DarthVong

I'd much rather have the DVD for the Special Features and packaging.

Billyspunk

By the way there are quite a few movies in widescreen On Demand. I still say you save alot doing it this way...

Al Padrino

What about the people who collect films that haven't been made in the last year?

FinkPish

When I got my DVR box with Comcast, the guy who installed in actually mentioned that if I had a DVD recorder, I could save my On Demand movies to a DVD and watch them whenever I wanted.

I rarely use On Demand, mostly for the same reasons people have already given here: shortage of OAR titles, complete lack of extras, lack of surround audio, etc. They are handy when you are too lazy or tired to go and rent something at the store, but I would still prefer all of the above to convenience. If the price at B&M stores bothers you, find them used at other video stores or online, like with Netflix.

jmj713

Al Padrino

Uh, yeah, that was sort of my whole point, jmj. On Demand doesn't offer anything that wasn't in theaters a couple months back. Thus, another plus for the DVD format.

BassDude

It's all about quality. I could save a bunch by buying bootlegs at the swap meet, but the quality doesn't match the studio versions.

I have a DVD burner and DVR. I burned every episode of Six Feet Under to dvd-r, then bought the box set when it was released.

Just looks better, sounds better (5.1 sound) etc. To each his/her own tho. Some people buy Full Screen and have no problem with it either.

(I still have some VHS tapes of movies from cable in a box somewhere from my salad days.)

Spanky BananaPants

I have a DVD recorder as well, but I rarely record movies. Most movies on broadcast TV, be it through pay channels like HBO, or on pay-per-view, are fullscreen. Those that aren't, aren't anamorphic (unless they're on the HD channels, but DVD recorders don't record HD). I guess that doesn't matter anyway, since my DVD recorder can't record anamorphic to begin with.

Since I have a 16:9 TV, an anamorphic transfer is essential. I suppose if I still had a 4:3 TV, I'd probably record a lot more movies to DVD.

rfduncan

This made me think about On Demand. I'm sure the studios are cool with this because a) they get more revenue without having to physically produce copies and b) they get addition revenue that would normally get sucked up by a video chain outlet like Blockbuster or Netflix.

If the On Demand users were paying for fullscreen online, then they might enjoy it and then the studio gets them to buy the DVD in the store later down the line.

Me? Well any new movie that has an animorphic transfer would be enough reason to get the DVD. My DirecTV gets Dolby surround sound, but DTS would definitely be another reason too!

rw2516

My Comcast ON DEMAND offers classic tv shows uncut, commercial free. Usually about a dozen eps. available at a time in order. I've recorded the first eleven Carson's Comedy Classics. Also they seem to be showing every Three Stooges in production order. Right now its #59-73. These are interrupted by stupid stooges trivia and other junk. There is a Boomerang section that shows classic Hanna-Barbera shows uncut commercial free like Space Ghost and Atom Ant. There is a Free Movie section with dozens of older movies going back to 1930s. This is all free if you digital cable.

Jon2

No disagreement there, but these "issues" are mostly due to large corporate copyright owners who have engaged in numerous activities; such distortions of fact, disenginuous arguements, outright lies and probable bribery of elected officials to pass draconian, anti-consumer, anti-fair use legislation for the sole purpose of indefinitely extending their economic control over copyrighted materials. Materials that the corporate copyright owners never created.

It's not an analogy. The Betamax case was not about "timeshifting" per se. It was about recording (copying) transmitted video for non-commercial, personal use. Fair use. "Timeshifting" was just one particular example, but it is not the only example. The concept of "perfect digital copies" has no bearing on fair use rights. It's irrelevent and an obfuscation of the real issue, which is fair use rights, which "require" the ability to copy. If you can't make a copy (perfect or not), there can be no "fair use."

True, but only because of the corporate "activities" I already mentioned.

What "DVD/VOD issue"? These are big "ifs" stacked against something that is here and now, real and extremely popular and profitable.

If VOD works for some people, that's great. For them. I (and I'm sure there are others) have absolutely no interest in VOD whatsoever, now or anytime in the future.

Unless... VOD offers advantages over DVDs. And I've yet to hear of any. To me, VOD is like renting (and music subscription services). You pay and pay and pay, and in the end...you have nothing tangible to show for it. Well...I suppose an empty wallet is something tangible.

Thanks, but no thanks.