«

"Agamemnon" <_SPAM> wrote in message
news:-u6dnSjHQr-...
>
> "Pyriform" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Agamemnon wrote:
>>>> Those are single tuner machines. The problem is that as soon as you
>>>> introduce a DVD-R into the mix, you dramatically increase the
>>>> complexity, and hence the cost. You abandon the bitstream recording
>>>> approach in favour of recoding everything with an onboard MPEG2
>>>> encoder, which you have to license (if you are a reputable
>>>> manufacturer). When you do that, you also
>>>
>>> Then don't licence the encoder if it results in reduced quality.
>>
>> How can you write a DVD without using MPEG2? That's the format they use.
>> And the reduced quality / increased storage has to do partly with the
>> fact that you are decoding the Freeview bitstream and then re-encoding
>> it, and partly
>
> Which is bloody stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid !
>
>> because of the time constraints on encoding. Of course, if you are
>> prepared to wait even longer, or spend a lot more on the encoder
>> hardware, you could do better - perhaps nearly as good as the original.
>
> If is being broadcast in MPEG-2 then why on earth would it need to be
> decoded and re-encoded. Its MPEG-2 already. All you'd need to do is write
> the position of the file on the table of contents on the disc like you do
> on a hard drive, or if DVD does not work that way, put in the right sync
> marker or whatever. Or better still just write it to the disc as data and
> make some DVD players that play back standard MPEG-2 in the same way that
> they play back MPEG-4 as data.
>
> Oh the stupidity of these companies. Anyway TDK have a 200GB Blu-Ray disc
> in the works so DVD recorders are dead as Betamax.
>
>>
>>>> Two tuners would need two encoders, further increasing the cost and
>>>> complexity.
>>>
>>> Two DVD recorders running at the same time might need to tuners but
>>> not one. How many people would want a PVR with two DVD recorders ?
>>
>> You missed the point. If you want to be able to easily transfer the hard
>> drive image onto a DVD, you would want to encode everything in the same
>> manner on the disk. One encoder per tuner. Did you not think there might
>> be a reason why none of the current Freeview DVD-R machines have two
>> tuners?
>
> What ? Who wants a DVD-R with two recorders. Who is going to want to burn
> 2 DVDs at the same time. A PVR with two tuners and a DVD recorder is what
> people want.so you can watch one thing while recording another or record
> two channels or complete multiplexes at the same time.
>
>>
>>>> If you want to retain the elegant bitstream recording to hard drive
>>>> approach of the twin tuner Freeview PVRs, and also incorporate a
>>>> DVD-R, how do you implement it? One way would be to transcode from
>>>> the recorded format into a valid DVD format. The complexity of doing
>>>> this will vary between channels, because of the different
>>>> resolutions used. I don't know if any custom embedded solutions
>>>> exist that can do this, or if they would have to be developed. More
>>>> cost. A simpler solution would be to decode to analogue, and then
>>>> feed this through a standard MPEG2 encoder - just as in the existing
>>>
>>> Why encode in lousy MPEG-2 when you could use MPEG-4 which will give
>>> you better quality and will play back as data on any DivX DVD player.
>>
>> The underlying problem would be the same, no matter what encoder you
>> chose to use. And an MPEG4 encoder will not allow you to create 'proper'
>> DVDs.
>
> Who cares if it won't let you create proper DVDs. MPEG4 is of better
> quality and most new DVD players will play it back whereas the CANNOT play
> back DVD-VR or DVD+VR or even DVD-RAM discs.
>
>> That's not to say it wouldn't be a useful option, but it doesn't solve
>> the fundamental problem in any case.
>
> The fundamental problem is the DVD-Video format itself, which isn't very
> versatile. The solution is to abandon it and use the data format which is.
>
> In fact why has it taken so long for DVD-RAM to get anywhere. It would
> have solved all of the problems but its nowhere to be found on players.
> Idiots.
>
> DVD is already the new Betamax. At least Betamax lasted 13 years.
> Recordable DVD has only lasted about 7 and its dead already now that
> Blu-Ray is out, and that won't last long either. Portable hard disk is the
> way to go, or flash memory sticks if you want to record. In the same way
> they have replaced cassette tape they will replace DVD and Blu-Ray since
> they are media independent. You just plug them into a USB slot or better
> still make them with an Ethernet port and they will function as a separate
> network drive. If you want to lend something to a friend to watch just
> copy it onto a video iPod in seconds.

What's more it will put an end to video piracy since who is going to
manufacture expensive iPods just to sell one film.

Agamemnon wrote:
> If is being broadcast in MPEG-2 then why on earth would it need to be
> decoded and re-encoded. Its MPEG-2 already. All you'd need to do is
> write the position of the file on the table of contents on the disc
> like you do on a hard drive, or if DVD does not work that way, put in
> the right sync marker or whatever. Or better still just write it to
> the disc as data and make some DVD players that play back standard
> MPEG-2 in the same way that they play back MPEG-4 as data.

Well, I have some sympathy with your wish that things were other than they
are, but they aren't. It is not (in general) possible to convert the DVB
transport stream into a valid DVD format without a significant amount of
processing, despite the fact that they both use MPEG-2. And I'm sure you
would be the first person on here complaining if your new PVR/DVD-R wrote
DVDs that your aunty's DVD player couldn't play. You'd be telling us how
stupid it all was.

> Oh the stupidity of these companies. Anyway TDK have a 200GB Blu-Ray
> disc in the works so DVD recorders are dead as Betamax.

You'll find something not to like, trust me.

>>>> Two tuners would need two encoders, further increasing the cost and
>>>> complexity.
>>>
>>> Two DVD recorders running at the same time might need to tuners but
>>> not one. How many people would want a PVR with two DVD recorders ?
>>
>> You missed the point. If you want to be able to easily transfer the
>> hard drive image onto a DVD, you would want to encode everything in
>> the same manner on the disk. One encoder per tuner. Did you not
>> think there might be a reason why none of the current Freeview DVD-R
>> machines have two tuners?
>
> What ? Who wants a DVD-R with two recorders. Who is going to want to
> burn 2 DVDs at the same time. A PVR with two tuners and a DVD
> recorder is what people want.so you can watch one thing while
> recording another or record two channels or complete multiplexes at
> the same time.

I've reviewed what I've written, and determined that all the correct words
are present, and most of them are in the right order. If you still don't
understand what I'm saying, it is probably beyond my power to assist you
further. I do note, however, that you have now slipped in the requirement to
be able to record complete multiplexes. You really are never satisfied, are
you?

> Who cares if it won't let you create proper DVDs. MPEG4 is of better
> quality and most new DVD players will play it back whereas the CANNOT
> play back DVD-VR or DVD+VR or even DVD-RAM discs.
>
>> That's not to say it wouldn't be a useful option, but it doesn't
>> solve the fundamental problem in any case.
>
> The fundamental problem is the DVD-Video format itself, which isn't
> very versatile. The solution is to abandon it

Right. So you've moved from complaining about there not being any twin tuner
PVRs with built-in DVD-Rs to denouncing the DVD format itself. That's
progress of a sort, I suppose. So we'll take your original requirement off
the list, shall we?

> In fact why has it taken so long for DVD-RAM to get anywhere. It
> would have solved all of the problems but its nowhere to be found on
> players. Idiots.

Yes, quite right. Everybody but you is a fool.

> DVD is already the new Betamax. At least Betamax lasted 13 years.

Betamax didn't really last that long. It suffered a slow, lingering death
following a not very illustrious career (and I speak as someone who still
has a Sony C7 in his loft - about £1500 worth of kit, at 2005 prices,
apparently). DVD, on the other hand, has been phenomenally successful.

[Remaining rant about how things keep changing snipped]

"Pyriform" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Agamemnon wrote:
>> If is being broadcast in MPEG-2 then why on earth would it need to be
>> decoded and re-encoded. Its MPEG-2 already. All you'd need to do is
>> write the position of the file on the table of contents on the disc
>> like you do on a hard drive, or if DVD does not work that way, put in
>> the right sync marker or whatever. Or better still just write it to
>> the disc as data and make some DVD players that play back standard
>> MPEG-2 in the same way that they play back MPEG-4 as data.
>
> Well, I have some sympathy with your wish that things were other than they
> are, but they aren't. It is not (in general) possible to convert the DVB
> transport stream into a valid DVD format without a significant amount of
> processing, despite the fact that they both use MPEG-2. And I'm sure you

Then make the PVR DVD combo with a faster processor.

> would be the first person on here complaining if your new PVR/DVD-R wrote
> DVDs that your aunty's DVD player couldn't play. You'd be telling us how
> stupid it all was.

Its stupid because the DVD player format should have been designed to
playback MPEG files as data. DivX players can already do that with MPEG-4 so
why not MPEG-2.

>
>> Oh the stupidity of these companies. Anyway TDK have a 200GB Blu-Ray
>> disc in the works so DVD recorders are dead as Betamax.
>
> You'll find something not to like, trust me.

Its too expensive, and too slow. 25 GB in 1 hour is ridiculous. Its cheaper
to buy a stand alone portable HDD and back up to 300 GB on that instead in
the same hour. What's more the data on the HDD can easily be altered whereas
that on the BD disc will not.

Here you go. 300 GB external drive for only £90. That's cheaper than an
internal SATA drive of the same capacity.

http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/s...tml?MAX-U15E30

Whereas a 50 GB BD-RE disc will cost £45. THEY MUST BE OUT OF THEIR RAVING
MINDS !

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/sto...9282192,00.htm

>
>>>>> Two tuners would need two encoders, further increasing the cost and
>>>>> complexity.
>>>>
>>>> Two DVD recorders running at the same time might need to tuners but
>>>> not one. How many people would want a PVR with two DVD recorders ?
>>>
>>> You missed the point. If you want to be able to easily transfer the
>>> hard drive image onto a DVD, you would want to encode everything in
>>> the same manner on the disk. One encoder per tuner. Did you not
>>> think there might be a reason why none of the current Freeview DVD-R
>>> machines have two tuners?
>>
>> What ? Who wants a DVD-R with two recorders. Who is going to want to
>> burn 2 DVDs at the same time. A PVR with two tuners and a DVD
>> recorder is what people want.so you can watch one thing while
>> recording another or record two channels or complete multiplexes at
>> the same time.
>
> I've reviewed what I've written, and determined that all the correct words
> are present, and most of them are in the right order. If you still don't
> understand what I'm saying, it is probably beyond my power to assist you

You obviously cannot understand a simple question. Who wants a DVD recorder
with two DVD decks ?

> further. I do note, however, that you have now slipped in the requirement
> to be able to record complete multiplexes. You really are never satisfied,
> are you?
>
>> Who cares if it won't let you create proper DVDs. MPEG4 is of better
>> quality and most new DVD players will play it back whereas the CANNOT
>> play back DVD-VR or DVD+VR or even DVD-RAM discs.
>>
>>> That's not to say it wouldn't be a useful option, but it doesn't
>>> solve the fundamental problem in any case.
>>
>> The fundamental problem is the DVD-Video format itself, which isn't
>> very versatile. The solution is to abandon it
>
> Right. So you've moved from complaining about there not being any twin
> tuner PVRs with built-in DVD-Rs to denouncing the DVD format itself.
> That's progress of a sort, I suppose. So we'll take your original
> requirement off the list, shall we?

Replace it with an Ethernet port. After it took me an hour to burn one and a
half hours of programming onto DVD compared to only 15 minutes when I burned
it as data I have decided that DVD-Video is a waste of time. In future I
will get a PVR and copy the programmes I want to keep on my computer as
data, and if I want to watch them I will transfer them back or wait for a
PVR that as well as having an Ethernet port can also play back video files
off a network drive. After all a video iPod can already do most of that
already.

>
>> In fact why has it taken so long for DVD-RAM to get anywhere. It
>> would have solved all of the problems but its nowhere to be found on
>> players. Idiots.
>
> Yes, quite right. Everybody but you is a fool.

Yes that seems to be mostly true for the people running these consumer
electronics companies. I pity then.

>
>> DVD is already the new Betamax. At least Betamax lasted 13 years.
>
> Betamax didn't really last that long. It suffered a slow, lingering death
> following a not very illustrious career (and I speak as someone who still
> has a Sony C7 in his loft - about £1500 worth of kit, at 2005 prices,

It cost £700 when it originally came out over 20 years ago so its probably
more than that.

> apparently). DVD, on the other hand, has been phenomenally successful.

So was Vinyl and where's that now. Nobody ever used it as a recording
format.

>
> [Remaining rant about how things keep changing snipped]
>

"Pyriform" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Bazzer Smith wrote:
>>> If you want to retain the elegant bitstream recording to hard drive
>>> approach of the twin tuner Freeview PVRs, and also incorporate a
>>> DVD-R, how do you implement it?
>>
>> With a Freewview dongle for you PC (I have one).
>
> Not an answer to the question set.


well maybe not but u r harldy the sixth Iman
>
>

On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 00:09:34 +0100, "Agamemnon"
<_SPAM> wrote:

>
>"Pyriform" <> wrote in message
>news:...
>> Agamemnon wrote:
>>> If is being broadcast in MPEG-2 then why on earth would it need to be
>>> decoded and re-encoded. Its MPEG-2 already. All you'd need to do is
>>> write the position of the file on the table of contents on the disc
>>> like you do on a hard drive, or if DVD does not work that way, put in
>>> the right sync marker or whatever. Or better still just write it to
>>> the disc as data and make some DVD players that play back standard
>>> MPEG-2 in the same way that they play back MPEG-4 as data.
>>
>> Well, I have some sympathy with your wish that things were other than they
>> are, but they aren't. It is not (in general) possible to convert the DVB
>> transport stream into a valid DVD format without a significant amount of
>> processing, despite the fact that they both use MPEG-2. And I'm sure you
>
>Then make the PVR DVD combo with a faster processor.
>
>> would be the first person on here complaining if your new PVR/DVD-R wrote
>> DVDs that your aunty's DVD player couldn't play. You'd be telling us how
>> stupid it all was.
>
>Its stupid because the DVD player format should have been designed to
>playback MPEG files as data. DivX players can already do that with MPEG-4 so
>why not MPEG-2.
>
>>
>>> Oh the stupidity of these companies. Anyway TDK have a 200GB Blu-Ray
>>> disc in the works so DVD recorders are dead as Betamax.
>>
>> You'll find something not to like, trust me.
>
>Its too expensive, and too slow. 25 GB in 1 hour is ridiculous. Its cheaper
>to buy a stand alone portable HDD and back up to 300 GB on that instead in
>the same hour. What's more the data on the HDD can easily be altered whereas
>that on the BD disc will not.
>
>Here you go. 300 GB external drive for only £90. That's cheaper than an
>internal SATA drive of the same capacity.
>
>http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/s...tml?MAX-U15E30
>
>Whereas a 50 GB BD-RE disc will cost £45. THEY MUST BE OUT OF THEIR RAVING
>MINDS !
>
>http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/sto...9282192,00.htm
>
>>
>>>>>> Two tuners would need two encoders, further increasing the cost and
>>>>>> complexity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Two DVD recorders running at the same time might need to tuners but
>>>>> not one. How many people would want a PVR with two DVD recorders ?
>>>>
>>>> You missed the point. If you want to be able to easily transfer the
>>>> hard drive image onto a DVD, you would want to encode everything in
>>>> the same manner on the disk. One encoder per tuner. Did you not
>>>> think there might be a reason why none of the current Freeview DVD-R
>>>> machines have two tuners?
>>>
>>> What ? Who wants a DVD-R with two recorders. Who is going to want to
>>> burn 2 DVDs at the same time. A PVR with two tuners and a DVD
>>> recorder is what people want.so you can watch one thing while
>>> recording another or record two channels or complete multiplexes at
>>> the same time.
>>
>> I've reviewed what I've written, and determined that all the correct words
>> are present, and most of them are in the right order. If you still don't
>> understand what I'm saying, it is probably beyond my power to assist you
>
>You obviously cannot understand a simple question. Who wants a DVD recorder
>with two DVD decks ?
>
>> further. I do note, however, that you have now slipped in the requirement
>> to be able to record complete multiplexes. You really are never satisfied,
>> are you?
>>
>>> Who cares if it won't let you create proper DVDs. MPEG4 is of better
>>> quality and most new DVD players will play it back whereas the CANNOT
>>> play back DVD-VR or DVD+VR or even DVD-RAM discs.
>>>
>>>> That's not to say it wouldn't be a useful option, but it doesn't
>>>> solve the fundamental problem in any case.
>>>
>>> The fundamental problem is the DVD-Video format itself, which isn't
>>> very versatile. The solution is to abandon it
>>
>> Right. So you've moved from complaining about there not being any twin
>> tuner PVRs with built-in DVD-Rs to denouncing the DVD format itself.
>> That's progress of a sort, I suppose. So we'll take your original
>> requirement off the list, shall we?
>
>Replace it with an Ethernet port. After it took me an hour to burn one and a
>half hours of programming onto DVD compared to only 15 minutes when I burned
>it as data I have decided that DVD-Video is a waste of time. In future I
>will get a PVR and copy the programmes I want to keep on my computer as
>data, and if I want to watch them I will transfer them back or wait for a
>PVR that as well as having an Ethernet port can also play back video files
>off a network drive. After all a video iPod can already do most of that
>already.
>
>>
>>> In fact why has it taken so long for DVD-RAM to get anywhere. It
>>> would have solved all of the problems but its nowhere to be found on
>>> players. Idiots.
>>
>> Yes, quite right. Everybody but you is a fool.
>
>Yes that seems to be mostly true for the people running these consumer
>electronics companies. I pity then.
>
>>
>>> DVD is already the new Betamax. At least Betamax lasted 13 years.
>>
>> Betamax didn't really last that long. It suffered a slow, lingering death
>> following a not very illustrious career (and I speak as someone who still
>> has a Sony C7 in his loft - about £1500 worth of kit, at 2005 prices,
>
>It cost £700 when it originally came out over 20 years ago so its probably
>more than that.
>
>> apparently). DVD, on the other hand, has been phenomenally successful.
>
>So was Vinyl and where's that now. Nobody ever used it as a recording
>format.

New vinyl sales are increasing year on year. It's a small percentage
admittedly, & it will never be a mainstream product again but as a
vinyl junkie, thought I'd better mention it. And yes, they do still
make vinyl records

Marky P.

Agamemnon wrote:
> You obviously cannot understand a simple question. Who wants a DVD
> recorder with two DVD decks ?

We'll try this one last time, shall we?

We have:

a) single tuner Freeview HDD/DVD-R recorders.
b) twin tuner Freeview HDD recorders.

We want:

Twin tuner Freeview HDD/DVD-R recorders.

I discussed the implications of adding a second tuner to case (a). You would
need a second MPEG-2 encoder (and the license to go with it). This has
nothing to do with wanting a second DVD deck. Of course, there are other
many other design issues I didn't even touch upon.

I discussed the implications of adding a DVD-R to case (b). Only one MPEG-2
encoder needed, but issues surrounding user expectations of how the machine
should work.

Either way, there are significant technical issues to solve. It's not just a
case of adding a £20 DVD writer into the case, as many people seem to think.
It's certainly possible that workable solutions will emerge in the future,
but I wouldn't hold your breath.

"Pyriform" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Agamemnon wrote:
>> You obviously cannot understand a simple question. Who wants a DVD
>> recorder with two DVD decks ?
>
> We'll try this one last time, shall we?
>
> We have:
>
> a) single tuner Freeview HDD/DVD-R recorders.
> b) twin tuner Freeview HDD recorders.
>
> We want:
>
> Twin tuner Freeview HDD/DVD-R recorders.
>
> I discussed the implications of adding a second tuner to case (a). You
> would need a second MPEG-2 encoder (and the license to go with it). This
> has nothing to do with wanting a second DVD deck. Of course, there are
> other many other design issues I didn't even touch upon.

Do you have any idea how a HDD PVR works ?

The bit stream is written directly do disk. You can even dump the entire
multiplex to disk. Its already MPEG so it does not need a second MPEG-2
encoder when a two tuners are used with a DVD recorder and a HDD.

>
> I discussed the implications of adding a DVD-R to case (b). Only one
> MPEG-2 encoder needed, but issues surrounding user expectations of how the
> machine should work.
>
> Either way, there are significant technical issues to solve. It's not just
> a case of adding a £20 DVD writer into the case, as many people seem to
> think. It's certainly possible that workable solutions will emerge in the
> future, but I wouldn't hold your breath.
>

Agamemnon wrote:
> Do you have any idea how a HDD PVR works ?

Yes. It's fairly evident that you don't know how any of this technology
works, however - and frankly, I'm bored trying to explain it to you.

"Pyriform" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Agamemnon wrote:
>> Do you have any idea how a HDD PVR works ?
>
> Yes. It's fairly evident that you don't know how any of this technology
> works, however - and frankly, I'm bored trying to explain it to you.

No. Its abundantly clear that you not only don't understand the technology
but you can't understand English either.

Agamemnon wrote:
>
> "Pyriform" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Agamemnon wrote:
>>> You obviously cannot understand a simple question. Who wants a DVD
>>> recorder with two DVD decks ?
>>
>> We'll try this one last time, shall we?
>>
>> We have:
>>
>> a) single tuner Freeview HDD/DVD-R recorders.
>> b) twin tuner Freeview HDD recorders.
>>
>> We want:
>>
>> Twin tuner Freeview HDD/DVD-R recorders.
>>
>> I discussed the implications of adding a second tuner to case (a). You
>> would need a second MPEG-2 encoder (and the license to go with it).
>> This has nothing to do with wanting a second DVD deck. Of course,
>> there are other many other design issues I didn't even touch upon.
>
> Do you have any idea how a HDD PVR works ?
>
> The bit stream is written directly do disk. You can even dump the entire
> multiplex to disk. Its already MPEG

If you mean "it's already mpeg so is in a suitable format to be written
to a dvd video disk" you're wrong.

As has already been explained, the spec for the broadcast transport
stream is far less restrictive than that for dvd video data. A killer
problem is that dvd video data has to have one of a small number of
resolutions; the transport stream doesn't have the same restriction.

The result? Such streams can only be recorded to dvd video after
transcoding. That is a slow & costly process.

No one is going to want to wait that long when instructing their
recorder to in their minds merely 'copy' data from the hard drive to a
dvd. The only way to avoid that delay is to ensure the data is written
to the hard drive in that format in the first place, which means real
time transcoding support for /all/ sources of video data.

> so it does not need a second MPEG-2
> encoder when a two tuners are used with a DVD recorder and a HDD.

....so the above is still wrong.

--
Michael
m r o z a t u k g a t e w a y d o t n e t