[opendtv] Re: HDCP 2.2

  • From: Craig Birkmaier <craig@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 08:19:54 -0400

On Sep 22, 2014, at 10:44 PM, Mike Tsinberg <Mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Craig wrote:
> From the content owners perspective, distributing 4K is akin to sending out 
> your masters. Clearly, they want this stuff well protected, and do not expect 
> people to buy 4k content to view on an HD display.
> I think this is a key. Protecting 4K is fine but not making HDCP 2.2 backward 
> compatible is totally different. That means quite expesnive 4K displays 
> bought in 2013 will not work with UHD content generated in 2015. Moreover out 
> of five AV receivers companies only one support HDCP 2.2. AV receivers have a 
> longer live span in consumer home then display. I presume HDCP 2.2 AV 
> receivers will only arrive next year. That means Home theaters installed in 
> 2014 will only be able to view 4K HDCP 2.2 content when they switch  the AV 
> receiver 3 or 4 years later – 2017? This issue also adds to lack of bandwidth 
> for most of the streaming channels to send 4K. So lack of bandwidth plus 
> backward incompatibility creating consumer resistance is quite a high bar for 
> content providers to jump in order to create and broadcast 4K content. 

Two things.
First, if there is no significant consumer market, does it really matter?

Second, the same thing happened with HD content protection. The standards 
changed several times before finally settling on HDMI with HDCP.

> So a small videophile audience for 4k could emerge in the consumer space.
> I am not sure who fill fin ace that audience. It almost seems Hollywood 
> insistence on backwards incompatible HDCP for “native” 4K content is an 
> attempt to delay emergence of that format for as log as possible.

Perhaps. Remember, disruptive forces killed BluRay as a successor to DVD. Now 
discs don't have much of a future.

The focus should be on the proper selection of emission resolution and encoding 
to assure that the samples that reach the decoder are of the highest quality. 
In bandwidth constrained distribution channels this means LOWERING resolution 
to maintain image quality. Strange but true...bigger is not always better in 
our digital world.


Other related posts: