TV to hard disk recording - Part 3

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lodi, Jan 29, 2012.

  1. Lodi

    Lodi Guest

    In case anyone is remotely interested :)

    I started a thread in November 2011 asking how to record the output from my
    Sky TV Box onto my computer. Basically I wanted a glorified video recorder
    that would record rugby games off the Rugby channel. But instead of ending
    up with a pile of video cassettes stored in a box I'd end up with a whole
    lot of avi's stored on a terabyte hard drive.

    Have recorded a few games now and can say it's pretty straight-forward and
    relatively inexpensive to set up.

    The only non-standard hardware I needed was a capture card (PVR-150 $25 off
    TradeMe) and a ten metre composite video cable ($15 off TradeMe).

    I'm using a moderately spec-ed box (AMD 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4800+, 4GB
    RAM, 320GB SATA drive, PCI-E video card) but apparently the PVR-150 does all
    the hard capturing work on-board.

    I'm running Ubuntu 11.10 with KDE. The only non-standard software I needed
    was ivtv-utils, which switches between the input sources on the PVR-150
    (Tuner/S-Video/Composite). "sudo apt-get install ivtv-utils" no quotes

    The only other software needed is VLC (for recording) and Avidemux (for re-
    encoding the mpg to avi)

    Basically you...
    a) connect the composite outputs on the back of the Sky box (yellow for
    video, red and white for audio)
    b) plug the other ends into the PVR-150 (which Ubuntu 11.10 recognises out
    of the box)
    c) open a terminal and select the composite input on the PVR-150 using
    "v4l2-ctl -i 2" no quotes
    d) VLC/View/AdvancedControls (to display the record button)
    e) VLC/Media/OpenCaptureDevice/CaptureMode-PVR/Play/Record (to start
    recording)

    Sit back and watch the game on TV. You end up with a 4 to 5 GB mpg file per
    rugby game, depending on the number of scrum collapses.

    Then just re-encode to an avi by using avidemux. A reasonable bitrate of
    1500kB/s will give an output file of 1.2 GB. Re-encoding takes about two
    hours.

    Very easy.

    Thanks to Stephen for the original recommendation of the PVR-150 :)

    Lodi
     
    Lodi, Jan 29, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lodi

    Gordon Guest

    On 2012-01-29, Lodi <> wrote:
    >
    >
    > In case anyone is remotely interested :)
    >
    > I started a thread in November 2011 asking how to record the output from my
    > Sky TV Box onto my computer. Basically I wanted a glorified video recorder
    > that would record rugby games off the Rugby channel. But instead of ending
    > up with a pile of video cassettes stored in a box I'd end up with a whole
    > lot of avi's stored on a terabyte hard drive.


    [snip]
    >
    > Sit back and watch the game on TV. You end up with a 4 to 5 GB mpg file per
    > rugby game, depending on the number of scrum collapses.
    >
    > Then just re-encode to an avi by using avidemux. A reasonable bitrate of
    > 1500kB/s will give an output file of 1.2 GB. Re-encoding takes about two
    > hours.


    Why go avi as opposed to mpg4? Handbrake allows one to set the size of
    output file. Anyhow it works for you so what the heck. ;-)
     
    Gordon, Jan 29, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:44:49 +1300, Lodi <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >In case anyone is remotely interested :)
    >
    >I started a thread in November 2011 asking how to record the output from my
    >Sky TV Box onto my computer. Basically I wanted a glorified video recorder
    >that would record rugby games off the Rugby channel. But instead of ending
    >up with a pile of video cassettes stored in a box I'd end up with a whole
    >lot of avi's stored on a terabyte hard drive.
    >
    >Have recorded a few games now and can say it's pretty straight-forward and
    >relatively inexpensive to set up.
    >
    >The only non-standard hardware I needed was a capture card (PVR-150 $25 off
    >TradeMe) and a ten metre composite video cable ($15 off TradeMe).
    >
    >I'm using a moderately spec-ed box (AMD 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4800+, 4GB
    >RAM, 320GB SATA drive, PCI-E video card) but apparently the PVR-150 does all
    >the hard capturing work on-board.
    >
    >I'm running Ubuntu 11.10 with KDE. The only non-standard software I needed
    >was ivtv-utils, which switches between the input sources on the PVR-150
    >(Tuner/S-Video/Composite). "sudo apt-get install ivtv-utils" no quotes
    >
    >The only other software needed is VLC (for recording) and Avidemux (for re-
    >encoding the mpg to avi)
    >
    >Basically you...
    >a) connect the composite outputs on the back of the Sky box (yellow for
    >video, red and white for audio)
    >b) plug the other ends into the PVR-150 (which Ubuntu 11.10 recognises out
    >of the box)
    >c) open a terminal and select the composite input on the PVR-150 using
    >"v4l2-ctl -i 2" no quotes
    >d) VLC/View/AdvancedControls (to display the record button)
    >e) VLC/Media/OpenCaptureDevice/CaptureMode-PVR/Play/Record (to start
    >recording)
    >
    >Sit back and watch the game on TV. You end up with a 4 to 5 GB mpg file per
    >rugby game, depending on the number of scrum collapses.
    >
    >Then just re-encode to an avi by using avidemux. A reasonable bitrate of
    >1500kB/s will give an output file of 1.2 GB. Re-encoding takes about two
    >hours.
    >
    >Very easy.
    >
    >Thanks to Stephen for the original recommendation of the PVR-150 :)
    >
    >Lodi
    >




    Using such a Long ten metre composite video cable can cause
    Croma/Luminance sync problems..

    Due to the very different Data rates, does not show up on a short
    cable..
     
    Frank Williams, Jan 29, 2012
    #3
  4. Lodi

    Lodi Guest

    > Frank Williams wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > Using such a Long ten metre composite video cable can cause
    > Croma/Luminance sync problems..
    >
    > Due to the very different Data rates, does not show up on a short
    > cable..



    Basically I'm using a ten metre cable cos the computer is on one side of the
    room and the Sky box is on the other side.

    Chroma/Luminance isn't a consideration. As long as I can tell the good guys
    from the bad guys I'm happy.

    To be honest, the primary I/O devices aren't that good anyway....the telly
    is fifteen years old and my eyes aren't getting any younger

    :)

    Lodi
     
    Lodi, Jan 29, 2012
    #4
  5. Lodi

    Lodi Guest

    > Gordon wrote:
    >
    > Why go avi as opposed to mpg4? Handbrake allows one to set the size of
    > output file. Anyhow it works for you so what the heck. ;-)



    I re-encode to xvid, which is mpg4. I just call it avi cos of the file
    extension.

    Avidemux can output by file size as well but I prefer by average bitrate.
    2-pass @ 1500kB/s is my go to setting. It's always worked for me.

    Haven't really needed to use Handbrake. I've used avidemux for years and
    know my way around it.

    Lodi
     
    Lodi, Jan 29, 2012
    #5
  6. Lodi

    nospam Guest

    On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 21:20:42 +1300, Frank Williams
    <> wrote:

    [snip a large amount of quoted text]

    >
    >Using such a Long ten metre composite video cable can cause
    >Croma/Luminance sync problems..
    >
    >Due to the very different Data rates, does not show up on a short
    >cable..


    Have you ever thought of trimming the text that you quote so that it
    isn't necessary to scroll down for half an hour to find the one or two
    lines of comment that you make?
     
    nospam, Jan 29, 2012
    #6
  7. On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:01:53 +1300, nospam <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 21:20:42 +1300, Frank Williams
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >[snip a large amount of quoted text]
    >
    >>
    >>Using such a Long ten metre composite video cable can cause
    >>Croma/Luminance sync problems..
    >>
    >>Due to the very different Data rates, does not show up on a short
    >>cable..

    >
    >Have you ever thought of trimming the text that you quote so that it
    >isn't necessary to scroll down for half an hour to find the one or two
    >lines of comment that you make?



    To me it would be nice if you posted something usefully.

    Go check on other posts here a good 90% of them do not trim there
    replies so why pick on me.
     
    Frank Williams, Jan 29, 2012
    #7
  8. In article <>, nospam <> wrote:
    >On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 21:20:42 +1300, Frank Williams
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >[snip a large amount of quoted text]
    >
    >>
    >>Using such a Long ten metre composite video cable can cause
    >>Croma/Luminance sync problems..
    >>
    >>Due to the very different Data rates, does not show up on a short
    >>cable..

    >
    >Have you ever thought of trimming the text that you quote so that it
    >isn't necessary to scroll down for half an hour to find the one or two
    >lines of comment that you make?


    It's roger, so no ? :)
     
    Bruce Sinclair, Jan 30, 2012
    #8
  9. On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 22:15:09 +1300, Lodi <> wrote:

    >> Gordon wrote:
    >>
    >> Why go avi as opposed to mpg4? Handbrake allows one to set the size of
    >> output file. Anyhow it works for you so what the heck. ;-)

    >
    >
    >I re-encode to xvid, which is mpg4. I just call it avi cos of the file
    >extension.
    >
    >Avidemux can output by file size as well but I prefer by average bitrate.
    >2-pass @ 1500kB/s is my go to setting. It's always worked for me.
    >
    >Haven't really needed to use Handbrake. I've used avidemux for years and
    >know my way around it.
    >
    >Lodi


    There is MPEG4 Part xx and MPEG4 Part yy (I can never remember the
    Part xx and yy numbers). The older Part xx is Xvid/DivX .avi files.
    The newer Part yy is H.264 .mp4/.m4v files. H.264 is rather
    significantly superior to the older Xvid/DivX - better quality in
    fewer bytes. So when converting anything now, the best format to
    convert to is H.264. You get a shorter file, or better quality, or
    both, compared to any other generally available format.
     
    Stephen Worthington, Jan 30, 2012
    #9
  10. Lodi

    nospam Guest

    On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:28:21 +1300, Frank Williams
    <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 23:01:53 +1300, nospam <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 21:20:42 +1300, Frank Williams
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>[snip a large amount of quoted text]
    >>
    >>>
    >>>Using such a Long ten metre composite video cable can cause
    >>>Croma/Luminance sync problems..
    >>>
    >>>Due to the very different Data rates, does not show up on a short
    >>>cable..

    >>
    >>Have you ever thought of trimming the text that you quote so that it
    >>isn't necessary to scroll down for half an hour to find the one or two
    >>lines of comment that you make?

    >
    >
    >To me it would be nice if you posted something usefully.
    >
    >Go check on other posts here a good 90% of them do not trim there
    >replies so why pick on me.



    oh, ok. Perhaps it's coz you're one of the more interesting
    posters. :)
     
    nospam, Jan 30, 2012
    #10
  11. Lodi

    Lodi Guest

    > Stephen Worthington wrote:
    >
    > There is MPEG4 Part xx and MPEG4 Part yy (I can never remember the
    > Part xx and yy numbers). The older Part xx is Xvid/DivX .avi files.
    > The newer Part yy is H.264 .mp4/.m4v files. H.264 is rather
    > significantly superior to the older Xvid/DivX - better quality in
    > fewer bytes. So when converting anything now, the best format to
    > convert to is H.264. You get a shorter file, or better quality, or
    > both, compared to any other generally available format.



    I did not know that :)

    Thanks again. Will look into it

    Lodi
     
    Lodi, Jan 30, 2012
    #11
  12. Lodi

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Somewhere on teh intarwebs Stephen Worthington wrote:
    [snip]
    > There is MPEG4 Part xx and MPEG4 Part yy (I can never remember the
    > Part xx and yy numbers). The older Part xx is Xvid/DivX .avi files.
    > The newer Part yy is H.264 .mp4/.m4v files. H.264 is rather
    > significantly superior to the older Xvid/DivX - better quality in
    > fewer bytes. So when converting anything now, the best format to
    > convert to is H.264. You get a shorter file, or better quality, or
    > both, compared to any other generally available format.


    .... If only my stand-alone USB-enabled Philips DVD player (which is
    connected to my TV) played H.264........
    --
    Shaun.

    "Humans will have advanced a long, long, way when religious belief has a
    cozy little classification in the DSM."
    David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
     
    ~misfit~, Jan 31, 2012
    #12
  13. Lodi

    Gunnar Gren Guest

    2012-01-29 nospam <>:
    >
    > Have you ever thought of trimming the text that you quote so that it
    > isn't necessary to scroll down for half an hour to find the one or two
    > lines of comment that you make?


    Just press TAB.
     
    Gunnar Gren, Feb 2, 2012
    #13
  14. Lodi

    Gunnar Gren Guest

    2012-01-29 Lodi <>:
    >
    > In case anyone is remotely interested :)


    Well.

    >
    > Then just re-encode to an avi by using avidemux. A reasonable bitrate of
    > 1500kB/s will give an output file of 1.2 GB. Re-encoding takes about two
    > hours.


    With this it takes about 10min on my machine;

    mencoder original_video.??? -oac pcm -ovc x264 -x264encopts preset=ultra\
    fast:threads=auto -o output_video.avi
     
    Gunnar Gren, Feb 2, 2012
    #14
  15. Lodi

    nospam Guest

    On 02 Feb 2012 04:41:04 GMT, Gunnar Gren <> wrote:

    >2012-01-29 nospam <>:
    >>
    >> Have you ever thought of trimming the text that you quote so that it
    >> isn't necessary to scroll down for half an hour to find the one or two
    >> lines of comment that you make?

    >
    >Just press TAB.


    Why?
     
    nospam, Feb 2, 2012
    #15
  16. Lodi

    Richard Guest

    On 1/29/2012 9:20 PM, Frank Williams wrote:

    > Using such a Long ten metre composite video cable can cause
    > Croma/Luminance sync problems..
    >
    > Due to the very different Data rates, does not show up on a short
    > cable..


    That myth gets trotted out all the time by people.

    If it really happened, dont you think you would see it in the 10's of km
    that composite signals have flown thru the air to your house? Or the
    dozens of meters of antenna cabling that the same composite signal has
    to ride an RF carrier on when coming from the roof to your tv?

    No, the only thing that happens is that there is some tilt that happens
    because of the cable losses, and that is something that the AGC in the
    comb filter of any composite input made in the last 15-20 years is quite
    capable of taking care of.
     
    Richard, Feb 2, 2012
    #16
  17. On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 00:12:34 +1300, Richard <> wrote:

    >On 1/29/2012 9:20 PM, Frank Williams wrote:
    >
    >> Using such a Long ten metre composite video cable can cause
    >> Croma/Luminance sync problems..
    >>
    >> Due to the very different Data rates, does not show up on a short
    >> cable..

    >
    >That myth gets trotted out all the time by people.




    No a Myth a Fact I was a TV tech for a Number of years and I had this
    problem at home with a TV on the other side of the lounge..

    I don't think you have a clue into what is going on..


    Nothing at all to do with cable losses But DELAY.


    >If it really happened, dont you think you would see it in the 10's of km
    >that composite signals have flown thru the air to your house? Or the
    >dozens of meters of antenna cabling that the same composite signal has
    >to ride an RF carrier on when coming from the roof to your tv?
    >
    >No, the only thing that happens is that there is some tilt that happens
    >because of the cable losses, and that is something that the AGC in the
    >comb filter of any composite input made in the last 15-20 years is quite
    >capable of taking care of.
     
    Frank Williams, Feb 2, 2012
    #17
  18. Lodi

    Lodi Guest

    > Gunnar Gren wrote:

    >>2012-01-29 Lodi <>:
    >>
    >>
    >> Then just re-encode to an avi by using avidemux. A reasonable bitrate of
    >> 1500kB/s will give an output file of 1.2 GB. Re-encoding takes about two
    >> hours.

    >
    > With this it takes about 10min on my machine;
    >
    > mencoder original_video.??? -oac pcm -ovc x264 -x264encopts preset=ultra\
    > fast:threads=auto -o output_video.avi


    Thanks for that.

    Not too keen on a single-pass low quality encode. The only benefit is time
    (your ten minutes as opposed to my two hours). Am happy to let the computer
    chug away in the corner for a couple of hours for a better final product.

    Thanks for pointing me towards mencoder. I prefer command lines to gui. But
    in this instance I've already got the source mpg loaded into avidemux
    (chopping out the ads) so I may as well let avidemux do the encode as well.

    Am trying x264 encoding as opposed to xvid but to be honest I can't see a
    huge quality difference. Suspect that's more my fault than anything else.

    Lodi
     
    Lodi, Feb 4, 2012
    #18
  19. Lodi

    Gordon Guest

    On 2012-02-04, Lodi <> wrote:
    >> Gunnar Gren wrote:

    >
    >>>2012-01-29 Lodi <>:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Then just re-encode to an avi by using avidemux. A reasonable bitrate of
    >>> 1500kB/s will give an output file of 1.2 GB. Re-encoding takes about two
    >>> hours.

    >>
    >> With this it takes about 10min on my machine;
    >>
    >> mencoder original_video.??? -oac pcm -ovc x264 -x264encopts preset=ultra\
    >> fast:threads=auto -o output_video.avi

    >
    > Thanks for that.
    >
    > Not too keen on a single-pass low quality encode. The only benefit is time
    > (your ten minutes as opposed to my two hours). Am happy to let the computer
    > chug away in the corner for a couple of hours for a better final product.


    Indeed, let the machine do the work. Still think of the powr of the modern
    CPU comapred with those of a decade ago.

    >
    > Thanks for pointing me towards mencoder.


    Do women need this? :) I often wonder.


    > I prefer command lines to gui. But
    > in this instance I've already got the source mpg loaded into avidemux
    > (chopping out the ads) so I may as well let avidemux do the encode as well.


    Probably using mencoder ;-)

    >
    > Am trying x264 encoding as opposed to xvid but to be honest I can't see a
    > huge quality difference. Suspect that's more my fault than anything else.
    >

    Were we not talking about file size? as well as the "new and improved"
    encoding?
     
    Gordon, Feb 5, 2012
    #19
    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. gary
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    873
    Walter Mautner
    Oct 28, 2004
  2. Spin
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    815
    Bill in Co.
    Apr 9, 2008
  3. Spin
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    3,098
    Bill in Co.
    Apr 9, 2008
  4. jollyjimpoppy

    Easy part done, now the hard part!!

    jollyjimpoppy, Sep 10, 2003, in forum: A+ Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    469
    jollyjimpoppy
    Sep 10, 2003
  5. Lodi
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,014
Loading...

Share This Page