A published report at the Digital Spy, a UK website, seems to have stirred up quite a furor with our friends at The Home Theater Forum. In a thread entitled It's Official: HD-DVD Is HDMI Only, posters are discussing the implications and impact of that report, which asserts that Toshiba has revealed that although component video outputs will be included on its HD-DVD players, the images will be constrained to 480p, the same resolution as conventional, standard definition DVD.

I was very pleased to read a post by Home Theater Forum's Ron Epstein indicating admirable empathy for early adapters who purchased expensive HD-ready displays before HDCP-compliant DVI or HDMI connections were available. He called for a boycott of any high definition players that don't offer full resolution, full bandwidth analog component video outputs. He proposed to organize a Web-wide campaign to support the boycott after a suitable mission statement could be authored. Ron and I spoke a few days after his post and I brought to his attention that the problems run a little deeper. I suggested that he read my piece on AACS and SPDC copy protection standards (What the Studios Really Seem to Have in Store for Us, May 18, 2005), and he found the problems I described to be sufficiently alarming to suggest to his forum members that they read the article, as well. I suggested to him that based on Jack Valenti's congressional committee testimony that the MPAA wanted to close the ãanalog hole,ä the studios, not the player manufacturers, were responsible for the draconian measures. And since I felt that a boycott might not be sufficiently visible, I also suggested a letter writing campaign to the studios to make clear the DVD community's concern and position. I'm hoping that he will include me in the generation of the mission statement.

As I read through the Home Theater Forum thread, I was somewhat mystified at the variety of opinions. I expected wholesale outrage; that's not what I found. I was particularly surprised at the position taken by Widescreen Review's John Kotches, but I'll get to that in a moment. Allow me address some of the opinions found in the thread. Perhaps you'll find your views among them.

One group explains that there has been much publicity and discussion concerning HDCP requirements from both the home video industry and home theater enthusiasts for over five years. Furthermore, there have been displays equipped with HDCP-compliant inputs since 2001. Why would manufacturers offer displays with HDCP-compliant inputs for the last four years if there were no hints that HDCP would eventually become a requirement for future HD sources? In other words, why were we early adapters stupid enough to buy displays with only analog component video inputs?

To those posters, I must point put that HD-ready displays were available long before 2001. My front projector, selected to ensure that it was capable of displaying 720p and 1080i, was purchased in 1994. Many analog-input-only displays were purchased before any available with HDCP-compliant DVI or HDMI inputs. And, if you'll refer to my January 2, 2005 piece, High Definition DVD Dilemmas, you'll find a convincing estimate that there are 6.6 million such displays in the installed base.

There is a group of posters who believe that displays last only three to five years, so it's time to buy a new display anyway.

To those posters, I must point out that when you spend between $5,000 and $20,000 for a display, not only do you expect it to last a lot longer, but the build quality of the display very likely makes it practical to keep it much longer than five years. My home theater's NEC projector is now over eleven years old and going strong. I can still readily perceive the spatial resolution differences between 720p and 1080i signals. I even have a set of new CRTs for when my projector's existing tubes are ready for replacement. And I'll also point out that more conventional displays will also last much longer than five years. I have a Hitachi rear projector in our master bedroom; it's nine years old and still looks just fine.

I'm especially bemused by posters who wrote to say that, ãHey, it's called progress. Get over it. No one promised you future compatibility.ä This is similar to the sentiment expressed by WSR's John Kotches who was the 29th contributor to a post at the AVS Forum (the emphasis and opinion are his, not the magazine's):

ãWhy do you continue to insist that your dated set be forwards compatible with every new piece of technology that comes out? It simply is not going to happen. No matter how hard you wish, no matter how much you complain the fact is, to view the HD signal on a new format you'll have to purchase a compatible display to view it at its highest resolution. It is the right of the provider of the technology to deliver a signal in whatever fashion they like. It's your right to buy it or not.

ãDid your display manufacturer guarantee that it would be compatible with every future HD source that came out? No they did not.

ãNo one is under any legal or moral obligation to continue to provide a 1080i signal via component video to you for a new format or feature.

ãIf it really bothers you this much, I suggest you just get out of the hobby, because there's no guarantee that in another 5 years or so that HDMI won't be supplanted by another technology.ä

I could not disagree more. Like everyone who purchased an analog-input-only HD-ready display, I purchased my front projector with the reasonable expectation of compatibility with all high definition sources for the economic life of the projector. There is certainly adequate precedent. When S-Video connections were introduced in VCRs (a technological improvement that kept video's luminance and chrominance separated), composite video connectors were retained. And more significantly, consider that when DVD players came to market in 1997, they were equipped with component video outputs and were capable of outputting anamorphic video. Both of those technological advancements improved the appearance of the video and, to take advantage of those advancements, required displays that were capable of the anamorphic squeeze and were equipped with component video inputs. In 1997, such displays were a small minority within the installed base, possibly motivating some studios to rationalize the marketing of non-anamorphic DVDs, retreads of laserdisc masters. But, to make DVD players useful to everyone, both composite and S-Video outputs were (and still are) included. And the players can be set up for displays capable of the anamorphic squeeze and for those that are not. And when not much later, progressive video was incorporated into DVD players, the user still had the option available to output interlaced video if his or her display couldn't accept 480p. Early adapters benefited, but everyone was still allowed to utilize the players in a manner compatible with their displays.

Constraining the image resolution of the analog video output to 480p on high definition DVD players is a deliberate and premeditated denial of signals required by analog-input-only displays. That action isn't progress; it's immoral, and all in the name of misguided anti-piracy.

Within the thread there are posters who don't care about higher quality, and others who are a tad cavalier since they had purchased displays with the requisite digital connectors, but they tend to be in the minority. There is another small group of posters who suggest that any fight is futile; the studios will damn well do what they want and we can't stop them. Well, I'm not one to roll over and play dead. I believe the Internet's DVD community was instrumental in the failure of DIVX, that bastard cousin of DVD spawned by Circuit City. And I believe we can make a difference again.

I'm gratified that many of the Home Theater Forum posters seem rightfully pissed off that the studios might be denying them the pleasure of enjoying high definition DVDs on their expensive displays, bought in anticipation of such discs. It'll be interesting to see just how big this problem becomes. On the largest home theater hardware-oriented forum, there is currently running an AVS Forum survey that asks the question, ãDoes your HDTV have a compatible HDCP input?ä Over 45% of respondents have answered no. I'm hopeful that all those potential victims of the studio's draconian measures will join the rest of us to make our displeasure known.

So there are three issue facing us today:

First, if AACS and SPDC copy protection standards are put in place, will the studios establish a no-cost-to-the-consumer disc replacement program if a title is disabled?

Second, if AACS and SPDC copy protection standards are put in place, will the electronic manufacturers establish a no-cost-to-the-consumer firmware replacement program if a player is disabled?

And third, can the studios be persuaded to support, with full-bandwidth, full-resolution, analog component video outputs, the 6.6 million early adapters who've spent $16.5 billion on analog-input-only HD-ready displays?

Have you written the studios yet? Have you explained that you cannot support a format (and cannot recommend a format to a friend) that has these three serious technical problems? If not, see my, column of April 6th, Orson Welles Strike Again, for names and addresses.

Previously published related articles:
High Definition DVD Dilemmas, January 2, 2005
Blu-ray Disc vs. HD-DVD, February 14, 2005
Mixed Signals, February 21, 2005
Another Leaf On The HDCP-HDMI-DVI Artichoke, March 7, 2005
Orson Welles Strike Again, April 6, 2005
Movement on the HD Disc Front, April 18, 2005
What the Studios Really Seem to Have in Store for Us, May 18, 2005
The Supreme Court Speaks, July 8, 2005