Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Copying A DVD To A CD? 311

Kreed wrote to us about an article on Tom's Hardware that details the process of compressing the content of DVDs down to CD length. Pretty cool compression.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Copying a DVD To A CD?

Comments Filter:
  • by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @05:14PM (#780672)
    Reviewing something for the pure geek nature of it all, regardless of the wrath the RIAA will bring down ;)

    Yeah.. let's see them try to silence Tom :)
  • by Voltage_Gate ( 69001 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @05:16PM (#780673)
    My idea is to scan a DVD into Photoshop, then resize it way the hell down and burn it onto a cd. Or even better, just photocopy the disc, cut out the circles, and glue or tape them onto some of your old AOL promo discs. Try it, it works!
  • by ca1v1n ( 135902 ) <snookNO@SPAMguanotronic.com> on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @05:18PM (#780674)
    Compression ratios like that make me very happy. Any guesses to what ogg video will look like? I'm anxiously awaiting ogg vorbis [xiph.org] (audio format) myself. I hope this project catches on, because I would like to see a suite of fully-opena and free multimedia formats. Vorbis promises to be very flexible, and it would be nice if we could get the same kind of compression in MPEG-4 into a free package, and this looks like it could be the outlet for it, with the right modifications.
  • by pb ( 1020 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @05:20PM (#780677)
    This isn't news, and it isn't something I want to hear about...

    It *is* very cool, and arguably fair use, but unfortunately, if the media ever really gets wind of this, we'll see the entire stupid mp3 war over 'mp4', only ten times worse.

    Ok, I suppose it's unavoidable, but if you thought all the mp3 stuff we've heard about for the past few years was stupid, well, this will be ten times stupider with the MPAA backing it.

    Also, I suppose no one will mention Microsoft in this, even though everyone traffics in '.asf' files. (Just like everyone talks about Napster, even though many college students share their hard drives, and use Windows File Sharing as their mp3-pirating platform...) Of course, the entire format/medium issue is incredibly stupid; it's just a tool. But rational argument hasn't stopped these people so far...
    ---
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].
  • by zlite ( 199781 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @05:24PM (#780679)
    In a year's time, most if not all new PCs will be shipping with DVD drives. And most of those who have not upgraded will not be target customers for the pirate CDs this will presumably produce. Likewise, anyone who uses this technology for their own copying obviously already has a DVD drive.

    So who would really use this?
  • AOL has supplied me with a lifetime of fancy coasters.

    --
  • by jmv ( 93421 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @05:28PM (#780686) Homepage
    from the FlaskMPEG [go.to] home page:

    The authors of FlasKMPEG have come across a program called 'FlasKMPEG DeCSS'.

    We want to express very clearly that such program or any other derived from the original is no way related with the official 'FlasKMPEG' project in any way. FlasKMPEG sources are available under the GPL license and it's totally out of our responsibility the legal implications caused by the modifications or variations from other developers performed over our code. The original FlasKMPEG can't and won't read files from encrypted DVDs, and even then, copyrighted material should not be processed with FlasKMPEG.
  • by GigsVT ( 208848 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @05:31PM (#780688) Journal
    This isn't about a silly battle over mp3. This is society changing paradigm. The old rules don't work anymore, and that is the real issue. It doesn't matter which format the battle is over, the ideas that the public adopts in the end will be the only important thing. Copyright has been with us for hundreds of years, its unsettling when our technology changes the way we think, and that is why we are having this battle.

    Think of it as a prelude to the Singularity.
    -----------------------------
  • Who wants to bet that Tom's Hardware will be invaded by a legion of lawyers?
    Anyone?
    Oh, well, they can escape with this car [slashdot.org] and keep serving their site
  • Am I being sucked back to late 1999? This is Slashdot. We're nerds. Who doesn't know about DIVX yet? Seriously, why is this news to anyone in our genre? This is like announcing that someone JUST found a way to emulate NES games...



  • This may be bad for the DeCSS legal case, but if FlaskMPEG is modified to recieve a DeCSS plugin, it may well make the legal case irrelevent... You legally get FlaskMPEG and then simply download DeCSS from a country where it is legal and you can view your DVD's.
  • My laptop, which originally had Windows NT 4.0 on it, doesn't have a DVD drive, and to add one now that I've switched to an OS that supports DVD (Win2k), would be really expensive. If I could get movies from the DVD drive on my home PC onto CD, I could watch movies on my DVD-less laptop while travelling. I consider that to be a good (and fair) use for the technology.
  • This proves everything people been saying before you can not stop pirating people will find ways around it.
  • Yes, decss is used to decrypt the contents of the cd. Its built into Flask.
  • DVDs store about 8GB of data for 100 minutes of movie with MPEG2. Using MPEG4 allows you to put the same movie into 700MB of data. Which means that every Joe with a CD burner can copy it (bit of an exageration - the hardware requirements for encoding are steep. Perhaps Intel finally have an application for the 1.5GHz P4?). Incase you haven't noticed CDRs and CD burners are vastly cheaper than writable DVDs and DVD burners. This is the MPAA's worst nightmare. It also has implications for the DVD marketplace. I for one will be thinking again about whether I need a DVD player.

    But the technology mentioned isn't new - MPEG4 has been around for a while in the form of Divx:-). But this is the first review I've seen from a major site like Tom's.

  • by JoeShmoe ( 90109 ) <askjoeshmoe@hotmail.com> on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @05:58PM (#780726)
    Seriously...speaking of DivX encoding (or MPEG-4 or whatever you want to call it) will all you people out there stop leaving these files with the .AVI extension? Is it that hard to put use a new extension like .divx or .dvx? Are Windows users that lazy that they can't be bothered to register a new extension to Media Player? Maybe we need to get some of those DivX warez groups on IRC to change the name of the file before they release them. Just imagine the chaos that would ensue if people started releasing .WAV files encoded with using the MPEG-1, Audio Layer 3 codec instead of .MP3 versions.

    PS - I'm looking at you Microsoft. Quit naming a billion files ".DOC" when not single version is intercompatible.

    Bleah! The one thing I miss from the Macintosh is the fact that every file had a four byte header that identified the type of file so that this whole extension mess was unnecessary.

    - JoeShmoe
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-=-=-=-=-=-
  • by barracg8 ( 61682 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @05:59PM (#780729)
    • Warning:
      The author declines any responsability from the use of this program. This software can not be used with copyrighted material because doing so, would infringe many laws all around the world.
      The author doesn't intend to promote piracy by any means, and the scope of the application is limited to video processing tasks with home made digital video material.
    This is kinda like selling guns unrestricted and saying "please don't shoot anyone, cuz that would be against the law". Oh wait, you guys already do that. ;-)

    Joke, okay. Calm down and don't flame.

    But seriously, I want the ability to back up my DVDs, and play them back on machines without DVD drives, in exactly the same way that I can backup audio CDs to tape, and play them in my car.

    I don't see anything in the least bit illegal about FlaskMPEG, but I'm sure that the MPAA lawyers will be doing their best to take a different view on that.

    I wonder whether this could have any impact on the DeCSS situation? Surely, it would be better to let people view DVDs unrestricted under Linux, rather than be a pain in our ass and encourage us to start backing our DVDs up on CD.

    cheers,
    G

  • Arguably, this may not be that big a contribution to piracy, because you need a fast processor and a lot of ram to decode the signal that well, shoot, it's cheaper to buy the dvds you want rather than assemble a Ghz box just to play them.

    Think beyond the the storage media for a second: How about watching movies over a streaming broadband connection? The ability to archive film and video with unparalleled efficiency?It's time[jonkatz]to take the first tentative steps towards decommodifying video, just as mp3s have given us the chance to easily sample music we may never have otherwise heard.[/jonkatz] Yeah, a lot of people will get pissed off, and someone will get sued, but the possibilities are endless.
  • by Dlugar ( 124619 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @06:04PM (#780732) Homepage

    Back when DivX;-) first appeared, I took a DVD, a handful of programs, and a lot of spare time to see what I could come up with. Here are my results:

    • It's not really that very difficult.
      But it's not that easy, either. If you're a CS major, you should be able to do it in three or four hours. If you're an average Joe, good luck. You'll need it. MPAA, your day is coming, but it's not here yet. (See below.)
    • Fast Computer Needed
      No kidding here, guys. On a PIII 350mghz, playback was choppy. Tom here used an 800mghz Thunderbird. You probably need around that to get decent playback.
    • Time
      It took, on my aforementioned PIII, about seven hours to encode half an hour of Wallace and Gromit. Even with a smokin' computer, you'll probably need to let it run for a while.
    • Quality
      It's not perfect, guys. Especially in scenes with lots of movement of colours (like an explosion), you get some fuzzies. It's about the quality difference from mp3 from cd, though, I'd say. I certainly wouldn't mind watching a movie in DivX;-) format, but it's no home theatre.
    • DeCSS
      DeCSS makes it easy to rip a movie quickly, but other programs exist that are just as simple. I've heard rumours of one that brute-forces the key to the DVD--anybody know about this one? At any rate, I don't think it can be argued that DeCSS's even main purpose is for this sort of thing. It's obvious that DeCSS is used more often for some easy-listening music and t-shirt wear than for piracy.
    • Conclusion:
      MPAA, your day is coming. But take note that it's because of DivX;-), just like the RIAA's problems are mp3 (not RealJukebox). As for DeCSS? You're barking up the wrong tree with that one. Of course, if you're worried about people disabling region codes and/or watching their DVDs on their Linux machines, DeCSS is your man.


      Dlugar, bearer of the spork

  • by Crutcher ( 24607 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @06:05PM (#780734) Homepage
    Really, we know how to do GOOD video compression, we just don't have the space/time to do it with modern computers.

    I mean, if you do the following, you'll get great encoding, but it is EXPENSIVE.

    step 1: drop the color space resolution in half, the eye can't see it. (this is the first step in JPEGs)
    step 2: Resample the image in time to 30fps (this is ideal)
    step 3: resample the image in space to a hexagonal, instead of a rectangular grid, this spreads the corner distance problem.
    step 4: resample at half the luminance resolution, compress, but cycle the resampling offset in time. Persistance of vision reconstructs the proper luminance map.
    step 5: search the (much reduced by this point) 3d matrix for domain/range mapings (this is the fractal step, it takes much processor power) You probably need to select smallish block sizes for this in time, or it gets much harder. Of course, the bigger the chunk you encode at a time, the better the encoding ratio.

    and to view it, just reverse steps 5 and 3.

    Its kind of like strong AI, its easy to say 'search for domain/range mappings', and it's easy to write code to do it. It just takes more memory and processor time than we have available to give useful results.

    -- Crutcher --
    #include <disclaimer.h>
  • The thing is that you have to decode the DVD to get to the MPEG2 stream. So you still need a decoder. But it does reduce the importance of DeCSS. Here's why:
    The MPAA and DVDCCA have assumed that people will want to make perfect copies of DVDs. To do that you need to decode the DVD (using DeCSS, for example), and burn it onto something (i.e. you need a DVD burner and a big hard drive). MPEG4 invalidates that assumption because people are willing to trade a small drop in quality for a much more managable file size. Since you're re-encoding the video you don't need DeCSS - any DVD player will do because you can capture the data after the MPEG2 decoding (e.g. with a hacked video driver).

    This really highlights a flaw in the CSS system - it only protects the MPEG2 signal. If you don't need a bit perfect MPEG2 copy it's worthless as a protection scheme.

  • by jsmaby ( 217465 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @06:06PM (#780737) Homepage

    ...old AOL promo discs.

    You know it's time to get some sleep when you read that `AOL porno discs'. I thought perhaps that was one of the things AOL sent people when they sign up so that when they get busy signals they can use the CD instead...

  • DVD RAM is actually coming down in price much faster than I expected, right now you can get a creative DVD-RAM drive (5.2GB) for ~$270 and media for ~$20. This is much less expensive than I expected.
  • While mpeg2 is not the best video compression out there, there certainly isn't one an entire order of magnitude better.

    Warning bells:
    • 11 times better compression - this sounds too good to be true.
    • NTSC DVDs are 640x480, PAL DVDs are 720x576 but those comparison pictures aren't even 640x480
    • some of the "Resizing Quality Options" (which are interpolation algorithms) are said to "causes a relatively big data stream".
    While I don't know the specifics of the mpeg4 format (and the article doesn't mention any technical detail, so don't flame me, correct me), I'm guessing mpeg4 uses wavelets.

    Wavelet compression is potentially(1) the best image compression I know of (ignoring fractal here for now). I was under the impression it offers about a 20% gain over DCT etc, not a 1000% gain.

    Anyway, the thing with many forms of wavelet compression is that their result is resolution independent - you can decompress them to any resolution you like, and if the detail isn't there then it will just look a bit blurry. I believe this is what's happening here. While the video stream might be decoding to a NTSC res image, it probably has no more detail than a 320x240 image that has been scaled up in Photoshop.

    I doubt the object compression mentioned in the article is any use for a video stream as the video compression program doesn't know what is an object and what isn't - it just sees pixels. Sure it can deduce that that bunch of pixels is moving in that direction, but so does mpeg2. Having objects in the scene is more useful for computer generated video where the encoder can be feed object information about the scene (or feed the scene in layers) and not just what the scene looks like.

    In summary, looks cool and convenient, but won't have nearly the detail of a DVD. As to DeCSS, well you can probably pull the same stunt with a laserdisc player and a video-in, the image quality might end up slightly worse as noise from the composite video signal/format will throw the compression somewhat, but you still end up with a high quality, indefinitely reproduceable movie on a CD.

    1) I said potentially because it's quite a loose term and DCT etc could be considered wavelet compression - whether it's any good depends on what waves you choose and how you implement it.
  • by RedWizzard ( 192002 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @06:14PM (#780742)
    You're argument is based on the assumption that you need DeCSS in this process - you don't. Up till now everyone has assumed that people will want to keep the video in MPEG2 format. After all why re-encode in something else when it'll only lower the quality? MPEG4 is the answer - because the result is 10-15 times smaller. If you're going to re-encode it then you don't need an MPEG2 stream so you don't need DeCSS - any decoder software will do. You just need a means of capturing the decoder's output.

    The result is that the MPAA's assertion that the DeCSS case is about piracy is gone. It was never true anyway but now any fool can see it for what it is - a smokescreen. So this actually helps the DeCSS defendants.

  • This has been around for a while. A guy in the room next to mine last year had a whole operation like this going on his computer. He'd rent some dvds, deCSS them, Extract just the movies (leaving off titles, menus, trailers, promos, alternate soundtracks/angles, etc), compress the sound with a pirated fraunhoffer mp3 codec, compress the video with Divx mpeg-4, and put it on a CD. Sometimes two CDs, making for better quality. The result was VERY good - easily better than any VHS tape, but it has to be played on a computer. I have a couple movies he made that way.

    "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is"

  • by nihilogos ( 87025 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @06:19PM (#780746)
    It was explicitly mentioned in Judge Kaplan's decision [2600.com] that one of the concerns the MPAA raised over DeCSS was that it would enable people access to the content of the DVDs and thus it would be possible to compress the entire movie to a size which would fit onto a CD. He then went on to say that since blank CDs were about $1 a pop that the risk of piracy was very much increased.

    However one of the MPAA's arguments to distinguish copying of DVDs from copying of video cassettes was that there would be no degradation of quality since everything was "digital". This degradation was important in allowing fair use copies and the like.

    So is a CD copy of a DVD fair use? It's certainly a degraded quality and is conceptually almost identical to taping a music CD to use in the car.

    My 2 cents is all I have.
  • I think it could become dangerous for the MPAA to oppose to FlaskMPEG for the following reason. DeCSS violates the DMCA (I don't agree with the DMCA at all, but that's another point) by circumventing a copy protection mecanism. However, FlaskMPEG doesn't violate any copy-protection mecanism. The DVD format is supposed to be free, so anyone can encode (non-encrypted) DVD's. For the MPAA to claim than (non-encrypted) DVD copying is illegal, they have to show that they're the only ones who make DVD's. If they manage to prove that, they just proved that they are a monopole... with all the implications...
  • Well, if I understand the article correctly you need to use something to rip the video data from the DVD before you can compress it into mpeg4. That is were DeCSS would come in. I have read that there is better tools for this anyway. The cat is out of the bag, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
  • by Callon ( 232392 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @06:30PM (#780753)
    The language of the article [tomshardware.com] above compared to the actual images within the article and observed quality are strikingly different.

    I would score the difference as a 10 on the "I never had sexual relations with that woman" scale.

    The difference in the propaganda and the actual images/sound has been a feature at all the levels of the compression discussion. Most of these disconnects come back to some fundamental misunderstandings about a little thing called "playback fidelity".

    Playback Fidelity Recap follows:

    As anyone who has ever chased "great sound" will know, half-decent stereo systems start at around $3000 with $1500 of these dollars being spent on the speakers alone. Listening to MP3s on half -decent stereo systems is a painful experience - fortunately outlawed as "cruel and unusual punishment".

    But there are (at least) two other forces at work in the world of sound. Firstly, the bald fact that very very few people listen to music on half-decent stereo systems. Secondly, the bald fact that for around 20 years, the people making the music have had access to technologies known collectively (of course) as "compression". This is the process whereby, in post-production, the "raw" recorded sound is "dumbed down" or "compressed" to fit the sound qualities of most people's playback equipment. It is lossy compression - as parts of the sound are "thrown away" to concentrate on the most "noticed" parts.

    This 20(odd)year process has resulted in a number of things, including the incredible "bass" that people feel that they get from ghetto blaster sized and priced playback units and (standard) car stereos. Also, people have become accustomed to the "compressed" sound and have actually come to really like it. Try playing these same tracks on half decent stereos (actually, don't) the experience is very different. Examples of extreme compression would include most rap/dance music, Britany Spears et al, etc. etc. Or really any music made for people with limited access to high quality playback.

    And so at the playback fidelity that most people experience (PC speakers - $100) MP3s of course sound great. Likewise, at the playback fidelity of television tubes that are tuned for VHS in PAL or NTSC, I bet that DVD video ripped to 750MB looks fine.

    Get a monitor quality TV set (you'll probably be able to afford one in a few years) - and suddenly VHS is unwatchable, free-to-air has chunks missing, cable "rips" every half minute or so, and DVD is almost acceptable, but you'll secretly hunger for something more.

    I feel that playback fidelity shouldn't be forgotten when claims like "Barely noticible quality loss" are made.
  • by jon_c ( 100593 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @06:33PM (#780755) Homepage
    One the best places to get all this stuff is right here [digital-digest.com]

    besides that id like to mention that people should be way more exsited about this. people don't seem to relize that in about 2 years the MPAA is going to totally freak out because napster-forvideo will have every freaking movie and video for download.

    that and your 2.5ghz computer can record a whole movie to a tiny 700megs on your 2.5 terrabyte drive.

    think about it!

    -Jon

    oh ya, Tom didn't mention that DiVX is the actually Microsoft MPEG v4, just cracked to remove the copyright stuff. how they got hold of it, i can't tell you. also Microsoft and Real seem to have slightly better codecs now, Microsoft Video V7 (why 7? ,marketing) and Real 8, both are REALLY freaking amazing. even better then standard MPEG4, which as someone pointed out is bassicly Quicktime, which uses the sorenson codec. Not that Quicktime isn't da shit, it is.

  • by alhaz ( 11039 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @06:33PM (#780756) Homepage
    Maybe it has an .avi extension because its in AVI format? Maybe?

    AVI isn't so much a format as it is a blanket description. Stands for Audio/Video Interleaved.

    Given that, .asf and .mpg files should also be .AVI, since they fit the same description. As should .MOV for that matter.

    Truth be told there are about a dozen proprietary codecs that you may find in an AVI file.

    OK, I'll admit that there's probably a standard header to help your application find the codec. But it's still annoying.

  • Yeah. Okay.. I meant MPAA :)
  • It's news that Tom posted it, but is it really news that this can be done? Wasn't this covered many moons ago? This has been going on for quite some time so far... a year almost?

    It's great that Tom posted it.. but... The ripped-off-from-microsoft-NDA-code reverse-engineered non-open-source badly-named DivX codec is hardly news....
  • It is remarkable that consciousness of the importance of MPEG-4 has leaked out into the wider, technical (though not necessarily hacker) community. There was an interesting column [sciam.com] in Scientific American last month with history and some analysis that complements this article.
  • The artifacts noticed in the still frame would not be noticed in motion.

    Nobody will dispute that DVD is much higher quality than the mp4 version at 10x smaller size.

    THe point is, the full-screen quality of movies converted this way to mp4 is more than tolerable. WAYY better than VCD, wayy better than VHS, just not quite DVD. The audio track is 128kbps mp3 (or something similar in wma), which is also not dolby digital, but quite adequate.

    And if you don't like it.. nobody forces you to use it.
  • here's my BeOS plug: the OS uses mime types to keep track of what should open what. Very clean solution. For files that don't have one registered (like, say, something you just downloaded) it is assigned by a combination of looking at any extension it might have and looking at the contents.

    "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is"

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Very good point.
    Keep in mind that 'fair use' simply meant that you could not be prosecuted for making 'fair use' of a copyrighted work. In other words, the act of making copies is not illegal if making those copies falls under fair use.

    The DeCSS case is about the DMCA, which is basically unrelated. Remember, 'fair use' never meant that those distributing the works had to make it 'technologically possible' for you to copy things in order to make 'fair use' of it, only that making copies for a 'fair use' purpose was not actionable. The DeCSS case is specifically about the DMCA outlawing making tools that are used to circumvent copy control mechanisms, which DeCSS clearly does.

    Whether or not this preserves 'fair use' is largely irrelevant. Do you have a right to copy your DVD? SURE!
    Does that make DeCSS legal? Not as long as the DMCA is intact.

    An analogy might be... hmm.
    Here in Canada, I am allowed to make holes in the piece of plywood I have in my garage.
    I am *NOT* allowed to posess the fully automatic ak-47 with armor-piercing bullets that I'm using to make those holes.
    Does the fact that I have a right to make holes in my plywood slab make it okay for me to own something that is outlawed by a totally different law? No.

    Same thing here.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • But this is my point.

    I agree with you, that FlaskMPEG is legal. Therefore, shouldn't the MPAA stop fighting DeCSS? MPAA must hate FlaskMPEG even more than DeCSS, but probably can't use the law to stop it.

    While they pretend that the DeCSS case is about the copying of DVDs, it is really about limiting their distribution, through the region lock. DeCSS doesn't help people copy DVDs at all. FlaskMPEG totally circumvents all region protection, and makes it easy to copy the resulting mpeg4 CDs. It must be MPAAs worst nightmare come true.

    Surely banning DeCSS makes it more likely for people to turn to FlaskMPEG?

    If you won't let me watch my DVDs under Linux, I'll just back them up to CDs, and watch these :-) This should be perfetcly legal: I can back up audio CDs to tape, etc. Surely DeCSS is the lesser of two evils?

    I hope this makes my post a bit clearer.

    G
  • DViX with its ability to get near-DVD quality movie down to small enough sizes to fit some movies of CD will become to the MPAA what MP3 is to the RIAA...
  • But mpeg4/DivX is NOT a vcd..
  • Well, unless I missed something, you can only use FlaskMPEG to copy non-encrypted DVD's. So if your DVD is CSS-encrypted, you need both FlaskMPEG *and* DeCSS to copy it to a CD-ROM. You cannot do that alone with FlaskMPEG (unless the DVD isn't encrypted).
  • by Flounder ( 42112 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @07:05PM (#780787)
    Don't get me wrong, this is very cool tech, and I'm glad it leaked into our hands... this tech has it's place, but it is NOT a drop-in replacement for DVD discs...

    The quality is just not there.

    You're right, it isn't a replacement for DVD. It wasn't meant to be. Just like MP3 isn't meant to be a replacement for CDs. It's a great way to compress the file down to be easily transferrable across the internet.

    Compressing an 8GB file to 700MB will be lossy, and there's not much you can do about it. However, I'm willing to trade some picture quality for portability. I can burn several CDs with movies and watch them on the road on my DVD-less PC.

    Besides, I'm spending $40 a month for this cable modem. At least I'll never have to rent another video.

  • by GoRK ( 10018 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @07:17PM (#780792) Homepage Journal
    It is .AVI because it contains the AVI content header that describes the video and audio format(s) in the file. If the codec guys would write in a reliable method of describing the audio track information in a DiVX compressed file (which it currently lacks and thus relies on the AVI header) then we could have standalone .DVX or .DIVX files. Sure you could just change the extention, but it's still an AVI file! When you rename it to .DIVX and feed it to Media Player it will *STILL RECOGNIZE IT AS AN AVI*!!!

    MPEG-1, MPEG-2, and MPEG-4 all provide standalone header spaces for audio information; however, MP3 audio (what DiVX uses) isn't technically an allowed format in MPEG-4 (Instead it should use MPEG2 audio (whatever layer you want including layer 3); thus the codec itself is one big flawed piece of junk because it in fact *DOES* rely on the AVI header to store type information.

    I agree with you that it should get its own file type, but this won't happen until a good open implementation of DiVX comes along that isn't just a hacked MS MPEG4/MP3 knock off. Something that people can start writing compressors and decompressors on their own, maybe?

    Heck with all this work being put into DiVX these days I'm constantly amazed that few people seem to realize that in the same time it takes to clone DiVX, they could write a true MPEG-4 implementation that would be every bit as good and more useful in the long run than a hacked codec.

    Speaking of MPEG1/L3 (MP3) compression in WAV files, I do have to say that there is actually a very good use for that. I have over 40 GB of MP3 compressed WAV files running broadcast radio stations. The broadcast software we use 1) only supports WAV files and MP3 compressing them (vs. the old MPEG2 compression we used to use) saves me disk space and processor cycles. It also provides me with room to put a TON of meta-information (standard in the format header) in the file that ID3 and even ID3v2 do not provide.

    Incidentally, I do have a tool for my MP3 compressed wav's that will directly convert a MP3 to an MP3 compressed WAV and vice-versa by writing the correct format headers and footers onto the MP3 file. But again, something like this could not be done for DiVX as it relies on the AVI format to describe its internals.

    ~GoRK
  • The two images he shows for comparison (original MPEG-2 [tomshardware.com] and MPEG-4 [tomshardware.com]) are at wildly different JPEG compression levels. The original is compressed at "7" and the MPEG-4 is compressed at "2." So of freaking course one's going to look shitty.
  • If I remember, there's a federal law that stipulates you are allowed one [1] backup of any piece of software you own on the basis that it be used to restore/replace the original in the event of its destruction or loss, etceteras. I don't think it specified a change in media, or in the tools necessary to read that data- but it DOES mean that I'm legally allowed to back up any DVDs I might buy.

    Not exactly a federal law, IIRC. US Fair Use law (with apologies for those outside the land of the DMCA) doesn't specifically address media-shifting (aka space-shifting). Space-shifting was recognized as a right in federal court, but that's not exactly the same as a law, AFAIK.

    Recently, Time Warner and the MPAA has argued that space-shifting no longer applies. They argue that the fact that most computer programs are distributed on durable disks and that hardware is more reliable as taking away the reasons for those earlier federal rulings. They may not have a leg to stand on, but they have the lawyers.

    • Well, unless I missed something, you can only use FlaskMPEG to copy non-encrypted DVD's. So if your DVD is CSS-encrypted, you need both FlaskMPEG *and* DeCSS to copy it to a CD-ROM. You cannot do that alone with FlaskMPEG (unless the DVD isn't encrypted).
    If you check out FlaskMPEG's website [go.to], there is mention of a program called 'FlasKMPEG DeCSS'. In the same paragraph, it states:
    • FlasKMPEG sources are available under the GPL license and it's totally out of our responsibility

      ...and...

      The original FlasKMPEG can't and won't read files from encrypted DVDs

    Ah, the joy of GPL - so, you are totally right, but someone has already fixed this issue :-)

    This really is a non-issue. Either through use of 'FlaskMPEG DeCSS', or by simply DeCSSing the DVD to HD, then running FlaskMPEG, one person can cut a CD of the DVD. Then anyone with a CD writter can copy it in 5 minutes. This is all about as legal as trading mp3s ;-)

    The bottom line, IMO, is that they are better just letting geeks watch DVDs freely under Linux, than encouraging people to start ripping DVDs to CD. But that's their call.

    cheers,
    G

  • At last, compression is good enough that a movie at 1080p 24fps, the "good" HDTV resolution, could fit on a DVD disk. This might get HDTV going. There's no point in buying an HDTV monitor to watch NTSC-resolution content, digital or otherwise, which is where things are now.

    On to Home IMAX!

  • by FigWig ( 10981 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @07:43PM (#780812) Homepage
    Some small corrections/info - there are two mpeg4 sources floating around - an ISO one and a Miscrosoft/(large japanese corp) one. They can be grabbed off the create-divx-for-mac-win-$$ website. The 'real' MPEG4 uses a quicktime like file format, but definitely does not use the sorensen codec. It uses the same algo as the MS MPEG4. Why they are using the QT file format is beyond me - it allows sprites and 3d models to be in a movie format - seems useful for little more than advertisements. Just what I always wanted.

  • by [Dilbert] ( 49749 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @07:45PM (#780815)
    It takes a good 10-15 hours on a fast machine, like Athlon 650, to do this.

    *cough*BULLSHIT*cough*

    if you add "in FlaskMPEG", then you're correct. i routinely do a whole DVD in 8-9 hours on a p3-500. granted, the CPU is spiked at 100% the whole time and i usually don't use the box for much else. but it doesn't take as long as everyone thinks if you use good software. check out the real howto. [fm4.org]
  • Quality can vary widely - there are good ones and not so good ones.

    The person doing the encoding has some choices as to the exact flavor of DiVX ;-) codec (high motion or low motion) as well as the bitrate, as well as the audio format (usually mp3 but sometimes wma now) and bitrate (for mp3 at least - I've seen as low as 96kbps and high as 192kbps). Then there are decisions on how big it should be, one CD or two. Obviously when they decide to make it two CDs the quality can be cranked up, but conversely, soemtimes they decide to squeeze the quality a bit more than optimal to try to just get it on 1 CD. And the subject matter - South Park for example compresses very well while still looking quite sharp.

    Also, I have noticed on my computer (300 mhz - towards the low end for mpeg4 video) that unless my fullscreen video resolution is an exact mutliple of the video size, there are lots of noticable artifacts from it having to resize the video. Checking the movie resolution before hand and setting screen res accordingly makes a big difference.

    In the end, it's certainly not DVD, but it's much better than normal mpeg2 and even VHS (for a good one at least). When you're watching in motion (as opposed to a single frame) and sitting a foot or so away from the screen it looks quite sharp.
  • MPEG-4 was primarily made for low-bitrate streaming video, and was touted as the ideal replacement for garbage like RealVideo. It's max resolution is indeed 720x576

    MPEG-2 is still the standard for high-bitrate video. DVDs never have a resolution higher than 720x576. However, HDTV also uses MPEG-2 datastreams, and they can scale all the way to 1920x1152. DVD will not take advantage of HDTV, you won't have any better resolution there than a high-quality NTSC TV with component video connections. Eventually (probably many years from now) you will see a DVD-2 which will feature HDTV-resolution MPEG-2 datastreams.

  • Unfortunately, instead of embracing the technology, they've been making worse laws restricting our freedoms, and after the mp3 furor, understand if I'm not anxious to see them try to take away all rights to video as well, because of the potential copyright abuse.

    ...And that is a valid concern. However, it is pointless to complain about the inevitable, there is no way that any legislation designed to address mp3s will not also address any digital media format.

    All we can do is hope that the courts will guide us in the right direction. Either they side with the media corps and the government, and decide to declare a "war on copyright", which will be a failure, of course, just like the war on drugs. Of course there is tremendous commercial interest that would benefit, not only those still able to make some money by being the sole distributer of their information, but also the money that will go to prisons to hold all the "pirates", the information criminals.

    The other direction is of course a revolutionizing of copyright, the collapse of media as we know it, since there will be no value in a product that can be infinitely reproduced, by anyone, with little cost as far as time or money.

    Of course, a hybrid of the two will probably happen, and is the course that I see likely. Bad laws will be passed, they will be so repugnant to the general public that the public will demand a change, such as alcohol prohibition. This will only happen, If a subculture of pirates is not what the public sees.

    It doesn't matter if there really is a subculture or not, it only matters if the public views the people who violate the laws regarding copyright as a subculture, or if they view them as the people next door, or even themselves.

    So, the best we can hope for is to not come off as a subculture of rebel geeks that want to violate the laws that hold society together. We need to make sure the public realizes that it is people just like them that are violating these laws, people that aren't criminals, people that only act logically in obtaining a product that has no inherent value by the cheapest means available.

    You may ask how I know these things, and I can tell you, it is because this is very parallel to the beginnings of the War on Drugs. If the people who used drugs in the 60s weren't subcultured into the title "hippy", we might not see the kinds of senseless wastes of taxpayer money we see putting away pot smokers who havn't committed a real crime.

    Just some thoughts, I don't know the future, but I see this as an inevitable choice that we will make as a society, lets hope we make a good one!
    -----------------------------
  • If you read what other people are saying, FlaskMPEG is for non-encrypted DVD's only. Other people have taken it (it's GPL) and added DeCSS, but that's not something that Tom's Hardware is talking about.

    --
  • by Anonymous Coward
    As somebody else has already said, it is quite a bit better than LP videotape. However, I don't think that it is up to snuff to SP videotape. If you sit back a bit from the monitor there isn't really anything noticably bad with it. If you sit a bit closer though (as close as I usually sit from my monitor) you can pick out the compression artifacts. Some of them get pretty bad in action intensive sequences. However, the framerate holds up just fine regardless.

    So far as compression ratio, I don't know exactly, but what I was watching was the Matrix ripped from the DVD onto a single CD-R. There was enough spare room on the CD-R to hold the CD-soundtrack as well, and a small bit of other stuff. I guess that would mean that "Saving Private Ryan" in under 350 Mb would look pretty bad compared to the original. Of course, I'm a little picky about a lack of compression artifacts (they jump out at me). So if I was a movie industry exec, I wouldn't get too worried about massive copying of movies using Div-X (although, I suppose if I was an industry exec, I'd be worried about 9th generation copies of somebody taking a camcorder into the theatre with them, so...)

    In any case, the problem isn't going to be transmitting these over the internet (350 meg is a lot to transfer to see a crappy copy of a movie). The big problem is going to be on college campuses, where a profusion of burners and 100mB/sec ethernet makes swapping a couple of gigabytes of files fairly trivial. The copy of the Matrix I saw was legal (space shifting by the owner), but I know that a lot of other movies are available on campus ethernet. I know that at least the Matrix, American Pie, The Phantom Menace, and South Park were all available near the beginning of the semester last year. I have no clue how much stuff will be up next year, but I don't think most people will be heading out to blockbuster to get their favorite movies...

  • See though, that's my point. An Indeo compressed AVI file should have had a .INO or similar extension. I can't tell you how many support calls I got because people would get sent some Indeo-compressed dancing baby AVI...which they would recognize from the extension as a video file. Thinking they could view it, they would open it, get an error and call me. Repeat ad nauseum for i263 and Cinepak and all the other ones.

    Now, if the file had been .INO then File Manager or Explorer would not have labeled it so casually as a "Video File" and they would understand that they were missing some piece of software (an "Indeo viewer"). It's a lot easier to teach users that Program X opens filetype Y since this is information they happily pass along to each other.

    Each version of Windows (and with it, Media Player) seems to support more an more codecs, and now that the most recent versions can go query the server for unknown codecs the problem has pretty much gone away...except for DivX files. Two things are working against DivX:

    1) MS hates DivX. Therefore it will never show up in that happy little list of codecs available for download from Microsoft. This means when a user gets an DivX-AVI file, and is used to having the codec already available or within easy reach...new errors come up and the file won't open without a call to me.

    2) DivX is remarkably fragile. You chop so much as a few KB from the end of the file and the entire thing won't play. So when a user has an AVI file that won't open, if they could recognize it was a DivX file, they would know they are missing part of it, whereas if it isn't, then they are missing some other codec or the file is corrupt.

    Going back to my Microsoft rant, how many times (talking to Windows users here) have you gotten a text file with a .DOC extension and had to first rename it to .TXT or load that pig of an app Word just to function as a text viewer?

    I honestly don't see why the computer industry is so hesitant to create new extensions. We aren't even limited to the 8.3 naming system, so the floodgates should really be coming open. It's a lot easier to search for information when you can specify a file type. Searching on ".DVX" would get you DivX-AVI instead of information on those crappy pay-per-view players.

    What if all images had a .IMG extension regardless of encoding...RLE, GIF, PNG? Brrr.

    As we enter the era of file sharing, let's take a moment to make life easier for our fellow man:

    My suggestions?

    1) Create a new extension for Variable Bit Rate compress audio, since most programs RARELY read this information correctly (I see everything from 24 to 300 in Napster and WinAmp)

    .vm3 or .vmp3

    2) Create a new extension for DivX encoded AVI files (and nAVI and pAVI just to be fair to the other competition in the MPEG-4 scene)

    .dvx or .divx
    .nvi or .navi
    .pvi or .pavi

    3) The next time you invent a cool new form of compressiong or encoding...be vain! Make a new extension just for it.

    - JoeShmoe

    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-=-=-=-=-=-
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @08:52PM (#780831)
    I've been downloading nAvi and DiVX for quite some time now and even lately have been hitting up the local Blockbuster for DVD's to rent and rip to DiVX ;-). I will say that I am suprised at how many people havent heard of the mpeg4 (divx) codec as of yet around here since the readers here at slashdot are supposed to be on top of this sort of thing, but anyway, i guess some of you guys have jobs lol. anyway, a few points...

    - Tom's hardware exaggerates when they say the quality is almost unnoticable. In order to fit an entire movie onto one 700 MB CD you have to set the video bit rate at about 700kbits/sec. Even then, the DiVX codec will compensate for high motion scenes by raising the bitrate and will lower the bit rate for still scenes with only talking. However, the difference between a movie encoded at this bitrate and the DVD is still quite noticeable in scenes where there is a high amount of movement, and even in low motion scenes the background begins to look blocky since the compression algorithm somehow determines that the background data isnt as important as the foreground.

    - another good thing about the DiVX codec is that you can use the new WMA 2.0 audio codecs for extremely high quality audio compression which crunches down 2 hours of audio in to approx 60 MB. the difference in the audio quality is negligible to me, but then again, i dont have a 5.1 surround system (you can only encode to WMA at stereo or mono).

    - you STILL have to decrypt the movies using either DeCSS or a program similar to this. I've started to use CladDVD 1.6 over the past couple of weeks or so since it parses the VOB files as it decrypts them to check for multi-angle scenes and the sort (which can REALLY screw you up when ripping a DVD by desynching the audio and video). my method has been to decrypt using cladDVD, encode to DiVX using FlaskMPEG with PCM audio, opening the audio in sound forge and normalizing it (flaskmpeg has a bug in the latest version which causes the volume to be quite low), and then multiplexing the divx audio with the new normalized sound file with Virtual Dub (which will also compress the audio at the same time to your format of choice).

    - this process takes TIME!!! an hour to decrypt the VOB's...10 hours or so for a 2 hour movie to encode in flask (my p3-550 averages about 4.71 frames per second)...an hour to normalize the audio, and another 20 minutes to create the final avi with the normalized audio track.

    - everyone saying that you need an 800Mhz machine to playback DiVX is misinformed. My p3-550 plays them back just fine. i also have a friend with a k6-2 500 that is able to play them back without dropping frames.

    - TV out on your video card is a MUST, unless you want to watch movies on your monitor. there's been rumors of a DiVX player for the Playstation 2 (oh, goh, i will have died and gone to heaven if that ever comes to light). until then, there are NO standalone divx players : (

    here's some links for more info...

    DiVX: http://divx.ctw.cc http://www.gdivx.com
    FlaskMPEG: http://go.to/FlaskMPEG
    VirtualDub: http://www.geocities.com/virtualdub
    Divx-digest: http://www.divx-digest.net/

    RACK ME!!!!
  • Just for the ones that did make through the whole article:

    The successor of MPEG-4 is already on the horizon and is called MPEG-7. This video standard is supposedly going to be introduced in July 2001 and principally integrates an object search routine. MPEG-2 will also be extended; MPEG-21 is the succeeding standard.

    Just point out that MPEG-7 does not stand for the succesor of MPEG-4 as it tries to address a completely different field. While MPEG-1, MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 focuss on video/audio compression, MPEG-7 moves into video and audio indexing basically for search and retrieval of multimedia databases so don't expect to compress your 2002 videos on MPEG-7 format but to help you search for it on the web using MPEG-7 technology.

    MPEG-21, on the other hand, is still on its infancy so we'll see where it goes to.

  • by quux26 ( 27287 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @09:44PM (#780839) Homepage
    I think tkhe perfect culmination of all of this would be a MPEG4 copy of Valenti shooting an eggroll out of his arse when he finds out about this program. I'd pay quite a pretty penny to witness that, firsthand... Ten bucks says he keels over on the spot. Preferably after the eggroll, tho.

    My .02
    Quux26
  • by Phroggy ( 441 )
    Sorry for being too lazy to read the article myself, but I'm really really tired....

    Does this technique involve using DeCSS to decode the DVD data? If so, great; finally a practical use for it. If not, even better; this needs to be publicized because this is a much greater threat* to the MPAA than what they're trying to make illegal.
    * well, the same kind of threat that Napster is to the RIAA; note that as Napster becomes more popular, CD sales are going up.

    --

  • by elomire ( 216685 ) on Wednesday September 13, 2000 @10:23PM (#780842)
    Has anyone actually tried to watch VHS on a monitor. I did once I got my ATi All-in-Wonder, damn was it crappy. TV is better resolution than VHS. DivX is far better than VHS, it doesn't stand up to DVD, but I think it is perfect for recording television. A 1 hour TV show usually is about 150-200 MB. Plus the encoding time isn't too bad, and it plays smoother than Quicktime with the Soreson codec. Actually the only DivX that I wasn't able to play on my K6-2 450 was the Matrix trailer from the DivX site.
  • And quite a good troll at that - as RedWizzard's claims are the exact opposite of reality :-)
    • people will want to make perfect copies of DVDs. To do that you need to decode the DVD (using DeCSS, for example)
    Switch brain on. By definition, if you are making a perfect copy, then there is no need to decode the DVD first. You just do a bit by bit copy.
    • Since you're re-encoding the video you don't need DeCSS - any DVD player will do because you can capture the data after the MPEG2 decoding (e.g. with a hacked video driver).
    No, not true. To quote the FlaskMPEG website [go.to], "The original FlasKMPEG can't and won't read files from encrypted DVDs". You do need DeCSS.
    • This really highlights a flaw in the CSS system - it only protects the MPEG2 signal. If you don't need a bit perfect MPEG2 copy it's worthless as a protection scheme.
    The closing sentence makes sense if you switch do for don't.

    Moderators, please: (Score:-1, Troll), not (Score:2, Informative).

  • I just want to point out that MPEG-7 and MPEG-21 is not about video encoding but about "Multimedia Content Description Interface" and "Multimedia Framework" respectively.
    Regardring the amount of bytes used by MPEG-2, one must also remember that a DVD holds much more information than an VCR, multiple audio and video tracks, extra information, subtitling and so on. This means that if you just count the bytes for one audio stream and one video stream the count never is as high as 9 gigs!
    For more information se http://www.cselt.it/mpeg/
  • Uh, the compression you're talking about is Dynamic Compression: essentially a really fast volume control knob which automatically turns the volume up for quiet bits and down for loud bits -- compressing the dynamic range. It can be used creatively, for example this is what is used to get long sustained notes from electic guitars. It can be used on a whole mix to obtain a "pumping" sound (where the bits between drumbeats are made louder).

    This has *absolutely nothing* to do with the data compression we're talking about here - I know it's easy to get confused, especially when there is also dynamic data compression around -- that's where the data compression rate changes according to the content.

    Yes, though, lossy compression is becoming a bit of a pain in the arse -- I watch digital satellite TV a lot, and some channels clearly aren't paying for enough bandwidth. MPEG artefacts are rife and extremely distracting.
    --
  • This is somewhat old news... I'm surprised it's taken so long to be mentioned on Slashdot. In fact, it was mentioned months ago in the Wall Street Journal [wsj.com]!

    Here's some sites:
    http://divx.ctw.cc/ [divx.ctw.cc]
    http://divx.vcdguide.com/ [vcdguide.com]
    http://www.divx-digest.com/ [divx-digest.com]

    A Google [google.com] search on DivX ;-) [google.com] will also prove fruitful. Don't forget the smiley, lest it be confused with Circuit City's failed format!

    ;-)

  • "Wouldn't it be wise to keep a lid on this until the 2600 / DeCSS affair concludes? The last thing we want is the MPAA being able to easily shoot down one of our key arguments by simply pointing to an article on tomshardware.com. I'm all for cool new technology, but what ever happened to journalistic responsibility? You're either for free speech or you're against it, and Mr. Pabst unfortunately seems to be taking the latter position."

    What a load of reconstituted bulls***. Journalistic integrity does not begin and end where you agree with someone. Journalistic integrity is reporting the truth - whatever that truth might be - and letting the outcome be determined by the facts. What you're suggesting is partisanship, an introduction of a bias or personal agenda, to shape a social issue. This is the height of arrogance.

    I'll leave your technical errors for someone else to bludgeon...

    My .02
    Quux26

  • [Note to moderators - this is already marked off-topic, it doesn't need to be marked that way again.]

    ou may ask how I know these things, and I can tell you, it is because this is very parallel to the beginnings of the War on Drugs. If the people who used drugs in the 60s weren't subcultured into the title "hippy", we might not see the kinds of senseless wastes of taxpayer money we see putting away pot smokers who havn't committed a real crime.

    I agree with your post, except for this part - the War on Drugs didn't start because hippies liked to smoke it - it started because of racism - Chinese immigrants smoked opium, and because of this they could work ungodly hours and would work for cheaper than American workers. The government didn't like this, and made opium illegal (I think this was the first drug law passed.) Then in the 1930's many Mexican immigrants moved to this country, and many of them liked to smoke pot. So in 1937 the US Government passed the first law making marijuana illegal ONLY because the Mexicans liked to smoke it (and against the advice of the American Medical Association, who, even then, saw its remarkable medical properties.)

    Even today the War on Drugs is used as an excuse to keep minorities down. Blacks and Hispanics make up less than 10% of the drug using population, but more than 60% of drug users who are put in jail for their drug use. It's fucked up.
    --
  • Here's a letter I fired off to the article's writer concerning the errors I noticed and what I consider to be the irresponsibility of the whole article. [starts here] Still on the first page of your article and I've already stumbled across some errors and innacuracies. First off, Video CD was wildy successful (mostly because it was cheap to pirate, I'm sure) in asia. Outside of Japan Sony's Playstation was released with built in VCD capabilities. Second off, you say "NO noticeable loss in quality" which should quite obviously read either "negligible loss when displayed on a low res regular TV" or "surprisingly little loss" when viewed on a PC monitor. Anyone who says or perceives otherwise is either hopelessly delusional, wants to sell something, or needs to visit their optometrist. Third, you show one picture in a low-compression format, and the second quite clearly has compression artifacts of its own. Look at the playback controls of the two screen grabs. This was either a feeble attempt to imitate MPG4 or it is someone not paying the kind of attention due this article. now to read the 2nd page... "TREATED AS A SPRITE?" This implies the encoder somehow magically cuts out the moving part and overlays it on the background. While concise, its hardly accurate. A better way to say it would have been "Updates only the parts of the picture that change, like the vehicle and its immediate surroundings" You list "small buffer" under advantages of MPG4. Personally I hate this small buffer - as MS' windows mplayer and their ASF implementation of MPG4 shows, it just slows things down when you're scanning scenes - in my opinion I'd rather suffer once in a while when the CD chokes when I'm skipping around a movie than wait 4 seconds every time. A neutral point, IMO. last notes: I'm surprised you didn't make any mention of the rampant piracy this allows. Broadband connections make dumping and compressing DVDs onto cheap and easy-to-burn CDs as easy as duping a music CD (a little more time consuming perhaps). Are you really helping the DeCSS situation here? What about the big picture? Isn't this exactly what the music industry bigwigs said we'd be doing with this info?? If it were MY site, I'd have taken this article down - it's not doing any of us any favours IMO. And aren't you a little late? I've been trading DiVX movies since about January. Lawrence Wright http://www.gamesx.com [gamesx.com] is the internets largest compilation of console game tech.
  • by shockwaverider ( 78582 ) on Thursday September 14, 2000 @01:02AM (#780867)
    DeCSS makes it easy to rip a movie quickly, but other programs exist that are just as simple. I've heard rumours of one that brute-forces the key to the DVD--anybody know about this one?

    The program you want is "VOBDec" It uses a cryptographic attack on the DVD rather than any reverse engineering and will work in a number of situations that DeCSS cannot cope with...

    • If all you have are the VOB files, but not the DVD they originally came on.
    • If the VOB files on your DVD have different keys from each other. [Note: This is a relatively recent "trick" used to fox DeCSS.]

    On the minus side the program is Windows only, and runs in a DOS box from an option loaded command line. There are a number of GUI front ends to help you cope with this.

    As an aside I eschewed the use of FlaskMPEG as I found it VERY slow and rather buggy. However switching to the MPEG2AVI method of doing this produced a 3fold increase in speed along with quality reliable encoding. I now have all my favourite movies sitting on my HD

    A great resource for all of you wannabe DVD backup merchants is Digital Digest [divx-digest.com]. All the software you need is sitting there along with articles, tips and troubleshooting advice.

  • by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Thursday September 14, 2000 @01:49AM (#780877) Homepage Journal
    I be the MPAA breaks the speed record formely held by a bad check travelling to the bank when they file a lawsuit for this one. Nevermind that this format would be ideal for video on demand and other nifty features that the world is evolving toward at a rapid pace. Each day we get closer to the point where I can just go out to a web page, click a link and watch an episode of my favorite TV show at 2 in the morning. The industry will evolve to keep up, or it'll die off and a new one will rise up in its place.

    And we know full well how futile it is to stand in the way of progress. History is full of people who tried to stand in the way of progress only to find out that progress is a steamroller that will squash you flat. History will not be kind to the MPAA or the RIAA. They'll probably be noted as a bunch of idiots who tried to stand in the way of progress. Hopefully they won't do too much damage before they go the way of the dodo.

  • by Ho-Lee-Cow! ( 173978 ) on Thursday September 14, 2000 @02:12AM (#780884)
    This is kinda like selling guns unrestricted and saying "please don't shoot anyone, cuz that would be against the law". Oh wait, you guys already do that. ;-)

    I think that the general problem here is that there is a perception that you cannot own and use tools in a responsible manner. You cannot outlaw a screwdriver because someone in Timbuktu used one to commit murder, rape, or burglary, because screwdrivers have legitimate legal uses. Guns, screwdrivers, and DeCSS/technology of the moment are tools. Do we outlaw them because our world has decide that because there is an illegal use, that these things must be outlawed?

    Personal responsibility is the issue. Does someone become a dangerous criminal solely because they have a legally purchased and safely stored firearm, screwdriver, or copy of DeCSS(used for watching their legally purchased DVD on the Linux machine that is their only computer)? At what point does the government overstep its bound in quelling the fears of the 'people' when they remove legal ownership and access rights on the basis of spurious claims of lost revenue streams by corporations who are not being held accountable for their claims of loss?

    What truly justifies things like Carnivore, if not the 'compelling interest' of a would be police state? Yes, Carnivore -could- be used in ways consistent with the Constitution, but who trusts an organization whose headquarters is the J. Edgar Hoover Building? I can assure you that Freeh is even less ethical than his infamous predecessor.Or whatever? Wanna bet we have a long legal fight before we get this tool outlawed?

    At the core of the American system is the struggle of the common man to use the things he owns versus the 'compelling interest' to protect the revenue streams of Tine Warner and Disney. Corporations are not citizens and should not have the ability to vote, but they do--it's called money. Citizens have the ability to vote and often don't, because they are being brainwashed by corporations NOT to. Think for a moment on the current protests in the UK and Europe about fuel prices.

    Think about how mad those people are. Realize that the Prime Ministers of most of the EU are defying the people to rise up in rebellion. Think about the parallels in the MPAA and RIAA. What is going to happen when they finally get what they are begging for?

  • Ooh, that sounds familiar. Remember when everyone on Slashdot was saying that MP3 was virtually the same as CD?

    Thank god we're over that.

    I use MP4, I like MP4, but if anyone thinks that it's the same quality as MPEG2 at 1/11 the bandwith, take another look at Trinity's nose [tomshardware.com].

  • by dirk ( 87083 ) <dirk@one.net> on Thursday September 14, 2000 @02:36AM (#780891) Homepage
    I think that the general problem here is that there is a perception that you cannot own and use tools in a responsible manner. You cannot outlaw a screwdriver because someone in Timbuktu used one to commit murder, rape, or burglary, because screwdrivers have legitimate legal uses. Guns, screwdrivers, and DeCSS/technology of the moment are tools. Do we outlaw them because our world has decide that because there is an illegal use, that these things must be outlawed?

    Personal responsibility is the issue. Does someone become a dangerous criminal solely because they have a legally purchased and safely stored firearm, screwdriver, or copy of DeCSS(used for watching their legally purchased DVD on the Linux machine that is their only computer)? At what point does the government overstep its bound in quelling the fears of the 'people' when they remove legal ownership and access rights on the basis of spurious claims of lost revenue streams by corporations who are not being held accountable for their claims of loss?

    What truly justifies things like Carnivore, if not the 'compelling interest' of a would be police state? Yes, Carnivore -could- be used in ways consistent with the Constitution, but who trusts an organization whose headquarters is the J. Edgar Hoover Building? I can assure you that Freeh is even less ethical than his infamous predecessor.Or whatever? Wanna bet we have a long legal fight before we get this tool outlawed?


    If this isn't talking out of both sides of your mouth, I don't know what is. You argue that things that could do illegal things should be legal, because it is personal responisiblity to use them correctly. We have to assume people will use them for legal purposes, so we shouldn't ban them (and I agree with this for the most part). Then you argue that Carnivore should be illegal because it can be used in an illegal way. You don't have faith in the government to use it legally, yet you want the government to trust you to use DeCSS legally. Seems trust works both ways, if you want everyone to trust you, you have to trust them.

  • the first and second sample quality pictures are from the same clip... same file name, except the name is blurred out on the first one for whatever reason.

    strange...

    ________

  • The problem is that we have this attitude:

    All we can do is hope that the courts will guide us in the right direction.

    No, sir, that is exactly what we can NOT afford to do.

    People took that attitude when the courts started violating the 2nd Amendment, and we told you that it wouldn't be the last. We were called "gun nuts" and "radicals".

    Then people took that attitude when the courts started violating the 4th Amendment, and we told you that it wouldn't be the last. We were called "drug fiends" and "criminals".

    Now is it a big goddamn surprise that we were *RIGHT*, and the courts are starting to take away our 1rst Amendment rights? You were warned, repeatedly. You insulted those who warned you.

    Our vindication is a Pyrrhic victory; we've been proven correct, at the cost of our rights, because people took the attitude that they could "only hope the courts will guide us in the right direction".

    This government was created to allow the people to guide the courts, not vice versa. Every person who doesn't know that and fight to preserve it is given up their most essential liberties, and unfortunately giving up mine too.

    -
  • This article has two screenshots from The Matrix [whatisthematrix.com] on the first page, before and after compression. The "Before" picture is sharp, bright, DVD quality. The "After" is darker, drabber and visibly pixelated.

    Now, this may just be a result of how his images were screengrabbed. But it sure doesn't look like a suitable replacement for DVD quality to me -- especially if I have to have a computer monitor instead of a 36-inch (or larger) television set to watch the movie.

  • by Steve B ( 42864 ) on Thursday September 14, 2000 @03:41AM (#780905)
    If this isn't talking out of both sides of your mouth, I don't know what is. You argue that things that could do illegal things should be legal, because it is personal responisiblity to use them correctly. We have to assume people will use them for legal purposes, so we shouldn't ban them (and I agree with this for the most part). Then you argue that Carnivore should be illegal because it can be used in an illegal way. You don't have faith in the government to use it legally, yet you want the government to trust you to use DeCSS legally. Seems trust works both ways, if you want everyone to trust you, you have to trust them.

    There is no inconsistency here; the government should be held to much tighter constraints than a private citizen, for two reasons.

    The Philosophical Reason: Government requires a short leash in order to keep the unique power of the former (legal authorization to use force up to and including full-scale military) in check.

    The Pragmatic Reason: The US government (like all others I've ever heard of) has what amounts to a long "rap sheet". Even the NRA doesn't have a problem with restricting or removing a violent felon's right to bear arms as part of his punishment; by the same token, it's reasonable to restrict or remove the surveillance capabilities of the government that ran COINTELPRO (especially since it shows no sign of repenting and reforming its evil ways).
    /.

  • Actually, its not.
    The founding fathers wrote the Constitution on two fundamental principles:

    1) All citizens must be treated as responsible until proven otherwise.

    2) Any form of government will act irresponsibly if given the opportunity. So don't give them that opportunity. (see Checks & Balances)

    So really, it isn't double speak. Unfortunately, a lot of people(in the US) today tend to forget these paradigms.

    -Vel
  • by molog ( 110171 ) on Thursday September 14, 2000 @03:44AM (#780907) Homepage Journal
    Warning: The author declines any responsability from the use of this program. This software can not be used with copyrighted material because doing so, would infringe many laws all around the world.
    The author doesn't intend to promote piracy by any means, and the scope of the application is limited to video processing tasks with home made digital video material.

    Why would it be illegal to compress or change formats of copyrighted material? It is illegal to distribute copyrighted material without consent of the authors but compressing isn't illegal. Does anyone know an example where I am wrong?
    Molog

    So Linus, what are we doing tonight?

  • by RebornData ( 25811 ) on Thursday September 14, 2000 @03:45AM (#780908)
    recompress dvds, that is... :-)

    I travel for work a lot, but my laptop doesn't support an internal DVD drive. So rather than lug DVD's and a clunky external drive around with me, I recompress and put them on the HD. Decompress speed is just fine on the laptop's 500MHz PIII once it gets going, but it is jerky for about 20 seconds until everything gets buffered and cached correctly. I know the MPAA disagrees with me, but I see this as fair use...

    Anyway, a couple of points to add:

    1. Video quality of DiVX :-) files is considerably (and very noticeably) below DVDs if you're squeezing the movie into a CDROM-sized disk. Many folks who do this scale the frame size down, which greatly improves image quality. If you don't, almost anyone would notice the extremely-obvious compression artifacts. I've found that using the "low motion" codec with bitrates of 1900-2100 kb/s works very well, and is very acceptable. You'll notice artifacts in scenes where the codec is having to make tough choices about where to spend its bits (like scrolling credits with live action behind them), but the result is otherwise *very* good. This gets you movies around 1.5GB (depends on length, etc...) that are too big for a CD, but fine for a HD.

    2. As you mention, DeCSS is not the best way to rip DVDs anymore. I much prefer "cladDVD". Other than the short delay to brute-force the encryption key (which is often almost instant) it's just as fast as DeCSS, is considerably easier to use, and has more features (like interpreting the .IFO files to rip just the files needed for the main video stream, Macrovision removal, etc...).

    3. Besides DeCSS, the DiVX :-) distribution is also "illegal", in that I think it includes pirated codecs (ie, the Fraunhofer "professional" quality MP3 encoder).

    4. How hard or easy doing this is depends on the movie. Fancy releases like the Matrix and T2 are hard because of all of the extra crap thrown in, especially multi-angle stuff. Subtitles are a real pain in the neck too. A few movies have poor telecining (the process of taking a 24fps movie and converting it to NTSC) that can't be removed. I won't go into the details, but the result is a crappy-looking conversion because every few frames is the interleaved result of the two two frames immediately before and after it. This is really annoying on a non-interleaved display like a computer monitor.
  • I fully agree. Besides, if you take a look at this list of AVI codecs [webartz.com], you'll have to agree that it's nonsense to give a new file extension to each of them. It would confuse the user much more than the fact that AVI might encapsulate different quality video material...
  • From a certain, very technical point of view, this is true.

    The work taht is being protected is not 'the exact arrangement of bits on the disc', it is the content of the movie itself.

    DeCSS is what allows people to make *copies* of the movie in DivX form.

    Sure, you can argue that it's not really a 'copy', but it IS a copy. You now have another way to watch the movie, even if the quality has changed.

    Heck, if you had the storage medium, you could have stored the unencrypted data elsewhere, and effectively had a PERFECT COPY of the movie itself.

    If you think the small technical details matter, you would be wrong. The CSS prevents you from accessing data in a readable format that you can play back.

    Or rather, would thousands of geeks be copying DVDs if they couldn't decrypt the contents?
  • $25 for DVD media > $1.50 for CD-R media.

    If you want to protect your movies, put them somewhere safe AFTER you back them up.

    LK
  • Guns, screwdrivers, and DeCSS/technology of the moment are tools. Do we outlaw them because our world has decide that because there is an illegal use, that these things must be outlawed?

    The problem is, the MPAA, RIAA, and I'm sure whatever the Publishers AA is (that's Association of America, not the other common "AA"), have created a new classification of "tool." It's "copyright circumvention device." Since DeCSS falls into that rather broad catagory, it is illegal. In a way, it's similar to creating a new catagory of tools that are illegal which "may be used to enter areas which have been reasonably protected from entry." See, I've just made screwdrivers illegal. They can be used to pry open doors or remove locks.

  • >in exactly the same way that I can backup audio
    >CDs to tape, and play them in my car. I don't
    >see anything in the least bit illegal about
    >FlaskMPEG, but I'm sure that the MPAA lawyers

    Yeah, the MPAA/RIAA/metallica (I honestly don't see any significant difference anymore) ALREADY sees it as illegal, even just making a copy for your car, and they've argued this before congress!!!

    Remember the flap about a month or so ago, during the congressional hearings? Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, asked jack valenti/hillary rosen/lars ulrich (once again, I don't remember which, but it doesn't matter, they're all basiclly interchangable drones) if it would be legal or not for him to make a copy of an album to listen to in his wife's car. After considerable hemming and hawwing, the jack/hillary/larsbot tried to claim that it was illegal. Hatch then gave jackhillarylarsbot a viscious verbal beatdown, saying that it *IS*, in fact legal.

    Orrin Hatch should know. HE HELPED WRITE THE LAW THAT MAKES IT LEGAL!!!

    john

    Resistance is NOT futile!!!

    Haiku:
    I am not a drone.
    Remove the collective if

  • Hey do you by chance have a STB TV card? I know I get about 1 meg/sec when I capture AVIs on it, and I still get random artifacts(no, not from poor reception either) when using it. Ticks me off.

    Are there any substitutes for that horrible Visual Reality TV tuner program for this card? It doesn't want to play nice with Half Life. Otherwise, a wonderful card.
  • By the time you can afford a high-definition TV and a high-fidelity sound system, your sight and hearing will have degraded to the point where everything sounds like an MP3 and looks like an MP4.
  • I have to disagree with this... it just so happens that my kdm background displays a light b lue->dark blue gradient.

    I regularly check whether I'm in 16 bit depth (for video games) or 32 bit depth (for general use, and remember that 32 is 24-with-speed-optimization not 32 bits of color differentiation) by whether or not I can see banding effects.

    So, while the difference between adjacent colors in 24 bit color may seem indistinguishable, the next lower useful depth creates sharp distinctions. (Though one would thing that 'halving the colorspace' meant going from 24-bit to either 23-bit (though the meaning of that would be unclear) or 21 bit (7 bits for each of RGB) not all the way down to 16.

    Anyway, the difference between 16bit and 24bit color is significant enough to me that I make sure to switch depths when switching between videogames (MythII and HereticII both work only in 16bit... ) and other activities.


    --Parity
  • Interlaced video (VHS) is going to look better on an interlaced display - TV, than on a monitor.
  • there is a perception that you cannot own and use tools in a responsible manner. You cannot outlaw a screwdriver because someone in Timbuktu used one to commit murder

    Be careful when you say "you cannot outlaw" something when you mean "you should not outlaw". I'm pretty sure that slim jims are illegal in Maryland -- not the beef jerky stuff, but a thin metal strip with a hook that can open car doors by sliding it into the window jamb. (Not including cops and state-licensed locksmiths, though). Outlawing bent metal sounds absurd, yet it happens.

  • Take a closer look at the first set of screen shots (matrix, telephone booth.) It is supposed to show how the MPEG4 version of the MPEG2 frame is only slightly degraded. Does anyone else find it odd that the Media Player dialog frame in the "second" screen shot is also degraded?

    I think this is evidence of goof or a mis-representation that the second screenshot is from MPEG4 when in reality it is the same graphic file with reduced resolution to simulate what the MPEG4 version would look like.
  • You're confusing the compression (CODEC) format and the file format. Quicktime is a file format that contains media streams compressed with the CODEC of your choice (e.g. Sorenson, DivX, Cinepac). MPEG-2 is a file format AND a CODEC, although one could choose to store MPEG-2 compressed video in an AVI or Quicktime file rather than an MPEG-2 file (although I don't think anyone actually does this). MPEG-4 is also both a file format and a CODEC, but the file format is - AFAIK - basically Quicktime. People also store MPEG-4 compressed video in AVI files using the DivX MPEG-4 CODEC as disussed in Tom's article. The DivX CODEC is just a hacked version of Microsoft's MPEG-4 CODEC that allows use in AVIs as well as Microsoft's Active Streaming Format (ASF) which is what they wanted to restrict it to. DivX AVI's typically encode the audio to MPEG 1 audio layer III (MP3) format.
  • No it doesn't reduce the importance of DeCSS. When you are trying to reencode video, you want the best source possible. One of my roommates is into this scene on IRC. Almost all DivX encoded material is coming off of DVDs. This only helps the MPAA's case since they are holding that without the protection of the DMCA, piracy technology will advance faster than they can. The MPAA is worried about movie distribution over the Net. Technologies like this only make it easier by reducing the file size to something manageable and reducing a movie size to the pirate's holy grail size -- a CD-R.

    People still trade movies about in MPEG-1 format. Usually these are movies that are in theatres now that are ripped off by the projectionist, outside the US. Once the movies hit DVD, however, many go over to the higher quality DivX format. This is exactly what the MPAA is worried about. To be honest, I don't know how the MPAA missed this kind of piracy going on. I've only been aware of it for over 3 months.
  • See Dan Gardner's 10-day investigative report [ottawacitizen.com] For a really good exposé on the harms caused by the war on drugs. He's getting 2+ full broadsheet pages per day with a front page lead.

    -- flameproof --

    I don't imagine that you'll be reading this in the American press real soon

    --deflameproof--

  • No! .AVI *IS* a very specific Microsoft standard file format, not a generic reference to Audio Video files. .MOV are Quicktime file format, and .MPG are MPEG 1/2 file format. These are all very specific and different.

    An AVI file identifies the video CODEC (compression format) by referring to it's standard FourCC (four character code) identifier (e.g. "CVID" for Cinepac, "MJPG" for motion JPEG, or "DIV3"/"DIV4" for the fast/slow motion DivX MPEG4 CODECs). Windows associates the FourCC to an installed CODEC .dll via entries in the registry put there when you install a new CODEC.

    DivX files are .avi because that's exactly what they are - AVI format files using the DivX CODEC ("DIV3"/"DIV4" FourCC).
  • This really ticks me off. When showing the comparison in quality at the beginning of the article, they show the first Matrix shot in MPEG-2, in an uncompressed JPEG. Then they show the MPEG-4 shot in a very compressed, horrible quality JPEG. They also do the same thing with the James Bond shot later in the article. How am I supposed to tell what kind of quality MPEG-4 provides when I'm looking at it through a lossy screenshot. That's sad. I'd expect better out of Tom's Hardware. - Brent 'Goose' Towsley -
  • Oh sure, totally. But so what?

    Yes, if the original DeCSS is found to be illegal, then so presumably will be any derivative works, including FlasKMPEG DeCSS.

    But just declaring a program illegal doesn't make it the least bit more difficult for a pirate to lay his hands on a copy. Do you think that the US gov ended up slackening controls on the use of strong crypto out of choice? It couldn't control it. And the MPAA cannot stop pirates getting DeCSS.

    By fighting DeCSS, they maintain a use for FlasKMPEG that is at least morally legitamate [even if not legally so due to the need for DeCSS]. By fighting DeCSS, they stop it becoming a standard part of Linux, available straight off the CD you install from. But they push us towards FlasKMPEG, and ripping DVD -> mpeg4. Surely DeCSS alone is the lesser of two evils, given how cheap and easy it is to copy a CD?

    I am not arguing whether any of this is legal, I'm just saying what I think will actually happen.

    cheers,
    G
  • I'm sure that you would be fine (eg., the CD vs tape arguement), if it is for personal use.

    I'm not sure how legal it would be to rip a DVD to mpeg4 CD. In this thread of posts I have said that it should be, and I feel that it is at least morally fine. But even if it is acceptable to own an mpeg4 CD of a film as you own the DVD it came from, What if the means you used to create the mpeg4 CD were illegal? If DeCSS and all derived software are illegal, what about any physical artifacts (the CD) that they were used to create?

    I think the guy is just doing everything he can to cover his ass from the MPAA lawyers. And I don't blame him.

    G

Algebraic symbols are used when you do not know what you are talking about. -- Philippe Schnoebelen

Working...