Re: Apex dvd player

From: gothika (Vampyres_at_nettaxi.com)
Date: 06/26/04 

Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 00:19:19 -0500

On 25 Jun 2004 06:29:18 GMT, laseranddvdfan@aol.com (LASERandDVDfan)
wrote:

>>yeah well... If I purchase a copy of a DVD and choose to make a use
>>copy in order to archive the original that's my right.
>
>Well, if I were to make a backup of a DVD, I'd do it with DVD-R, not VHS.
>
>>If the film and recording industry didn't really want us to make
>>copies they'd make the medium more durable.
>
>How do you propose making the medium more durable?
Like I said a thin coating of high grade Lexan over the surface would
do just fine. Might try making the actual disc material out of it as
well.
>
>I've not had that problem because I handle all of my discs with care. And, the
>interesting part about being careful with your DVDs and CDs is that it's
>actually easy! It's just a matter of developing good handling habits and
>remembering to always put the disc back into its case when not in use.
>
>But, I suppose that's too simple for anyone to follow, eh?
No but you make gross assumptions about others you know nothing about.
First off the main market(at least the one the dvd/video market is
spending millions to market to.) are families. Last time I checked
this meant children who as well all know are anything but careful.
Then there are those whose manual dexterity isn't as nimble as the
average 14-24 yr old computer nerd. This would include the elderly and
the handicapped.(Not to ring my own bell here but that'd include me.
I have a condition much like carpal tunnel. Nerve damage that makes
handling things like cds and dvds a bit difficult at times.)
Not to mention that the surface of commercial dvds are so soft that
even errant dust in the works will eventually scratch them.(The avrage
family house has nearly 10 pounds of dirt free floating in the air.)

>
>>Instead their plan is to make it more fragile in the hopes that it'll
>>get damaged forcing the consumer to "of course" buy it again.
>
>Oh, a conspiracy theory, eh? You'd better be careful before Jack Valenti
>decides to make you the next Jimmy Hoffa. (sarcasm off)
If corporate tactics are a conspiracy I guess so then.
>
>>Just another case of greedy bastards wanting to have their cake and
>>eat it too.
>
>And I can guess that you don't take good care of your discs and also allow them
>to be handled by idiots.
No. try readig my reply above on that issue.
>
>>They spend almost no money on R&D towards building a scratch proof
>>CD/DVD.
>
>Because how can you make such a disc?
>
>Use a better plastic? Plastics can always be scratched, and there isn't really
>anything more suitable for DVDs and CDs than polycarbonate.
Actually as I said LEXAN. The make it all the way up to bullet
proof.(The helmets of the Apollo astronauts were made of Lexan as well
as the gold plated transparent visor shields on them.)
GE marketed a cassette tape back in the late 70's early 80's made of
high grade shock proof Lexan(same grade as the football helmets were
made of.) with a tape formulation that was extremely heat resistant.
We in the film and sound industry loved 'em. You couldn't kill them.
The cost was only slightly higher than the comparable hifi brand names
on the market.(As I recall I payed about 1.50-2.00 bucks more over the
same maxell/denon/tdk tape of the same bias and size.)
I still have some of the tapes in my archive vault today. They still
play with the same highs as when I recorded them nearly 25 years ago.
And that's just one superior plastic, one I might ad that is nearly 40
years old.
There are newer plastics that've been developed since that would work
just as well and probably cost even less. HDPE is one that comes to
mind.(No it is made in rigid formulations)

>
>Apply some sort of scratch resistant coating on the irridescent side? You can
>end up actually altering the optical properties of the disc, rendering it
>unplayable. The polycarbonate layer also acts as a lens of sort which works
>with the objective lens on the pickup to focus the beam on the track path.
>This is why these discs don't have a lexan coating as you've suggested as
>applying such a coating alters the optical characteristics of the disc, which
>can cause problems.
No you simply use the lexan instead of the polycarb. Simply adjust for
the refractive properties of the Lexan. In fact I've used high grade
optical lenses made of lexan.( If you go to GE labs they'll give you
the optical properties of lexan, you'll find it's got a much higher
rating than polycarbonate.)
And while it's certainly not cost effective, we've had the technology
to grow synthetic diamonds.(It's done in a solution.)
That tech know how has been around since the 50's.
Esentially what I'm trying to say is that we have tons of
technological solutions for making a cost effective scratch proof
cd/dvd.

>
>>Yet throw oddles of money at encryption schemes and copy
>>guard technology to prevent the consumer from making copies.
>
>In one way, all of these provisions makes it hell for the consumer to practice
>his fair use rights. Then again, I can't really blame the studios as they are
>just simply doing what they can to protect the profitability of their products.
> They are businesses, after all. However, I do agree that they should stand
>back and get a fresh look at the problem and find real solutions that won't
>cripple the consumer.
Consider it cost pennies to actually mass produce the cd's and dvd's
on the market today.
Yet look at the retail price.
Still the real point of it is they WANT to sell you the same product
over and over again.
That was a market model that the recording industry built in the 60's
and 70's.
One the film and music industry are loathe to abandon.
I'll believe their line of crap about business costs being awful when
I see a record/film company exec driving a vw bug and wearing suits
from K-mart.
>
>But, that will never happen because every movie studio fears the possibility of
>making a "Heaven's Gate" and would like to brace themselves for a finnancial
>bath, just in case.
>
That's really not a legitimate argument.
whenever a film is signed on to be made all sorts of insurance and
bonds are contracted to avoid any possibility of financial loss of the
prinicipal.
The "financial bath" is really just the lost opportunity to rake in
millions in box office and secondaries.
The attitude of the investors is that if they lay out millions then
they expect to see at least double that in intial profit in the first
year. Or even in the few weeks of first release.
(Or box office receipts if the contract deal only allow for first run
profits for principal investors. i.e. no monies for them on video or
cable etc..)
They get very unhappy if they don't make 2-3 times over their
principal.

>"Heaven's Gate" was a motion picture released in 1980. It cost over $40
>million to produce, but it flopped big-time. The finnancial loss of the film
>was so staggering that it pretty much killed United Artists, the studio that
>commissioned the motion picture's production. Or, at least, forced
>Transamerica, UA's corporate parent, to sell UA to MGM to recover its losses
>and answer to its investors. - Reinhart

That was a studio film that was backed pretty much by the studio
itself.
What really crippled the studio was the perceived loss of
insurability.
If you can't make a huge profit on a film no Completion bond company
will carry you. i.e. you can't make films because no investor will go
near you.
you stop making films for even a short time your stock goes down.
Your stock goes down, stockholders make a run to sell.
You crash.
The 40 million it cost to make Heaven's Gate was mostly just inflated
hype and over pay.
Heaven's Gate was supposed to do what Star Wars did for science
fiction films usher in a new golden era for box office westerns.
The viewing public was just not in the mood for westerns at that time.
The same film could have been made for as little as 9 million.
That wouldn't draw the curiosity of the potential viwers though.(the
mindset being that if it cost big bucks to make it MUST be good.)
They were also banking on Michael Cimino's box office rep, which was a
bit over inflated.(He did make The Deerhunter and Thunderbolt and
Lightfoot)
Yet soon proved to be a bit of a flash in the pan and just could not
keep up the level of box office draw the execs wanted.

Quantcast