This is perhaps a stupid question, but I work in the computer industry which has taken many, many years to finally embrace open source solutions for actual serious applications. Now that it has, I'm wondering why other industries such as studios don't employ open source technology for things like lossless codecs? Heck, I can't imagine the license fees these guys have to pay out to use things like TrueHD or that DTS lossless thingy.

I also can't help but think that Blu-rau would have made much more progress in getting BD-Java up to speed if Sun has given this to the open source community to develop.

What makes this movie thing so different from the computer thing?

FLAC is stereo I believe. It's basically the same, though,

FLAC is stereo I believe. It's basically the same, though,

FLAC supports multichannel audio.

FLAC supports multichannel audio.

Yeah FLAC at the current specification can handle a sampling rate of over 1 million Hz in 8 discrete channels. Ummm... it can handle any master PCM track fairly well I'd think, and at 50% compression with less computational demand than TrueHD (according to something I read but can't find at the moment).

Brand names with established products that are well known, even to the general public.

Because once they've paid licencing fees for DD they don't have to pay for DD+ or TrueHD, it's all inclusive, and the fee is minimal.

There is also the benefit of Brand name, everyone knows Dolby.

There is also other benifits in TrueHD (http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/trueHD.html) such as Metadata: (http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf//tech_library/TrueHD_FAQ_10925_Final.pdf)
Features

* 100 percent lossless coding technology.
* Up to 18 Mbps bit rate.
* Supports up to eight full-range channels of 24-bit/96 kHz audio.*
* Supported by High-Definition Media Interface (HDMI™), the new single-cable digital connection for audio and video.
* Supports extensive metadata including dialogue normalization and dynamic range control.



What is metadata?
Metadata is control information that
accompanies the audio data in a Dolby
TrueHD stream, allowing a content producer
to define a consistent playback experience
for consumers, whether they are listening on
a two-channel stereo system, a 5.1-channel
system, or a high-end, discrete 7.1-channel
home theater system.

Does Dolby TrueHD feature any metadata
applications? What are they? How will they
benefit the consumer?
Dolby TrueHD is designed to offer
comprehensive metadata functionality similar
to that found in Dolby Digital and Dolby Digital
Plus. This includes downmixes that are defined
by the content producer, dynamic range
compression for late-night listening, and
dialogue normalization to ensure consistent
playback loudness between different content.
For future content featuring discrete 7.1-channel
playback, Dolby TrueHD also supports multiple
7.1 configurations, enabling the full creative
possibilities of next-generation sound design
to be delivered to the consumer environment.

More info here (http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/DPlus_TrueHD_whitepaper.pdf)

cheers:)

Brand names with established products that are well known, even to the general public.

exactly.
Plus many encoders and encoding houses have partnership with Dolby and DTS and have worked with those formats for years.
I think it would have been great having FLAC as an optional codec at least. Maybe amir could chime in and tell us why FLAC may not be a good choice.
Cheers

Because once they've paid licencing fees for DD they don't have to pay for DD+ or TrueHD, it's all inclusive, and the fee is minimal.

There is also the benefit of Brand name, everyone knows Dolby.

There is also other benifits in TrueHD (http://www.dolby.com/consumer/technology/trueHD.html) such as Metadata: (http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf//tech_library/TrueHD_FAQ_10925_Final.pdf)

More info here (http://www.dolby.com/assets/pdf/tech_library/DPlus_TrueHD_whitepaper.pdf)

cheers:)

I'm not sure there is such thing as any codec without metadata that instructs various playback devices to do various things. In the case of FLAC, it's ridiculous... you can even include data to identify the cover art and such of albums, channel gain (equalization), tagging, and a host of other instructional flags. FLAC even has MetaData editors, including I believe a few GUI versions of the metaflac editor. All free and open source of course. It has CRC checking, to ensure bit-by-bit reproduction of the original.

And about the brand name thing. I' don't think TrueHD is a household term. They could have called FLAC "Ultra HD Audio" and consumers would have probably responded about the same. Lets face it, Blu-ray has banked on "PCM" as some sort of quality mark that sets them apart on many titles, yet I'm sure most consumers have little idea what the letters stand for.

It is a egg and chicken question. But until there are receivers pre/pros that will decode it there will be no players that send it. And if these parts are not there then there will be no movies using it.

But a more basic approach is that the two big companies have a working relationship with the studios. So unless FLAC can get in it will not get used. And even then they would have to convince theaters to buy the equiptment to decode it.

I'm not sure here are any modern codecs without metadata that instruct various playback devices to do various things. In the case of FLAC, it's ridiculous... you can even include data to identify the cover art and such of albums, channel gain (equalization), tagging, and a host of other instructional flags. FLAC even has open source MetaData editors, including I believe a few GUI versions of the metaflac editor.

And about the brand name thing. I' don't think TrueHD is a household term. They could have called FLAC "Ultra HD Audio" and consumers would have probably responded about the same. Lets face it, Blu-ray has banked on "PCM" as some sort of quality mark that sets them apart on many titles, yet I'm sure most consumers have little idea what the letters stand for.


No but if you use the whole name it is "Dolby TrueHD."

TrueHD may not be a household term, but Dolby most certainly is. You hear Dolby and you know what it is. Same with DTS. The general public hears FLAC and they think of those insurance commercials with the duck.

No but if you use the whole name it is "Dolby TrueHD."

First you don't need to "Buy" the equipment to decode it. The software if free and available for most operating systems, including those the Toshiba players are based on (at least the first generation for sure! LOL).

Secondly, even the "Dolby" part I think most consumers don't necessarily get excited about. They might have heard of it, but "Ultra" might sound better to them. Certainly "PCM" is kinda boring and uneventful for consumer recognition ;)

I suspect that the name attached to the audio portion as far a "brand" recognition isn't as important as the title as the media itself, or the format brand indicating if it works in their players (Blu-ray versus HD DVD). This would be like saying HD DVD is going to definitely win the war because what differentiates them is Dolby TrueHD, rather than PCM. Frankly, I don't think the average consumer cares so much. and the more educated consumers ll know that lossless is lossless regardless of name.

I should also mention that the FLAC encoders are free, as well as the decoders. I just sometimes wonder why they have so many hands in the licensing pie. The software industry has learned from this, why not the studios producing this media, Linux workstations for rendering, etc. excluded. For example, the first gen Toshiba HD DVD players ran Linux... at least that was a good start. What do they run now for operating systems? With Microsoft now on the HD DVD side, I can't believe they'd still let them run a Linux based operation system? Or do they?

And now Blu-ray. Why the heck doesn't Sun REALLY release this BD-Java into the mainstream, and let us develop it? How much of the pie are they getting per disk media and player out of this? Personally I've looked at the related technology GEM APIs and they are at a "raw" stage, like MHP still is IMO. Working with this stuff is frustration, and you end up wishing you could change so much underneath to make tool development easier and more efficient. I say, give it to the open source community and let us make Blu-ray reach the potential it was designed to do. We have a JVM, let's party! ;)

Simply put they had to use something, and why not use the same companies that they've been using for years Dolby and DTS.

Not just that but in using them they have the backup and support of major companies who own the technology, ie the DVD Forum don't have to spend time on the audio format itself, they have an end to end solution with support and all they need to do is pay the same licensing fees they have for years, surly this must count for something.

Obviously licensing fees are not too expensive as to force them to look at other options, and if someone didn't want to pay they could just use PCM.

Dolby and DTS branding is a big thing. FLAC means jack to mainstream.

cheers:)

Brand names with established products that are well known, even to the general public.

Just because the average person has some familiarity with the word, they have no familiarity to the product, it's all the same and they probably wouldn't give a **** if it was Dolby Digital, TrueHD or FLAC, it's just sound.

I think it would have been great having FLAC as an optional codec at least. Maybe amir could chime in and tell us why FLAC may not be a good choice.
Cheers

FLAC is not in there because no company in DVD Forum proposed it! No representation, no selection :). We for example, proposed WMA Pro and got it selected as optional (in both DVD and hence, HD DVD).

Some advantages of other codecs has been mentioned. Here are some more:

1. TrueHD has layered decoding. Decode 2 channels and you automatically get the downmixed version. I don't think FLAC has this.

2. TrueHD is based on MLP which was already a standard in DVD-A, a DVD Forum standard.

3. DTS is a layered coding on top of DTS so provides backward compatibility, such is not true of FLAC.

4. It takes a lot of political will to get something approved in there. That is why we did not push for WMA Pro to become mandatory and cost us incredible amount of resources to get VC-1 in there.

5. Patents, patents, patents. Just because something is open source, it says nothing about who owns the patents or mean that it is "free". DVD Forum would not accept technology where this is no clear licensing authority behind the technology (or at least they would use this as a reason to disqualify). This is why there is a patent pool for VC-1 and we went as far as picking "MPEG"-LA.

FLAC is not in there because no company in DVD Forum proposed it! No representation, no selection :). We for example, proposed WMA Pro and got it selected as optional (in both DVD and hence, HD DVD).

Some advantages of other codecs has been mentioned. Here are some more:

1. TrueHD has layered decoding. Decode 2 channels and you automatically get the downmixed version. I don't think FLAC has this.

2. TrueHD is based on MLP which was already a standard in DVD-A, a DVD Forum standard.

3. DTS is a layered coding on top of DTS so provides backward compatibility, such is not true of FLAC.

4. It takes a lot of political will to get something approved in there. That is why we did not push for WMA Pro to become mandatory and cost us incredible amount of resources to get VC-1 in there.

5. Patents, patents, patents. Just because something is open source, it says nothing about who owns the patents or mean that it is "free". DVD Forum would not accept technology where this is no clear licensing authority behind the technology (or at least they would use this as a reason to disqualify). This is why there is a patent pool for VC-1 and we went as far as picking "MPEG"-LA.

Thanks Amir.

Another reason may be the creator's desire for no copy protection in the format.