AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/)
-   HDTV Software Media Discussion (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/114-hdtv-software-media-discussion/)
-   -   Industry Insiders Q&A MASTER THREAD [separate thread for Xbox/Add On & PS3] (https://www.avsforum.com/forum/114-hdtv-software-media-discussion/774635-industry-insiders-q-master-thread-separate-thread-xbox-add-ps3.html)

markrubin 12-25-2006 06:31 AM

Industry Insiders Xbox and PS3 Q&A thread: : Xbox and PS3 ONLY Questions to Insiders only: only Insiders may answer

Post Questions [only questions] directed to and answered only by Industry Insiders who are asked to identify themselves as such in their sig : subject to AVS approval

Industry Insiders only may answer questions or make comments: this is the thread for chat between Insiders as well

any AVS member can post questions [only questions please] for Insiders- but we will not tolerate any bashing

AVS recognizes the special nature of Industry Insiders and values their participation: we ask all AVS members to treat them with respect

Remember: Questions only: no off topic posts: they may be removed: and only Insiders [who have been recognized by AVS moderators] may answer


Insiders: please PM Ken H and myself with your credentials: mods and only mods will make the determination of who qualifys as an insider and all such discussions will be done off line: not to be discussed here

This is a continuation of the original thread Industry Insiders Q&A Thread: only Questions to insiders please which did not end well: any more of this and we will take strong action: Insiders are to be treated with respect:

Please help us make this a flagship thread on AVS by observing these rules

Insiders approved to post in this thread and guidelines for this list:

this list is controlled by the mods: please don't post, either here or in any other forum or thread, about the selection

- list is for this Insider's thread only: it does not apply to any other forum, thread, or post: we don't ask Insider's status outside of this thread and they are not required to ID themselves ouside of this thread
- please don't start any threads on it
-see a mistake or want to request an edit? please PM me: list will be updated frequently
-Are you an Insider who wants to post? please PM me if you are not on the list: we would love to add more


Amirm
Amir Majidimehr
Corporate Vice President, Microsoft Corporation
Consumer Media Technology Group, Mobile and Embedded Devices Division
Microsoft (HD DVD insider)
VC-1 video codec insider in BD/HD DVD

Andy Pennell
Andy Pennell
HDi Developer, Microsoft
HD DVD Insider

benwaggoner
Ben Waggoner
Program Manager for Video Encoding, Professional Content Group, Microsoft
HD DVD and VC-1 Insider with Microsoft

bkilian
Bryan Kilian
Software Development Engineer in Test HDDVD team at Microsoft
Insider with Microsoft

Cjplay
name withheld upon request
Warner Bros HD-DVD Compressionist
Compressionist
[we miss you]

DTV Tivo Dealer

Robert Zohn
President of *********************
Advanced Digital Technology Dealer
TV Broadcast RF Systems Engineer
Retailer - B&M Storefront and Online Website

FilmMixer
Marc Fishman
Re-Recording Mixer, ToddAO Studios
Studio City, CA
Film Sound and Post Production Insider

JeffWilliams
Authoring and Compression
HD-DVD/Blu-ray Insider


jimby_99
name withheld upon request
VP, Advanced Technology for Universal Music Group
Production/Release supervisor of Blu-ray, HD DVD & DVD titles
Music/Video Industry Insider

kjack
Keith Jack
Director Product Marketing
Sigma Designs
BD and HD-DVD decoder supplier
BD/HD-DVD insider

MeridianHQ

name withheld upon request
Meridian Insider
Huntingdon England

PacificDisc
name withheld upon request
Sean - PacificDisc
HD DVD & Blu-ray Replication Insider

paidgeek

name withheld upon request
Sony Pictures BD Insider
Engineer

RBFilms
Richard J. Casey
R&B Films, Ltd.
Producers Guild of America, New Media Council
HD-DVD / BD Industry Insider

RDoherty

Richard E. Doherty
Director, Technology Strategy, Microsoft

Roger Dressler
Director, Business Development
Dolby Laboratories

shore
name withheld upon request
Blu-ray and HD-DVD Insider

Talkstr8t
name withheld upon request
Blu-ray Insider
Speaking solely for myself, not the BDA
Digital Television

walkamo
Christopher Walker
Product Planning and Marketing for Blu-ray and Optical Discs
Pioneer Electronics Sr Manager
Blu-ray Hardware Insider

zambelli
Alex Zambelli
Software Development Engineer in Test
Codec Team, Consumer Media Technology Group, Microsoft
VC-1 and WMV9 codec insider with Microsoft


Industry Insiders Xbox and PS3 Q&A thread: : Xbox and PS3 ONLY Questions to Insiders only: only Insiders may answer

scaesare 12-25-2006 07:28 AM

Can anybody shed light on a recently mentioned proposal for "Performance level 2 and level 3" definitions for HD DVD players?

sknight1 12-25-2006 07:29 AM

To any BDA Insider,


There is a lot of confusion (at least to me) regarding the different profiles utilized.

Could someone please:
  1. Summarize what features are included in each profile.
  2. State which currently available players (out of the box) can play which profiles.
  3. If no player can play all profiles, state when (approx) this will occur.

Quite frankly, I am confused if I purchase a player today it *may/may not* be firmware upgradeable to play all profiles or not. I have read where a June 2007 date is when players will be available to play all profiles. Is this true?

Thank you and Merry Christmas to all.

Scott

paidgeek 12-25-2006 10:04 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by sknight1 View Post

To any BDA Insider,


There is a lot of confusion (at least to me) regarding the different profiles utilized.

Could someone please:
  1. Summarize what features are included in each profile.
  2. State which currently available players (out of the box) can play which profiles.
  3. If no player can play all profiles, state when (approx) this will occur.

Quite frankly, I am confused if I purchase a player today it *may/may not* be firmware upgradeable to play all profiles or not. I have read where a June 2007 date is when players will be available to play all profiles. Is this true?

Thank you and Merry Christmas to all.

Scott

Scott,

Please see the excerpt below from wikipedia regarding profiles and features for Blu-ray. This list appears to be accurate.

I am not aware of any players sold today that support anything beyond profile 1.0. Blu-ray requires a transition from version 1.0 to version 1.1 in June as you mention, but version 1.1 or 2.0 can be supported sooner at any player manfacturers choosing.

PS3 appears to be well positioned to support either profile 1.1 or 2.0 as it uses software as the basis of its movie playback. That said, there has been no official word from Sony Computer Entertainment regarding when or if such an update will be made available.


The BD-ROM specification defines four profiles of Blu-ray players. All video-based profiles are required to have a full implementation of BD-J. The 1st generation players are based on the BD-Video profile that does not require required support of certain features such as Picture-in-Picture, local storage, and network connections. Profiles 1.1 makes PIP, local storage and secondary audio mandatory. Profile 2 (BD-Live) adds network connectivity to the list of mandatory functions. Profile 3 is meant for an audio-only player and does not require video decoding or BD-J.

High_Def DVD 12-25-2006 11:38 AM

Now would like to have some inside information about some old news that i have read last year about the Blu-ray strategy and i qoute:

[/quote]"Had entered into agreements with every studio to provide discs at either cost or below variable cost for the next five years. So, the studios were very happy to take these assurances by Sony that they would not have to pay more for the discs than they would pay for HD-DVD discs."[quote]

The question that comes to my mind is: what will happen after 5 years, is the cost for BD movies going up for the consumers?

Brimstone-1 12-25-2006 12:55 PM

I have a question about movies in 3d. It's becomming more common for studios to release titles that take advantage of DLP projectors in movie theaters. In the home theater market, DLP sales are going very well and the technology is continuing to improve in quality and become more affordable.

So if a studio wanted to realease a 3d movie on HD-DVD/Blu-Ray how would this work? Would it require a totally seperate encode? Or could an option exist on the disc just to switch on "3d mode"? Does it effect file size? Are VC-1 and MPEG-4/AVC prepared to handle "3d" encoding? Can HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players even handle "3d" titles? What are the challenges?

If it does effect file size wouldn't this be a compelling reason to go with triple layer HD-DVD's?

I haven't read about this issue anywhere but with George Lucas working on a re-release of Star Wars in 3d I figure this is going to making a lot of headlines in the near future. Already we've seen "The nightmare before christmas" re-released into theaters taking advantage of 3d. And a lot of the newer CGI movies take advantage of this technology if a movie theater is equiped with a DLP projector.

sknight1 12-25-2006 03:15 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek View Post


...but version 1.1 or 2.0 can be supported sooner at any player manfacturers choosing.

Paid,

Thanks for the quick response. I now understand that all current players are Profile 1.0, but for example, is it possible that Pioneer could provide a Profile 2.0 firmware upgrade for the BDP-HD1?

Do you know if CEs as a practice will start stating which profiles their players support -- I think it would be beneficial to the consumer for them to do so.

Thank you.

amirm 12-25-2006 04:01 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimstone-1 View Post

So if a studio wanted to realease a 3d movie on HD-DVD/Blu-Ray how would this work? Would it require a totally seperate encode?

Yes and depending on technology used for 3D, a lot more than that.

Quote:


Or could an option exist on the disc just to switch on "3d mode"?

There are no explicit 3-D provisions in either format. So if one uses backward compatible systems for 3-D (e.g. red/green filters/glasses) then it would just work without switching to 3-D. Of course, the image will always be in that mode, unless alternate versions of the movie are on the same disc.

Quote:


Does it effect file size?

Yes.

Quote:


Are VC-1 and MPEG-4/AVC prepared to handle "3d" encoding?

Again, it depends on which technology. If you are backward compatible mode, then the 3-D aspect of the feature is transparent to the codec. If you are using explicit 3-D coding in either codec, then you are breaking compatibility with the standard and neither format will be able to handle such content.

Quote:


Can HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players even handle "3d" titles? What are the challenges?

The best method is to code each video properly using its own stream and use differential coding method to save space. This, per above, requires new profiles of the codecs that do not exist in either format. So you are stuck with the traditional methods of putting both images on the same video frame and coding them that way.

Quote:


If it does effect file size wouldn't this be a compelling reason to go with triple layer HD-DVD's?

Proper 3-D coding would not require substantially more storage. But that method is not available. Coding double images will take more storage but I suspect the concept will be too gimmicky to warrant format modifications to allow it.

Quote:


I haven't read about this issue anywhere but with George Lucas working on a re-release of Star Wars in 3d I figure this is going to making a lot of headlines in the near future. Already we've seen "The nightmare before christmas" re-released into theaters taking advantage of 3d. And a lot of the newer CGI movies take advantage of this technology if a movie theater is equiped with a DLP projector.

There are a number of directors such as James Cameron who are pushing the envelop with 3-D production. The current target is the theater. The home version is not yet in play.

Talkstr8t 12-25-2006 04:43 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by sknight1 View Post

Thanks for the quick response. I now understand that all current players are Profile 1.0, but for example, is it possible that Pioneer could provide a Profile 2.0 firmware upgrade for the BDP-HD1?

In the absence of information that the hardware support simply isn't there, yes. I think the big question mark is whether the chipsets and supporting hardware can support PiP. I believe Keith has said their chipset does indeed support PiP, so that provides some hope.
Quote:


Do you know if CEs as a practice will start stating which profiles their players support -- I think it would be beneficial to the consumer for them to do so.

I expect that we'll see a branding program around BD-Live content at some point, which implies players would also more clearly identify whether they're capable of supporting that content.

- Talk

Paulidan 12-25-2006 04:47 PM

I just had to respond to something that cjplay posted in his closed 'apologies' thread

Quote:


I have to understand what you look for in a format as do many who read this. I've already taken a few on the chin thanks to Fettastic's Tier thread and several other posts/threads.

Dear God NO! Please do not tell me you are actually paying attention to that inane (as well as exceedingly ignorant) Tier system thread!
Besides BB, I'm not sure what you (cjplay) have worked on, but nothing I have seen so far from the HD DVD camp (with the possible exception of one import) has been what I would consider poorly encoded or compressed. The posters in the Tier thread are making evaluations and passing judgment on the actual films and the way they were shot- not the quality of the discs.
Jaggies due to 1080i original masters are one thing, but the majority of criticisms I see are of a much different stripe.

I am extremely worried that I'm gonna wake up some day and find every catalog title I love has been digitally graded, with contrast and colors pumped up in an effort to approximate the aesthetic flavor of the day and grain suppressed - all to appeal to the most ignorant segment of the consumer block.

Head Shot 12-25-2006 05:20 PM

Question for CJ

Are you giving proper merit to the Tier list?

If so, what portion of the criticism are you paying due credit?

I am asking this because I haven't been there for some time and that it had been less relevant for me.

Adam Tyner 12-25-2006 07:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulidan View Post

Besides BB, I'm not sure what you (cjplay) have worked on, but nothing I have seen so far from the HD DVD camp (with the possible exception of one import) has been what I would consider poorly encoded or compressed.

A response, worded as a question to fit the thread:

I get the impression that it takes a fair amount of TLC to get the most out of VC-1 encodes (and I'm writing that purely as a lead-in to a question, not as any sort of criticism). How are larger projects, particularly TV-on-DVD sets, approached compared to feature-length films?

I ask because I watched the fifth season of Smallville on HD DVD a week or two ago, and the discs with five episodes a piece suffered from some brief but still very distracting hiccups. I can provide exact timecode references for some of these, if you're curious. Out of 80-someodd discs, I'd never seen anything like that on HD DVD before.

Because the two discs in the Smallville set with fewer episodes didn't immediately leap out at me with similar problems, I was left wondering if it was a combination of too much material on the disc and not enough time on the part of the compressionist to coax the best out of the encoder. Interestingly, the most glaring of these issues seemed localized to one episode on each disc rather than spread throughout.

Anyway, as a TV season set fanatic, I'm just curious if this could mean anything going forward.

paidgeek 12-25-2006 08:51 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by High_Def DVD View Post

Now would like to have some inside information about some old news that i have read last year about the Blu-ray strategy and i qoute:

"Had entered into agreements with every studio to provide discs at either cost or below variable cost for the next five years. So, the studios were very happy to take these assurances by Sony that they would not have to pay more for the discs than they would pay for HD-DVD discs."
Quote:



The question that comes to my mind is: what will happen after 5 years, is the cost for BD movies going up for the consumers?

I don't have any specific information about replication costs for BD, but if BD follows a curve anything like DVD, replication costs will be a small concern after 5 years.

paidgeek 12-25-2006 08:56 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by sknight1 View Post

Paid,

Thanks for the quick response. I now understand that all current players are Profile 1.0, but for example, is it possible that Pioneer could provide a Profile 2.0 firmware upgrade for the BDP-HD1?

Do you know if CEs as a practice will start stating which profiles their players support -- I think it would be beneficial to the consumer for them to do so.

Thank you.

I can't speak for the hardware companies ability to upgrade their players through software, I just don't know what each one is up to or what their hardware is capable of. CES is an excellent opportunity to get close to people at these companies that you would not otherwise have access to. If you can make it, I suggest you ask them directly.

paidgeek 12-25-2006 09:04 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimstone-1 View Post

I have a question about movies in 3d. It's becomming more common for studios to release titles that take advantage of DLP projectors in movie theaters. In the home theater market, DLP sales are going very well and the technology is continuing to improve in quality and become more affordable.

So if a studio wanted to realease a 3d movie on HD-DVD/Blu-Ray how would this work? Would it require a totally seperate encode? Or could an option exist on the disc just to switch on "3d mode"? Does it effect file size? Are VC-1 and MPEG-4/AVC prepared to handle "3d" encoding? Can HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players even handle "3d" titles? What are the challenges?

If it does effect file size wouldn't this be a compelling reason to go with triple layer HD-DVD's?

I haven't read about this issue anywhere but with George Lucas working on a re-release of Star Wars in 3d I figure this is going to making a lot of headlines in the near future. Already we've seen "The nightmare before christmas" re-released into theaters taking advantage of 3d. And a lot of the newer CGI movies take advantage of this technology if a movie theater is equiped with a DLP projector.

In theory it would be reasonably straightforward to use 1080 60i video to carry a left and right eye signal (this has already been done in SD as I recall). The problem is that monitors would have to be available that can display images one field at a time and flat panels don't work that way. My guess is that the biggest hurdle will not be disc capacity or limitations in the format but rather the display and ocular devices.

Penton-Man 12-25-2006 11:02 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The Closest Thing So Far.

Phillips announced at CES 2006 that they plan to introduce a high-definition television that can show a 3D experience in 2008. Since then I think they've been doing tests with focus groups. I don't know what the newest status on the launch timetable is.

They have software that will look at the 2D source and create a depth map in real time so that consumers visualize a 3D experience from a 2D high-definition disc (encoded in MPEG2) and their TVs, at least that's how I understand it.

________________________________________
Studio Insider

Penton-Man 12-25-2006 11:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brimstone-1 View Post

I haven't read about this issue anywhere but with George Lucas working on a re-release of Star Wars in 3d I figure this is going to making a lot of headlines in the near future.

The way that's being done is that a company called In-Three (in Agoura Hills, CA) has a Dimensionalization process by which they are using the original source material as the left-eye image and then creating a virtual right-eye image somehow in the post-production process.

________________________________________
Studio Insider

am1001 12-26-2006 03:10 AM

Hi Paidgeek

Thanks for your continued participation is this forum.

With the Europe release of PS3 coming in the spring, there will be many more potential blu-ray movie purchasers coming to market.

However the region coding of disks at present is very scatter gun.

Don't know if you are familair with this website but it lists those title which have region coding, and those without.

http://bluray.lindsite.dk/

A good compromise system would be for new releases to be region coded if required, but ALL catalogue releases to not have region restrictions.

According to the website, well the good news is that a majority of titles released on bluray in the states will work on european players.

Do you agree on the need for a more consistent region coding system for catalogue releases? Something that offers some flexibility for consumers, and gives consumers better access to catalogue titles. If so, can you see if we can have a clearer system where ALL catalogue releases are not region restricted. Fox, Disney, and Buena Vista, and some Sony titles which are clearly catalogue eg Dinosaur, Black Hawk Down, League of Extraordinary gentlemen, Gone in 60 seconds have region restrictions.

It would be great as the format is beginning to grow for this situation to be improved.

amirm 12-26-2006 06:10 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by scaesare View Post

Can anybody shed light on a recently mentioned proposal for "Performance level 2 and level 3" definitions for HD DVD players?

Let me start by saying that I only have sketchy information on this as these are *new* proposals to DVD Forum regarding HD DVD. And with my folks on vacation, I am not going to pester them much for details (I stopped going to DVD Forum a long time ago so I don't always have up to date info of the not-approved things).

Anyway, as you know, there is a feature axis where HD DVD fully mandates all features. This is called profile 1. All discs and players comply with this profile.

The other proposed profiles aim at standardizing the other axis, namely performance. As you can imagine, there is a huge gulf of performance between a PC and game console, and stand-alone players. The former devices have incredible processing and graphics power to display what amounts to 1080p real-time graphics (think about how many games run at full 1080p resolution and that gives you some perspective on how much performance we are talking about, albeit in 2-D).

Needless to say, there could be infinite variations in device performance as there is today in PCs. Consoles have shown though that this huge variation is not a good thing when it comes to generating reliable performance. In the same vein, these proposals aim to create some steps that devices could try to comply with, so that content owners don't have to target the full range of device performances.

Again, let me emphasize that these are proposals, not approved specifications. Today, all players must comply with one and only profile, as do discs. Given the close working relationship of companies involved in HD DVD development and software/hardware, the performance axis is being managed as a de-facto system, as we know what to test on, including unreleased products. Moving into the future though, these profiles may be useful, due to factors mentioned above.

Finally, it should be clear that both formats have the same considerations here as the PS3 and Samsung are pretty far away from each other performance wise. Would be interesting to hear from Talk/Paid how they are addressing this. The other thing to note that DVD Forum proceedings a pretty public so you hear about the soup being made in the form of proposals like this . As such, I wouldn't get too excited about anything until it is approved. Indeed, at some point, the entire spec for HD DVD was up for grabs!

scaesare 12-26-2006 06:41 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Let me start by saying that I only have sketchy information on this as these are *new* proposals to DVD Forum regarding HD DVD. And with my folks on vacation, I am not going to pester them much for details (I stopped going to DVD Forum a long time ago so I don't always have up to date info of the not-approved things).

Anyway, as you know, there is a feature axis where HD DVD fully mandates all features. This is called profile 1. All discs and players comply with this profile.

The other proposed profiles aim at standardizing the other axis, namely performance. As you can imagine, there is a huge gulf of performance between a PC and game console, and stand-alone players. The former devices have incredible processing and graphics power to display what amounts to 1080p real-time graphics (think about how many games run at full 1080p resolution and that gives you some perspective on how much performance we are talking about, albeit in 2-D).

Needless to say, there could be infinite variations in device performance as there is today in PCs. Consoles have shown though that this huge variation is not a good thing when it comes to generating reliable performance. In the same vein, these proposals aim to create some steps that devices could try to comply with, so that content owners don't have to target the full range of device performances.

Again, let me emphasize that these are proposals, not approved specifications. Today, all players must comply with one and only profile, as do discs. Given the close working relationship of companies involved in HD DVD development and software/hardware, the performance axis is being managed as a de-facto system, as we know what to test on, including unreleased products. Moving into the future though, these profiles may be useful, due to factors mentioned above.

Finally, it should be clear that both formats have the same considerations here as the PS3 and Samsung are pretty far away from each other performance wise. Would be interesting to hear from Talk/Paid how they are addressing this. The other thing to note that DVD Forum proceedings a pretty public so you hear about the soup being made in the form of proposals like this . As such, I wouldn't get too excited about anything until it is approved. Indeed, at some point, the entire spec for HD DVD was up for grabs!

Thanks Amir.

(I really wanted to simply say "Thanks", but I'll ask a question in order to stay true to the thread...)

Would you let us know about any further devlopments on this front you become aware of, as well as encourage anybody on your team who may be attending to take back the message that, should the DVD forum do this, consumer education is paramount?

amirm 12-26-2006 06:45 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by scaesare View Post

Thanks Amir.

(I really wanted to simply say "Thanks", but I'll ask a question in order to stay true to the thread...)

My pleasure.

Quote:


Would you let us know about any further devlopments on this front you become aware of, as well as encourage anybody on your team who may be attending to take back the message that, should the DVD forum do this, consumer education is paramount?

Of course. And this is part of the system anyway as the dealings of DVD forum are a matter of public record. And if we don't publicize them, the BD members that are also DVD Forum members, will surely do the job for us .

One caveat to above though. The work of some working groups are confidential until they get proposed up the chain and get discussed/approved/dissapproved there. Those details can not be disclosed of course until the latter stages.

paidgeek 12-26-2006 08:24 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by am1001 View Post

Hi Paidgeek

Thanks for your continued participation is this forum.

With the Europe release of PS3 coming in the spring, there will be many more potential blu-ray movie purchasers coming to market.

However the region coding of disks at present is very scatter gun.

Don't know if you are familair with this website but it lists those title which have region coding, and those without.

http://bluray.lindsite.dk/

A good compromise system would be for new releases to be region coded if required, but ALL catalogue releases to not have region restrictions.

According to the website, well the good news is that a majority of titles released on bluray in the states will work on european players.

Do you agree on the need for a more consistent region coding system for catalogue releases? Something that offers some flexibility for consumers, and gives consumers better access to catalogue titles. If so, can you see if we can have a clearer system where ALL catalogue releases are not region restricted. Fox, Disney, and Buena Vista, and some Sony titles which are clearly catalogue eg Dinosaur, Black Hawk Down, League of Extraordinary gentlemen, Gone in 60 seconds have region restrictions.

It would be great as the format is beginning to grow for this situation to be improved.

Sony Pictures currently does not plan to restrict playback of catalog titles. This may influence other studios to do the same if consumer response to SPE titles is positive on this basis. The major studios each have different approaches on how they run their business. I agree that more consistency is needed, but judging from the link, we are headed in the right direction.

deez 12-26-2006 04:26 PM

Amirm:
I realize you cannot specify what companies plan to manufacture HD DVD players but can you take an educated guess on a date when we could be seeing these players from other manufacturers??

When will we also see DTS advanced audio from HD DVD's?


Can you give us any indication when we will see new FW updates that address load times and dvi issues for first gen products?

Will Toshiba allow customer Downloading of future FW updates via an external pc for burning to cd??

amirm 12-26-2006 04:41 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by deez View Post

Amirm:
I realize you cannot specify what companies plan to manufacture HD DVD players but can you take an educated guess on a date when we could be seeing these players from other manufacturers??

I am sorry but I really can not pre-announce future events with our competitors reading the thread.

Quote:
When will we also see DTS advanced audio from HD DVD's?

You mean DTS lossless? If so, Studio Canal titles in Europe already used them.


Quote:
Can you give us any indication when we will see new FW updates that address load times and dvi issues for first gen products?

This is for Toshiba to answer. Load times though, is unlikely to improve in a major way.

Quote:
Will Toshiba allow customer Downloading of future FW updates via an external pc for burning to cd??

People have already been doing this. We have asked Toshiba to make this more official though. Hopefully they will do so.

stanger89 12-26-2006 04:58 PM

Simple question for the insiders, any insiders:

Where's Managed Copy?

ok two questions:

Is AACS ever going to be finalized?

amirm 12-26-2006 05:27 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Simple question for the insiders, any insiders:

Where's Managed Copy?

Having Christmas off. Probably hanging out in Hawaii or something.

Quote:


ok two questions:

Is AACS ever going to be finalized?

Probably not. We don't get along with content folks. They hate the CE guys. And CE guys think IT guys are out to eat their lunch. So no, we won't have an agreement.



Seriously, negotiations continue, progress is being made. But the crutch of having an interim agreement means talks keep on going, going and going...

deez 12-26-2006 05:34 PM

Thank You

jsaliga 12-27-2006 05:12 AM

Forgive me if this has already been asked. This is directed mainly at Amir but any insider who can answer this is welcome to do so.

There is currently a discussion taking place in one of the digital projector forums:

https://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post9258509

The above post quotes a four year old thread that in part discusses the actual resolvable detail in D5 master tapes, and the number that was kicked around was about 800~1300 lines of horizontal resolution. I think that number came from a FAQ by Joe Kane, who never participated directly in that discussion. I don't think the question was ever settled definitively so I thought I would bring it here to the insiders.

Making obvious allowances for a wide variety of filming techniques that would impact how much apparent detail we see in the film sources we have, just how much horizontal resolution is really in the HD we are getting in HD DVD and Blu-Ray? Is it really 800~1300 lines or is it higher? If D5 master tapes only go out to 1300 lines then what is the limiting factor? Is it the D5 system, optics, or something else? If it is not a limitation of the master then under ideal conditions how much horizontal resolution are we getting in these new HD formats?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

--Jerome

BenDover 12-27-2006 05:14 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Let me start by saying that I only have sketchy information on this as these are *new* proposals to DVD Forum regarding HD DVD. And with my folks on vacation, I am not going to pester them much for details (I stopped going to DVD Forum a long time ago so I don't always have up to date info of the not-approved things).

Anyway, as you know, there is a feature axis where HD DVD fully mandates all features. This is called profile 1. All discs and players comply with this profile.

The other proposed profiles aim at standardizing the other axis, namely performance. As you can imagine, there is a huge gulf of performance between a PC and game console, and stand-alone players. The former devices have incredible processing and graphics power to display what amounts to 1080p real-time graphics (think about how many games run at full 1080p resolution and that gives you some perspective on how much performance we are talking about, albeit in 2-D).

Needless to say, there could be infinite variations in device performance as there is today in PCs. Consoles have shown though that this huge variation is not a good thing when it comes to generating reliable performance. In the same vein, these proposals aim to create some steps that devices could try to comply with, so that content owners don't have to target the full range of device performances.

Again, let me emphasize that these are proposals, not approved specifications. Today, all players must comply with one and only profile, as do discs. Given the close working relationship of companies involved in HD DVD development and software/hardware, the performance axis is being managed as a de-facto system, as we know what to test on, including unreleased products. Moving into the future though, these profiles may be useful, due to factors mentioned above.

Finally, it should be clear that both formats have the same considerations here as the PS3 and Samsung are pretty far away from each other performance wise. Would be interesting to hear from Talk/Paid how they are addressing this. The other thing to note that DVD Forum proceedings a pretty public so you hear about the soup being made in the form of proposals like this . As such, I wouldn't get too excited about anything until it is approved. Indeed, at some point, the entire spec for HD DVD was up for grabs!


would it be fair to speculate that such *new proposals* are being made by/in light of ce companies now interested in developing/manufacturing hd dvd players and/or universal players?

amirm 12-27-2006 05:27 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenDover View Post

would it be fair to speculate that such *new proposals* are being made by/in light of ce companies now interested in developing/manufacturing hd dvd players and/or universal players?

Let me provide an answer but warn you beforehand that it is going to confuse you if you take it too literally . The answer is partially yes. But remember what I said before the answer and let me leave it at that .

The other group interested in this is content owners who want to know what level of performance they can expect. This part of the answer you can read without second guessing .

amillians 12-27-2006 05:56 AM

Can someone--say, Talk, perhaps--illuminate the issues surrounding why The Descent won't play on either the Sony or the Pioneer decks? Or the original firmware Samsung, for that matter? How odd, considering all of those devices are fully BD-J compliant, right?

amirm 12-27-2006 06:26 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by jsaliga View Post

Forgive me if this has already been asked. This is directed mainly at Amir but any insider who can answer this is welcome to do so.

Indeed I think others may be able to add as much to the answer as I can.

Quote:


There is currently a discussion taking place in one of the digital projector forums:

https://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...&&#post9258509

The above post quotes a four year old thread that in part discusses the actual resolvable detail in D5 master tapes, and the number that was kicked around was about 800~1300 lines of horizontal resolution. I think that number came from a FAQ by Joe Kane, who never participated directly in that discussion. I don't think the question was ever settled definitively so I thought I would bring it here to the insiders.

Indeed, I also believe the original assertion came from Joe as Gary Reber asked me about the same thing a couple of years ago, in an interview for WSR regarding WMV-HD discs, attributing this claim to Joe.

Quote:


Making obvious allowances for a wide variety of filming techniques that would impact how much apparent detail we see in the film sources we have, just how much horizontal resolution is really in the HD we are getting in HD DVD and Blu-Ray? Is it really 800~1300 lines or is it higher? If D5 master tapes only go out to 1300 lines then what is the limiting factor? Is it the D5 system, optics, or something else? If it is not a limitation of the master then under ideal conditions how much horizontal resolution are getting in these new HD formats?

First, let me start by saying that the link points to a high quality discussion . I expected a bunch of guess by laymen but the quoted sections do touch on issues that could really be there. I don't want to pester Stacey over the holidays but can do so once the new year comes, to see what he had found out. So here, I can only speak to my own experience, not scientific tests which they may have run. Also note that it has been a decade since I have been involved in Telecine equipment so others may have more current experience.

So back to your question. Let's work backward through this chain to see if we can spot where the problem spots may be.

Both HD DVD and BD encode content at true 1920 horizontal resolution. The codecs are given that resolution and barring any filtering that goes on in the encoder or player, that is what you are going to get. We know that both formats produce this resolution using test signals in VC-1 when driving 1080 displays using actual discs authored this way. So there is absolutely not the limited factor.

Next in line (putting aside DI and animations as the thread rightly mentions doesn't have this problem) is the D-5. The D-5 tape has true 1080p resolution in both axis. Indeed, its chroma (color) bandwidth) is double what we need (4:2:2 format versus 4:2:0 we use in BD/HD DVD). While not a subject of discussion, D-5 is also a 10-bit format, providing better dynamic range than what we need, assume the scan was done at that depth (a very good assumption). There is mild DCT compression used in D-5, and more so when 10-bit mode is used. That could disturb fine texture on difficult material (something without a lot of easy segments to encode in a frame). But those would be more like artifacts, and not show up as a frequency roll off seen on a spectrum analyzer. Indeed, the compression artifacts create artificial edges which tend to push the high frequency components (false resolution) than lower it.

Next is the telecine transfer. Here we are talking about an optical scan of the film at high speed with an anti-aliasing filter required for digital recording. There are a number of telecine machines but the typical Spirit Telecine with its 1920 Luma CCD will resolve that much bandwidth, subject to roll off from its anti-aliasing filter. Put in English, the filter is not going to have a brick-wall response so it is liable to roll off high frequencies some, require some sharpening to compensate (which can create some artifacts but not frequency cut off).

Higher resolution telecine equipment exists (e.g. scanning spot CRT) to scan at higher resolution but again, the thread acknowledges that 4K scans and such, would not have this issue so we won't go there. But suffice it to say, I hope the future is 4K scans as it solves many problems, including the filtering one just mentioned. Indeed, at the Home Theater Cruise last year, Joe said experiments he had done using 4K scans, showed that even DVDs had a better picture quality when using higher resolution scans than 1080p. He is now pushing to test 6K scans! OK, so the man really cares about picture quality .

Now, just because the equipment scans at that resolution, it doesn't mean the output will be at that resolution. Film is notorious for curling and it must be held flat for it to properly scan so operator care and equipment maintenance is very important to achieve the rated resolution. But I suspect the post houses doing scans for major studios have high enough skill and operational practices to avoid issues here. But someone else needs to confirm it that is closer to it than I.

Next in line is the film itself. I know from my photography world that standard 35mm film has resolution far in excess of HD formats we are talking about here. While people will argue about the cross over point between film and digital (there are a lot more to picture quality than just pure resolution) I am sure we can all agree that 35mm film has a minimum of 3X to 5X more resolution than 1080p. There is a reason Casablanca looks so good after 60 years in VC-1/HD DVD . So we are good to go as far as the recording medium is concerned.

Now we get to where the film came from. If it is printed from other sources such as digital creations, then we have another link in the chain as that equipment could cause roll off but I really doubt it. if the film is copies of other films, then there could be some issues here. Alas, I am not at all an expert in this area and others surely would need to chime in to provide comfort, or make us concerned about these steps. And of course, whether any concerns relate to major studios producing films, as opposed to low budget productions.

So net, net, there is no reason for horizontal resolution limit here at the technological level that I can see. But others need to chime in to confirm the above with more hands on experience than I.

What I can say is that in practical experience I do not agree at all with the final assertion that a 720p display resolves all that there is in HD DVD (and presumably BD although my tests do not include that format).

When HD DVD titles first came out, I compared the picture on a 1080p LCD flat panel (Sony Qualia) and 720p HD Plasma (Panasonic). There was no doubt that the LCD had higher resolution, especially in static scenes (the LCD smears detail in high motion images due to slow response time although this is much improved these days). The Penny was definitely softer although it had other advantages over the LCD which we won't go into here. But there was no question that there was more on the source than a 720p display can resolve. Note that I was viewing them from 1 foot away so this comment is not representative of people watching these sets at farther distances. But since we are talking about the resolution of the format, this should not be a point of contention.

In addition, we have tested the new 1080p Marantz DLP projector against the Sony Ruby using HD DVD. As you may know, the Ruby's lens does not have high enough quality, suffering from lateral CA (Chromatic Aberrations - not all the colors focusing on the same plane, causing some to bleed) and poor focus control, wasting its potential to truly resolve 1080p signals. We see this in test sequences where full Nyquist limit (1920) is not resolved on the Ruby. The Marantz however, fully resolves 1080p and as such, has a noticeably sharper image than the Ruby. This is why Kevin Collins on my team, who outfitted the HD DVD truck, insisted on using it there and frankly, scuffs at anything less in our HD DVD meets . The new Sharp DLP btw, has the same resolution when we used it in our Dallas meet.

Please note that I am not trying to put down the Ruby as that is the display I own in my house. Just that we are able to resolve even the difference between two 1080p projectors with HD DVD so there is clearly information there on the disc or we would not be able to do so. At the same time, I would be remiss without mentioning that I believe there is some false sharpening that occurs with digital displays with good lenses in that the pixel edges are sharp compared to say, a CRT display, giving the illusion of sharper images than what is there. But again, that is the subject of a different topic and does not invalid the observation that a true 1080p set provides the sharpest images from HD DVD (and presumably BD).

So where does all of this leave us? I think the chain is fully capable of resolving more than 720p. While 720p displays show the best images they have ever produced with HD DVD/BD, they can not rival the resolution of a set with 1080p resolution when driven by these formats. Indeed, I highly recommend that people who are in the market for new displays, get a 1080p set and not settle for 720p. Newer projectors with this resolution are becoming very reasonable in price (cost of 100-200 HD DVD/BDs). Note that it is criminal to get a 1080p set without 1:1 pixel mapping as that clearly lops off a good 10 to 20% resolution from the source. So shame on display vendors who still do not provide this mode . But even with overscan, these sets outperform 720p displays.


Quote:


Thanks in advance for your answer.

--Jerome

You are welcome. I hope I didn't ramble too much . Up early in the morning jetlagged with little to do.

jsaliga 12-27-2006 06:38 AM

Thanks Amir.

I agree that you shouldn't trouble Stacey with this over the holidays, but if he could circle back and comment after the New Year it would be greatly appreciated.

--Jerome

vsv 12-27-2006 06:41 AM

If authored image of HD-DVD (HVDVD_TS + ADV_OBJ) burn to BluRay disc...
It be playable on PC by WinDVD or PowerDVD ? Thanks.

scaesare 12-27-2006 07:27 AM

In the News thread, details regarding the NEC chip used in the A2 were posted.

It appears to have a CPU core on it that is purposed to handle HD DVD interactivity: (translated) "CPU V5500 of 64bit (654DMIPS) with, 32bit CPU of American MIPS technology (457DMIPS) it loads as an application processor. You say that it can process also the high-level application which corresponds to the browser and the data broadcast which are utilized with interactive function of digital broadcast and HD DVD."

Can anybody here discuss why the sperate Intel CPU in the A2 if the NEC chip has a CPU core designed to hande HDi?

Thanks.

chinch 12-27-2006 08:29 AM

paidgeek - can you clarify the PS3 bluray output for 720p HDTVs since there seems to be nothing coming soon at that price...

will PS3 natively output 720p for gaming and bluray movie playback via both component and hdmi?

also will it upscale dvd movies via hdmi to 720 native?

thanks.

Kris Deering 12-27-2006 09:43 AM

7 Attachment(s)
Quote:


You mean DTS lossless? If so, Studio Canal titles in Europe already used them.

I guess the better question for Amir is when will we see decoding of DTS Lossless available in HD DVD players? Having a lossless audio track means nothing if the player or available receivers/SSPs can't decode it. Are there any plans for this support in the near future (and I mean at full resolution, not core decoding)?

The same question can be said for the BD insiders here. With Fox now supporting DTS-HD MA on all of their releases (and their MGM titles), will we ever see decoding support of these audio formats in the near future? It seems that Blu-ray players in general put a price premium on their hardware but lack the ability to do most of what they should in regards to what their format is capable of. (i.e. TrueHD, DD+, DTS-HD, native 1080p24, BD Live).

crashoveridema0 12-27-2006 10:40 AM

dear amirm,

what can we expect from microsoft at ces, what anouncments will be made because there is alot of speculation and rumors circeling around an hdmi cable for xbox 360 can you comment?

amirm 12-27-2006 11:18 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by crashoveridema0 View Post

dear amirm,

what can we expect from microsoft at ces, what anouncments will be made because there is alot of speculation and rumors circeling around an hdmi cable for xbox 360 can you comment?

I really can't pre-announce anything. CES is soon enough anyway .

madshi 12-27-2006 11:41 AM

It seems that with HD-DVD, many manufacturers recommend PCM to be sent over HDMI, so that menu sounds and director comments can be mixed into the sound track. Now it has just today come to my notice that Dolby Digital streams contain additional metadata like dialog normalization etc which is probably "lost" when sending PCM. What is the opinion of ya insiders about this topic?

Related question: Does the Blu-Ray side also recommend to use PCM over HDMI over bitstream? Do menu sounds and director comments (once PiP will be supported) also get mixed in dynamically, just as is the case with HD-DVD?

Thank you!

P.S: Here's an article about "dialog normalization" metadata:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...on-6-2000.html

Talkstr8t 12-27-2006 12:04 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by amillians View Post

Can someone--say, Talk, perhaps--illuminate the issues surrounding why The Descent won't play on either the Sony or the Pioneer decks? Or the original firmware Samsung, for that matter? How odd, considering all of those devices are fully BD-J compliant, right?

I don't know what the issue is with The Descent. I've not seen any reference to this being a BD-J title, but I agree there are indications this might be a factor. Nonetheless, something can be BD-J compliant (or HDi-compliant) and still have bugs. The compliance suites can never be guaranteed to prevent every compatibility issue, but they can come very, very close as they mature. Further, there are generally allowances in the licenses for release of players before compliance tests are complete, generally requiring firmware updates to support forward compatibility.

Talkstr8t 12-27-2006 12:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Deering View Post

The same question can be said for the BD insiders here. With Fox now supporting DTS-HD MA on all of their releases (and their MGM titles), will we ever see decoding support of these audio formats in the near future?

The Panasonic is supposed to support DTS-HD MA with an upcoming firmware upgrade, and rumors have suggested the PS3 will as well.
Quote:


It seems that Blu-ray players in general put a price premium on their hardware but lack the ability to do most of what they should in regards to what their format is capable of. (i.e. TrueHD, DD+, DTS-HD, native 1080p24, BD Live).

The only high-def players on the market supporting 1080p24 are Blu-ray (Sony and Pioneer standalones, potentially PS3). Where is an HD-DVD supporting 1080p24? The spec doesn't even technically allow for it today.

Talkstr8t 12-27-2006 12:07 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post

Does the Blu-Ray side also recommend to use PCM over HDMI over bitstream? Do menu sounds and director comments (once PiP will be supported) also get mixed in dynamically, just as is the case with HD-DVD?

Yes, locally-generated sounds get mixed as PCM, so if you are decoding offboard you may not hear these.

- Talk

amirm 12-27-2006 12:17 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t View Post

The only high-def players on the market supporting 1080p24 are Blu-ray (Sony and Pioneer standalones, potentially PS3). Where is an HD-DVD supporting 1080p24? The spec doesn't even technically allow for it today.

Then the thousands of people who have been watching HD DVD at 48hz on the HD DVD trailer must be imagining it! And we have been showing this well before any BD player came out that could do 24p.

Good grief. I expect the BD fans to be using arguments like this, not insiders....

So once more. The spec for neither product says how you output something -- only how you decode the content on disc. It is totally up to the equipment maker to put out whatever signal they want. That is how it works with DVD players today, and the same is true of both HD DVD/BD, lest you want to tell me that the BD spec mandates whether one can have stereo analog output or not on the player....

John Mason 12-27-2006 12:23 PM

Nice to see amirm's detailed reply to jsaliga's query, which in turn links a >$3.5k FP thread where I raised the 800-1300-line effective resolution figures that sspears reported from 1080/24p master tapes several years back. With the introduction of 1080 DVDs, I'd also be interested in insiders pining this supposed limitation down. Don't believe my post (or extracts) concluded 720p displays can handle everything 1080 DVDs deliver resolution-wise. That's because the thrust of many posts I write is that 1080i/p clearly provides more resolvable detail than 720p (based on my own daily comparisons since 2000 and similar observations from others).

A summary-type post written in the Blu-ray forum mentions some of the quotes and links about 1080/24p telecined master tapes. Insider Glimmie has several times posted about the wide bandwidths of HD D5 machines/tapes and telecine equipment, agreeing with what amirm outlines above. Yet as I recall, and one of the sublinks within the post just above might locate his original comment, he wrote that ~1300 lines effective resolution for a HD D5 is quite good, or a similar wording. That might be referring--it's been too long now since I reviewed the links--to effective resolution when the delivery bit rates of ~17-Mbps video payloads with MPEG-2, typical OTA/DBS/cable, are involved. As with others, I've long proclaimed 1080 DVDs as the 'savior' of 'true' HD resolutions--assuming the 'right' master tapes. Always assumed, though, with non-sampled test patterns that could be ~1920X1080 maximum resolvable lines, but typical sampled signals at 1080i/p, AIUI, have a Nyquist limit of ~1700 lines unless oversampling/downconversion is used.

But then there's sspears post regarding 800--1300 line resolution based on spectrum analysis. And, from his posts back then, I concluded the highest resolutions involved computer graphics, not telecined films. Regarding film resolution, while the very high limits of negatives are often cited, the effects of deliberate filtering and selective focusing often surely limits reaching those maximums, and the quality of prints used for telecines plays a key role. So, maybe what's needed is fresh spectrum analysis from what's considered the best of the new 1080 DVDs. -- John

Sanborn 12-27-2006 12:49 PM

Amir I hate to bother you with this question you probably can't answer - but I must.

When is the 360 addon going to have DTS ?

paidgeek 12-27-2006 01:34 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinch View Post

paidgeek - can you clarify the PS3 bluray output for 720p HDTVs since there seems to be nothing coming soon at that price...

will PS3 natively output 720p for gaming and bluray movie playback via both component and hdmi?

also will it upscale dvd movies via hdmi to 720 native?

thanks.

I can only provide a partial answer here as we have not created a detailed chart of what the PS3 does under each of the circumstances you describe. My understanding at the moment is that the PS3 does not apply scaling, but will output the native resolution of the content being played. I believe that Sony Computer may add scaling functionality through firmware updates in the future. Since virtually all "HD ready" displays can accept 480p, 720p or 1080i, they have internal scalers to map to the native resolution of the panel. The only time this becomes an issue is when the built-in scaler does not do a great job and the player can do better.

paidgeek 12-27-2006 01:39 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by madshi View Post

It seems that with HD-DVD, many manufacturers recommend PCM to be sent over HDMI, so that menu sounds and director comments can be mixed into the sound track. Now it has just today come to my notice that Dolby Digital streams contain additional metadata like dialog normalization etc which is probably "lost" when sending PCM. What is the opinion of ya insiders about this topic?

Related question: Does the Blu-Ray side also recommend to use PCM over HDMI over bitstream? Do menu sounds and director comments (once PiP will be supported) also get mixed in dynamically, just as is the case with HD-DVD?

Thank you!

P.S: Here's an article about "dialog normalization" metadata:

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...on-6-2000.html


Since encoded lossless streams are not yet being decoded in receivers, I do recommend using LPCM over HDMI for the time being. When secondary audio stream mixing is implemented in the players, they can potentially use dial norm information to adjust the levels appropriately before re-coding as PCM or another codec.

chinch 12-27-2006 02:38 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek View Post

I can only provide a partial answer here as we have not created a detailed chart of what the PS3 does under each of the circumstances you describe. My understanding at the moment is that the PS3 does not apply scaling, but will output the native resolution of the content being played. I believe that Sony Computer may add scaling functionality through firmware updates in the future. Since virtually all "HD ready" displays can accept 480p, 720p or 1080i, they have internal scalers to map to the native resolution of the panel. The only time this becomes an issue is when the built-in scaler does not do a great job and the player can do better.

Thanks.

Most of the TVs don't accept 1080p however, so if your 1280x720p HDTV/projector accepts 1080i instead, doesn't this now require an extra level of scaling and artifact introduction...

scaling #1 bluray device from 1080p to 1080i output
scaling #2 and deinterlacing on TV/projector from 1080i to 720p

If you have a 720p projector that doesn't accept 1080p signals, and want best possible PQ, isn't this something you would want to have addressed? Anyone know if the Optoma H78/79 can accept 1080p over DVI/HDCP?

hongcho 12-27-2006 02:39 PM

This is from the "News" thread. Supposedly someone was able to decrypt the HD DVD contents using the Xbox 360 HD DVD add-on and the PowerDVD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lazyn00b View Post

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oZGYb92isE

This guy also posted at Doom9:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=119871

Can anyone verify if this is the real deal? If so, then all I can say is... WOW

The question goes to AmirM.

I don't know if the above claim is true (I don't have a HD DVD add-on nor a PowerDVD). But from the way the guy explains, he was able to grab the AACS decryption key in memory (I assume in RAM for PowerDVD) and was successful at creating unencrypted video object files. It seems to be a similar "attack"/vulnerability that happened with CSS for DVD.

If this is true, my guess is that the AACS updating mechanism would kick in to disable the vulnerable player (in this case, it seems to be the PowerDVD). Correct?

How would this be handled by AACS, and how quickly?

Thanks.

Hong.

amirm 12-27-2006 02:41 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanborn View Post

Amir I hate to bother you with this question you probably can't answer - but I must.

When is the 360 addon going to have DTS ?

I realize there is a lot of interest in this. All I can say is that the core development work is finished but we need to roll this up in a console update and that takes a bit of time. So I appreciate your patience on this.

amirm 12-27-2006 02:44 PM

Hong, there are many mechanisms in AACS to limit exposure of the system in case of such attacks. But it is hard to comment which one is effective in this case, without more information. So let's wait to see what other data surfaces.

Penton-Man 12-27-2006 03:20 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Mason View Post

John

John,
May I ask, if not too personal, was your father's first name ..Ken ?.....as in the Ken Mason Award ?

Thanks

________________________________________
Studio Insider

paidgeek 12-27-2006 06:34 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by chinch View Post

Thanks.

Most of the TVs don't accept 1080p however, so if your 1280x720p HDTV/projector accepts 1080i instead, doesn't this now require an extra level of scaling and artifact introduction...

scaling #1 bluray device from 1080p to 1080i output
scaling #2 and deinterlacing on TV/projector from 1080i to 720p

If you have a 720p projector that doesn't accept 1080p signals, and want best possible PQ, isn't this something you would want to have addressed? Anyone know if the Optoma H78/79 can accept 1080p over DVI/HDCP?

There is no problem converting back and forth from 1080 24p, 1080 60i, or 1080 60p, provided that 24p is the original encoded format (which is 99% or more for BD movie titles). No scaling takes place to make these conversions because they simply repeat or delete redundant picture information to make the conversion. I would expect the device you have to create a 1080 60p frame in video memory, then scale to 720 60p to match the internal panels.

Having a 720p panel is a good thing when playing games that are designed for 720p, but it would be better to have a native 1080 panel for movies as virtually all movies are encoded at that resolution.

Talkstr8t 12-27-2006 07:30 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Then the thousands of people who have been watching HD DVD at 48hz on the HD DVD trailer must be imagining it! And we have been showing this well before any BD player came out that could do 24p.

Come now, Amir, are you claiming that you are outputting the 24p HD DVD video directly from an HD DVD standalone player? If you are achieving this through an offboard scaler or via HTPC processing this doesn't count, since there's no reason to believe that the extensive processing required to convert from 60i/p output can be economically embedded in a player. Further, do you not agree that the current HD DVD spec will present issues for 24p output, such as PiP running at a different framerate? Is PiP supported at 24p in the HD DVD spec?

kdragon 12-27-2006 07:42 PM

Questions for BD insiders: When will BD+ be used on Blu-ray discs? Is BD+ already supported in the current BD players?

amirm 12-27-2006 07:45 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t View Post

Come now, Amir, are you claiming that you are outputting the 24p HD DVD video directly from an HD DVD standalone player?

This question is unrelated to what you asserted. You said the HD DVD spec disallows 24p output. We are clearly watching 24p output from HD DVD in the trailer. So your assertion was wrong if one can watch 24p from HD DVD.

Quote:


If you are achieving this through an offboard scaler or via HTPC processing this doesn't count, since there's no reason to believe that the extensive processing required to convert from 60i/p output can be economically embedded in a player.

Let me see if I get this right. The disc is 24p. The decoder generates 24p. The player outputs this in 60i after adding duplicate fields. And you think it is expensive to output the original 24p?

There is absolutely no signal processing involved in outputting 24p. It actually involves doing less work, not more.

Quote:


Further, do you not agree that the current HD DVD spec will present issues for 24p output, such as PiP running at a different framerate? Is PiP supported at 24p in the HD DVD spec?

No more issues than it does in BD. If you have 60i PiP, you can butcher it to 24p at encode time in BD and never have the option of outputting it at 60i. Or you can do it in the player and give the user the choice to have optimal PiP or primary video. And with good processing, some combo of both (which can improve over time, unlike the BD approach of permanently harming the PiP).

I am sure folks can argue each side of this with the net being no advantage for either format. And if studios wanted, they could choose to author all PiP content in 24p in HD DVD just the same.

So really, your original argument was to propagate a myth. The place to do that is somewhere outside of this thread....

paidgeek 12-27-2006 09:26 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdragon View Post

Questions for BD insiders: When will BD+ be used on Blu-ray discs? Is BD+ already supported in the current BD players?

SPE is not using BD+ at this time. My understanding is that BD players are BD+ compliant. We may never use BD+ unless we think we will achieve something by doing so. In any case, please remember that a legitimate user of players and content should never notice that copy protection is in use, whether it is AACS or BD+. If you are having any operational problems that you attribute to copy protection, please let me know.

Rob Zuber 12-27-2006 09:32 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek View Post

SPE is not using BD+ at this time. My understanding is that BD players are BD+ compliant. We may never use BD+ unless we think we will achieve something by doing so.

Amir claims that BD+ would be useless in the hypothetical case of AACS being cracked. Do you agree?

paidgeek 12-27-2006 09:39 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Zuber View Post

Amir claims that BD+ would be useless in the hypothetical case of AACS being cracked. Do you agree?

No I do not agree, but I cannot provide technical details about why I think BD+ will have teeth in the absence of AACS. The only reason for BD+ to exist is to give the studios some tools to protect content should a repeat of DeCSS happen with AACS.

Rob Zuber 12-27-2006 10:16 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek View Post

No I do not agree, but I cannot provide technical details about why I think BD+ will have teeth in the absence of AACS. The only reason for BD+ to exist is to give the studios some tools to protect content should a repeat of DeCSS happen with AACS.

Thanks for the answer. I'd love to see you and Amir discuss this further.

The HD-DVD supporters here have presented BD+ as something to be terrified of. What can you tell us about it?

2Channel 12-27-2006 11:02 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek View Post

SPE is not using BD+ at this time. My understanding is that BD players are BD+ compliant. We may never use BD+ unless we think we will achieve something by doing so. In any case, please remember that a legitimate user of players and content should never notice that copy protection is in use, whether it is AACS or BD+. If you are having any operational problems that you attribute to copy protection, please let me know.

Is there a reason SPE isn't using BD+? Since the players are already BD+ compliant, and it doesn't seem like it would add cost to the discs, I would expect it to be in common use.

Talkstr8t 12-28-2006 12:13 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

This question is unrelated to what you asserted. You said the HD DVD spec disallows 24p output. We are clearly watching 24p output from HD DVD in the trailer. So your assertion was wrong if one can watch 24p from HD DVD.

Do you really believe this? How can the HD DVD spec possibly have any bearing on what you do to a signal after it's output from the HD DVD player?

The HD DVD spec requires HDCP for 1080 HDMI output, right? There are aftermarket products which can strip the HDCP from the output. Does that mean I can build a compliant HD DVD player with no HDCP output on HDMI? Of course not. Your argument that you can post-process the HD DVD output to get 24p has absolutely no bearing on whether a compliant HD DVD player can be built which supports 24p output.
Quote:


Let me see if I get this right. The disc is 24p. The decoder generates 24p. The player outputs this in 60i after adding duplicate fields. And you think it is expensive to output the original 24p?

No, I don't think it's more expensive to output the original 24p, assuming there's nothing in the HD DVD spec (such as what PiP framerates are allowed) which prevents you from simply outputting 24p. There are a raft of posts here, including from respected insiders, that the current HD DVD spec does not address 1080p24 output in such a way that you can build a compliant player without, at a minimum, ignoring content flags which might impact proper stream decoding (see this post for one of many credible references). In this post you acknowledge the spec doesn't fully address issues related to authoring 24p content and that it's being worked on.
Quote:


If you have 60i PiP, you can butcher it to 24p at encode time in BD

Which isn't an option in HD DVD, since 24p encoding isn't allowed for PiP content, correct?
Quote:


And if studios wanted, they could choose to author all PiP content in 24p in HD DVD just the same.

Yes, if they wanted to author non-compliant content, and take their chances that all implementations would still handle it properly.
Quote:


So really, your original argument was to propagate a myth.

No, a myth suggests there is no credible basis for the claims. I've provided credible reference to my claims, unlike your first claim (that the fact you can post-process HD DVD output to 24p proves you can output 24p content directly from a compliant HD DVD player.

benwaggoner 12-28-2006 01:13 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Talkstr8t View Post

No, I don't think it's more expensive to output the original 24p, assuming there's nothing in the HD DVD spec (such as what PiP framerates are allowed) which prevents you from simply outputting 24p. There are a raft of posts here, including from respected insiders, that the current HD DVD spec does not address 1080p24 output in such a way that you can build a compliant player without, at a minimum, ignoring content flags which might impact proper stream decoding

There are already software players doing 24p rendering. It works fine. It'll be good to get some "best practices" defined just to lock down what the precise player behavior should be in edge cases, but 24p playback from current HD DVD discs is absolutely doable, by a compliant HD DVD player.

Quote:


Which isn't an option in HD DVD, since 24p encoding isn't allowed for PiP content, correct?

Incorrect. You can encode 24p PIP in the exact same manner as the 24p main.

Quote:


Yes, if they wanted to author non-compliant content, and take their chances that all implementations would still handle it properly.

All the content would be compliant.

Can you give an example of where you think there would be a real-world playback problem, even with existing discs? I've thought about this for a while, and I'm not aware of any signifcant issues.

Richard Paul 12-28-2006 01:48 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by benwaggoner View Post

There are already software players doing 24p rendering. It works fine. It'll be good to get some "best practices" defined just to lock down what the precise player behavior should be in edge cases, but 24p playback from current HD DVD discs is absolutely doable, by a compliant HD DVD player.

Are there any plans for a HD DVD player to be released in the next few months that does output 1080p24? Specifically without the use of a secondary video processor to convert 1080i60 to 1080p24.

John Mason 12-28-2006 04:05 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Penton-Man View Post

John,
May I ask, if not too personal, was your father's first name ..Ken ?.....as in the Ken Mason Award ?

Thanks

________________________________________
Studio Insider

Greetings. No, that's another J.M. -- John

amirm 12-28-2006 05:10 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek View Post

No I do not agree, but I cannot provide technical details about why I think BD+ will have teeth in the absence of AACS.

In absence of AACS? Can you please confirm if BD+ is allowed to be used, without AACS present? And if AACS is required, why that is the case if BD+ can stand alone in the face of AACS being broken? I specifically like you to comment about software players in this context.

Note that his question was not whether BD+ has teeth. Clearly someone thinks it does although it is remarkable that despite such value in their minds, BD+ is not and has not been ready for deployment and content has been published without it. The assertion was that life is all well in BD land if AACS is broken. Can you please indicate if AACS is broken, that would be a good thing for BD format? And I am asking a business question here, not a technical one.

Quote:


The only reason for BD+ to exist is to give the studios some tools to protect content should a repeat of DeCSS happen with AACS.

Let me ask you this. The hacker claims to have accessed the memory of a software player and grabbed key data to decrypt AACS content. What information do you have that would indicate BD+ code, should it exist and be running in the same software player, is immune to similar attack?

Note that I have done my best to stay away from confidential information from BDA. It is challenging to do so, and the task becomes even more complicated, having this discussion with someone who I don't know if is exposed to full specifications for both technologies and is schooled in matters of copy protection .

amirm 12-28-2006 05:16 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Paul View Post

Are there any plans for a HD DVD player to be released in the next few months that does output 1080p24?

We won't be making any pre-announcements like this. But 24p will come just as 1080p did. The reason it is not there yet in stand-alone players is that CE companies loath to implement output formats which their own displays can not handle. They worry about customer support issues should the user set the player to 24p, and their own brand of display going blank. Yes, I know, bad logic but this is the reason you didn't see progressive 1080 support 'till now, despite many of us pushing for 3+ years now (motivated by the need to drive them with PCs btw). And here, I am talking about companies in BOTH camps.

Quote:


Specifically without the use of a secondary video processor to convert 1080i60 to 1080p24.

The conversion is as simple as dropping frames from the PiP which costs nothing, or a temporal filter the likes of which is being introduced in TVs at CES which upsample video frame rate to 120Hz. So either logic is pretty straightforward to implement.

scaesare 12-28-2006 07:15 AM

This issue of 24p output has been debated elsewhere on the forum several times... ranging back to Ron's comments that Talk cited.

My question: Are the specifications for HD DVD authoring compliancy directed at the DISCS or the PLAYERS?

I maintain that discs are compliant if they are authored with permitted framerates, acceptable bandwidth parametrs, appropriate flags in the stream, etc... and that a player is not mandated in what it can do with those streams.

While there are likely player compliance specs as well (in order to sport the logo), I expect they are things like: must be able to decode audio codec, must support decoding streams for max bandwidth, etc...

IOW: People are confusing what HD DVD specs mandate must be on the disc as opposed to what a player must do.

Is this correct?

amirm 12-28-2006 07:17 AM

Very correct Steve.

chad_cincy 12-28-2006 07:49 AM

I appreciate the discussion on what value BD+ has, should AACS ever be truly compromised. Personally, I am not a fan of a big brother type VM running on anything I own.

That said, I think a lot of people think that BD+ offers a layer of protection on top of AACS, i.e. both must be broken. I don't think this is correct and would like some clarification if possible. To be clear, I believe that if BD+ is implemented it is possible for it to add it's own vulnerabilities without AACS ever being compromised. Right? Is it not handed an AACS free stream? Then one could side step AACS completely if the encrytion or VM engine of BD+ proved to be more vulnerable.

Any corrections to my thinking are welcome.

amirm 12-28-2006 08:06 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by chad_cincy View Post

To be clear, I believe that if BD+ is implemented it is possible for it to add it's own vulnerabilities without AACS ever being compromised. Right? Is it not handed an AACS free stream? Then one could side step AACS completely if the encrytion or VM engine of BD+ proved to be more vulnerable.

Very much correct and an astute observation . BD+ sits on the output of AACS. At that point, AACS with all of its countermeasures is out of the picture. If BD+ subsystem is compromised, plugging that hole could be nasty. As Mark Knox once said, BD+ closes one doors, but opens many windows. One would need a revocation scheme just for the boundary between BD+ and AACS. And a scheme to keep it from getting broken again and again. Not fun, not fun at all to develop such things and I say this from experience .

amillians 12-28-2006 08:29 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Channel View Post

Is there a reason SPE isn't using BD+? Since the players are already BD+ compliant, and it doesn't seem like it would add cost to the discs, I would expect it to be in common use.

The CPA (Content Participant Agreement) for BD+ is not yet available, so no Blu-ray content provider can legitimately use BD+ at this point in time. Further, the Eligible Code Developer Agreement isn't available either, so no third party can supply/code BD+ for use on BD-ROMs yet. The only BD+ legal done deal is the System Adopter Agreement for BD+, which is mandatory for device manufacturers and costs $20K/year.

Oh, wait, I'm not an insider. Insiders, is this correct?

paidgeek 12-28-2006 08:57 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Channel View Post

Is there a reason SPE isn't using BD+? Since the players are already BD+ compliant, and it doesn't seem like it would add cost to the discs, I would expect it to be in common use.

It adds work, and some uses can require a portion of the disc space. We don't think additional measures are required until illegal copying is demonstrated and causing harm. Better to have tools to protect a release in the millions than in the thousands.

paidgeek 12-28-2006 09:14 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

Very much correct and an astute observation . BD+ sits on the output of AACS. At that point, AACS with all of its countermeasures is out of the picture. If BD+ subsystem is compromised, plugging that hole could be nasty. As Mark Knox once said, BD+ closes one doors, but opens many windows. One would need a revocation scheme just for the boundary between BD+ and AACS. And a scheme to keep it from getting broken again and again. Not fun, not fun at all to develop such things and I say this from experience .

The discussions here make some assumptions about the way that AACS or BD+ work. They do not consist of one tool, but rather a collection of tools (and robustness requirements) that are designed to provide a renewable means of protecting content. It is possible for them to be used independently.

I'm sorry but I fail to understand why any discussion of copy protection techniques is appropriate here unless a consumer is having a playback problem caused by these tools.

As you would expect, both the AACS and BD+ specifications are under license and NDA, so technical discussions about how they work can easily run afoul of those agreements.

Rob Zuber 12-28-2006 09:25 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek View Post

I'm sorry but I fail to understand why any discussion of copy protection techniques is appropriate here unless a consumer is having a playback problem caused by these tools.

As you would expect, both the AACS and BD+ specifications are under license and NDA, so technical discussions about how they work can easily run afoul of those agreements.

It's technology, so those of us who aren't insiders and haven't signed an NDA are free to talk because we don't know anything. Some older AACS specs are public, so those of course can be discussed.

Is there anything you can tell us about BD+?

amirm 12-28-2006 09:27 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek View Post

The discussions here make some assumptions about the way that AACS or BD+ work. They do not consist of one tool, but rather a collection of tools (and robustness requirements) that are designed to provide a renewable means of protecting content. It is possible for them to be used independently.

It is not the question of "what is possible" but what is allowed. Are you saying BD+ is allowed to be used without AACS? If you are not at liberty to say, that is fine too but please indicate so clearly.

Quote:


I'm sorry but I fail to understand why any discussion of copy protection techniques is appropriate here unless a consumer is having a playback problem caused by these tools.

Welcome to AVS Forum . We discuss everything here, all the way up to and including how a blue laser is manufactured. So this of kind of subject is very, very common around here although not as of late. A year ago we had hundreds of posts on these topics.

Quote:


As you would expect, both the AACS and BD+ specifications are under license and NDA, so technical discussions about how they work can easily run afoul of those agreements.

Not in the case of AACS. See the full specs here: http://www.aacsla.com/specifications/. And note in the first pdf that it has Sony in it as one of the authors . Usage requires a license but not the specs themselves.

BD+ data has been leaked in the past in this forum in the form of powerpoint presentations from BDA. Our resident deep throat was one of the guilty parties . Also, CRI which provides foundation technology for BD+, has a public web site with fair amount of technical detail. See http://www.cryptography.com/.

All of the above give folks enough info to ask us pretty pointed questions. Of course, everyone must be careful to not disclose NDA info. And I have made sure of that in my posts, current and past. But because of previous disclosures, I am afraid you won't be able to side step answering questions easily (talking from experience ).

Schlotkins 12-28-2006 09:43 AM

Amir-

Here's a question I hope I know the answer to. As the owner of an A2, should I be concerned at all about this AACS stuff in terms of its affect on planned software releases? That's all I'm worried about.

Thanks,
Chris

High_Def DVD 12-28-2006 09:54 AM

Can the all BD players and all HD DVD players play ordinary CD's?
What about, JPEG files stored on DVD format?

amirm 12-28-2006 10:23 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by High_Def DVD View Post

Can the all BD players and all HD DVD players play ordinary CD's?

All HD DVD players do. My understanding is that the Sony/Pioneer BD players do not.

Quote:


What about, JPEG files stored on DVD format?

I don't really know. Probably easy to look up on the web site of the companies.

amirm 12-28-2006 10:24 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schlotkins View Post

Amir-

Here's a question I hope I know the answer to. As the owner of an A2, should I be concerned at all about this AACS stuff in terms of its affect on planned software releases? That's all I'm worried about.

Thanks,
Chris

There is nothing yet to worry about until the nature of this attack is more understood.

kdragon 12-28-2006 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek View Post

SPE is not using BD+ at this time. My understanding is that BD players are BD+ compliant. We may never use BD+ unless we think we will achieve something by doing so.

Thanks PaidGeek. From your answer it seems BD+ will be used (at least by Sony) only if other measures are not effective. From the report about the hacker copying a movie using HD-DVD add-on and PowerDVD, I wanted to know if this is a good enough reason for studios to consider BD+.

BD+ has been discussed to death with not much real information; I am sorry for opening that up again!

However, now that the discussion as already started (), any useful info on BD+ is appreciated! What is the relationship between AACS and BD+?

By the way, due to internet, we the consumers want to know everything about the stuff that we buy whether it matters or not! Call us spoiled!

stanger89 12-28-2006 12:45 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdragon View Post

BD+ has been discussed to death with not much real information;

Yeah, going through what little info we've been give (the presentation and website Amir mentioned), there's a lot of scary stuff that's possible with BD+, or SPDC at least.

What can, and can't BD+ do, and more importantly, what will and won't it be allowed to do?

Petra 12-28-2006 01:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by kdragon View Post

BD+ has been discussed to death with not much real information; I am sorry for opening that up again!

However, now that the discussion as already started (), any useful info on BD+ is appreciated! What is the relationship between AACS and BD+?

By the way, due to internet, we the consumers want to know everything about the stuff that we buy whether it matters or not! Call us spoiled!

Considering how 'deadly' these hackers are, the lesser information about BD+ out on the public, the better.

...Heck I think that's the real flaw on this whole software security thing, everytime some smartass security experts think they have invented some hacker-proof concept, they went out and bragged about it and (some stupidly challenge the hackers *coughs*vista*coughs*) YOU WILL NEVER WIN AGAINST THE HACKERS

An even better solution is put more security layers on blu-ray and don't tell the public about it.

hmurchison 12-28-2006 01:12 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petra View Post

Considering how 'deadly' these hackers are, the lesser information about BD+ out on the public, the better.

...Heck I think that's the real flaw on this whole software security thing, everytime some smartass security experts think they have invented some hacker-proof concept, they went out and bragged about it and (some stupidly challenge the hackers *coughs*vista*coughs*) YOU WILL NEVER WIN AGAINST THE HACKERS

An even better solution is put more security layers on blu-ray and don't tell the public about it.

Wouldn't it be more prudent to simply let the process unfold the way it is intended? The attacks on Vista are disengenous. This isn't a Vista problem it's a AACS problem which is being dealt with by people that know the spec inside and out. Sony's rootkit was the last attempt at DRM that consumers didn't know about and how well did that one end up?

Schlotkins 12-28-2006 01:27 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post

There is nothing yet to worry about until the nature of this attack is more understood.

Do we have a time frame on this? I assume people are feverishy working on it now. I guess I'm just a little nervous my new A2 is going to become a paperweight.

Thanks,
Chris

paidgeek 12-28-2006 01:28 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by stanger89 View Post

Yeah, going through what little info we've been give (the presentation and website Amir mentioned), there's a lot of scary stuff that's possible with BD+, or SPDC at least.

What can, and can't BD+ do, and more importantly, what will and won't it be allowed to do?

May I ask what you find "scary"? BD+ only operates within the bounds of the player whether it is a hardware or software player. It is basically just a set ot tools that allow the content companies to run more intelligent and updateable tests and operations to make sure content is played on valid players. BD-J allows software companies to run all sorts of programs as well, but the types used for BD+ are naturally designed for protection of content.

Cyberlink makes a software player for both HD-DVD and BD. If the attack that has been posted is valid, it may well be adapted into decrypting BD content as well as HD-DVD (we are investigating). If so, it will certainly be worth considering preparations for adding BD+ to our product. The AACS companies are also going to be looking into this situation and may be able to use the provisions in AACS to fix this problem. Let's hope so, a broken security system for HD content is bad news for all legitimate users regardless of the format they prefer. The studios are all trying to build new businesses around HD content. Not having a reasonably secure format to pursue this is not good for anyone.

bkilian 12-28-2006 01:34 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Petra View Post

Considering how 'deadly' these hackers are, the lesser information about BD+ out on the public, the better.

...Heck I think that's the real flaw on this whole software security thing, everytime some smartass security experts think they have invented some hacker-proof concept, they went out and bragged about it and (some stupidly challenge the hackers *coughs*vista*coughs*) YOU WILL NEVER WIN AGAINST THE HACKERS

An even better solution is put more security layers on blu-ray and don't tell the public about it.

That's called "security by obscurity" and it never works.
Paidgeek mentioned that unless the security affected playback, we shouldn't care about it. Unfortunately, a lot of home theater owners nowadays copy their movies up to a centralized server so they (a) don't have to worry about scratching their discs, and (b) can pick the movie they want to watch from a list (see Kaleidescape ). Will BD+ affect their ability to do this? We know that AACS theoretically allows a copy, but what about BD+?

Forceflow 12-28-2006 01:37 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek View Post

Cyberlink makes a software player for both HD-DVD and BD. If the attack that has been posted is valid, it may well be adapted into decrypting BD content as well as HD-DVD (we are investigating). If so, it will certainly be worth considering preparations for adding BD+ to our product. The AACS companies are also going to be looking into this situation and may be able to use the provisions in AACS to fix this problem. Let's hope so, a broken security system for HD content is bad news for all legitimate users regardless of the format they prefer. The studios are all trying to build new businesses around HD content. Not having a reasonably secure format to pursue this is not good for anyone.

Glad to hear you say these comments as I think it cuts across the spin that this harms only HD DVD. Its bad all around, but yes, if for some reason, AACS isn't able to overcome this (if even true) hurdle then it will be worse for HD DVD.

How soon do you estimate it would take for BD+ to be implemented to your products?

Will this delay any title releases as studios (particularly Sony) hold off in favor of gathering more information and preparing for stronger counter-measures?

amirm 12-28-2006 01:38 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schlotkins View Post

Do we have a time frame on this? I assume people are feverishy working on it now. I guess I'm just a little nervous my new A2 is going to become a paperweight.

Thanks,
Chris

No time frame. But there is not a thing that is going to happen to your A2. It has and will continue to playback all the movies you are interested in.

kdragon 12-28-2006 01:49 PM

bkilian,

Are you aware of the proposed/rumored profiles for HD-DVD? If true, is it related to reducing HDi performance or increasing it from current specs? Is this about new class of players or is it about classifying the players within the current specs? Any info outside of the NDA is appreciated.

Petra 12-28-2006 02:14 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkilian View Post

That's called "security by obscurity" and it never works.
Paidgeek mentioned that unless the security affected playback, we shouldn't care about it. Unfortunately, a lot of home theater owners nowadays copy their movies up to a centralized server so they (a) don't have to worry about scratching their discs, and (b) can pick the movie they want to watch from a list (see Kaleidescape ). Will BD+ affect their ability to do this? We know that AACS theoretically allows a copy, but what about BD+?

please enlighten me, why such obscurity would never work? and this is an honest question from an average person.

If the hackers are using any measure to break into system, why couldn't the protectors go to any distance to protect the content, including not advertising their defense mechanism.

PeterTHX 12-28-2006 02:20 PM

Quote:


Unfortunately, a lot of home theater owners nowadays copy their movies up to a centralized server so they (a) don't have to worry about scratching their discs, and (b) can pick the movie they want to watch from a list (see Kaleidescape ).

Um. A "lot"? Maybe in 5-10 years. But a great majority do not.

Paidgeek: BD+ is one extra measure, what about BD-ROM Mark?

admonish 12-28-2006 02:35 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by markrubin View Post

Post Questions [only questions] directed to and answered only by Industry Insiders who are asked to identify themselves as such

Industry Insiders only may answer questions or make comments: this is the thread for chat between Insiders as well

any AVS member can post questions [only questions please] for Insiders- but we will not tolerate any bashing

AVS recognizes the special nature of Industry Insiders and values their participation: we ask all AVS members to treat them with respect

Remember: Questions only: no off topic posts: they may be removed: and only Insiders [who have been recognized by AVS moderators] may answer

Insiders: please PM Ken H and myself with your credentials: mods and only mods will make the determination of who qualifys as an insider and all such discussions will be done off line: not to be discussed here

This is a continuation of the original thread Industry Insiders Q&A Thread: only Questions to insiders please which did not end well: any more of this and we will take strong action: Insiders are to be treated with respect:

This should be a flagship thread on AVS, and we will not allow any trouble






let's strive to keep this thread just Q/A as there are plenty of other places to debate a topic

stanger89 12-28-2006 02:51 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by paidgeek View Post

May I ask what you find "scary"?

In short? The fact that it's essentially a Java VM with no known restrictions.

Quote:


BD+ only operates within the bounds of the player whether it is a hardware or software player.

Based on this:
http://securityevaluators.com/eval/spdc_aacs_2005.pdf

There are a few scary things:
Quote:


Discovery returns various information about the device, including details of attached components (e.g., devices connected to the digital output ports).

Quote:


An additional trap (TRAP_DiscoveryRAM) provides content code with access to specific areas of player RAM external to the VM memory area.

Quote:


In addition to Discovery, the Interface provides content code with a variety of routines that code may use to control the underlying device. This includes (but is not limited to) traps that initiate media reads; establish Internet connectivity; run native code; perform decryption with device or title keys; and generate device-signatures.

Just seems to open way to many Windows into the device. Call it a blunder or malicious, but the XCP fiasco has shown how little regard the content industry has toward the integrity of their customers devices, it's shown how far they will go to "protect" their content.

Quote:


It is basically just a set ot tools that allow the content companies to run more intelligent and updateable tests and operations to make sure content is played on valid players.

And Java could be called a set of tools to allow people to make useful programs, but it can do all sorts of terrible things too.

Quote:


BD-J allows software companies to run all sorts of programs as well, but the types used for BD+ are naturally designed for protection of content.

And it's specifically because they are designed for content protection, that they can (apparently) access the underlying device (what happens if I update my video drivers to a version after the disc is released?), to control the underlying device (I don't want the security system on a disc running my PC), to run arbitrary native code (with native code, all bets are really off).

It seems BD+ could easilly be used to do something XCP like (if not worse), so my question is, what is BD+ allowed to do? Are there restrictions on what it's allowed to do?

And since we've gone down the whole DRM/CP path, to insiders on any side, what do you think of Microsoft's The Darknet and the Future of Content Distribution paper, the talk given to Microsoft's Research Group about DRM, and the idea that DRM is inherently flawed because it gives the end user everything necessary (the key, the cypher, and cyphertext) to decode the content?

RobertR1 12-28-2006 03:08 PM

Amir,

I'd assume a software update if/when the hole is found and patch will be presented to all HD DVD players will fix the exploit(one of the good things about having mandatory ethernet connections)? You can clearly "force" the update by authoring future content in a way it does a proper version check. Ofcourse, this would also provide you with automatic protection on current titles that could be exploited.

paidgeek 12-28-2006 05:39 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by amirm View Post


Can you please indicate if AACS is broken, that would be a good thing for BD format? And I am asking a business question here, not a technical one.


What information do you have that would indicate BD+ code, should it exist and be running in the same software player, is immune to similar attack?

I do not think that having AACS hacked is a good thing for BD.

BD+ is dynamic whereas, for all practical purposes, AACS is static. With BD+, it should be possible to at least make it inconvenient to illegally copy content if/now that, AACS has been hacked. The virtue is clearly that we don't have to figure out every possible counter move to BD+ in advance, the implementers can modify their use of BD+ as often as required to get to an acceptable level of nuisance to keep copying from becoming common practice.

paidgeek 12-28-2006 05:49 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkilian View Post

That's called "security by obscurity" and it never works.
Paidgeek mentioned that unless the security affected playback, we shouldn't care about it. Unfortunately, a lot of home theater owners nowadays copy their movies up to a centralized server so they (a) don't have to worry about scratching their discs, and (b) can pick the movie they want to watch from a list (see Kaleidescape ). Will BD+ affect their ability to do this? We know that AACS theoretically allows a copy, but what about BD+?

BD+ is not intended to interfere with approved managed copy functionality, when it is eventually finalized...

paidgeek 12-28-2006 05:55 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Forceflow View Post

Glad to hear you say these comments as I think it cuts across the spin that this harms only HD DVD. Its bad all around, but yes, if for some reason, AACS isn't able to overcome this (if even true) hurdle then it will be worse for HD DVD.

How soon do you estimate it would take for BD+ to be implemented to your products?

Will this delay any title releases as studios (particularly Sony) hold off in favor of gathering more information and preparing for stronger counter-measures?

I'm not sure how long it will take us to start using BD+. We have not given this much thought, but it will likely be up for discussion when everyone is back from the holidays.

I doubt that the lack of BD+ on our titles at this moment will affect our release schedule in any way.

We have added necessary functionality into the Blu-print authoring tools to support BD+ and these have been tested. This is at least one obstacle out of the way.

paidgeek 12-28-2006 05:56 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterTHX View Post

Um. A "lot"? Maybe in 5-10 years. But a great majority do not.

Paidgeek: BD+ is one extra measure, what about BD-ROM Mark?

BD-ROM mark is part of BD security used with AACS. It exists to help avoid mass piracy from illegal replicators.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.