Goodbye, HD Component Video 469
glogger writes "Jim Willcox, the video expert at Consumer Reports, bids farewell to our ability to get high-definition video via the analog component-video connections on Blu-ray players. Thanks to Hollywood pirate-paranoia, potentially millions of law-abiding viewers will have their choices restricted. Quoting: 'Hollywood studios now have the right to insert an ICT "flag" into a Blu-ray movie; if it detects that a player is using an analog connection that doesn't support HDCP, it downconverts the video's 1080p (1920 by 1080) native resolution to 960 by 540 (540p): better than DVD quality but only about one-quarter of full HD quality. This ensures that high-def video is available only through the copy-protected HDMI outputs.'"
i know what you need (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That site got slashdotted! :)
Re: (Score:2)
Hehe, they're probably wondering "What did we do to piss off Anonymous?!"
DCP LLC (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Better yet, why not just rip the blu-ray and put it on a network media center? Skip the middle man, and not have to bother wondering where your 3-year-old hid the disk or worry that he scratched it up since you can then put the disc away in a very safe, secure place.
Re: (Score:2)
I've done that with my DVDs, but I haven't yet found a playback solution for Blu-Ray that reads menus/etc. I can rip the main titles easily enough, but if you want to do any of the fancier things (like the PiP commentary/etc.) you need a full-fledged Blu-Ray playback system.
AFAIK the only option is PowerDVD, which is Windows-only and which isn't scriptable. Are there other choices? Preferably something that doesn't require Windows, but I'd even settle for "needs Windows" if the playback controls are scripta
Re: (Score:2)
Re:i know what you need (Score:4, Informative)
Also, you can leave out all the commentaries and all that crap, and save even more room. With 4TB, you should have enough space for 500-1000 movies that way, I imagine.
Re: (Score:3)
Because mine tops out at around 4 TB, that's not that many HD movies unless you compress the crap out of them and then you've basically done what the ICT flag would do, reduced the quality.
Many Blu-Ray movies are encoded at essentially constant bitrate despite the fact that this is not required to maintain the full quality.
You can re-encode a 1920x1080/24p movie at about 10Mbps average and be 99% identical to the original 30Mbps encode, as long as you use a 2-pass encode to make sure the bits end up where they are needed. Then, toss out audio and subtitles you don't use, and it's pretty easy to get a movie down to about 10GB with no real quality loss. For movies with wider aspect ratios (wh
Re: (Score:3)
Google for "PSNR" and "SSIM". The x264 encoder can run both of these computations while encoding with only a small performance penalty, and there are standalone programs that can be run to do the comparison as well.
But, a good starting point is quality factor. For XVID or other standard MPEG-4, an unrestricted two-pass with Qf of 0.20 is going to result in output that is almost identical to the source. For H.264/AVC, you can drop down to 0.15 and achieve the same thing. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It beats what I saw at first HD Furry. Furries in HD *shudders*
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
This is a tremendous problem these days, and will require a law to fix
Re: (Score:3)
Why the fuck do you make me throw it onto a USB drive and copy it manually?
You paid for a license and a download, you got both. You didn't pay for a license and unlimited downloads in case you lost it. They told you this when you agreed to the terms, and they aren't really unreasonable. They probably should offer some sort of re-download service at a significantly reduced rate though, but as we've seen, Apple has pushed rather hard to get to where it is now without requiring DRM on everything.
However, as far as your statement, they did provide an entirely reasonable means of re
Re: (Score:3)
Confused (Score:5, Insightful)
So... this prevents someone copying a BD disk with a VCR? Or a TV capture card?
I’m actually confused here. Do people actually copy digital media this way any more? What does this prevent?
This kind of sounds like something that has been in the works for a while and is now irrelevant (now that AACS has been dealt with), but the guy’s at the top are two stupid (or afraid of getting fired) to stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
This kind of sounds like something that has been in the works for a while and is now irrelevant (now that AACS has been dealt with), but the guy’s at the top are two stupid (or afraid of getting fired) to stop it.
The whole thing seems like putting a band-aid on a gangrenous leg. I think it's more a case of trying to prove to shareholders that they're doing something to combat piracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Confused (Score:5, Insightful)
To further the pursuit of accuracy, I would say it is treating a gangrenous leg by hiring a polka band.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Doesn't matter. Once consumers get hit by this they will freak out and the studios will find out how much of a bad idea this is.
Re: (Score:2)
Consumers don't notice aspect ratio problems, or like them wrong. I doubt they will notice this.
wall to wall and treetop tall (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't matter. Once consumers get hit by this they will freak out and the studios will find out how much of a bad idea this is.
No, they won't.
Consumers (or at least, consumers in the U.S., in my experience) have shown again and again that they will take whatever crap and whatever restrictions are shoved at them as long as they can continue to get their entertainment fix. "Showing the studios...how much of a bad idea this is" requires patience and discipline -- two virtues that one would be hard pressed to find in this country anymore.
(Sorry -- I'm in an uncharacteristically pessimistic mood today).
Re: (Score:2)
* are too stupid
may the great fire cactus forgive me... it's Friday :(
Re:Confused (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree - and where are my mod points when I need them? Parent to me modded "Insightful".
The movie industry doesn't seem to get it at all - and the big issue isn't Blu-Ray copying anyway - the future will be streaming video on the net instead. Then the movie industry can try to get paid per view instead.
Re: (Score:2)
The movie industry doesn't seem to get it at all - and the big issue isn't Blu-Ray copying anyway - the future will be streaming video on the net instead.
Yep. This is just another nail in Blu-Ray's coffin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Just make sure to get a player that has built-in wi-fi, unless running a cat5e cable isn't a problem for you. Some sneakily advertise "W
Re: (Score:2)
Even more worthless than that [tomshardware.com] That means it would be trivial to make a transceiver that takes in HDMI (complete with HDCP support) and outputs component video.
Re:Confused (Score:5, Insightful)
It does not. They lower the resolution, but if you record to (S)VHS you will get an even lower resolution (especially with VHS) so there is no difference. SVHS records about the same resolution as DVD, so there is no problem with the downscaled video.
This move is stupid - HDCP was completely broken, devices like HDFury are available. So, again, the only people who will have problems are the honest paying customers who have an older TV. Some of them will now learn about ripping, TPB and HDFury type devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Or just rip the bluray and reburn it without this nonsense. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
True...I'm sure that AnyDVD will disable this flag on copies.
I'm much more worried about Cinavia audio watermarking, since that will likely mark the end of playing copies on any BDA-compliant device, at least without jumping through some major hoops.
Re: (Score:3)
No, the PS3 checks for the Cinavia watermark any time, and triggers if the source is not protected. In other words, only Blu-Ray discs with AACS or DVDs with CSS are free from triggering the Cinavia protection.
Tests have been made where the audio is ripped to an MP3 and when that is streamed, the Cinavia protection kicks in.
Re:Confused (Score:4)
Yes. It was the idea that there's be a secure box connected over a secure cable to a secure playback device. It may be irrelevant but they still use CSS. They still prosecute companies that ship a DVD backup/converter program. It's still a DMCA/EUCD violation since there's "fair use" but no "fair circumvention". They can not stop you doing it, but they do everything to argue that it's wrong and that you're a criminal by doing it. When they introduce their next DRM format they will pretend nothing is taken away, because you were never supposed to be able to do it to begin with. Oh well...
Re: (Score:2)
The people who want it for free won't care if it's not 1080p. Non-HD quality is good enough for a decently sized portion of the population. If it's a story-driven movie to begin with, enhanced visuals aren't going to make it any better.
The dedicated pirates aren't going to care either. They'll find another way to rip the 1080p stream or if nothing else exists they can point a 1080p camera at the screen and record it that way. Until humans have a digital jack imp
Re: (Score:2)
Only an idiot would actually buy a Bluray film. Get a 1080P tv and it'll probably do 1080P through a PC, which is higher quality, means you can download the movies and never have to pay for a Bluray player/device. Buy your cables on monoprice and you're done.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this noticeble? in my opinion (of having hundreds of x264's but only seeing a few BD's), no.
But it is one of my biggest pet peeves when people just want to talk resolution without talking bitrate, which is a huge issue if we are talking things like netflix HD. (which is ~3.5Mbit, no where NEAR what a usual scene rip is) Pop open the codec info window ('o' if you're
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2002632&cid=35247890 [slashdot.org]
But yeah.. I can't believe I did that, as well as "guy’s at the". Just a bad grammer day :(
Re:Confused (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
War on Drugs
War on Copyright Infringement
Re: (Score:2)
I'm very picky -- I obtained every movie and .mp3 file I have legally, because as a content generator (computer programmer) I kinda like getting paid.
But you do understand that the economy does not and should not have an aneurysm because some people take things they shouldn't, right? Like, about 3% of Best Buy's products get stolen; but they don't escort every single person through the store with an armed guard, or put absolutely everything behind locked bullet proof glass. It's good that you don't steal; but you have to accept the trade-off between relying on the general honesty of people and having a functional society.
A society where we try to el
Re: (Score:3)
Agree 100%. If a copyright holder chooses to make something intentionally unavailable, they should lose the copyright. Copyright, as it's ardent defenders love to remind us, is necessary to "promote the progress" of these works. If the work isn't being promoted, then why let the person maintain copyright?
I bought into blu-ray (Score:2)
The audio is so much better than DVD, and picture is much nicer even on my old 720p set.
But I bought the $99 player. And all my disks are used.
I only sold out a little!
Re:Confused (Score:4, Interesting)
Won't work. They've already got that base covered. You will only be able to exchange the item for another identical item. No returns.
I signed no such agreement, therefore I do not feel morally bound by their one-sided policy. I'd rather not have to do it, but if it is necessary, if reasoning with them should fail, I am within my rights to be as much of an unprofitable hassle for them as legally possible.
Therefore, if they want to play hardball, that's fine. Up the ante by increasing their hassle and therefore their expense. Be certain to make the purchase with a credit card. Call up your credit card company and dispute the charge, citing that you are dissatisfied with the merchandise and you were refused a refund. Force the matter to arbitration if necessary, taking up more of their time and money. Credit card chargebacks are a pain in the ass for retailers and they overwhelmingly favor the cardholder. The retailer knows this. At some point all of the personnel involved and time and hassle won't be worth the $15 dollars or so they charged for the movie, let alone the small portion of that which is a retailer's profit margin.
As usual, we tend to receive just as much bullshit as we're willing to put up with. If you act like docile sheep it makes you easy to walk all over. Make such asinine return policies as unprofitable as possible the moment they are inflicted on you. Corporations that will listen to little else will certainly listen to wasted profits.
Thankfully I have yet to have to actually do this, but I know that anyone who tries to screw me over is not going to do it easily. It will be more trouble than it is worth for them. Why anyone else would just lie down and take this shit is a mystery to me. It is no wonder corporations feel so free to shaft people because so many of them are willing to take it.
Hollywood studios are clueless (Score:2)
Hello HDFury (Score:5, Informative)
Seriously, if you've need to get HD component video, or VGA, from an HDMI or DVI source, the HDFury products are what you need. We got one at work because we needed to hook an AVCHD camera, which only had HDMI out, to a projector that only had VGA input. Worked perfectly. Fully supports HDCP. The one we got, the HDFury 2 is switchable between VGA and component mode.
So not only is this a dick move, it is 100% ineffective. You just go and buy an HDFury and you are back in business. I'm sure there will be others as this ramps up.
http://www.hdfury.com/ [hdfury.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Not any more, actually - after someone got first post with a link to their site, they seem to be down :)
Clearly that was a tricky plot by the MPAA!
Re: (Score:2)
How does HDFury get around the DMCA? This is a circumvention device, right?
I dunno, I think it is legal (Score:2)
It's been around a long time and you can get them in some mainstream stores. Guess we'll see, but I don't think they can do anything.
Blurry (Score:2, Funny)
Was I the only one who read the blueray tag as 'blurry'?
So is the whole point of this to plug..... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The funny thing is, it's not going to stop pirates; if you look at pirated movies, what you'll see are first telesyncs & then later BD Rips. No one is bothering to mess with any analog holes.
Not what they say it is.... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are doing this supposedly doing this to stop piracy.
I'd be willing to bet, however, that it's to force people to buy newer televisions with an HDMI input.
And of course it's only going to be effective at controlling unauthorized copying as long as AACS doesn't get cracked. Oh, wait....
Re:Not what they say it is.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The next step is probably obligatory DRM, so your collection of ripped movies won't play on your home entertainment system any longer. Only licensed stuff allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah right. That will last right up until grandma & grandpa can't watch home movies on their new HDTV.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had an older CRT HDTV for years, that doesn't have HDMI inputs. I'll be damned if I have buy a new TV just to get HDMI. Although it's only 1080i/720p it still works fine...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand (Score:3)
If you did a bit-for-bit copy of a Blu-ray disc, wouldn't the copy protection go along with it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu_ray#Advanced_Access_Content_System
"BD-ROM Mark is a small amount of cryptographic data that is stored separately from normal Blu-ray Disc data. Bit-by-bit copies that do not replicate the BD-ROM Mark have no known decoding method. A specially licensed piece of hardware is required to insert the ROM-mark into the media during replication."
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
Until they fix the "give me a good reason to buy it" hole, their vision of a world of perfect DRM won't be quite as wonderfully lucrative as they imagine it to be. To date, I've neither purchased nor pirated any Blu-Ray media. This measure doesn't change that situation one bit. Won't pirate it, won't buy it. Hope that fortune you spent on DRM was worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary blows "give me a reason to buy" out of the water. When all new media (heck maybe even live TV) have these hidden flags toggled on, you'll have your good reason shoved down your throat.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got no mod points, so I'm responding that you're right on target.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The summary blows "give me a reason to buy" out of the water. When all new media (heck maybe even live TV) have these hidden flags toggled on, you'll have your good reason shoved down your throat.
Not really, I haven't bought any new media in quite some time. This sort of thing is why. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I know anyone who owns a Blue-ray player
How do they plan for this to work (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this going to make me *less* likely to pirate?
My choices are:
By a blu-ray - do I have the right player? Will it down-convert to less-than-advertized quality? will it cost way too much? who knows (except for costing too much, that I know is a yes)?
Or:
Pirate it for free at a good quality, I don't have to leave my house and new releases are ready to watch in an hour tops. Also I now have just a regular old video file that I can do anything with that I want.
Why studios haven't caught onto this is a mystery to me. Seems like piracy would be dead in the water if ALL movies were offered as unprotected files for a low cost at high speed. If anyone could download any movie ever made at 1meg/s for 1 or 2 bucks with no DRM BS why even bother playing the bittorrent roulette? would some people still do it? probably. Would most law abiding citizens happliy pay rental-prices-or-less to just buy the movie they want? probably. Could they stop wasting their time and money on anti-customer schemes and start worrying about making movies? probably.
Re:How do they plan for this to work (Score:4, Informative)
Please report to the nearest self-termination booth and auto-terminate.
High minded types will simply ascend... (Score:5, Insightful)
High minded types merely "ascend" and avoid the limitations of the physical body... er, media.
Yeah. Talk about yet another reason to RIP or just plain pirate.
This will be the biggest burden to the most clueless users out there, once again proving that DRM only punishes the paying customer.
But then again (Score:2)
Video is largely 960 x 540 anyways because of both 4:2:2 downconversion and Bayer pattern sensors.
Blur-ray (Score:2)
Well, if they actually do start forcing low res output, the old joke name of blur-ray will actually finally be appropriate.
The only people they're stopping... (Score:5, Interesting)
...are legitimate users of video content, sometimes even when it isn't hi def...
My setup is a total pain in the a** because of HDCP.
I wanted to do something really simple this summer - show my cable box feed on the TV in our home gym (a glorified name for room with treadmill in it), so I looked at my options:
(1)Get another Cable box for that TV - no, I'm not interested in paying another $15/month just so I can watch TV in a room for an hour every other day.
(2)Run yet another HDMI cable to the TV - this was not really an option since it would be 35 feet from the cable box with various openings between the box and the destination TV - ergo, expensive, mess, and requiring HDMI amplifies and extremely long cable runs.
(3)Go wireless and get an Air Synch HD (or something similar) - up front cost is not cheap, but no new cables, no new box, only turn it on when I want, et cetera.
So, I get my new wireless HDMI system in, yay! Looks cool, setup seems simple - so I try it out. Cool, XBox 360 play over it just fine, BluRay player works over it just fine, cable box? Oh, whoops, green screen on cable. Never seen that before.
So, long story short, it turns out there's this little feature of HDCP that is only just now starting to bite people in the a** called "downstream devices." Apparently, a source device using HDCP can restrict the number OF HDCP CAPABLE DEVICES that can be chained together to get to your TV or projector. Note that it is a restriction on LEGITIMATE HDCP licensed devices ffs. Most HDCP capable devices have a somewhat large number of possible downstream devices (there's no requirement in the standard - the bastards) but some of them just one or two. This means that if you connect your source device, such as my Motorola DVR, to a receiver (which counts as an HDCP device in this chain) and your projector connects to the receiver you've maxed out the number of devices.
Along comes some poor schmuck (me in this scenario) and puts a wireless HDMI transmitter between my TV and my receiver - *bang* the cable box says "you're trying to pirate my HDCP encrypted signal, I will show you a green screen."
Do they really think they're preventing movie piracy when someone can simply use some soldering tools and an programmable gate array and components available over the internet and strip HDCP? Hell, you can buy HDFury and setup a good recording system.
The only people they're actually screwing are people like me who sit around for 15 seconds waiting for all their HDCP devices to decide to get along and show video and/or audio.
(BTW, I simply connected the cable box to the receiver with component cables and optical audio - but I guess that solution will be on its way to the trash can as soon as Motorola can get around to it, eh?)
</RANT>
Re: (Score:2)
I got burnt by this same flaw. Cursed Verizon out over they flawed Motorola STBs. They have promised a fix by the end of the year. Don't you love it when you plug in your brand new HDTV and the only thing it will show is an HDCP handshake failed message?
Their work around is to use component out from the STB and feed it to the receiver. Then let the receiver convert the component back to HDMI. Of course I was less than pleased with them for forcing me to buy a new $500 receiver to make my HDTV work. Now I ta
Re:The only people they're stopping... (Score:4, Informative)
This basically sums up the frustration of the modern law abiding A/V nerd. I can't count the number of times I've wanted to do something with equipment I own using media I paid for and been thwarted because 'I might be a pirate'.
MythTV? Tried that. Loved it until I was forced into the digital world by the cable company. Everything needed to be re-engineered and there were complicated cards that may or may not work and may or may not be supported by the cable co. I could've wrestled through it, upgrading hardware and spending hours (again) getting things working - until the next time the cable company forced a change. Because I might be a pirate.
New HD Television? I plan my purchases and already owned a receiver with two digital audio channels. Since all my video sources were HDMI, the obvious solution here is to run everything to the TV and run a single audio out from the TV to the receiver. Fewer remotes, fewer wires, better Wife Acceptance Factor. Nope. The TV down samples everything that comes out the digital audio out jack to 2 channel stereo*. Instead I have to run all my sources to my receiver that only has 2 digital inputs. Or upgrade the receiver. Because I might be a pirate
BluRay Player? It came as a bundle when I purchased my TV and was effectively free. Cool, I'll check that out. This has been the absolute worst playback device I've ever seen. Boot times are extreme. Menus are sluggish. Firmware updates are a necessity if you want to play any recent releases. Because I might be a pirate.
At every turn where you're blocked from doing something, the only solution is to upgrade your entire chain of hardware - and you still likely won't be able to do what you want. In the meantime, the pirates don't have to worry about any of this shit. It's pretty plain to me that the industry doesn't actually care about piracy, but instead is trying to drive purchases of new hardware and media.
* Incidentally, what's the point of a digital audio out if the only thing that ever comes out of it is 2 channel stereo?
Re: (Score:2)
The locks on your house do not protect it from you. DRM does protect your media from you.
Re:The only people they're stopping... (Score:5, Insightful)
In your analogy, there's a mile-long queue of skilled thieves outside your door and they're busting open your locks every 5 seconds with zero effort and no repercussions. I think that in this situation, yes, people *would* tell you to stop forking out for new locks.
They might also question your policy of strip-searching invited guests before letting them into your house.
Did anyone else read it as: (Score:5, Funny)
"This ensure that high-def video is available only through the copy-protected HDMI outputs or from Bittorrent"?
Damn dyslexia...
HDCP is mess (Score:2)
My HDCP protected Verizon FIOS STB still can't manage to make a HDMI connection to my new Samsung TV. After dozens of calls and emails Verizon admits it is a flaw in the STB and it will be fixed before the end of this year. Meanwhile I was forced to buy an amp with component to HDMI conversion. So I take the digital signal going into the STB, convert it to analog component, send it to the receiver and convert it back to HDMI. All of this wasted time and money just to make HDCP work on a signal I am paying
Re: (Score:2)
Stop buying faulty shit and paying for subscriptions / devices that don't work because of admitted flaws and "bodge-job" hardware.
Simple really. You're paying for something you can't use.
Bait and switch (Score:3)
Conceptually, I don't have a problem with their proposal...but only on new equipment. To impose this kind of restriction or format change on existing equipment amounts to nothing more than a bait and switch: Sell a product to a consumer (who does not have nor need to have the specific technical understanding of Blu-ray technology--it's just cool HD) and then later enable and impose new features that restrict what the consumer paid for.
I guess this is really nothing new, just different equipment.
This move will encourage piracy (Score:2)
Obviously. If you cause a worse viewing experience for the paying customers, that paying customer might just as well turn to pirated copies, which may have the same or better quality, and are free.
Napster all over again (Score:2)
Which will do nothing but drive people to buy "crackers" to allow HDMI to broadcast without encryption (some of which have already been mentioned).
wow (Score:4, Informative)
Re:wow (Score:5, Insightful)
Higher quality picture? Seriously? What, then, is the pirated version ripped from? The original film print?
If you're using component cables you will soon get a higher quality picture from a pirated BluRay than an actual BluRay. That's the entire point of this /. article.
Re:wow (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because there are some Slashdotters that support copyright infringement, which are mostly worried about the RIAA et al and so spend their time and modpoints in such discussions, not caring much for Linux, programming or such, and there are other Slashdotters that strongly favor Free Software, its ideals and objectives, which are generally against copyright infringement(*) but also against the way the RIAA et al go about fighting it and so prefer to just read rather than actively participate in RIAA-related discussions.
(*) It's not just about protecting the GPL, btw: regardless of what you may believe about its "wonderful" interface, hardly anybody will pay $699 for Photoshop when The GIMP and Paint.NET are free.
Re:wow (Score:4, Insightful)
Acknowledging the irony of the situation does not equate to supporting copyright infringement. Why make that blanket assertion on all of Slashdot?
This is barely news. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It does? Maybe you need better cables. There doesn't seem to be any real difference to me unless you
freeze-frame and compare artefacts and if you're doing that then you're missing the point of watching it.
While I'll admit HD might look a little nicer the difference between HD and SD matters very little to me.
If its a good film the picture quality wont matter that much. The first time I watched The Matrix was a
a pirated VCD where the quality was so bad that you couldn't even see most of the action and effect
Re: (Score:3)
No it doesn't. Component cables are fine.
If we did a blind "taste test" you would probably flunk it.
No it doesn't, your cables are bad (Score:2)
Seriously.
I have a 108 inch picture on the wall, provided by a DLP projector. Up until a few months ago, it was connected via component video. Any HDMI sources were converted to component before the receiver which we use to select sources, by HDFury IIs. There's a 50 foot component cable running to the projector; there is now a 50 foot HDMI cable doing the same job.
Before Christmas I got a new receiver which switches HDMI and converts any analog video inputs to HDMI (quite well, actually; video from my o
Re: (Score:2)
My only problem with the switch to HDMI has been that the long cable to the projector is so heavy that the HDMI connectors won't physically hold the cable in place unless they're anchored in place with velcro straps around the cable. It's not a very good connector design from a physical standpoint.
You need to suspend the cable from the ceiling a few feet before it connects to the projector. Then, the only weight on the connector is that few feet of cable.
Re:HD via component looks terrible anyways... (Score:2)
Hear, hear! I did a quick taste test and found component cable transmission just gives that fuzzy analog feel (for good reason). HDMI is so crisp...
Re: (Score:2)
You should have ripped the disk then played it. Why play their game?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't affect PIRATE!
MOVIE STUDIO was hit with recoil!