----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/sit ... ewsLang=en
-- M. Shane Sturgeon
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/sit ... ewsLang=en
-- M. Shane Sturgeon
Elgato Unveils First HDTV Digital Video Recorder for the Mac
Read-only archive
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
FYI, I noticed from the press release that this product needs a dual G5
system for full frame rate playback.
From this former mac user (1986-1995), not to start a flame war here, but I
think that's pathetic and I can't
believe you need that much mac-based horsepower to play back simple ATSC
streams.
The slowest MyHD-equipped PC in my house, with a P4 1.8 GHz CPU, is happy
as a clam to run ATSC streams and 720P WMV files all day without any
problems.
What a waste of CPU cycles.........especially for a product category that's
been available (and working just fine thank you) for wintel for at least 2
years, maybe more.
sj
FYI, I noticed from the press release that this product needs a dual G5
system for full frame rate playback.
From this former mac user (1986-1995), not to start a flame war here, but I
think that's pathetic and I can't
believe you need that much mac-based horsepower to play back simple ATSC
streams.
The slowest MyHD-equipped PC in my house, with a P4 1.8 GHz CPU, is happy
as a clam to run ATSC streams and 720P WMV files all day without any
problems.
What a waste of CPU cycles.........especially for a product category that's
been available (and working just fine thank you) for wintel for at least 2
years, maybe more.
sj
Tips,
It could be, (mind you it's been some time since I opened a MAC) that MAC's used to use some of the main CPU for graphics off-load and 3D rendering. I'm not sure if they still do, but asking for that much CPU sure makes me think they do. Kind of odd, since MAC is a great video editing computer.
It could be, (mind you it's been some time since I opened a MAC) that MAC's used to use some of the main CPU for graphics off-load and 3D rendering. I'm not sure if they still do, but asking for that much CPU sure makes me think they do. Kind of odd, since MAC is a great video editing computer.
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Try to play that same stream in the VideoLan Client! (http://videolan.org)
The reason why MyHD has no problems, is that it has a MPEG decoder on
the board, so that's why you can use some crappy Wintel box to run it
(gives 400MHz as the minimum spec.) Remember the $600 OTA tuner, it
also needs the ability to decode the transport stream. So, try and
run that same transport stream in VLC--then you'll see that you're
not wasting cycles, but, using all you've got!
My dual 1.25GHz G4 can play both 720, and 1080 streams (even my
800MHz TiBook can play 720P), but chokes on WMV, but, that's the
usual mediocre Mac port that we get from Micro$oft.
Now it would be nice if El Gato put a decoder in their box, but, it
would then be just bit more expensive.
You've got to realize that MPEG-2 takes a lot of power to decode
(since the transport streams we get OTA are compressed.) Maybe if
Apple adds the new HD-DVD MPEG codec we'll be much faster.
erik g
But, with a G5, I can get the new 30" LCD display and have plenty of
room for all my windows even when playing 1080 at full resolution!!
Try to play that same stream in the VideoLan Client! (http://videolan.org)
The reason why MyHD has no problems, is that it has a MPEG decoder on
the board, so that's why you can use some crappy Wintel box to run it
(gives 400MHz as the minimum spec.) Remember the $600 OTA tuner, it
also needs the ability to decode the transport stream. So, try and
run that same transport stream in VLC--then you'll see that you're
not wasting cycles, but, using all you've got!
My dual 1.25GHz G4 can play both 720, and 1080 streams (even my
800MHz TiBook can play 720P), but chokes on WMV, but, that's the
usual mediocre Mac port that we get from Micro$oft.
Now it would be nice if El Gato put a decoder in their box, but, it
would then be just bit more expensive.
You've got to realize that MPEG-2 takes a lot of power to decode
(since the transport streams we get OTA are compressed.) Maybe if
Apple adds the new HD-DVD MPEG codec we'll be much faster.
erik g
But, with a G5, I can get the new 30" LCD display and have plenty of
room for all my windows even when playing 1080 at full resolution!!
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Eric nails it. Our MPEG-2 decoding is done completely in software. And then
there's the motion adaptive deinterlacing, that's done in software as well.
We try to use OpenGL as much as possible for the task of moving the decoded
video data out to the display, so that helps, too. On some older Macs we run
into memory bus bandwidth issues with this, so that's a limiting factor in
addition to processor performance.
By the way -- we're quite proud of our software decoder's performance -- we
believe we can hold our own against the VideoLAN client any day.
Adam
--
Adam Steinberg
Director, Product Line Management
Elgato Systems LLC
900 Kearny Street Suite 750 San Francisco, CA 94133-5145
T 415/391-0310 x235 F 415/391-0329 www.elgato.com
Eric nails it. Our MPEG-2 decoding is done completely in software. And then
there's the motion adaptive deinterlacing, that's done in software as well.
We try to use OpenGL as much as possible for the task of moving the decoded
video data out to the display, so that helps, too. On some older Macs we run
into memory bus bandwidth issues with this, so that's a limiting factor in
addition to processor performance.
By the way -- we're quite proud of our software decoder's performance -- we
believe we can hold our own against the VideoLAN client any day.
Adam
--
Adam Steinberg
Director, Product Line Management
Elgato Systems LLC
900 Kearny Street Suite 750 San Francisco, CA 94133-5145
T 415/391-0310 x235 F 415/391-0329 www.elgato.com
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Yeah, I understand the point you make, I guess I just did not make that
clear in my original email. While I have not yet had a hands-on demo of the
EyeTV 500, in my experience, on issues of price, performance, system heating
and usability, hardware-based MPEG decoding generally beats software
based-MPEG decoding every time. (For instance, if you haven't, you should
see what MyHD does for the "lowly" DVD, what a miracle that is, but I
digress...)
EyeTV 500 for the Mac @ $349 without MPEG decoder, needs at least a $3K
investment for the Mac and proper video card to run, probably closer to
$3.5K and up once you get the right memory and accessories etc.
MyHD for the PC @ $289 with MPEG decoder, can pretty much run on Grandma's
PC....(I exaggerate for emphasis)
I'm not saying that a dual G5 Mac with EyeTV isn
Yeah, I understand the point you make, I guess I just did not make that
clear in my original email. While I have not yet had a hands-on demo of the
EyeTV 500, in my experience, on issues of price, performance, system heating
and usability, hardware-based MPEG decoding generally beats software
based-MPEG decoding every time. (For instance, if you haven't, you should
see what MyHD does for the "lowly" DVD, what a miracle that is, but I
digress...)
EyeTV 500 for the Mac @ $349 without MPEG decoder, needs at least a $3K
investment for the Mac and proper video card to run, probably closer to
$3.5K and up once you get the right memory and accessories etc.
MyHD for the PC @ $289 with MPEG decoder, can pretty much run on Grandma's
PC....(I exaggerate for emphasis)
I'm not saying that a dual G5 Mac with EyeTV isn
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
The memory bus issue is mostly what keeps the G4 and earlier Macs from
achieving acceptable performance levels by current standards, is it not?
This, of course is not helped by the processor inadequacies.
The G5 is better, but still a step or two behind the 400+ MHZ DDR bus of
those "crappy" Wintel boxes with SSE2 optimization and processor
architecture designed for this type of processing (which show better MPG
decoding benchmarks in single processor configuration than G5 in dual
processor configuration!) and can be purchased for less than half of what a
Mac costs. ( And lets not forget about AMD based machines, which also beat
the G5 hands down and are often even less costly than the Intel based boxes)
I always wonder why these Mac versus pc discussions always deteriorate into
discussions that consist of negative labels, of BMWs and the people that
know quality versus those idiots duped by MS, rather than of actual
performance numbers versus cost??
I really wanted to avoid this kind of discussion on tips, but I confess what
when confronted with derogatory comments that have no basis in fact, I feel
compelled to reply...If only Eric had skipped the word "CRAPPY"...which
brings nothing to any technical discussion.
Phil
The memory bus issue is mostly what keeps the G4 and earlier Macs from
achieving acceptable performance levels by current standards, is it not?
This, of course is not helped by the processor inadequacies.
The G5 is better, but still a step or two behind the 400+ MHZ DDR bus of
those "crappy" Wintel boxes with SSE2 optimization and processor
architecture designed for this type of processing (which show better MPG
decoding benchmarks in single processor configuration than G5 in dual
processor configuration!) and can be purchased for less than half of what a
Mac costs. ( And lets not forget about AMD based machines, which also beat
the G5 hands down and are often even less costly than the Intel based boxes)
I always wonder why these Mac versus pc discussions always deteriorate into
discussions that consist of negative labels, of BMWs and the people that
know quality versus those idiots duped by MS, rather than of actual
performance numbers versus cost??
I really wanted to avoid this kind of discussion on tips, but I confess what
when confronted with derogatory comments that have no basis in fact, I feel
compelled to reply...If only Eric had skipped the word "CRAPPY"...which
brings nothing to any technical discussion.
Phil
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Correction in Apple DVI #'s it is actually 1280 x 800 DVI dual link for
total of 2560x1600:
I wrote:
Dual-link DVI is a definitely a "bleeding edge" area. Per design, DVI single
link channels are limited to 2048x1536 maximum. The 3840x2400 and 2560x1600
DVI feeds are actually comprised of dual 1920x1200 (or 1280 x1200 for Apple)
channels emanating from a properly configured dual output DVI video card
I meant:
Dual-link DVI is a definitely a "bleeding edge" area. Per design, DVI single
link channels are limited to 2048x1536 maximum. The 3840x2400 and 2560x1600
DVI feeds are actually comprised of dual 1920x1200 (or 1280 x 800 for Apple)
channels emanating from a properly configured dual output DVI video card
sj
Correction in Apple DVI #'s it is actually 1280 x 800 DVI dual link for
total of 2560x1600:
I wrote:
Dual-link DVI is a definitely a "bleeding edge" area. Per design, DVI single
link channels are limited to 2048x1536 maximum. The 3840x2400 and 2560x1600
DVI feeds are actually comprised of dual 1920x1200 (or 1280 x1200 for Apple)
channels emanating from a properly configured dual output DVI video card
I meant:
Dual-link DVI is a definitely a "bleeding edge" area. Per design, DVI single
link channels are limited to 2048x1536 maximum. The 3840x2400 and 2560x1600
DVI feeds are actually comprised of dual 1920x1200 (or 1280 x 800 for Apple)
channels emanating from a properly configured dual output DVI video card
sj
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Adam,
While we've got your attention, is the 500 just pulling down the
transport stream so we can play with it in the DVHS apps? Is this
what the built in editor is handling? Is there a S-Video/composite
input to encode external sources (know it handles NTSC but that's the
tuner) or will we need the usual boxes?
erik g
Adam,
While we've got your attention, is the 500 just pulling down the
transport stream so we can play with it in the DVHS apps? Is this
what the built in editor is handling? Is there a S-Video/composite
input to encode external sources (know it handles NTSC but that's the
tuner) or will we need the usual boxes?
erik g
The memory bus issue is mostly what keeps the G4 and earlier Macs from
achieving acceptable performance levels by current standards, is it not?
This, of course is not helped by the processor inadequacies.
The G5 is better, but still a step or two behind the 400+ MHZ DDR bus of
those "crappy" Wintel boxes with SSE2 optimization and processor
architecture designed for this type of processing (which show better MPG
decoding benchmarks in single processor configuration than G5 in dual
processor configuration!) and can be purchased for less than half of what a
Mac costs. ( And lets not forget about AMD based machines, which also beat
the G5 hands down and are often even less costly than the Intel based boxes)
Well, as noted on other tech websites the Apple is yet to use the
full power of the G5 (Tiger will start to add the full 64-bit
architecture--Longhorn is still years away.) So there's lots of room
to grow. But, for those of us with Macs it's the whole experience.
Who cares if you get a few seconds less in processing when doing
something when it takes you half an hour to figure out how to do it.
Hopefully people will notice that now one would pick the computer
that does the best job for the task at hand. And even price is
starting to become less valid, since now with a G4/5, Apple RAID, a
Decklink HD card and Final Cut Pro almost anyone can get into HD
content production much cheaper than a windows system. For instance
all of HD.net's production is done on Macs. Yes, when live you need
more power so you usually see a SGI O2 or similar.
And, more recently my comfort level for a Mac is greatly increased by
all the virus/worm/malware, etc. that inundates Windows users. To
each his own.
This is why I'm wary of the newer DVR systems with the new Microsoft
interfaces. Can you say "Microsoft TV for dummies".
And, by the way when I said "crappy" I was talking not about the
system itself I was talking about the age of the system (i.e. Sasha's
1.8Gz certainly makes a lowly 400MHz look 'crappy'.)
erik g
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Hi Eric,
The EyeTV 500 pulls down the transport stream and stores it on your Mac's
hard drive. Our built-in editor works with these streams just fine. BTW, the
hardware does not contain an encoder or any analog inputs, it's a pure ATSC
device.
At present the software does not stream out the transport packets back out
to FireWire for D-VHS -- however, we've released a plug-in SDK that will
allow interested third parties to do just that, and more.
See below.
Best,
Adam
EyeTV Plug-In SDK
http://elgato.com/downloads/eyetvpluginsdk.zip
With the new functionality of the EyeTV plug-in interface, the EyeTV
software gives third parties access to the raw incoming MPEG-2 transport
stream packet data. At this time the API is available for the following
products:
- EyeTV 200 (analog)
- EyeTV 300/310 (DVB-S)
- EyeTV 400 (DVB-T)
- EyeTV 500 (ATSC)
A plug-in receives device plugged and unplugged notifications, it can
request or release individual PIDs within the MPEG-2 transport stream, and
most importantly, it has access to transport stream packets in real time, as
they arrive from the device. Note that the plug-in is called before EyeTV
itself looks at the packets, so it is even possible to modify the data.
The SDK includes a plug-in sample Xcode project as an easy way to
demonstrate EyeTV plug-in functionality. This plug-in displays information
about the MPEG-2 transport stream that is captured at the moment.
Feedback: Developers with SDK questions or feedback should use the standard
technical support contact web page. Select "SDK" from the drop-down menu of
products. Our engineering team will respond to inquiries promptly.
http://elgato.com/downloads/eyetvpluginsdk.zip
Adam
Hi Eric,
The EyeTV 500 pulls down the transport stream and stores it on your Mac's
hard drive. Our built-in editor works with these streams just fine. BTW, the
hardware does not contain an encoder or any analog inputs, it's a pure ATSC
device.
At present the software does not stream out the transport packets back out
to FireWire for D-VHS -- however, we've released a plug-in SDK that will
allow interested third parties to do just that, and more.
See below.
Best,
Adam
EyeTV Plug-In SDK
http://elgato.com/downloads/eyetvpluginsdk.zip
With the new functionality of the EyeTV plug-in interface, the EyeTV
software gives third parties access to the raw incoming MPEG-2 transport
stream packet data. At this time the API is available for the following
products:
- EyeTV 200 (analog)
- EyeTV 300/310 (DVB-S)
- EyeTV 400 (DVB-T)
- EyeTV 500 (ATSC)
A plug-in receives device plugged and unplugged notifications, it can
request or release individual PIDs within the MPEG-2 transport stream, and
most importantly, it has access to transport stream packets in real time, as
they arrive from the device. Note that the plug-in is called before EyeTV
itself looks at the packets, so it is even possible to modify the data.
The SDK includes a plug-in sample Xcode project as an easy way to
demonstrate EyeTV plug-in functionality. This plug-in displays information
about the MPEG-2 transport stream that is captured at the moment.
Feedback: Developers with SDK questions or feedback should use the standard
technical support contact web page. Select "SDK" from the drop-down menu of
products. Our engineering team will respond to inquiries promptly.
http://elgato.com/downloads/eyetvpluginsdk.zip
Adam
The EyeTV 500 pulls down the transport stream and stores it on your Mac's
hard drive. Our built-in editor works with these streams just fine. BTW, the
hardware does not contain an encoder or any analog inputs, it's a pure ATSC
device.
Can I also edit transport streams I've imported from DVHSCap?
At present the software does not stream out the transport packets back out
to FireWire for D-VHS -- however, we've released a plug-in SDK that will
allow interested third parties to do just that, and more.
Yep, I've heard some talk about playing with the SDKs. Very cool
that the Mac community is so keen on interoptobility and add-ons.
erik g
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
MyHD will play back program streams recorded by other devices, no problem.
I'll bet that it can even play back streams recorded with the EyeTV 500...
As long as your saved Sat/Cable content comes in the form of ".tp" or ".ts"
MPEG program streams, you could use MyHD as a native playback device running
from a modest PC. This would allow you to offload playback functions from
your 16x9 Time rig and use that for recording only, which I suspect would
give you better usability for your system.
Another major <undocumented> feature of MyHD is it's ability to play DVDs
with stunning quality. To play a the actual physical disks themselves, you
need to supplement MyHD with a program called AnyDVD:
http://www.slysoft.com/en/anydvd.html
Personally, I don't use this method as MyHD also supports direct DVD file
playback of non-encrypted sources. I rip all my DVDs to my server with
common freeware ripping tools and simply use MyHD to play them back over my
network. In terms of image quality, the results equal or best ANY hardware
DVD player I have ever seen. As far as I am concerned with my little 720P
50" DLP TV, I see no need for "HD" DVD's any time soon at all. The way I see
it, MyHD pretty much gives me HD quality DVD today. For all it does, MyHD is
the bargain of the century and any HD/home theater enthusiast would do well
to consider it.
sj
MyHD will play back program streams recorded by other devices, no problem.
I'll bet that it can even play back streams recorded with the EyeTV 500...
As long as your saved Sat/Cable content comes in the form of ".tp" or ".ts"
MPEG program streams, you could use MyHD as a native playback device running
from a modest PC. This would allow you to offload playback functions from
your 16x9 Time rig and use that for recording only, which I suspect would
give you better usability for your system.
Another major <undocumented> feature of MyHD is it's ability to play DVDs
with stunning quality. To play a the actual physical disks themselves, you
need to supplement MyHD with a program called AnyDVD:
http://www.slysoft.com/en/anydvd.html
Personally, I don't use this method as MyHD also supports direct DVD file
playback of non-encrypted sources. I rip all my DVDs to my server with
common freeware ripping tools and simply use MyHD to play them back over my
network. In terms of image quality, the results equal or best ANY hardware
DVD player I have ever seen. As far as I am concerned with my little 720P
50" DLP TV, I see no need for "HD" DVD's any time soon at all. The way I see
it, MyHD pretty much gives me HD quality DVD today. For all it does, MyHD is
the bargain of the century and any HD/home theater enthusiast would do well
to consider it.
sj
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Continuing this topic from the viewpoint of a former Mac user whose "whole
experience" as Erik describes was less than exemplary for many, many reasons
and finally woke up one day, switched to PCs and has been happy as a clam
since....
Switching certainly worked for me, but as Erik correctly notes, "To each his
own." I just get somewhat annoyed though when Mac users don't follow that
philosophy.....as I know from my own personal experience that using Macs was
not computer nirvana by any stretch of the imagination.
In any event, I'm trying to avoid a Mac vs. PC war here, I could care less
about that, this and previous emails were really just pointing out issues
that might be of interest to specifically to home-based HD lovers and folks
interested in bang for the buck.
As Erik states, "Hopefully people will notice that now one would pick the
computer
that does the best job for the task at hand." I couldn't agree more. I feel
that clearly, the overwhelmingly obvious choice for home-based HD/DVD
consumption and display applications is a PC. In terms of price,
customization possibilities, performance, usability, hardware choice,
software choice, support and other issues, the PC is the right tool for the
job, by a rather large margin. While some look at this thru the prism of
emotion, technology politics and sociology, I like to look at cold hard
facts and mesh that with the reality of my own user experience, as I live it
every day.
Now if you are into producing (as opposed to consuming) DVDs and HDTV, I
completely agree with Erik that the Mac is the right tool for the job.
Compared to the costs of dedicated professional HD hardware, a Mac dual G5
tower, accessories and software is PEANUTS and I can totally see how HD and
DVD producers would be attracted. Great bang for the buck, ease of use and
stellar looking and sounding output.
Unfortunately for Mac lovers, most folks on this list, like me, are not
really about PROCUCING HD and DVDs, we are about CONSUMING HD and DVD
material in residential settings and it is here that the many advantages of
PCs are quite clear. By no stretch of the imagination is the Mac the right
tool for the job for residential applications, unless of course you like to
spend way more money than necessary and can live with the many limitations
imposed by the format.
sj
Continuing this topic from the viewpoint of a former Mac user whose "whole
experience" as Erik describes was less than exemplary for many, many reasons
and finally woke up one day, switched to PCs and has been happy as a clam
since....
Switching certainly worked for me, but as Erik correctly notes, "To each his
own." I just get somewhat annoyed though when Mac users don't follow that
philosophy.....as I know from my own personal experience that using Macs was
not computer nirvana by any stretch of the imagination.
In any event, I'm trying to avoid a Mac vs. PC war here, I could care less
about that, this and previous emails were really just pointing out issues
that might be of interest to specifically to home-based HD lovers and folks
interested in bang for the buck.
As Erik states, "Hopefully people will notice that now one would pick the
computer
that does the best job for the task at hand." I couldn't agree more. I feel
that clearly, the overwhelmingly obvious choice for home-based HD/DVD
consumption and display applications is a PC. In terms of price,
customization possibilities, performance, usability, hardware choice,
software choice, support and other issues, the PC is the right tool for the
job, by a rather large margin. While some look at this thru the prism of
emotion, technology politics and sociology, I like to look at cold hard
facts and mesh that with the reality of my own user experience, as I live it
every day.
Now if you are into producing (as opposed to consuming) DVDs and HDTV, I
completely agree with Erik that the Mac is the right tool for the job.
Compared to the costs of dedicated professional HD hardware, a Mac dual G5
tower, accessories and software is PEANUTS and I can totally see how HD and
DVD producers would be attracted. Great bang for the buck, ease of use and
stellar looking and sounding output.
Unfortunately for Mac lovers, most folks on this list, like me, are not
really about PROCUCING HD and DVDs, we are about CONSUMING HD and DVD
material in residential settings and it is here that the many advantages of
PCs are quite clear. By no stretch of the imagination is the Mac the right
tool for the job for residential applications, unless of course you like to
spend way more money than necessary and can live with the many limitations
imposed by the format.
sj
Nice to hear a discussion of Mac vs. PC; always fun.
From my Dual G5 (each 2GHZ, with a 1 GHZ frontside bus), to my G4 Powerbook (the one with the keyboard that lights up), to my iPod and Mini iPod, I guess you know where I stand.
The Mac has enriched my life. It brought me work, it brought me money, and it continues to provide me with an income. But the fact is, I wish the same for everyone on all sides of the (operating system) aisle.
Macs will never have supporters as numerous (and sometimes as onerous) as PCs. Macs are too costly (though forever easier to use). They are too stylized (though often copied). And they are sometimes a bit too far ahead (sometimes with revolutionary consequences in other fields, like the iPod). Right now, with the introduction of Spotlight technology, Mac OS 10.4 looks particularly intriguing to those of us who enjoy Macs.
Anyway, most businesses and most individuals want a box that does what they need and not a great deal more. It
From my Dual G5 (each 2GHZ, with a 1 GHZ frontside bus), to my G4 Powerbook (the one with the keyboard that lights up), to my iPod and Mini iPod, I guess you know where I stand.
The Mac has enriched my life. It brought me work, it brought me money, and it continues to provide me with an income. But the fact is, I wish the same for everyone on all sides of the (operating system) aisle.
Macs will never have supporters as numerous (and sometimes as onerous) as PCs. Macs are too costly (though forever easier to use). They are too stylized (though often copied). And they are sometimes a bit too far ahead (sometimes with revolutionary consequences in other fields, like the iPod). Right now, with the introduction of Spotlight technology, Mac OS 10.4 looks particularly intriguing to those of us who enjoy Macs.
Anyway, most businesses and most individuals want a box that does what they need and not a great deal more. It
Unfortunately for Mac lovers, most folks on this list, like me, are not really about PROCUCING HD and DVDs, we are about CONSUMING HD and DVD material in residential settings
I can't speak for 'most folks on this list', but as a Mac user and developer for almost 20 years I use my Macs to PRODUCE video and DVDs. I use my DirecTV and big screen TVs to CONSUME HD and DVD material. And I use my PC to gather dust and to do final testing on my products before I send them out to my Windoze customers.
Jhett