tv cards and cpu

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by XPD, Jul 22, 2007.

  1. XPD

    XPD Guest

    Just curious....

    Years ago I purchased a Lifeview Flyvideo98 TV card for my Pentium 2 system
    (win98, 128mb) to watch TV on the PC and record the odd bits from
    videos/TV.... worked perfectly fine.

    Now if I want to do the same with a newer TV card which has on-board
    hardware etc and record some TV shows, I need a 3.0ghz or better CPU - why
    have the specs gone up so much for doing the same as what my P2 did years
    ago ???

    If I want to record anything, I need a CPU thats 10x faster, a TV card thats
    2x the price as my old setup.

    Is there a plain English explanation as to why ? :)
     
    XPD, Jul 22, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. XPD

    sam Guest

    XPD wrote:
    > Just curious....
    >
    > Years ago I purchased a Lifeview Flyvideo98 TV card for my Pentium 2 system
    > (win98, 128mb) to watch TV on the PC and record the odd bits from
    > videos/TV.... worked perfectly fine.
    >
    > Now if I want to do the same with a newer TV card which has on-board
    > hardware etc and record some TV shows, I need a 3.0ghz or better CPU - why
    > have the specs gone up so much for doing the same as what my P2 did years
    > ago ???
    >
    > If I want to record anything, I need a CPU thats 10x faster, a TV card thats
    > 2x the price as my old setup.
    >
    > Is there a plain English explanation as to why ? :)
    >
    >
    >

    Perhaps it will still work with a lower spec PC.
    Maybe the version now distributed uses software encoding for its
    recorder recording mpeg2 rather than recording an uncompressed avi.
    Pure speculation without more information.
     
    sam, Jul 23, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. XPD

    JohnO Guest

    On Jul 23, 10:22 am, "XPD" <> wrote:
    > Just curious....
    >
    > Years ago I purchased a Lifeview Flyvideo98 TV card for my Pentium 2 system
    > (win98, 128mb) to watch TV on the PC and record the odd bits from
    > videos/TV.... worked perfectly fine.
    >
    > Now if I want to do the same with a newer TV card which has on-board
    > hardware etc and record some TV shows, I need a 3.0ghz or better CPU - why
    > have the specs gone up so much for doing the same as what my P2 did years
    > ago ???
    >
    > If I want to record anything, I need a CPU thats 10x faster, a TV card thats
    > 2x the price as my old setup.
    >
    > Is there a plain English explanation as to why ? :)


    Well, that runs counter to logic and experience. My guess is that the
    new card comes with some sort of software for transcoding or
    converting MPEG files to other formats, and that's the reason for the
    CPU spec.

    I bet if there's just video capture to MPEG going on that there's no
    need for any extra CPU grunt.
     
    JohnO, Jul 23, 2007
    #3
  4. In article <46a3e5d2$>, says...
    > Perhaps it will still work with a lower spec PC.
    > Maybe the version now distributed uses software encoding for its
    > recorder recording mpeg2 rather than recording an uncompressed avi.
    > Pure speculation without more information.


    Yea, but that is the only rational explanation I can think of as well.
    Maybe it uses the cpu to do on-the-fly encoding to divx or mpg4.
    I'd find that annoying, because to the best of my knowledge there are
    gpu out there that are much better suited to the purpose.

    -P.

    --
    =========================================
    firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
     
    Peter Huebner, Jul 23, 2007
    #4
  5. In message <f80l8d$vee$>, XPD wrote:

    > Years ago I purchased a Lifeview Flyvideo98 TV card for my Pentium 2
    > system (win98, 128mb) to watch TV on the PC and record the odd bits from
    > videos/TV.... worked perfectly fine.
    >
    > Now if I want to do the same with a newer TV card which has on-board
    > hardware etc and record some TV shows, I need a 3.0ghz or better CPU - why
    > have the specs gone up so much for doing the same as what my P2 did years
    > ago ???


    In those days you would have been getting the digital video in 320*240
    resolution and MPEG-1 format.

    Nowadays you would be getting full 640*480 resolution (or thereabouts), and
    a more efficient compression format like MPEG-2 or MPEG-4. It's taking four
    times the number of raw pixels per second, and doing fancier stuff to it so
    you get better quality, and you still don't end up with four times the file
    size on disk.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 23, 2007
    #5
  6. XPD

    JohnO Guest

    On Jul 23, 2:13 pm, Peter Huebner <> wrote:
    > In article <>, says...
    >
    > > Perhaps it will still work with a lower spec PC.
    > > Maybe the version now distributed uses software encoding for its
    > > recorder recording mpeg2 rather than recording an uncompressed avi.
    > > Pure speculation without more information.

    >
    > Yea, but that is the only rational explanation I can think of as well.
    > Maybe it uses the cpu to do on-the-fly encoding to divx or mpg4.
    > I'd find that annoying, because to the best of my knowledge there are
    > gpu out there that are much better suited to the purpose.
    >
    > -P.
    >
    > --
    > =========================================
    > firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com


    The OP said that it now has "onboard hardware" which in the context of
    video capture cards usually means hardware MPEG encoder. That doesn't
    stack up with his CPU issue at all!
     
    JohnO, Jul 23, 2007
    #6
  7. XPD

    sam Guest

    JohnO wrote:
    > On Jul 23, 2:13 pm, Peter Huebner <> wrote:
    >> In article <>, says...
    >>
    >>> Perhaps it will still work with a lower spec PC.
    >>> Maybe the version now distributed uses software encoding for its
    >>> recorder recording mpeg2 rather than recording an uncompressed avi.
    >>> Pure speculation without more information.

    >> Yea, but that is the only rational explanation I can think of as well.
    >> Maybe it uses the cpu to do on-the-fly encoding to divx or mpg4.
    >> I'd find that annoying, because to the best of my knowledge there are
    >> gpu out there that are much better suited to the purpose.
    >>
    >> -P.
    >>
    >> --
    >> =========================================
    >> firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com

    >
    > The OP said that it now has "onboard hardware" which in the context of
    > video capture cards usually means hardware MPEG encoder. That doesn't
    > stack up with his CPU issue at all!
    >

    Sure
    PVRs with tv cards with onboard encoders don't usually require that much
    power.
    Some PVR packages are deceptively ambiguous about whether they have a
    hardware or software encoder though.
     
    sam, Jul 23, 2007
    #7
  8. XPD

    XPD Guest

    "XPD" <> wrote in message
    news:f80l8d$vee$...
    > Just curious....
    >
    > Years ago I purchased a Lifeview Flyvideo98 TV card for my Pentium 2
    > system (win98, 128mb) to watch TV on the PC and record the odd bits from
    > videos/TV.... worked perfectly fine.
    >
    > Now if I want to do the same with a newer TV card which has on-board
    > hardware etc and record some TV shows, I need a 3.0ghz or better CPU - why
    > have the specs gone up so much for doing the same as what my P2 did years
    > ago ???
    >
    > If I want to record anything, I need a CPU thats 10x faster, a TV card
    > thats 2x the price as my old setup.
    >
    > Is there a plain English explanation as to why ? :)
    >
    >
    >


    Thanks for the replies....

    Im looking at getting a decent TV card for my media PC but dont want to if
    its not going to work :(
    The model Im nosing at, is the Hauppauge WinTV-HVR4000 HD Quad-mode card.
    My media system is a Athlon 2400+ (2.0ghz)..... but specs say 2.8 CPU min
    :-/ ARGH!!! :)
     
    XPD, Jul 23, 2007
    #8
  9. In article <f820ct$cni$>, says...
    >
    > Thanks for the replies....
    >
    > Im looking at getting a decent TV card for my media PC but dont want to if
    > its not going to work :(
    > The model Im nosing at, is the Hauppauge WinTV-HVR4000 HD Quad-mode card.
    > My media system is a Athlon 2400+ (2.0ghz)..... but specs say 2.8 CPU min
    > :-/ ARGH!!! :)
    >


    Um - long shot. I was interested in that kind of technology a year or two ago,
    thinking about putting my vhs tapes on cd/dvd. One of the best solutions at the
    time seemed the Plextor external rncoder device. I hesitated a bit too long and
    the plextor distributor in NZ shut down. Somebody else has taken up where they
    left off, so maybe that gadget is available again. I believe it had onboard
    encoding and used basically no cpu cycles at all. My memory may betray me
    though. (googles away)

    I think it was this gadget or something very like it:
    http://www.ascent.co.nz/productspecification.aspx?ItemID=347402
    and I was planning to use the vcr as tv tuner in conjunction with it.

    -Peter

    --
    =========================================
    firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
     
    Peter Huebner, Jul 23, 2007
    #9
  10. XPD

    Richard Guest

    XPD wrote:

    > Thanks for the replies....
    >
    > Im looking at getting a decent TV card for my media PC but dont want to if
    > its not going to work :(
    > The model Im nosing at, is the Hauppauge WinTV-HVR4000 HD Quad-mode card.
    > My media system is a Athlon 2400+ (2.0ghz)..... but specs say 2.8 CPU min
    > :-/ ARGH!!! :)


    Should be fine. Remember that they have to allow for HD playback as
    well, which is nothing to do with capturing.
     
    Richard, Jul 23, 2007
    #10
  11. XPD

    curious Guest

    >
    > Thanks for the replies....
    >
    > Im looking at getting a decent TV card for my media PC but dont want to if
    > its not going to work :(
    > The model Im nosing at, is the Hauppauge WinTV-HVR4000 HD Quad-mode card.
    > My media system is a Athlon 2400+ (2.0ghz)..... but specs say 2.8 CPU min
    > :-/ ARGH!!! :)
    >


    I've had a HVR4000 for the last six months or so. Its a decent card, though
    the HVR3000 is probably a better option for this part of the world given we
    dont get any DVB-S2 transmissions. Its also worth noting that the analog
    side of this device lacks the hardware MPEG2 encoder required by most
    software, but the digital side of the device is good.
     
    curious, Jul 23, 2007
    #11
  12. XPD

    curious Guest

    "Peter Huebner" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Um - long shot. I was interested in that kind of technology a year or two
    > ago,
    > thinking about putting my vhs tapes on cd/dvd. One of the best solutions
    > at the
    > time seemed the Plextor external rncoder device. I hesitated a bit too
    > long and
    > the plextor distributor in NZ shut down. Somebody else has taken up where
    > they
    > left off, so maybe that gadget is available again. I believe it had
    > onboard
    > encoding and used basically no cpu cycles at all. My memory may betray me
    > though. (googles away)
    >
    > I think it was this gadget or something very like it:
    > http://www.ascent.co.nz/productspecification.aspx?ItemID=347402
    > and I was planning to use the vcr as tv tuner in conjunction with it.
    >


    Be glad you missed your opportunity to get one of those. I've got one and
    its a piece of crap. Sounds much better on paper than it is in reality.
     
    curious, Jul 23, 2007
    #12
  13. In article <Op7pi.20536$>,
    says...
    >
    > Be glad you missed your opportunity to get one of those. I've got one and
    > its a piece of crap. Sounds much better on paper than it is in reality.
    >


    Oh dear .... well thanks for the info :) Looks like I lucked out for once.

    -P.

    --
    =========================================
    firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com
     
    Peter Huebner, Jul 24, 2007
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Video cards and TV Capture cards

    , Jan 31, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    825
    jda^fx
    Jan 31, 2004
  2. kirk lives!

    Pentium CPU vs Intel Celeron CPU and the Wireless Mouse

    kirk lives!, May 2, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    749
    SgtMinor
    May 2, 2004
  3. Mulperi
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    649
  4. Mulperi
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    622
    Mulperi
    Sep 2, 2003
  5. dimon
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    747
    dimon
    Nov 10, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page