What does the new BluRay support mean?

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Maybe it's technically possible to shoehorn the required security into the standard Dshow architecture, but the difficulty/cost of doing so has prevented anyone from doing it.

I unregistered the PDVD BDROM Nav DirectShow filter, BR playback stopped working.

Registering the filter got it all working again.

Not much more to say.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by babgvant

For many applications you need to write everything up to the renderer, that's not an aberration, in many cases it's the norm.

It's not the norm for media apps like SageTV, TheaterTek, Zoomplayer, Mediaportal, WMP, etc, etc. SageTV for example only impliments a "standard" demux for their software. By "standard" I mean it connects to the standard Audio/Video decoder filters provided my numerous 3rd parties (Cyberlink, Arcsoft, nVidia, Sonic, Dscaler, etc, etc...). Theatertek works the same way, as does Zoomplayer...

DirectShow provides the plumbing, it's up the developer to assembly something useful. If you need a part you build it, sometimes the only thing you can reuse is the renderer.

No doubt there are cases like that, but that's not the norm for media playback.

Take M2TS playback for e.g., the only filters that can be used OOTB are the renderer and the async source, the demuxer and decoders for every supported type need to be created.

Define "OOTB", there are MPEG-2, H.264, VC-1, TrueHD, DTS-HD, PCM, DTS, DD decoders that work just fine with m2ts files, they connect to standard splitters/demuxs, renderers....

Same for MKV (although Haali's splitter is a hybrid source/splitter filter), and every other container and codec that doesn't ship with support.

MKV also connects to standard A/V decoders.

BlueRay is no different.

But it is, Blu-ray has AACS, which introduces enormous robustness and security requirements that aren't present for just M2TS files or other containers. Not even for DVD (CSS), while DVD is encrypted, the robustness requirements are nowhere close to as extreme as AACS.

Probably a lexicon thing, but to use DirectShow, you need to use it's interfaces (that's how it separates implementation from control). Same thing is true for MF, it just defines different interfaces.

Probably, point being COPP is a different way of accessing the hardware than just your standard renderer. It requires special COPP certified drivers, special application software, signed keys, etc.

I don't understand why you keep asserting this, when all the filters necessary for playback are there. The only thing I've heard so far to lend any credence to this position is that you can't make it work; which as we've agreed previously is pretty slim evidence. While I can't say that they are used, that they are present certainly lends weight to the argument that they are used. The only explanation to the contrary so far is that they were too lazy to take them out.

The simple fact is neither you no I know what they're for, we just know that they're completely unusable (by anything but maybe the installed apps themselves), and we don't know what they're for other than they're there and they're named.

Maybe it's just been posited, but the idea has always been that PowerDVD, WinDVD etc don't use the Dshow filters they install for playback within the app. That's backed up by the (sometimes significantly) different results of playback when using the filters vs the App itself.

If there's nothing more behind this claim than having read it somewhere, why does it trundle on?

Probably because nobody has made any usable DShow (and by that I mean usable by 3rd party apps) Blu-ray (w/ AACS) components. And because MS has gone to a lot of trouble creating new interfaces (PVP-OPM, etc) in Vista to allow the creation of the sort of plugable filters (like are usually installed with DVD players) that allow 3rd parties to easilly create players. Also notice how Vista, with PVP-OPM is required for CableCard, and how COPP and special software is required for AACS content.

Here's at least one reference:
http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/...&&#post7214448

Amir was (at the time of the post) VP of Consumer Media Technology Group at Microsoft, and was well informed (if not involved) with AACS and it's licensing and requirements. No he doesn't say "can't be done", and maybe it is largely Lexicon, but read through that thread, especially the posts by "insiders" like Amir and it becomes clear that you just can't impliment a AACS compliant player in same way as you could with DVD/CSS.

Again, how can you with any degree of certainty make this assertion when nothing besides "having read it somewhere" has been presented?

Because I've been following the development of Blu-ray and HD DVD on the PC since the very beginning, and I've read lots of articles and discussion about it (lots of posts by Amir and others "in the know") but I don't bookmark everything and I'm not going to spend hours trying to dig it back up again.

The cost and difficulty limits the field; which we've seen. Only two (or three) vendors have the the expertise (historically building DirectShow based players) and pockets to make it go; the bit players get left behind.

It's always been like that, Cyberlink, Sonic, Intervideo and a handful of others have always been the only ones to support the copy protection on dics. The difference is with DVD they made filters for other developers (TheaterTek, SageTV) to use to bring DVD functionality into their apps, expanding their market, yet they haven't with any AACS content.

The costliness of building the player is actually an argument for DirectShow, all the plumbing you get for free would need to be built + all the security and playback bits.

I agree with that, but AACS has changed the game, that's probably also largely why the software players are still so problematic.

If they built their own frameworks why isnt' there a Mac/Linux version of PDVD?

Probably becasue combined they're a tiny portion of the market. Incredibly small if you consider that most of their busiess is OEM and Apple does their own DVD software.

I searched the ppt for "Directshow" and "shortcomings", didn't find anything. Where is this quote coming from?

It's not a quote, it's a conclusion.

MF is a framework which builds on lessons learned from DirectShow. One of the things it adds is security; not because it can't be added to DirectShow, but to make it easier for ISVs to build applications on Windows. MS adds things to Windows with every release to make it cheaper to build applications on their platform; MF is no different.

It's important to note that MF is only used to playback WMV on Vista, it is useless for everything else.

PVP-OPM and the other new security measures in Vista are targeted at supporting AACS, 5C, CableCard and all other protected video (from posts by Amir in the linked thread above), not just WMV.

Which discussions are these?

Ones like the one linked above.

DirectShow is imperfect, but the limitations have more to do with threading and resource usage than the lack of flexibility.

I'm curious what you base the assertion that it is fundamentally unfit for this task.

The fact that MS had to develop new technologies, COPP, PAP, PVP-OPM, etc in order to support AACS protected content on PCs.

One could make that argument, but they would be wrong. Writing DVD applications is easy, anyone who can program and read documentation can do it (there are even samples included in the PSDK); BR on the other hand requires a much more effort.

But it should not be. The only reason it is, is because the foundation isn't there like it is with DVD, and that's due to the extreme AACS licensing requirements for security and robustness.

That some 3rd party ISV that doesn't write it's own filters can't implement a workable BR player isn't proof of anything relevant to this discussion. All it suggests is that it's not economically viable for them to do it.

Why is it not relevant, the impetus for this discussion was why does Sage not support BDMV on the PC side. The answer is simple, because the foundation/framework is not their for them to do it. There was a clear market with DVD for "Directshow decoder packs" used by the likes of TheaterTek and Zoomplayer (among others), Sonic, nVidia, Cyberlink, Intervideo all went out of their way to create these packs. Likewise with Blu-ray there is clear demand for exactly the same thing, yet there's been nothing but silence on that front.

So I ask you, if Cyberlink and Arcsoft have created "standard" Dshow filters that support Blu-ray (w/ AACS) playback, why has nobody managed to leverage those filters into a 3rd party app (like TheaterTek), why hasn't Andrew of TheaterTek (who's probably going to lose his business without Blu-ray support) implimented them?

I submit that it's because even if those installed filters are "real" and used, they had to be implimented in such a way (due to AACS licensing requirements) that they can't be used outside of PowerDVD/TMT....

Which brings us full circle back my original response in this thread, that AACS/Blu-ray/BD+ licensing is such that you can't make filters that work in the "standard" Dshow architecture and play nice with 3rd party apps, which SageTV relies on for all it's PC media playback.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by babgvant

I unregistered the PDVD BDROM Nav DirectShow filter, BR playback stopped working.

Fair enough on the PowerDVD not using it's filters point. Now show that filter can be used in a 3rd party app (like SageTV) and I'll concede defeat and you'll make a lot of people very happy.

[jkohn]

That some 3rd party ISV that doesn't write it's own filters can't implement a workable BR player isn't proof of anything relevant to this discussion. All it suggests is that it's not economically viable for them to do it.

It seems apparent you know more about DS programming than anybody else on this thread, so I'm not going to argue about whether or not PDVD/TMT are using DS. They may be using DS filters internally, but the fact that Cyberlink's BD filters only work within PowerDVD seems to go against the plug-and-play paradigm at the heart of DirectShow. You sure can't play a BD in GraphEdit, nor can you buy the decoder pack of your choice and use it with the front-end player of your choice. This is what most people are referring to when they talk about DS-based players, and it just doesn't work that way for BD.

Your posts are focused on only the technical issues, but there are licensing issues as well. You can't just go and write your own BD player, you have to get a license first. Andrew Chivers (TheaterTek author) had this to say about licensing over on his own forum:

With DVD, the market to allow sub-licensing was possible. We did this with Ravisent which became Sonic, then with nVidia when they created a DVD component set. These large organizations plunked down the $1m entry fee for CSS and audio licensing.

With the copy protection so easily removed with DVD, the powers at be created an entirely different licensing and restriction policy for the new formats. This has effectively made sub-licensing significantly more difficult, requiring the very substantial financial and development resources to play in this new market. The componentization of the codecs has been removed (DirectShow for example is 'unsafe' for BluRay playback) and a secure data path throughout the rendering pipeline is required. This effectively means that assembling codecs together as we did in DirectShow using tools such as GraphEdit is not possible for BluRay.

Maybe this situation will change over time, but for now, the entry fee is just too high, even with the very generous offers of our OEM's.

So it's not just a matter of ponying up money for development resources. Unless Sony changes the licensing restrictions, you're never going to see BD software from any of the small-time players because the cost of entry is just too high.

BTW licensing is also the reason I think it's unlikely that Sage will be decoded the high-res audio formats to PCM anytime soon.

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Fair enough on the PowerDVD not using it's filters point. Now show that filter can be used in a 3rd party app (like SageTV) and I'll concede defeat and you'll make a lot of people very happy.

So there's no confusion, what was demonstrated by unregsistering/registering the filter was that PDVD does use DirectShow to playback BR.

Your point was that DirectShow was unsuitable for BR playback, and no one could use it there's nothing left to wait for.

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by jkohn

Your posts are focused on only the technical issues, but there are licensing issues as well. You can't just go and write your own BD player, you have to get a license first. Andrew Chivers (TheaterTek author) had this to say about licensing over on his own forum:

This is a technical discussion, do working BD Navigators exist; since they do I'd say the licensing issues have been sorted by the ISVs that sell them.

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by stanger89

It's not the norm for media apps like SageTV, TheaterTek, Zoomplayer, Mediaportal, WMP, etc, etc. SageTV for example only impliments a "standard" demux for their software. By "standard" I mean it connects to the standard Audio/Video decoder filters provided my numerous 3rd parties (Cyberlink, Arcsoft, nVidia, Sonic, Dscaler, etc, etc...). Theatertek works the same way, as does Zoomplayer...

That's a different issue. BTW, Sage has many more filters than a "standard" demux.

Originally Posted by stanger89

Define "OOTB", there are MPEG-2, H.264, VC-1, TrueHD, DTS-HD, PCM, DTS, DD decoders that work just fine with m2ts files, they connect to standard splitters/demuxs, renderers....

m2ts doesn't play ootb on windows, you need 3rd party sw.

Originally Posted by stanger89

MKV also connects to standard A/V decoders.

if it contains mpeg1/2, vc-1, wmv, ac3 or mpeg1 audio on vista, yes; otherwise no.

Originally Posted by stanger89

Which brings us full circle back my original response in this thread, that AACS/Blu-ray/BD+ licensing is such that you can't make filters that work in the "standard" Dshow architecture and play nice with 3rd party apps, which SageTV relies on for all it's PC media playback.

Then there was a disconnect b/w what you said (see below) and what you meant.

Originally Posted by stanger89

PCs lack the Directshow filters necessary to play Blu-ray structures still at this point. There's no Dshow filter that you can feed a Blu-ray path and have it work.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by babgvant

That's a different issue. BTW, Sage has many more filters than a "standard" demux.

Why is it different? Sage uses "standard" dshow filters, by that I mean ones that will connect to other developers filters, for it's PC based playback, just like most other PC video apps.

m2ts doesn't play ootb on windows, you need 3rd party sw.

Neither does DVD or MPEG-2, but you can get that 3rd party software and it will work in any app that utilizes standard Directshow interfaces. Get the right filters and you can play m2ts files in WMP, Zoomplayer, Theatertek, SageTV, etc. For the record we're not talking about OOTB support, we're talking about being able to obtain 3rd party Directshow filters that work in standard Directshow apps like Sage. That can't be done with Blu-ray.

if it contains mpeg1/2, vc-1, wmv, ac3 or mpeg1 audio on vista, yes; otherwise no.

Huh? If you've got ffdshow installed (a standard Dshow decoder) you can play about any MKV out there, even ones without those standard codecs.

Then there was a disconnect b/w what you said (see below) and what you meant.

OK, appologies for sloppy wording, let me rephrase my original comment in a more rigorously techinically correct maner:

PCs lack the universally compatible (meaning working in "standard" apps like SageTV, TheaterTek, ZP, WMP, etc) Directshow filters to support playback of Blu-ray in 3rd party, standard Directshow apps. There's no Directshow source/nav/splitter filter Sage could use to support Blu-ray on the PC.

Originally Posted by babgvant

So there's no confusion, what was demonstrated by unregsistering/registering the filter was that PDVD does use DirectShow to playback BR.

Yes, we understand that.

Your point was that DirectShow was unsuitable for BR playback, and no one could use it there's nothing left to wait for.

My point was that DirectShow is unsuitable for BD playback in 3rd party apps like SageTV. You have not proven that to be incorrect.

And what do you have to say about Andrew's (TheaterTek owner/dev) comment about Blu-ray:

Originally Posted by Andrew Chivers

The componentization of the codecs has been removed (DirectShow for example is 'unsafe' for BluRay playback) and a secure data path throughout the rendering pipeline is required. This effectively means that assembling codecs together as we did in DirectShow using tools such as GraphEdit is not possible for BluRay.

Which is exactly what I've been saying all along. All you've shown is that it's possible to technically use Dshow, but you haven't shown that it's possible to use it in such a way as to allow 3rd parties to use filters for playback, which is the only maner of using DirectShow we care about.

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Why is it different? Sage uses "standard" dshow filters, by that I mean ones that will connect to other developers filters, for it's PC based playback, just like most other PC video apps.

While an app can leech another app's filters, it's an artifact of the filter implementation, not a guaranteed aspect of the framework.

If, for e.g., a filter developer wanted to use non-standard guids for all their media types, while not a best practice, the framework supports it. Unless some reverse engineering goes on, their filters will only work in their application.

I think the disconnect here, is how you think DirectShow should work isn't how it does work.

Originally Posted by stanger89

Neither does DVD or MPEG-2, but you can get that 3rd party software and it will work in any app that utilizes standard Directshow interfaces. Get the right filters and you can play m2ts files in WMP, Zoomplayer, Theatertek, SageTV, etc. For the record we're not talking about OOTB support, we're talking about being able to obtain 3rd party Directshow filters that work in standard Directshow apps like Sage. That can't be done with Blu-ray.

3rd parties built those decoders, they can build BR applications. If you go back and look at the context (what needs to be added to make a container and the streams work), you claim that a 3rd party needing to build everything but the renderer was an aberration, where it is not.

Applications like TheaterTek assemble a playback application based on the 3rd party filters provided by other ISVs; if they had the expertise (and $) to build a BR solution they could (just as Cyberlink has).

Originally Posted by stanger89

Huh? If you've got ffdshow installed (a standard Dshow decoder) you can play about any MKV out there, even ones without those standard codecs.

Again, look at the context (what needs to be added to Windows to make it work). Ffdshow is a 3rd party decoder.

Originally Posted by stanger89

OK, appologies for sloppy wording, let me rephrase my original comment in a more rigorously techinically correct maner:

PCs lack the universally compatible (meaning working in "standard" apps like SageTV, TheaterTek, ZP, WMP, etc) Directshow filters to support playback of Blu-ray in 3rd party, standard Directshow apps. There's no Directshow source/nav/splitter filter Sage could use to support Blu-ray on the PC.

Thanks. There was never any disagreement that MS doesn't provide OOTB nav filters for BR.

What I originally said was that Cyberlink and ArcSoft built nav filters, but they weren't useful w/o information from the parties that built them.

There's nothing stopping Sage (or anyone else) from building a BDMV navigator (w/o security support) filter for DirectShow, just as they built a counterpart for the extender.

Originally Posted by stanger89

My point was that DirectShow is unsuitable for BD playback in 3rd party apps like SageTV. You have not proven that to be incorrect.

I never set out to prove that the filters were useful to other applications (outside of PDVD or TMT). In fact if you go back and read what I wrote earlier, I've always been clear on the point that the filters that Cyberlink built were not useful to 3rd parties.

Originally Posted by stanger89

And what do you have to say about Andrew's (TheaterTek owner/dev) comment about Blu-ray:

He states that licensing the necessary components is possible; the problem is that it's not a viable solution from an economic perspective ("for now, the entry fee is just too high").

I don't see any disconnect b/w that and what I wrote originally (see below).

Originally Posted by babgvant

Both TMT and PDVD provide directshow BR disc navigators.

They're undocumented so not terribly useful, but could be if Sage worked something out with Cyberlink or ArcSoft.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by babgvant

While an app can leech another app's filters, it's an artifact of the filter implementation, not a guaranteed aspect of the framework.

If, for e.g., a filter developer wanted to use non-standard guids for all their media types, while not a best practice, the framework supports it. Unless some reverse engineering goes on, their filters will only work in their application.

I think the disconnect here, is how you think DirectShow should work isn't how it does work.

The disconnect is that when I talk about DirectShow filters I'm talking about them in the way they're conventionally developed for media applications, ie they use standard media IDs and work with any other filters that support the same media types and work in any application that wishes to use them. Which is the only implimentation of DirectShow filters that really maters to us end users.

Call it leeching if you want, and it may not be guaranteed, but it's standard practice in the industry. Every DVD software maker purposfully makes DirectShow filters that work in the conventional way, with other people's filters and other peoples apps.

OSS developers use this convention to build decoders and filters that work in a multitude of apps.

Yet for Blu-ray, this convention isn't followed, and given the history, why would it not be if it could? All evidence (including the statements of developers) points to the fact that you can't build a directshow filters to support AACS protected Blu-ray in this conventional manner.

3rd parties built those decoders, they can build BR applications. If you go back and look at the context (what needs to be added to make a container and the streams work), you claim that a 3rd party needing to build everything but the renderer was an aberration, where it is not.

Again, look at the context (what needs to be added to Windows to make it work). Ffdshow is a 3rd party decoder.

I must be really slopy in my posting. That's not what I was getting at. M2TS, MKV, and all the other containers did not require one entity to go out and build every piece up to the renderer, all they required was the building of a splitter/demux. That splitter/demux could be, and was implimented following the standard conventions and could thus leverage already existing decoder filters. That means that apps like Sage can use m2ts, and mkv and other containers without having to do all the work themselves.

This seems to be impossible with Blu-ray, that basically everyone who wants to support Blu-ray has to "go it alone", build everything from the gound up, and get it licensed, they can't license other peoples filters, etc. That is the aberation.

Most of the time if you want to add a new container, you just have to build a demux, or if you want to add a new codec, you make a new decoder, usually you don't have to build everything yourself.

Applications like TheaterTek assemble a playback application based on the 3rd party filters provided by other ISVs;

Yes, and per Andrew, that model is no longer possible with Blu-ray.

...if they had the expertise (and $) to build a BR solution they could (just as Cyberlink has).

Well no doubt, I never (intended to) said otherwise. Of course Sage could go build Blu-ray playback from the ground up, get it licensed if they wanted to. But that's not how these small ISVs do things, they rely on the conventional implimentation of DirectShow filters to allow them to leverage larger, 1st party efforts to do the costly development.

Again, what I've been saying all along is that Blu-ray does not support this model of development, and you have not proven otherwise.

Thanks. There was never any disagreement that MS doesn't provide OOTB nav filters for BR.

But nobody else does either, at least not any that are useful like "conventional" DirectShow filters to arbitrary apps.

What I originally said was that Cyberlink and ArcSoft built nav filters, but they weren't useful w/o information from the parties that built them.

There's nothing stopping Sage (or anyone else) from building a BDMV navigator (w/o security support) filter for DirectShow, just as they built a counterpart for the extender.

I never said there was anything stopping them, if you go back and look at the context I replied in, I was stating that there weren't any BD filters out there that Sage could use, hence no BD support from Sage (or other small ISVs) on the PC.

I never set out to prove that the filters were useful to other applications (outside of PDVD or TMT).

Then what was the point of the last two pages. Sorry to be combative, but we've spent two pages running around in circles and nothing has changed, the fact remains that there are no BD filters that Sage (or any small ISV) can use to add BD playback to their apps, and the the licensing requirements for Blu-ray make it so that most likely nobody will ever make any filters for use in 3rd party apps.

The only hope is that the OSS community (or one of the small ISVs) writes a Nav filter that supports BD logic but not AACS. This is definitely possible, and I'd guess it will happen at some point, but it's not there yet.

He states that licensing the necessary components is possible; the problem is that it's not a viable solution from an economic perspective ("for now, the entry fee is just too high").

The way I read it is that the licensing requirements for AACS make it impossible to license the "necessary components" from third parties, basically meaning everyone has to create their own. Which is back to my original point, it means there are no filters Sage (or any small ISV) can use, and that there probably won't be any made that support BD w/ AACS.

And given that AACS is mandatory on every BD (ROM/movie) it's highly unlikely that any commercial software will build the necessary components that don't support AACS.

I don't see any disconnect b/w that and what I wrote originally (see below).

The only disconnect is you've been arguing it's possible, as if it changes the fact that nobody has, and probably nobody will create filters usable by 3rd parties. The fact that Cyberlink actually uses Dshow filters doesn't change the reality for small ISVs, Blu-ray licensing still makes it so they can't just leverage/license filters from the big players. And thus it's far less likely we'll see Blu-ray support on the PC side anytime soon since Sage would have to develop their Blu-ray support from scratch (something they generally haven't done in the past, eg DVD).

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by stanger89

The disconnect is that when I talk about DirectShow filters I'm talking about them in the way they're conventionally developed for media applications, ie they use standard media IDs and work with any other filters that support the same media types and work in any application that wishes to use them. Which is the only implimentation of DirectShow filters that really maters to us end users.

Many consumer playback applications do work this way, but it's just one way that DirectShow can work. This is a good e.g. of the disconnect b/w the way you define how should work, and how it actually works. While it might be the only use case you're interested in (and have defined "DirectShow Application" accordingly), there are wider definitions in common usage (maybe not here, on this forum, can't speak to that) that encompass what can actually be done with the framework. All of my comments on this topic should be interpreted according to the wider definitions.

Using the narrow definition presented, where filters can be mixed/matched freely by any application that wants to mess; we can agree that BR playback, with security intact is not possible due to licensing restrictions.

Originally Posted by stanger89

Again, what I've been saying all along is that Blu-ray does not support this model of development, and you have not proven otherwise.

I never tried to prove (or state) otherwise. Probably a lexicon issue - see above.

Originally Posted by stanger89

The only hope is that the OSS community (or one of the small ISVs) writes a Nav filter that supports BD logic but not AACS. This is definitely possible, and I'd guess it will happen at some point, but it's not there yet.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sage wrote one once they've figured out the specifics on the extender (see below). If it's a legal problem to write a BDMV navigator, only using it on the extender doesn't reduce exposure.

Originally Posted by stanger89

The way I read it is that the licensing requirements for AACS make it impossible to license the "necessary components" from third parties, basically meaning everyone has to create their own. Which is back to my original point, it means there are no filters Sage (or any small ISV) can use, and that there probably won't be any made that support BD w/ AACS.

if impossible = impossible at a reasonable cost; we can agree

most likely all of the filters necessary for playback need to be licensed from one vendor who can indemnify the filter chain, along with a payoff to the BD licensing group.

Originally Posted by stanger89

The only disconnect is you've been arguing it's possible, as if it changes the fact that nobody has, and probably nobody will create filters usable by 3rd parties.

Somewhere along the way, the argument changed from "not possible"

Originally Posted by stanger89

The apps themselves don't even use them, since DirectShow can't be a secure path.

to "not possible for 3rd parties to roll-there-own from licensed components at a reasonable cost".

I don't think we will see 3rd party players with full support; not because of techincal limitations, but financial.

Originally Posted by stanger89

The fact that Cyberlink actually uses Dshow filters doesn't change the reality for small ISVs, Blu-ray licensing still makes it so they can't just leverage/license filters from the big players. And thus it's far less likely we'll see Blu-ray support on the PC side anytime soon since Sage would have to develop their Blu-ray support from scratch (something they generally haven't done in the past, eg DVD).

They'd probably just need to develop a nav filter. Everything downstream is already there if m2ts play.

They are working on m2ts support in the demuxer, so a simple navigator would could be a different packaging of this filter that understands playlists. Since they have already done the work to understand playlists on the extender, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to get it working on the PC.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by babgvant

Many consumer playback applications do work this way, but it's just one way that DirectShow can work. This is a good e.g. of the disconnect b/w the way you define how should work, and how it actually works. While it might be the only use case you're interested in (and have defined "DirectShow Application" accordingly), there are wider definitions in common usage (maybe not here, on this forum, can't speak to that) that encompass what can actually be done with the framework. All of my comments on this topic should be interpreted according to the wider definitions.

If this were a DirectShow development forum, I'd agree with you that we'd need to be talking about Dshow in the broader sense, but this is a SageTV user forum, where "DirectShow filter" as it applies to SageTV means filters that can be mix-and-matched.

Using the narrow definition presented, where filters can be mixed/matched freely by any application that wants to mess; we can agree that BR playback, with security intact is not possible due to licensing restrictions.

Sounds good.

I never tried to prove (or state) otherwise. Probably a lexicon issue - see above.

Yes, but given the context of this forum, that's what it appeared the purpose of your argument was.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sage wrote one once they've figured out the specifics on the extender (see below). If it's a legal problem to write a BDMV navigator, only using it on the extender doesn't reduce exposure.

I'm sure it's not a legal issue creating a BD navigator, but I have to wonder if on the extender they're just using libraries included with the SOC or provided by the SOC manufacturer. Since Sigma makes similar if not identical SOCs as are present in the HD200 for use in Blu-ray players. If this is the case I think it would be harder to port that to PCs.

If, on the other hand, they've writen their own nav logic fromm scratch, then yes, I agree it wouldn't be too hard to port that to the PC.

if impossible = impossible at a reasonable cost; we can agree

most likely all of the filters necessary for playback need to be licensed from one vendor who can indemnify the filter chain, along with a payoff to the BD licensing group.

But even with DVD all the filters were licensed from one vendor (eg Raviscent and then nVidia in the case of Theatertek). Obviously something significant has changed with BD/AACS licensing that the same sort of model is impossible. That's what I mean by "impossible".

Perhaps there's a new model of licensing and it's too costly now, end result is the same.

Somewhere along the way, the argument changed from "not possible"

to "not possible for 3rd parties to roll-there-own from licensed components at a reasonable cost".

No, my original meaning of "not possible" has always been "not possible to impliment Blu-ray in the same way as DVD due to the design of DirectShow".

Admittedly I greatly shortened my original defintion of "not possible" knowing the context of this forum is that we're talking about the sort of mix-and-match filters we've used for DVD over the last many years.

I don't think we will see 3rd party players with full support; not because of techincal limitations, but financial.

I agree we'll not see small ISVs building BD players from scratch due to cost. But that's not my primary point, my point has been that BD/AACS licensing restrictions (protected path, etc) make is so that the big developers (Cyberlink, Arcosft, etc) who are currently making BD players, and have traditionally made mix-and-match-able DirectShow DVD playback filters, cannot do the same for Blu-ray. That they can't make mix-and-match-able Blu-ray (w/ AACS) DirectShow filters.

And given that Blu-ray requires AACS on all retail discs, none of the big developers are going to make BD w/o AACS filters.

They'd probably just need to develop a nav filter. Everything downstream is already there if m2ts play.

True, that's all they'd need. But m2ts is just a very slight modification to the standard MPEG-2 Transport Stream (slightly different packet size, and additional stream type support), where as a nav filter is a bit more involved.

They are working on m2ts support in the demuxer, so a simple navigator would could be a different packaging of this filter that understands playlists. Since they have already done the work to understand playlists on the extender, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to get it working on the PC.

That's the big question there, did they do the effort themselves to add mpls functionality, or are they just leveraging libraries included with the SOC? Only Sage knows the answer to that.

[babgvant]

Originally Posted by stanger89

If this were a DirectShow development forum, I'd agree with you that we'd need to be talking about Dshow in the broader sense, but this is a SageTV user forum, where "DirectShow filter" as it applies to SageTV means filters that can be mix-and-matched.

Confusion is a natural byproduct when making up (or artificially narrowing an existing) a lexicon.

I'll try to be more clear in the future should we discuss DirectShow's "limitations".

Cheers

[voidpt]

Originally Posted by HelenWeathers

I have my units attached to TVs that only understand AC3 so I'm not an expert. That said, I believe that the HD-200s extract the True HD core and the DTS HD core and pass them through to the optical/hdmi outputs. So if you use an external amp, you should be able to just keep the HiDef audio track as is.

Just a quick update. Haven't sat idle I'm pretty sure HD200 supports DTS HD with a DTS Core in it. Well. It's the only audio track I've had in some of my testing, and yes, I get audio. So it must work. Reason for not replying sooner is that I have had serious problems with my BDMV folder 'productions' freezing the HD200. In various variants. Did some questions to SageTV through bug submit. Got answer that they have identified some issues they are working on. So for now I'm keeping my samples on ice until I can test them on new firmware that may solve problem.

Be back later with results when new firmware is released.

[cat6man]

Originally Posted by jkohn

That's lame if true. Bitstreaming would have been the best option. I have to think the chances of Sage being able to get a license to decode DTS-MA HD or Dolby TrueHD with full resolution are close to zero, after all Cyberlink and Arcsoft can't do it.

if i'm not mistaken, that would be licensed with the sigma chip SDK in the hd200, not in sage s/w

lots of other media players do this

[stanger89]

Cyberlink and Arcsoft's "problems" have absolutely nothing to do with Dolby/DTS licensing, they have licenses to decode TrueHD/DTS-HD at full resolution, period (there's no other way to decode it).

The issue with those programs isn't the Dolby/DTS license, it's the AACS license. AACS forbids transmittion of >16bit/48kHz audio over unsecure connections. Thus Cyberlink/Arcsoft must downconvert any audio greater than that, to comply with their AACS license since (asside from the Asus Xonar HDAV, where Arcsoft does offer full-resolution audio) there are no solutions for the PC which offer a secure audio path.

Sage doesn't have this problem because they're not dealing with AACS content. So they aren't subject to the output resolution restrictions. They only deal with unprotected files that have those codecs. Likewise that's how the extenders can output 1080p over component.

[AzJazz]

Hi ...

I am trying to set up my SageTV (V6.5.11) to play BluRay.

The BluRay DVD player is on my E: drive of my SageTV Server (WinXP). So, I set up my E: as a shared network drive (named "E"), and gave "Write Access" to all users. Then, I set up "E:\" on my SageTV Server as an "Import Directory" for videos.

Now, when I go to my SageTV HD extender on my TV, and I browse the import library paths, I see "E:\" with an "X" on the folder icon. If I try to play from the E:\ folder, I see the following error:

ERROR (2): Files selected for playback are no longer on disk.

Does anybody know what is going on?

Thanks ...

[HelenWeathers]

AzJazz: the error 2 is generally a network permission error. You need to make sure you have any dvd hd loaded on the server and running. Also, you need to make the drive full access, I believe.

Make sure you have the latest extender firmware (beta if it's the HD-200).

Is you extender an HD-200? You'll get better replies with more info.

[IVB]

just for the record, the new support works awesome. I ripped X-Files/IWantoBelive in BR last night using AnyDVD-HD, had a crapton of .m2ts files. I'm on the latest Sage beta plus HD200 firmware beta, and got lazy and just pointed it the movie import directory.

Bada bing, it worked fine with the s/pdif hooked up to my Denon3805. I didn't check which audio track it was on, didn't watch the whole movie, but it sure as hell sounded like surround sound. (the bass is awesome in that movie, but the subwoofer was shaking the house a little too much at 10:30pm to watch the whole movie).

i'll try it tonight with the analog outputs to make sure that's also okay.

[AzJazz]

Originally Posted by HelenWeathers

AzJazz: the error 2 is generally a network permission error. You need to make sure you have any dvd hd loaded on the server and running. Also, you need to make the drive full access, I believe.

Make sure you have the latest extender firmware (beta if it's the HD-200).

Is you extender an HD-200? You'll get better replies with more info.

Hi, Helen - I have an STX-HD100 running the 24-DEC-08 Beta Firmware. (Will this firmware work?)

I also have AnyDVD-HD installed for the BluRay drive.

Just to see if the drive was "visible" to the HD100 client over the network, I put in a regular data disk into the BluRay drive on the server, and I was able to bounce around through the directory structure of the data disk via the client's Media Browser. So, the drive was accessible over the network. The drive is also configured for sharing as Read/Write.

However, when I put the BluRay disc back in, I again saw an X on the "E:\" AnyDVD-HD recognized the disk properly, so I thought it would be readable.

What am I doing wrong?