A lot of has been made about the lack of a 1.1 spec for bluray.
What reason do we have to believe that the IFA announced bluray cant be firmware upgraded to support the 1.1 (or in some cases 2.0) profile.
People from both camps assume this, yet nobody has offered conclusive proof that this is indeed the case. Afterall the new Samsung BP1400 has an ethernet port on the back of it, right next the BD-Java logo.


On another note, I am now format neutral, because my mom bought me an HD-DVD player. So I will get to see first hand if the best HD-DVDs are better than the best blurays.


GAME ON.

The P1200 has an ethernet port as does the P1400.

Java has NOTHING to do with 1.1 or 2.0. These are primarily hardware issues having to do with the SoC.

The SoC must have twin processors so that DS PIP and DS Audio are possible. Plus the SoC must be able to handle Luma Keying. The player must have 256 MB of memory.

There are (according to Keith of SIGMA) 3 SoC's that can be used for 1.1/2.0:

The SIGMA 8634 Rev.C
The Broadcom BCM-7440B
An unknown third co. - keith doesn't want to tell us who for some reason.

All brand new SoC's.

For 2.0 Web enable (BD-Live) the memory climbs to 1 GB and Ethernet port is mandatory.

If the correct SoC is NOT in the player than it is impossible to upgrade it with firmware. There is talk that extra memory may be solved . . . you are going to love this one;

By the owner of the player having to buy an additional memory module of some kind with 768 MB and plugging into the USB port. It will be propriatary.

ANY new player that streets BEFORE 11/1/07 can be a 1.0 player. Any new player that streets AFTER 11/1/07 MUST be a 1.1 player.

The P1200 has an ethernet port as does the P1400.

Java has NOTHING to do with 1.1 or 2.0. These are primarily hardware issues having to do with the SoC.

The SoC must have twin processors so that DS PIP and DS Audio are possible. Plus the SoC must be able to handle Luma Keying. The player must have 256 MB of memory.

There are (according to Keith of SIGMA) 3 SoC's that can be used for 1.1/2.0:

The SIGMA 8634 Rev.C
The Broadcom BCM-7440B
An unknown third co. - keith doesn't want to tell us who for some reason.

For 2.0 Web enable (BD-Live) the memory climbs to 1 GB and Ethernet port is mandatory.

If the correct SoC is NOT in the player than it is impossible to upgrade it with firmware. There is talk that extra memory may be solved . . . you are going to love this one;

By the owner of the player having to buy an additional memory module of some kind with 768 MB and plugging into the USB port. It will be propriatary.

I know all of that, but who is to say that the players dont have those hardware and memory already built in, just waiting for the proper software.

Here - read this:

http://www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11397#iij

Big chart at the end of the link

ANY new player that streets BEFORE 11/1/07 can be a 1.0 player. Any new player that streets AFTER 11/1/07 MUST be a 1.1 player.

I think statements by insiders to date have specifically said those released to date don't have the required hardware, so no firmware update is possible.

And given the amount of attention, it would be in manufacturers' interests to indicate very clearly any new players that are BD 1.1 capable.

So far... nothing...
------------------
BTW, shouldn't this be in the BD player topic?

Here - read this:

http://www.emedialive.com/articles/readarticle.aspx?articleid=11397#iij

Big chart at the end of the link

ANY new player that streets BEFORE 11/1/07 can be a 1.0 player. Any new player that streets AFTER 11/1/07 MUST be a 1.1 player.

So basically, unless the firmware is capable of doing some chip installs and sodering... no. :)

Picture-in-Picture (PiP) = second video processor
Audio mixing (secondary audio) = second audio processor
Local/persistent storage 256 MB (built-in or removable) = built in memory or USB/SD port

Sounds like everyone that doesn't own a PS3 is SOL. Thanks Sony!!!!

I know all of that, but who is to say that the players dont have those hardware and memory already built in, just waiting for the proper software.Seems likely to me that at least some of them do have the required hardware. Until final compliance testing results have been evaluated and the BDA is ready to start announcing 1.1 (or Final Standard Profile) capable players I wouln't expect them to make any announcement of an upgrade capability. If this happens then you may start to see those types of announcements; again, assuming they have the correct SoC and access to memory onboard. BD-Live also requires an internet connection, which some players have already.

IMO If we don't hear some news regarding availabilty of FSP players in the next few weeks I'd think they'd have to announce an extension of the deadline (this would assume testing revealed issues).

Seems likely to me that at least some of them do have the required hardware. Until final compliance testing results have been evaluated and the BDA is ready to start announcing 1.1 (or Final Standard Profile) capable players I wouln't expect them to make any announcement of an upgrade capability. If this happens then you may start to see those types of announcements; again, assuming they have the correct SoC and access to memory onboard. BD-Live also requires an internet connection, which some players have already.

IMO If we don't hear some news regarding availabilty of FSP players in the next few weeks I'd think they'd have to announce an extension of the deadline (this would assume testing revealed issues).

Not according to Andy Parsons

“All players after Oct. 31 must comply with that (1.1 profile). That’s not going to change.” And for picture-in-picture features, a workaround is possible without a second video recorder, due to the larger capacity of Blu-ray, Gregorich noted: two copies of the same film can be included on one BD-50, one where the secondary picture is burned into the film, the second including only the standard film.

http://www.allthingshidef.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=3C644C50F0DA47FDA581C56C5FDF5FC7&nm=Hi-Def+News&type=news&mod=News&mid=9A02E3B96F2A415ABC72CB5F516B4C10&tier=3&nid=491962167AC04FE79ACCC803B6D481AA[/QUOTE]

Picture-in-Picture (PiP) = second video processor
Audio mixing (secondary audio) = second audio processor

Maybe this can be done with software assuming the processor is powerfully enough. Toshiba HD-A1 is basically a computer and I don't think it has any of the SoC you mention, and yet the A1 can do PiP. Another reason I think it can be done is because of the pop-up menus. All blu-ray players are able to overlay the menus on top of the main video stream. However there is a big difference between rendering menus and rendering a video stream. The PS3 uses the Cell Processor for rendering video, but again it is a Cell Processor.

Oh well just throwing some ideas in.

The conclusion to all of this is:

We just dont know.

<sigh>

Seems likely to me that at least some of them do have the required hardware. Until final compliance testing results have been evaluated and the BDA is ready to start announcing 1.1 (or Final Standard Profile) capable players I wouln't expect them to make any announcement of an upgrade capability. If this happens then you may start to see those types of announcements; again, assuming they have the correct SoC and access to memory onboard. BD-Live also requires an internet connection, which some players have already.

IMO If we don't hear some news regarding availabilty of FSP players in the next few weeks I'd think they'd have to announce an extension of the deadline (this would assume testing revealed issues).

I was told by a certain someone with the initials B.H. that something could be announced as early as this week. We shall see.

The conclusion to all of this is:

We just dont know.

<sigh>

Not so. We do know. None of the Gen1 nor Gen2 players are upgradeable because the special SoC's didn't exist.

If a BD player is announced and streets by 10/31 - it is a 1.0 player. So when will the Sony 500 and 2000 street?

The Samsung P1400 is out. the 2400 is cancelled and the 5000 DF player has been delayed to Dec. so it has to be a 1.1 player.

The new Phillips came out the beginning of this month.

There is no new Panasonic - just the gen 1 (10) and a gen 1 with a factory firmware upgrade and 5 BD's in the box (10A)

The Daewoo was announced as both 1.1 and 2.0 compliant but we have yet to hear anything further.

The Loewe - nothing.

The Denon - 2008

The Sharp - ?

Did I miss any?

What I would like to see would be a compilation of all BD players, both past, present, and planned for the future; with details of the hardware inside; ie: which SoC; how much persistent memory, internet conn yes/no, etc. The future announced players may be hard to get a handle on, but if we know that a player meets the hardware requirements then it would seem logical that a firmware update could be done to enable FSP. This would seem to be the case with PS3; no actual annoucement, but most assume it could be updated since the processor is powerful enough, it has enough memory, and has an internet connection.

Before there was a HD-DVD player that supported bitstream everyone was saying that TrueHD & DTS-HD-MA bitstreaming wouldn't work because all disc are authored in Advance Content mode which prevented this. With the new Toshiba HD-A35 this has now confirmed not true.

So I agree with Merrick97, we just don't know. If you care about the extra features you should wait until there is a confirmed profile 1.1 or 2.0 player out. Don't buy now with the hope that it can be upgraded later.

Before there was a HD-DVD player that supported bitstream everyone was saying that TrueHD & DTS-HD-MA bitstreaming wouldn't work because all disc are authored in Advance Content mode which prevented this. With the new Toshiba HD-A3 this has now confirmed not true.

So I agree with Merrick97, we just don't know. If you care about the extra features you should wait until there is a confirmed profile 1.1 or 2.0 player out. Don't buy now with the hope that it can be upgraded later.

Hate to beat a dead horse, but just buy a PS3. I can't imagine the PS3 not being able to handle anything in 1.1/2.0. Plus, it's by far the best value in blu-ray players anyways.

What I would like to see would be a compilation of all BD players, both past, present, and planned for the future; with details of the hardware inside; ie: which SoC; how much persistent memory, internet conn yes/no, etc. The future announced players may be hard to get a handle on, but if we know that a player meets the hardware requirements then it would seem logical that a firmware update could be done to enable FSP. This would seem to be the case with PS3; no actual annoucement, but most assume it could be updated since the processor is powerful enough, it has enough memory, and has an internet connection.

The issue of the PS3 is not having a powerful procesor. It has the CELL processor which can be split into multiple processors - 2, 4, 6 and 8. the only requirement is that each processor has to have an equal share of the memory.

The PS3 has 512 MB. Split the CELL into 2 processors with each having 256MB - that is the requirement for 1.1. The ONLY issue is; can the CELL do Luma Keying. I do not know the answer to this.

Because it has a hard drive and Ethernet Port - it does have enough hardware for 2.0.

The Broadcom 7440 B is brand new. the SIGMA 8634 Rev.C came out in I believe June/July.

So ANY BD player made before the 8634 rev.C was available in quantities for production cannot be upgraded.

The only one who can really tell us is Keith from SIGMA and he will not due to corporate rules concerning announcing specific companies they do business with and which players have what SoC in them. We have to wait for a player to comeout then open it up and read the part number off the SoC . . if it is there.

I have a PS3, but I was just curious because I dont plan on using my PS3 as my BD player forever.

The PS3 has 512 MB. Split the CELL into 2 processors with each having 256MB - that is the requirement for 1.1. The ONLY issue is; can the CELL do Luma Keying. I do not know the answer to this.

Because it has a hard drive and Ethernet Port - it does have enough hardware for 2.0.I believe the requirement for FSP is 256 MB of persistant memory accessible, which goes up to 1 Gig for BD-Live. Since the PS3 has a 20 gig disc minimum (the model no longer made) it's covered on the memory side. Plus all PS3's have usb ports; and the 60 & 80 models have mulitple card slots as well (SD, Memory Stick, CF). Since the PS3 decodes in software using the Cell processor I'm not sure if the specific luma-key requirement applies the same way as it would in a hardware-decode player (the PS3 & Xbox360 both play their respective formats much as a computer does).

I think the cancellation of the Samsung P2400 is a very strong indication that it would not be possible to upgrade this model to the 1.1-spec via firmware.

When they figured out they wouldn't be able to get the player to the market in time for the Oct. 31st deadline, they basically had two choices: Make it 1.1-compliant or cancel it. Since they chose to cancel it, I'm pretty sure it would be impossible (or too hard) to fix it with firmware alone.

If the P2400 couldn't be softwareupgraded, I'd be very surprised if P1400 can.

What does that say about the upgradability of other players using the same chipset as the P2400? Not necessarily much since we don't know if the limitation is the chipset itself, or the rest of Samsungs design. But it would seem that the chipset is no guarantee of 1.1-compatibility.

The issue of the PS3 is not having a powerful procesor. It has the CELL processor which can be split into multiple processors - 2, 4, 6 and 8. the only requirement is that each processor has to have an equal share of the memory.

The PS3 has 512 MB. Split the CELL into 2 processors with each having 256MB - that is the requirement for 1.1. The ONLY issue is; can the CELL do Luma Keying. I do not know the answer to this.

Because it has a hard drive and Ethernet Port - it does have enough hardware for 2.0.

The Broadcom 7440 B is brand new. the SIGMA 8634 Rev.C came out in I believe June/July.

So ANY BD player made before the 8634 rev.C was available in quantities for production cannot be upgraded.

The only one who can really tell us is Keith from SIGMA and he will not due to corporate rules concerning announcing specific companies they do business with and which players have what SoC in them. We have to wait for a player to comeout then open it up and read the part number off the SoC . . if it is there.


There are 8 cells on the PS3 processor chip but only seven are supposed to be used. The 8th is a 'spare' to improve production yields in case one of the cells has a failure.

It is supposed to handle 2 full bitrate AVC video streams but that is accomplished by utilizing 3 cells for each AVC stream.

The real question for the PS3 and 1.1/2.0 capability is, does it really have enough power to handle the full spec.

Supose a disc with full bitrate AVC pip and DTS HD Master and BD+.
That's 3 cells for the video, at least 2 cells for the audio decoding.
BD+ takes another cell for the vm to decode the additional scrambling and tag the video with a watermark.
Pip decoding, av muxing another 2 cells?

It might be able to do the minimum required for the higher profiles but at the cost of lossless audio decoding and folks will be really pissed if they are have to skimp on teh bitrate metering as well. :rolleyes:
Keep in mind that the PS3 was designed as a game machine. Over time additional features were added to the BR spec after the PS3 design had been done. Also the PS3 was rushed to market to make an impact in the format war. That doesn't bode well for compatibility with future profiles.

Most folks assume it should be powerfull and capable enough to do at least 1.1.
I'm not convinced yet.

Split the CELL into 2 processors with each having 256MB - that is the requirement for 1.1. The ONLY issue is; can the CELL do Luma Keying. I do not know the answer to this.

I'm pretty sure Enigma is right about the memory requirement being persistent memory otherwise the whole memory stick thing wouldn't work - a USB connection is no where near fast enough for a memory card to serve as some sort of on-board memory.

The CELL is a processor so I believe everything is implemented in software rather than hardware. Thus it would be a matter of implementing Luma Keying in software, which I would think was fairly straight forward (from a software implementation perspective).

I think the cancellation of the Samsung P2400 is a very strong indication that it would not be possible to upgrade this model to the 1.1-spec via firmware.

When they figured out they wouldn't be able to get the player to the market in time for the Oct. 31st deadline, they basically had two choices: Make it 1.1-compliant or cancel it. Since they chose to cancel it, I'm pretty sure it would be impossible (or too hard) to fix it with firmware alone.

If the P2400 couldn't be softwareupgraded, I'd be very surprised if P1400 can.

What does that say about the upgradability of other players using the same chipset as the P2400? Not necessarily much since we don't know if the limitation is the chipset itself, or the rest of Samsungs design. But it would seem that the chipset is no guarantee of 1.1-compatibility.

Good catch.

I didn't see usb ports on other br players so far so adding memory is out of the question.

Other problem is teh SOC. Even if a capable chip is used it also must be wired on the pcb accordingly. If it isn't it's not going to be able to do 1.1.

Also the absence of stickers and logo's about future upgradability is very telling. Can't imagine br companies missing out on that advertising freebee.

The issue of the PS3 is not having a powerful procesor. It has the CELL processor which can be split into multiple processors - 2, 4, 6 and 8. the only requirement is that each processor has to have an equal share of the memory.

The PS3 has 512 MB. Split the CELL into 2 processors with each having 256MB - that is the requirement for 1.1. The ONLY issue is; can the CELL do Luma Keying. I do not know the answer to this.

Because it has a hard drive and Ethernet Port - it does have enough hardware for 2.0.

The Broadcom 7440 B is brand new. the SIGMA 8634 Rev.C came out in I believe June/July.

So ANY BD player made before the 8634 rev.C was available in quantities for production cannot be upgraded.

The only one who can really tell us is Keith from SIGMA and he will not due to corporate rules concerning announcing specific companies they do business with and which players have what SoC in them. We have to wait for a player to comeout then open it up and read the part number off the SoC . . if it is there.


You're off base a bit with the storage requirements for the BD profiles. The BD Profiles state 256 MB of persistent storage (1.1) or 1 GB of persistent storage (2.0). It does not say RAM, it says persistent storage, which can be flash drive, hard drive, etc. So the PS3's RAM has nothing to do with the profile requirements. It has a 20/60/80 GB hard drive, which is the persistent storage, which is plenty enough to meet the requirement.

The PS3's RAM is only important because the PS3 is a software BD player, which means the processing resides in memory. Is a total of 512 MB of RAM enough for the software player when running two streams?

There are 8 cells on the PS3 processor chip but only seven are supposed to be used. The 8th is a 'spare' to improve production yields in case one of the cells has a failure.

It is supposed to handle 2 full bitrate AVC video streams but that is accomplished by utilizing 3 cells for each AVC stream.

The real question for the PS3 and 1.1/2.0 capability is, does it really have enough power to handle the full spec.

Supose a disc with full bitrate AVC pip and DTS HD Master and BD+.
That's 3 cells for the video, at least 2 cells for the audio decoding.
BD+ takes another cell for the vm to decode the additional scrambling and tag the video with a watermark.
Pip decoding, av muxing another 2 cells?

It might be able to do the minimum required for the higher profiles but at the cost of lossless audio decoding and folks will be really pissed if they are have to skimp on teh bitrate metering as well. :rolleyes:
Keep in mind that the PS3 was designed as a game machine. Over time additional features were added to the BR spec after the PS3 design had been done. Also the PS3 was rushed to market to make an impact in the format war. That doesn't bode well for compatibility with future profiles.

Most folks assume it should be powerfull and capable enough to do at least 1.1.
I'm not convinced yet.

Don't forget that the PS3 needs one cell to run the PS3 Operating System, even when a movie is playing. So at least one Cell is dedicated just by having the machine on.

Another Cell is used for BD+ and another is used for the JVM for BD-J. So that is 3 cells utilized out of 7. That leaves 4 cells left for multi-stream audio and video. The question is, are 4 cells enough?

Source: UltimateAV (http://www.ultimateavmag.com/features/907bdint/)
Samsung has third-generation BD players coming to market in September and October, plus the Duo HD combi player (plays both Blu-ray and HD DVD discs). These players are coming in before the October 31st deadline, and according to our sources at Samsung, none of the three will be BD-ROM Profile 1.1 compliant. The response I got back from Samsung noted a lack of an official test disc for these features from the Blu-ray Disc Association, and when I asked if the players would meet the hardware requirements, perhaps leaving the door open to a firmware update that would allow full Profile 1.1 or 2 compliance, the answer I got back was no for these players.

The PS3 definitely does have the persistent storage and the network connection to handle the 1.1 and 2.0 specs the question is can the CELL processor and possibly the graphics processor handle all the processing requirements for video and audio needed since there are no additional specialized chips to handle it.

Don't forget that the PS3 needs one cell to run the PS3 Operating System, even when a movie is playing. So at least one Cell is dedicated just by having the machine on.

Another Cell is used for BD+ and another is used for the JVM for BD-J. So that is 3 cells utilized out of 7. That leaves 4 cells left for multi-stream audio and video. The question is, are 4 cells enough?

When you say Cells are you refering to SPUs? If so, the PS3 has indeed 7 SPUs, but also a PPU which is a full blown general purpose CPU available to the software. Seriously if the PS3 CPU is its strongest feature, comparable to some high-end PCs at specific tasks such as streaming. I hardly doubt it would not be able to handle any HDM demands.

I'm hoping that if the PS3 does not have the grunt, that they scrap the whole dual HD streams instead of leaving a lot of BD centric PS3 folks stranded. Just do what HD-DVD did and use SD for the PIP.

But a gut feeling tells me if they don't announce it soon, it may just be they haven't been able to optimise the playback software to make it work, in time its still possible.

Anyways, isn't it impossible for both streams to be max bitrate anyway? Bandwidth hasn't changed so I doubt it needs to have to be able to do double the work, it'll be more than say a single stream due to the overhead etc. but it's not double.

I'd like to know if any enthusiasts really care about this....

For me, heck no am I going to upgrade my Panny when 1.1 players are the norm..

My next upgrade in Blu Ray will be for in-player DTS MA decoding to LPCM (none do it now) and a player that can electronically move subtitles for us folks with CIH set ups... Those features FAR outweigh PIP for me (and I suspect most enthusiasts)...

Given the news about Samsung cancelling an upcoming player most likey because it won't meet the deadline for new specs... My guess would be yes, most players won't be upgrade-able easily.

Quoted from Blu Ray dot com


News


Samsung Cancels BD-P2400

Posted October 1, 2007 by Josh

Samsung BD-P1200 Samsung Electronics has announced they have pulled plans to release the upcoming BD-P2400 Blu-ray player. No official reason was given, but it is expected that when Samsung realized they weren't going to make the October 31st deadline (after which all Blu-ray players must be Profile v1.1), they cancelled the release. Their upcoming BD-UP5000 dual format player has also been delayed until December.

I think the cancellation of the Samsung P2400 is a very strong indication that it would not be possible to upgrade this model to the 1.1-spec via firmware.

When they figured out they wouldn't be able to get the player to the market in time for the Oct. 31st deadline, they basically had two choices: Make it 1.1-compliant or cancel it. Since they chose to cancel it, I'm pretty sure it would be impossible (or too hard) to fix it with firmware alone.

If the P2400 couldn't be softwareupgraded, I'd be very surprised if P1400 can.

What does that say about the upgradability of other players using the same chipset as the P2400? Not necessarily much since we don't know if the limitation is the chipset itself, or the rest of Samsungs design. But it would seem that the chipset is no guarantee of 1.1-compatibility.

I think a more likely scenario is that they realized they didn't want 2 similar priced players in the market to confuse more people.

From a consumer perspective I hope that the players have some information which states that these players may not play some BD features.

I think the BD companies owe the public that much. If they know it will not play some features I feel they are obligated to inform the public.

Not so. We do know. None of the Gen1 nor Gen2 players are upgradeable because the special SoC's didn't exist.

If a BD player is announced and streets by 10/31 - it is a 1.0 player. So when will the Sony 500 and 2000 street?

The Samsung P1400 is out. the 2400 is cancelled and the 5000 DF player has been delayed to Dec. so it has to be a 1.1 player.

The new Phillips came out the beginning of this month.

There is no new Panasonic - just the gen 1 (10) and a gen 1 with a factory firmware upgrade and 5 BD's in the box (10A)

The Daewoo was announced as both 1.1 and 2.0 compliant but we have yet to hear anything further.

The Loewe - nothing.

The Denon - 2008

The Sharp - ?

Did I miss any?

The Sharp is shipping already.
Many places have it for $399. It is profile 1.0 though
It doesnt pass bitstream but does True HD and everything but DTS MA in player.Its a fast loader. A pretty affordable option for those going 5.1 analog in. I wanted DTS MA in the future so I went with the 1400. The bitstreaming thing broke it for me but otherwise it looks like a nice player.

The Sharp is shipping already.
Many places have it for $399. It is profile 1.0 though
It doesnt pass bitstream but does True HD and everything but DTS MA in player.Its a fast loader. A pretty affordable option for those going 5.1 analog in. I wanted DTS MA in the future so I went with the 1400. The bitstreaming thing broke it for me but otherwise it looks like a nice player.
like who?

From a consumer perspective I hope that the players have some information which states that these players may not play some BD features.

I think the BD companies owe the public that much. If they know it will not play some features I feel they are obligated to inform the public.
They aren't going to put up large neon signs that inform the consumer about specific disc playback/compatibility standard at the CE stores but the manual does disclose information about specific playback/compatibility capabilities.

From a consumer perspective I hope that the players have some information which states that these players may not play some BD features.

I think the BD companies owe the public that much. If they know it will not play some features I feel they are obligated to inform the public.

THat would be a bad idea.....what a way to halt sales...

Imagine telling those that bought 1st gen HD DVD players that it will take 8 firmware upgrades to add features and remove bugs... Who'd like that?

Features evolve with any format. ALl the public needs to understand (if they fail to do the research on their own) is that all movies will be HD, lossless sound and all present and future feature films will play.

like who?

Them (http://www.parkaveelectronics.com/product.asp?itemid=SHABDHP20U)

.

[QUOTE]thebland

THat would be a bad idea.....what a way to halt sales...

Features evolve with any format. ALl the public needs to understand (if they fail to do the research on their own) is that all movies will be HD, lossless sound and all present and future feature films will play.


Maybe if would slowdown some sales but I think it will solve the BD companies problems down the road.
It's like selling analog tvs a month before the stations all switch to digital. Sure they would work but I think some customers would be upset and it could become a PR problem.

I'm hoping that if the PS3 does not have the grunt, that they scrap the whole dual HD streams instead of leaving a lot of BD centric PS3 folks stranded. Just do what HD-DVD did and use SD for the PIP.As it turns out the HD PiP is optional for all profiles (possibly may never be used; HD DVD also has an option similar to this which no one is using, either). So the PS3 wouldn't have to decode two HD streams at once to be 1.1 or 2.0 compliant, just 1 HD and 1 SD. Seems like that should be easy enough, even with advanced audio, etc.

The issue of the PS3 is not having a powerful procesor. It has the CELL processor which can be split into multiple processors - 2, 4, 6 and 8. the only requirement is that each processor has to have an equal share of the memory.

Lee, I appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject but you're dead wrong on many counts here. The CELL processor in the PS3 is always divided into 7+1 processor cores (7 SPE cores and one PPU.) There is no such requirement about dividing memory among processor cores. The memory organization is always 256MB system RAM and 256MB video RAM. All of the processor cores have at least DMA access to both memory pools (with differing bandwidth and latency limitations), plus each SPE has its own local 256KB pool of memory.

The PS3 has 512 MB. Split the CELL into 2 processors with each having 256MB - that is the requirement for 1.1. The ONLY issue is; can the CELL do Luma Keying. I do not know the answer to this.

As others have pointed out, the 1GB requirements for 2.0 is persistent storage. It has nothing to do with RAM, and every PS3 model has at least 20GB of persistent storage in the form of a hard drive.

As for Luma Keying? The CELL is a general purpose programmable device which is more than capable. You could also offload the task to the system's GPU which is less general-purpose but still very programmable. The real question isn't "can the PS3 do the required tasks" it's "does it have the horsepower to do everything required at once?" Preliminary indications from Sony engineers seemed to be good, but there isn't a definitive answer just yet.

So ANY BD player made before the 8634 rev.C was available in quantities for production cannot be upgraded.

... with the possible exception of the PS3. Given how important the PS3 is as part of Sony's whole Blu-ray strategy, I would be quite surprised if they don't upgrade it all the way to profile 2.0.

PS3 does have a huge resource pool available:
1 Cell PPU main processor (general purpose)
8-1 Cell SPE secondary cores (specialized to streamable content)
1 RSX 3D graphics card (general purpose gfx card)
256MB RAM + 256 MB VideoRAM + local SPE caches

It is just a matter of software engineering challenge to divide and optimize tasks round the pool. Graphics card has all the pixel and vertex shaders we have seen in PC world. Pixel shaders could process image pixels and keying easily.

But its not an easy software to write so don't expect to see it soon.

PS3 does have a huge resource pool available:
1 Cell PPU main processor (general purpose)
8-1 Cell SPE secondary cores (specialized to streamable content)
1 RSX 3D graphics card (general purpose gfx card)
256MB RAM + 256 MB VideoRAM + local SPE caches

It is just a matter of software engineering challenge to divide and optimize tasks round the pool. Graphics card has all the pixel and vertex shaders we have seen in PC world. Pixel shaders could process image pixels and keying easily.

But its not an easy software to write so don't expect to see it soon.

7 SPE cores are usable 1 is intended as spare to improve production yields if a cell doesn't function or perform.

The question is does it really have enough power to do it all?
Decoding DTS HR master audio requires substantial horsepower. I guess at least two cells.
AVC is 3 cells.
That leaves about two cells for the other stuff like BD+ content descrambling and watermarking, Decoding secondairy video and audio for pip and do the audio mixing and video overlay/blending.

The gpu unit is mostly occupied by controling the workloads around the cells and controlling the bus.

I would not count on that it will be a mere matter of software engineering.
I'm amazed that the PS3 isn't already compliant with 1.1 profile software already.
The 1.1 profile will be a real mess without a fully compliant player for the studio's to do proper developing and testing.

If the PS3 is the only 1.1 and/or 2.0 compliant player that exists on the market today and studios start to utilize it's features.... BD will become known as the PS3 format over night. This is where Sony will learn the problems of putting all of their Blu eggs in a game console basket. IMO.

There is no new Panasonic - just the gen 1 (10) and a gen 1 with a factory firmware upgrade and 5 BD's in the box (10A)


Lee there is a Panasonic DMP-BD30 on the blu ray savings website. It is in the Best Buy database for 10-17-07. Which will probably make it a 1.0 profile player, but you can all ways hope.

By the way, you can't find ANY specs on this player ANYWHERE. They must have some tight lipped employees.:D

Before there was a HD-DVD player that supported bitstream everyone was saying that TrueHD & DTS-HD-MA bitstreaming wouldn't work because all disc are authored in Advance Content mode which prevented this. With the new Toshiba HD-A3 this has now confirmed not true.

FYI the A3 doesn't do bitstream output of the next gen audio codecs, that's reserved for the XA2 (future update) and A35 (current shipping/working model).

So I agree with Merrick97, we just don't know.

I disagree. Enabling bitstream output requires virtually no extra processing power, just a software bypass function, and the HDMI tech to allow it.

Adding a secondary video decoder capable of decoding SD AVC (the most complex next gen codec to decode) is sufficiently much harder to do in software if the dedicated hardware assistance doesn't exist. There have been threads discussing the hardware limitations of the bulk of players, personally i can't be bothered searching for them, but the general concencious was upgrades to 1.1 compliant wasn't possible.

If you care about the extra features you should wait until there is a confirmed profile 1.1 or 2.0 player out. Don't buy now with the hope that it can be upgraded later.

Agreed. A few people got miffed the Panasonics didn't get the DTS-HD-MA decoding upgrade that many expected even though insiders warned the hardware wasn't capable.

I'd like to know if any enthusiasts really care about this....

For me, heck no am I going to upgrade my Panny when 1.1 players are the norm..

My next upgrade in Blu Ray will be for in-player DTS MA decoding to LPCM (none do it now) and a player that can electronically move subtitles for us folks with CIH set ups... Those features FAR outweigh PIP for me (and I suspect most enthusiasts)...

Upgrade your Panny?

Please post the link that the states your Panny is upgradable to 1.1.

Read my post more slowly..... That's not what I said..

Read my post more slowly..... That's not what I said..You should read this unofficial HD DVD site that says you can wait until next year to upgrade one way or the other :p
http://www.campaignhd.com/807_BD11_Update.html

Not for PIP.....but DTS MA and subtitle control....

I read that website for laughs...it's where Rdjam gets all his material...:D

If any of the current players were capable of 1.1 don't you think the ce companies would be talking about this feature. Even though, they talk about everyone elses product except their own.

If they were capable, we would be hearing about it from all corners of the globe! Since they aren't, we hear nothing except 1.1 means nothing and only the ignorant few want it anyway, right bland!

If any of the current players were capable of 1.1 don't you think the ce companies would be talking about this feature.

While I agree that it's likely that few if any of the players will be upgradable, even if they can be upgraded it isn't at all surprising that the manufacturers aren't talking about it.

Why?

If you state that your player will be upgradable then consumers are buying a partial product and the manufacturer owes them the full feature set in a very legal and binding fashion. So firstly, if unforeseen problems arise preventing the update you have a class-action lawsuit on your hands. If there weren't bad enough, it turns out that accounting practices in a Sarbanes-Oxley world also require manufacturers to defer recognizing revenue until the completed product has been delivered. For most companies, those two complications will prevent them from pre-announcing anything.

Upgrade your Panny?

Please post the link that the states your Panny is upgradable to 1.1.

He was talking about "replacing" his Panny Blu Ray player. He knows it isn't upgradable to 1.1.

You hd dvd supporters are on edge these days....

He was talking about "replacing" his Panny Blu Ray player. He knows it isn't upgradable to 1.1.

You hd dvd supporters are on edge these days....

Not really - it's just that we tire of the constant BS and FUD posted by BD fanbois here at AVS, and the constant lies that the BDA tells the public. It now seems SOP.

THat would be a bad idea.....what a way to halt sales...

Imagine telling those that bought 1st gen HD DVD players that it will take 8 firmware upgrades to add features and remove bugs... Who'd like that?

Features evolve with any format. ALl the public needs to understand (if they fail to do the research on their own) is that all movies will be HD, lossless sound and all present and future feature films will play.

Every HD DVD I've bought comes with a note saying a firmware update may be needed to watch the movie. They aren't hiding anything, did a note come with PotC?
Actually until the last HDM expansion at my Best Buy a few weeks ago there was a memo taped to the top of the blu-ray side that explained the problems with PotC with manufacters numbers but I don't know if something like thats in the disc case(always got a chuckle out of that memo, I miss it now:)).

Not really - it's just that we tire of the constant BS and FUD posted by BD fanbois here at AVS, and the constant lies that the BDA tells the public. It now seems SOP.

Come on Lee, there is way to much FUD on both sides of the fence.

I am beginning to wonder how many people on this forum are paid by the BDA or HD DVD consortium. Some of the posters can't care about there format because they would never have time to watch a movie!!!:eek:

Come on Lee, there is way to much FUD on both sides of the fence.

I am beginning to wonder how many people on this forum are paid by the BDA or HD DVD consortium. Some of the posters can't care about there format because they would never have time to watch a movie!!!:eek:

So where does it start? Which camp starts the FUD statement?

The issues always revolve around the specs. The BD camp keeps telling us that they have higher storage and greater bandwidth. The HD camp keeps asking for a real world title that shows that this means anything as far as PQ.

The BD camp says that bandwidth is too restrictive for long movies and Lossless audio. Then a movie like TROY DC comes out which disproves that theory and the BD camp rallies for damage control.

The HD camp keeps bringing up the issue of the profiles whcih IMO is a real problem. The BD camp says it's not important. Would we expect them to say anything less?

Then the issue of the TL51 which few here understand - as far as the approval process of the DVD Forum.

The two FUD issues IMO are :

1. Profile 1.1/2.0 movies may not play at all on a 1.0 player - mentioned by the CTO of Denon - championed by the HD camp.

2. The TL51 may not play on legacy HD players - championed by the BD camp.

It is obvious that MANY here have an agenda to smear the opposing format. Why? Because they believe the lurkers will believe them. IMO - the lurkers are laughing at both camps.

7 SPE cores are usable 1 is intended as spare to improve production yields if a cell doesn't function or perform.

The question is does it really have enough power to do it all?
Decoding DTS HR master audio requires substantial horsepower. I guess at least two cells.
AVC is 3 cells.
That leaves about two cells for the other stuff like BD+ content descrambling and watermarking, Decoding secondairy video and audio for pip and do the audio mixing and video overlay/blending.

The gpu unit is mostly occupied by controling the workloads around the cells and controlling the bus.

I would not count on that it will be a mere matter of software engineering.
I'm amazed that the PS3 isn't already compliant with 1.1 profile software already.
The 1.1 profile will be a real mess without a fully compliant player for the studio's to do proper developing and testing.

You ignored this important little peice from the previous post: Cell PPU main processor (general purpose)
Or did you mix up GPU with CPU (PPU)? Either way, the General purpose CPU above can do far more than controlling workloads...

If the PS3 cannot handle BD 1.1, what kind of hardware does it need? :rolleyes:

posted before?
http://www.guidetohometheater.com/features/907bdint/

Just so we know where we are as far as this thread goes . .

Are we in agreement that current and past BD players cannot be upgraded to 1.1 or 2.0?

As the PS3 does represent over 90% of all BD players - is this the player we are now concentrating on?

Is the PS3 1.1 compliant? If not does the PS3 have to hold to the standards of the standalone players on the deadline?

I mean how can you also ship PS3's after the deadline if they aren't 1.1 compliant?

Is the PS3 1.1 compliant? If not does the PS3 have to hold to the standards of the standalone players on the deadline?

I mean how can you also ship PS3's after the deadline if they aren't 1.1 compliant?

You can continue to ship existing non-compliant players. All new players must meet the profile.

So where does it start? Which camp starts the FUD statement?

The issues always revolve around the specs. The BD camp keeps telling us that they have higher storage and greater bandwidth. The HD camp keeps asking for a real world title that shows that this means anything as far as PQ.

The BD camp says that bandwidth is too restrictive for long movies and Lossless audio. Then a movie like TROY DC comes out which disproves that theory and the BD camp rallies for damage control.

The HD camp keeps bringing up the issue of the profiles which IMO is a real problem. The BD camp says it's not important. Would we expect them to say anything less?

Then the issue of the TL51 which few here understand - as far as the approval process of the DVD Forum.

The two FUD issues IMO are :

1. Profile 1.1/2.0 movies may not play at all on a 1.0 player - mentioned by the CTO of Denon - championed by the HD camp.

2. The TL51 may not play on legacy HD players - championed by the BD camp.

It is obvious that MANY here have an agenda to smear the opposing format. Why? Because they believe the lurkers will believe them. IMO - the lurkers are laughing at both camps.

I have never been a big proponent of the bandwidth issue as far as PQ goes. HD DVD has proved time and again that they can utilize their bandwidth and have a great picture with lossless audio.

Now if you throw in lossless audio (which should be used on EVERY title) pip and other features, does Blu Ray have an advantage with bandwidth? Maybe, maybe not.

I personally don't care a lot about 1.1/2.0 profile players. Will I purchase one? Yes I will. I watched "knocked up" on HD DVD last night and had NO interest on internet features or IME. I watched some of the deleted scenes and the gag reel, but that was about it. By the way my HD A1 locked up twice on this movie.

Blu Ray has greater capacity(which I believe is a big deal) and bandwidth (which personally I don't know if it matters). Blu Rays' lack of 1.1/2.0 profile players/software is becoming a problem.

HD DVD has a finished spec. I think that the space issue will come back to be a big problem for hd dvd. I also don't think that the 51GB disc will ever play on a gen 1/2/3 player. I don't have any information to back it up, but with all the problems with combo discs, I can only see more problems adding another layer and tighter packed information.

I agree that lurkers probably sit and laugh at us. The majority of people on this forum take this so personally. Which it isn't. It is supposed to be fun.:D

Is the PS3 1.1 compliant? If not does the PS3 have to hold to the standards of the standalone players on the deadline?

I mean how can you also ship PS3's after the deadline if they aren't 1.1 compliant?

Based on what the BDA has stated - this new 40GB PS3 will have to be released on or before 10/31 to comply with the rule.

Based on what the BDA has stated - this new 40GB PS3 will have to be released on or before 10/31 to comply with the rule.

Exactly what I was geting at;)

Coincidentally it is supposed to street Oct. 28th just in time.

Well here is the latest on the new PS3:

Source http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/02/s...d-by-best-buy/

In stock October 28.

So if this is correct - they will make the deadline to release a 1.0 BD player by 3 days.

Lee,

We don't know FOR SURE if the PS3 will be 1.1/2.0 compliant or not. I personally think it is very possible. It has plenty of processing power and internet connectivity. I don't know about RAM though.

It is an amazing piece of technology for the original price and now at $399 it is very impressive.

Lee,

We don't know FOR SURE if the PS3 will be 1.1/2.0 compliant or not. I personally think it is very possible. It has plenty of processing power and internet connectivity. I don't know about RAM though.

It is an amazing piece of technology for the original price and now at $399 it is very impressive.

1. It is to be released before the deadline - 1.0 player

2. Excellent chance the PS3 can be upgraded to 1.1 and 2.0.

Well here is the latest on the new PS3:

Source http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/02/s...d-by-best-buy/

In stock October 28.

So if this is correct - they will make the deadline to release a 1.0 BD player by 3 days.

Assuming that is correct I'd say that is a pretty good indicator that they haven't yet managed to get 1.1 support working. It still may be possible in the future but it sure doesn't seem like it's as easy or as sure a thing as Blu-Ray supporters seem to hope it is.

Well here is the latest on the new PS3:

Source http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/02/s...d-by-best-buy/

In stock October 28.

So if this is correct - they will make the deadline to release a 1.0 BD player by 3 days.
complete link http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/02/sonys-399-ps3-confirmed-by-best-buy/

I don't know if it's an indicator on how hard or easy it will be to update the PS3. It's merely to me, a rush to market to meet their own deadline before the holiday season. You can't blame them for it.

I don't know if it's an indicator on how hard or easy it will be to update the PS3. It's merely to me, a rush to market to meet their own deadline before the holiday season. You can't blame them for it.

What I find interesting is that they've had the specs for some time now. If they can do it, why not release a 1.1 player now? :confused:

If the PS3 can't be upgraded to Profile 1.1/2.0, doesn't it doom the system?

Since every HDD upgrade, controller/game pack-ins, etc. get a seperate model number, if the PS3 can't upgrade to 1.1/2.0 then after 10/31, Sony could never offer a hardware upgrade. The PS3 would be locked in as 40/60/80 GB models, while the Xbox keeps offering new systems with larger drives.

What I find interesting is that they've had the specs for some time now. If they can do it, why not release a 1.1 player now? :confused:

Liked I stated it has more to do with the deadline and the holiday season.

If Sony doesn't release the $399 player before the deadline then it misses out on a huge opportunity to keep in stride with competitors.

Who knows how far they are missing the boat with the deadline and making the PS3 actually compliant.

As far as this dooming the PS3, no it shouldn't, after all it's supposed to be a gaming system in the first place;)

You ignored this important little peice from the previous post: Cell PPU main processor (general purpose)
Or did you mix up GPU with CPU (PPU)? Either way, the General purpose CPU above can do far more than controlling workloads...

If the PS3 cannot handle BD 1.1, what kind of hardware does it need? :rolleyes:

posted before?
http://www.guidetohometheater.com/features/907bdint/

Meant CPU or PPU.

There is much confidence in the PS3 having the horse power to do it all.
But I'm not so sure.
To deliver it all it has to do it at the max
AVC high bitrate with DTS HD MASTER at 6 channels 24bit/192ks
an additional pip stream. Mixing the main video with the secondary stream.
and BD+ decoding.

At all adds up quickly. It might just be to much.


It might be possible. Perhaps if the DTS HD MA decoding into PCM is omitted and just the bistream is passed.

CE players rely on soc solutions and/or additional processors to do the job.
For instance the Sharc chip used for the audio decoding is very powerfull for audio dsp.

The PS3 Cell may have super computer architecture in its design but that doesn't mean it has supercomputer powers.

The PS3 might be a jack of all trades.
But master of none.

I have never been a big proponent of the bandwidth issue as far as PQ goes. HD DVD has proved time and again that they can utilize their bandwidth and have a great picture with lossless audio.


Here is some very interesting reading where they seem to find that encoding an uncompressed source results in MPEG2 requiring between 30-60% more bandwidth than VC-1 to produce the same PQ.

Makes sense when you think BD has more bitrate than HD-DVD.. but also has more titles using MPEG2 than HD-DVD.

There is a lot of arguments regarding H.264 vs. VC-1 but the concensus is definately that it takes a whole whack of bitrate for MPEG2 to compete with VC-1. THUS.. BITRATE IS A NON-ISSUE ON HD-DVD MOVIES!

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=128498