Home› AMX User Forum› AMX General Discussion

Blu-Ray with RS-232

TurnipTruckTurnipTruck Posts: 1,485
in AMX General Discussion
Any Ideas?
«1

Comments

  • jjamesjjames Posts: 2,908
    Denon 2500BTCI

    http://usa.denon.com/beyond/products/DVD-2500BTCI.html

    I haven't used it, but I know that's one out there. Probably a little pricey too!
  • TonyAngeloTonyAngelo Posts: 315
    Or the DVD-3800BDCI. Either way Denon's 232 protocol is great. Here's an include file, still in a rough form, but working correctly.

    **Edit** This version of the program has bugs. There is an updated version posted on page two of this thread.
  • nhercnherc Posts: 34
    The two Denon's are the only two Blu-ray players I'm aware of with RS-232. Keep in mind the Denon 2500BTCI (MSRP $1k) is only a Blu-ray _Transport_ meaning only HDMI out. You need to step-up to the Denon 3800BDCI (MSRP $2k+) in order to get all of your analog (audio and video) outputs as well as HDMI.

    This may not be a big deal to some people, but we are sticking with component video distribution for now until HDMI is more mature. So, unfortunately currently, there is no truly affordable Blu-ray player with RS-232 as far as I'm concerned.
  • viningvining Posts: 4,368
    nherc wrote:
    This may not be a big deal to some people, but we are sticking with component video distribution for now until HDMI is more mature. So, unfortunately currently, there is no truly affordable Blu-ray player with RS-232 as far as I'm concerned.
    I beleive the component video output is down converted and not sent at 1080P. I beleive the only distribution means for 1080P is HDMI which is why we've stopped running comp video and have been running dual CAT-6 or 5's instead. You can find HDMI sender/receiver combination for anywhere from $300 - $500 bucks which with copper prices being what they they are this only slightly more expensive. The only problem is I haven't found any decent HDMI matrix swicthers other than I think a 4 x 4 but larger ones are coming.
  • nhercnherc Posts: 34
    We've been through the HDMI distribution fiasco with Gefen extenders and matrixes and had seriously bad luck. One out of 4 TV worked perfectly. Either one source wouldn't work, or we'd loose sync or hand shakes, etc.,. Even from the source straight to the TV's through the Gefen matrix we had unsolvable issues and ended up sending $5k worth of Gefen equipment back.

    Even if 1080P over component from a Blu-ray player is not feasible, there are lots of nice component matrixes that will pass 1080P over component for devices that will output it.

    Right now, we use Autopatch and Audio Authority AVAtrix for our component distributions and everything looks 98% the same as a digital HD distribution, EXCEPT IT ALWAYS WORKS!

    We're going to give everything another year or so to mature and become 99% compatible before we try re-deploying a digital HD distribution.

    Don't get me wrong HDMI in a dedicated theater or room is great if you have equipment you tested and that works together, but there are too many variables in a distributed video situation.
  • viningvining Posts: 4,368
    Component video is capable of 1080P but I don't know of any means of providing it with 1080P content. Hollywood via HDCP won't provide any 1080P source material to output on any non digital non HDCP compliant transmisison medium. We all have to start thinking about providing our customers the state of the art when wiring their houses. The idea of roughing in a house now a days w/o providing a means to upgrade to distributed HDMI is a disservice to our customers. Of course we could just use component video extenders or matrix switchers that output over CAT5 until 1080P content become more abundant but that means changing our wiring methods now.


    nherc,

    Was the GEFEN stuff the HDMI 1.3 compliant versions or the older stuff?

    I recently did an install with the new stuff and don't recall any hiccups.
  • DHawthorneDHawthorne Posts: 4,584
    I've used the Gefen without any issues too ... had a mess of a system that had multiple HDMI matrices cascaded off each other because the client had too many devices (6 computer outputs, a MAX AVP, and a DSS receiver going to 5 monitors) for a single switcher. There were some dip switches we had to mess with, but once we got all that straight, it worked rather well. What we wound up with was a 4x4 matrix, two HDMI splitters, and two 2x1 switcher off two of the 4x4 outputs. With that kind of mess, I'm frankly surprised we got it off the ground at all.
  • TonyAngeloTonyAngelo Posts: 315
    DHawthorne wrote:
    With that kind of mess, I'm frankly surprised we got it off the ground at all.

    Which is why I'm also staying away from HDMI at this point. We're running enough wire to implement it, but were still using component for the install. The Denon (and any other bluray) down converts the 1080p to i, but since all the displays we install spit out a progressive image, that signal gets deinterlaced in the display.

    Here's a post form another forum, this is the first post of a very detailed discussion:
    KRAS wrote:
    right - nobody sells interlaced displays anymore - they died with the last CRT. So the only 1080i/1080p distinction is who is better at merging interlaced fields into full progressive frames - the display or the player? The answer depends not only on what the chipset is - but how it was implemented, and does the panel natively support the refresh rates. Done properly - a 1080P source such as a game box interlaced to 1080i and deinterlaced to 1080P at the display should be indistinguishable - again if done properly. You would need the HD version of HQV calibration DVD to score that.

    The issue is no different than it was with SD on digital displays - which is better analog/digital and 480i/480p? The answer then as it is now is test the display chain all ways and see. There is an issue of 1080p analog distribution however - because the MPAA is afraid of pirates stealing Pirates! Which is silly because 3:2 pulldown to 1080p/24 of a movie from 1080i source is trivial and lossless for film sources - it is the video sources that are hard (smooth motion vs. static detail)

    http://integrationpros.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6283&page=2&highlight=1080p
  • DHawthorneDHawthorne Posts: 4,584
    Ultimately, we aren't going to have a choice about HDMI. I just installed a Runco projector that required an HDMI run from the processor to the projector ... it literally had no other connection (and it was another mess, since it was an upgrade to an existing installation, ceiling mounted in a bedroom with the equipment rack downstairs ... lots of holes in the wall ... and our first HDMI cable went bad on day two, and we had to rip out all our patches and do it again).
  • ericmedleyericmedley Posts: 4,177
    DHawthorne wrote: »
    Ultimately, we aren't going to have a choice about HDMI. I just installed a Runco projector that required an HDMI run from the processor to the projector ... it literally had no other connection (and it was another mess, since it was an upgrade to an existing installation, ceiling mounted in a bedroom with the equipment rack downstairs ... lots of holes in the wall ... and our first HDMI cable went bad on day two, and we had to rip out all our patches and do it again).

    We're a Runco dealer as well. We found that all their new Plasmas followed this same plot. (HDMI only from processor to display.) there was not much fanfare concerning this major change. We just started noticing it as the boxes came in. When we called them, their response??? "Uh, oh yeah. That's how we're doing it now. Sorry..." Some of the orders were for houses with component distribution systems. It was quite ugly.

    HDMI distribution is still not totally here yet. I don't know whether someones behind the curve or ahead of it.
  • viningvining Posts: 4,368
    TonyAngelo wrote:
    The Denon (and any other bluray) down converts the 1080p to i,
    I believe the Denon and most likely all Blue Ray players downconvert all HD recordings to 480P for comp video outputs on all HDCP encoded discs.
  • alexanboalexanbo Posts: 282
    vining wrote: »
    TonyAngelo wrote:

    I believe the Denon and most likely all Blue Ray players downconvert all HD recordings to 480P for comp video outputs on all HDCP encoded discs.

    This is only true if the security flag is turned on by the studio for that particular disc. As of yet no studio has turned on the flag and most have said that they won't ever turn on the security flag.
  • TonyAngeloTonyAngelo Posts: 315
    alexanbo wrote: »
    This is only true if the security flag is turned on by the studio for that particular disc. As of yet no studio has turned on the flag and most have said that they won't ever turn on the security flag.

    This was confirmed by Matt Good of Denon.
  • viningvining Posts: 4,368
    alexanbo wrote:
    This is only true if the security flag is turned on by the studio for that particular disc. As of yet no studio has turned on the flag and most have said that they won't ever turn on the security flag.
    If this is true isn't it contrary to the purpose behind HDCP. I find it hard to believe that Hollywood would let anyone easily transfer HD content over an analog recordable medium. That would be cool if true but it doesn't sound right.
  • shr00m-dewshr00m-dew Posts: 394
    It's true.. What's stranger is no blu-ray player will send upconverted SD-DVD's over component though.

    Kevin D.
  • TonyAngeloTonyAngelo Posts: 315
    shr00m-dew wrote: »
    It's true.. What's stranger is no blu-ray player will send upconverted SD-DVD's over component though.

    Kevin D.

    The Denon piece in question will. It has the same realta chip as the DVD-3930.
  • shr00m-dewshr00m-dew Posts: 394
    Not sure how that helps. The 3930 can't send upconverted DVD's out the component outputs either. Those are limited to 480p. For 720p, 1080i, or 1080p you have to use HDMI.

    Kevin D.
  • TonyAngeloTonyAngelo Posts: 315
    My mistake.
  • shr00m-dewshr00m-dew Posts: 394
    Not a problem, it's not like they make keeping up with this crap easy.. ;)

    Kevin D.
  • DavidRDavidR Posts: 62
    the code block doesn't compile for me... here are a few observations;

    - dvMASTER = 0:1:0 refers to an ip device by in this case i think it should be the rs232 port the denon is connected to. ie 5001:1:0
    - dvTP2_DVD_Great should be dvTP right?
    - dvBluTP is not needed correct?
    - nTally stops the compiler. is this a constant referenced somewhere else in your code?
  • TonyAngeloTonyAngelo Posts: 315
    DavidR wrote: »
    the code block doesn't compile for me... here are a few observations;

    - dvMASTER = 0:1:0 refers to an ip device by in this case i think it should be the rs232 port the denon is connected to. ie 5001:1:0

    I pulled this file out of a project and I guess I missed a few things and apparently didn't compile before posting. dvMaster refers to the NI processor which is not used in this program. The dv declaration for the Denon is missing though.
    - dvTP2_DVD_Great should be dvTP right?
    - dvBluTP is not needed correct?

    dvTP is just a TP declaration. dvBluTP, should be the TP port used for the Denon. dvTP2_DVD_Great is a reference from the project it got pulled out of.
    - nTally stops the compiler. is this a constant referenced somewhere else in your code?

    nTally is a constant that equals 255

    Here's an updated version of the program I posted with these corrections made.
  • SMCSISMCSI Posts: 16
    Has anyone used the HDFury to act as a HDCP device so you can connect an HDMI source to a component distribution system?

    http://www.hdfury.com/

    You can even pop one on the HDMI output of a source and then into the distribution as component and back to HDMI on the display. Pretty cheap too!
  • viningvining Posts: 4,368
    Is it actually a legal device.

    My understanding of HDCP is that the HDCP decoding has to be done in an end point device (display) or a device that acts as an end point (video processor) and then uses a proprietary means of sending video to the display.

    Of course I didn't think Blue Ray players would output 1080i/P HDCP encoded discs as 1080i via component video jacks either and according to other forum posts they apparently can, so....

    Otherwise I thinks pretty neat!


    /////////////////////////////////////////
    Ok, I looked into it.
    What are the advantages of using HDfury?
    - HDfury can screw directly to your display therefore (unlike the stripper/converter boxes) it remains compliant to the HDCP rules as it does not allow and end-user easy access to the analog decrypted signal.
    - It can therefore be used and sold legally to transform any RGB display into a HDCP compliant display.
    - Shortest analog link possible ensures the highest video quality possible!
    - Aluminum and gold plated materials.
    - It does not require external power supply to operate.

    I don't understand their claim that it doesn't allow easy access to the analog decrypted signal. How is it not easy?
  • TonyAngeloTonyAngelo Posts: 315
    vining wrote: »
    I don't understand their claim that it doesn't allow easy access to the analog decrypted signal. How is it not easy?

    It's not easy, it's completely decrypted and HDCP complaint except for the analog output. No big deal.
  • viningvining Posts: 4,368
    TonyAngelo wrote:
    except for the analog output. No big deal.
    You're not supposed to be able to access an HD signal on an analog medium if it was originally HDCP encrypted. That would completely defeat the purpose of encryption.
  • TonyAngeloTonyAngelo Posts: 315
    vining wrote: »
    You're not supposed to be able to access an HD signal on an analog medium if it was originally HDCP encrypted. That would completely defeat the purpose of encryption.

    Every time I think I can go without an emoticon on a sarcastic remark I am proven wrong. Obviously the analog output defeats the whole purpose of HDCP.
  • viningvining Posts: 4,368
    TonyAngelo wrote:
    Every time I think I can go without an emoticon on a sarcastic remark I am proven wrong.
    Ok, I admit I'm a little slow some times but it's not always easy to tell when someone is yanking your chain with a sarcastic remark and not being serious.
  • ericmedleyericmedley Posts: 4,177
    vining wrote: »
    TonyAngelo wrote:

    Ok, I admit I'm a little slow some times but it's not always easy to tell when someone is yanking your chain with a sarcastic remark and not being serious.


    It's true. We need a universally accepted sarcasm emoticon.
  • TonyAngeloTonyAngelo Posts: 315
    Yes, I don't normally have a big grin on my face :D or stick my tongue out :p when being sarcastic. I think the sarcasm emoticon would be a straight face.
  • travtrav Posts: 188
    TonyAngelo wrote: »
    Yes, I don't normally have a big grin on my face :D or stick my tongue out :p when being sarcastic. I think the sarcasm emoticon would be a straight face.

    I prefer XML <sarcasm> </sarcasm>
Sign In or Register to comment.