Originally posted by bridgman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
ATI Evergreen 3D Code May Soon Go Into Gallium3D
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by droidhacker View PostThis 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.
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...
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
-
Originally posted by bridgman View PostWithout 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.
Thanks.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View PostYou'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.
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
-
Originally posted by TomcaT-SdB View PostI suppose I should have spelled it out more clearly
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.
Learn to comprehend and debate then.
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.
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).
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.
Given that the cost to produce the panels was the major reason for the costs of the features you listed
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by etnlWings View PostYou 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
(* 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.
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
-
Originally posted by TomcaT-SdB View PostOk, 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.
Feel free to argue that nearly everyone from CES was wrong though.
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
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.
(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.
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.
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
Gee shucks, professor, is that a strawman? I dun can't tell.
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.
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.
Those were your words
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.
Since you keep stating over and over that my argument is irrelevant, I'm trying, over and over, to illustrate why things are relevant.
Please explain to me how stereo is _not_ going to be a relevant use case in this environment.
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
(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).
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.
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.
I do expect competition to help drive pricing low enough so stereo can be addressed at a variety of price points
As for the HDMI issue, HDMI was / is not a gimmick.
Desktop users watch content on their PC, and, if they have a stereo capable display, will want to see stereo content in stereo.
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
-
Originally posted by Qaridariumif 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.
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.
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.
(* 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!
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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:
My reasons being clear and, as yet, remain unchallenged.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
So lets just assume an exception from the norm?
...once 3D is no longer the new hotness, riiight?
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.
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
Comment