To: eric larson who wrote (4366 ) 3/1/1998 1:14:00 AM From: eric larson Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 6570
Film critic Roger Ebert's comments about DIVX: source: suntimes.com ... Q. How can you possibly support DIVX? DIVX will place too much power in the hands of the manufacturer. They will know what you watch and when you watch it. Price fixing and censorship can run rampant. And just imagine, you won't be able to take your copy of ''Ishtar'' over to Gene Siskel's house for viewing, since DIVX is player-specific. If you've unlocked your copy of ''Casablanca'' in your living room player, you and your loved one can never snuggle up and watch it in the bedroom. DIVX is far too restrictive a medium, and especially destructive in the immature arena of DVD. Tom Thayil, Galveston, Texas A. I don't support DIVX. Where'd you get that idea? In my opinion, the format is dead before launch. To explain: DVD discs are the hot new technology that is being touted to replace VHS tapes; they are said to be nearly three times as good in picture quality, and contain all sorts of bells and whistles. You buy or rent a DVD disc just like you buy or rent a tape. There are 240,000 machines already in use, and disc sales are ahead of projections. But DVD's country cousin, DIVX, adds a hare-brained twist: They give you a disc that you activate over the telephone with your credit card, after which you can watch it a specified number of times. Then it goes dead unless you reactivate it. Incredibly, the advocates of this goofy format expect consumers to buy special $500 machines to enjoy this privilege (regular DVD machines won't work). The key reason DIVX is doomed is that home video profits heavily from two genres where repeat viewings are the norm: children's films and porno. Kids watch a video zillions of times, not just twice. Adult porno fans scarcely want to supply their name and credit card numbers over the phone.