on the issue of flags:HDCP - Page 7 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #181 of 321 Old 02-16-2003, 11:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GGoodrum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,027
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This actually could be good news, if you think about it. If they didn't downrez the analog at all but just phased out the analog outputs for new STBs, his statement would be valid as it wouldn't affect current users with existing non-DVI/HDCP STBs.

-- Gary
GGoodrum is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #182 of 321 Old 02-16-2003, 12:10 PM
Member
 
dcbingaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 103
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
In the Mar. / April 2003 SGHT, Joel Brinkley reports that the new HD cable agreement reached at the end of 2002 specifically does NOT require "down-rezzing" of analog outputs from HD cable set-top boxes for compatibility with existing HD-ready displays with analog component video inputs. "This wears down or totally eliminates one of the largest obstacles, or bumps in the road. And it protects those who own digital TV's already." -Gary Shapiro, Consumer Electronics Assoc. Sounds like some common sense may have finally interceded - it would have been hard for Comcast, Charter or whoever to sell HD content to a country with essentially NO installed base of displays capable of decoding it, (at least this year !!) I would guess that DirecTV and Dish Network will be forced to do the same, to remain competitive with cable. Is it too early to say "ding-dong the Witch (aka, MPAA paranoids) is dead ??"

Vision without Action is daydreaming,
Action without Vision is a nightmare !!
dcbingaman is offline  
post #183 of 321 Old 02-16-2003, 12:18 PM
Senior Member
 
analog8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The agreement was pretty well covered here on AVS Forum at the time. I don't believe it offered such an assurance at all. If you want to quote the exact paragraph then I'm willing to change my mind.

Also, as someone also pointed out here, networks are under no obligation under that agreement to provide STB's with analog outputs. They could simply discontinue all STB's with analog outputs if they choose, and move to 100% digital STB's. Hence they don't downrezz analog - they just discontinue it entirely.

In summary - it ain't over til the fat lady sings.
analog8 is offline  
post #184 of 321 Old 02-16-2003, 09:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
GGoodrum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,027
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think you are missing my point. For instance, at this point there aren't enough "existing" DirecTV HD STBs out there to be statistically significant, when you compare that to the 15 million, or so, SD STBs in use. I could very easily see a scenario where they eliminate the HD analog outputs on all new HD STBs and just not worry about the "few" that are out there right now that still have them. There's plenty of time to make this happen before they reach the point that even 10% of their customers have and use HD receivers. That way none of us will complain, Hollywood gets their copy protection and the HD tap will finally start to flow with more than the current trickle.

-- Gary
GGoodrum is offline  
post #185 of 321 Old 02-16-2003, 11:10 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,054
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 372
I am confuised about the alleged lack of flow of the current HD tap...

It appears to be somewhat gushing by my read. The far bigger issue is viewers, not content. It appears they have "built in." Now it's up for people to "come."

Mark

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #186 of 321 Old 02-17-2003, 07:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GGoodrum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,027
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Mark --

The "trickle" I refered to was for "premium" content like PPV. Actually, that has improved with DirecTV's new PPV channel but more is better! For non-PPV HD, I would agree, the tap is definitely free-flowing. I'm amazed at all the HD stuff available via OTA, which is 90% of what I watch anyway. It has turned me into somewhat of an antenna nut, of late, as I continue my quest for perfect reception!

-- Gary
GGoodrum is offline  
post #187 of 321 Old 02-17-2003, 09:31 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,054
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 372
Ah, I guess I kinda feel like PPV has not really been an early-adopter / enthusiast medium by and large, which may be why I pay so little attention. Even with the broad selection on DirecTV, I find that the DVD is usually a better choice for viewing quality and -- of course -- broader selection.

It occurs to me that HD PPV could be a winner on cable where the bandwidth might allow for a lot of choice., but I imagine that HD-DVD will eventually be a real option and, with Netflix, probably the best option.

Mark

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #188 of 321 Old 02-17-2003, 10:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
GGoodrum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,027
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
That begs the obvious question: Will the new HD-DVD players include HD-capable analog outputs at all? My guess is no, they won't.

-- Gary
GGoodrum is offline  
post #189 of 321 Old 02-18-2003, 11:48 AM
adb
AVS Special Member
 
adb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: central texas
Posts: 2,640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Good information on pending bill, don't believe I have seen this posted here.http://www.cedmagazine.com/cedailydi...ly030214.htm#3
adb is offline  
post #190 of 321 Old 02-18-2003, 05:03 PM
Senior Member
 
analog8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
That article is full of weasel words from Tauzin's aide. Given Tauzin's track record, I doubt very much the bill will be pro consumer or pro fair use.

We _are_ talking about the politician who opposed the FTC's 'do not call' database for telemarketers, then suddenly changed tack and supported it when he realized he was out in the cold. Either that or the campaign check from the DMA must have bounced.

http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/sil...es/4904280.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
analog8 is offline  
post #191 of 321 Old 02-20-2003, 11:19 AM
Member
 
57UWX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Orlando
Posts: 69
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I don’t get it! I don’t get it! I don’t get it!
Man I must be stupider than I thought.
Why would CBS, NBC, ABC, or FOX care if I copy their programming?
They beam it into me for free (SD or HD).
Why is it free to me? Because advertisers pay for the programming.
And the more viewers eyeballing the programming the more advertisers pay.
If I were to take a CBS broadcast and resend it on the Internet I would be doing CBS a favor wouldn’t I? More eyeballs mean more advertising dollars. Surely Neilson can measure how many eyeballs are watching on the net.
Is there a huge market for bootleg copies of Friends or Joe Millionaire that I’m not aware of ? Is there a huge market for bootleg copies of two-year old movies that have been cleaned up to a G rating? Or huge markets for copies of sporting events long after the results are in?
What is the worst-case scenario? That I as the consumer get Friends in HD w/o commercials over the Internet whenever I want it? Well, after the original broadcast of course.
Is there really a big market for that?
And lastly, it seems to me that it would be easier to require that the ISP not allow the transmission of copy write material (w/o the express written consent of MLB or whoever).
57UWX is offline  
post #192 of 321 Old 02-20-2003, 04:25 PM
Senior Member
 
williak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit MI
Posts: 403
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
You're right.

Quote:
Originally posted by 57UWX
I don’t get it! I don’t get it! I don’t get it!
williak is offline  
post #193 of 321 Old 02-24-2003, 09:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GGoodrum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,027
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Here's another story on Hollywood's anti-piracy efforts from today's LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/technology/la...s%2Dtechnology

Studios, Firms in Piracy Talks
At issue is how to save anti-copying signals when they are converted from digital to analog.



By Jon Healey, Times Staff Writer


Trying to plug another potential hole in the anti-piracy dike, Hollywood studios have started a new round of private meetings with high-tech companies and consumer-electronics manufacturers to explore ways to stop unauthorized recordings.

This time, the issue is how to preserve anti-copying signals on a digital television show, online video or DVD when converted from digital to analog.

That kind of conversion, which has to happen before a digital program can be sent to the vast majority of TV sets, is inherently fatal to digital copy-protection techniques.

Years from now, when consumers have digital TVs that connect digitally to set-top boxes and recorders, the potential problem goes away. In the meantime, the studios' fear is that the mixture of analog and digital devices in homes will allow their movies and premium TV programs to be copied digitally and distributed freely via the Internet.

If that happens on a global scale, as it has in the music industry, the studios worry that they would lose the ability to sell programs to syndicators, overseas broadcasters and DVD buyers -- in other words, much of what they collect from a program after its first airing.

Some participants in the group, whose co-chairmen are from Philips Electronics, Microsoft Corp. and AOL Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Bros. unit, scoff at such dire predictions, arguing that today's Internet connections are too slow to enable widespread video piracy.

Nevertheless, there's no shortage of movies and TV shows already available for free online to those who know where to look for them. For example, numerous episodes from the first two seasons of HBO's "Six Feet Under" and a copy of the unreleased DVD version of "The Hours" are up for grabs from online sites that cater to video pirates.

"For those people who do suggest that audio-visual files are impractical to send over the Internet because of the size of the file and the speed of current Internet connections, here is a cautionary tale," said Andrew G. Setos, president of engineering at News Corp.'s Fox Group. "Ten years ago it took eight hours to download a song. Now it takes seconds."

The Analog Reconversion Discussion Group, as the inter-industry collective is called, says its purpose is simply to identify technological tools that may be relevant to the piracy issue. It's not supposed to select or even recommend any technologies, and it won't address such thorny policy questions as which programs can be protected and how severe the limits on copying can be.

Nor is the group operating under any timetable. Nonetheless, the studios are eager for results, and they warn that the group risks being irrelevant if it doesn't act promptly -- particularly with some members of Congress eager to legislate on piracy and digital TV.

Other participants, meanwhile, are wary of how Hollywood might use whatever findings come out of the group. Representatives of consumer groups and the computer industry, in particular, don't want the studios to characterize the group's work as setting the stage for the government to mandate anti-piracy technology in a sweeping array of devices.

Seth Schoen of the Electronic Frontier Federation, a group that advocates civil liberties online, said the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act puts the burden on Hollywood to protect its programs. But the studios' anti-piracy initiatives would shift the burden onto manufacturers so that "whenever you make anything technical, you have to go and ask them, 'How do I design this so that it protects your interests?' "

The analog discussion group, which held its first meeting Feb. 12, arrives on the heels of a similar inter-industry dialogue about ways to block digital TV broadcasts from being retransmitted over the Internet. Although the Broadcast Protection Discussion Group left many disputed points unresolved in its final report last June, the studios are pushing the Federal Communications Commission to adopt regulations that would enforce the panel's core recommendations.

The broadcast discussion group confined its work to digital signals passed through digital connectors, which could rely on digital anti-copying techniques to deter files from being pirated on the Internet.

The vast majority of today's TVs are analog, however, and even digital TVs rely in many cases on analog connectors to receive digital TV broadcasts. Meanwhile, there's a growing number of devices in the home that can make a digital recording of an analog TV signal, ranging from set-top recorders to computers.

The new group will explore ways to use electronic watermarks and other signaling techniques that could remain embedded in a program after it's converted to analog. Many DVD recorders already incorporate one such technology, which hides copying restrictions within an unused portion of a standard TV picture.

One studio executive, who asked not to be identified, said the solution could focus just on analog-to-digital converters smart enough to know what a TV signal looks like.

"What we could do is design a system ... where the device that digitizes an analog video signal has a responsibility to protect it if it finds it's protected material," the executive said, adding that "the choice of methods should be very broad."
GGoodrum is offline  
post #194 of 321 Old 02-24-2003, 03:43 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,054
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 372
What is very, very interesting about the last quote in the above is that it implies that down-rezzing of analog component outputs could be a non-issue.

If the enforcement mechanism is on the digitizing side of things, it could be very annoying for capture cards and software that would need to recognize the watermarks / flags, but it would leave "non-digitizing" analog device -- like monitors and TV -- out of the equation.

I'm not getting optimistic -- au contraire -- but it would be nice if obsolescence of >4 million HDTVs is taken off the table as a threat.

Mark

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #195 of 321 Old 02-26-2003, 05:35 PM
Senior Member
 
analog8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 416
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Mandating watermark technology into all devices capable of digitizing video is a non-issue IMHO. Apart from the fact that this genie is already out of the bottle, it is totally impractical to enforce this on a global basis.

Draconian ideas like like this (e.g. Senator Disney's SSCA bill) are just a bogeyman the MPAA is using to scare the CE companies into negotiating on other points.
analog8 is offline  
post #196 of 321 Old 02-26-2003, 11:02 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,054
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 372
It doesn't really matter if it's a non-issue in your humble opinion. What matter is whether it is the compromise to get this done.

Everyday, thousands more people buy HDTVs that could be obsoleted if this compromise isn't reached.

Mark

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #197 of 321 Old 03-05-2003, 03:32 PM
Advanced Member
 
tommylotto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Laguna Hills, CA
Posts: 606
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I own an F38310 with an internal HD tuner. I assume that the internal tuner will not be effected by the anticipated copy protection scheme. However, once an HD tuner/ HDTivo combination is available, I want to connect this device (through the component outputs) to my HDTV's component inputs. There is nothing wrong or inappropriate about this activity. All it is is time-shifting, which is not infringing anyone's copyright. I will not download the signal to my computer, nor will I distribute the signal on the internet. I should not be punished by down-rezzing because the analog output can be misused if used in combination with other devices. It seems that an analog output is not the problem. The problem is the devices that enable the signal to be recorded. If you want to protect your copyright, the protection should be in the recording device -- not the output.

Remember, guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people. Component outputs don't infringe copyrights, people with component outputs and A/D converters and digital recording devices and illicit intent infringe copyrights.
tommylotto is offline  
post #198 of 321 Old 03-06-2003, 05:19 PM
Member
 
sscharbach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 21
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I would appreciate some clarification. Neither my 2 year old Toshiba HDTV monitor (a 16:9 CRT) nor my Zenith 420 STB have HDCP/DVI outputs or inputs.

When the broadcast flags come on, can a simply buy a new STB to make non-down-rezzed signals, or will I need both a new TV and a new STB?

Also, what is to stop Hollywood and the rest of the copy protection bullies from changing the standard and obsolete my HDCP compatible set and STB?

Would appreciate a reply. Steve
sscharbach is offline  
post #199 of 321 Old 03-06-2003, 10:57 PM
Advanced Member
 
peebee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Evanston, IL
Posts: 763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The whole point of HDCP/DVI, as I understand it, is that the signal is encoded right up to the display device. Any analog signals would be required to be down-rezzed. No recording of hi-res possible. That's exactly what's got lots of people a bit upset -- if we could all keep using HD component inputs, we'd mostly all be happy with the expensive stuff we've already bought.

Y = 0.30R + 0.59G + 0.11B
peebee is offline  
post #200 of 321 Old 03-07-2003, 12:19 PM
Advanced Member
 
peebee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Evanston, IL
Posts: 763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This is not an idea for a hack, this is a question regarding what appears to me to be the complete ineffectiveness of the proposed HDCP system:

Couldn't anyone with an oscilliscope and a soldering iron open up an HDCP HD CRT, solder on three leads, and have an instant fully-functional HDCP to analog converter complete with remote control?

Locks were only ever effective at keeping the honest people out. I don't see how HDCP could possibly be any different. Encryption only works when the two communicating parties are trying to keep third parties from spying. If you give the receiver the ability to decipher the code, well, then you've pretty much given him full access to the code. There doesn't seem to be any truely secure way to keep people from rather easily (although illegally, granted) pulling an analog signal out of their analog CRT TV once the TV has already decoded it for them.

Yes, I understand the equipment is supposed to disable itself if the cover is removed. Seems like cutting the plastic around the switch that detects this is the way around that. The plastic is so cheap on this stuff anymore you have to be careful not to punch holes in it when you're connecting your patch cords, that's not exactly my definition of "secure".

All this coming from the same film industry people that send out thousands of DVD's to the Academy each year, plenty of which end up in China for illegal copying and distribution back in the US prior to legal US release, complete with the "Not for Sale - Academy Review Only" disclaimer popping up at the beginning of the bootleg movie.

It just seems kind of like they're trying to protect their films by leaving them out on the front lawn with a big "VALUABLE FILMS - PLEASE DON'T STEAL ME" sign on them.

Y = 0.30R + 0.59G + 0.11B
peebee is offline  
post #201 of 321 Old 03-07-2003, 12:40 PM
Advanced Member
 
peebee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Evanston, IL
Posts: 763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I thought my HDCP rant was over, but I'm still charged up on this one.

Here's an even better analogy: HDCP is like letting people out of jail on parole, and telling them that they are legally required to come back. Most of them will. But a percentage of them will always skip town. The costs of skipping town are negligable unless they get caught. Getting caught is an effective deterrent for most of them. But for some of them, giving them partial freedom is about the same as giving them complete freedom.

Same thing with HDCP. You give someone partial permission to view an encoded signal, well, some undesireables are going to realize that for a negligable investment ($2000 plus the cost of a soldering gun and three wires) they can get full copy cababilities, and the only risk is the rather small chance of getting caught (and if they're in China, they're not even worried about that).

Y = 0.30R + 0.59G + 0.11B
peebee is offline  
post #202 of 321 Old 03-10-2003, 09:31 PM
Member
 
bobdavisnpf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Compared to Hollywood's consortium of publishers, Microsoft is lookin' pretty good.

My MS Office license lets me load Office onto more than one machine, provided I own each machine, I'm the only user of the software, and I ensure only one is in use at any one time. I can make backup copies. I can copy it to any hard disk and run the install from there. I can modify the install to run it from CD, from CD/Hard drive, entirely from hard drive, across my home network, even across the web if I don't care about bandwidth or speed. I get a free pocket edition of some programs to run on a PDA. If the media is damaged, I can get new copies for about 5% the cost of the program, basically a handling fee. When an upgraded version comes out, I get a 75% credit for my old copy to upgrade. They don't even want the old one back.

Now I have a license for a movie on VHS. Never mind that I already paid the license twice to see it in theaters, I got no credit. The DVD comes out: no credit for the VHS. I can't back up the DVD. I can't watch it on my notebook. It's not HD. The enhanced DVD comes out: no credit for the first. Superbit release: same thing. Next it's offered on an HD station: my HDTV can't pick it up because the cable company hasn't got HD yet except on HBO. So this summer when they do go HDTV on 2 or 3 locals, my $4K obsolete TV (after all it's 9 months old) won't show it? I've paid the same license fee six times, and I can't see it in HD yet? Now I can see how they can afford to pay an actor $20M for 3 months' work on a 2-hour film.

Bill Gates was right in '87 when he said the real money is in content. His fortune plus that of the alleged Microsoft Millionaires is pretty small compared to the personal wealth generated by the Hollywood system of content licensing and distribution.

"Just because it's No Problem Found, doesn't mean there is No Problem."
bobdavisnpf is offline  
post #203 of 321 Old 03-16-2003, 12:54 PM
VFX
Member
 
VFX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 29
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I've found this thread interesting and thought provoking, but in the original post this statement still irks me.

Quote:
Originally posted by markrubin
A screenwriter friend of a Forum Member says there is no way recent movies will be allowed to be shown in HD via Pay Per View services without “down-rezzing†component outputs. He says the copies made from component outputs are way better than DVD quality, and that just won’t be allowed.
Screenwriter? Hopefully remarks like this aren't frightening anyone. The screenwriter may or may not be an authority on writing. He may have an opinion about this topic, but so does my mother.

A friend of my uncle's barber didn't think this should bother me, but then he would have been wrong.

:D
VFX is offline  
post #204 of 321 Old 03-18-2003, 09:32 AM
Advanced Member
 
peebee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Evanston, IL
Posts: 763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'd always understood that that was the whole point of HDCP: no HD analog signals allowed. All copyrighted analog HDCP outputs downrezzed to 480. You could still get OTA in HD analog, but forget about HD movies via HDDVD, cable, satellite, etc., unless you have DVI-HDCP, or unless you start buying disks and equipment made in China.

Y = 0.30R + 0.59G + 0.11B
peebee is offline  
post #205 of 321 Old 03-18-2003, 11:21 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
amillians's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Bloom County
Posts: 4,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by peebee
[b]I'd always understood that that was the whole point of HDCP: no HD analog signals allowed. All copyrighted analog HDCP outputs downrezzed to 480.[b]
There are no restrictions on full resolution analog outputs for HDCP source devices per the HDCP Licensing Agreement. The only restrictions for analog output are for HDCP repeater class devices (e.g., a scaler cannot output analog HD when fed an HDCP flagged signal) and for HDCP display class devices (no analog outputs are allowed). No where in the HDCP spec or agreement is image constraint mentioned--that the purview of DTCP.

That said, there's nothing stopping a content provider from requiring specific circuitry in a device that just so happens to be an HDCP source device to disable or downrez an analog HD signal. It just wouldn't be related to HDCP. Said another way, HDCP doesn't futz with analog HD from a source device, but it doesn't protect it either.

Alex doesn't live here anymore
amillians is offline  
post #206 of 321 Old 03-18-2003, 04:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
peebee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Evanston, IL
Posts: 763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I don't usually quote the "Mercury News." I've never heard of them before. And things may well have changes since the 4/2/02 publication of this article. Or they could well just be wrong. Anyway, the full article is available at http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/business/3106036.htm , attached below is a quote that seems to go against your statement, amillians.

--------- quote follows ----------

The latest digital sets will feature copy protection that eliminates the consumer's ability to record pay-per-view movies, or restricts the number of copies they can make of shows broadcast in digital. These new technologies give studios the wherewithal to withhold its most valuable cinematic content from consumers watching on first-generation sets -- or require satellite and cable companies to cut the resolution in half through a technique called ``downresing.''

At issue is a perceived flaw in first-generation digital sets that's come to be known as the ``analog hole.'' Every digital TV set sold to consumers since the digital television revolution began in 1997 comes with component video inputs. These analog connectors allow video to flow, unencrypted, from a cable or satellite set-top box to the television monitor.

Y = 0.30R + 0.59G + 0.11B
peebee is offline  
post #207 of 321 Old 03-18-2003, 06:28 PM
Advanced Member
 
peebee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Evanston, IL
Posts: 763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Here's a better quote, from February 2002 (again, a bit dated), from http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...eo-2-2002.html

--------- quote follows ----------

Implications for Consumers

Unfortunately for consumers, the new encryption schemes mean that if you have purchased a display device before the fall of 2002, there is a 90% chance that you will not be able to watch digital HDTV media on your display. Unless your device has a DVI HDCP connector on it, you will be limited to a 480p analog signal (or a 480p digital signal if you have DVI DTCP connector) from digital sources, including HD-DVD, HD Satellite, and HD-Cable. There are a few content sources now that provide 1080i analog, but they can't offer the digital connections on the same unit per the license agreements. Expect to see these 1080i analog devices disappear fast, because the studios consider them a threat. They probably consider all 50,000,000 computer jocks in the world a threat for that matter. And for good reason.

Before you get mad at the salesman that sold you that $12,000 HDTV or $50,000 plasma, keep this in mind; the salesman probably didn’t know. The electronics industry kept this secret under wraps as long as they could. After all, who would buy a HDTV device if they knew it would be obsolete in less than 2 years? But, just because it has a DVI input doesn’t mean it supports HDCP, so check before you buy!

You should be mad at the studios! Unfortunately, the studios don't care, although they should. They know very well that the average consumer doesn’t make a living copying digital media. Those who do make a living copying digital content have always found a way to crack or get around the content protection schemes. In fact, HDCP has already been cracked. We think the problem is not about money. It's about power. The studios want to have absolute control over their content, even at the expense of consumers losing faith in their industry and losing sales. The beauty is that they will lose all of these things . . . control, credibility, and money, because consumers are smarter than the studios are. Do the studios think that consumers are vindictive? No. Are consumers vindictive? You bet. Note to the studios: Just watch us.

HDTV is not really new. It has been around since 1981. But, the studios have restricted the release of digital media until they felt that they could have sufficient control over it, a control that will never be possible. This control has not nor will it ever “protect†the consumer’s interests, only the studios. In fact their implementation of these restrictions will cause major consumer backlash as we all see what has transpired, and how much it has cost us. If anything, the deceit and confusion over DVI and DTCP will only make the adoption of HDTV and HD-DVD harder.

Y = 0.30R + 0.59G + 0.11B
peebee is offline  
post #208 of 321 Old 03-18-2003, 08:40 PM
Advanced Member
 
peebee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Evanston, IL
Posts: 763
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
And one last quote, this one from what seems to be a fairly reputable and fairly recent source, http://broadcastengineering.com/ar/b...ssion_control/ , December 2002:

High-definition displays are now beginning to incorporate the digital video interconnect with HDCP, another form of encryption, to protect the bits that flow between a set-top box or video recording device and a display. If HDCP becomes a required form of protection for HD content, several million first-generation HDTV monitors may not be able to display HD content. The HD source would be limited to 480p resolution for output on analog component connections.

Y = 0.30R + 0.59G + 0.11B
peebee is offline  
post #209 of 321 Old 03-18-2003, 08:58 PM - Thread Starter
Super Moderator
 
markrubin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Jersey Shore
Posts: 22,672
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 24 Post(s)
Liked: 256
VFX

I am sorry if a statement in the original post irked you: further in the post it said:

"we feel obligated to bring this information to the Forum; please don’t criticize us for being alarmists or flame us; we are passing on what we have heard and believe could be credible information"

in fact, just a few weeks after this initial post, news of an HDCP test on DirecTv channel 201 was posted - when the flag was raised on that channel, the component video outputs were disabled as long as a DVI connection was made to the stb

Mark/Gary

Please take the high road in every post
Please do not quote or respond to problematic posts: report them to mods to handle
Link to sponsors
good to be back to vBulletin
markrubin is online now  
post #210 of 321 Old 03-18-2003, 09:21 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
amillians's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Bloom County
Posts: 4,822
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
peebee,

I suggest you read the actual HDCP Licensing Agreement--specifically, Exhibit C ("Compliance Rules"). It's all there, black and white. As with most things HD, the press is full of myths and misinformation. Sadly, so are a lot of posts on this forum. DVI/HDCP (HDMI) isn't mother's milk, but it's not the anti-Christ that some would have you believe.

http://www.digital-cp.com/data/HDCPlicense061402b.pdf

Alex doesn't live here anymore
amillians is offline  
Closed Thread Flat Panels General and OLED Technology

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