BD+ crack released

Hi everyone!

Just wanna say that Philippos really hit the spot there! This huge increase in media storage capability (from 4-9Gb to 30-50Gb) is gonna bring around problems concerning media durability and (in the case of failure) huge amounts of data loss. I'm not inside the specifications on error-correction methods used on video discs but what about data? Will companies and the common home-consumer risk 30-50Gb worth of precious data on a single disc? I'm not sure about them but I sure won't.

About the 'real' need of these video-oriented formats my opinion is that a better more efficient data compression algorithm (lets simply face it: MPEG2 is totally outdated) would be a good choice, since the current LCD technology is very resolution dependant (anything running on a different resolution than the displays native on is gonna be awfull), so higher esolution video encoding is, in fact, a need. That, however would somewhat demand that the players capable of playing such discs would have to be more expensive due to more complex hardware (but not to the extent of a BD or a HD-DVD player, of course!). Idea that was turned down in favor of higher capacity media.

In short, personally I'm yet to fell ready to relay 50Gb to a single disc (or to pay for a compatible player/drive at their current prices) but the "people in charge" decided that consumers do, so what do you say about facing them for a change? ;)

I kept a Betamax for years after it "lost" the format war because it was the only low cost recordable digital audio medium available in the late 80s/early 90s. It worked noticeably better for video as well, but by that time most people were happy with crap.

This happiness with crap has stayed with us until today where we're being pushed to buy HD equipment. I had to because my old line doubling projection TV finally end-of-lifed, so now I know what I've always suspected -- HD is just BS, total BS. The only reason 480p looks bad on demos in the store is that they're degraded, in real life you really have to work at it to notice the difference (that's on a 52" screen) -- its not that the on-screen resolution isn't there, its your eyes that limit what you can see. (Surprise! TV resolution was designed around the resolution of eyes....)

So what you're getting is a not that significant increase in performance wrapped up in a quantum leap in DRM controls. Its really funny seeing my TV telling me that "the content provider has limited the resolution of this disc to 480p" when the disc is a home-made recording.

So argue all you want about whether BD is superior to HD-DVD. The real answer is "neither". Its handy to have a denser storage medium -- if its robust -- but now everything's digital it really doesn't matter what things are stored on, its how the content is managed that's important.

And, as I pointed out in a previous post, they're dying to get your brand new kit on the 'net so its can phone home identifying who it is, what its been playing and maybe get some code "upgrades". (Read the manual.....read the manual.....)

Get a life... Blu-ray already WON. Anyway i was thinking about all this hd-stuff lately. Ok u r allowed to rip all HD formats on your hdd! But why would you do that? 4-5 Blu-ray will fill your HDD fully and there is no place where to burn them (at least now its cheper to buy then reburn) And if u ask me to hell with TOSHIBA! 96% of JAPAN in BLU-RAY trust me no one will look at USA and what those silly people are usuing)

I assume it's the read-End as you are as blind and ignorant as Joerg.

There are already HD-DVD writers out there. 

I personally don't care about the technology except when BR launched its single layer versions had less features and lower quality. Now they have more space but don't really use it when you look at movies that have both formats. Also if it's a single DL BR disk vs 2 DL HD-DVD disks (which would actually have 10GB more info), I don't care I own Lord of the rings, are you unfamiliar with disk changing, how often do you really need more than 30 GB for the actual movie? And with the cost difference in production those 2 HD-DVDs probably cost as much as the single BR disk.

I may sound like I favour one or the other, but I don't I just argue against the BS fanboi statements.

If I were to chose I'd say that the HD-DVD camp has the best option in the dual-format disks. 
If the HD-DVD group ever got wise and charged as much for those as they do for regular DVDs they would kill BluRay faster than any of these back-door deals to favour one or the other (that just costs us more money regardless of who does it [where do you think the $100mil payoffs come from]). And the main reason they'd win is because everyone is afraid of buying an obsolete disk, whereas the combo format gives them the taste of HD without the risk of buying a $30 coaster.

I have both, and I buy both, but I recommend to others afraid of a choice that they buy HD-DVD, since the cost is lower and at least the dual disks will always be supported since DVD is not about to die as soon as whichever of the two of them does.

No matter who wins thanks to people like SlySoft you'll be able to burn off the disk of the losing format and then re-author them onto the winning format once the battle is over. And that's the important thing, Cheers to SlySoft & screw the corporate morons, that waste theirs and our money with this uncertainty and BS PR tricks. 
Had they not be so greedy and pig-headed they could've had a standard format and ease the transition to HD instead of killing the momentum people had after starting to watch HDTV shows.

Boo Booo, I have sold so many on blu ray and I will keep doing it,

Spreading lies, insulting and trying to look smart when you don't know something, especially something technical, and not even taking care to document yourself a little but just starting insulting to protect HD-DVD and Toshiba/Microsoft/DVD-Forum empire and best interests, it's going nowhere.

You should have documented a bit on the subject instead of insulting, here it is a link to a news regarding TDK announcement of 200GB 4-layer Blu-Ray discs. I quote a paragraph below so that maybe you could understand why it's 4-layer and 200GB: 

--
http://news.soft32.com/200gb-on-one-disc_2287.html

The initial Blu-ray Disc standard allows for 25GB single layer Blu-ray Discs and 50GB dual layer Blu-ray Discs. A recent signal processing innovation stretches the physical limits of optical media, realizing 33.3GB capacity for each of the disc’s six layers. The company’s 100GB prototype disc uses four 25GB layers to reach 100GB capacity. For the 200GB technology development, TDK has enabled a disc to store up to 33.3GB per layer while staying within the tolerances of the BD playback specifications. Like the 100GB disc, and other Blu-ray Disc media, TDK’s 200GB blue laser disc is single sided.

--


And this new Blu-Ray specification it's highly likely to be backward compatible with existing hardware, and obviously with future one. 


Ooohh ! BD is superior because it has CAMERAS !

Gosh yeah, how stupid I was ! I'm going to rush out and buy all my films in DRM-infested BluRay because I can also use CAMERAS. Really, using a CAMERA is a defining property of the format, although it is DRM-infested whatever I do and I don't even HAVE a CAMERA.

Really, people, wake up and smell the coffee. Do you have a 9-foot screen widescreen at home ? Do you have 7+1 Dolby Surround speakers and plush velvet seats ? No ? Then bugger off with your privacy-invading formats and products.

DVD is fine and I'll stick with it until all that is DVD is gone from the stalls. When that happens, enough of you morons will have been caught with incompatible players and other bull so that the kinks will be ironed out.
And, about that time, true quality LCD screens with tiny response times will also be a dime a dozen, so I'll upgrade to my wall-to-wall screen and 24+6 Dolby 3D Surround Inside for a fraction of what you will pay repeatedly to finally get something that works.
Nope, as far as home cinema is concerned, it pays to WAIT.

The SMPTE recommended viewing angle for full HD is 30 degrees. That means the angle between the line from your eyes to the LHS margin and the line from your eyes to the RHS margin of the picture.

Provided you view at that angle, any size of screen that delivers 1920x1080 will show finer detail on full HD programming, than it does on 720p, let alone PAL/NTSC SD.

I have a Panasonic 37" full HD LCD television and a Dell 24" 1920x1200 monitor. I habitually watch full HD at a 30 degree viewing angle, and I can promise you that full HD on even the 24" screen kills standard DVD stone dead for visual acuity.

Nobody needs 45"+ screens unless they want to sit well back from the TV.

We certainly do need full HD recording media. I don't care which format wins this war, the real battle is to get rid of DRM.

Buying HD DVD right now, you really are buying a ticket for the last trip in the Titanic..

Why do you think they dumped 50,000 HD-A2 players for $99? It's because they arn't capable of playing the new 51GB discs.

When the realisation dawns, on those 50,000 people, that they were sold end of line, obsolete kit, there is no way Toshiba can maintain any credability in the HD DVD brand.

Even aside from the fact that HD DVD is vastly inferior in almost every way to Blu-ray.

whoever wrote this article is a toshiba fanboy, isnt it obvious already blu ray is the better format. i mean blu ray players might cost a little more than hd dvd players. but blu ray does have more movies released for it. As for the guy who wrote this article
plz follow the bottom link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvE_dONJIWU

If you watch on an SD TV, or on a 30" 720p LCD, yeah, it won't look much better. On a 130" front projection system, the difference is absolutely staggering.

If you think there's no difference, set your monitor to run 800x600 and see how good it looks. SD DVD is 720x480.

Sean is right. BD+ most certainly is NOT cracked, just by-passed; meaning a poor sap of a consumer can now extract the content and in all fairness of use, make a copy. You can still not re-encode or author the material or anything like that...

I have had enough with Microsoft to also support a Microsoft backed standard for HD media.

So, following the logic of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", I'll stick to BluRay. 

Not to mention that BD has the ability to run much more complex menus and interactive apps as part of its VM.

Plus, after the price cuts I'll be getting a PS3 for xmas so why invest into a separate HD player if I'm getting one for free with my games console?

That $45M was definitely money well spent.

So what if they are? At least for the time being you can use the hardware. I'm not going to buy Blu-Ray because the disc itself might be technologically superior.

GUESS WHO'S ON THE BD PAYROLL!!!!!

Along with Toshiba and the DVD-Forum to promote HD-DVD against Blu-Ray ? 
HD-DVD does have region coding, they didn't enable it but it's planned to be engaged in the next future and it surely would be engaged it Blu-Ray got defeated by an inferior optical format that HD-DVD really is. 
Don't get fooled by all these viral marketing tactics, 50GB 2-layer BluRay (and future 4-layer 200GB) discs are better any a 30GB HD-DVD disc (with pathetic 51GB 3-layer discs marketing hype trick that no one will be able to use)

What viral marketing tactics are these then? 

No one format is better than the other at the moment. Saying that, there is more copy protection on Blu-Ray discs and there have been reports of people being unable to play discs with BD+ protection so what Slysoft says is correct. HD-DVD IS more consumer friendly.

At the end of the day, having both formats is just hurting the consumer. All Slysoft is doing is helping the consumer watch something which they legally own. All hail Slysoft!

As for the comments that bluray and hddvd are 'equals', they are not, bluray is 'better' for the consumer as a whole, and the reason is very simple, so lets get it straight.
Both pack 1080p movies onto it, so the consumer may see them as being equal, but its not.
Why?
Simply, blu ray packs 25gb/layer, whereas HDDVD manages 15gb/layer, which doesnt take a math degree to see is significantly less.
But, they both have to store the same length of movie at 1080p, (1 hour of raw 1080p video at 24bit colour is ~500gb), so both have to compress it, but HDDVD has to compress it significantly more, which results in lower video quality with HDDVD than with Bluray. One might be hardpressed to see/identify the difference in quality, but your brain notices, and has to spend extra resources 'filling in the blanks' and less resources on enjoying the film.
And of course, since the high def format will replace dvd's for computer data storage/backup/etc, I definately want blu ray, hddvd is 3x dvd, blue ray is 5x.....and seeing how long Ive been waiting for greater external storage, and how long we'll have to wait for the next format, Bluray would be much nicer.
As for copy protection, both camps actively partake in the 'shaft the consumer' mindset, so they're equally evil, and their schemes will be cracked quickly anyway, so who cares?
And no, I dont have any allegiance to any of the interested companies (in fact, i rather dislike Sony).
But at the end of the day, Blu ray is 'better' from the consumers point of view (price notwithstanding)

Huddling in my igloo somewhere near the north pole,
Chris

As Slysoft themselves have stated, this isn't the BD+ crack they're still working on.

All it exploits is the fact that current software players will still process the BD+ virtual machine even on a title without AACS. It's fairly obvious this is a fsckup, because the only time a title would have BD+ and no AACS is when it's been stripped by AnyDVD. 

The BD isn't cracked - it's left intact, and processed by the software players. This is a huge hole that will surely be blocked in a week or so.

That said, congrats to the Slysoft guys - it's nice to see some old skool crackers kicking the arse of Big Media.

Sean

Once again goes this talk about what corporate beast is gonna make more money than the other.

Instead of really advancing their technology by introducing more powerfull codecs than can fit high definition material on standard storage like DVD-9, they invest their future on creating new media that will be harder to use and easier to fail (imagine just how much data a scratch on a BD will destroy - Reed Solomon is practically useless at this density). 
I really believe that Divx-HD and it's likes will dominate the future because of easier downloads and potential to fit on a solid state media like SD cards. Easier to transfer, harder to break and a lot cheaper.
I hope they both fail.

HD-DVD has one overriding advantage over Blu-Ray and its nothing to do with which is the most technically advanced system. Users typically have more than one TV in a household so HD-DVD with its promise of dual format discs is more practical for most people. (After all, full HD is a bit pointless with displays under about 45".)

The disc player manufacturers have bent over backwards to make the players play standard format DVD but its backwards logic -- what's more important is that the HD discs play in the legacy players!

The extra features offered by the HD systems are for the most part useless fluff. The only reason why they want "Web enabled" stuff is that they can drop code onto your player (read the terms and conditions). Most users want a minimum of boxes, controls and wires.

BluRay 
Storage: 25GB per layer
Hard Coating: Yes
Data Transfer(Data):36Mbps@1x
Data transfer (video/audio): 54Mbps@1.5x
Video Rez 1920x1080
Video Bit rate(max): 40Mbps

HDDuD
Storage: 15GB per layer
Hard Coating: not needed may be substituted by boiling non working discs :p
Data Transfer(data)36Mbps@1x
Data Transfer(audio/Video):36.5Mbps@1x
Video Rez: 1920x1080
Video Bitrate(Max): 28.8Mbps

HDDuD reads movies@1x,also HDDud is just trying to survive they only have players,Blu-ray on the other hand has Players,Burners,Cameras,etc...

Why are you guys wasting your money on HD formats anyway? Are they really that much better than standard DVDs? They don't look it to me, not to the extent that DVD looked better than VHS. 

If you buy either HD format you risk being stuck with the one that ends up losing and becoming obsolete, and who wants a 21st century Betamax player?

Joerg, 

seeing how you think the "51GB 3-layer discs " HDDVD is so "pathetic" when compared to the "4-layer 200GB" blu-ray discs. Don't you think that it's you that sounds pathetic? A 4 layer Blu-ray disc is 100GB not 200GB! go back to school and learn how to count.

I'm sorry, I'm a bit slow...you guys are way ahead of me here in this arguement...I'm still asking the question "Why do I need discs?"

Seeing as though 20gb disks are dirt cheap, flash memory is only increasing on a weekly basis...wait, I'm getting ahead of myself...

Today you can get a BD writer or HD writer for some £100...there are some deals for a bit less & there are plenty of much more expensive ones...Lets not even bother with media...

An 80GB hard drive today is £30.
*blinks twice*
So you could actually get 3 x 80GB drives for the same money you can get a writer.
Thats a writer WITHOUT discs.

Easier to store? well I dunno, try having 240GB worth of discs...thats a few.

But wait, there's more!

At £100 you can get a 500GB hard drive with an external case ala Icy Box. You would also have enough money for the tube fare to and from the shop. And you would have probably paid £20 too much.

Why on earth do we need these formats? these discs?

Flash prices are dropping, capacities are sky rocketing... the future of discs is already obsolete in the sense its easy to store. Don't waste your time or your money, these two camps are so stupid and busy trying to hassle you out of your money that they lost the plot.