Blogography Logo
spacer

  Home  

LAMENESS!

Posted on Tuesday, September 12th, 2006

Dave!Today was supposed to be a good day. Lego Star Wars 2 (the sequel to my most favoritist video game ever!) is in release. The ORIGINAL (CGI crapfest-free) Star Wars movies are out. Apple is announcing some (hopefully) cool new stuff. What could possibly go wrong??

Uhhh... yeah. Pretty much everything.

First of all, Apple's big-ass media event was crap. They're selling movies now... which would be a good thing except that they are selling shitty 640x480 DRM-infested versions that nobody in their right mind will buy. Pay $9.99 to $14.99 for a low-res film? Are you insane? Far better to put that money toward a DVD that you can rip into any resolution you want and view wherever you want. Where is a widescreen video iPod so we can watch movies the way they were MEANT to be watched? That tiny SQUARE iPod screen is fine for watching a music video... but an entire movie?!? WTF??

UPDATE: For those who question how I could possibly think that Apple's claim of "near DVD quality" is "shitty"... here's a comparison of actual DVD resolution to that which is sold in the iTunes Store. An almost 25% reduction in picture information, which I think is considerably less than "near" when it comes to quality (note that this graphic has been shrunk to 420 pixels wide to fit my blog, but the proportions are correct)...

iPod Movies

Now, on an iPod's tiny screen... it's no big deal (and the file size is smaller, which is nice for portables with limited storage)... but blow that up to an HDTV with Apple's new "iTV" device?? Yeah. We have a problem.

iTunes 7 looked promising, but the new "automatic album art" feature worked on very few of my actual songs. For example, Alan Parsons Project is well represented on the iTunes Music Store but, since they don't offer the "Anthology" album for sale, the artwork isn't available. None of the other new features will be of much use to me, and I think the user interface is actually a step backwards. Even worse, audio that played fine in iTunes 6 keeps cutting out in iTunes 7 for reasons unknown.

About the only thing to come out of the media event that sparked my curiosity is the new iPod Shuffle. It's even more compact and wearable than the brilliant original version. Naturally, I want one...

Shuffle Redux

Next we have the re-re-re-re-release of the original Star Wars trilogy (i.e. "the good one") on DVD. What's special about it this time around is that they are including the "ORIGINAL-original" films where Han shoots first and all the extraneous CGI shit isn't there to distract you. I should be happy, right? After all, this is what I've wanted ever since I got a DVD player years ago, isn't it? WRONG! What I EXPECTED was that LucasFilm would clean up the originals and provide us with an anamorphic (widescreen) transfer. What they actually did was do a quick-n-dirty transfer of the same letterbox crap that they put on LaserDisc decades ago. Well thanks a lot George, but go f#@% yourself. I know that you consider the "new and improved" crap to be the definitive version of the films, but why couldn't you have taken the cleaned-up version of the original and give us an anamorphic version that doesn't suck donkey balls? Haven't you ever heard that "anything worth doing is doing right?" Or is this yet another ploy to take money from the fans and then suck us dry five years from now when you re-re-re-re-re-release the original films as anamorphic?

Lastly, I drove 20 minutes into the neighboring city of Wenatchee first thing this morning so I could be first in line at Target to purchase Star Wars Lego 2: The Original Trilogy for Xbox and Nintendo DS. Target has a special deal where you get a $5 gift card with each SW2: TOT game you buy (while supplies last!), which saved me $10 and made me happy. I rushed back home and played them a bit before work and have to say that they are AWESOME!! Better than the original by far (probably because the source material is so much better!). It's not the most challenging game ever, but I was laughing my ass off and having a great time, which is all that counts...

Lego Star Wars 2
Screenshots swiped from the excellent IC Games site.

Cute as hell.

What was really surprising is how amazing the little Nintendo DS version turned out. The graphics are terrific and the sound is just amazing. Toss in the multi-player goodness, and you've got one of the best handheld games I've ever played. If you've got two cartridges, you can do Wireless 2-Player Co-Op Mode... otherwise, up to 4 people can play "Bounty Hunter Battle Arena: Search for Han Solo" off of a single cartridge! Brilliant.

So, with all this praise for Star Wars Lego 2: The Original Trilogy, what's so lame about it?

I don't have time to play it (insert frowny-face here).


Categories: LEGO, Movies 2006Click To It: Permalink
   

Comments

  1. Charred says:

    We’re shafted by Lucas again?! What a jerk!

  2. Dave2 says:

    No doubt. HE doesn’t like the original versions so EVERYBODY has to suffer.

  3. Hilly says:

    Let me ask you something…in YOUR neck of the woods, do you have the “who shot first?” debate? I never even knew there was one til I got married.

  4. oujod says:

    Ya know, the Apple stuff all seems pretty good. It isn’t well-suited for me, but I think it serves its purpose very well. The movies on iTunes are mainly targeted towards people who don’t want (or don’t know how) to rip their DVDs. They just want to click a button and watch the movie. Besides, according to the DMCA, you break the law every time you rip a DVD. (of course this law is ridiculous.)

    DVDs max out at 720×480 while iTunes movies max out at 640×480, so the picture quality doesn’t really take a big hit. The dealbreaker for many people will probably be the lack of special-features, though.

    I’m not having any trouble with iTunes 7 at all. Gapless playback is working great, and the new album flip view or whatever it’s called is really cool.

    I was hoping for a widescreen iPod, though. It sucks to have widescreen content either cropped or letterboxed. But it’ll be interesting to see how exactly a widescreen iPod will be designed. The click-wheel is its signature, so how can it fit in with a widescreen and still keep its iPodness?

  5. I’m sorry your day has been crappy. I believe that Lucas should just release every concievable version/combination at once and be done with it.

    That wee shuffle is so cute! I would totally buy one if I didn’t think it would make my butt look HUGE by comparison.

  6. Laurence says:

    I always like my white iPod nano and I’m not a big fan of iPod Video. (I prefer my PSP). Only iPode Shuffle stirs my curiosity.

    Do you think about your laser engraving ? If it’s not too personal, i would like to know… Simple curiosit√© ! ;-)

    I am waiting the day which I’m not agree with you… Until when I will be agree with you ? At the beginning, it really got on my nerves. But, with time, I become used to be agree with you… Now, I’m just waiting the moment and/or the argument which change my mind.
    :-D

  7. James says:

    I want one of those newfangled nano things.
    I’m always worried about my sleek black 30gig iPod getting scratched..

    “who shot first debate” Did I miss something? I’ve not heard of this before now!

  8. Dave2 says:

    HAN SOLO SHOT FIRST!!

    AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!

  9. adena says:

    I love Han Solo’s little lego smirk!

  10. Mark says:

    Yeah, the new ipod shuffle is exactly what I want in an mp3 player. Reasonably large (1GB) and cheap ($79). And tiny. The only thing that would make it better is a strap so I can put it on my arm if/when I run.
    And, I’ll never support George Lucas in any way. He dragged his feet for way too long in releasing the original star wars editions on DVD. Screw him. I have better things to spend my money on.

  11. Eve says:

    I need that iPod Shuffle for the cuteness alone.

  12. Kapha says:

    That Lego game looks AWESOME! :D

    But wth happened to Leia?!? Looks like Chewbacca was body-shaved and has a giant metal butterfly tatooed on his chest.

    BTW, I looked up “Leia” to confirm the spelling and look what came up – lol!
    http://www.leiasmetalbikini.com/members/whatsnew.html

  13. Jason says:

    They’re selling movies now… which would be a good thing except that they are selling shitty 640×480 DRM-infested versions that nobody in their right mind will buy. Pay $9.99 to $14.99 for a low-res film? Are you insane? Far better to put that money toward a DVD that you can rip into any resolution you want and view wherever you want.

    Standard definition television has only 480 horizontal lines of viewable content. Getting a digital file with a height larger than 480 pixels would require interpolation (bad) or an HD source, or some computer telecine device not commonly available (and original film reels).

    Calling a file 480 lines high “low-res” is only appropriate if you’re steering readers toward a high def format like Blu-ray or HD-DVD. Only, you’re steering them towards a DVD, which is also “low-res” by your definition.

    I guess that’s Apple’s fault for saying “near DVD quality” without mentioning “full resolution.”

    Also, oujod noted that “DVDs max out at 720×480” – The 720 width is used to compensate for the rectangular pixels used on televisions. The measured aspect ratio is still 4:3, despite the pixels not working out that way. Since computer monitors use square pixels (or round dots, or as in LCDs, an array of red, green, and blue rectangles, three of which horizontally make a square – they’re of uniform width and height), a conversion to 640×480 is entirely appropriate (and it happens every time you view a DVD in your computer, because I guarantee your pixels aren’t reconfiguring themselves just for the DVD. Oujud is right to note there won’t be much of a hit in picture quality.

    As for viewing wherever you want – on your computer, on your iPod, and (in the spring) on your TV seems to meet a lot of people’s needs. It’s your right to think that’s lame for Apple to want to establish living room hegemony, but you know if they don’t, someone else will.

    (BTW, no hard feelings.)

  14. Dave2 says:

    I put in my Spider-Man 2 DVD and did a screen capture of the result (shown in the revised entry above). What iTunes is selling at 640 pixels wide is 75% of the picture information from what I got off of my DVD (856 pixels wide). I don’t consider that to be “nearly DVD quality” at all. As we make the switch to HDTVs, this loss of information is not insignificant… EVEN if you are viewing a “regular” (i.e. NOT hi-res HD DVD or Blu-Ray) DVD.

    On hi-res computer displays, this is even more a problem, because going full-screen requires significant up-sizing of the source material. The more information you have, the better the result will look. All those extra pixels have to be interpreted from somewhere.

    I do realize that this will be acceptable to many people. I just feel my money is better spent going towards a DVD with all the “extras” you get PLUS the 133% boost in image information. I can then rip the video to take with me and view on ANY device that reads video (including, but not limited to, the iPod).

  15. Jason says:

    Aww, in the time I took to post my comment, you’ve uploaded a photo I find misleading.

    My question is how did you get a Spider-Man DVD that has more than 480 viewable horizontal lines on it when played in the USA? Because that’s what your image asserts.

    You may wish to visit dvdforum.com and click on the “technology” link on the left before writing any further.

    That’s where I found a link to this:

    Note the 720×480 resolution cited in the diagram for NTSC televisions.

  16. Dave2 says:

    I don’t know how it is misleading??

    I put a DVD in my PowerBook. I open up DVD Player and press “play” then set the window to “Actual Size.” I then capture the screen and cut out the picture.

    I then duplicated that image and shrank it to 640 pixels in width. That image was then set on top of the DVD screen capture to create the graphic shown above.

    The ONLY manipulation I did was to shrink the final result to 420 pixels wide to fit in my blog… I left the proportions exactly the same. In any event, it clearly shows that a significant amount of information is lost.

  17. Dave2 says:

    Also, note that the DVD does NOT exceed 480 pixels in height… it’s actually 360 pixels high by the 856 pixel width.

    I dunno. The technical stuff is beyond me, I’m just saying that comparing an actual DVD on my PowerBook to something that’s 640 pixels wide ends up being about a 75% reduction in picture information.

  18. Jason says:

    I put in my Spider-Man 2 DVD and did a screen capture of the result (shown in the revised entry above). What iTunes is selling at 640 pixels wide is 75% of the picture information from what I got off of my DVD (856 pixels wide).

    Nevermind that your computer had to interpolate from a 720 non-square pixel wide source MPEG-2 file on the DVD to get to this 856 square pixel wide screenshot… Nevermind also that
    widescreen films in DVD reduce the horizontal ratio
    in order to get the 16:9 wide-screen information compressed into this 4:3 720×480 nonsquare pixel MPEG-2 file on the DVD.

  19. Dave2 says:

    Okay… I may be waaaayyy out of my depth here (I totally admit that!), BUT… you are right. I am making one critical mistake in my example. I am comparing an interpreted picture to a picture that is actual pixels.

    So… let’s take this same Spider-Man 2 image and do an actual pixels to pixels comparison. You are correct that a non-HD DVD has a resolution of 720 by 480 pixels. I am not debating that. But a DVD with ANAMORPHIC ENCODING will try to use all available vertical resolution and compress the horizontal data. The TV (or PowerBook DVD player) will then stretch it out (which is why I got a width of 856). So I will compress the width back to the 720 pixels, THEN compare the two using the “square pixels” that computer video has (i.e. it’s NOT anamorphic, but STATIC data)…

    Wow. When you do the math, it ends up that the iTunes Store video is not 75% the size of DVD… it’s 66%! So you are right, I was wrong, and the “actual” results are even WORSE?!?

    Again, I am not an expert in video, but isn’t this the way you would calculate the IMAGE AREA PIXELS for comparison?? Of course, as the aspect ration becomes more “square”, this disparity will diminish… but movies (for the most part) are not square.

  20. Jason says:

    I put a DVD in my PowerBook. I open up DVD Player and press “play” then set the window to “Actual Size.” I then capture the screen and cut out the picture.

    I then duplicated that image and shrank it to 640 pixels in width. That image was then set on top of the DVD screen capture to create the graphic shown above.

    Apple’s PR says With iTunes 7, all videos purchased from the iTunes Store are downloaded in near-DVD quality at a resolution of 640×480 (up to 480, depending on the aspect ratio). I would interpret “up to 480” to mean 640×360 for a movie in the 16:9 format (check the ratio – it works), and 640×480 for a movie in the 4:3 format. They are using the horizontal as a limiter.

    So you are correct to suggest that the file you get from the iTunes store will not contain as much information as you would get on a real DVD. The misleading part comes from how much information you think is on the DVD.

    The answer is 720 columns and 480 rows (called lines), but in order to compare apples to apples as you did on your Powerbook you need to consider that the widescreen image is squeezed (with significant information loss) in order to fit into these 720 columns, and that any DVD player that displays a widescreen image uses significant stretching to fill in the blanks.

    The technical stuff is beyond me, I’m just saying that comparing an actual DVD on my PowerBook to something that’s 640 pixels wide ends up being about a 75% reduction in picture information.

    The point you seem to have missed (and later found, I’m noticing on preview) is that your Powerbook is using interpolation (that means it’s making educated guesses) to make the picture any size different than 720×480, which is the DVD source file. It’s got algorithms that tell it how to fill in the blanks (or decide what to discard) in order to play the DVD at a larger or smaller resolution.

    There’s no fair way to do a 4:3 comparison on a computer because computers use square pixels (or one of the other uniform width and height strategies I provide above.) But the loss is bout 12.2% of the information just to convert it to square pixels. And you will always see that loss even when you play a normal 4:3 DVD on your computer because of its conversion to square pixels.

    The most accurate graphic you could make (and that I see now) would have to squeeze the picture back to its 720×480 actual size (thus disturbing its 16:9 aspect ratio) if you intend to compare how much information is lost.

    720×480=345600 pixel image area for DVD
    640×360=230400 pixel image area for iTunes.

    230400/345600 =0.66, or 66.6%

    So in a widescreen scenario you’d lose 33.3% of the pixel information. Not 75% as you state above.

    Now, the question is, is the 33.3% noticeable if up to this point you didn’t notice the 12.2% loss on DVD programs in the 4:3 aspect ratio?

    And the other question is, knowing that MPEG-2 and H.264 (aka MPEG-4 part 10 are completely different codecs, comparing their images are apples and oranges anyway. It’s possible and likely that since H.264 is such a better codec it may contain more (or better) information than MPEG-2, especially since effective MPEG-2 encoding is somewhat of a black art. There’s no way I can think of to place on actual percentage value on the quality that would be lost because it would vary from one scene to another in MPEG-2 (And I’m assuming their source is not DVD or MPEG-2, admittedly. This I don’t know.)

    Thanks for running my comments. :)

  21. Dave2 says:

    I welcome comments (or debate) and publish anything that’s not trolling (e.g. “you suck”) or is trying to sell something… whether I agree with it or not. I always have.

    And I mis-spoke in my one comment… I never meant to say that there is a 75% reduction… I am trying to get across that you only get 75% of the information that you get from an anamorphic DVD (or 66%, as the graphic above now shows).

    The point you make IS relevant though… is more information of lesser quality superior to less information of better quality?? It’s tough to say, because the new codec undoubtedly produces a crisper image. All I know is that a 33% reduction of information is pretty hefty, and a codec would have to go a long way to make up that amount of lost ground.

    I should probably just buy Toy Story and do a visual comparison because, in the end, isn’t that all that matters?

  22. Jason says:

    Wow. When you do the math, it ends up that the iTunes Store video is not 75% the size of DVD… it’s 66%! So you are right, I was wrong, and the “actual” results are even WORSE?!?

    Close. You used 640×268 and 720×360 When you should have yoused 720×480 and 640×360, but the percentage of possibly missing information comes out the same. And the result is better, not worse, considering that you previously said 75% of the information was missing. At least that’s how I interpreted “An almost 75% reduction in picture information.”

    Maybe you meant it was a 25% reduction originally, which would make a 33.3% reduction worse. But the 75% figure is what caught my attention.

    But then there’s still the problem of how much more faithful H.264 is vs. MPEG-4. A Georgia Tech study noted a 50% average coding gain over MPEG-2 (pdf) – what makes it (and Microsoft’s WMV9) great is that it makes better video byte-for-byte than MPEG-2 does. To really make the comparison you need to buy one of the videos and compare its frames side-by-side with identical frames from the DVD.

    I’m with you somewhat – it will probably never be totally equivalent to the quality of a DVD for 16:9 aspect ratio movies in its current state. My gut feeling is that the efficiency of the H.264 codec will soften the blow quite a bit, but it really also depends on how well the MPEG-2 was encoded for the DVD (and whether there were lots of extras on it, as the space taken up by extras affects decisions made by the MPEG-2 encoding boffins when they make DVDs).

  23. Jason says:

    p.s. I also realize that when I first posted, I thought all the files were 480 lines high. When I looked it up, I was able to calculate that widescreen versions were actually only 360 lines high. So I now retract that part of my initial comment.

  24. Dave2 says:

    I changed the error in my entry almost immediately after posting it, but still made the mistake of saying “75% reduction” in my comment above (I meant 25%, as the image shows).

    This is why I said “66% the size of DVD” in my follow-up. Codec improvement or no, that’s still 33% less info, and I’d be amazed if H.264 has mad skilz enough to close such a gap… 1/3 less pixels is pretty steep.

  25. Jason says:

    (wow, after reading this thread I am realizing that we’re arriving at similar answers before the next one of us posts.)

    (also I might have taken 16:9 calculations a bit too literally, but the ratios work for the numbers I cited… since the % loss is the same your Spider-Man DVD is definitely 16:9. Maybe they didn’t use all available vertical lines?

    Toy Story frames ought to be an interesting comparison. I can’t wait.

    (OMG it is late. I just noticed I typed “yoused earlier”… Agh.)

  26. Jason says:

    Codec improvement or no, that’s still 33% less info, and I’d be amazed if H.264 has mad skilz enough to close such a gap… 1/3 less pixels is pretty steep.

    You’re right, it is potentially pretty steep. The best way I can think of to see whether people notice a difference is to use iTunes or Quicktime Player to play the iTunes file at the same size as DVD Player thinks the normal DVD is, and splice the left side of one onto the left side of the other, with a vertical line running down the middle. Then do a “pepsi challenge” preference test with voting. That would be really interesting.

  27. Too much technical stuff here. I’ll gladly sit over here and chew on my hair.

    I really thought the video ipod sounded soo-hooo lame. Reminds me of those little 4″ portable television/radios that I had for camping when I was like 12. Lame.

  28. EDDIE says:

    Are we having Geek Wars here today???
    I do not like watching anything from iPod. You know why?
    Because, everything looks so small.

  29. Troy says:

    One thing I never understood, with this whole handheld video systems, is why you would spend money on “handheld” versions of movies that are lacking in all the extras you can get from a DVD (for a little more than the price you spend on say a PSP disc). Plus the fact that DVDs can be played on your computer, XBox, Playstation etc. etc.

    I guess if you want the portability of watching a movie, or you enjoy straining your eyes :)

  30. Walt says:

    Dave:

    I want the past three minutes of my life back. The resolution argument has taken quoting to an all time low. The next time I see a quote from another post I’m going to kick an English teacher! What really seems odd is that you took the time to respond and not just once! You must be getting soft. I fully expected the F#@k off and die to appear. The lengths that people will go to argue about trivial information and opinion amazes me. But when in Rome – I think people will notice the difference and the DVD is a better deal – that’s my opinion but who asked.

  31. oujod says:

    Whoa, but the main thing you gotta understand is that this is geared to consumers who aren’t measuring the exact amount of pixels they are losing.

    The majority of people purchasing iTunes videos aren’t going to say, “Gee, I lose xx% of my vertical resolution.”

    Even people who are interested in hi-def ask me one question about my tv: “Is it hi-def?”

    They don’t ask me the exact resolution of my display. All they care about is if it’s hi-definition or not.

    So sure, you can nitpick about the exact resolution difference, but in the end, all consumers really care about is if they can really SEE a big difference. And I know what the answer to that will be.

  32. oujod says:

    Eddie and Kentucky Girl:

    At the beginning of next year, Apple will begin selling a little box for you to plug into your cool flat-panel tv (or any other kind of tv that you have).

    All the movies, podcasts/video podcasts, music, pictures, and everything else you have in iTunes can be streamed right into any tv in your house.

    So you won’t have to watch videos on your iPod only. You click a button to purchase a brand new movie and see it on your TV 1 minute later if you have broadband.

  33. Avitable says:

    Wow. Watching two Apple apologists fighting it out is like . . . Damn! I can’t think of a good analogy.

    I never played the Lego Star Wars, but I heard it was good.

    And other than the Han/Greedo thing, I like the newer versions of the OT. Much cleaner, smoother and better looking.

  34. Jeff says:

    “I drove 20 minutes into the neighboring city of Wenatchee first thing this morning so I could be first in line at Target to purchase Star Wars Lego 2”

    Hmmm, did you mean “first in line” or “the only one in line?” ;-)

    Just kidding of course. I admire your child within.

  35. kapgar says:

    While I agree with you that the movie aspect isn’t that great, I don’t think that was the main focus of the press conference. I like to think all the new Pods (which are awesome) and the features on the Pods aside from the movies are what made the Event for me. The new games (although I can’t get them to load on my Pod despite having updated the firmware), the search functionality, the jukebox like scrolling of albums on iTunes and the album art loading (haven’t checked to see how many of mine were taken care of by the auto add feature) just made my day. Tack on to that the new Shuffle and the new Nano. It was a much better day than many of the recent events.

    Did you really think they’d announce a widescreen iPod? I think that’s still at least a year away.

  36. MIke says:

    Great, now I have to go get in line to get yet another X-Box game. It’s for my kids. Really. No really.

    Stop laughing.

    :-)

  37. Dave2 says:

    Kentucky Girl/Eddie… I agree. Other video devices are out with bigger screens, and the iPod is behind the curve here, not ahead of it.

    Troy… In Apple’s defense, they are charging less than a feature-packed DVD that’s filled with extras. Unless you are in a bargain bin, $9.99-$12.99 is cheaper than the average DVD.

    Walt… If I make a mistake (or somebody thinks I’ve made a mistake) then I am glad somebody steps up to tell me so. I don’t want to give anybody false information.

    Oujd… This is not the argument I am making. I agree that people don’t care about a number. What I am saying is that Apple’s declaration that their movies are “near DVD quality” is kind of bogus. One-third less data is a significant amount of quality to lose and I think people will be able to tell the difference on their big-screen television. In a way, it’s all a moot point anyway… HD completely buries current standards, and I find it surprising that Apple isn’t ahead of the game here.

    Avitable… Yes, but Lucas shouldn’t have changed the story to get there. These movies may look better (and in some cases, like the chase in Cloud City, are superior) but they are not the films I remember when so many details are changed and CGI crap is littered everywhere.

    Jeff… It was so worth the trip too!

    Kevin… Yes, I absolutely thought Apple would release a widescreen iPod. DOZENS of other companies have devices out with bigger screens, and Apple’s iPod is still stuck with a measly 2.5-inch screen that I find unacceptable for viewing all but short video segments. I would buy a Sony PSP before I would buy a new iPod if watching movies was my intent. Furthermore, I would rarely use that search functionality… even with thousands of songs on my iPod, I could scroll to what I’m looking for faster than having to type something in (I do it all the time). The games are nice but, again, I’ll take my DS along if I want to play games because they are far superior to anything offered on the iPod. None of the new features are compelling enough to make me buy a new one to replace what I already have. Even the nano, which does LOOK nicer isn’t really that much different in functionality than the one I have. I DO agree that the new Shuffle is amazing, and is the only thing I am excited about. Everything else was just an evolutionary step from old tech… I want Apple to make a revolutionary jump!

    Mike… It’s pretty good, so the odds of your kids being able to tear you away from it are slim! :-)

  38. oujod says:

    Hey, D :)

    When Apple says “near DVD quality” this is a very vague statement. Sure YOU think it’s bogus, but many people won’t agree. Subjectively, most people will see an iTunes movie and say it looks pretty near DVD quality to them. How do I know? A friend of mine bought Flight Plan, and we showed it to a few people. All of them thought it was a DVD.

    The reason that Apple doesn’t distribute their movies in HD is obvious. Once everyone in the US gets an internet connection similar to Japan, this will be feasible. But right now, it already takes 30 minutes to download a movie on 5mbit broadband! This give just enough tolerance for slowdowns so people can start watching a movie right after they click “Buy”. People just aren’t willing to wait hours and hours (let alone days) for a movie they paid for.

  39. Dave2 says:

    The increased file size also cuts the number of movies you can stuff on an iPod, which is probably the more compelling reason.

  40. Wayne Hall says:

    Whew. I was pretty worried when the post is entitled LAMENESS and you mention Lego Star Wars II… I shared your enthusiasm for it and went way out of my way to reserve a copy and pick it up. Took it home and me and my 4yr old played it for FOUR HOURS LAST NIGHT.

    We loved the first one and I love this one.

    So I’m glad that the “lameness” is your lack of time to play. I predict this to be yet another great bonding experience for dad and son.

  41. Dave2 says:

    Okay… now THAT brings a tear to my eye! If you were drinking Coke with Lime and eating Vanilla Oreos while playing, I’d ALMOST wish that I had a son of my own to play Lego Star Wars with!

    This game is so amazing for people like me who are not hard core gamers but enjoy playing video games… the cool Lego/Star Wars mash-up is just the icing on the cake!!

    I have to say, the more I play the little Nintendo DS version, the more blown away I am. It captures the gameplay of a full-on console in a way I never expected (I just wish that the DS had an analog pad, because I keep falling off platforms trying to use the directional controler they have). Brilliant, brilliant game.

  42. oujod says:

    D, glad to hear you’re enjoying the games. You just convinced me to buy them both :)

    Hope ya get a chance to play them for a while. Take a couple of days off for a nonstop gaming session! ;)

  43. ChillyWilly says:

    I knew there was a reason I wasn’t interested in the latest re-re-re-release of the Star Wars DVDs. But at least the LEGO Star Wars TOT is awesome. I bought the PSP version and it’s really cool. Agree with you Dave, that it’s better than the first one (which I have only played on the GBA). But time is preventing more than just a few mins here and there, even with the portable nature of the PSP. Maybe between SQL server installs, I can catch a few mins of play.

  44. Pauly D says:

    I want this Star Wars game, and I have a 360 and a DS. Which one should I get, do you think?

  45. Dave2 says:

    The 360 will give you a lot more (and a better experience). But, seriously, I’d buy both. The DS is amazing for a handheld, and that will give you something to play on the go! :-)

Add a Comment

Blankatar!

   
I love comments! However, all comments are moderated, and won't appear until approved. Are you an abusive troll with nothing to contribute? Don't bother. Selling something? Don't bother. Spam linking? Don't bother.
PLEASE NOTE: My comment-spam protection requires JavaScript... if you have it turned off or are using a mobile device without JavaScript, commenting won't work. Sorry.




   


   


   
   
   
Your personal information is optional. Email addresses are never shown, and are only used by me if a public reply would be too personal or inappropriate here. The URL link to your web site or blog will be provided, so only fill this in if you want people to visit!



   

  Home  

spacer
Welcome:
Blogography is a place to learn and grow by exposing yourself to the mind of David Simmer II, a brilliant commentator on world events and popular culture (or so he claims).
Dave FAQ:
Frequently Asked Questions
Dave Flickr Gallery:
Dave Contact:
dave@blogography.com
Blogography Webfeeds:
Entries Feed
Comments Feed
Dave Social:
Blogography Tumblr
Blogography Instagram
Blogography on Pinterest
translate me
lost & found
Search Blogography:
thrice fiction
Thrice Fiction Magazine - March, 2011 - THE END
I'm co-founder of Thrice Fiction magazine. Come check us out!
free iphone app
Ask Dave iPhone App
Put Dave in your pocket with this FREE app for iPhone and iPod Touch. All life's answers await you with the Ask Dave app!
hard rock moment
Visit DaveCafe for my Hard Rock Cafe travel journal!
travel picto-gram
Visit my travel map to see where I have been in this world!
badgemania
Blogography Badge
Atom Syndicate Badge
Comments Syndicate Badge
Apple Safari Badge
Pirate's Booty Badge
Macintosh Badge
license
All content copyright ©2003-2017
by David Simmer II
   
Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under
a Creative Commons License.
ssl security
Comodo SSL