Industry Insiders Q&A MASTER THREAD [separate thread for Xbox/Add On & PS3] - Page 162 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #4831 of 4841 Old 05-20-2007, 09:26 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,112
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 768 Post(s)
Liked: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalsaber View Post

I should have stated where I was going with this, but if more efficiency is reached, would this mean movies like Lord of the Ring Extended Editions each fit on one disc and be able to have 7.1 channels of TrueHD? I would not want to see any PQ loss as a resuls.

Not commenting on LOTR but yes, your point is most definitely valid.

Quote:


If not, would this be where the potential 34GB or 51GB discs be the end solution?

Optimizing the VC-1 encoder gives people something for nothing. They get more efficiency without it costing them anything. So in that respect, it is always superior to larger discs.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4832 of 4841 Old 05-20-2007, 10:52 PM
Member
 
RDoherty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlb99 View Post

Thank you Richard for responding, and for responding honestly. Much appreciated.

My tone was a little strong, that was a little unintended. No slight was intended.

Question, is the true solution to never offer PC based solutions?

SACD not cracked (that I am aware of), no PC solutions exist.
CSS cracked, AACS (somewhat problematic at the moment), PC solutions exist.

The PC has been where both CSS and AACS have been compromised.

If no PC replay/drives existed it would seem to be very difficult to home-brew a crack.

I am being too simplistic?

Dennis.

In the past PC's have typically been a big target for hacking activities, as they are designed to run arbitrary software programs. But the line between PCs and traditional CE devices is clearly blurring -- and many of the best PVR systems (in my opinion) are highly customizable and capable of running user-designed software.

But the most important aspect is simply that many people use their PCs and hybrid devices to watch movies. Designing a top-notch Windows Media Center box for your home theater demands that next-gen playback be supported. Microsoft in particular wants to be sure PCs are supported for all forms of entertainment (including next-gen optical), and we have a large customer base that are actively doing so.

It is true that all of the latest AACS attacks have focused on software playback products. Keep in mind, however, that AACS is aware of the history and attack vectors of PC playback systems, and there are several technical measures (such as KCD and the entire proactive renewal system) that are designed specifically to address the particular issues of PC-based protection.

Richard E. Doherty
RDoherty is offline  
post #4833 of 4841 Old 05-20-2007, 11:00 PM
Member
 
RDoherty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntaar View Post

Richard,

Last time AACS was circumvented, there were rumors of complaints from some
studios, not to mention consumers, about the time it took to repair the damage.

If you can answer, is there anything in place to speed up the repairs this time
so that we don't have a repeat of Unversal and Studio Canal sitting on the
sideline for months?

Thanks for your participation in this thread and I understand if this cannot be
answered at this time.

I can not speak for the studio rumors.

The time for AACS to perform a revocation, and the criteria that must be met, are not secrets. They are publicly available as part of the published license agreement which you can download at aacsla.com

AACS of course has the technical means to revoke overnight. But the current license agreement generally provides for 90 days. This is to allow time for the manufacturer to repair the product and presumably fix the vulnerability, and time to rollout the patches to the affected users.

It would be much worse for legitimate consumers to find themselves with a disc that cannot play and no patch available to allow it to play.

It would also be a poor situation if manufacturers were so rushed to put out a patched version of their program that they didn't fix the problem and the program simply gets rehacked.

The revocation time period is an attempt to find a balance between the interests of studios, consumers, and manufacturers.

Richard E. Doherty
RDoherty is offline  
post #4834 of 4841 Old 05-21-2007, 10:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
scaesare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Ashburn, VA
Posts: 4,637
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaesare View Post


Quote:


Originally Posted by benwaggoner

{snip}

It could also have PCM. WMA Pro is an optional secondary audio codec, and I haven't seen it used in mass-market titles yet.

{snip}

Ben, a follow-up to this:

You mention this as a "secondary" audio codec. I had seen it posted previously that WMA Pro was only spec'ed as a decoder for secondary streams, is that what you meant?

In other words, a title cannot use WMA Pro for the priamry movie feature... is that correct?

Thanks.

Although I orginally addressed this as a response to Ben, would anybody be able to address this?

Thanks.

-Steve
scaesare is offline  
post #4835 of 4841 Old 05-21-2007, 12:44 PM
Senior Member
 
huntaar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Cottage Grove, MN
Posts: 204
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by RDoherty View Post

AACS of course has the technical means to revoke overnight. But the current license agreement generally provides for 90 days. This is to allow time for the manufacturer to repair the product and presumably fix the vulnerability, and time to rollout the patches to the affected users.

It would be much worse for legitimate consumers to find themselves with a disc that cannot play and no patch available to allow it to play.

Richard,

Thanks for the response, let me come at this another way, say XYZ's software player's processing key is found to have been exposed. If XYZ is able to patch and test their product and AACS signs off in 30 days, is the license agreement's 90 days going to hold true each time?

In your opinion, was the 90 days setup initially to give the vendors and AACS enough time to thoroughly test the first circumvention or do you see this as the norm with each break?

I apologize if some of this is listed on aacsla.com as I just started reading the specs.

Thanks.

You can always retake a class but you can never relive a party!
huntaar is offline  
post #4836 of 4841 Old 05-22-2007, 12:18 AM
Member
 
RDoherty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hollywood, CA
Posts: 192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by huntaar View Post

Richard,

Thanks for the response, let me come at this another way, say XYZ's software player's processing key is found to have been exposed. If XYZ is able to patch and test their product and AACS signs off in 30 days, is the license agreement's 90 days going to hold true each time?

In your opinion, was the 90 days setup initially to give the vendors and AACS enough time to thoroughly test the first circumvention or do you see this as the norm with each break?

I apologize if some of this is listed on aacsla.com as I just started reading the specs.

Thanks.

AACS is of course free to accelerate the process and working in cooperation with the product manufacturer is always the best way to proceed. Assuming consumer impact was minimized, I'm sure all parties would be pleased by an acceleration.

This sort of thing would not be in the agreement, the agreement just lays out the maximum times.

Please feel free to ask more questions about that -- I'd hate to think you are trying to force yourself to read the entire 115 page agreement (in addition to the hundreds of pages of other agreements and specifications).

Richard E. Doherty
RDoherty is offline  
post #4837 of 4841 Old 05-22-2007, 01:05 AM
Member
 
zambelli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Posts: 183
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post

Is MS working on an improved VC-1 decoder?

Yes. The MS codec team is working on a better optimized version of the VC-1 decoder. However, you have to keep in mind that Windows OS is not our only platform or product. The new decoder will likely be seen in other products (i.e. Xbox, Silverlight) first before it makes its way into another Windows update (or release). Our team's human resources are finite so of course we must be careful only to sign up for deliverables we can actually handle.

Quote:


CoreAVC seems to consume less CPU than Microsoft's VC-1 decoder (with comparable bitrates), which seems kind of backwards to me, since h264 is supposed to be more CPU demanding. That indicates potential for improvement in the VC-1 decoder.

New builds of the decoder are being designed to scale better on systems with more than 2 cores (current Windows decoder is only dual-threaded). Also, while current Windows VC-1 decoder supports DXVA decoding up to Profile C (iDCT, MoComp, PostProc done by GPU), future releases of the decoder might support full hardware decoding (aka Profile D or VLD). There's still room to improve, for sure.

As for CoreAVC... I used to be a big fan, but lately their star has been quickly fading. Their users are growing very impatient: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.ph...349#post999349

Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post

IIRC, Amir said that the current MS VC-1 decoder doesn't do the loop / deblocking filter stuff, which a full VC-1 decoder should do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post

The current Windows VC-1 implementation is spec compliant, and so has full support for the loop filter.

Like Ben said, the Windows decoder supports inloop filtering and postprocessing (deblocking+deringing). All that said... One thing to realize about the Windows VC-1 decoder is that it's still a WMV9 decoder first and foremost. Yes, it's VC-1 compliant, but it still relies heavily on the Windows Media ecosystem - ASF format, WM Format SDK, Media Foundation (Vista), and such. For the Vista/WMP11 release the decoder was still tested exclusively with ASF file sources. There are instances in which the decoder still relies on ASF for metadata (i.e. interlaced frame signaling) rather than on the VC-1 bitstream alone. One of the things we'll need to improve in future Windows releases is ensuring the decoder can work just as well when VC-1 is stored in other file formats (i.e. MPEG-TS, MP4) which is likely to become more common in the future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post

Vista also has some VC-1 decode performance improvements over XP I believe. Also, we support DXVA for GPU hardware acceleration of VC-1 decode - if you're having performance issues and have a relatively modern GPU, you should see if DXVA is on and see if that helps.

Yep. Pretty much every Nvidia card from GeForce 6200 up has DXVA decoding support for VC-1 Advanced Profile as well as classic WMV9 SP/MP. Recent Nvidia 8600+ series has the highest Profile C support under Vista. Incidentally, that's the only advantage the Vista decoder has over XP and that's simply because XP doesn't support DXVA 2.0.
Other video IHVs are still working on their VC-1 DXVA support.

Alex Zambelli

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
zambelli is offline  
post #4838 of 4841 Old 05-22-2007, 01:15 AM
Advanced Member
 
vairulez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 673
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
zambelli,
ATI is claiming VC1 full hardware decoding support for its 2400 and 2600 to be released in july. How is it possible ?

sorry for my poor english but I'm french !!!!
vairulez is offline  
post #4839 of 4841 Old 05-22-2007, 01:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
madshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 5,471
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Thanks for your reply, zambelli!

Quote:
Originally Posted by zambelli View Post

There are instances in which the decoder still relies on ASF for metadata (i.e. interlaced frame signaling) rather than on the VC-1 bitstream alone. One of the things we'll need to improve in future Windows releases is ensuring the decoder can work just as well when VC-1 is stored in other file formats (i.e. MPEG-TS, MP4) which is likely to become more common in the future.

I'm usually converting all my movies to MKV - including my HD-DVDs. And as far as I can see, VC-1 in MKV through the MS decoder works just fine for me. What problems could I expect due to the missing ASF metadata?

P.S: Well, there's one problem: I get good playback only if I set the graphics card to 59.94Hz. With 23.976Hz, the VC-1 video is stuttering quite badly (and yes, of course the video is marked as 1080p23.976 in the MKV container). Don't have this problem with any other codec. Could that have to do with the missing ASF metadata?
madshi is offline  
post #4840 of 4841 Old 05-22-2007, 09:03 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
amirm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Washington State
Posts: 18,112
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 768 Post(s)
Liked: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by scaesare View Post

Although I orginally addressed this as a response to Ben, would anybody be able to address this?

Thanks.

Yes, that is correct as a practical matter. If you don't include a mandatory audio codec, you have no assurance that anyone can hear it. Of course, you may not care in some situations but in most cases, you do.

Amir
Founder,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"Insist on Quality Engineering"

amirm is offline  
post #4841 of 4841 Old 05-23-2007, 04:57 AM - Thread Starter
Super Moderator
 
markrubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 22,927
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 98 Post(s)
Liked: 369
Greetings

the separate thread for Xbox/Add on & PS3 is not working out as planned

This Master Q&A thread is up to 162 pages: so we are going to create a single new Q&A thread and close the two existing threads: sorry for another change but it was worth a try

Link to new combined Master Insiders Thread
markrubin is offline  
Closed Thread HDTV Software Media Discussion

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off