It's because it's protected that you can't record it.
The concern is that the digital signal can be intercepted between the device outputting the signal, and the device displaying it. A box could built that would go between the output and the input. This would output the digital stream to a recorder, or HD.
Sorry; I don't agree. Even if HDMI had no DRM, a box that could record it would be ridiculously expensive. (e.g. there is one piece of equipment on the market that can record DVI, and it costs ~$1,700 and you have to have a ~$2,000 PC to plug it into.)
I like the bandwidth 16Gbps sounds like overkill but at this rate UHD 4k resolution should be possible.
What I'd love to see in a universal connection is the ability to have 3 different types.
UDI-V- Video only
UDI-AV Audio and Video
UDI-AVP Audio,Video and Power
That way you'd match the appropriate cable to the environment. For smaller devices the AVP cable could provide say 10 watts of power or less. Perfect for powering portable devices or phones with screens on them.
The cable should be fairly thin, as it is. The advantage to having one spec, is that it is cheaper to implement, simpler to stock, and easier for the consumer to buy.
You know all of the problems people have in trying to figure out which Firewire or USB cable to get.
First you pretend that you will be able to do what can't be done
I don't have a TV, I don't have a radio, and I'm quite happy copying stuff off the Internet and renting and buying it in forms I know I can use the way I want, whether non-DRM or with breakable DRM. Where's the "pretend" in this?
In all likelyhood I'll eventually buy a display that supports DRM'd input, but that doesn't mean I need to feed it DRM'd input. Similarly, I'll eventually buy a computer that has DRM'd output when using the official software. Doesn't mean I need to use the official software.
As for stripping the new protection off, adapters to remove HDCP from DVI were already for sale a while ago.
Quote:
and then you pretend that pirating isn't the reason DRM was invented.
I said nothing of the kind. It is entirely plausible it was invented for that. But the DRM in products today doesn't have anything to do with piracy. It has little to do with copyright infringement through P2P. It is there to stop fair use, to stop competition, and to stop casual copyright infringement (say, copying content and selling the original media forward). Piracy is not a reason for putting DRM on content today.
How about the fact that the current official spec of HDMI doesn't support 1080p? And doesn't have enough actual bandwidth for HDCP? It's all "theoretical" Seach "1080p only vga" on google and you'll find out all about it.
HDMI connections suck, I should know I have a $7.5k 67" 1080p samsung television. HDMI audio is crappy, and support for channels is limited, and the bandwidth in "theory" should support HDCP but in reality it can't even drive 1080p properly.
HDMI was doomed from the start.
[
QUOTE]Originally posted by hmurchison
I can't find their website.
I don't see what UDI does that HDMI doesn't already.
HDMI
Supports Audio,Video and RGB
Supports HDCP
Supports DVI signals
Supports longer cable lengths
What this sounds like is a group of vendors that want the industry to again move to "yet another connection" I want to see hard proof that this UDI connection is worthy of the long and arduous process of upgrading components again. [/QUOTE]
I don't have a TV, I don't have a radio, and I'm quite happy copying stuff off the Internet and renting and buying it in forms I know I can use the way I want, whether non-DRM or with breakable DRM. Where's the "pretend" in this?
In all likelyhood I'll eventually buy a display that supports DRM'd input, but that doesn't mean I need to feed it DRM'd input. Similarly, I'll eventually buy a computer that has DRM'd output when using the official software. Doesn't mean I need to use the official software.
As for stripping the new protection off, adapters to remove HDCP from DVI were already for sale a while ago.I said nothing of the kind. It is entirely plausible it was invented for that. But the DRM in products today doesn't have anything to do with piracy. It has little to do with copyright infringement through P2P. It is there to stop fair use, to stop competition, and to stop casual copyright infringement (say, copying content and selling the original media forward). Piracy is not a reason for putting DRM on content today.
Since when does DVI have HDCP? One of the reasons for HDMI's existence is the HDCP. DVI has no specs in place for it. I'd like to see those adapters you are talking about. It sounds like a scam.
There was always pirating of content once recorders were invented for the public. But, computers have made it so much easier that the companies are in a panic over it.
It's almost impossible to catch the major pirate's who are in Russia, China, and other places where it is done with the silent agreement of the state. Therefore they go after the end user who does it without even thinking that it's wrong. They stop it where they can.
Is it heavihanded? Sure. but it will be a fact of life whether we like it or not.
All we can do is to try to convince them to make it fair; to protect our usage well as their income.
Stop making shit up. Seriously. I have a computer on it with Vista running right now, with gasp wmv 10HD movie playing on my apple cinema display and spanning across a crappy 19" dell lcd from 6 years ago..
Vista WILL support HDCP, meaning for content that is in HDCP you need a new display, this is part of the HDCP specification and has nothing to do with microsoft. Anybody who, anyone is going to support HDCP otherwise when the networks start sending HDCP content, your screwed.
Stop using your hatred of microsoft to spread idiotic lies
HDCP is a content protection scheme, if a network doesn't use it then you will be able to watch HD without it, if they do you'll need it. HDCP also also for non-hdcp enable devices to send other content, this could be a SECOND HD signal or a standard or lower resolution video, it's up to the networks..
It has nothing to do with the hdcp spec itself.
Quote:
Originally posted by hmurchison
Vista won't support HD playback unless you have a HDCP monitor. Expect Apple to follow suit.
Now this doesn't mean your own high def content recorded on your red.com camera won't playback. It just means that HDCP protected content won't play.
Sucks but that's the future. I just hope they don't lock stuff down so much that you can't utilize your music for personal reasons (ie adding soundtracks to your imovie files) .
I'm all for protecting artists rights but then again the idea of selling music to me taints the art or at the least some buffoon in a suit selling it.
Sorry; I don't agree. Even if HDMI had no DRM, a box that could record it would be ridiculously expensive. (e.g. there is one piece of equipment on the market that can record DVI, and it costs ~$1,700 and you have to have a ~$2,000 PC to plug it into.)
The box doesn't have to record anything. All it has to do is to intercept the signal and convert it to a standard format. That's pretty cheap to do. The recording gets done in your computer. You don't meed a Miranda, or other pro piece of equipment to do it. A couple of hundred bucks would be all it would have to cost. Not much more complex than the $119 Firewire to S-Video/audio boxes out there now.
How about the fact that the current official spec of HDMI doesn't support 1080p? And doesn't have enough actual bandwidth for HDCP? It's all "theoretical" Seach "1080p only vga" on google and you'll find out all about it.
HDMI connections suck, I should know I have a $7.5k 67" 1080p samsung television. HDMI audio is crappy, and support for channels is limited, and the bandwidth in "theory" should support HDCP but in reality it can't even drive 1080p properly.
HDMI was doomed from the start.
[
QUOTE]Originally posted by hmurchison
I can't find their website.
I don't see what UDI does that HDMI doesn't already.
HDMI
Supports Audio,Video and RGB
Supports HDCP
Supports DVI signals
Supports longer cable lengths
What this sounds like is a group of vendors that want the industry to again move to "yet another connection" I want to see hard proof that this UDI connection is worthy of the long and arduous process of upgrading components again.
[/QUOTE]
Except that isn't quite true.
My Hp MD6580n 65" 1080p DLP set supports 1080p through its HDMI connector, and others are following shortly.
Sony announced a month or so ago that Blu-Ray recordings will be encoded on 1080p, and will require, as we all know, HDMI.
Back on topic, I think it's high time the large, fragile and cumbersome VGA and DVI connectors and cables are replaced, and the legacy poor-definition TV connectors go away. I also like hmurchison's V/AV/AVP cable idea if it was able to reduce cords, but what devices would it suit best? Wireless A/V bridges?
Stop making shit up. Seriously. I have a computer on it with Vista running right now, with gasp wmv 10HD movie playing on my apple cinema display and spanning across a crappy 19" dell lcd from 6 years ago..
Vista WILL support HDCP, meaning for content that is in HDCP you need a new display, this is part of the HDCP specification and has nothing to do with microsoft. Anybody who, anyone is going to support HDCP otherwise when the networks start sending HDCP content, your screwed.
Stop using your hatred of microsoft to spread idiotic lies
HDCP is a content protection scheme, if a network doesn't use it then you will be able to watch HD without it, if they do you'll need it. HDCP also also for non-hdcp enable devices to send other content, this could be a SECOND HD signal or a standard or lower resolution video, it's up to the networks..
It has nothing to do with the hdcp spec itself.
If you read what he said more carefully, you would see that he said the same thing. Vista will not support recorded hi def without an HDMI display, which assumes that DHCP is supported. Apple will have to follow.
The only reason I have not bought an Apple 30" display for my computer is because it doesn't have an HDMI connector. But from what this article says, it might get a UDI connector sometime next year.
Back on topic, I think it's high time the large, fragile and cumbersome VGA and DVI connectors and cables are replaced, and the legacy poor-definition TV connectors go away. I also like hmurchison's V/AV/AVP cable idea if it was able to reduce cords, but what devices would it suit best? Wireless A/V bridges?
Gon I think these three cables would cover a fairly wide gamut of devices.
Plasma/LCD would require just the V cable
Audio/Video receivers would utilize the AV cable
Touchscreen, PDA, Phones and other small videon enabled devices would support the AVP.
Thus consumers would always have one connection but cable tailored for the right device.
Does anyone remember how much power an ADC connection provided?
Let's see. If each pixel has 32 bits of data... that's 512Mpixels/s.
At a rate of 60 screens per second, that's 8.533Mpixels/screen
If the screen was 4:3 that would be like 3454 by 2590.
Wait a second, that isn't very large.
There already are displays with a higher resolution than that. VGA has been around for what? 15 years? How long can UDI last if it can't even support the best of today's displays, much less displays in 15 years? Heck, VGA supports, what? 2048 by 1536? A standard that's not even 3 times better than that is supposed to last how long?
And yes, I know that this is just "First Generation", but will the next generation be backward compatible? Will I have to buy yet another adaptor to add to the enormous collection I already have?
HDMI needs replacement because physically the connection isn't secure. Folks with HDMI runs to projectors sometimes report poor connections because the physical connector works itself loose.
DVI isn't as good as HDMI as the most common implementation is 8 bit RGB but HDMI can be 8 bit RGB or 8, 10 or 12 YCbCr. DVDs start as YCbCr then converted to RGB for DVI output so that's one less conversion. In the case of 8 bit RGB, below black information is truncated.
HDCP is on both and not really a new issue for UDI.
So if UDI gives HDMI performance with a better physical connection/package its a win.
If it weren't for pirates in the first place, we wouldn't HAVE DRM.
Bullshit. It's profit driven executives who created the "need" for DRM. It's the other way round, people like me are considered pirates because we do things we otherwise wouldn't do if DRM didn't exist. If I can't purchase music online for instance, that I can use fairly, then I will download it for free. There are of course many artists and producers who provide me with a way to purchase their music without DRM, and I do so, as do many others.
That's exactly what I'm going to do, at least until the new DRM is easy to strip off. This is no empty promise: I held off any DVD purchases until CSS was thoroughly broken, too.Bullshit. They would have DRM for the exact same purposes they have it now: to be able to force the customers to watch ads, to lock the customers in their own platform, to be able to release the content in different regions at different times and prices without anyone being able to import it, and to be eventually able to charge extra for everything that is commonly considered "fair use" or disallow it altogether.
The box doesn't have to record anything. All it has to do is to intercept the signal and convert it to a standard format. That's pretty cheap to do. The recording gets done in your computer.
What standard HD format do you suggest? HD-SDI? HD component? Recording those formats costs thousands of dollars. There is no cheap way to record uncompressed HD, which is why concerns about HDMI recording are pointless.
Comments
Originally posted by melgross
It's because it's protected that you can't record it.
The concern is that the digital signal can be intercepted between the device outputting the signal, and the device displaying it. A box could built that would go between the output and the input. This would output the digital stream to a recorder, or HD.
Sorry; I don't agree. Even if HDMI had no DRM, a box that could record it would be ridiculously expensive. (e.g. there is one piece of equipment on the market that can record DVI, and it costs ~$1,700 and you have to have a ~$2,000 PC to plug it into.)
Originally posted by hmurchison
I like the bandwidth 16Gbps sounds like overkill but at this rate UHD 4k resolution should be possible.
What I'd love to see in a universal connection is the ability to have 3 different types.
UDI-V- Video only
UDI-AV Audio and Video
UDI-AVP Audio,Video and Power
That way you'd match the appropriate cable to the environment. For smaller devices the AVP cable could provide say 10 watts of power or less. Perfect for powering portable devices or phones with screens on them.
The cable should be fairly thin, as it is. The advantage to having one spec, is that it is cheaper to implement, simpler to stock, and easier for the consumer to buy.
You know all of the problems people have in trying to figure out which Firewire or USB cable to get.
Originally posted by melgross
Oh please. Don't pretend.
First you pretend that you will be able to do what can't be done
I don't have a TV, I don't have a radio, and I'm quite happy copying stuff off the Internet and renting and buying it in forms I know I can use the way I want, whether non-DRM or with breakable DRM. Where's the "pretend" in this?
In all likelyhood I'll eventually buy a display that supports DRM'd input, but that doesn't mean I need to feed it DRM'd input. Similarly, I'll eventually buy a computer that has DRM'd output when using the official software. Doesn't mean I need to use the official software.
As for stripping the new protection off, adapters to remove HDCP from DVI were already for sale a while ago.
and then you pretend that pirating isn't the reason DRM was invented.
I said nothing of the kind. It is entirely plausible it was invented for that. But the DRM in products today doesn't have anything to do with piracy. It has little to do with copyright infringement through P2P. It is there to stop fair use, to stop competition, and to stop casual copyright infringement (say, copying content and selling the original media forward). Piracy is not a reason for putting DRM on content today.
HDMI connections suck, I should know I have a $7.5k 67" 1080p samsung television. HDMI audio is crappy, and support for channels is limited, and the bandwidth in "theory" should support HDCP but in reality it can't even drive 1080p properly.
HDMI was doomed from the start.
[
QUOTE]Originally posted by hmurchison
I can't find their website.
I don't see what UDI does that HDMI doesn't already.
HDMI
Supports Audio,Video and RGB
Supports HDCP
Supports DVI signals
Supports longer cable lengths
What this sounds like is a group of vendors that want the industry to again move to "yet another connection" I want to see hard proof that this UDI connection is worthy of the long and arduous process of upgrading components again. [/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Gon
I don't have a TV, I don't have a radio, and I'm quite happy copying stuff off the Internet and renting and buying it in forms I know I can use the way I want, whether non-DRM or with breakable DRM. Where's the "pretend" in this?
In all likelyhood I'll eventually buy a display that supports DRM'd input, but that doesn't mean I need to feed it DRM'd input. Similarly, I'll eventually buy a computer that has DRM'd output when using the official software. Doesn't mean I need to use the official software.
As for stripping the new protection off, adapters to remove HDCP from DVI were already for sale a while ago.I said nothing of the kind. It is entirely plausible it was invented for that. But the DRM in products today doesn't have anything to do with piracy. It has little to do with copyright infringement through P2P. It is there to stop fair use, to stop competition, and to stop casual copyright infringement (say, copying content and selling the original media forward). Piracy is not a reason for putting DRM on content today.
Since when does DVI have HDCP? One of the reasons for HDMI's existence is the HDCP. DVI has no specs in place for it. I'd like to see those adapters you are talking about. It sounds like a scam.
There was always pirating of content once recorders were invented for the public. But, computers have made it so much easier that the companies are in a panic over it.
It's almost impossible to catch the major pirate's who are in Russia, China, and other places where it is done with the silent agreement of the state. Therefore they go after the end user who does it without even thinking that it's wrong. They stop it where they can.
Is it heavihanded? Sure. but it will be a fact of life whether we like it or not.
All we can do is to try to convince them to make it fair; to protect our usage well as their income.
Vista WILL support HDCP, meaning for content that is in HDCP you need a new display, this is part of the HDCP specification and has nothing to do with microsoft. Anybody who, anyone is going to support HDCP otherwise when the networks start sending HDCP content, your screwed.
Stop using your hatred of microsoft to spread idiotic lies
HDCP is a content protection scheme, if a network doesn't use it then you will be able to watch HD without it, if they do you'll need it. HDCP also also for non-hdcp enable devices to send other content, this could be a SECOND HD signal or a standard or lower resolution video, it's up to the networks..
It has nothing to do with the hdcp spec itself.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Vista won't support HD playback unless you have a HDCP monitor. Expect Apple to follow suit.
Now this doesn't mean your own high def content recorded on your red.com camera won't playback. It just means that HDCP protected content won't play.
Sucks but that's the future. I just hope they don't lock stuff down so much that you can't utilize your music for personal reasons (ie adding soundtracks to your imovie files) .
I'm all for protecting artists rights but then again the idea of selling music to me taints the art or at the least some buffoon in a suit selling it.
Originally posted by wmf
Sorry; I don't agree. Even if HDMI had no DRM, a box that could record it would be ridiculously expensive. (e.g. there is one piece of equipment on the market that can record DVI, and it costs ~$1,700 and you have to have a ~$2,000 PC to plug it into.)
The box doesn't have to record anything. All it has to do is to intercept the signal and convert it to a standard format. That's pretty cheap to do. The recording gets done in your computer. You don't meed a Miranda, or other pro piece of equipment to do it. A couple of hundred bucks would be all it would have to cost. Not much more complex than the $119 Firewire to S-Video/audio boxes out there now.
Originally posted by webmail
How about the fact that the current official spec of HDMI doesn't support 1080p? And doesn't have enough actual bandwidth for HDCP? It's all "theoretical" Seach "1080p only vga" on google and you'll find out all about it.
HDMI connections suck, I should know I have a $7.5k 67" 1080p samsung television. HDMI audio is crappy, and support for channels is limited, and the bandwidth in "theory" should support HDCP but in reality it can't even drive 1080p properly.
HDMI was doomed from the start.
[
QUOTE]Originally posted by hmurchison
I can't find their website.
I don't see what UDI does that HDMI doesn't already.
HDMI
Supports Audio,Video and RGB
Supports HDCP
Supports DVI signals
Supports longer cable lengths
What this sounds like is a group of vendors that want the industry to again move to "yet another connection" I want to see hard proof that this UDI connection is worthy of the long and arduous process of upgrading components again.
[/QUOTE]
Except that isn't quite true.
My Hp MD6580n 65" 1080p DLP set supports 1080p through its HDMI connector, and others are following shortly.
Sony announced a month or so ago that Blu-Ray recordings will be encoded on 1080p, and will require, as we all know, HDMI.
Originally posted by webmail
Stop making shit up. Seriously. I have a computer on it with Vista running right now, with gasp wmv 10HD movie playing on my apple cinema display and spanning across a crappy 19" dell lcd from 6 years ago..
Vista WILL support HDCP, meaning for content that is in HDCP you need a new display, this is part of the HDCP specification and has nothing to do with microsoft. Anybody who, anyone is going to support HDCP otherwise when the networks start sending HDCP content, your screwed.
Stop using your hatred of microsoft to spread idiotic lies
HDCP is a content protection scheme, if a network doesn't use it then you will be able to watch HD without it, if they do you'll need it. HDCP also also for non-hdcp enable devices to send other content, this could be a SECOND HD signal or a standard or lower resolution video, it's up to the networks..
It has nothing to do with the hdcp spec itself.
If you read what he said more carefully, you would see that he said the same thing. Vista will not support recorded hi def without an HDMI display, which assumes that DHCP is supported. Apple will have to follow.
The only reason I have not bought an Apple 30" display for my computer is because it doesn't have an HDMI connector. But from what this article says, it might get a UDI connector sometime next year.
Originally posted by Gon
Back on topic, I think it's high time the large, fragile and cumbersome VGA and DVI connectors and cables are replaced, and the legacy poor-definition TV connectors go away. I also like hmurchison's V/AV/AVP cable idea if it was able to reduce cords, but what devices would it suit best? Wireless A/V bridges?
Gon I think these three cables would cover a fairly wide gamut of devices.
Plasma/LCD would require just the V cable
Audio/Video receivers would utilize the AV cable
Touchscreen, PDA, Phones and other small videon enabled devices would support the AVP.
Thus consumers would always have one connection but cable tailored for the right device.
Does anyone remember how much power an ADC connection provided?
Originally posted by melgross
And just keep thinking; 16Gb/s, 16Gb/s, 16Gb/s...
http://www.tgdaily.com/2005/12/20/udisig_formation/ [/B]
Wait a second, did you say 16Gb/s?
Let's see. If each pixel has 32 bits of data... that's 512Mpixels/s.
At a rate of 60 screens per second, that's 8.533Mpixels/screen
If the screen was 4:3 that would be like 3454 by 2590.
Wait a second, that isn't very large.
There already are displays with a higher resolution than that. VGA has been around for what? 15 years? How long can UDI last if it can't even support the best of today's displays, much less displays in 15 years? Heck, VGA supports, what? 2048 by 1536? A standard that's not even 3 times better than that is supposed to last how long?
And yes, I know that this is just "First Generation", but will the next generation be backward compatible? Will I have to buy yet another adaptor to add to the enormous collection I already have?
Originally posted by melgross
Like it or not, rights management is here to stay in one form or another. Complaining about it doesn't help.
The question that matters is HOW it will function. Will it be convenient, or will it be a pain?
No the question that matters is how will we get around it.
Originally posted by melgross
[B]First, don't link to Wikipedia. They aren't either the most up to date, or accurate source.
Haha, the backlash begins. Actually the HDMI article of Wikipedia is superb.
DVI isn't as good as HDMI as the most common implementation is 8 bit RGB but HDMI can be 8 bit RGB or 8, 10 or 12 YCbCr. DVDs start as YCbCr then converted to RGB for DVI output so that's one less conversion. In the case of 8 bit RGB, below black information is truncated.
HDCP is on both and not really a new issue for UDI.
So if UDI gives HDMI performance with a better physical connection/package its a win.
Originally posted by melgross
If it weren't for pirates in the first place, we wouldn't HAVE DRM.
Bullshit. It's profit driven executives who created the "need" for DRM. It's the other way round, people like me are considered pirates because we do things we otherwise wouldn't do if DRM didn't exist. If I can't purchase music online for instance, that I can use fairly, then I will download it for free. There are of course many artists and producers who provide me with a way to purchase their music without DRM, and I do so, as do many others.
http://www.downhillbattle.org/
Originally posted by Gon
That's exactly what I'm going to do, at least until the new DRM is easy to strip off. This is no empty promise: I held off any DVD purchases until CSS was thoroughly broken, too.Bullshit. They would have DRM for the exact same purposes they have it now: to be able to force the customers to watch ads, to lock the customers in their own platform, to be able to release the content in different regions at different times and prices without anyone being able to import it, and to be eventually able to charge extra for everything that is commonly considered "fair use" or disallow it altogether.
Nicely put.
Originally posted by melgross
The box doesn't have to record anything. All it has to do is to intercept the signal and convert it to a standard format. That's pretty cheap to do. The recording gets done in your computer.
What standard HD format do you suggest? HD-SDI? HD component? Recording those formats costs thousands of dollars. There is no cheap way to record uncompressed HD, which is why concerns about HDMI recording are pointless.
great first post and welcome to the boards! Are you an AV guy?
Originally posted by ctachme
\\Not only does HDMI do that just fine, so does DVI!! \\
DVI doesn't have the bandwidth moving forward.