Aspect ratio

[Hagbard23]

LOL - GodofaGap...LoL...

I said: "Anamorphic Coding causes Confusion"
You Said: "Nonsense"

Now - look at the whole discussion .. what do you see? So - i see Confusion all over the place...seems i was right.

[GodofaGap]

I said: "Anamorphic Coding causes Confusion"
You Said: "Nonsense"
First you might wanna look back at page 1 then.

Now - look at the whole discussion .. what do you see? So - i see Confusion all over the place...seems i was right.
You would be right if yetanotherid and I were talking about encoding anamorphically... but we aren't. We are talking about different methods to convert anamorphic content to square pixels (which is what you recommended to do in the first place!). If anything that is a lot more confusing then simply doing nothing and setting an AR signal in the codec or container, because there is more than one way of doing it and with all you are trading one thing for another. :)

[Maccara]

Yeah I have but while I've not done many (or maybe any) 1080p encodes myself, some of the ones I've seen have either been 1088p with four rows of incredibly annoying pixels top and bottom, or cropped down to the appropriate mod16 height.
"Bad" encodes or bad decoder, or both.

I have wondered about the 1080p resolution, but never thought to ask about it until now. So are 1080p BlueRay discs really 1080p or do they tend to be a close mod16? And why is 1080p used rather than 1088p etc? Now you've bought it up, I have to know... :(


They are "really" 1080p for all intents and purposes. (internally encoder usually encodes mod16 (i.e. 1088) which is cropped on playback, but this is done transparently for the user)

I have no idea how "they" arrived to those specific HD resolutions, so someone else has to fill in the missing info.

My point is just that non-mod16 should not be a huge issue with h.264, as the standards support it just fine.

[Ghitulescu]

I have no idea how "they" arrived to those specific HD resolutions, so someone else has to fill in the missing info.

It was the closest "sort of" multiple for both PAL and NTSC.

[yetanotherid]

LOL - GodofaGap...LoL...

I said: "Anamorphic Coding causes Confusion"
You Said: "Nonsense"

Now - look at the whole discussion .. what do you see? So - i see Confusion all over the place...seems i was right.

I agree with GodofaGap's reply to your post there.
We're discussing the conversion of anamorphic content (DVDs) to square pixels and all the different approaches and resizing choices available. That's where there's lots of potential confusion.

When encoding anamorphic video to anamorphic video it should, in theory, be a piece of cake. A decent GUI should simply be able to adjust the pixel/display aspect ratio after you've cropped in order to keep the aspect ratio of your encode identical to the original, and off you go without having to give it a second thought.

[yetanotherid]

?

You are going to see black bars anyway unless you are encoding letterboxed 4:3 for a 16:9 display. If the movie is 2.35:1 there are going to black bars on your display whether you like it or not. As long as there is nothing wrong with your monitor calibration black is going to be black.

Well, we may be arguing semantics but there's black bars and then there's parts of the screen which aren't displaying anything.
Maybe it's my monitor calibration, maybe it's just that my monitor has a better contrast ratio than an LCD display.... I've not really thought about that till now.... but I still watch a lot of video on my trusty old 22" Trinitron CRT monitors (I'm not an LCD fan) and the encoded black bars are definitely noticeable. When compared with the rest of the non-video area, they're a very dark grey.

Maybe you can tell me if this points to it being my monitor calibration. I hope not as I like the way they are, but I sometimes use VobSub for displaying external subtitles. In order to take advantage of the wasted vertical screen real estate when watching 2.35 video, I get VobSub to add black bars to it on the fly so I can place the subtitles below the picture rather than over it. Those VobSub black bars are also more of a dark grey than the black of the remaining non-picture area.

A TV doesn't really need to resize an anamorphic image. The image is that way because that's how TVs work in the first place! :)

Well something must resize it because depending on the type of DVD (4:3 or 16:9) the pixels are resized differently. I assume it's the DVD player which does that, but if you're watching a standard definition video on a HD display and it's filling the screen, then regardless of the original pixel shape in the video it's being upsized by someone.

As for your question, I don't like to crop the actual image if it can be avoided.

Each to their own I guess. Being a 22" CRT guy when it comes to watching video on the PC, I regularly zoom the video a bit to increase it's size. For wide screen stuff that means I'm cropping 10% or more off each side. I can't say I've ever felt like I've missed out on anything while watching video that way. In fact I've always thought a 2.35 aspect ratio is somewhat over the top. Maybe my eyes just aren't far enough apart??....... :-)

[yetanotherid]

One more black bar thought......
Many DVDs don't have nice sharp or straight edges at the top or bottom. Often the image fades to black a little, sometimes there's junk which needs to be cropped, often there's a black row or two of pixels at the top or bottom which only make it half way across the picture (anyone know what causes that?). I like to remove that extra junk and have a nice sharp crop. You can't do that by undercropping and encoding black bars..... ;-)

[GodofaGap]

Well, we may be arguing semantics but there's black bars and then there's parts of the screen which aren't displaying anything.
Maybe it's my monitor calibration, maybe it's just that my monitor has a better contrast ratio than an LCD display.... I've not really thought about that till now.... but I still watch a lot of video on my trusty old 22" Trinitron CRT monitors (I'm not an LCD fan) and the encoded black bars are definitely noticeable. When compared with the rest of the non-video area, they're a very dark grey.
Well if black is not really black that's probably bot good, but if you like the way your monitor looks don't change it for me. :)
It doesn't have to be your monitor though, it can also be a PC range<-> TV range renderer issue.

I have done something similar but then within ffdshow. I always let it expand the frame to a 16:9 ration. This means everything wider than 16:9 gets letterboxed, and everything narrower (e.g. 4:3) gets pillarboxed. This makes it easier when I watch the video on my TV cause I can always leave it on 'widescreen'-mode without having to worry it is going to trigger one of those auto adjust modes. The other advantage, like you said, is that for 2.35:1 the subtitles appear partly in the black area.

Well something must resize it because depending on the type of DVD (4:3 or 16:9) the pixels are resized differently.
A CRT TV doesn't have pixels. To put it simply: it just draws longer lines.

Each to their own I guess. Being a 22" CRT guy when it comes to watching video on the PC, I regularly zoom the video a bit to increase it's size. For wide screen stuff that means I'm cropping 10% or more off each side. I can't say I've ever felt like I've missed out on anything while watching video that way. In fact I've always thought a 2.35 aspect ratio is somewhat over the top. Maybe my eyes just aren't far enough apart??....... :-)
>.<

:)

One more black bar thought......
Many DVDs don't have nice sharp or straight edges at the top or bottom. Often the image fades to black a little, sometimes there's junk which needs to be cropped, often there's a black row or two of pixels at the top or bottom which only make it half way across the picture (anyone know what causes that?). I like to remove that extra junk and have a nice sharp crop. You can't do that by undercropping and encoding black bars..... ;-)
I only see that when I do analogue captures... but that's not very often these days anymore.

[Ghitulescu]

.... often there's a black row or two of pixels at the top or bottom which only make it half way across the picture (anyone know what causes that?). ....

I only see that when I do analogue captures... but that's not very often these days anymore.

Did any of you bother to see the specs for PAL or NTSC systems and find out what are those 2 incomplete lines? :devil::rolleyes::devil::rolleyes:
They are part of the standard.

[GodofaGap]

Did any of you bother to see the specs for PAL or NTSC systems and find out what are those 2 incomplete lines? :devil::rolleyes::devil::rolleyes:
Nope.

[Ghitulescu]

:) :) :)

[kypec]

Did any of you bother to see the specs for PAL or NTSC systems and find out what are those 2 incomplete lines? :devil::rolleyes::devil::rolleyes:
They are part of the standard.
Then how come that only some commercial DVDs exhibit this "standard" behaviour and some don't? :devil:
Yeah, those incomplete lines drive me crazy too, and I've only like
22" CRT TV...:mad:

[Ghitulescu]

Those with 2 halves are full. The others are matted versions.

You shouldn't be able to see those (part of the overscan) but it's possible to appear, depending on the editing.

[kypec]

Halved lines are only visible in 16:9 (widescreen) titles on my 4:3 CRT TV as there must be obviously big horizontal black bars added to top & bottom of the widescreen picture.

[Ghitulescu]

This is the most obvious situation. I should have mentioned from the beginning, but I thought that people have now only widescreens. :rolleyes:

[yetanotherid]

Those with 2 halves are full. The others are matted versions.

You shouldn't be able to see those (part of the overscan) but it's possible to appear, depending on the editing.

What if you're playing back via a PC and have the video card adjusted to eliminate any overscanning?

Maybe that's why I don't mind cropping off a few pixels here and there if necessary to eliminate any aspect ratio error. Especially from the sides. I'm probably cropping off less bits than are falling off the screen for most people anyway. :)

[yetanotherid]

Well if black is not really black that's probably bot good, but if you like the way your monitor looks don't change it for me. :)
It doesn't have to be your monitor though, it can also be a PC range<-> TV range renderer issue.

It must be me. I've got two PCs hooked up to the same two 22" monitors (each is dual input) and it's all the same. Then again I did set up the monitors for ease of reading text primarily.
Mind you I've tried using ffdshow to adjust contrast/brightness/gamma many times and always given up. If I were to make black blacker then I've got to bump up the brightness etc to compensate or the picture's too dark, but then I spend the entire video watching the XviD/x264 compression at work. I've never been able to find the happy setting which doesn't reveal dark areas as blocks of varying shades of dark etc.

I have done something similar but then within ffdshow. I always let it expand the frame to a 16:9 ration. This means everything wider than 16:9 gets letterboxed, and everything narrower (e.g. 4:3) gets pillarboxed. This makes it easier when I watch the video on my TV cause I can always leave it on 'widescreen'-mode without having to worry it is going to trigger one of those auto adjust modes. The other advantage, like you said, is that for 2.35:1 the subtitles appear partly in the black area.

What do you use for a media player? I just use MPC on the PC but I'm about to setup a widescreen TV for someone running off a PC so I'm looking for something more "sitting on the other side of the room with a remote" friendly. So far I've had a brief play with GB-PVR, Media Portal and XBMC but not really ventured much into what they'll do.
I'll keep your ffdshow trick in mind.

I still haven't got round to seeing any specs for PAL/NTSC systems yet, but I've been meaning too..... :)

[Ghitulescu]

What if you're playing back via a PC and have the video card adjusted to eliminate any overscanning?

Maybe that's why I don't mind cropping off a few pixels here and there if necessary to eliminate any aspect ratio error. Especially from the sides. I'm probably cropping off less bits than are falling off the screen for most people anyway. :)

You can't eliminate the overscanning from PAL/NTSC/SECAM signals. Yes, there are professional monitors that allows you this (underscan, quite logic ;)). On the other hand, the VGA connection is not PAL/NTSC, is something else. Those cards with TV-out either output a cropped image (eg the START button is missing in windows) or add themselves black borders (with forced rescaling of the content, as the original 576 lines have to be squashed into some 520-540). Either way, bad!!!! Besides, the technicians usually know about overscan and use it creatively....

Why are you so obsessed by those 2 halflines? The core of the action is somewhere else, you know ;)

[GodofaGap]

What do you use for a media player?
For the TV just WMC + Media Control to enable proper seeking and audio/subtitle switching for MKVs. I rarely watch video on the PC, and WMP seems to suffice for me there.

[yetanotherid]

Why are you so obsessed by those 2 halflines? The core of the action is somewhere else, you know ;)

I watch a lot of video on the computer monitor and I can see them and they annoy the &^$* out of me.
I think it's some obsessive, compulsive, neatness disorder which, as long as everything inside my PC is neat, orderly and free of half lines, allows me to go for months at a time without mowing the lawn or trimming the edges.

For the TV just WMC + Media Control to enable proper seeking and audio/subtitle switching for MKVs. I rarely watch video on the PC, and WMP seems to suffice for me there.

I guess I'll keep investigating then. Even just for watching stuff on the PC I can't bring myself to use WMP, I dislike it so much. In fact I almost didn't install one of the media players I referred to as it required me to upgrade WMP to version 11. I still had version 9 (or whichever one comes with XP) installed on this PC and if I've ever run it, it's been by accident.

[Ghitulescu]

I watch a lot of video on the computer monitor and I can see them and they annoy the &^$* out of me.
I think it's some obsessive, compulsive, neatness disorder which, as long as everything inside my PC is neat, orderly and free of half lines, allows me to go for months at a time without mowing the lawn or trimming the edges.

There are some conclusions to be drawn:
1. never use a device for improper uses - in your case, don't use the PC for watching movies, it was not designed to do so, better use a standalone - HDTV is practically the first real step in harmonizing PC and video.
2. you can design from scratch your own TV standard and use it. Be however prepared for lots of conversions and odd issues.

[GodofaGap]

I guess I'll keep investigating then. Even just for watching stuff on the PC I can't bring myself to use WMP, I dislike it so much. In fact I almost didn't install one of the media players I referred to as it required me to upgrade WMP to version 11. I still had version 9 (or whichever one comes with XP) installed on this PC and if I've ever run it, it's been by accident.
I think there was good reason to criticize WMP in versions earlier and while there are definitely better players out there, I really think the current one is not bad as a basic player. If I watched all my movies on the PC I probably wouldn't use it, but like I said, the times I watch movies on my PC are very rare and usually only for checking something. I can't really stand sitting behind a PC screen doing nothing for more than 90 minutes.

[2Bdecided]

What do you use for a media player? I just use MPC on the PC
I watch a lot of video on the computer monitor and I can see them and they annoy the &^$* out of me.I think if you press "9" on the numeric keypad in MPC, it'll zoom the image a tiny amount, cropping the half-lines in the process. Job done. Press more to crop more (if you need to).

I might be wrong about the number - try them all! I think 5 resets it if you find you've done something strange.

Cheers,
David.

[yetanotherid]

There are some conclusions to be drawn:
1. never use a device for improper uses - in your case, don't use the PC for watching movies, it was not designed to do so, better use a standalone - HDTV is practically the first real step in harmonizing PC and video.

Aside from revealing a few half lines which I can crop off anyway, and aside from not having format/codec issues to worry about when using a PC, and aside from easily being able to fix aspect ratios errors as well as audio sync problems, what exactly is the advantage of using a standalone unit rather than the PC? I mean, the PC certainly seems to display the video well and the picture quality looks fine to me. What are all the people with home theatre PCs missing out on?

2. you can design from scratch your own TV standard and use it. Be however prepared for lots of conversions and odd issues.

I guess I could if cropping off an extra couple of lines when converting wasn't so much easier. Wouldn't designing my own TV standard be a bit like owning a car with an old radio and deciding to design a whole car from scratch rather than just replace the radio in the car I already own?

[Ghitulescu]

Aside from revealing a few half lines which I can crop off anyway, and aside from not having format/codec issues to worry about when using a PC, and aside from easily being able to fix aspect ratios errors as well as audio sync problems, what exactly is the advantage of using a standalone unit rather than the PC? I mean, the PC certainly seems to display the video well and the picture quality looks fine to me. What are all the people with home theatre PCs missing out on?
First of all a standalone according to today's standards resembles more to a PC than anything else. However, unlike a PC which generally runs Windows on CISC CPUs, the standalones use Realtime OSes (some of them based on various flavours of linux) running on RISCs. This is very important.

Secondly, the HW manufacturers have to buy the specs and to licence all the technologies they use and don't own. If PowerDVD (as an example) generates a BSOD, the dead cat is thrown in the Microsofts' yard, which in turn throw it back claiming not-compliance. A manufacturer has not this excuse at hand. This however does not prevent the manufacturers to throw "beta" devices on the market and using the customer as the quality control dept., each revision being formed by a Firmware.

Thirdly, the PC is much too versatile and this is its Achilles' heel. The SW creators (eg Microsoft), the HW manufacturers and suppliers (eg Intel) and the media publishers (eg Warner) worked hand in hand to kill its potential. As an example, any new PC ('98 onwards) was obliged to fulfil the requirements of PC98 for audio; while generous, PC98 imposed a mandatory resampling of all audio to 48kHz (bye bye CD Audio, unless an official hack, ASIO, appeared from a 3rd party). For video, the situation hasn't changed in good either, see eg the HDMI/HDCP issues. On top of these, the PC as a system is extremely complex and thus prone to errors of various origins, hard to diagnose unless one is an expert. One doesn't need to be an expert to use a standalone.

Then there's the input strategy: a standalone has no mouse, but a keypad and a remote (some PCs are driven by a remote, too). The use is generally unitarian among the products of the same manufacturers. However, for some 15+ years the manufacturers also decided that a MENU is needed to save some bucks and called it an ergonomic solution. Damn.

Until the advent of HDTV (which brought a lot of problems, not only technical but also legal), it was not so easy to connect a PC to a TV, even using a TV-out-enabled-graphic card. For audio, the HF inferno within the case made them inappropriate for music (some of them even picked up the HDD spinning noise or that of a CD drive).

And probably not at all the last item, a PC equipped with the right HW (audio card, video card, drivers, software) would cost probably 3x more than a standalone with better specs. I still have to find the PC that beats the 100€ (now) Sony BDP-S360 both in easy to use and price.

The only advantage of the PC might be that it may play formats a standalone would/could/will not support. However, except for those people that use bitmaps to create an animation in a strange format, all video sources an user can create follow the industry standards (camcorder, fotoaparat) and most of the other "gray zone" sources (like SAT, DVB-T etc.) also follow the industry standards. So, the alleged advantage of the PC disappears, since converting a DVD into DivX or a CD into MP3 is, erh, hmm, something done to get you occupied, not a functional requirement. It's like going from Arlington to Washington via Chicago and arguing "See, this is the advantage of the airplane over the car, it's much more convenient to fly than to drive". Why complicate things?

I guess I could if cropping off an extra couple of lines when converting wasn't so much easier. Wouldn't designing my own TV standard be a bit like owning a car with an old radio and deciding to design a whole car from scratch rather than just replace the radio in the car I already own?Actually if the carradio was a Becker Mexico it might be worth rebuilding the car around it ;)

The point was really this one, if something bothers you, either change it or don't use it (pick an alternative).

[yetanotherid]

First of all a standalone according to today's standards resembles more to a PC than anything else. However, unlike a PC which generally runs Windows on CISC CPUs, the standalones use Realtime OSes (some of them based on various flavours of linux) running on RISCs. This is very important.

Well I guess we could argue the pros and cons of PCs v standalone units all day, but none of it would change the fact my PC works perfectly as a media player, which to me kind of negates any argument that I shouldn't be using it for that purpose.

I could argue the PC is designed to play video in the same way a standalone unit is, unless the video card and software media player manufacturers etc designed their products for other purposes and the fact they combine to play video is only some fortunate accident.

I can't say I'd buy the "kill it's potential" argument given the types of potential-killing restrictions which have been placed on standalone units since the days of VHS. There's certainly a far greater likelihood of being able to play a region restricted DVD or work around any HDMI/HDCP issues when using a PC than there is when using a standalone player.

Granted, a PC is complex and prone to errors which can be hard to diagnose as a result, but one certainly doesn't need to be an expert to understand that if a standalone unit won't play a particular file there's not much likelihood of being able to do anything about it. Unless of course you use a complex and error prone PC to modify the file, or to convert the video into a format a non-expert can play using a standalone player.

Yes, my PC is no doubt more expensive than a standalone unit, but that doesn't seem like a sound argument for spending more money on a standalone unit in order to do a job the PC is already capable of doing. Not to mention the fact that older PCs can continue to have a useful life as media playback devices after they've been replaced by newer models, further reducing the need for spending additional money on a dedicated media player.

Yes, a PC can be noisy, and when building one for media playback that can be taken into consideration, but along with any input strategy arguments, it's more of a function v form choice than a reason for arguing a device is being used for a purpose for which it wasn't intended to be used. I'd rather use a mouse and navigation bar to jump 30 minutes into a video than to use a fast forward button or enter a time code into a menu any day.

I don't understand the argument that converting a DVD into DivX or a CD into MP3 is something done to get you occupied, rather than a functional requirement. Not unless you've found a method of playing CDs on your ipod, or a way to fit hundreds of DVDs in your pocket, and even if it could be argued that's just something to keep you occupied, you'd have to concede sitting through tedious menus and watching mind numbing FBI warnings over and over doesn't exactly fit into a functional requirement category.

Then of course there's those dedicated units which happily record content but don't provide any method of moving the content they record onto another device, even if the device you want to move it to happens not to be a PC.

It's like going from Arlington to Washington via Chicago and arguing "See, this is the advantage of the airplane over the car, it's much more convenient to fly than to drive". Why complicate things?

Why not just stay in Arlington and not bother getting out of bed?
I'm not sure I understand the analogy, or how having hundreds of songs sitting on a hard drive ready to play is ultimately more complicated than hunting through a CD collection and changing discs every time you want to listen to a couple of songs. Or how a standalone CD player is going to play the music you bought online without the added the complication of burning it to a disc first. I'm not sure how streaming video from one room to another is necessarily less convenient, or how removing the hard drive from a caddy connected to the PC in the bedroom and dropping it into a caddy connected to the PC in the family room is a convenience negated by the degree of complication involved.

The point was really this one, if something bothers you, either change it or don't use it (pick an alternative).

A point based on an assumption, I assume, that changing it or not using it won't bother me even more? But cropping off a couple of uneven lines while I'm already cropping isn't really too much extra bother.

[Ghitulescu]

I said my opionion, you said yours. I'm happy with mine, you're happy with yours.:)

:)

I could bring new arguments in the favour of mine. You could bring new arguments in the favour of yours.

:)

I could bring killer arguments against yours, you could bring killer arguments against mine.

As long as everyone uses what s/he likes, there's no point in argueing. I think we can stop here.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Well this topic looks as good as done now!

That is until somebody else raises the exact same subject in a few months time...

[yetanotherid]

Well this topic looks as good as done now!
That is until somebody else raises the exact same subject in a few months time...

Did I mention the fact that the majority of DVDs don't use the ITU resize method? :D

[2Bdecided]

I could argue the PC is designed to play video in the same way a standalone unit is, unless the video card and software media player manufacturers etc designed their products for other purposes and the fact they combine to play video is only some fortunate accident.Do you live in the USA. If so, chances are you can't even begin to imagine the pain involved in making PCs play 50Hz (PAL / European) content properly. Maybe you don't even know that 99% of PC monitors won't even display each frame from a 50Hz video once each (or the same number of times each).

Cheers,
David.

[Ghitulescu]

I can't say I'd buy the "kill it's potential" argument given the types of potential-killing restrictions which have been placed on standalone units since the days of VHS. There's certainly a far greater likelihood of being able to play a region restricted DVD or work around any HDMI/HDCP issues when using a PC than there is when using a standalone player.
I have to explain myself a bit. For people that use the PC to play MP3 and divx/xvid&co (obtained from commercial or home made audio / video sources that observe the industrial standards) it would make no difference and most of them do not notice the changes the signal is subjected while travelling the internal paths. Yes, the PC may unlock several "locks"* in order to be what you said it is.
I use the PC as a tool, and these subtle restrictions are extremely annoying. And also I use pro tools, they cost more but they don't obey or need copy protections (would make no sense in a studio, would they?)
I don't understand the argument that converting a DVD into DivX or a CD into MP3 is something done to get you occupied, rather than a functional requirement. Not unless you've found a method of playing CDs on your ipod, or a way to fit hundreds of DVDs in your pocket, and even if it could be argued that's just something to keep you occupied, you'd have to concede sitting through tedious menus and watching mind numbing FBI warnings over and over doesn't exactly fit into a functional requirement category.
Well playing the music or videos on an iPod is not exactly playing on a PC, yeah? ;). Besides, once the PC was used to removed the FBI warning, no standalone would ever bother you with these warnings. No PC I know, in its "genuine" state, would let you skip these warnings, the software players must also enforce the DVD standards.
Then of course there's those dedicated units which happily record content but don't provide any method of moving the content they record onto another device, even if the device you want to move it to happens not to be a PC.
That's why I always insisted on using industrial formats. I see no point in converting a DVD into an AVI (it's less than 1 cent per DVD storage on a 1TB HDD), unless there are other reasons (I'm not going further). The standards always have provided a method to play the last-but-one generation formats (BD plays DVD, DVD plays VCD, S-VHS plays VHS, Hi8 plays Video8, HDV plays DV and so on).

* A DVD or a BD drive must be hacked in order to eliminate say both the regional/zonal code and the rip-lock (generally 2x). Normal drives are "killed" to reuse my words.

A software/hardware combination needs to be hacked again in order to "simulate" an uninterrupted HDCP-chain, or bye-bye HDTV on a PC. Failure to complain (which is most of the time with preinstalled SW/HW) means no HDTV but downscaled to SDTV.

The PC HW/SW must be hacked or bypassed in order to provide a bit-perfect pass-through for digital audio (say digital-out from a CD drive to optical-out of the soundcard). It's not possible with any PC98-compliant PC or newer in its native state.

Since Microsoft "forgot" to implement the CI interface, no PayTV can be watched (legally) on any XP computer or newer. One needs to hack it.

Do I need to continue? Do you know how many times have you broken the laws in order to make your PC able to play whatever you like with no restrictions?

[yetanotherid]

I have to explain myself a bit.

Are you able to offer an explanation which provides an explanation? :)

I use the PC as a tool, and these subtle restrictions are extremely annoying. And also I use pro tools, they cost more but they don't obey or need copy protections (would make no sense in a studio, would they?)

So there's a line I'm not seeing which allows a PC to be used to create media, but not to play the media it created? That's odd.
What about the "never use a device for improper use" argument? Was the PC designed to be a recording studio, or a movie studio etc, or has the hardware and software designed to give it that functionality succeeded in a way the hardware and software designed to enable playback of that media has failed?

Well playing the music or videos on an iPod is not exactly playing on a PC, yeah?

No, but I can't imagine why you think I said it was. You stated that converting media served no purpose other than to keep you occupied, and I pointed out a genuine purpose.

Besides, once the PC was used to removed the FBI warning, no standalone would ever bother you with these warnings. No PC I know, in its "genuine" state, would let you skip these warnings, the software players must also enforce the DVD standards.

Which makes sitting through FBI warnings a functional requirement of watching a movie how exactly?

That's why I always insisted on using industrial formats.

I'm not sure insisting on industrial formats is an argument for not using a PC to play non-industrial formats.... or for playing industrial formats for that matter.

I see no point in converting a DVD into an AVI (it's less than 1 cent per DVD storage on a 1TB HDD), unless there are other reasons (I'm not going further). The standards always have provided a method to play the last-but-one generation formats (BD plays DVD, DVD plays VCD, S-VHS plays VHS, Hi8 plays Video8, HDV plays DV and so on).

Which is all very nice, but doesn't allow me to play the BD I just rented on my DVD player. Of course I could buy a standalone BD unit, but I'm still waiting for a compelling argument for not using the BD drive I already have in my PC.
The ability of my smart phone to play AVIs is just one reason for converting my DVDs to AVI, and as for industry standards.... well that just changes according to demand. You'd probably have to go out of your way to find a DVD which doesn't play AVIs these days and no doubt BD players capable of playing MKV and/or MP4 files etc won't be far behind. I guess you can thank the thousands of people who aren't insistent on sticking to industrial standards for the fact your phone can use an MP3 as a ringtone or your ipod can play MP4s. Although where's the "industrial standards" line you've drawn? Are there enough DivX capable DVD players for DivX to be considered a standard, or are you still waiting?

A DVD or a BD drive must be hacked in order to eliminate say both the regional/zonal code and the rip-lock (generally 2x). Normal drives are "killed" to reuse my words.

When you say "hacked" I assume you're emotionally referring to "unlocking"? Unlocking being a function built into almost every unit by their manufacturers who wish to appear to be following the "rules" dictated to them, but who in reality know users don't want to be inflicted with those sorts of limitations?
I really don't understand how the word "killed" could be used to describe a device which has certain feature limitations removed.

A software/hardware combination needs to be hacked again in order to "simulate" an uninterrupted HDCP-chain, or bye-bye HDTV on a PC. Failure to complain (which is most of the time with preinstalled SW/HW) means no HDTV but downscaled to SDTV.

Even so, if doing so works and allows the PC to play HD video, how's that an argument for not using a device for a function for which it wasn't intended? Or should you not use an "unlocked" DVD player either because it wasn't intended to be unlocked?

Since Microsoft "forgot" to implement the CI interface, no PayTV can be watched (legally) on any XP computer or newer. One needs to hack it.

I thought there were plenty of pay TV friendly PC, TV tuner cards?

Do I need to continue?

Yeah.... I think you do.

Do you know how many times have you broken the laws in order to make your PC able to play whatever you like with no restrictions?

No I don't. Which laws have I broken? Australian laws of course, as that's where I live.
And just out of curiosity, why doesn't your professional software break those same laws as it ignores the copy protection on your own copy protected media?

One thing still hasn't changed. Despite your arguments against it, my PC still works perfectly as a playback device for all my media, oblivious to the fact you don't think it was intended for that use and I therefore should not be using it that way.
I must admit I'm so used to using the PC incorrectly, when on the odd occasion I do take out a CD to play it, I feel like I've stepped back into the dark ages. You remember those bad old days.... when music shuffle was a description reserved for carousel CD players with ten discs in their drive, and every time you watched a movie you were forced to sit through advertisements and FBI warnings first. You've got to love those industry standards. ;)

[Ghitulescu]

Which is all very nice, but doesn't allow me to play the BD I just rented on my DVD player. Of course I could buy a standalone BD unit, but I'm still waiting for a compelling argument for not using the BD drive I already have in my PC.
The ability of my smart phone to play AVIs is just one reason for converting my DVDs to AVI, and as for industry standards.... well that just changes according to demand. You'd probably have to go out of your way to find a DVD which doesn't play AVIs these days and no doubt BD players capable of playing MKV and/or MP4 files etc won't be far behind. I guess you can thank the thousands of people who aren't insistent on sticking to industrial standards for the fact your phone can use an MP3 as a ringtone or your ipod can play MP4s. Although where's the "industrial standards" line you've drawn? Are there enough DivX capable DVD players for DivX to be considered a standard, or are you still waiting?
AVI is not an industry standard, BTW. Neither divx, despite being licensed (for standalones) thru Divx networks if I'm not mistaken. An industry standard is generally issued as a standard (ITU, JIT, SMPTE, AES, EBU and so on), sorry for the unfortunate repetition.
Why doesn't your phone play DVDs or WAV (CD-rips) if the demand was so high? Why the iPod plays only MP4s? Is Jobs not listening to what his customers want? Why do the music portals sell compressed music only? Answer: because people wanted it, and why would the studios stop people going bulk wise in the wrong direction?
When you say "hacked" I assume you're emotionally referring to "unlocking"? Unlocking being a function built into almost every unit by their manufacturers who wish to appear to be following the "rules" dictated to them, but who in reality know users don't want to be inflicted with those sorts of limitations?
That's circumventing of technological means and bla bla, Australia signed already AFAIK the protocol and this is valid in AU too. Any door, any safety means (alarms and so on) have a backdoor, just in case the owner forgot the pass or the key. Hacking the door or the safety alarm is when one doesn't have the right to do this. Both the rip-lock and the region hack have not been implemented as "on/off", "enable/disable" features, cracking them necessitated people to know the architecture, to trace the commands and registers and so on. An on/off feature is eg the CD speed at some Plextors, one can press Eject for some seconds to enable or to disable it. RCE and Riplock are not this kind. RCE on standalones are generally a method of quick "relabelling" marchandises designed for one market to another one, PAL UK gear (Region 2) to Australia (R4) or Russia (R5), NTSC JP (R2) to US (R1) and so on, without the need to open the case, reprogram the EEPROM, repack the device. For 10.000 pieces that could be days or weeks.

I thought there were plenty of pay TV friendly PC, TV tuner cards? You'd be surprised. The limitation is in software, and no driver can pass through the HAL. So, unless MS would bring a KBxxxxxx patch, or the HW manufacturers would find a hack/alternative (illegal, they can be sued by MS under DMCA), not a single chance. The paytv decoding can be done in SW only, using so called softcams, and since a softcam usually cannot access a subscription card, makes it illegal.
And just out of curiosity, why doesn't your professional software break those same laws as it ignores the copy protection on your own copy protected media?
They are designed to create music and videos, that is people using them are the copyright holders. You'd be surprised to find out how many generations a video can stand before it reaches you. Copy control is for distribution formats (CD, DVD, BD) and for end users.
One thing still hasn't changed. Despite your arguments against it, my PC still works perfectly as a playback device for all my media, oblivious to the fact you don't think it was intended for that use and I therefore should not be using it that way.
.... and every time you watched a movie you were forced to sit through advertisements and FBI warnings first.
Nope, I use the PC to "detoxify" the DVD. As a tool. Then it can be played everywhere, on a PC too. But your PC still plays the FBI warnings, because PUOs are part of the DVD specs and unless one hacks it, they will be displayed and unskippable.
You've got to love those industry standards. ;)Yes, I do, they assure me the compatibility and playability across systems and technologies. As I explained above, in a previous message: one can pack the VCD, unaltered, in a DVD structure and live happy. DVD content can be remuxed into a BD structure and played back by any BD player. I am assured for one generation.

There was a chaos with all the codecs a PC needed to play all the formats (99.999% transcodes from DVDs, the rest from SAT and TV recordings) people used for the last 10 years. Codecs incompatible one to each other, crashes, new betas etc. Several people packed the most compatible codecs in "packs" like the CCCP one. Spend 5 minutes to search doom9 for the guides that specifically ask "before xxx please remove any codec packs you have installed". That's too much work for little gain.

[yetanotherid]

Why doesn't your phone play DVDs or WAV (CD-rips) if the demand was so high?

Errr.... because it's not. Who'd want to play a DVD disc with their phone or spend hundreds of dollars more for a device with enough memory to hold an equal number of songs as wave files rather than MP3s? Of course if you want to play wave files you can spend the money on a device with a miniature hard drive but most people are happy with a cheaper device which plays MP3s. Demand, supply and price all factor into the equation.

RCE on standalones are generally a method of quick "relabelling" marchandises designed for one market to another one, PAL UK gear (Region 2) to Australia (R4) or Russia (R5), NTSC JP (R2) to US (R1) and so on, without the need to open the case, reprogram the EEPROM, repack the device. For 10.000 pieces that could be days or weeks.

So these devices aren't being "killed" after all? Or do they suffer a different type of death depending on the intended market?

You'd be surprised. The limitation is in software, and no driver can pass through the HAL. So, unless MS would bring a KBxxxxxx patch, or the HW manufacturers would find a hack/alternative (illegal, they can be sued by MS under DMCA), not a single chance. The paytv decoding can be done in SW only, using so called softcams, and since a softcam usually cannot access a subscription card, makes it illegal.

Really?? You better explain that to the "industry standard" CableLabs as they seem to be under the impression that's what the CableCard is for.
http://www.cablelabs.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CableCARD
http://www.amd.com/us/products/pctv/tv-wonder-tuners/Pages/digital-cable-tuner.aspx

They are designed to create music and videos, that is people using them are the copyright holders. You'd be surprised to find out how many generations a video can stand before it reaches you. Copy control is for distribution formats (CD, DVD, BD) and for end users.

So you're the copyright holder of all the media which you modify with your software?
To be honest, I'd find it unlikely that even "professional" software could open and modify DRM protected media, but you didn't really answer the question as to whether your use of the software breaks laws in the same way you're claiming I break them.

Nope, I use the PC to "detoxify" the DVD. As a tool.

That's interesting. I use it for the same reason. Do you think though that's what the PC was designed to do? If the answer's no, then why can you use it for that purpose if I can't use it to play the media as well?

Yes, I do, they assure me the compatibility and playability across systems and technologies. As I explained above, in a previous message: one can pack the VCD, unaltered, in a DVD structure and live happy. DVD content can be remuxed into a BD structure and played back by any BD player. I am assured for one generation.

That'd have to be the definition of "too much work for little gain" wouldn't it?

There was a chaos with all the codecs a PC needed to play all the formats (99.999% transcodes from DVDs, the rest from SAT and TV recordings) people used for the last 10 years. Codecs incompatible one to each other, crashes, new betas etc. Several people packed the most compatible codecs in "packs" like the CCCP one. Spend 5 minutes to search doom9 for the guides that specifically ask "before xxx please remove any codec packs you have installed". That's too much work for little gain.

It's also irrelevant to the argument as to whether a PC was intended to be used as a media device and whether you should be using it as one.
Codec problems are pretty trivial when it comes down to it. And as you pointed out, these days codec packs such as CCCP make it easy. I use CCCP myself. If it's too hard, use a media player which only uses it's own internal codecs rather than system codecs.
Too much work for too little gain is having to convert video to DVD format and burn it to disc so I can watch in on the TV when my PC can play it "as is" and it's already hooked up to the TV. I'm still not seeing the argument as to why I shouldn't use it.

I am seeing an argument based on some line you've drawn which allows a PC to be used as a tool, under a definition which allows it's use as a tool for purposes convenient to you, but one which stops short of allowing it to be used as a tool for playback, based in no small part on an argument for sticking to industry standards... yet of all the possible playback devices a PC is the one most likely to cope with non-industry, non-standards..... and I've still no reason to believe the quality of media is going to suffer for having been played on a PC instead of a standalone device... and my PC is still playing all the media I want it to play even if that's not the purpose for which it was intended. No extra work for any further gain required.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Both you guys are way off-topic now...

[Ghitulescu]

I suggest a mod to move if possible (if not then we can copy/paste the rhetoric ourselves and let him/her delete these posts from here) to a new thread I created on this purpose here -> http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1450062&postcount=1

[GodofaGap]

Well playing the music or videos on an iPod is not exactly playing on a PC, yeah? ;). Besides, once the PC was used to removed the FBI warning, no standalone would ever bother you with these warnings. No PC I know, in its "genuine" state, would let you skip these warnings, the software players must also enforce the DVD standards.
A PC in its "genuine" state doesn't really do anything then start up and then complain there is nothing to boot. There is no reason why a software DVD player *must* enforce the complete DVD standard. There are some things you'd better support (like decoding MPEG2), but not allowing to skip some content is not one of them.

That's why I always insisted on using industrial formats. I see no point in converting a DVD into an AVI (it's less than 1 cent per DVD storage on a 1TB HDD)
I can't do anything but frown at the "storage is cheap" comments you see so often nowadays. If I can keep the functionality and quality of the DVD at a level I want for perhaps between 1/4 or 1/6 of the original size, I'm still going to pay a lot less on storage than you. Perhaps you have money growing inside your pockets, but I'd rather spend it on other things. :)