|
BD+ re-secured, SlySoft beaten
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 13 December, 2008
Just one month after SlySoft confidently posted that they had broken BD+ for good, the company has been beaten and admits that a new generation of BD+ protection on Blu-ray films has re-secured the system.
James on the official SlySoft forums has said he "estimates February 2009 for the new BD+ to be defeated," a seemingly long time for a company that usually breaks protection within days.
... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
AfterDawn Addict
6 product reviews
|
14. December 2008 @ 02:11 |
Link to this message
|
Damn!!
I think this is just a glitch in the chain and slysoft will break this once more just give it more time it will beat it and then everything will be back normal :)
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
14. December 2008 @ 02:34 |
Link to this message
|
|
An engineer friend of mine said, "If it's software, it can be broken, just give it enough time"
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
14. December 2008 @ 03:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
Damn!!!
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. December 2008 @ 03:47
|
|
badkrma
Newbie
|
14. December 2008 @ 05:30 |
Link to this message
|
is there a point to break BD+, I mean why compress the quality, that is what it is all about. As soon as you compress it it isn't HD anymore is it? The bandwidth it takes to post it is too much...and if I paid for an HD system (tv,receiver,player,speakers,HD provider) I want to see and hear the quality to justify my purchase. Heck, we have cable and satellite companies ever so slightly compressing the HD signal and claiming it is all right that it is still HD, but as soon as you adjust the signal it ain't HD anymore is it? (or am I way off here?)
|
Member
|
14. December 2008 @ 07:39 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by badkrma:
is there a point to break BD+, I mean why compress the quality, that is what it is all about. As soon as you compress it it isn't HD anymore is it? The bandwidth it takes to post it is too much...and if I paid for an HD system (tv,receiver,player,speakers,HD provider) I want to see and hear the quality to justify my purchase. Heck, we have cable and satellite companies ever so slightly compressing the HD signal and claiming it is all right that it is still HD, but as soon as you adjust the signal it ain't HD anymore is it? (or am I way off here?)
Way Off..........You should check out the Blu-Ray section & some encodes of BD AVCHD(DVD-9 or DVD-5) which are damm near if not the same as BD but smaller.Far as audio you lose nothing you can use whatever audio you want.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. December 2008 @ 11:58
|
|
dr_ml422
Senior Member
|
14. December 2008 @ 09:23 |
Link to this message
|
@ badkrma It's not that it isn't hd anymore, but just the quality might not be the same when being pumped by your provider. remember that not every company is fully equipped to pass a refined signal such as one through fiber optics. They say they've gone the route of fiber optics but have not. ie: Only company that of right now here in the big apple that is truly fiber optic is verizon. Hence they just recently finished getting the green light to bring verizon fios to residents in the city, and are breaking up the streets and putting in the new fiber optic cables. That's why it's taking so long to get to inner city. Everyone else, Time Warner Cable for example, are not true fiber optic and just compressing signal. So 2 different things here.
W/e needs to be broken will, and if for some strange reason they say they can't, guess what, hope you've enjoyed the ride because that's where the wave finally hits the beach.
More of a concern would be just what you initially felt though. What's the use if after all that $$$ put into getting the max out of Blu-ray, you can't, but not because it isn't hd anymore, but more likely because Blu-ray will be no more. If everyone could of afforded to lay down the G $$$ that it takes to get the full effect of Blu-ray they would of and DVDs days would be few and far in between. That I think is better to be concerned about.
|
|
redux79
Member
|
14. December 2008 @ 12:13 |
Link to this message
|
Correct me if I'm wrong but can't you just play the straight blu-ray rip of an htpc or ps3? Or is that where the 4 gig limit on file size kicks in with 32 bit systems? I would think more people would go that route instead of paying out the nose for BD media.
|
|
dr_ml422
Senior Member
|
14. December 2008 @ 12:47 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by redux79:
Correct me if I'm wrong but can't you just play the straight blu-ray rip of an htpc or ps3? Or is that where the 4 gig limit on file size kicks in with 32 bit systems? I would think more people would go that route instead of paying out the nose for BD media.
That's a good suggestion. Just the fact is that to make the most out of the Blu-ray experience requires the expensive goodies. For the real enthusiast a 7.1 surround system w/a fully loade 1080p hdtv, and the ps3 will bring it to its best. I've seen the output as block buster has a set hooked up as soon as you walk in to advertise and of course try to make you go the whole route. Really matter of prefernce, but since it's Blu-ray then Blu-ray in its optimal form is what others want.
I watch 4gb flics on my 32bit system w/vlc but they're not Blu-ray so that limit you inquired I don't know if its specifically geared towards Blu-ray or just 4gb in general across the board.
Also most don't want to use pc all the time as video source. Whether related to wera n tear down the line I don't know but it seems reasonable to think that also.
|
|
david89
Account closed as per user's own request
|
14. December 2008 @ 14:42 |
Link to this message
|
there machines you can play hdrips on like popcorn hour,other (NMT Devices),tvix,Western Digital WD TV HD Media Player many more it just most people havn't bought one yet plus run off harddrives so don't need use a disc everytime want play a movie. i am glad they did it.
|
Senior Member
|
14. December 2008 @ 15:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
I wonder what this will do to their plan of charging for updates beginning 1/1/09. The fact that they are not entirely up-to-date with BR might put a wrench in the works.
|
|
Blessedon
Member
1 product review
|
14. December 2008 @ 15:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
An obvious example of how the school system has failed.
|
|
dr_ml422
Senior Member
|
14. December 2008 @ 21:33 |
Link to this message
|
Well, usually where there's smoke there's fire. So 2 issues. Blu-ray's feeling the heat of optional formats or ways of watching Hi-def and now the most talked about issue concerning Anydvd, they're price hikes and now the upcoming charge for updates.
@david89 Thnx for mentioning those other options to play movies. I'm researching this now for a bit as my disc collection keeps growing and soon here space will be of essence. One of those devices w/a proper amount of storage space would be a great acquisition. Hopefully they'll have things ironed out and they'll be made mainstream and a excellent way to go.
|
|
pomelo
Newbie
1 product review
|
15. December 2008 @ 11:12 |
Link to this message
|
Man I will be happy when Blu-Ray media goes down. That way I can start backing up my Blu-Ray movies.
|
|
DVDdoug
Junior Member
|
15. December 2008 @ 17:09 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Heck, we have cable and satellite companies ever so slightly compressing the HD signal and claiming it is all right that it is still HD, but as soon as you adjust the signal it ain't HD anymore is it? (or am I way off here?)
I think they can call it "HD" as long as it has a high pixel count. A Blu-Ray disc usually has a higher bitrate than HD broadcast.
All of these compression schemes are lossy. At a low bitrate, the number of pixles doesn't decrease, but the ability to update all of the pixels decreases. If you use too much compression, you can have a high definition 1,920 x 1,080 video that looks worse than a standard 720x480 or 720x576 DVD.
|
|
ghcltd
Newbie
|
16. December 2008 @ 09:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
So Slysoft cant break the code on a few old movies big deal. They have done alright by us to now give them time and all will be well. Go slysoft best burning software I ever come across and they have kept to their word with regular updates. No issues here anyway blueray on the way out
|
Moderator
16 product reviews
|
16. December 2008 @ 09:50 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by redux79:
Correct me if I'm wrong but can't you just play the straight blu-ray rip of an htpc or ps3? Or is that where the 4 gig limit on file size kicks in with 32 bit systems? I would think more people would go that route instead of paying out the nose for BD media.
The 4 gig limit on files has more to do with FAT32 than with a 32 bit OS (unless you meant 32 bit systems as FAT) but either way it's a pretty easy fix with a partition or additional HD formated in NTFS. So a HTPC would have no problem at all, and as far as for use on the PS3 that is one area I have not used my console as of yet, but from my understanding it is a non issue too. I am sure Ryu77 (from right here on aD) can help us all out on that, if he reads this thread/post.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. December 2008 @ 09:55
|
|
valenna
Suspended permanently
|
16. December 2008 @ 11:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
spam edited by ddp
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 16. December 2008 @ 18:27
|
AfterDawn Addict
7 product reviews
|
16. December 2008 @ 13:19 |
Link to this message
|
The lengths people go to never cease to amaze me. Might as well give up on this one though! BD+ will be broken! And even if it isnt, there will be a loop hole, there ALWAYS is.
@badkrma I would imagine compression is part of it, but do you really think that that high of def cant afford it? BD+rdl compressed to BD single layer would not be lossy. Atleast not to the human eye.
I would imagine for some people its for the challenge, and for others they're simply against DRM. DRM does NOT belong on physical media!!!
|
Senior Member
|
16. December 2008 @ 14:48 |
Link to this message
|
I hope Slysoft cracks the new protection scheme soon I'd like to rip the new Batman, I'm sure they will.
max partition size / max file size
NTFS
---------
16EB / 16EB (limit-- 64-bit)
16TB / 16TB (32-bit systems, 4 KB blocks)
FAT32
---------
4TB / 4GB
I've patched Linux systems with LBA48 to increase there hard drive capabilty so you can get by some limitations.
For the new Batman BD movie there are two large movie files in the BD Stream folder 00007.m2ts (32.6 GB) and 00008.m2ts (4.95 GB) so unlike the old MPEG2-TS format BD does use large file sizes which could be a problem on a Windows 98se machine but for NTFS you shouldn't have a problem. The .m2ts is a BDAV(Blu-ray Audio/Visual) Sony AVCHD MPEG2 transport stream format and the extension has a 5 number name structure attached to it.
|
Senior Member
5 product reviews
|
17. December 2008 @ 08:44 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mr-Movies:
I hope Slysoft cracks the new protection scheme soon I'd like to rip the new Batman, I'm sure they will.
It's already been done with the 6.4.9.1 Beta release (or via connecting to the Slysoft server with a paid version of AnyDVD HD and downloading the AACS key). ;-)
Originally posted by Oner:
The 4 gig limit on files has more to do with FAT32 than with a 32 bit OS (unless you meant 32 bit systems as FAT) but either way it's a pretty easy fix with a partition or additional HD formated in NTFS. So a HTPC would have no problem at all, and as far as for use on the PS3 that is one area I have not used my console as of yet, but from my understanding it is a non issue too. I am sure Ryu77 (from right here on aD) can help us all out on that, if he reads this thread/post.
Yes, you are correct Oner. ArcSoft TotalMedia Theatre has no problems reading Blu-ray in its native folder format straight from a hard drive. NTFS is obviously the preferred file structure as there is no 4GB limit. I think where redux79 was mixing things up is in regards to the system RAM. A 32 bit OS is limited to using 4GB of RAM not 4GB per file size. However that is the limit to a FAT partition no matter which OS you are running.
In regards to playing Blu-ray/HD media with the PS3, you can multiplex (mux) to a MPEG2 Transport Stream (M2TS) and play it directly from the hard drive. Alternatively to play Blu-ray with the native folders intact, use the AVCHD-Me application. The link for this and many other applications are available on this thread... http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/639346
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 17. December 2008 @ 08:58
|
|
redux79
Member
|
17. December 2008 @ 10:34 |
Link to this message
|
@Ryu77
I remember last summer when I was reading a thread in which some one described how they hooked up 3 500 gig externals to their ps3 for blu-ray rips. The three page explanation left my head spinning lol. If I had the cash for the hardware/software/av equipment I would do it in a heart beat. I'm sure when dvd was first cracked it was much the same way, once you learn the basics it's just a matter of fixing all the little things.
I?ve been skimming through you posts/threads for a couple of months now, and I can say without a doubt that your the go to person for most anything blu-ray, keep up the good work!
|
Senior Member
|
18. December 2008 @ 04:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
I know this will put some pressure because they are gonna start with charging for updates, to make an apease, I would'nt be suprized if they crack it by Jan.
|
|
Blessedon
Member
1 product review
|
18. December 2008 @ 08:15 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well, at least that one was decipherable.
Is graduation no longer a requirement?
|
|
gsebs
Newbie
|
18. December 2008 @ 20:43 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Heck, we have cable and satellite companies ever so slightly compressing the HD signal and claiming it is all right that it is still HD, but as soon as you adjust the signal it ain't HD anymore is it? (or am I way off here?)
I think they can call it "HD" as long as it has a high pixel count. A Blu-Ray disc usually has a higher bitrate than HD broadcast.
All of these compression schemes are lossy. At a low bitrate, the number of pixles doesn't decrease, but the ability to update all of the pixels decreases. If you use too much compression, you can have a high definition 1,920 x 1,080 video that looks worse than a standard 720x480 or 720x576 DVD.
You have analouge @ 500 or so but who cares anymore
Standard Digital which is DVD quaility @ 720
Then I guess you have upscaled @ around 900
Then HD @ 1080.
If the picture is compressed then you would need you viewing device to stretch the picture as the recieved picture would only fill those pixels that it recieves information for.
A Computer will normally do this automatically, your TV would probably need you to tell it, you would see the actual transmission size with the picture setting set to Auto.
On your computer you need a HD graphics card to get the picture out of them. For normal Television you still get a good picture quaility from a CRT but obviously not as good as if you had an LCD or Plasma
To draw a comparision just think about the video quality you got on a 56K modem as opposed to Broadband.
A little more work for slysoft :-)
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
5 product reviews
|
19. December 2008 @ 00:38 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by gsebs:
You have analouge @ 500 or so but who cares anymore
Standard Digital which is DVD quaility @ 720
Then I guess you have upscaled @ around 900
Then HD @ 1080.
If the picture is compressed then you would need you viewing device to stretch the picture as the recieved picture would only fill those pixels that it recieves information for.
Hmm, a lot of misinformation there...
First of all analog is analog, it doesn't have pixels so it can not be directly compared to digital video. Yes, a CRT has scanlines and this number varies depending on whether it is a PAL or NTSC broadcast.
Ok, onto the resolutions...
Standard DVD does not have 720 vertical lines of resolution. However it does have 720 pixels horizontally. I think this is where people get mixed up. The common HD resolutions (ie: 720p, 1080i, 1080p) refer to the vertical pixel count. PAL DVD's are 720 x 576 @ 25fps. NTSC DVD's are 720 x 480 @ 23.976fps/29.98fps. So that would make PAL 576i/p and NTSC 480i/p.
Next, upscaling is not confined to meet a certain resolution. Well expecially not "900" like you mentioned. However, at this point in time the maximum available is 1080p (1920 x 1080). So that would mean you could have options of 720p, 1080i or 1080p depending on the player.
Ok, onto compression now. Compression refers to an algorithm that an encoder uses to decimate parts of data that would pertain to visual elements that the Human eye may not see. The more modern the video encoder, the more efficient it should be at this task. As an example h264 encoded at 10,000Kbs vs MPEG2 at 10,000Kbs (with the same video) would result in the h264 video being far superior. Compression in this instance does not refer to the resolution being smaller than the screen size. Every single screen will have an inbuilt upscaler. This is a very simple process that any device is capable of.
The more important factor that I think is the main point of the discussion here is bitrate vs resolution. In advanced video terminology some of the methods used to calculate this are SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio) and PSNR (Peak Signal to Noise Ratio) etc.. A video with a resolution of 1280 x 720 (720p) encoded with h264 at 15,000Kbs should be superior to a video with a resolution of 1920 x 1080 (1080p) encoded at 5,000Kbs. Even though the latter has a higher resolution, it is starved of bitrate. So a poorer quality video with a lot of noise would result.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. December 2008 @ 04:20
|
