Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ATI Evergreen 3D Code May Soon Go Into Gallium3D

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    Without going into details, the content remains encrypted all through the decode process, and encrypted content is passed down to UVD by the driver. To say that "wide open" is discouraged would be an understatement

    I can't really be more specific than that, sorry.
    I'm also sorry that license agreements seem to force things to that the only way to use BD+ with open drivers is to break it. :/ Hence leading into the uncomfortable situation that people trying to make their media playable in fact would just if they succeed make it copyable. I don't consider this the optimal conclusion. It's slightly silly that MPAA or whoever is responsible seems to actually be encouraging people to break movie copy protection with their policies.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
      This won't do that though....
      All this does (in theory) is allow you to decrypt the garbage between your GPU and your monitor -- which doesn't apply AT ALL to linux since it isn't even implemented.
      You're right, I was a bit confused by all the acronyms.

      What it DOES do is it allows you to capture the output of an HDCP device and decrypt it into a usable format.... i.e. universal video capture device for HDMI. Cute, but too late in the processing to be of much value since at this point it has already been decoded from h264 into just plain too much crap that you can't fit on any known disk...
      Apparently, this is exactly what people needed for building Linux-based HD recorders. Suits me.

      I've read a lot on the doom9 forum. BD+ has been cracked, but not as thoroughly as HDCP. If there were some master key to break all BD+ for all eternity, that would be good news. I thought this was it.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by bridgman View Post
        Without going into details, the content remains encrypted all through the decode process, and encrypted content is passed down to UVD by the driver. To say that "wide open" is discouraged would be an understatement

        I can't really be more specific than that, sorry.
        I think I actually understand that...
        Thanks.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
          You're right, I was a bit confused by all the acronyms.


          Apparently, this is exactly what people needed for building Linux-based HD recorders. Suits me.

          I've read a lot on the doom9 forum. BD+ has been cracked, but not as thoroughly as HDCP. If there were some master key to break all BD+ for all eternity, that would be good news. I thought this was it.
          From what I understand of BD+, the problem isn't in coming up with a master key for BD+, the problem is in developing a 100% compliant BDVM that can run all the BD+ code and pass itself off as some real player by answering all the questions correctly. The catch is that you don't know the questions it is going to ask until the disk comes out, and if you so fully simulate that particular device that you can pass all the trick questions, then that device itself will be disqualified from future BD+ disks, which means that you start over from zero.

          And then of course, if an existing player can't handle some "future" disk, then the manufacturer has two options; upgrade to the latest one if it is under warranty, or "so sorry, you're going to need to buy an upgrade to handle the latest security code". Either way the consumer gets shafted.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by TomcaT-SdB View Post
            I suppose I should have spelled it out more clearly
            You made yourself clear, rehashing the same argument doesn't make it any more relevant.

            Last I checked, there wasn't an industry wide push for cook-book TV's. Small additions which help with product differentiation aren't in the same league as major feature sets like 1080p or stereo support.
            Good job ignoring the point. Again. And you haven't substantiated this difference in any appreciable way; if anything, pointing out that 3D is a major feature only strengthens your absurdity.

            Learn to comprehend and debate then.
            Irony.

            My premise is quite simple, the entertainment industry is showing a strong embrace of stereo in the upcoming year(s), therefore there ought to be plans in place supporting it in the free driver set. At the very least, make sure that it's accounted for early on so that there's not a "crap, we need redo significant parts of the driver to do this" when / if the devs can get around to it.
            That's twice in the same post that you've restated the same argument that you've already made. That's all well and good but a response to my arguments would be appreciated - like, oh, I dunno, reconciling luke-warm consumer reaction to the technology with your assumption that just because it's there, people are going to use it.

            If standardization efforts for stereo formats for general consumer use, stereo hardware production, and stereo content production doesn't show a strong embrace of stereo then I'm not sure what would be considered embracing stereo. Making baseless assertions about the status of stereo within the industry doesn't help support your position, which, I think is that stereo support isn't important for the drivers (correct me if I'm wrong here).
            Fabulous, tack my conclusion onto the end of a strawman (which I've already pointed out to you), then invite me to contradict myself. You just exhausted whatever good faith I had left.

            We probably have two different views on the importance of content. In my view (as a Linux only user for several years now), being able to use current content is important.
            Who's stopping you? You'll be able to view those 3D Blu[e]Rays just fine - just not in 3D.

            Given that the cost to produce the panels was the major reason for the costs of the features you listed
            With few exceptions, that's simply not true. Jumping to LCD raised prices; the costs of raising the resolution, or upgrading firmware, didn't warrant such price gouging, however.

            HDMI inputs are on low-end sets BTW, and have been for some time now.
            With every single upgrade, the prices remained punitive until the next gimmick arrived.
            This is becoming farcical.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by etnlWings View Post
              You made yourself clear, rehashing the same argument doesn't make it any more relevant.

              Good job ignoring the point. Again. And you haven't substantiated this difference in any appreciable way; if anything, pointing out that 3D is a major feature only strengthens your absurdity.
              Ok, fine, so if I'm ignoring your point, you're doing the same for mine. You haven't addressed anything I've said directly, other than calling it a strawman argument (which, ironically, was started from an unsubstantiated assertion in one of your posts), or claiming irrelevancy.

              As for not substantiating the difference, I already pointed out that what amounts to a frill (some rather pointless preloaded items on the set) or minor differentiation factor isn't something that the entire industry is behind. Somehow I doubt people at CES or any other trade show were being wowed by meditation routines or other non-central functionality.

              Stereo was _the major focus_ of display vendors at CES this year (hint google "3D at CES"). I already stated this earlier. If you feel that the showcase feature at CES isn't major, that's your own opinion. Feel free to argue that nearly everyone from CES was wrong though.

              Irony.
              Yes, it is, isn't it.

              That's twice in the same post that you've restated the same argument that you've already made. That's all well and good but a response to my arguments would be appreciated - like, oh, I dunno, reconciling luke-warm consumer reaction to the technology with your assumption that just because it's there, people are going to use it.
              Ok, what substantiated arguments have you made that I've ignored? You're right, this is getting old, because hand waving and yelling strawman every post isn't debating, and you haven't countered with anything stronger than that.

              As far as lukewarm responses go, last I checked, the first 3D Blu-ray was released only a couple of months ago. Standards for stereo broadcasts are being implemented, but stereo broadcasts aren't widely available yet, so what lukewarm consumer response is there? What are you basing this assertion on? Personal experience with anaglyph? Low framerate shutter glasses from ten years ago? I'm curious what your basis is.

              Based on recent reaction to stereo displays, like, oh CNET's best of CES being a stereo display from Panasonic, PC World also listing stereo displays as best of items, etc, I'd say the technology as it stands today is getting great responses. On the lighter side, Nintendo's 3DS showing at E3 was very well received. While it's not directly related to stand alone displays, it does illustrate that stereo display technology can be applied in a compelling role in the consumer space.

              Fabulous, tack my conclusion onto the end of a strawman (which I've already pointed out to you), then invite me to contradict myself. You just exhausted whatever good faith I had left.
              Hint: A strawman is where one person attacks a point or position that was never made by the opponent. If the entire body of evidence being presented focuses around challenging an assertion you stated, it isn't a strawman no matter how many times you yell it. Standards being set in place != "iffy about the tech". Growing release lists / content from multiple vendors across multiple genres != "for kids" or other niche use. Complaining about people with more money than sense != an argument on point that I can address and amounts to hand waving. Those were your words, assertions you made to downplay the role stereo has in content over the next few years. They are false. The body of evidence was also presented in support of my assertion that you're ignoring the status of the entertainment industry in making your claims. Again, no strawman.

              Since you keep stating over and over that my argument is irrelevant, I'm trying, over and over, to illustrate why things are relevant. Again, there's the issue that content drives what's important in the PC space. Most desktop users (since we're talking about graphics drivers to begin with), consume content on their PC. From Youtube 3D to the home users with stereo cameras to the entertainment industry, there will be a plethora of stereo content out and about. Please explain to me how stereo is _not_ going to be a relevant use case in this environment. You tried below, but failed:

              Who's stopping you? You'll be able to view those 3D Blu[e]Rays just fine - just not in 3D
              Sure, you can view them in mono. Great. More power to you. But unless you are unable to view stereo*, you're getting a downgraded experience from what's made available on the media. Quick, rip out the surround sound. plug in a single tinny speaker and listen to your music in mono. You're still hearing it, right? According to your logic, that's all that matters (BTW this is closer to an actual strawman, but this analogy is much more on point than your strawman of holistic raw food chef or whatever bs it was).

              (* I realize there is a portion of the population that cannot view stereo for a variety of reasons)

              With few exceptions, that's simply not true. Jumping to LCD raised prices; the costs of raising the resolution, or upgrading firmware, didn't warrant such price gouging, however.
              Yes, there was a mark up that percentage wise that is larger than the additional costs for the larger / higher res panels, that's the way the consumer electronics business works. Although as the manufacturing costs for the panels has decreased over time, pricing has dropped too. Right now, no one knows (aside from the vendors) what the price points for the sets will be. No pricing for a complete system has been released AFAIK.

              My issue is that the 120+ Hz panels can do stereo fine right now (tack on an emitter to a Quadro or FGL card, and boom, stereo display for you if a computer is your video source). There might very well be a premium for stereo sets, at the very least, additional costs for emitter and glasses if active stereo is used. Since the vendors are all supporting stereo, I do expect competition to help drive pricing low enough so stereo can be addressed at a variety of price points (you could have stereo on a smaller / lower resolution set, so long as the refresh rate was high enough, for example).


              As for the HDMI issue, HDMI was / is not a gimmick. Once the standard was established it was adopted pretty much across the entire flat panel TV line. HDMI was never a price driver though: the panel type, size, resolution and refresh rate (all properties of the panels) of the sets have been the main pricing factors for quite some time now and were when HDMI was introduced. Stereo places some requirements on the panel (refresh rate mostly for active stereo), but does not dictate size nor resolution, etc. A vendor could very easily create a portable passive 3D Blu-ray player for example, so there isn't a definitive need for stereo to be priced out of reach.

              Summation:
              - Stereo content is going to be widely available from a variety of sources
              - Desktop users watch content on their PC, and, if they have a stereo capable display, will want to see stereo content in stereo.
              - Free drivers should allow people to view the stereo content (fglrx and nvidia's binary drivers already do stereo) if supported by the hardware.

              Oi, on other parts of the thread, I'm finding the general BR discussion pretty interesting too.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by TomcaT-SdB View Post
                Ok, fine, so if I'm ignoring your point, you're doing the same for mine. You haven't addressed anything I've said directly, other than calling it a strawman argument (which, ironically, was started from an unsubstantiated assertion in one of your posts), or claiming irrelevancy.
                Oh FFS, stop clumsily batting whatever criticisms I level at you, back at me. It's pathetic.

                As for not substantiating the difference, I already pointed out that what amounts to a frill (some rather pointless preloaded items on the set) or minor differentiation factor isn't something that the entire industry is behind. Somehow I doubt people at CES or any other trade show were being wowed by meditation routines or other non-central functionality.
                Which is completely besides the point. Your entire argument rests on the assumption that just because there's a push for 'feature X', people are going to want and use 'feature X'. Still not getting it? It makes little difference whether the feature is a hyperspace drive, or a glowing orb on the end of the remote, that logic is still fallacious.

                Feel free to argue that nearly everyone from CES was wrong though.
                Who, the manufacturers? There's a reliable source. The press in attendance were of considerably more mixed opinions.

                Ok, what substantiated arguments have you made that I've ignored?
                Doctor, qualify thyself.

                You're right, this is getting old, because hand waving
                Oh please.

                and yelling strawman every post isn't debating
                No, apparently I'm not enough of a dishonest douchebag to be 'debating'.

                As far as lukewarm responses go, last I checked, the first 3D Blu-ray was released only a couple of months ago. Standards for stereo broadcasts are being implemented, but stereo broadcasts aren't widely available yet, so what lukewarm consumer response is there? What are you basing this assertion on? Personal experience with anaglyph? Low framerate shutter glasses from ten years ago? I'm curious what your basis is.
                The broad negative reactions to 3D cinema? The enthusiast community being equally divided about the home tech? Hell, the very idea of wearing glasses to watch TV being a punchline? Obviously we don't have anything more to go on than anecdotes but I'm really curious as to what weird corner of the world you must be living in, to be under the impression that people give a shit.

                (hint google "3D at CES")

                ...

                Based on recent reaction to stereo displays, like, oh CNET's best of CES being a stereo display from Panasonic, PC World also listing stereo displays as best of items, etc, I'd say the technology as it stands today is getting great responses.
                Oh dear, looks like confirmation bias has gotten the better of you. Besides Cnet's credibility being in tatters since that Gerstmann incident and CES best-of lists generally containing a lot of crap that'll never succeed in the market, their summary of that 3D panel listed far more than just it's 3D-ness. Panasonic? Making a high-quality plasma? Absurd!

                On the lighter side, Nintendo's 3DS showing at E3 was very well received. While it's not directly related to stand alone displays, it does illustrate that stereo display technology can be applied in a compelling role in the consumer space.
                Of course small screens were always where the 3D effect shined and you don't have to dork it up to use a DS... well, at least not any more than using a DS.

                Hint: A strawman is where one person attacks a point or position that was never made by the opponent.
                No, more like writing it off as it's strictly the purview of enthusiasts and kids and they're still iffy about the technology
                Which, based on content slated to release, the 3D bluray format already being standardized, standardization...
                And about a half dozen other posts where you repeat this non-argument about standardisation.

                Gee shucks, professor, is that a strawman? I dun can't tell.

                Standards being set in place != "iffy about the tech".
                And again, who did I say was iffy about the tech? "enthusiasts and kids". Because, you know, they're the ones setting the standards and all.

                Growing release lists / content from multiple vendors across multiple genres != "for kids" or other niche use.
                Wow, that's an even more retarded strawman than the last one. Where did I say manufacturers/content providers were only targeting kids and enthusiasts?

                Although if you wanted me to make that argument, fine. You need only go down to your nearest video store and see what kinds of films have been given priority release on Blu[e]Ray. Since buying my BD player, I've had a hard time finding anything besides Harry Potter and action flicks. Retailers certainly seem to think their bread is being buttered by tech-savvy man-children and children, generally. I'll be sure to tell them they're mistaken.

                Complaining about people with more money than sense != an argument on point that I can address and amounts to hand waving.
                There's of course the third category of people with more money than sense but these are the people who hooked their Blu[e]Ray players up with composite cables, while fawning over the picture quality and probably aren't using *nix, anyway.
                I'd say that's pretty damn 'on point'.

                Those were your words
                Yes, we get it. You've figured out how to remove key phrases from any kind of context and repurpose them in a more convenient manner. Good for you.

                The body of evidence was also presented in support of my assertion that you're ignoring the status of the entertainment industry in making your claims.
                My reasons being clear and, as yet, remain unchallenged.

                Since you keep stating over and over that my argument is irrelevant, I'm trying, over and over, to illustrate why things are relevant.
                No, you're just restating the same argument. Every post you've made can be boiled down to 'the industry is pushing for x, therefore people want x' and 'no u!'. Cnet is the closest you've come to any sort of elaboration upon your argument.

                Please explain to me how stereo is _not_ going to be a relevant use case in this environment.
                Besides demand and endurance being untested, mixed results in other markets and there being adequate fallbacks?

                You tried below, but failed:

                Sure, you can view them in mono. Great. More power to you. But unless you are unable to view stereo*, you're getting a downgraded experience from what's made available on the media. Quick, rip out the surround sound. plug in a single tinny speaker and listen to your music in mono. You're still hearing it, right? According to your logic, that's all that matters
                For most people, yeah. Think most SDTVs, youtube up until a little while ago: mono was the norm. Most people just use their laptop's speaker, or the $20 job that came with their Dell PC. Never mind the disparity between comparing 3D to HD and surround sound to, "a single tinny speaker', at least you didn't go as far as throwing in a gramophone.

                (BTW this is closer to an actual strawman, but this analogy is much more on point than your strawman of holistic raw food chef or whatever bs it was).
                Well as soon as you figure out whether you were making a strawman, or a false analogy, let me know and we can pick up where we left off.

                Yes, there was a mark up that percentage wise that is larger than the additional costs for the larger / higher res panels, that's the way the consumer electronics business works.
                Great, so then why were you arguing with me?

                Right now, no one knows (aside from the vendors) what the price points for the sets will be. No pricing for a complete system has been released AFAIK.
                So lets just assume an exception from the norm?

                I do expect competition to help drive pricing low enough so stereo can be addressed at a variety of price points
                ...once 3D is no longer the new hotness, riiight?


                As for the HDMI issue, HDMI was / is not a gimmick.
                It was a marketting gimmick, however, for about a year, or so before the 1080p push. Then they continued to hold you to ransom over the number of HDMI inputs for a good while longer.


                Desktop users watch content on their PC, and, if they have a stereo capable display, will want to see stereo content in stereo.
                Still waiting.

                Actually, scrap that, I'm not waiting. I don't make a habit of wasting my time with clearly dishonest scumbags. Enjoy the last word. Lord knows, it should be a relief to anyone else still following this thread.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by bridgman View Post
                  Without going into details, the content remains encrypted all through the decode process, and encrypted content is passed down to UVD by the driver. To say that "wide open" is discouraged would be an understatement

                  I can't really be more specific than that, sorry.
                  if the input is known and the output hdcp (master key) is known the internal function of the UVD unit can be reverse engineered

                  if someone do this and write a spec about the uvd unit the opensource driver can dev a UVD based video acceleration.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                    if the input is known and the output hdcp (master key) is known the internal function of the UVD unit can be reverse engineered

                    if someone do this and write a spec about the uvd unit the opensource driver can dev a UVD based video acceleration.
                    The output was already known withOUT needing the hdcp master key IN THE CASES where input data was not encrypted. I.e. non-encrypted in, no-hdcp out.

                    Again, hdcp master key doesn't help with this.

                    Probably the reason why the UVD hasn't been reverse engineered is because there is more interest in implementing things that don't HAVE to be reverse engineered.

                    Note that nouveau hasn't reverse engineered nvidia's vdpau hardware either, even though that driver is virtually 100% based on reverse engineering.

                    Comment


                    • Which is completely besides the point. Your entire argument rests on the assumption that just because there's a push for 'feature X', people are going to want and use 'feature X'. Still not getting it? It makes little difference whether the feature is a hyperspace drive, or a glowing orb on the end of the remote, that logic is still fallacious.

                      Who, the manufacturers? There's a reliable source. The press in attendance were of considerably more mixed opinions.
                      The vast majority of the press that I've seen have been good responses to the displays. I also use similar tech (LCD panel + shutter + emitter) with great results (no ghosting, frame rate fast enough so no flicker, etc). Not relying on my personal experience here, but it backs up the impressions I've seen online.

                      Having said that, I have seen bad stereo content in the past too, crap in == crap out regardless of how good (or bad) the display might be. Perhaps the reviews you've read saw bad content? There are some "convert 2D to 3D" options out there, and they suck badly. I know some of those were shown at CES. Since I don't know what reviews you've read, I can't tell why they have a bad impression, but if it's converted non-stereo content, yeah, I'd be underwhelmed too.

                      The broad negative reactions to 3D cinema? The enthusiast community being equally divided about the home tech? Hell, the very idea of wearing glasses to watch TV being a punchline? Obviously we don't have anything more to go on than anecdotes but I'm really curious as to what weird corner of the world you must be living in, to be under the impression that people give a shit.
                      With the content just starting to appear, and many of the sets / systems not released yet* , I can only point to the prevalence of articles, trade shows, etc where stereo has been a focus and is generating lot's of attention. Beyond that, I must be living in an odd corner of the universe because everyone that I've seen actually use the tech is _very_ pleased with it.

                      (* After a bit of digging, there are a few of the new displays out and about now, but the majority of them are still pending release)

                      As far as negative reactions to 3D cinema, I'd like to know which technology you're referring to, as many of the older systems aren't technology wise on par with what's on the upcoming displays.

                      Oh dear, looks like confirmation bias has gotten the better of you. Besides Cnet's credibility being in tatters since that Gerstmann incident and CES best-of lists generally containing a lot of crap that'll never succeed in the market, their summary of that 3D panel listed far more than just it's 3D-ness. Panasonic? Making a high-quality plasma? Absurd!
                      Ok, so pick PC World, or any other number of other media outlets that were reiterating the same thing: Stereo was the major focus at the show from the display vendors. Impressions of the tech are good. Vendors are also pushing stereo in upcoming trade shows as well, so expect more articles / buzz regarding stereo in the near future.

                      Google "RealD first impressions". As for the tech (not price), reviews have been positive. I'll paraphrase one of the writers: Stereo content that doesn't rely on being stereo (ie cheap "things flying at you" effects) provides gorgeous results. The example was the movie "Up" where the scenes were opened out, not popping at you all the time. While the "popping out" effect does work, it's generally one of the major causes of eye strain (the stereo separation gets too wide if the object is drawn too close to the viewer). Again, there's good and bad content.

                      Of course small screens were always where the 3D effect shined and you don't have to dork it up to use a DS... well, at least not any more than using a DS.
                      Larger screens can use auto stereo as well, but I'm generally not a fan of auto stereo. The 3DS is a good fit for the tech though.

                      And again, who did I say was iffy about the tech? "enthusiasts and kids". Because, you know, they're the ones setting the standards and all.
                      Ah, that's where the disconnect was. My mistake. I was thinking of things in terms of the vendor's viewpoint, and was carrying that context over into your post as well. Many of the anti-stereo views (historically) stem from there being multiple formats for stereo, along with multiple stereo technologies (passive vs active, etc). Instead of name calling though, a simple "I wasn't talking about the vendors" would have cleared things up on this end.

                      Wow, that's an even more retarded strawman than the last one. Where did I say manufacturers/content providers were only targeting kids and enthusiasts?
                      This somewhat carries over from the mistaken frame of reference, but it does address the point of stereo being "strictly the purview of enthusiasts and kids". A broad range of content, like ESPN's sports channel, general TV programming, etc, helps expand the market. While I question the validity of your definition of the status quo, at the very least, upcoming content is addressing that concern.

                      Although if you wanted me to make that argument, fine. You need only go down to your nearest video store and see what kinds of films have been given priority release on Blu[e]Ray. Since buying my BD player, I've had a hard time finding anything besides Harry Potter and action flicks. Retailers certainly seem to think their bread is being buttered by tech-savvy man-children and children, generally. I'll be sure to tell them they're mistaken.
                      Ok, so what big blockbuster releases don't fall into that category? It's the same situation with standard DVD's as far as advertising and in store displays go. But while we're on the topic of release lists, this might help:

                      http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/releasedates.html

                      There's a good variety of content for 2D Blu-ray. 3D content is still early.

                      I'd say that's pretty damn 'on point'.
                      How? Sure, there's non-techies who bought blu-ray that don't use *nix, but that's true regardless of stereo or not. You created a random category of people that are interested in stereo, have money, but are not tech savvy and don't use linux. Sure, there are some people who may fit into this category, but it's nothing more than a random construct and amounts to hand waving.

                      Yes, we get it. You've figured out how to remove key phrases from any kind of context and repurpose them in a more convenient manner. Good for you.
                      It was an honest mistake on my part. But even taking things from your frame of reference, you're ignoring the positive impressions from the press. Your argument starts from assuming the validity that only enthusiasts, kids, or money w/o sense people are interested in stereo. This brings me to another point.

                      As for reaction from consumers, after a bit more googling there's a nielsen study that supports the position that consumers at this time aren't willing to shell out the cash for the stereo effect. The up side (at least for stereo proponents), is that people _are_ interested in stereo, but are taking a wait to purchase approach until the content issue is resolved and price points decrease (continued miniaturizing of the shutter glasses will also help). Gamers are the exception to this with a large upswing in interest:

                      http://www.tvnewscheck.com/article/2...d-but-cautious

                      My reasons being clear and, as yet, remain unchallenged.
                      Yes, I have the correct context for your position now, but no, they aren't unchallenged, see below:

                      No, you're just restating the same argument. Every post you've made can be boiled down to 'the industry is pushing for x, therefore people want x' and 'no u!'. Cnet is the closest you've come to any sort of elaboration upon your argument.
                      I hate to use the phrase, but it applies here: content is king. Compelling content generates interest. Standardization allows content vendors to make releases that aren't stuck on a single device so they can target a broader base. The industry getting behind stereo greatly increases the amount of content that will be available.

                      Rather than a single vendor going it alone (which is what past iterations of stereo have faced), or having tremendous drawbacks due to tech (anaglyph, low framerate shutter, etc), the current push for stereo has far better market conditions than any previous attempt to bring it into the home.

                      Besides demand and endurance being untested, mixed results in other markets and there being adequate fallbacks?
                      This depends on if stereo is a major feature or not. If people are interested in stereo content, dropping back to mono would be similar to going back from HDTV to SDTV, it's the same video, but a lesser experience than what is available. Outside of consumer space, there are plenty of areas in industry where stereo is vital.

                      For most people, yeah. Think most SDTVs, youtube up until a little while ago: mono was the norm. Most people just use their laptop's speaker, or the $20 job that came with their Dell PC. Never mind the disparity between comparing 3D to HD and surround sound to, "a single tinny speaker', at least you didn't go as far as throwing in a gramophone.
                      That was a little nod to the "raw food chef" exaggeration. If a more suitable comparison is unplugging one channel from your stereo, it still has the same effect. The experience is lesser. BTW, I don't know of anyone who uses laptop speakers if they can at all avoid it, sound quality is garbage.

                      Well as soon as you figure out whether you were making a strawman, or a false analogy, let me know and we can pick up where we left off.
                      Fine. Due to my misunderstanding of your argument, the standards / state of industry didn't directly address your concern. A couple of things though:

                      1) It wasn't on purpose.
                      2) Taken from my focus on the vendors / content providers I hope you can see why I was stuck on the subject.
                      3) I didn't realize you were trying to pigeonhole stereo consumers at the outset. It would have changed the nature of the discussion, as that's an even weaker position to defend. See the study linked to above.

                      One other quick thing before moving on, I've tried to remain civil throughout the discussion, I'd appreciate similar treatment.

                      Great, so then why were you arguing with me?
                      Because stereo, as a feature, can easily be added across an entire product line (so long as the refresh rate of the panel supports it). From a technical standpoint, there's nothing stopping it. If a vendor chooses to introduce stereo on a 32" 780p set, they can. For smaller rooms / spaces, there might be a market for something like that. I don't know how the vendors will approach stereo in the next few years, other than it's a major focus for them.

                      So lets just assume an exception from the norm?
                      It is in the sense that it doesn't displace the existing high-end features (ie an even bigger display or higher res, brighter lighting, etc).

                      ...once 3D is no longer the new hotness, riiight?
                      No, as stated above it doesn't displace the existing "new hotness" tech wise. It's an addition that can be applied to existing panels, but adds a significant enhancement to the capability of the set.

                      It was a marketting gimmick, however, for about a year, or so before the 1080p push. Then they continued to hold you to ransom over the number of HDMI inputs for a good while longer.
                      HDMI is the consumer electronics equivalent of DVI. Since it's a digital signal, it doesn't result in signal noise at higher data rates. Cheap cables cause bad signals in composite / component video feeds. DVI / HDMI cables for the most part either work or they don't. So I still question if it's status as gimmick. It was a feature promoted on HD flat panels though, but it makes sense since that was also around the time frame of migration from CRT to panels (which are digital in nature). Cheaper sets always suffer from a lack of multiple IO ports though, so that has nothing to do with HDMI specifically.

                      As for the rest of the post, civility goes right out the window, eh?

                      Comment


                      • About the reverse engineering part; please don't do it. AMD puts great effort into open source and if anyone screws them over then gues what we'll lose.

                        As for the 3D part; Linux has more marketshare on the desktop then 3D has worldwide in any market. As long as OpenGL 2.1 doesn't even work, why the fsck even bothering about 3D movies?! There isn't even accelerated _video_ yet!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                          About the reverse engineering part; please don't do it. AMD puts great effort into open source and if anyone screws them over then gues what we'll lose.
                          How would reverse engineering it "screw anyone over"? The problem isn't that they don't want UVD to be implemented in the open source drivers, the problem is that they don't have the legal go-ahead to release the required DOCUMENTATION. If the functions can be figured out WITHOUT AMD DOCUMENTATION, this would NOT be screwing anyone over.

                          Comment


                          • Actually, no. The problem is that we don't want information in public that could impact our ability to ship a robust DRM implementation on other OSes. It doesn't make a whit of difference whether that information is published or reverse engineered. If you want a bad analogy (hey, I'm out of coffee) it's like being shot in the foot. It's a Bad Thing whether you do it or someone else does it, but you still don't want to do it yourself

                            Comment


                            • So, reverse-engineering Nvidia's decoding hardware would be a better thing?

                              Cause then, you could release the documentation anyway, as all the competitors' decoding is already out in the open.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                                So, reverse-engineering Nvidia's decoding hardware would be a better thing?
                                sure, if you want to screw nvidia and possibly get into a bit of a lawsuit, go ahead
                                Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                                Cause then, you could release the documentation anyway, as all the competitors' decoding is already out in the open.
                                doesn't matter if the copy protection is broken. It already is (blueray movies CAN be ripped and copied), but that doesn't lift the contractual obligations of the GPU vendors.
                                The MPAA (or whoever makes those contracts) isn't going to say "Oh well, copy protection was a bad idea anyway. You may now freely copy our movies on all platforms. Have fun!"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X