Dette viser vel tydelig at tallene deres er mest riktige?I følge Nielsen Videoscan (som mange hevder er eneste pålitelige kilde) har det bare blitt solgt 40.000 eksemplerer av Casino Royale, selv om Sony har sendt ut 100.000eksemplarer og dermed hevder det er 100.000 solgte.
Det er salg ut til sluttbruker som teller.
Ikke salg til butikk eller hvor mange som er på lager osv.
Dette viser også at Sony er flinke med tall
Viser resultater 1,061 til 1,080 av 13053
Tråd: HD formatkrigen.
04-15-2007, 23:33 #1061
04-16-2007, 08:21 #1062
Microsoft mugged over VC-1 codec patent terms | The Register
"Microsoft mugged over VC-1 codec patent terms
Published Saturday 14th April 2007 12:02 GMT
Comment We meet people on the various IPTV, mobile TV and web video circuits who always comment that VC-1, after a flying start, has fallen back and that pretty much these days the codec of choice is either VP6 from On2 Technologies for web video and H.264 for everything else, with no VC-1 in sight.
Just over three weeks ago the MPGE LA issued a final license for the Microsoft-inaugurated VC-1 codec, after forming a group to assess essential patents and to discuss terms for it, back in March 2004, the process taking precisely three years.
The license may in fact only be a license by which Microsoft can pay everyone else fees. There are no less than 16 separate companies that are deemed to have patents that are essential for VC-1 to work, the latest addition to the 15 company list that was first issued last August, being Korean number three handset maker, Pantech Curitel.
Between them they speak for 125 separate patents that are listed in the license, and a total of two of these are allocated to Microsoft. Every other supplier of essential technology including Daewoo, France Telecom, société anonyme (which presumably includes patents from close associates of France Telecom also) Fujitsu, Philips, LG, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, NTT Pantech Curitel, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Telenor, Toshiba JVC, have more patents at stake that Microsoft (except for two of the above) and many of them have many more.
Effectively Microsoft has been mugged by the attempt to make its VC-1 technology a standard through the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers. In so doing it had to reveal how its codec technology worked, and offer a license, and in going to the respected MPEG LA as a patent pool agent, it exposed its technology to all the know how that went into licensing the MPEG 2 and MPEG 4 Level 10 AVC/H.264 codec that has stolen the market.
Usually all of the combatants (essential patent holders) will argue for some basis or other for splitting the royalty stream, and these rules are not public and they are not always the same. But as a general principle the more patents you hold, the bigger your slice of the patent pool pie. Now that’s not absolute, but it can be an indicator.
On that basis every company except Telenor and Sharp will end up getting more money when VC-1 is used, than Microsoft. Of course Microsoft can charge what it likes for any software implementation of its own, but since it has always chosen to “give away” its codec with its media player, this means that it has to cover any licensing bill for patents out of virtually zero direct revenue.
Microsoft's humbling over VC-1 shouldn't be under-estimated. When we last heard a Microsoft official speak about this back in 2004 they said that everyone should use VC-1 because it was charging less than MPEG4/H.264, but that was back when it thought that it owned all of the technology inside the codec.
It's no wonder that the use of VC-1 has fallen by the wayside. Why would Microsoft push it? The more successful it is in getting other people to use it, the more its rivals in the consumer electronics space get paid royalties.
When the patent pool was first put together and the negotiating began, both Sony and Philips were known to be considering taking legal action against Microsoft. They had already been successful in taking Microsoft to the patent courts in the US, over DRM, in support of their acquisition Intertrust, where they won a $440 million settlement. In a way that’s more of less what they’ve won here.
Back in August when the draft license terms were issued, it was made clear that Microsoft was the only company that would have to pay “back payments” prior to 2006 (Microsoft has been bundling the same or similar technology in its PC operating systems for around 10 years).
The patent position for H.264 looks remarkable similar to VC-1, which isn’t too surprising since everyone we’ve spoken to says that the technologies are virtually identical anyway. Common patent holders for both the VC-1 patent pool and the H.264 pool include France Télécom société anonyme, Fujitsu, Philips, Matsushita, Mitsubishi, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, Toshiba, JVC and of course Microsoft.
Terms for building a device with the technology in splits into two formats, if it’s for a specific function in a CE device it costs nothing for the first 100,000 licenses; 20 cents each for up to 5 million licenses; 10 cents for all licenses above 5 million and there is a royalty cap of $5m a year. But if the royalty is for a PC operating system, which can of course be used for multiple applications, the cap is $8m.
If Microsoft is forced to pay back 10 years of back payment for royalties (as was suggested in the August 2006 draft license) then it would have an up front payment of something like $80m, divvied up between all 16 companies, and a continual $8m a year – for something that it was claiming it invented itself.
Content companies also pay license fees, and these also split into three, paid for title by title, where a customer pays for the service or product, and where customer either get encoded content for free, such as broadcast Television or as part of an overall subscription.
For this short videos under 12 minutes bear no royalty and thereafter pay the lower of 2% of the price paid for the video or $0.02 per title. This is for replicators of physical media, and service providers such as cable, satellite, video DSL, internet and mobile, for VOD, Pay per view and electronic downloads. This caps at $4.25 million a year until 2012, and rising after that.
Where remuneration is for other sources, such as advertising the licensee pays either a one-time payment of $2,500 per VC-1 encoder or an annual fee per of $2,500 per broadcast market where a market is at least 100,000 people or $5,000 per year per for a broadcast market up to 500,000 people and $10,000 a year for each broadcast market above 1,000,000 or more television households.
The two patents that were included for Microsoft as being essential for inclusion in the patent pool related to predictive image compression using a single variable length code for both the luminance and chrominance blocks and another for the efficient macroblock header coding.
Coincidentally we’re sure, a few days after the terms were finalized a number of US Broadcasters including NHK, TBS, NTV, TV Asahi, Fuji TV and TV all decided that they would adopt the H.264 encoding for their future programming.
This came after there were hiccups over the H.264 license which has also been in discussion for many months, and this was not thought to have related to the VC-1 patent pooling license finally being settled, although the terms of the license are virtually identical, based on a payment on a $2,500 one time fee for each encoder used.
So after all this time the two technologies, considered by many so similar as to be identical, now cost virtually the same to license as one another, much to the chagrin of Microsoft’s and contradicting its earlier statements. The intervening period of uncertainty has pretty much left VC-1 encoding only scarcely used, except a little on the web, with the exception of its use as an option in both High Definition DVD standards HD DVD and Blu-ray. But this only came about as a snub to the MPEG4/H.264 license, which at the time was thought to be too expensive.
Copyright © 2007, Faultline (rethink)
04-16-2007, 10:03 #1063
Er MPEG4 og H.264 helt indentiske men forskjellige codecer, eller bare 2 navn på samme codec sånn som AC3 og Dolby Digital.
04-16-2007, 10:09 #1064Opprinnelig postet av Arendal
"Addendum to AVC Patent Portfolio License
Pursuant to Section 1.13 of the AVC Patent Portfolio License, "AVC Standard" shall mean the video standard defined in ITU-T Rec. H.264 (March 2005)."
H.264/MPEG-4 AVC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
H.264, MPEG-4 Part 10, or AVC (for Advanced Video Coding), is a digital video codec standard that is noted for achieving very high data compression. It was written by the ITU-T Video Coding Experts Group (VCEG) together with the ISO/IEC Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) as the product of a collective partnership effort known as the Joint Video Team (JVT). The ITU-T H.264 standard and the ISO/IEC MPEG-4 Part 10 standard (formally, ISO/IEC 14496-10) are jointly maintained so that they have identical technical content. The final drafting work on the first version of the standard was completed in May 2003.
The H.264 name follows the ITU-T naming convention (where the standard is a member of the H.26x line of VCEG video coding standards), while the MPEG-4 AVC name relates to the naming convention in ISO/IEC MPEG (where the standard is part 10 of ISO/IEC 14496, which is the suite of standards known as MPEG-4). The standard was developed jointly in a partnership of VCEG and MPEG, after earlier development work in the ITU-T as a VCEG project called H.26L. It is thus common to refer to the standard as H.264/AVC (or AVC/H.264 or H.264/MPEG-4 AVC or MPEG-4/H.264 AVC) to emphasize the common heritage. The name H.26L, referring to its ITU-T history, is less common, but still used. Occasionally, it is also referred to as "the JVT codec", in reference to the Joint Video Team (JVT) organization that developed it. (Such partnership and multiple naming is not uncommon – for example, the video codec standard known as MPEG-2 also arose from the partnership between MPEG and the ITU-T, where MPEG-2 video is known to the ITU-T community as H.262).
The intent of the H.264/AVC project was to create a standard that would be capable of providing good video quality at substantially lower bit rates (e.g., half or less) than previous standards would require (e.g., relative to MPEG-2, H.263, or MPEG-4 Part 2), and to do so without increasing the complexity of design so much that it would be impractical (excessively expensive) to implement. An additional goal was to provide enough flexiblity to allow the standard to be applied to a wide variety of applications (e.g., for both low and high bit rates, and for low and high resolution video) and to make the design work effectively on a wide variety of networks and systems (e.g., for broadcast, DVD storage, RTP/IP packet networks, and ITU-T multimedia telephony systems).
04-16-2007, 10:24 #1065Opprinnelig postet av Arendal
04-16-2007, 10:25 #1066Opprinnelig postet av Arendal
At man ikke kan stole på selskapenes egene tall.
Om Nielsen sine tall er helt riktig aner ikke jeg, men de virker mer troverdig enn selskapenes tall.
04-16-2007, 11:06 #1067
Skulle ikke Sony dele ut 500 000 kopier av den nye James Bond filmen til kjøpere av PS3. Det teller muligens ikke som salg, men er jo rimelig viktig mtp markedsandeler.
04-16-2007, 13:12 #1068Opprinnelig postet av e-h
Fimselskapene tjener jo ingenting på å gi bort filmene..
Det er antall kjøpte som betyr noe.
04-16-2007, 15:22 #1069
Blu-ray accelerates introduction of new DRM technology
Computer Buyer - Advice you can Trust
Kan det virke som om BD+ blir introdusert fortere en vi trodde. Tenk så deilig å sitte på en fet samling filmer også ryker spilleren og vips er alle filmene uleselige. Eller du oppgraderer til en ny spiller og ja..
Om dette stemmer så er det bye bye Blu-Ray
Btw, HD-DVD har passert BD på amazon igjen The Product Wars fought on Amazon.com
04-16-2007, 17:07 #1070Opprinnelig postet av Opsahle
Litt mer alvorlig (for BD sin del) er dette, dersom de sakker ned på produksjonen nå så kan de (igjen) havne på etterskudd:
Once BD+ is available it will add between seven to 28 days per title to production time. 20th Century Fox is expected to be one of the firsts to implement this new technology, having slowed disc production since the attacks on AACS, and Sony Pictures is planning to be using it by the end of the year.
04-16-2007, 17:10 #1071
Det er da ikke første gang forbrukere som har gamle spillere blir skadelidende i så fall, de bryr seg tydeligvis ikke i det hele tatt om eksisterende kunder. Jeg kan ikke spille kopibeskyttede CDer i min relativt high end DVD spiller fra 2001.
04-16-2007, 17:28 #1072
I artikkelen står det følgende:
A method for extracting Blu-ray keys was published in January (the rival HD DVD format, which also uses AACS, had already been cracked). As a result, the AACS licensing body last week released a security update that supplied new encryption keys for the affected discs. However this means that existing discs can no longer be played until the update is applied.
BD+ would avoid this scenario, by applying the DRM to individual discs rather than movie titles.
Så det de skriver er at den ene metoden som gjør at "exisiting discs ...." blir ikke brukt, derimot blir BD+ brukt som unngår det.
Så vil ikke bety noe som helst for gamle filmer.
04-16-2007, 17:54 #1073
Slik jeg har forstått det så vil det ikke påvirke gamle titler nei, men de som har brukt (ganske mye) penger på en tidlig blu-ray spiller må ha en ny spiller for å spille av nye filmer med BD+. Dessuten om du en gang i fremtiden skulle bytte blu-ray spiller så vil ikke filmene dine virke på den nye spilleren.
Mulig jeg er helt på viddene her, men det er slik jeg har forstått BD+.
Edit: Fjernet litt vranglære
04-16-2007, 17:56 #1074
Det er ikke sikkert, tviler veldig på at dem som har kjøpt PS3 som BD spiller vil finne dem ubrukelige til BD om 1 år. Ville værte rene selvmord for Sony. Kanskje 1ste generasjons rene spillere?
04-16-2007, 18:09 #1075
Om systemet blir så firkantet og lite forbrukervennelig som BD+ høres ut slik som det fremstilles her, så tror jeg "den vanlige mannen i gata" verden over tviholder på DVD-formatet så lenge han kan.
04-16-2007, 18:10 #1076
Du må ha en spiller som støtter BD+.. Spørsmålet er om gamle spillere kan software-oppgraderes for å støtte det? Regner det som 99% sikkert at PS3 i det minste kan oppgraderes til det.
Leste litt om hvordan BD+ vil fungere, og det høres ikke så ille ut..?
Content Protection - BD+ and Blu-ray
Each Blu-ray Disc player includes a specially designed BD+ interpreter (also known as a “Virtual Machine” or “VM”). The BD+ interpreter is carefully designed with security as its objective, and can be easily implemented in either hardware or software with a minimal impact on system resources. The BD+ interpreter provides a basic processing environment for BD+ Content Code, which content authors can use to include title-specific security with each disc.
BD+ Content Code can perform a variety of functions and runs continuously in the interpreter during playback. Since BD+ Content Code is delivered via the disc, an internet connection is not required and the BD+ platform works in offline environments while respecting the privacy of legitimate consumers.
BD+ Content Code is “non-persistent”, meaning it secures only the playback of the content contained on its disc and is deleted when the disc is ejected. The player is then returned to the state it was in prior to the disc being inserted.
04-16-2007, 18:17 #1077
Litt mer "dybde"-info om BD sine beskyttelsesmåter:
Det er ingenting som tyder på at discer kun kan fungere på en maskin om gangen med dette systemet(dvs. det er ingenting iveien for å ta med seg plata til naboen og spille den av der).. Siden det skal fungere off-line, så sier vel det seg nesten selv?
04-16-2007, 18:52 #1078Opprinnelig postet av tklev
Jeg tror ikke jeg skjønner det helt.. :neutral:
For at de skal forstå at en disk er kopiert må jeg koden sendes en eller annen plass for at de kan sjekke dette.
Kan ikke forstå annet enn at du må koble den opp til nett med jevne mellomrom for sjekk.
Platen legger igjen en kode på maskinen, så om denne blir sendt til en sjekksentral, og du da ser filmen hos en kompis senere vil koden legges igjen der og, og når han opdaterer listen igjen vil ikke den da bli sett på som kopiert og så blir hele disken sperret?
Det er slik jeg forstår det nå, men det kan være riv ruskende galt.
04-16-2007, 19:03 #1079
da har jeg fjernet litt vranglære i det forrige innlegget mitt
Grunnen til at HD DVD'er og Blu-ray discer er rippet og lagt ut på nettet er at piratene fant en nøkkel i et HD DVD-drev og brukte den til å løse opp HD DVD'er (denne nøkkelen viste seg å virke på Blu-ray titler også).
Med BD+ så vil "den blå bande" ha muligheten til å låse de drevene som er blitt knekt. Hvis du innehar et av de drevene som har blitt svartelistet og setter inn en ny blu-ray tittel i den så vil det ligge med info på den som låser avspilleren din.
For Sony¨s skyld så får vi håpe de ikke gjør alvor av disse "truslene", da tror jeg nemmelig HD DVD vinner ganske fort
En annen ting med BD+ er at hvis du er så uheldig (dum) å sette en piratkopiert Blu-ray disc i spilleren din så vil du plutselig sitte med en bokstøtte til 10000,-
04-16-2007, 19:06 #1080Opprinnelig postet av Britax