AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
...even if it wanted to? Since there is no slot for future upgrades, will it be possible? If it is possible, I cannot believe someone wont come up with a fix should firewire or DVI become a reality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,864 Posts
There is only one company who has come forth and publically stated that they will offer a 1394/5C module for their existing HDTV set owners and that company is Mitsubishi.


Anything else is pure speculation...which means that as of 08/30/01...the answer is no.


Lee
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
ok, but my question was, could they, since no slot was left in the tv? Is it physically possible should they decide to do so or not possible?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,460 Posts
Yes its possible but that won't "fix" your set

the real problem is dvi/hdcp interface which is not firewire at all and woudl still make your set obsolete.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
117 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
so...if I am understanding this correctly, if Toshiba decides to, they could do a fix for Toshiba sets, just like Mitsubishi has promised, but even if they do, neither their fix or the promised Mits fix will allow DVI and all sets will be obsolete if DVI is adopted. Are any sets providing DVI and firewire inputs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
I am confused as to how DVI provides protection. The satellite boxes of the future will have a DVI output, and if you want to watch protected material, you need a display device with a DVI input. Is there a reason someone can't make a box that has a DVI input and a Component output?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,517 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by PJH:
I am confused as to how DVI provides protection. The satellite boxes of the future will have a DVI output, and if you want to watch protected material, you need a display device with a DVI input. Is there a reason someone can't make a box that has a DVI input and a Component output?
In the case of 1394/DTCP, you have to be licensed to use it. The license agreement precludes building any such translation device. Since the use of DVI/HDCP involves shared secrets, I'm assuming that you have to be licensed to use it too, and that it's licensing would be similar to the DTLA's.


It is also unclear what the satellite boxes of the future will have on them. IMHO they need all three--DVI/HDCP for STB to TV connections, 1394/DTCP for STB to recorder connection and HD component video for support of legacy equipment (according to the DTCP Adopter's Agreement, almost everything carried on your cable or DBS pipe now would be, by agreement, ineligible for Image Constraint over analog outputs--pretty much only the premium movie channels and PPV).


-- Mike Scott





[This message has been edited by michaeltscott (edited 08-30-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,096 Posts
Since Sony and Mitsubishi are both releasing HDTVs with interanl ASTC Tuners and IEEE1394 Firewire ports with 5C now, I bete that IEEE1394 will be the standard. There is no need for DVI. Can you guys understand that. So the STBs only needs two interfaces IEEE1394 and Componant for HDTV.


I for one have funds set aside for the Mitsubishi Promise Module that will upgrade my WT-46807 HDt to full intergation.


------------------

Bruce.in.Cary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,340 Posts
Quote:
There is no need for DVI. Can you guys understand that.
I understand it and you understand it. The problem is that the cable and satellite companies, as well as many of the studios, don't understand it!


Actually, a big reason that DVI is attractive to STB manufacturers is that it allows them to easily overlay graphics (like program guides and station names) on the displayed signal without having to decompress and then recompress the signal. It's cheaper, and every decompression/recompression step introduces artifacts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,340 Posts
Quote:
Are any sets providing DVI and firewire inputs?
No announced sets that I'm aware of support DVI with the sole exeception of the JVI D'Ahlia (have I spelled that right?).


Although it's theoretically possible to add a DVI interface to any television, it's highly unlikely that one would be added to a televison which wasn't built with that idea in mind. And none of them have been to date.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,096 Posts
Hi Sean Nelson,

If you study the specs for IEEE1394, 5C, and HAVi, you will find the same information as I have. The IEEE1394 with the HAVi firmware provides overlay graphics support and many other interesting features. It will not take you much reading before you find out the the IEEE1394 with HAVi provides a lot more capabllity then the DVI interface.


You will also discover that IEEE1394 with HAVi also provides "overlay graphics (like program guides and station names) on the displayed signal without having to decompress and then recompress the signal"


So bascially DVI is not cheaper then IEEE1394.




------------------

Bruce.in.Cary
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,517 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Bruce Embry:
Since Sony and Mitsubishi are both releasing HDTVs with interanl ASTC Tuners and IEEE1394 Firewire ports with 5C now, I bete that IEEE1394 will be the standard. There is no need for DVI. Can you guys understand that. So the STBs only needs two interfaces IEEE1394 and Componant for HDTV.
I will agree that given a fair amount of intelligence, 1394/DTCP and HAVi built into the sets, DVI is not necessary. But it is desirable--it divorces the the set from the video compression standards, which are changing constantly and makes them potentially a bit cheaper, since they don't have to be smart enough to host HAVi to display overlays and such.


The other thing is that, though Sony and Mitsubishi have started shipping consumer equipment with 1394/DTCP ports, AFAIK, only Sony is prepared to deploy it in an STB, though looking around at the HAVi participants, General Instruments at least is preparing HAVi compliant cable STBs. I don't know if HAVi requires DTCP, however--just 1394. The Scientific Atlanta Explorer 2000 that Time Warner just installed at my house has 1394 ports that they're not currently using--I don't think that it has HD capability.


-- Mike Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,460 Posts
Sorry but you are wrong.. it is unsure wether Mits will support DVI. They have made no for sure stance either way. If it becomes popular and required to view Tv in the near future i woudl bet mits will support it since the whole purpose of their "promise" is to keep their sets from being obsolete.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
555 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by michaeltscott:
I will agree that given a fair amount of intelligence, 1394/DTCP and HAVi built into the sets, DVI is not necessary. But it is desirable--it divorces the the set from the video compression standards, which are changing constantly and makes them potentially a bit cheaper, since they don't have to be smart enough to host HAVi to display overlays and such.
It is also desirable for high end video processing boxes since I don't believe that decryption and re-encryption will ever be allowed. For the public key system they are using, it puts everything needed to break their code into one box where it is much easier to hack.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
> reply to;


In the case of 1394/DTCP, you have to be licensed to use it. The license agreement precludes building any such translation device. Since the use of DVI/HDCP involves shared secrets, I'm assuming that you have to be licensed to use it too, and that it's licensing would be similar to the DTLA's.


Well if this true, then there is nothing preventing an outside company[other than than the ones that agreed upon it] to reverse engineer and potentially develop a product that breaks, cracks or enhances the DVI/HDTV technology!

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
If I remember correctly Toshiba is one of the 5C's. I find it ironic that that they have not promised upgrades for the monitors they have already sold, so everyone will have the technology they help create. They don't actually think all those people who ran out and bought HDTV are going back in two years and buy the exact same model with interface?


------------------

Laugh it up fuzzball!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,304 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by ranold:
> reply to;


In the case of 1394/DTCP, you have to be licensed to use it. The license agreement precludes building any such translation device. Since the use of DVI/HDCP involves shared secrets, I'm assuming that you have to be licensed to use it too, and that it's licensing would be similar to the DTLA's.


Well if this true, then there is nothing preventing an outside company [other than than the ones that agreed upon it] to reverse engineer and potentially develop a product that breaks, cracks or enhances the DVI/HDTV technology!

Except that such a company would be sued into oblivion and/or criminally prosecuted for DMCA violations.




------------------

Vic Ruiz
STOP HDCP/DFAST/5C
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,797 Posts
"Sorry but you are wrong.. it is unsure wether Mits will support DVI."


Mitsubishi has publicly stated that they have no intention of supporting the DVI/HDCP interface. They may change their mind, of course, but at present they have a policy against including DVI/HDCP interfaces in either their promise modules or their tvs.


------------------
ABC = Another Boring Channel. Watch CBS on Monday Nights!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,517 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by jackmay:
It is also desirable for high end video processing boxes since I don't believe that decryption and re-encryption will ever be allowed. For the public key system they are using, it puts everything needed to break their code into one box where it is much easier to hack.
Decryption and re-encryption is explicitly allowed by the DTCP Adopters Agreement:
Quote:
4. SINK FUNCTION PERMITTED OUTPUTS

4.1 Generally. As set forth in more detail below, a Licensed Product shall not pass Decrypted DT Data, whether in digital or analog form, to an output except as permitted below.

4.1.1 Outputs, Video. A Licensed Product shall not pass any representation or conversion of the video portion of Decrypted DT Data to any output except:

4.1.1.1 Where Decrypted DT Data is output via an approved standard definition analog output in a manner pursuant to Section 4.2 of this Part of this Exhibit B;

4.1.1.2 Where Decrypted DT Data is output in a High Definition Analog Form in a manner pursuant to Section 4.3 of this Part of this Exhibit B;
4.1.1.3 Where Decrypted DT Data is output via a digital output in a manner pursuant to Section 4.4 of this Part of this Exhibit B; or

4.1.1.4 Where the Decrypted DT Data is encoded Copy Freely with the EPN Field unasserted, in which case there are no restrictions on output.
then, later:
Quote:
4.4 Digital Outputs. Licensed Products may only pass Decrypted DT Data to a digital output as follows:
4.4.1 To DTCP-protected outputs according to the Specification;

4.4.2 In the case of Licensed Products incorporated into Computer Products, as a Constrained Image to DVI outputs of devices manufactured on or prior to December 31, 2005, unless otherwise notified by the DTLA. Such Licensed Products may pass Decrypted DT Data to outputs other than as a Constrained Image (a) for content encoded other than Copy Never, for devices manufactured on or prior to December 31, 2003, unless otherwise notified by the DTLA or (b) for devices manufactured on or prior to December 31, 2005, unless otherwise notified by the DTLA, when such Licensed Products recognize and respond to the Image Constraint Token in accordance with the Specification and are

authorized by the setting of the Image Constraint Token;

4.4.3 To any digital output where the Decrypted DT Data is encoded Copy Freely with the EPN Field unasserted; or

4.4.4 Via other methods that may be approved by DTLA in the future.
This was amended to allow unconstrained output over DVI/HDCP, which would also require re-encryption.


I don't understand your objection, anyway. In a public-key system, the sender, who has been passed the public key (in this case, a pile of rotating public keys), doesn't hold the keys necessary to decrypt the data. Nobody ever exposes his private keys. Re-encryption and forward movement of the data would require establishing a secure connection with the downstream device, with authentication and key exchange. The second encrypted stream wouldn't even resemble the first.


-- Mike Scott


[This message has been edited by michaeltscott (edited 08-31-2001).]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,517 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by ranold:

[BWell if this true, then there is nothing preventing an outside company[other than than the ones that agreed upon it] to reverse engineer and potentially develop a product that breaks, cracks or enhances the DVI/HDTV technology![/b]
There's no "reverse engineering" this. To use it, you have to have possession of shared secret keys. Either you must steal them, or derive them by brute force attack--some guy claims that he has an algorithm that can derive a manufacturer's DVI/HDCP signature key given two PCs, fifty displays and two weeks to bang on them. Once you have stolen keys, the ones in your possession can be revocated when they find out that they've been compromised and the revocation can be propogated through new certificate-revocation-lists that come down off your cable or DBS pipe and/or on any HD prerecorded media. Devices in your A/V network that pick up new CRLs share them with each other.


It's possible to break this for a while, but both DTCP and HDCP are complex protocols that are designed to repair breaks. They are an order of magnitude more complex than the proprietary encryption currently used in cable and DBS STBs. But nothing is ultimately hack-proof; the studios are counting on them being hack-proof enough to stop all but professional theft, and for professional theft to be rare enough that they can deal with that through due diligence and legal prosecution. We'll see just how effective they are in practice (or at least how effect DTCP is--at least one cable provider has bought Sony's DTCP compliant STBs and plans to roll them out in their system this fall).


-- Mike Scott


[This message has been edited by michaeltscott (edited 08-31-2001).]
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top