Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Hauppauge WinTV PVR-250, PVR-350, and SnapStream Beyond TV?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 9:46:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I am trying to setup a PC-based video recorder (kind of a TiVo or
ReplayTV kind of thing in my PC). That will be connected to my DirecTV
decoder box. But I am not sure what should I get. Please help me with
these questions:

Hauppauge WinTV PVR-250 or PVR-350?
-----------------------------------

PC Magazine recommended using the combo of a SnapStream Beyond TV and
a Hauppauge WinTV PVR-350 tuner card ($199+$59). But I see a combo of
Beyond TV and PVR-250 in a very low price ($140) that SnapStream is
offering as a package deal. I am wondering whether I should stick with
the "tried and true" PVR-350 that PC Magazine has tested, or the
PVR-250 that SnapStream is pushing.

According to the specification in Hauppauge web site, the difference
between PVR-250 and PVR-350 are:

Hauppauge WinTV PVR-250 tuner card
- Hardware encoder, but no hardware decoder
- WinTV-Scheduler, but no TitanTV
- No FM radio receiver
(It is around $150 if not in a package deal)

Hauppauge WinTV PVR-350 tuner card
- Hardware encoder, and hardware decoder
- dbx-TV stereo
- WinTV-Scheduler plus TitanTV
- FM radio receiver
(It is around $199)

I have the following questions:
- The hardware decoder in PVR-350 is probably a very good feature.
But I am wondering whether I really need it if my PC is a Pentium-4
1.4 GHz.
- What's TitanTV anyway? Do I need it for scheduling TV recording?
- Why do we need a FM radio receiver in a TV tuner card anyway?
- Does anyone have tried either card? How is it (especially in term
of video quality)?

Do I Really Need SnapStream Beyond TV?
--------------------------------------

The Hauppauge tuner card already comes with a WinTV-Scheduler with or
without TitanTV. Do I need SnapStream Beyond TV any more? What do I
miss if I don't use Beyond TV? Will I miss the TiVo-like user
interface that is supposed to be good? I want the process of
scheduling TV recording easy enough that my wife will be able to use
it. At the same time, I want it to be powerful enough that I can
schedule it to record many different TV programs.

I believe Beyond TV can control DirecTV decoder box (using a serial
cable). Can WinTV-Scheduler control the DirecTV decoder box without
Beyond TV?

PC Remote Control
-----------------

The Hauppauge tuner card already comes with infra-red remote control
transmitter and receiver. But SnapStream Beyond TV is also selling
their PC remote control. I am wondering whether the decision comes
down to this: "If I am going to use SnapStream Beyond TV, I _need_ the
remote control from SnapStream; on the other hand, if I don't use
Beyond TV, I will be fine using the remote control that comes with the
Hauppauge tuner card". Is my understanding correct? What do I miss if
I use SnapStream Beyond TV but not their remote control?

Serial Cable
------------

My DirecTV RCA decoder box is in the list of serial box that Beyond TV
supports. I believe Beyond TV controls it through the use of a serial
cable. But when I look at the back of the DirecTV RCA decoder box, I
don't see the standard 9-pin PC serial port. The only possible port
that I can find is something look like a phone jack that is called
"Low Speed Data Port". Is it the one? Do I need a special cable to
connect my PC to this port? Does the cable-pack from SnapStream the
right one?

Thanks in advance for any info.

Jay Chan
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 2:06:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <c7e5acb2.0404290446.93690ad@posting.google.com>,
jaykchan@hotmail.com says...
> Subject: Hauppauge WinTV PVR-250, PVR-350, and SnapStream Beyond TV?
> From: jaykchan@hotmail.com (Jay Chan)
> Newsgroups: rec.video.desktop
>
> I am trying to setup a PC-based video recorder (kind of a TiVo or
> ReplayTV kind of thing in my PC). That will be connected to my DirecTV
> decoder box. But I am not sure what should I get. Please help me with
> these questions:
>
> Hauppauge WinTV PVR-250 or PVR-350?
> -----------------------------------
>
> PC Magazine recommended using the combo of a SnapStream Beyond TV and
> a Hauppauge WinTV PVR-350 tuner card ($199+$59). But I see a combo of
> Beyond TV and PVR-250 in a very low price ($140) that SnapStream is
> offering as a package deal. I am wondering whether I should stick with
> the "tried and true" PVR-350 that PC Magazine has tested, or the
> PVR-250 that SnapStream is pushing.
>
> According to the specification in Hauppauge web site, the difference
> between PVR-250 and PVR-350 are:
>
> Hauppauge WinTV PVR-250 tuner card
> - Hardware encoder, but no hardware decoder
> - WinTV-Scheduler, but no TitanTV
> - No FM radio receiver
> (It is around $150 if not in a package deal)
>
> Hauppauge WinTV PVR-350 tuner card
> - Hardware encoder, and hardware decoder
> - dbx-TV stereo
> - WinTV-Scheduler plus TitanTV
> - FM radio receiver
> (It is around $199)
>
> I have the following questions:
> - The hardware decoder in PVR-350 is probably a very good feature.
> But I am wondering whether I really need it if my PC is a Pentium-4
> 1.4 GHz.
> - What's TitanTV anyway? Do I need it for scheduling TV recording?
> - Why do we need a FM radio receiver in a TV tuner card anyway?
> - Does anyone have tried either card? How is it (especially in term
> of video quality)?
>
> Do I Really Need SnapStream Beyond TV?
>

According to Snapstream, the PVR-350's decoder is not supported,
therefore if you buy the combo it will be the same as buying the 250
combo. You will not be able to play back to a TV through the PVR card.
I'm running my PVR-350 with the lastest included software on a Duron
1.6/256mb under XP pro and it works great. Even with copying 4 GB files
over the network or running 4 or 5 users on the FTP server on the same
machine while recording it does not choke. I don't know why they all
come with FM receivers but I think it must just be an easy add on to a
TV tuner so they include it. Runing my 350 in Long play mode which gets
you almost 2 hours on a DVD, and using the S-Video output of my satelite
receiver, the quality is actually better than what I see on the TV when
I'm watching the program live through the RF out on the satelite
receiver (my TV doesn't have S-Video in). I play back the recording to
the TV through a composite connection and still that is visibly superior
to the RF original.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 2:10:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Chris Phillipo wrote:

> In article <c7e5acb2.0404290446.93690ad@posting.google.com>,
> jaykchan@hotmail.com says...
> > Subject: Hauppauge WinTV PVR-250, PVR-350, and SnapStream Beyond TV?
> > From: jaykchan@hotmail.com (Jay Chan)
> > Newsgroups: rec.video.desktop
> >
> > I am trying to setup a PC-based video recorder (kind of a TiVo or
> > ReplayTV kind of thing in my PC). That will be connected to my DirecTV
> > decoder box. But I am not sure what should I get. Please help me with
> > these questions:
> >
> > Hauppauge WinTV PVR-250 or PVR-350?
> > -----------------------------------
> >
> > PC Magazine recommended using the combo of a SnapStream Beyond TV and
> > a Hauppauge WinTV PVR-350 tuner card ($199+$59). But I see a combo of
> > Beyond TV and PVR-250 in a very low price ($140) that SnapStream is
> > offering as a package deal. I am wondering whether I should stick with
> > the "tried and true" PVR-350 that PC Magazine has tested, or the
> > PVR-250 that SnapStream is pushing.
> >
> > According to the specification in Hauppauge web site, the difference
> > between PVR-250 and PVR-350 are:
> >
> > Hauppauge WinTV PVR-250 tuner card
> > - Hardware encoder, but no hardware decoder
> > - WinTV-Scheduler, but no TitanTV
> > - No FM radio receiver
> > (It is around $150 if not in a package deal)
> >
> > Hauppauge WinTV PVR-350 tuner card
> > - Hardware encoder, and hardware decoder
> > - dbx-TV stereo
> > - WinTV-Scheduler plus TitanTV
> > - FM radio receiver
> > (It is around $199)
> >
> > I have the following questions:
> > - The hardware decoder in PVR-350 is probably a very good feature.
> > But I am wondering whether I really need it if my PC is a Pentium-4
> > 1.4 GHz.
> > - What's TitanTV anyway? Do I need it for scheduling TV recording?
> > - Why do we need a FM radio receiver in a TV tuner card anyway?
> > - Does anyone have tried either card? How is it (especially in term
> > of video quality)?
> >
> > Do I Really Need SnapStream Beyond TV?
> >
>
> According to Snapstream, the PVR-350's decoder is not supported,
> therefore if you buy the combo it will be the same as buying the 250
> combo. You will not be able to play back to a TV through the PVR card.
> I'm running my PVR-350 with the lastest included software on a Duron
> 1.6/256mb under XP pro and it works great. Even with copying 4 GB files
> over the network or running 4 or 5 users on the FTP server on the same
> machine while recording it does not choke. I don't know why they all
> come with FM receivers but I think it must just be an easy add on to a
> TV tuner so they include it. Runing my 350 in Long play mode which gets
> you almost 2 hours on a DVD, and using the S-Video output of my satelite
> receiver, the quality is actually better than what I see on the TV when
> I'm watching the program live through the RF out on the satelite
> receiver (my TV doesn't have S-Video in). I play back the recording to
> the TV through a composite connection and still that is visibly superior
> to the RF original.
> --
> _________________________
> Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
> http://www.ramsays-online.com

I agree with Chris about everything. I use a PVR-250 card.

Using the Beyond TV to schedule recordings. I made a custom profile for
recording : 7 mb/sec bitrate, CBR. Using CBR, there's no audio sync issues
and commercials, can be edited out with single frame accuracy with no (or
extremely minimal) re-encoding using "Mpeg-VCR" from www.womble.com

The playback quality in almost all cases is better than "live" TV. It's just
awesome.

I took a different route than Chris for playback.

The PC I'm doing the recordings on is in my "den" or spare room, and I don't
really want to spend the money for a living room PC. The PC does have TV out
and there's a TV in that room, so if push comes to shove then I can watch in
there but of course I prefer to watch in the living room - who doesn't.

I picked a Hauppauge MediaMVP and connected it via an 802.11g wireless
bridge that's out of the way except for an antenna on a stand on top of the
entertainment center. The MVP was only $99, far less than even the cost of a
new CPU alone. The wireless bridge was another hundred bucks so I'm still
well ahead of the cost of building a PC just for living room playback. The
MVP will stream digital pictures, MP3s (our teenager likes that and I have
to admit I do too), besides the video. Hauppauge publicly announced a couple
of weeks ago that DivX support is being added.

To stream high bit-rate mpeg-2 over a wireless network was really
challenging considering the MVP has very little RAM to use for buffering. To
make it work without an obstructed line-of-sight path between the router and
bridge, I used a Hawking Hi-Gain 15dBi Corner Antenna to get more gain on
the router end and to bounce the signal off a wall and out the door of the
back room and that worked like a charm.

Anyway, the MVP runs Linux and uses the same mpeg decoder and output chip
that's in the PVR-350 card and the output on the living room TV is just
awesome. I've never seen Futurama or Simpsons look better.

Here's some links :

http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?produc...
(antenna)

http://www.hauppauge.com/pages/products/data_mediamvp.h... (MVP video
client)

http://www.shspvr.com/forum/ (a very good place to ask for help and discuss
the PVR-250/350 cards and the MediaMVP)

Keith
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 7:25:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> Using the Beyond TV to schedule recordings. I made a custom profile
for
> recording : 7 mb/sec bitrate, CBR. Using CBR, there's no audio sync
issues
> and commercials, can be edited out with single frame accuracy with no
(or
> extremely minimal) re-encoding using "Mpeg-VCR" from www.womble.com
>
> The playback quality in almost all cases is better than "live" TV.
It's just
> awesome.

Now Keith, I understand your enthusiasm but there's _no_ way a lossy
compressed version of _anything_ is going to be _better_ than the
original. It may be "as good" or, to the untrained eye,
"indistinguishable" from the original but it can never be better. It's
just not physically possible.
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 7:25:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Morrmar wrote:

> > Using the Beyond TV to schedule recordings. I made a custom profile
> for
> > recording : 7 mb/sec bitrate, CBR. Using CBR, there's no audio sync
> issues
> > and commercials, can be edited out with single frame accuracy with no
> (or
> > extremely minimal) re-encoding using "Mpeg-VCR" from www.womble.com
> >
> > The playback quality in almost all cases is better than "live" TV.
> It's just
> > awesome.
>
> Now Keith, I understand your enthusiasm but there's _no_ way a lossy
> compressed version of _anything_ is going to be _better_ than the
> original. It may be "as good" or, to the untrained eye,
> "indistinguishable" from the original but it can never be better. It's
> just not physically possible.

Obviously you haven't seen it.
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 8:53:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> > Now Keith, I understand your enthusiasm but there's _no_ way a lossy
> > compressed version of _anything_ is going to be _better_ than the
> > original. It may be "as good" or, to the untrained eye,
> > "indistinguishable" from the original but it can never be better.
It's
> > just not physically possible.
>
> Obviously you haven't seen it.

Don't have to, you can't take something away from the original signal
and have it be better. You obviously don't understand what lossy
compression is and what it does.
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 8:53:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Morrmar wrote:

> > > Now Keith, I understand your enthusiasm but there's _no_ way a lossy
> > > compressed version of _anything_ is going to be _better_ than the
> > > original. It may be "as good" or, to the untrained eye,
> > > "indistinguishable" from the original but it can never be better.
> It's
> > > just not physically possible.
> >
> > Obviously you haven't seen it.
>
> Don't have to, you can't take something away from the original signal
> and have it be better. You obviously don't understand what lossy
> compression is and what it does.

Look, being confrontational can calling people ignorant and stupid solves
nothing.

Are you willing to listen, or am I going to have to kill-file you?

To have a meaningful discussion about picture quality, yes, you do need to
see the picture. Otherwise you don;t know what we're talking about and your
ignorance only causes you to make uninformed statements that aren't based on
objective facts such as : the picture quality being discussed.

#1 - broadcast TV is NOT uncompressed, it's already mpeg 2, processed with
Grass Valley boxes in the case of the major networks.

#2 - because analog TV pictures are transmitted via amplitude modulation,
they always contain noise

#3 - what you see on your TV is NOT the "original signal" it's the original
signal with noise riding on it.

I agree with you that using compression removes data. In this case, the
compression appears to be removing noise.

The resulting pictures played back on analog TVs by the PVR-250 and MediaMVP
are crystal clear, sharp, and virtually noiseless.

So because the recordings appear free of noise - they look better than a
live signal. Perhaps not from a technical perspective where every aspect of
the picture has some metric, but purely from an aesthetic point of view, the
end picture is a lot more pleasant.

Got it now?

Like I said, you have to see it to understand where we're coming from.

~Keith
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 9:30:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <%Ackc.57758$Uz1.35227@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
morrmar@myway.com-no says...
>
> > Using the Beyond TV to schedule recordings. I made a custom profile
> for
> > recording : 7 mb/sec bitrate, CBR. Using CBR, there's no audio sync
> issues
> > and commercials, can be edited out with single frame accuracy with no
> (or
> > extremely minimal) re-encoding using "Mpeg-VCR" from www.womble.com
> >
> > The playback quality in almost all cases is better than "live" TV.
> It's just
> > awesome.
>
> Now Keith, I understand your enthusiasm but there's _no_ way a lossy
> compressed version of _anything_ is going to be _better_ than the
> original. It may be "as good" or, to the untrained eye,
> "indistinguishable" from the original but it can never be better. It's
> just not physically possible.
>
>
>
Filters.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 9:30:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Chris Phillipo wrote:

> In article <%Ackc.57758$Uz1.35227@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
> morrmar@myway.com-no says...
> >
> > > Using the Beyond TV to schedule recordings. I made a custom profile
> > for
> > > recording : 7 mb/sec bitrate, CBR. Using CBR, there's no audio sync
> > issues
> > > and commercials, can be edited out with single frame accuracy with no
> > (or
> > > extremely minimal) re-encoding using "Mpeg-VCR" from www.womble.com
> > >
> > > The playback quality in almost all cases is better than "live" TV.
> > It's just
> > > awesome.
> >
> > Now Keith, I understand your enthusiasm but there's _no_ way a lossy
> > compressed version of _anything_ is going to be _better_ than the
> > original. It may be "as good" or, to the untrained eye,
> > "indistinguishable" from the original but it can never be better. It's
> > just not physically possible.
> >
> >
> >
> Filters.
> --
> _________________________
> Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
> http://www.ramsays-online.com

Yep! Agreed.
Anonymous
April 29, 2004 10:29:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> >
> > Don't have to, you can't take something away from the original
signal
> > and have it be better. You obviously don't understand what lossy
> > compression is and what it does.
>
> Look, being confrontational can calling people ignorant and stupid
solves
> nothing.

And just where did I do that?

> Are you willing to listen, or am I going to have to kill-file you?

KF me or not, it makes no difference to me. And I'll listen all you want
but until you can demonstrate with _facts_, not your subjective opinion,
that _any_ card, mpeg or not, inside an electrically noisy PC is going
to make a signal _better_, I'll remain unconvinced.

> To have a meaningful discussion about picture quality, yes, you do
need to
> see the picture. Otherwise you don;t know what we're talking about and
your
> ignorance only causes you to make uninformed statements that aren't
based on
> objective facts such as : the picture quality being discussed.

I don't have to see any lossy compressed anything to _know_ that it is
_not_ better than the original signal. You can't take something away
from something and make it _better_ than the original. It may _appear_
better to you but that doesn't mean it actually is.

> #1 - broadcast TV is NOT uncompressed, it's already mpeg 2, processed
with
> Grass Valley boxes in the case of the major networks.

So lossy compressing it _again_ makes it better?

> #2 - because analog TV pictures are transmitted via amplitude
modulation,
> they always contain noise

So this card removes the noise produced by this process?

> #3 - what you see on your TV is NOT the "original signal" it's the
original
> signal with noise riding on it.

And? BTW, I've got a C-band sat system so I'm real familiar with first
generation broadcasts.


> I agree with you that using compression removes data. In this case,
the
> compression appears to be removing noise.

Oh, so this inexpensive hardware codec distinguishes between the "clean"
parts of the signal and "noise" and then removes only the noise but
_none_ of the original signal and still manages a typical mpeg
compression ratio? Please post a URL to an objective reference where
this is described.

> The resulting pictures played back on analog TVs by the PVR-250 and
MediaMVP
> are crystal clear, sharp, and virtually noiseless.

Thus they appear "better", to you?

> So because the recordings appear free of noise - they look better than
a
> live signal. Perhaps not from a technical perspective where every
aspect of
> the picture has some metric, but purely from an aesthetic point of
view, the
> end picture is a lot more pleasant.

I think your enthusiasm for a $150 USD capture card clouds your
objectivity. Just because I like to hear music with a lot of bass
doesn't mean that when I crank up the bass control on my receiver, it
makes the original signal "better". I may _think_ it sounds better but
let a professinal recording engineer hear it and he/she will no doubt
cringe, just as I do when I pull up next to a teenger who has a
subwoofer blasting in a car and thinks it's the best sound in the world.


> Got it now?

Sure, you think it looks better, so it _obviously_ is.

> Like I said, you have to see it to understand where we're coming from.

Like so many other discussions on Usenet, this one will not change
anyone's mind. You go on thinking the mpeg'd picture you're viewing is
"better". Meanwhile, I'll _know_ it's not. Unless of course Hauppage has
discovered something that Canopus, Matrox, et. al has somehow missed.
Please post the URL, because if what you say is true, I'm gonna invest
in this company's stock.
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 10:45:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:16:24 -0700, Keith Clark
<clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Obviously you haven't seen it.

Obviously you need to pay a visit to your local eye-doctor :) 

cheers

-martin-

--
filmmaker/DP/editor/filmschool techie
Sydney, Australia

"The world is on the move. Adopt, adapt, survive."
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 10:45:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Martin Heffels wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 13:16:24 -0700, Keith Clark
> <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Obviously you haven't seen it.
>
> Obviously you need to pay a visit to your local eye-doctor :) 
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-
>
>

Obviously you need to get a clue.

See my response to "Morrmar".

Remember this isn't about comparing uncompressed video from a *camera*.

If it were then of course it wouldn't be as good. No shite, Sherlock.

This is about cleaning up a noisy analog TV signal and compressing it.

When you look at live TV and see noise on the picture as you almost
always do, and then you look at your recording which is crystal clear
and noise free, then you say "the recording looks better than live TV"
and you're right, because it's aesthetically more pleasing because now
you don't see the noise.

Like I said, you simply have to see it to appreciate how nice it is.

Look, I don't get paid for saying this. If the recordings weren't as
good or better than live TV I'd have taken the stuff back a long time
ago.

By the way, I just had an eye exam, and my eyes are 20/20.

~Keith
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 1:40:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I assume Chris's message was posted in a different message thread, and
you have posted it here for my convenience (I said this because I
cannot see Chris's message in this thread). Thanks.

Thanks for pointing out that Beyond-TV doesn't use the hardware
decoder in PVR-350. Seem like I may be better off using the combo that
has PVR-250 and Beyond-TV.

> I agree with Chris about everything. I use a PVR-250 card.

Glad to hear that you have a good result with PVR-250 card. I feel
more confident in getting the combo that has PVR-250.

> I picked a Hauppauge MediaMVP and connected it via an 802.11g wireless
> bridge that's out of the way except for an antenna on a stand on top of the
> entertainment center. The MVP was only $99, far less than even the cost of a
> new CPU alone.

This is exactly what I intend to do next after I have got the PC-DVR
thing in place. Glad to hear that Hauppauge MediaMVP is cheap and
good. Then, I can save the time in researching on which
network-media-player to get.

I likely will stick with using wired network connection instead of
wireless. I think if you need the special antenna to overcome the
distance between one room and another room in the same floor, I would
have even more problem if I chose wireless because my TVs are spreaded
in three different floors. Still, I am glad to hear that the wireless
solution works great for you.

> http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?
>product_code=50347351&pfp=cat3
> (antenna)
>
> http://www.hauppauge.com/pages/products/data_mediamvp.h...
> (MVP video client)
>
> http://www.shspvr.com/forum/ (a very good place to ask for help
> and discuss the PVR-250/350 cards and the MediaMVP)

Thanks for the many useful links that I can do research on!
I highly appreciate your help.

Jay Chan
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 2:22:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Im a bit confused still....

Should one get the 350 over the 250?

And does the 350 have video out ports so that one can fed the signal
into a standard TV?
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 4:34:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <oor4909crv0lsftvip8lvp0kr0k619mpuj@4ax.com>, me6@privacy.net
says...
> Im a bit confused still....
>
> Should one get the 350 over the 250?

Get the 250 if oyu want to run Beyond TV, get the 350 if not.
>
> And does the 350 have video out ports so that one can fed the signal
> into a standard TV?
>

Yes it has both audio and video out.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 4:34:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>
>Get the 250 if oyu want to run Beyond TV, get the 350 if not.

Well I do wish to run Beyond TV.... but I also desire the option to
watch it either on my PC monitor.....or a standard tube TV.

Cant one run Beyond TV with the 350 if wanting the above options?

Apparently the 250 card does not have any video outputs at all,
correct? Whereas the 350 does?
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 5:26:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Jay Chan wrote:

> I assume Chris's message was posted in a different message thread, and
> you have posted it here for my convenience (I said this because I
> cannot see Chris's message in this thread). Thanks.
>
> Thanks for pointing out that Beyond-TV doesn't use the hardware
> decoder in PVR-350. Seem like I may be better off using the combo that
> has PVR-250 and Beyond-TV.
>
> > I agree with Chris about everything. I use a PVR-250 card.
>
> Glad to hear that you have a good result with PVR-250 card. I feel
> more confident in getting the combo that has PVR-250.
>
> > I picked a Hauppauge MediaMVP and connected it via an 802.11g wireless
> > bridge that's out of the way except for an antenna on a stand on top of the
> > entertainment center. The MVP was only $99, far less than even the cost of a
> > new CPU alone.
>
> This is exactly what I intend to do next after I have got the PC-DVR
> thing in place. Glad to hear that Hauppauge MediaMVP is cheap and
> good. Then, I can save the time in researching on which
> network-media-player to get.
>
> I likely will stick with using wired network connection instead of
> wireless. I think if you need the special antenna to overcome the
> distance between one room and another room in the same floor, I would
> have even more problem if I chose wireless because my TVs are spreaded
> in three different floors. Still, I am glad to hear that the wireless
> solution works great for you.
>
> > http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?
> >product_code=50347351&pfp=cat3
> > (antenna)
> >
> > http://www.hauppauge.com/pages/products/data_mediamvp.h...
> > (MVP video client)
> >
> > http://www.shspvr.com/forum/ (a very good place to ask for help
> > and discuss the PVR-250/350 cards and the MediaMVP)
>
> Thanks for the many useful links that I can do research on!
> I highly appreciate your help.
>
> Jay Chan

Jay,

The layout of the house is such that it's pretty much the only way to get
consistently high throughput, with all the walls and all the turns and such in the
hall. It's not so much a fault of wireless networking as much as a fault of too
little RAM in the MediaMVP for good buffering.

Note that if I set the wireless bridge in the hallway so that it has a *direct
line of sight* to the room where the router is, then everything works perfectly.

I think it's not so much a case of distance, but S/N ratio.

In any case, my 802.11g equipped laptop can play back the files even at the far
end of the back yard without any problems, so the issue is purely with the
MediaMVP's lack of RAM for much buffering. I wish they'd come out with a unit
equipped with a standard DIMM socket... I'd pay extra for that.

Your best bet for a wired connection is a dedicated NIC rather than going through
a switch.

Also note that some revisions of the MediaMVP apparently suffer from a faulty
Ethernet interface that keeps them from connecting when using a 100' crossover
cable (pretty typical distance from den to living-room) by the time you route the
cabling under the house and through the walls. My unit has that problem.

There are a lot of threads on these topics at the www.shspvr.com forums.

Keith
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 5:54:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>Thanks for pointing out that Beyond-TV doesn't use the hardware
>decoder in PVR-350. Seem like I may be better off using the combo that
>has PVR-250 and Beyond-TV.

Jay..... question for you..... are you wanting to playback any PVR
video thur your PC monitor ONLY? Or do you desire to play it back
thru a standard TV as well?

Im asking cause Im wanting to make my own PVR as well.... just like
you are thinking..... but curious as to HOW you want to play it
back.... i.e. via PC monitor or standard TV or BOTH?

>> I picked a Hauppauge MediaMVP and connected it via an 802.11g wireless
>> bridge that's out of the way except for an antenna on a stand on top of the
>> entertainment center. The MVP was only $99, far less than even the cost of a
>> new CPU alone.
>
>This is exactly what I intend to do next after I have got the PC-DVR
>thing in place.

I would like to do the above as well.

Question.... couldn't one buy a low end server such as the one from
Dell.....and make a PVR only "server" out of it? I mean.... wouldn't
that possible be better or a very cheap good way of "centralizing" all
TV recordings, etc....and then "distributing" them via wireless or
wired ethernet system?

Id prefer to only have a TV or "monitor" in the room.... whatever room
it would be.... front room, bedroom, etc. And keep all the PVR and
hardware hidden somewhere. That's why I ask above questions.

It sounds like I should get the 350 card if I intend to play back
video on standard tube TVs. Correct?
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 6:19:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <9bu490ldodpnktjvjur27fkrtq8akn1h8d@4ax.com>, me6@privacy.net
says...
> >
> >Get the 250 if oyu want to run Beyond TV, get the 350 if not.
>
> Well I do wish to run Beyond TV.... but I also desire the option to
> watch it either on my PC monitor.....or a standard tube TV.
>
> Cant one run Beyond TV with the 350 if wanting the above options?
>
> Apparently the 250 card does not have any video outputs at all,
> correct? Whereas the 350 does?
>

The video output of the 350 does not work with Beyond TV and they have
said there's no near future plans to make it work so there's not much
point in spending the extra money unless you want to play back with the
included software but I don't know how well the two co-exist.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 8:16:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> I would like to do the above as well.
>
> Question.... couldn't one buy a low end server such as the one from
> Dell.....and make a PVR only "server" out of it? I mean.... wouldn't
> that possible be better or a very cheap good way of "centralizing" all
> TV recordings, etc....and then "distributing" them via wireless or
> wired ethernet system?
>
> Id prefer to only have a TV or "monitor" in the room.... whatever room
> it would be.... front room, bedroom, etc. And keep all the PVR and
> hardware hidden somewhere. That's why I ask above questions.
>
> It sounds like I should get the 350 card if I intend to play back
> video on standard tube TVs. Correct?
>

With the 350 card you will need a small monitor in the room with the TV
because the program controls are not on the TV screen and there is no
way to use the remote control to call up previously recorded files in
order to play them. I have a desktop system in my entertainment center
and a 14" monitor on an end table with a mouse. You will not need a
keyboard, if by chance you ever do need to type something you can use
the on screen keyboard located in Accessories->accessability if you are
running XP.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 8:16:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>With the 350 card you will need a small monitor in the room with the TV
>because the program controls are not on the TV screen and there is no
>way to use the remote control to call up previously recorded files in
>order to play them. I have a desktop system in my entertainment center
>and a 14" monitor on an end table with a mouse. You will not need a
>keyboard, if by chance you ever do need to type something you can use
>the on screen keyboard located in Accessories->accessability if you are
>running XP.

Yes Im running XP Pro....

Ahh..... no way to run the output of the 350 card entirely on a
standard TV set then, huh?

Hmmm...... not sure I like that

Im not clear on what the MediaMVP is and what it can do.... but could
it possibly help me do what I desire? And that is locate "server"
PVR in my spare bedroom.... and distribute standard Tv signal to any
TV from it?
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 8:16:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

me6@privacy.net wrote:

> >With the 350 card you will need a small monitor in the room with the TV
> >because the program controls are not on the TV screen and there is no
> >way to use the remote control to call up previously recorded files in
> >order to play them. I have a desktop system in my entertainment center
> >and a 14" monitor on an end table with a mouse. You will not need a
> >keyboard, if by chance you ever do need to type something you can use
> >the on screen keyboard located in Accessories->accessability if you are
> >running XP.
>
> Yes Im running XP Pro....
>
> Ahh..... no way to run the output of the 350 card entirely on a
> standard TV set then, huh?
>
> Hmmm...... not sure I like that
>
> Im not clear on what the MediaMVP is and what it can do.... but could
> it possibly help me do what I desire? And that is locate "server"
> PVR in my spare bedroom.... and distribute standard Tv signal to any
> TV from it?

http://www.hauppauge.com/pages/products/data_mediamvp.h...

http://www.hauppauge.com/pages/support_faq_mediamvp.htm...



You need a separate MediaMVP box for each TV. Hauppauge supports up to 12 on
a network (but I wouldn't try to stream to that many clients
simultaneously).

You need an Ethernet connection at each TV location where you wish to use a
MediaMVP. You can use a wired network (100 Mb recommended) or a wireless,
provided you have a relatively clean line-of-sight path between your
access-point/router and each of your bridges. 802.11g recommended for
wireless.

Of course with wireless you want to make sure nobody uses the microwave oven
or a 2.4 GHz cordless phone while you're watching movies on a wireless
network, but it's less hassle than crawling under the house...

Keith
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 8:38:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

<me6@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:9bu490ldodpnktjvjur27fkrtq8akn1h8d@4ax.com...
> >
> >Get the 250 if oyu want to run Beyond TV, get the 350 if not.
>
> Well I do wish to run Beyond TV.... but I also desire the option to
> watch it either on my PC monitor.....or a standard tube TV.
>
> Cant one run Beyond TV with the 350 if wanting the above options?
>
> Apparently the 250 card does not have any video outputs at all,
> correct? Whereas the 350 does?

The 350 has a hardware decoder that outputs to a TV. It appears that some
of the software you might want to use doesnt support the hardware decode.
But you could surely use the supplied software to playback files to the TV.
Anonymous
April 30, 2004 9:21:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <hub5909v9ndb4hopq0p3dlceits02r06do@4ax.com>, me6@privacy.net
says...
> >With the 350 card you will need a small monitor in the room with the TV
> >because the program controls are not on the TV screen and there is no
> >way to use the remote control to call up previously recorded files in
> >order to play them. I have a desktop system in my entertainment center
> >and a 14" monitor on an end table with a mouse. You will not need a
> >keyboard, if by chance you ever do need to type something you can use
> >the on screen keyboard located in Accessories->accessability if you are
> >running XP.
>
> Yes Im running XP Pro....
>
> Ahh..... no way to run the output of the 350 card entirely on a
> standard TV set then, huh?
>
> Hmmm...... not sure I like that
>
> Im not clear on what the MediaMVP is and what it can do.... but could
> it possibly help me do what I desire? And that is locate "server"
> PVR in my spare bedroom.... and distribute standard Tv signal to any
> TV from it?
>

The alternative is to run a video card with TV out like the ATI radeon
series. You will see your desktop on the TV however it will be a fuzzy
version of it and the movie output is not as good as the 350's. And you
will still need a mouse. Also when playing a movie with the 350 you are
free to continue to use the desktop of the computer without affecting
playback. The MediaMVP is more versitile than the 350 card for playback
because it plays other formats of files, I don't know if it has on
screen menus, if not you will be in the same boat as with the 350 card.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 12:25:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> The layout of the house is such that it's pretty much the only way to get
> consistently high throughput, with all the walls and all the turns and
> such in the hall. It's not so much a fault of wireless networking as
> much as a fault of too little RAM in the MediaMVP for good buffering.

If this is the case, seem like I am better off looking for a model
that has enough RAM if I encounter problem in running cable in my
house and have to use wireless connection... More research to do...

> Your best bet for a wired connection is a dedicated NIC rather than
> going through a switch.

I don't understand what this means. What is the difference between a
"dedicated" network interface card and a normal 10/100 LAN card? Do
you mean using a cross-over network cable is better than using a hub?

> Also note that some revisions of the MediaMVP apparently suffer from a
> faulty Ethernet interface that keeps them from connecting when using
> a 100' crossover cable (pretty typical distance from den to living-room)
> by the time you route the cabling under the house and through the walls.
> My unit has that problem.

Thanks for the warning. I will watch for this kind of shortfall.

Jay Chan
May 1, 2004 1:09:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <MPG.1afc8d59d05c69398a59b@news.eastlink.ca>,
Chris Phillipo <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote:
> In article <hub5909v9ndb4hopq0p3dlceits02r06do@4ax.com>, me6@privacy.net
> says...
> > >With the 350 card you will need a small monitor in the room with the TV
> > >because the program controls are not on the TV screen and there is no
> > >way to use the remote control to call up previously recorded files in
> > >order to play them.

> > Ahh..... no way to run the output of the 350 card entirely on a
> > standard TV set then, huh?
> >
> > Hmmm...... not sure I like that
> >
> > Im not clear on what the MediaMVP is and what it can do.... but could
> > it possibly help me do what I desire? And that is locate "server"
> > PVR in my spare bedroom.... and distribute standard Tv signal to any
> > TV from it?
>
> The alternative is to run a video card with TV out like the ATI radeon
> series. You will see your desktop on the TV however it will be a fuzzy
> version of it and the movie output is not as good as the 350's. And you
> will still need a mouse.

If you have a remote control with a directional pad (such as the ATI Remote
Wonder) you don't strictly need a mouse. Between that, and key commands
for various options, and MouseKeys, I haven't needed a mouse on my dedicated
PVR. Certain things may be easier with one, sure, but (a) I can cope; and
(b) there's nowhere to put one anyhow.

--
-eben ebQenW1@EtaRmpTabYayU.rIr.OcoPm home.tampabay.rr.com/hactar
CANCER: The position of Jupiter says that you should spend the
rest of the week face down in the mud. Try not to shove a roll of
duct tape up your nose when taking your driver's test. -- Weird Al
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 1:09:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Hactar wrote:

> In article <MPG.1afc8d59d05c69398a59b@news.eastlink.ca>,
> Chris Phillipo <cphillipo@ramsays-online.com> wrote:
> > In article <hub5909v9ndb4hopq0p3dlceits02r06do@4ax.com>, me6@privacy.net
> > says...
> > > >With the 350 card you will need a small monitor in the room with the TV
> > > >because the program controls are not on the TV screen and there is no
> > > >way to use the remote control to call up previously recorded files in
> > > >order to play them.
>
> > > Ahh..... no way to run the output of the 350 card entirely on a
> > > standard TV set then, huh?
> > >
> > > Hmmm...... not sure I like that
> > >
> > > Im not clear on what the MediaMVP is and what it can do.... but could
> > > it possibly help me do what I desire? And that is locate "server"
> > > PVR in my spare bedroom.... and distribute standard Tv signal to any
> > > TV from it?
> >
> > The alternative is to run a video card with TV out like the ATI radeon
> > series. You will see your desktop on the TV however it will be a fuzzy
> > version of it and the movie output is not as good as the 350's. And you
> > will still need a mouse.
>
> If you have a remote control with a directional pad (such as the ATI Remote
> Wonder) you don't strictly need a mouse. Between that, and key commands
> for various options, and MouseKeys, I haven't needed a mouse on my dedicated
> PVR. Certain things may be easier with one, sure, but (a) I can cope; and
> (b) there's nowhere to put one anyhow.
>

Both the Hauppauge PVR250/350 and the MediaMVP come with a remote control.

The control is integrated perfectly into the BeyondTV software from Snapstream.

Keith
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 1:16:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> Jay..... question for you..... are you wanting to playback any PVR
> video thur your PC monitor ONLY? Or do you desire to play it back
> thru a standard TV as well?

Thanks a lot in pointing this out!

I go back to Hauppauge web site and read the spec on PVR-250 and
PVR-350 one more time. Surely enough, the spec for PVR-250 doesn't say
it can pay back on a TV set. On the other hand, the spec for PVR-350
clearly states that it uses hardware decoder to play back recorded
video in a TV screen. You are right!

I am planning to use that TV tuner card not only to record video on a
PC, but also to use it to play back recorded video onto a TV screen.
This is regardless whether I will watch the recorded video in one
place or stream the video to multiple locations in my house; I will be
watching recorded video using the TV screen near the PC that records
the video. The reason is simple: The TV screen is near the eye level
while I sit on my comfortable sofa; on the other hand, the PC screen
is on my desk facing the desk chair -- not exactly the most
comfortable position to watch video. Therefore, I need to play back on
TV set, and this means I need PVR-350. OK, the decision is now very
clear.

> Im asking cause Im wanting to make my own PVR as well.... just like
> you are thinking..... but curious as to HOW you want to play it
> back.... i.e. via PC monitor or standard TV or BOTH?

Probably both. Just in case my wife is watching the TV, I can watch
the previously recorded video on the PC screen.

> Question.... couldn't one buy a low end server such as the one from
> Dell.....and make a PVR only "server" out of it? I mean.... wouldn't
> that possible be better or a very cheap good way of "centralizing" all
> TV recordings, etc....and then "distributing" them via wireless or
> wired ethernet system?

I have a feeling that a low end server will still cost more than a
network media player -- unless we are talking about a second hand
computer or a hand-it-down. Currently, I don't have any suitable spare
computer that I can make into a server. Therefore, my main PC and the
only one PC in this house will have to serve both as a video server
and as a regular PC for productivity use.

Even if I have one spare computer to serve as a video-server, I will
still need either another PC or a network media player to feed video
to a third TV set in my house -- in this case, a network media player
is a likely choice because I doubt I have that many spare PC around
and buying a new PC should cost more than a network media player.

> Id prefer to only have a TV or "monitor" in the room.... whatever room
> it would be.... front room, bedroom, etc. And keep all the PVR and
> hardware hidden somewhere. That's why I ask above questions.

Now, I understand why a video server is appealing to you. If this is
the case, I have a feeling that network media player should be more
appealing to you instead of a PC for feeding video to your TV screen.
Afterall, a network media player should be very small (and may be very
quiet), and you may find it easier to hide than a PC. Keep in mind
that I have not used a network media player before. You may need to
ask someone who is actually using one.

Hope you and I will finally get a PC-DRV working.

Jay Chan
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 2:10:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> >
> > The alternative is to run a video card with TV out like the ATI radeon
> > series. You will see your desktop on the TV however it will be a fuzzy
> > version of it and the movie output is not as good as the 350's. And you
> > will still need a mouse.
>
> If you have a remote control with a directional pad (such as the ATI Remote
> Wonder) you don't strictly need a mouse. Between that, and key commands
> for various options, and MouseKeys, I haven't needed a mouse on my dedicated
> PVR. Certain things may be easier with one, sure, but (a) I can cope; and
> (b) there's nowhere to put one anyhow.
>
>

I guess it would depend on the software. With the included Hauppage
WinTV2000 I have not found a way to use the arrow keys to select a file
to play from the drop down dialogue.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 2:18:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> I have a feeling that a low end server will still cost more than a
> network media player -- unless we are talking about a second hand
> computer or a hand-it-down. Currently, I don't have any suitable spare
> computer that I can make into a server. Therefore, my main PC and the
> only one PC in this house will have to serve both as a video server
> and as a regular PC for productivity use.
>
> Even if I have one spare computer to serve as a video-server, I will
> still need either another PC or a network media player to feed video
> to a third TV set in my house -- in this case, a network media player
> is a likely choice because I doubt I have that many spare PC around
> and buying a new PC should cost more than a network media player.
>

You *can* also just run a video cable from your computer, wherever it
is, to your TV and buy a remote control sender for around $30. If it's
a significant distance you might also need to boost the video signal.
Now with the 350 someone can still use the PC while it's playing back
video although that person watching won't be able to control it because
the focus has to be on the WinTV application for the remote to work.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 5:27:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Jay Chan wrote:

> > The layout of the house is such that it's pretty much the only way to get
> > consistently high throughput, with all the walls and all the turns and
> > such in the hall. It's not so much a fault of wireless networking as
> > much as a fault of too little RAM in the MediaMVP for good buffering.
>
> If this is the case, seem like I am better off looking for a model
> that has enough RAM if I encounter problem in running cable in my
> house and have to use wireless connection... More research to do...
>
> > Your best bet for a wired connection is a dedicated NIC rather than
> > going through a switch.
>
> I don't understand what this means. What is the difference between a
> "dedicated" network interface card and a normal 10/100 LAN card? Do
> you mean using a cross-over network cable is better than using a hub?
>
> > Also note that some revisions of the MediaMVP apparently suffer from a
> > faulty Ethernet interface that keeps them from connecting when using
> > a 100' crossover cable (pretty typical distance from den to living-room)
> > by the time you route the cabling under the house and through the walls.
> > My unit has that problem.
>
> Thanks for the warning. I will watch for this kind of shortfall.
>
> Jay Chan

You might look at the Gateway "Connected DVD Player".

Linksys is supposed to be introducing something like this also sometime in Q2
of this year.
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 5:30:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Jay Chan wrote:

> > Jay..... question for you..... are you wanting to playback any PVR
> > video thur your PC monitor ONLY? Or do you desire to play it back
> > thru a standard TV as well?
>
> Thanks a lot in pointing this out!
>
> I go back to Hauppauge web site and read the spec on PVR-250 and
> PVR-350 one more time. Surely enough, the spec for PVR-250 doesn't say
> it can pay back on a TV set. On the other hand, the spec for PVR-350
> clearly states that it uses hardware decoder to play back recorded
> video in a TV screen. You are right!
>
> I am planning to use that TV tuner card not only to record video on a
> PC, but also to use it to play back recorded video onto a TV screen.
> This is regardless whether I will watch the recorded video in one
> place or stream the video to multiple locations in my house; I will be
> watching recorded video using the TV screen near the PC that records
> the video. The reason is simple: The TV screen is near the eye level
> while I sit on my comfortable sofa; on the other hand, the PC screen
> is on my desk facing the desk chair -- not exactly the most
> comfortable position to watch video. Therefore, I need to play back on
> TV set, and this means I need PVR-350. OK, the decision is now very
> clear.
>
> > Im asking cause Im wanting to make my own PVR as well.... just like
> > you are thinking..... but curious as to HOW you want to play it
> > back.... i.e. via PC monitor or standard TV or BOTH?
>
> Probably both. Just in case my wife is watching the TV, I can watch
> the previously recorded video on the PC screen.
>
> > Question.... couldn't one buy a low end server such as the one from
> > Dell.....and make a PVR only "server" out of it? I mean.... wouldn't
> > that possible be better or a very cheap good way of "centralizing" all
> > TV recordings, etc....and then "distributing" them via wireless or
> > wired ethernet system?
>
> I have a feeling that a low end server will still cost more than a
> network media player -- unless we are talking about a second hand
> computer or a hand-it-down. Currently, I don't have any suitable spare
> computer that I can make into a server. Therefore, my main PC and the
> only one PC in this house will have to serve both as a video server
> and as a regular PC for productivity use.
>
> Even if I have one spare computer to serve as a video-server, I will
> still need either another PC or a network media player to feed video
> to a third TV set in my house -- in this case, a network media player
> is a likely choice because I doubt I have that many spare PC around
> and buying a new PC should cost more than a network media player.
>
> > Id prefer to only have a TV or "monitor" in the room.... whatever room
> > it would be.... front room, bedroom, etc. And keep all the PVR and
> > hardware hidden somewhere. That's why I ask above questions.
>
> Now, I understand why a video server is appealing to you. If this is
> the case, I have a feeling that network media player should be more
> appealing to you instead of a PC for feeding video to your TV screen.
> Afterall, a network media player should be very small (and may be very
> quiet), and you may find it easier to hide than a PC. Keep in mind
> that I have not used a network media player before. You may need to
> ask someone who is actually using one.
>
> Hope you and I will finally get a PC-DRV working.
>
> Jay Chan

Jay,

just use a graphics card with video out. Nvidia and ATI do this very well as
does Matrox.

My PC has an Nvidia FX5600 based card and a TV set is connected to that. It
plays back the video recorded by the 250 beautifully.

The only difference between the 350 is the CPU is doing the decoding rather
than a dedicated mpeg chip, but with today's fast CPUs that's not a problem.

Check out the articles at http://www.htpcnews.com
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 5:32:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Chris Phillipo wrote:

> > >
> > > The alternative is to run a video card with TV out like the ATI radeon
> > > series. You will see your desktop on the TV however it will be a fuzzy
> > > version of it and the movie output is not as good as the 350's. And you
> > > will still need a mouse.
> >
> > If you have a remote control with a directional pad (such as the ATI Remote
> > Wonder) you don't strictly need a mouse. Between that, and key commands
> > for various options, and MouseKeys, I haven't needed a mouse on my dedicated
> > PVR. Certain things may be easier with one, sure, but (a) I can cope; and
> > (b) there's nowhere to put one anyhow.
> >
> >
>
> I guess it would depend on the software. With the included Hauppage
> WinTV2000 I have not found a way to use the arrow keys to select a file
> to play from the drop down dialogue.
> --
> _________________________
> Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
> http://www.ramsays-online.com

With Beyond TV?

Just click on "recorded shows" (use the "OK" button), then arrow down to a show
and click on it (with the OK button).
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 5:32:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> > >
> > >
> >
> > I guess it would depend on the software. With the included Hauppage
> > WinTV2000 I have not found a way to use the arrow keys to select a file
> > to play from the drop down dialogue.
> > --
> > _________________________
> > Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
> > http://www.ramsays-online.com
>
> With Beyond TV?
>
> Just click on "recorded shows" (use the "OK" button), then arrow down to a show
> and click on it (with the OK button).
>
>
>
>
>
Won't help you with the 350 unfortunately :( 
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 5:49:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Chris Phillipo wrote:

> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I guess it would depend on the software. With the included Hauppage
> > > WinTV2000 I have not found a way to use the arrow keys to select a file
> > > to play from the drop down dialogue.
> > > --
> > > _________________________
> > > Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
> > > http://www.ramsays-online.com
> >
> > With Beyond TV?
> >
> > Just click on "recorded shows" (use the "OK" button), then arrow down to a show
> > and click on it (with the OK button).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Won't help you with the 350 unfortunately :( 
> --
> _________________________
> Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
> http://www.ramsays-online.com

It's the same remote control, the same IR driver app, and if you're using BeyondTV I
don't understand why not, but I'll take your word for it.

Bummer.
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 5:49:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <4093AAE1.9E923681@hotmail.com>, clarkphotography@hotmail.com
says...
> > > Just click on "recorded shows" (use the "OK" button), then arrow down to a show
> > > and click on it (with the OK button).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Won't help you with the 350 unfortunately :( 
> > --
> > _________________________
> > Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
> > http://www.ramsays-online.com
>
> It's the same remote control, the same IR driver app, and if you're using BeyondTV I
> don't understand why not, but I'll take your word for it.
>
> Bummer.
>
>

You can't use Beyond TV to play back with the 350, you already know this
though. Too early in the day to be talking about this? :) 
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 5:49:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>You can't use Beyond TV to play back with the 350, you already know this
>though. Too early in the day to be talking about this? :) 

So beyond Tv will ONLY output to a PC monitor because it does NOT have
the code necessary to play in a standard TV signal?
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 5:49:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <iah79014mrv0oq0o0pojlm0njf1d9obo26@4ax.com>, me6@privacy.net
says...
> >You can't use Beyond TV to play back with the 350, you already know this
> >though. Too early in the day to be talking about this? :) 
>
> So beyond Tv will ONLY output to a PC monitor because it does NOT have
> the code necessary to play in a standard TV signal?
>

It will output to a TV using a video card with TV out function, what you
see on your desktop is what you see on the TV. The decoder on the PVR-
350 card is something completely seperate from the computer's video
card, what you see in the WinTV2000 TV display window is what you see on
the TV, even if the application is minimized to the task bar. It is not
supported by Beyond TV.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 5:49:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>It will output to a TV using a video card with TV out function, what you
>see on your desktop is what you see on the TV. The decoder on the PVR-
>350 card is something completely seperate from the computer's video
>card, what you see in the WinTV2000 TV display window is what you see on
>the TV, even if the application is minimized to the task bar. It is not
>supported by Beyond TV.

Hmm.... then it sounds like maybe a separate TV output card and the
250is best.... better than using the 350 alone? No?
Anonymous
May 1, 2004 5:52:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Keith Clark wrote:

> Jay Chan wrote:
>
> > > The layout of the house is such that it's pretty much the only way to get
> > > consistently high throughput, with all the walls and all the turns and
> > > such in the hall. It's not so much a fault of wireless networking as
> > > much as a fault of too little RAM in the MediaMVP for good buffering.
> >
> > If this is the case, seem like I am better off looking for a model
> > that has enough RAM if I encounter problem in running cable in my
> > house and have to use wireless connection... More research to do...
> >
> > > Your best bet for a wired connection is a dedicated NIC rather than
> > > going through a switch.
> >
> > I don't understand what this means. What is the difference between a
> > "dedicated" network interface card and a normal 10/100 LAN card? Do
> > you mean using a cross-over network cable is better than using a hub?
> >
> > > Also note that some revisions of the MediaMVP apparently suffer from a
> > > faulty Ethernet interface that keeps them from connecting when using
> > > a 100' crossover cable (pretty typical distance from den to living-room)
> > > by the time you route the cabling under the house and through the walls.
> > > My unit has that problem.
> >
> > Thanks for the warning. I will watch for this kind of shortfall.
> >
> > Jay Chan
>
> You might look at the Gateway "Connected DVD Player".
>
> Linksys is supposed to be introducing something like this also sometime in Q2
> of this year.



Also consider that if you already have a wireless network, the extra $40 for a
hi-gain directional antenna (if needed) is a small price to pay compared to
running wires or the higher cost of other units.

I've heard from a few people who say they don't use anything special, just the
usual wireless gear.

We watched shows from the MVP all night last night with no skipping/stuttering -
or commercials. ;->
Anonymous
May 2, 2004 2:11:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

In article <glj790l0u34bbdl87guag79csc1dk2t5kh@4ax.com>, me6@privacy.net
says...
> >It will output to a TV using a video card with TV out function, what you
> >see on your desktop is what you see on the TV. The decoder on the PVR-
> >350 card is something completely seperate from the computer's video
> >card, what you see in the WinTV2000 TV display window is what you see on
> >the TV, even if the application is minimized to the task bar. It is not
> >supported by Beyond TV.
>
> Hmm.... then it sounds like maybe a separate TV output card and the
> 250is best.... better than using the 350 alone? No?
>

If you don't use your computer for other things. I bought the 350
precisely because it plays back on a TV without going full screen on the
computer monitor. And with not too much CPU usage.
--
_________________________
Chris Phillipo - Cape Breton, Nova Scotia
http://www.ramsays-online.com
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 12:23:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:29:29 -0700, Keith Clark
<clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:

>This is about cleaning up a noisy analog TV signal and compressing it.

Yes, in that regard, your result will look esthetically better, but
not better than the original. You might loose the noise, but at the
cost of a fuzzier picture (because of blurring). I go through this
frequently, but sometimes I rather live with the picture-noise,
then a blurry picture. But hey, that's my choice, and I'm not
going to fight with you about which one is better. Peace bro' :) 

cheers

-martin-

--
filmmaker/DP/editor/filmschool techie
Sydney, Australia

"The world is on the move. Adopt, adapt, survive."
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 12:23:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sun, 02 May 2004 20:23:01 +1000, Martin Heffels
<zurssryf@arjfthl.pbz (ROT13)> wrote:

>You might loose the noise, but at the
>cost of a fuzzier picture (because of blurring).

Not necessarily. Denoising can also be done keeping the edges, but
removing the shades of color. Then you get a cartoon-like image rather
than blurring -funny.

The key may be in using denoising with moderation. Just less than what
makes the image appear unrealistic.
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 12:23:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Martin Heffels wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:29:29 -0700, Keith Clark
> <clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >This is about cleaning up a noisy analog TV signal and compressing it.
>
> Yes, in that regard, your result will look esthetically better, but
> not better than the original. You might loose the noise, but at the
> cost of a fuzzier picture (because of blurring). I go through this
> frequently, but sometimes I rather live with the picture-noise,
> then a blurry picture. But hey, that's my choice, and I'm not
> going to fight with you about which one is better. Peace bro' :) 
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-

Hi Martin,

It's not my intention to fight either, honestly. Sorry if I got/get carried
away sometimes.

I don't like fuzzy pictures either - which is why I don't waste time
downloading any of the ripped movie junk on the peer-peer networks (almost
anyone can make Xvid files of the same size that just blow away what I've
seen on peer-peer which makes me wonder why they waste the bandwidth -
Hollywood has nothing to fear from the peer-peer idiots posting the low
quality junk).

Trust me, the picture doesn't look blurry - when I watch interviews on the
History Channel, I can see every pore, every facial hair of the people
being interviewed, there's just no or very little noise.

Now granted, I don't have a satellite or digital cable, I just have
"advanced basic" analog cable since I hate the idea of having to get a
separate box for every TV in the house but I guess it's coming to that
point. The only channels I really care about are History, Science, Wings,
TechTV, etc.. I wish we could get "ala carte" cable and only pay for the
channels we wanted - a lot of cable channels would go bankrupt really fast
which would be a very good thing. The market should decide what survives,
not the cable companies, but I'm ranting. Sorry...

The Hauppauge site is doesn't have any real technical specs, but I think
there must be some analog filtering before the image gets digitized.
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 11:54:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sun, 02 May 2004 16:01:54 +0200, Bariloche
<bariloche@bariloche.com> wrote:

>Not necessarily. Denoising can also be done keeping the edges, but
>removing the shades of color. Then you get a cartoon-like image rather
>than blurring -funny.

I rather have a bit of noise then, thank you :) 

>The key may be in using denoising with moderation. Just less than what
>makes the image appear unrealistic.

I think the key is in making sure you're getting a stronger signal on
that antennae. That's the best de-noising, and it keeps your PC free
for doing a lot of other things :) 

cheers

-martin-

--
filmmaker/DP/editor/filmschool techie
Sydney, Australia

"The world is on the move. Adopt, adapt, survive."
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 11:59:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Sun, 02 May 2004 15:24:39 GMT, Keith Clark
<clarkphotography@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I don't like fuzzy pictures either - which is why I don't waste time
>downloading any of the ripped movie junk on the peer-peer networks

Nothing can beat sitting in a cinema, watching that same movie
projected from a pristine 35mm print :) 

> (almost
>anyone can make Xvid files of the same size that just blow away what I've
>seen on peer-peer which makes me wonder why they waste the bandwidth -

Yeah, but the P2P-stuff is highly compressed to be able to sent it
across the internet.

>Hollywood has nothing to fear from the peer-peer idiots posting the low
>quality junk).

I know a lot of people who download something, like it, and then go to
see the movie on the big screen, or later buy the DVD. I think the
only ones who should worry in this, are the ones who make such junk,
that the ones who downloaded one of their movies, _not_ go to the
cinema or _not_ buy the DVD. OTOH, it will help make their career much
shorter ;-)

>The Hauppauge site is doesn't have any real technical specs, but I think
>there must be some analog filtering before the image gets digitized.

That's probably the case.

cheers

-martin-

--
filmmaker/DP/editor/filmschool techie
Sydney, Australia

"The world is on the move. Adopt, adapt, survive."
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 11:59:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Martin Heffels wrote:

>
> Nothing can beat sitting in a cinema, watching that same movie
> projected from a pristine 35mm print :) 
>

Agreed.


>
> >Hollywood has nothing to fear from the peer-peer idiots posting the low
> >quality junk).
>
> I know a lot of people who download something, like it, and then go to
> see the movie on the big screen, or later buy the DVD. I think the
> only ones who should worry in this, are the ones who make such junk,
> that the ones who downloaded one of their movies, _not_ go to the
> cinema or _not_ buy the DVD. OTOH, it will help make their career much
> shorter ;-)

Same here. You don't get extra features or 5.1 sound in ripped movies.

I'm getting pretty selective in which movies I'll pay $8 a head to go see any
more though (although I saw "Return of the King 5" times).
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 2:18:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> just use a graphics card with video out. Nvidia and ATI do this very well as
> does Matrox.
> My PC has an Nvidia FX5600 based card and a TV set is connected to that. It
> plays back the video recorded by the 250 beautifully.

Thanks for this tip. I didn't realize that the video card may already
come with a TV-out port. I will have to check it out when I get back
home. But I doubt it has a TV-out. My PC was one of the near-low-end
model, and the video card is stock (an OEM NVIDIA GeForce card).

If it doesn't come with a TV-out port, I probably will get PVR-350
instead of getting a brand new video card that has a TV-out. I would
have got a new video card if I was into playing computer games. But I
find myself watching more TV than playing computer games (the last
time I play a computer game or a video game was two years ago). Thanks
for the suggestion regardless my video card comes with a TV-out port
or not.

Jay Chan
Anonymous
May 3, 2004 5:19:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Jay Chan wrote:

> > just use a graphics card with video out. Nvidia and ATI do this very well as
> > does Matrox.
> > My PC has an Nvidia FX5600 based card and a TV set is connected to that. It
> > plays back the video recorded by the 250 beautifully.
>
> Thanks for this tip. I didn't realize that the video card may already
> come with a TV-out port. I will have to check it out when I get back
> home. But I doubt it has a TV-out. My PC was one of the near-low-end
> model, and the video card is stock (an OEM NVIDIA GeForce card).
>
> If it doesn't come with a TV-out port, I probably will get PVR-350
> instead of getting a brand new video card that has a TV-out. I would
> have got a new video card if I was into playing computer games. But I
> find myself watching more TV than playing computer games (the last
> time I play a computer game or a video game was two years ago). Thanks
> for the suggestion regardless my video card comes with a TV-out port
> or not.
>
> Jay Chan

Well you can get a very basic card like one based on the FX5200 chip with only 128
MB of DDR for about $65 made by MSI.

The card will do TV-out via analog connectors and also has a DVI connector to let
you connect to a digital TV or an LCD monitor.

Another advantage is that it comes with a large heatsink rather than a fan.

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti... (you
might find it cheaper elsewhere).

You can also get a Matrox G450 very cheaply and with an adapter cable that can be
used for TV out.

Going this way you'll pay about the same for a PVR-250 + video card as for a
PVR-350, and you'll have a lot more on-screen functions. The BeyondTV interface is
simply not to be missed in my opinion and you won't get it through the TV-Out of
the PVR-350.

Good luck,
Keith
Anonymous
May 4, 2004 2:18:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> Well you can get a very basic card like one based on the FX5200 chip
> with only 128 MB of DDR for about $65 made by MSI.

I have checked the NVIDIA GeForce2 MX/MX400 card in my Dell PC, and it
seems to have a S-video port. This is good. I will double-check it
when I get the time during the coming week to see if that port really
works or not. I will need to move the PC to another floor because the
TV near the PC doesn't have a S-video input port. If it works, I will
need to find an adapter or something to connect the S-video in the PC
to the A/V port in the TV near the PC.

> Going this way you'll pay about the same for a PVR-250 + video card as
> for a PVR-350, and you'll have a lot more on-screen functions. The
> BeyondTV interface is simply not to be missed in my opinion and you
> won't get it through the TV-Out of the PVR-350.

Good point. PVR-250/Beyond-TV combo costs much less than PVR-350
alone.

I think the only reasons why I might use PVR-350 are:
- Use the S-video port in PVR-350.
- Take advantage of the hardware decoder in PVR-350.
- PC Magazine tested it with Beyond-TV and they like this combo (they
haven't test Beyond-TV with PVR-250).

If I can use the S-video port in my video card, I will have one fewer
reason why I would want to use PVR-350.

Because you said that Beyond-TV is a "must have" item and the fact
that PC Magazine had used it and liked it (instead of using the
TV-schedule that comes with PVR-350), I am sure that I MUST get
Beyond-TV instead of using the bundled TV scheduler in PVR-350.
According to a message here or in another message thread, Beyond-TV
doesn't use the hardware-decoder in PVR-350. This means I have one
fewer reason to use PVR-350 instead of using PVR-250.

The only reason left that may get me to buy PVR-350 instead of PVR-250
is that PC-Magazine had tested it and liked it. In this case, you have
been using PVR-250 and liked it. This means PVR-250 must be a solid
product. Moreover, I assume that PVR-250 and PVR-350 should be using
the same tuner chip; therefore, their captured video quality should be
the same.

Seem like the combo of PVR-250 and Beyond-TV is a winner. Now, I just
have to test the S-video port in my video card to be 100% sure.

Thanks for your advice (especially the part about Beyond-TV interface
is a "must-have" item; you might not have realized how important this
point is to my purchasing decision).

Jay Chan
!