[Brien]

Starman, where did you even buy 35mm prints?

As for Star Wars, from what history has shown I'm sure we'll actually get the opposite: more "improvements". Especially if he has to fix/change things in anticipation of another 3-6 films.

[starman]

There was a trade mag called "The Big Reel" which had all film and tv ads, mostly 16mm and 35mm film ads, but some movie poster and lobby card ads.

Big Reel Magazine Subscription

[starman]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Same here. The original theatrical release with Han "being a pirate," and with "Close the blast doors, close the blast doors" followed by "OPEN THE BLAST DOORS!!!!" I wouldn't mind a "two version" release of that one-the original, un-enhanced, "as I saw it in the theater in May, 1977" version and George's "enhanced" version-but without that lame-o "Greedo shot first" hack.

But again, only if Han shoots first.

The "close the blast doors" line wasn't on all prints. I think it was on just the mono reels, so you can't really nitpick that. Josh Ling and I tried archiving all the audio differences from all the versions of SW ('77 70mm, stereo, mono, '79, '81) and just gave up, it was WAY too much.

[-Q-]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I'd agree completely if I didn't have a huge investment in DVDs. Starting out getting BRs for films I wanted to see would be absolutely optimum. But now that I would have to take a considerable amount of time to count my DVDs, replacing them with BRs isn't really economically feasible, at least not en masse.

This might help the transition:

DVD2Blu trade-up scheme lets you swap any old DVD (plus $4.95) for a Blu-ray -- Engadget

[ghporter]

Why yes. That might help a lot...

[The Final Dakar]

Yeah, yeah, this probably doesn't go here but again, I don't want to clutter the Lounge with what would be a short-lived thread.

How Comcast became a toll-collecting, nuke-wielding hydra

The facts as we know them

Comcast found itself in the middle of a renewed argument over its "evilness" yesterday afternoon as an interconnection dispute blew up into public view. Level 3 Communications, which runs a major Internet backbone along with a newer content delivery network (CDN), fired off a scathing press release accusing Comcast of (once again) threatening the "open Internet."

On November 11, Level 3 inked a deal with Netflix to serve as the streaming media company's new CDN starting January 1, 2011. In that capacity, Level 3 will cache and serve Netflix streaming video from sites across the country to avoid possible backbone congestion and to deploy streams from servers that are closer to end users.

Due to the size of the deal, Level 3 announced that it was doubling its own storage capacity and adding 2.9 terabits per second (Tbps) of CDN capacity, alongside the 1.65Tbps that it rolled out late this year. The entire Netflix streaming library, which consists of more than 20,000 titles, will be moved directly to Level 3 servers during November and December in preparation for the January rollout.


Coming to you via the Level 3 CDN
The deal also means, of course, that a huge new amount of traffic will soon be sent from Level 3 to various ISPs, and not all of them are happy at the prospect. A week after Level 3 announced the Netflix deal, Comcast told the company that it would “demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast customers who request such content,” in the words of yesterday's Level 3 press release.

Comcast says that this is standard practice (and that it's not singling out any particular kind of content). While it previously had a settlement-free (read: no charge) traffic peering agreement with Level 3, such agreements are typically made only between network operators who are roughly comparable in size and therefore exchange similar volumes of traffic with one another. According to Comcast, the Netflix deal means that Level 3 will soon more than double the amount of traffic it sends onto Comcast's network and that this will result in a 5:1 traffic ratio—at which point the relationship will be unbalanced, and fees will be required.

"We are happy to maintain a balance, no-cost traffic exchange with Level 3,” said Comcast senior vice president Joe Waz last night. “However, when one provider exploits this type of relationship by pushing the burden of massive traffic growth onto the other provider and its customers, we believe this is not fair.”

Level 3 thought it was entirely fair—in part because this is not traffic that is transiting through Comcast's network, but traffic that is headed for Comcast subscribers and was requested by them. Under this view, Comcast is trying to charge a content provider for the very access to content that it is selling to its own customers. And, of course, there's the issue that such fees could raise costs for Netflix and other Internet video providers, but won't affect Comcast's own video services such as cable TV.

"By taking this action,” said Level 3 Chief Legal Officer Thomas Stortz, "Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of its broadband Internet access network, enabling it to unilaterally decide how much to charge for content which competes with its own cable TV and Xfinity delivered content. This action by Comcast threatens the open Internet and is a clear abuse of the dominant control Comcast exerts in broadband access markets as the nation's largest cable provider.”


And if that wasn't enough of an attack, Level 3 said that it was “approaching regulators and policymakers and asking them to take quick action to ensure that a fair, open and innovative Internet does not become a closed network controlled by few institutions with dominant market power.”

While such sentiments tap into a fertile seedbed of hate that many people have for cable companies in general (routinely one of the most reviled industries in the US by consumers) and for Comcast in particular (thanks to its BitTorrent blocking/throttling and subsequent litigation), Level 3 is hardly a disinterested paladin working for Great Justice; the company wants to maintain its free peering arrangements with Comcast even as it grows into a large CDN operator.

This appears to be Comcast's view of the situation—it's a private peering dispute taken public in a bid for leverage. And Level 3, seeing no choice if it hoped to avoid a service interruption, has already agreed "under protest" to the new fees.

A future roadblock to an all streaming lifestyle?

[mduell]

The Comcast/Level3 peering issue is being widely misconstrued into some net neutrality thing. It's not, it's a normal peering/transit relationship change.

Comcast and Level3 used to be peers, where they exchanged approximately even levels of traffic and didn't bill each other. Now Level3 picked up a significant customer (who happens to be Netflix, but could be anyone), unbalancing that exchange of traffic. So Comcast begins charging Level3 for transit, just as they would any other network with unbalanced traffic.

[Shaddim]

How anyone can deal with Comcast is beyond me. I cut those idiots loose years ago and haven't regretted it for a moment.

[Jack-o-Bower]

Its all most 2011 and the DVD is phasing out like the VHS before it. As Blu-ray players and discs are becoming more and more cheaper it will eventually take over the industry, HD -DVD is currently struggling to hold on as people are switching over and companies are growing favor with Blu-ray.

[Lateralus]

I agree^

I still have faith in HD DVD though; it may have been swimming upstream for the past 2 years and 10 months, but I'm quite sure that Toshiba had a contingency plan for just this type of difficulty. I've no doubt that we'll see a renewed marketing push going into 2011.

[exca1ibur]

What studios do they have (HD-DVD) to remain viable beyond just being a storage format?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Sold Out: Analyst Predicts 4M Apple TVs per Year

It was on Macrumors as well. Why on earth would I want to make up something like that??!

Early Apple TV Sales Estimated at 1 Million Per Quarter - Mac Rumors

So yes, that was the pent up demand for the thing, 250 000 units. Now it's downhill from here.

EDIT: yeah the Apple TV sold 250 000 units since it was announced, when it started shipping is irrelevant. When you're spinning numbers, you've entered Apologistville big boy.

Apologistville calling back...

Average sales estimates weren't too far off for the lifespan of the Apple TV 2.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...er_report.html

http://www.maximejohnson.com/techno/...rd-pour-apple/