Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!strath-cs!prlhp1!walker From: walker@prlhp1.prl.philips.co.uk (David Walker) Newsgroups: comp.multimedia Subject: Re: DVI questions Message-ID: <1252@prlhp1.prl.philips.co.uk> Date: 18 Feb 91 11:13:55 GMT References: <573@hydra.bucknell.edu> <1991Jan15.040230.26507@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <4926@mcrware.UUCP> <1991Feb6.140751.14909@cbnewsh.att.com> <4999@mcrware.UUCP> <1991Feb13.090453.16347@abblund.se> Reply-To: walker@prlhp1.UUCP (David Walker) Organization: Philips Research Laboratories, Redhill, UK Lines: 12 > >CD-I is doomed to failure because you can't digitize your own videos >like you can with DVI. That's the only difference between CD-I and DVI. >Otherwise, for all practical purposes, they're exactly the same, >resolution-wise, full-screen-wise, frames-per-second-wise, >storage-media-wise, and standards-wise. > What about cost-wise? CD-I is MUCH cheaper. It's marketed as a consumer player and will therefore be affordable in the home. david walker Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com