Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Codec Required For Blu-Ray Players
dmayle writes "According to ExtremeTech, the Blu-Ray Disc Association (which consists of many big names, like Sony, Philips, and Pioneer) has decided to mandate Microsoft's VC-1 video codec. With HD-DVD incorporating Microsoft's patented video codecs as well, what will happen to the state of media players on Open Source? (Here's an additional source for Blu-Ray info)."
Ahem, it seems that they are making their inroads to Media domination...
Microsoft will maintain its neutral position in supporting the emerging high definition video formats, said Amir Majidimehr, corporate vice president of Microsoft's Windows Media division, in a statement.
MSFT will remain "neutral" as long as they are getting paid royalties to use the codec in the design. This will likely mean that Open Source alternatives will be shutout although with other technologies OSS has been able to make its way around those roadblocks.
How long until the MPAA gives in or will yet ANOTHER media format be created that won't include MSFT or OSS?
I'd rather not watch something than have to depend on Micro$oft for the codec!
I've got 230 or more DVD's I'm not about to rebuy just for a new standard. I dont need any of these "Special features and commentaries" on any of these movies and there's probably nothing else on them to entice me to switch. So for the time being I'm sticking with DVD.
The market should demand a open standard not one bribed by M$
It'll be reverse engineered. it'll happen in some other country. it'll move "underground". they'll be a giant legal battle.
Either that or it'll fail as a format. I'm kinda guessing the latter.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
Could someone please explain this to me is words that actually made sence to a person that has no idea what codec and all that stuff is?
I wonder how long before the anti-trust lawsuits kick in this time round.
When all else fails, run.
If Microsoft is heavy-handed about this, I would think that manufacturers would react in much the same way folk reacted to Sony around Beta. A splinter group will form with another, superficially similar standard and the more open one will tend to win...
"Cutting off the oxygen supply"
Orwell was right... First it starts with computers... Then to home appliances... Next to the very cable TV we watch... And who can forget the patent that MS put on watches commercials that ask you questions for a prize... The worst part about this, is what it does to open-source codecs... Things like ogg-vorbis and xvid... Will the world every get a clue?
I am 60% pleased, 30% worried, and 10% indifferent.
Pleased: Despite all the MS bashing that occurs here, MS does make some very nice A/V codecs.
Worried: MS has a history of hamstringing their good codecs with DRM and other crap too.
Indifferent: Nothing to see here folks, FOSS will reverse-engineer and/or come out with far better codecs.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
Based on my take of the article, seems this is going to be just one option of many.
"We've been committed to adding advanced codecs to enrich the Blu-ray Disc format," said Maureen Weber, general manager of HP's optical storage solutions business and a member of the Blu-Ray group, in a statement.
"We want to offer content providers a variety of compression codecs to suit their various needs. With the addition of Microsoft's VC-1, we extend that option in a package that makes Blu-ray Disc's capacity advantage even more substantial while still delivering the picture quality that consumers demand from high-definition technology."
A variety of compression codecs sure makes me think we're going to have options...
Most of Microsoft's patent portfolio exists solely to protect MS from the lawsuits of other companies.
Now, if MS licenses this and plays nice (and yes, MS can play nice if it benefits them to do so, i.e. making money by licensing the use of their codecs), we won't have any problems and this isn't necessarily a bad thing. IMO, only if MS keeps it closed, secret and has no licensing options will this hurt OSS.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
Hmmmm, based on what previous behavior or evidence?
Not much to that article.
What prevents the OSS community from developing it's own codec and getting approved the same way M$ has done?
This is tantamount to telling people what gasoline they have to put in their car.
The difference is, as long as the blue-ray players drop in price quickly, the average consumer really won't give a damn.
You'll only hear a true uproar once prices go beyond what the majority of the market can bear. So prepared to be screwed - because there isn't a damn thing you or I can do about it.
Yeah, I'm Free. Right.
With HD-DVD incorporating Microsoft's patented video codecs as well, what will happen to the state of media players on Open Source?
My prediction is this, someone will reverse engineer the codec and release it a la DeCSS and everyone will have it. Microsoft will try to shut it down and there will be T shirts with the code printed on them.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
How is this different than mandating all current DVD player support Dolby Digital? This doesn't preclude the standard from accepting other open source codecs. Market forces have pretty much made DTS decoding standard in all current players.
it will be reverse engineered, it will be published, it will be distributed and eventually someone will be sued... this same old story again and again ...
All in all, I think this may be more of an annoyance than a real problem. But I'd be interested in the opinion of other
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
"Microsoft will maintain its neutral position in supporting the emerging high definition video formats"
The last statement of that article seems totally against the grain of its subject matter. It is backed by HP apaprently too which now just came out with a linux laptop. Maybe we can hope to see one of these companies step up and offer a way of support on linux? If not I sense more antitrust litigation in the near future.
We're boned.
When will they ever learn... O, when will they ever learn?
"We want to offer content providers a variety of compression codecs to suit their various needs. With the addition of Microsoft's VC-1, we extend that option in a package that makes Blu-ray Disc's capacity advantage even more substantial while still delivering the picture quality that consumers demand from high-definition technology."
Notice "A VARIETY OF COMPRESSION CODECS". VC-1 is merely one of several and is being added for those who want better images on high definition displays.
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
I guess DVD-Jon is up for a new nick!
I can't help to think that this is incredably short sighted by said companies. They go through all that trouble to create a new format, and then dictate that the compression method used is propriatary, and currently non-standard. It's not about Microsoft(!?), this is about clear and common sence: If you use a propiertary format, don't you think that the owner will charge some kind of royality fee for the useage ? This could only make this more costly, and less attractive to future users of this. Clearly this is akin to shooting one's self in the foot, let's not even get started with OSS trying to keep up on this format too...
In the U.S. at least, MPEG2 and CSS used in current DVD players are not really "Open", although they have been reverse engineered and implemented in open source projects (Opened with a crowbar, in a sense.)
I suppose you could make an argument MPEG2 is somewhat more open, if not unencumbered, than Microsoft codex XXX, but CSS certainly isn't.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
corrected link, sorry.
I am highly confused by these articles.. I thought that QT's implementation of the h.264 codec had already been ratified for use in the next gerneration of HD-DVD's?
2 3quickti me.html
unless I am missing something here or apple is blowing smoke.. whats the deal...
am I even talking about the same topic?
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jun/
what does that press release refer too then?
comments?
For the record, Blu-Ray also has MPEG2 and MPEG4 AVC High Profile as mandatory codecs. So it's not like anyone is forced to use VC-1.
It might seem surprising that they would mandate 3 codecs, due to the added complexity of supporting them together. But it turns out that once you've implemented an MPEG4 decoder in silicon, VC-1 is not that difficult to add on. As for MPEG2, that's needed for back compatability, but as anyone who uses DivX knows, it's far less efficient than modern codecs.
What are the advantages if any to using the competing HD-DVD versus BD-ROM? It seems they will come out at the same time, BD-ROM will have more space and use the same advanced codecs, negating any advantage HD-DVD had. In other words, why would ANYONE buy HD-DVD..?
Windows sux. Am I cool now?
HD DVD supports MPEG-2, H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, and Microsoft VC-9.
Blu-Ray Disc (BD) already supported MPEG-2 and H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, and now just added Microsoft VC-9. So what?
So many people misquote and misparaphrase from _1984_, _Fahrenheit 451_, and _Brave New World_. I went and read them all because of so many people referencing them. Either people haven't read them, or they haven't read them with the equivalent analysis of high school english.
Well, it's not like the varios MPEG levels are not patented.
And as long as algorithms are not patentable in the EU (and I hope it remains so), mplayer will implement it without worries.
Real life is overrated.
1- Remember that Hollywood is supposedly afraid of Microsoft
2- Royalties jack up the price of things
3- There is still plenty of time for bickering and delay to kill this a-la-Digital-Audio-Tape.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
I know there is a lot of anti-MS sentiment around here, but this is really great news. VC-1 (VC-9) is a great codec for HD and is vastly superior to the aging MPEG2 standard. Think better picture quality at a third of the bitrate on 1080p material. Note that the inclusion of VC-1 does NOT mean the inclusion of any kind of Microsoft DRM. They are completely separate issues We will certainly get some kind of restrictive DRM, but that is a separate issue from VC-1.
Please note that MPEG2 is still a part of the spec and content providers will still be free to use it if they choose. I believe there is still a chance for H.264 to be included as well. (HD-DVD includs all three codecs)
I'm of the opinion that Blu-ray will ultimately win this format war, but we shall see. It has a nice capacity advantage over HD-DVD (and now a next-gen codec to utilize it efficiently). I think the only real advantage HD-DVD has right now is intial lower duplication costs due to its physical similarity to DVD. Sony has stated they are going to run with Blu-ray to the bitter end, so I expect them to press enough discs to overcome that initial disadvantage.
just ask the people who made the Divx;) 3 codec.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Assuming blu ray becomes the dominant hi def format (it's not clear but the ps3 supporting it gives it an edge IMO), the same thing will happen that happened with dvd's.
Someone will reverse engineer it, you will be able to play these movies on a linux system but it won't be legal.
body {color:black;}
a:hover {color:red;}
DeCSS
There is no need to run Microsoft products.
Microsoft products are inherently unsafe compared to GNU/Linux. Read this article as well. Microsoft lies to its customers and to everyone else.
I cannot figure out why people still use Microsoft products, unless it is because of sheer ignorance. My company runs Mandrakelinux. Microsoft products are not allowed in the offices nor on the production floor. If we can do it, so can you.
"Even if we have a much better Free codec, that codec is worthless if every single DVD/movie released *must* be encoded in Microsoft's codecs because the standard mandates it"
The support for Media Player 9 codec is mandated for the players, to ensure that they are capable of showing video files encoded in that format. They are also mandated to do good ol' Mpeg 2 (just like DVD) and Mpeg 4 as well.
Of course, Mpeg 2 has its patents as well, but that doesn't seem to be hugely bothering people when discussing what this does over DVD, just because "Microsoft = Bad".
I'm just happy because a more efficient video codec leaves more room for audio on the discs, and we might see some MLP-encoded films.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Good thing I gots my Blue Blockers!
---
Those who can, do
Those who can't, teach
Those who don't know how, supervise
Why would Sony want a MS technology to go into the PS3 when they now compete with the Xbox?
Does anyone know what a ballpark cost would be for licensing the IP for a blu-ray player, including the MS and other patented bits?
With all these codecs on board i'd imagine it's a lot more than for regular DVD, and seeing the Chinese manufacturers attitude towards this they'll just go right ahead with their own patent-free platform. Hollywood will ignore them, at first, then they'll panic like mad knowing that a couple of billion users can only buy pirated copies of their films. Brilliant, way to go.
Since the PS3 has been confirmed to use Blue Ray disks, what type of conflict does this create for Sony and MS? Will the codec be used on PS3 Blue Ray disks as well as the high def movies?
The Microsoft video codec will be required for inclusion in Blu-Ray players, but others won't be excluded. That means M$ getting a royalty for every player sold in the world, which is a great business for them. It's certainly been a great business for Sony and Phillips, with their codec required in every CD player. It also guarantees their own media products will be compatible with the new players, without any extra R&D, to say nothing of putting their logo on all those consumer devices.
Other codecs can also run. There might be pricing pressure on manufacturers to exclude the other, non-mandated codecs. Just like the PC "bundling" coup that drove Microsoft to their monopoly position. Blu-Ray needs at least one required codec to be a stable target for media delivery. By requiring Microsoft's codec, they've pushed Microsoft's monopoly-perpetuation strategy into the wider world of consumer TV.
--
make install -not war
Detail #1: "...I predict ...reverse engineered..."
That doesn't mean anything! It's not Copyright, it's Patents that is the problem here. Microsoft could give away the source without licensing the patent for use in any given software.
Detail #2: A patent in a legal monopoly by definition. Until patent law is changed, they can't be hit with anti-trust or monopoly abuse quite so easily.
I think "Open Source" should be organized into a religion... it's just about the ONLY way it will get government protection.
How funny, my 7 year old son must be faking reading subtitles aloud to his younger sister then.
What does this have to do with my rights online?
If you read the article you'd know that this isn't an issue of support, it's an issue of MANDATE. From the article: Blu-Ray, backed by companies like Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Philips and Matsushita will require the codec to be used in playback equipment. They're not announcing that they support the codec. They're announcing that they REQUIRE the codec. There's a BIG difference here. What we have is a collaborative standard MANDATING one company's codec over open, standard codecs.
"The best laid plans of mice and men gang oft agley..." - ROBERT BURNS
Mod this up. The grandparent is a zealot, this guy makes sense.
Microsoft's management is required by law to maximize return on investment ("fiduciary duty"), using every possible legal means. This process, getting their proprietary technology into as many requirements as possible, is part of their strategy, and I must admit that it's working perfectly. It's not "evil", it's goal achievement.
It's up to us, society at large, to establish the limits. If we fail to meet our end of the bargain, then that's on us.
Societies get to choose among a diversity of processes for managing ourselves. We can say "corporations are responsible for reasonable behavior and we will regulate them minimally, assuming that they work accordingly". We can also say "corporations must be expected to prioritize on shareholder value and we must pay close attention to their decisions, knowing that they are required to find every technique or loophole in the rules to achieve that goal".
In my opinion, what we have half one and half the other: "For the purposes of regulation by society at large, corporations are responsible for reasonable behavior and need not be so tightly regulated. For the purposes of corporate strategy, corporations are expected to maximize shareholder value using any legal means necessary". This model works *very well* for managers and majority shareholders of huge corporations. If this is a good model for social interactions, then we're in good shape. If not, then we should be working toward a better model.
Looks like Blu-Ray will not gain much acceptance this way and the good old DVD will continue to dominate the market until an open standard comes out. Nowadays open standards are something that is expected and nobody will buy into anything proprietory anymore. Times have changed...
People misquote Orwell's 1984, Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, and Huxley's Brave New World because the books are too new (being published on or after 1923) for people to find the time and money to get through them.
In the worst case scenario, us OpenSource/GPL freaks won't be able to watch these wonderful hi-definition movies on our wonderful full-room TVs.
Instead will have to do something else with our time....like...
Go hiking.
Learn to play an instrument.
Drink beer with friends.
Read obscure books.
Learn a foreign language.
Play with children.
Cook good food.
Run.
Microsoft can keep it's crap for all I care.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
Well, I'm going to be one less customer if they only allow the closed option. (I suspect that many others will do the same)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Say it ain't so! This is truely disappointing to hear. There has to be something we can do about it?
- Kevin
The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act.
I would think in 10 years and maybe even sooner if fiber to the premise deployments speed up.
We will be able to subscribe to video library providers, select what we want to view, it downloads to our systems and plays back. True video on demand. That way I dont have to concern myself with hordes of dvd cases floating around the house.
Only outlaws will program OS Blu-ray codecs!
Laws are for people with no friends.
Developing the fancy algorithms behind codecs is expensive and at least I think that companies are entitled to protect their inventions. It's up to the standards bodies to define under what (fair) terms the IP must be licensed in order to be adopted into the specs. Some are stricter than others. I'd like to know what's the case here.
- 4r0g
-
Most players are made in China.
-
The Chinese government wants to reduce dependencies on foreign technology that requires royalties.
-
With players selling for as little as $29.95, paying royalties to high-wage countries is no longer competitive.
-
The top-grossing movie this week is
Hero.
It's from China.
It no longer matters what Microsoft or Hollywood wants. EVD players will be in Wal-Mart.Patents expire if Microsoft and GlaxoSmithKline don't sweet-talk Congress into a delusion that repeated term extensions are good for the American economy. Watch Disney team up with Microsoft upon learning that patent term extension has a chance of being another weapon in the arsenal against tools that can be used to induce copyright infringement.
Serious question
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
What about http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/h264.html this is supposed to be the next big thing ?
I've got my crystal ball handy - so here's your official ``Preview of Future News Stories to be Seen on Slashdot''.
- Microsoft Blu-Ray Codec appears in first manufactured unit
- (Three days before previous article) Microsoft Blu-Ray Codec implementation hacked by [group|bright individual name] in [some northern European country].
- Microsoft pressures [appropriate government] to arrest the evil doer, sell him/her into slavery, raze their house to the ground, and sue everyone who downloaded the sourcecode.
- Massive (though largely unnoticed by general population) protests about the fate of [bright lad/lassie from northern European country]. Important statements by ACLU, EFF
- Lengthly legal battle begins
- Thoroughly illegal, but widely circulated OSS implementation of Blu-Ray appears as a plugin for mplayer/xine
- Storm settles down as MS is (one hopes) struck down yet again by a multiplicity of courts, which does not prevent MS from ranting about "evil OSS pirates"
- Meanwhile, a new compression codec is invented that allows compression of HD-DVD onto a regular DVD (or CD), a superpowerful DivX
- Said codec is also included into mplayer/xine
- New generation of ripped movies appears on P2P networks, with ripping tools first written for Windows, of course.
- The Enterprise continues on its five-year mission.
I suggest we all boycott this and support HD-DVD.
Ouch! The truth hurts!
MPEG is also patented. Of course, the MPEG licensing association may not have had much interest in going after open source because there is little money in it. Microsoft may go after open source just in order to hurt open source. But, ultimately, the problem is patented codecs in general, not which particular patented codec gets put into hardware.
I'm no fan of many of Microsoft's practices, but HD DVD already supported VC-9, and Microsoft did submit VC-9 to SMPTE for consideration as a standard, and MPEG LA, the same licensing authority that handles all of the MPEG family codecs including MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 Part 10 (H.264/MPEG-4 AVC), is handling the patent pool for VC-9.
Regardless, no matter which next-generation DVD spec wins out, VC-9 will be a part of it. More worrisome is the prospect of the content providers rallying around VC-9, abandoning H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, fundamentally strengthening Microsoft's position in that arena...
The same thing that will happen to all serious Free software development: it will eventually migrate out of the United States where it can continue unhindered by insane patent and export laws. The finished product will find its way back into the US via FreeNet/WASTE/etc.
The US Army: promoting democracy through unquestioned obedience
HD-DVD thinks pressing cost (a few cents difference now) will be what wins the war, and cites the VHS/BETA wars as precedent.
But it wasn't blank tape costs that killed BETA, what killed BETA (in the home market), it was 3 HR record time (extended to 4 ½) versus 6 for VHS on standard tapes.
Consumers will make the same decision here. Blu-Ray now supports all the HD-DVD formats on 25 gig single layer vs HD-DVD 15 gig. Not only this, but HD-DVD is 2 layers max (per side), while Blu-Ray is planning on going anywhere from 4 to 8. Exactly how many hasn't quite been worked out yet, but at least 4 are almost a certainty and 100 Gig on one side as a result (can you say one full season in HD on one side?).
HD-DVD's only advantage (and it is a slim one) is the DVD name. But Blu-Ray is a good name too, and one I think the general public will pick up quickly, and assume better because it's using that newer Blue Laser don't you know (even though HD-DVD will be using Blue Lasers also).
The new Holographic storage is nice too at 200 Gig, but it may be too late to the party to be a video standard storage, it still has a year or two of basic development left. Better to keep working on this one and release it in 2010+ at 1T plus to support Ultra-HDTV. By 2020 I predict Movie Theaters will be an anachronistic oddity like Drive-Ins now. Of course we may not be using Disks at all by then, and downloading U-HD straight off of the internet.
Letter To Iran
This is slightly off-topic, but can anyone hazard a guess as to how long it will be until media players are fast enough to run the codec in software? At that point, specifying a hardware player spec will be more like, "read a codec at this place on disc, which will conform to this API. Implement these calls to hardware-accelerate certain common tasks." Then we can arbitrarily update file formats as they are developed, and existing players will be able to read them. Sony can use a proprietary MS codec for their discs, and I can use xvid or theora for mine, and everyone's happy.
How much better does the hardware have to be before that's a reality?
VC-1 is merely one of several and is being added for those who want better images on high definition displays.
True, not all titles have to use VC-1, but all conforming HD-DVD and Blu-ray video players have to accept and decode VC-1, which means all player makers have to agree to Microsoft's terms and pay Microsoft royalties per unit. Free software cannot accept a requirement of non-disclosure of source code or of royalties per unit, thus making free software incompatible with entertainment industry business models, in turn making home users less likely to adopt free software on machines primarily thought to be used for entertainment.
I have *way* reduced my media consumption, largely due to the increasingly restrictive processes they are imposing. My wife certainly likes the results (I've learned to cook some good stuff :-) )!
MS submitted this video codec as a standard, and licensing is being done by the same people who do licensing for mpeg2 and mpeg4...
I think that the InterOperability loophole in the "worst law" will mean that Microsoft will come out with a hamstrung version for Apple and Linux, or that Jon Johanssen or someone of comparable proclivity will have to fight off another lawsuit...
"Oh, Linux is supreior! All bow to Linux Torvalds for Open Source is life!"
If you folks could open your eyes for just a few seconds and realize that in many cases, open source software, codecs, etc are NOT superior to their commercial alternatives (and in many cases are quite inferior - just compare Symantec Ghost to DD for instance), the world would be a better place. Just because something is free doesn't make it good. Microsoft video codecs have a long history of being superior to just about anything on the market (especially in terms of quality vs. filesize).
Also, just because it's from a commercial vendor does NOT mean it would include DRM of Death. (For the records: despite my support of MSFT, DRM is evil)
Aren't all of the codecs mentioned (mpeg1, mpeg2, mpeg4, VC9) all copyright protected and thus require royalties?
Any chance of including a royalty free coded, like the one from the BBC ?
Microsoft will likely have to submit to some kind of RAND licensing as part of the deal, which will probably still exclude free players, but last I checked there was no such think as a free MPEG4 patent license either (just plenty of unlicensed implementations).
Yes, the car companies tell us what standard fuel will work in our car.
Gasoline, with particular standard ratings, diesel fuel, natural gas, propane or any other fuel.
As long as you use the proper standard fuel, your car will work.
In this case as long as the disc uses a standard codec, it will play in your standard player.
If you choose a non standard disc it might not work, like putting non standard fuel in your car.
I couldn't have come up with a better real world example.
I doubt that *we* will get various codec options..
Once they standardize then every disk produced under the standard will have to use that single codec that they decided on..
*They* have various options to choose from to make 'standard', but once its done we are stuck.. Stuck if you want to use 'standard' disks that is..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
You wrote: "He lost, by the way.", and then you paste a text that ends with "Fogerty won the lawsuit". Make your mind, did Fogerty win or lose the lawsuit?
Though I must admit I had to consult this table to figure out how to make less-than and greater-than symbols.
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
...is the fact that many of the companies behind these formats are media giants.
If for instance Sony decides to only release Spiderman 4 on Blu-Ray, whatcha gonna do? It would only take one mega-hit for people to starting shelling out the cash. Hell, I've bought GAME SYSTEMS because I liked one game.
Just imagine how they will put us all on the rack with two competing formats.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Everyones got a DVD player now, Video CD in varous formats failed because people had VHS, and that was good enough, until everyones got HDTVs in the livingroom I don't see bluray taking off at all.
Ok, I have to weigh in here in the interest of some objectivity. Most DVDs currently are in the $25 or less range. Most of the DVDs I've recently purchased have been $10 to $14. I don't see that as overcharging, particularly since a matinee ticket costs $5.00-$5.50 and as high as $9 for evening showings, and you have to schedule yourself to be at the theater at their showing time, not when best fits your schedule.
Some people apparently missed the Good Old Days when VHS tapes of movies were $30 up to $80 (one studio was always in the $70 to 80 range, while others were much lower) and if you adjust the dollars these would be considerably more in today's bucks.
Blank media may be pricey, but don't confuse that with what's on sale with content.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Remember like TV you are not the customer.
The studios are the customer, they are buying a distribution mechanism. They want a good standard so that this channel will work well when it is deployed to the movie customers.
People don't buy DVD players to have a DVD player, they buy a DVD player to gain access to the DVD entertainment channel.
Damn I sound like a management/marketing droid.
MPEG2 may be lacking in certain efficiencies, but MPEG2 with enough bandwidth (and the point of Blu-ray was to GET enough bandwidth) looks AWESOME.
The draw-back to new CODECs? HDTV was SUPPOSED to standardize on MPEG2, not because it was the best, but because it was pretty good when it came out and would be cheap to implement by the changeover in a few years.
Remember, televisions are going to start having to ship with HDTV decoders (err, did have to start shipping as of a few months ago, a certain percentage of sets), and they don't want to include OTA without CableCard...
This means that within a few years, all new sets will ship with HDTV decoders, which includes, an MPEG2 decoder. Therefore, the manufacturers should start including Firewire.
A wonderful day was nearly upon us, Firewire for EVERYTHING but videogame systems. We were going to be able to use a basic remote instead of $200-$800 programmable remotes that depend upon screwy macros.
Instead, we're going to lose the Firewire stereo, and instead suffer with messes of cables and macros...
Sure HDMI offers some ease of use, but not the beauty of Firewire.
The AV-HD or whatever it was called was brilliant... it was a harddrive in a box that supported the decryption/encryption of HD from OTA sources... Your television could manage it.
Instead, before the HDTV mainstream adoption (those of us with sets are still 5%), we're already abandonning MPEG2...
It would have been nice if the FIRST round of HD gear could all be MPEG2... We could have gone with fancier codecs with the NEXT replacement, but oh no, we're getting trashed before it began.
I have over 100+ wires behind my entertainment center, I dreamed of cutting down to 8...
Alex
MANUFACTURERS of Blu-Ray PLAYERS are being required to support the ENTIRE collection of codecs that they specify (MPEG-2, MPEG-4, VC-1, etc) so that a CONTENT PROVIDER (read: the company making the discs) CAN CHOOSE which codec to use.
This means that if Paramount Pictures decides that they're going to exclusively use the VC-1 codec when transferring their movie catalogue to the Blu-Ray format, then that's it. You're not going to play ANY of their movies on a linux (let alone a Solaris, Irix, or MacOS) box without violating the license of the codec. That is, unless Microsoft decides to open the source, or at least start releasing binaries for the other OSes.
Plus, it gives Microsoft the power to mandate that all Blu-Ray players run some embedded form of Windows...
That having been said, given that HD DVD has already chosen to support VC-1, I can kind of understand the Blu-Ray folks wanting to jump on the bandwagon... If both groups support the same collection of codecs, it gives rise to the hope that we'll eventually see Dual-Format players. Sound familiar, anyone? (DVD +/-R)
Microsoft's not concerned about OSS in general because it can still serve their interests. (y'know like making apps for Windows .NET or facilitiating the use of their proprietary languages).
Stopping DVD's (and eventually all content loaded media) stops Linux from progressing in the future.
Linux can counter with an open-source CODEC that manufacturers can easily support with a minimum of effort and then indies in the content scene can write to that. But then Microsoft can always incorporate that CODEC into their player. So Microsoft always stays one step ahead. To stop Microsoft you either have to close-source the codec or follow another Microsoft-tactic of binding the codec to Linux in some way that Microsoft can't duplicate.
RTFA people.
They are mandating that the player have the *ability* to decode this codec not that all media use this codec. The vast majority of Blu-ray DVDs will still be mpeg 2.
I believe that this announcement is the result of Microsoft pressure to include the codec. MSFT announced a Windows native driver for HD-DVD but did not commit to doing one for Blu-ray. How long now before MSFT announces that yes indeed, they will now provide a native driver for Blu-ray too?
Unlike copyrights, non-medical patent terms have only been changed three times in the history of the US Patent office
Copyright terms have changed only four times since 1790: in the mid-1800s, in 1909, in 1964, and in 1998.
This isn't a problem if there exists a proper VC-9 specification/standard. I want a real specification, not a vc9.dll file.
That would be something unusual from Microsoft.
RFC1925
I hope this speeds blu-ray to the market! I'm sick of just watching HD via satellite and OTA.
Best Buy can have you arrested
Vorbis is the codec. Ogg is the container (file) format.
Very cool and very good, but same as you I have to rip my CDs to mp3 if I want to hear them on my mobile digital music players. (Or pay more money to buy a niche player; my players were gifts.)
I know 8-year-olds can read subtitles. I chose 13 because there's a sharp distinction between the target audience for movies rated G or PG by the MPAA (kids, teens, and adults) and movies rated PG-13 by the MPAA (drop the kids).
MPC is perhaps the best audiophile compression format out there. I was quite happy to delete my OGG files and reencode my CDs to MPC.
Any posts with references to 1984 will be ignored.
Yet you responded to posts about the cost of a copy of 1984.
Yeah, the weekly boycotts announced by Slashdot posters in these kinds of discussions always seem to take off and have an effect, right? Boycotting has become the standard fallback insult. "I don't like this, I suggest a boycott!" It gets people +5 posts, and then everyone quickly forgets about it.
You can't compare 2% of men to 1% of computer users. You've got a completely different number that the percentage is representing.
Why would sony ever agree to this?
they are planning to use blue ray in the PS3 apparantly and MS are there direct competitor in that area
it seems madness to hand over control of the codec to MS
This isn't any different than current video standards, which incorporate patented standards out the wazoo.
When Apple hijacked AAC with their proprietary DRM, nobody here complained, even though they're trying to make it the standard.
If I can't exercise my fair-use rights with a new medium, I'm not interested.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
"You are aware that there are DVD players for Linux that are all nice and legal, yet nobody buys them."
Can you send me to the URL where I can buy that nice and legal DVD player for linux? I've looked and can't find a single one.
You know, it's not like MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 aren't patented codecs, either.
There no such DVD player for Linux.
If I'm wrong, post the URL.
Yeah, just what we need. A zillion options for every player to comply with. Heck, I've yet to hear of a rock solid HD tuner. Yeah, what we need is for our media players to have to sort through n codecs and display each one correctly.
No thanks.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Both versions are common. "Coding" generally doesn't mean encryption. It means replacing input data with output data that has some desirable property. Error correcting codes are bigger than the input they represent, but allow the input to be reconstructed even if some bits are changed in transmission. Huffman codes convert input symbols to variable length output strings - common symbols get short strings and rare symbols get long strings. Spreading codes are combined with baseband signals to create spread spectrum signals.
So, generally, coding/encoding is not related to encryption.
I thought that microsoft called their codec VC-9, not VC-1. Either the name was reported wrong or there is another codec from microsoft called VC-1. Anyone able to clear this up?
And It was created to get around all this patent/licensing crap.
Look at the QuickTime vs. Microsoft format wars.
There is no video format that works on both QT and windows by default that is newer than MPEG-1. Why? Because patents, proprietaryness and petty squabbles.
H.264 was a new hope. Let's not kill it.
Maybe not:
i sc
First EVD disks and software players have been presented in April 2004. As the disk is physically a DVD disk it can be read with any computer DVD drive. Successful copies have been made with DVD-R disks. The number of films offered is still very limited. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Versatile_D
Blu-Ray-Of-Discs( BROD ) was officially inaugurated by Microsoft as a successor to the world-famous Blue-Screen-Of-Death( BSOD )... more details soon.
getSexySig();
Hahaha ... what happens to the upcoming PS3 ?
... as I (not so often watch) watch and sometimes copy (only rented movies to DVD-RW so I can watch them again in a few days then delete them) ... and as I use SMBFS, and format FAT .... I will probably have some handy tool written by some good/decent samaritan to read those damn video disks ....
...
....
....
... If I have to modchip my upcoming ps3 to play back (in case you have to pay extra $$ for the playback codec) I would do it ....
Will sony buy the codec from M$ to be able to play back video from a source which was developed by a consortium that sony is part of itself ?
What happens to open source?
I tell you what happens
on my linux box with deccs
and you will do the same
why? : because I have to pay to microsoft every time I buy a laptop or an IPAQ, and I just simply delete the OS to replace it with something more useful
I bought so many copies of their damn crap os that I decided not to directly purchase anything from them
If I head to buy a codec I would steal it
too bad though that when you buy the devices the codec is already in, and they cashed already on you...
It seems to me that if this codec is required for compliance with the standard, than it is probably going to be licensed without royalties?
i.e. MS wants to control this particular format...probably pressure content distributors to license it because it'll be { better | more secure | other } but allow players to be developed for free.
IMO, only if MS keeps it closed, secret and has no licensing options will this hurt OSS.
Whether the codec will be closed or secret is irrelavent. If the spec is not published, someone will reverse-engineer it. Therefore, there will undoubtably be ways to technically play this media on Linux/BSD/etc.
Legally, however, is a totally different issue. Sure, there will be licensing options. How much do you want to bet that there will be no options compatible with FOSS (ie. free of cost and distribution restrictions)?
Eventually there will be a legal means to play these on Linux (just like TurboLinux allows you to pleay WMP9 and DVDs on their distro). However, it runs counter to the FOSS goals of restriction-free software, and therefore has no chance of widespread acceptance.
So, in a way, you're right in that this won't "hurt", since we're presently already in this situation with DVDs. However, the ones licensing DVD's technology are not convicted monopolists hell-bent for the destruction of FOSS.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
Right on, bro.
Does this mean we'll now be seeing the Blu-Ray Screen Of Death?
You must think in Russian.
I'm all for more storage space, but unless Blu-Ray includes H.264 video codec like HD-DVD, I'll avoid it like a disease. It would be very evil of them not to adopt this (very good) standard-based codec.
Why do you assume MPEG-2 will be dominant? the VC-1 codec (aka VC-9, aka WMV9 Advanced Profile) can provide similar quality to MPEG-2 at half the bitrate. This means that content providers could do a project with a cheaper, single layer disc instead of a dual layer disc for longer projects.
I believe the big driver behind this is the competition form the DVD Forum's own blue laser format. DVD Forum already has tentative support for VC-1 and H.264. Even though the DVD Forum has lower digital capacity, the support for better codecs meant that DVD Forum could actually get more hours of good quality content on the disc. So equalizing the codecs means that Blu-Ray's capacity advantage can shine.
That said, I'm still betting on DVD Forum. 30 GB will mean more hours of HD content that DVD can do of SD. Also, DVD Forum discs are MUCH easier to convert an existing DVD plant to, and likely will be more durable in day to day use.
Blu-ray seems more likely to win inside cameras and that kind of thing, where capacity is a bigger deal. Think VHS v. Beta, where Beta turned into the Betacam format, giving Sony a 15-year dominance in professional video formats.
My video compression blog
What about educational institutions, libraries, etc, and the impact thereof?
This really is a problem we really need to fight, and one we need to vote against with our pocket-books. (VHS vs. BetaMax comes to mind.)
Well, there area already H.264 codecs in development ala LAME and Xvid. I expect the same to happen for VC-1 - after all the specification will be published.
The issue is license free codecs, of which there aren't any competitive examples. There are things in development, but they simply aren't far enough along to compete against H.264 and VC-1 in the current HD standard processes.
Yes, I know about Theora. No, it isn't far enough along to be competitive.
My video compression blog
Microsoft's licensing policy on WMV9/VC-9/VC-1/whatever is the same as MPEG LA's policy for MPEG.
Every Blu-ray player will support multiple codecs. Thus a disc may use any of those codecs. For example, discs recorded from TV will most likely be in MPEG-2 format, while movies will probably be in the higher quality VC-9 format.
Er, you don't know what you're talking about. A high end software MPEG-2 encoder like Canopus ProCoder is absolutely as good as the high end hardware encoders, and can be faster than real time on a modern machine from a file-based source (which is the typical workflow these days anyway for anything other than news and other live broadcasts).
As for hardware VC-1 implementations, there are a good half dozen companies working on them, and some where being quietly demonstrated in the back suites of NAB back in April. Rest assured, this is happening.
My video compression blog
You're not going to play ANY of their movies on a linux (let alone a Solaris, Irix, or MacOS) box without violating the license of the codec.
VC-9/VC-1 is available for all platforms. (It's not free, but then neither is MPEG.) It is also a SMPTE standard.
Plus, it gives Microsoft the power to mandate that all Blu-Ray players run some embedded form of Windows...
Wrong again. Do you think the major consumer electronics companies are stupid enough to agree to such a requirement?
xvid is based on MPEG-4 part 2, which is roughly as patent encumbered and has roughly similar license fees and terms as Microsoft's VC-1. If xvid is good enough from a licensing perspective for you, so will VC-1 be.
Now, if what you want is an open-source VC-1 encoder, I'm sure it'll happen once the standard is fully finalized, ala LAME and Xvid. The same kind of open-source but unlicensed codec implementation should be perfectly applicable there.
My video compression blog
That is hilarious. I've never heard of a case where someone is sued for plagarizing themselves. Thanks for posting this text.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Look at it this way. 1% of computer users != 1% of men. They're the same percentage, yes, but they don't represent the same actual numer of people. 2% of men is roughly 1% of the population. Unless you can show there are half as many computer users as there are people, there's no 2-to-1 ratio.
As a more valid analogy, assume that 2% of Linux users users use Emacs, and 1% of Windows users use Notepad. Does this mean that Emacs has twice the usage of Notepad ? Of course not. The group of Windows users is different than the group of Linux users, and so are any percentages of them.
--LordPixie
Does no-one read TFA?
In order to be used for next-gen media, VC-1 has to be OPEN SPEC. Therefore, no-one needs to do any reverse engineering in order to get it to play back, like with the MPEG1-4 family. The bitstream specs are available for anyone to look at. However, like MPEG, VC-1 will be haevily patented.
What is interesting is how MS will handle things when someone *does* write and open source encoder/decoder. While the MPEG patent holders (Fraunhofer and Thomson IIRC) don't seem to mind too much when people write MPEG codecs* without paying royalties, something strikes me that MS are going to be alot less liberal with their patent portfolio once it gets bundled into the version X of mPlayer and Xine. Expect them to get driven away from US and other shores to have their pages located in somewhere that doesn't give a crap about US patents.
*Most of you will note that in order to remain semi-immune to patents, all the popular open source MPEG codecs I know of (LAME, XviD) are distributed as source-only, and they leave it to third parties to (semi-illegally) build them into binaries.
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
Folks,
Everyone seems to be thinking that somehow VC-1 is more patent or license protected than MPEG-2. This simply isn't true. Now, maybe real-world enforcement of the MPEG-2 patents aren't particularly aggressive for OSS software decoders, but every DVD player, and EVERY DVD DISC STAMPED requires a payment to MPEG-LA. And VC-1 license payments will also be handled by MPEG-LA. MPEG-2 or VC-1, there still will be payments, and the checks go to the same company. The interesting differences here are technical, not licensing.
My video compression blog
Prediction: You won't be able to buy a non-HD set of more than 23" within a few years. It's not that much more expensive to build an HD set these days. And it's a feature people are willing to pay for.
See many new black and white sets anymore? This changeover will be quite a lot faster.
My video compression blog
There is the in development Ogg Theora, but it's not done, and not competitive against the VC-1 feature set. I hope it'll be interesting later.
As for DRM, that happens above the codec level, on the stream or file level. You can apply DRM to a Theora file, and can use a DRM free WMV file. The codec itself doesn't have any "native" DRM. And even if Blu-ray uses DRM, there's no reason to think it'll be Microsoft's.
My video compression blog
I thought Apple had claimed that H.264, which they made a big deal out of as part of Tiger, and that was the "official" codec for HD-DVD.
So are there in fact 2 camps? DVD Forum and H.264 and Blu-Ray and this Microshaft drivel?
I hate it when that happens. I'm all for competition, but not when its from MS. They'll just FUD, lawyer, and beat you to death until you submit.
first, comparing artificially high dvd prices to artificially high movie prices (both kept that way by the same cartel, incidentally) is not very smart.
movies used to cost 2 bucks or less to watch. blank dvds are less than a dollar each--and thats end user cost, for mass pressing they are pennies on that dollar.
and the analogy about vhs tapes makes you sound like a miaa rep. unless you have money to burn, there is no way you will pay 30 bucks, let alone 70 for a shitty vhs tape
objectivity = bit torrent or newsgroups, dl what you want, then rip, mix, burn as apple once said. Finally, the burn is on record and movie execs, as you are witnessing a large popular movement against years of price gouging.
A side note: all dvd drives and players are made in China. There may be some stereo tweeks out there doing custom boxes, but the drives are all sourced from the same 10 or so plants.
Luke, help me take this mask off
1 content providers will never adopt a free open source format, unless they are forced into it.
2 pirates, or educational software liberation engineers (as they prefer to be called) will never adopt a closed format, unless they are forced into it. theonly exception to this rule is the "first guy" that has to buy one of the new format, game, doo-hickey so that it can be hacked--err educated.
3 neither party gives a shit about what is legal, instead they persue what is best for them. they will never adopt a legal format, unless forced into it.
as a side note, it is not consumer acceptance that drives a new format, and not even revenues. this is a long term war, with each re-iteration of format meant to further control of content. the movie biz can easily afford a few failed formats (which they will happily write off to piracy--thereby depriving the govt of revenue, which will cause punitive enforcement on the peons) if their long term objective of total media control is achieved (not bloody likely).
Blockbuster announced that this is the last year VHS tapes can be rented. Do you honestly believe that the movie companies will continue to support this format when you can get a player for $29.99 at Walmart?! And we won't even discuss the 'bargain' versions of DVDs they can put how, cheaper manufacturing costs, etc.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
It's the same for VC-9. A prerequisite of consideration by the DVD Forum was an open standard. That means it had to be submitted to and accepted by a standards body (SMPTE in this case) and have open, reasonable, fixed, and non-discriminitory licensing policy. So, that's what VC-9 has. It's now controlled by SMPTE, and all changes have to be approved by them (and will be given to license holders). The license is fixed, and is much cheaper than MPEG-4.
/. is because it's MS. They never bother to do any research on it, and just start spouting off.
i ce nsing/licensing.aspx
It's a better deal than MPEG-4, and just as open. Only reaosn people don't like it on
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/l
hp is a scumbag company that no longer innovates anything. to run even their laser printer you need an internet connection so that hp can monitor what you print.
gettin back to your quote, it reads as follows "We want to offer CONTENT providers". this should clue you in. who do you think they are catering to? do you see any mention of the end user? to put it simlpy for you, a format without content is a dead format in the business world.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/lice nsing/licensing.aspx
They did it back to get considered for HD-DVD. It's actually a very attractive license they offer. Cheaper per unit, no use fees (which are the big gotcha of MPEG-4) and lower maximum caps on payments. It'll still cost you a fair bit of change for a widely distributed player, but at leat you aren't paying per viewer PER HOUR for streaming content like MPEG-4.
Look, the reality never materialized, but more and more Firewire-featuring gear is coming on the market. It's still pushed by Mitsubishi, and the gear exists. HDMI is a step up on the previous mess (4 cables minimum, 3 Component + Optical), but it makes recording impossible, which is sad...
When I was a kid trying to show someone how to beat a board in Zelda (quest 2), I popped a tape in my VCR, ran the A/V links into the VCR, and was able to record. Out new HDMI dominated world makes that impossible, which is truly sad.
MPEG2-over-Firewire w/ HAVi isn't completely dead, and we shouldn't cheer companies that continue to make life hell on non enthusiasts.
Alex
I dont belive it will be that user friendly. ( ie, Believe = B )
Things are being locked down everywhere one looks. I dont buy anything that leads one to believe otherwise.
It's not about the conusmer, its about the money..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It's like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon... I work on some hardware that's non-Microsoft OS based and can support non-Microsoft codecs.. but only to a certain extent. When you start having to integrate with companies that integrate with/use/license/develop Microsoft stuff, things get... complicated...
Sony is going to use their own physical media format for the discs. No reason why they would need to use the codec (or not use it, for that matter).
Obviously Sony, as a big proponent of Blu-ray, is going to want to have the PS3 be able to play back the video discs as well.
My video compression blog
Pay attention...
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
Similar to the way that H.264 is known by multiple names by submitters and multiple standards bodies (H.264, MPEG-4 AVC, MPEG-4 Part 10), "VC-9" and "VC-1" refer to the same codec.
Obviously there aren't more Emacs users than notepad users - everyone knows that you should use vi instead of either of those.
If the coded is patented (...) It also means no open source versions of the software.
*cough* Xvid *cough* MPEG4 *cough*
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
...coding that is neither compression nor encryption really. As an example, morse code in radio. Or flag signals. Or "A->alpha, B->bravo, ..." All are coded messages, which are decoded by the reciever. It is not a secret code, but a code none the less.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
...WMV is quite good. It is a pretty even match for MPEG4, I believe. Anyway, most people don't see the flaws in a MPEG2 DVD. I imagine very very few will notice the difference between a WMV and MPEG4 DVD+ size film.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
sans space
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I'm pretty sure Sony makes some SDDS capable home equipment in their high-end lines, I think I've even seen them in stores before. I don't recall ever seeing any content for them however. I bet you can find it in Japan.
Keith D.
What do you think the other 98% of Linux users are using in my analogy ?
--LordPixie
I hate that DVD's don't just go.
I don't want interactive content, random acces is a bit nice.
But what I really want is to drop in the DVD, hit play, and have it go.
No ads, no intro DVD garbage, just play my movie.
Don't be taken in by this idiot--he has accounts under the names bonch and Overly Critical Guy. He has a history of astroturfing for Microsoft, bashing anything Open Source, using lies and half-truths to get modded up, karma whoring, and the usual trolling (under his bonch account, he got a troll posted to the front page of Slashdot).
All you have to do to check the veracity of this is to look at the posting history of his two old personnae (linked above) and his current one to figure it out.
Please do not mod this jerk up--every time you do the Slashdot S/N ratio goes down while bonch/Overly Critical Guy/rd_syringe just laughs at you.
This has been a public service announcement