Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: atsc.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to atsc.org.

Comments · 60

  1. Re:Cleanroom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting · on Dolby Tells NetBSD Project: Don't Decode AC3
    Those patents are too recent; they were published more than a year after the ATSC spec, and therefore the spec itself would constitute prior publication. There are a bunch of other patents, though -- e.g. 5,583,962, 5,632,005 and 5,633,981.

    - Mycroft

  2. Re:What exactly is their claim here? - clarificati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Dolby Tells NetBSD Project: Don't Decode AC3
    It wasn't developed by reverse-engineering. IT was developed using the publicly available spec.

    I'm not sure how many legs they have to stand on, but they do have a number of audio codec patents, several of which may be relevant. See specifically 5,583,962, 5,632,005 and 5,633,981. These are all registered internationally.

    - Mycroft

  3. Isn't this an open specification? by Helmholtz · · Score: 1, Offtopic · on Distastful Advertising Continues: "Gatoring"
    There's noway this is possible. The AC-3 Specification is an Open Standard! And the ac3dec Software is "A free (GPL) AC-3 stream decoder". If Dolby wishes to dispute that the code within the decoder has been stolen from them, then that's a matter they need to take up with the software writers.

    I just don't see what possible infrigement there could be, especially on the part of Dolby.

  4. Re:Dolby is playing unfair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative · on Dolby Tells NetBSD Project: Don't Decode AC3
    As far as I'm aware, the AC-3 spec was never available from Dolby's web site. It was, and is, available from the ATSC web site. Note that the first page has a footnote about patent claims.

    BTW, all the potentially relevant patents I found are registered internationally. They also have a trademark on the name "AC-3", at least in the U.S. - Mycroft

  5. Re:Must be rough... by Babbster · · Score: 1 · on The Joys of HDTV
    Guess what? A great many people STILL watch broadcast TV over cable. Whether YOU watch it or not seems irrelevant when discussing the merits; it's what a significant portion of the population is watching that is critical [to profitability].

    Yes, a few sets ARE shipping with built-in HD tuners/decoders. Here's one to start you off with.

    Finally, wow! Has someone already transmitted a signal that a particular (functioning) HDTV decoder can't decode? No? Could it be because there IS a standard established for HDTV broadcasts (if you don't want the technical data, here is a FAQ from the FCC about DTV)?

    Do YOUR homework, ace modded-up complainer.

  6. Re:Price of HDTV by cmowire · · Score: 2 · on The Joys of HDTV

    Actually, the resolution for HDTV is either 1920x1080, 1280x720, or a few DVD-quality tv resolutions. 1024x1024 doesn't appear anywhere in the ATSC standards.

    Also note that these are generally big fscking widescreen displays. Generally the only thing that comes close on the PC end is a standard 21" or a 24" widescreen display. When the prices for a HDTV set go down until you can get a real one (i.e. not just a normal sized projection screen that downconverts an HTDV feed) in a size equivelent to your average 25" or so TV, you should be able to buy one at an excessive premium instead of an insane premium.

    If you have ever seen the display, it's damn nice. Of course, unless you absolutely love new toys and k3w3l 31337 TV, it's not worth it yet.

  7. Re:The final chip? by cmowire · · Score: 1 · on Sony's Monster Graphics Chip

    Actually, if you check out the ATSC standard, the standard specifies both 1080i and 1080p. 1080i is available in 59.94 and 60 Hz, while 1080p is available in 23.976, 24, 29.97, and 30 Hz.

    Where the confusion lies is that 1080p is not at 60Hz, just at 30Hz. So everybody sends 1080i instead, because it's the same frame rate but the action is a little better.

    Now, with 720p, you can do it at 60Hz.

    I suspect that in the future, HDTV manufacturers will be adding functionality so that their sets will be able to display 1920x1080x75 Hz or at least 60Hz progressive. Right now, this is not the case, so most HDTV sets are constrained to 1920x1080x30Hz p or 60Hz i, so they make you use 800x600, because they don't want to de-interlace the video.

  8. Re:Specs? by rillian · · Score: 2 · on Intercontinental Real-Time Surround-Sound Full-Scr...

    Well, judging by this page pointed out in another thread, they're probably just streaming (Dolby) AC-3. No details about the network part, but the compression spec is here or here.

    Same stuff that's on a lot of DVDs.

    Just as a head's up, there's a plan to add a more flexible surround encoding to the Ogg Vorbis audio format.

  9. AC3 standard is here: by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1 · on Entertaining Bits From The Ancient Kernel Tree
    AC3 Audio Standard. I'm not sure why the ATSC calls it A52...

    A partial software implementation is available at LiVid

  10. Re:Is there a standard? by grumling · · Score: 1 · on Streaming Media - Can Linux Keep Up?
    Yes, there is a standard, HDTV (or DTV). It should be possible to get the lower resoultion flavors of DTV to go through a cablemodem or DSL line without much of a problem. Check out the ATSC website

    With the rate that cable/dsl is being deployed this year, most of the current streamming media formats will become useless in the next few years, as long as the backbones and servers can handle high bit-rate connections. Most of these connections can handle a 300Mbps connection without any real problem, other than the routers and backbones they run through.