This is topic HD-DVD/Blu Ray - Your current HDTV may be obsolete in forum The Afterlife at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=12;t=000398
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-04-2005, 09:14 PM:
I read a pretty disturbing article at DVD File's website regarding the latest moves on the part of Hollywood to copy protect HD-DVD and Blu-Ray (BD-DVD) movie discs. The anti-piracy moves not only look to make most existing HDTV monitors incompatible, but there is also a very "Orwellian" side to these things. Your privacy doesn't mean shit to Hollywood. They want to track your buying habits all for marketing purposes under the lie they are fighting piracy. I call it a form of corporate fascism.
Anyway, here's the link to the article:
http://www.dvdfile.com/news/viewpoints/editors_desk/2005/04_01.html
And here's the text from the article:
quote:
Protecting Content on High Definition Discs
It gets worse
by Dan Ramer
FRIDAY, April 1, 2005
One of the wonderful perks that comes with being associated with a website seen by vast numbers of readers from all over the world is that I get to correspond with interesting people. Some are from inside the worlds of consumer electronics, DVD production, and filmmaking, and that occasionally results in being given advanced or inside information. One such correspondent - who's been following my pieces on the potential disaster of analog video component outputs being withheld from imminent high definition disc players - wrote with news that crushed my hopes. I've warned that the new high definition players may render many existing HD-ready displays obsolete. Well, it's much worse.
The discs
In addition to the protection of very strong encryption found within the discs' stored digital data, several other anti-piracy measures are coming to high definition discs. The discs will be manufactured with a narrow band of write-once material in one of two locations, depending upon whether the disc is single layer or double layer. As a last step in the manufacturing process, each disc will receive a unique serial number in the form of embedded bit modulation within specific video frames of the film; those special watermarked frames will be "burned" onto the disc. They will be written contiguous with the bit stream "pressed" into the disc during manufacture. The "pressed" tracks and the "burned" tracks will play seamlessly; any positional difference on the disc will be invisible due to the player's data buffer. The location within the frame and the frame number(s) where the serial number watermark can be found will be kept in a centralized database under control of the MPAA. The location within the video frame will be dependent upon the frame's visual content and is intended to be quite random, never in the same place twice from one title to another. The size of the areas and depth of the modulation is reported to survive remapping of pixels, so scaling or remapping to another format - lower or otherwise - will not obliterate the serial number. The modulation is reported to be invisible to the naked eye.
The disc case's newly extended bar code will be different for each individual disc; each will have the disc's serial number amended to the normal barcode. The automated production line will print the unique bar codes on preprinted cover graphics, insert each graphic into a case, and insert the corresponding disc with matching serial number. Each case would then move on to the wrapping station and bulk packaging.
Kiss your privacy goodbye
When these serialized high definition discs are sold, retailers and web vendors will be required to provide purchase information based on credit card transactions to the MPAA for its database on a weekly basis. Brick and mortar shops will also be required to install networked cameras directed toward cash register positions to capture images of purchasers during sales of high definition discs. The shutter will be triggered either by the bar code scanner or manually by the salesperson if the customer turns away during the scan. That also creates a record for cash transactions. Retailers who do not comply with these anti-piracy measures will not receive product.
So if and when a pirated copy of a specific title is either made available on the Internet or as a physical disc illegally reproduced, the MPAA will be able to analyze the specific frame where the serial number is stored, recover it, and take action against the purchaser of the source disc. So if you choose to sell a purchased high definition disc, you'd better generate a paper trail.
When you get the discs home, be prepared to connect the high definition player to either a telephone line or your local area network for access to the Internet. The players will have their serial numbers stored in firmware, and the players will read the disc's title ID and seek a Digital Rights Management (DRM) license to play. The responding database will test for region based on your IP address before granting permission. And the database will store the player serial number and title. Work is underway to see if it might be possible to extract the disc's serial number from the watermark, but the processing power to do that currently is deemed to expensive to build into the players. Requiring the players to be registered with the manufacturer - using either an enclosed mail-in warranty card or an web form on the manufacturer's website - as a prerequisite to granting the DRM license is also under consideration.
Expect the costs of all these measures to be passed along to the consumer, both in increased player prices and increased disc prices.
All displays are now obsolete
But that's not all. The video will be stored on disc as 1080p24, but when played back, a new progressive pulldown cadence will be applied: A BB A BB A BB and so on. This cadence will yield a frame rate of 36 frames per second; the players will produce video as 1080p36. This non-standard high definition format is incompatible with every known high definition recording device (that is, of course, the point). And it's incompatible with every existing display device with the exception of frequency-agile CRT-based front projectors. But those will be useless since the outputs on the high definition disc players will, in fact, be exclusively HDCP-compliant HDMI. No analog outputs.
The consumer electronics manufacturers are scrambling to modify and update their existing display offerings to accept the new frame rate. And since everyone who wishes to watch high definition discs will have to buy a brand new display, there is some indication that manufacturers are going to offer generous rebates to consumers who buy a player and a display made by the same company.
Dissent in the marketplace
There is also a report that even though the porn industry has yet to embrace one of the two new high definition disc formats, it will not participate in the anti-piracy measure of embedded serial numbers and consumer tracking. It is felt that such tracking would discourage sales. The porn industry is also lobbying for a flag to be placed in the digital bit stream to instruct the new players to output 1080i30 rather than 1080p36. This requires standards bodies and player manufacturers to cooperate; if they are successful, player firmware would have to be modified accordingly. The porn industry's intent is to serve the owners of the installed base of HDCP-compliant HD-ready displays. Apparently in the porn sector, piracy is not as much of an issue as sales.
Legislative protection
Influential congressional members on the commerce committee already have been briefed and lobbied concerning this anti-piracy plan. There is apparently a call for legislation that would shield player manufacturers and the studios from lawsuits by disgruntled display owners. Congressional reactions are split along party lines. The Republicans believe that the sales of new high definition displays and players, and the replacement of standard resolution DVDs with the new high definition discs, will spur the economy. And they support Hollywood's efforts to prevent the piracy of the country's most successful export: motion pictures. The Democrats are appalled, citing how this is yet another example of the rich getting richer at the expense of the middle class.
Final thoughts
I'm fearful of the draconian anti-piracy measures the film industry may jam down the throats of law-abiding consumers, home theater enthusiasts, and film buffs as the new high definition payers come to market. I, for one, can't afford to replace my front projector without accepting a serious step down in image quality. And if the paranoia I've described in this article were true, I'd have to find a new hobby.
Previously published related articles:
High Definition DVD Dilemmas, January 2, 2005
Blu-ray Disc vs. HD-DVD, February 14, 2005
Mixed Signals, February 21, 2005
Another Leaf On The HDCP-HDMI-DVI Artichoke, March 7, 2005
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-04-2005, 09:23 PM:
Dateline: "April 1st"
Last sentence in the essay:
quote:
And if the paranoia I've described in this article were true, I'd have to find a new hobby.
Even if any of this were remotely true, the public backlash against it would kill it. The MPAA, hardware manufacturers, et al may wish they could do some of this though.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-04-2005, 09:35 PM:
Yeah, April Fools. Even if Blu-Ray and whatnot allow for component, S-video, RF output and whatever else, it still will sell poorly. There is no reason for the normal person to "upgrade" from regular, crappy DVD. Only elite people with HDTVs like me will have incentive to do so. And elite people don't like BS, that's what makes us so damned elite. Current HDTVs will be far from obsolete. That would be assuming that people buy HDTVs ONLY to play an HD-DVD. Let's not forget the awesome artifact-riddled TV that can be watched, and the video games that can be played which will look better than TV or HD-DVD.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-04-2005, 09:45 PM:
HDTV is turning out to be a big disappointment. Oh yeah, it looks better than regular NTSC (except when the motion artifacts take over), but most of the time they're playing games with bandwidth allocation and what you end up with on HD channels often isn't anywhere near the real potential. Stupid terrestrial and cable broadcasters would rather have multiple subchannels of CRAP than one really good HD channel. Maybe I should look into Voom. Are Voom subscribers considered elite? Being thought of as elite is very important to me.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-04-2005, 11:04 PM:
If the story is indeed an April fool's joke that would be a good thing. However, I honestly would not put it past Hollywood studios to insist upon such a copy protection scheme for HD-DVD and Blu Ray discs. Yes, I do think Hollywood executives are fully stupid enough to deploy such a scheme. I do think they are stupid enough to render a couple million existing HDTVs incompatible with such discs. Basically the assholes think we're just automatically going to buy that stuff.
Here's the reality check. I'm watching those f**king gas prices rise like crazy and watching prices of lots of other things jump as well. I recently fired off a letter to Dish Network warning them I am on the verge of cancelling my service. They've increased my monthly bill from $39 per month to $54 per month in the span of 3 years. So the crosshairs are on them. And I'll eliminate some other things as well.
To finish, I have no plans in at least the next couple of years or more to buy an HDTV or any HD playback equipment. I don't think that FCC move to turn off analog broadcast signals is going to happen by the end of 2006. And even if it does, WHO CARES!? Most network programming is shitty "reality TV" anymore. I probably won't miss TV. And I'll probably be more productive.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-05-2005, 01:35 AM:
I'm not sure if Voom entitles you to be elite. I've heard the name "Voom" but I have no idea what it is. Sounds like a gasoline. I have heard that they may change the broadcast standard from MPEG2 to the H2.45786845785657 codec. Subchannels rule! We need them soooooo badly! Though I'm not sure why they exist.
I like how cameras have to be installed over every register that sells an HD-DVD/Bluray disc. That makes no sense. And even though I have an ethernet jack right where a high-definition player would go, there is no way I'd let it connect online in any fashion. As you may recall that didn't go over really well with people when they tried to do that with Divx.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-05-2005, 10:10 AM:
I can see how "Voom" sounds like a brand of gasoline. To me, it sounds more like a brand of hair gel or moose.
Yeah, the Ethernet jack thingie is not going to fly.
First problem: most people still don't have broadband Internet connections. Second problem: most people who do have broadband access have it set up on only one computer; they don't have network cable strung through their house. Third problem: even if they do have a home network chances are it is not hardwired, but more likely of the WiFi type. Fourth problem: it may add a good amount of cost to a HD-DVD or Blu Ray player to have 802.11a, b and g connectivity.
All of those reasons are in addition to the very basic problem that most people just don't want to hook any home theater component up to a phone line or network cable out of privacy concerns. I have never attached a phone line to my Dish Network receiver. About the only thing I would consider hooking up at all is an X-Box via a wireless G network adapter. But that's only provided if I buy an X-Box anytime soon. That's not likely to happen. My next substantial purchase will be the Adobe Studio Creative Suite 2 package, just announced by Adobe yesterday. That's followed by new tires for my truck.
Yes, Hollywood, your stuff is waaayyyyy down on my list of priorities -especially with how shitty movies have become on average over the last handful of years.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-05-2005, 12:56 PM:
Voom Satellite TV
Voom currently carries 39 HD channels, and they claim their SD channels look "better", probably due to allocating more bandwidth than Dish or DirecTV.
There may me more crap on TV now than ever. But there are plenty of good shows, way more than I can possibly keep up with. Even if we're just talking about "free" must-carry content from ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and even WB, there's plenty of quality TV. I dumped my DirecTV subscription a couple years ago because it makes no sense for me to pay extra for anything when I can't possibly keep up with the "free" stuff that I actually like:
- The West Wing
- CSI (original version)
- Law & Order
- Arrested Development
- The Simpsons
- King of the Hill
- Without A Trace
That small list represents potentially 5.5 hours of viewing a week, if I'm actually making an effort to keep up with new episodes. That's plenty. So I don't need to pay any extra for subscription channels like HBO.
I will confess that of the reality shows, the two I kind of liked were American Idol and Survivor. But they're getting stale and I don't make an effort to watch them any more. Most of the rest of the reality shows are crap, but evidently someone is watching them. Probably not the elite viewers though.
My TiVo has a phone connection so it can keep its program guide up to date. TiVo is pretty much useless without that connection. It annoyed the hell out of me when they started dumping ads onto the TiVo box too. I complained loudly to them but never got a reply. You can't delete the ads, although you can just not look at them. So I don't look at them. And of course the TiVo box is reporting my viewing habits back to the TiVo Home Office. Hope they find my data interesting.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-05-2005, 03:35 PM:
quote: David Stambaugh
It annoyed the hell out of me when they started dumping ads onto the TiVo box too. I complained loudly to them but never got a reply. You can't delete the ads, although you can just not look at them.
Huh? Can you explain how this works further?
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-05-2005, 05:13 PM:
The TiVo main menu of options always has the basic functionality choices like:
- Watch Live TV
- Pick Programs To Record
- Now Playing
- Setup
It also usually has a couple of promotional advertising selections on that menu, like say "Special TiVo Preview of the 2006 Lexus" or whatever. The user has no control (that I know of) over the appearance of these promos on the menu. They appear and disappear at TiVo's control. They're recorded automatically. They can be anywhere from 30 seconds to a couple minutes long, and cannot be deleted. You can choose to just ignore them, but you can't make them disappear from the menu. They go away when TiVo tells them to go away, and are usually replaced with something else.
I went ballistic when this first started happening, but now I've been assimilated. Must have my TiVo. I do think it sucks that I'm paying them for their programming guide AND they still forcibly record ads whether I want them or not. But they can't make me actually watch the ads (yet).
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 04-05-2005, 06:11 PM:
There's so much BS out there about "HDTV" it is just amazing. Go anywhere where they sell TVs and ask them to see an HDTV. They'll show you some kind of 16x9 tv and say "there it is". Well there it ain't! Last time I checked there were only 2 displays that could really do HD (1080 progessive) and they are not being sold yet, although they are slated to begin sales this quarter (2nd quarter '05). The best most sets being sold now will do is 780p, which is not HD. Confront a sales person with that and they'll mumble something about "well that's what everyone calls it". Most people haven't a clue when they go to buy a tv, and will mistakenly think that any bigscreen/widescreen display is HD. Course no one is broadcasting true HD anyway so it probably doesn't make a difference, but they are lieing and that's irritating not to mention dishonest.
My current display does 480 progressive (plasma) and it looks very much better that regular tv, so when someone does come along with REAL HD it's going to look very nice. After all it's 2.25 times ther rez I have now.
Then all I have to do is find something to show on it.
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-05-2005, 06:35 PM:
The official definition of HD is a 16:9 display capable of 720p and/or 1080i, or better. There's nothing inherently misleading about calling a 720p or 1080i display "High Definition". Some sets are more HD than others though.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 04-05-2005, 06:44 PM:
Well originally when this HD thing first started out it was supposed to be twice standard rez (525), or 1050 lines. It may have gotten watered down by sales men or advertising types, but I still go by the original definition.
More high definition? Is that like being kind of pregnant?
Where did the "kind of HD" definition come from?
Edit..............
From the FCC page
http://www.fcc.gov/oet/faqs/dtvfaqs.html
Question: How many times better is the resolution of DTV compared to analog TV?
Answer: It is felt that most analog television broadcast stations transmit a picture that contains 480 vertical interlaced lines with approximately 340 horizontal pixels per line. Compare this with DTV which is capable of sending pictures which are 1080 vertical interlaced lines with 1920 horizontal pixels per line.
......There's other interesting reading on that page too
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-05-2005, 07:03 PM:
DTV is usually 640x480 or 720x480.
HDTV, on the other hand is 720p or above. 1080p would be nice. But why stop there? 1080p is for amateurs and wimps. Only 32,768p comes anywhere close to being acceptable! And even that's not true HD!
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 04-05-2005, 07:06 PM:
The ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee) published the standards for Digital Television. There's something called "ATSC Table 3" that defines all the different DTV formats but I can't find it right now.
The CEA (Consumer Electronics Association) defined what minimal performance is required for a set to be labeled "HD". The CEA document says consumers will be better-informed because DTVs will be classified as "good-better-best". Ha ha. So only a 1080p set could possibly be labeled "Best".
Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 04-05-2005, 07:20 PM:
See this thread for a list of ATSC scanning standards:
HDTV specs
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 04-05-2005, 07:57 PM:
So Greg...you had a 525 set that is, at best, showing you 480 interlaced lines. 480p set will look roughly twice as good as a 480i set since twice the data is flashing by in the same time period.
Now comes along 720p which is better than twice as good. 1080i also has more than twice the data but you find many good arguements as to whether 720p looks better than 1080i. In fact, you will find the sports centered networks will stick with 720p over 1080i (or other interlaced formats) since progressive is much better with motion.
So HDTV is correctly termed for 720p, 1080i and above. You really are getting into semantics. Heck HDTV denotes a compromise in and of itself anyway. There are typically compression artifacts on HDTV signals but if you compare an HDTV signal to normal NTSC crap....it can really be night and day. I've seen HDTV cable on some big screens and it looks rather impressive.
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 04-06-2005, 08:50 AM:
Why bother with ANY definitions. Lets just have anarchy, that way no one can disagree and we can all feel good about ourselves and our possessions.
Can't afford the real thing? Just call what you have by the same name. Presto, instant gratification.
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 04-07-2005, 02:12 PM:
quote: Greg Mueller
Question: How many times better is the resolution of DTV compared to analog TV?
Answer: It is felt that most analog television broadcast stations transmit a picture that contains 480 vertical interlaced lines with approximately 340 horizontal pixels per line. Compare this with DTV which is capable of sending pictures which are 1080 vertical interlaced lines with 1920 horizontal pixels per line.
Whoever answered that question doesn't know how to compare digital resolutions with analog bandwidths. The 480 interlaced lines is correct, but you need an equivalent of around 635 pixels per scan line to be roughly equivalent to a 4.2 MHz luminance bandwith for standard television. The color bandwidth is 1/7 of that (0.6 MHz equiband for broadcast), so there are only roughly the equivalent of 91 pixels of coloring information per horizontal scan line.
A system with 340 pixels per horizontal scan line would be the equivalent of 119 line pairs per picture width (using the commonly-accepted Kell value of 0.7), which is equivalent to a bandwidth of 2.25 MHz, which is only 75 percent of the luminance resolution of VHS (3 MHz).
The person writing that answer did not understand the difference in "TV Lines" (analog resolution along a scan line per picture height), Lines of resolution per picture width (analog), and digital pixel resolution. The commonly quoted value for horizontal resolution on TVs is "TV Lines". That must be multiplied by 1.3333... to get Lines per picture width. That must be divided by the Kell factor (commonly accepted to be 0.7) to get how many digital pixels would be required to be equivalent to that resolution.
Let's figure the digital equivalent resolution to broadcast TV the sane way:
4.2 MHz is the bandwidth for standard broadcast TV. OK. The frame rate is 29.97 and there are 525 lines per frame. That equates to 266.937 Hz per scan line. But wait, the amount of each scan line used for actual picture information is 83.22 percent (52 8/9 over 63 5/9). Multiplying that in leaves 222.1 Hz per scan line for picture. So, 222.1 is the number of line pairs. Multiply that by 2 and you get 444.3 lines of resolution per screen width (I'm keeping more precision in the calculator than I'm typing), regardless of the aspect ratio. The commonly quoted value for "TV Lines" for broadcast comes from multiplying that by 0.75 (3/4) since "TV Lines" is per screen height, not width. That gives 333.2 "TV Lines" for a broadcast. Now that's just the luminance part, and it doesn't mention that some of the luminance is corrupted by the color carrier. So how many digital pixels are needed for a screen width of information at this bandwidth? Divide the 444.3 by 0.7, the commonly-acccepted kell factor, and you get 634.6. Of course, that 0.7 is not an exact value. 640 is a natural number to use, and it would be a convenient one, since 640 by 480 gives square pixels at 4:3, but we all know 720 is the value commonly used nowadays. That gives roughly 13.4 percent more luminance bandwidth than broadcast. This paragraph says nothing about color resolutions, though. :-)
The 1920 digital horizontal resolution would be roughly equivalent to 1344 analog lines of resolution (1920 * 0.7). 1344 divided by 444.3 gives 3.02, so HDTV has just over 3 times the horizontal resolution of standard TV, without corrupted luminance due to the color carrier in broadcast. The 1080 lines can be directly compared to the 480 of standard TV, since they're both discrete. It's 2.25 times as much, so 2.25 for vertical and 3.02 for horizontal -- that says 1080i has 6.80 times the luminance information (and says nothing about color resolution).
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-07-2005, 05:52 PM:
quote: Evans A Criswell
That must be multiplied by 1.3333
Nooooo... They certainly must NOT! You are forgetting about digital video which uses "non square pixels" for a resolution of 720x480. That is viewed in the same aspect as 640x480 on a TV, yet all 720 "pixels" are still discernable (let's not get into overscan). They're just squished.
Pixels are awesome. Each one should have a name.
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-08-2005, 12:48 PM:
NTSC video uses non-square pixels -roughly 90% the width of a normal square pixel. However, I'm pretty sure HD formats like 720p and 1080i use normal square pixels. That's going by some of the pre-defined canvas setups in Adobe Photoshop. The new version shipping in May (dubbed CS2) will have a few more video-related features, such as safe action and safe title guidelines and the ability to preview graphics on broadcast monitors via Firewire link.
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 04-08-2005, 06:13 PM:
Adobe After Effects already does that. It's really nice.
Posted by Evans A Criswell (Member # 381) on 04-10-2005, 04:07 AM:
Joe, "TV Lines" are lines of resolution across a scan line in a part of the scan line equal to the picture height. I was not talking about pixels or digital TV at all when I said "That must be multiplied by 1.3333..."
If a broadcast TV picture has a luminance resolution of 333.2 "TV Lines", that means it has 333.2 lines of resolution (in the luminance portion) across three-fourths (assuming 4:3 aspect) of the TV picture, meaning it had 333.2 * 1.333333 = 444.3 lines of resolution across the width of the picture. This says nothing about vertical resolution, which is 480 scan lines (a totally different measurement unit than the 444.3 lines of resolution across the picture). The 480 vertical is equivalent to 480 pixels in height, while the 444.3 lines of resolution across the width of the screen (or equivalently, 333.2 "TV Lines" of resolution for a 4:3 image) are not equivalent to 444.3 pixels. As I explained above, 444.3 lines of resolution across the width of the picture, or equivalently, 333.2 "TV Lines" of resolution, is equivelent to roughly 635 pixels worth of information, using the commonly accepted Kell value of 0.7.
Whether pixels are square or not have no bearing on what I was talking about.
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 04-12-2005, 01:33 PM:
VOOM bites the dust. It will cease operations on April 30th.
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2