X264 Project Announces Blu-ray Encoding Support

An anonymous reader writes "The x264 project has announced the first free software encoder to be able to generate Blu-ray compliant video. In addition, the announcement comes with a torrent of an x264-encoded Blu-ray disc containing entirely free content, such as the Open Movie Project videos. While there are still no free software Blu-ray authoring tools, hopefully this will change now that video and audio are taken care of so that everyone will be able to make their own Blu-rays without expensive proprietary software. Additionally, it seems the Criterion Collection is a friend of free software, having sponsored the effort to confirm x264's compliance with the Blu-ray spec."

Comments

The first question that popped into my head

[Daimanta]

Isn't x264 (heavily) patent encumbered? And does that mean that the makers(or distributers?) have to pay a licensing fee? I know that it makes me weary to roll this out in a setting other than my home computing enviroment.

Anyone to easy my mind/confirm my suspicions?

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. But if you're working in a commercial environment you're probably going to buy something anyway. Nothing of commercial quality (in terms of authoring software - x.264 does fine encoding) will be free anytime soon (as in..this decade).

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent licensing fees for H.264 (20 cents per encoder) are the least of your problems if you're commercially publishing a Blu-ray disc. The license fees for *everything else*, up to and including the Blu-ray name itself, are much more onerous. But anyone making Blu-rays for commercial purposes already deals with this.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[Silverlancer]

It's exactly the same as with any other encoder that you use for Blu-ray authoring.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[TheRaven64]

And does that mean that the makers(or distributers?) have to pay a licensing fee?

Nope, it means that you can only distribute it at all in countries where the relevant patents are not valid. The x264 encoder is GPL'd, and according to clause 7 you may not distribute it if it is covered by any patents that would prevent the people that you give it to from exercising their rights according to the GPL.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[Silverlancer]

The GPL covers the software x264, not the output produced by x264. Nevermind the fact that said logic is extremely dubious (the Software Freedom Law Center, as does basically everyone except the FSF, disagrees with that interpretation).

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[squiggleslash]

Forget about the patents. In order to publish any Blu-ray content, you have to encrypt it, which means buying a key from the AACS. Blu-ray players are not allowed to read unencrypted pressed BD discs (some will play unencrypted BD-Rs with a BD layout, though as I understand it that's increasingly rare.)

This project is about as useful to the free software movement as a "free software" iPhone development kit.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[beelsebob]

x264 is a video encoder, not a format. You're thinking of h264, which x264 encodes into.

h264 has been used on Blurry disks since day 1.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[allo]

but the software producing x264 is patented, and the software decoding it, not the output.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[NicknamesAreStupid]

Yes, that is what I read when researching blu-ray verses HD-DVD, and I thought it would be its downfall. Sony has managed to create its own market and tied every loose end to a patent or license agreement. It was an amazing piece of business. I think they get a royalty on every blank disc too. The MPAA and RIAA must love it too, as you can track to the source of every publishing. I bet that even the government of China loves it. Hell, our department of insecurity must love it too. Actually, all those people who have capital equipment invested in DVD manufacturing must love it as well, because smaller publishers are not going to be $tepping up from DVD-R anytime soon. It should also help the streaming media businesses justify a higher cost basis. Talk about win-win, blu-ray has it all.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[cbreak]

x264 is just software, you can't patent software. H.264 (the format) is somehow under the control of the MPEG-LA though. Currently using it is free, but that will run out in the near future.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[Sancho]

If we're going to be pedantic, it's H.264.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[icebraining]

Wrong. The patent protects the encoding process, not the format. It's the software which implements the encoding, hence, it's a software patent.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[Lachlan Hunt]

Are you sure about that? Don't the pressed discs have the same file/directory structure as BD-Rs, and so if they can play those files unencrypted on BD-Rs, why couldn't they on pressed discs?

Although I'm sure there wouldn't be too many pressed BDs that are unencrypted (Big Buck Bunny might be a rare exception, though I don't know for sure), it doesn't make much sense to unconditionally force all pressed blu-rays to be encrypted. Though, maybe they figured the extra AACS licencing fees they would get made it worthwhile anyway.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, theoretically that's right, but as far as I know there isn't a single blu-ray player that won't play BD structure on BD-R even without AACS. BD-Rebuilder (link in TFA) will reencode video and audio of blu-rays so it can fit a 25 GB BD-R (or DVD) while keeping the BD structure intact and while it's a bit problematic on DVD, where you are better off using an AVCHD for compatibility, on BD-Rs it works flawlessly.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[node 3]

You know who else loves it? People who, because of Blu-ray, get to watch high bitrate 1080p movies on their large TVs.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[PopeRatzo]

But what if I'm an independent filmmaker and want to make my high-def movies available in Blu-ray and let people download them online? I've already done this with standard hi-def, making a DVD image available via bittorrent.

I wonder if I'd need to pay any patent holders the vig? Because if I do, fuck it, I'm OK with my current formats.

Anybody got any idea?

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[node 3]

Currently using it is free, but that will run out in the near future.

Web use is freely licensed until 2016. I wouldn't exactly call that the "near future".

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[PopeRatzo]

There's my answer. Thanks, AC.

I'll be damned if I'm going to pay someone juice just to use their format. I'll just wait until, like mp3, free versions like lame come out.

This is another reason I hope Sony goes bankrupt someday during my lifetime.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure about that? Don't the pressed discs have the same file/directory structure as BD-Rs, and so if they can play those files unencrypted on BD-Rs, why couldn't they on pressed discs?

No, as I said BD-Rs don't have the same file/directory structure. And even if they did, and a Blu-ray player actually was one of the early ones that allowed an "unencrypted Blu-ray image" on a BD-R to be playable, it cannot LEGALLY (as in the licensing forbids it) read one from a pressed disc. The BD player has to perform a check, and if it's a pressed disc, it MUST check the disc is encrypted and has a ROM Mark.

Unencrypted Blu-ray material using the BD Video layout is permitted on DVD5/DVD9s, however.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[Kjella]

h264 has been used on Blurry disks since day 1.

If we're going to be pedantic, it's H.264.

And there's nothing else in the parent's post which suggests he might not bother spelling everything properly?

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[Pinky's Brain]

Pedantic? Pshaw ...

"The openness of the MPEG process does not exempt you from your duty of calling things with the proper names. ISO/IEC 14496-10 | ITU Recommendation H.264 is called Advanced Video Coding or AVC."

Something regularly copy pasted on MPEG mailing lists a couple year back ... they are just a bit but hurt over people ignoring their hard work on it (coming in a couple of months before finalization and rubber stamping it, basically ... oh and providing the container format of course, which originally came from Apple).

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[iMacGuy]

The MPEG-2 patent license typically costs *more* than the H.264 license for most situations, so I doubt you could be in any more trouble than you already are. Of course, I haven't studied it in detail, and nothing will ever happen to you specifically no matter what you do anyway.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[X0563511]

It would be wise of the people in charge of Blu-Ray to "give" a particular encryption key away for nonprofit or noncommercial use. From my understanding, this would allow non-profit/non-commercial folks to MAKE compliant disks, while not really helping the people they are worried about. The TRUE pirates (ie, selling pressed bootlegs etc) are already in deeper shit, so using said non-profit key to press them would just add on to the fines they already deserve.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[sonamchauhan]

Living in the love of the common people isn't enough... HD-DVD gave people that benefit too.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[Malc]

You do not need to encrypt content on a BDROM - go and read the AACS spec, which is publicly available on the AACS LA's website. CPS Units on a BD Prercorded can be either encrypted on unencrypted for Basic Titles, per the CCI.

You are correct though that to replicate a BD that you need to pay an AACS fee, but that's now down to $500, IIRC.

I haven't see any issues with players playing back Type A CMF burnt to BDRE (i.e. partial AACS, as sent to replicators before AACS processing). This is how most authoring houses test their content. In fact, I don't even remember having to specify unencrypted + no disable Copy Permission Indicator when testing on the PS3 recently - at one time we had to burn to BD-REv3 format (which is annoying because that format doesn't support everything in BDROM).

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[YesIAmAScript]

This is incorrect. I've created unencrypted BDs and they play on all players. And even if they didn't work, nearly all BD players also play AVCHD discs (which are very similarly laid out and encrypted) and you could just make one of those instead to play the HD content you want to play.

It'd be great if you knew from where you spoke before putting out false information like this.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[JasterBobaMereel]

...who could do this without BluRay

BluRay makes this easier and simpler but it is possible to do this without BluRay ...

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[tlhIngan]

This is incorrect. I've created unencrypted BDs and they play on all players. And even if they didn't work, nearly all BD players also play AVCHD discs (which are very similarly laid out and encrypted) and you could just make one of those instead to play the HD content you want to play.

It'd be great if you knew from where you spoke before putting out false information like this.

It depends on the profile and player. Prereocrded blu-ray's are using the BDMV profile, which gives you all that nice menu, java, and bd-live stuff. The one that consumers can make is called BDAV, which is far simpler (basically just a bog-simple menu system), and no full authoring.

AVCHD is a subset of the Blu-Ray spec allowing people to make high-def video onto simpler media like DVDs, knowing full wekk they cannot actually author their own BDs.

Alas, BDMV support on BD-R(E) is sketchy (only the PS3 is guaranteed to support it), though I think most players now will support it. BDAV support is mandatory on BD-R(E). AVCHD support is dependent on the player, though I think most these days support it just because.

The only way to guaranteed BDMV support on all players is to have AACS keys and a big plant doing runs (but it doesn't mean you have to do a run to test - there are players that do BDMV on BD-R(E)). And short of a big studio, small filmmakers will have a hard time making professional-level BDs. Probably the way the big studios like it though - less competition to upset the money cart.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[LordVader717]

Blu-Ray has a max capacity of 25GB/layer, and a standard player can read discs up to 100GB without modifications.

No they don't, because no-one has ever made such a disc. All we have are people making claims about how many layers they can get onto a disc. Works the same for HDDVD.
The reality is that 30 GB is enough for a HD movie, and we're never going to see these super-discs they keep bragging about. A 51GB HDDVD standard had been approved BTW.

So while you can claim that HD-DVD supports full 1080p, in reality many movies were over-compressed or simply encoded at 1080i in order to fit them onto a single disc.

Bullshit. Every film on HDDVD was released in 1080p, just like on Blu-ray. Interlaced video is only used for high-framerate television recordings.

but the studios were lining up on one side or the other, nobody was releasing to both mediums.

Actually they were. Particularly, there were a few studios that while having avoided HDDVD in the US, were releasing on both formats in Europe. Abandoning support was an organized sabotage by the major media corporations.

So I'm glad that the one with the better technical specifications ended up winning out.

All too often the system with the higher numbers isn't the better spec overall. The region codes alone are worth avoiding Blu-Ray, not to mention the other crap like profile updates. And HDDDVD had more mandatory audio codecs.
So for computer storage, Blu-Ray is indeed the better format. But for consumers as a Media distribution format, not really.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[plonk420]

Bullshit. Every film on HDDVD was released in 1080p, just like on Blu-ray. Interlaced video is only used for high-framerate television recordings.

also, ironically, most top tier BD50 movies that came out in the first year or two would have fit on a 30GB HD DVD disc (some may have required lossy compression like DTS 1.5) like Pirates, Crank, Ratatouille, Baraka, Corpse Bride, No Country For Old Men. you could probably even with a bit of hand tweaking (or easily with h.264) get Harry Potter into 30gb (most are under with 2 and 3 at ~35gb).

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[lucian1900]

And how is 1080p high resolution? http://xkcd.com/732/ I don't see now Blu-ray is that big a deal. Storage was never the real problem.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[v1]

The reality is that 30 GB is enough for a HD movie, and we're never going to see these super-discs they keep bragging about. A 51GB HDDVD standard had been approved BT

Transformers bluray, over 40gb. (48?) Was a major PITA to transcode for my AppleTV because of the size x movie length x bitrate made it impossible to encode to a single file below 4gb (appleTV max) at higher than 420p. (also 4mbps max bitrate for appletv) They had to run the bitrate that high on the bluray though because they knew people were going to be slow-mo'ing those transformation sequences and wanted to keep things as sharp as possible.

BUT, iirc, the movie was on the disc twice in different formats, with extra features. The two main feature tracks were over 20gb each. (I think. It's been awhile)

So ya it's amazing how fast 640k is no longer enough. ;)

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[u17]

I don't believe this is the case. Doesn't the GPL say that so long as *you* own patents covering GPL software, and if you are *also* distributing said software, then you must not assert these patents against anyone you distribute it to, otherwise you lose the license? By your logic you wouldn't be able to distribute any GPL software in the US, because any program is very likely covered by at least one software patent that's not owned by you.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[TheRaven64]

It would have taken you less time to read the relevant clause (I even told you which one it was in the post that you replied to) than it took you to post your incorrect opinion. Since you're too lazy to look it up, there's the clause:

If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

Emphasis mine.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[u17]

It certainly looks from the excerpt that you are right. I stand corrected.

But I would like to add that it is up to the copyright owners to decide whether to pursue an infringement. So unless the x264 authors have a problem with others distributing their software when it is otherwise forbidden by patent law, this shouldn't be a problem in practice.

Of course, since the redistributors are forbidden to do so by patent law, they are additionally liable to the patent holders, who don't necessarily have good intentions.

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[squiggleslash]

This is incorrect. I've created unencrypted BDs and they play on all players.

Really? You own a multi-million dollar Blu-ray duplicator? Or did you misread what I wrote?

Re:The first question that popped into my head

[squiggleslash]

You do not need to encrypt content on a BDROM - go and read the AACS spec

The mandate is from the BDA, not the AACS LA. What the AACS spec says is entirely irrelevant to whether you can release pressed Blu-ray video discs without encryption that can be read by a conforming, licensed, Blu-ray player.

As the fuckwits who maintain this site are forcing me to wait before I post this because I replied to someone else's comment (which makes me a spammer, I guess), I'll post some other stuff below to use up their storage and bandwidth.

The '''Florida East Coast Railway''' {{reporting mark|FEC}} is a [[Class II railroad]] operating in the [[United States|U.S.]] state of [[Florida]]; in the past, it has been a [[Class I railroad]]. It is currently owned by [[RailAmerica]]. The FEC is renowned for building the first railroad bridges to [[Key West, Florida|Key West]], that have since been rebuilt into road bridges for vehicle traffic and are now known as the [[Overseas Highway]]. It was originally known as the Jacksonville, St. Augustine & Halifax River Railway, then became the Jacksonville, St. Augustine & Indian River Railway and then, for just a few months prior to becoming the Florida East Coast Railway in September 1895 was known as the Florida Coast & Gulf Railway. for more information and other former railroads merged into the line, see the [[#Family tree|family tree]] below. ==History== ===Henry Flagler: Developing Florida's east coast=== The Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) was developed by [[Henry Morrison Flagler]], an American [[tycoon]], real estate promoter, railroad developer and [[John D. Rockefeller|John D. Rockefeller's]] partner in [[Standard Oil]]. Formed at [[Cleveland, Ohio]] as [[Rockefeller, Andrews & Flagler]] in 1867, Standard Oil moved its headquarters in 1877 to [[New York City]]. Flagler and his family relocated there as well. He was joined by [[Henry H. Rogers]], another leader of Standard Oil who also became involved in the development of America's railroads, including those on nearby [[Staten Island]], the [[Union Pacific Railroad|Union Pacific]], and later in [[West Virginia]], where he eventually built the remarkable [[Virginian Railway]] to transport [[coal]] to [[Hampton Roads]], [[Virginia]]. Henry Flagler's non-Standard Oil interests went in a different direction, however, when in 1878, on the advice of his physician, Flagler traveled to [[Jacksonville, Florida|Jacksonville]], [[Florida]] for the winter with his first wife, Mary, who was quite ill. Two years after she died in 1881, he married Mary's former caregiver, Ida Alice Shourds. After their wedding, the couple traveled to [[St. Augustine, Florida]]. Flagler found the city charming, but the hotel facilities and transportation systems inadequate. He recognized Florida's potential to attract out-of-state visitors. Though Flagler remained on the Board of Directors of Standard Oil, he gave up his day-to-day involvement in the firm in order to pursue his Florida interests. When Flagler returned to Florida, in 1885 he began building a grand St. Augustine hotel, the [[Ponce de León Hotel]]. Flagler realized that the key to developing Florida was a solid transportation system, and consequently purchased the [[Jacksonville, St. Augustine and Halifax River Railway]] (JStA&HR) on December 31, 1885. He also discovered that a major problem facing the existing Florida railway systems was that each operated on different [[Rail gauge|gauge]] systems, making interconnection impossible. Shortly after purchasing the JStA&HR Railway, he converted the line to [[standard gauge]]. The small operation was incorporated in 1892. The earliest predecessor of the FEC was the [[narrow gauge]] St. John's Railway, incorporated in 1858, which constructed a now-abandoned line between St. Augustine and Tocoi, a small settlement on the east bank of the St. Johns River, midway between Palatka and Green Cove Springs. In 1883, [[Henry M. Flagler]], now retired from Standard Oil, mo

Now how about...

[tomm3h]

... A free and open-source way of playing them, without having to doctor the content on the disk (i.e. strip the DRM out) first.

Re:Concentrate on making a better open codec.

[Silverlancer]

I like the way some DVD players can play DIVX. So are you claiming that patents are good or bad? DivX is also known as MPEG-4 Part 2 Advanced Simple Profile... which is heavily patent-encumbered.

BD9

[tepples]

If you burn a Blu-ray Disc file system onto DVD+R DL, it's called BD9.

Re:BD9

[Malc]

Which also comes with lower bitrate support than BD25/50.

Is there a free BD multiplexer available too? What about any word of development of an AVC MVC encoder for the profile 5 BD players?

Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[spblat]

There is in fact a free software Blu-ray authoring tool. And it is rather nice.

http://multiavchd.deanbg.com/

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[spikeb]

that isn't free software.

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[spblat]

FTFL: "multiAVCHD is free and no one can charge you, should you decide to obtain/download it."

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[Cougar Town]

Free of charge does not mean it is free software.

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[Anonymous Coward]

You aren't free to use any definition of free you want, you know. Here on Slashdot, free means "free to do as RMS approves."

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[harlows_monkeys]

FTFL: "multiAVCHD is free and no one can charge you, should you decide to obtain/download it."

Hence, spikeb is correct. It is not Free Software. It is software that costs $0.

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[Sir_Lewk]

You must be new here.

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[maxume]

If you at least capitalize it (like "Free Software"), you give your readers a hint that you are talking about something specific, rather than 'free' in general.

It is still ambiguous, but it is better.

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[hairyfeet]

I'll probably get hate for this, but I don't care, this drives me fricking nuts! Can we PLEASE STOP with letting RMS try to completelt subvert the meaning of a word simply because we are talking about software? Everything else on the planet if you say free it means it don't cost you money. If I say I'll give you a free stereo, do you ask me for the blueprints? NO! But RMS wants to completely change the meaning of the word when it comes to software.

So from now on I suggest Free= don't cost anything, whereas licensed free, or LF for short= GPL and similar software. That way free still means the same thing it does everywhere else, and LF means you get the source and can do what you want within the license. Maybe I'm off here, but it sounds like a fair and reasonable way to differentiate the two without getting into the "Free VS Gratis" bullshit that comes along anytime someone pasts a link to some freeware.

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[spblat]

You must be new here.

Watch it buddy, I'm in the highly prestigious and arbitrarily exclusive 5 Digit UID Club. I'm 1.57 orders of magnitude less new here than you. ;-)

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Can we PLEASE STOP with letting RMS try to completelt subvert the meaning of a word simply because we are talking about software? Everything else on the planet if you say free it means it don't cost you money.

You are free to use the word anyway you want.

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[Anonymous Coward]

Everything else on the planet if you say free it means it don't cost you money.

Only in your commercially centered world. "Free" has several meanings and co-opting it to mean only the commercial version is a political statement in itself.

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[nstlgc]

In his defense, he said it was free software, not Free Software.

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[cbreak]

-> it is free

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[don.g]

Young whippersnappers these days crowing about their 5 digit UIDs...

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[kestasjk]

free as in beer?

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[maelstrom]

Get off my lawn.

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[node 3]

Only in your commercially centered world. "Free" has several meanings and co-opting it to mean only the commercial version is a political statement in itself.

But as a rule, "free as in liberty" is reserved solely for humans, groups of humans, or sometimes animals.

The idea of software having freedoms is absurd. The notion that RMS is trying to put forth is *not* absurd. Unfortunately, natural human language is not based on logic, thus such contradictions are allowed.

Which is why people are so adamant about using the term "Free Software" as a proper noun, because it indicates a specific branding. Whereas "free software" is generic, and in standard material parlance, means "no charge".

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[Kjella]

The confusing word here is software, not free. If he had said "free Blu-ray authoring tool" I would have thought gratis, but "free software Blu-ray authoring tool" makes me think of a FLOSS Blu-ray authoring tool. Otherwise the word would be redundant, like opposed to what? Are there any authoring tools not made of software? I suppose you could say as opposed to a dedicated appliance, but tI thought even that all ran on standard computers these days.

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[/dev/trash]

I was gonna chime in but I have no clue what my UID is. I'm so old school I had slashies in my name.

Oh wait nevermind. It's 182850

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[alexandre]

I hadn't seen a UID war in such a long time that I almost forgot about them...
Those youngsters with their retro trends :P

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[Eivind]

The problem is that this -isn't- what everyone else on the planet means by free. It is *sometimes* but not generally, and that's why it's ambigous in english. If someone says that Germany has free elections, nobody thinks they mean the elections do not cost money, they understand that it's free as in freedom.

What you claim; that in every other context on the planet, free means "for zero money" is simply not true. Free Willy ! Live Free, or die trying. You're free to publish any book you want.

It's sometimes about cost, but by no means always. The french (and scandinavians) got it right, we've got two -distinct- words for free as in freedom, and free as in no-cost. (gratis, and libre)

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[GigaplexNZ]

If my "Free phone" (which requires a 2 year contract) is "Free"

It isn't. The "Free phone" costs money because you are required to pay money as part of the 2 year contract, which subsidises the cost of the phone.

then that software is for *SURE* Free.

At least this software doesn't cost money.

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[Philip_the_physicist]

We need one of the 1-digiters to come in now, and then for CmdrTaco to top (bottom?) them all.

Now, if I was running this site, I'd have a script which watches for any poster with 3 or fewer digits replying to anyone with a higher UID and mentioning the string "UID", just so I can jump in and trump them.

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[CronoCloud]

Np it isn't. "You must be new here" not to know that. :-)

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[tehcyder]

Software you don't have to pay money for is free software in the normal sense of the word. Use of the term "Free Software" by Richard Stallman has not somehow over-written the original wider use of the word "free".

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[tehcyder]

You are free to use the word anyway you want.

Yes, but if you are trying to actually communicate with other people, it helps if both parties know what the other means.

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[Hal_Porter]

Free Tibet?

Offer only valid when purchasing another Tibet at the normal price.

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[celle]

"So if I say "I'm a free man", does it mean I'm worthless? What about a "free market"?"

Yes a "free market" is worthless too. Want proof, nowhere in the world is a true "free market" being used on any scale more than local and even that's sketchy at best.

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[fast turtle]

What Lawn? I thought that was the retirement centers lawn. Or are you the fac-maint person

Re:Free BD Authoring Tool: Multiavchd

[gravis777]

Not like the UID war means anything - Mine is six digits and I have been here since 1998.

lame was created and is used

[YesIAmAScript]

Even though mp3 is patent encumbered. This project is along those same lines.

Re:Concentrate on making a better open codec.

[ipquickly]

Of course I know that DIVX is not free.

What I want is a little [THEORA] logo next to the [DVD],[BLU-RAY] and [DIVX] logo.

As long as someone's putting in the effect...

[Dialecticus]

Additionally, it seems the Criterion Collection is a friend of free software, having sponsored the effect to confirm x264's compliance with the Blu-ray spec.

Well, then I give them an A for effect. :)

Re:bluray sucks

[maxwell demon]

The site is a bit outdated. The format war is over. Blu-Ray won.
The other problems of course remain.

Re:bluray sucks

[allo]

and its wrong regarding mpeg4. even the cheapest dvd-player CAN play mpeg4, there is no need to update them.

Re:Concentrate on making a better open codec.

[Gordonjcp]

would anything x264 only be considered free software where the shackles of 'patented software' don't apply

You can't patent software. Well, you *can* in the USA, but they seem to be happy to legislate themselves into a technological backwater. I hope the rest of the world hasn't left them too far behind when they finally figure it out.

You guys must be a riot

[pizzach]

on the free trade coffee websites. Free trade vs free software.

Well if decryption has been broken ...

[dingram17]

Since it appears that the BD encryption has been hacked, what is to stop people encrypting their discs with the key of a major studio if they want to distribute pressed discs? I can't imagine that a group of naughty people wanting to distribute some propaganda is going to be too concerned about IP violations if the message being promoted was not all that savoury. So basically the BluRay people thought that by banning unencrypted (plain) pressed discs (which was perfectly fine with DVD) then someone BD rips would be stopped. Instead all that they've achieved is to make it hard for legit users of the format to do what they should be able to, and the unauthorised duplicators are ripping the discs to alternate formats anyway.

Re:Well if decryption has been broken ...

[Goaway]

Since it appears that the BD encryption has been hacked

It has not. It has been worked around.

Re:Well if decryption has been broken ...

[countertrolling]

Instead all that they've achieved is to make it hard for legit users of the format to do what they should be able to, and the unauthorised duplicators are ripping the discs to alternate formats anyway.

The idea is to harass independent content producers. They would much rather have you just sign your legal rights away to one of the big boys.. If you don't, they'll be taking away your lunch money.

Re:Well if decryption has been broken ...

[Malc]

Do you have the tools to create your own pressed discs? I can't imagine any replicator out there would accept such a disc from you. In fact, the Type A (or V) CMF that you send to them makes no provision for this, and they would probably raise their eyebrows if you tried to send them Type B, or C or later in the process. If in fact you're just duplicating (BD-R/-RE or DVD-R) then your point is moot.

Re:LOL open source

[oakgrove]

Why don't you freetards just buy a mac and use real world professional software to do your work?...

You are like the Amish of the computer industry.

So, I should stop using free software and go to a system that is based on, you guessed it, free software. You do realize that OSX would be nothing like its current form without the completely free and open source software that it is layered on top of, right? For most intents and purposes, the OSX that you seem so fond of is little more than a set of libraries and a pretty face plastered on top of mountains of open source software. Now who's the freetard?

So no Blu-ray home movies then?!?

[MacroRodent]

If what you say is true, my interest in Blu-ray dropped to zero. It means the format is useless for storing user-generated HD content so that it can be conveniently played back by off-the-shelf consumer equipment, like DVD does for SD content. In other words, kills the use-case of sending clips of grandchildren playing to grannies, in a format they can play conveniently. Or an amateur theatre group filming and distributing their show?

Am I missing something? Sony cannot be that stupid? Do they really want Blu-ray to be authored by serious professionals only?

Re:So no Blu-ray home movies then?!?

[Malc]

Duplicated discs (BD-R/RE) do not require any AACS. Replicated discs do require AACS processing, but do not have to be encrypted (see my first reply to the OP).

Re:So no Blu-ray home movies then?!?

[Malc]

Just to clarify: duplicated isn't just BD-R/RE, but also DVD-R (BD-5/9). Replicated are BD-ROM.

Re:LOL open source

[ledow]

I'll quote one word from your trolling: "work".

For my work, I use "real" software for the most part (and some of that is Free software with appropriate commercial support). For all my other stuff, I don't see why I should pay hundreds or thousands of $/£/ in order to burn a home movie to disk, or install an operating system on an old machine, or edit photos or design a personal website. Hell, you are technically paying just to burn a DVD-R or watch a DVD under most versions of Windows because they have to bundle software to make it work.

If you do, and want to, pay for that sort of thing for your own personal computers - go ahead and piss your leisure money away. If you think that "putting some video data on a disk that about 17% of people can even watch (current market penetration figures), and only about 10% of those can actually watch as it was intended (i.e. better than DVD quality)" is a good use of your money, feel free to pay the companies that invented it thousands of pounds to "do it properly". The rest of us will still be using cheap, simple, non-demanding software to burn onto DVD and/or trialling free software to do the same thing.

For work, it's an entirely different matter because by the time something is "mainstream", your business is already sunk, so you *have* to pay those extortionate license fees in order to be able to do the same simple task: put some video onto a disk. You're just paying a stupid premium in order to be able to do that before or at the same time as your competitors.

We might be the Amish, but you're the Emperor with his "new clothes". At least we're actually wearing *something*, and it does the job, and it didn't cost us a penny. In ten years time when you work out how much each bit on a disk cost you over that decade, you might be wondering if it was actually worth it.

Re:LOL open source

[Kjella]

True, it is based on open source but it's more than a little questionable to say it could never be the same without open source. They could have licensed Solaris or AIX or some other closed source unixish kernel if they wanted to and still built the same libraries on top. Everybody seems to jump up and down that it got open source somewhere down there but I would say it is fairly irrelevant to the success or failure of OS X. There's a reason that the desktop market has 5.33% OS X and 0.01% OpenBSD.

Re:fuck blueray

[Hal_Porter]

Buck Flewray: Pilot of the future!

Re:Well, take out the free software bits of Mac OS

[celle]

"Yes, you COULD replace them, but without them now, MacOSX would not work anything like the way it does now."

Not just that but MacOSX would cost significantly more than it already does due to increased licensing fees if competitors would even allow their bits to be licensed at all. If they would have had to do all the development themselves most likely the project would have been doomed. So get over it fanboys MacOSX owes its existence and continuing popularity to Free Software at several levels.

Re:LOL open source

[oakgrove]

They could have licensed Solaris or AIX or some other closed source unixish kernel

That's extremely speculative and has no basis on what actually happened nor is it relevant to what I was saying. This is just my opinion but I find it extremely unlikely that Steve Jobs would have ever licensed someone else's kernel, Unix or not, to put into OSX. The more likely scenario is that they would have gone a few more rounds negotiating with Be inc., bought them out, and just based OSX on that as that's what they intended to do in the first place had Be inc. not been asking so much money for their company.

Now, BeOS incorporated some great technology and, who knows, OSX may have ended up even better than it is now had it been based on that. But BeOS was not even close to being related to Unix. And as basing OSX on BeOS was the most likely alternative, I'm quite sure that had that happened, it would be nothing like what it is today.

Everybody seems to jump up and down that it got open source somewhere down there but I would say it is fairly irrelevant to the success or failure of OS X. There's a reason that the desktop market has 5.33% OS X and 0.01% OpenBSD.

I'm not sure who you are replying to but it must not be me as I neither said nor implied anything arguing those points one way or the other. As a matter of fact, I don't even have an opinion as I find it quite irrelevant to anything that I care to think about. Oh, and, pro tip, OSX is more closely related to FreeBSD and NetBSD than OpenBSD.