I concur...I was surprised that SD DVD was being output at 24 fps, but I only watched about 10 minutes of an HD DVD with some difficult panning sequences to see if 24fps made a difference. Something funny is going on though.

The scuttle over on the "HD-DVD gets 1080p 24fps output" thread is that the long-awaited upgrade to add 24p output to current Toshiba players does NOT pass the native 24fps, but "processes" it somehow first. My guess, based on some other players that do this - though I haven't a clue as to why, is that the 1080/24p is converted to 1080/60i before being outputted as 1080/24p. The "scuttle" starts with this post (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11605408&postcount=612). It's post #612 if you're heading there; the link I posted shows only the single post.

I don't think it's been definitively determined yet what the problem is, if there actually is one, but this would certainly imply to me, if true, that Toshiba is being dishonest.

That doesn't appear to be what Richard Paul is addressing with his stat regarding TV's not properly de-interlacing 60i.

That doesn't appear to be what Richard Paul is addressing with his stat regarding TV's not properly de-interlacing 60i.
My post was in re your comment about "Toshiba" and "dishonest", not Richard's post. ;)

Lack of proper deinterlacing is/was an industry issue with only our ever-vigilant press sleuthing it out and publicizing it. IIRC, everyone got a black eye on that one. It seems that accepting input of a particular format and using it as a bullet point is something entirely different than properly handling that format.

IMO, *if* the Tosh upgrade is not passing the native 24p from the disc, then it falls into the same category that I've just cited and . . is . . dishonest.

I would put it in the category of an early adopter PR nightmare!

IMO, *if* the Tosh upgrade is not passing the native 24p from the disc, then it falls into the same category that I've just cited and . . is . . dishonest.

Wasn't it shown that early BD players (definitely the Samsung BD-P1000, and I think also the Sony BDP-S1) were also interlacing the native 24p signal stored on the disc and then passing it through an external de-interlacer before sending it to the display? This was due to the Broadcom chip used in these players not being able to natively process 24p.

If so, were Sony and Samsung also being dishonest about the 24p capabilities of their players? Were you as outraged then as you are now?

The real issue is not if a signal is processed, but if it is processed properly. If the BD-P1000 is able to interlace and correctly de-interlace the signal, then it does not matter that it is not "pure". If the Toshiba firmware update is messing up either of these steps, then yes, it is definitely a problem that needs to be fixed.

Processing is fine. Processing poorly is not.

Wasn't it shown that early BD players (definitely the Samsung BD-P1000, and I think also the Sony BDP-S1) were also interlacing the native 24p signal stored on the disc and then passing it through an external de-interlacer before sending it to the display? This was due to the Broadcom chip used in these players not being able to natively process 24p.

If so, were Sony and Samsung also being dishonest about the 24p capabilities of their players? Were you as outraged then as you are now?
Do I sound genuinely outraged? ;)

You are correct, and I have posted that some BD players debuted with dodgy 24p output. The Samsung BD-P1200 being the one on the tip of my tongue. From the webpage "And video buffs will appreciate the Move Frame feature, which adjusts the output to 24 frames per second, for enhanced picture quality." "Adjusts" the output to 24fps? :confused: ;) Dunno about early Sonys, but I do see that the new ones say it in the more straighforward "Sends 1920 x 1080p/24Hz video signals when playing Film-based materials on BD-ROM" and refers to the mode as "Source Direct."

My post was in re your comment about "Toshiba" and "dishonest", not Richard's post. ;)

Lack of proper deinterlacing is/was an industry issue with only our ever-vigilant press sleuthing it out and publicizing it. IIRC, everyone got a black eye on that one. It seems that accepting input of a particular format and using it as a bullet point is something entirely different than properly handling that format.

IMO, *if* the Tosh upgrade is not passing the native 24p from the disc, then it falls into the same category that I've just cited and . . is . . dishonest.

No it's not. You may not like the way they do it. But that's different than dishonesty.

And given the HD DVD spec wherein different on-disc assets may have differing frame-rates, this may be one perfectly valid way to do it.

No it's not. You may not like the way they do it. But that's different than dishonesty.

And given the HD DVD spec wherein different on-disc assets may have differing frame-rates, this may be one perfectly valid way to do it.
I'm sort of losing track of who's arguing what here; is it your thinking that the manufacturers of the BD players that outputted 24p, but had some interim conversions, were dishonest?

I'm sort of losing track of who's arguing what here; is it your thinking that the manufacturers of the BD players that outputted 24p, but had some interim conversions, were dishonest?

Nope I've never said that.

Maybe not be ideal, but certainly not dishonest.

My contention is was with Richard Paul's implication that Toshiba was dishonest about 1080i60 because a number of displays fumbled the de-interlacing step was also not dishonest.

Nope I've never said that.

Maybe not be ideal, but certainly not dishonest.

My contention is was with Richard Paul's implication that Toshiba was dishonest about 1080i60 because a number of displays fumbled the de-interlacing step was also not dishonest.
I'm not that understanding and lenient. "It depends on what the meaning of "is" is." comes to mind. Weaselly. And that's how I feel about all THREE examples. Showing the 30 odd lines doubled and next showing the even 30 lines doubled and calling it 60-anything is b-o-o-o-gus. And so is 24p > 60i > 24p.

My post was in re your comment about "Toshiba" and "dishonest", not Richard's post. ;)

Lack of proper deinterlacing is/was an industry issue with only our ever-vigilant press sleuthing it out and publicizing it. IIRC, everyone got a black eye on that one. It seems that accepting input of a particular format and using it as a bullet point is something entirely different than properly handling that format.

IMO, *if* the Tosh upgrade is not passing the native 24p from the disc, then it falls into the same category that I've just cited and . . is . . dishonest.

It is only dishonest if Toshiba gave reason to expect the 24p output would be direct fom the disc (and I've seen absolutely NOTHING from them on the subject.) It has been long recognized that either source of 24p would be a possibility and it depends on both the hardware and firmware implementations. If Toshiba is using it's standard 1080p24 telecine to 1080i60 and then reverse telecine to p24, it could simply be the hardware design precludes p24 direct.

http://www.twice.com/article/CA6477636.html

The initial NME ML-777 player is essentially a well-featured standard-definition DVD player with an HD decoder chip inside. Red laser pickups made by Hitachi are modified through a firmware upgrade developed by NME to read its multiple-layer media.

The ML-777 player will be fully backward compatible with DVDs and CDs and will up-convert standard-definition video to 1080p over its HDMI 1.3 connection. Other video outputs include component video, composite video and S-video.

The player is said to be the first high-definition player capable of delivering native 1080p from the source to the screen without de-interlacing steps.

?

It is only dishonest if Toshiba gave reason to expect the 24p output would be direct fom the disc (and I've seen absolutely NOTHING from them on the subject.) It has been long recognized that either source of 24p would be a possibility and it depends on both the hardware and firmware implementations. If Toshiba is using it's standard 1080p24 telecine to 1080i60 and then reverse telecine to p24, it could simply be the hardware design precludes p24 direct.
Isn't it also recognized that the reason for passing 24p to a display that displayed it as a multiple of 24 is to have the smoothest viewing experience? And if so, wouldn't that be the market's expectation when it reads advertising that says "24p output?" They have a responsibility to be transparent. And they weren't. Neither was Samsung and, if they did it too, Sony. As I type this, there is still conflicting reports, so maybe the upgrade is doing it right.

The player is said to be the first high-definition player capable of delivering native 1080p from the source to the screen without de-interlacing steps.

?
? Indeed.

I'm not that understanding and lenient. "It depends on what the meaning of "is" is." comes to mind. Weaselly. And that's how I feel about all THREE examples. Showing the 30 odd lines doubled and next showing the even 30 lines doubled and calling it 60-anything is b-o-o-o-gus.

Who claimed that? The Toshibas spec'ed themselves at 60i. And they were correct that for film source you can recover all the original information via simple deinterlacing. This isn't like video where the temporal domain plays a part. (Note that the comparison was to "real" 60P, which means 3:2 doesn't come in to play here).


And so is 24p > 60i > 24p.

And if you have 60i PiP content? Or other assets at a differing fram rate? It may not how YOU want it to be done, but it's one of the (few) ways to do it correctly.

Who claimed that? The Toshibas spec'ed themselves at 60i. And they were correct that for film source you can recover all the original information via simple deinterlacing. This isn't like video where the temporal domain plays a part. (Note that the comparison was to "real" 60P, which means 3:2 doesn't come in to play here).
OK, I'll take one more whack and then you take another one and we'll drop it. OK? ;)

I'm not a Tosh owner so I did not pursue the exact source, but according to the "thread" the upgrade was to add 24p. And EVERYONE expected it to be passing the native 24p. Why else have the feature?

No 3:2 pulldown? Since 60 (or 30) is not evenly divisible by 24, what do they do with the "remainder?"

And if you have 60i PiP content? Or other assets at a differing fram rate? It may not how YOU want it to be done, but it's one of the (few) ways to do it correctly.
Irrelevant. See above.

Over and out. :)

OK, I'll take one more whack and then you take another one and we'll drop it. OK? ;)

I'm not a Tosh owner so I did not pursue the exact source, but according to the "thread" the upgrade was to add 24p. And EVERYONE expected it to be passing the native 24p. Why else have the feature?

No 3:2 pulldown? Since 60 (or 30) is not evenly divisible by 24, what do they do with the "remainder?"


Irrelevant. See above.

Over and out. :)


1) You are jumping in with a DIFFERENT issue than that I was replying to Richard about. I was responding to his concern about passing out 60i. I'm not sure why you crossed lines here?

2) 24P is indeed useful for displays that can hanlde it. One valid method for combining content at differing framrates (ie 24p source and 60 Pip) is to do it in this fashion.

3) The 3:2 issue isn't relevant in the ORIGINAL issue I was responding to RP about. Please don't jump in the middle of a different discussion and then fail to understand what I was originally addressing.

All of that having been said. "Dishonest" and "your preference" of how a feature is implemented are different things.

3) The 3:2 issue isn't relevant in the ORIGINAL issue I was responding to RP about. Please don't jump in the middle of a different discussion and then fail to understand what I was originally addressing.
Multi-task, Steve. Mine was an entirely different "discussion" which was only triggered by your RP exchange, but in no way related . . other than that the manufacturers who's displays showed the 30 odd lines doubled and then the even 30 lines doubled and called it "60" were being dishonest.

Multi-task, Steve. Mine was an entirely different "discussion" which was only triggered by your RP exchange, but in no way related . . other than that the manufacturers who's displays showed the 30 odd lines doubled and then the even 30 lines doubled and called it "60" were being dishonest.

Provide some contesxt, Pepar. Or don't take issue with wording of points addressing a swperate issue and apply it to yours.

So. You picked the word "dishonest" out of the discussion, and decided that because the technical method that Toshiba employs to arrive at 24p out isn't to your liking , therefore they've been "dishonest"?

I diasgree. I happen to not prefer it either. But that's different than their lying about adding 24p outputs to their players.

Provide some contesxt, Pepar. Or don't take issue with wording of points addressing a swperate issue and apply it to yours.

So. You picked the word "dishonest" out of the discussion, and decided that because the technical method that Toshiba employs to arrive at 24p out isn't to your liking , therefore they've been "dishonest"?

I diasgree. I happen to not prefer it either. But that's different than their lying about adding 24p outputs to their players.
can't . . stop . . myself . . from . . replying . .

I picked the word "dishonest" out of your conversation and applied it to ALL CE manufacturers who cheat and blow smoke up our butts with clever marketing. If you want to call this possible instance a "technical method . . (used to) . . arrive at 24p" that's your choice.

Perhaps you should go to the 'HD DVD gets 1080p 24fps output.' thread and take a poll of the members there on what they call it. :)

Isn't it also recognized that the reason for passing 24p to a display that displayed it as a multiple of 24 is to have the smoothest viewing experience? And if so, wouldn't that be the market's expectation when it reads advertising that says "24p output?" They have a responsibility to be transparent. And they weren't. Neither was Samsung and, if they did it too, Sony. As I type this, there is still conflicting reports, so maybe the upgrade is doing it right.

It's only relevent if your TV's refresh can be configured to some multiple of 24 (72hz, 120hz, etc). If not, your TV has to perform a pulldown. I wonder if the issues we're seeing on the Toshiba players is on sets that have a 60hz refresh and aren't performing the pulldown correctly? Has anyone with a 24p capable set (with proper refresh) reported the issue?

It's only relevent if your TV's refresh can be configured to some multiple of 24 (72hz, 120hz, etc). If not, your TV has to perform a pulldown. I wonder if the issues we're seeing on the Toshiba players is on sets that have a 60hz refresh and aren't performing the pulldown correctly? Has anyone with a 24p capable set (with proper refresh) reported the issue?
And displays can take license with 24p by converting it to 60p before showing each "frame" two times, i.e. refreshed at 120Hz.

It's only relevent if your TV's refresh can be configured to some multiple of 24 (72hz, 120hz, etc). If not, your TV has to perform a pulldown. I wonder if the issues we're seeing on the Toshiba players is on sets that have a 60hz refresh and aren't performing the pulldown correctly? Has anyone with a 24p capable set (with proper refresh) reported the issue?

Yes...my display handles 24p properly.

Yes...my display handles 24p properly.

Thanks! Just checking! ;)

can't . . stop . . myself . . from . . replying . .

I picked the word "dishonest" out of your conversation and applied it to ALL CE manufacturers who cheat and blow smoke up our butts with clever marketing. If you want to call this possible instance a "technical method . . (used to) . . arrive at 24p" that's your choice.

Perhaps you should go to the 'HD DVD gets 1080p 24fps output.' thread and take a poll of the members there on what they call it. :)

My basis in reality isn't a poll on the interweb.

The fact of the matter is that they promised 24p output. You have 24p output.

I suppose every display manufacturer that promises 1080i input capability on their 1080p panel, and yet uses a suboptimal processing technology (say motion adapted rather than motion compensated-de interlacing) is also being "dishonest" because it doesn't meet your personal criteria of the best technical way to accomplish it?

Or if a PS3 game promises 1080 output, but has to turn off AA to do it? Liars?

It may not be what you want, but save the accusations of "dishonesty" for the situations that merit it.

The question for the new 24p output of the Toshiba players is, if it does 24p->60i->24p, does it recover without error the original 24p film source frames from the HD DVD source disc? If it does, and lets a integer-multiple-of-24Hz display avoid IVTC 2:3 pull-down judder with the final displayed result, then what is the problem?

Edit: Kris Deering has posted (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11610589&postcount=660) that the 24p is a "pass-thru" with only the non 24fps PiP and extras getting messed up. Others have confirmed this. So best not to turn on PiP or watch the extra features with 1080p/24 mode. OK by me. :)

My basis in reality isn't a poll on the interweb.

It may not be what you want, but save the accusations of "dishonesty" for the situations that merit it.
I understand the English language perfectly and I used the word I thought best applied. You disagree. End of story.

The question for the new 24p output of the Toshiba players is, if it does 24p->60i->24p, does it recover without error the original 24p film source frames from the HD DVD source disc? If it does, and lets a integer-multiple-of-24Hz display avoid IVTC 2:3 pull-down judder with the final displayed result, then what is the problem?
I hope that some trusted reviewers take a second look and make that determination.

The question for the new 24p output of the Toshiba players is, if it does 24p->60i->24p, does it recover without error the original 24p film source frames from the HD DVD source disc? If it does, and lets a integer-multiple-of-24Hz display avoid IVTC 2:3 pull-down judder with the final displayed result, then what is the problem?

Well, does it?

As I understand it, if set to 24p and it finds 24p on the disc, no processing is done. If it sees something other than 24p, it will convert it to 24p, causing most of the issues we are seeing (lip synch, dropped frames, etc).

As I understand it, if set to 24p and it finds 24p on the disc, no processing is done. If it sees something other than 24p, it will convert it to 24p, causing most of the issues we are seeing (lip synch, dropped frames, etc).So I have read over in the HD DVD player forum. I edited my post with a new paragraph. :o

impressive list of quotes. If you paid attention to the two insiders' threads, you would have known that Amir has people sitting infront and closely to HUGE displays to check on macro blockings.I believe that Amir actually said that in the past that teams of Microsoft employees did that to design VC-1. Personally I don't remember him every saying that teams of Microsoft employees did that to find flaws in MPEG-4 AVC encodings and are you claiming that is what they do now? Also Amir has used reviews from High-Def Digest before when defending VC-1 encodings so I think it is perfectly valid for me to post reviews for MPEG-4 AVC encodings. Or are you going to claim that Amir should be able to defend VC-1 using reviews from the High-Def Digest website but that it is wrong to use that same website to defend MPEG-4 AVC?


Do you have any numbers on the number of displays that even SUPPORT 1080p24/60? Given that practically EVERY HD display can accept a 1080i input, I think it's bit of a stretch to imply that Toshiba was dishonest about anything... especially because: A) They are technically correct about 1080i from film material, and B) it's not their fault if a display fumbles the deinterlacing.Never said that HD DVD companies were dishonest I simply said that they could have been more honest about 1080i60 since most HDTVs aren't capable of properly deinterlacing it. Note that I said that in reply to a poster who said that Blu-ray companies were "used car salesmen" because he claimed only they were acting in their own best interest. From what I have seen both sides in this format war are acting in their own best interest and for the HD DVD companies one of the ways they did that was to claim early on that there was no difference between 1080i60 and 1080p24/60 without mentioning the fact that for most displays there is a difference. Also don't you think that consumers should know that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal?

I believe that Amir actually said that in the past that teams of Microsoft employees did that to design VC-1. Personally I don't remember him every saying that teams of Microsoft employees did that to find flaws in MPEG-4 AVC encodings and are you claiming that is what they do now? Also Amir has used reviews from High-Def Digest before when defending VC-1 encodings so I think it is perfectly valid for me to post reviews for MPEG-4 AVC encodings. Or are you going to claim that Amir should be able to defend VC-1 using reviews from the High-Def Digest website but that it is wrong to use that same website to defend MPEG-4 AVC?

lol .. Are you Amir ? i remember reading you said that you can give the exact time for artifacts :D :D

lol .. Are you Amir ? i remember reading you said that you can give the exact time for artifactsSo what evidence do you have that Amir has teams of Microsoft employees "sitting infront and closely to HUGE displays" to find blocking artifacts in MPEG-4 AVC encodings? After all when exactly those artifacts happen during POTC has been posted about on this forum and he could have simply gotten that information from those posts.

So what evidence do you have that Amir has teams of Microsoft employees "sitting infront and closely to HUGE displays" to find blocking artifacts in MPEG-4 AVC encodings? After all when exactly those artifacts happen during POTC has been posted about on this forum and he could have simply gotten that information from those posts.

can you please point out where i said that "" Amir has teams of Microsoft employees "sitting infront and closely to HUGE displays" to find blocking artifacts in MPEG-4 AVC encodings? """


this is my quote:

If you paid attention to the two insiders' threads, you would have known that Amir has people sitting infront and closely to HUGE displays to check on macro blockings.

I did not say that they were working to: "" find blocking artifacts in MPEG-4 AVC encodings "" . So i would request politely that you do not put words in my mouth. Thank you very much sir ;)

I did not say that they were working to: "" find blocking artifacts in MPEG-4 AVC encodings "" . So i would request politely that you do not put words in my mouth. Thank you very much sirWell logically speaking if you think that is how Amir got his information on POTC than what I asked was fair. Still since you asked here is another way I could ask that question:

What evidence do you have that Amir has teams of Microsoft employees "sitting infront and closely to HUGE displays" to find blocking artifacts in Blu-ray encodings? After all when exactly those artifacts happen during POTC has been posted about on this forum and he could have simply gotten that information from those posts.

Well logically speaking if you think that is how Amir got his information on POTC than what I asked was fair. Still since you asked here is another way I could ask that question:

What evidence do you have that Amir has teams of Microsoft employees "sitting infront and closely to HUGE displays" to find blocking artifacts in Blu-ray encodings? After all when exactly those artifacts happen during POTC has been posted about on this forum and he could have simply gotten that information from those posts.

why there the need to prove things that i did not say? try to spend you time more efficiently. thankies :D

Amir, both POTC 1 (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/piratesofthecaribbeancurse.html) and POTC 2 (http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/piratesofthecaribbeandeadmanschest.html) were considered reference quality by many reviewers so do you really want to start making negative claims against MPEG-4 AVC? Let me show you some of the MPEG-4 AVC reviews I have read:impressive list of quotes. If you paid attention to the two insiders' threads, you would have known that Amir has people sitting infront and closely to HUGE displays to check on macro blockings. How many of your listed reviewers did that? Dont agree that that Amir's groups technique is MUCH MORE efficient in detecting such blockings?why there the need to prove things that i did not say?I think my earlier questions were fair considering what you originally stated but if you don't want to answer them that is fine. How about this question though:

What evidence do you have that Amir has teams of Microsoft employees "sitting infront and closely to HUGE displays" to find blocking artifacts in POTC? After all when exactly those artifacts happen during POTC has been posted about on this forum and he could have simply gotten that information from those posts.

Never said that HD DVD companies were dishonest I simply said that they could have been more honest about 1080i60 since most HDTVs aren't capable of properly deinterlacing it. Note that I said that in reply to a poster who said that Blu-ray companies were "used car salesmen" because he claimed only they were acting in their own best interest. From what I have seen both sides in this format war are acting in their own best interest and for the HD DVD companies one of the ways they did that was to claim early on that there was no difference between 1080i60 and 1080p24/60 without mentioning the fact that for most displays there is a difference. Also don't you think that consumers should know that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal?


That's a dance of narrowly defined words. If you think calling their "honesty" in to question is warranted because they didn't undertake an education campaign about what other manufacturers displays can and can't do there's nothing I can do about that than to suggest it's not even close to the real world.

I think my earlier questions were fair considering what you originally stated but if you don't want to answer them that is fine. How about this question though:

What evidence do you have that Amir has teams of Microsoft employees "sitting infront and closely to HUGE displays" to find blocking artifacts in POTC? After all when exactly those artifacts happen during POTC has been posted about on this forum and he could have simply gotten that information from those posts.

Well, we known that Disney was having teams of employees sleeping in front of HUGE displays. :D

What evidence do you have that Amir has teams of Microsoft employees "sitting infront and closely to HUGE displays" to find blocking artifacts in POTC? After all when exactly those artifacts happen during POTC has been posted about on this forum and he could have simply gotten that information from those posts.
Richard we don't even need big displays to find the compression artifacts in POTC. They are quite obvious to us.

And yes, we do pay close attention to what our competitors are doing whether it is interactivity or codecs. We want to know what they are doing which we may not be and vice versa.

To our eyes, POTC is an average encode from compression point of view. It misses a number of spots which could have been cleaned up. And yes, I realize that from reviewer point of view who looks at the entire presentation including the quality of the source, it is reference quality. And I am sure many people enjoy the title as such. But that doesn't change the above fact. It is a bit like a mechanic driving your car and telling you that the bearings in your water pump is starting to go bad because he is hearing a bit of noise from it. And you saying, "what? it runs great and I don't hear a thing." They could both be right.

Net, net, for a reference title POTC has way too many blocking artifacts. Given the considerably higher data rate it uses than HD DVDs with VC-1, the fact that BD fans often claim that AVC is better than VC-1, and the fact that people claim higher BD rates makes compression faster and easier, this is a surprise.

As to using huge displays, yes we do that. We use 40-50” LCDs as “computer monitors” looking for problems at 1 foot distance. We also elevate their blacks to see compression artifacts which may be difficult for people to see with calibrated displays (which may be the reason reviewers miss them). By the way, some of the post houses we work with use the same setup. That way, we are assured that the 90% of the people who use uncalibrated displays also get a good experience in addition to having a more flawless encode.

How is this for a prediction.......

The new, cheaper PS3s rumoured, will have Blu-Ray movie playback disabled. Yes they will have the drive, but movie playback will be disabled. It provides an easy excuse to lower the price and saves face. This would also ameliorate those who purchased a the more expensive but capable versions. It would also prevent alienation of other BR manufacturers.

Amir,

First of all, I would like to thank you for the great read you provide for members of this forum.

Now, my questions:

1. Is Microsoft providing any assistance to the HD VMD format (the red laser HD)? If so, what can you tell us about this role without getting into trouble?

2. Will the Generation 3 HD DVD players be using Microsoft CE or something like it, or will they still be using Linux?

3. Do you ever sleep? You write day and night to this forum.:)

Thanks in advance for your responses.

How is this for a prediction.......

The new, cheaper PS3s rumoured, will have Blu-Ray movie playback disabled. Yes they will have the drive, but movie playback will be disabled. It provides an easy excuse to lower the price and saves face. This would also ameliorate those who purchased a the more expensive but capable versions. It would also prevent alienation of other BR manufacturers.

Never in a million years. Sony has just showed some of their advertising for the holiday which stresses the fact that the Playstation will also play Blu-ray movies.

How would you disable Blu-ray movie playback when you have a device with a Blu-ray player?

Wouldn't that have to be done through software, not hardware? That would backfire I think. No. What may happen is they'll introduce a third SKU, perhaps a 40GB and price it at $399.99 (which has been rumored). It won't work though, because Sony still hasn't figured out that in the video game market, you can't price yourself more than $300, regardless of how much your system can do, in addition to its video game playback.

Nintendo understood this from the start, Microsoft is beginning to come around to that with the $279.99 and $349.99 price points for the Xbox 360.

Sony really goofed with the PS3. They mistakenly believed they could extend the life cycle of their console in the video game market from the normal 4-7 years to 10+ years. That's not going to happen. Video game buyers are use to purchasing a new system every couple of years. They went above and beyond what was necessary with the creation of the PS3.

In retrospect, their best option would have been to introduce two SKU's from the start: one with a Blu-ray player, and one without a Blu-ray player. How would they have done that you ask? Easy. Use DL DVD for their software.

Introduce two models like so: 1) $599.99 80GB with Blu-ray player, 2) $399.99 40GB with no Blu-ray player.

Problem solved.

Never in a million years. Sony has just showed some of their advertising for the holiday which stresses the fact that the Playstation will also play Blu-ray movies.


They could get away with it by introducing it as a new SKU. A $349 game only model (the PS3 go) would give them a good chance to gain market share (for the console market) while at the same time protecting the other BR manufacturers from a heavily subsidized competitor.

We use 40-50” LCDs as “computer monitors” looking for problems at 1 foot distance. We also elevate their blacks to see compression artifacts which may be difficult for people to see with calibrated displays (which may be the reason reviewers miss them). By the way, some of the post houses we work with use the same setup. That way, we are assured that the 90% of the people who use uncalibrated displays also get a good experience in addition to having a more flawless encode.
40" - 50" displays with a ONE FOOT viewing distance??? :eek:

Isn't video compression in essence perceptual encoding, i.e. throw away data until a statistically detectable number of people see it and then put a bit back in? If so, how "perceptive" must someone be to see these artifacts with even jumbo front projection systems, but from typical "enthusiast" viewing distances (.8x - 1.5x screen width)? This really flies in the face of what's being argued (by HD-DVD partisans) on the audio side in re lossless vs. high bitrate lossy codecs where the argument is "no one can hear it, so why have lossless?" I'd say that if it takes a 50" display viewed from 12" for eagle-eyed Microsofties to detect it, then "no one can see it."

40" - 50" displays with a ONE FOOT viewing distance??? :eek:
Yeh, someone can probably do the math and tell us it is same as having a 50 foot screen or something like that at normal viewing distance!

Isn't video compression in essence perceptual encoding, i.e. throw away data until a statistically detectable number of people see it and then put a bit back in? If so, how "perceptive" must someone be to see these artifacts with even jumbo front projection systems, but from typical "enthusiast" viewing distances (.8x - 1.5x screen width)?
Are you asking about calibrated displays or not? If you are asking about non-calibrated screens then you don't have to be that perceptive to see them.

This really flies in the face of what's being argued (by HD-DVD partisans) on the audio side in re lossless vs. high bitrate lossy codecs where the argument is "no one can hear it, so why have lossless?"
Say what? :) The two worlds are very different. Let me ask you this. Do you know what blocking artifacts look like? Have you ever seen them on your TV? I am sure the answer is YES to both. Now, do you know what mild pre-echo sounds like? How about slight quantization noise?

The ear and the eye are very different instruments. The ear is actually more sensitive than the eye in some respects, but it is also much easier to fool. We can also pause video and see problems and learn about them whereas we can't do that with video. I could go on and on but using audio analogy here is worst than any car analogy :D.


I'd say that if it takes a 50" display viewed from 12" for eagle-eyed Microsofties to detect it, then "no one can see it."
That's a fine statement and I can go along with it. But recall what the original argument was all about. I was asked how Disney content would look on HD DVD given its lower rate. I simply said that given an opportunity, we can actually make some of the look better given our skills here and the fact that we invented the darn codec. So people can look forward to stellar results in HD DVD. That's all.

Say what? :) The two worlds are very different. Let me ask you this. Do you know what blocking artifacts look like? Have you ever seen them on your TV? I am sure the answer is YES to both. Now, do you know what mild pre-echo sounds like? How about slight quantization noise?
Well, actually, I do. If the quantization noise too "slight" it gets lost/masked. Point taken though.

That's a fine statement and I can go along with it. But recall what the original argument was all about. I was asked how Disney content would look on HD DVD given its lower rate. I simply said that given an opportunity, we can actually make some of the look better given our skills here and the fact that we invented the darn codec.
Yes, I'm sure that you could. My follow-up question would be, then, how much would it cost for all titles to be given topflight compression efforts by the inventors of the codec? ;)

I was asked how Disney content would look on HD DVD given its lower rate. I simply said that given an opportunity, we can actually make some of the look better given our skills here and the fact that we invented the darn codec. So people can look forward to stellar results in HD DVD. That's all.

So.... we can look forward to checking out stellar results of Disney content encoded for HD-DVD? :)

Never said that HD DVD companies were dishonest I simply said that they could have been more honest about 1080i60 since most HDTVs aren't capable of properly deinterlacing it. Note that I said that in reply to a poster who said that Blu-ray companies were "used car salesmen" because he claimed only they were acting in their own best interest. From what I have seen both sides in this format war are acting in their own best interest and for the HD DVD companies one of the ways they did that was to claim early on that there was no difference between 1080i60 and 1080p24/60 without mentioning the fact that for most displays there is a difference. Also don't you think that consumers should know that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal?

It seems to me that this is a DISPLAY problem in that these companies are selling Progressive displays that cannot properly do the deinterlacing to display them as progressive like they were designed (or should have been designed to do ). THIS is where the call out should be going. These same display companies were selling 1080p displays that could not even accept a 1080p signal. Before that they were selling 720p displays that could not accept a 720p signal.

I think your claim to "dishonesty" rightly belongs with the display companies, not the components that send a industry standard signal that the displays SHOULD be able to handle but some don't. Isn't your argument like blaming the messenger for the message sent? :p

How is this for a prediction.......

The new, cheaper PS3s rumoured, will have Blu-Ray movie playback disabled. Yes they will have the drive, but movie playback will be disabled. It provides an easy excuse to lower the price and saves face. This would also ameliorate those who purchased a the more expensive but capable versions. It would also prevent alienation of other BR manufacturers.

This would be the death of the BD format. Isn't something like 90% of all BD players PS3s? ;)

This would be the death of the BD format. Isn't something like 90% of all BD players PS3s? ;)

Remember that they could make it upgradable / unlockable. Get a PS3 with disabled movie playback and a 40g drive for $349. Unlock the drive for an extra $50. Similar to the original xbox.

Remember that they could make it upgradable / unlockable. Get a PS3 with disabled movie playback and a 40g drive for $349. Unlock the drive for an extra $50. Similar to the original xbox.

I think there are a few problems with that comparison. DVD was an establised format at that time. MS was using that option to advance the xbox not the other way around. Unlike the Blu Ray drive in the PS3, the DVD drive in the xbox contributed little to the overall cost relative to other available options. At some point Sony would have to draw the line on the money lost with each PS3. I do believe Sony has severely leveraged the PS franchise in an effort to push Blu Ray. Problem is there is no way to get the drive out of the box to reduce costs and focus on gaming, so they just have to hope the exclusive game titles start to materialize along with sales.

LP,

The problem with "exclusive" games for the PS3 is that they don't have a high enough install base to make it profitable for a game studio to do an exclusive title and make money with it. Sony screwed the pooch on the PS3 and promising such high sales.

LP,

The problem with "exclusive" games for the PS3 is that they don't have a high enough install base to make it profitable for a game studio to do an exclusive title and make money with it. Sony screwed the pooch on the PS3 and promising such high sales.

I don't disagree. You can only hemorrhage so much money. I just don't see a way out for them with the PS3 gaming franchise. They clearly have had some debate on the best way to advance the game console while pushing Blu Ray. If I remember correctly, the orginal 20 gig unit for the US was not getting an HDMI port which would have made it much less useful for movies. After a price reduction for Japan, the US unit was upgraded to HDMI instead of the price reduction and estimates showed it lossing more per unit than the 60gig. I think they are in a tight spot and it pretty much has to be "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead."

I don't disagree. You can only hemorrhage so much money. I just don't see a way out for them with the PS3 gaming franchise. They clearly have had some debate on the best way to advance the game console while pushing Blu Ray. If I remember correctly, the orginal 20 gig unit for the US was not getting an HDMI port which would have made it much less useful for movies. After a price reduction for Japan, the US unit was upgraded to HDMI instead of the price reduction and estimates showed it lossing more per unit than the 60gig. I think they are in a tight spot and it pretty much has to be "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead."

I would be more inclined to think that because of manufacturing delays etc that there never was an actual "20GB PS3". I think they just used the 60GB with a different drive and pulled the card reader and wireless add in cards and left the same motherboard (which had HDMI). They tried to play it like they were giving an "upgrade" but to be honest I think they just couldn't manufacture what they said they could using 2 completly different SKUs with different internals

Quick edit that I actually have a 20GB PS3 but I have never cracked the case to see if I could plug in a wireless card (like one from a notebook etc)

That's a dance of narrowly defined words.It is what I said and you were the one that took the term "more honest" and turned it into "dishonest". Also I was simply trying to make a point and would you prefer it if I put it this way:

I think that the Blu-ray companies should have been more open about the Blu-ray player profiles but I also think the HD DVD companies should have been more open about the differences between 1080i60 output and 1080p24/60 output.


If you think calling their "honesty" in to question is warranted because they didn't undertake an education campaign about what other manufacturers displays can and can't do there's nothing I can do about that than to suggest it's not even close to the real world.If someone says that 1080i60 output is as good as 1080p24/60 output don't you think they should mention the fact that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal? Also don't you think that consumers should know that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal?


Net, net, for a reference title POTC has way too many blocking artifacts. Given the considerably higher data rate it uses than HD DVDs with VC-1, the fact that BD fans often claim that AVC is better than VC-1, and the fact that people claim higher BD rates makes compression faster and easier, this is a surprise.Well personally speaking I think VC-1 is a bit more efficient at the moment than MPEG-4 AVC but I also think that both of them are capable of reference quality encodings.


As to using huge displays, yes we do that. We use 40-50” LCDs as “computer monitors” looking for problems at 1 foot distance.Such an approach though sounds like it is done more in an effort to find flaws than to find flaws that would be noticeable at the recommended viewing distance for 1080p video. Also call me skeptical that flaws couldn't also be found in reference quality VC-1 encodings using that method.


We also elevate their blacks to see compression artifacts which may be difficult for people to see with calibrated displays (which may be the reason reviewers miss them).I have seen screenshots of that done on this forum showing flaws in a VC-1 encoding so I believe you can find flaws that way regardless of the video codec that is used.


Isn't your argument like blaming the messenger for the message sent?If someone says that 1080i60 output is just as good as 1080p24/60 output than in my personal opinion they should also mention the fact that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal.

anyone know how many displays, particularly in mar/apr of 2006, were native 1080p displays that not only displayed 1080p BUT ALSO ACCEPTED 1080p input? How many that could accept 1080p input COULD ALSO ACCEPT 1080p/24 input specifically?

How many displays even TODAY can accept 1080p input AND, specifically, 1080p/24 input?

I would think most 1080p displays NOW accept 1080p input but still few accept 1080p/24Fps input.

In the Spring of 2006, I think only the HP RP DLP would accept a 1080p signal and a few other boutique brands/models. This is going from memory though.

Originally Posted by scaesare
If you think calling their "honesty" in to question is warranted because they didn't undertake an education campaign about what other manufacturers displays can and can't do there's nothing I can do about that than to suggest it's not even close to the real world.

Originally Posted by Richard Paul
"If someone says that 1080i60 output is as good as 1080p24/60 output don't you think they should mention the fact that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal? Also don't you think that consumers should know that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal?"

Why do you think it is Toshiba's job to tell you what every TV manufacture's product does in regards to 1080P/24FPS?

Well personally speaking I think VC-1 is a bit more efficient at the moment than MPEG-4 AVC but I also think that both of them are capable of reference quality encodings.
I take faint praise over no praise. :D


Such an approach though sounds like it is done more in an effort to find flaws than to find flaws that would be noticeable at the recommended viewing distance for 1080p video.
Well duh! :) That was the whole point Richard. When someone designs a car, they may test it as speeds you never use. But they need to do that as we do to have something that is higher quality than the limits of your viewing experience.

Also call me skeptical that flaws couldn't also be found in reference quality VC-1 encodings using that method.
Of course. Richard I don't know why you keep turning this discussion into VC-1 versus AVC. This is not the topic but you keep going back to it despite saying you don't like it when I do that. The point simply was that if given the chance we can make Disney titles look excellent in HD DVD. And since we have the BD version in hand, we know what problems to avoid.

Talking about "honesty" and expecting one manufacturer to out the misinformation/marketing crap/fraud of another is not thier responsability and could result in legal actions.

Using RP's logic, shouldnt the BD companies be "educating" their customers about their profiles mess. "You really should know this new BD player you bought is only profile 0.9 compliant, and 1.0/1.1/2.0 players are coming in the next X months. YOU WILL NOT be able to use all of the features of upcoming titles. Sorry"

anyone know how many displays, particularly in mar/apr of 2006, were native 1080p displays that not only displayed 1080p BUT ALSO ACCEPTED 1080p input? How many that could accept 1080p input COULD ALSO ACCEPT 1080p/24 input specifically?

How many displays even TODAY can accept 1080p input AND, specifically, 1080p/24 input?
Here is a current list (http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=5155). I believe I've seen it somewhere other than this, but this came up first. I'll keep looking and replace the link with one not so infamous . . . ;)

edit: Looks like this is the most current list. If someone finds another, PM me and I'll change the link.

Such an approach though sounds like it is done more in an effort to find flaws than to find flaws that would be noticeable at the recommended viewing distance for 1080p video.
Well duh! :) That was the whole point Richard. When someone designs a car, they may test it as speeds you never use. But they need to do that as we do to have something that is higher quality than the limits of your viewing experience.
True, but they'd never drive it at 10x the fastest it's likely to be driven in actual use. ;)

Using RP's logic, shouldnt the BD companies be "educating" their customers about their profiles mess. "You really should know this new BD player you bought is only profile 0.9 compliant, and 1.0/1.1/2.0 players are coming in the next X months. YOU WILL NOT be able to use all of the features of upcoming titles. Sorry"
Of course, the fair-minded among us tar them all with the same brush. :)

True, but they'd never drive it at 10x the fastest it's likely to be driven in actual use. ;)
There you go. I will tell them to go and use 10 inch LCDs from now on and give you audio at 384kbps :D.

Here is a current list (http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=5155). I believe I've seen it somewhere other than this, but this came up first. I'll keep looking and replace the link with one not so infamous . . . ;)

edit: Looks like this is the most current list. If someone finds another, PM me and I'll change the link.


You realize that according to that list there are almost exactly TWICE as many models of HD DVD players and BD Players that support 1080p/24 than there are models of displays that can actually resolve 1080p/24. This is out of ALL the HDTVs out there (and pretty much every one of the displays is in the stratosphere price wise to the average person)

You realize that according to that list there are almost exactly TWICE as many models of HD DVD players and BD Players that support 1080p/24 than there are models of displays that can actually resolve 1080p/24. This is out of ALL the HDTVs out there (and pretty much every one of the displays is in the stratosphere price wise to the average person)

Quite. But we must berate Toshiba for taking so long to put this update out anyway...:rolleyes:

There you go. I will tell them to go and use 10 inch LCDs from now on and give you audio at 384kbps :D.
I'm pretty sure I wasn't advocating that extreme. ;)

You realize that according to that list there are almost exactly TWICE as many models of HD DVD players and BD Players that support 1080p/24 than there are models of displays that can actually resolve 1080p/24. This is out of ALL the HDTVs out there (and pretty much every one of the displays is in the stratosphere price wise to the average person)
You probably do not mean "resolve" 24p as the frame/refresh rate has no bearing on the display's resolution. But your point is clear. "Players" are ahead of "displays" which have the pricing that should be expected at this point in the cycle. They'll fall as they always do after they've shaken the wallets of the Early Adopters.

You probably do not mean "resolve" 24p as the frame/refresh rate has no bearing on the display's resolution. But your point is clear. "Players" are ahead of "displays" which have the pricing that should be expected at this point in the cycle. They'll fall as they always do after they've shaken the wallets of the Early Adopters.

You got my point pretty exactly. Everyone is blathering on about how "x" doesn't do 1080p/24 so why in the hell would you buy it? Well that list of TVs that are available is EXACTLY why I would buy it. In 2 more years when 1080p/24 is a bit more "relevant" (and I use that term VERY loosely) I will worry a bit more about what can source it.

That and I was trying to break the string of posts by Pepar to break up the continuity of the screen presence :) You were correct in the how I meant "resolve"

True, but they'd never drive it at 10x the fastest it's likely to be driven in actual use. ;)

In a significant way, this is the same argument as the lossless audio discussion. Many want lossless just because they know it could be better in the most ideal of circumstances even if there is no evidence they could hear the difference, but then when video is scrutinized for flaws that would not be seen in most viewing environments, it's being scrutinized too closely? Hmm.

This is just an unending exercise in ever-shifting argument.

Well personally speaking I think VC-1 is a bit more efficient at the moment than MPEG-4 AVC but I also think that both of them are capable of reference quality encodings.


Such an approach though sounds like it is done more in an effort to find flaws than to find flaws that would be noticeable at the recommended viewing distance for 1080p video. Also call me skeptical that flaws couldn't also be found in reference quality VC-1 encodings using that method.


I have seen screenshots of that done on this forum showing flaws in a VC-1 encoding so I believe you can find flaws that way regardless of the video codec that is used...

Maybe I'm mis-reading these posts, but it seems Amirm and Richard are talking past each other. Richard seems to think Amirm is talking about having his team sitting 1-foot away from 50" LCD monitors to discern flaws in other companies' encodes, whereas I'm reading Amirm's posts as him saying that his compression team uses that method to check for compression artifacts in their own encodes before approving the final result.

Vincent

That and I was trying to break the string of posts by Pepar to break up the continuity of the screen presence :)
Well, I was in the middle of a 6x cappucino, which has been consumed so I need to get on my honeydo list now.

Everyone is blathering on about how "x" doesn't do 1080p/24 so why in the hell would you buy it? Well that list of TVs that are available is EXACTLY why I would buy it. In 2 more years when 1080p/24 is a bit more "relevant" (and I use that term VERY loosely) I will worry a bit more about what can source it.
I happen to be considering upgrading to the JVC RS1 anyway and, happily, it does properly display 24p. Honestly though, if I could not afford a "24p display" now, I'd stretch my present one until I could.

Just my $.02.

Richard seems to think Amirm is talking about having his team sitting 1-foot away from 50" LCD monitors to discern flaws in other companies' encodes, whereas I'm reading Amirm's posts as him saying that his compression team uses that method to check for compression artifacts in their own encodes
They don't closely scrutinize the competition? Pssst, wanna buy a bridge? :D

In a significant way, this is the same argument as the lossless audio discussion. Many want lossless just because they know it could be better in the most ideal of circumstances even if there is no evidence they could hear the difference, but then when video is scrutinized for flaws that would not be seen in most viewing environments, it's being scrutinized too closely? Hmm.

This is just an unending exercise in ever-shifting argument.

Exactly. Interesting double-standard going on with some.

They don't closely scrutinize the competition? Pssst, wanna buy a bridge? :D

Oh, I don't doubt that they do :)

What I was getting at is I think that what Armim was specifically referring to was that VC1 compressionists use the method described- i.e., sitting 1-foot from a 50" 1080P LCD- to analyze their own projects during compression, as opposed to checking out a Blu-ray disc of say PIRATES OF THE CARRIBEAN.

Mind you, they may well do the same with commercially-released Blu-ray discs in order to "scrutinize the competition", but my point was that I think what Amirm has been specifically referring to here is that the VC1 compression team at Microsoft does that to their own compression projects.

Vincent

Here is a current list. I believe I've seen it somewhere other than this, but this came up first. I'll keep looking and replace the link with one not so infamous . . . ;)

edit: Looks like this is the most current list. If someone finds another, PM me and I'll change the link.
thanks pepar, so for the average consumer (mind you this list is what is presently available, not necessarily what was available over a year ago), there really isn't much out there, especially considering the price...

Rear Projectors


NuVision 52LEDLP (No Color Wheel, no rainbows,3 LEDS, power 100-240V 50/60HZ ) 72HZ


Plasma

1. Pioneer PRO-FHD1 1080P 50” Plasma (72Hz)
2. Pioneer PRO-110FD 1080P 50" Plasma (72HZ)
3. Pioneer PRO-150FD 1080P 60" Plasma (72HZ)
4. Pioneer PDP-5010FD 1080P 50 " Plasma (72HZ)
5. Pioneer PDP-6010FD 1080P 60" Plasma (72HZ)


i happent to have the Pio Pro-FHD1 and am very happy with it...but it was pricey almost a year ago...

thanks pepar, so for the average consumer (mind you this list is what is presently available, not necessarily what was available over a year ago), there really isn't much out there, especially considering the price...

i happen to have the Pio Pro-FHD1 and am very happy with it...but it was pricey almost a year ago...
Good for you. You were able to stretch financially to afford the model that you bought and are now reaping the benefit - and will for quite some time. For the next person who wants proper 24p but cannot afford what's on the market now, all they need to do is wait, and probably not that long.

It is what I said and you were the one that took the term "more honest" and turned it into "dishonest". Also I was simply trying to make a point and would you prefer it if I put it this way:

I think that the Blu-ray companies should have been more open about the Blu-ray player profiles but I also think the HD DVD companies should have been more open about the differences between 1080i60 output and 1080p24/60 output.


If someone says that 1080i60 output is as good as 1080p24/60 output don't you think they should mention the fact that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal? Also don't you think that consumers should know that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal?





This is still a dance of words. Calling in to question Toshiba's honestry for something OTHER than making sure their own hardware outputs a compliant signal consistent with the specs they publish for it is rediculous.

Did you ask your DVD deck manufacturer to explain to you what your AVR did with it's optical input?

Expecting a BR deck manufacturer to be honest about THEIR OWN deck does with regard it's compliance with format specs is reasonable.

This seems basic.

I believe I am the one who first used the word "dishonest" and RP only used something to the effect that they "could have been more honest." But my usage was not specifically with Toshiba, but any manufacturer that claimed 24p that was outputted other than directly from the disc. Steve, this is probably why you were taking me to task for jumping in and taking "your" tiff on a tangent. I saw it as parallel, but I don't want to open that issue again. ;)

Revise and extend as they say in DC: My original accusation included manufacturers whose displays claimed 1080p operation and the bobbed instead of weaved.

Why do you think it is Toshiba's job to tell you what every TV manufacture's product does in regards to 1080P/24FPS?In my opinion if someone says that 1080i60 is just as good as 1080p24/60 than they should also mention the fact that most displays don't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal.


Using RP's logic, shouldnt the BD companies be "educating" their customers about their profiles mess.Once again I think that the Blu-ray companies should have been more open about the Blu-ray player profiles but I also think the HD DVD companies should have been more open about the differences between 1080i60 output and 1080p24/60 output.


This is still a dance of words.It is the truth and for someone who so often claimed to be concerned about informing consumers about the Blu-ray player profiles it is interesting how you don't seem concerned about informing consumers about this issue.


Calling in to question Toshiba's honestry for something OTHER than making sure their own hardware outputs a compliant signal consistent with the specs they publish for it is rediculous.scaesare, you are the one that exaggerated what I originally posted and I even rephrased that paragraph in an effort to get you to discuss this issue.


Expecting a BR deck manufacturer to be honest about THEIR OWN deck does with regard it's compliance with format specs is reasonable.In other words you want the Blu-ray CE companies to inform consumers about the Blu-ray player profiles. Okay, but if someone says that 1080i60 output is as good as 1080p24/60 output don't you think they should mention the fact that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal? Also don't you think that consumers should know that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal?

I have a question for any insider on the way film/video is actually stored on DVD.

It's my understanding that both film and video are stored with MPEG2 on DVD in interlaced form(ie Fields) and are not stored in progressive form(ie Frames).

24fps Film can be encoded with each frame split into two fields and flagged as progressive, but it is still stored in interlaced form(ie Fields).

Is this correct?
If so is HD DVD or Blu-ray stored in a similar manner or are they actually stored in frames, and can they be stored in fields for video based material?

cheers:)

In my opinion if someone says that 1080i60 is just as good as 1080p24/60 than they should also mention the fact that most displays don't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal.

Richard, why do you insist on this type of deflection where you focus on semantics to run a point around in circles? :confused:

Did Toshiba state that 1080i60 is just as good as 1080p24? If so, do you have a link to this?


Once again I think that the Blu-ray companies should have been more open about the Blu-ray player profiles but I also think the HD DVD companies should have been more open about the differences between 1080i60 output and 1080p24/60 output.


Not the same thing. Blu-ray companies should be open about their own products. You're suggesting that Toshiba be open about someone elses? :confused:


It is the truth and for someone who so often claimed to be concerned about informing consumers about the Blu-ray player profiles it is interesting how you don't seem concerned about informing consumers about this issue.


Again, not the same issue.


scaesare, you are the one that exaggerated what I originally posted and I even rephrased that paragraph in an effort to get you to discuss this issue.


Semantics ...


In other words you want the Blu-ray CE companies to inform consumers about the Blu-ray player profiles. Okay, but if someone says that 1080i60 output is as good as 1080p24/60 output don't you think they should mention the fact that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal? Also don't you think that consumers should know that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal?

Wow ... Not the same thing ... but let's take a look at this following your logic, shall we?

(1) BDA Companies tell us that Blu-ray is superior because of capacity at BD50. Are MOST releases on BD50? No. So shouldn't the BDA include that in there marketing information?

(2) BDA companies tell us that HDMI 1.3a is better. Why don't they also tell us that MOST AVR's don't support 1.3a on their inputs?

(3) BDA companies tell us that Deep Color is better. Why don't they also tell us that MOST HDTV's do not support it. Why don't they also tell us that NO content supports that today?

(4) Fox has been telling everyone about how BD+ is better copy protection. Why don't they disclose that NONE of their current titles are using it?

(5) BDA tells us that BD+ is better copy protection. While it was recently made part of the spec, shouldn't they have been advising consumers for the past YEAR that it was not available AT ALL ?

(6) Disney/Fox just issued press releases regarding Profile 1.1 and Profile 2.0 content -- press releases you quoted. Why did you not show your concern then that they did not inform consumers that there were NO players on the Market today that could show these features?

(7) BDA companies tell us that lossless is better. Why don't they also tell us that MOST Consumer Gear will not accept a lossless stream?

So you want Toshiba to list which equipment from other companies supports 1080i60 correctly? Or at least tell consumers that some displays might not handle it correctly? Don't you think that's just a tad bid ridiculous? :confused:

Perhaps it would be better to make sure your own playground is clean before you start telling others how to pick up theirs, no?

In my opinion if someone says that 1080i60 is just as good as 1080p24/60 than they should also mention the fact that most displays don't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal.


Once again I think that the Blu-ray companies should have been more open about the Blu-ray player profiles but I also think the HD DVD companies should have been more open about the differences between 1080i60 output and 1080p24/60 output.


It is the truth and for someone who so often claimed to be concerned about informing consumers about the Blu-ray player profiles it is interesting how you don't seem concerned about informing consumers about this issue.


scaesare, you are the one that exaggerated what I originally posted and I even rephrased that paragraph in an effort to get you to discuss this issue.


In other words you want the Blu-ray CE companies to inform consumers about the Blu-ray player profiles. Okay, but if someone says that 1080i60 output is as good as 1080p24/60 output don't you think they should mention the fact that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal? Also don't you think that consumers should know that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal?

I've changed my phrase from "dishonsest" to "calling in to question their honesty" to address your objection. That's exactly what you did.

I've addreseed that I don't think it's Toshiba's job to address display shortcomings. I don't know how to answer your question (for the third time) any more clearly.

Let me ak you a question in return: Do you think it's the job of every device with analog outputs to inform their customers that the a good portion of AVR's with analog inputs do not digitize them, and therefore can't apply bass managament, surround dscode processing, etc.. on them?

Richard, why do you insist on this type of deflection where you focus on semantics to run a point around in circles?jdg345, you have made it onto my ignore list since I have little interest in posters that prefer smear tactics to logical debate and you have crossed that line way to often. I was responding to a strawman argument by repeating my opinion on the matter and the fact that you criticized me for that is absolutely absurd.


Did Toshiba state that 1080i60 is just as good as 1080p24? If so, do you have a link to this?Note that I specifically said HD DVD companies and I have seen HD DVD insiders on this forum and in various interviews say that 1080i60 output is just as good as 1080p24/60 video output.


I've changed my phrase from "dishonsest" to "calling in to question their honesty" to address your objection. That's exactly what you did.That is not what I intended to do and I even rephrased that paragraph. Don't you think it might be time to discuss the issue itself?


I don't know how to answer your question (for the third time) any more clearly.I honestly haven't seen you answer either of the questions I have asked. Once again if someone says that 1080i60 output is as good as 1080p24/60 output don't you think they should mention the fact that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal? Also don't you think that consumers should know that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal?

In my opinion if someone says that 1080i60 is just as good as 1080p24/60 than they should also mention the fact that most displays don't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal.
Who has ever claimed that "1080i60 is just as good as 1080p24/60?" You keep making the same accusation, so I'm assuming you have a link to the quote...

Note that I specifically said HD DVD companies and I have seen HD DVD insiders on this forum and in various interviews say that 1080i60 output is just as good as 1080p24/60 video output.
Based on the back-and-forth discussions you've had with others in the past, I seriously doubt that you would accept the above as proof if the tables were turned.

I honestly haven't seen you answer either of the questions I have asked. Once again if someone says that 1080i60 output is as good as 1080p24/60 output don't you think they should mention the fact that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal? Also don't you think that consumers should know that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal?

When what they do MEETS THE SPEC? No.

Now, please answer my question above.

jdg345, you have made it onto my ignore list since I have little interest in posters that prefer smear tactics to logical debate and you have crossed that line way to often. I was responding to a strawman argument by repeating my opinion on the matter and the fact that you criticized me for that is absolutely absurd.



I felt the seven points he listed were very much logical debate:


(1) BDA Companies tell us that Blu-ray is superior because of capacity at BD50. Are MOST releases on BD50? No. So shouldn't the BDA include that in there marketing information?

(2) BDA companies tell us that HDMI 1.3a is better. Why don't they also tell us that MOST AVR's don't support 1.3a on their inputs?

(3) BDA companies tell us that Deep Color is better. Why don't they also tell us that MOST HDTV's do not support it. Why don't they also tell us that NO content supports that today?

(4) Fox has been telling everyone about how BD+ is better copy protection. Why don't they disclose that NONE of their current titles are using it?

(5) BDA tells us that BD+ is better copy protection. While it was recently made part of the spec, shouldn't they have been advising consumers for the past YEAR that it was not available AT ALL ?

(6) Disney/Fox just issued press releases regarding Profile 1.1 and Profile 2.0 content -- press releases you quoted. Why did you not show your concern then that they did not inform consumers that there were NO players on the Market today that could show these features?

(7) BDA companies tell us that lossless is better. Why don't they also tell us that MOST Consumer Gear will not accept a lossless stream?

So could you please address why those issues don't trouble you nearly as much as the 1080i60 complaints you have? Or at the very least, explain how they are "not the same thing", if that is your answer (I have a feeling it is).

I honestly haven't seen you answer either of the questions I have asked. Once again if someone says that 1080i60 output is as good as 1080p24/60 output don't you think they should mention the fact that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal? Also don't you think that consumers should know that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal?

Richard you beat a dead horse to dust and beyond. Look at what your are saying. Don't you think consumers should know that most displays can't properly handles 1080P24 or 60, if they can handle it all? Obtuse is the word that comes to mind. You argue for arguments sake.. You seem to only want the consumer to be aware of the limitations of certain displays with regard to 1080I60.

Based on the back-and-forth discussions you've had with others in the past, I seriously doubt that you would accept the above as proof if the tables were turned.True, and if you don't want to believe that has happened you don't have to but I remember that happening a few times before on this forum.


Once again if someone says that 1080i60 output is as good as 1080p24/60 output don't you think they should mention the fact that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal? Also don't you think that consumers should know that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal?When what they do MEETS THE SPEC? No.I see, but would that no be for the second question as well?


Do you think it's the job of every device with analog outputs to inform their customers that the a good portion of AVR's with analog inputs do not digitize them, and therefore can't apply bass managament, surround dscode processing, etc.. on them?Now, please answer my question above.Well my answer to such a broad and unconditional question would be no though you are going to need to make one heck of a tricky post if you are planning to suggest that question is similar to what I have asked.


I felt the seven points he listed were very much logical debate:His accusation though was not and after dozens of posts with accusations like that over the course of several months you would get tired of it as well.


So could you please address why those issues don't trouble you nearly as much as the 1080i60 complaints you have?The difference is that I have seen HD DVD insiders state before that 1080i60 output is just as good as 1080p24/60 output.


Or at the very least, explain how they are "not the same thing", if that is your answer (I have a feeling it is).Note that none of those answers relate to the issue I mentioned and that with minor modification four of those questions would also apply to HD DVD.

You seem to only want the consumer to be aware of the limitations of certain displays with regard to 1080I60.Just to get this straight but would you consider that to be a bad thing? Shouldn't consumers know that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal?

True, and if you don't want to believe that has happened you don't have to but I remember that happening a few times before on this forum.
Interesting stance from the person who recently took jdg345 to task for making claims without providing links to back them up. Very interesting indeed...
The difference is that I have seen HD DVD insiders state before that 1080i60 output is just as good as 1080p24/60 output.
I'll ask again that you prove it. A single quote with a link to said quote would be more than sufficient. That's not too much to ask, is it?

Shouldn't consumers know that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal?
Yes and imo it's the responsibility of the people who build/sell the displays to educate their customers. I see no reason why the manufacturer of an HDM player should have to point out the shortcomings of certain displays.

Could we move on please?

Could we move on please?

Gladly.

I'll ask again that you prove it. A single quote with a link to said quote would be more than sufficient. That's not too much to ask, is it?Okay, searched around for a bit and found these two posts:

HD DVD disc are 1080p. When we output 1080i, we are still outputting a progressive signal, albeit using 1080i field order. Digital TVs will convert this back to 1080p, assuming that is the resolution of your set.(rounding to whole numbers)
The source is 24 Hz film

This is converted to 60i with 3:2 pulldown, using 48 unique fields and 12 repeat fields per second

On playback the 12 repeat fields are discarded, and 24 unique frames are reassembled out of the 48 unique fields.

And there you go - the same 1080 lines @ 24 Hz come out that were put in.


Could we move on please?Sure.

Sure.

Thank you ;)

EDIT: Removed after reading from Mark's request to Move On. :D

I know mark wants us to move on, but since I'm one of the insiders who attest that 1080i60 is as good as, or better than 1080p24/60 (as good as for the 24, better than for the 60) I'll just post one comment
Note that I specifically said HD DVD companies and I have seen HD DVD insiders on this forum and in various interviews say that 1080i60 output is just as good as 1080p24/60 video output.I see you lump 1080p24 and 1080p60 together, but that's not actually correct. 1080p60 has the 3:2 judder permanently burned in. There are no displays on the market, as far as I know, which will take a 1080p60 signal and remove the judder.
For displays that correctly deinterlace 1080i60 AND support a 24 multiple output mode (A very short list, but I'd suspect almost the same size as just the second part), 1080i60 is superior to 1080p60.
1080p24, however, is the best input, although for that short list of displays that correctly deinterlace, it's the same as 1080i60, only with the /24, it can do less work. Note, again, that you need a display that can show a 24 multiple to take full advantage of it. The list here (http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=5155) shows 16, but there might be a few more.I honestly haven't seen you answer either of the questions I have asked. Once again if someone says that 1080i60 output is as good as 1080p24/60 output don't you think they should mention the fact that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal? Also don't you think that consumers should know that most displays can't properly handle a 1080i60 video signal?For question 1, no. I assume most consumers can do their homework and determine if their display is good enough. For question 2, yes. I believe consumers should know the specs of their displays. Unfortunately, a lot of consumers don't care to do the work. Those same consumers wouldn't know the difference between 1080i60/p24/p60 anyway.

So I can ask you the same question, do you believe the BD (and HD) companies should tell consumers that a majority of displays on the market cannot properly handle a 1080p24 input, or that no display on the market can remove the judder from a supposedly superior 1080p60 input?

I don't believe that it's the BD or HD player manufacturer's responsibility to educate consumers about their displays. It's the display manufacturer, and the consumer themself, that has that responsibility.

Just because a number of display manufacturers took shortcuts with their procesisng chips, does not make the statement "1080i60 contains all the information present in a 1080p24 signal" untrue.

Sorry again to add to this, but I felt that since the comments were aimed partly at me, that I should at least be able to respond once. I won't respond any further to this topic.

That is an inappropriate comment to make and shows lack of understanding on his part of how Microsoft and Sony work when it comes to corporate ladders.

True enough, Paid is a Senior VP at Sony whereas I am a VP at Microsoft. However, Microsoft runs a rather flat organization with less hierarchy than many companies its size. We also have very high standards for achieving VP status. I was a Vice President at a public company before coming to Microsoft yet it took me another 6 years to achieve the same title here. We routinely hire VPs from other companies and give them positions 2-3 levels below where I sit. And people working in my group routinely get VP offers/jobs at other companies. We probably have one tenth as many SVPs as any other large company like us does. And far less than any studio.

To give you a sense of what being a VP means here, I manage an organization that has about 330 full time employees and another 30 or so contractors. (When I used to be in Windows, my division had 1000 employees.) I am fairly certain Paid does not manage a group nearly as big. I am responsible for multiple product lines and manage all disciplines form product development and engineering to business development and marketing. So if I wanted to play PM’s game, I could say I outrank Paid. But I think it is rude and improper to make such comparisons.

is the difference that paid never said anything like this yet you now have?

is the difference that paid never said anything like this yet you now have?
Sometimes I think you all enjoy baiting insiders this way :p.

The two Insiders threads more and more remind me of this classic SNL skit:

http://snltranscripts.jt.org/90/90lgulfwarbriefing.phtml

... So if I wanted to play PM’s game, I could say I outrank Paid. But I think it is rude and improper to make such comparisons.

Then why did you?

Then why did you?
Answer is a few posts above. If that is not clear, watch the movie Galdiator (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0172495/). If that doesn't do it, at least you will have a more enjoyable time than with this kind of conversion :).

The "answer" located a few posts above is a dodge to avoid answering the actual question asked by Doby and being re-asked by Rob above. No one begrudges you your "mine is bigger than yours" speech if you have to have it, but to end it on a note that simultaneously tries to imply you yourself opt for the high road... well, it's true to form, I'll give it that. :p

The original answer should have sufficed. Without the explanation he gave then saying you can't compare a SVP to a VP would have been more evasive as it says nothing. Amir didn't say he was above Paid, just that the differences in the organizations make the levels non-comparable.

Why are people choosing to attack the insiders on issues which have nothing to do with high-def media? Does everyone want to drive away all the other people like talk was? I wish Paid would come back but making attacks like this is not the way to encourage him back.

The original answer should have sufficed. Without the explanation he gave then saying you can't compare a SVP to a VP would have been more evasive as it says nothing. Amir didn't say he was above Paid, just that the differences in the organizations make the levels non-comparable.

Why are people choosing to attack the insiders on issues which have nothing to do with high-def media? Does everyone want to drive away all the other people like talk was? I wish Paid would come back but making attacks like this is not the way to encourage him back.

I've deleted my posts related to the topic as it's ultimately a conversational dead-end.

If you read the last two sentences of his initial response, you will see where some people take issue. Talk of being baited and the movie Gladiator does not really address the discrepancy that rubs some the wrong way.

In fairness, it wasn't Amir who brought this up, it was PM if I recall. He was the one who made the comparison and Amir has a right to defend himself against a classless attack. I took it as a juvenile rant similar to "My Dad is better than your Dad because he drives a Mercedes and your Dad drives a Cadillac" type of argument.

I took it as a juvenile rant similar to "My Dad is better than your Dad because he drives a Mercedes and your Dad drives a Cadillac" type of argument.

I think that's a good and fair descriptor.

move on please and stop the bickering

Nothing to add? then please don't post here

Thank you

OK, how about a new topic? I talked about managed copy in context of bitrate meter. So I thought we drill down on the former.

How do people feel about managed copy? Would you use it if it were here today? Would you use it on a PC? Or do you want a dedicated server (CE)?

Do you want it in your player so that it plays locally? Or would you want to put storage (i.e. server) elsewhere and the stream to your player?

How about streaming to any TV? Would you tolerate a settop box or would you want to the intelligence burried in your new TV?

What to do with interactivity? Should it be available remotely? If that is too complicated to do (especially in the case of every TV handling it), how useful is the ability to simply play the movie?

Would you make the copy at full resolution? If so, what if you can't stream it that way? In that case, would you want to just make a lower rate/lower resolution copy or two copies (one high res, the other low res)?

Would you have a use for low resolution "proxy" copies for your portable video player?

Do you have use for placeshifting where you could watch the content from a remote place? Would you pay for that?

Note that I am not being format specific here and hence the posting in this thread. I will probably put format specific follow ups in specific forum sections.

My first order desire would that it be similar to Dish 622 DVR in terms of form factor and functionality (but networked). Additional storage could be remote. Each TV would have a similar box.

OK, how about a new topic? I talked about managed copy in context of bitrate meter. So I thought we drill down on the former.

How do people feel about managed copy? Would you use it if it were here today? Would you use it on a PC? Or do you want a dedicated server (CE)?


I would use managed copy if the price were reasonable.


Do you want it in your player so that it plays locally? Or would you want to put storage (i.e. server) elsewhere and the stream to your player?

How about streaming to any TV? Would you tolerate a settop box or would you want to the intelligence burried in your new TV?


Yes. (All of the above). Streaming from a server is the preferred solution though.


What to do with interactivity? Should it be available remotely? If that is too complicated to do (especially in the case of every TV handling it), how useful is the ability to simply play the movie?

Not as important. I don't think many people view any interactive feature more than once or twice anyway.


Would you make the copy at full resolution? If so, what if you can't stream it that way? In that case, would you want to just make a lower rate/lower resolution copy or two copies (one high res, the other low res)?


Full resolution, with the option for reduced quality to save storage/bandwidth.


Would you have a use for low resolution "proxy" copies for your portable video player?


Yes, sometimes.


Do you have use for placeshifting where you could watch the content from a remote place? Would you pay for that?


That would be cool but not worth paying a lot for. It would have to be easier/cheaper than say a Slingbox.


Note that I am not being format specific here and hence the posting in this thread. I will probably put format specific follow ups in specific forum sections.

How do people feel about managed copy? Would you use it if it were here today? Would you use it on a PC? Or do you want a dedicated server (CE)?

Foolishly, perhaps, it's never been a deal breaker for me. With DVD, the only time I've ever wanted to make a copy, legit or not, is for missing extras on HDM that I have purchased (see Planet Earth, for WB/WB Europe's inexcusable treatment of this title by truncating it for HighDef). While the ability to stream all of my movies off a server is certainly an interesting prospect, and I type this as I'm now in the process of ripping my whole music collection for the first time ever (iPod beat Zune to the 160gb size that I was holding out for), it's simply not at this stage something that drives my purchases.


Do you want it in your player so that it plays locally? Or would you want to put storage (i.e. server) elsewhere and the stream to your player?

So, you're talking about ripping a film right to the player's storage itself, ala Tivo? Intriguing, but even in the long term I can't see this be a good solution. Instead, I look to things like (yeah, plug) the new Vista media servers, some sort of centralized place where -all- your stuff is located, for any device in the house. Should we get Flash memory in the multi-TB range soon, then it doesn't entirely matter if the settop box is also that server or not.


How about streaming to any TV? Would you tolerate a settop box or would you want to the intelligence burried in your new TV?


Given the way that I know these things have gone in the last few years, with changing specs and capabilities, the STB route would make sense, although having an ethernet port on the back of every set, with the minimum ability of playing back/navigating items from Media Player/iTunes would be a step in the right direction...



What to do with interactivity? Should it be available remotely? If that is too complicated to do (especially in the case of every TV handling it), how useful is the ability to simply play the movie?
If the goal is to replace your physical disc with a virtual one, then the entire film and features should of course be preserved. Unlike music, you're not going to "shuffle" movies, playing a random one that pops up. Few would have films playing in the background as ambient visual noise, except may bars or during a party. If the goal is to simply remove the need for the disc, then all features should of course be maintained (and, yes, this leads to the question of why needing the disc in the first place... the slippery slope to on demand...)


Would you make the copy at full resolution? If so, what if you can't stream it that way? In that case, would you want to just make a lower rate/lower resolution copy or two copies (one high res, the other low res)?


As above, I can't see myself streaming films to my cellphone at home, say, especially from HDM sources. What would be the point of streaming lower res versions? I don't have kids, but I guess if the desire is to stream stuff to their TV, there's no reason for HD DVD/BD for that purpose, DIVX would certainly suffice...


Would you have a use for low resolution "proxy" copies for your portable video player?

So, an MP3-like version of the music on your store bought CD? Not a bad idea, but how about a fully compliant SD DVD version compressed on the disc that you can burn to DVD-R? I mean, if we're dreaming here...


Do you have use for placeshifting where you could watch the content from a remote place? Would you pay for that?

I don't yet, but, as with all of this, until it's seamless an painless it's easy to say that I don't need it, but then when I buy it years from now I'll not know how I lived without it... ;)


Note that I am not being format specific here and hence the posting in this thread. I will probably put format specific follow ups in specific forum sections.

Noted... heh

OK, how about a new topic? I talked about managed copy in context of bitrate meter. So I thought we drill down on the former.

How do people feel about managed copy? Would you use it if it were here today? Would you use it on a PC? Or do you want a dedicated server (CE)?


I like all forms of extra copies, especially PC. But managed copy must be priced as a rental if it is too restrictive to feel you actually own something.


Do you want it in your player so that it plays locally? Or would you want to put storage (i.e. server) elsewhere and the stream to your player?


I personally dislike anything locked to a single player.

How about streaming to any TV? Would you tolerate a settop box or would you want to the intelligence buried in your new TV?

What to do with interactivity? Should it be available remotely? If that is too complicated to do (especially in the case of every TV handling it), how useful is the ability to simply play the movie?

No strong feelings on these.


Would you make the copy at full resolution? If so, what if you can't stream it that way? In that case, would you want to just make a lower rate/lower resolution copy or two copies (one high res, the other low res)?

Would you have a use for low resolution "proxy" copies for your portable video player?


All of the above are good, with more user choice being obviously a better value. And I suspect studios would be willing to give a discount for less than full rez copies. Since these would also be easier to store that option should find support as long as it was only an option.


Do you have use for placeshifting where you could watch the content from a remote place? Would you pay for that?

Note that I am not being format specific here and hence the posting in this thread. I will probably put format specific follow ups in specific forum sections.

Place shifting is also good. Again, the fewer restrictions, the greater the value. For each restriction added you really have to lower the price in order to be able to compete with whatever alternatives that do not have those restrictions.

- Tom

OK, how about a new topic? I talked about managed copy in context of bitrate meter. So I thought we drill down on the former.

How do people feel about managed copy? Would you use it if it were here today? Would you use it on a PC? Or do you want a dedicated server (CE)?
I'd like to see it come sooner than later. I see more and more people populate the Digital Media Servers & Content Streamers (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=30&f=39) section everyday who can't wait or isn't waiting. It's going to need to be on dedicated storage due to the larger size of HD movies in the long run it would seem.

How about streaming to any TV? Would you tolerate a settop box or would you want to the intelligence burried in your new TV?
I think it would be better to have STB as they will likely sell better, have more users and support when it comes to upgrades vs one in a tv.[/QUOTE]

What to do with interactivity? Should it be available remotely? If that is too complicated to do (especially in the case of every TV handling it), how useful is the ability to simply play the movie?
Interactivity and extras should stay on the disc. I see no point of storing extras/interactivity which will take up server space.

Would you make the copy at full resolution? If so, what if you can't stream it that way? In that case, would you want to just make a lower rate/lower resolution copy or two copies (one high res, the other low res)?
I can see instances were I'd need an HD version and SD version (for portable players).

Would you have a use for low resolution "proxy" copies for your portable video player?
Yup. My main concern is compatibility for portable players. I'm sure it's likely I'll need a new portable media player, especially if you use one that isn't a zune or ipod variation. I know the real answer would be that it's up to the players manufacturer to support MC via upgrades, but it seems less likely for many of the current players out there IMO.

Do you have use for placeshifting where you could watch the content from a remote place? Would you pay for that?
It'd be nice if it was free....and if it's not free...this is where we'd buy a sling box and not have to worry about monthly fees if there are some.

How do people feel about managed copy? Would you use it if it were here today? Would you use it on a PC? Or do you want a dedicated server (CE)?


To be honest, I'm not sure if I understand exactly what managed copy actually is. In my opinion, the industry has proven to be very creative with words, so until Managed Copy is demonstrated, I have no idea if it's something I'd want to use or not.

If it lets me use the discs I've bought in any way I see fit (except giving away copies, or keeping the copies after I've sold the disc), I'll probably use it when I get enough diskspace.


Do you want it in your player so that it plays locally? Or would you want to put storage (i.e. server) elsewhere and the stream to your player?


I prefer a storage server and stream it to networked players.

How about streaming to any TV? Would you tolerate a settop box or would you want to the intelligence burried in your new TV?

I have no problem with settops for this use. I'd probably pay extra for a TV with this kind of functionality built in, though.

What to do with interactivity? Should it be available remotely? If that is too complicated to do (especially in the case of every TV handling it), how useful is the ability to simply play the movie?

In my opinion, interactivity is key. Of course, if someone wants to save diskspace, the option of just storing the movie would be useful, but I prefer storing the entire disk with all the extra material.

I would actually also prefer an option to create extra menues that spans several discs. E.g. if you have a multi-disc set of a TV-series, it would be nice to select any episode from any of the discs, instead of first selecting the disc, then accessing the individual menues.

Would you make the copy at full resolution? If so, what if you can't stream it that way? In that case, would you want to just make a lower rate/lower resolution copy or two copies (one high res, the other low res)?


I would only use it with full resolution. I don't see any technical reasons for why it wouldn't be possible to stream it that way. If this is a restriction of managed copy, I won't use it.

Would you have a use for low resolution "proxy" copies for your portable video player?

Well, I already make low resolution copies from my DVDs for this purpose. I'd be disappointed if I won't be able to do this in the future.

Do you have use for placeshifting where you could watch the content from a remote place?

This would be very nice, of course, but it's not a dealbreaker for me.

Would you pay for that?

I'd be willing to pay for the placeshifting hardware and the necessary internet connection. But I'm not willing to pay extra for the right to watch my own copy of a movie I've already purchased, just because I'm streaming it across the internet instead of my home network.

Thanks for the feedback everyone. Please keep it coming....

To be honest, I'm not sure if I understand exactly what managed copy actually is. In my opinion, the industry has proven to be very creative with words, so until Managed Copy is demonstrated, I have no idea if it's something I'd want to use or not.
Managed copy refers to ability to make a copy of your HD DVD/BD after authorization from the content owner (i.e. studio). "Managed" means that they get to be in the loop, as opposed to "unmanaged" copy with DVDs/CDs.

I agree that you need to see the real offer to decide if you want it. And that is the purpose of this thread. We have little data to what the offer should be and I like to collect this info to run by the studios as to what capabilities they will allow in their managed copy and at what cost. My hope is that some scenarios would not cost anything but my hopes and realities may be two different things.

To bring people up to speed on the history, when we joined AACS, managed copy was our one and only "ask" in return for providing so much extra security in AACS. We know you all have no use for the latter. But hopefully, do for the former and as such, we have a nice balance where everyone gets something. Right now, we are operating with the interim license which does not allow this but I am optimistic that the final license will come to have this feature and we get back to the fundamentals which created AACS.

I have no problem with settops for this use. I'd probably pay extra for a TV with this kind of functionality built in, though.
This is great feedback. Would love to know what others think on the latter point. How much value to you put in having a TV with this feature built-in? $50? $100? $150? Note that such premium would also let your TV act like a digital media receiver of sorts.


I would actually also prefer an option to create extra menues that spans several discs. E.g. if you have a multi-disc set of a TV-series, it would be nice to select any episode from any of the discs, instead of first selecting the disc, then accessing the individual menues.
Oh, that is a clever suggestion! :).


I would only use it with full resolution. I don't see any technical reasons for why it wouldn't be possible to stream it that way. If this is a restriction of managed copy, I won't use it.
Well, unless you have wired ethernet in your house, there is no way you can reliably stream HD DVDs or BDs. With 802.11n that may be possible but it may not work all the time. So assuming you did not want to re-wire your house, you may want to opt for say, 720p at 8 mbit/sec so that you can still have whole house distribution of the content. But put in the disc if you want to have the highest resolution. You would of course have the power to set any parameters you like so if the above is not good enough data rate, you can boost it up.

The other advantage here is that you get a lot more content on your server with lower data rates.

I'd be willing to pay for the placeshifting hardware and the necessary internet connection. But I'm not willing to pay extra for the right to watch my own copy of a movie I've already purchased, just because I'm streaming it across the internet instead of my home network.
Understood. Problem studios have is that the remote copy could be your friends and families or entire college dorm. So one has to think how to limit this or charge extra for it...

OK, how about a new topic?

How do people feel about managed copy?

1 full res copied SD DVD vob sitting on my Windows PC that can be streamed to all the PC's and extenders in my house is worth far more than 3 promised managed copy HD DVD's in the bush.


Would you use it if it were here today?

Depends on the implementation.


Would you use it on a PC? Or do you want a dedicated server (CE)?

My preference would be PC first, but regardless of the implementation it definitely needs to be streamable to PC's and extenders.


Do you want it in your player so that it plays locally? Or would you want to put storage (i.e. server) elsewhere and the stream to your player?

Storage elsewhere. Windows Home Server anyone?


How about streaming to any TV? Would you tolerate a settop box or would you want to the intelligence burried in your new TV??

I have my doubts that mainstream TV's would ever get this smart. PC's and STB extenders do a fine job right now.


What to do with interactivity? Should it be available remotely? If that is too complicated to do (especially in the case of every TV handling it), how useful is the ability to simply play the movie?

If you can make the interactivity seamless and actually work exactly the same as it would on an HD DVD player, that is fine. Otherwise, just gimme the movie.


Would you make the copy at full resolution? If so, what if you can't stream it that way? In that case, would you want to just make a lower rate/lower resolution copy or two copies (one high res, the other low res)?

Low res copy is worth zero to me at home. But since it is not likely that every display in the house is 1080p capable, I'll accept a compromise with 720p and DD+ 5.1 sound.


Would you have a use for low resolution "proxy" copies for your portable video player?

Cool to have, but I wouldn't pay extra for it and wouldn't be upset if I didn't have it.


Do you have use for placeshifting where you could watch the content from a remote place? Would you pay for that?

I have my doubts about the home network/inet/isp infrastructure even placeshifting 720p content, so this should be a freebie or optional cost.

OK, how about a new topic? I talked about managed copy in context of bitrate meter. So I thought we drill down on the former.

How do people feel about managed copy? Would you use it if it were here today? Would you use it on a PC? Or do you want a dedicated server (CE)?

I plan to setup an HTPC in my equipment rack and I'd like to be able to load it up with storage (or use NAS) so that it can hold all of my music and movies. I think there will definitely be a market (probably a bigger market) for dedicated servers.


Do you want it in your player so that it plays locally? Or would you want to put storage (i.e. server) elsewhere and the stream to your player?

How about streaming to any TV? Would you tolerate a settop box or would you want to the intelligence burried in your new TV?


Ideally I would like to see the intelligence in the clients (TV, Radio, Mobile phone, etc.). There needs to be some set of application standards that allow multiple companies to build servers and multiple companies that build clients, that can all interoperate with each other. A centralized server, with distributed playback clients that do not lock me into a single vendor for all of the solution. Communication should be done over standards based technology to lower cost and ease adoption by multiple vendors.


What to do with interactivity? Should it be available remotely? If that is too complicated to do (especially in the case of every TV handling it), how useful is the ability to simply play the movie?

Would you make the copy at full resolution? If so, what if you can't stream it that way? In that case, would you want to just make a lower rate/lower resolution copy or two copies (one high res, the other low res)?

I would suggest the interactivity should be processed on the server distributing the content, and displayed on the remote client. Essentially, the client should be as simple as possible. Let the server do all of the heavy lifting. Interactivity should be part of the package though.

Yes, I would make the client playback at full resolution. Everything should be stored securely on the server, and it should have secure communication to the client, just like HDMI from a Player to a TV today. As for inability to stream at high res, I assume you're talking about a wireless installation where signal strength may not be good enough. In that case the client should note this in some sort of configuration/menu screen and tell you what resolution it will be receiving. For mobile devices like phones, they don't have enough bandwidth or resolution. By the time they have the resolution, they'll also have the bandwidth.


Would you have a use for low resolution "proxy" copies for your portable video player?

Do you have use for placeshifting where you could watch the content from a remote place? Would you pay for that?

Note that I am not being format specific here and hence the posting in this thread. I will probably put format specific follow ups in specific forum sections.

Sure, I see that Microsoft is already starting SlingBox type functionality for distribution of video to mobile phones. In the future there will be more and more mobile devices doing this sort of thing.

I understand that content providers are excited about the idea of being able to create multiple revenue streams by selling the same content multiple times. I would suggest that they could make even more money by selling a premium version of their content (perhaps on HD media) that allows the customer to place this content on their server and then play it any where, at any time from any compatible mobile device. To prevent abuse, you could either set a limit on the max number of simultaneous users of a piece of content, or a max number of clients registered to use the server.

OK, how about a new topic? I talked about managed copy in context of bitrate meter. So I thought we drill down on the former.

How do people feel about managed copy? Would you use it if it were here today? Would you use it on a PC? Or do you want a dedicated server (CE)?

Great question.

If by managed copy we mean the ability to copy and distribute copyrighted material on a home network based on a fee system, then yes, I'd be very interested.

The application that I'd be thinking of would be to archive HD material and be able to play it on demand throughout my secured home network. Based on that I'd guess that a dedicated server would probably be more appropriate than a personal computer. Ideally the source of that HD material could be HDM, satellite or cable programming, or Internet downloads. It would be nice if a single server could accomodate each type of HD material even if multiple interfacing devices, were needed to access each type of content. So in theory there could be multiple HD disc players, multiple satellite or cable receivers or multiple PCs accessing the different types of HD content and playing it back to multiple locations distributed throughout the home network.


Do you want it in your player so that it plays locally? Or would you want to put storage (i.e. server) elsewhere and the stream to your player?

If I understand the question correctly ideally I would want both, some local storage and a LOT of remote storage.


How about streaming to any TV? Would you tolerate a settop box or would you want to the intelligence burried in your new TV?

Streaming from multiple storage locations to multiple playback devices would be what I'm looking for. I would prefer the "intelligence" reside in add-on boxes which, if necessary, could be upgraded or replaced without having to replace the more expensive display device.


What to do with interactivity? Should it be available remotely? If that is too complicated to do (especially in the case of every TV handling it), how useful is the ability to simply play the movie?

Ideally, yes, interactivity should be available remotely on the home network. However, being forced to access HD content and simply play movies without interactivity wouldn't automatically be a deal-killer.


Would you make the copy at full resolution? If so, what if you can't stream it that way? In that case, would you want to just make a lower rate/lower resolution copy or two copies (one high res, the other low res)?

Making full resolution copies is essential at the primary viewing location (home theater). Ideally I would want to stream full resolution content to a few other display devices, but if that were not initially feasible then the ability to stream lower resolution copies would be very important.


Would you have a use for low resolution "proxy" copies for your portable video player?

Currently I'm not too interested in portable video players.


Do you have use for placeshifting where you could watch the content from a remote place? Would you pay for that?

Yes, I would pay a little extra for the rights to play purchased copyrighted content anytime and anywhere on my home network. I would not be in favor of continually paying the right to play content I have previously purchased.


Note that I am not being format specific here and hence the posting in this thread. I will probably put format specific follow ups in specific forum sections.

Note that I have not confined my remarks to HDM of either format. The real power of managed copy would be to be able to playback any type of available copyrighted content.

Larry

How do people feel about managed copy? Would you use it if it were here today? Would you use it on a PC? Or do you want a dedicated server (CE)?I want it and would use it now. On a PC using an external HDD.

Do you want it in your player so that it plays locally? Or would you want to put storage (i.e. server) elsewhere and the stream to your player?Would want to use a server (with multiple external HDDs which can be swapped) with streaming.

How about streaming to any TV? Would you tolerate a settop box or would you want to the intelligence burried in your new TV?Sure streaming to TV would be great, but willing to use PC driving a TV.

What to do with interactivity? Should it be available remotely? If that is too complicated to do (especially in the case of every TV handling it), how useful is the ability to simply play the movie?Using a PC I would want to keep the interactivity capability -- not as necessary for a TV using local network streaming.

Would you make the copy at full resolution? If so, what if you can't stream it that way? In that case, would you want to just make a lower rate/lower resolution copy or two copies (one high res, the other low res)?Full resolution copy desired. Combo/Twin discs de-facto give SD player copies now. If original media was HD only but enabled a MC download of a SD version for van DVD, etc -- then that would make sense if low priced.

Would you have a use for low resolution "proxy" copies for your portable video player?Not at this moment for me.

Do you have use for placeshifting where you could watch the content from a remote place? Would you pay for that?No other than taking the original disc to a new location if that is what you mean. Only rarely needed -- like when visiting relatives.

How do people feel about managed copy? Would you use it if it were here today? Would you use it on a PC? Or do you want a dedicated server (CE)? The time has come to allow managed copy, DVD's are currently on many home servers now. I would use my dedicated server and NAS for storage, If I had neither I'd use the player.

Do you want it in your player so that it plays locally? Or would you want to put storage (i.e. server) elsewhere and the stream to your player?. You should have the option of doing it either way.

How about streaming to any TV? Would you tolerate a settop box or would you want to the intelligence burried in your new TV?
We already have a settop box in the Toshiba HD DVD players don't we? Can't a firmware upgrade allow connection to a server or Nas? The players should have the horsepower to handle this. If this is possible I'd sell a couple of HTPC's. Buried in a tv could go either way considering not all people would use this feature.

What to do with interactivity? Should it be available remotely? If that is too complicated to do (especially in the case of every TV handling it), how useful is the ability to simply play the movie? If you wanted to use interactivity you should have to pop the disc into the player. All we need is to play just the movie.

Would you make the copy at full resolution? If so, what if you can't stream it that way? In that case, would you want to just make a lower rate/lower resolution copy or two copies (one high res, the other low res)?
I would make a full resolution copy. If I couldn't stream full resolution on my 1Gb wired network, I'd make the copy and wait to purchase new hardware.

Would you have a use for low resolution "proxy" copies for your portable video player? No

Do you have use for placeshifting where you could watch the content from a remote place? Would you pay for that? No and No

Managed copy refers to ability to make a copy of your HD DVD/BD after authorization from the content owner (i.e. studio). "Managed" means that they get to be in the loop, as opposed to "unmanaged" copy with DVDs/CDs.

Right. I must admit I'm a bit hesitant when the studios wants to decide what I can and cannot do with the movies I buy. They tend to have a very different opinion of what constitutes "fair use" than most consumers.

This is great feedback. Would love to know what others think on the latter point. How much value to you put in having a TV with this feature built-in? $50? $100? $150? Note that such premium would also let your TV act like a digital media receiver of sorts.

Hmm. I'm not sure. It probably depends on the price of a comparable settop. Also, for my own part, I think a TV with built in mediacenter would mostly be interesting for my secondary TV. My primary TV is connected to a home theater system anyway, so an extra box isn't that much of a deal. It's a lot more annoying to have settop-boxes in the bedroom. The problem with that is obviously that it means this kind of functionality is probably mostly useful in the smaller and (unfortunately) cheaper televisions.

What would be really nice, is if the HD DVD/Blu-ray-players would be able to act as one of these settop boxes. And by that I don't just mean that they're able to play managed copied content from the storage server, but also that they should be able to copy the disks and store them on the network.

Well, unless you have wired ethernet in your house, there is no way you can reliably stream HD DVDs or BDs. With 802.11n that may be possible but it may not work all the time.

Yes, that's a good point. I've been assuming a wired network.

So assuming you did not want to re-wire your house, you may want to opt for say, 720p at 8 mbit/sec so that you can still have whole house distribution of the content. But put in the disc if you want to have the highest resolution. You would of course have the power to set any parameters you like so if the above is not good enough data rate, you can boost it up.

As long as lower bitrate versions are only about getting around technical limitations in the customer's system, and as long as it's possible to copy the full content, I think it's a good idea.

The other advantage here is that you get a lot more content on your server with lower data rates.

Right. I prefer the full content, but I'm probably a bit over-optimistic about harddrive prices :) It'll probably take a few years before a 5TB-system (which I think is a minimum for a proper Hi-Def storage system) is cheap enough for most consumers. The storage server would also have to be as easy to manage as the Drobo (http://www.drobo.com/products_demo.aspx) to be interesting for a non-technical crowd.

Understood. Problem studios have is that the remote copy could be your friends and families or entire college dorm. So one has to think how to limit this or charge extra for it...

Sure. I realize that it's extremely challenging to come up with a reliable technical solution that's able to tell the difference between me streaming my movies from a friend's house, and me giving my passwords to my friend so he can stream my movies.

However, I do think it's important that the studios don't sacrifice legitimate fair use just to make it harder to abuse the system. In my opinion it's in the studios' interest to make managed copy so userfriendly that there's not much demand for a fully cracked AACS. And if AACS one day is properly broken, it would surely be better for the studios if most consumers are satisfied with what managed copy has to offer.

I know it's difficult to make something that's more appealing to consumers than a complete, unrestricted copy of a disc, but unless AACS is never broken, that's really what managed copy is competing against.

OK, how about a new topic? I talked about managed copy in context of bitrate meter. So I thought we drill down on the former.

Quote from other post:
Managed copy refers to ability to make a copy of your HD DVD/BD after authorization from the content owner (i.e. studio). "Managed" means that they get to be in the loop, as opposed to "unmanaged" copy with DVDs/CDs.


Exactly how are the content owners going to authorise it?
Did you say a long time ago that mandatory managed copy on HD-DVD word work with ALL HD-DVDs, not just future ones? Will it now only work with future ones that have some sort of serial number? I assume we won't have to connect to the internet to authorise this content?

How do people feel about managed copy? Would you use it if it were here today? Would you use it on a PC? Or do you want a dedicated server (CE)?

Yes I would use it, assuming the hardware and software was reasonably priced. I would also like to use it with my existing standard definition discs but that's not going to happen.

Do you want it in your player so that it plays locally? Or would you want to put storage (i.e. server) elsewhere and the stream to your player?

I would like the option to do both. What's important is that it has to be really simple. I want to just be able to plug it in and it works. I wouldn't mind some sort of 'set top box' (well it wouldn't really be on my tv set :rolleyes:) with the option to just slide in extra hard discs if I later wanted to upgrade. I wouldn't use wireless. I thought you said that by using hard discs you could use a much higher bitrate than optical media. Maybe you could distribute optical media with extra content that would be higher than would be possible to play through optical media.

How about streaming to any TV? Would you tolerate a settop box or would you want to the intelligence burried in your new TV?
Yes I would like the option to stream to any TV (as long as it's simple for the user). I would tolerate a setup box as I said above. I'm not sure about the TV. Do you mean hard discs in the TV? I'm not sure I'd want to keep upgrading my TV for extra managed copy functions.

I would also like to be able to locate the set top box out of the way if it was too noisy because of the hard discs & fans but would like to have something near the tv that I can control it with.

What to do with interactivity? Should it be available remotely? If that is too complicated to do (especially in the case of every TV handling it), how useful is the ability to simply play the movie?
If by interactivity you mean internet interactivity, I don't care about that.
If by interactivity you mean all the extra documentaries, commentaries and stuff on the discs then yes, I'd definitely want the interactivity to be accessed through the set-top box or networked device (as long as it's easy to connect and set up).

Would you make the copy at full resolution? If so, what if you can't stream it that way? In that case, would you want to just make a lower rate/lower resolution copy or two copies (one high res, the other low res)?

I'd usually make the copy at full resolution and bitrate, unless I was running out of hard disc space in my 'set top box' or I wanted to watch on a standard definition TV, but for high definition content I would be unlikely to do that. If it can't be streamed at full resolution/bitrate (I'm assuming you're talking of wireless, in which case it should be made really easy to connect and use by just plugging in whatever connections would allow for full bandwidth). I'd probably make a lower bitrate version or a 720p version if my tv was only 720p capable.

Would you have a use for low resolution "proxy" copies for your portable video player?
I don't have one and I'm not sure whether I'll get one.

Do you have use for placeshifting where you could watch the content from a remote place? Would you pay for that?
No. I don't have a use for placeshifting.

Everything should be cheap, very simple to connect and use and really fast and have tons of options on the remote that work with every title. And you should easily browse all your discs like that media player that was advertised ages ago that someone posted a link to in the insiders forum.

While I would ideally want to use managed copy to copy all my media to my set top box or media server thing at the full/maximum bitrate, if the hard discs or machines were too expensive I might lower the bitrate until I could afford to upgrade. For example if I had 9 titles stored but wouldn't have enough space to store the 10th at full bitrate and I couldn't yet afford to upgrade, I might decide to use a lower bitrate for the 10th title (or else somehow reduce the bitrate of all previously stored titles before adding the 10th). But ideally the plug-in hard discs to upgrade the machines should be really cheap.

I would also like to know what would happen if my 'set top box' or 'media server' crashed or stopped working and I lost all my copied content. If I got a replacement set top box, would I still be able to make a copy using managed copy to my replacement set top box or hard disc.

OK, how about a new topic? I talked about managed copy in context of bitrate meter. So I thought we drill down on the former.

Note that I'm answering the following as someone who has been streaming video for a few years. Mostly through Xvids via XBMC and now that drives are cheaper, I'm re-ripping at full quality and also streaming to my PS3.

[QUOTE=amirm;11703542]How do people feel about managed copy? Would you use it if it were here today? Would you use it on a PC? Or do you want a dedicated server (CE)?

Would use it, but only via PC. I've got a bunch of older PCs, but probably wouldn't buy a dedicated, expensive box just for storage.

Do you want it in your player so that it plays locally? Or would you want to put storage (i.e. server) elsewhere and the stream to your player?

Storage in the player seems kind of pointless, since you are limited to one viewing location. Remote storage/streaming would be much preferred.

How about streaming to any TV? Would you tolerate a settop box or would you want to the intelligence burried in your new TV?

Set top box makes the most sense to me. I really like UPnP/DLNA. No reason to come up with a different standard. Of course, if the TV supports DLNA with a decent codec set, I wouldn't complain.

What to do with interactivity? Should it be available remotely? If that is too complicated to do (especially in the case of every TV handling it), how useful is the ability to simply play the movie?

I've never felt the desire for interactivity/extras when streaming. I usually rip only the movie. Of course, XBMC already supports loading of remote ISOs, with full menus and such. It would seem strange to take a step backwards for high definition discs. Give people the option.

Would you make the copy at full resolution? If so, what if you can't stream it that way? In that case, would you want to just make a lower rate/lower resolution copy or two copies (one high res, the other low res)?

What would be the point of having a full resolution copy if it can't be streamed? I would make the copy at the highest resolution that was usable. Of course, if managed copy means we only get a SD version, I probably wouldn't even use it.

Would you have a use for low resolution "proxy" copies for your portable video player?

Nope. I'd rather have the ability to re-encode the managed copy to a lower resolution/format. Who knows what resolution a portable player will have in 3 years, I'd hate to be limited by what's on the disc.

Do you have use for placeshifting where you could watch the content from a remote place? Would you pay for that?

Not really. But it would be nice if I could copy the managed copy from the server to my laptop for trips. Maybe the managed copy could be played back on a limited amount of computers, say 4-5.

This is great feedback. Would love to know what others think on the latter point. How much value to you put in having a TV with this feature built-in? $50? $100? $150? Note that such premium would also let your TV act like a digital media receiver of sorts.

Hi Amir,

I remember back when I purchased my first HDTV. We had the option of having the HD tuner built into the HDTV or a standalone unit. Of course the tuners, despite their ability to be upgraded via firmware, went through various evolutionary changes which improved on their ability to receive signals. I was glad that I opted for a seperate tuner.

Ideally I'd like to see a sort of universal, networked, HD TiVo device that accepts all types of HD inputs from multiple sources, and mediates the playback to the locally connected display device and audio system.

For such a gizmo, I'd pay about $1,000 at each location.

Larry

.... How do people feel about managed copy? Would you use it if it were here today?
I'm not very interested in MC at the moment. I have no problem selecting a disc from the shelf.

OK, how about a new topic? I talked about managed copy in context of bitrate meter. So I thought we drill down on the former.

How do people feel about managed copy? Would you use it if it were here today? Would you use it on a PC? Or do you want a dedicated server (CE)?

You know Amir...I used to think I knew what MC was all about. The more I read about it though the less I understand what it's supposed to do for me. Seems to have a lot more for the Studios than it does for the Consumer.

Do you want it in your player so that it plays locally? Or would you want to put storage (i.e. server) elsewhere and the stream to your player?

I have a HT in my house. I want to be able to rip the disc to a server (that I'm building to handle my DVD and CD collection) and call up any movie or song to any TV or Audio box anywhere in my house.

How about streaming to any TV? Would you tolerate a settop box or would you want to the intelligence burried in your new TV? Streaming, see above. I want nothing buried in a TV that's going to drive up costs and possibly not be in conformance, ala HDMI.

What to do with interactivity? Should it be available remotely? If that is too complicated to do (especially in the case of every TV handling it), how useful is the ability to simply play the movie?

Never played with this so I have no idea if it would be of value.

Would you make the copy at full resolution? If so, what if you can't stream it that way? In that case, would you want to just make a lower rate/lower resolution copy or two copies (one high res, the other low res)?

Yes full resolution or I don't want it at all. What would be the point? Didn't I pay for this movie?

Would you have a use for low resolution "proxy" copies for your portable video player?

Not interested in this.

Do you have use for placeshifting where you could watch the content from a remote place? Would you pay for that?

Would be nice to do that for my cabin in the mountain but I don't see how. Nope wouldn't pay for this either. What would be the point? Didn't I pay for this movie?

Note that I am not being format specific here and hence the posting in this thread. I will probably put format specific follow ups in specific forum sections.

Thanks for asking!
Wish I knew where I can read and possibly see what MC is all about from a Consumer side? The more I know the less I understand what the benefit to me is.
And if it's a way for me to see something I already paid for and need to pay for again, then I want no part of it and I'll stay away from both new formats.
Or wait till someone finds a way around the hurdles that MC will put in place and pay once for that software.

-t

Exactly how are the content owners going to authorise it?
There would be a network connection to a server in sky authorizing you to make the copy. You would register the first time. If there is no charge for managed copy,then it is all automatic and free from then on. If there is a fee, and it is constant, the process can still be transparent and automatic but obviously, there would be a cost. I am hoping the third option of having variable cost does not come to pass although you could still opt to have automatic billing and authorization.

Question on this. If there is a charge, which is better, per disc fee or a monthly/yearly subscription that would all X number of managed copies max?

Did you say a long time ago that mandatory managed copy on HD-DVD word work with ALL HD-DVDs, not just future ones? Will it now only work with future ones that have some sort of serial number? I assume we won't have to connect to the internet to authorise this content?
We have to wait for final rules but based on what I hear, the situation on this is quite positive in that it might even work without serial numbers.


Do you mean hard discs in the TV? I'm not sure I'd want to keep upgrading my TV for extra managed copy functions.
No, I meant having the the receiver in the TV so that it can stream the content from the server so that you don't need a STB.

If by interactivity you mean internet interactivity, I don't care about that.
If by interactivity you mean all the extra documentaries, commentaries and stuff on the discs then yes, I'd definitely want the interactivity to be accessed through the set-top box or networked device (as long as it's easy to connect and set up).
In this case, I meant everything. You either get "play the movie" or the full menus although I agree that internet connectivity is even more complex to implement. So maybe there are three levels: movie only, movie plus local interactivity and everything.


I would also like to know what would happen if my 'set top box' or 'media server' crashed or stopped working and I lost all my copied content. If I got a replacement set top box, would I still be able to make a copy using managed copy to my replacement set top box or hard disc.
Since there is specific authorization of the disc, then I don't see any problem with allowing this with some kind of fraud detection so that you don't fill your friend's server this way :).

There would be a network connection to a server in sky authorizing you to make the copy. You would register the first time. If there is no charge for managed copy,then it is all automatic and free from then on. If there is a fee, and it is constant, the process can still be transparent and automatic but obviously, there would be a cost. I am hoping the third option of having variable cost does not come to pass although you could still opt to have automatic billing and authorization.

Question on this. If there is a charge, which is better, per disc fee or a monthly/yearly subscription that would all X number of managed copies max?


What is meant by a "server in sky"? If managed copy is mandatory for both HD-DVD and Blu-ray, and Blu-ray doesn't have a mandatory ethernet connection, does that mean you would still have to connect to the internet to use managed copy? If so, I'd be a lot less happy about that.

As for the "monthly/yearly" subscription, I absolutely would NOT want anything to do with that. People didn't want DIVX and neither do I. I want to buy a disc and own it. I don't want to keep paying someone so that I can watch the stuff I've bought.

There would be a network connection to a server in sky authorizing you to make the copy. You would register the first time. If there is no charge for managed copy,then it is all automatic and free from then on. If there is a fee, and it is constant, the process can still be transparent and automatic but obviously, there would be a cost. I am hoping the third option of having variable cost does not come to pass although you could still opt to have automatic billing and authorization.

Question on this. If there is a charge, which is better, per disc fee or a monthly/yearly subscription that would all X number of managed copies max?



Hi Amir,

I'm still not entirely clear on what consitutes a managed copy. For example, say I want to buy a title to play an indefinate amount of times from my centralized server. Would that mean I would pay to copy it once to my server? Or is each and every time I access that stored copy for playback considered an other managed copy?

Knowing that I would want to continually expand my content collection several times per month, I would be willing to pay a subscription to purchase multiple managed copies with the right to play them an indefinate amount of times. I assume that in committing to a subscription to multiple monthly purchases that there would be a discount over buying multiple single copies.

As mentioned, I'm mostly interested in owning perpetual rights to my collection of content. I would not be interested in anything resembling the current video on demand model where it costs several dollars to buy each one-time viewing. I would only consider buying a one-time copy if the pricing were extremely inexpensive, probably about a dollar or so.

Larry

OK, how about a new topic? I talked about managed copy in context of bitrate meter. So I thought we drill down on the former.

How do people feel about managed copy? Would you use it if it were here today? Would you use it on a PC? Or do you want a dedicated server (CE)?

I feel it's a great idea. PC: Yes, likely in a Media Center type role. I'm not sure what you mean by "dedicated server", unless you are talking a bundled/CE style device (i.e.- Kalidescape), in which case I'd be much more likely to go the PC/roll-my-own type.

Do you want it in your player so that it plays locally? Or would you want to put storage (i.e. server) elsewhere and the stream to your player?

Option for either. I'd like storage to be abstracted to the point where I could choose that for myself. I think everything should be configured to allow one or more stores, be it a network share, a local optical drive, a local hard drive, or a local removable media device (USB mass storage). That way a single PC/device can logically present everything I have, whether it's my content xferred to my server via MC, a NetFlix rental in my HD DVD ROM drive, or 8GB USB memory stick containing a down-rezzed copy my friend brought over to watch at the party.

How about streaming to any TV? Would you tolerate a settop box or would you want to the intelligence burried in your new TV?

Either. I want the system to be endpoint-agnostic. If it supports one of the many connectivity or storage protocols (i.e. Ethernet or USB) as well as the codecs and DRM necessary, it should work.

What to do with interactivity? Should it be available remotely? If that is too complicated to do (especially in the case of every TV handling it), how useful is the ability to simply play the movie?

The interactivity should be preserved for managed copy so that the copy can be the primary viewing choice with no loss of functionality.

I can see the "down-rezzed copy" scenario giving the option to transcode to other codecs (i.e. MPEG2, etc...) and stripping interactivity if the target device doesn't support it, or the user chooses to optimize the copy for space (I know..in which case MPEG2 is less than ideal ;) )

Would you make the copy at full resolution? If so, what if you can't stream it that way? In that case, would you want to just make a lower rate/lower resolution copy or two copies (one high res, the other low res)?

Copy should be at full rez by default. If a person has a marginal network and chooses a down-rezzed copy, then you can reuse the same paradigm one would use for down-rezzing to a non HD DVD target.

Ideally the MC would always be full-rez, and at playback time the lower-rez copy could be generated on the fly, similar to a PiP window. That may not be immediately practical. If not, the user should have a choice of storing one or 2 copies.

Would you have a use for low resolution "proxy" copies for your portable video player?

Yes. As per above, only storing the full rez copies, and generating a low-rez on the fly, either for streaming, or burning to SD DVD, would be preferable if feasible.

Do you have use for placeshifting where you could watch the content from a remote place? Would you pay for that?

Maybe. I can think of a couple scenarios, but none valuable enough I would pay for. Furthermore I disagree in principle with the idea that using a network connection I already pay for elsewhere (i.e. my broadband) should be metered by an application. The license is associated with me, wherever I may be, not with what end of a given pipe I may be at. If it becomes more cumbersome/expensive than grabbing the disc off the shelf I would not use it.

I can listen to .wma content at wok over my VPN to home, why not a down-rezzed version of my video content?

Note that I am not being format specific here and hence the posting in this thread. I will probably put format specific follow ups in specific forum sections.

Sure thing. And thank you very much for being interested in what we hope to see int MC. This degree of engagement is rare, and very much welcomed.

Hi Amir,

I'm still not entirely clear on what consitutes a managed copy. For example, say I want to buy a title to play an indefinate amount of times from my centralized server. Would that mean I would pay to copy it once to my server? Or is each and every time I access that stored copy for playback considered an other managed copy?
The idea is that you pay once and get a copy on your server. Once there, you can play it as many times as you like. Other uses though (e.g. burn a SD copy), may require additional "rights" that the studio may grant you.

Knowing that I would want to continually expand my content collection several times per month, I would be willing to pay a subscription to purchase multiple managed copies with the right to play them an indefinate amount of times. I assume that in committing to a subscription to multiple monthly purchases that there would be a discount over buying multiple single copies.
Per above, the subscription would not be necessary for playing. Once you have a copy, you own the copy and can do what you like as far as playing it. My proposal around subscription was to make it easier to make copies of multiple discs without having to pay for each one seperately.


As mentioned, I'm mostly interested in owning perpetual rights to my collection of content. I would not be interested in anything resembling the current video on demand model where it costs several dollars to buy each one-time viewing. I would only consider buying a one-time copy if the pricing were extremely inexpensive, probably about a dollar or so.

Larry
That is the idea so you should be fine. But trick would be to get additional rights so that we can approximate having a in-the-clear copy as you do with DVD rips.

What is meant by a "server in sky"? If managed copy is mandatory for both HD-DVD and Blu-ray, and Blu-ray doesn't have a mandatory ethernet connection, does that mean you would still have to connect to the internet to use managed copy? If so, I'd be a lot less happy about that.

As for the "monthly/yearly" subscription, I absolutely would NOT want anything to do with that. People didn't want DIVX and neither do I. I want to buy a disc and own it. I don't want to keep paying someone so that I can watch the stuff I've bought.I belive you're confusing the format, and the players. Managed copy is mandatory for the format. A studio may not disallow a reasonable managed copy. However, I believe it is not required for a particular player to have way to make a managed copy.

How do people feel about managed copy? Would you use it if it were here today? Would you use it on a PC? Or do you want a dedicated server (CE)?
I've already built a dedicated movie server a few months ago and I'm already storing all my movies on it. Fortunately managed copy is not necessary anymore (from a strictly technical point of view).

However, I do look forward to managed copy very much, in the hope that I can get rid of all the useless discs sitting on my shelves which are collecting dust right now. I only want to buy a license from the studios and then have the movies stored electronically on my server. Managed copy sounds like it should allow me to buy affordable licenses (cause the reseller might be left out). My dream would be 9.99$ a movie, just for the license. However, I'm not sure if I would be willing to live with the restrictions of a managed copy DRM system. So maybe I would go on using the already existing ways to get DRM free copies of the movies to my server, but nevertheless use the managed copy system to do the payments. I actually do want to pay for every movie I store on my server. However, there's a limit to what I'm willing to pay. Current HD DVD and Blu-Ray movie prices here in Europe are just crazy. Importing from USA is much cheaper for us Europeans than buying locally, despite the high shipping costs from USA!

How about streaming to any TV? Would you tolerate a settop box or would you want to the intelligence burried in your new TV?
Settop box, something like Tvix 6000.

What to do with interactivity?
Don't care about that. Just want the movie - *AND* a HD trailer for every movie I own, so that my guests have a good way to decide which movie they want to watch.

Would you make the copy at full resolution?
Definitely full resolution video and audio without any compromise, without even reencoding (remuxing is ok, of course). No quality loss, please.

If so, what if you can't stream it that way?
I'd find a way to make streaming work.

Would you have a use for low resolution "proxy" copies for your portable video player?
I'd never watch a movie on a portable player!

Do you have use for placeshifting where you could watch the content from a remote place?
Not really.

Question on this. If there is a charge, which is better, per disc fee or a monthly/yearly subscription that would all X number of managed copies max?
Can you give us some more details about how such a subscription would work? Would it include all movies of all studios? Would we lose the license to all the movies we copied to our servers, once such a subscription runs out? Do you have a ballpark idea of what such a subscription would cost? It might be interesting, but much depends on the exact conditions...

Transplanted from the main Q&A thread.

Most definitely. A scene change happens in one frame or 42 milliseconds. I-frames occur at most every 0.5 seconds. Having these pulses happen way later together with other scene changes really confuses things.

When a difficult scene arrives, you want to be able to see what it does to the peak rate. Seeing that value show up much later when there is an easy scene, together with the value shown being suspect, you don’t really have a useful indicator. It is like the useless graphic equalizer lights on a car stereo. It might be pretty to stare at for a bit but it doesn’t really tell you much.

Maybe for a layman seeing the dial go up and down is eye candy. But for real analysis which we attempted to use it for, it doesn't perform a useful function.

See but that's what I mean - you're changing use contexts on the fly and applying your own value system in presenting your conclusions. No one's using the PS3 bit-rate meter for doing professional work and analysis on a scene... and has anyone said otherwise? BUT, at the same time the truth is you're giving it - and other - bitrate meters too little credit for the insights they are able to provide the viewer in terms of which scenes are more demanding, and how the compressionist ultimately divied up his resources.

I am not aware of anyone using the PS3 meter as an “acceptable basis” for proper analysis of the video. Even if they have in the past, based on description I gave, everyone should know that the player has no way of showing you the real data rate, nor do so at the proper timing. So further reliance on it from here on is not wise.

This thread from 2006 at the launch of the PS3 gives Ben and CJplay's thoughts on the PS3 bitrate meter, and I feel was one of the seminole science/analysis threads on the forum in growing to understand the actual real-world state of encodes, with a focus on VC-1 at the time.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=771949&highlight=superman&page=3

Posts #66 and #75 are two that stand out, but the entire thread is worth reading. You'll see there that although the PS3 bit-rate meter is found to be "off," it is also acknowledged to be a very viable means for the layman to gain insights into a world otherwise closed off to them. That thread was also a cornerstone in what has grown into being Benes' bitrate archives in both the BD and HD DVD sub-forums.

That is not strictly correct. The situation is that we don’t have strong loop filters that make the first encode “look good” by pre-filtering detail and with it, reduce the number of spots that you may have to touch up. So you do need to spend more time possibly to get the final output. But at that point, you have more detail. Use a filter on the video and then encode it and VC-1 encode will be faster and easier than alternatives.

But with that qualifier I'm sure you'll acknowledge it tends to be the case. And beyond the work on the individual encodes themselves, it seems that to become skilled with VC-1 requires a fair amount of training as well; results from MS-assisted/consulted projects still seem a fair bit ahead of what the independent norm is.

Simple, non-format specific question for you then. If you could get the same quality in both, would you want your discs to be BD-50 or BD-25?

If I could get the same quality on both, I'd of course be indifferent. If you could get the same quality encode in half the time as otherwise, wouldn't you of course opt for half the time? Absolutely. And that's because we're setting forth here in your "BD-25-the-same" example and my "half-the-time-the-same" example 'something for nothing' scenarios. The real world isn't yet so simple as far as these formats go and the effort required to derive said results.

(@pierrebnh: I think you're misunderstanding my use of the word plateau; obviously the video quality can always be improved, in any situation short of lossless. But for the purpose of a fixed variable, plateau was used to simply mean 'good enough' for the compressionist's purposes.)

Can you give us some more details about how such a subscription would work?
Happy to but keep in mind that I made up the idea :). Let's say studios want to charge you $3 per copy. If so, then every managed copy requires a financial transaction. To get around this, one could imagine a system where you would pay say, $49/year, and then make X number of copies (say, 50 so that your house doesn't become a copy machine :)). This way, you would get a discount but more importantly, do away with individual transactions.

Would it include all movies of all studios?
This is the tricky part. With so many distributors in the world for video, it is hard to have one stop shop for all. But maybe an arrangement can be made for some, and for the rest, you do them individually. I know, it is not ideal but that's as far as my idea goes right now :).

Would we lose the license to all the movies we copied to our servers, once such a subscription runs out?
No. Once you make a copy, it is yours to keep. Copies have no expiration.

Do you have a ballpark idea of what such a subscription would cost? It might be interesting, but much depends on the exact conditions...
I don't right now. One would have to do some modeling and try to come up with a system that is attractive to you and studios.

Note that my hope is that some copies are actually free. But better start with the point of assuming they are not, and then be pleasantly surprised than the other way around!

I've already built a dedicated movie server a few months ago and I'm already storing all my movies on it. Fortunately managed copy is not necessary anymore (from a strictly technical point of view).

However, I do look forward to managed copy very much, in the hope that I can get rid of all the useless discs sitting on my shelves which are collecting dust right now. I only want to buy a license from the studios and then have the movies stored electronically on my server. Managed copy sounds like it should allow me to buy affordable licenses (cause the reseller might be left out). My dream would be 9.99$ a movie, just for the license. However, I'm not sure if I would be willing to live with the restrictions of a managed copy DRM system. So maybe I would go on using the already existing ways to get DRM free copies of the movies to my server, but nevertheless use the managed copy system to do the payments. I actually do want to pay for every movie I store on my server. However, there's a limit to what I'm willing to pay. Current HD DVD and Blu-Ray movie prices here in Europe are just crazy. Importing from USA is much cheaper for us Europeans than buying locally, despite the high shipping costs from USA!



Hi madshi and Amir,

Please forgive what may be a basic question.

When madshi says that he doesn't need managed copy because he has a dedicated server, does that really apply only to standard DVDs?

Likewise, when he describes "using the already existing ways to get DRM free copies of the movies to my server" I assume that refers to using some sort of decryption software. So to do the same thing for HDM this presupposes the advent of readibly available and illegal HD decryption software?

Larry

Happy to but keep in mind that I made up the idea :). Let's say studios want to charge you $3 per copy. If so, then every managed copy requires a financial transaction. To get around this, one could imagine a system where you would pay say, $49/year, and then make X number of copies (say, 50 so that your house doesn't become a copy machine :)). This way, you would get a discount but more importantly, do away with individual transactions.

No. Once you make a copy, it is yours to keep. Copies have no expiration.

I don't right now. One would have to do some modeling and try to come up with a system that is attractive to you and studios.

Note that my hope is that some copies are actually free. But better start with the point of assuming they are not, and then be pleasantly surprised than the other way around!
Thank you, Amir. It's good to finally be talking about managed copy. It makes me feel it's coming nearer... :)

Anway, my impression is that your view in this discussion is that every person who uses managed copy still has that disc sitting on his shelf. Only in that situation a free managed copy would make sense for the studios. And only in that situation I could imagine a copy price of 3$ (or a subscription copy price of even less per movie).

But my personal need is totally different. And I think most people who are planning to store their movies on a dedicated server would agree with me. My plan is this:

(1) I want to rent a HD DVD or Blu-Ray disc.
(2) If I don't like the movie too much, I won't copy it.
(3) If I like the movie, I want to make a copy of the rented disc to my server.

Could you please try to include this model (or a similar model) in your managed copy plans? Because I absolutely do want to get rid of the discs on my shelf! And of course by getting rid of the discs, I'd also like to get away with a lower price for the "movie license" compared to a conventional consumer who buys the discs and puts it on a shelf.

Thanks!! :)

Hi madshi and Amir,

Please forgive what may be a basic question.

When madshi says that he doesn't need managed copy because he has a dedicated server, does that really apply only to standard DVDs?

Likewise, when he describes "using the already existing ways to get DRM free copies of the movies to my server" I assume that refers to using some sort of decryption software. So to do the same thing for HDM this presupposes the advent of readibly available and illegal HD decryption software?

Larry
He is saying that he will count on copy protection for both formats to stay broken, letting him make copies in the clear. And that he is willing to pay the usage fee, but go ahead and use the software available in dark alleys. The studios will not go along with this unfortunately as they would not want to legitimize this kind of access to their content. Moreover, you will not have access to software from major companies like Apple and Microsoft which may provide better feature set than what is available on the net….

But yes, he is talking about something akin to what is available for DVDs.

But my personal need is totally different. And I think most people who are planning to store their movies on a dedicated server would agree with me. My plan is this:

(1) I want to rent a HD DVD or Blu-Ray disc.
(2) If I don't like the movie too much, I won't copy it.
(3) If I like the movie, I want to make a copy of the rented disc to my server.

Could you please try to include this model (or a similar model) in your managed copy plans? Because I absolutely do want to get rid of the discs on my shelf! And of course by getting rid of the discs, I'd also like to get away with a lower price for the "movie license" compared to a conventional consumer who buys the discs and puts it on a shelf.

Thanks!! :)
Wow. That is a pretty creative scenario! I might make you a job offer to come and work for us to help such work :D.

Alas, the more creative a situation is, the harder it is to get it into the system. Currently, there is an exception to managed copy for rental use. So this would need to be a commercial offer not mandated by AACS.

How do others feel about not having the physical copy in exchange for the level of freedom Madshi describes?

I would hope that any form of MC would be managed by the hardware intrinsically, think Serial Copying Management System of the Sony DATs. Ideally I'd be allowed to make a bit-for bit copy to any harddisk (PC or Mediaserver) but be prevented from making a copy of that copy. I'd consider that fair use.

Regarding a subscription service for managed copies, if it is a necessary evil (I mean that literally), it would have to be region free like the physical format. I believe Xbox live excludes everyone outside the US. As a European customer, I'd hate to be left out of managed copy privileges just because I couldn't sign up.

I think I would prefer a bulk discount arrangement as opposed to a yearly membership as described. So $3 per MC for one offs. Perhaps $20 for 10 MC's and $50 for 50 (to keep it similar to your numbers).

Also, to answer one of your earlier questions, I doubt I would want to maintain the interactivity and menu's from the disc. Here's why. I would want to store the full encode of the disc (which answers another question). Space to store numerous disc's will be at a premium for a few more years yet. In the relm of multi-terabytes as some one else mentioned. So, I'd want the full encode, minus the "fluff".

I personally envision a system that takes from the best elements of MediaCenter and Xbox Live. The application would manage your purchased MC credit's, allow you to buy more on the fly, and when you inserted a disc it would prompt you to purchase the MC credit (if needed) and/or to copy it locally. It would add the movie to a slick interface complete with thumbnails (animated?), synopsis, main credits, and a rating system. I'd love for most stand alone players and the 360 to act as STB's for the convenience and the fact they alreadyhave the horse power to decode the stream and the network connection built in.

Wow. That is a pretty creative scenario! I might make you a job offer to come and work for us to help such work :D.

Alas, the more creative a situation is, the harder it is to get it into the system. Currently, there is an exception to managed copy for rental use. So this would need to be a commercial offer not mandated by AACS.

How do others feel about not having the physical copy in exchange for the level of freedom Madshi describes?

I'm in, provided the flexibility outlined in the "other question thread" present. IOW: it doesn't preclude any of the usage scenarios wherein a physical disc would work (ie- interactivity, multiple playback hardware, etc...)

Thank you, Amir. It's good to finally be talking about managed copy. It makes me feel it's coming nearer... :)

Anway, my impression is that your view in this discussion is that every person who uses managed copy still has that disc sitting on his shelf. Only in that situation a free managed copy would make sense for the studios. And only in that situation I could imagine a copy price of 3$ (or a subscription copy price of even less per movie).

But my personal need is totally different. And I think most people who are planning to store their movies on a dedicated server would agree with me. My plan is this:

(1) I want to rent a HD DVD or Blu-Ray disc.
(2) If I don't like the movie too much, I won't copy it.
(3) If I like the movie, I want to make a copy of the rented disc to my server.

Could you please try to include this model (or a similar model) in your managed copy plans? Because I absolutely do want to get rid of the discs on my shelf! And of course by getting rid of the discs, I'd also like to get away with a lower price for the "movie license" compared to a conventional consumer who buys the discs and puts it on a shelf.

Thanks!! :)

Wow. That is a pretty creative scenario! I might make you a job offer to come and work for us to help such work :D.

Alas, the more creative a situation is, the harder it is to get it into the system. Currently, there is an exception to managed copy for rental use. So this would need to be a commercial offer not mandated by AACS.

How do others feel about not having the physical copy in exchange for the level of freedom Madshi describes?

Hi Amir,

By physical copy I assume you mean discs?

If so, wouldn't we need new HD jukeboxes to even come close to the convenience of an HD media server?

If in the future there is a rental (Video on Demand) one-time fee model, and a purchase a copy for pertetual plays model, then it is only logical that those folk who are not sure they are going to want to collect the title would first rent it. But it would be nice to have madshi's model in which there might be an economic incentive to rent prior to buying.

As madshi point out, it would seem that doing away with the physical copy should result in significantly reduced licensing fees due to the elimination of the entire physical distribution process. Such a reduction in recurring content fees would certainly justify a large one-time investment in an HD media server.

Larry

How do others feel about not having the physical copy in exchange for the level of freedom Madshi describes?

What would be the difference to "Download-to-own" and the like? "Rent-to-copy-to-own"?

I thought "managed copy" was based on having a physical disc to actually copy from, per definition? Or is my definition too narrow or outdated?

Wow. That is a pretty creative scenario! I might make you a job offer to come and work for us to help such work :D.
Heh - thank you, I'm feeling honored! :)

Alas, the more creative a situation is, the harder it is to get it into the system. Currently, there is an exception to managed copy for rental use. So this would need to be a commercial offer not mandated by AACS.
Sure, that'd be fine with me.

Btw, has it been decided yet what happens to a (mandatory managed) copy if a consumer decides to sell the physical disc on Ebay? Will the consumer be allowed to keep the copy on his server? That would be a nice solution for me too, of course... :)

Thank you, Amir. It's good to finally be talking about managed copy. It makes me feel it's coming nearer... :)

Anway, my impression is that your view in this discussion is that every person who uses managed copy still has that disc sitting on his shelf. Only in that situation a free managed copy would make sense for the studios. And only in that situation I could imagine a copy price of 3$ (or a subscription copy price of even less per movie).

But my personal need is totally different. And I think most people who are planning to store their movies on a dedicated server would agree with me. My plan is this:

(1) I want to rent a HD DVD or Blu-Ray disc.
(2) If I don't like the movie too much, I won't copy it.
(3) If I like the movie, I want to make a copy of the rented disc to my server.

Could you please try to include this model (or a similar model) in your managed copy plans? Because I absolutely do want to get rid of the discs on my shelf! And of course by getting rid of the discs, I'd also like to get away with a lower price for the "movie license" compared to a conventional consumer who buys the discs and puts it on a shelf.

Thanks!! :)

That's probably the complete opposite of what I would want, and opposite of what I thought MC was about.

I've worked with computers all my life, so I understand I like to have backup copies of everything I own. Hard drives fail (even RAIDs) :) ... things can go wrong. I don't even like the idea of DLing games to my XBox/360.

However... if you could let me download or copy a rental disc for about a 1/3 of the price (when all I'm buying is bits)... then we'll talk. I'd still want to make backup copies of everything I only have digitally, but I could live without that for the right price.

There would be a network connection to a server in sky authorizing you to make the copy. You would register the first time. If there is no charge for managed copy,then it is all automatic and free from then on. If there is a fee, and it is constant, the process can still be transparent and automatic but obviously, there would be a cost. I am hoping the third option of having variable cost does not come to pass although you could still opt to have automatic billing and authorization.


I've still no idea what a "server in sky" means. But if I have to connect to the internet, register all my details with some company to be able to make a copy of a physical disc I own. That sucks.

It also means it won't work for any machine (such as Blu-ray machines) that don't have internet connections. And it turns out managed copy now means people are going to charge us subscriptions or other fees to make copies for our own use of discs we own (which should fall under "fair use" or similar rights). Managed copy doesn't sound half as good as it used to. :(

He is saying that he will count on copy protection for both formats to stay broken, letting him make copies in the clear. And that he is willing to pay the usage fee, but go ahead and use the software available in dark alleys. The studios will not go along with this unfortunately as they would not want to legitimize this kind of access to their content. Moreover, you will not have access to software from major companies like Apple and Microsoft which may provide better feature set than what is available on the net….

But yes, he is talking about something akin to what is available for DVDs.

What do you think of the Kaleidescape approach?

http://www.kaleidescape.com/company/pr/PR-20070329-DVDCCA.html

There would be a network connection to a server in sky authorizing you to make the copy. You would register the first time. If there is no charge for managed copy,then it is all automatic and free from then on. If there is a fee, and it is constant, the process can still be transparent and automatic but obviously, there would be a cost. I am hoping the third option of having variable cost does not come to pass although you could still opt to have automatic billing and authorization.

...

is MS or the hd dvd forum planning on putting its own birds in the sky?!?

OK, how about a new topic? I talked about managed copy in context of bitrate meter. So I thought we drill down on the former.

How do people feel about managed copy? Would you use it if it were here today? Would you use it on a PC? Or do you want a dedicated server (CE)?

It's this kind of involvement with the intended audience that impressed me so much a year ago before I bought my HD DVD player. Kudos to Amirm for soliciting feedback from us!

I have mixed feelings about Managed Copy. The Engineer and techno-geek part of me wants it really badly, but the homeowner and parent of two and husband of one part of me wonders whether it's really worth the effort it would take to make it happen. That alone is a sign that I'm getting old... :)

Some background may be in order so that my comments are put in the proper context. I have two three HD-capable displays in my home (one being a computer monitor) and three SD-only displays, as well as a portable DVD player and an iPod. All the displays are on different levels of my home, so running an HDMI cable or set of component cables from the basement to the 2nd floor isn't an option.

This situation makes managed copy attractive, because it would open up some flexibility in where and how I watched the content. While I don't watch movies in my bedroom, I would like the ability to watch the extras in the office while I work on other things.

This is one situation which HD DVD has made things more difficult, because with DVD, I can bring the disc into the office, pop it into the DVD player or my PC and watch the extras and listen to the commentary tracks while the movie is playing, but I don't give it my full attention.

I may be different from many enthusiasts here in that I do not own many HD discs. In the year that I've had my HD DVD player, I've purchased a total of four movies. I prefer to rent them from Netflix, as the convenience of that service has severely curbed my disc purchases (both DVD and HD DVD). My thought process is that there has to be a really good reason to pay $20-35 to own a movie (and even in the case of $15 DVD's, do I really need to own them?), when it's just as easy to rent them, watch them when I get the chance, and return them.

Will MC allow for a model like this, where I can rent HD movies for a set price per month, and have three of them on my player at any given time, for $17.99 a month or less? If so, sign me up!

If MC opens up more possibilities and more functionality of the discs available for purchase, it can make the disc more attractive to own vs. rent. Such features can add to the value of the purchase in my mind, since now that I own the disc, I can watch it on all of my devices (assuming that such features will make it into the final product) and make more use out of the investment.

While the idea of setting up a centralized server is cool from a technical perspective, we're not really there yet in respect to hard drive storage. Assuming 30GB per disc, a 1TB drive is only going to hold 34 movies. I know that some people have set up such servers for their DVDs, but I question how mainstream such an activity would be. I rarely have a need for every movie in my DVD collection at my fingertips, while I do have just that setup for my music. I believe there is an inherent difference between how I consume my music collection vs. how I consume my movie collection.

One application that I'm currently seeing a possible need for is in outfitting a vacation rental property. Having a centralized (and locked) server containing movies from which the renter could choose by using the on-screen remote is a very cool and useful solution for that situation. It keeps the discs from walking away and/or getting damaged and allows us to lock the cabinet so the equipment doesn't get damaged or taken either. I'm currently looking at a 400-disc DVD changer for this application, but a server in the basement would be less prone to breaking down, I think.

Through reading the comments so far about MC, I question its value vs. the cost in equipment and effort required to make use of MC. With $199 HD DVD players a reality, the ease of buying another player and inserting a disc into it seems better than having to buy an MC-client box and then setting up the infrastructure required to supply it (central server, network connections, etc.). I'm fortunate in that I wired my house with CAT5 when we built, but most homes built before a couple of years ago probably don't have such conveniences, which is why everyone seems to want every networkable device to have wireless access.

My new DirecTV HD DVR is supposed to be able to play music and display photos across a local network, and I'm interested in checking this out. However, it's going to require that I run a second CAT5 to my cabinet (or disconnect my AudioTron to just see how the feature works) and then run some server software to stream that music and those photos to it. I've had the box for almost two weeks, and I haven't done it yet. Few people I know would even consider taking advantage of that feature due to the complexity of making it happen in their home. Those types of considerations need to be kept in mind when discussing things like MC, IMO.

On to your questions...

Do you want it in your player so that it plays locally? Or would you want to put storage (i.e. server) elsewhere and the stream to your player?

I'm not quite sure I understand the former example. My assumption about MC is that it would be for storing the content on a centralized server somewhere and accessing it from a client box of some kind. If you mean, "would I like to have the client box store a copy so that I don't have to stream it across the network?" I think that makes sense from an architecture standpoint. Let the client box buffer the movie from the central server so that it doesn't bog down the network any more than necessary.

How about streaming to any TV? Would you tolerate a settop box or would you want to the intelligence burried in your new TV?

I would want it in a separate box. I don't replace my TVs often enough, and I like the flexibility of having the separate box so that it can be replaced when it breaks or something new comes along and I can move the old box to another location or sell it or give it to a family member.

What to do with interactivity? Should it be available remotely? If that is too complicated to do (especially in the case of every TV handling it), how useful is the ability to simply play the movie?

All the interactivity should be there in the client/remote location. For every person that says that interactivity doesn't matter, I can introduce you to someone for whom it does matter. It's a bad idea to assume that a consumer doesn't want something, because even if they say they don't now, they want it later and will hold you accountable for not providing it in the first place.

Would you make the copy at full resolution? If so, what if you can't stream it that way? In that case, would you want to just make a lower rate/lower resolution copy or two copies (one high res, the other low res)?

Full resolution. If I didn't want full resolution, I'd go down to Circuit City/Wal-Mart and buy the DVD for $3.99 in the discount bin.

Would you have a use for low resolution "proxy" copies for your portable video player?

When portable video players are capable of playing high resolution files satisfactorily, I can see this. While I wouldn't watch most movies on a portable player, there are some for which the viewing experience is not impacted by watching on a portable screen (say 8-10" in diag.). HDM is not for movies only, so TV shows are a perfect example of not requiring a home theater environment to be enjoyed for what they are.

Having kids has demonstrated the value in having music and movies available in a portable form. I resisted buying a portable DVD player because I've always looked down upon the parents whose kids are watching the drop-down DVD player in the minivan, even when they're just going to soccer practice or being dropped off at daycare. We have used ours for when we're traveling for more than 1-2 hours when it provides a nice distraction after the kids are bored of watching the world go by or tormenting/entertaining each other.

So long as DVD's get cheaper, being able to copy an HD disc down to DVD quality for the portable DVD player probably isn't very necessary, but it would be nice. If I've gone through the work and expense of installing a managed-copy system in my home, this would be a nice additional benefit of that time and money.

Do you have use for placeshifting where you could watch the content from a remote place? Would you pay for that?

I wouldn't pay for it, but then, I don't have a Slingbox and don't have much use for one. I don't travel on a regular basis. If I were stuck in a hotel room with a choice between watching crap on the hotel TV or pulling a few TV shows or a movie from my network at home, I could see the value in that.

I've still no idea what a "server in sky" means. But if I have to connect to the internet, register all my details with some company to be able to make a copy of a physical disc I own. That sucks.
It is no different than buying something from say, Amazon. You are making a transaction and the studio needs to know it is you that is doing it, rather than 100 of your close friends with the same disc :).

Yes, I realize this might create some angst. But to the extent you used your credit card to buy the original movie, then this is not that much different.

It also means it won't work for any machine (such as Blu-ray machines) that don't have internet connections.
No, that is unrelated. A player cannot make a copy as it has no place to put the copy. So we are talking about a new device which has internet connection to be able to handle the studio authorization/purchase.

And it turns out managed copy now means people are going to charge us subscriptions or other fees to make copies for our own use of discs we own (which should fall under "fair use" or similar rights). Managed copy doesn't sound half as good as it used to. :(
I agree it would have been nice for it to be free. And it might turn out that way with some content owners. But for now, we should assume it costs money and see if there is enough interest to implement such a system.

What do you think of the Kaleidescape approach?

http://www.kaleidescape.com/company/pr/PR-20070329-DVDCCA.html
Sorry, I can't make comments on this.

is MS or the hd dvd forum planning on putting its own birds in the sky?!?
I can't say one way or the other. Right now, it is expected that the studios will do this.

Please keep in mind that I am having a generic exchange of ideas here. Nothing should be taken as plans or existing projects to do any of this. Let's learn what you all need and then we can put it into practice :).

I agree it would have been nice for it to be free. And it might turn out that way with some content owners. But for now, we should assume it costs money and see if there is enough interest to implement such a system.

If it costs to make a copy of a disc I own then I'm not interested. Sounds like studios attempting to squash our fair use rights. I don't mind have to register to make my copy, as I understand their desire to protect their works, but I refuse to pay for that copy.

If it costs to make a copy of a disc I own then I'm not interested. Sounds like studios attempting to squash our fair use rights. I don't mind have to register to make my copy, as I understand their desire to protect their works, but I refuse to pay for that copy.
Understood. One request and then a question.

Request is to please not talk about fair use, what people are entitled to, etc. My intetion here is to learn what you, the best customers of such a solution, want as far as the system. Those topics while interesting, don't serve this purpose (no directly anyway) :). Of course, other threads can be created on them.

My question is, what if the cost of the copy was included in the purchase price? What if you got a coupon when you bought it from certain retailers that let you redeem the copy? Would you go for it then?

Understood. One request and then a question.

Request is to please not talk about fair use, what people are entitled to, etc. My intetion here is to learn what you, the best customers of such a solution, want as far as the system. Those topics while interesting, don't serve this purpose (no directly anyway) :). Of course, other threads can be created on them.

My question is, what if the cost of the copy was included in the purchase price? What if you got a coupon when you bought it from certain retailers that let you redeem the copy? Would you go for it then?

Depends on how much extra the discs cost...I absolutely would like to store my movies on a server that makes it easier to find and play...streaming throughout the house would be nice too, but mostly I want to be able to make a copy on what ever media I choose to play in what ever player I choose. I do have to say though, if managed copy isn't about giving consumers fair use back, then the whole issue is much ado about nothing to me.

I'm with Scott @ Bigscreen for most of his points.

In addition, I have used the ability to stream to the x360 quite a bit although it needs to support more formats...

I could see slapping on a media storage add-on to the x360 and letting it manage copy licenses for me, whether sourced from rentals or purchases or even XBL. A 'copy' blade could be designed to also allow the user to obtain a downloadable SD version (presumably at a cost) for transfer to a PC (wired or wireless) for burning to DVD, or to any other media (thumb drive, SD card, etc.). I do think the HDM transfer to the x360 media server storage add-on should be free and included at purchase, but with an authorization code requirement brokered via XBL.

I'm assuming said storage would be encrypted and locked to that one x360's TPM, with a rescue unlock from MS available for failures requiring a 'head-unit' swap.

Yes, I think the x360 could do this nicely without a huge amount of effort. Need to add MPCM output to it though.

Thank you, Amir. It's good to finally be talking about managed copy. It makes me feel it's coming nearer... :)


Same here. :)
For MC, I prefer dedicated storage server+frontend model. Frontend could be PC and CE based. cable/SAT STB. game console, CE bluray/HD DVD player, MCE extender, Vista MCE PC...doesn't matter as long as they are wife friendly. Different types of frontend should be able to stream from the same storage server via the same AACS approved DRM.


I could accept $5-10 for a MC transaction, but there has to be a way to back up my license in case of a storage server failure.


A portable file in SD is good. This would be useful for car PC environment.

My question is, what if the cost of the copy was included in the purchase price? What if you got a coupon when you bought it from certain retailers that let you redeem the copy? Would you go for it then?

I'm still going to say "no" here, but I'll qualify it with my version of why. Basically, the underlying assumption of having a "coupon" or some other tracking mechanism that connotes value for the priviledge of copying something you've already purchased is the same whether you pay an explicit price for it or not. The connotation, to me anyway, is that without that "free coupon" is that such arrangements are restricted, can be altered, changed or otherwise completely revoked. While, as a practical matter, it is not such a big deal, the concept really grates on my nerves. I'd be MORE in favor of some sort of scheme to "register" a copy (almost like a software license) that requires some sort of registration and license code to be entered on screen. Of course this could (and would) be defeated, but its a big enough of a hassle that large scale piraters of video (and consumers) might be deterred, and consumers could go to a website to validate whether or not a code is valid (or has already been issued, purchased).

This is a tricky problem, and I'm sure there are tons of technical and practical hurdles, so I'm sorry to be p*ssing in anyone's Wheaties . . . just my two cents.

EDIT: And no, btw, I don't want to pay (extra or separately) for the priviledge of copying media I already own.

Yes, I think the x360 could do this nicely without a huge amount of effort. Need to add MPCM output to it though.


Or any CE bluray and HD DVD player who has a ethernet jack and proper AACS approved DRM license.

For interactive layer, I thought the key point of HDi is easy to provide seamless experience without the physical disc. HDi application should enjoy much more freedom without a physical copy and storage limit, no?

Or any CE bluray and HD DVD player who has a ethernet jack and proper AACS approved DRM license.[...]

True, but my assumption is that the multi-user horsepower isn't there on those players, both in CPU cycles and bandwidth.

An 8-core x720 :D on the other hand...that's easy to build.

My question is, what if the cost of the copy was included in the purchase price?

Amir, please don't let this cost problem hinder the MMC/MC AACS license any more.

Studios are into MMC/MC mainly because they want generate more revenue beside the physical sales and migrate into future pure digital delivery.

This is understandable. As a consumer, I want MC/MMC because of convenience and streaming. I am willing to pay for this convenience. But the problem is, if there is no MC/MMC license, company around the world will not invest seriouse money to develop decent backend/frontend. No decent frontend means no convenience even if I could rip the copy onto HDD freely.

Look at the situation with DVD, unmanaged copy everywhere but no decent frontend except the expensive K system.

Please get MC/MMC AACS license nailed ASAP even if it is MC instead of MMC. If MC means more revenue, studios would follow anyway. So MC could be MMC in reality.

True, but my assumption is that the multi-user horsepower isn't there on those players, both in CPU cycles and bandwidth.

An 8-core x720 :D on the other hand...that's easy to build.


Why do you need multi-user horsepower? A frontend only need to decode the movie and do the HDi/BD-J which those CE player could already do.

Why do you need multi-user horsepower? A frontend only need to decode the movie and do the HDi/BD-J which those CE player could already do.

Multiple users watching different streamed content throughout the home.

Multiple users watching different streamed content throughout the home.

Ok, apologize for my misunderstanding.:)

I guess some type of HBA card/chip in storage add-on should off load most of the multi-user stream overhead.

I prefer dedicated storage server.

Look at the situation with DVD, unmanaged copy everywhere but no decent frontend except the expensive K system.
What is missing in devices like e.g. the Tvix 5000 to make them not decent enough for your needs?

What is missing in devices like e.g. the Tvix 5000 to make them not decent enough for your needs?

Madshi,

It is about the whole eco-system. Tvix 5000/Lim2000(based on Sigma Design 8624)/MG350HD all years behind K as far as UI and service.

K couldn't do HD because there is no MC license. Vista MCE didn't provide DVD library by default(need reg hack) also because of the sensitive nature.

My question is, what if the cost of the copy was included in the purchase price? What if you got a coupon when you bought it from certain retailers that let you redeem the copy? Would you go for it then?

To me MC all depends on price. If it is going to cost me $10 to make a copy of a $5.99 bargain bin disc, that's just ridiculous.

Honestly, I probably wouldn't do any managed copying if the cost was much more than $2-3 per disc. Or I would only do it for a couple of movies, like the ones the kids watch 400 times a day. I would also expect that if I had a disc failure, I wouldn't have to pay to re-copy all my movies.

If the cost was truly only $2-3, then buying at a place like Best Buy to get a free copy versus buying it for $5 cheaper on Amazon wouldn't make sense to me. I'm sure it would sway others though, based on convenience and a smaller price difference.

How do others feel about not having the physical copy in exchange for the level of freedom Madshi describes?

If I could rent a movie, and if I like it, I could pay something like $10 to copy it, that would be awesome.

But would studios ever consider this, is the question.

How do others feel about not having the physical copy in exchange for the level of freedom Madshi describes?

Personally I'm fine with not having the physical disc, that's how I experience most of my computer software - I simply make backup copies and store the license key safely.

Further more...

A minimum of one free copy wouldn't be too much to ask for. However, I'd go further and state that in order for managed copy to be successful the consumer should be allowed to make one free copy for the type of device (or resolution) he/she wants to display the movie on. For example, one free copy for your home server and one free copy for your portable device. If you can't make a free copy for your portable device, then how is HD DVD going to spread amongst the community? If you cannot make a free copy for your home server, then you live in fear that your kids have scratched all your discs as you come home after work :D.

Video buffs will, however, have more specific demands, and for those a combination of license per disk and various subscriptions may be more appropriate.

Apart from the price issue I think there is still a problem with the perception of DRM'd PC material as being temporary. If it is seen as usually becoming lost in a couple years through loss of the license, license servers, or hardware changes then nobody will really trust it much or be willing to pay much for it.

- Tom

Just include fingerprint bio scanners to every new PC and when you buy content the computer scans your fingerprint and takes a DNA sample which is then used to "personalize" your newly purchased content and this "personalization" is stored on a massive industry shared database for all multimedia content which you can access if you buy a new pc, lose the content, .... This way you would have to either disappear or die and not be able to access your content.:D

No-if MC costs more than $2-3 OR is cumbersome/unfriendly, I will not bother with it and just strip all the DRM and be done with it. When will the madness stop and the studios will realize the billions they invest in each new generation of technology to lock down the content is futile?

No-if MC costs more than $2-3 OR is cumbersome/unfriendly, I will not bother with it and just strip all the DRM and be done with it. When will the madness stop and the studios will realize the billions they invest in each new generation of technology to lock down the content is futile?
They won't ever realize it - they think they have more expertise than a world full of hackers who are just waiting for the next great "unbreakable" protection scheme to come along.

They won't ever realize it - they think they have more expertise than a world full of hackers who are just waiting for the next great "unbreakable" protection scheme to come along.

You're absolutely right!

-t

Catching up with the thread and I wanted to participate in the conversation.


How do people feel about managed copy? Would you use it if it were here today? Would you use it on a PC? Or do you want a dedicated server (CE)?

Do you want it in your player so that it plays locally? Or would you want to put storage (i.e. server) elsewhere and the stream to your player?

How about streaming to any TV? Would you tolerate a settop box or would you want to the intelligence burried in your new TV?

I would use it if it was free. I would copy using a PC to a central server and then stream over a wired (gigabit if needed) connection to set top boxes, preferably media center extenders. I would need to be able to stream to at least 3 different STBs concurrently. Each STB should also maintain independent resume information.

I like my TVs dumb, essentially a monitor so I would not look for this feature in them.


What to do with interactivity? Should it be available remotely? If that is too complicated to do (especially in the case of every TV handling it), how useful is the ability to simply play the movie?

Interactivity and bonus features need to be included, sometimes bonus features are better than the movie.

Playing only the move is extremely useful and great start but we need to demand support for all disc features.


Would you make the copy at full resolution? If so, what if you can't stream it that way? In that case, would you want to just make a lower rate/lower resolution copy or two copies (one high res, the other low res)?

I would copy at full resolution including True HD and at least English subtitles. Again I have piped for gigabit so hopefully streaming should be possible.

I would be interested in lower res copies to free up CPU utilization on the server when streaming to SD televisions.


Would you have a use for low resolution "proxy" copies for your portable video player?

No, I don't own a portable video player. I will be getting one of these soon so I might have a use for this in the future but not today.


Do you have use for placeshifting where you could watch the content from a remote place? Would you pay for that?

No, this is what Netflix instant watch is for.

In my mind Mandated Managed Copy is the greatest feature of HD DVD. People are going to copy movies. If the studios can provide a legal/free method of doing this that does not restrict me in any way, then great.

Why should pirates have the ability to skip/remove the FBI warnings, but not law abiding customers?

It is completely understandable that Managed Copy would of course not be free if you don't own the disc or no longer own the disc. In my mind I see the actual disc as my backup and the digital copies as my library. If i get rid of disc I would also delete the copy. (I'm still grappling with technical feasibility of enforcing this.)

I have never used and will reluctantly use digital downloads when my money is involved. I refuse to tie my purchases to a server operated by a company that might decommission the server at their whim. I need to have all of the rights that I have with physical products.

I need to be able to use them on any compatible device.
I need to be able to lend them to friends.
I need to not depend on the maker of the content for continued usage of the item.

Thanks for reading.

How do people feel about managed copy? Would you use it if it were here today? Would you use it on a PC? Or do you want a dedicated server (CE)?

I would love managed copy and if it was here today I would be using it. I would like to be able to use it on a PC, dedicated Server, SAN, NAS, etc..

Do you want it in your player so that it plays locally? Or would you want to put storage (i.e. server) elsewhere and the stream to your player?

Either of these would be cool. I think we are getting to the point where someone needs to make a combo HDM player/cable box/media streamer. I would only want the copy stored on a player if somehow it was made available to other devices to play as well. Otherwise I would not need the copy and could just play the disc itself.

How about streaming to any TV? Would you tolerate a settop box or would you want to the intelligence burried in your new TV?

No feelings either way about this. However somehow I feel that a piece of a TV would not be updated like a standalone box would be. I would like a device like a Xbox360 to be able to access these stored streams. Better yet turn my HD-A1 into a fully functioning media center. I know the "stuff" is in there to do it :)

What to do with interactivity? Should it be available remotely? If that is too complicated to do (especially in the case of every TV handling it), how useful is the ability to simply play the movie?

Yes. I would like to have all the new fancy menus even if the movie is playing at 480i but would take just being able to play the movie.

Would you make the copy at full resolution? If so, what if you can't stream it that way? In that case, would you want to just make a lower rate/lower resolution copy or two copies (one high res, the other low res)?

Yes I would like to make and stream the copy at full resolution. I my house is wired and I should not have to see a reduced version just because of people using wireless. Actually the way I would like to see it work is that I make a full resolution copy and then pick the way that copy is presented to the connected devices throughout the house. So my HDTV and Theater can get full res movies but the TV in the gym or garage only gets 480i copies.


Would you have a use for low resolution "proxy" copies for your portable video player?

I don't currently have a need for this unless you are talking about a notebook as a portable video player in which case I would like to be able to decide the resolution that I place on the HD. I would be ok with a "timed" copy sitting on my HD.

Do you have use for placeshifting where you could watch the content from a remote place? Would you pay for that?

Don't really have a need for that. I mean I could just press pause on the copy I already have. Unless you are thinking about rentals in which case I think your Xbox live model works for most people with some additional tweaking.

Note that I am not being format specific here and hence the posting in this thread. I will probably put format specific follow ups in specific forum sections.

Laters,
Jeff

Sorry, I can't make comments on this.


But can you comment on this?http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y10/Polardoor/fbe30622.jpg

I saw this in L.A. today, and just happened to have a camera on me.

Branching out eh Amir?:D

It has been brushed upon above but I guess I'll go on record here.

I believe that due to the probable differences in convenience, price, and various restrictions managed copy has a very hard road ahead of it. Managed copy will of course have to compete with unmanaged copy. That is, many users interested in PC's, backups, place & time shifting, etc. will instead just choose to purchase or download a ripping program and create an unmanaged unencumbered copy, ignoring much of the fine print of copyright laws.

I frankly do not believe Hollywood will soon agree to managed copy terms that will effectively compete with this. The holdup in the final AACS agreement is probably testament here. And so far there has been no real evidence the current highdef disc copy protection will be able to really hinder this process much.

Just an opinion.

- Tom

Acute observation, Tom

Insider thread closed.... again.

But can you comment on this?http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y10/Polardoor/fbe30622.jpg

I saw this in L.A. today, and just happened to have a camera on me.

Branching out eh Amir?:D

Amir; if you can comment on this, could that comment include her phone number?

Hi Amir,

As you may remember, I have put together 45 confirmed AVS'ers for an AVS Tour sequel in Toronto for hopefully November. I have some information for you regarding this event that may interest you significantly. As I am not sure how to get in touch with you, would it be possible to PM me with contact information? There are some questions that I need to pose to you also in regards to the scope and size of this event as well. I tried to send you a PM, but for some reason it didn't work for me.

Thank you in advance,

Tim

Amir; if you can comment on this, could that comment include her phone number?
Add 555 to the numbers that represent my name on your phone keybad and you have it. But don't tell anyone else!!!

Hi Amir,

As you may remember, I have put together 45 confirmed AVS'ers for an AVS Tour sequel in Toronto for hopefully November. I have some information for you regarding this event that may interest you significantly. As I am not sure how to get in touch with you, would it be possible to PM me with contact information? There are some questions that I need to pose to you also in regards to the scope and size of this event as well. I tried to send you a PM, but for some reason it didn't work for me.

Thank you in advance,

Tim
Thanks for the interest Tim. PM sent.

Ok Amir. You have ducked my questions about the Xbox 360 HD DVD Add-on and Microsoft's level of seriousness for too long my friend. Is Microsoft going to try and market this thing or not? 6 million Xbox 360 owners in the US right now, and I find it unbelievable and almost criminal that Microsoft is doing VERY LITTLE to sell the add-on to them.

Yeah yeah, it's on the website and there's once in a while a little blurb about it on the blade adverts. But has been little else. Why not put the "Look and Sound of Perfect" trailer at the beginning or end of any Xbox Live Marketplace movie that is distributed by an HD DVD supporting studio?

Best Buy has an endcap in almost every store I go into with an Xbox 360 hooked up to it outside of the game area next to the HDTV's. Why is there no HD DVD drive hooked up to it running the HD DVD demo loop?

I'll take it a step further for you. Just because Microsoft refuses, rightly so, to include the HD DVD drive internally in the Xbox 360 doesn't mean that they can't bundle it EXTERNALLY with the system.

Why not put together a bundle that includes the Pro system with HDMI and the HD DVD add-on, and call it the "Xbox 360 Cinema Edition" or something along those lines? Bundle it with King Kong still or bundle it with 300.


Let me reiterate this number. 6 million. That is 6 million potential customers that only have to spend $179 for their HD DVD player. Oh yeah, and Wal-Mart AND TARGET sell them.

And so far there has been no real evidence the current highdef disc copy protection will be able to really hinder this process much.


Was'nt BD+ supposed to be the wholly grail in being the last line of (impenetrable) defense?:eek: Haha!

Was'nt BD+ supposed to be the wholly grail in being the last line of (impenetrable) defense?:eek: Haha!

BD+ is not much further than the vapor ware stage yet. We don't know if it will protect anything or even if it will be compatible with current properly licensed players.

Curiously, if it does come out, mostly works, and appears uncompromised for awhile it will probably mean the end of the format war since studios will defect from HD DVD in droves if BD+ seems to protect things and AACS by itself cannot.

But I'm not holding my breath on that one. ;)

- Tom

In fairness, it wasn't Amir who brought this up, it was PM if I recall. He was the one who made the comparison and Amir has a right to defend himself against a classless attack. I took it as a juvenile rant similar to "My Dad is better than your Dad because he drives a Mercedes and your Dad drives a Cadillac" type of argument.

Amir, just so we can clear this whole argument of credibility up once and for all... what car does you dad drive?

:)

Daniel

You know what I'd really like? To be able to put a "iTunes" HD-DVD into a XBOX or HD-DVD player and be able to stream my iTunes movies and music to it!

I use Apple, and its a bit annoying that MS and Apple got dragged into the HD-DVD vs Blu-ray thing. Which brings me to my next idea. The biggest problem with iTunes and Xbox live, is that the store is run by one company. As much as I love your intent, and efforts overall, you can never have the depth if your trying to cater for everyone.

What somebody like Microsoft should create is a market participation system. Whereby you provide the means for studio's to provide their files via 3rd party virtual stores to a HD-DVD players or Hard-disk enabled TV's. This would enable something that we know works very well, and that is the "video shop". It creates a market where niche providers can differentiate themselves, customers can easily filter out all the content they're not interested in, studio's can concentrate on movies and you can make a small clip on every transaction without competing with your SME customers. I can choose to "rent" or buy the title as suits my needs.

Customer happy.
Small business happy.
Big business happy.

Daniel.

OK, how about a new topic? I talked about managed copy in context of bitrate meter. So I thought we drill down on the former.

How do people feel about managed copy? Would you use it if it were here today? Would you use it on a PC? Or do you want a dedicated server (CE)?

Do you want it in your player so that it plays locally? Or would you want to put storage (i.e. server) elsewhere and the stream to your player?

How about streaming to any TV? Would you tolerate a settop box or would you want to the intelligence burried in your new TV?

What to do with interactivity? Should it be available remotely? If that is too complicated to do (especially in the case of every TV handling it), how useful is the ability to simply play the movie?

Would you make the copy at full resolution? If so, what if you can't stream it that way? In that case, would you want to just make a lower rate/lower resolution copy or two copies (one high res, the other low res)?

Would you have a use for low resolution "proxy" copies for your portable video player?

Do you have use for placeshifting where you could watch the content from a remote place? Would you pay for that?

Note that I am not being format specific here and hence the posting in this thread. I will probably put format specific follow ups in specific forum sections.

con·sis·tent
marked by harmony, regularity, or steady continuity : free from variation or contradiction.Also:
reproducible: capable of being reproduced
reliable
conforming to the same principles or course of action

None of these mean constant or invariable. Who knows what shading of the word Sony was using

You know what I'd really like? To be able to put a "iTunes" HD-DVD into a XBOX or HD-DVD player and be able to stream my iTunes movies and music to it!

I use Apple, and its a bit annoying that MS and Apple got dragged into the HD-DVD vs Blu-ray thing. Which brings me to my next idea. The biggest problem with iTunes and Xbox live, is that the store is run by one company. As much as I love your intent, and efforts overall, you can never have the depth if your trying to cater for everyone.

What somebody like Microsoft should create is a market participation system. Whereby you provide the means for studio's to provide their files via 3rd party virtual stores to a HD-DVD players or Hard-disk enabled TV's. This would enable something that we know works very well, and that is the "video shop". It creates a market where niche providers can differentiate themselves, customers can easily filter out all the content they're not interested in, studio's can concentrate on movies and you can make a small clip on every transaction without competing with your SME customers. I can choose to "rent" or buy the title as suits my needs.

Customer happy.
Small business happy.
Big business happy.

Daniel.

My desire on this front is very similar. What I "want" in managed copy ("want" in quotes, because I only begrudgingly accept the idea of "managed" copy) is to be able to do what I could do now with a DVD (if only by jumping through hoops) if I wanted to make the effort to do so.

For reference, I have 2 Xbox 360's. One in my living room connected to my main TV (a 52" Sony) and one in my office connected to a 32" Flat Panel (Westinghouse). Both are HD. In addition I have a Toshiba A2, an 80 GB 5.5 iPod and a new 16 GB iPod Touch. I also have a desktop PC with XP and a Macbook.

My perfect scenario is the following. I want the ability to have complete control over where in my house, or on which of my devices I can watch a movie. For example, I buy an HD-DVD or BD (I'm not really interested in HD downloads, I like having physical media at the very least as a back-up for now). To me, as long as I'm not doing anything nefarious, I should be able to watch that movie easily on my main TV, my office TV or either of my iPods. Ideally my HD-DVD player would "unlock" my "managed copy" and allow me to stream (either from a PC, with HD-DVD/BD drive if needed, or from my HD-DVD player) to either 360 (or another device if needed), or allow for me to watch on either of my iPods (obviously I wouldn't be able to take advantage of HD, but I could watch the movie on the go if I desire).

Personally, I think the cost should be included as the purchase price of the disc (or file), even if it means a premium. I'm really not in love with the idea of a yearly fee, or even an additional cost down the road per movie.

In addition, and by far the biggest hurdle, I don't want to have to go with different products in order to do so. I don't want to have to go with a PS3 (although I also have one) and a Sony MP3 player to have this ability. I don't want to have to go with an iPod and Apple TV. I don't want to have to be locked into the 360 and a Zune. I use my 360 WAY more than my PS3 and I wouldn't want to sacrifice that. In addition, I'm way too ingrained with iTunes and the iPod to be forced to go with a different service and a different device. And I don't mean that badly, I really love the iTunes/iPod package and am quite happy with it (and have been since my first iPod).

If someone wants me to go away from Physical media and not continue passing up anything but movies I really, really want in Hi-Def (like buying The Matrix on HD-DVD, but Knocked Up on DVD) that last paragraph is the key. I, like I'm sure many, many other people, don't tie myself to one company in the products that I buy. So I shouldn't be forced to only accept a managed copy scenario that would tie me to buying one companies products. That's what I'd like to see.

BD+ is not much further than the vapor ware stage yet. We don't know if it will protect anything or even if it will be compatible with current properly licensed players.

Curiously, if it does come out, mostly works, and appears uncompromised for awhile it will probably mean the end of the format war since studios will defect from HD DVD in droves if BD+ seems to protect things and AACS by itself cannot.

But I'm not holding my breath on that one. ;)

- Tom

It looks like it's no longer vapor-ware. Though it looks like some of your other points were spot on ... it doesn't look like Day After Tomorrow and FF2 will play in certain players unless you update their firmware. Normally, this wouldn't be a big deal -- except that there isn't firmware available yet. :rolleyes:

It looks like it's no longer vapor-ware. Though it looks like some of your other points were spot on ... it doesn't look like Day After Tomorrow and FF2 will play in certain players unless you update their firmware. Normally, this wouldn't be a big deal -- except that there isn't firmware available yet. :rolleyes:

Well, then we still have to wait and see. I believe smooth playback with BD+ support depends upon the ability to run on-disc real time Java decryption programs of arbitrary (probably increasing) complexity. If a player does not have the power to do this in real time then there may be problems. These may or may not be fixed with better Java support firmware for older players.

And of course it is also still too soon to see if the copy protection is effective. ;)

- Tom

Well, then we still have to wait and see. I believe smooth playback with BD+ support depends upon the ability to run on-disc real time Java decryption programs of arbitrary (probably increasing) complexity. If a player does not have the power to do this in real time then there may be problems. These may or may not be fixed with better Java support firmware for older players.

And of course it is also still too soon to see if the copy protection is effective. ;)

- Tom

I don't see how early players that have severe performance issues with a certain very simple BD Java game can have the required vm performance for descrambling a 1080p24 and embed a video watermark in the video stream.

What is striking is that te first discs that come to market using a higher level of interactivity using Java (and only one is confirmed having BD+) is imediatly giving trouble on a large part of the installed sa player base.

Are they not doing proper testing anymore?
Are BDA companies now working against each other by releasing incompatible software? Or is it simply because they think they can not afford to hold back on interactive BD Java releases anymore pr wise?

Looks like Fox isn't waiting for Samsung and LG to catch up with their firmware. If they even can catch up.

I don't see how early players that have severe performance issues with a certain very simple BD Java game can have the required vm performance for descrambling a 1080p24 and embed a video watermark in the video stream.

What is striking is that te first discs that come to market using a higher level of interactivity using Java (and only one is confirmed having BD+) is imediatly giving trouble on a large part of the installed sa player base.

Are they not doing proper testing anymore?
Are BDA companies now working against each other by releasing incompatible software? Or is it simply because they think they can not afford to hold back on interactive BD Java releases anymore pr wise?

Looks like Fox isn't waiting for Samsung and LG to catch up with their firmware. If they even can catch up.

I am deeply disturbed by this. Its going to be a while before Samsung and LG catch up, if they catch up. There is clearly a problem with BD's QC steps if this has happened. I don't expect these problems to go away anytime soon. in fact I expect more of them. For me the question is when will it happen again? I'm giving up on Fox for now, but the question is what about the rest of BD? The way I see it, I can just keep things the way they are, ie. status quo, or buy a new player, with the possibility that this will happen again anyway. Either way, all that bending over I'll be forced to do is going to be hard on my back. Or, I can bag Blu-ray altogether, since I'm not heavily invested in it yet. I'll have to think about this.
J

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11816226&postcount=1540
Ok Amirm, it looks official as that the first title is coming to HD DVD with DTS Master Audio which is Pans Labryinth. Though I Asked before it wasn't totally clear... Will the current HD DVD players on the market be able to decode this and I am asking about all 3 gen of players? Studio Canal has been doing dts-HD MA on HD DVD's for quite some time. I have both Total Recall and The Pianist with dts lossless. The HD-A35 in users hands now can pass this raw bitstream to an HDMI 1.3 AVR which has the decoder.

But I will say that I don't see much use for 1080p60. It locks in judder.Last I checked most displays are still 60 Hz and as such 1080p60 output makes a lot of sense for a lot of display owners.


The main use of progressive output is 24p.For 24 fps movies that is true, assuming that the display can accept a 1080p24 video signal, but I would point out that for anything made at 30/60 fps you would want 1080p60 output.


Otherwise, people should use 1080i. This will still get them the full resolution on most TVs.Which is a claim that looks to be refuted by the 2006 Home Theater magazine test (http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1106hook/) which indicates that only about 20% of HDTVs could inverse telecine a 1080i60 video signal.

Last I checked most displays are still 60 Hz and as such 1080p60 output makes a lot of sense for a lot of display owners.


Only if that's the native encode, no?


For 24 fps movies that is true, assuming that the display can accept a 1080p24 video signal, but I would point out that for anything made at 30/60 fps you would want 1080p60 output.

But isn't 24fps native for most content?


Which is a claim that looks to be refuted by the 2006 Home Theater magazine test (http://www.hometheatermag.com/hookmeup/1106hook/) which indicates that only about 20% of HDTVs could inverse telecine a 1080i60 video signal.

That's a 2006 test ... there weren't many sets available that could take a 1080p input a year ago much less display 1080p.

Only if that's the native encode, no?For the most part I was referring to 30/60 fps video but I would point out that not all HDTVs that can accept a 1080p60 video signal can accept a 1080p24 video signal.


But isn't 24fps native for most content?For the vast majority of movies that is true but there is a lot of television content that is made at 30/60 fps.


That's a 2006 test ... there weren't many sets available that could take a 1080p input a year ago much less display 1080p.Okay, than how about the upcoming 2007 Home Theater magazine (http://hdguru.com/?p=187) test which indicates that only about 19% of HDTVs could inverse telecine a 1080i60 video signal?

(from the insider's thread)


Originally Posted by amirm
Otherwise, people should use 1080i. This will still get them the full resolution on most TVs.

How many displays did you test to reach the conclusion that most HDTVs would inverse telecine a 1080i60 video signal?


What makes YOU think that inverse telecine is related to resolution?

The main use of progressive output is 24p. Otherwise, people should use 1080i. This will still get them the full resolution on most TVs. And for the other displays, you need to buy a new display as lack of good inverse telecine on 1080i also impacts other programming you watch like broadcast HD.How many displays did you test to reach the conclusion that most HDTVs would inverse telecine a 1080i60 video signal?What makes YOU think that inverse telecine is related to resolution?Amir was clearly referring to inverse telecine capability when he said that and you didn't notice that when you read his post? Simply compare "full resolution on most TVs" to "other displays, you need to buy a new display as lack of good inverse telecine on 1080i".

Amir was clearly referring to inverse telecine capability when he said that and you didn't notice that when you read his post? Simply compare "full resolution on most TVs" to "other displays, you need to buy a new display as lack of good inverse telecine on 1080i".

If that's what you feel he meant, then your question doesn't seem to make sense. Where do you get from his comments that he concluded "most HDTVs would inverse telecine a 1080i60 video signal"?

I don't see any discussion of "most" at all.

If that's what you feel he meant, then your question doesn't seem to make sense. Where do you get from his comments that he concluded "most HDTVs would inverse telecine a 1080i60 video signal"?

I don't see any discussion of "most" at all.

Based on his signature, this appears to be a sticking point for him. If you haeven't noticed, he seems to take anything remotely related to it as a lead in to bring it up again. *shrug*

Amir was clearly referring to inverse telecine capability when he said that and you didn't notice that when you read his post? Simply compare "full resolution on most TVs" to "other displays, you need to buy a new display as lack of good inverse telecine on 1080i".

Buy a quality display! :rolleyes:

To the knowledgeable insiders:

Could you please post typical numbers for royalties for both players and media for BD and HD please?

Thanx in advance,
D

Withdrawn

If that's what you feel he meant, then your question doesn't seem to make sense. Where do you get from his comments that he concluded "most HDTVs would inverse telecine a 1080i60 video signal"?

I don't see any discussion of "most" at all.Well scaesare lets look at the context of the paragraph he posted. Amir talks about 1080p24 output and than tells people that if they can't use that they should use 1080i60 output since it will get them full resolution on most TVs. He than goes on to talk about other displays that lack good inverse telecine on 1080i60 and how if you own one you should buy a new display. Now based on the context of that paragraph it very much looks to me like "full resolution" means inverse telecine. On the other hand you say that he never specifically said that which is true but that would mean that he was actually talking about two completely different things in those two sentences (simple deinterlacing vs inverse telecine). If that is so that means Amir very carefully chose his wording knowing that most HDTVs aren't capable of inverse telecine on a 1080i60 video signal and phrased his answer using a term such as "full resolution" without mentioning that fact. Now to me that comes off looking pretty deceptive since it gives only some of the facts while leaving out other facts but if you want to believe that is what he did you can. Personally I think he just made a mistake since a lot of people don't know that most HDTVs aren't capable of inverse telecine on a 1080i60 video signal.

Well scaesare lets look at the context of the paragraph he posted. Amir talks about 1080p24 output and than tells people that if they can't use that they should use 1080i60 output since it will get them full resolution on most TVs. He than goes on to talk about other displays that lack good inverse telecine on 1080i60 and how if you own one you should buy a new display. Now based on the context of that paragraph it very much looks to me like "full resolution" means inverse telecine. On the other hand you say that he never specifically said that which is true but that would mean that he was actually talking about two completely different things in those two sentences (simple deinterlacing vs inverse telecine). If that is so that means Amir very carefully chose his wording knowing that most HDTVs aren't capable of inverse telecine on a 1080i60 video signal and phrased his answer using a term such as "full resolution" without mentioning that fact. Now to me that comes off looking pretty deceptive since it gives only some of the facts while leaving out other facts but if you want to believe that is what he did you can. Personally I think he just made a mistake since a lot of people don't know that most HDTVs aren't capable of inverse telecine on a 1080i60 video signal.

Waitaminnit. You are (once again) trying to attribute a statement to somebody that it doesn't appear they are making.

You flat-out stated that Amir said that the majority of HDTV's did proper inverse telecine. In fact he's only used the word "telecine" twice in the last 3 months, and neither have anything to do with this discussion.

It seems pretty apparent he meant: "If you have a 1080p24 capable display, use it. Otherwise use 1080i60, as 1080p60 doesn't buy you anything."

How do people feel about managed copy? Would you use it if it were here today? Would you use it on a PC? Or do you want a dedicated server (CE)?

I'd expect to be able to pop a disc in my current HDDVD player (it has everything necessary - optical driv e+ ethernet port) - click a managed copy button and have it copy the content to my pre-definied storage area.

Do you want it in your player so that it plays locally? Or would you want to put storage (i.e. server) elsewhere and the stream to your player?

For the above I want it in storage, but if/when HDDVD recorders become available I want the option of using the player storage as an extention of my networked storage. PS the networked storage device must not be required to have any additional software installed. This is my biggest pet peve with current content streamign technologies, they're often locked to specific content streaming apps that must be installed on the server. Use common storage technologies - see XBMP for examples of this done well.

How about streaming to any TV? Would you tolerate a settop box or would you want to the intelligence burried in your new TV?

Either or, but since my existing player (HDDVD) already has everything necessary (decoders/ethernet port), then using that device as the STB would be sufficient.

Would you make the copy at full resolution? If so, what if you can't stream it that way? In that case, would you want to just make a lower rate/lower resolution copy or two copies (one high res, the other low res)?

Full resolution would be prefered, options to downres would be acceptable as long as full res, original bitrate (i.e. not re-encoded) was selectable.

Well scaesare lets look at the context of the paragraph he posted. Amir talks about 1080p24 output and than tells people that if they can't use that they should use 1080i60 output since it will get them full resolution on most TVs. He than goes on to talk about other displays that lack good inverse telecine on 1080i60 and how if you own one you should buy a new display. Now based on the context of that paragraph it very much looks to me like "full resolution" means inverse telecine. On the other hand you say that he never specifically said that which is true but that would mean that he was actually talking about two completely different things in those two sentences (simple deinterlacing vs inverse telecine). If that is so that means Amir very carefully chose his wording knowing that most HDTVs aren't capable of inverse telecine on a 1080i60 video signal and phrased his answer using a term such as "full resolution" without mentioning that fact. Now to me that comes off looking pretty deceptive since it gives only some of the facts while leaving out other facts but if you want to believe that is what he did you can. Personally I think he just made a mistake since a lot of people don't know that most HDTVs aren't capable of inverse telecine on a 1080i60 video signal.

That's not what he said ... :(

You are (once again) trying to attribute a statement to somebody that it doesn't appear they are making.First off trying to smear someone is a pretty low tactic and how about you stick to debating me instead? After all I clearly stated my reasons for what I think including the obvious context of his post so don't act as though I don't have good reasons for what I have said.


In fact he's only used the word "telecine" twice in the last 3 months, and neither have anything to do with this discussion.Amir used the term "inverse telecine" in that post when talking about the other displays so I don't see how you can say that this has nothing to do with this discussion.

First off trying to smear someone is a pretty low tactic and how about you stick to debating me instead? After all I clearly stated my reasons for what I think including the obvious context of his post so don't act as though I don't have good reasons for what I have said.

OK, the martyr thing is getting old. You admitted saying 2 things you should not have when you implicated all HD DVD companies of wrongdoing. So I'm not accusing of anything. I'm pointing out you seem to be doing this again.

The issue is that the context of his post is anything but what you obviously say it is.

Here is the post (including the part he emphasized in bold) which he was responding to:

Apparently the HD-A35, HD-A30, and HD-A20 have problems resolving full 1080p resolution and exhibit artifacting when set to 1080p60 mode due to incorrect inverse telecine processing. This has been confirmed with test discs and also others have complained about the general quality of the 1080p60 mode. It appears these players are failing to due inverse telecine properly, as 1080p24 output and 1080i output are fine for HD DVD. However, all progressive modes are affected for standard DVD since it is encoded 480i60 and hence must be deinterlaced.



And here is his entire comment:

But I will say that I don't see much use for 1080p60. It locks in judder. The main use of progressive output is 24p. Otherwise, people should use 1080i. This will still get them the full resolution on most TVs. And for the other displays, you need to buy a new display as lack of good inverse telecine on 1080i also impacts other programming you watch like broadcast HD .

So the context is: 1080p60 judders given that the source is 24fps. Therefore it doesn't help you here. Furthermore, 1080i provides equivalent resolution and has no issues on the HD DVD deck, so use that.



Amir used the term "inverse telecine" in that post when talking about the other displays so I don't see how you can say that this has nothing to do with this discussion.

Are you getting de-interlacing and inverse telecine confused Richard?

A display properly de-interlacing a 1080i signal using retains full resolution of a progressive source.

Inverse telecine can extract the original 24fps framerate from a 60i stream, but that has nothing to do with resolution.

Otherwise why did you ask him about inverse telecine, yet quote his comment about resolution?

OK, the martyr thing is getting old. You admitted saying 2 things you should not have when you implicated all HD DVD companies of wrongdoing. So I'm not accusing of anything. I'm pointing out you seem to be doing this again.BS, your trying to smear me whether than debate what I have actually said. Also I never said "all HD DVD companies" and not only are you bringing this up to smear me but your also exaggerating it as well.


Are you getting de-interlacing and inverse telecine confused Richard?I know quite well the difference between the two. In fact you are walking on a razor blade by trying to argue that "full resolution" of a 1080i60 video signal has nothing to do with inverse telecine. After all I think you know what happens if you only do simple de-interlacing on 24 fps video in a 1080i60 video signal. In fact do you remember how Amir recommended you buy a new display (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11821856#post11821856) if your display can't inverse telecine a 1080i60 video signal?


Otherwise why did you ask him about inverse telecine, yet quote his comment about resolution?Well scaesare lets look at the context of the paragraph he posted. Amir talks about 1080p24 output and than tells people that if they can't use that they should use 1080i60 output since it will get them full resolution on most TVs. He than goes on to talk about other displays that lack good inverse telecine on 1080i60 and how if you own one you should buy a new display. Now based on the context of that paragraph it very much looks to me like "full resolution" means inverse telecine. When I read his post that looks obvious to me:The main use of progressive output is 24p. Otherwise, people should use 1080i. This will still get them the full resolution on most TVs. And for the other displays, you need to buy a new display as lack of good inverse telecine on 1080i also impacts other programming you watch like broadcast HD.

BS, your trying to smear me whether than debate what I have actually said. Also I never said "all HD DVD companies" and not only are you bringing this up to smear me but your also exaggerating it as well.
snip...........


1080i vs. 1080p output has been a major issue that you have been raising lately. Can you help me understand the point your making? Do you feel it's wrong to sell players that can only output 1080i? Do you feel that people who buy one of these models are being misled in some way? I understand you're passionate about this, but I'm trying to figure out the point you're driving at.

BS, your trying to smear me whether than debate what I have actually said. Also I never said "all HD DVD companies" and not only are you bringing this up to smear me but your also exaggerating it as well.

Eh? Everything I've posted has been about what you said.

However, you are correct in that you didn't say "all HD DVD companies". You said "the HD DVD companies (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showpost.php?p=11643721&postcount=1085)" Plural. Inclusive.


I know quite well the difference between the two. In fact you are walking on a razor blade by trying to argue that "full resolution" of a 1080i60 video signal has nothing to do with inverse telecine. After all I think you know what happens if you only do simple de-interlacing on 24 fps video in a 1080i60 video signal. In fact do you remember how Amir recommended you buy a new display (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=11821856#post11821856) if your display can't inverse telecine a 1080i60 video signal?


Right. What he says is in line with how he introduced that paragraph, "But I will say that I don't see much use for 1080p60. It locks in judder.".

Seriously, read that entire thread again Richard, and consider the idea that he's stating that 60p is no real benefit. 24p is where it's at for progressive output. Otherwise 60i as a transmission format introduces no loss of resolution. Particularly look at Ruined's question to him... which is regarding 60p.

You'll find that if you read it that way, the entire logic chain he's using is clean. It doesnt have to be shoehorned in to the statements you seem bent on insisting he's making.

Well scaesare lets look at the context of the paragraph he posted. Amir talks about 1080p24 output and than tells people that if they can't use that they should use 1080i60 output since it will get them full resolution on most TVs. He than goes on to talk about other displays that lack good inverse telecine on 1080i60 and how if you own one you should buy a new display. Now based on the context of that paragraph it very much looks to me like "full resolution" means inverse telecine. When I read his post that looks obvious to me:

Then you need to read it again.

People think 60p is "more betterer". It's largely marketing, given the source material available to us. 24p is great. Otherwise 60i is fine, it's not any less resolution than 60p.

He's addressing the "60p is broken" issue Ruined brought up, and also suggesting 24p is the real valuable support to have. It's two distinct but related concepts addressed in the same response.

Can you help me understand the point your making?Simply that most current HDTVs can't inverse telecine a 1080i60 video signal.


Do you feel it's wrong to sell players that can only output 1080i?No.


Do you feel that people who buy one of these models are being misled in some way?Well that would depend on what they have been told.


...
You'll find that if you read it that way, the entire logic chain he's using is clean. It doesnt have to be shoehorned in to the statements you seem bent on insisting he's making.From what I see my explanation is perfectly logical and you have yet to refute my explanation. Also I will point out that if a HDTV does simple de-interlacing on 24 fps video in a 1080i60 video signal it ends up putting the wrong fields together with 2 out of every 5 frames.


24p is where it's at for progressive output. Otherwise 60i as a transmission format introduces no loss of resolution.Very carefully worded and as a transmission format that is true but that is not what I am talking about and that is not what Amir said.


24p is great. Otherwise 60i is fine, it's not any less resolution than 60p.That depends on the HDTV and with a 1080i60 video signal most HDTVs either lose half the resolution or put the wrong fields together with 2 out of every 5 frames.

From what I see my explanation is perfectly logical and you have yet to refute my explanation. Also I will point out that if a HDTV does simple de-interlacing on 24 fps video in a 1080i60 video signal it ends up putting the wrong fields together with 2 out of every 5 frames.Yep, and this is so horribly noticeable that people complain about it constantly on all the HD broadcast shows on cable today...

... *crickets* ...

Hmm.. not hearing the complaints.

It appears that either everyone owns a pioneer, or it's not nearly as big an issue as you are making it out to be. In general, all you'll see is a bit of combing on high motion frames. Not what you'd want, which is why Amir suggested you buy a TV that inverse telecines properly, but not the end of the world either.

From what I see my explanation is perfectly logical and you have yet to refute my explanation. Also I will point out that if a HDTV does simple de-interlacing on 24 fps video in a 1080i60 video signal it ends up putting the wrong fields together with 2 out of every 5 frames.

What I refute is your question to Amir that ties resolution to IVTC. You quoted him stating that 1080i delivers full resolution, yet you ask about IVTC.

The two are NOT the same, Richard Paul. Try as hard as you want to say that they are, but they are distinct issues.

IVTC issues include judder, combing, etc, Now de-interlacing can screw up resolution. But your assertions regarding resolution and IVTC are NOT correct. If you have a source discussing loss of resolution, as opposed to judder or combing, I'd appreciate seeing it.

I think we both know Amir is smart enough to understand the difference between the two. And read the thread realizing that, his statements are accurate, there is no disparity. But try to combine the two, as your question does, then things don't make sense.


Very carefully worded and as a transmission format that is true but that is not what I am talking about and that is not what Amir said.

You are a stickler for details, Richard. Therefore I encourage you to re-read Ruined's question that Amir was answering. He was aking about what Toshiba decks could output. Indeed, what they were transmitting.

As a matter of fact Amir even introduced his 24p vs. 60i comment with, "The main use of progressive output..."


That depends on the HDTV and with a 1080i60 video signal most HDTVs either lose half the resolution or put the wrong fields together with 2 out of every 5 frames.

Let me ask you to be clear. Are you now claiming that the "lose half the resolution" portion of your comment has to do with IVTC, and not with de-interlacing? Are you lumping in spatial AND temporal issues under inverse telecine?

I beg the patience of readers and mods on this subject. The topic of 60i vs. 60p along with 24p content and the associated issues are ones that confuse many people. I'm attempting to challange the data here in order to make it clear what an idustry insider, whom many will put stock in, has said. And more importantly has NOT said.

Yep, and this is so horribly noticeable that people complain about it constantly on all the HD broadcast shows on cable today...

... *crickets* ...

Hmm.. not hearing the complaints.

It appears that either everyone owns a pioneer, or it's not nearly as big an issue as you are making it out to be.Well its up to you whether you consider this to be a major or minor issue but I think that people should know about it.


What I refute is your question to Amir that ties resolution to IVTC. You quoted him stating that 1080i delivers full resolution, yet you ask about IVTC.And from what I can see of the context of his post that is what he was talking about when he said "full resolution" and I have explained the reasons why I believe that.


The two are NOT the same, Richard Paul. Try as hard as you want to say that they are, but they are distinct issues.Yeah, because putting the wrong fields together when making frames has nothing to do with getting the full resolution of the video :rolleyes:. Even if we ignore the context of Amir's post the argument that full resolution and inverse telecine are distinct issues rings rather hollow.


That depends on the HDTV and with a 1080i60 video signal most HDTVs either lose half the resolution or put the wrong fields together with 2 out of every 5 frames.Let me ask you to be clear. Are you now claiming that the "lose half the resolution" portion of your comment has to do with IVTC, and not with de-interlacing? Are you lumping in spatial AND temporal issues under inverse telecine?I was simply replying to the statement you made and what I said is 100% true or are you really going to argue that it isn't? Also note that I used an "either or" structure in that sentence so obviously I was referring to two different things (bob de-interlacing vs weave de-interlacing).


I beg the patience of readers and mods on this subject. The topic of 60i vs. 60p along with 24p content and the associated issues are ones that confuse many people. I'm attempting to challange the data here in order to make it clear what an idustry insider, whom many will put stock in, has said. And more importantly has NOT said.Amir despite being an industry insider has made mistakes before, a few of which I have corrected, and in my opinion he simply made a mistake about this issue. Personally I don't understand why you are so adamant in arguing that he has not and so far even Amir has not bothered to comment about his earlier post.

Well its up to you whether you consider this to be a major or minor issue but I think that people should know about it.


And from what I can see of the context of his post that is what he was talking about when he said "full resolution" and I have explained the reasons why I believe that.

Well, you are going to believe what you want, obviously. I'll not belabor the point any further.

For the lookers on *those who haven't already gouged their eyeballs out that is), I hope highlighting the issue, and specifically the question Amir was answering, helps them to recognize that Amir's comments do not necessarily support what you are claiming he said.

There's enough confusion regarding the subject matter as it is.


Yeah, because putting the wrong fields together when making frames has nothing to do with getting the full resolution of the video :rolleyes:. Even if we ignore the context of Amir's post the argument that full resolution and inverse telecine are distinct issues rings rather hollow.

Richard, you are perhaps one of THE foremost sticklers for words on this forum. For you to defend the improper use of the phrase "loss of resolution", when faulty IVTC instead causes temporal artifacts is beyond me. They are distinct things.


If you have any technical data that says otherwise, please share it with us. If not, then I'll leave you to your opinions and stop beating the expired equine.

Wow ... just ... wow ... :rolleyes:

I'm going to have to agree with scaesare here ... Richard, you seem to be trying to shoehorn something Amir said (and didn't say) so that you can use it to bring up this Inverse-Telecine thing all over again.

I just don't understand how someone who quickly corrects and focuses on every single word someone with an opposing viewpoint states can so easily mush things together when it suits them. :(

Can any of the HD-DVD insiders comment on this news from "The Digital Bits":

...the HD-DVD Promotions Group quickly countered with a little damage control, making sure everyone knew that the DVD Forum was close to approving the spec for a triple-layer 51GB HD-DVD disc. However, industry sources are telling us that NONE of the existing Toshiba HD-DVD players and drives are currently capable of reading them. Indeed, the Video Business story indicates that once the spec is finalized, "compatibility with current HD DVD player and recorders can be investigated." According to reports from Bits readers who were on at CEATAC this weekend, Toshiba reps confirmed to attendees that the triple-layer disc configuration would require a hardware change, meaning that the existing drives are not firmware updatable.

I doubt we will ever see TL51's used.

Wow ... just ... wow ... :rolleyes:

I'm going to have to agree with scaesare here ... Richard, you seem to be trying to shoehorn something Amir said (and didn't say) so that you can use it to bring up this Inverse-Telecine thing all over again.

I just don't understand how someone who quickly corrects and focuses on every single word someone with an opposing viewpoint states can so easily mush things together when it suits them. :(
The minutia and inconsequential discussed here makes me dizzy. The issue is a home theater movie experience, at an affordable price. More is not better if it doesn't contribute. Skip the hype please.

The minutia and inconsequential discussed here makes me dizzy. The issue is a home theater movie experience, at an affordable price. More is not better if it doesn't contribute. Skip the hype please.

Alas, our complaints continue to be ignored.

I doubt we will ever see TL51's used.

Hi Dave,

Could you please elaborate by stating your reasons?

Is that because of questions regarding backward compatibility with existing HD DVD players, or anticipated low yields, or because it is more economical to add an other disc rather than use a T51? None of the above?

Does your comment pertain to Twin discs as well?

Thanks.

Larry

Dave,
Any inside info on TL51?

It is not based on any inside information, but on my own observations. The more layers you add to a disc, the greater the complexity of manufacturing the disc. Frankly, I don't even know why they pursued it. The HD DVD folks have been saying all along that 30GB is enough space, but then start working on TL51 discs. It begs the question, why? Is 30GB enough or not? Maybe there is something behind the scenes with Disney or something????

IMO, space isn't the issue with HD DVD, it's achilles heal is the peak bandwidth. It is manageable, but is gives the BDA a good talking point.

It is not based on any inside information, but on my own observations. The more layers you add to a disc, the greater the complexity of manufacturing the disc. Frankly, I don't even know why they pursued it. The HD DVD folks have been saying all along that 30GB is enough space, but then start working on TL51 discs. It begs the question, why? Is 30GB enough or not? Maybe there is something behind the scenes with Disney or something????

IMO, space isn't the issue with HD DVD, it's achilles heal is the peak bandwidth. It is manageable, but is gives the BDA a good talking point.

Dave, any ideas why they didnt have a bigger bandwidth from beginning?
Anything to do with hardware prices?

I have no idea why, but will do some checking to see.

How about the 34gb? Is that more likely to work vs. the 51gb? If 34gb is readable, does the bandwidth increase?

Dear insiders!

I'd appreciate very much your thoughts on what applications the 200GB BD and HD discs will be targeting.

Many thanx.
D

How about the 34gb? Is that more likely to work vs. the 51gb? If 34gb is readable, does the bandwidth increase?

Bandwidth has nothing to do with disc capacity, it is player hardware related mostly.

Bandwidth has nothing to do with disc capacity, it is player hardware related mostly.

If the pits are closer together and the disc is spinning at the same rate, then bandwidth by definition has to be higher. As to whether the rest of the electronics can cope with higher data rate, that is unknown, but my guess is that it should not be a problem given that its only ~12% higher throughput. Getting the maximum video/audio bandwidth to 35Mbps should help in giving HD DVD some breathing room.

. Maybe there is something behind the scenes with Disney or something????

.

Your really grasping at air now !

Johnny...that was a tongue in cheek reply. I meant to put in a ;) but got distracted by my kids.

Johnny...that was a tongue in cheek reply. I meant to put in a ;) but got distracted by my kids.

:)

Well scaesare lets look at the context of the paragraph he posted. Amir talks about 1080p24 output and than tells people that if they can't use that they should use 1080i60 output since it will get them full resolution on most TVs. He than goes on to talk about other displays that lack good inverse telecine on 1080i60 and how if you own one you should buy a new display. Now based on the context of that paragraph it very much looks to me like "full resolution" means inverse telecine. On the other hand you say that he never specifically said that which is true but that would mean that he was actually talking about two completely different things in those two sentences (simple deinterlacing vs inverse telecine). If that is so that means Amir very carefully chose his wording knowing that most HDTVs aren't capable of inverse telecine on a 1080i60 video signal and phrased his answer using a term such as "full resolution" without mentioning that fact. Now to me that comes off looking pretty deceptive since it gives only some of the facts while leaving out other facts but if you want to believe that is what he did you can. Personally I think he just made a mistake since a lot of people don't know that most HDTVs aren't capable of inverse telecine on a 1080i60 video signal.



And while you're accusing other of carefully choosing their words for the purpose of deceiving, you're doing the same thing. Let's take a step back here and look at what we're really talking about.

You keep harping on this talking point that "most HDTVs aren't capable of inverse telecine on a 1080i60 signal." At any point did you stop to consider that there may very well be a reasonable explanation for this? Like maybe the fact that there is NO REASON to 'inverse telecine' a 1080i60 signal if you are sending it to a 1080i or 720p 60Hz-native television (which is what MOST people have). The only reason to do this is if you are sending it to a display that can take a 1080p24 input. This is a very small percentage of HDTVs in use. Most 1080p displays are native 60Hz, so there is little reason to support a reverse-pulldown 24p signal (of course a handful of sets do, and those may produce a smoother picture if fed a 1080p24 signal, but that's debatable).

So, let's review real quick:

If you have a 1080i60 or a 720p60 native display, a 1080i60 signal will give you the best quality from a 1080p24/film source.

If you have a 1080p60 native display, a 1080i60 signal will give you the best quality from a 1080p24/film source.

If you have a 1080p24 native display, a 1080p24 signal will give you the best quality from a 1080p24/film source. If you can't send the signal that way or the display can't accept it, a 1080i60 signal should look just as good if you let the display perform the reverse-pulldown (of course, this hasn't always been the case, and I believe this is where your concern stems from)

But let's not extrapolate this tiny problem with SOME 1080p sets into some sort of problem with MOST HDTVs. And let's not pretend like Amir was speaking about MOST HDTVs. He was very clearly having a conversation about 1080i vs 1080p signals on 1080p60 sets. So when he said "most TVs" he meant "most 1080p60 TVs".

I don't think we need to lynch him over syntax. (maybe for leaving AVS, but lynching is definitely out for syntax)

Richard, you are perhaps one of THE foremost sticklers for words on this forum. For you to defend the improper use of the phrase "loss of resolution", when faulty IVTC instead causes temporal artifacts is beyond me. They are distinct things.So even if you have half the pixels in the wrong frames that has nothing to do with getting the "full resolution" from a movie? That is what Amir said and in combination with the context of his post I think it is obvious what he meant, but obviously we aren't going to agree on that.


And while you're accusing other of carefully choosing their words for the purpose of deceiving, you're doing the same thing.It was a hypothetical that I didn't even consider likely but don't bother to mention facts like that.


You keep harping on this talking point that "most HDTVs aren't capable of inverse telecine on a 1080i60 signal." At any point did you stop to consider that there may very well be a reasonable explanation for this?It is easier and cheaper to build processing chips for 720p/1080p displays that don't do it than to build processing chips that can inverse telecine a 1080i60 video signal. There isn't any mystery about that.


Like maybe the fact that there is NO REASON to 'inverse telecine' a 1080i60 signal if you are sending it to a 1080i or 720p 60Hz-native television (which is what MOST people have). Well for a 1080i60 display I would agree with you but you are wrong about 720p displays.


If you have a 1080i60 or a 720p60 native display, a 1080i60 signal will give you the best quality from a 1080p24/film source.Well for 720p displays that depends on the display. Also I can tell you for a fact that there are 720p 60 Hz displays that in terms of 24 fps video do better with a 720p60 video signal than with a 1080i60 video signal.


If you have a 1080p60 native display, a 1080i60 signal will give you the best quality from a 1080p24/film source.That depends on the display. Also I can tell you for a fact that there are 1080p 60 Hz displays that in terms of 24 fps video do better with a 1080p60 video signal than with a 1080i60 video signal.


He was very clearly having a conversation about 1080i vs 1080p signals on 1080p60 sets. So when he said "most TVs" he meant "most 1080p60 TVs".Well based on the context of his post I assumed he was referring to 1080p displays though I don't really see why you believe he was only referring to 60 Hz displays.


I don't think we need to lynch him over syntax.Everyone makes mistakes and personally speaking I didn't expect that saying Amir made a mistake would cause a 5 day argument.

snip......

Everyone makes mistakes and personally speaking I didn't expect that saying Amir made a mistake would cause a 5 day argument.

Can we go back to arguing over lossless audio again?

It's a joke, please let's not, there must be something else we can argue about. :)

I was worried this thread would become boring after we had driven off all the insiders.
But then I realized we can still argue over the dogma of the Gospel of Paidgeek or Amirm for years to come.

But let's don't.

- Tom

...

"If you have any technical data that says otherwise, please share it with us. If not, then I'll leave you to your opinions and stop beating the expired equine."

So even if you have half the pixels in the wrong frames that has nothing to do with getting the "full resolution" from a movie? That is what Amir said and in combination with the context of his post I think it is obvious what he meant, but obviously we aren't going to agree on that."Full resolution" means getting 1080 distinct (resolvable) lines per frame. The only time this does not happen is for the HDTVs that bob their frames. Just because you're getting a temporal artifact does not mean you are not seeing full resolution. Seeing combing almost guarantees you are getting full resolution. If, in fact, the TV bobbed instead of deinterlacing, then you would not get combing (since you'd get 60 frames of effective 540p).

When you place so much value on semantics, and are having a semantic argument about what someone meant, you should really make sure you at least know the definition of the words you're arguing about.

Anyway, once we've agreed on what the meaning of "is" is, we can probably have a meaningful conversation about this. Until then, people are just arguing at cross purposes.

"Full resolution" means getting 1080 distinct (resolvable) lines per frame.Once again I think the context of what Amir said is pretty obvious and in fact no one has actually argued with the explanation I have given about that. Instead they simply ignore that explanation, ignore the context of what Amir said, and than state as a fact that Amir did not mean that. It would almost be funny if it wasn't for the fact that it has gone on for 6 days straight.


When you place so much value on semantics, and are having a semantic argument about what someone meant, you should really make sure you at least know the definition of the words you're arguing about.bkilian, lets look at the context of the paragraph that Amir posted. Amir talks about 1080p24 output and than tells people that if they can't use that they should use 1080i60 output since it will get them full resolution on most TVs. He than goes on to talk about other displays that lack good inverse telecine on 1080i60 and how if you own one you should buy a new display. Now based on the context of that paragraph it very much looks to me like "full resolution" means inverse telecine. I have yet to see a better explanation that doesn't ignore certain statements that he made.