[opendtv] Re: opendtv Digest V4 #126

  • From: "Charles Cooper" <Charles@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 11:40:33 -0400


-----Original Message-----
From: "FreeLists Mailing List Manager" <ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "opendtv digest users" <ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 5/12/07 3:00 AM
Subject: opendtv Digest V4 #126

opendtv Digest  Fri, 11 May 2007        Volume: 04  Issue: 126

In This Issue:
                [opendtv] Re: News: NCTA: HBO's Zitter Says DRM Is Misnomer
                [opendtv] Re: News: NCTA: HBO's Zitter Says DRM Is Misnomer
                [opendtv] Re: 1080p @ 60 is Next?
                [opendtv] Re: News: Macintosh and iPod Drive Apple
                [opendtv] Re: Some results - 1080p @ 60 is Next?
                [opendtv] Re: 1080p @ 60 is Next?
                [opendtv] Re: News: NCTA: HBO's Zitter Says DRM Is Misnomer
                [opendtv] Re: News: NCTA: HBO's Zitter Says DRM Is Misnomer
                [opendtv] Re: News: NCTA: HBO's Zitter Says DRM Is Misnomer
                [opendtv] Re: News: Macintosh and iPod Drive Apple
                [opendtv] Re: 1080p @ 60 is Next?
                [opendtv] Re: 1080p @ 60 is Next?
                [opendtv] Re: 1080p @ 60 is Next?
                [opendtv] Re: ABC and Cox to trial on-demand services
                [opendtv] Re: Some results - 1080p @ 60 is Next?
                [opendtv] Re: News: NCTA: HBO's Zitter Says DRM Is Misnomer

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

Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 07:01:59 -0400
From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: NCTA: HBO's Zitter Says DRM Is Misnomer

Like the broadcast flag, it is just another way to ensure only licensed 
and controlled manufacturers can decode the signals.  This gives the 
content owners a bit more leverage and increases the legal barriers to 
entry of the small independents, Chinese manufacturers, etc.

In turn, the content owners can bargain for things like limited 
commercial skipping, restricted analog upscaling of DVD's, limited home 
network redistribution, etc.

And it obviously has very little to do with any reported problems of any 
pirates recording analog HDTV feeds.

- Tom


Hughes Gary-DJWV76 wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>[mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Limpert
>>Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 4:29 PM
>>Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: NCTA: HBO's Zitter Says DRM Is Misnomer
>>
>>All this talk about the "analog hole" assumes that it is 
>>practical for the casual pirate to digitize, capture, and 
>>compress the HD video from the component outputs of the STB 
>>or other HD video source. Is that really true?
>>
> 
> 
> Of course it isn't. There are relatively few options that encode from
> analog HD component and they are not cheap.
> 
> And anything that could do that is equally capable of encoding from
> their existing linear HD feeds. No need to wait for the on demand
> version unless you really want the lower quality encoding that is
> usually used for the VOD version (the linear feed and on demand content
> use different production chains).
> 
> It is a canard.
> 
> Gary
> 
> Gary Hughes
> Video Architect, Advanced Engineering
> Motorola On Demand Solutions, MA34
> 80 Central St.
> Boxborough, MA  01719
> Email: ghughes@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Office: 978 266 7269
> Mobile: 978 339 3615
>  
>  
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
> 
> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
> FreeLists.org 
> 
> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
> unsubscribe in the subject line.
> 
> 

-- 
Tom Barry                  trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx  


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

Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 07:37:01 -0400
From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: NCTA: HBO's Zitter Says DRM Is Misnomer

At 4:28 PM -0400 5/10/07, John Limpert wrote:
>All this talk about the "analog hole" assumes that it is practical for
>the casual pirate to digitize, capture, and compress the HD video from
>the component outputs of the STB or other HD video source. Is that
>really true?

NO.

I am not aware of any consumer equipment that provides HD analog 
component inputs for recording. I may be wrong, as it would be 
possible to do this on Blu Ray or HD-DVD, however I think that they 
are specifically not allowing this feature on High Def DVD recorders. 
So the only way to record this stuff is with professional HD 
recording formats...easy for a well funded pirate, but very difficult 
for a consumer.

Keep in mind, that the REAL analog hole is an anatomical feature of 
the back lot lawyers in Hollywood, who are trying to control their 
product from the moment it is released into distribution until the 
moment you pay for it...

again and again and again...

Regards
Craig

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

Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 07:59:41 -0400
From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [opendtv] Re: 1080p @ 60 is Next?

At 10:36 PM +0200 5/10/07, Olivier Houot wrote:
>Those relatively small flat screens used in the EBU tests may be 
>very trendy, but any self-respecting HD geek would only contemplate 
>a picture with at least a 2.5 meter base.
>
>
>Also, consider that some "live" events might be retransmitted in 
>digital theaters on a cinema-sized screen.
>
>
>I understand it would have been difficult to set up a demo with 
>three 10 meters wide screens, but at least 2 x 2.5 m above one 
>another could have been considered.
>
>
>Big screens would be more revealing of resolution deficiencies, and 
>the conclusions would have offered some security margins when 
>applied to smaller ones.

I seriously doubt the results would have been much different, EXCEPT 
for the uncompressed comparisons. Big Screens also make it much 
easier to see the compression artifacts, which would make the 
advantages of 720p emission even more noticeable.

But Olivier does raise an important issue. The resolution of the 
display IS important as the screen size increases, and there is a 
point where 1080P (or higher) will show an advantage or 720P as a 
display format. We have discussed this many times over the years. 
Bottom line, the point where 1080P display becomes important - 
assuming the same viewing distance measured in picture heights - is 
somewhere in the range of 70 inch to 100 inch diagonal, depending on 
the visual acuity of the viewer.

Or another way to state this, display oversampling  can be a good 
thing, but only in a narrow range of applications. For example, a 70 
inch 1080P display may produce visibly superior results to a 70 inch 
720P display, but there will be no visible difference at normal 
viewing distances between a 40 inch 1080p display and a 40 inch 720P 
display.

>
>I don't think the choice of the more appropriate standard should be 
>based on the present market trends, especially in an industry where 
>things can change so quickly.

True. We are now in a digital world where acquisition, transmission 
and display are decoupled. It is easy to understand and to project 
that we will keep seeing improvements on the acquisition side of the 
equation, including 1080@60P cameras and production.

It is far less clear that there are any advantages to 1080@60P 
emission. Actually just the opposite appears to be true based on the 
EBU tests. As I have said MANY TIMES BEFORE, what is important in 
emission is the delivered quality of the samples. As long as we are 
dealing with progressive rasters, up and down conversions are 
relatively simple and the quality can be very good. The introduction 
of interlace is a major problem for both the acquisition/production 
and transmission components of the chain. Interlacing at the display 
is a cheap and easy cost reduction technique, and may persist as long 
as we are building boxes to feed legacy interlaced displays.

>
>Watching a 1.27 m screen (diagonal), even in high definition, does 
>not fundamuntally change the TV experience. With a 2.5 m screen 
>(width), it really begins to fell like you're at the movies.

YUP. HD has more to do with screen size than delivered resolution. 
NTSC delivers a very sharp picture on the 19" display for which it 
was designed.

>
>
>A sizeable fraction of the early HD adopters have opted for a big 
>picture (which means front projectors at the moment), and EBU should 
>not make a choice that would clearly expose limitations in such 
>viewing conditions.

They did not. Emisiion and display are decoupled. Enlarging any image 
via projection is going to make the flaws more visible. From personal 
experience, corroborated by the EBU study, it is the artifacts of 
compression that are the primary determinant of delivered image 
quality. Feel free to blow them up to any size you want. After you 
see the results you will better understand why a nearly artifact free 
720P encoding is superior to an artifact riddled 1080P emission.

>
>
>Perhaps the final conclusions would not be very different, but at 
>least the test should be made.

I believe that such a test would only help to confirm the work that 
Hans and the EBU have done.

Regards
Craig

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

Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 08:24:59 -0400
From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: Macintosh and iPod Drive Apple

At 4:58 PM -0700 5/5/07, Kon Wilms wrote:

Many interesting observations about the first Apple TV box...

>
>I am sorry to say that MCE which comes free and bundled with Vista
>completely blows the AppleTV Frontrow/Backrow away. Both in
>capabilities, and from an ease of development point of view.  Vista
>MCML is going to result in a mass of plugins. All Microsoft needs to
>do is get a good price point AppleTV alternative. They already have
>SDKs, forums, developer utilities, example plugins with full source
>code, and even free Express Edition tools. What more can someone ask
>for?

This may be true from a developer perspective, but it is consumers 
that make products successful.

I have seen nothing on a PC that compares to the Front Row user 
interface and the way it exploits music, photos and video on 
networked machines in the home (both MAcs and PCs).

To be honest, I did not buy a first generation iPOD, nor will I buy a 
first generation Apple TV. I do, however expect Apple TV to evole 
into a product that I WILL connect to my big screen TV.

>And since Front/Backrow have already been made to run on a regular
>Mac, users who want performance are purchasing Mac Minis and running
>the AppleTV 'OS' on that. So I see no-one having the interest to build
>a grassroots community since no-one will optimize code for the
>AppleTV.
>

A Mac mini is a good alternative for today. We will see how things evolve.

And speaking of Macs versus PCs in general...

I have just lived through a rough month without a laptop. I'd like to 
believe that Apple Technologies/features made this month a lot 
easier, but I'll let the audience vote on this.

My 7 year old Powerbook dies a week before NAB. I was able to back up 
everything before I killed it (I was going to replace the power 
supply board). I moved my files to my wife's iMAC, which already had 
accounts set up for her, myself and my daughter. So when I logged 
into my account everything that was on my old Powerbook was there - 
although I did need to add a few applications to the root system 
which were never installed on the iMAC.

When I left for NAB I updated all of the files that had changed onto 
the original Powerbook hard drive, which is now mounted in a tiny 
Firewire enclosure. At NAB I just booted a friends Powerbook using my 
drive and kept working. When I got back I re synchronized the files I 
changed on the iMac.

My new Mac Book Pro arrived Wednesday. I turned it on and it went 
into a new system configuration mode. After selecting the language 
for the OS the next screen asked if I had an existing Mac that i want 
to copy my files from. So I updated the hard drive with the latest 
files then plugged it in. I should note that all Macs can be placed 
in "Target mode" which allows them to be connected to another machine 
via Firewire - when this is done they look like another hard drive. 
Any hard drive with a full OS install on it looks just like a 
computer running in target mode. So I just plugged the hard drive in 
and it was recognized and started updating the new MacBook. 26 
Gigabytes of file transfers later, it continued the "install 
process." Actually it just booted up.

Everything was working. all of the network and e-mail settings, all 
of my preferences. even my customized desktop image. The only time 
consuming issue was the 45 minutes it took to copy all of my files.

It is this type of user experience that keeps me using Macs.

Contrast this with one of my clients, who just installed Vista on a 
recently purchased name brand PC. After several weeks of pain and 
agony, he is going to re-install XP.

Regards
Craig

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

Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 08:40:09 -0400
From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Some results - 1080p @ 60 is Next?

At 4:47 PM -0400 5/4/07, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
>
>But for me, academic exercises have to be truthful to be ethical. With
>1080p consumer displays becoming available at really small premiums over
>their 720p counterparts, some of the (often way too political) positions
>of the past might need to be re-evaluated.

John Shutt wrote:

>  > Do we go 720p for production, editing, and storage, assuming we have
>>  oversampling acquisition cameras? Or are we better off to use 1080i
>>  throughout the entire production chain, and convert to 720p at the
>>  emission encoder?
>
>To remain within the existing ATSC transmission standards, my take is
>that:
>
>1. If your acquisition is 1080p or 720p, you should use 720p
>transmission.
>
>2. If your acquisition is 1080i, then you should use 1080i transmission.

WRONG!

Mark has already challenged you on this. But to go a bit further, you 
will be far better off using a high quality de-interlacing system, 
THEN encoding as 720P. It is easy to re-interlace at the display for 
1080i displays.

>
>3. And furthermore, going to 1080i or 1080p acquisition is the right
>decision for the future. Preferably, of course, 1080p.

Interlaced acquisition did not make sense in 1992 and it does not 
make sense today. There is no place of interlace in acquisition, 
production or emission. The ONLY place it still has a useful role is 
as a way to build cheaper display systems.

>
>Not being a broadcaster, I do not understand intuitively why production
>facilities can't be adjustable to 1080i or 720p.

Almost all existing HD production gear does both since the master 
clock rte is the same - by intention.

The ability to support 1080i production is not a reasonable 
justification for its's use.

So to help John with his decision making.

Use only progressive acquisition system and progressive production techniques.

Remember that oversampling is good. So cameras that have 1920 x 1080 
sensors (or higher) are desirable. IF shooting high temporal rate 
material shoot 720P - you will still get the sensor oversampling 
benefit. If shooting 24P you can master at 1920 x 1080@24P.

In production use flexible tools like Final Cut Pro - the new version 
can mix any source on the timeline, regardless of the format. You can 
choose to output at 720@60P or 1080@24P depending on the project.

When producing animations and graphics use 1920 x 1080P - this will 
give you the benefit of oversampling AND compatibility across 
projects that are at either 720@60P  or 1080@24P.

Output all projects at 720P when you are encoding for emission.

Don;t worry about 1080@60P. Over time you will get some gear that 
will support it. It will probably be easier to resample to 720@60P 
for production, although it WILL be possible to edit in 1080@60P then 
encode at 720P.

Regards
Craig

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

Subject: [opendtv] Re: 1080p @ 60 is Next?
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 14:55:19 +0200
From: "Hoffmann, Hans" <hoffmann@xxxxxx>

Craig,

without having scientific data, but my feeling would say 720p has it end
(compared to 1080p/50) with 1920x1080 displays around 65 inch. How many of
the population will have such sizes in their homes?

Regards,

Hans 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Craig Birkmaier
> Sent: 11 May 2007 14:00
> To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [opendtv] Re: 1080p @ 60 is Next?
> 
> 
> At 10:36 PM +0200 5/10/07, Olivier Houot wrote:
> >Those relatively small flat screens used in the EBU tests may be
> >very trendy, but any self-respecting HD geek would only contemplate 
> >a picture with at least a 2.5 meter base.
> >
> >
> >Also, consider that some "live" events might be retransmitted in
> >digital theaters on a cinema-sized screen.
> >
> >
> >I understand it would have been difficult to set up a demo with
> >three 10 meters wide screens, but at least 2 x 2.5 m above one 
> >another could have been considered.
> >
> >
> >Big screens would be more revealing of resolution deficiencies, and
> >the conclusions would have offered some security margins when 
> >applied to smaller ones.
> 
> I seriously doubt the results would have been much different, EXCEPT 
> for the uncompressed comparisons. Big Screens also make it much 
> easier to see the compression artifacts, which would make the 
> advantages of 720p emission even more noticeable.
> 
> But Olivier does raise an important issue. The resolution of the 
> display IS important as the screen size increases, and there is a 
> point where 1080P (or higher) will show an advantage or 720P as a 
> display format. We have discussed this many times over the years. 
> Bottom line, the point where 1080P display becomes important - 
> assuming the same viewing distance measured in picture heights - is 
> somewhere in the range of 70 inch to 100 inch diagonal, depending on 
> the visual acuity of the viewer.
> 
> Or another way to state this, display oversampling  can be a good 
> thing, but only in a narrow range of applications. For example, a 70 
> inch 1080P display may produce visibly superior results to a 70 inch 
> 720P display, but there will be no visible difference at normal 
> viewing distances between a 40 inch 1080p display and a 40 inch 720P 
> display.
> 
> >
> >I don't think the choice of the more appropriate standard should be
> >based on the present market trends, especially in an industry where 
> >things can change so quickly.
> 
> True. We are now in a digital world where acquisition, transmission 
> and display are decoupled. It is easy to understand and to project 
> that we will keep seeing improvements on the acquisition side of the 
> equation, including 1080@60P cameras and production.
> 
> It is far less clear that there are any advantages to 1080@60P 
> emission. Actually just the opposite appears to be true based on the 
> EBU tests. As I have said MANY TIMES BEFORE, what is important in 
> emission is the delivered quality of the samples. As long as we are 
> dealing with progressive rasters, up and down conversions are 
> relatively simple and the quality can be very good. The introduction 
> of interlace is a major problem for both the acquisition/production 
> and transmission components of the chain. Interlacing at the display 
> is a cheap and easy cost reduction technique, and may persist as long 
> as we are building boxes to feed legacy interlaced displays.
> 
> >
> >Watching a 1.27 m screen (diagonal), even in high definition, does
> >not fundamuntally change the TV experience. With a 2.5 m screen 
> >(width), it really begins to fell like you're at the movies.
> 
> YUP. HD has more to do with screen size than delivered resolution. 
> NTSC delivers a very sharp picture on the 19" display for which it 
> was designed.
> 
> >
> >
> >A sizeable fraction of the early HD adopters have opted for a big
> >picture (which means front projectors at the moment), and EBU should 
> >not make a choice that would clearly expose limitations in such 
> >viewing conditions.
> 
> They did not. Emisiion and display are decoupled. Enlarging any image 
> via projection is going to make the flaws more visible. From personal 
> experience, corroborated by the EBU study, it is the artifacts of 
> compression that are the primary determinant of delivered image 
> quality. Feel free to blow them up to any size you want. After you 
> see the results you will better understand why a nearly artifact free 
> 720P encoding is superior to an artifact riddled 1080P emission.
> 
> >
> >
> >Perhaps the final conclusions would not be very different, but at
> >least the test should be made.
> 
> I believe that such a test would only help to confirm the work that 
> Hans and the EBU have done.
> 
> Regards
> Craig
>  
>  
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
> 
> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration 
> settings at FreeLists.org 
> 
> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
> the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
> 
> 
-----------------------------------------
**************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it 
are confidential and intended solely for the 
use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. 
If you have received this email in error, 
please notify the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email 
message has been swept by the mailgateway
**************************************************

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

From: "John Shutt" <shuttj@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: NCTA: HBO's Zitter Says DRM Is Misnomer
Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 09:27:52 -0400

Not yet, but there will be.  Currently HD capable MPEG encoders cost several 
thousands dollars.  But a decade ago SD MPEG encoders cost that much but 
today are dirt cheap chipsets.

But I read that someone cracked Blu-Ray and HD-DVD encryption already 
anyway, and there was a big to-do over at Digg about it.

John

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Craig Birkmaier" <craig@xxxxxxxxx>

> I am not aware of any consumer equipment that provides HD analog component 
> inputs for recording. I may be wrong, as it would be possible to do this 
> on Blu Ray or HD-DVD, however I think that they are specifically not 
> allowing this feature on High Def DVD recorders. So the only way to record 
> this stuff is with professional HD recording formats...easy for a well 
> funded pirate, but very difficult for a consumer.



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

Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 07:45:33 -0700
From: "Kon Wilms" <kon@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: NCTA: HBO's Zitter Says DRM Is Misnomer

On 5/11/07, Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 4:28 PM -0400 5/10/07, John Limpert wrote:
> >All this talk about the "analog hole" assumes that it is practical for
> >the casual pirate to digitize, capture, and compress the HD video from
> >the component outputs of the STB or other HD video source. Is that
> >really true?
>
> NO.
>
> I am not aware of any consumer equipment that provides HD analog
> component inputs for recording. I may be wrong, as it would be

There are many. Prices from $350 for HDMI input in 720p, and up. I
recently priced an analog component 720p (I believe 1080i/p as well)
PCIe capture card for around $950. All you need is marginal knowledge
(knee bone connected to the..) and a small bankroll. These are coming
down in price from where they used to be since consumer camcorders are
becoming more powerful. Oh maybe hollywood can lock that up for us as
well!

But lets be honest, the real pirates are not the consumers, they are:

1. China with no respect for IP laws, duplicating DVDs and funneling
them in through South America
2. Eastern Europe, the wild west of the internet, couriering warez via
bittorrent and other mechanisms.
3. Studio execs and employees, distributing their own screeners and
material before release for profit (or just out of plain ignorance) to
parties directly associated with 1 and 2.

How about the studios wise up and cut piracy at the source. OH WAIT it
is easier to sue any Joe Bob in the street!! Stupid me. I almost
forgot about free and one-sided trade!

And how much effort was wasted on CSS and AACS?

Carry on...

Cheers
Kon

> possible to do this on Blu Ray or HD-DVD, however I think that they
> are specifically not allowing this feature on High Def DVD recorders.
> So the only way to record this stuff is with professional HD
> recording formats...easy for a well funded pirate, but very difficult
> for a consumer.
>
> Keep in mind, that the REAL analog hole is an anatomical feature of
> the back lot lawyers in Hollywood, who are trying to control their
> product from the moment it is released into distribution until the
> moment you pay for it...
>
> again and again and again...

Ad nauseum.

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

Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 07:51:59 -0700
From: "Kon Wilms" <kon@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: NCTA: HBO's Zitter Says DRM Is Misnomer

http://digg.com/tech_news/AACS_pledges_to_fight_Digg_rebels

Digg almost lost a big share of their userbase with censoring all AACS
related posts revealing a certain AACS something or other.

There have been similar stories about Bluray being defeated using an
actual PS3. Oh the horror.

The problem that these dimbulbs at the RIAA/MPAA don't seem to
understand is that they are alienating a generation that is only now
growing up with technology. Way to go promoting the product, guys.

Cheers
Kon

On 5/11/07, John Shutt <shuttj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> But I read that someone cracked Blu-Ray and HD-DVD encryption already
> anyway, and there was a big to-do over at Digg about it.

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

Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 08:16:53 -0700
From: "Kon Wilms" <kon@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: Macintosh and iPod Drive Apple

On 5/11/07, Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have seen nothing on a PC that compares to the Front Row user
> interface and the way it exploits music, photos and video on
> networked machines in the home (both MAcs and PCs).

Are you actually being honest with that comment, because I don't
believe it. Have you used any other software out there besides
Frontrow?

Unless you hack it it will only play content from iTunes. Not even
content from an Apple shared folder is supported. And the PQ of the
output is absolutely horrid (maybe this is why all the downloadable
content is encoded so badly, I mean why bother if it is going to look
bad anyway).

Update - I sold my AppleTV (I could not get over the PQ and I wasted
more than enough time trying to fix this problem) and just finished
building a Vista MCE system. Now I have full hardware H.264/MPEG2
decode up to 1080p, and FFDShow/Mplayer filtering. The chassis has a
touch-screen built in to it, and the whole setup cost me just under a
grand. Plus I can use my Xbox HDDVD drive on it.

> My new Mac Book Pro arrived Wednesday. I turned it on and it went
> into a new system configuration mode. After selecting the language
> for the OS the next screen asked if I had an existing Mac that i want
> to copy my files from. So I updated the hard drive with the latest
> files then plugged it in. I should note that all Macs can be placed
> in "Target mode" which allows them to be connected to another machine
> via Firewire - when this is done they look like another hard drive.
> Any hard drive with a full OS install on it looks just like a
> computer running in target mode. So I just plugged the hard drive in
> and it was recognized and started updating the new MacBook. 26
> Gigabytes of file transfers later, it continued the "install
> process." Actually it just booted up.

Yep this is Microsoft's biggest problem in that they still make use of
the registry and they never install applications in-place (all
dependencies in one folder).

Moving Linux to a new system is just as easy as a Mac.

> Contrast this with one of my clients, who just installed Vista on a
> recently purchased name brand PC. After several weeks of pain and
> agony, he is going to re-install XP.

Working fine for me... drivers are an issue. And you can't say an
Apple is better because of this reason, since Apple is a hardware
walled garden.

Cheers
Kon

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

Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 02:24:41 +0200
From: Olivier Houot <olho_avatar_i@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [opendtv] Re: 1080p @ 60 is Next?

Mr. Hoffmann,

first i have to say i like the EBU demo principle, especially the way 
the sources have been elaborated. I just regret the big screen behaviour 
has not been given due attention. It should not be dismissed out of 
hand, but tested, and the results should be an input to the final decision .

I don't mean that the difference between SDTV and HDTV is invisible on a 
50 inch screen, i say that HDTV is primarily about having a bigger 
picture. As often mentionned on this reflector, the initial target was a 
30° viewing angle.
Some NHK links on the matter:
http://www.dibeg.org/techp/Documents/Brazil010618/Attachment1-HDTV.PDF
http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/technical_report/pdf/ibc200502.pdf

It would be impractical for people to sit close enough to a 50 inch 
panel to get this angle, but it has been also mentionned that people sit 
closer when the screen is bigger. Link to one such study :
http://www.tid.es/documentos/boletin/numero6_4.pdf

I don't doubt there are serious studies showing a trend towards such and 
such flat panel sizes here and now. But i will remark that HDTV front 
projector prices have been falling to mass market level in the latest 
years, which to me is an indication that many people are buying them too.


You can for example get a Sanyo PLV-Z5 for 1100 euros (french site, sorry)
http://www.magma.fr/?module=boutique&act=details&pid=1009689

Prices for flat panels on the same site :
http://www.magma.fr/?module=boutique&act=details&pid=1009689

The prices are close, but in the recent past , i remember panels to be 
rather more expensive than projectors on average.

Now the PLV-Z5 can project a 2.5m wide picture from a distance of 3.7m 
with the maximum zoom setting. With some more room for the body of the 
projector, we would be around 4 m. However, to view a 2.5m wide screen 
under an angle of 30°, you must be at 4.83 m. Allow some room for the 
back of an armchair, and you are at 5 m. So you need a minimum surface 
of 5 x 2.5 = 12.5 m2.

I've found a (french, sorry again) document regarding european housing 
statistics :
http://www.union-hlm.org/structu/m-europe.nsf/62569fb6fa5eb929c12566e20077b9ba/b6b27a4cd30cd8d4c1256875001bdd32/$FILE/statistiques%20logement%20UE.pdf

In France, for example, section 2.1 says the average surface is 88 m2, 
and section 2.2 that the average number of rooms is  4. That would be 
some 22 m2 per room, and we should keep in mind that the living room is 
often bigger than the others. But even a 20 m2 room could provide a 4 x 
5 m arrangement.
 
The living room often tends to have a TV-centric organization. So i am 
not convinced people wouldn't be prepared for a little reorganization 
for such a big screen A 2.5m wide thing would be 2.5 *9/16 = 1.4 m high. 
If the ceiling is at 2.5m, you still have 1.1 m under it to put some 
waist-high furniture. The screen could be masked with some pretty 
curtain when not in use, or rolled up and would even leave 0.75 m on 
each side with a 4m wall (well, i guess you have to put the
speakers somewhere, if not under the screen).

Note that if you have less than 5m length available, you need the high
resolution even more. Of course, you can upconvert, but then you are not 
providing the eye of the observer with all the information he is able to 
capture.

I would point out once again to the possibility of having live events 
broadcast to public audiences either in digital theaters, or in village 
halls, where there are no such size limits . This is part of the 
business model of some companies like VTHR or euro1080/exq1. But there 
is no need for small villages to pay a subscription if public channels 
have sufficiently high quality for the purpose.

Also, i doubt that the people making the bulk of  flat panels statistics
are those leaving in the smallest appartments, considering the average 
price. Again this may be just a passing trend. If someone gets a chance 
to see a big screen movie at a friend's, what will he feel like when 
back in front of his own smaller, fixed-size, perhaps more expensive 
flat panel ?
The friend may also come the next day with his projector under the arm 
to do a local demo. Try to move that bulky and fragile flat panel in the 
same way!
As the years go by, a plasma panel will gradually lose its luminosity 
and picture quality. Nothing to do but to trash it and buy a new one. 
But the friend can change the lamp in his projector for a fraction of 
the price and enjoy it for many more years.
So perhaps, after the first enthusiasm, people will reconsider.

Also, there may be some disruptive technologies on the way : laser 
projectors which would be free of the limitations of current optics (we 
may aim for more than 30° then ), and always the possibility of having a 
virtual big screen using goggles. With the mobility trend, this concept 
may make a come back.

A serious broadcaster should invest money in a production tool that will 
outlive the passing trends, and will not force a renewal of the entire 
receiver base if some unplanned but predictable evolution occurs. it may 
make sense to broadcast 720p at the moment, but ideally the receiver 
should not go dark if a switch to 1080p is
decided later.

By the way have you heard that they are talking about 3D again ? 
Broadcasting in 1080p would make it easier to switch to stereoscopic 
1080i in case of need . Ain't it nice? :-)


>From: "Hoffmann, Hans" <hoffmann@xxxxxx>
>
>Dear Mr. Houot,
>
>this is a very interesting contribution to the discussion.
>
>The reality is however that European homes will not cope the size of the
>screen you propose.
>Any broadcaster has to consider business aspects such as maximum needed
>bandwidth for transmission (= money to pay). Consequently it important to
>consider the "major population display size" in consumers homes. Any serious
>broadcasters has also to consider that the major population are not "geeks".
>
>If you buy some reports of GfK, displayserach etc. then you will find that
>the major sales of display are in area of ~ 37 inch diagonal with an trend
>to ~ 42 inch. The display we used with 50 and 52 inch were already above the
>majority. We cannot expect that homes will become bigger, thus the space for
>large displays (or even a wall/screen for projector systems) is rather
>limited.
>
>We have also seen that the TV experience with good HDTV on the screens we
>used in the tests makes a difference to SDTV and in fact is appreciated by
>the assessors. Please send me the scientific data which you have used for
>your statements. This should be interesting.
>
>In conclusion, I have to say that your arguments do not hold against the
>results of the tests for TV broadcasting applications.
>
>Hans Hoffmann
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>>> [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Olivier Houot
>>> Sent: 10 May 2007 22:37
>>> To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [opendtv] Re: 1080p @ 60 is Next?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Those relatively small flat screens used in the EBU tests may be very 
>>> trendy, but any self-respecting HD geek would only 
>>> contemplate a picture 
>>> with at least a 2.5 meter base.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Also, consider that some "live" events might be retransmitted 
>>> in digital 
>>> theaters on a cinema-sized screen.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I understand it would have been difficult to set up a demo 
>>> with three 10 
>>> meters wide screens, but at least 2 x 2.5 m above one another 
>>> could have 
>>> been considered.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Big screens would be more revealing of resolution 
>>> deficiencies, and the 
>>> conclusions would have offered some security margins when applied to 
>>> smaller ones.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I don't think the choice of the more appropriate standard should be 
>>> based on the present market trends, especially in an industry where 
>>> things can change so quickly.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Watching a 1.27 m screen (diagonal), even in high definition, 
>>> does not 
>>> fundamuntally change the TV experience. With a 2.5 m screen 
>>> (width), it 
>>> really begins to fell like you're at the movies.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A sizeable fraction of the early HD adopters have opted for a big 
>>> picture (which means front projectors at the moment), and EBU 
>>> should not 
>>> make a choice that would clearly expose limitations in such viewing 
>>> conditions.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Perhaps the final conclusions would not be very different, 
>>> but at least 
>>> the test should be made.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>>  
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
>>> 
>>> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration 
>>> settings at FreeLists.org 
>>> 
>>> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
>>> the word unsubscribe in the subject line.
>>


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

Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 03:06:54 +0200
From: Olivier Houot <olho_avatar_i@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [opendtv] Re: 1080p @ 60 is Next?

I wrote :

 >However, to view a 2.5m wide screen under an angle of 30°, you must be 
at 4.83 m.

Sorry, make that 4.67, i mixed sin and tan. Not that much difference for 
small angles anyway.


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

Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 18:15:10 -0700
From: "Kon Wilms" <kon@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [opendtv] Re: 1080p @ 60 is Next?

On 5/11/07, Olivier Houot <olho_avatar_i@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> You can for example get a Sanyo PLV-Z5 for 1100 euros (french site, sorry)
> http://www.magma.fr/?module=boutique&act=details&pid=1009689

Which does not produce a bright enough picture to be viewed outside a
light-controlled room.

> In France, for example, section 2.1 says the average surface is 88 m2,
> and section 2.2 that the average number of rooms is  4. That would be
> some 22 m2 per room, and we should keep in mind that the living room is
> often bigger than the others. But even a 20 m2 room could provide a 4 x
> 5 m arrangement.

Your calculation assumes no passageways, closets, bathrooms, entrance
halls, stairwells, dining areas, or kitchens. Plus all of these
combine in various permutations to create dead space which makes most
rooms unusable.

I think the biggest thing here not taken into consideration is that a
large screen in a small room most times does not look aesthetically
pleasing.

Also, in smaller houses, the kitchen and dining areas border directly
on the lounge area. Which may itself also border on the entrance hall.
It is impossible to control light in these environments and projectors
are usually not suited well here.

> Also, i doubt that the people making the bulk of  flat panels statistics
> are those leaving in the smallest appartments, considering the average
> price. Again this may be just a passing trend. If someone gets a chance
> to see a big screen movie at a friend's, what will he feel like when
> back in front of his own smaller, fixed-size, perhaps more expensive
> flat panel ?

Many people don't actually care. I know plenty of people that prefer a
smaller screen. Many people care more about using a living room in the
traditional sense, and a big screen is unimportant in that case.

> As the years go by, a plasma panel will gradually lose its luminosity
> and picture quality. Nothing to do but to trash it and buy a new one.
> But the friend can change the lamp in his projector for a fraction of
> the price and enjoy it for many more years.
> So perhaps, after the first enthusiasm, people will reconsider.

That Sanyo you just mentioned uses organic polarizers. It is very
likely that it will fail after a year or few.

Speaking of which, 3LED projectors using organic polarizers are really
duds and I am surprised that manufacturers have not been sued. All
these seem to fail right as the warranty runs out. In fact, that's the
rumored reason that Panasonic reduced their warranty to 1 year on
their AE line. I should know, I have one, and it has failed on the
blue polarizer, and now the green.

Many 3LCDs also have a high LCD panel failure rate. At the cost of
repairing these you may as well buy another projector. In fact, that's
what I had to do.

You can search google or avsforum or other home theater forums for
more horror stories. They all go to the tune of 'what is this blue
color in the corner of my screen'. You see, these poor people would
know was it not for manufacturers telling them 'I have no idea what
that is'.

Plus you have screen door and pixelization at 6ft, which means you
need to reduce the image size to make it watchable. These artifacts
make large screen projection systems unwatchable from close up even in
720p.

Maybe in a few years we will have polysilicon 3LCD projectors at a
decent price. For now, DLP seems like the only choice.

Sorry for getting off-topic..

> Also, there may be some disruptive technologies on the way : laser
> projectors which would be free of the limitations of current optics (we
> may aim for more than 30° then ), and always the possibility of having a
> virtual big screen using goggles. With the mobility trend, this concept
> may make a come back.

Didn't we try virtual reality... multiple times... all of which turned
out to be complete and utter failures?

> By the way have you heard that they are talking about 3D again ?
> Broadcasting in 1080p would make it easier to switch to stereoscopic
> 1080i in case of need . Ain't it nice? :-)

If one is so hard up to experience reality I would suggest turning off
the TV and walking outside.

Cheers
Kon

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

Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 18:25:25 -0700
From: "Kon Wilms" <kon@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [opendtv] Re: ABC and Cox to trial on-demand services

Bert,

Have you seen/used the Cox on demand service?

It is absolutely and positively horrid. A UI penned by what could only
have been a color-blind pre-schooler with attention deficit disorder.
And that's when the 'advanced' Cox STB isn't falling over and
corrupting its hard drive. After looking inside my poor neighbor's STB
(he is on his 5th one so far), I have determined that the internal
cooling system was designed by monkeys. It is very telling when
neighbors young and old, many not in a technical field, all complain
about how terrible the Cox VOD/STB experience is.

Hence, I suspect they need every eyeball they can get. When they
aren't blasting one with non-antialiased ad banners in the EPG UI,
that is.

Cheers
Kon

On 5/10/07, Manfredi, Albert E <albert.e.manfredi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The ABC online catch-up streaming service already works this way. They
> now offer their own viewer software, or you can still choose to use
> Flash Player, and they prevent fast forward. The thing is, if you are
> only interrupted maybe 4 times during the show, and each time for just
> 30 seconds, who would object to watching the ads?
>
> This is what I don't understand about broadcasting and advertizing.
> People are now being subjected to almost 5 minutes of ads for each ad
> break. Why is it so hard to understand that no one will put up with
> that? They'll either skip the ads or fast forward, if given those
> options, or they will pick up a book, go grab something to eat, or visit
> the lieu, if not given fast forward options. Or worse, they'll pick up
> the phone and lose interest in the show altogether.
>
> It seems obvious to me that the revenue potential of an ad should depend
> on more than just how long it is and the time slot. An advertizer should
> pay less if his ad is diluted by a long barrage of other ads. That sort
> of formula is the only way to make the current scheme self-regulating,
> and you don't need any special technology gizmos to make it work.
>
> In economics, a similar effect is expressed by the Laffer Curve, as I've
> suggested in the past.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
>
> If the tax rate is set too high, the actual revenue to the govt goes
> down. Too many ads should similarly mean less revenue to broadcasters.
>
> Bert
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> http://www.dtg.org.uk/news/news.php?class=countries&subclass=0&id=2421
>
> ABC and Cox to trial on-demand services
>
> US television network ABC is to test a range of interactive and
> on-demand technologies with cable operator Cox Communications this
> autumn. Under a strategic partnership, Disney-owned ABC's media player
> will appear on Cox's web site, marking ABC's first syndicated media
> player deal.
>
> The duo will also test technology which inserts advertising into Cox's
> video-on-demand service, targeting viewers by postcode.
>
> Episodes from hit ABC shows such as Lost and Desperate Housewives will
> appear on the free-to-view on-demand service, but significantly, Cox
> will disable the fast-forward feature, thereby forcing subscribers to
> watch ads.
>
> The trial will begin in Orange County, California, and then be rolled
> out to other Cox markets.
>

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

Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 23:46:04 -0400
From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [opendtv] Re: Some results - 1080p @ 60 is Next?



Craig Birkmaier wrote:
 > Don;t worry about 1080@60P. Over time you will get some gear that will
 > support it. It will probably be easier to resample to 720@60P for
 > production, although it WILL be possible to edit in 1080@60P then encode
 > at 720P.

If possible, it seems to me that doing everything except emission 
encoding at 1080p/60 is a bit more future proof.  I'd wager many folks 
will be glad or sad some day based upon whether they have final product 
archived in 1080p/60 or higher.

- Tom


 >
> At 4:47 PM -0400 5/4/07, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
> 
>>
>> But for me, academic exercises have to be truthful to be ethical. With
>> 1080p consumer displays becoming available at really small premiums over
>> their 720p counterparts, some of the (often way too political) positions
>> of the past might need to be re-evaluated.
> 
> 
> John Shutt wrote:
> 
>>  > Do we go 720p for production, editing, and storage, assuming we have
>>
>>>  oversampling acquisition cameras? Or are we better off to use 1080i
>>>  throughout the entire production chain, and convert to 720p at the
>>>  emission encoder?
>>
>>
>> To remain within the existing ATSC transmission standards, my take is
>> that:
>>
>> 1. If your acquisition is 1080p or 720p, you should use 720p
>> transmission.
>>
>> 2. If your acquisition is 1080i, then you should use 1080i transmission.
> 
> 
> WRONG!
> 
> Mark has already challenged you on this. But to go a bit further, you 
> will be far better off using a high quality de-interlacing system, THEN 
> encoding as 720P. It is easy to re-interlace at the display for 1080i 
> displays.
> 
>>
>> 3. And furthermore, going to 1080i or 1080p acquisition is the right
>> decision for the future. Preferably, of course, 1080p.
> 
> 
> Interlaced acquisition did not make sense in 1992 and it does not make 
> sense today. There is no place of interlace in acquisition, production 
> or emission. The ONLY place it still has a useful role is as a way to 
> build cheaper display systems.
> 
>>
>> Not being a broadcaster, I do not understand intuitively why production
>> facilities can't be adjustable to 1080i or 720p.
> 
> 
> Almost all existing HD production gear does both since the master clock 
> rte is the same - by intention.
> 
> The ability to support 1080i production is not a reasonable 
> justification for its's use.
> 
> So to help John with his decision making.
> 
> Use only progressive acquisition system and progressive production 
> techniques.
> 
> Remember that oversampling is good. So cameras that have 1920 x 1080 
> sensors (or higher) are desirable. IF shooting high temporal rate 
> material shoot 720P - you will still get the sensor oversampling 
> benefit. If shooting 24P you can master at 1920 x 1080@24P.
> 
> In production use flexible tools like Final Cut Pro - the new version 
> can mix any source on the timeline, regardless of the format. You can 
> choose to output at 720@60P or 1080@24P depending on the project.
> 
> When producing animations and graphics use 1920 x 1080P - this will give 
> you the benefit of oversampling AND compatibility across projects that 
> are at either 720@60P  or 1080@24P.
> 
> Output all projects at 720P when you are encoding for emission.
> 
> Don;t worry about 1080@60P. Over time you will get some gear that will 
> support it. It will probably be easier to resample to 720@60P for 
> production, although it WILL be possible to edit in 1080@60P then encode 
> at 720P.
> 
> Regards
> Craig
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
> 
> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
> FreeLists.org
> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
> unsubscribe in the subject line.
> 
> 

-- 
Tom Barry                  trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx  


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

Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 23:58:54 -0400
From: Tom Barry <trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: NCTA: HBO's Zitter Says DRM Is Misnomer

I worked briefly with a PC real time MPEG-2 encoder card at one job last 
fall and it supposedly cost over $10000.  But I don't think the pirates 
would bother with something like that.

It is still questionable whether the two hidef DVD formats are 
permanently cracked but it is certainly true that most currently release 
discs are appearing on the Internet in unencrypted form.  These are 
usually in original form sans encryption or as slightly softer 720p 
re-encoded files.

There was supposed to be a new release of security at the end of April 
that would temporarily stop this but I don't think it happened.  However 
  I sort of stopped following the issue so I'm not sure.

But it seems likely professional pirates would prefer an all digital 
path and not be much interested in a real time MPEG-2 encoder card or 
analog inputs.

Home consumer users like me however are very dependent upon current 
component inputs, just to watch stuff.  I generally detest HDMI with its 
extra complexity, restrictions, licenses, incompatibilities, and bugs.

- Tom

John Shutt wrote:
> Not yet, but there will be.  Currently HD capable MPEG encoders cost 
> several thousands dollars.  But a decade ago SD MPEG encoders cost that 
> much but today are dirt cheap chipsets.
> 
> But I read that someone cracked Blu-Ray and HD-DVD encryption already 
> anyway, and there was a big to-do over at Digg about it.
> 
> John
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Birkmaier" <craig@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
>> I am not aware of any consumer equipment that provides HD analog 
>> component inputs for recording. I may be wrong, as it would be 
>> possible to do this on Blu Ray or HD-DVD, however I think that they 
>> are specifically not allowing this feature on High Def DVD recorders. 
>> So the only way to record this stuff is with professional HD recording 
>> formats...easy for a well funded pirate, but very difficult for a 
>> consumer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:
> 
> - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
> FreeLists.org
> - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
> unsubscribe in the subject line.
> 
> 

-- 
Tom Barry                  trbarry@xxxxxxxxxxx  


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

End of opendtv Digest V4 #126
*****************************
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
FreeLists.org 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways:

- Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at 
FreeLists.org 

- By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word 
unsubscribe in the subject line.

Other related posts: