I have a friend who was considering purchasing a Mac Mini recently. At the time of this writing, there are 3 desktop models (and 2 more “server” models).

The cheapest one is a Core i5 2.5 GHz. Then there are 2 Core i7 models: 2.3 GHz and 2.6 GHz. The difference between the latter 2 is US$100. The only appreciable technical difference is the extra 0.3 GHz and the choice came down to those 2.

He asked me which one would be able to play HD video at full frame rate. I found this query puzzling. But then, I have been “in the biz” for a bit too long. Whether or not a computer or device can play a video well depends on a lot of factors.

Hardware Support
First of all, looking at the raw speed of the general-purpose CPU inside of a computer as a gauge of video playback performance is generally misguided in this day and age. In general, we have a video standard (H.264, which I’ll focus on for this post) and many bits of hardware are able to accelerate decoding. So, the question is not whether the CPU can decode the data in real time, but can any other hardware in the device (likely the graphics hardware) handle it? These machines have Intel HD 4000 graphics and, per my reading of the literature, they are capable of accelerating H.264 video decoding.

Great, so the hardware supports accelerated decoding. So it’s a done deal, right? Not quite…

Operating System Support
An application can’t do anything pertaining to hardware without permission from the operating system. So the next question is: Does Mac OS X allow an application to access accelerated video decoding hardware if it’s available? This used to be a contentious matter (notably, Adobe Flash Player was unable to accelerate H.264 playback on Mac in the absence of such an API) but then Apple released an official API detailed in Technical Note TN2267.

So, does this mean that video is magically accelerated? Nope, we’re still not there yet…

Application Support
It’s great that all of these underlying pieces are in place, but if an individual application chooses to decode the video directly on the CPU, it’s all for naught. An application needs to query the facilities and direct data through the API if it wants to leverage the acceleration. Obviously, at this point it becomes a matter of “which application?”

My friend eventually opted to get the pricier of the desktop Mac Mini models and we ran some ad-hoc tests since I was curious how widespread the acceleration support is among Mac multimedia players. Here are some programs I wanted to test, playing 1080p H.264:

• Apple QuickTime Player
• VLC
• YouTube with Flash Player (any browser)
• YouTube with Safari/HTML5
• YouTube with Chrome/HTML5
• YouTube with Firefox/HTML5
• Netflix

I didn’t take exhaustive notes but my impromptu tests revealed QuickTime Player was, far and away, the most performant player, occupying only around 5% of the CPU according to the Mac OS X System Profiler graph (which is likely largely spent on audio decoding).

VLC consistently required 20-30% CPU, so it’s probably leveraging some acceleration facilities. I think that Flash Player and the various HTML5 elements performed similarly (their multi-process architectures can make such a trivial profiling test difficult).

The outlier was Netflix running in Firefox via Microsoft’s Silverlight plugin. Of course, the inner workings of Netflix’s technology are opaque to outsiders and we don’t even know if it uses H.264. It may very well use Microsoft’s VC-1 which is not a capability provided by the Mac OS X acceleration API (it doesn’t look like the Intel HD 4000 chip can handle it either). I have never seen any data one way or another about how Netflix encodes video. However, I was able to see that Netflix required an enormous amount of CPU muscle on the Mac platform.

Conclusion
The foregoing is a slight simplification of the video playback pipeline. There are some other considerations, most notably how the video is displayed afterwards. To circle back around to the original question: Can the Mac Mini handle full HD video playback? As my friend found, the meager Mac Mini can do an admirable job at playing full HD video without loading down the CPU.

In the course of exploring and analyzing the impressive library of CD images curated at the Internet Archive’s Shareware CD collection, one encounters a wealth of methods for copying a complete CD image onto other media for transport. In researching the formats, I have found that many of them are native to various binary, proprietary CD programs that operate under Windows. Since I have an interest in interpreting these image formats and I would also like to do so outside of Windows, I thought to conduct a survey to determine if enough information exists to write processing tools of my own.

Remember from my Grand Unified Theory of Compact Disc that CDs, from a high enough level of software abstraction, are just strings of 2352-byte sectors broken up into tracks. The difference among various types of CDs comes down to the specific meaning of these 2352 bytes.

Most imaging formats rip these strings of sectors into a giant file and then record some metadata information about the tracks and sectors.

ISO
This is perhaps the most common method for storing CD images. It’s generally only applicable to data CD-ROMs. File images generally end with a .iso extension. This refers to ISO-9660 which is the standard CD filesystem.

Sometimes, disc images ripped from other types of discs (like Xbox/360 or GameCube discs) bear the extension .iso, which is a bit of a misnomer since they aren’t formatted using the ISO-9660 filesystem. But the extension sort of stuck.

BIN / CUE
I see the BIN & CUE file format combination quite frequently. Reportedly, a program named CDRWIN deployed this format first. This format can handle a mixed mode CD (e.g., starts with a data track and is followed by a series of audio tracks), whereas ISO can only handle the data track. The BIN file contains the raw data while the CUE file is a text file that defines how the BIN file is formatted (how many bytes in a sector, how many sectors to each individual track).

CDI
This originates from a program called DiscJuggler. This is extremely prevalent in the Sega Dreamcast hobbyist community for some reason. I studied the raw hex dumps of some sample CDI files but there was no obvious data (mostly 0s). There is an open source utility called cdi2iso which is able to extract an ISO image from a CDI file. The program’s source clued me in that the metadata is actually sitting at the end of the image file. This makes sense when you consider how a ripping program needs to operate– copy tracks, sector by sector, and then do something with the metadata after the fact. Options include: 1) Write metadata at the end of the file (as seen here); 2) write metadata into a separate file (seen in other formats on this list); 3) write the data at the beginning of the file which would require a full rewrite of the entire (usually large) image file (I haven’t seen this yet).

Anyway, I believe I have enough information to write a program that can interpret a CDI file. The reason this format is favored for Dreamcast disc images is likely due to the extreme weirdness of Dreamcast discs (it’s complicated, but eventually fits into my Grand Unified Theory of CDs, if you look at it from a high level).

MDF / MDS
MDF and MDS pairs come from a program called Alcohol 120%. The MDF file has the data while the MDS file contains the metadata. The metadata is in an opaque binary format, though. Thankfully, the Wikipedia page links to a description of the format. That’s another image format down.

CCD / SUB / IMG
The CloneCD Control File is one I just ran across today thanks to a new image posted at the IA Shareware Archive (see Super Duke Volume 2). I haven’t found any definitive documentation on this, but it also doesn’t seen too complicated. The .ccd file is a text file that is pretty self-explanatory. The sample linked above, however, only has a .ccd file and a .sub file. I’m led to believe that the .sub file contains subchannel information while a .img file is supposed to contain the binary data. So this rip might be incomplete (nope, the .img file is on the page, in the sidebar; thanks to Phil in the comments for pointing this out). The .sub file is a bit short compared to the Archive’s description of the disc’s contents (only about 4.6 MB of data) and when I briefly scrolled through, it didn’t look like it contains any real computer data. So it probably is just the disc’s subchannel data (something I glossed over in my Grand Unified Theory).

CSO
I have dealt with the CISO (compressed ISO) format before. It’s basically the same as a .iso file described above except that each individual 2048-byte data sector is compressed using zlib. The format boasts up to 9 compression levels, which shouldn’t be a big surprise since that correlates to zlib’s own compression tiers.

Others
Wikipedia has a category for optical disc image formats. Of course, there are numerous others. However, I haven’t encountered them in the wild for the purpose of broad image distribution.

Throughout my own life, I have often observed that my own sense of nostalgia has a window that stretches about 10-15 years past from the current moment. Earlier this year, I discovered the show “Alias” and watched through the entire series thanks to Amazon Prime Instant Video (to be fair, I sort of skimmed the fifth and final season which I found to be horribly dull, or maybe franchise fatigue had set in). The show originally aired from 2001-2006 so I found that it fit well within the aforementioned nostalgia window.

But what was it, exactly, about the show that triggered nostalgia? The computers, of course! The show revolved around spies and espionage and cutting-edge technology necessarily played a role. The production designer for the series must have decided that Unix/Linux == awesome hacking and so many screenshots featured Linux.

Since this is still nominally a multimedia blog, I’ll start of the screenshot recon with an old multimedia player. Here is a vintage Mac OS desktop running an ancient web browser (probably Netscape) that’s playing a full-window video (probably QuickTime embedded directly into the browser).

Click for larger image

Let’s jump right into the Linux side of things. This screenshot makes me particularly sentimental since this is exactly what a stock Linux/KDE desktop looked like circa 2001-2003 and is more or less what I would have worked with on my home computer at the time:

Click for larger image

Studying that screenshot, we see that the user logs in as root, even to the desktop environment. Poor security practice; I would expect better from a bunch of spooks.

Continue reading →