|
|
|
New Cinavia DRM takes aim at pirates
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 3 March, 2010
FileShareFreak has a very interesting report out today about Cinavia DRM, which is a new audio watermarking technology that takes aim at pirates, and those trying to playback movie downloads via their PlayStation 3s.
The site says the watermarking works by "comparing the source of the audio to the format in which a movie was released (ie theatrical or commercial disc), and if the watermarked ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
SProdigy
Senior Member
5 product reviews
|
12. January 2012 @ 12:15 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by darkflux:
Originally posted by SProdigy:
Like someone said above... I believe most athletes have a union contract for 55% of the total revenue, ie. the NFL teams' revenue. Still that's a little more than HALF! Those players (or artists in case of the above arguments) just want their slice of the pie. I know I would too. I sure wouldn't accept 50k for my work when the company's making 100 million off of it!
if the NFL, etc. didn't charge so much for tickets, they wouldn't have the money to pay the millions to the athletes.
i think that the LEAST they could do would be to charge less for tickets! it's hard enough to get them when you want them, without being charged an arm and two legs...
True, depends on the team too. I live between Cleveland and Pittsburgh, with Browns tix being both cheaper and easier to obtain. Steelers... not so much!
You can blame free agency on that though. The owners created their own mess by outbidding one another for that "must have" athlete that will make their team a winner. The added expense gets passed along to, you guessed it, the fans!
Still, I wonder what the revenue percentage is for actors, musicians, etc.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Member
|
12. January 2012 @ 17:13 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by SProdigy:
Originally posted by darkflux:
Originally posted by SProdigy:
Like someone said above... I believe most athletes have a union contract for 55% of the total revenue, ie. the NFL teams' revenue. Still that's a little more than HALF! Those players (or artists in case of the above arguments) just want their slice of the pie. I know I would too. I sure wouldn't accept 50k for my work when the company's making 100 million off of it!
if the NFL, etc. didn't charge so much for tickets, they wouldn't have the money to pay the millions to the athletes.
i think that the LEAST they could do would be to charge less for tickets! it's hard enough to get them when you want them, without being charged an arm and two legs...
True, depends on the team too. I live between Cleveland and Pittsburgh, with Browns tix being both cheaper and easier to obtain. Steelers... not so much!
You can blame free agency on that though. The owners created their own mess by outbidding one another for that "must have" athlete that will make their team a winner. The added expense gets passed along to, you guessed it, the fans!
Still, I wonder what the revenue percentage is for actors, musicians, etc.
well, i know that the musicians certainly get less than of a cut than the actors (except for B-movie stars, and the like). in a way, actors are like sports players, in that, the more popular they are, the more money they get. i doubt that would work in music, since no band member would take less than the singer (who is typically the popular one). without the rest of the team NOTHING would get done, be it music, or movie, or sport! i don't think it fair to glamourize one over the others, who are working their hardest. the stars get all the popularity, they shouldn't NEED more money, in my opinion...
but back to C1nav!a: SINAV1A SUCKS!
|
|
tinner45
Member
|
12. January 2012 @ 17:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
I agree get back on he topic.
|
|
smg
Member
|
13. January 2012 @ 12:33 |
Link to this message
|
I'll continue to keep and use my standard DVD players (bought 3 of them at the same time just for insurance for the future). I think whatever microbial difference I could see between Blue-ray and DVD didn't convince me to take the bait and go to it. Why buy all my movies all over again just to see a bit more clarity when DVD is perfectly clear to me anyway (and frankly I can just barely tell the difference between the two). I'm more interested in the movie and acting and such than fixating on pixel quality (unless it was a VHS of course which would really suck). And so it can hold more data. I can hold all my data on portable hard drives which will last a lot longer anyway than a burned disc will due to corruption of the disc material (rot). As long as people keep supporting/buying blue ray burners I imagine the goal will one day be for these giant companies to make the DVD player a thing of the past and you will be forced to play their game with their new DRM schemes which you will have no choice but to use because they no longer will produce DVDS (because they will have successfully managed to get everyone to buy blue rays and phase out DVDs altogether). The choice is yours. Better wise up now while there is still time left before DVDs and DVD players are extinct. Support DVD technology and keep your freedom (because the alternative is no alternative for a free society).
|
Member
|
14. January 2012 @ 00:59 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by smg:
I'll continue to keep and use my standard DVD players (bought 3 of them at the same time just for insurance for the future). I think whatever microbial difference I could see between Blue-ray and DVD didn't convince me to take the bait and go to it. Why buy all my movies all over again just to see a bit more clarity when DVD is perfectly clear to me anyway (and frankly I can just barely tell the difference between the two). I'm more interested in the movie and acting and such than fixating on pixel quality (unless it was a VHS of course which would really suck). And so it can hold more data. I can hold all my data on portable hard drives which will last a lot longer anyway than a burned disc will due to corruption of the disc material (rot). As long as people keep supporting/buying blue ray burners I imagine the goal will one day be for these giant companies to make the DVD player a thing of the past and you will be forced to play their game with their new DRM schemes which you will have no choice but to use because they no longer will produce DVDS (because they will have successfully managed to get everyone to buy blue rays and phase out DVDs altogether). The choice is yours. Better wise up now while there is still time left before DVDs and DVD players are extinct. Support DVD technology and keep your freedom (because the alternative is no alternative for a free society).
i agree (on some level) with you on focusing on cinematography and acting over quality. i've known some "sketched" movies that were more entertaining than the latest Pixar film! plus, re-buying the old movies on BR is POINTLESS if they haven't been remastered fully (most of them were just copied from the DVD source!). if you want better DVD quality for your HDTV, just get a DVD Player with 1080p upconvert, and you can view your DVDs in higher quality without rebuying them all, like Holywood wants.
the only movies that i buy on BR are the ones where the HD REALLY makes a difference. you know, the ones where you can almost smell the sweat from the detail? the ones where you can count the character's PORES! the ones that pull you into the movie, and remind you of why you bought an HDTV in the first place (other than the government scam that was perpetrated on us all).
all-in-all, i'd say i only have about 6 BR discs, and one of those was a gift!
on the other hand, i own about 200-300 or so various DVDs (store bought). many of them so obscure you won't likely ever find them on BluRay...
darkflux
|
Member
|
14. January 2012 @ 00:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
[sorry, accidental double post!]
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 14. January 2012 @ 01:07
|
|
magiver123
Newbie
|
7. May 2012 @ 01:57 |
Link to this message
|
maybe what we need is a streaming player LIKE windows media player 11 that will stream in a slower frame rate.(wmp11 will not do this, just saying some program that streams movies in a slower frame rate than normal) then play the video file in 1.5 speed from your ps3s video player options. Sense the "program" has slowed the file down .5 or 1.0, speeding the ps3 player up to 1.5 should play the file in normal speed just fine. Just an idea. Have been watching movies in 1.5 speed just fine so thought if it was already slow when i started it would be fine when sped up. Now If only we had someone to make this "PROGRAM" that slowed down the video file that was being streamed. Doubt this helped but maybe....just maybe...
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 7. May 2012 @ 03:17
|
Member
|
23. May 2012 @ 17:21 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by magiver123:
maybe what we need is a streaming player LIKE windows media player 11 that will stream in a slower frame rate.(wmp11 will not do this, just saying some program that streams movies in a slower frame rate than normal) then play the video file in 1.5 speed from your ps3s video player options. Sense the "program" has slowed the file down .5 or 1.0, speeding the ps3 player up to 1.5 should play the file in normal speed just fine. Just an idea. Have been watching movies in 1.5 speed just fine so thought if it was already slow when i started it would be fine when sped up. Now If only we had someone to make this "PROGRAM" that slowed down the video file that was being streamed. Doubt this helped but maybe....just maybe...
it's a nice idea, but it is the fact that you are playing it slower that the code is not recognized. encoding it slower and then playing it back normally would play that frequency back normally as well, and you'd be back in the same boat again.
now maybe if somebody encoded it at a speed of like 1.1x...need to try this later tonight.
darkflux
|
Member
|
6. June 2012 @ 00:21 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by toid:
what good is that when most bluray copies are 10-20gb how u gonna put that on a standard DVD
by re-encoding them to lower bitrates, in DVD standard format (720x480, or 480p). most Blurays, the movie is not all that is on them, so some of that 10-20GB is extras and junk. for just the movie, which is typically 1080p, reducing it to 480p and lower the bitrate slightly (8000kbps, max), you should have no problems fitting it onto a DVD disc, even just a single-layer 4.7GB. longer movies may need a 8.5GB DVD-DL disc, but most PCs come equipped with that nowadays, and if not, they are cheap.
and before you complain that lowering the bitrate and size of the video lowers the quality, let me just say that if that was that big a deal to the people doing this, they would just buy BluRay burners, and most of them are doing this to play the movies at friends' houses, and believe it or not, not everybody can AFFORD a BluRay player, which would be (typically) why they would do this in the first place...
as for Showtime's quote, i'm afraid it's abit dated, as they are now working on integrating this as manadatory in DVD players, too.
darkflux
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. June 2012 @ 00:22
|
|
tinner45
Member
|
12. June 2012 @ 16:47 |
Link to this message
|
You can use BD-RB to encode and shrink it to 4.7GB dics. It will be a blu-ray movie. But it takes along time to encode, shrink, and burn. Very good quality movie. Some other programs do make BR into DVD format Br format in 25GB and 5GB.
|
Member
|
13. June 2012 @ 17:44 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by tinner45:
You can use BD-RB to encode and shrink it to 4.7GB dics. It will be a blu-ray movie. But it takes along time to encode, shrink, and burn. Very good quality movie. Some other programs do make BR into DVD format Br format in 25GB and 5GB.
this is true. plus, many people forget that, in the case of some older movies that have been re-released on BluRay, the companies simply take the DVD version and convert it into BluRay, rather than using the original film. so in this case, the BluRay version is not really any better than the DVD version, other than it has been revised to fit 1080p screens better (unless you have an upconvert DVD player, in which case THAT would be better).
another thing is, not all BR discs are that full 25GB, especially if they just copied it from the DVD. 25GB is simply the maximum size of the BluRay disc (for single layer discs, which are cheaper to make). and often, they will throw extras into that unused space, if any are available...
i'm still waiting for the day when they will fit entire TV series on one BluRay, instead of 2-3 discs per season. i think that if you can fit one season onto 6 DVDs (8.5GB each), you should be fully capable of fitting them all onto 1 BRD (50GB each)...
but you know they will never do that, because they wouldn't be able to justify the $50 price tag, when it sits next to a $25 DVD.
sorry, i'm done ranting now ;)
darkflux
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 13. June 2012 @ 17:47
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
14. June 2012 @ 07:24 |
Link to this message
|
|
Good advise darkflux, I did notice that in the past some years back, I have rented BR movies form blockbuster, and did find that some older movies to be of no better quliaty than regular DVD's, renting you don't much feel that ripped off, but I sure as hell would if I bought the damn thing, and there is no way of knowing to my knowlegde if your getting a true quality BR disc or not.
|
|
