# News Corp. Exploring HD Film Rentals (Theatrical)



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002076585



> March 01, 2006
> 
> News Corp. exploring high-def film rentals
> 
> ...


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

I personally feel.

$30 for a Theatrical release (even if it was 60 days old)... that is still a good couple of months before DVD

Is a good deal... It would cost me a minimum of $40 to go and see a movie for me and my wife (tickets $10 each, snacks $11, Babysitter....)


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

Niche market. Wonder what their breakeven point is? First year ownership of HD units won't pentrate to the masses due to the high prices. I guess they already have estimated that though and thus, the 25 dollar price point.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

ebonovic said:


> I personally feel.
> 
> $30 for a Theatrical release (even if it was 60 days old)... that is still a good couple of months before DVD
> 
> Is a good deal... It would cost me a minimum of $40 to go and see a movie for me and my wife (tickets $10 each, snacks $11, Babysitter....)


$30 isn't going to bring in many customers, even if it's HD. Under $20 would be a better starting point, but I can't see this really going anywhere once Netflix and Blockbuster and everyone else gets the HD-DVD's/Blueray's (people will wait to rent from those type of places).


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

rifleman69 said:


> $30 isn't going to bring in many customers, even if it's HD. Under $20 would be a better starting point, but I can't see this really going anywhere once Netflix and Blockbuster and everyone else gets the HD-DVD's/Blueray's (people will wait to rent from those type of places).


But you have different angles on that...

First you would still need to wait a few more months for the DISK version.
And then with some of the proposed, downrezing of HD-DVD and BlueRay

Guess I am looking at it as PPV on steroids


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

ebonovic said:


> Guess I am looking at it as PPV on steroids


Which is why $30.00 isn't going to cut it. PPV is currently $3-5? (I haven't ordered PPV in a long time), a 6-10X jump ain't going to bring them in for HD viewing. Plus you'll have to have the HR20-250 (can't see the H20 doing this) and then you see how little of an audience they'll have.

*edit* You'd be surprised at the amount of people in the U.S. now who don't hit the movie theater that often if at all, and wait until stuff comes out on DVD. Consumers have stated that movies are one of the first things to go in times of financial need. $3-4 for a movie at home where you don't have to take the family out for 10X if not more the price.


----------



## Billy66 (Dec 15, 2003)

$10 is my price point.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

Billy66 said:


> $10 is my price point.


I'd probably still pass at $10.00 but if it was a movie I was interested in (and there aren't many out there these days), I'd seriously think about it there. Still, would need the H20-250 and I know I'm not getting that any time soon. This HDPPV is probably at least a year off if not more.


----------



## HiDefGator (Oct 12, 2004)

I'd pay $25 to see first run films in my living room at the same time they come out in theaters. I'm not sure about 60 days later.

Like others have said just taking my wife to the movies is far more than that.

tickets $16 (2)
snacks $8
baby sitter $30

And the popcorn at theaters is no where near as good as mine. And at home I can pause it for bathroom breaks.


----------



## TheBigDogs (Oct 14, 2004)

I don't know what this guy is smoking, but I'd sure like to meet his dealer. 

This is absolutely absurd, if he was talking about immediate (simultaneous) release in all media (DVD, PPV, and Theater) his pricing might be close, but at 60 days it makes no sense at all. Theater attendance is dropping and that's got Fox and the rest of the distributers worried, but to assume this kind of pricing for stale merchandise really does make you wonder what's driving their thinking. 

The only way that something like this might work at this price point is the introduction of a substantial delay in the release to PPV and retail DVD rental. Even then, I would personally have a very hard time justifying an expenditure of that magnitude when waiting a few weeks would yield the same material at a much lower price.


----------



## Smthkd (May 23, 2005)

I'd pay $20, no more than that, not worth it!


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

HiDefGator said:


> And the popcorn at theaters is no where near as good as mine. And at home I can pause it for bathroom breaks.


Actually, I don't see anything about being able to pause the movies, which is usually something News Corp touts when releasing similar types of information. Even more reason to just say no.


----------



## Lee L (Oct 1, 2003)

The problem with this is for all those people who have expensive veiwing rooms, most do not have HDMI running to their projectors. There is no way on earth Hollywood will not require flags on this so the resolution will not be full HD.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

The price isn't the problem for me. My wife and I go to the movies 2-3 times per month. The issue is that I emjoy going to the movies. I enjoy the experience. To me going to the movies and watching movies at home is a very different experience. While I gladly pay $40 to go to the movies with my wife, I don't see myself waiting 60 days and then paying $30 to watch the movie at home. As HiDefGator said, I'd consider the $20-$25 range if the movie was available at the same time as it is available in the theaters.


----------



## butchd5 (Sep 19, 2004)

no way will I pay $25 for a HD movie. My wife and I (kids are grown) rarely go to the movies. When we do it is before 6pm to get the discount price. No popcorn or drinks and we do not miss them. 

We wait for the DVD and enjoy at home. Rarely do we do PPV.

Lee L- I am not sure what you mean about HDMI and HD. Are you saying HDMI does not yield true HD? I am still learning about HD so any education will be appreciated.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

butchd5 said:


> Are you saying HDMI does not yield true HD? I am still learning about HD so any education will be appreciated.


HDMI offers content protection in the form of HDCP which supports various broadcast "flags" which are bits of information that tell equipment how a particular program may be handled in terms of display mechanism, display quality, ability to archive / copy, etc.

Whay Lee L is saying is that most people do not have an HDMI connection to their projector and that if Fox flags the broadcast as such, that full HDTV resolution will only be allowed over HDMI and that any other connection will be flagged to transport only a downgraded signal.


----------



## butchd5 (Sep 19, 2004)

Thanks for the clarification. That helps. 

Now for an additonal question (or two). If I use HDMI, will that prohibit me from recording an HD movie with an HR10-250 from TNTHD, etc.? Or perhaps I should ask does the possiblity exist that I could be prevented from recording them? Is so, would I gain by using component cables instead of HDMI?

Thanks


----------



## onin24eagle (Feb 17, 2006)

Damn, maybe I'll start charging admission to my home theater. They may be on to something. I could charge $10 per person and that would include food and drinks.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

butchd5 said:


> Thanks for the clarification. That helps.
> 
> Now for an additonal question (or two). If I use HDMI, will that prohibit me from recording an HD movie with an HR10-250 from TNTHD, etc.? Or perhaps I should ask does the possiblity exist that I could be prevented from recording them? Is so, would I gain by using component cables instead of HDMI?
> 
> Thanks


Make sure it's an actual HD movie from TNTHD, not something stretched to take up your whole screen. You should be fine with HDMI on your HR10-250 for HD stuff.


----------



## butchd5 (Sep 19, 2004)

thanks for the help. I just bought a Sony 42" hdtv lcd rear proj and D* will install the new dish and HR10-250 tommorrow. I will use the HDMI to connect.


----------



## ebonovic (Jul 24, 2001)

butchd5 said:


> Thanks for the clarification. That helps.
> 
> Now for an additonal question (or two). If I use HDMI, will that prohibit me from recording an HD movie with an HR10-250 from TNTHD, etc.? Or perhaps I should ask does the possiblity exist that I could be prevented from recording them? Is so, would I gain by using component cables instead of HDMI?
> 
> Thanks


As in like to a DVD Recorder or some other device other then an HD-DVR?

Right now there is no consumer level piece of equipment that will let you capture the feed from a Component or DVI/HDMI output stream.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

rifleman69 said:


> Make sure it's an actual HD movie from TNTHD, not something stretched to take up your whole screen. You should be fine with HDMI on your HR10-250 for HD stuff.


Any movie shot on film by a professional studio in the last 50 years or so has greater resolution than HD. Even prior to that most movies shot on film would still qualify as HD in terms of resolution. Moving film images are now, and have been for a long time, far superior to video, HD or otherwise.

So nearly all movies, by default, are "HD."

In addition, just about every movie ever made has an OAR of at least 1.85:1.

What you are talking about are transfers from film to video.

I could be wrong (tell me if I am) but I would be really shocked if TNT is stretching movies. That would suggest that they are using old pan/scan video intended for display on 4:3 television. Since TNT owns all those movies they show it would be trival for them to access the source material in its OAR. If a anamorphic DVD of any of those movies has ever been made, they already have the source material in OAR. So, at worst I would imagine that they are broadcasting 480p OAR source material with an OAR of at least 1.85:1. If this is the case, there would be no stretching, only an upconversion from 480p to 1080i.

Finally, considering again that they own all these movies, it would seem reasonably simple to re-transfer the material from film to 1080i.

I haven't watched, but are they honestly broadcasting 4:3 pan/scan movies strectched to 16:9 and upconverted to 1080i?


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

butchd5 said:


> Thanks for the clarification. That helps.
> 
> Now for an additonal question (or two). If I use HDMI, will that prohibit me from recording an HD movie with an HR10-250 from TNTHD, etc.? Or perhaps I should ask does the possiblity exist that I could be prevented from recording them? Is so, would I gain by using component cables instead of HDMI?
> 
> Thanks


I record everything thru s vid and it's fine. I've also been told, since it's analog, that no matter what flag they come up with, no one will bother with flags thru S video connections. I can definitely live with that. Nice thing is the HDtivo outputs hdmi and S vid at the same time so no hookup problems.

I also record the HD version OTA or satellite of everything I can as the PQ , especially with locals, is SOOO much better recording ota, even though it's piped down to 480. I dont know all the semantics of it but can just say it's a better pic. My guess is GIGO.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

butchd5 said:


> Thanks for the clarification. That helps.
> 
> Now for an additonal question (or two). If I use HDMI, will that prohibit me from recording an HD movie with an HR10-250 from TNTHD, etc.? Or perhaps I should ask does the possiblity exist that I could be prevented from recording them? Is so, would I gain by using component cables instead of HDMI?
> 
> Thanks


Whether or not you can record a movie is determined by Macrovision and similar systems (older) and HDCP (modern content protection). The ability to record or not record is independent of the output mechanism (HDMI, component, etc.) This is in theory as I don't believe the broadcast flags are being used at this point.

But, in theory, any product that is HDCP must obey the flags. If the flag says "do not record," and a DVR is equipped with HDCP, the DVR must obey the do not record flag.

Now, the HR10-250 is older and even though it is HDCP compliant, at this point I do not believe that any definitive answer on whether it must (can) obey flags has been presented since when it was manufactured (and even today) no rules were in place about broadcast flags.

So, in short, it is possible that in the future your HR10-250 may not record certain programs if they are flagged as do not record. This possibility, however, is irregardless of the output mechanism.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

ebonovic said:


> As in like to a DVD Recorder or some other device other then an HD-DVR?
> 
> Right now there is no consumer level piece of equipment that will let you capture the feed from a Component or DVI/HDMI output stream.


What's this old article then? (note the bargain price ) http://ultimateavmag.com/dvdplayers/63/

it says : this layout of video and audio inputs and outputs is quite confusing. I wish the audio and video connectors for each external input had been grouped together, and the same for the outputs. However, this annoyance is more than offset by the presence of a component input, which is missing from all the other DVD recorders I've seen.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

SpankyInChicago said:


> I haven't watched, but are they honestly broadcasting 4:3 pan/scan movies strectched to 16:9 and upconverted to 1080i?


For many movies/shows yes, they are stretching it. If you have the time, schedule a recording of "Charmed" on TNTHD, which is not recorded in HD. It's stretched to fill the screen, making everyone have the "fat face" effect.

Then tape an NBA game or Nascar...you can easily tell the difference.


----------



## dt_dc (Jul 31, 2003)

newsposter said:


> What's this old article then? (note the bargain price ) http://ultimateavmag.com/dvdplayers/63/


That DVD burner can capture SD content from component input.

HD content is a whole 'nother ball game.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

rifleman69 said:


> For many movies/shows yes, they are stretching it. If you have the time, schedule a recording of "Charmed" on TNTHD, which is not recorded in HD. It's stretched to fill the screen, making everyone have the "fat face" effect.
> 
> Then tape an NBA game or Nascar...you can easily tell the difference.


I understand they are doing it (stretching) for shows. Televison shows on tape are different animal than movies shot on film. Just because they are stretching television shows shot on video doesn't mean they are stretching movies shot on film. My question is in regards to the stretching of movies.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

SpankyInChicago said:


> I understand they are doing it (stretching) for shows. Televison shows on tape are different animal than movies shot on film. Just because they are stretching television shows shot on video doesn't mean they are stretching movies shot on film. My question is in regards to the stretching of movies.


Armageddon (within this past week) was not in HD, but it was stretched. I saw another movie as well last week, but can't remember what it was. Just noticed that it was definitely not HD. (it was a semi-older film, not within the past 7 or so years)


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

dt_dc said:


> That DVD burner can capture SD content from component input.
> 
> HD content is a whole 'nother ball game.


but he didn't say HD 



> let you capture the feed from a Component


----------



## TyroneShoes (Sep 6, 2004)

I am really insulted by Chernin's notion that we split the ridiculously-high cost by inviting a few friends over and chipping in on the $30 bill. He's dreaming. That kind of thinking went away shortly after the George Foreman PPV comeback fight two decades ago. And "50 First Dates" ain't no live Foreman comeback fight.

I can buy a MovieBeam box today (and likely so can you) for $299 with an HDMI output which will give me 100 movies as VOD (from a HDD) with 10 new movies a month, many in HD at $5.99 each ($1.99 to 3.99 for SD). If I intend on ever watching more than 15 HD movies total, this is obviously a much better deal. The movies are refreshed in non-real time and transmitted as a data stream from the local PBS DT station, which means I can use the same OTA antenna I use today. It's a no-brainer, but apparently Chernin is also a no-brainer. If I have the MovieBeam option or Chernin's fantasy option, Chernin will probably still be wondering why as Rupert eventually gives him the boot.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

actually 199 and only 1 buck premium for HD

The advertised price of the MovieBeam System is $199.99 after an introductory rebate of $50. There is a one-time service activation fee of $29.99. Movie-rental prices are $3.99 for new release titles and $1.99 for library titles  with a $1 premium for HD movies. Each rental covers a 24-hour viewing period during which customers can watch a movie as many times as they like, with full video playback functionality. There are no annual contracts or monthly subscription fees.


----------



## n8. (Feb 26, 2006)

Just wait 60-90 days and get it on dvd... 

HD-DVD is coming soon, is it not? Pay $20 a month w/ netflix or blockbuster and get as many as you want.

Get some trick software for your dvd burner and you can copy all your "rented" movies.


----------



## DAS37 (Apr 5, 2004)

I really like his argument that 1 million people spent over $25,000 on home theater setup in America last year. I consider myself above average in the amount of what I spend on home theater setup and it comes to maybe 12 grand tops. I would also like to meet his dealer and get some of whatever he is smoking.


----------



## n8. (Feb 26, 2006)

DAS37 said:


> I really like his argument that 1 million people spent over $25,000 on home theater setup in America last year. I consider myself above average in the amount of what I spend on home theater setup and it comes to maybe 12 grand tops. I would also like to meet his dealer and get some of whatever he is smoking.


25k?!! Maybe with stadium seating, remote operated drop down screen/projector, and a snack bar.

For 10k you can get a tv, sound, lighting, leather seating, and possibly a refrigerator under your sofa.


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

I don't have kids, so I don't need a babysitter. I don't eat in theaters so the high cost of food and drink has no effect on me. Every place I go to has free parking. So there's no way I'm paying $30 to see a movie I can see in a theater for about $9 (I go alone). Besides, 99% of the movies I see are on HBO, Starz, Cinemax or Showtime. I don't mind waiting a year or more to see them.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

DAS37 said:


> I really like his argument that 1 million people spent over $25,000 on home theater setup in America last year. I consider myself above average in the amount of what I spend on home theater setup and it comes to maybe 12 grand tops. I would also like to meet his dealer and get some of whatever he is smoking.


You have to look at what that $25k includes. In addition to equipment that figure likely includes construction build out costs, furniture, labor costs, automation, programming costs, etc.

$25k becomes a "low end" figure when you take all of that into account for a task-specific home theater.

Before I decided to "cheap out" I was looking at theater solutions that were in the $50-$60k range. And at the place (Abt Electronics) where I was shopping, I was sort of a middle of the road customer. They are regularly doing $200k setups.

You and I both spent about the same ($12k) and while it is more than most, I totally believe the 1 million people a year doing $25k systems.


----------



## n8. (Feb 26, 2006)

SpankyInChicago said:


> You and I both spent about the same ($12k) and while it is more than most, I totally believe the 1 million people a year doing $25k systems.


What a waste, just go to the movies.

If you spend over 12k and have a normal american income... ju must be crazy.

If you spend over 10k on a home theatre w/out furniture, you need to be slapped.


----------



## marksman (Mar 4, 2002)

This is an interesting concept and moves us closer to where we need to be anyways... And that is finding mechanisms to cut out the 2nd-rate movie theater experience that currently exists.

I think $30 is too much, but at half that much, I think you could get some play. When a family can get an almost new release for $15.00 I think it can happen...

I have so conditioned myself to just wait on movies now, anways, though, that I doubt I would be a customer. I pay a ridiculous satellite bill every month and that pretty much covers the entirety of my movie going experience.


----------



## TimGoodwin (Jun 20, 2003)

n8. said:


> What a waste, just go to the movies.
> 
> If you spend over 12k and have a normal american income... ju must be crazy.
> 
> If you spend over 10k on a home theatre w/out furniture, you need to be slapped.


Now that's funny!


----------



## Hersheytx (Feb 15, 2003)

rifleman69 said:


> $30 isn't going to bring in many customers, even if it's HD. Under $20 would be a better starting point, but I can't see this really going anywhere once Netflix and Blockbuster and everyone else gets the HD-DVD's/Blueray's (people will wait to rent from those type of places).


DVD was the main reason I stopped buying pay-per-view on Directv. I got to decide when to watch and enjoy it again if I wanted to see it. Buy or rent it was a better deal then PPV.

Now I would spend 20 dollars to see an HD movie beamed to me if it was not on DVD yet. But your right, when HDDVD comes out I am right back to where I was before with DVD and PPV. I do not mind waiting a couple more months to get it on HDDVD.

I think the 30 dollar price point will not go over well. Most people I know with HD set ups with special rooms do not want a whole band of people over every Friday night for movie night. Big sporting events or that family get together yes....


----------



## jamesbobo (Jun 18, 2000)

Speaking of HD-DVD, I recently saw a demonstration of it at Electronics Expo in Wayne. It was a Toshiba model. I was told there will me two models, one at $500, the other $800. The DVD's will retail for $25-$30. While the picture is great I don't think it's a big deal. Most movies are still garbage and not worth the expense.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

n8. said:


> What a waste, just go to the movies.
> 
> If you spend over 12k and have a normal american income... ju must be crazy.
> 
> If you spend over 10k on a home theatre w/out furniture, you need to be slapped.


I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, but I always find it is best not to tell others how to spend their money. I suppose if I were to know a little more about you I might find things that you spend your money on that I think are foolish. But, alas, it is your money and you are free to spend it as you wish.

But you make a valid point. I agree that someone who makes the median US household income (around $45k per year) probably should not spend $12k on a home theater.

But I think most people posting here are well above the median US household income. I know I make a decent enough living that spending $12k on my home theater wasn't over the top. In all honesty, I could have afforded more, but a little bit of you must have been in my mind because I just couldn't bring myself to spend the upwards of $50k that would have gotten me by "dream" room. I thought it was "crazy" and my wife probably would have slapped me.

Anyway. If you think I spent a lot on my home theater, you should see the woodworking shop in my basement.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

Hersheytx said:


> I think the 30 dollar price point will not go over well. Most people I know with HD set ups with special rooms do not want a whole band of people over every Friday night for movie night. Big sporting events or that family get together yes....


I think you miss the point. I also think the marketers miss the point if they think they will be selling this to people who will request an entry fee from their guests.

The only people who are going to sign up for this are people with large disposable incomes. People who are spending $25k on home theaters are not the kind of people who are going to have a financial need to ask 3 guests to come over and each chip in $7.50 so they can afford the $30 PPV movie.

These people will either spend the $30 for their own enjoyment, or depending on their personality, will invite people over to enjoy it with them.

If you've got a 107% mortgage on your house, two car payments, get pissed off because your copay went from $20 to $30 this year, and look at $30 as half-a-tank of gas, you aren't the target market.


----------



## onin24eagle (Feb 17, 2006)

SpankyInChicago said:


> I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, but I always find it is best not to tell others how to spend their money. I suppose if I were to know a little more about you I might find things that you spend your money on that I think are foolish. But, alas, it is your money and you are free to spend it as you wish.
> 
> But you make a valid point. I agree that someone who makes the median US household income (around $45k per year) probably should not spend $12k on a home theater.
> 
> ...


I agree. I think I was ok to spend about 30k on my theater. However, the guy that stops by 7-11 every day to buy the $2 coffee needs to be slapped.


----------



## cowart (Dec 11, 2003)

SpankyInChicago said:


> just about every movie ever made has an OAR of at least 1.85:1.


Not really - in the US, the wider ratios did not become popular until the 1950s. A *lot* of movies were made before then, and many are still being shown on TV. Also, the 1.66 ratio is still being used in some European productions. A fairly recent example would be _Das Boot _ from 1981.


----------



## rifleman69 (Jan 6, 2005)

marksman said:


> I have so conditioned myself to just wait on movies now, anways, though, that I doubt I would be a customer. I pay a ridiculous satellite bill every month and that pretty much covers the entirety of my movie going experience.


That's the same thing with me marksman. The past two years I've been to the movies twice, both while I was visiting my parent's winter home in Palm Springs. Saw Incredibles and Syriana. But besides that, my wife and I don't want to spend $20.00 on tickets (ok maybe $16.00 at economy) when we can watch it when it comes out on DVD on our 50" SonyA10 with the ability to pause if we need to go to the bathroom for about $1.75 a movie from Netflix.

So MAYBE, I might get a movie in HD, but not for anything over $10.00...not a deal in my eyes at all.


----------



## cowart (Dec 11, 2003)

SpankyInChicago said:


> considering again that they own all these movies, it would seem reasonably simple to re-transfer the material from film to 1080i.


Not necessarily - the cost to transfer a film is around $5K. If you have only a few to do, that's not too bad, but if you have hundreds, it's a big investment.

Also, in quite a few cases with older films, the original negative may be moderately to severely deteriorated due to nitrocellulose decomposition, or it simply may not be in existence any more. This has even happened with films that have won Oscars.


----------



## gquiring (Dec 13, 2002)

I could see paying $30 if it was one week after release in the theaters.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

cowart said:


> Not really - in the US, the wider ratios did not become popular until the 1950s. A *lot* of movies were made before then, and many are still being shown on TV. Also, the 1.66 ratio is still being used in some European productions. A fairly recent example would be _Das Boot _ from 1981.


Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## SpankyInChicago (May 13, 2005)

cowart said:


> Not necessarily - the cost to transfer a film is around $5K. If you have only a few to do, that's not too bad, but if you have hundreds, it's a big investment.


This is a major company. $1 million or $10 million is trivial. So I don't buy that $5k per movie is a barrier to entry for them.

Your point about the deteriation is a good one.

So, can we agree that just about any film in the last 50 years could easily be shown in HD in OAR with the cost of a simple HD transfer.


----------



## DAS37 (Apr 5, 2004)

cowart said:


> Not really - in the US, the wider ratios did not become popular until the 1950s. A *lot* of movies were made before then, and many are still being shown on TV. Also, the 1.66 ratio is still being used in some European productions. A fairly recent example would be _Das Boot _ from 1981.


Quite true. I believe The Robe was the first "widescreen" picture using CinemaScope, which was released in 1953.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

If I can wait 60 days then I can wait 120 days to be able to buy the HD DVD for the same price (or more likely less) as watching it once 60 days out. And not that I ever sell them, but I could sell the HD DVD after watching it once and recoup most of my money... so the HD DVD is an asset, whereas the HD PPV version is money completely lost after it's spent.

Of course, I hate PPV; I won't do it at $1.99 or $2.99 or $4.99 or $5.99. But at least current PPV pricing is significantly below the cost of buying the DVD when it's released.

I'd consider it if 90-100% of the PPV cost went towards the HD DVD if I decided I wanted to buy it; it'd almost be a definite if the HD DVD just automatically showed up in my mailbox for every movie I watched in HD PPV.


----------



## n8. (Feb 26, 2006)

SpankyInChicago said:


> I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, but I always find it is best not to tell others how to spend their money. I suppose if I were to know a little more about you I might find things that you spend your money on that I think are foolish. But, alas, it is your money and you are free to spend it as you wish.
> 
> But you make a valid point. I agree that someone who makes the median US household income (around $45k per year) probably should not spend $12k on a home theater.
> 
> ...


Oh hell yeah, if you make big money, go balls out and get the best of the best. But for an average joe (like me), I just cant see spending 15-20% of my yearly income for a home theater.

I wouldnt dare tell a specific person how to spend their money. I myself just feel that if you dont have the extra money dont spend it. I have too many friends who are maxed out on their cards/have 2nd mortgages and work 12 hours a day to crawl out of debt. By the time they retire, they will die of a heart attack and all the extra work would have been for nothing.

I spent 6k a year ago and I am still deciding if it was worth it. My 32" CRT was working just fine. 

A lot of slapping going on in this thread


----------



## DevilishTX (Dec 31, 2002)

> Armageddon (within this past week) was not in HD, but it was stretched.


 I agree. That was my first experience with TNTHD channel. I though something looked "odd" about it, and sure enough it was that "fat face" effect.

I compared it to the DVD I have of the movie. You could certainly tell TNT was sending a stretched video signal.

I've since seen a couple other movies come across that way.


----------



## 1999cobra (Nov 10, 2005)

Yup - I'd pay $30 if the movie came with an endless supply of buttered popcorn, drinks, a hooters type woman to serve it to me. Then when the movie is over the hooter girl and I have a happy ending - **** I'd pay $40 for that - LOL


----------

