Originally Posted by Herve
You may very well be right, but this means that the UHD-BD drives for computers, as well as the Cyberlink UHD-BD software would have been verboten right from the very beginning.
So this indicates to me that "the industry" is broken up into at least two parts that have competing interests. Again, if it was one monolith, the drives and software for computers would never have been put on the market in the first place. In the latter case, THEN we could conclude today that there was and still is a genuine conspiracy to not allow commercial UHD-BD movie disks to be played on computers.
There's definitely two camps, and they've got conflicting ideas. The content owners want as much control as possible, they don't want people to be able to "own" anything. Then the hardware/software manufacturers who would just assume everything be completely open so they can build novel new products to sell everybody. So what we get is a compromise, BDA is made up of both. Clearly the hardware/software manufactuers are big/interested enough to fight for it to be possible to make PC based players.
Unfortunately for 4K movies, well-produced, excellently-upscaled-by-bone-crunching-computer-software 1080p BD movies look amazingly close in picture quality to 4K...... especially at so-called "normal" viewing distances. If the 4K movie/disk producers want 4K to succeed on a mass scale, they're going to have to either reduce the quality of BDs and 1080 streams to the point where it looks obviously inferior to 4K at "normal" viewing distances, or market new movies only in 4K.
The real difference with 4K isn't the resolution, it's the new mastering, 10 bit encoding, HEVC, HDR (ST.2084), WCG, that is where the improvement lies.
It'll be interesting to see how 4K UHD-BD movies fare in the future.
Reportedly, they're selling better than Blu-ray was at the same point in it's life.
For example, I know that I'd really enjoy a 55" Sony 900e as a computer monitor to do computer things and just plain web surfing perhaps in multiple windows. But I'd also be very interested to experience watching a good UHD-BD HDR movie on that same "TV" from a viewing distance of say 30". Would the immersive, "big picture effect" be similar to the one I experience when sitting in the first few rows of a movie theater?
Not really, while it's true that viewing ratio is one of the largest factors in immersion, other cues factor in as well and there's really no substitue for actual size.
If it is, then I would have no further desire to go to a theater or buy a ridiculously expensive 4K projector to replace our 1080 RS1.
There's a lot of reasons other than resolution to upgrade your RS1, it's ancient. You'd be shocked if you saw an RS620.
Originally Posted by JeffR1
People were chomping at the for UHD playback on a computer and Cyberlink went to bat.
When it was found out what the requirements were, people said "are you kidding" ?
I think the only ones that are interested are literally the people on this forum.
I'm pretty sure Cyberlink had to pay enormous licensing fees to make this happen because they were sniffing a cash cow.
I wonder when Cyberlink found out about the insane requirements, or did they have a hand in it ?
Maybe by the time they did, it was too late to pull out.
It may appear that the industry was really interested in support, but I think they were quite naïve to believe that users were going to go to these extreme lengths and they lost the gamble.
They spent all this time and money to make sure people can't over come AACS 2.0 for nothing.
Cyberlink has never made software for us, they make software for the big OEMs, for bundling on computers. It's probably just part of their business model to implement every new format that comes out so they've got a new box to check on the feature list to push new versions. Cyberlink couldn't care less about the individual end users who buy the software "retail", they're not even a dot on their radar. It's the Dell's, Lenovo's, and the like that they care about.
It doesn't make any sense, why make it so expensive and so difficult for UHD playback on an HTPC, when a stand-alone player can do it all for much less ? And a lot less trouble !
Because it's not made for HTPCs, it's made for new PCs that come from Dell/Lenovo/etc, and those will probably all meet the requirements pretty easily because they all come with new hardware anyway.
I'm going to argue that all this was put in place to keep people from exploiting UHD on an HTPC whether Cyberlink was there to support it or not.
An example of this are the drives from LG that could see the files. I think if it wasn't for the strict DRM, that those LG drives would easily play UHD discs.
Everything was already in place for UHD PC playback, free software (MPC-HC) video cards and drivers that supported HDMI 2.0 and H.264/265 etc.
Oh, it's definitely the DRM that's making it hard, and that comes from the content owners who think they can stop people from sharing movies on the internet, and selling bootleg copies in the streets in Asia. Everything that PCs have to go through to play things is a compromise to satisfy them.
But that was kind of my point, somebody, in fact it must have been a relatively large and powerful group of somebody's must really want PC playback, because they fought the content owners to make it possible, and "won". Thought it's probable that the people who actually negotiated those things are so disconnected from reality that they really had no clue what the implications were.