• Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    So why is it rejected?

    Just because they’re still trying to use HDMI to prevent piracy? Who in fuck’s name is using HDMI capture for piracy? On a 24fps movie, that’s 237MB of data to process every second just for the video. A 2 hour movie would be 1.6TB. Plus the audio would likely be over 2TB.

    I’ve got a Jellyfin server packed with 4K Blu-ray rips that suggest there are easier ways to get at that data.

    • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      The CEO’s of the media companies are all fucking dinosaurs who still think VCRs should have been made illegal. You will never convince them that built in copy protection is a dumb idea and a waste of time.

    • CCF_100@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Even despite that HDMI capture is simply an awful way of obtaining that data, it’s even more pathetic when that “protection” can be defeated by a $30 capture card on Amazon…

    • sarmale@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Can’t you compress what the HDMI outputs in real time so that it would have a normal size?

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Sure. But why bother when you can rip it right from the disc in higher quality than you could ever hope to capture in real time?