Posted by Derek Janssen on 01/12/07 06:07

MassiveProng wrote:

> On 11 Jan 2007 14:01:01 -0800, elrous0@pop.uky.edu Gave us:
>
>
>>Well, that was fast:
>>
>>http://www.tgdaily.com/2007/01/11/ces2007_hddvd_blu_ray/
>
> I guess I am supposed to take that as a "shot in the arm" ;-]

Of course, today's Digital Bits identified the official reason why this
isn't much to notice (ie. porn "inventing" new technologies was way back
when we couldn't find it, and hence pretty much topped out at the
Internet)--
And goes pretty much goes on to detail the <ick> *unofficial* reason...
http://www.thedigitalbits.com

---
A few readers have e-mailed us this week about the news that some of the
leading porn companies, like Digital Underground and Wicked Pictures,
have decided to back HD-DVD for cost and ease of production reasons (see
story here at ABC News)."Porn decided the VHS vs. Betamax format war, so
it'll decide the HD format war too." is the typical comment. Here's why
I doubt it: Back in the days of the VHS vs. Beta format war, the only
way to watch porn was to visit a seedy adult movie theater or on Super-8
film. So when cheap, convenient porn on tape finally arrived, it was a
HUGE deal, demand was massive and it benefited VHS greatly. The
difference today is, cheap porn is already available EVERYWHERE on the
Internet and particularly on good old standard DVD. Also, have any of
you actually seen naked people in high-definition? Let me tell you, it's
often a much better idea in theory than in reality. Porn stars may look
sexy as all get out in standard definition, but... well, maybe not so
much in HD. You can't hide those plastic surgery scars, stretch marks
and a__-pimples in high-def. I'm just saying. Bottom line: Porn
companies backing HD-DVD is not insignificant, but I doubt very much
that porn will decide this format war.
---

Derek Janssen (hard for us old-schoolers to accept, but porn rapidly
seems to be becoming the Atari of the home-theater wars)
ejanss@comcast.net

[Back to original message]