Slashdot Mirror


$350 Hardware Cracks HDMI Copy Protection

New submitter LBeee writes "German Researchers at the Ruhr University Bochum built an FPGA board-based man-in-the-middle attack against the HDCP copy protection used in HDMI connections. After the leak of an HDCP master key in 2010, Intel proclaimed that the copy protection was still secure, as it would be too expensive to build a system that could conduct a real-time decryption of the data stream. It has now been proven that a system can be built for around $350 (€200) to do the task. However, the solution is of no great practical use for pirates. It can easily be used to burn films from Blu-ray discs, but receivers which can deliver HDTV recordings are already available — and they provide the data in compressed form. In contrast, recording directly from an HDMI port results in a large amount of data."

47 of 161 comments (clear)

  1. And with HDD prices these days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    recording directly from an HDMI port results in a large amount of data

    With the high prices and todays HDDs, it makes recording from the HDMI even that much more economically unfeasible...

    1. Re:And with HDD prices these days... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Because we all know once data has been uncompressed it can never be compressed again...

    2. Re:And with HDD prices these days... by Animats · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because we all know once data has been uncompressed it can never be compressed again...

      Each lossy compression/decompression cycle loses data. For examples. see YouTube.

    3. Re:And with HDD prices these days... by cheetah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, this device already costs about $350... and some quick and dirty math shows that an HDMI video stream is about 1.78 TB an hour. It's a lot of data, but the bigger problem is not the storage but the rate at which the data is coming out of the capture device. it's about 500MB/sec and to actually write at that data rate, your going to need quite a few hard drives to keep up. You are really going to need at least 6 drives at a minimum to be able to record at this data rate(without problems). So the amount of data is likely to fit on what ever array your recording the HDMI stream onto.

      My 8-disk array could handle this right now... granted it wasn't a low cost array(machine + disks for ~$1000) and it would be even more costly with current HDD prices. But people do have access to the disk space and speed needed to do this currently. I think you would find that a lot of the people the would think about ripping video directly from HDMI already have the data storage requirements taken care of.

    4. Re:And with HDD prices these days... by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not losslessly, but heh... if you can spot the difference on a BluRay recoded to BluRay size, you're *good*, I mean even the DVD9 rips look very, very close to the original.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:And with HDD prices these days... by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


      I store all my stuff as MD5 hashes. Why keep a 4.5 GB MKV file when it can be hashed down to 16 bytes? That's just stupid. Haven't watched anything yet, waiting for the holidays.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    6. Re:And with HDD prices these days... by Anthony+Mouse · · Score: 5, Informative

      You lose data because the differences between the lossy version after decompression and the lossless version are compounded by recompression. If you have a sufficiently high quality original, even if it technically is not lossless, the differences are minimal. To the point that you won't really be able to see the difference after recompressing it.

      By contrast, YouTube is particularly bad because most people start with a low quality video and then YouTube recompresses it at a low bitrate.

    7. Re:And with HDD prices these days... by geminidomino · · Score: 5, Funny

      Gonna suck to be you when you find out that there's a collision between "Frosty the Snowman" and "Trans-Midget Scat Sluts XIX"

    8. Re:And with HDD prices these days... by Guspaz · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can do it with two SATA3 SSDs, although three is safe. But three sufficiently large SSDs aren't cheap. Then again, nobody said you had to rip it all in one go. Three small SSDs; rip a chunk, copy it to a slow big drive, rip another chunk, slow big drive. Regardless, the real reason that it's not useful for pirates is because it's rare that a pirate would even want to do this. bluray was thoroughly cracked ages ago, and OTA or satellite broadcasts (or itunes downloads) are probably going to have better quality than any streaming service you might want to rip.

      What I don't get is why this is even news. Devices to strip HDCP have been on the market for years; the hdfury people have a whole product lineup for stripping HDCP and converting to various analog formats, or even hdmi-to-hdmi (the "dr hdmi" product, I believe). Is this news because it's now DIY, rather than a commercial product that does it? I assume there are other similar devices on the market.

    9. Re:And with HDD prices these days... by amorsen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Each lossy compression/decompression cycle loses data. For examples. see YouTube.

      If you use an algorithm similar to the original compression algorithm, you do not have to lose much (in the best case, nothing at all). E.g. a part of how JPEG works is reducing the number of colours in little squares. If you decompress/recompress with JPEG at around the same quality level, the algorithm will notice that it doesn't need to eliminate very many colours in each square, because they magically have just the right number of colours already!

      Similarly, most movie compressions try to detect if part of the next picture matches the previous, just shifted. After compression and decompression, those areas will stand out clearly to the algorithm and it is likely that similar parameters are chosen for the recompression. You can get unlucky that the second compression picks different I-frames than the first compression did, of course. If this kind of recompression becomes popular, someone will write a tool to guess which frames are I-frames.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    10. Re:And with HDD prices these days... by omglolbah · · Score: 2

      You win...

    11. Re:And with HDD prices these days... by EdIII · · Score: 4, Funny

      Trans-Midget Scat Sluts XIX

      So?

      Frosty was a tosser and Trans-Midget Scat Sluts jumped the shark after the 14th volume.

  2. vapid nonsense by sribe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...it would be too expensive to build a system that could conduct a real-time decryption of the data stream.

    Then how, exactly, is anyone supposed to be able to ever watch? Oh, yeah, right. Duh. Every freaking HDTV with HDMI input has to conduct real-time decryption of the data stream. Where do these companies even find these fucktard spokespeople???

    1. Re:vapid nonsense by pckl300 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then how, exactly, is anyone supposed to be able to ever watch?

      Isn't the whole point of DRM to prevent you from watching anything?

      --
      In the beginning, there was null.
    2. Re:vapid nonsense by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course, none of those will ever be diverted into the hobbiest market or salvaged out of broken and obsolete hardware.

      Certainly, no inexpensive Chinese manufacturer would ever sell such a thing on the gray market, that would be disrespectful of IP!

    3. Re:vapid nonsense by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      BIG diff between on the fly decryption and display vs saving ALL that overly large data to disk. without spilling. ever.

      huge difference, there, mate.

      cue the:

      "won't someone PLEASE think of the disks!?!?"

      meme...

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  3. It's a great thing for professional AV folk by Mononoke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe this will finally make HDMI manageable for audio/visual crews when faced with multiple HDCP encumbered HDMI sources that need to switched and/or crossfaded in real time. Right now it is damn near impossible to implement any form of HDMI switching due to the ridiculous handshake times needed when protected HDMI sources see changes in the destination. Currently the only way to handle it is with a black market HDMI to component converter which introduces often unacceptable video delays in addition to requiring multiple Digital-to-Analog and Analog-to-Digital transitions along the way.

    --
    NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    1. Re:It's a great thing for professional AV folk by johanwanderer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Since this is only a man-in-the-middle attack, it still requires an appropriate HDCP end point for each source, basically doubling the amount of gears they need to carry.

    2. Re:It's a great thing for professional AV folk by DreadPiratePizz · · Score: 3, Informative

      First of all, professional A/V folk don't use HDMI anyway. Cameras and decks all have SDI outputs, which is pretty much the standard, and there's no copy protection on it. Second of all, in the chance you do use an HDMI source, not a single camera or deck is ever going to set HDCP on, since well, you're the one shooting and editing the material. Copy protection is only an issue if you are trying to record off a PS3, TV broadcast, or copy a blu ray disc - i.e. something that's not yours. If you're running into copy protection issues, you need to get proper gear.

    3. Re:It's a great thing for professional AV folk by Mononoke · · Score: 2

      There just aren't enough HDCP-enabled pro devices on the market, because the consortium is excessively protective of its stupid-ass DRM scheme.

      No, it's because the DRM scheme requires the HDCP all the way to the end device (projector or monitor). In the real world we're not using HDMI inputs on projectors because of cable length issues (among other things.) There is no practical way to get HDCP encumbered HDMI switched and then distributed amongst multiple projectors and confidence monitors in the typical corporate meeting environment.

      --
      NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
    4. Re:It's a great thing for professional AV folk by Guspaz · · Score: 2

      hd-sdi is awesome (why are BNC connectors so damned rare these days? A connector that quickly and securely locks beats RCA or HDMI any day), but unless you've got pro-grade projectors, you're not going to have hd-sdi input on them. Even semi-pro multi-lamp projectors are lacking it. So you end up having to use hd-sdi to hdmi adapters, which work great, but cost a fortune. Not that an hd-sdi mixer doesn't already cost a fortune, although those can often be rented at somewhat reasonable prices, unlike projectors. I rented a Roland V1600-HD for three days for 7% of replacement cost, but projector rentals seem to be up to 25-50% for a three day rental, it's insane.

      Yeah, if you've got the budget, it doesn't really matter, but sometimes you need to do pro-grade stuff with a small budget (perhaps because the people holding the purse strings don't want to give you enough money to do it right), and the rental price disparities become an obstacle.

    5. Re:It's a great thing for professional AV folk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have a small A/V company (10 employees) and we fairly often get clients bringing in a bluray disc that they have made themselves and expect us to show with 10 minutes notice. Even though it is all material that they have shot and edited, the hdcp issues still usually bite us. We didn't think that this would be a problem for self made discs, but experience has shown that it usually is. We now tell clients that we can only accept video files or standard def dvd's.

      While the parent poster suggests that this is only a problem when pirating material, I can tell you for a fact that it happens all the time to non copyrighted material. I don't know if clients simply don't create the discs correctly or if the bluray players just assume that hdcp should be applied and cause a fail when connected to switching gear no matter what the content. Either way, it kills us on site.

      We do everything hdsdi, but occasionally still convert our output to hdmi for some of our older projectors. This is done at each projector because of issues with long runs of hdmi cable. Blackmagic has converters that only cost 4 or 5 hundred bucks and work fine. While hdmi is nice for your tv at home it is a terrible thing in pro applications. I really wish manufacturers would get off the bandwagon and make pro gear pro and amateur gear amateur.

    6. Re:It's a great thing for professional AV folk by Guspaz · · Score: 2

      I've read elsewhere that HDCP strippers are typically made from the chips pulled from displays themselves (perhaps they're desoldering them from broken displays). If this is the case, wouldn't HDCP revocations be rendering many random displays useless? Unlike on a BluRay player, there's no way to update the HDCP key on devices that tend not to have updatable firmware (like displays or TVs).

    7. Re:It's a great thing for professional AV folk by malkuth23 · · Score: 2

      There are a few devices that convert hdmi/dvi to hdsdi for a reasonable amount of money. Blackmagic makes one I think it dubs a dvi extender. The problem is sync and reliability. Neither of which Blackmagic is known for.

      The ultimate professional solution is an Imagepro. They run about 8k and work perfectly. They add about 2 frames of latency which sucks for live music events and lip sync, but they are reliable.

      We have talked to engineers at Nvidia for years trying to convince them to make a decent hdsdi card. There is just not a big enough market. The one they have now is terrible. It costs as much as an imagepro with the same latency and without the cool options that come with the imagepro. Also as graphic cards get better you can always move your imagepro along with the new card.

      Hopefully one day there will be a serious push for hdsdi. It runs huge lengths, has no stupid EDID issues, and locks in place.

    8. Re:It's a great thing for professional AV folk by Guspaz · · Score: 2

      It's the other way around that I have to go, though. I've got an HD-SDI source arriving at projectors that can only do HDMI. I don't remember which brand we rented, might have been AJA. They were reclocking HD-SDI to HDMI adapters; my rental invoice doesn't specify which brand we got. They worked well enough. It was IMAG for a variety of events, and there were a few concerts involved, but it was video-only, so sound sync wasn't much of an issue (other than just getting as little delay in the video path as possible was enough). We had hired a company to handle the stage/lighting/audio/etc.

      The HDMI to HD-SDI part was easy, because the mixer had HDMI inputs. I only used HD-SDI for the three cameras and the runs to the two projectors. I wanted to use it for distributing the signal to two other rooms, but the venue informed me at the last minute that they couldn't run HD-SDI over their distribution network, only SDI, so I just settled for composite; much cheaper and my budget was super tight at that point, so saving the money on converters was nice. It turns out that composite video downsampled from 1080p using a very high quality composite source looks pretty decent on a big screen, even after running a few thousand feet over a distribution network. I was pleasantly surprised; it was good enough for our needs.

      The ImagePro looks neat, and costs half as much as the mixer I used, but this was for primarily live video, so I needed a mixer that could do smooth transitions from five or six sources of varying types, rather than a hard switch between sources. I wanted something with a t-bar for the technician to be able to switch smoothly as fast or slow as he felt was needed. But I'll admit that I went into all this blind, knowing nothing about professional video or mixing. It was all "the supplier wanted $14k to do video with one camera. Here's a $4k budget to do it yourself with three cameras. Make it happen in." So after a hell of a lot of time and research, and a big of begging for a few hundred bucks extra, it did work out in the end. But I'm damned if I know how I'm going to pull it off next year, where I'll probably need to run distances farther than HD-SDI is rated for, and do it on bigger screens than require pro-grade projectors rather than semi-pro, and I really doubt I'm going to get much of a budget increase. I have a few ideas from experience doing it the first time about how to save a few hundred here and there (don't actually need HD-SDI on a fixed camera when it's only a few feet from the mixer, HDMI would do if the camera rental company still only has one less HD-SDI camera than I need, forcing me to pay five times more from a second supplier), but it'll be a challenge. The problem is there doesn't really seem to be any online community for professional video that I can go to for advice on this sort of stuff.

  4. Am I missing something. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ok the data is encrypted... But the TV's and stuff use it are consumer devices. Many of them are below the $300 mark.
    So if some guy found a chip that decodes HDMI in a $100.00 device takes it out and wires a new device with a different function and sells it for $300.00 he may be making money without actually decryption the HDMI. I mean my TV is HDMI. and a digital single goes into the DLP chip It would be logical that the DLP data is unencrypted by the time those electrons get there.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Am I missing something. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's not how it works in practice. The TV doesn't have a specific chip for decoding HDCP. And the STB does not have one for encoding. It's most likely built into a larg System-on-Chip which is orders of magnitude more difficult to tamper with...

    2. Re:Am I missing something. by CyberDragon777 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      That's not how it works in practice. The TV doesn't have a specific chip for decoding HDCP.

      This $8 chip disagrees with you.
      Load it up with some keys and you get the unencrypted audio/video stream on the output pins.

      --
      We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
  5. Great, now FPGA programmers will be illegal by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What our German friends seem to have forgotten is that in the United States, we have the awesome lobbying power of the MPAA. Now they're going to make it difficult to impossible to buy FPGA programmers. If that sounds ridiculous to you, remember how difficult they made it to obtain Smart Card writers once people started figuring out how to clone DirecTV cards.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
    1. Re:Great, now FPGA programmers will be illegal by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      I don't remember having any trouble getting smart card readers/writers/unloopers etc.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Great, now FPGA programmers will be illegal by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 2

      Not to worry -- many of us in America are tired of having to deal with American insanity as well. We're on the brink of collapse due to the power held by special interests.

      --
      Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
  6. Since when is €200 = $350? by LogistX · · Score: 2

    At no point in the entire history of the Euro has €200 been $350. The Euro peaked in 2008 at around $1.60 and is today at $1.33. At that conversion rate, €200 equals about $266.

    1. Re:Since when is €200 = $350? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      At no point in the entire history of the Euro has €200 been $350. The Euro peaked in 2008 at around $1.60 and is today at $1.33. At that conversion rate, €200 equals about $266.

      Looks like a Digilent Atlys board.
      http://digilentinc.com/Products/Catalog.cfm?NavPath=2,400&Cat=10&FPGA

      The US price is 199.99 academic, or 349.99 for non-academic.

  7. Clarification by LikwidCirkel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since some people seem confused as to why this is special and what it actually does.... I'll try to explain some things.

    Yes, HDCP happens right at the I/O chip, and you can extract unencrypted raw video bitstreams in a variety of ways. All involve actually opening up the receiver device and soldering on wires.

    Typical HDCP compliant devices use a ROM with a vendor key that's attached right to the I/O device. Industry standard devices such as the ADV7441 or AD9889 from Analog Devices fully support this, and interface to the rest of the system with a standard raw video bit stream. The contents of these vendor ROMs are typically unique to each vendor and their contents are not even disclosed to the vendor. They do not contain the master key, but are somehow related to it. This is cheap - the ROM's probably cost pennies, and the cost is more about registering as a certified HDCP compliant device. It's pretty much a plug-and-play solution for display device vendors - simply attach the vendor code ROM to the receiver chip, and the device just outputs unencrypted video to the rest of the system.

    There are various mod kits for adding SDI or unencrypted DVI/HDMI outputs to things like Blu-Ray players, but they all work just by connecting to the raw bitstream lines AFTER the decryption at the actual HDMI receiver chip.

    On an HDMI cable, the actual encryption that takes place is specific to keys on both sides, so can't generally be universally cracked. If a vendor key becomes compromised, future Blu-Ray players can blacklist it.

    What makes this solution useful, is that it's just about the only way to crack the encryption on-the-wire without having to open anything up or solder anything, and it can't be prevented by simply blacklisting vendor keys.

  8. It'll find a use. by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 2

    Back when the key was leaked, I figured the only thing that would keep it from being put to use was the lack of a practical use. But now there's talk of releasing movies on PPV in conjunction with their release in theaters. A device like this could have 1080 BD-quality rips of movies available on the internet the same day they're in theaters. Just grab the stream via PPV, compress it, and seed it. Also applies to any other PPV event that normally wouldn't be available anywhere but thru the cable company.

    1. Re:It'll find a use. by wagnerrp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So someone comes up with a working product capable of keyless, real-time HDCP decryption, and the first thing you want to do is use it to throw content up on bittorrent. You see, this is why the rest of us can't have nice things...

    2. Re:It'll find a use. by wagnerrp · · Score: 2

      Use it to bypass HDCP issues where two devices are unwilling to talk to each other. Use it to bypass ICT (image constraint token) or SO (selective output). Use it for DVRs that are incapable of complying with CableLabs' restrictions, or in other locales which have no conditional access mechanism. Use it for any number of other legitimate fair use reasons that don't involve content piracy or copyright infringement.

  9. Hell I might build one for home by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Right now I have a situation where I can't watch Blu-rays on my PC. I have everything you should need, an ideal setup even. I have a high end video card that does HDCP, I have Windows 7, I have a monitor that does HDCP, and I have a receiver that does HDCP. Everything works, looks, and sounds, great. However when I play a Blu-ray, it says "Nope."

    Why?

    Well because of the way my video and audio are hooked up. My graphics card is hooked directly via DVI to my monitor. No problems there. However it then has a second HDMI output to an HDMI soundcard, which goes HDMI to my receiver. The reason is HDMI requires a video clock to send sound and the soundcard doesn't generate one. No problem, the second out is just a mirrored output, just a dummy out to get video clock.

    However Blu-ray doesn't allow for that. No splitting the signal. Even though both devices are HDCP enabled, it won't allow it.

    So hell, I might build one of these (particularly since where I work, we have Xilinx ISE). Would solve the problem and mean any future HDCP problems are easy to solve too.

    1. Re:Hell I might build one for home by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or you could just go to TPB and download MKVs and be done with it. Its this endless bullshit that makes the MPAA companies an epic fail. All I want is an avi file, that's all. My dad has a little Nbox player that doesn't play copy protected bullshit so its of no use to me, also my netbook gets great battery life for playing avi files but i bet if i start playing DRM it'll go to shit.

      So why the fuck won't they sell me an avi file? Are they somehow gonna magically make all those HD rips disappear off of TPB? Nope, they are just fucking folks like me that WANT to hand them the money but whome they won't give any content without making us do a little dance. it reminds me of that old Python bit in Time Bandits where Robin Hood would have one of his men punch a poor person before they would hand them anything "just to make them feel they earned it".

      Well fuck you MPAA, if you won't accept my money for product thanks to piracy I can get the same product for free. you haven't stopped a damned thing, just pissed off people like me that would have happily handed you the money for a useful product.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:Hell I might build one for home by RulerOf · · Score: 2

      It'd probably be cheaper and more practical for you to just get a copy of AnyDVD HD and play Blu-Rays to your heart's content.

      --
      Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
    3. Re:Hell I might build one for home by wagnerrp · · Score: 3, Informative

      AVI does not support variable framerate or variable aspect ratio content, so it cannot be used to record broadcast television, nor can it support such changes in recording from a DV cam.

      AVI does not support storage of aspect ratio, meaning it cannot be used for things such as anamorphic encoding.

      AVI does not support B frames, back-referencing P frames only. That means no MPEG4, no XviD, no DivX, no H264, and no other halfway modern codecs.

      AVI does not support variable bitrate audio.

      AVI does not support timecodes, so streaming is not a possibility. It must be a complete file with header and footer, meaning any player requires direct file access.

      Now sure, you can hack on all sorts of additional functionality that lies outside the AVI spec, but then you're not using AVI. You're using some abortive abomination of a file, with no guarantee of compatibility with other players. Why continue using it when there are better alternatives available?

    4. Re:Hell I might build one for home by steevven1 · · Score: 2

      The reason the companies won't sell you an unprotected AVI file isn't that they're afraid you'll put it on TPB (where they know it will be no matter what, as you pointed out). It's that they're afraid that people who have no idea what TPB is (ie most people) will be ble to share and copy those unprotected AVI files, and sales will go down because frankly, the people who don't know what TPB is are the HUGE majority of those people who are willing to pay for movies...Not people like you.

    5. Re:Hell I might build one for home by SeaFox · · Score: 4, Informative

      because frankly i haven't seen a damned thing wrong with either avi OR mp4, they play anywhere and "just work" which is more than I can say for MKV which is rarely hardware accelerated and frankly uses around 30-40% more resources, at least in my own tests.

      It's not the container that decides how much processing resources a file requires or if it can be hardware accelerated, that depends on the actual video inside it. You seem to be under some impression AVI, MP4, and MKV are all video formats.

      Why does MKV take 30-40% more resources than AVI? Because you're most likely playing h264 video instead of XviD, which has more complicated compression algorithms giving you better quality per kilobyte. Why do some MKVs get hardware acceleration and some not? Because they aren't all using the same video format, some may have XviD video inside, like your AVI files, some are h264, and even of those only certain types of h264 get hardware acceleration. Also, you need a video playback app on a PC to be set up in a specific way for hardware acceleration to happen or some files wont use it.

      Getting a playback device to use hardware acceleration means following some very specific rules when the content is encoded, also what you're playing them back on matters, as not all consumer electronics devices support the same formats.

      Your ignorance of all this shows you're a person who watches a lot of pirated content you grab randomly off TPB and don't encode any of your own, or even stick to specific encoders who have a methodology in what they do. You're subjected to a large number of files that behave differently on your devices, but only have a few file extensions that you base your judgements on -- causing all these flawed ideas about AVI vs MKV. This is because those files are all being encoded by different people and while some may be making them to play well on "stand alone players" (like those DVD players that support DIVX, or a Roku, Popcorn Hour, etc), many are aiming for highest quality compared to the source for the filesize, a goal that will generally put you at odds with playback on anything but a full-fledged computer.

      Btw, if your want a player that can handle MKV better look for the "DIVX HD" ones, as that format uses MKV for container instead of AVI like the old "DIVX" DVD players. But then again, nowadays you can get BluRay players that support all sorts of computer file formats.

      So unless you can name another container that works with nearly every accelerator out there, doesn't put in a ton of overhead, isn't badly designed (ala Vorbis) and "just works" on everything I'm afraid we'll have to disagree.

      Container: MP4
      Video: H264 codec: Main Profile, L4.1 or less. Limit B-frames to two. (might be other requirements for acceleration, but this is a good place to start)
      Resolution: 720p or less (maybe 480p depending on device)
      Audio: AAC-LC or MP3 audio stream, no vbr encoding (may have to limit bitrate to 128 kbps or lower, too depending on playback device).

      I believe this will work on any modern playback device that's not a PC.

  10. Blu-ray by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2

    Blu-ray content can be ripped *exactly* using programs like MakeMKV and all the significant video media is released on Blu-ray these days. There's no need to try to capture this material from HDMI.

  11. Three main reasons by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Informative

    1) My monitor is a professional display (an NEC MultiSync 2690WUXi). Among its other features is hardware calibration. It has internal correction tables to produce extremely accurate output, calibrated to any curves I like. To do that, the video card must be able to communicate with it via DDC/CI which it can't do through the receiver, since the receiver gets those commands, not the monitor. I didn't pay $1200 for a monitor and calibration hardware to not have it work to its optimum potential.

    2) Latency. I am a gamer, and I want as low a latency as I can have to my monitor, particularly since as a professional monitor its scaler already introduces a bit of latency (33ms). If I feed the signal through my receiver, it will introduce additional latency in an effort to perfectly synchronize audio and video. I would rather have less latency and a minor sync problem.

    3) I often operate the computer without sound. Right now, since I'm surfing the web, I don't feel the need to listen to anything. Thus the receiver is off. It puts out about 200 watts at idle since it is a fairly high power, high bias unit (a Denon 3808CI if you are wondering). I'd rather save the power, and more importantly not heat up my room, when it isn't needed. Can't do that if I feed video through it.

    My setup is designed to meet my needs, and it does very well. It has no issues with anything, except for Blu-ray. The only reason it has such an issue is a stupid artificial restriction.

    1. Re:Three main reasons by vux984 · · Score: 2

      and still he is the one that gets screwed with less functionality than we had in the 80s.

      Yes because in the 80s he had a computer that could calibrated an HD flat screen display, and 6 channel audio connections to his receiver.

      I'm not going to disagree that there are DRM issues that are a PITA. But his setup has issues more from HDMI in general than HDCP and DRM.

      He essentially wants to split audio and video off a digital communications signal yet maintain two-way communication to one of the endpoints for DDC/CI.

      I'm pretty sure there are number of easy workarounds... like dropping audio off the hdmi entirely, and just using an optical out of the sound card.

      That's how I ran my previous system.

      HDMI from video card up to the display, optical from the sound card to the receiver.

      Frankly, I like the new hdmi passthru setup I have much better. But i don't need to color calibrate my display through DDC/CI like he apparently has to.

  12. The chinese have been doing it for years by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have a $35 no-name chinese-made HDMI repeater that strips HDCP from anything you feed to it. Quite useful for watching BluRay output on my old non-HDCP TV. Doing it with an FPGA is a nice trick, but doing it with off-the-shelf parts selling for $35 retail is more convenient :-).