Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday May 04 2017, @02:59PM   Printer-friendly
from the "Blu"-ray-and-Smurfs dept.

An alleged copy of an Ultra HD Blu-Ray disc has appeared online, leading to speculation that AACS 2.0 has been cracked:

While there is no shortage of pirated films on the Internet, Ultra-high-definition content is often hard to find. Not only are the file sizes enormous, but the protection is better than that deployed to regular content. UHD Blu-Ray Discs, for example, are protected with AACS 2.0 encryption which was long believed to unbreakable.

A few hours ago, however, this claim was put in doubt. Out of nowhere, a cracked copy of a UHD Blu-Ray Disc surfaced on the HD-focused BitTorrent tracker UltraHDclub. The torrent in question is a copy of the Smurfs 2 film and is tagged "The Smurfs 2 (2013) 2160p UHD Blu-ray HEVC Atmos 7.1-THRONE." This suggests that AACS 2.0 may have been "cracked" although there are no further technical details provided at this point. UltraHDclub is proud of the release, though, and boasts of having the "First Ultra HD Blu-ray Disc in the NET!"

[...] If the encryption has indeed been broken it will be bad news for AACS, the decryption licensing outfit that controls it. The company, founded by a group of movie studios and technology partners including Warner Bros, Disney, Microsoft and Intel, has put a lot of effort into making the technology secure.

"Atmos" refers to Dolby Atmos (see PDF list).

[Update: It is fitting to note that one of our most prolific story submitters happened to garner submission number 20,000! Congrats and many thanks to Takyon, and to all the rest of the SoylentNews community who have made this achievement possible. --martyb]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by epitaxial on Thursday May 04 2017, @05:40PM (5 children)

    by epitaxial (3165) on Thursday May 04 2017, @05:40PM (#504421)

    x265 should really help high resolution video. A 30 minute tv show encoded at 1080p with x265 is under 200Mb.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Thursday May 04 2017, @05:57PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday May 04 2017, @05:57PM (#504439) Journal

    720p is the sweet spot for me. Acceptable quality -- to the point where I doubt I'd need better for anything other than VR (TV/laptop/phone at a few inches distance), maximum quality my laptop could display anyway (I'm in the shitty 768p club), and much easier to decode than H.265 1080p on a 2011 CPU. Even smaller file sizes, with less than 100 MB possible for 22 minute content (as far as I can recall).

    I have embraced the advice from that one troll and just stream almost everything nowadays. It's legal!

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @06:02PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2017, @06:02PM (#504447)

    > A 30 minute tv show encoded at 1080p with x265 is under 200Mb.

    That bitrate might be ok for a talking-head kind of show like jimmy kimmel or animation.
    But anything like a regular tv show is still going to look crappy at that bitrate.
    A lot better than h264 at that bitrate, but still crappy.

  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday May 05 2017, @01:07AM (2 children)

    by kaszz (4211) on Friday May 05 2017, @01:07AM (#504620) Journal

    200 Mbit or 200 MByte?