Re: Gooodbye to nicked software...

Bonge Boo! <bingbong@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > I've tried watching DVDs on computer monitors and they don't look good.
> > I can't imagine downloaded films looking any better. In fact I'd expect
> > them to look worse due to extra compression to get the file sizes down.
> > I can't imagine them letting us download the content of a DVD9 without
> > compressing it further anyway.
> ? DVDs look stunning on my Powerbook. Much much better than my TV. I think
> with H.264 streaming movie and TV downloads are coming, and more to the
> point, soon.

I can spot artifacts even on DVDs like "The Godfather Part 2" which is
supposed to be one of the best quality DVDs there is without going
superbit or hi-def. They also look slightly blurry to my eyes.

Not to mention the black bars. I didn't notice them much before I got a
widescreen TV but I do now on a monitor. I can live with the small black
bars I get from a 2.35:1 anamorphic DVD on my 16:9 TV but my monitors
run at 1.25:1 and the blackbars are huge and very noticable. 16:9
monitors would help here of course.

> I'm a bit of a fan of Alias. I got pissed of with forgetting to video it,
> getting awful reception to Channel 5. So I started downloading it. And the
> quality of a 350Mb file over 45mins of show is pretty damn good. If they
> compressed it with H.264 it could be stunning.

I'll concede for TV shows. Films are still a bit of an event for me
though. I turn my computers and phones off, get some drinks and snacks
and turn the lights down. The TV is the focal centre of my living room.
Watching a film on a computer screen loses that. When we get media
centre PCs connected to large 16:9 screens things will improve but until
then I'm going to resist.

> I do wander if the push towards Hi-Def is another way of boosting the file
> sizes that downloaders would have to grab.


> > On top of that I'd have to watch films in my office or on my 17" monitor
> > in the living room but I have a widescreen TV for watching films and
> > want to use that because it's the best screen for watching films on.
> > Some monitors are probably pretty good at displaying DVDs (expensive
> > ones probably) but I buy monitors for how good they are at being
> > computer monitors, not for how good they are as TVs.
> I have a 17" LG 1715. Pin sharp, dirt cheap, DVDs look cracking.

I have that exact same monitor. It is pin sharp but as I said above I
can spot artifacts and DVDs look slightly blurry to my eyes.

> > At the moment I pay £9.99 to rent 6 DVDs per month. I can watch them as
> > many times as I like and keep them for as long as I want (I can only
> > have 3 at a time so there is an incentive to return them). I can take
> > these films to other people's houses to watch. Being able to watch a
> > film n times and only on the computer I downloaded it on is too
> > restrictive to me so I wouldn't go for it.
> Agreed. But you have to look at it from the content creators point of view.

Actually they should look at things from our point of view. We are their
customers after all.

> They KNOW that people signing up for those packages are renting, copying,
> re-viewing.

I don't copy them (and you didn't say I did). :-)

> What could be better than eliminating the weak-link in the
> profit chain. Namely that bloody plastic disk that gets copied.

That disc is going to be around for a good while yet. Not everyone has a
computer and there are people like me who won't go for it.

> Also
> simultaneous world-wide release!

I agree there. I have a friend who has over 400 DVDs of which only TV
shows and a few films are R2, the rest are R1.

> > I can't imagine that I'm the only one with these views.
> I'm sure you're not. But ultimately what you want might not be relevant if
> the movie studios decide otherwise.

The more restrictive things become the more there will be people like me
who'll just stop buying content. I have enough CDs and DVDs to last me a
lifetime. Maybe I'd start going to the cinema again if there was a film
I just had to see.

> My experience is, that almost everyone is guilty of piracy if they are given
> the opportunity.

It depends on your definition of piracy. By me definition I know very
few people who are guilty.

> At some point the convergence of faster internet
> connections and failing TV and film revenues will lead to video-on-demand
> PAYG services.

For those to work for me a monitor has to replace the TV. It'll happen
but I can't see happening anytime soon.