I remember some comedienne — apparently Rita Rudner — saying 15 or 20 years ago that she refused to buy anything technological until she got a written guarantee that nobody was going to invent anything else.
Those of us who had bought the White Album on vinyl, cassette and CD by that time could identify.
But I really thought I was safe on this one. I really thought DVDs were going to be a smart buy. I’m really into movies, and when I was a kid I thought that if ever I were as rich as Howard Hughes, I’d own copies of all my favorite films so I could watch them any time I wanted. And I’m not talking about "Ice Station Zebra" here.
But when VHS came out, I confined myself to taping the edited versions they showed on TV. I generally didn’t think buying the movies themselves on tape would be a wise investment, and I was right. That’s why you can pick up the few remaining on store shelves today for a song.
But DVDs were different. They were digital, and ones and zeroes would always be ones and zeroes. If a more advanced format came along, they should be easily transferable with little or no loss of quality, right? You couldn’t say that about the analog versions.
So I started collecting some of my favorites. As a father of five, I’ve never been one to spend much on toys for myself, but I wasn’t shy about making lists of what I liked and did not yet have for my family to consider for Christmas, my birthday and Father’s Day.
So gradually, I built up my my modest film library to where it fills, say, a couple of bookshelves. All primo stuff, too. And whenever possible, I went for the widescreen or letterbox format. Sure, Steve McQueen might look pretty small in "The Great Escape" on my old-fashioned, nearly-square 27-inch — but I was looking to the future.
In fact, I was at Best Buy just last night, exchanging one of the two copies of "Snatch" I got for Christmas for one of "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels," and while I was there, I couldn’t resist checking out those 50-inch plasma babies and dreaming of the day when they drop down to my workadaddy price range.
Then, this morning, I got around to perusing the Week in Review section in Sunday’s NYT, and ran across this outrage.
For those of you too lazy to follow the link, it says:
DVD movies look just fine on TV. But if you’ve recently bought a
high-definition screen, you may be surprised to discover that current
DVD movies don’t actually play in high definition.
Maybe that’s not too bad. I mean, if my movies look as good as they do now, only wider and bigger, I could live with that and be satisfied. But that’s not the worst part. The worst part is that just in case you want to start buying DVDs that do play in high-def, you’ve got to make a bet that risks wasting even more money than the suckers who bought Beta in the early 80s.
That, in fact, is the point of the story — that two mutually exclusive formats have been drawn up for high-def DVDs, and it’s not just Sony on one side and the rest of the world on the other. Apple, Panasonic and 20th Century Fox are backing one pony, and Microsoft, Sanyo and Warner Brothers are putting their money on the other.
There is some good news, though: "Both types of players will be able to play conventional DVDs." Just not in high-definition. Well, I can live with that. But still.