oranges comparision.

    Exactly. But the reason for volume not ramping up had more to do with
    the RIAA intentionally crippling the technology as a general consumer
    product.

    Sure they were... VCR tapes were being made for *years* at that point.
    All the DAT tapes really were were mini VCR cassettes. They used the
    same tape manufacturing processes, substrate materials, and tape
    formulations, and these were constantly undergoing refinements too. The
    DAT decks used pretty much the same helical scanning method of recording
    as VCRs, just smaller.
    The format was not originally intended to be a general raw data storage
    medium. It *was* envisioned to be able to include this capability at
    some point, but at that time, compression technologies such as MPEG were
    still under development and not mature enough. Principally, DAT was
    intended for the audiophile, and prosumer audio markets, and eventually
    as economies of scale and production ramped up, the general consumer
    market. My point was that the RIAA made *sure* the latter never
    happened because of their fear of bootlegging.


    Actually, it was the *loading* mechanism that accounted for this. As I
    said before, they were basically mini VCRs with a very similar loading
    mechanism that drew the tape out of the cartridge shell and around the
    head assembly. Once the tape was drawn into position, the data
    *transfer* rate was as good as anything else available. The latency
    introduced by the mechanical tape loading process just didn't make it
    ideal as a backup medium, as well as the fact that data compression
    technologies available then simply didn't have processors powerful
    enough for media rich content.

    It's all moot anyway, since any *linear* format was ultimately going to
    be supplanted anyway.
    -Rick
     
    Rick M., Jun 7, 2005
    #12
  13.  
    Bill Vermillion, Jun 7, 2005
    #13
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.