TR Forums

Everything about the whole thing is a mess. I don't have any UHD BluRays yet, but I fully intend on ripping them (if possible) so I don't have to deal with the stupid DRM ****. If I can't, they'll get returned.

I got a BluRay for Christmas (Star Trek: Beyond) and I was amazed to find out that playing a BluRay on a computer requires either paid software (that may or may not work) or the one free player I could find (that was quite sketchy and crappy). My solution was to simply rip it and bypass the idiotic problem.

just brew it! wrote:

In general, I think 4K displays only make sense if you're a professional who benefits from a lot of screen real estate

High resolution displays are not just about screen real estate. A 5K display is quad 2560x1440 so in "retina" mode you have an incredible "pixel free" setup (quad pixel per pixel 2560x1440).

End User wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

In general, I think 4K displays only make sense if you're a professional who benefits from a lot of screen real estate

High resolution displays are not just about screen real estate. A 5K display is quad 2560x1440 so in "retina" mode you have an incredible  "pixel free" setup (quad pixel per pixel 2560x1440).

What, exactly, are the benefits of being free from pixels (that I'm already conditioned not to notice)?

What may appear to be overkill today is probably good to have for tomorrow. I may not have a large enough TV to make use of 4K today but I sure as hell want one in a year or two.

I still buy content via Blu-ray but I immediately make a backup that sits on my internal cloud storage for playback via my Plex server. I hope I can find a similar solution for 4K content.

Vhalidictes wrote:

End User wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

In general, I think 4K displays only make sense if you're a professional who benefits from a lot of screen real estate

High resolution displays are not just about screen real estate. A 5K display is quad 2560x1440 so in "retina" mode you have an incredible  "pixel free" setup (quad pixel per pixel 2560x1440).

What, exactly, are the benefits of being free from pixels (that I'm already conditioned not to notice)?

That's like asking why the big scary bomb in B-rated action movies always has a digital readout on the timer. Without that, there'd be no drama. That's what most people are really paying for when they buy stuff like a 5k display.

End User wrote:

What may appear to be overkill today is probably good to have for tomorrow. I may not have a large enough TV to make use of 4K today but I sure as hell want one in a year or two.

At normal TV viewing distance it isn't going to make a meaningful difference. And as I already noted, compression artifacts will probably swamp out any benefits from the 4K resolution.

Vhalidictes wrote:

End User wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

In general, I think 4K displays only make sense if you're a professional who benefits from a lot of screen real estate

High resolution displays are not just about screen real estate. A 5K display is quad 2560x1440 so in "retina" mode you have an incredible  "pixel free" setup (quad pixel per pixel 2560x1440).

What, exactly, are the benefits of being free from pixels (that I'm already conditioned not to notice)?

For video, it's not much of a difference (and I have a 4K 70" TV to compare on).

In games and real work, it's quite a boon to have a high DPI display.

Vhalidictes wrote:

End User wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

In general, I think 4K displays only make sense if you're a professional who benefits from a lot of screen real estate

High resolution displays are not just about screen real estate. A 5K display is quad 2560x1440 so in "retina" mode you have an incredible  "pixel free" setup (quad pixel per pixel 2560x1440).

What, exactly, are the benefits of being free from pixels (that I'm already conditioned not to notice)?

The best example I can think of is comparing a retina 9.7" iPad to a non-retina 9.7" iPad. Switching to the retina iPad may not hit you like a ton of bricks but I can guarantee, after a week of using the retina iPad, that switching back to the non-retina iPad would make you cringe.

just brew it! wrote:

And as I already noted, compression artifacts will probably swamp out any benefits from the 4K resolution.

Ultra HD Blu-ray content is compressed?

End User wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

And as I already noted, compression artifacts will probably swamp out any benefits from the 4K resolution.

Ultra HD Blu-ray content is compressed?

Very compressed. Raw would be...nearly 500 MB/s for 24 FPS.

EDIT: For 60 FPS:
Raw bitrate
Megapixels: 8.3 MP (8,294,400 pixels)
Aspect ratio: 1.78:1 (HD 16:9)
1 frame of RGB 3x8bit: 24.9 MB (8.3 MP x 24 bits)
60 fps x 24.9 MB = 11.9 Gbps = 1.49 GB/s
Longer durations: 89.6 GB/min = 5.37 TB/hr

Waco wrote:

End User wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

And as I already noted, compression artifacts will probably swamp out any benefits from the 4K resolution.

Ultra HD Blu-ray content is compressed?

Very compressed. Raw would be...nearly 500 MB/s for 24 FPS.

EDIT: For 60 FPS:
Raw bitrate
Megapixels: 8.3 MP (8,294,400 pixels)
Aspect ratio: 1.78:1 (HD 16:9)
1 frame of RGB 3x8bit: 24.9 MB (8.3 MP x 24 bits)
60 fps x 24.9 MB = 11.9 Gbps = 1.49 GB/s
Longer durations: 89.6 GB/min = 5.37 TB/hr

...and a triple-layer HD Blu-ray has a capacity of 100GB. So if we assume a maximum 2 hour playing time (just a guess, I'm not sure what the actual max capacity is in minutes), we need roughly a 100:1 compression ratio.

According to Wikipedia, HD Blu-ray uses H.265 (a.k.a. HEVC), which is a next-gen lossy codec that supposedly gives 2x better compression than H.264 for a given level of quality.

@Waco - You beat me to the punch. I was going to post a similar analysis, but I was nearly at my bus stop and had to put the laptop away!

Glorious wrote:

derFunkstein wrote:

Side note, the death of optical discs for PC software is directly related to DRM, but not because people are rejecting DRM.

I don't think so.

Once everything is interconnected enough, which happened years and years ago, it was inevitable.

DRM, ultimately, had nothing do with it. It was going to happen with or without it.

Pretty much, widespread broadband connectivity is making physical media distribution practically obsolete. It is only good for closed secured networks/systems.

just brew it! wrote:

Cheap HDDs and Cloud storage are killing them for backup/archival uses as well. Unless we see a significant leap in capacity (without a proportional increase in media cost) within the next couple of years, optical drives for PCs will probably die. (They're already half-dead as it is.)

Not for archival storage purposes though. Optical is far superior to spinners mainly because HDD quality has dropped over recent years and the physical bits are becoming too small for emergency recovery. Optical media can last decades if cared for. The bigger problem is the players/readers not the media itself.

Krogoth wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

Cheap HDDs and Cloud storage are killing them for backup/archival uses as well. Unless we see a significant leap in capacity (without a proportional increase in media cost) within the next couple of years, optical drives for PCs will probably die. (They're already half-dead as it is.)

Not for archival storage purposes though. Optical is far superior to spinners mainly because HDD quality has dropped over recent years and the physical bits are becoming too small for emergency recovery. Optical media can last decades if cared for. The bigger problem is the players/readers not the media itself.

I think most people will just archive to a Cloud backup service. Don't need to worry about the reader still being functional, and dealing with hardware failures is someone else's problem.

just brew it! wrote:

Krogoth wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

Cheap HDDs and Cloud storage are killing them for backup/archival uses as well. Unless we see a significant leap in capacity (without a proportional increase in media cost) within the next couple of years, optical drives for PCs will probably die. (They're already half-dead as it is.)

Not for archival storage purposes though. Optical is far superior to spinners mainly because HDD quality has dropped over recent years and the physical bits are becoming too small for emergency recovery. Optical media can last decades if cared for. The bigger problem is the players/readers not the media itself.

I think most people will just archive to a Cloud backup service. Don't need to worry about the reader still being functional, and dealing with hardware failures is someone else's problem.

That's assuming you trust cloud services with your data.

Krogoth wrote:

That's assuming you trust cloud services with your data.

Well, I've had my own feelings about that (which I've discussed on these forums before), ever since Cloud started to become "a thing". Somewhat ironic now that I work in the industry.

But for the "average Joe", the Cloud is probably at least as secure as whatever they're (not) doing now.

just brew it! wrote:

Well, I've had my own feelings about that (which I've discussed on these forums before), ever since Cloud started to become "a thing". Somewhat ironic now that I work in the industry.

But for the "average Joe", the Cloud is probably at least as secure as whatever they're (not) doing now.

As much as we financial regulators tried to stand athwart the Cloud several years ago (your data MUST be where I can touch it), the industry outpaced us and we have been forced to make peace with it.

just brew it! wrote:

But for the "average Joe", the Cloud is probably at least as secure as whatever they're (not) doing now.

Secure against the data being lost (since they probably don't have backups)? Sure.

Secure against people being able to read YOUR data in 10-15 years? Nah.

Captain Ned wrote:

As much as we financial regulators tried to stand athwart the Cloud several years ago (your data MUST be where I can touch it), the industry outpaced us and we have been forced to make peace with it.

Yup. With industry heavyweights like Microsoft and IBM diving into Cloud in a big way, it isn't going anywhere.

Waco wrote:

Secure against the data being lost (since they probably don't have backups)? Sure.

Secure against people being able to read YOUR data in 10-15 years? Nah.

In 25 they'll probably just scan your brainwaves and read your thoughts anyway. </tinfoil-hat>

just brew it! wrote:

Waco wrote:

End User wrote:

Ultra HD Blu-ray content is compressed?

Very compressed. Raw would be...nearly 500 MB/s for 24 FPS.

EDIT: For 60 FPS:
Raw bitrate
Megapixels: 8.3 MP (8,294,400 pixels)
Aspect ratio: 1.78:1 (HD 16:9)
1 frame of RGB 3x8bit: 24.9 MB (8.3 MP x 24 bits)
60 fps x 24.9 MB = 11.9 Gbps = 1.49 GB/s
Longer durations: 89.6 GB/min = 5.37 TB/hr

...and a triple-layer HD Blu-ray has a capacity of 100GB. So if we assume a maximum 2 hour playing time (just a guess, I'm not sure what the actual max capacity is in minutes), we need roughly a 100:1 compression ratio.

According to Wikipedia, HD Blu-ray uses H.265 (a.k.a. HEVC), which is a next-gen lossy codec that supposedly gives 2x better compression than H.264 for a given level of quality.

@Waco - You beat me to the punch. I was going to post a similar analysis, but I was nearly at my bus stop and had to put the laptop away!

You reminded me of the use of H.265 and I had a d'oh! moment.

Krogoth wrote:

That's assuming you trust cloud services with your data.

Why wouldn't I?
Lets be frank here: 95%+ of my data is inconsequential in terms of security.
I can put the remaining < 5% in an encrypted archive and upload it to a cloud service that uses end to end encryption.

@topic: Why do you all have so much problems with BluRay playback? Since I bought my system and fitted it with a BD-Toaster back in 2012 it was basically:
feed disc -> roll eyes at legal blah and trailers -> hit the play button. (occasional PDvD instability excluded)
As a backup medium BD was too small, way too slow and too expensive for me to ever consider it. So much easier to just plop in a second HDD and mirror.

Vhalidictes wrote:

What, exactly, are the benefits of being free from pixels (that I'm already conditioned not to notice)?

You'd think your eyes were already trained not to notice, but the difference is absolutely striking.

It's actually a lot more noticeable with text, and less so for pictures and games. Reading ebooks is 90% of what I use a tablet for, and after going from the original Ipad Mini to a newer Retina model there's no way I'd go back to a low PPI tablet again.

Waco wrote:

Everything about the whole thing is a mess.  I don't have any UHD BluRays yet, but I fully intend on ripping them (if possible) so I don't have to deal with the stupid DRM ****.  If I can't, they'll get returned.

I got a BluRay for Christmas (Star Trek: Beyond) and I was amazed to find out that playing a BluRay on a computer requires either paid software (that may or may not work) or the one free player I could find (that was quite sketchy and crappy).  My solution was to simply rip it and bypass the idiotic problem.

Yeah, they sure have picked quite the combination of required hardware, haven't they?  I can only assume that this is in an effort to keep AACS2 from being cracked for as long as possible.  I know that certain popular software creators which can bypass AACS are stating they have zero intention of going after the latest AACS2/UHD BD scheme.
Personally, I have both stand alone BD players (4 total) and a BD-ROM in my PC with a licensed copy of PowerDVD 15 and 16 Ultra.  I often watch Blu-rays on my PC and my stand alone players, as I prefer the quality.  Hell, I still buy DVDs, as they are often several dollars cheaper on release day or end up in the Wal Mart $5 bin in a couple of months.  My Sony player does a great job at upscaling, so unless it's a big sci-fi or action movie or that rare catalog title that benefits from a 1080p transfer (e.g., Patton), I'm still fine with 480p upscaled.

All that said, I've never had any real issues getting Blu-rays to play on either the PC or the stand alone players.  Granted, I was a late adopter when it came to HDTV and a Blu-ray player, so many of the initial bugs were worked out.  With 4K UHD BD, however, I will sit out the PC requirements for some time.  I will likely pick up a Samsung UHD BD player and one of the entry-level Sony X800 TVs (which supports HDR and WCG) later this year.  Although I love the convenience of being able to play Blu-rays from my PC and would like the ability to do UHD BD the same, I'm just not going to invest in all those requirements until it's new PC time.

From what I've seen thus far, though, all the 4K UHD BDs come with a standard 1080p BD as well, in combo pack form, so I can continue to watch those on my PC without any problems.
Leaving aside all the "evil DRM" arguments for a moment, I just want to say how crazy it is (to me) that in my lifetime (I'm 40), I've seen the home video format go from broadcast UHF/VHF to VHS to DVD to digital/ATSC to 1080p and now to "4K"/UHD with WCG and support for HDR (via HDR10 or Dolby Vision).  It particularly blows my mind how quickly we've made the transition from 1080p/Blu-ray to 2160p/UHD BD.  Blu-ray was like having a brand new 35mm quality release print (or better) on a disc that fits in the palm of your hand for home viewing.  Now, in a few short years, we've gone to 4K UHD discs that, if mastered properly, are nearly the equivalent of having a 4K DCI/DCP release on a disc that fits in the palm of your hand.   Crazy!

Ifalna wrote:

Krogoth wrote:

That's assuming you trust cloud services with your data.

Why wouldn't I?
Lets be frank here: 95%+ of my data is inconsequential in terms of security.
I can put the remaining < 5% in an encrypted archive and upload it to a cloud service that uses end to end encryption.

Because that data can be sold to marketing and other parties with or without your consent. You also better hope that cloud services don't go skimpy on long-term data storage either. They could remove old data sets (10+ years old) when they need to make more room or it gets "lost"/corrupted in an upgrade that you have no control over.

I can't believe that in this audience no one sees the announcement of UHD Blu-ray drives and the necessary software for playback as the boon that they are for users of home media servers.  I've got 1000+ Blu-rays ripped to my home server, currently occupying some 30TB of drive space.  I can't rip UHD Blu-ray because the capability isn't there yet but now that drives and playback software are out it's just a matter of time until the encryption standard (AACS 2.0) gets cracked and the ripping software can be updated.  

Krogoth wrote:

Ifalna wrote:

Krogoth wrote:

That's assuming you trust cloud services with your data.

Why wouldn't I?
Lets be frank here: 95%+ of my data is inconsequential in terms of security.
I can put the remaining < 5% in an encrypted archive and upload it to a cloud service that uses end to end encryption.

Because that data can be sold to marketing and other parties with or without your consent.

This is why anything sensitive needs to be encrypted. (Though as has been pointed out above, encryption has a "shelf life".)

Heck, sensitive data should be encrypted even if you retain control the physical media. Physical media can still get lost or stolen, especially if you maintain an off-site copy.

Krogoth wrote:

You also better hope that cloud services don't go skimpy on long-term data storage either. They could remove old data sets (10+ years old) when they need to make more room or it gets "lost"/corrupted in an upgrade that you have no control over.

I think the "removing old data to make room" issue is unlikely to come up, as drive capacities will continue to increase and cost/GB will continue to drop. Data loss through negligence/incompetence, or business failure of the Cloud storage service provider are definitely concerns though.

techguy wrote:

I can't believe that in this audience no one sees the announcement of UHD Blu-ray drives and the necessary software for playback as the boon that they are for users of home media servers.  I've got 1000+ Blu-rays ripped to my home server, currently occupying some 30TB of drive space.  I can't rip UHD Blu-ray because the capability isn't there yet but now that drives and playback software are out it's just a matter of time until the encryption standard (AACS 2.0) gets cracked and the ripping software can be updated.  

We'll see. It sounds like they've taken some pretty extreme measures to protect the decryption code this time around. Pagey (a couple of posts back) has also indicated that the "usual suspects" aren't planning to attempt a crack of AACS 2.0, so if it does happen it'll probably be a while.

Let's also be mindful of Forum Rule #1... we're good as long as we're just discussing hypotheticals.

just brew it! wrote:

techguy wrote:

I can't believe that in this audience no one sees the announcement of UHD Blu-ray drives and the necessary software for playback as the boon that they are for users of home media servers.  I've got 1000+ Blu-rays ripped to my home server, currently occupying some 30TB of drive space.  I can't rip UHD Blu-ray because the capability isn't there yet but now that drives and playback software are out it's just a matter of time until the encryption standard (AACS 2.0) gets cracked and the ripping software can be updated.  

We'll see. It sounds like they've taken some pretty extreme measures to protect the decryption code this time around. Pagey (a couple of posts back) has also indicated that the "usual suspects" aren't planning to attempt a crack of AACS 2.0, so if it does happen it'll probably be a while.

Let's also be mindful of Forum Rule #1... we're good as long as we're just discussing hypotheticals.

The "usual suspects" in this case being Redfox, formerly Slysoft.  The quote upon which that interpretation of events is based is an *old* quote that pre-dates the arrival of:
1) UHD Blu-ray drives on PC
2) UHD Blu-ray playback software
We have both of those prerequisites now so it is only a matter of time until AACS 2.0 is cracked.  The same thing happened with AACS 1.0 (i.e. the original Blu-ray encryption protocol).  

just brew it! wrote:

techguy wrote:

I can't believe that in this audience no one sees the announcement of UHD Blu-ray drives and the necessary software for playback as the boon that they are for users of home media servers.  I've got 1000+ Blu-rays ripped to my home server, currently occupying some 30TB of drive space.  I can't rip UHD Blu-ray because the capability isn't there yet but now that drives and playback software are out it's just a matter of time until the encryption standard (AACS 2.0) gets cracked and the ripping software can be updated.  

We'll see. It sounds like they've taken some pretty extreme measures to protect the decryption code this time around. Pagey (a couple of posts back) has also indicated that the "usual suspects" aren't planning to attempt a crack of AACS 2.0, so if it does happen it'll probably be a while.

Let's also be mindful of Forum Rule #1... we're good as long as we're just discussing hypotheticals.

JBI, just for the sake of clarity, I definitely wasn't attempting, and have no desire to, run afoul of Forum Rule #1.  I was, as you pointed out, just stating for both clarity and the sake of conversation that the makers of some specific/popular "software tools" have stated up front and unambiguously that they have no plans to attempt to circumvent AACS 2.0...and that's fine with me. The bottom line for me is this: though I am excited that the industries involved are introducing a way for UHD BD discs to be playable on a properly equipped PC, I have no desire to jump through all the requisite hoops just yet, as it basically involved purchasing/building a PC with very exacting requirements.  There is no UHD content, yet, that will prompt me to undertake the necessary upgrades.  I'll go with a stand alone player and a "4K" TV with WCG and HDR support loooong before I purchase the necessary PC and monitor to achieve the same end results.  Also, I can understand the content creator's/owner's desire to make it difficult to "crack" their DRM/protection schemes...they have a lot of time and money invested in the content and its creation.  It's just a shame that the protection scheme, from a PC owner's standpoint, makes it necessary to invest in, basically, a new system with very specific/exacting requirements.  But, as mentioned elsewhere, the PC market is not their primary target market of the UHD BD industry's focus.

Pagey wrote:

just brew it! wrote:

techguy wrote:

I can't believe that in this audience no one sees the announcement of UHD Blu-ray drives and the necessary software for playback as the boon that they are for users of home media servers.  I've got 1000+ Blu-rays ripped to my home server, currently occupying some 30TB of drive space.  I can't rip UHD Blu-ray because the capability isn't there yet but now that drives and playback software are out it's just a matter of time until the encryption standard (AACS 2.0) gets cracked and the ripping software can be updated.  

We'll see. It sounds like they've taken some pretty extreme measures to protect the decryption code this time around. Pagey (a couple of posts back) has also indicated that the "usual suspects" aren't planning to attempt a crack of AACS 2.0, so if it does happen it'll probably be a while.

Let's also be mindful of Forum Rule #1... we're good as long as we're just discussing hypotheticals.

JBI, just for the sake of clarity, I definitely wasn't attempting, and have no desire to, run afoul of Forum Rule #1.  I was, as you pointed out, just stating for both clarity and the sake of conversation that the makers of some specific/popular "software tools" have stated up front and unambiguously that they have no plans to attempt to circumvent AACS 2.0...and that's fine with me. 

Right.  And when were these comments made?