Slashdot Mirror

The Ark confirms that your processor does not have vPro support. However, that does not necessarily mean that the Intel ME is completely inert (for example, on my laptop, I cannot get to the configuration menu of the ME, but I can still flash it with the ME firmware, and the vulnerability checker tool detects it). Based on what I have observed on all the computers at work that support ME, they reuse the MAC address of the network interface. All it does is redirect certain ports to ME when accessed from the network (on configured systems).

Technicolor sounds like a modem company. Perhaps your router is throwing that into the ARP table.

none of the HEVC licensing bodies charge a royalty/content distribution fee.

You don't know that. You don't know that because the third HEVC patent pool, Velos Media, hasn't announced their licensing terms. You don't know that because some companies, like Technicolor, are not in any patent pool and you must negotiate a separate HEVC license with them.

No point wasting time on HEVC's licensing mess. Just use VP9 now and use AV1 later. They really are royalty-free for all use cases.

back in 2014

Yes, that was when there was still hope that the patent licensing mess would be resolved.

H.265 licensing has only become worse. Three patent pools (MPEG LA, HEVC Advance, Velos Media, one of which has not even announced terms, and companies like Technicolor who are not in any patent pool so you need a separate license from them. It's complete a joke. H.265 licensing is simply impractical.

It's cheaper and simpler to go with royalty-free formats like VP9 today and AV1 in future.

baked into all hardware

There's broad hardware support for VP9 as well. The major CPU and GPU manufacturers are all members of the Alliance for Open Media, so eventually they'll all have AV1 support when it's finished.

The licensing mess around H.265 makes it a non-starter. There are three separate patent pools you need to buy a license from (MPEG LA, HEVC Advance, and Velos Media).

No one can tell you what your final licensing cost will end up being. Velos Media hasn't even announced their licensing terms yet. Some companies, like Technicolor, are not in any patent pool so you need to negotiate a separate license will them.

The farcical licensing situation makes H.265 impractical. VP9 and AV1, in contrast, are both royalty-free for all use cases. There's no point wasting time with licensing uncertainty when you can just go ahead and use royalty-free codecs.

The main problem with HEVC is the patent licensing. In order to use HEVC you need to get 3 different patent licenses from 3 different patent pools (MPEG LA, HEVC Advance, and Velos Media).

There are some companies with HEVC patents, like Technicolor, which aren't in any patent pool so you also need to get a patent license from them. Technicolor says they have done this "to enable direct licensing" of their HEVC patents. Sounds convenient.

The patent licensing situation has reduced the x265 developers to begging the patent pools for better licensing terms. I recognise the x265 team is trying to make a buck but I think they'd be better off focusing on building an AV1 implementation than throwing their lot in with HEVC. HEVC's licensing is just not web friendly.

Luckily, the HEIF image format is content format agnostic (presentation and slides). In principle you could use HEIF with VP9 or with AV1. Apple may never support VP9 but I don't think they can avoid adding support for AV1 in future. AV1 will have too many advantages over HEVC (better performance, royalty-free licensing) to ignore.

I used to think this, and it was very very true while home routers failed to support IPv6. (the manufacturers are idiots, imagine putting IPv6 on your routers and selling them as an added feature - most users won't know what it is, but they'll know its 'future proof' and shinier as it has a IPv6 sticker)

However, IPv6 home routers are starting to appear. In the UK the Andrews and Arnold ISP will give you IPv6 address, and they're evaluating routers.

They haven't decided which to use, but that's probably more down to cost considerations etc than technical as they have said the Technicolor TG582n is good to go.

As for performance, I imagine it'll be as good as the IPv4 as generally its just a bit of firmware change to get it running. Routing should be quicker, and if you're no longer going through NAT proxying, that should make it a tiny bit faster too.

If you look at the pole, which is not shiny, the artifact that an earlier poster pointed to has color fringing. Since the pole is not shiny, your explanation doesn't explain that behavior. Since other nearby objects are not fringed, it can't be a parallax thing or poor registration of the color layers.

It's not movement, since the grass blades in the foreground are blurred without any coulour fringe whatsoever.

That said, the method used is just like Technicolor, except that it doesn't use dichroid mirrors.

And one will also recall Polaroid's polavision (official dope), which used a film striped with RGB filters. But videocams made that obsolete overnight.

--

Besides, what most people do not realize is that film is actually better than any of the digital systems that have been demoed to date. Here are the problems:

• Resolution
  A frame of 35mm film contains millions of pixels. A spokesman for Kodak recently stated at a panel discussion that film has between 8 and 12 million pixels per frame. The digital systems being proposed as a replacement have about 2 million pixels (1920x1080). Does that sound like comparable resolution to you? Doesn't to me.
• Color range
  Film has a much greater color range than the RGB color representation used for digital projection. And the color range for film continues to increase. Technicolor recently revived the dye-transfer printing process that produces even greater color saturation than normal film. You can see this in action if you live in the Bay Area. Go to the Century Cinema 25 at Union City and see "Mission Impossible 2" or "Shanghai Noon" to see one of these prints. (Note: Do not go to see "Dinosaur" expecting to see a dye-transfer print. This is showing with a normal film print.) If you really want to see just how good film can look, this is your chance.

Yes, yes, I know that film is prone to scratches and digital is not. However, if you go to a good, quality theater with good projection, you will not see any scratches except around the reel changes, which will be going away soon since printing houses are moving towards using extended length reels (ELRs) for exhibition prints, which can contain the entire film on a single reel.

Film has higher quality than any currently available digital system (and I say "currently available" because I know that it is possible for a digital system to fix the problems that I mentioned, but I am talking about what is available today, right now -- that is what the studios are pushing for). Replacing film with the digital systems of the level of quality that we are seeing today is like replacing a good analog audio system with 8-bit 22kHz digital audio. It may be "digital", but that doesn't mean it's "better".

When it comes down to it, the only reason to get excited about this is because it will save the movie studios money. Given all the crap going on with the MPAA/DeCSS case and so forth, I find it very hard to understand why Slashdotters are excited about the @#$!ing movie studios saving money!! Can someone explain this to me please?