|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Anyone consuming HD or Blu-ray?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 11-19-2007 12:36 AM
Copy Blu-Ray movies hack
quote:
Blu-ray and HD DVD copy protection defeated by...print screen?
Posted Jul 7th 2006 12:29PM by Richard Lawler
Filed under: Industry, Sony, Toshiba
After all the debate over AACS, ICT, BD+ and all the rest, both Blu-ray and HD DVD's copy protection system has already been hacked, if you can even call it a hack. In the oddest way to sidestep DRM since the infamous shift-key to disable AutoRun incident, German mag C't has discovered you can record protected high-def flicks in full resolution via automating the print screen function of the provided Intervideo WinDVD software. Both Sony's Vaio and Toshiba's Qosmio laptops with Blu-ray and HD DVD drives respectively come bundled with the software, and are vulnerable to the hack. Quite simply, it can be used to capture the movies frame-by-frame, and then reassembled to create the entire movie. Not the most elegant solution, but they claim it works.
Toshiba has already confirmed the problem, and has announced updates for the software and drivers that disable the print screen function. Interestingly, if you have the software it does not appear to violate AACS and would potentially not face being locked out by a future AACS key update. Expect a pirate run on all remaining non-upgraded laptops and to see the aforementioned WinDVD OEM software floating around your local file sharing network any time now. All those delays, and all those licensing fees, defeated by a button thats been around as long as we can remember. The article detailing their find will be published Monday July 10, unless the DMCA ninjas get to it first.
I'm telling you, some 12 year old kid WILL crack the D-Cinema encryption sooner or later.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Jentsch
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1061
From: New Berlin, WI, USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 11-20-2007 12:23 PM
quote: Steve Guttag
Scott...the article makes several mistakes...first is the CRT can only do an interlace display...no it CAN do an interlace display, digitals really can't...there is a difference. I think the author is tripping up on that one that since all digital displays must work with progressive, he concludes that all will be put to rights when it hits the screen....a false presumption.
Maybe we're not looking at the same text. In the first link, there is the following quote:
quote:
For clarification, let me start by saying that there are essentially no 1080i TVs anymore. Unless you bought a CRT based TV, every modern TV is progressive scan (as in LCD, Plasma, LCOS, DLP). They are incapable of displaying a 1080i signal as 1080i. So what we’re talking about here mostly applies to people with 1080p native displays.
What I understood that to mean is that he's referring to modern (non-CRT) HD displays, and that all of them are inherently progressive devices. They are incapable of displaying an interlaced image, so an interlaced input must be converted to progressive before it can be displayed.
That's pretty plain and simple to me, and I don't see where the author is mistaken. Am I missing something here?
My guess is that the confusion is over the fact that interlaced images on the source side are much different when output then when the source is progressive to begin with (as both HD DVD and Blu-ray are progressive on the disc).
Back in the summer of 2006, this was a huge issue because the Blu-ray companies made a lot of hay about 1080p vs. the 1080i output of the entry level HD DVD player. Investigation was done in the trade publications and amongst enthusiasts on the AVS Forum, and it was found (if I recall correctly) that the Blu-ray players were using the same chipset to read the 1080p24 information from the disc as HD DVD players, which converted the signal to 1080i to add the 2:3 sequence (creating 1080i60) and then another chipset was used to convert the 1080i60 to 1080p60 before outputting it via the HDMI connector.
The entry level HD DVD player was merely not using that last chipset to do the 1080i60 -> 1080p60 conversion.
I do believe that there is a difference between players that output 1080i vs. 1080p, if they are doing so at 24fps, and if the display is capable of displaying an image at 24fps or some multiple thereof. Not just accept a 24fps input, but actually display an image at 24/48/72/120 fps. Some of the new displays coming out are 72Hz and 120Hz displays, so they don't have to insert a 2:3 sequence anywhere in the chain.
That's the best case scenario in my opinion, but I don't have any displays that can do that, and neither does anyone I know (such displays are few and far between right now). My Sony VPL-HS51 can take in a 24fps input, but it still has to convert it to 60fps before it can display it, so why does it matter to me where the 24fps -> 60fps conversion is happening?
Might there be a difference in the quality of the chipset in the player vs. the chipset in the display? Maybe, but I would have to see such a difference for it to be quantifiable enough to base a purchase upon it. Nothing I have read, nothing, has given me the impression that the difference is anything but slight.
quote: Steve Guttag
If the material is stored on the disc as 24p...there is really one operation to do to get it to the display...either have the monitor switch to 48 or 72Hz to display each image 2 or 3 times or go through a 3:2 pull down conversion. Note, this is not the same as interlace versus progressive. A 3:2 pull down conversion going from progressive to progressive involves how many times each image is shown...but the entire image is shown each time. Once you cut the image in half by interlacing, you also introduce timing issues...having the image is moving at one time...on a 3:2 conversion of an interlaced image has a frame with half of the old image and half of the new image...even the references from the articles show this...when the screen has half of one image with half of the the other and there is motion involved...you will get jutter...digital images or no. To say it is a matter of deinterlacing in the display or the player is wrong...if the image is progressive on the disc and it is progressive out of the player it remains progressive. Why must it EVER be cut up and interlaced at all if both systems can work with progressive?
The point you're missing is that unless the player is outputting 24fps, it is performing the conversions you are looking to avoid. The article demonstrates that players of both formats are converting from 1080p24 to 1080i60 as well as inserting the 2:3 sequence.
If the player is outputting a 24fps signal, then yes, I agree that the 2:3 is not happening inside the player. If the display is not a native 24/48/72/120Hz display, that's just a matter of geography, because the 2:3 sequence is being done in the TV, and how much do you want to bet there is a progressive to interlace conversion happening in the process?
quote: Steve Guttag
BTW...have you compared progressive to interlaced on movies? If not...do so and report back.
Yes, I have seen the difference between interlaced and progressive in regards to movies. Thanks for your concern! This was the primary reason I upgraded my second generation DVD player to one that output a progressive signal that was handled better by my projector than the interlaced signal that was being output previously.
There are a few key scenes that hardware reviewers use all the time to judge deinterlacing performance. The rooftop scene at the beginning of Star Trek: First Contact is the most commonly used SD example. The most common HD example that I've seen used is the Vatican scene in Mission: Impossible III. There is a shot of some stairs which break up when deinterlacing and 2:3 conversion is not done properly.
Have I done a complete test for myself by going into a store that has both formats and sat down with the same movie title on each format and extensively viewed key sequences to see if there is any difference? No. Few stores will let you take that much time unless they are really slow or you are buying lots of $$$ worth of equipment.
But trade magazine authors and very picky enthusiasts have, and the answer is that there is no difference between 1080i60 and 1080p60 outputs when the display device is doing its job properly. I'm willing to take that evidence at its face value until such a time when I can do my own tinkering.
The bottom line is that if 1080i outputs are unacceptable for whatever reason, then don't buy the entry level HD-A3 HD DVD player. For $312, the HD-A30 supplies the much-coveted 1080p24/60 output. I'm ok with that, and when I have a display that can take advantage of such a signal, I'll buy a player that is capable of sending it. Until then, I just paid $98 for a player that doesn't have it which is connected to an HDTV that doesn't need it.
The only advantage, so far, that Blu-ray has over HD DVD is that some movies are available on Blu-ray but not available on HD DVD. There are technical advantages, such as storage space and bandwidth, that one would expect to make a difference, but all the reviews of movies that I have seen to date have not made a compelling case that such paper specs are translating into a distinct advantage for one format over another.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic