I think it does matter. Without knowing the particulars of where the chain is broken we don't have much to work with. I found this link which points to BR movies being playable on a Mac Pro using their drive when running Windows natively. This cancels the HW issue.
Blu-ray Movie Playback on your Mac
As of now, playback of Blu-ray movies is not yet available under Mac OS X. There is simply no software yet that will do that. This situation will likely change very quickly. You can, however, with the software provided, playback commercial Blu-ray movies on your Mac Pro with Apple's Boot Camp running Windows XP or Vista. You will need to make sure to download the latest graphics drivers from either Nvidia or ATI, depending on your graphics card, in order to ensure smooth playback of high definition Blu-ray movies as you've never seen them before on your Mac.
Licensing is simplified and less costly, but is less costly and simply enough for Apple now? What the main reason or just a good one to talk about because it easily puts the blame elsewhere? Will having Blu-ray drives in only the Mac Pros really be enough for the vocal public?
Finally, can HDCP work over HDCP so external drives can be included (I'll look this one up)? A: Apparently it's been proposed but I can't find any info on the progress, if it requires HW changes of just firmware changes.
Sol, that's a different issue. I know we can do this through Windows and Boot Camp. I've already stated that it's not a hardware issue.
We're talking about doing this through OS X.
If the cost is low enough for consumer electronics companies, it's low enough for Apple too. Let's not play this game.
We both know that there's only one reason Apple hasn't already done this, and it's because they haven't wanted to.
There is no other issue, and there never has been.
Sol, that's a different issue. I know we can do this through Windows and Boot Camp. I've already stated that it's not a hardware issue.
We're talking about doing this through OS X.
If the cost is low enough for consumer electronics companies, it's low enough for Apple too. Let's not play this game.
We both know that there's only one reason Apple hasn't already done this, and it's because they haven't wanted to.
There is no other issue, and there never has been.
1) I didn't know that there wasn't a HW issue or I wouldn't have looked into it.
2) I know we are talking about OS X, which is why I have asked these open-ended questions and searched for answered for so many iffy details that so many think are easily answered.
3) If it's just the licensing, and you say it's resolved, then it should have been resolved a couple months ago and I see no evidence of support in 10.5.7.
4) Even if the Mac Pro got BR support that still leaves the issue with every other Mac in the lineup that won't be able to play BR movies.
1) I didn't know that there wasn't a HW issue or I wouldn't have looked into it.
Ok, you must have missed the posts that I and a coupe of other wrote about this.
Quote:
2) I know we are talking about OS X, which is why I have asked these open-ended questions and searched for answered for so many iffy details that so many think are easily answered.
Well, it IS an Apple area to work on, so in that sense, it's simple, as it only depends on them.
Quote:
3) If it's just the licensing, and you say it's resolved, then it should have been resolved a couple months ago and I see no evidence of support in 10.5.7.
That's the point of contention. Jobs SAID it was the licensing. But was it really? Or was that just an excuse? I think it was just an excuse. I strongly believe it's just because Jobs doesn't want to do it. Or at least, didn't want to do it.
Quote:
4) Even if the Mac Pro got BR support that still leaves the issue with every other Mac in the lineup that won't be able to play BR movies.
Only in the sense that they don't have a built-in device. We both agreed it could be better to get an external third party model.
Internal ones would follow for the other machines as new models, or revised ones, came out. Depending on how rapidly Apple would want to get them out there, once they decide to do it, if they decide to do it.
That's the point of contention. Jobs SAID it was the licensing. But was it really? Or was that just an excuse? I think it was just an excuse. I strongly believe it's just because Jobs doesn't want to do it. Or at least, didn't want to do it.
I believe he stated that Blu-ray was a bag of hurt, but then used the licensing as the excuse. To me this is a single answer that puts the blame on others more so than the other reasons. To say, "we make our machines too thin to have them" or "we don't want to hurt our online download business" doesn't sound very good.
Quote:
Only in the sense that they don't have a built-in device. We both agreed it could be better to get an external third party model.
Internal ones would follow for the other machines as new models, or revised ones, came out. Depending on how rapidly Apple would want to get them out there, once they decide to do it, if they decide to do it.
However, external BRDs aren't possible with USB or FW so as far as I can tell internal is the only option right now.
I believe he stated that Blu-ray was a bag of hurt, but then used the licensing as the excuse. To me this is a single answer that puts the blame on others more so than the other reasons. To say, "we make our machines too thin to have them" or "we don't want to hurt our online download business" doesn't sound very good.
We're back to the fact that they didn't want to do it.
Quote:
However, external BRDs aren't possible with USB or FW so as far as I can tell internal is the only option right now.
I see no evidence that that drive will push HDCP over USB so that drive can't play BR movies in HD. My previous comment omitted the HDCP part, but BR movies are what we are talking about, as my previosu comment about USB-IF adopting HDCP over USB was being considered. I know very well the bandwidth capabilities of USB and FW can handle it.
I see no evidence that that drive will push HDCP over USB so that drive can't play BR movies in HD. My previous comment omitted the HDCP part, but BR movies are what we are talking about, as my previosu comment about USB-IF adopting HDCP over USB was being considered. I know very well the bandwidth capabilities of USB and FW can handle it.
Ok, here's another external BD USB 2 drive. This is a review of a Lite-on, and it DOES play BD movies over USB 2. There's nothing about USB 2 that won't allow it.
Ok, here's another external BD USB 2 drive. This is a review of a Lite-on, and it DOES play BD movies over USB 2. There's nothing about USB 2 that won't allow it.
Nice! So what is that crap I read about adding HDCP to USB? If that drive play protected Blu-ray movies then the path is already protected without the USB spec doing anything extra. BTW, that is a nice looking drive.
edit: So today I learned that there are no HW limitations in current Macs or in USB for playing HDCP protected content.
Nice! So what is that crap I read about adding HDCP to USB? If that drive play protected Blu-ray movies then the path is already protected without the USB spec doing anything extra. BTW, that is a nice looking drive.
edit: So today I learned that there are no HW limitations in current Macs or in USB for playing HDCP protected content.
I don't ever remember there being a problem with protected content and USB 2.
Nice! So what is that crap I read about adding HDCP to USB?
It's almost certainly to do with where the data are decrypted. As you are aware, the video data on a blu-ray are compressed using a codec such as MPEG-2, MPEG-4 or VC-1. The compressed data are encrypted and pressed/burned to disc. When playing back, the playback chain looks like this:
blu-ray disc (1)--> laser pickup (2) --> error correction (3) --> decryption (4) --> decompression (5) --> raw video to display (6)
usually, 1 2 and 3 will be within the drive itself, error correction being handled by the drive's firmware. The data transfered between (3) and (4) is both compressed and encrypted, and can "safely" be transferred over any bus such as SATA or USB. Decryption and decompression take place on the computer motherboard, via software running on the CPU, GPU or both, or with dedicated hardware, commonly built in to modern GPUs. The decryption and decompression must be implemented in such a way that the decompressed data can't be "snooped" by some other process, thereby negating copy protection. But now the data are decompressed there's a conundrum - how to get the raw video to the display. This is what HDCP is for - it protects raw, uncompressed data from being copied as they are travelling to the final output device.
USB 3.0 is going to have a high enough bandwidth to enable it to transfer raw uncompressed data so presumably what you've read about is a proposal for implementing HDCP over USB 3.0 so that a video connection could be made to a display using USB 3.0 instead of HDMI/DVI/DisplayPort.
Full-HD will ever be sliding. You can say that 720p isn't full HD, but by previous definitions it is high definition when it was conceived.
Yes 1280 x 720 is apart of the original HD spec. Some people mistakenly think 1080 is "real HD" and 720 is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffharris
Until there is a MAJOR network upgrade that will allow for Full-HD downloads, Blu-ray will remain a viable, convenient and collectable media. Right now and for the foreseeable future.
As more and more people buy Full-HD TVs (and computer monitors that support 1920 x 1080 screen resolution) there will be a GROWING desire to see MORE Full-HD content. 720 res just won't cut it.
Go to a friend's house who has a Full-HDTV and Blu-ray player, then watch the Planet Earth series on Blu-ray. You won't want to go back to anything less than Full-HD.
1280x720 is not "fake HD" it is from the original HD specification.
At this point HD has been convoluted into so many formats, you cannot really call anyone "Full HD" any more than the other.
The true definition of full HD would be uncompressed 1280x720 or uncompressed 1920x1080. Anything less than that is not "Full HD".
Don't forget the profiles within those resolutions to determine the max bitrates and other factors. It's really is too much.
Some of these super high resolutions aren't really useful for the home, unless you have a fortune to spend, and are willing to watch with your nose almost touching a smaller screen..
With 1080p, you have to have a screen diagonal of 80 inches to get the full resolution at a seating distance of 10 feet.
With 1440, it requires a screen of 100 inches at 10 feet.
Comments
I think it does matter. Without knowing the particulars of where the chain is broken we don't have much to work with. I found this link which points to BR movies being playable on a Mac Pro using their drive when running Windows natively. This cancels the HW issue. Licensing is simplified and less costly, but is less costly and simply enough for Apple now? What the main reason or just a good one to talk about because it easily puts the blame elsewhere? Will having Blu-ray drives in only the Mac Pros really be enough for the vocal public?
Finally, can HDCP work over HDCP so external drives can be included (I'll look this one up)? A: Apparently it's been proposed but I can't find any info on the progress, if it requires HW changes of just firmware changes.
Sol, that's a different issue. I know we can do this through Windows and Boot Camp. I've already stated that it's not a hardware issue.
We're talking about doing this through OS X.
If the cost is low enough for consumer electronics companies, it's low enough for Apple too. Let's not play this game.
We both know that there's only one reason Apple hasn't already done this, and it's because they haven't wanted to.
There is no other issue, and there never has been.
Sol, that's a different issue. I know we can do this through Windows and Boot Camp. I've already stated that it's not a hardware issue.
We're talking about doing this through OS X.
If the cost is low enough for consumer electronics companies, it's low enough for Apple too. Let's not play this game.
We both know that there's only one reason Apple hasn't already done this, and it's because they haven't wanted to.
There is no other issue, and there never has been.
1) I didn't know that there wasn't a HW issue or I wouldn't have looked into it.
2) I know we are talking about OS X, which is why I have asked these open-ended questions and searched for answered for so many iffy details that so many think are easily answered.
3) If it's just the licensing, and you say it's resolved, then it should have been resolved a couple months ago and I see no evidence of support in 10.5.7.
4) Even if the Mac Pro got BR support that still leaves the issue with every other Mac in the lineup that won't be able to play BR movies.
1) I didn't know that there wasn't a HW issue or I wouldn't have looked into it.
Ok, you must have missed the posts that I and a coupe of other wrote about this.
2) I know we are talking about OS X, which is why I have asked these open-ended questions and searched for answered for so many iffy details that so many think are easily answered.
Well, it IS an Apple area to work on, so in that sense, it's simple, as it only depends on them.
3) If it's just the licensing, and you say it's resolved, then it should have been resolved a couple months ago and I see no evidence of support in 10.5.7.
That's the point of contention. Jobs SAID it was the licensing. But was it really? Or was that just an excuse? I think it was just an excuse. I strongly believe it's just because Jobs doesn't want to do it. Or at least, didn't want to do it.
4) Even if the Mac Pro got BR support that still leaves the issue with every other Mac in the lineup that won't be able to play BR movies.
Only in the sense that they don't have a built-in device. We both agreed it could be better to get an external third party model.
Internal ones would follow for the other machines as new models, or revised ones, came out. Depending on how rapidly Apple would want to get them out there, once they decide to do it, if they decide to do it.
That's the point of contention. Jobs SAID it was the licensing. But was it really? Or was that just an excuse? I think it was just an excuse. I strongly believe it's just because Jobs doesn't want to do it. Or at least, didn't want to do it.
I believe he stated that Blu-ray was a bag of hurt, but then used the licensing as the excuse. To me this is a single answer that puts the blame on others more so than the other reasons. To say, "we make our machines too thin to have them" or "we don't want to hurt our online download business" doesn't sound very good.
Only in the sense that they don't have a built-in device. We both agreed it could be better to get an external third party model.
Internal ones would follow for the other machines as new models, or revised ones, came out. Depending on how rapidly Apple would want to get them out there, once they decide to do it, if they decide to do it.
However, external BRDs aren't possible with USB or FW so as far as I can tell internal is the only option right now.
I believe he stated that Blu-ray was a bag of hurt, but then used the licensing as the excuse. To me this is a single answer that puts the blame on others more so than the other reasons. To say, "we make our machines too thin to have them" or "we don't want to hurt our online download business" doesn't sound very good.
We're back to the fact that they didn't want to do it.
However, external BRDs aren't possible with USB or FW so as far as I can tell internal is the only option right now.
Not true.
Here's one:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16827136145
In addition, Newegg is already selling several internal BD burners well below $200.
Not true.
Here's one:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16827136145
I see no evidence that that drive will push HDCP over USB so that drive can't play BR movies in HD. My previous comment omitted the HDCP part, but BR movies are what we are talking about, as my previosu comment about USB-IF adopting HDCP over USB was being considered. I know very well the bandwidth capabilities of USB and FW can handle it.
I see no evidence that that drive will push HDCP over USB so that drive can't play BR movies in HD. My previous comment omitted the HDCP part, but BR movies are what we are talking about, as my previosu comment about USB-IF adopting HDCP over USB was being considered. I know very well the bandwidth capabilities of USB and FW can handle it.
Ok, here's another external BD USB 2 drive. This is a review of a Lite-on, and it DOES play BD movies over USB 2. There's nothing about USB 2 that won't allow it.
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/14...ive/index.html
Ok, here's another external BD USB 2 drive. This is a review of a Lite-on, and it DOES play BD movies over USB 2. There's nothing about USB 2 that won't allow it.
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/14...ive/index.html
Nice! So what is that crap I read about adding HDCP to USB? If that drive play protected Blu-ray movies then the path is already protected without the USB spec doing anything extra. BTW, that is a nice looking drive.
edit: So today I learned that there are no HW limitations in current Macs or in USB for playing HDCP protected content.
Nice! So what is that crap I read about adding HDCP to USB? If that drive play protected Blu-ray movies then the path is already protected without the USB spec doing anything extra. BTW, that is a nice looking drive.
edit: So today I learned that there are no HW limitations in current Macs or in USB for playing HDCP protected content.
I don't ever remember there being a problem with protected content and USB 2.
Nice! So what is that crap I read about adding HDCP to USB?
It's almost certainly to do with where the data are decrypted. As you are aware, the video data on a blu-ray are compressed using a codec such as MPEG-2, MPEG-4 or VC-1. The compressed data are encrypted and pressed/burned to disc. When playing back, the playback chain looks like this:
blu-ray disc (1)--> laser pickup (2) --> error correction (3) --> decryption (4) --> decompression (5) --> raw video to display (6)
usually, 1 2 and 3 will be within the drive itself, error correction being handled by the drive's firmware. The data transfered between (3) and (4) is both compressed and encrypted, and can "safely" be transferred over any bus such as SATA or USB. Decryption and decompression take place on the computer motherboard, via software running on the CPU, GPU or both, or with dedicated hardware, commonly built in to modern GPUs. The decryption and decompression must be implemented in such a way that the decompressed data can't be "snooped" by some other process, thereby negating copy protection. But now the data are decompressed there's a conundrum - how to get the raw video to the display. This is what HDCP is for - it protects raw, uncompressed data from being copied as they are travelling to the final output device.
USB 3.0 is going to have a high enough bandwidth to enable it to transfer raw uncompressed data so presumably what you've read about is a proposal for implementing HDCP over USB 3.0 so that a video connection could be made to a display using USB 3.0 instead of HDMI/DVI/DisplayPort.
Hope that made sense!
Full-HD will ever be sliding. You can say that 720p isn't full HD, but by previous definitions it is high definition when it was conceived.
Yes 1280 x 720 is apart of the original HD spec. Some people mistakenly think 1080 is "real HD" and 720 is not.
Until there is a MAJOR network upgrade that will allow for Full-HD downloads, Blu-ray will remain a viable, convenient and collectable media. Right now and for the foreseeable future.
As more and more people buy Full-HD TVs (and computer monitors that support 1920 x 1080 screen resolution) there will be a GROWING desire to see MORE Full-HD content. 720 res just won't cut it.
Go to a friend's house who has a Full-HDTV and Blu-ray player, then watch the Planet Earth series on Blu-ray. You won't want to go back to anything less than Full-HD.
1280x720 is not "fake HD" it is from the original HD specification.
At this point HD has been convoluted into so many formats, you cannot really call anyone "Full HD" any more than the other.
The true definition of full HD would be uncompressed 1280x720 or uncompressed 1920x1080. Anything less than that is not "Full HD".
Yes 1280 x 720 is apart of the original HD spec. Some people mistakenly think 1080 is "real HD" and 720 is not.
1280x720 is not "fake HD" it is from the original HD specification.
At this point HD has been convoluted into so many formats, you cannot really call anyone "Full HD" any more than the other.
The true definition of full HD would be uncompressed 1280x720 or uncompressed 1920x1080. Anything less than that is not "Full HD".
It's getting confusing, isn't it?
So we now have semi HD, or enhanced definition at 854 x 480.
"Low" rez HD at 1280 x 720,
and "high" rez HD at 1920 x 1080.
We also have super rez HD with 3840 x 2160, which thankfully, hasn't arrived yet.
There's also another new intermediate format which also hasn't arrived with 2560 x 1440.
Of course, all of these can either be "i" or "p".
It's getting confusing, isn't it?
So we now have semi HD, or enhanced definition at 854 x 480.
"Low" rez HD at 1280 x 720,
and "high" rez HD at 1920 x 1080.
We also have super rez HD with 3840 x 2160, which thankfully, hasn't arrived yet.
There's also another new intermediate format which also hasn't arrived with 2560 x 1440.
Of course, all of these can either be "i" or "p".
Don't forget the profiles within those resolutions to determine the max bitrates and other factors. It's really is too much.
Don't forget the profiles within those resolutions to determine the max bitrates and other factors. It's really is too much.
Some of these super high resolutions aren't really useful for the home, unless you have a fortune to spend, and are willing to watch with your nose almost touching a smaller screen..
With 1080p, you have to have a screen diagonal of 80 inches to get the full resolution at a seating distance of 10 feet.
With 1440, it requires a screen of 100 inches at 10 feet.
I won't even discuss the higher rez formats!