Computer verses DVD Recorder for recording TV

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

I often see people asking the question should I buy a DVD Recorder or
buy a TV tuner and software for the computer to record TV programs and
save them to DVD.

I've tried both.

Using the computer:
I recorded a 1 hour show from TV using a ADVD-100 (analog to DV
converter).
It took 3 hours to render and write the video to DVD.
If I had done video editing and added special effects it would take
much longer to render the video.
I could not use the computer while the video was being rendered and
written to DVD.
The picture looks darker when played back on TV.
The computer could crash.
You need extra hard disk space.
There are more settings to worry about and it's easy to setup a
program to the wrong setting.
To record a program at a certain time I need to leave my computer on.

Using a DVD recorder:
Rendering and writing to DVD is done in real time using a DVD
Recorder, which saves time.
I also have the option of copying a video from the Hard drive to a DVD
at high speed on the DVD Recorder.
It's easier when using a DVD recorder for editing such as adding
chapters, removing unwanted adverts etc.
You have an option to format a DVD in VR format to allow you to create
playlists etc.

For recording TV programs and copying from important memories from
video tape I perter to use a DVD Recorder.
If I need to do a lot of editing to improve a video from a camcorder
then I'd use the computer.

Regards Brian
22 answers Last reply
More about computer verses recorder recording
  1. Archived from groups: rec.video.dvd.players,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Interesting...
    I use an old ATI AIW 7500 Tuner Card.
    I can record an hour TV program to my hard drive and burn it to a DVD in no
    time, if I choose. You don't need to re-render the video file to burn it to
    DVD.
    I've had no problem with video quality.
    I agree you need to leave the computer on and worry about crashes, but I've
    not had a problem with crashes.

    It's always interesting to see people do things different ways.

    "Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
    news:k2aht09r9tdeko7fh83oc65ors4jl776dc@4ax.com...
    >I often see people asking the question should I buy a DVD Recorder or
    > buy a TV tuner and software for the computer to record TV programs and
    > save them to DVD.
    >
    > I've tried both.
    >
    > Using the computer:
    > I recorded a 1 hour show from TV using a ADVD-100 (analog to DV
    > converter).
    > It took 3 hours to render and write the video to DVD.
    > If I had done video editing and added special effects it would take
    > much longer to render the video.
    > I could not use the computer while the video was being rendered and
    > written to DVD.
    > The picture looks darker when played back on TV.
    > The computer could crash.
    > You need extra hard disk space.
    > There are more settings to worry about and it's easy to setup a
    > program to the wrong setting.
    > To record a program at a certain time I need to leave my computer on.
    >
    > Using a DVD recorder:
    > Rendering and writing to DVD is done in real time using a DVD
    > Recorder, which saves time.
    > I also have the option of copying a video from the Hard drive to a DVD
    > at high speed on the DVD Recorder.
    > It's easier when using a DVD recorder for editing such as adding
    > chapters, removing unwanted adverts etc.
    > You have an option to format a DVD in VR format to allow you to create
    > playlists etc.
    >
    > For recording TV programs and copying from important memories from
    > video tape I perter to use a DVD Recorder.
    > If I need to do a lot of editing to improve a video from a camcorder
    > then I'd use the computer.
    >
    > Regards Brian
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  2. Archived from groups: rec.video.dvd.players,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Brian wrote:
    > For recording TV programs and copying from important memories from
    > video tape I perter to use a DVD Recorder.
    > If I need to do a lot of editing to improve a video from a camcorder
    > then I'd use the computer.

    I prefer MythTV! :)


    --
    -WD
  3. Archived from groups: rec.video.dvd.players,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Brian" wrote ...
    >I often see people asking the question should I buy a DVD Recorder or
    > buy a TV tuner and software for the computer to record TV programs and
    > save them to DVD.
    >
    > I've tried both.
    >
    > Using the computer:
    > I recorded a 1 hour show from TV using a ADVD-100 (analog to DV
    > converter).
    > It took 3 hours to render and write the video to DVD.

    You recorded DV-AVI and had to transcode to MPEG2 for DVD

    > Using a DVD recorder:
    > Rendering and writing to DVD is done in real time using a DVD
    > Recorder, which saves time.

    But leaves you with significantly lower-quality video. (MPEG2 vs.
    DV-AVI) But if you are just timeshifting your favorite TV program,
    this may not even be an issue.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.video.dvd.players,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Steve P" <pearcejk@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:Mx2Cd.11765$622.8486@lakeread02...
    | Interesting...
    | I use an old ATI AIW 7500 Tuner Card.
    | I can record an hour TV program to my hard drive and burn it to a DVD in
    no
    | time, if I choose. You don't need to re-render the video file to burn it
    to
    | DVD.
    | I've had no problem with video quality.
    | I agree you need to leave the computer on and worry about crashes, but
    I've
    | not had a problem with crashes.

    I have a Haupagge TV card but I wonder if I can run the audio in separately
    so I can create stereo video files?

    N
  5. Archived from groups: rec.video.dvd.players,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

    >"Brian" wrote ...
    >>I often see people asking the question should I buy a DVD Recorder or
    >> buy a TV tuner and software for the computer to record TV programs and
    >> save them to DVD.
    >>
    >> I've tried both.
    >>
    >> Using the computer:
    >> I recorded a 1 hour show from TV using a ADVD-100 (analog to DV
    >> converter).
    >> It took 3 hours to render and write the video to DVD.
    >
    >You recorded DV-AVI and had to transcode to MPEG2 for DVD

    The video was converted to digital (using a hardware converter) and
    sent to the firewire to be saved on the hard drive as AVI.

    >
    >> Using a DVD recorder:
    >> Rendering and writing to DVD is done in real time using a DVD
    >> Recorder, which saves time.
    >
    >But leaves you with significantly lower-quality video. (MPEG2 vs.
    >DV-AVI) But if you are just timeshifting your favorite TV program,
    >this may not even be an issue.

    When transfering the video to DVD I'm going to loose some video
    quality.
    >
    When recording on SP approx 5 to 6 Mbps (2 hour) or HQ approx 9 Mbps
    (1 hour) quality on my DVD Recorder I don't notice any difference on
    the TV screen (34 inch CRT) compared to the live boardcast. I receive
    Satellite TV.

    Regards Brian
  6. Archived from groups: rec.video.dvd.players,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Brian" wrote ...
    > "Richard Crowley" wrote:
    >
    >>"Brian" wrote ...
    >>>I often see people asking the question should I buy a DVD Recorder or
    >>> buy a TV tuner and software for the computer to record TV programs
    >>> and
    >>> save them to DVD.
    >>>
    >>> I've tried both.
    >>>
    >>> Using the computer:
    >>> I recorded a 1 hour show from TV using a ADVD-100 (analog to DV
    >>> converter).
    >>> It took 3 hours to render and write the video to DVD.
    >>
    >>You recorded DV-AVI and had to transcode to MPEG2 for DVD
    >
    > The video was converted to digital (using a hardware converter) and
    > sent to the firewire to be saved on the hard drive as AVI.

    The Canopus ADVC-100 encodes exclusively to *DV*.
    In hardware. There is no option for any other digital
    encoding.

    The application you ran on your computer took that DV
    bitstream and shoved it into an AVI container file. It could
    have also shoved it into a MOV container file (or likely
    several others).

    > When transfering the video to DVD I'm going to loose some video
    > quality.

    DV consumes ~13.5GB/hour while you can get 2 hours of
    MPEG2 (DVD) on a 4.7GB disc. That is a very significant
    further compression.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.video.dvd.players,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    >
    >The Canopus ADVC-100 encodes exclusively to *DV*.
    >In hardware. There is no option for any other digital
    >encoding.
    >
    >The application you ran on your computer took that DV
    >bitstream and shoved it into an AVI container file. It could
    >have also shoved it into a MOV container file (or likely
    >several others).
    >
    >> When transfering the video to DVD I'm going to loose some video
    >> quality.
    >
    >DV consumes ~13.5GB/hour while you can get 2 hours of
    >MPEG2 (DVD) on a 4.7GB disc. That is a very significant
    >further compression.
    ===========================
    Please explain to the layman what that compression really means? I
    assume using the PC is better but more time consuming? It would be
    great to get a movie onto a single DVD-R though and I think using the
    PC allows for that and moe options?
  8. Archived from groups: rec.video.dvd.players,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    camry wrote ...
    > rcrowley wrote...
    >>DV consumes ~13.5GB/hour while you can get 2 hours of
    >>MPEG2 (DVD) on a 4.7GB disc. That is a very significant
    >>further compression.
    > ===========================
    > Please explain to the layman what that compression really means?

    Uncompressed video (using NTSC for this example)
    consumes ~65.5GB/hour
    DV is compressed 5:1 and consumes 13.5GB/hour
    DVD is compressed ~15:1 and consumes ~2.3GB/hour
    Note that the DVD numbers are aproximate as MPEG2
    can use variable compression rates.

    > assume using the PC is better but more time consuming?

    It is possible to get "better" compression by hand-tuning
    compression ratios shot-by-shot. But seems unlikely that
    most people who are ripping off commercial DVDs take
    the trouble to do that. Note that there are several Usenet
    newsgroups devoted specifically to DVD where things
    like this are discussed by people who do it regularly.
    That may be a better source of information about differential
    comparison of various compression methods available for
    amateur use.

    > It would be great to get a movie onto a single DVD-R though
    > and I think using the PC allows for that and moe options?

    PC applications like DVDshrink have been developed to do
    exactly that. But the name gives away the methodology. The
    MPEG2 data from the commercial DVD is compressed EVEN
    MORE to fit it onto a single-layer writable DVD. I don't
    follow the DVD rip-off community all that carefully, but I
    don't remember anyone saying that a DVDshrink compressed
    copy was as good as the original.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.video.dvd.players,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > The Canopus ADVC-100 encodes exclusively to *DV*.
    > In hardware. There is no option for any other digital
    > encoding.

    Here, you will also want to look at the Plextor MPEG-4 converter
    boxes that will do MPEG-2, MPEG-4, etc. such as:
    http://plextor.com/english/products/TV402U.htm

    eg review of one model:
    http://www.cdrinfo.com/Sections/Reviews/Specific.aspx?ArticleId=10154

    Here, it's basically like the DVD encoder of a standalone DVD
    recorder dropped into a box that hooks up to your PC.
  10. Archived from groups: rec.video.dvd.players,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 04:54:51 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
    <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:


    >It is possible to get "better" compression by hand-tuning
    >compression ratios shot-by-shot. But seems unlikely that
    >most people who are ripping off commercial DVDs take
    >the trouble to do that. Note that there are several Usenet
    >newsgroups devoted specifically to DVD where things
    >like this are discussed by people who do it regularly.
    >That may be a better source of information about differential
    >comparison of various compression methods available for
    >amateur use.
    >
    >> It would be great to get a movie onto a single DVD-R though
    >> and I think using the PC allows for that and moe options?
    >
    >PC applications like DVDshrink have been developed to do
    >exactly that. But the name gives away the methodology. The
    >MPEG2 data from the commercial DVD is compressed EVEN
    >MORE to fit it onto a single-layer writable DVD. I don't
    >follow the DVD rip-off community all that carefully, but I
    >don't remember anyone saying that a DVDshrink compressed
    >copy was as good as the original.

    Thanks for the info. All I want to do is backup my favourite movie on
    a DVD disk and no more. I am new at this and don't know all the
    newsgroups, though I am searching. I just want to do it simply, so I
    see alternatives as buying a commerical copying program and doing on
    my PC as it is more flxible than a home recorder which is limted to
    the media capacity of a DVD-R at 4.7 GB.

    They have new dual layered burners but the cost of the media is too
    prohibitive. It was so simply in the good ol days of VHS tapes :-)

    Don
  11. Archived from groups: rec.video.dvd.players,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:

    >"Brian" wrote ...
    >> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
    >>
    >>>"Brian" wrote ...
    >>>>I often see people asking the question should I buy a DVD Recorder or
    >>>> buy a TV tuner and software for the computer to record TV programs
    >>>> and
    >>>> save them to DVD.
    >>>>
    >>>> I've tried both.
    >>>>
    >>>> Using the computer:
    >>>> I recorded a 1 hour show from TV using a ADVD-100 (analog to DV
    >>>> converter).
    >>>> It took 3 hours to render and write the video to DVD.
    >>>
    >>>You recorded DV-AVI and had to transcode to MPEG2 for DVD
    >>
    >> The video was converted to digital (using a hardware converter) and
    >> sent to the firewire to be saved on the hard drive as AVI.
    >
    >The Canopus ADVC-100 encodes exclusively to *DV*.
    >In hardware. There is no option for any other digital
    >encoding.
    >
    >The application you ran on your computer took that DV
    >bitstream and shoved it into an AVI container file. It could
    >have also shoved it into a MOV container file (or likely
    >several others).
    >
    >> When transfering the video to DVD I'm going to loose some video
    >> quality.
    >
    >DV consumes ~13.5GB/hour while you can get 2 hours of
    >MPEG2 (DVD) on a 4.7GB disc. That is a very significant
    >further compression.

    Hi Richard.
    I don't get your point.
    Are you saying that it's better to use a computer to create a video
    or it's better to use a DVD recorder to record video?

    Regards Brian
  12. Archived from groups: rec.video.dvd.players,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
    news:923lt05uobmv9fpl8m4vbohqhfvqp8bc4v@4ax.com...
    > "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
    >
    >>"Brian" wrote ...
    >>> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"Brian" wrote ...
    >>>>>I often see people asking the question should I buy a DVD Recorder
    >>>>>or
    >>>>> buy a TV tuner and software for the computer to record TV programs
    >>>>> and
    >>>>> save them to DVD.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I've tried both.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Using the computer:
    >>>>> I recorded a 1 hour show from TV using a ADVD-100 (analog to DV
    >>>>> converter).
    >>>>> It took 3 hours to render and write the video to DVD.
    >>>>
    >>>>You recorded DV-AVI and had to transcode to MPEG2 for DVD
    >>>
    >>> The video was converted to digital (using a hardware converter) and
    >>> sent to the firewire to be saved on the hard drive as AVI.
    >>
    >>The Canopus ADVC-100 encodes exclusively to *DV*.
    >>In hardware. There is no option for any other digital
    >>encoding.
    >>
    >>The application you ran on your computer took that DV
    >>bitstream and shoved it into an AVI container file. It could
    >>have also shoved it into a MOV container file (or likely
    >>several others).
    >>
    >>> When transfering the video to DVD I'm going to loose some video
    >>> quality.
    >>
    >>DV consumes ~13.5GB/hour while you can get 2 hours of
    >>MPEG2 (DVD) on a 4.7GB disc. That is a very significant
    >>further compression.
    >
    > Hi Richard.
    > I don't get your point.
    > Are you saying that it's better to use a computer to create a
    > video or it's better to use a DVD recorder to record video?

    No. I am simply observing that DV is compressed 5:1 while
    DVD is compressed more like ~15:1 (regardless of the method
    used to compress: hardware vs. software)
  13. Archived from groups: rec.video.dvd.players,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On a sunny day (Sun, 2 Jan 2005 20:58:51 -0600) it happened "Steve P"
    <pearcejk@earthlink.net> wrote in <Mx2Cd.11765$622.8486@lakeread02>:

    >
    >
    >Interesting...
    >I use an old ATI AIW 7500 Tuner Card.
    >I can record an hour TV program to my hard drive and burn it to a DVD in no
    >time, if I choose. You don't need to re-render the video file to burn it to
    >DVD.
    >I've had no problem with video quality.
    >I agree you need to leave the computer on and worry about crashes, but I've
    >not had a problem with crashes.
    >
    >It's always interesting to see people do things different ways.
    Agreed.
    This issue - DVD recorder with tuner- versus PC, for *me* at least is no
    issue.
    I have 2 sources of TV (we are talking TV right), analog and digital
    satellite.
    Within a short time there will also be digital terrestial here.

    In the case of satellite the signal is already in mpeg2, but in some cases
    GOP is > 15.
    Anyways, usually you can get away with it even then by just muxing and
    burning.
    Of cause you can also PLAY and time delayed - shifted too- from the PC.
    In case of analog I have an old ASUS TV 7100 combo the luxe, in has no
    hardware mpeg encoder, but you can select any window codec.
    So I select DivX and do it in real time medium quality.
    It so happens modern DVD players can play the DivX (from CDR).

    But there are plenty other reasons to do it on the PC, you can edit,
    remove commercials, do format conversion, when terrestial comes all I need
    is spend 50Euro on a DVB-T PCI card....
    Some descramble the signal using special programs...
    I can record a while transponder, say 4 television programs at the time,
    cool in the years end when movies were on all day at all stations....
    And I can watch HDTV on my 19 inch monitor (normal TV too), think
    viewing angle, not bad at all.
    I can demux the audio, convert to mp3 if good music, and put on memory
    card for my mp3 player...
    The other thing is that I do NOT belive in 35374 different appliances in
    the house.
    Just no space for that.
    One box that interfaces to one screen, as normally you watch only one screen
    (eh I do), interfaces to the internet, and receives the broadcast in many
    other ways, is so much easier than all those 'settop boxes' etc...
    Then talk about programming, setting up timers, for all that stuff, easy.
    And ONE remote yes, plz, bookshelf full of them.

    Nevertheless there will be many 'DVD recorders' sold, and many will be
    obsolete and new ones will be sold again...

    Whatsyougonado with your dvdrecorder when we have bluelight ?
    Whatsyougonado with your DVD recorder when we go DVB-T.
    Whatsyougonado with your DVD recorder when we have movies over DSL.
    Whatsyougonado with your DVD recorder when new compression comes?
    Whatsyougonado with your DVD recorder when source is wmv?

    Just some thoughts.
  14. Archived from groups: rec.video.dvd.players,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    PS, and the argument 'PC must be always on' is actually
    PRO using a PC, because any self respecting geek these
    days HAS a PC as server (internet) that is always on, this one
    controls the house heating, alarm system, remote (holiday) house
    security (webcam control, sensors etc), and background music.
    So assigning the (occasional) TV recoding to the PC SAVES on
    electricity, helps the environment etc..
  15. Archived from groups: rec.video.dvd.players,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >PS, and the argument 'PC must be always on' is actually
    >PRO using a PC, because any self respecting geek these
    >days HAS a PC as server (internet) that is always on, this one
    >controls the house heating, alarm system, remote (holiday) house
    >security (webcam control, sensors etc), and background music.
    >So assigning the (occasional) TV recoding to the PC SAVES on
    >electricity, helps the environment etc..

    The only reason I'd leave a PC turned on at night is to download a
    large file (using 56K modem).
    If I record off TV using my PC I find that it ties up the computer as
    there is a lot of load on the processor. Also if I start using the
    computer while it's recording a TV program there's a good change that
    the computer will freeze and I'll lose the program I'm recording.

    Regards Brian
  16. Archived from groups: rec.video.dvd.players,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On a sunny day (Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:07:53 +1300) it happened Brian
    <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in <4qe1u0phqckqv3ucntj0d5735vks5htv2c@4ax.com>:

    >
    >
    >Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
    >
    >>PS, and the argument 'PC must be always on' is actually
    >>PRO using a PC, because any self respecting geek these
    >>days HAS a PC as server (internet) that is always on, this one
    >>controls the house heating, alarm system, remote (holiday) house
    >>security (webcam control, sensors etc), and background music.
    >>So assigning the (occasional) TV recoding to the PC SAVES on
    >>electricity, helps the environment etc..
    >
    >The only reason I'd leave a PC turned on at night is to download a
    >large file (using 56K modem).
    >If I record off TV using my PC I find that it ties up the computer as
    >there is a lot of load on the processor. Also if I start using the
    >computer while it's recording a TV program there's a good change that
    >the computer will freeze and I'll lose the program I'm recording.
    >
    >Regards Brian
    Well I use Linux, and it never happened.
    Even now DVD recorders are coming on the market based on the Linux OS.
    Even Tivo is based on it.
    You should upgrade to DSL really :-)
    It is more fun, and a LOT cheaper, nice for VOIP too, ah, I forgot that,
    for VOIP (Voice Over Internet, new way for telephone)) you want your PC to
    be on 24/7 too, and the
    reduction in your phone bill will MORE then pay for the extra electricity
    the PC uses.
    Do not look only at the video processing part, look at the PC as a data
    processor + interface to ANYTHING that you have in the house.
    Like you have some kettle for the heating perhaps, or an airco for the cooling,
    you have a PC for data.
  17. Archived from groups: rec.video.dvd.players,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >On a sunny day (Sun, 2 Jan 2005 20:58:51 -0600) it happened "Steve P"
    ><pearcejk@earthlink.net> wrote in <Mx2Cd.11765$622.8486@lakeread02>:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>Interesting...
    >>I use an old ATI AIW 7500 Tuner Card.
    >>I can record an hour TV program to my hard drive and burn it to a DVD in no
    >>time, if I choose. You don't need to re-render the video file to burn it to
    >>DVD.
    >>I've had no problem with video quality.
    >>I agree you need to leave the computer on and worry about crashes, but I've
    >>not had a problem with crashes.
    >>
    >>It's always interesting to see people do things different ways.
    >Agreed.
    >This issue - DVD recorder with tuner- versus PC, for *me* at least is no
    >issue.
    >I have 2 sources of TV (we are talking TV right), analog and digital
    >satellite.
    >Within a short time there will also be digital terrestial here.
    >
    >In the case of satellite the signal is already in mpeg2, but in some cases
    >GOP is > 15.
    >Anyways, usually you can get away with it even then by just muxing and
    >burning.
    >Of cause you can also PLAY and time delayed - shifted too- from the PC.
    >In case of analog I have an old ASUS TV 7100 combo the luxe, in has no
    >hardware mpeg encoder, but you can select any window codec.
    >So I select DivX and do it in real time medium quality.
    >It so happens modern DVD players can play the DivX (from CDR).
    >
    >But there are plenty other reasons to do it on the PC, you can edit,
    >remove commercials, do format conversion, when terrestial comes all I need
    >is spend 50Euro on a DVB-T PCI card....
    >Some descramble the signal using special programs...
    >I can record a while transponder, say 4 television programs at the time,
    >cool in the years end when movies were on all day at all stations....
    >And I can watch HDTV on my 19 inch monitor (normal TV too), think
    >viewing angle, not bad at all.
    >I can demux the audio, convert to mp3 if good music, and put on memory
    >card for my mp3 player...
    >The other thing is that I do NOT belive in 35374 different appliances in
    >the house.
    >Just no space for that.
    >One box that interfaces to one screen, as normally you watch only one screen
    >(eh I do), interfaces to the internet, and receives the broadcast in many
    >other ways, is so much easier than all those 'settop boxes' etc...
    >Then talk about programming, setting up timers, for all that stuff, easy.
    >And ONE remote yes, plz, bookshelf full of them.
    >
    >Nevertheless there will be many 'DVD recorders' sold, and many will be
    >obsolete and new ones will be sold again...
    >
    >Whatsyougonado with your dvdrecorder when we have bluelight ?
    >Whatsyougonado with your DVD recorder when we go DVB-T.
    >Whatsyougonado with your DVD recorder when we have movies over DSL.
    >Whatsyougonado with your DVD recorder when new compression comes?
    >Whatsyougonado with your DVD recorder when source is wmv?
    >
    >Just some thoughts.
    >
    Most video programs on the computer don't support the VR format for a
    DVD disc. making it difficult to edit a DVD disc (usually once video
    has been written to Disc it's then finalized. How many programs can
    unfinalize a DVD disc? My DVD recorder can unfinalize a DVD disc.
    I use to record TV programs to the hard drive but found I was quickly
    running out of hard disk space. I have a 80 Gig hard drive. I couldn't
    check the recording by playing it back while it was being recorded
    like you can on DVD Recorders. If I made a few changes then I'd have
    to render the file to Mpeg which takes time.

    Regards Brian
  18. Archived from groups: rec.video.dvd.players,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On a sunny day (Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:17:09 +1300) it happened Brian
    <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in <63f1u09463o527bu6s36jr4a7p8gvda7e0@4ax.com>:

    >Most video programs on the computer don't support the VR format for a
    >DVD disc. making it difficult to edit a DVD disc (usually once video
    >has been written to Disc it's then finalized. How many programs can
    >unfinalize a DVD disc? My DVD recorder can unfinalize a DVD disc.
    >I use to record TV programs to the hard drive but found I was quickly
    >running out of hard disk space. I have a 80 Gig hard drive. I couldn't
    >check the recording by playing it back while it was being recorded
    >like you can on DVD Recorders. If I made a few changes then I'd have
    >to render the file to Mpeg which takes time.
    >
    >Regards Brian
    I am not 100% sure what you mean, but if 'finalizing' is the issue,
    then maybe what you say is that you want to add some stuff to the burned
    DVD later.
    I know some DVD recorders can do that.
    But wait a minute, what is it that you want to do?
    I record digital satellite (it is mpeg2) to disk, it is about 2GB / hour.
    There are several ways to burn this to disk, ONE of it is the official
    DVD format.
    I would only use that when sending out disks to somebody else, or MUST play
    on a standalone player, and when menus etc.. must be present.
    For DVD+R ..well, burned is burned (it is possible to add files later, but
    to create a new IFO for the DVD, you would have to remove the old one, and
    that is not possible I think?).
    For DVD+RW you'd have to make a new image.
    This is not an issue compared to the rest of the processing (time) really.
    The 10 minutes or so to create + burn the new image is nothing
    compared to what you will do creating a nice usable menu structure, buttons,
    pictures for these, perhaps multiple sound channels.
    Let's take a REAL example.
    I receive satellite 13E freq 12092 pol h and that station transmits in 8
    languages.
    Now of cause if I make DVDs from that then I want all 8 languages.
    That these are there is much more important then any menus even.
    This will require special tricks when recording the program, and more when
    creating the DVD.
    If I ONLY want to watch myself, then I need NO standalone player, use monitor,
    or video out from PC, record as transport stream.
    Want to archive this (multi language transport stream)? then burn it to DVD
    as an IMAGE.
    One per disk, use full 4.7GB available.
    The keyword here is flexibility.
    You have none of that with a standalone DVD recorder.
    Not even mentioning forwarding it over DSL.
    DVD recorder is like pre-cooked meal, and it can never compare to a real
    restaurant.
    You can live on pre-cooked food, but it will become somehow a bit eh .. let's
    say .. you want some more some day.
    DVD recorder will force you to buy a newer model.
    That does not mean DVD recorder is not a great solution for some people.
    But for those who want more, it is NOT.
    Have a look at my site:
    http://panteltje.com/panteltje/dvd/
    for how to go about recording a bit more complicate stuff, and making DVDs
    with for example more audio channels.
    It is highly technical, but it can go so much further.
    I will leave your DVD recorder in the dust any time.
    The list of things your DVD recorder CANNOT do in almost infinite.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.video.dvd.players,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >On a sunny day (Sun, 09 Jan 2005 18:17:09 +1300) it happened Brian
    ><bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in <63f1u09463o527bu6s36jr4a7p8gvda7e0@4ax.com>:
    >
    >>Most video programs on the computer don't support the VR format for a
    >>DVD disc. making it difficult to edit a DVD disc (usually once video
    >>has been written to Disc it's then finalized. How many programs can
    >>unfinalize a DVD disc? My DVD recorder can unfinalize a DVD disc.
    >>I use to record TV programs to the hard drive but found I was quickly
    >>running out of hard disk space. I have a 80 Gig hard drive. I couldn't
    >>check the recording by playing it back while it was being recorded
    >>like you can on DVD Recorders. If I made a few changes then I'd have
    >>to render the file to Mpeg which takes time.
    >>
    >>Regards Brian
    >I am not 100% sure what you mean, but if 'finalizing' is the issue,
    >then maybe what you say is that you want to add some stuff to the burned
    >DVD later.
    >I know some DVD recorders can do that.
    >But wait a minute, what is it that you want to do?
    >I record digital satellite (it is mpeg2) to disk, it is about 2GB / hour.
    >There are several ways to burn this to disk, ONE of it is the official
    >DVD format.
    >I would only use that when sending out disks to somebody else, or MUST play
    >on a standalone player, and when menus etc.. must be present.
    >For DVD+R ..well, burned is burned (it is possible to add files later, but
    >to create a new IFO for the DVD, you would have to remove the old one, and
    >that is not possible I think?).
    >For DVD+RW you'd have to make a new image.
    >This is not an issue compared to the rest of the processing (time) really.
    >The 10 minutes or so to create + burn the new image is nothing
    >compared to what you will do creating a nice usable menu structure, buttons,
    >pictures for these, perhaps multiple sound channels.
    >Let's take a REAL example.
    >I receive satellite 13E freq 12092 pol h and that station transmits in 8
    >languages.
    >Now of cause if I make DVDs from that then I want all 8 languages.
    >That these are there is much more important then any menus even.
    >This will require special tricks when recording the program, and more when
    >creating the DVD.
    >If I ONLY want to watch myself, then I need NO standalone player, use monitor,
    >or video out from PC, record as transport stream.
    >Want to archive this (multi language transport stream)? then burn it to DVD
    >as an IMAGE.
    >One per disk, use full 4.7GB available.
    >The keyword here is flexibility.
    >You have none of that with a standalone DVD recorder.
    >Not even mentioning forwarding it over DSL.
    >DVD recorder is like pre-cooked meal, and it can never compare to a real
    >restaurant.
    >You can live on pre-cooked food, but it will become somehow a bit eh .. let's
    >say .. you want some more some day.
    >DVD recorder will force you to buy a newer model.
    >That does not mean DVD recorder is not a great solution for some people.
    >But for those who want more, it is NOT.
    >Have a look at my site:
    >http://panteltje.com/panteltje/dvd/
    >for how to go about recording a bit more complicate stuff, and making DVDs
    >with for example more audio channels.
    >It is highly technical, but it can go so much further.
    >I will leave your DVD recorder in the dust any time.
    >The list of things your DVD recorder CANNOT do in almost infinite.
    >
    To me having the difference between editing on a DVD Recorder and
    editing on the computer is having someone doing the work for me or
    doing the work myself.
    It's true that you can't do many of the editing features such as fades
    or wipes between scenes, superimpose titles, Mix dialog with
    background sound, etc with a DVD Recorder; but if all you want to do
    is find a easy way to remove adverts or remove a few seconds of bad
    camera work in parts of a home video then a DVD Recorder is a good
    choice.
    I've tried editing on the computer and editing on a DVD Recorder and I
    find it easier, quicker and less work to edit on a video recorder. I
    like to be able to see the results during editing on my 34 inch TV
    rather than view it on a 17 inch monitor (and in same editing programs
    you only have a small window to view the video).

    Regards Brian
  20. Archived from groups: rec.video.dvd.players,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On a sunny day (Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:57:58 +1300) it happened Brian
    <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in <p0h3u01ibt0k0vcnqm6ad3qgfghodvou9o@4ax.com>:

    >What point are you trying to make?
    >Linux is better at handling video than Windows XP?
    That depends, sure better in having video programs working together.

    >A faster processor causes less load on the processor?
    Makes no sense, what do YOU mean?

    What I showed with NUMBERS (so not bullshit sales hype), is that
    if your say your cannot use a PC for more then (or not even for)
    recording TV plus other things -at the same time- you have no clue
    what you are on about, and I proved you wrong.


    >There's a better method the causes less load on the processor?
    Clearly as I have shown, using a few simple commands in Linux
    using simple, strong, stable, utilities that accept data from each other
    is WAY better, and more efficient, then using all sort of standalone
    bloatware in MS windows.
    Linux better then MS windows? That is not a question.
    Of cause it is better, cheaper, faster, even Bill Gates knows that.
    Equipment manufacturers know that, HP comes now with a DVD recorder
    based on Linux, the Kiss DVD player is based on Linux, more and more
    cellphones are based on Linux.
    The issue in this case in not Linux versus MS, it is the PC as central
    data processor in the house (say multimedia center) even MS and I agree
    on that (I have no problem saying MS is right, after all they got the idea
    from us).
    But Bill Gates wants to lock it all up, so you have to pay every time you
    watch *the same* movie, like you cannot store anything.
    He must have been out of touch with reality for a while.

    But he and I agree that running more then one task on the PC at the same
    time is no issue.
    Just that his tasks are so bloated.... that it may have caused people
    to think recording video was diffficult while editing text in MS word.
    On a 10GHz pentium 9 hehe
  21. Archived from groups: rec.video.dvd.players,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    >On a sunny day (Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:57:58 +1300) it happened Brian
    ><bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in <p0h3u01ibt0k0vcnqm6ad3qgfghodvou9o@4ax.com>:
    >
    >>What point are you trying to make?
    >>Linux is better at handling video than Windows XP?
    >That depends, sure better in having video programs working together.
    >
    >>A faster processor causes less load on the processor?
    >Makes no sense, what do YOU mean?

    What I think I was trying to say was "A faster is able to manage a
    bigger load as it can process things faster therefore there is less
    load on the processor"

    >
    >What I showed with NUMBERS (so not bullshit sales hype), is that
    >if your say your cannot use a PC for more then (or not even for)
    >recording TV plus other things -at the same time- you have no clue
    >what you are on about, and I proved you wrong.

    In the case of my own computer. I can't use it when recording a TV
    program on the hard drive. It causes frames to be missed

    >
    >
    >>There's a better method the causes less load on the processor?
    >Clearly as I have shown, using a few simple commands in Linux
    >using simple, strong, stable, utilities that accept data from each other
    >is WAY better, and more efficient, then using all sort of standalone
    >bloatware in MS windows.
    >Linux better then MS windows? That is not a question.
    >Of cause it is better, cheaper, faster, even Bill Gates knows that.
    >Equipment manufacturers know that, HP comes now with a DVD recorder
    >based on Linux, the Kiss DVD player is based on Linux, more and more
    >cellphones are based on Linux.
    >The issue in this case in not Linux versus MS, it is the PC as central
    >data processor in the house (say multimedia center) even MS and I agree
    >on that (I have no problem saying MS is right, after all they got the idea
    >from us).
    >But Bill Gates wants to lock it all up, so you have to pay every time you
    >watch *the same* movie, like you cannot store anything.
    >He must have been out of touch with reality for a while.
    >
    >But he and I agree that running more then one task on the PC at the same
    >time is no issue.
    >Just that his tasks are so bloated.... that it may have caused people
    >to think recording video was diffficult while editing text in MS word.
    >On a 10GHz pentium 9 hehe

    I did try Linux Redhat a while ago but when back to Windows as I
    needed to spend a lot of time trying to learn how to use Linux. I'm
    not saying that Linux ie worse or better than Windows XP.

    Regards Brian
  22. Archived from groups: rec.video.dvd.players,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On a sunny day (Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:42:58 +1300) it happened Brian
    <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in <tj77u0dldgdneap2iqnf9v6cd8ag1dpmb3@4ax.com>:

    >>>A faster processor causes less load on the processor?
    >>Makes no sense, what do YOU mean?
    >
    >What I think I was trying to say was "A faster is able to manage a
    >bigger load as it can process things faster therefore there is less
    >load on the processor"
    OK, that is true.

    >In the case of my own computer. I can't use it when recording a TV
    >program on the hard drive. It causes frames to be missed

    The example I gave is for recording digital TV.
    In digital TV the stream is already in mpeg2 format, so the processor
    only has to move data to disk..
    In case of old analog (in any form) unless you have one of those hardware
    mpeg2 encoder cards, the processor will be extremely busy encoding to mpeg2.

    Since analog will be gone soon (and some places already is, but I think also
    in the US will be gone soon), this problem will go way.
    It will all be in digital compressed format.

    On the other hand, things like the Hauppauge ( http://www.hauppauge.com/ )
    WinTV-PVR-350 is TV cards for reception of analog TV have these days a
    hardware mpeg2 decoder.
    (No I am not associated with them, I do not even have one).

    If you do a lot of recording analog TV, then these are worth a buy, and are
    well supported in Windows too.
Ask a new question

Read More

Tuner Cards TV DVD Computer Video Graphics