Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

FFmpeg 0.6 Released With H.264, VP8 Love

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

  • #11
    Blu-ray ripping already works
    Unfortunately, it doesn't. Not in open source.

    Open source solutions can only rip older titles (I think up to MKBv11), often have trouble with BD+ discs (if they are supported at all), and don't always work.

    The one-click ripping is only reliable using closed-source programs, who are not disclosing their secrets for obvious reasons.

    I've tried to get my head around it by reading through the Doom9 forum, and the issues are extremely complicated. AACS and BD+ are evil, filthy technologies.

    I'll be very happy if one day it all works from MPlayer or VLC, like it does with DVDs, but it's not as easy to crack like CSS was.

    Comment


    • #12
      AFAIK, this is the state of the art in open source BluRay decryption: http://altair.videolan.org:4280/

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
        AACS and BD+ are evil, filthy technologies.
        And so useless. I could find pretty much every movie on filesharing networks, but I can not watch the Blu-rays I bought.

        Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
        AFAIK, this is the state of the art in open source BluRay decryption: http://altair.videolan.org:4280/
        Doesn't look too usable.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by yoshi314 View Post
          well, at least once ffmpeg team has a good reason to bump version number - a new, soon-to-be major, codec support.

          i don't want to start bikeshed discussion, but version number bump was imho a bit too high.
          But i want the bike shed to be green!!!~

          Comment


          • #15
            Major studios are just screwing themselves; no sales at all for the ever growing number of Linux users. Good job shrinking your market, dickheads...

            Oops? Well here comes the download squad ^^, Won't be earning a single dime from me. Oh and the last time I bought a movie on DVD? Less than a month ago.

            See you later >:-)

            Comment


            • #16
              They figured you would just steal the movies anyway...

              Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
              Major studios are just screwing themselves; no sales at all for the ever growing number of Linux users. Good job shrinking your market, dickheads...

              Oops? Well here comes the download squad ^^, Won't be earning a single dime from me. Oh and the last time I bought a movie on DVD? Less than a month ago.

              See you later >:-)
              And they were right. I mean, if you won't pay for software, why would you pay for media? The studios would rather just shut out the entire Linux platform and concentrate their efforts elsewhere.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by kgonzales View Post
                And they were right. I mean, if you won't pay for software, why would you pay for media? The studios would rather just shut out the entire Linux platform and concentrate their efforts elsewhere.
                The studios don't care one way or the other. Anybody is free to create a licensed player for Linux. The fact that nobody has done it yet says nothing.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Reasons for lack of paid software

                  Originally posted by kgonzales View Post
                  And they were right. I mean, if you won't pay for software, why would you pay for media? The studios would rather just shut out the entire Linux platform and concentrate their efforts elsewhere.
                  Actually most of us will pay for software, Oracle, Autocad, RHEL, etc. There was 1 licensed DVD player for Linux, it wasn't very good much worse than mplayer or VLC. My issues with a paid for player, would be:
                  1. Updates, are they going to update as fast ffmpeg/mplayer/vlc? What about security, Adobe flash player doesn't have a good record even on Linux. I could find a few more examples of closed source software on Linux having issues if needed.
                  2. Integration, will it look good and oganised with the current desktop, GTK/QT with the same colors as the rest of the system. Chrome does this well.
                  3. Continued support, how long will my license work for? what if the company goes under? can I move it to a new computer if/when I get one?
                  4. Does it play well on a multiuser Linux system or is it expecting to keep it's only config data in one place shared for all users? (NWN is an example of that on linux)
                  All of the above would need to be addressed before I considered paying for the software. If it doesn't I might as well use the OSS stuff, at least then i have a shot to hack in the support I want, gtk gui, etc. In short I think Linux/OSS users are willing to pay for software, but in return we are expecting polished, well designed, secure software, since we are used to getting >80% of that for "free".

                  p.s. I hate to say that it is free, because a person or a group has spent a large amount of time writing it.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    @cynyr,

                    Sarcasm...

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      How strange, expecting to actually get a quality product in exchange for your money. What kind of insane maniac are you?

                      Closed-source software houses whose shrink-wrap licenses disclaim all fitness for use of their products all deserve to go bankrupt, yesterday. If your software isn't even fit for any particular use, then it certainly wasn't fit for sale and you certainly don't deserve to get any money for it; "merchandise" has to be fit for sale. Shrinkwrap-licensed software is just garbage.

                      re: movie studios, blu-ray... I've paid to see a couple movies in theaters recently. But none that I need to ever watch again. Their storytelling just isn't that good.

                      Some really good movies packed so many interesting details into scenes that you had to go back and watch again to pick up what you missed the first time, to get a deeper understanding of the story. Modern movies are written for today's short-attention-span audience; for them the fewer details the better because nobody is going to catch any of them anyway.

                      I remember re-reading the Lord of the Rings 3-4 times over the course of junior high school, and getting something new out of it each time, even though after the first time thru I already knew the story. Good literature bears re-reading, good movies bear re-watching. Current Hollywood output is neither.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X