Archived from groups: alt.video.ptv.replaytv (
More info?)
On Sat, 29 May 2004 04:05:46 GMT, pcsales_one
<pcsales_one@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 May 2004 20:59:32 -0500, Mark Lloyd
><mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 29 May 2004 00:46:39 GMT, pcsales_one
>><pcsales_one@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 28 May 2004 13:09:44 -0500, Mark Lloyd
>>><mlloyd@5xxxmail.com5xxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Right. The dedicated DVR will be much more reliable here. A PC is
>>>>still good for processing the files afterward (such as for DVD
>>>>recording), but It's better to lef the DVR actually make the
>>>>recording. This is true even when the source is a VCR.
>>>
>>>Absolutely agreed!
>>>
>>>>>There was an article in PC Magazine a while back comparing computer-based
>>>>>solutions to DVRs as well as a short favorable review of ReplayTV. In
>>>>>short, they said that the video quality of a true DVR is going to be better
>>>>>than that of a PC with a video tuner/capture card. I would have to agree
>>>>>with them. For some reason, the tuners on these cards are not as sharp as
>>>>>that in a ReplayTV (or my digital cable box) for that matter.
>>>>
>>>>And you won't get as good a recording from a PC tuner. Consider that
>>>>this (video digitizing) is a realtime process, anything else running
>>>>on the PC can interfere with it.
>>>
>>>That's an 'it depends' type of thing. A Media Center, by definition,
>>>has an MPEG encoder on it. An AMD Athlon 1800+ with an MPEG2 card can
>>>easily record TV at 'best' quality and have 97% of the CPU left over
>>>(ie it uses only 3% of the CPU to record), so I'd argue it isn't a
>>>significant source of CPU usage.
>>>
>>
>>Those numbers will mean nothing when that little bit of usage occurs
>>at the wrong time, producing a glitch it the recording. A hardware
>>encoder will significantly reduce this possability, but not eliminate
>>it.
>
>If you're encoding to show 50,000 people at the next Presidential
>address, perhaps the potential for a glitch might matter, but from a
>practical point of view, it's unlikely and immaterial enough that most
>people will never notice.
Sounds like you're getting a small thing mixed up with a nonexistant
thing. The problem is small, but definately NOT absent..
> It works really, really well. It requires
>800K-1Mb/s to write to disk - both that and the CPU requirements are
>easily within the limits of even an old Celeron 700 system (and
>older).
Afaster CPU is still an advantage, for many things, including DVD
authoring.
> Unless you're also doing very heavy CPU-usage programs (say,
>encoding a divx for an hour or two) you're not likely to ever see a
>problem. The writes are not as time-critical as I think you imagine
>-- if a write is missed, it can be written in the next write (or more,
>depending on caching) without any ill effect.
>
For most things, not real-time processes such as analog recording.
This depends on a relativaly constant data rate (of course playback is
affected to, I tend to consider that less of a problem because it's
one time only, an error in recording effects every playback of that).
I didn't say the computer was unacceptable, I sadthe DVR was
PREFERABLE. The problem can be reduced (such as with a fast CPU and a
hardware encoder, but not eliminated (Windows just isn't that good for
real-time processes).
There may have been some misunderstanding here. It's mostly not the
MPEG encoding itself that would fail, but the analog to digital
conversion and the storage of the data that produces.
>>>If you have only a *software* encoder (ie not a Media Center PC) then
>>>sure, it can drag the CPU if you select 640x480 with a DivX codec; a
>>>modern CPU can handle MPEG2 encoding and other things, though.
>>>
>>If you don't have a hardware encoder, it would help some (but not
>>enough) to record to something that's not compressed and THEN encoding
>>in MPEG.
>
>Huh? We're talking about TV recording - it's not compressed, so
>there's no uncompression step. Can you explain what you mean?
>
I meant what I said, "not compressed" NOT "uncompressed" (the error is
usually the other way, when someone's using "un-" for "not"). I meant
recording in a format that ISN'T COMPRESSED, at least not compressed
as much. "uncompressing" makes no sense here, since it hasn't been
compressed.
That's saving the CPU-intensive process (MPEG compression) for later
(on a system without a hardware compressor). I did that before I got
the networkable Replay 5xxx.
>>>>>that $299
>>>>>lifetime activation may seem like a lot, but when you can buy the RTV for
>>>>>~$100, the whole thing comes to ~$400, for a complete solution. It's cheap
>>>>>compared to what a media PC will cost you. And that media PC has to be
>>>>>pretty powerful, so then you deal with trying to control fan noise,
>>>>>potential heat issues if you don't cool properly, and if you happen to have
>>>>>a traditional audio rack, finding a "desktop" style case instead of a
>>>>>"tower."
>>>
>>>Agreed - I don't see the original poster's logic - $450 or so for a
>>>ReplayTV that does what you want, flawlessly, forever (or until it
>>>breaks, which is typically years away) or a Media Center PC - double
>>>or triple the price. Granted, it can do a lot more, but would you
>>>really do that (the ... much more stuff) if it's attached to your TV
>>>in the living room?
>>>
>>
>>I'd rather have the recording done by a dedicated device (such as
>>Replay). It's better, but some people would rather have something
>>else.
--
Mark Lloyd
http
/go.to/notstupid
http
/notstupid.laughingsquid.com
"It is a curious thing that every creed promises a
paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for
anyone of civilized taste." -- Evelyn Waugh
Facebook
Twitter