My Nero RSS Feed - Latest blog entries

Looks like a wide screen movie

MyNeroUserWithNickname@nero.com () — 28 Nov 2008 00:37:49 GMT

Every movie I burn appears on the T.V. as if its a wide screen movie format, where there is an inch above an below the actual picture. If the movie was origonally in wide screen format, when I play it, there is twice the gap above and below. How do I utilize the entire screen. I am using Nero 9.... so agrivating!

And you wondered why people are so confused about HD

MyNeroUserWithNickname@nero.com () — 19 Jan 2008 06:20:21 GMT

This morning I was doing my usual daily reading, which largely consists of looking through a bunch of RSS feeds and occasionally reading an article all the way through. One of the articles that looked promising enough to actually read was by a CNet blogger named George Ou who was ranting that HD from internet video providers isn't "Real HD" because it uses a low bitrate.

Forgetting for the moment that he makes claims about what bitrates are used for DVD encoding or required for AVC/VC-1 encoding that simply have no basis in the real world, he's correct that the bitrates typically used by online video providers simply aren't good enough for high quality HD. But that doesn't mean its not HD. HD means high definition, and refers to the resolution of the screen. To say that 720p video isn't HD simply because it's encoded at a low bitrate is preposterous.

When pressed on the issue later, his response was simply that it looks like SD video to him. He declined to elaborate on how his opinion means 720p isn't HD. Later in the day he even posted an update to his blog attempting to illustrate his point about the quality, but still insisted on calling it "Fake HD." After I once again called him out on the issue he responded that it's "low fidelity."

Now I don't personally care if Mr. Ou is misinformed, but it bothers me greatly to see people making public declarations about video related topics when they can't even manage to use basic terminology correctly. One of the biggest reasons so many people don't understand basic HDTV and digital video technology is because this kind of "expert" analysis is so prevalent. Based on his CNet bio, which lists a bunch of IT experience, he should understand the importance of accurately using technical terms.

Blu-ray's Quest For Ultimate DRM

MyNeroUserWithNickname@nero.com () — 22 Nov 2007 22:09:29 GMT

So now that Slysoft has a product that can copy BD+ protected Blu-ray discs and Macrovision has bought the technology behind it, the DRM challenge seems to have escalated. My understanding of how Slysoft's workaround for BD+ works is that it doesn't actually remove the protection so much as ignore it. I don't want to get into any real details here as we quickly start getting into legal gray areas, but I also read somewhere that there's BD+ information that isn't protected (encrypted?) as well as it should be if they want it to be effective, and a future update could be produced that would fix this.

That would, however, create something of a dilemma for the Blu-ray Disc Association because it would mean all existing players would need to be upgraded. When they had a similar upgrade for the initial BD+ implementation there was a little bit of a controversy because one title (Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer) wouldn't play in just a couple of players because of the protection. As you would expect, the manufacturers quickly responded with firmware updates, but the number of affected players was far smaller than even the number of new units that will be sold in the next month. It's also possible that the reason for the flaw Slysoft is exploiting is a limitation of one or more first generation players.

Hardware compatibility problems for early adopters isn't new, but these aren't your father's early adopters. When DVD first appeared the early adopters belonged to an almost microscopic market segment, consisting of people who generally already had laserdisc players and big screen projection TVs. Today's crowd includes a much broader segment of the population, most of whom bought into hi-def technology after it was fairly well established, and the technology was relatively stable. It's anyone's guess how they'll respond to repeated technical problems and updates.

One of Blu-ray's most important selling points for studios was its adaptive security model that allows the addition of new DRM measures, but does that really make it more secure. ACSS encryption, touted as the final word in DRM by some, proved to be merely a roadblock to bypass, and not even that hard to get around. BD+ seems to be proving just as ineffective. Meanwhile, more and more players that would need upgrades.

And on the subject of firmware upgrades, I'm not a fan of that business model to begin with. As anyone who's done a lot of firmware flashing knows there's always a risk involved. Flashing involves an Electrically Erasable Programmable memory chip (EEPROM) gets erased by passing an electrical current through it. Once it's erased it gets programmed with new instructions. If these instructions somehow don't get written correctly the operation may need to be performed from the beginning.

I'll assume for now that all the existing units have the necessary hardware to recover from a failed flash and perform it again. I'll also assume that they've been designed with high enough quality chips that they can withstand being flashed many times. However, the history of firmware flashing and consumer electronics tells us that a big enough market for players will almost guarantee units sold that aren't as reliable and don't react as well to them. It also tells us that even high quality hardware will have a certain percentage of units that develop problems as a result of being flashed.

We've seen some of the features that studios want in Next-Gen video formats. Now it's time to look at some things consumers want. Let's start with a discussion about managed copying. You can't have an honest discussion about piracy without also including user rights. There are already experiments underway to provide copies formatted for mobile media players and computers with the purchase of a DVD. Is it too much to ask that the new technology keep up with the old? Better yet, maybe Blu-ray (and HD DVD) should put more effort into getting the managed copy features that I believe are mandatory for both are implemented.

If the content and technology providers aren't careful they may manage to give Blu-ray the most effective DRM of all - obsolescence.

The Case For MP4

MyNeroUserWithNickname@nero.com () — 21 Sep 2007 04:29:31 GMT

One thing that can be confusing for people new to Nero Digital is the use of the MP4 container. Although MP4 is the technically correct container for MPEG-4 files, whether they're encoded with MPEG-4 ASP (DivX, XviD, Nero Digital) or H.264 (x264, Nero Digital AVC), there's a lot of confusion stemming from a history of using Microsoft's AVI container.

Why Not AVI?

So why should you care whether your video gets put into an AVI or MP4 container? There are actually a number of compelling reasons to consider. The first is the case against AVI. AVI is the container used for Microsoft's Video for Windows (VfW) interface. Not only is it specific to Windows, it's not even particularly useful there since VfW development was halted years ago, replaced by DirectShow technology. If it weren't for the introduction of the hacked DivX ;-) (aka DivX 3.11) codec for VfW, Microsoft likely would have stopped including support by the time Windows 2000 or XP came out.

Not only does AVI require the VfW code in Windows for playback, it also requires VfW codecs to encode video. This runs counter to modern encoder development, which is better implemented in standalone programs that use DirectShow for decoding files (in Windows anyway). Instead of relying on Windows to provide the interface for encoding, it's better to control things from the command line. Not only does this make the encoder responsible for everything it has to do, it also enables better portability between different operating systems.

Why MP4?

Once you've determined that AVI is a poor choice of video containers, the next question becomes what to replace it with. Although MP4 is the official answer, it's not the only possibility. However, if you consider all the reasons for choosing a new container, it's the clear winner. The first requirement for a suitable container is to be generic. In order to make it attractive for encoding and playback software and hardware to be created the market needs to be suitably large. If different companies are interested in using the container you're more likely to see standalone players and computer tools for it. Although at least one open source container, MKV, can be used to store MPEG-4 and a large variety of other formats,
it hasn't gained the kind of market penetration and commercial interest its developers had hoped. It's suitable, but not practical.

That leaves us with the official answer of MP4. It's generic enough that any standards compliant MPEG-4 (ASP or AVC) format can be stored in it. Although there are issues with splitting video and audio data in MP4 files, with additional software it can be done. It's a good computer format for working with video, and if companies like Nero work closely with consumer electronics manufacturers, there's no reason set-top boxes ranging from DVD players to IPTV receivers designed to read from external storage can't take support it. With the large amount of video expected to be moving across the internet within the next few years, it only makes sense to find some standards that are useful for everyone and build an infrastructure based on them. With formats like AVCHD becoming standard for camcorders and AVC support established as standard for next generation standalone formats, it seems like a no-brainer to settle on a standard MPEG-4 container for computer use.