The story in question: "The DVD War Against Consumers" on BusinessWeek.com

David H. Holtzman of BusinessWeek: You need to do some more research.

This guy has no idea what AACS does and I'm surprised this article was even published.  For starters, he needs to go to wikipedia.com and search for AACS . It has nothing to do with downscaling non-HDCP video outputs.  It is an advanced content sharing system that enables the exact functionality he is championing. It allows users to distribute the content of HD-DVD/Blu-Ray disc across multiple devices for personal use.  These copies are encrypted, so they can't be shared widely on download sites, but it enables much of what he complains is missing from these next-gen discs

There is a separate problem where some HD-DVD/Blu-Ray players may down-convert analog component video outputs, but this has nothing to do with AACS.

Mr. Holtzman states that Sony is going to shut down all of the players across the world because of the actions of one hacker who breaks a code. No company is going to shoot themselves in the foot like that; the customer outrage would devastate the company - the "Sony root kit incident" would seem like a hiccup in comparison.

Me personally, I'm only going to buy discs that allow content distribution over my home network. No Distribution = No Purchase. Simple as that. Unfortunately, I'm not sure this will be the case for the general public.  The demand is there for HD-DVD/Blu-Ray and content protection won't play any more of a factor than it did initially with DVD.  Everyone with cave to the beautiful picture and amazing menus and those advanced early-adopters like me (who want to distribute content over a network) will be forgotten when market become massive.

I saw the third X-man movie this weekend and was very impressed.  This trilogy provided the most satisfying story arc of any set of science fiction movies since the original Star Wars (Matrix 3 was kinda of a let down.)  Of course, having decades of comic books from which to borrow story lines helps the writing / planning of short- and long-term stories.  The special effects and action sequences were a couple of notches above the previous two movies, so I think that make this the best of the three.  This movie instantly became one of my all-time favorite science fiction movies and I can't wait for the DVD and another viewing at home.

I saw a post on Oz's blog about a quiz to figure out which X-man you would be.   I took the test and the result:  Cyclops.  If this is true, I guess my wife will be the end of me!

You scored as Cyclops. Cyclops is the team leader of the X-Men, and a skilled one at that. He loves Jean Grey very much. He's a strict and sometimes uptight leader, but he believes in his cause and he knows what he's fighting for… Peace between Mutants and Humans. Powers: Optic blasts

Cyclops              90%
Beast                85%
Jean Grey         80%
Iceman              60%
Colossus           55%
Storm               50%
Emma Frost      50%
Wolverine          50%
Nightcrawler      35%
Rogue               35%
Gambit              25%

Finally, there is reason for speculation that Spider-Man 3 will debut the black spidey suit.  I always thought it looked much better than the red and blue version.  I guess we'll have to wait to see if it is only a plain black suit or if it has a mind of its own.  Spider-Man 2 is also one fo my favorite science fiction movies, so here's hoping that third will top the other two.

Edit:  I just found out that Batwoman became a lesbian!  Superman, X-Men, and a Batwoman.  What more could you want from a blog entry? (I heard that Batwoman is not exactly hot in the new animation, so I don't think this is really anything to be excited about.)

As soon as I walked into the theater and glanced up at the trailers on the screen, I knew that I wasn't watching film.  I immediately suspected that I was looking at the output from a digital projector.

Digital projection was first introduced in many cities a few years earlies, but not in Indianapolis.  I wondered how digital would compare to film and if it really was an enhancement or just a method of lowering distribution costs.  Make no mistake, the image is superior to film.

What I immediately noticed was the vivid colors on the screen.  Images were more saturated without being over-saturated.  I thought that film may have a noticeable resolution advantage over digital, but I was surprised to find digital to look sharper than film.  The contrast ratio was better and the black levels were at least as black as film, it not just a bit darker.  The other advantages are that there is no noticeable flicker (due to elimination of 24 frames/second film) and there are no "cigarette burns" in the upper right-hand corners before switching to a new reel.

I'm not sure the exact projector, but the Christie splash just before the film suggests it may be a Christie CP2000 , which is a 3-chip DLP 2048 x 1080 pixel projector.  What ever it is, it make me want to upgrade the Sony LCD projector I have at home!

Theater 1 also had greatly improved sound fidelity.  I noticed that during the trailers and I really noticed it during the movie (Mission: Impossible 3).  I suspect the sound system was completely upgraded rather than simply recalibrating or improving the source.  I saw King Kong in Theater 16 and the sound was absolutely terrible there, with dialog that was often difficult to make out, especially in quiet scenes.  Theater 1 is a great improvement. 

Theater 1 is not perfect, however. The large screen has about 11 visible vertical lines spaced evenly across the screen.  These lines are where the individual smaller panels join together to make one large screen.  They were very noticeable from 2/3 of the way back in the seating and continually distracting.  The screen also appeared to be causing splotches in the projected image, because the screen was not uniform. (Dirty? Not smooth? Screen color variation? I'm not sure why. . .)

Overall, I'd highly recommend this theater, especially if the screen were upgraded.  Digital is the future, for both home viewing as well as movie theaters. 

Kerasotes ShowPlace 16
4325 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46217-3441

Directed by J.J. Abrams  

I'll start off by saying I was not really a fan of the first two movies.  They were OK, but not great.  Too much action with too little plot to hold it together. I would have definitely waited for this movie to come to DVD before viewing except for the fact that it is directed by J.J. Abrams (of Alias, Lost, and Felicity fame).  In general, I'm partial movies directed by those with a background in TV (Joss Whedon for one) because they tend to slip in a bit more character development and are more mindful of plot holes.  This was certainly the case with M:I3.  The other, unrelated, reason for a slight fondness to the movie is that it marks the start of the 2006 summer movie season (have fun and don't worry about being "Oscar-worthy").

M:I2 is to the Charlie's Angles movie as M:I3 is to Bourne Identity. M:I2 (a.k.a. Mission: Implausible II) had forgettable characters, useless dialog, and over-produced, campy, totally implausible action.  It was fun, but difficult to respect.  M:I3 completely changed approaches with a coherent plot, thrilling-but-not-overly-outrageous action sequences, and some interesting little details that you may catch only after repeated viewings.  I liked that we never find out what the Rabbit's Foot is.  I liked that Greg Grunberg made yet another J.J. Abrams-related cameo.  I liked that the Ethan Hunt wife-to-be was justified in her belief of him working for the DOT (he became a trainer and no longer went on missions when they meet).  It's that type of detail, along with the plot, the action, and a small amount of character development, that makes this a movie worth seeing.

Final thoughts:  Go see it in the theaters, also buy the DVD.