# Series 4 suggestions



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

Here are my thoughts for series 4, on saving tivo, and on retaining customers:

1) CallerID... throw in a cheap modem and have onscreen caller id display.
2) Built in Pytivo or Tivo.net support. This can't be THAT hard to do. See Pytivo, circa 2006.
3) Go back feature via Tivo interface (Why do I have to download shows from my pc?) SEE GALLEON circa 2006.
4) Expanded internet video support. Allow plugin support (chooseable via website on wich plugins to allow).. so that Utube, Google video, DLTV, etc.. are able to be viewed.
5) Better music playing support.. I mean.. the mp3 player from tivo looks like a 7th graders science fair exhibit (actually a 3rd grader..but I don't want to seem rude). If not any improvements (album art, better streaming, etc).. make it easier to turn off the tv and still navigate songs.. as it is REALLY embarrasing as is. 
6) Unbox navigation via onscreen... I mean your tivo.. why do I need to use my pc so much? See unbox plugin.
7) And as a final wish... if somehow you guys became coding geniuses.. since Kaladescope won their victory over the MPAA.. maybe a DVD ripper app that kept the protection in place.. so you could watch your dvd's on tivo.

I still don't get how AppleTV can be the media darling.. when Tivo is 10 times better.. except for the fact that tivo requires ALOT of 3rd party support and tweaking to get it to work.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

1: A few components added to the existing modem could add support. Hech it even might, and they'd just need to add the UI for it.

2: The current Series 3 has a built in MPEG4 video decoder, and so could the next gen Tivos. It is simply a matter of supporitng the correct wrapper format, and upscaling lower resolutions good enough.

3: Push Video: TiVo never saw a need for that I guess.

4: see 2, mostly. It would be UI, or a universal UI, or even a web browser to support those servcies.

5: It could be better.

6: I think its coming.

7: The code would be simple, it would be lawering to make it possible.

TiVo doesn't want to tread those waters. DRM will have to be defeated to some degree, or TiVo will have to pay exorbitant fees to do what Kaleidoscope does.

Apple is more "public" than Tivo, has been around longer, is a broader company, is a bit closer to the content companies than TiVo, and has their own content outlet with major content.

Keep in mind Apple doesn't allow protected DVD ripping either.


----------



## wolflord11 (Jan 17, 2007)

Another suggetion, go back to something like the Series 2 DT, with support for OTA, Cable and Sat.

The Series 3 has nothing for us Sat users.


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

The DT does everything it is supposed to do. It simply cannot support OTA (due to FCC regs), and dual "box", due to impracticalities.


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

Classicsat,
Your post points out the issue pretty clearly.. most of the suggestions are easily done wich is partly why I suggested them. IMHO, Somewhere along the line between series 2 and 3.. Tivo just lost the desire to be more. Hopefully they reverse the direction, or series 4 will NOT have any remote and will require constant removeable hard drive swapping. All kidding aside.. I am looking forward to the showdown between HD Tivo and HD Windows Media Center... I just wish Tivo was.


----------



## noneyabuzz (Sep 17, 2006)

Yes please video Podcasts for DL.TV PLEASE!


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

classicsat said:


> The DT does everything it is supposed to do. It simply cannot support OTA (due to FCC regs)...


Okay, I know this is OT, but what is it about FCC regs that would allow a ST Tivo to use OTA and _not_ a DT Tivo?


----------



## wolflord11 (Jan 17, 2007)

Good question steve614


----------



## NoCleverUsername (Jan 29, 2005)

steve614 said:


> Okay, I know this is OT, but what is it about FCC regs that would allow a ST Tivo to use OTA and _not_ a DT Tivo?


http://customersupport.tivo.com/LaunchContent.aspx?CID=14f68ffe-98c2-4279-81da-f10d8bd2438c

I think what they're basically saying is that the FCC is requiring devices made after a certain date that receive OTA broadcasts *MUST* incorporate a digital tuner.

TiVo apparently chose not to put digital tuners in the DT. I guess non-DT OTA TiVos pre-date the FCC's cutoff?


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Correct. You must include a digital OTA or no OTA tuner. TiVo chose the latter for the DT, and to avoid confusion, made its analog tuners cable only out of the gate in May 2006, rather than wait for when they had to comply with the law.
Yes, Single Tuner DVRs generally meet the requirement, since they have been sold out before the change, except there is rumor that TiVo sent out some 540s relabeled as 542s, without OTA like the DTs are.


----------



## steve614 (May 1, 2006)

Thanks for the explanation. It makes sense. I was not thinking of the OTA digital changeover as being a factor.


----------



## jtlytle (May 17, 2005)

S4 With build in HD DVD Recorder


----------



## jrm01 (Oct 17, 2003)

jtlytle said:


> S4 With build in HD DVD Recorder


You hit the nail on the head. Until this is available all the other suggestions will just be upgrades to the S3.


----------



## purefct (Dec 3, 2003)

I still heavily use one S2 but cancelled my second unit and replaced it with DT HD DVR when S3 came out. Tivo, you're losing satelite customers to the dark side!


----------



## bschuler2007 (Feb 25, 2007)

Built in HD DVD? Nah.. download to pc. If it is built-in, we will be stuck burning PBS shows only.. as every content provider thinks they are losing millions while we all sell copies of America's Got Talent seasons to each other, thus they copy protect even Gomer Pyle's Christmas Special. Sheesh! They are so delusional.

I don't mind DRM... but let me store Gomer's show atleast. And off of tivo.

Anyway... I think Tivo is dead anyway. S4 is never gonna happen. The Telcos and Cable Co's own the networks, phone, etc.. so they can make a DVR with callerID, and all the other bells and whistles.. so much easier. Or Kaleidescope will eventually cheapen it's services to common man levels. Either way.. the TV DVR is dead unless it offers more than TV.

And really, who wouldn't want an all in one device? Heck.. Youtube support itself just sold millions of Iphones. I heard they might even add TV DVR support to PS3 too. If that's true.. I'm hopping to PS3. Meanwhile, Tivo has no commercials... and if they did.. they wouldn't show a person watching Youtube with his family (ala Iphone).. it would be some guy alone in a room, replaying some HD feed over and over.. yippee!

Damn I hate those Iphone commercials.... makes you realize everything should just be more...and do more


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

purefct said:


> Tivo, you're losing satelite customers to the dark side!


And? There is nothing TiVo can do about that. DirecTV and Dish Network control their networks and TiVo cannot make a satellite unit.

And there are satellite users defecting to cable to keep TiVo, so it goes both ways. You felt satellite was more important, others feel TiVo is more important.


----------



## herfmonster (Jul 12, 2006)

jtlytle said:


> S4 With build in HD DVD Recorder


Not HD DVD but Blu-Ray... and double layer at that!!!


----------



## Hexerott (Jan 1, 2007)

megazone said:


> And? There is nothing TiVo can do about that. DirecTV and Dish Network control their networks and TiVo cannot make a satellite unit.
> 
> And there are satellite users defecting to cable to keep TiVo, so it goes both ways. You felt satellite was more important, others feel TiVo is more important.


I am one who is thinking Tivo is more important. We currently only have DTV and a DirecTivo unit. Now that we have a HDTV we would like HD serivce. DTV's DVR has to be one of the biggest hunks of dissapointment I have ever seen.... The simple fact that it doesn't have Dual Live Buffers is reason enough to stay with Tivo!!!!!

I will probably wait a bit for the cable card issues to work out. If and when they work out, I will make the switch.

Find a local store that has the DTV HR20 and see what you think.


----------



## jtlytle (May 17, 2005)

S4 = Can record up to 4 tuners


----------



## myoung321 (Aug 22, 2007)

I love my TIVO and have been a loyal customer for 6 years, But I made a promise to myself I would never go back to cable. 

Not to mention Dish has 3 times the amount of HD programming right now compared to cable... sorry TIVO, but if I'm forced to make this choice then TIVO will go...it will be a sad day.

As it is right now I just switch video inputs to watch something in HD... it's a pain that I thought I could deal with until TIVO supported HD.. now that it looks like TIVO will never support MPEG 4 and SAT HD.. too bad.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> now that it looks like TIVO will never support MPEG 4 and SAT HD.. too bad.


The problem with satellite is that the satellite providers will not allow TiVo to integrate the satellite providers proprietary software that unscrambles the satellite signal and so far the FCC has not forced the satellite companies to adapt an open "cable card" type solution.

Some have asked why TiVo can not record HD from the satellite receivers like it does currently with SD. First no device can record from an HDMI source/output, because part of the HDMI spec includes DRM that prevents this. This leaves the component (Y'PbPr) outputs providing the only HD date stream that could be recorded. I believe it is technically possible to record HD from a satellite box's component (Y'PbPr) outputs however the volume of data that would have to be transcribed (converted back into a MPEG 2 or 4 file) would require a device significantly more powerful than what current TiVos are.

Thanks,


----------



## purefct (Dec 3, 2003)

Simply put, Tivo can record HD content from component outputs, it comes down to the issue of copyright protection and the units ability to record the volume of data. I don't believe either of these are roadblocks to constructing the unit.

On another note, I had a botched DTV installation for my second HD DVR with the end result providing me a free HD DVR, second 5 LNB dish, plus another $200 credit on my account. I had to cancell the installation, cancell 5 of my 5 units, and then call cancellations to ask how much my termination fee was for my last unit, but they finally decided to make everything right!

During my call to cancell, DTV said they added a new HD Sat recently and we should be getting about 150 HD channels soon (I think she said by September). This is confirmed by my HDDVR recording an advertisement today from DTV regarding the same info. I say this because Cancellations also stated they are in talks with Tivo to consider a new integrated Tivo/HD DTV DVR, but no indication as to when or the likihood of success.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

purefct said:


> Simply put, Tivo can record HD content from component outputs, it comes down to the issue of copyright protection and the units ability to record the volume of data. I don't believe either of these are roadblocks to constructing the unit.


Last time I recall someone looking the only chipset they could find that could do realtime mpeg encoding of uncompressed analog HD ran over $10,000. 
And that _just_ for a single encoder chipset, doesn't include the rest of the device you'd have to build around it to turn it into a DVR.

Now you conceivably could build a DVR around a firewire output, assuming any satellite box was offered with that. My understanding is that firewire carries non-encrypted compressed digital HD signals, and could be recorded directly.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

> Simply put, Tivo can record HD content from component outputs, it comes down to the issue of copyright protection and the units ability to record the volume of data. I don't believe either of these are roadblocks to constructing the unit.


Copyright protection for data coming out of and HD component output is no different than it is for SD content coming out of any other analog output. Digital is different only because of DRM and HDMI spec/license.

The "_Simple_" reason TiVo doesn't record from HD component outputs is cost. The chip sets are rare and expensive - non of the consumer grade computer capture cards can do it and there are very few commercial grade devices that can.

People keep trying to make is sound like TiVo has a choice when it comes to recording HD from satellite in HD, the fact is they don't. The only way TiVo can play in the Satellite HD DVR world is if the satellite companies allow it or if the FCC forces the satellite companies to allow it.

Thanks,


----------



## purefct (Dec 3, 2003)

You're saying it costs less to record from HDMI than component? So much less that recording via component is cost prohibitive? You are sadly mistaken. An analog signal is an analog signal, HD vs SD is just an issue of data volume over component cables. If Tivo can make a cost effective HD cable product working with the cable data format and DTV can make a HD sat DVR, it's not going to cost $10,000/unit to make a Tivo HD DVR recording via component cables. The issue is content protection and issues with recording such without agreements with the content providers where neccessary.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

purefct said:


> You're saying it costs less to record from HDMI than component? So much less that recording via component is cost prohibitive? You are sadly mistaken. An analog signal is an analog signal, HD vs SD is just an issue of data volume over component cables. If Tivo can make a cost effective HD cable product working with the cable data format and DTV can make a HD sat DVR, it's not going to cost $10,000/unit to make a Tivo HD DVR recording via component cables. The issue is content protection and issues with recording such without agreements with the content providers where neccessary.


There does not exist a TiVo that records from HDMI (or component). Nor does there exist a DTV Sat DVR which does so. There do exist boxes that do so, but they cost thousands of dollars (they're down into the sub-10K market now - though HDMI models are cost prohibitive due to licensing). Both the HD TiVos and the DTV boxen record data streams *which have already been compressed by the head end (cable, OTA or sat transmitters)*. They do no compression at HD data rates. HD TiVos *do* compress SD video which comes into them in analogue form (either QAM or OTA) from the transmitters. You misunderstand what's going on in those units.


----------



## purefct (Dec 3, 2003)

LOL, I didn't represent anything you attempted to contest. Where did I say Tivo records from HDMI or component? And the reason the other boxes cost thousands of dollars is that they are semi custom products, not mass market Tivo/DTV boxes. You just confirmed what I said "Both the HD TiVos and the [HD] DTV boxen [sp] record data streams which have already been compressed by the head end"

Perhaps my wording about Tivo and component cables is a little loose. The fact remains that recording an analog signal regardless of SD vs HD is not a cost issue - regardless of whether the signal comes from component vs S-video vs composite. Recording SD vs HD via analog signals is a copyright / content protection issue.

Look at this from another angle. Why are there no analog HD outputs on DVD players? To eliminate a few exceptions I'll restrict this discussion's definition of HD as 1080i/p. Is it because it's too expensive to build a TV to accept HD analog content but it is innexpensive to build a TV to accept HD content via HDMI? Absolutely not, a large number of TV's are fully capable of receiving both analog HD and digital HD - and the HDMI is what cost more, not component! It has everything to do with content protection.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

purefct said:


> And the reason the other boxes cost thousands of dollars is that they are semi custom products, not mass market Tivo/DTV boxes.


No, the reason they cost thousands is that hardware capable of real-time compression of analog signals at HD data rates is really expensive. If you throw in the mandatory HDCP license for HDMI support, it's even more so. I have held the chipsets for doing this in my grubby little hands, and even that cost me tens of thousands of dollars in license costs. The chipsets themselves with no supporting hardware are more expensive than a TiVo HD in toto.



purefct said:


> Perhaps my wording about Tivo and component cables is a little loose. The fact remains that recording an analog signal regardless of SD vs HD is not a cost issue - regardless of whether the signal comes from component vs S-video vs composite. Recording SD vs HD via analog signals is a copyright / content protection issue.


You are incorrect. It's entirely a cost issue. It's perfectly legal to record analog HD output from OTA sources that are not marked with copy protection bits in the broadcast. It's just really expensive. As in "A TiVo with this capability would sell for >$5K" expensive.

[edit: profane description of cost removed by request]


----------



## purefct (Dec 3, 2003)

The only reason we will not see HD analog recorders is due to content protection, not cost of manufacturing H/W.

You just confirmed my point - "licensing costs" have nothing to do with the cost to manufacture hardware, it has everything to do with content protection [perhaps more accurately it has to do with ensuring profits on media distribution]. Just because you paid to buy the hardware at that cost doesn't mean the hardware cost that much to manufacture. It means you paid that much to be allowed to use the hardware for that purpose.

You also confirmed my point by mentioning OTA HD, which supports my position it isn't cost prohibitive to manufacture units to record HD - thru any media. The problem for consumers is that media industry (perhaps rightly so, but I disagree) has a financial interest in limiting consumers' ability to store or reproduce HD content and thus feel the less we can store / reproduce without them, the more they make because consumers will thus buy more product. OK, OK, OTA HD is not analog. But plently of hardware was available to record OTA HD at affordable prices before HD DVR's became available to record Sat and Cable HD. Are you now going to tell me it wasn't cost prohibitive to manufacture H/W to record OTA HD but was for Sat/Cable HD? Once again this is not an issue of hardware cost, it is content protection (or licensing if you wish to use your term). The only reason we will not see HD analog recorders is due to content protection, not cost of H/W.

Fine, no one agrees with me. I'll stop ranting.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

It's not that nobody agrees with you, it's that you are misunderstanding the problem space.

1) Recording analog HD is expensive. Not due to licensing, due to the speed and data requirements for the HW. There is much more data and it comes in faster. The people who have figured out how to do this charge a lot for the chips that do it because it's a really really hard problem to solve cheaply.

2) Recording digital HD from HDMI is more expensive than analog because of licensing (and runs afoul of HDCP restrictions)

3) Either is too expensive for a consumer level device at this time.

I've explained it as clearly as I can, perhaps someone who doesn't work in the field can do so in more simple language.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

purefct said:


> You also confirmed my point by mentioning OTA HD, which supports my position it isn't cost prohibitive to manufacture units to record HD - thru any media.


But OTA HD _is_ compressed. (And for what its worth, non-copy protected).

Distribution:
OTA HD: Compressed ATSC Digital
Cable HD: Compressed QAM Digital
Satellite HD: Compressed ? Digital

Recording from OTA is the simplest because none of it is allowed to be copy-protected. All you need is an ATSC tuner and a hard disk to write the bits to.

Cable is the harder because it can be copy protected, which requires cable card support. However the FCC mandates cable companies provide cable cards, so it is at least possible. (Licensing fees do increase the cost)

Satellite is even worse because the FCC doesn't force the satellite providers to allow 3rd party equipment.

Output:
Firewire HD: Compressed Digital
HDMI: Uncompressed Digital
Component HD: Uncompressed HD analog

Recording from Firewire output is the simplest because it is still compressed. However copy protected content is allowed to be blocked from using the firewire output.

HDMI or Component HD would require very powerful (expensive) hardware to manage to perform the necessary compression in real-time. 
(FYI OTA HD runs about about 19.4 Mbps, while video over HDMI runs about 2,560 Mbps)


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

purefct said:


> Perhaps my wording about Tivo and component cables is a little loose. The fact remains that recording an analog signal regardless of SD vs HD is not a cost issue - regardless of whether the signal comes from component vs S-video vs composite. Recording SD vs HD via analog signals is a copyright / content protection issue.


It *is* a cost issue. I can't believe this stupid topic has come up again. There is NOTHING to prevent capturing from component as far as rights go. There are component recording devices that are very affordable for consumers - but they only capture up to 480p. Why don't they do HD? It has nothing to do with rights, it has to do with drinking from a fire hose as opposed to a garden hose. Worst case 480p (480x720) is 345,600 pixels. 720p is 921,600 pixels - nearly three times as much. 1080p is 2,073,600!

A DVR needs to be able to drink in all that data and encode it in real time. When you ramp up the data levels like that you need much more powerful hardware and more RAM to handle it. And that jacks the price up. There just aren't any consumer component level chips on the market that can encode component HD real-time. There are chips that can do it, but they're priced out of the consumer category. Analog is not analog is not analog - as in many things, size matters.

There are ways to handle this - but not with HD as an end result. Take the Slingbox PRO and the new Slingbox SOLO. Both accept component video input up to 1080i - but it down-samples the video to 640x480 before encoding it. This has nothing to do with rights, you're welcome to talk to the folks at Sling as I have. It has everything to do with being able to build an affordable product.

As chip costs continue to decline, it is certainly possible that at some point a chip will come out that can handle HD resolutions at a somewhat reasonable price point. Most likely the first generation would only handle 720p, and 1080i/p content could be down-sampled to that first. 720p is only a three-fold encoding improvement ('only' is relative) while 1080i/p is over six-fold.

Note that there was a consumer device that recorded HD component video - W-VHS. But that basically recorded the three analog signals 'as-is' to tape.

There is no rule or regulation forbidding recording an HD component video stream.



> Look at this from another angle. Why are there no analog HD outputs on DVD players? To eliminate a few exceptions I'll restrict this discussion's definition of HD as 1080i/p.


Because the DVD Forum's licensing restrictions - but that has nothing at all to do with *recording* from component. That's an unrelated issue.


----------



## purefct (Dec 3, 2003)

I tried to resist answering this post , but I really need to know how you can state it has to do with drinking from a fire hose as opposed to a garden hose, as if we don't have the technology to do this. You state 480p (480x720) is 345,600 pixels and 1080p is 2,073,600. That means 1080p requires 6 times the bandwidth and storage space for analog? Why then does my DTV HD DVR store 30 hr HD and about 300hrs SD? Looks to me that if DTV can process 10x the data storage for a HD show and you've claimed processing an analog signal requires the ability to handle 6 times the data, then this is not a data processing issue.

Don't throw mubo jumbo technical details at me just because I don't know technical details. I read the Wall Street Journal and the articles focus on rights management. Since I showed in my example above how your "pipe" concept has a flaw, how about quoting me an article (and where we can all read it) clarifying it is not financially feasible to produce equipment for the masses to record HD content via analog?


----------



## steve101 (Jan 4, 2005)

In addition to telephone, wifi and wired ethernet, add
ability to use Media-Over-Cable. This would enable a
lot of us to get off the iffy wireless without extending
a hardcabled lan to every room.


----------



## jtlytle (May 17, 2005)

All TiVo have 30 minutes buffer, can we change that to 2 hours buffer?


----------



## jtlytle (May 17, 2005)

Build-in wireless adapter. Will work with satellite too.


----------



## megazone (Mar 3, 2002)

purefct said:


> I tried to resist answering this post , but I really need to know how you can state it has to do with drinking from a fire hose as opposed to a garden hose, as if we don't have the technology to do this.


 Because I know the technology and those are the facts, like it or not.



> You state 480p (480x720) is 345,600 pixels and 1080p is 2,073,600. That means 1080p requires 6 times the bandwidth and storage space for analog?


 No, that is NOT what I said. I said there is six times the pixels, and so, yes, all else being equal, there is six times the bandwidth in an analog 1080p signal compared to a 480p signal. Storage is another matter, because the analog signal isn't stored - it is compressed/encoded, and there are many variables involved. Given the same compression algorithm for both the SD and HD content, with the same basic settings, an estimate would be that the HD recording would be about 6x as large - but it will vary.



> Why then does my DTV HD DVR store 30 hr HD and about 300hrs SD?


 The fact that you ask that demonstrates that you don't understand.

First of all, unless things changed, DTV doesn't broadcast 'full HD' - they fudge and use 1440x1080 resolution for HD content, at best. Their SD content isn't 720x480, or even 640x480, either. If I recall correctly, they use 544x480.

So the ratios are different right there.

But the biggest difference is that they use MPEG2 encoding for all SD content, while using MPEG4 for most of their HD content - though some of it is still MPEG2. MPEG4 is a FAR more efficient algorithm. Given the same input, MPEG4 out put is half, or less, the size of an MPEG2 encoding.

But even considering MPEG2 SD and HD content - everything else is not equal. They use different encoder settings, optimized for the different content. That's why they can have SD content 1/10th the size of HD content (per unit of runtime) instead of 1/6th. But also note that both the 30 and 300 hour figures are 'up to' - real encodes vary widely based on the content being encoded. MPEG works primarily by encoding the deltas between frames - so the more motion, hence the more changes in the image frame to frame, the more data to encode and the larger the final result. If you took a video of a blank wall and a video of a football game and encoded both using the same encoder settings - the blank wall video would be TINY, while the football file would probably be pretty big due to all the motion. (The blank wall video would be tiny as there would be no changes frame to frame to encode.)



> Looks to me that if DTV can process 10x the data storage for a HD show and you've claimed processing an analog signal requires the ability to handle 6 times the data, then this is not a data processing issue.


I think you're even more confused than I feared. There is NO ANALOG on DTV, none at all. DTV is 100% digital. You have SD and HD, even the SD is digital. Also, that'd be 10x for SD. 30 hours of HD or 300 hours of SD - 10x more SD.



> Don't throw mubo jumbo technical details at me just because I don't know technical details.


Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it mumbo jumbo. Maybe you should educate yourself instead of pouting, unless you don't really want to understand and just want to toss out half-baked theories.



> I read the Wall Street Journal and the articles focus on rights management.


How nice for you. I read it too - well, I read the articles electronically. And yes, they have articles on DRM and rights management. But you're making an inference that isn't there to be made - you're taking one thing and applying it to something unrelated.



> Since I showed in my example above how your "pipe" concept has a flaw,


No, you showed that you utterly fail to understand the technology. My 'pipe concept' is fully accurate, just because you don't comprehend it doesn't make it flawed.



> how about quoting me an article (and where we can all read it) clarifying it is not financially feasible to produce equipment for the masses to record HD content via analog?


I'm not sure that anyone has ever bothered to write one, it isn't something the popular press is generally going to give a rat's ass about. "Why we can't record analog HD content, a 4 part series." Not exactly gripping content. But you will find many explanations just like mine online in high-def blogs, discussion forums - and hell, maybe some high-def specific print media.

There are devices which can record analog HD content from component and encode it real time - it is technologically possible. But those devices are very expensive because of the powerful hardware needed to do the job.

Someday it may be affordable - because that's how technology works. But not today.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Jonathan_S said:


> Last time I recall someone looking the only chipset they could find that could do realtime mpeg encoding of uncompressed analog HD ran over $10,000.
> And that _just_ for a single encoder chipset, doesn't include the rest of the device you'd have to build around it to turn it into a DVR.


That still doesn't get you there. A processor which can manage a reasonable level of compression of an uncompressed digital HD stream in real time is a real monster. I'm not even sure a supercomputer can do it, and an uncompressed digital stream is out of the question. At greater than a gigabit per second an uncompressed digital HD stream is going to fill up even a 1TB hard drive in a big hurry.


----------



## jebbbz (Sep 7, 2007)

If not HD analog in real-time what would be possible in, say, a sub-$150.00 consumer device? ED analog?

Slingbox and Hava, roughly in that price range, take component HD output and generate 640x480 and 720x480 digital (respectively) that apparently looks at least pretty good, near-DVD. As I understand it (or maybe misunderstand it), HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, and CableLabs require approved devices to respond to a content protection flag by outputting only 960x540 over component. Would this be in the realm of possibility technically and economically?


----------



## classicsat (Feb 18, 2004)

Perhaps an "HD-Lite" recorder isn't something TiVo doesn't want to do. I know I wouldn't want to confuse things by having such a recorder. I'd build a basic HD-Lite DVR, without TiVo perhaps though.


----------



## cyril (Sep 5, 2001)

purefct said:


> LOL, I didn't represent anything you attempted to contest. Where did I say Tivo records from HDMI or component? And the reason the other boxes cost thousands of dollars is that they are semi custom products, not mass market Tivo/DTV boxes. You just confirmed what I said "Both the HD TiVos and the [HD] DTV boxen [sp] record data streams which have already been compressed by the head end"
> 
> Perhaps my wording about Tivo and component cables is a little loose. The fact remains that recording an analog signal regardless of SD vs HD is not a cost issue - regardless of whether the signal comes from component vs S-video vs composite. Recording SD vs HD via analog signals is a copyright / content protection issue.
> 
> Look at this from another angle. Why are there no analog HD outputs on DVD players? To eliminate a few exceptions I'll restrict this discussion's definition of HD as 1080i/p. Is it because it's too expensive to build a TV to accept HD analog content but it is innexpensive to build a TV to accept HD content via HDMI? Absolutely not, a large number of TV's are fully capable of receiving both analog HD and digital HD - and the HDMI is what cost more, not component! It has everything to do with content protection.


To make it easier to understand:

say I drop a 200kg (400lb) very big football towards you from 4 feet at 180mph.

To catch it you need a $100k set of robotic arms.

If I compress the 200kg football down to 2kg (4lb) at 2mph, you can just catch it with your normal arms.

So currently UNCOMPRESSED and HIGH DATA RATE HD recording costs a fortune. This is what comes out of your HDMI or analog component outputs.

A satellite or cable box integrated DVR is only making a copy of the data stream. It's not compressing anything on the fly in real time.

However in 3 or 4 years time lets hope the costs come down to $100 a chip.

I'm hoping for a Series 4 for the UK!


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

cyril said:


> say I drop a 200kg (400lb) very big football towards you from 4 feet at 180mph.


In that case, you didn't just drop it. An object free falling at 1G (Earth normal gravity at sea level) through 4 feet will attain a downward velocity of 16 ft/sec, or 10.9 mph. Unless the football is made of solid lead, gold or some other heavy metal, 180mph is going to be just about terminal velocity. Even so, it would take a drop of at least 1012ft to attain a velocity of 180mph, and if the football is made of anything other than solid heavy metal, it would take somewhat more than 1012ft to reach 180mph, if ever. Of course why anyone would ever make a 200Kg football is beyond me. 

Why anyone would be stupid enough to agree to try to catch it is really beyond me.


----------

