If you're one of
those few people who rushed out and bought an analog HD display (like the 1993 model pictured above), you may actually
be able to find some use for it. Sony Pictures has announced that it won't downsample Blu-ray output for analog sets,
which don't support HDMI. That means you'll be able to watch full-res output if you hook up your Blu-ray player to your
old display, rather than the 960x540 that could be outputted using the Image Constraint Token. While we're a little
surprised that Sony would actually come out and do something so consumer-friendly, we're not
that shocked.
After all, the number of people with analog HD sets is relatively small compared to the overall market, Sony's piracy
concerns have to do with
digital copying, and, of course, Sony's in a battle for market share, and if this is
a way to win a few more customers over to the Blu-ray camp, they're gonna do it.
posted March 14th 2006 3:54PM
That Sony analog HDTV relied on Japan's MUSE HiVision NTSC technology which used 1125 scan lines (of which 1080 were actual video, thus 1080i) instead of traditional NTSC's 525 lines (480i)
That's nice and all, but the DRM still exists and isn't consumer friendly enough for my tastes; nor is the exuberant pricing of the hardware, not including the non-existent PS3.
Can you please post a link to the article that the picture came from? I didn't know HDTV existed that long ago, and I'd love to read about it!
This is great news since my HDTV is a 5 year old analog model, and I'm not planning on upgrading my display for at least another year.
...I've been watching HD longer than you have!!!
This is great news for Blu-Ray. If more movie studios in the Blu-Ray camp decide to do the same, could be a big advantage against HD-DVD.
This isn't just about people who have analog only HDTV's. It about not forcing users how have only one DVI/HDMI connector to by a $300 switcher.
Wow, seriously, this is a shocker. This makes me somewhat more comfortable with the idea of Blu-ray. Plus, it'll guarantee downloadable HD content immediately:
analog component -> h.264 -> internet -> tv
Time to get that 4 terabyte NAS going...
HOGWASH
This is a red herring from Sony to try and convince people that they are doing good for the consumers, but this is not the case at all. This is *Sony Pictures* saying that they won't downsample the analog HD picture. Please note that this is not the entertainment divison.
What does this mean? Well, it means that this wasn't a choice or decision made at the hardware level (read: PS3), but one made by the studio. Other studios can still choose to downsample the analog HD picture however much they like.
This news has zero implications for fair use rights or any of the DRM things that those "in the know" are complaining left and right about.
NOTE: This refers to Sony Pictures ONLY. Other studios can still downsample their BD content by simply planting a downsampling flag. There is still no guarantee that all Blu-Ray discs will display at full resolution over analog connections. It only means that Sony Studios has decided that their releases will not be flagged for downconversion.
Good news from Sony Studios, yes. End of the idiotic analog hole downsampling debate, no.
You can buy a DVI to Component adapter anyway... I think they realized the stupidity of the protection mechanism, since it is so easily mitigated... I know it is only 1080i, but that is still better than they are "allowing" with the protection scheme. Thanks for ponying up to this, now confess your PS3 issues...
DR
DVI to Component adapter http://www.trianglecables.com/dvi-hdtv200.html
Hello all! :)
I'm a little bit confused and I would be happy if Engadget or some of it's you guys would like th answer. What's the difference between HDMI and HDCP? I guess you laugh at me now. But is HDMI the actually cables and HDCP the encryption?
The device will downsample if the monitor doesn't support HDCP right?
Jonathan, if I remember correctly HDTV is almost 30 years old.
Will HD-DVD down sample if the signal is not carried over HDCP'd HDMI? And if so, how does Microsoft plan to create a HD-DVD add on drive for the 360 without selling a crippled product, given that it only supports component out?
#3: Your ignorance is showing. The studios control the ICT, not the hardware (i.e. it's encoded on the disc not the player). Considering that at least two other major studios--Fox, Disney, and possibly Paramount--are also not downrezzing destroys your argument that it's just Sony. Warner wants to downrez, and have been since well before they announced support for Blu-Ray.
>What's the difference between HDMI and HDCP?
And how many current HDMI devices (if any) support HDCP? Since DVI can be easily converted to HDMI, and none of those high end video cards previously reported on actually supported HDCP, I am under the impression that current HDMI devices (like my receiver, or my projector) are also are not going to support HDCP. But I haven't been able to get a confirmation on this either way. Could you friendly Engadget guys answer this for everyone?
The next-gen media BS is nothing but trouble. The above questions and posts (Alex, Karl) are the proof. Even consumers that we would think are generally on top of things (myself included) can't even manage to sort it all out.
By definition HDMI supports HDCP, it's an essential part of the spec.
Still not buying anything Sony on it. They can rot.
Repeat after me, everyone: Rootkit.
I used to have a love/hate relationship with them. I love the design of their stuff, but I'd buy it and it'd break every time. Hence the hate. Sony's quality is crap.
However, after their naked anti-consumer sentiment with the rootkit and subsequent bungling of the aftermath, I've got nothing but hate for them. They should liquidate the company and give the money to the shareholders.
#12 Have to agree with you there. It's alot of things to keep in mind and it's starting to get a little bit confusing.
So if Ryan and Peter read this, can you answer here or maybe talk about it in the next PodCast and realy sort things out or maybe do a stand alone Engadget HD-Podcast and answering all sorts of "Next-gen format related questions". Would be cool :)
#1: The picture came from here: http://www.tvhistory.tv/1990s.htm
#2 and #4
You guys can't seriously believe this article! This is SONY we're talking about. Please DO NOT buy into this load of crap. Sony would say anything to get you to part with your money, then make nothing but excuses when they don't deliver.
This WHOLE thing is Sony's fault. 100% They invent another format war, then expect us to gust over the fact that THEY are NOT going to down-rez the video quality! Un-f__king-believable!
Bingo, if this is true, it's now possible to copy a high quality HD signal. Component is going to look just fine.
Everyone who wants to download or copy content can now do so easily.
Overall, good news. Sony is still BS and so is what they're doing overall, but this is a (very small) plus.
It would be interesting if Sony is trying to be less restrictive; that would help to seal Blu-Ray dominance and help their company's image out. Doubtful, but hey.
This is actually good news if it forces other studios in line. I'm one of those suckers who spent a fortune on a plasma in 2001 before HDMI was mandated.
#4, please explain again how Joe Consumer is going to digitize component HD without spending $$$ on pro-level equipment? Pirated HD isn't going to show up on P2P networks unless professional pirates decide to start working for free. Either way, digitizing HD from analog component outputs is a time consuming and expensive process. This ain't your daddy's Tivo.
#7, that $25 DVI to component adapter isn't the solution. It's just a cable taking the optional analog signals. Even a true DVI to component converter wouldn't address the HDCP issue. But there are at least three true HDCP DVI to component/VGA converters on the market. Dtrovision does one of them, and it works fine on my system for watching upconverted DVD's.
My big-@$$ Sony XBR is happy tonight. It still has the most beautiful picture quality we've seen on any set, and we'll be able to watch some hi-def discs on it. (Someday.)
"According to CED Magazine, Sony/MGM and Disney currently have no plans to down-convert, and Fox is opposed to it as well. Warner Pictures is a proponent of the ICT, and it is expected that Paramount will also implement it [9]. Other studios releasing Blu-ray content have not yet commented on whether or not they will use down-conversion. AACS guidelines require that any title that implements the ICT must clearly state so on the packaging."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray#Digital_rights_management
This must be a shocker for some of you, huh?
I know this question was asked, repeatedly, on the Samsung 32" CRT HD thread, but why does the editorial staff at Engadget seem to have such a downer on CRT HD sets? Yes, they're bigger, nowhere near as stylish and not available in the ridiculous sizes of a flat panel but a) they're usually a LOT cheaper and b) the picture quality will stomp all but the really high-end LCD sets into the ground. For gaming I'd much prefer a good quality CRT set to a 1,000 LCD. And of course with HD starting to become more and more common the need for cheap sets to provide alternative upgrade paths from existing equipment is going to become more urgent...
Everytime there is talk about HDCP I wonder why you think it will survive more than five seconds after it actually hits market?
Anyway, I have a basic DVI screen, but I doubt I'll have to upgrade anytime soon, as some million others would do too, and that's a market share you can't just ignore. So even if it takes 10 seconds to disable HDCP ...
#23 are you sure analog CRTs have better picture quality than digital LCDs?
I haven't seen any HD CRTs, so I might be wrong, but I have never seen any CRT that could be compared with the pixel perfect image of a digital LCD. As long a you don't call blurriness and brightness shifts an improvement due to the compression artifacts ...
Big deal. I'm not buying either format until I can rip the disc onto my media server and play it from there. Discs are just a delivery device, I don't know why they bother with all this 'protection'. Pirates will be the only people unaffected by any of this.
outputted?
CRT fans unit. :) #27, re#23, Yes, HD crts are awesome. There are a lot of junk hd crts, but the XBR line is simply awesome. I can't stand LCDs and Plasma. You have to see it to believe it. (though size is one issue)
BTW, #6 how are you going from component to h.264?
Just a side note, but I watch HD on my Sony CRT Projector that came out in 1991 (at least the unit that I have), and I used to sell some of the older models (88/89) that could do 540p / 1080i pretty well. Which I still find fascinating, as my '91 projector does a great job up to 720p, and still looks better than many DLP's in the $3-4000 range... Just me plugging the old CRT technology, way ahead of its time.
Okay, we simply need to boycott ALL WB and Paramount Blu-ray flicks that have this downsampling crap in them.
"You can buy a DVI to Component adapter anyway... "
The adapter you linked to is not an adapter. In fact, I don't know of any actual "adapters" for DVI to component, although there may be *converters*. But that would be a whole other ball of wax.
The "adapter" you linked to is just a cable changer. Well ok, so technically it's a cable "adapter". But it's not a signal adapter. ATI cards have component and DVI output over the same connector. This is unique to ATI. You just need the right cable to get one or the other out of the same connector. This is not true of any other graphics card manufacturer or of any manufacturer of anything else either.
"a) they're usually a LOT cheaper and b) the picture quality will stomp all but the really high-end LCD sets into the ground."
BS. I own a CRT HDTV. The picture quality is not even in the same league with today's LCD HDTV's. I mean you're talking 850 lines of resolution vs. full 1080p. Come on - you can't seriously still be saying CRT's have a better picture. You're stuck in like 1997 - it's time to join the 21st century.
Again, I say that as an owner of the Samsung TXP2675WH. I bought it because it was cheap and the picture is a lot better than my old NTSC set. But even a half-decent 37" or 42" LCD at 1080p will stomp all over my set, eat it for breakfast and crap out the leftovers.
Some Sony TV's do get up to around 1400 lines of resolution, but a) that's still shy of the 1920 lines of a good LCD, b) that's still interlaced, unlike 1080p screens, c) that's still overscanned by 3-5%, unlike an LCD, so you're losing that resolution, d) you're still dealing with geometry and convergence errors, unlike an LCD, e) need I go on?
"analog component -> h.264 -> internet -> tv"
Yeah, tell me where you found that HD component capture card you're using.
You can't capture component HD. Not on any consumer machine I've ever seen, anyway, or will ever see. Oh sure, Moore's Law being what it is, eventually we'll have hardware that costs $50 that'll capture a full 1080i without breaking a sweat. But at the moment, that's about the equivalent of asking for a clone of IBM's Deep Blue in your home. It just ain't gonna happen for a while.
You really want to do it? Here you go: http://www.sharbor.com/products/AJAN5010005.html
$1549. And don't stop there - you know how much hard drive space *uncompressed* HD signals take up? This is basically a dumb capture card - it's not doing any on the fly compression (even if the picture was compressed to MPEG2 originally - remember, we're talking *analog* capture). You'd better have a couple terrabytes of storage set aside for that LOST episode you want to store. And be sure to set aside a couple days to compress that down to h.264.
Sony apparently thinks they just have nothing to worry about from analog capture, and they're right. By the time it's affordable enough for the script kiddies, everyone will be all like "analog?! what's that?!"
"Everytime there is talk about HDCP I wonder why you think it will survive more than five seconds after it actually hits market?"
It's already ON the market, yo. It has been for years now. Even my Samsung CRT supports it, which it has to in order to work with the HDMI output on my HD cable box.
The thing about HDCP is that it's one of the least intrusive copy protection schemes ever. I'm no fan of any DRM but HDCP is not the real enemy here. The real enemy is stuff like AACS. HDCP has got nothing to do with downrezzing anything when you're going over *component* - HDCP only works over a digital connection.
If your screen supports HDCP (and virtually all HDTV's with digital inputs do - even old CRT's like mine), and your cable box/PC/Blu-Ray player supports HDCP, then you will never even know that it's there. Theoretically. It doesn't always work that way in practice, and that's the annoying thing about it. But what does it tell you that you didn't even know that HDCP is already in full use all over the country? It should tell you that most people don't even know that they're dealing with it, and if they do, there aren't very many complaints about it.
The HDCP fiasco on PC's is another matter, but that's the fault of the PC industry, not the electronics industry.
I would be utterly happy to have no DRM anywhere. But HDCP is not the issue here.
Jeff, thanks for that post. It was very nice to read and on of the best posts I have seen on Engadget for a long time. Thanks for some very interesting lines! :)
Maybe the reason for this is that who in the heck is capable of capturing a component signal anyway? I don't know of any method of riping component outputs? Does anyone know of a digital recorder that takes component inputs?
Now the thing is...there is nothing from stopping a manufacturer from creating such a device in the future. In which case I'm sure the Studios will respond in kind adding future limitations on their High Def DVDs.
"Some Sony TV's do get up to around 1400 lines of resolution, but a) that's still shy of the 1920 lines of a good LCD, b) that's still interlaced, unlike 1080p screens, c) that's still overscanned by 3-5%, unlike an LCD, so you're losing that resolution, d) you're still dealing with geometry and convergence errors, unlike an LCD, e) need I go on?"
what LCD has 1920 lines? what format is using 1920 lines? (to preempt: who measures television resolution on that axis?)
computer CRTs are not interlaced. why would HDTV CRTs be? seeing as the signal format is more analogous to a computer signal than an old-timey TV like you seem to think.
computer CRTs are not overscanned. none of the HDTV CRTs i have seen are overscanned either.
most flat-faced CRTs do not have noticable geometry or convergence issues.
LCDs are fixed pixel. thats my first problem with them. they can't vary to keep a contant pixel-to-pixel ratio to the input signal. CRT? no problem. on an LCD a 720p signal has to math it up and antialias the signal to fit onto a native 1080p screen. sorta like running a 1280x1024 monitor with a 640x480 signal. looks like total ass.
the other issue is black point. it's all sorts of wrong. very wrong.
saturation tends to be all wonky too.
viewing angle... while markedly improved in the past few years still has nothing on CRT.
there is still a reason actual video professionals don't use LCDs for reference monitors. and it certainly has nothing to do with being stuck in 1997. read up.
Yeah, Jeff, great post.
So, you are sure my DVI LCD does support HDCP? So my only problem would be that my graphics card doesn't support it?
Anyway, what about AACS, why should I be concerned it won't be cracked? Most protection schemes have been ...