ICT (Image Constraint Token) On New Titles?

THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS has it, or at least my testing showed 480i only from component, and I don't know what else would cause it.

I don't believe there is a disclosure on that case, is there? Mine was a Netflix rental.

-Bill

Yes, I wrote him back then to confirm that report. OPPO confirmed the behavior with that title, but I never heard back if ICT was definitely the cause. Hard to see what else it could be.

I don't run any Blu-ray software. Is there a program which will detect ICT and simply report Y/N?

-Bill

http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/...&&#post7386772

Not sure if there's a program to check the ICT flag.

Well, as we speak, my PS3 is playing LAST OF THE MOHICANS into an aging 51" HDTV through component at 1080i. I've already viewed it several times and I knew it was HD but, in light of this thread (just so nobody could say I wasn't paying attention ) I have it playing again...right now. And the display shows the maximum resolution available through component : 1080i

Just as it should be.

I suggest anybody having a question should return to the Josh Zyber article and look at the part where says, "... there's another possibility that may be even more likely...". Let's not jump to the LESS LIKELY conclusion.

A little looking reveals that, for years, some folks have convinced themselves that they've found titles with the ICT when better explanations exist.

Ok: what's the better explanation? Zyber's idea on BD-Live didn't apply to my testing. Is it possible the PS3 is ignoring the ICT?

-Bill

I don't think there's a chance in hell (can I say that?) that this title has an ICT. There's an estimated 3 million "old" HDTVs that have no HDMI connectors. If this title had an ICT, everybody would have known about it by the end of day one. Furthermore, this disc was pressed in 2010. To press a disc in 2010 with an ICT and to furthermore not disclose that fact would go against all industry agreements.

Honestly, I think it as simple as "....It may also be that your player has a compatibility problem that the manufacturer will need to issue a firmware update to resolve." (from the Josh Zyber comment).

It may also be that your just plain unlucky. Seriously, sometimes a piece of gear will do something wonky. A BD player is a computer and sometimes they do things that others can't repeat.

The problem with the ICT theory is that it's number 43 on the top 10 list of possible explanations. There are 42 better explanations.

The ICT issue is moot for most users anyway. It seem like the only ones that have to deal with this issue are those that have older RP displays with no digital inputs or those that have older audio gear that don't support switching HDMI. The ICT issue is moot for a vast majority of viewers. Not saying you can't be upset, but I find it similar to the new 3D issue. My display should not have any problem displaying a 3D signal, but the industry did not want to design backwards compatibility into the spec. The industry is always looking for ways to make consumers feel they need to upgrade, but it seems like they are trying to shorten the window making gear appear obsolete. 16:9, 480p Analog Component Video -> 720p, DVI -> 1080i60, DVI/HDMI 1.1 -> 1080p(24,60) HDMI 1.3 -> 1080p in 3D with HDMI 1.4. If consider the early 50s as the truth birth of consumer TV, then it took over ten years to transition to color and another 15 to 20 years to get stereo audio. The VHS standard lasted for nearly twenty years. DVD will probably last less than that and BD will be even shorter.

Sorry to say the industry is not going to go out of their way to remove a legitimate copy protection to make a few users happy. Especially considering some companies are coming out with component video capture cards for the PC.

And I really question how many of those 3M HDTV sets without HDMI are still in use as primary sets. Most of the those sets were bought by early adopters that replace gear more frequently.

It is completely worthless copy protection.

You think all the pirated BDRip .MKVs out there were made using component video capture cards?

How odd.

One week ago, another poster wrote these words:

"And I really question how many of those 3M HDTV sets without HDMI are still in use as primary sets. Most of the those sets were bought by early adopters that replace gear more frequently."

With the decision to not include Component Video Ouputs on 2011 announced BD players, the studios nay not even bother to add ICT to BD titles.

That really is a shame they licensed out component video as it is a BULLETPROOF interconnect that I have never, ever, ever, ever, ever had an issue with. It just works-plug and play. The same cannot be said for HDMI-plug and pray........ Just connected a DVR to my XBR and HDMI would prevent it from booting.......

I agree. Unfortunately Hollywood seems to think that all their DRM is harder to defeat then plain old analog . . .

I just personally inherited a 55" Projection 1080i tv with no HDMI or DVI-D. I'm sure there are still plenty of us out there with these (not so older) sets. Not everyone can afford to drop a grand on a 55" TV every 5 years. Especially the way the economy has been going the past half decade.

Unfortunately that is not an absolutely reliable test. Players are allowed to maintain any output resolution they like as long as they internally reduce the resolution as required by ICT. In other words, ICT relates to visual fidelity, not actual video scanning rates.

That said, I suspect companies implement it as change in output scanning rate as it is easy and free to do so.

I have not heard that interpretation of the implementation before. Not to doubt you, but do you have citation? I'm trying to keep up on this.

It would explain why people cite 960x540 resolution, which is not a video signal format with which I am familiar.

-Bill

What would AVS be without people asking for citations even though you helped write the rules?

Here it is:http://www.aacsla.com/license/AACS_C...rmt_090619.pdf

"2.17 Constrained Image shall mean an image having the visual equivalent of no more than 520,000 pixels per frame (e.g., an image with resolution of 960 pixels by 540 pixels for a 16:9 aspect ratio). A Constrained Image may be attained by reducing resolution, for example, by discarding, dithering, or averaging pixels to obtain the specified value. A Constrained Image can be displayed using video processing techniques such as line doubling or sharpening to improve the perceived quality of the image. By way of example, a Constrained Image may be stretched or doubled, and displayed full-screen, on a 1000-line monitor."

I have bolded the key points.


Indeed the requirement is to quarter the resolution. So 480i/p is going beyond the requirement for the license. At 540p, the resolution is still better than standard definition and likely pretty clean video due to noise reduction implicit in such scaling.

Very interesting! Now we need a way of verifying the presence of the ICT on any given Blu-ray disc. Any help there?

-Bill

You are a gentleman and a scholar.

But isn't it less lines than a standard definition PAL DVD which has 576 visible lines (assuming no black bars)?

PAL? What's PAL?

PAL is 720×576 = 414720
ICT is 960x540 = 518400

So assuming no black bars, ICT is still an improvement, putting aside aspect ratio differences. You are right that vertically it has slightly fewer lines.

Saw a statement on a review posted on Amazon that HD via component is being disabled on all players mfrd. after 1/1/11. Is this true?
A couple weeks ago we bought a Sony BDP-S470 for our home in Miami, where we have an HDMI connection. We just ordered the same model for our home in Okld. - where we only have component on our 5 y.o. Panny plasma. I just saw that comment in the review.
Went online to Sony support via chat. She went and asked someone and said our unit in Miami was made a 2/19/10. She then went on to say ALL Sony players have HD via component.
So, is this 1/1/11 date true? The poster claimed the rule against component HD was instituted to protect against copy right violations.
I didn't want to open the box IF we can't do HD w. the player.

...mike

http://www.digital-digest.com/news-6...estricted.html
It may be delayed - or not.

As I understand it, it's suppose to be on the disc cover.


From January 1st, all Blu-ray players produced after this date will only output HD from digital outputs, namely HDMI, with component output limited to a maximum resolution of only 540p. For older players, studios can now use the ICT flag embedded onto Blu-ray discs to tell the players not to output HD over analog. Discs with ICT will have to carry the ICT logo on the disc cover.

Are you kidding me!?! TV's to stop aswell
http://www.cepro.com/article/myth_co...t_prematurely/

What if I want to keep playing Freedom Fighters in 720p on my original Xbox? I'm sol? 480p only. What kind of progression in this?

What is the output image via component now? Something you guys didnt mention was DOT, how is that similar to ICT?

On your existing discs, the same as it has always been. If ICT is turned on, you will see notice on the box and the resolution will be as stated.


Similarity with ICT is that it also requires clear notification to consumers on the disc packaging. It is however, reserved for early "window" releases which likely not going to happen with Blu-ray. If it were to happen, as the name indicates, analog output needs to be shut off during playback.

Stupid idea. There are plenty of "rips" floating around that were not obtained via analog output.

Yeah, like, all of them.