Hello list,
I followed the recent messages about the future of VDR with great interest . I would like to share my recent experiences about HDTV. As I consider myself to be open for "new technologies" like HDTV is now, I recently bought an HDTV receiver. It doesn't matter who produced it, I think my hardware is an average HDTV setup for 2007: a DVB-S2, MPEG4, H264 compatible receiver with a 1368x768 LCD display. My first impressions are: yes, it looks better, than SDTV. Some say the difference is comparable with the B/W - color one, well, I don't think so. I don't see any reason to watch a news or a serial in HDTV. I think HDTV would be fine for a couple of premium channels/package, for ex. a movie and a sport channel, and the rest should remain in SD. Considering the huge technical investment (20Mbit/sec/channel, high speed dedicated MPEG4 decoders, which consumes a lot of energy, HDready displays, etc), I'm not sure it worths to watch a wheater report in HD. Compared to a well encoded 16:9 SDTV channel (for ex. ZDF), an HDTV picture does not take my breath away. And one more thing, as I tested this brand new receiver: things that for us, VDR users, are usual for several years, are selled as brand new innovative features for a 2007 model set-top-box, and a lot of common VDR features are unknown for these receivers. Shortly: VDR is the best satellite receiver in 2007 :) What I want to say with this long story: I'm not sure if we (meaning the users) should push Klaus to the HD, or just wait him to finalize current tasks, and when time comes (and when there will be suitable HW), I'm sure we will have HD-VDR. Remember: HDTV is not a new era, as manufacturers try to sell us. It just looks a LITTLE better.
István
On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 01:56:10PM +0200, Füley István wrote:
Hello list,
I followed the recent messages about the future of VDR with great interest . I would like to share my recent experiences about HDTV. As I consider myself to be open for "new technologies" like HDTV is now, I recently bought an HDTV receiver. It doesn't matter who produced it, I think my hardware is an average HDTV setup for 2007: a DVB-S2, MPEG4, H264 compatible receiver with a 1368x768 LCD display.
Oops, that's really not so good... one can't comment about HDTV with a resolution which is not full HDTV : 1920x1080...
My first impressions are: yes, it looks better, than SDTV. Some say the difference is comparable with the B/W - color one, well, I don't think so. I don't see any reason to watch a news or a serial in HDTV. I think HDTV would be fine for a couple of premium channels/package, for ex. a movie and a sport channel, and the rest should remain in SD. Considering the huge technical investment (20Mbit/sec/channel, high speed dedicated MPEG4 decoders, which consumes a lot of energy, HDready displays, etc), I'm not sure it worths to watch a wheater report in HD. Compared to a well encoded 16:9 SDTV channel (for ex. ZDF), an HDTV picture does not take my breath away.
Give a try to a REAL hdtv and recomment again ;-) HDready displays are only crap from what I had see, one really need a Full HD or there is no "good" reason at all to switch.
Oops, that's really not so good... one can't comment about HDTV with a resolution which is not full HDTV : 1920x1080...
Ok, this means that my setup is a low-end instead of being "average" as I stated before, therefore my considerations about HDTV was totally wrong.
But to buy a 1000+ Euro TV set? That's another reason for me to stay SD.
On Thu, Nov 22, 2007 at 03:08:22PM +0200, Füley István wrote:
Ok, this means that my setup is a low-end instead of being "average" as I stated before, therefore my considerations about HDTV was totally wrong.
AFAIK HDready are going to disapear...
But to buy a 1000+ Euro TV set? That's another reason for me to stay SD.
First you could try it on a computer monitor : tremendous !!!
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, Gregoire Favre wrote:
First you could try it on a computer monitor : tremendous !!!
Yes, I did it once, about two years ago, on a 24" CRT monitor I tried Euro1080, or something like this, it was DVB-S, MPEG2, but unfortunately my CPU has not enough power to decode it flawlessy.
To be clear: I did not say, that we don't need HD at all. I just said, that normal TV stations should stay in SD, and only a couple of premium (PPV, etc) channels should go HD. But the situation is more clear: not me is gonna be who decide the future of television but the market :)
On Nov 22, 2007 7:30 AM, Füley István aironet@tigercomp.ro wrote:
To be clear: I did not say, that we don't need HD at all. I just said, that normal TV stations should stay in SD, and only a couple of premium (PPV, etc) channels should go HD. But the situation is more clear: not me is gonna be who decide the future of television but the market :)
If HD is no better or not real increase in quality then why switch from SD at all? If it's not any better then how have these providers, hardware makers, etc. all tricked soooo many people into believing HD -IS- better quality? Maybe it's simply because it is and all the user needs as proof is his own two eyes. Like it or not HDTV is here to stay, and it's taking over. H264 is here to stay. Change is nothing to be scared of, especially when it's for the better. The only thing scary about it is being left behind and wishing you would have done something about it sooner.
Btw, do you still prefer music on cassette tape? ;) (just kidding)
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007, VDR User wrote:
Btw, do you still prefer music on cassette tape? ;) (just kidding)
No, I never liked casette tapes. But I prefer LPs instead of CDs...
VDR User wrote:
On Nov 22, 2007 7:30 AM, Füley István aironet@tigercomp.ro wrote:
To be clear: I did not say, that we don't need HD at all. I just said, that normal TV stations should stay in SD, and only a couple of premium (PPV, etc) channels should go HD. But the situation is more clear: not me is gonna be who decide the future of television but the market :)
If HD is no better or not real increase in quality then why switch from SD at all? If it's not any better then how have these providers, hardware makers, etc. all tricked soooo many people into believing HD -IS- better quality? Maybe it's simply because it is and all the user needs as proof is his own two eyes. Like it or not HDTV is here to stay, and it's taking over. H264 is here to stay. Change is nothing to be scared of, especially when it's for the better. The only thing scary about it is being left behind and wishing you would have done something about it sooner.
Btw, do you still prefer music on cassette tape? ;) (just kidding)
I certainly prefer listening to music on dmm 180g vinyl to a poorly mastered compact disc, and I've never seen a cheap CRT look anywhere near as bad as some LCDs I've seen over the years..
Shops in Britain kept the CRT and LCD displays apart, so shoppers with a limited short term memory failed to notice the washed-out colour and lack of black in the BULK of lcd TVs sold in the last 5 years. Now there's fortunatly no CRTs to compare with. (I understand the contrast on the latest FullHD tvs can be superb).
I do believe HD for films, concerts & wildlife docs must be amazing to watch, but as it is terrestrial HD in the UK is still two years away, and will require DVB-T2 receivers. At the point when my cards stop receiving a signal I might start worrying about being 'left behind'.
UK Terrestrial HD plans: http://www.ukfree.tv/fullstory.php?storyid=1107051325 SD bitrates to be reduced, 3 HD channels for 9 hours a day, more people without a proper signal. Progress! and a few billion pounds in OFCOM's coffers. (To be paid off by people replacing their IDTVs and set top boxes on redundancy..)
Beside all that, I do believe VDR needs to integrate H264 & HD recording, along with support built-in for multiple frontends. Hopefully I can lend a hand with the coding (in about 6 years).
Alasdair Campbell ragawu@gmail.com writes:
Beside all that, I do believe VDR needs to integrate H264 & HD recording, along with support built-in for multiple frontends. Hopefully I can lend a hand with the coding (in about 6 years).
I'd be happy to do some clean C++ programming (I've haven't done C/C++ for YEARS). But I don't know where to start.
Do you think it would be achievable without breaking everything, or would it need to nearly start from scratch ? (so it would be modular enough to smartly handle every needs)
For a start, I would be happy to know if it is something feasible for vdr 1.5. (and how the difficulty would be)
syrius.ml@no-log.org wrote:
Alasdair Campbell ragawu@gmail.com writes:
Beside all that, I do believe VDR needs to integrate H264 & HD recording, along with support built-in for multiple frontends. Hopefully I can lend a hand with the coding (in about 6 years).
I'd be happy to do some clean C++ programming (I've haven't done C/C++ for YEARS). But I don't know where to start.
Do you think it would be achievable without breaking everything, or would it need to nearly start from scratch ? (so it would be modular enough to smartly handle every needs)
Well, quite big changes would have to made.
A network interface should be added between backend/frontend, so that a VDR client could connect into a VDR server, and use its data directly (caching implemented where desired), i.e. for EPG, recordings, timers, etc. Quite a bit of work would be needed for that separation.
This is further complicated by the need of having to use DVB cards which are located in hosts running separate VDR instances, possibly requiring defining one VDR instance as a master backend server, which handles allocating the devices on different hosts, etc.
For a start, I would be happy to know if it is something feasible for vdr 1.5. (and how the difficulty would be)
On Nov 22, 2007 11:46 AM, Alasdair Campbell ragawu@gmail.com wrote:
At the point when my cards stop receiving a signal I might start worrying about being 'left behind'.
Just curious... Why did you buy a dvb card? Antennas work just fine and are less expensive.
VDR User kirjoitti:
On Nov 22, 2007 11:46 AM, Alasdair Campbell ragawu@gmail.com wrote:
At the point when my cards stop receiving a signal I might start worrying about being 'left behind'.
Just curious... Why did you buy a dvb card? Antennas work just fine and are less expensive.
Hmm, antennas are used to receive the signal to be fed to dvb card :) Atleast here in Finland.
Füley István wrote:
Oops, that's really not so good... one can't comment about HDTV with a resolution which is not full HDTV : 1920x1080...
Ok, this means that my setup is a low-end instead of being "average" as I stated before, therefore my considerations about HDTV was totally wrong.
But to buy a 1000+ Euro TV set? That's another reason for me to stay SD.
Not really, FullHD also means large, minimum 42", it is quite senseless to to watch good picture on a postcard, so you start at €1500
Lauri Tischler wrote:
Füley István wrote:
Oops, that's really not so good... one can't comment about HDTV with a resolution which is not full HDTV : 1920x1080...
Ok, this means that my setup is a low-end instead of being "average" as I stated before, therefore my considerations about HDTV was totally wrong.
But to buy a 1000+ Euro TV set? That's another reason for me to stay SD.
Not really, FullHD also means large, minimum 42", it is quite senseless to to watch good picture on a postcard, so you start at €1500
You forgot to add the €20,000 building an extension to your house, if you don't want your living room to be dominated by a 42" diagonal piece of plastic.
Alasdair Campbell wrote:
Lauri Tischler wrote:
Füley István wrote:
Oops, that's really not so good... one can't comment about HDTV with a resolution which is not full HDTV : 1920x1080...
Ok, this means that my setup is a low-end instead of being "average" as I stated before, therefore my considerations about HDTV was totally wrong.
But to buy a 1000+ Euro TV set? That's another reason for me to stay SD.
Not really, FullHD also means large, minimum 42", it is quite senseless to to watch good picture on a postcard, so you start at €1500
You forgot to add the €20,000 building an extension to your house, if you don't want your living room to be dominated by a 42" diagonal piece of plastic.
Thats peanuts, considering you spend the same amount for cables alone http://www.pearcable.com/sub_products_anjou_sc.htm
Le jeudi 22 novembre 2007 à 17:41 +0200, Lauri Tischler a écrit :
But to buy a 1000+ Euro TV set? That's another reason for me to stay SD.
Not really, FullHD also means large, minimum 42", it is quite senseless to to watch good picture on a postcard, so you start at €1500
Has anyone tried VGA out at 1600x1050 on a FullHD (Sony Bravia for example)? If so what does it look like.
You forgot to add the €20,000 building an extension to your house, if you don't want your living room to be dominated by a 42" diagonal piece of plastic.
Lucky me my living room is huge!
Tony
Tony Grant kirjoitti:
You forgot to add the €20,000 building an extension to your house, if you don't want your living room to be dominated by a 42" diagonal piece of plastic.
Lucky me my living room is huge!
You really do not need a huge living room for 42". I've got a 52" (not HD) for a few years now and you could say my living room is actually tiny (3,5x4 meters about). In the old days (4:3 time) it was said that proper watching distance was about 5 times the diagonal of the tv screen. Now with 16:9 I've read that the correct distance should be 4 to 6 times the HIGHT of the screen. With a 42" it is between 2,1 and 3,15 meters.
\Kartsa
Hi
Tony Grant wrote:
Has anyone tried VGA out at 1600x1050 on a FullHD (Sony Bravia for example)? If so what does it look like.
I've used a PC connected to a 40" Bravia via DVI and it was pretty damn good. If you sat far enough away you could use it comfortably as a monitor. Up close and the contrast on text would probably melt your retinas ;)
Cheers,
Le jeudi 29 novembre 2007 à 17:05 +0000, Chris Jones a écrit :
Has anyone tried VGA out at 1600x1050 on a FullHD (Sony Bravia for example)? If so what does it look like.
I've used a PC connected to a 40" Bravia via DVI and it was pretty damn good. If you sat far enough away you could use it comfortably as a monitor. Up close and the contrast on text would probably melt your retinas ;)
Thanks. What redolutions did you try?
Tony
Lauri Tischler wrote:
Alasdair Campbell wrote:
Lauri Tischler wrote:
Not really, FullHD also means large, minimum 42", it is quite senseless to to watch good picture on a postcard, so you start at €1500
You forgot to add the €20,000 building an extension to your house, if you don't want your living room to be dominated by a 42" diagonal piece of plastic.
Thats peanuts, considering you spend the same amount for cables alone http://www.pearcable.com/sub_products_anjou_sc.htm
'Made in the U.S.A. for superior quality' - Don't matter where you make it, it better be good quality at $500 a foot.
"Highly recommended" - Dave Clark
"In extended listening sessions, I found the cables' greatest strength to be its PRAT. Simply put these are very danceable cables. Music playing through them results in the proverbial foot-tapping scene with the need or desire to get up and move." - Dave Clark
What the fudd is he talking about? PRAT? Danceable? Ain't that the musician's responsibility?
I wonder what sort of cable the engineer was using when he mixed the album. Someone explain to me how these cables are more 'honest' than the rest.
"Okay so the Anjous are rather pricey at $2750 for a meter pair, but they are impeccably built, sound quite nice, and should keep you happy for a quite a while."
Sound quite nice AND well built? Where's my credit card..? Will I ever be happy with my speaker cables? Do I want to be happy?!?
-
Alasdair Campbell -
Anssi Hannula -
Chris Jones -
Füley István -
Gregoire Favre -
JJussi -
Kartsa -
Lauri Tischler -
syrius.ml＠no-log.org -
Tony Grant -
VDR User