Sadly enough, I own all three soundtracks. And by own I mean a physical CD from the store that I exchanged cash for. I like how the soundtracks are actually "From and Inspired by." What I was really hoping for was the score.
I'm well aware that the ACTUAL resolution does not change on a 16:9 anamorphic DVD. I'm well aware that it is the displayed resolution that changes. I'm also aware of pixel aspect ratios (and how D1 is.9 and anamorphic is 1.2). . I'm not sure if you caught this part of my post:
Do you know why the call it anamorphic? Because the actual signal is 720x576.
I was refering to PAL, obviously.
I'm really not sure why you're ranting so much. I was pointing out that a 640x480 video file is not that much lower resolution than a DVD image (for NTSC), and how a DVD (or any non-square pixel source) is displayed on a computer monitor. So, if I watch an anamorphic DVD on a computer screen, the display resolution DOES factor in. It depends on how that signal is interpreted, if I didn't want to lose information at all, the displayed resolution of a 720x480 signal with a 1.2 pixel aspect ratio would be 853x480. Now if I wanted to instead not interpolate any pixels on my square pixel display, it would be 720x600. Yes, the original signal is still 720x480. However, when it's displayed, information is either thrown out (by scaling the vertical resolution) or created (by scaling up the horizontal resolution) when viewing on a computer monitor.
But thanks for using a lot of broadcast acronyms that are pretty meaningless to the conversation at hand. No offense, but (to me) your post came off as just trying to sound intelligent, which you may very well be. But I was responding to the original post discussing a 1024x576 square pix resolution for a PAL DVD, and how 640x480 is such a shitty resolution... and explaining that the acutal signal for a PAL DVD is 720x576 and that an anamorphic video signal needs to be stretched out on a square pixel display to show properly and that's where he got the 1024 number from and that the original signal is actually much closer to 640x480 than s/he thinks. (Yay run-on sentences!)
Sorry for being a little of an ass, but I didn't really see the relevence of your post to the conversation at hand. That and since I work in film/video post, I'm well aware of everything you said... Yes, I know NTSC actually has 486 scan lines. Damn, there I go being an ass again...
I have to agree that adding an anamorphic flag in the video file would be the best way to go. I'm not really sure why that hasn't been done, other than laziness.
Oh, and don't even get me started on people not knowing how to set up their TVs/DVD players to display 16:9 images properly (or even 4:3). I can't tell you how many homes I've been to with people watching SDTV broadcasts on their new LCD HDTVs and have the image stretched out because they don't like the black bars on the side. And it's as useless trying to explain that concept as it is trying to explain how widescreen versions of DVDs dont' actually cut off any picture compared to their full-screen bastard step-children. Some concepts people just can't wrap their head around.
I brought up the telcos because they were some of the first companies to start rallying against net neutrality. I'm aware that this particular article is discussing tech companies, but that line jumped out at me.
Beats me. I was just responding to that line from the article. Personally, I'd say it's just something they threw in there to get more support for rallying against net neutrality.
The reason the video file is at 640x344 is to compensate for the widescreen aspect ratio. If this was to be viewed on a standard 4:3 NTSC television (let's not get into a PAL vs NTSC debate, I don't like either), it's not much different than viewing an 16:9 anamorphic DVD on a 4:3 NTSC television. (The DVD would be viewed at roughly 720x387.)
Video downloads scew towards the 640 mark becaus a.) for a long, long time, that was how NTSC video was displayed on a computer screen and 2.) because it scales easily to the 320x240 displays of the iPod without having to do any funky interpolation.
First of all, the actual resolution of a DVD image is 720x480 NTSC and 720x576 PAL. The displayed resolution, however, can vary depending on how you want to interpolate pixels. The common 640x480 is used because it contains all the vertical resolution of an NTSC signal, and squishes the horizontal resolution to display properly in square pixels. This is the equivalent of display a PAL image at 720x540. Oddly enough, if you display an NTSC signal by stretching out the vertical resolution instead of squishing the horizontal resolution, you also get 720x540, but with interpolated pixels. PAL would be 768x576.
The 1024 res you mention is for 16:9 anamorphic image. Do you know why the call it anamorphic? Because the actual signal is 720x576. The image needs to be stretched out to display properly. For NTSC this would be 853x480.
But I see after writing all this, that you did mention square pixel resolution. So I guess this post is rather useless. However, 640x480 isn't that low res if you have an NTSC DVD player, especially considering I'd have to either throw out or interpolate information to to display it properly on a square pixel display. But let's not get into a PAL vs NTSC flame-war. I personally hate them both for different reasons.
I realize that using strictly resolution and only resolution as a measure of the different HD formats it a bad choice. I was only using that as a measure to show that 1080i does indeed have more information per field than 720p does per frame. It was just an example.
Now, onto your comparison, it's actually a decent measure. However, I HATE using dpi as a measure for video. It's a print term and should be used only in print. PPI (pixels per inch) is an okay measure for individual screens, but not for any format of video.
When you refer to an equal dpi on the progressive formats, what your actually refering to is called pixel aspect ratio. For 480 resolutions, it's.9:1, for 480p (widescreen) it's 1.2:1. And the resolution is actually 720x480 (technically 486, but who's counting?). The 852 number you got is what the image would be in square pixels. The 1:1 ratio was only seen in computer resolutions (and digital cinema/post) until HD came along.
Lastly, I think that refering to 480i and 1080i as 240 and 540 respectively is a bad measure, since the pixels are not actually stretched out vertically to fill the entire picture height, but a they are spaced out with a line inbetween each.
Again, I agree that I shouldn't have used simply resolution as a determining factor of overal quality. But a post detailing every nuance of each format would not be suited for a/. post within an XBox 360 thread.
First off, I admit I was ignoring the way the human eye perceives images. And for that I will gladly be corrected.
However, the article you reference has some inaccuracies that make me question it. (I've never heard of Bluesky Media. They may be very reputable, but I just don't know the history.) First of all, the write-up appears to be from October of 2004. At least that's the modified date I get on the page when viewing it in Firefox. This may account from some of the inaccuracies.
To things caught my attention, first was the discussion of no consumer display being able to display the added horizontal resolution of 1080i. That is clearly (especially now) flase. Second was the digital cinema remark. Digital cinema is NOT 1280 lines. Perhaps on the consumer end, yes, but not in any actual theater. The digital cinema that you might experience (if your theater has a digital cinema) is more than likely a 2k projector. that would be 2048 lines across, not 1280. Some are even 4k resolution (4096).
Also concerning the contrast preference and the size of the element between a 720p display and a 1080i display. If we follow this line of logic, then a 480p display must be even better, right? At a certain point, there's a threshold where increased resolution will make a difference over contrast.
I'm not trying to discredit people's preference of 720p over 1080i. I'm just saying that there are legitimate reasons to prefer 1080i signal. See my post above concerning reconstructing a progressive image from a 24fps source in a 1080i signal. Though that might have more to do with the actual signal than the display itself.
Wait, so you're agreeing or disagreeing with me? My 540 argument in the original post was to strictly compare resolution of a 1080i signal versus a 720p signal. Yes all 1080 lines are shown for 1/30th of a second. For 1080p/30fps, that's a valid argument. However, if you move to 1080p/60fps or 50fps, that's where the advance is thrown in.
The primary factor in 1080i is the recording frame rate. If an image is captured at 30fps, but the image is divided between fields, there is will be little to no discernable difference between 1080i and 1080p. But if the image is captured a 60fps (fields in this case), then the image will differ temporally between the even and odd fields. That's where the rub is with 1080i.
But don't get me wrong, I'm not blasting 1080i. In my original post, I was simply stating that 1080i does indeed have more resolution than 720p. In fact, I actually like 1080i for the following reason: films. A 24fps film can be stored in a 1080i signal (3:2 pulldown and such), then that same interlaced signal can be reconstructed as a 24p source using all 1080 lines. Also, think of it this way: a 24fps film transfered to any interlaced signal (including 480i) only has interlaced frames 40% of the time (AA, BB, BC, CD, DD).
But to present yet another view: an interlaced image can have issues with artifacts and possibly color fidelity and dynamics.
Don't confuse the signal (480i) with the recording/tranmission medium. VHS has only roughly 250 lines of resolution, if I remember correctly (the equivalent to 250x480 with a really messed up pixel-aspect-ratio [not to be confused with image-aspect-ratio]). S-VHS was much better at about 350 lines. Broadcast has the problem of packing video (chrominance and luminance) with audio in the same signal with a limited spectrum. Now DVDs on the other hand take full advantage of the NTSC signal with 720 lines, which is why it looks so much better than VHS or broadcast. And many times, DVDs actually contain a 24fps video stream which the DVD player then converts to a 480i/p signal.
If your curious, the lines were determined by displaying alternating black and white lines across the screen from left to right. They would increase the number until you could no longer distinguish between the lines. So for VHS, they could only have 250 lines before it would start to fall apart.
If you're already watching HD signals at 1080i or 720p, your right, the incremental upgrade to 1080p might not be worth it. But let's look at it this way: 1080p has twice the total resolution of 1080i. 1920x540/field vs 1920x1080/frame. Or to put it in megapixels from a previous post of mine, a 1080i field is roughly 1 Megapixel. 1080p is almost 2.1 Megapixels. But it all comes down to interlaced vs progressive in a much wider debate.
I see this argument all the time. I have to disagree with you. Let's look at the actual resolution for each signal.
720p: 1280x720
1080i: 1920x540 (for all practical purposes)
1080p: 1920x1080
Now, let's figure this out in terms of that oh-so-popular megapixel:
720p:.9MP (921,600)
1080i: 1MP (1,036,800)
1080p: 2MP (2,073,600)
So while a 1080i signal may not contain as much vertical resolution, the horizontal resolution is still much greater, producing 115,200 more pixels than 720p.
Each signal has it's own merits, just don't go touting 720p as having a greater resolution than 1080i.
You can actually mimic a 30p signal with a 60i display.
In the case of video games, for example, you can tell the engine to run at 30fps/full frame, but divide each frame into fields. This way you still get a (roughly) 30p display. The lines aren't drawn progressively, but one image takes up two fields, each field showing half the image.
3:2 Pulldown is correct. The way it works is that when you have a 24fps source, and need to get it to traditional video (roughly 30fps/60 fields*), you have to repeate frames.
Here's how it works. Four film frames have to fit into 5 video fields/frames. Let's label these film frames A, B, C, and D. We'll use numbers for the video fields. So what you have is:
1.AA 2.BB 3.BC 4.CD 5.DD
Now for a 60 FRAME output, it's a little easier:
1.A 2.A 3.B 4.B 5.B 6.C 7.C 8.D 9.D 10.D
So, getting a 24fps source to a 30 fps output will require an interlaced signal, while displaying on a 60fps output translates much more directly.
Then there's the whole 3:2 pulldown removal in some TVs. And many DVDs today actually employ a 24fps source, but add the pulldown before sending it out through the composite/S-Video connections.
*Actually, it's 29.97fps. It has to do with the transition to color broadcast signals from B&W. If I'm not mistaken, this actualyl carries over to HD signals as well. They might actually be 23.976fps / 29.97fps / 59.94fps.
Hate to nitpick, but I think you meant "component," not "composite." A composite cable is even worse thant S-Video, at least that separates the luminance and chrominance signals.
And since we're talking about video cables, did you know that component video cables are not RGB on DVD players (and most video equipment)? They're actually Y/Pb/Pr, which is fun, crazy math time!
Man, I was originally just making a point that if we try to argue since we're supposedly paying for a license that we should be entitled to replacement media, the labels/studios would counter it with a statement like that. I didn't expect to have it nit-picked to all hell. I'm all for getting replacement media at cost (press/print+shipping), and I'm against DRM. I'm not arguing either of those points... just making an observation.
By the way, I meant "DRM would fly" as in "it was produced and integrated," not "it is strictly respected by every consumer."
Who would have thought that DRM would fly either? Remember who we're talking about here: content owners. How often have you heard statements from representatives of the MPAA/RIAA that actually make sense? (Okay, there are a couple, but not many.)
I have held this point of view for quite some time. However, here is how that argument would be handled by the media companies:
When first purchasing a media disc, you pay for both a license and the physical copy for the purchase price of $opticalDiscPrice. After the initial purchase, a replacement disc can be issued. However, that replacement disc will cost $opticalDiscPrice to recoup the added cost of manufacture, distribution, and support.
See what they did there? Say the original cost of said disc was $11.99US. If the license was $6.00 and the physical media was $5.99, you'd think a replacement would be $5.99. But since they have to "reissue" another disc, that cost goes up to $11.99 for the new disc.
Please note: this is a hypothetical statement. As far as I know, no one from the media industries has actually said anything like that, but I'm guessing they would.
Why's this modded as "Funny?" I'm looking forward to this recall for the same reason. I overused my batter and it only holds about a 20-30 minute charge. I get a nice, new, free battery from Apple that will last me until I decide to upgrade!
Of course, I just posted instead of using my mod points.... damn it!
Yes, I realize I typed that before I actually posted and therefor, could have used my mod-points, but shut up!
I think the point was to add the new control scheme of the Wii to the older GC games. This would take a little tweaking to the code, hence re-releasing the games.
As it stands, I don't think the GC games can take advantage motion sensitivity of the Wii controller. And simply putting a layer between the controller and the game to translate controller movement into what the game expects would yeild less than desirable results.
Slashdot Mirror
Sadly enough, I own all three soundtracks. And by own I mean a physical CD from the store that I exchanged cash for. I like how the soundtracks are actually "From and Inspired by." What I was really hoping for was the score.
I'm well aware that the ACTUAL resolution does not change on a 16:9 anamorphic DVD. I'm well aware that it is the displayed resolution that changes. I'm also aware of pixel aspect ratios (and how D1 is .9 and anamorphic is 1.2). . I'm not sure if you caught this part of my post:
I was refering to PAL, obviously.
I'm really not sure why you're ranting so much. I was pointing out that a 640x480 video file is not that much lower resolution than a DVD image (for NTSC), and how a DVD (or any non-square pixel source) is displayed on a computer monitor. So, if I watch an anamorphic DVD on a computer screen, the display resolution DOES factor in. It depends on how that signal is interpreted, if I didn't want to lose information at all, the displayed resolution of a 720x480 signal with a 1.2 pixel aspect ratio would be 853x480. Now if I wanted to instead not interpolate any pixels on my square pixel display, it would be 720x600. Yes, the original signal is still 720x480. However, when it's displayed, information is either thrown out (by scaling the vertical resolution) or created (by scaling up the horizontal resolution) when viewing on a computer monitor.
But thanks for using a lot of broadcast acronyms that are pretty meaningless to the conversation at hand. No offense, but (to me) your post came off as just trying to sound intelligent, which you may very well be. But I was responding to the original post discussing a 1024x576 square pix resolution for a PAL DVD, and how 640x480 is such a shitty resolution... and explaining that the acutal signal for a PAL DVD is 720x576 and that an anamorphic video signal needs to be stretched out on a square pixel display to show properly and that's where he got the 1024 number from and that the original signal is actually much closer to 640x480 than s/he thinks. (Yay run-on sentences!)
Sorry for being a little of an ass, but I didn't really see the relevence of your post to the conversation at hand. That and since I work in film/video post, I'm well aware of everything you said... Yes, I know NTSC actually has 486 scan lines. Damn, there I go being an ass again...
I have to agree that adding an anamorphic flag in the video file would be the best way to go. I'm not really sure why that hasn't been done, other than laziness.
Oh, and don't even get me started on people not knowing how to set up their TVs/DVD players to display 16:9 images properly (or even 4:3). I can't tell you how many homes I've been to with people watching SDTV broadcasts on their new LCD HDTVs and have the image stretched out because they don't like the black bars on the side. And it's as useless trying to explain that concept as it is trying to explain how widescreen versions of DVDs dont' actually cut off any picture compared to their full-screen bastard step-children. Some concepts people just can't wrap their head around.
I brought up the telcos because they were some of the first companies to start rallying against net neutrality. I'm aware that this particular article is discussing tech companies, but that line jumped out at me.
Beats me. I was just responding to that line from the article. Personally, I'd say it's just something they threw in there to get more support for rallying against net neutrality.
From the summary:
Wait, so telcos are rallying for a bill that would allow municipal broadband? I find that hard to believe.
The reason the video file is at 640x344 is to compensate for the widescreen aspect ratio. If this was to be viewed on a standard 4:3 NTSC television (let's not get into a PAL vs NTSC debate, I don't like either), it's not much different than viewing an 16:9 anamorphic DVD on a 4:3 NTSC television. (The DVD would be viewed at roughly 720x387.)
Video downloads scew towards the 640 mark becaus a.) for a long, long time, that was how NTSC video was displayed on a computer screen and 2.) because it scales easily to the 320x240 displays of the iPod without having to do any funky interpolation.
Ah, the resolution conversation.
First of all, the actual resolution of a DVD image is 720x480 NTSC and 720x576 PAL. The displayed resolution, however, can vary depending on how you want to interpolate pixels. The common 640x480 is used because it contains all the vertical resolution of an NTSC signal, and squishes the horizontal resolution to display properly in square pixels. This is the equivalent of display a PAL image at 720x540. Oddly enough, if you display an NTSC signal by stretching out the vertical resolution instead of squishing the horizontal resolution, you also get 720x540, but with interpolated pixels. PAL would be 768x576.
The 1024 res you mention is for 16:9 anamorphic image. Do you know why the call it anamorphic? Because the actual signal is 720x576. The image needs to be stretched out to display properly. For NTSC this would be 853x480.
But I see after writing all this, that you did mention square pixel resolution. So I guess this post is rather useless. However, 640x480 isn't that low res if you have an NTSC DVD player, especially considering I'd have to either throw out or interpolate information to to display it properly on a square pixel display. But let's not get into a PAL vs NTSC flame-war. I personally hate them both for different reasons.
I realize that using strictly resolution and only resolution as a measure of the different HD formats it a bad choice. I was only using that as a measure to show that 1080i does indeed have more information per field than 720p does per frame. It was just an example.
Now, onto your comparison, it's actually a decent measure. However, I HATE using dpi as a measure for video. It's a print term and should be used only in print. PPI (pixels per inch) is an okay measure for individual screens, but not for any format of video.
When you refer to an equal dpi on the progressive formats, what your actually refering to is called pixel aspect ratio. For 480 resolutions, it's .9:1, for 480p (widescreen) it's 1.2:1. And the resolution is actually 720x480 (technically 486, but who's counting?). The 852 number you got is what the image would be in square pixels. The 1:1 ratio was only seen in computer resolutions (and digital cinema/post) until HD came along.
Lastly, I think that refering to 480i and 1080i as 240 and 540 respectively is a bad measure, since the pixels are not actually stretched out vertically to fill the entire picture height, but a they are spaced out with a line inbetween each.
Again, I agree that I shouldn't have used simply resolution as a determining factor of overal quality. But a post detailing every nuance of each format would not be suited for a /. post within an XBox 360 thread.
First off, I admit I was ignoring the way the human eye perceives images. And for that I will gladly be corrected.
However, the article you reference has some inaccuracies that make me question it. (I've never heard of Bluesky Media. They may be very reputable, but I just don't know the history.) First of all, the write-up appears to be from October of 2004. At least that's the modified date I get on the page when viewing it in Firefox. This may account from some of the inaccuracies.
To things caught my attention, first was the discussion of no consumer display being able to display the added horizontal resolution of 1080i. That is clearly (especially now) flase. Second was the digital cinema remark. Digital cinema is NOT 1280 lines. Perhaps on the consumer end, yes, but not in any actual theater. The digital cinema that you might experience (if your theater has a digital cinema) is more than likely a 2k projector. that would be 2048 lines across, not 1280. Some are even 4k resolution (4096).
Also concerning the contrast preference and the size of the element between a 720p display and a 1080i display. If we follow this line of logic, then a 480p display must be even better, right? At a certain point, there's a threshold where increased resolution will make a difference over contrast.
I'm not trying to discredit people's preference of 720p over 1080i. I'm just saying that there are legitimate reasons to prefer 1080i signal. See my post above concerning reconstructing a progressive image from a 24fps source in a 1080i signal. Though that might have more to do with the actual signal than the display itself.
Wait, so you're agreeing or disagreeing with me? My 540 argument in the original post was to strictly compare resolution of a 1080i signal versus a 720p signal. Yes all 1080 lines are shown for 1/30th of a second. For 1080p/30fps, that's a valid argument. However, if you move to 1080p/60fps or 50fps, that's where the advance is thrown in.
The primary factor in 1080i is the recording frame rate. If an image is captured at 30fps, but the image is divided between fields, there is will be little to no discernable difference between 1080i and 1080p. But if the image is captured a 60fps (fields in this case), then the image will differ temporally between the even and odd fields. That's where the rub is with 1080i.
But don't get me wrong, I'm not blasting 1080i. In my original post, I was simply stating that 1080i does indeed have more resolution than 720p. In fact, I actually like 1080i for the following reason: films. A 24fps film can be stored in a 1080i signal (3:2 pulldown and such), then that same interlaced signal can be reconstructed as a 24p source using all 1080 lines. Also, think of it this way: a 24fps film transfered to any interlaced signal (including 480i) only has interlaced frames 40% of the time (AA, BB, BC, CD, DD).
But to present yet another view: an interlaced image can have issues with artifacts and possibly color fidelity and dynamics.
Don't confuse the signal (480i) with the recording/tranmission medium. VHS has only roughly 250 lines of resolution, if I remember correctly (the equivalent to 250x480 with a really messed up pixel-aspect-ratio [not to be confused with image-aspect-ratio]). S-VHS was much better at about 350 lines. Broadcast has the problem of packing video (chrominance and luminance) with audio in the same signal with a limited spectrum. Now DVDs on the other hand take full advantage of the NTSC signal with 720 lines, which is why it looks so much better than VHS or broadcast. And many times, DVDs actually contain a 24fps video stream which the DVD player then converts to a 480i/p signal.
If your curious, the lines were determined by displaying alternating black and white lines across the screen from left to right. They would increase the number until you could no longer distinguish between the lines. So for VHS, they could only have 250 lines before it would start to fall apart.
If you're already watching HD signals at 1080i or 720p, your right, the incremental upgrade to 1080p might not be worth it. But let's look at it this way: 1080p has twice the total resolution of 1080i. 1920x540/field vs 1920x1080/frame. Or to put it in megapixels from a previous post of mine, a 1080i field is roughly 1 Megapixel. 1080p is almost 2.1 Megapixels. But it all comes down to interlaced vs progressive in a much wider debate.
I see this argument all the time. I have to disagree with you. Let's look at the actual resolution for each signal.
720p: 1280x720
1080i: 1920x540 (for all practical purposes)
1080p: 1920x1080
Now, let's figure this out in terms of that oh-so-popular megapixel:
720p: .9MP (921,600)
1080i: 1MP (1,036,800)
1080p: 2MP (2,073,600)
So while a 1080i signal may not contain as much vertical resolution, the horizontal resolution is still much greater, producing 115,200 more pixels than 720p.
Each signal has it's own merits, just don't go touting 720p as having a greater resolution than 1080i.
You can actually mimic a 30p signal with a 60i display.
In the case of video games, for example, you can tell the engine to run at 30fps/full frame, but divide each frame into fields. This way you still get a (roughly) 30p display. The lines aren't drawn progressively, but one image takes up two fields, each field showing half the image.
3:2 Pulldown is correct. The way it works is that when you have a 24fps source, and need to get it to traditional video (roughly 30fps/60 fields*), you have to repeate frames.
Here's how it works. Four film frames have to fit into 5 video fields/frames. Let's label these film frames A, B, C, and D. We'll use numbers for the video fields. So what you have is:
1.AA 2.BB 3.BC 4.CD 5.DD
Now for a 60 FRAME output, it's a little easier:
1.A 2.A 3.B 4.B 5.B 6.C 7.C 8.D 9.D 10.D
So, getting a 24fps source to a 30 fps output will require an interlaced signal, while displaying on a 60fps output translates much more directly.
Then there's the whole 3:2 pulldown removal in some TVs. And many DVDs today actually employ a 24fps source, but add the pulldown before sending it out through the composite/S-Video connections.
*Actually, it's 29.97fps. It has to do with the transition to color broadcast signals from B&W. If I'm not mistaken, this actualyl carries over to HD signals as well. They might actually be 23.976fps / 29.97fps / 59.94fps.
Your thinking is correct. The controller itself is US$40. The nunchuck attachment is US$20.
Are you using a Motorola phone? If so, I seriously hope you're not referring to a seem edit as "hacking the firmware."
If not a Motorola, what brand are you using and what do you use to modify the firmware?
Understatement of the day. (No offence intended.)
Hate to nitpick, but I think you meant "component," not "composite." A composite cable is even worse thant S-Video, at least that separates the luminance and chrominance signals.
And since we're talking about video cables, did you know that component video cables are not RGB on DVD players (and most video equipment)? They're actually Y/Pb/Pr, which is fun, crazy math time!
Okay, I'm off my soap box now.
Man, I was originally just making a point that if we try to argue since we're supposedly paying for a license that we should be entitled to replacement media, the labels/studios would counter it with a statement like that. I didn't expect to have it nit-picked to all hell. I'm all for getting replacement media at cost (press/print+shipping), and I'm against DRM. I'm not arguing either of those points... just making an observation.
By the way, I meant "DRM would fly" as in "it was produced and integrated," not "it is strictly respected by every consumer."
Who would have thought that DRM would fly either? Remember who we're talking about here: content owners. How often have you heard statements from representatives of the MPAA/RIAA that actually make sense? (Okay, there are a couple, but not many.)
I have held this point of view for quite some time. However, here is how that argument would be handled by the media companies:
See what they did there? Say the original cost of said disc was $11.99US. If the license was $6.00 and the physical media was $5.99, you'd think a replacement would be $5.99. But since they have to "reissue" another disc, that cost goes up to $11.99 for the new disc.
Please note: this is a hypothetical statement. As far as I know, no one from the media industries has actually said anything like that, but I'm guessing they would.
Why's this modded as "Funny?" I'm looking forward to this recall for the same reason. I overused my batter and it only holds about a 20-30 minute charge. I get a nice, new, free battery from Apple that will last me until I decide to upgrade!
Of course, I just posted instead of using my mod points.... damn it!
Yes, I realize I typed that before I actually posted and therefor, could have used my mod-points, but shut up!
I think the point was to add the new control scheme of the Wii to the older GC games. This would take a little tweaking to the code, hence re-releasing the games.
As it stands, I don't think the GC games can take advantage motion sensitivity of the Wii controller. And simply putting a layer between the controller and the game to translate controller movement into what the game expects would yeild less than desirable results.