Posted by Richard C. on 01/29/07 21:14

"Doug Jacobs" <djacobs@shell.rawbw.com> wrote in message
news:12rsoactnkift81@corp.supernews.com...
> In alt.video.dvd Ted <nospamforted@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes there was. It wasn't much of a fight because no one in their right
>> mind wanted DIVX to win that war, but it there was a question of whether
>> or not the studios would successfully cram DIVX down the throat of
>> consumers. mInstead they successfully crammed DVDs down our throats, as
>> many a laserdisc enthusiast will tell you...
>
> Divx came out too late to be a serious threat to DVD. DVD had already
> started to accelerate in the market when Divx showed up abruptly one
> Christmas.
>
=========================
Not really true. Indeed DVD was a "good" seller from the start, but
Divx was a threat for quite some time.
DVD only really took off after the death of divx.
=========================

> Problem is, although the DVD players and DVDs were more expensive than
> Divx players/discs, the extra cost was easily justified.
>
> As for LD vs. DVD, doesn't DVD still win out because of higher resolution
> video and better audio? Or is this just a matter of capacity != format,
> meaning you could concievably use LD to hold a DVD-quality movie - it's
> just that the studios decided to move on to DVD?
>
=============================
DVD is capable of a better picture, but the SOUND on an AC-3 LD is still
better than DD DVDs.
I have several late LDs that you would be hard pressed to tell them
from a DVD.

[Back to original message]