Both are technically obsolete formats, but they've lasted so long because they gained market saturation. Most households in the developed world contain a CD player and VHS VCR, together with several hundred media for each. In order for this situation to change, either the economies of scale have to change, or the new format has to be backwards-compatible (e.g. DVD players being able to play CDs), or both.

It took a decade from the launch of audio CDs to vinyl LPs disappearing from the mainstream market. I guess that, as DVD technology becomes more widespread and recordable machines become affordable, new audio-only recordings will gradually start to be issued on a DVD format which uses the extra data capacity to encode more channels of sound and/or higher sampling rates/frequency responses in each one.

DVD audio offers more than 2 channel sound, but that has never been a big issue for the public, other than the home theatre enthusisasts. The down side is the draconian copy protection that the public has clearly rejected.

MiniDisc offer record capability, but that is really an add on in the general public's mind, and regular CDR recorders are now cheap.

quote:

---

On the day that The Fellowship Of The Ring came out, a friend wrote me about how Aragorn couldn't be seen watching the hobbits from his dark corner: the theater owner had turned down the juice going to the projector bulb to save a few measly bucks! Such finagling - by thermodynamics or thuggery - won’t happen on a digital system: the movie you see ten weeks from now will be the same movie, in every detail, as is the movie you see tomorrow.

---

This point certainly is not valid. What makes him think the theater owner won't do the same thing with the 7k bulb running in the DLP's lamphouse? The projector head may be totally different, but the lamphouse technology is exactly the same. And as someone mentioned above, the lamps are even more expensive and don't last as long.

I'm not against digital. I think it can peacefully coexist with film. But like everyone else, I am against what these people are doing. They are using half truths and sometimes false statements to try to justify that digital is better.

quote:

---

With that done, we can focus on bigger game: convincing the major studios and theatrical chains that digital projection is in their best interest.

---

It may be in the sudios' best interests because it elminates the production and shipping costs ascociated with film. But since the studio pays for all that, tell me, exactly how is it in the theaters' best interests?? The average customer probablly doesn't care. And as Adam Wilbert pointed out, some customers can't tell the difference. (See the thread Customers "Can't believe its not... DLP" in Yak.)

Yes, I do feel another letter-writing campaign coming on....

------------------
This one time, at Projection Camp, I stuck a xenon bulb....

Now, before you jump on me, I want to say that if I do run film commercially in the future, I WILL pay attention, use cleaning devices and keep things in good order. I saw the prototype to my drive-in booth yesterday at the IMAX booth at Canadian Museum of Civiliztion in Hull Quebec (Ottawa). You can't see the projector, but the platter is housed in a carpeted sealed clean room with various controls and monitors that make it look like an evil lair. Two platter set-up, the film winds off one, disappears 20 feet in the air, and back down again. The other show stands by on the other decks. It's apparent that these films must be rewound as the platter winds off the outside and is taken up on a solid core. Fascinating. As much as we fret about film done wrong, I find that alot of people don't notice the flaws I will as a result of hanging around on this forum. I don't think most films have enough legs to need to be preserved very long (AGAIN - NO REASON NOT TO PRESERVE THEM). I think this fact will delay DLP as much as anything. I just don't know enough people who really care if a film is DTS, SR, SDDS or whatever. A well-lit screen with a good clear sound is all most people want. The theatres in my part of the world seem to give it to them.

------------------
A KIWI eats,roots & Leaves.

George only saved 2.5 million by shooting it on video? SURELY Star Wars, his little baby for now over 25 years deserves to look as good as it possibly can! SHOOT ON FILM, DAMMIT!

Geez...I can't believe that's all he saved. I thought it must have been in the tens of millions to degrade the quality this much. For goodness sake...$2.5 million???

He carries that much in his wallet!

There's no hope for us all...

I'm going to bed.

...and while you're at it George...for goodness sake, let someone else direct the next one. Give old Stevie a go. Or perhaps Baz Luhrman.