# Will Comcast migration to MPEG-4 HD changes recording file size.



## bobdec01 (Jan 20, 2011)

Have a Roamio Plus, upgraded to 3 TB. Currently 1 hr of HD recording runs anywhere from 5-8 GB. Comcast here in Atlanta area is moving HD programming to MPEG-4 format. Will that effect the actual recording file size. EG number of recordings per TB. Just wondering if the old number of shows per TB rule of thumb will change. Probably lots of cheap Series 3 HD's will be hitting the market soon.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

yes, the Tivo records what comes on the wire and mpeg4 is more compact than mpeg2 resulting in smaller file sizes and more shows per TB.

Exactly how much is hard to say because they can choose how much compression to apply, but we're talking roughly 2x or more.

Maybe someone in another Comcast market has hard numbers from experience.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

They already compress MPEG-2 heavily, so likely you will see a ~35% reduction in file size, but it will depend on the channel, how much they compressed it before, and how much they will compress it after.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

The numbers I was using for mpeg2 on cable was 10Mbps. 
And then mpeg4 numbers from Satellite being 5Mbps avg.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

telemark said:


> The numbers I was using for mpeg2 on cable was 10Mbps.
> And then mpeg4 numbers from Satellite being 5Mbps avg.


Comcast's MPEG-2 is generally about 12mbps, although I have seen lower, which is awful. It should be 19mbps, but very few providers actually do the full 19mbps. For MPEG-4, DirecTV is around 8mbps, DISH a bit below that, and U-Verse look like garbage at around 6mbps. My guess is Comcast will try to try and go below 7.6mbps so that they can get 5 HD's per QAM. If they go to 6mbps, then it will be pretty bad, that would get them 6 HD's per QAM.


----------



## southerndoc (Apr 5, 2003)

I also got the letter that Comcast Atlanta will transition to MPEG-4 soon. I searched for the topic and this came up.

I wanted to make sure that my Roamio Pro (probably is), Mini (probably is), and streaming will be compatible.

Do you know if this will have any effect on the ability to stream shows to an iPad or download them?


----------



## bluemcduff (Sep 8, 2007)

From what I know, the locals will still be in MPEG-2 as I saw somewhere that the Series 3 will only get local channels post-transition.

We're still missing some of the new local subchannels so I'm hoping some of the new capacity can go to that.

If they really wanted to get on my good side, they'd drop all the SD channels with HD equivalents.


----------



## bluemcduff (Sep 8, 2007)

geekmedic said:


> I also got the letter that Comcast Atlanta will transition to MPEG-4 soon. I searched for the topic and this came up.
> 
> I wanted to make sure that my Roamio Pro (probably is), Mini (probably is), and streaming will be compatible.
> 
> Do you know if this will have any effect on the ability to stream shows to an iPad or download them?


In answer to your questions: Roamios, Premieres and Minis are compatible with the MPEG-4 signal.

This will not affect any streaming or downloads you do from the PC or iPad.


----------



## ajwees41 (May 7, 2006)

bluemcduff said:


> From what I know, the locals will still be in MPEG-2 as I saw somewhere that the Series 3 will only get local channels post-transition.
> 
> We're still missing some of the new local subchannels so I'm hoping some of the new capacity can go to that.
> 
> If they really wanted to get on my good side, they'd drop all the SD channels with HD equivalents.


so what would the SD only customers watch if they dropped the SD channels which also have an HD channel?


----------



## bluemcduff (Sep 8, 2007)

ajwees41 said:


> so what would the SD only customers watch if they dropped the SD channels which also have an HD channel?


The HD channel cropped to 4x3. Most of the stuff customers have can handle it.

SD is a big waste of bandwidth if it's just a center cut of the HD channel.

In other words, downconvert at the cable box and not at the headend.

There's no need to keep both sets of channels to serve a group of customers that refuse to upgrade.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

bluemcduff said:


> In answer to your questions: Roamios, Premieres and Minis are compatible with the MPEG-4 signal.
> 
> This will not affect any streaming or downloads you do from the PC or iPad.


Tivo Stream doesn't work with mpeg4 right now.
One of those SW update promises we're still waiting for, but don't know when we'll get it.

This affects video on the iPad but not the video you might be getting on a PC.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

bluemcduff said:


> The HD channel cropped to 4x3. Most of the stuff customers have can handle it.
> 
> SD is a big waste of bandwidth if it's just a center cut of the HD channel.
> 
> ...


That makes sense in principle, the problem is that the MSO's have a ton of equipment out there that's SD only. And a lot of it is for second and third TVs, although you'd think those would be on HD-DVR at this point anyway.

What they should do is compress the crap out of the Digital Starter SD's that you can get on a DTA, since those folks don't care about quality, and then kill off the SD copies of the higher packages, so that the number of boxes that need replacement is far smaller.

The other aspect to this is that SDV is inevitable. As much as we all hate SDV, and for good reason, if you do the math out on 200 HD channels, 400 SD channels, even a small number of UHD channels, and the bandwidth required for gigabit internet, even 860mhz systems don't have the bandwidth needed without small nodes and SDV.


----------



## bluemcduff (Sep 8, 2007)

telemark said:


> Tivo Stream doesn't work with mpeg4 right now.
> One of those SW update promises we're still waiting for, but don't know when we'll get it.
> 
> This affects video on the iPad but not the video you might be getting on a PC.


I stand corrected. I was thinking of what's already been recorded via MPEG-2.


----------



## bluemcduff (Sep 8, 2007)

Bigg said:


> That makes sense in principle, the problem is that the MSO's have a ton of equipment out there that's SD only. And a lot of it is for second and third TVs, although you'd think those would be on HD-DVR at this point anyway.
> 
> What they should do is compress the crap out of the Digital Starter SD's that you can get on a DTA, since those folks don't care about quality, and then kill off the SD copies of the higher packages, so that the number of boxes that need replacement is far smaller.
> 
> The other aspect to this is that SDV is inevitable. As much as we all hate SDV, and for good reason, if you do the math out on 200 HD channels, 400 SD channels, even a small number of UHD channels, and the bandwidth required for gigabit internet, even 860mhz systems don't have the bandwidth needed without small nodes and SDV.


Not a bad idea, but I was thinking the FCC should be more aggressive. As in, prohibit carrying SD duplicates and carrying the highest quality version of what a network gives.

For instance, if the Discovery Channel is provided in HD, that's all you can carry. But if you've got a channel that's SD only, you can carry it until such time they have an HD version.

What drives me nuts with my cable company (and I'm sure other people feel this way) is when SD versions of channels that do have HD versions are the only ones available.

However, I do recognize that sometimes that bandwidth constraints prevent that from happening. So I'd rather have SD than not having it at all.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

bluemcduff said:


> Not a bad idea, but I was thinking the FCC should be more aggressive. As in, prohibit carrying SD duplicates and carrying the highest quality version of what a network gives.
> 
> For instance, if the Discovery Channel is provided in HD, that's all you can carry. But if you've got a channel that's SD only, you can carry it until such time they have an HD version.
> 
> ...


:down::down::down::down::down::down::down:


----------



## bluemcduff (Sep 8, 2007)

Why the thumbs down? I wouldn't advocate for taking anything away from anyone save for deduplicating the cable lineup.

SD is unnecessary when HD is standard.

I have nothing against HD channels airing SD content or SD only channels without duplicate HD counterparts. What I mind is the waste of bandwidth assigned for TV channels.

I mentioned the FCC for the sole purpose of limiting providers from providing inferior quality just because they could.


----------



## CoxInPHX (Jan 14, 2011)

bluemcduff said:


> Why the thumbs down? I wouldn't advocate for taking anything away from anyone save for deduplicating the cable lineup.
> 
> SD is unnecessary when HD is standard.


I agree, the STB using a Coax Out or Composite Out is going to downscale the HD version to letterbox SD anyway. So eliminating the SD duplicate channels would save a lot of bandwidth. Many networks are already doing this anyway, and letterbox the SD version, instead of cropping the sides to 4:3

Maybe leave the Locals in both formats, but that's it.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

bluemcduff said:


> Why the thumbs down? I wouldn't advocate for taking anything away from anyone save for deduplicating the cable lineup.


Some people on this forum, and I think lpwcomp is one of them, record everything in SD so that they can hold more recordings on their TiVo. With a device like TiVo that is recording the bitstream the HD channels take up 4-5x as much space as an SD channel. No matter what type of TV you use to watch it. H.264 will help that a little, but not enough. They'll still be roughly 3x the size of existing SD recordings.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Some people on this forum, and I think lpwcomp is one of them, record everything in SD so that they can hold more recordings on their TiVo. With a device like TiVo that is recording the bitstream the HD channels take up 4-5x as much space as an SD channel. No matter what type of TV you use to watch it. H.264 will help that a little, but not enough. They'll still be roughly 3x the size of existing SD recordings.


My wife is one of those people, drives my nuts as her setup is all HD. Some of the sports games she has to record in the HD version as the SD version leaves off some things on the side of the screen that you can only see in HD.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

So the idea here is: I've got HD now, everyone that's still watching SD deserves a distorted picture so that I can get more bandwidth.

I'm sure that in your life you-all are not as self-centered as your online personae appear in this thread. Or at least I hope so.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Most SD channels are just letterboxed or center cut HD channels anyway, so the picture wouldn't be "distorted". If the box can properly letterbox or center cut the HD feed and down res it to SD I bet 99.9% of SD watchers would never even notice. 

However storage space on DVRs would still be an issue.


----------



## bluemcduff (Sep 8, 2007)

I accept those who wish to have SD to have as many shows as possible (I used to be one of those people when I was crunched for capacity). Not my position, but I accept it as a completely valid opinion.

It's more a question of do you want to be able to record more shows or do you want more shows to choose from?

I strongly prefer the latter on the grounds that most shows can be offloaded for recording space.


----------



## CoxInPHX (Jan 14, 2011)

In my experience the STB on an HD channel converting to SD via S-Video or even RCA jacks is a much cleaner picture than the SD PQ sent out from the cable plant.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

bluemcduff said:


> Why the thumbs down? I wouldn't advocate for taking anything away from anyone save for deduplicating the cable lineup.
> 
> SD is unnecessary when HD is standard.
> 
> ...





Dan203 said:


> Some people on this forum, and I think lpwcomp is one of them, record everything in SD so that they can hold more recordings on their TiVo. With a device like TiVo that is recording the bitstream the HD channels take up 4-5x as much space as an SD channel. No matter what type of TV you use to watch it. H.264 will help that a little, but not enough. They'll still be roughly 3x the size of existing SD recordings.


Actually, most of the stuff I record is HD but I do have one lifetimed TiVo 2 connected to an old TV that is fed by a Comcast SD box. Even if the HD box I would need to replace it could put out an SD signal, it would mean that I would incurr Comcast's $10/month "HD Technology fee". The only way to avoid the fee would be to replace it with a Premiere or Roamio since Comcast is converting all of their HD channels to h.264.

There's also a 2TB Premiere that is mostly used by someone else to record trash TV and cooking shows, none of which needs to be HD so is recording in SD. Even so, it is currrently about 62% full.


----------



## PSU_Sudzi (Jun 4, 2015)

I loathe SD, don't have a single SD channel in my guide. To each his own.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

In my experience it is more than SD versus HD. It is also what aspect ratio they decide to broadcast for and how they deal with video that isn't that aspect ratio. Between OTA channels and my parents old SD Dishnetwork receivers I have seen some really messed up stuff. At one point my father had a SD 4:3 Tube TV that had a digital OTA tuner and my mother had a 16:9 HD TV so I could see how both dealt with OTA digital broadcasts and how each displayed Dishnetwork SD channels coming from an SD receiver.

On the HD TV lots of the SD Sat/OTA channels had black on the sides and top/bottom, but some just chopped the sides off 16:9 material putting black on the sides for the HD TV and being full screen for the 4:3 TV. On the 4:3 TV OTA broadcast that where 16:9 had black on the top/bottom. How movies where dealt with was really crazy sometimes. The worst is when they decided to compress the video and not maintain it's original aspect ratio - I have seen some really funny looking people. 

Lately some of my OTA SD sub channels that are broadcasting 16:9 TV shows switched from cropping the material for 4:3 TVs to just broadcasting it in 16:9 and they really don't look that bad. 

I wonder how many 4:3 TVs are still in use, if they are watching any TV produced in 16:9 there really is no good way to deal with it - either large black bars top and bottom, chopping off the left and right side of the show, or the worst compressing 16:9 video into 4:3 video.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

I sure hope they add h.264 support to the Stream ASAP. I'm gonna be real peeved if I cannot stream any HD content to my pad.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

Dan203 said:


> Some people on this forum, and I think lpwcomp is one of them, record everything in SD so that they can hold more recordings on their TiVo. With a device like TiVo that is recording the bitstream the HD channels take up 4-5x as much space as an SD channel. No matter what type of TV you use to watch it. H.264 will help that a little, but not enough. They'll still be roughly 3x the size of existing SD recordings.


I do think people should be a bit more clear when they say SD. SD can either be analog SD or digital SD. My provider doesn't provide analog SD anymore, so how much space each digital SD channel takes up in a recording varies and is up to the cable company.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

rainwater said:


> I do think people should be a bit more clear when they say SD. SD can either be analog SD or digital SD. My provider doesn't provide analog SD anymore, so how much space each digital SD channel takes up in a recording varies and is up to the cable company.


For any particular program, the SD(480i) version (480i) is almost certainly going to take up less space than than the HD(usually 720p or 1080i) version.

For instance, the most recent episode of "World Poker Tour" - SD version,padded by 1h32m for a total recording time of 2h32m is 3.71GB while the HD(720p) version, padded by 4m for a total recording time of 1h4m is 7.34GB - twice the size with @40% of the time.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

rainwater said:


> I do think people should be a bit more clear when they say SD. SD can either be analog SD or digital SD. My provider doesn't provide analog SD anymore, so how much space each digital SD channel takes up in a recording varies and is up to the cable company.


In my experience most digital SD is in the 2-3mbps range, but I have seen higher and lower, so you're right it varies by provider and channel. But SD will always take up less space then HD.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

bluemcduff said:


> Not a bad idea, but I was thinking the FCC should be more aggressive. As in, prohibit carrying SD duplicates and carrying the highest quality version of what a network gives.


The FCC shouldn't be telling providers how to manage their bandwidth. What would be appropriate is for the FCC to make a ruling saying that broadcasters cannot force a cable company to carry the SD duplicate so long as the equivalent signal is delivered through a down-res'ed HD version. I'm not sure how much the contracts are an issue. Even DISH carries SD duplicates on EA, they just don't carry duplicate SD LiLs. But EA didn't exist before HD, and all equipment on EA is HD capable, so there was no transition for them.



Dan203 said:


> Some people on this forum, and I think lpwcomp is one of them, record everything in SD so that they can hold more recordings on their TiVo. With a device like TiVo that is recording the bitstream the HD channels take up 4-5x as much space as an SD channel. No matter what type of TV you use to watch it. H.264 will help that a little, but not enough. They'll still be roughly 3x the size of existing SD recordings.


Cable providers absolutely, 100% should be killing the SD duplicates for at least the upper tier stuff where it's really not needed. There are TiVos with 6TB hard drives now, so no one can claim there isn't enough space for stuff. That being said, the FCC shouldn't be telling cable companies how to manage their own bandwidth, even if most of the cable companies probably do need someone to tell them how to manage their bandwidth, since they aren't very good at it.



Dan203 said:


> In my experience most digital SD is in the 2-3mbps range, but I have seen higher and lower, so you're right it varies by provider and channel. But SD will always take up less space then HD.


And look like garbage. That's why most savvy TiVo users just delete the SD versions from the guide.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

ej42137 said:


> So the idea here is: I've got HD now, everyone that's still watching SD deserves a distorted picture so that I can get more bandwidth.
> 
> I'm sure that in your life you-all are not as self-centered as your online personae appear in this thread. Or at least I hope so.


Time to retire that rotary dial phone, man.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

slowbiscuit said:


> Time to retire that rotary dial phone, man.


Are you inferring that I watch SD? That would be jumping to an unwarranted conclusion.


----------



## kenez (Jan 17, 2004)

So here's my situation. I always prefer to watch in HD but here in Atlanta Comcast is transitioning to MPEG-4 and I am told that will render the HD channels on my Series 3's unwatchable (thanks Tivo and Comcast!). I do have a Roamio Pro that won't be affected but my Series 3's recently had their hard drives upgraded so I am not anxious to retire them. My temporary plan is to continue watching the local HD channels OTA since my Series 3 units support both cable and OTA side by side while the other cable only channels will have to be recorded in SD. So doing away with the SD versions of these channels would not be a positive development for me.

Are there any other possibilities that I maybe missing aside from scrapping the Series 3's and buying two new Roamio units? Thanks.


----------



## BigJimOutlaw (Mar 21, 2004)

That's pretty much it. Will the Comcast locals be kept in mpeg2? If so, those will still be recordable. Otherwise OTA and mpeg2 SD channels is it.


----------



## atmuscarella (Oct 11, 2005)

kenez said:


> So here's my situation. I always prefer to watch in HD but here in Atlanta Comcast is transitioning to MPEG-4 and I am told that will render the HD channels on my Series 3's unwatchable (thanks Tivo and Comcast!). I do have a Roamio Pro that won't be affected but my Series 3's recently had their hard drives upgraded so I am not anxious to retire them. My temporary plan is to continue watching the local HD channels OTA since my Series 3 units support both cable and OTA side by side while the other cable only channels will have to be recorded in SD. So doing away with the SD versions of these channels would not be a positive development for me.
> 
> Are there any other possibilities that I maybe missing aside from scrapping the Series 3's and buying two new Roamio units? Thanks.


 Maybe the answer is to record less TV? All kidding aside you have 10 tuners 6 that can record anything off all cable channels that almost always repeat their shows a dozen times and 4 that can record from the major OTA networks seems like there has to be a way to record what you are actually watching.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

kenez said:


> So here's my situation. I always prefer to watch in HD but here in Atlanta Comcast is transitioning to MPEG-4 and I am told that will render the HD channels on my Series 3's unwatchable (*thanks Tivo *and Comcast!). I do have a Roamio Pro that won't be affected but my Series 3's recently had their hard drives upgraded so I am not anxious to retire them. My temporary plan is to continue watching the local HD channels OTA since my Series 3 units support both cable and OTA side by side while the other cable only channels will have to be recorded in SD. So doing away with the SD versions of these channels would not be a positive development for me. Are there any other possibilities that I maybe missing aside from scrapping the Series 3's and buying two new Roamio units? Thanks.


How could TiVo have possibly known back when they were creating the TiVo HD what new compression scheme would be coming in the future? Do you think they had Marty McFly's time machine that took them to last Wednesday?


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

I don't pretend to understand S3 oddities, but there's some mpeg4 network support, so could someone jerryrig a way to play Roamio mpeg4 recordings on a S3 through a PC or MRV or Streambaby?


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> How could TiVo have possibly known back when they were creating the TiVo HD what new compression scheme would be coming in the future? Do you think they had Marty McFly's time machine that took them to last Wednesday?


The thing is that the the Series 3 TiVos are perfectly capable of playing h.264, which has been around a lot longer than "last Wednesday". it just won't record or pull them. They have to be pushed.

I wouldn't think the required s/w mod would be that difficult, especially since I believe they implemented it in the Aussie S3s, but I could be wrong.


----------



## kenez (Jan 17, 2004)

telemark said:


> I don't pretend to understand S3 oddities, but there's some mpeg4 network support, so could someone jerryrig a way to play Roamio mpeg4 recordings on a S3 through a PC or MRV or Streambaby?


Based on some other threads here it is my understanding that the S3 and Tivo HD units can support MPEG-4 but it would require a software update from TiVo. Not sure if that's is true or not but I guess Tivo has no incentive to roll out a software fix if the alternative is selling new Roamio boxes to replace all those Tivo S3's and Tvo HD boxes.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

lpwcomp said:


> The thing is that the the Series 3 TiVos are perfectly capable of playing h.264, which has been around a lot longer than "last Wednesday". it just won't record or pull them. They have to be pushed. I wouldn't think the required s/w mod would be that difficult, especially since I believe they implemented it in the Aussie S3s, but I could be wrong.


Well then yeah, that sucks!

I wasn't saying H.264 came out last Wednesday, rather TiVo folks used the time machine in 2006/7 ( or whenever they designed the HD) and travelled to last Wednesday and realized there's a new compression format that took hold and..........ahhhhh never mind, jokes suck when they have to be explained.


----------



## rainwater (Sep 21, 2004)

kenez said:


> Based on some other threads here it is my understanding that the S3 and Tivo HD units can support MPEG-4 but it would require a software update from TiVo.


More likely is that TiVo would have to get updated drivers from Broadcom. However, it is possible Broadcom no longer provides support for the chipset so TiVo doesn't really have any option to provide support.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

kenez said:


> Based on some other threads here it is my understanding that the S3 and Tivo HD units can support MPEG-4 but it would require a software update from TiVo. Not sure if that's is true or not but I guess Tivo has no incentive to roll out a software fix if the alternative is selling new Roamio boxes to replace all those Tivo S3's and Tvo HD boxes.


Hard to say, none of us work at TiVo so none of us really know what the effort would be.

What we do know is TiVo has been very clear that they will not be providing an MPEG-4 patch for Series 3 TiVo, so it is kind of a mute point.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

HarperVision said:


> How could TiVo have possibly known back when they were creating the TiVo HD what new compression scheme would be coming in the future? Do you think they had Marty McFly's time machine that took them to last Wednesday?


That's doctored! The actual date is 10/21/2015 so we're still a few months away.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

bradleys said:


> ... so it is kind of a *mute* point.


If only.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> That's doctored! The actual date is 10/21/2015 so we're still a few months away. YouTube Link: BTTF2


But they've travelled to different dates throughout the movies, haven't they? I saw what I posted on Facebook, it HAS to be true!!!


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

bradleys said:


> Hard to say, none of us work at TiVo so none of us really know what the effort would be. What we do know is TiVo has been very clear that they will not be providing an MPEG-4 patch for Series 3 TiVo, *so it is kind of a mute point*.


Yeah, and it's probably a moot point too!


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

kenez said:


> Based on some other threads here it is my understanding that the S3 and Tivo HD units can support MPEG-4 but it would require a software update from TiVo. Not sure if that's is true or not but I guess Tivo has no incentive to roll out a software fix if the alternative is selling new Roamio boxes to replace all those Tivo S3's and Tvo HD boxes.


They're at least 7 years old, which is an eternity in tech. Should Tivo have upgraded the S3s to handle mpeg4 channels? Maybe. Will they? Um no, they already said they won't. Get over it and use pyTivo to push recordings from the Roamios and/or live without the mpeg4 channels on the S3s.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> How could TiVo have possibly known back when they were creating the TiVo HD what new compression scheme would be coming in the future? Do you think they had Marty McFly's time machine that took them to last Wednesday?


The original S3 tivo was released the second half of 2006. The mp4 format goes back to 2003 (or earlier).

Tivo stream can't handle videos which are already h264 encoded. Tivo stream encodes videos to h.264 mp4 container so devices like iPads can play the videos. What about videos which don't need to be encoded? Not compatible. Give me a break.

Your graphic is cute but your point has no validity.



lpwcomp said:


> The thing is that the the Series 3 TiVos are perfectly capable of playing h.264, which has been around a lot longer than "last Wednesday". it just won't record or pull them. They have to be pushed.
> 
> I wouldn't think the required s/w mod would be that difficult, especially since I believe they implemented it in the Aussie S3s, but I could be wrong.


 exactly


slowbiscuit said:


> They're at least 7 years old, which is an eternity in tech. Should Tivo have upgraded the S3s to handle mpeg4 channels? Maybe. Will they? Um no, they already said they won't. Get over it and use pyTivo to push recordings from the Roamios and/or live without the mpeg4 channels on the S3s.


Tivo won't be upgrading S3 units. Agreed. Doesn't change the fact that tivo, probably, could do so. Doesn't change the fact that mp4 was in existence at the time S3 was designed.

No excuse for tivo stream not handling mp4.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Though I now record _most_ of my prime time shows in HD (and my hard drive is in the high 90s% full), I still record a lot of various stuff in SD for a few reasons:
1) it doesn't matter for stuff like Jeopardy, so I do like the space saved
2) for some things, like reality shows or documentaries, I download and watch with VLC faster than realtime, and the space saved on my iPad is even more important than the space saved on my Tivo
3) sort of 2B I guess, but various music shows I record on the SD channels.. but even those, I've been nuking a bunch of them that weren't big name bands I already liked.. and I record all the various talk shows to skim through.. in SD for disk space reasons.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

lew said:


> The original S3 tivo was released the second half of 2006. The mp4 format goes back to 2003 (or earlier). Tivo stream can't handle videos which are already h264 encoded. Tivo stream encodes videos to h.264 mp4 container so devices like iPads can play the videos. What about videos which don't need to be encoded? Not compatible. Give me a break. Your graphic is cute but your point has no validity.......


But aren't there many codecs that are created all the time without really knowing which one will take hold and become "standard"? How entrenched was mp4 back then?


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

HarperVision said:


> But aren't there many codecs that are created all the time without really knowing which one will take hold and become "standard"? How entrenched was mp4 back then?


That wasn't the point you originally made. Remember, the hardware has the necessary codec for h.264. Tivo chose not to update the software.

What about the stream? No need for a time machine. Tivo dropped the ball.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lew said:


> The original S3 tivo was released the second half of 2006. The mp4 format goes back to 2003 (or earlier).
> 
> Tivo stream can't handle videos which are already h264 encoded. Tivo stream encodes videos to h.264 mp4 container so devices like iPads can play the videos. What about videos which don't need to be encoded? Not compatible. Give me a break.


MP4 and H.264 are not the same thing. MP4 is a container, H.264 is a video codec. The Stream actually uses HLS, which stores H.264 video and AAC audio in a transport stream container broken up into short files (10 seconds each) and organizes them using a playlist file.

The H.264 used by cable companies can NOT, in most cases, be played directly on most mobile devices and still require recoding. Most mobile devices can not play interlaced video. The vast majority of content broadcast on cable is 1080i (the i means interlaced) and as such would need to be recoded to produce a playable mobile stream.

As for the S3... The hardware supports H.264. The exact same base hardware is used in the New Zeland version of TiVo and they supported H.264 recording. The reason the US TiVos do not is purely a business decision. By the time US based MSOs started actually broadcasting H.264 content the S3 was a dead platform and TiVo decided not to put effort into updating it to support those channels. you may disagree with that decision, but it was not based on short sighted hardware design like you suggest. The hardware is there, the software is all that's lacking.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Dan--Many of us, wrongly, say mp4 when we mean a mp4 container with h.264 video codec. It's less typing, and in the meaning, in the context of these forums, is clear. 

Out of area tivo stream downloads the video to the iPad. Is that also done with HLS?

That said video files on our tivo would have to be (re?) encoded for size, even if the format was suitable. (interlaced issue).

Do you know if there is a hardware issue?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lew said:


> Dan--Many of us, wrongly, say mp4 when we mean a mp4 container with h.264 video codec. It's less typing, and in the meaning, in the context of these forums, is clear.
> 
> Out of area tivo stream downloads the video to the iPad. Is that also done with HLS?
> 
> ...


The Stream hardware outputs HLS regardless of the device it is streaming to or whether it's inside or outside the home. Even when you download a show to an iPad it's HLS, they just store the little chunks as files and retain the playlist file for local playback.

Internally TiVo uses a format similar to a transport stream. It can record and playback anything the cable company sends, including H.264, without any transcoding. However if you want to stream that recording to a mobile device then it does need to be transcoded, even if it's already H.264, because in most cases mobile devices will not be able to play streams with the parameters that the cable companies use. The main one being interlaced video. Most mobile devices will only play progressive video and most broadcast video is interlaced. There are also some limitations on profile/level and bitrate that might also require a recode for compatibility.

As for why TiVo doesn't yet support H.264 source videos when streaming... I don't know. It seems like something they should have added a long time ago. Could be anything from a hardware limitation to a lack of development resources. I really have no idea.


----------



## JBDragon (Jan 4, 2004)

rainwater said:


> I do think people should be a bit more clear when they say SD. SD can either be analog SD or digital SD. My provider doesn't provide analog SD anymore, so how much space each digital SD channel takes up in a recording varies and is up to the cable company.


is anyone using Analog anymore? Satellite is Digital. Over the Air (Antenna) is Digital. Comcast went Digital a number of years ago. Who's left, some really small cable operator?


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

JBDragon said:


> is anyone using Analog anymore? Satellite is Digital. Over the Air (Antenna) is Digital. Comcast went Digital a number of years ago. Who's left, some really small cable operator?


Oceanic Time Warner Cable Hawaii because many places are lucky to even _have_ cable tv!


----------



## CoxInPHX (Jan 14, 2011)

JBDragon said:


> is anyone using Analog anymore? Satellite is Digital. Over the Air (Antenna) is Digital. Comcast went Digital a number of years ago. Who's left, some really small cable operator?


Most of Cox still has 2-99 in Analog available, but is ending it this year, slowly market by market. Arizona will still probably have it until late this year, early next year. Phoenix is Cox's single largest market and that is a lot of HD-uDTAs to purchase and deploy.


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

JBDragon said:


> is anyone using Analog anymore? Satellite is Digital. Over the Air (Antenna) is Digital. Comcast went Digital a number of years ago. Who's left, some really small cable operator?


TWC in Eastern NC still has an analog tier, though they've been pruning it for several years (without lowering the price), and back when it looked like Comcast was going to buy them they were scheduled to drop it altogether sometime near the end of this year, but I don't know if the Comcast deal falling through will have any effect on that or not.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

CoxInPHX said:


> Most of Cox still has 2-99 in Analog available, but is ending it this year, slowly market by market. Arizona will still probably have it until late this year, early next year. Phoenix is Cox's single largest market and that is a lot of HD-uDTAs to purchase and deploy.


Plus lots of old people with SD 4:3 TVs.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

Bigg said:


> They already compress MPEG-2 heavily, so likely you will see a ~35% reduction in file size, but it will depend on the channel, how much they compressed it before, and how much they will compress it after.


Right. And shifting to MPEG-4 might enable Comcast to increase the number of HD channels broadcast, so you may end up w/ larger MPEG-4 recordings of HD content for channels currently sent only in SD.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

ej42137 said:


> So the idea here is: I've got HD now, everyone that's still watching SD deserves a distorted picture so that I can get more bandwidth.
> 
> I'm sure that in your life you-all are not as self-centered as your online personae appear in this thread. Or at least I hope so.


Whether it's slurping HD content or H2O, it's all about *me*.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

krkaufman said:


> Right. And shifting to MPEG-4 might enable Comcast to increase the number of HD channels broadcast, so you may end up w/ larger MPEG-4 recordings of HD content for channels currently sent only in SD.


Comparing HD and SD file sizes is sort of irrelevant.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Comparing HD and SD file sizes is sort of irrelevant.


You're wrong, of course, but I think I'd enjoy hearing your rationale.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

krkaufman said:


> You're wrong, of course, but I think I'd enjoy hearing your rationale.


Apples and oranges. Savvy TiVo users record almost everything in HD, and if one channels becomes available in HD that wasn't before, it's impact on disk space usage is pretty minimal, since all the major stuff has been in HD for a while, even on the older, lower-frequency systems.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Apples and oranges. Savvy TiVo users record almost everything in HD, and if one channels becomes available in HD that wasn't before, it's impact on disk space usage is pretty minimal, since all the major stuff has been in HD for a while, even on the older, lower-frequency systems.


You're apparently not a Comcast customer, as Comcast has a whooole lot o' channels still broadcasting in SD.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

krkaufman said:


> You're apparently not a Comcast customer, as Comcast has a whooole lot o' channels still broadcasting in SD.


It depends on the system. I was on a ~625mhz system, and it had some sports stuff like ESPNU only in SD, now I'm on an 860mhz system (for now), and it has AJAM in SD, which the other one didn't at all, and local subchannels, but there's nothing else notable in SD only. There's tons of channels, but they're all junk.

Still apples and oranges in terms of a storage comparison.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

Bigg said:


> Still apples and oranges in terms of a storage comparison.


Not in this context...



bobdec01 said:


> Just wondering if the old number of shows per TB rule of thumb will change.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Some "interesting" thoughts in this thread.

To answer the OPs question...I have FiOS, an hour show (White Collar) recorded with mpeg2 is around 7-8 Gigs. White Collar recorded with MP4 (h.264) is between 4-5 Gigs. Stations are USA and UHD. The high for MP4 is 5.22, for mpeg2 is 7.93

All this talk about bandwidth and sticking it to SD customers. You want to free up bandwidth. Don't carry the east and west coast feeds. Let customers use their DVR or VoD. Cut out half the HBO channels. They show the same programming. Let customers use their DVR or VoD. I'm talking about the HD channels. You could do the same with SD but you wouldn't get huge savings.

Let's look at the opposite. HD channels showing SD video which is unscaled to HD. Assume the quality is better then SD video upscaled by tivo. Is it enough to justify the bandwidth? Not a big deal to me but it might be to the poster complaining about wasted bandwidth.

Why don't they drop SD? Give customers HD boxes and let the box output SD. FiOS gave out cheap SD only boxes to customers who weren't using boxes on extra TV sets when they dropped analog. Other cable systems were required to offer free, or discounted, boxes. Cable systems know how many boxes are out there. The cable system probably doesn't want the expense. They might have regulatory issues if they charged. I guess they could just greatly reduce the number of premium stations offered in SD.

Second issue. Doesn't Comcast charge extra for HD. Comcast would need some special firmware so the box won't output HD. Maybe deactivate HDMI and component outputs? Physically remove the ports from the motherboard. Maybe a STB mfg already has a box which is custom programmable. Cablevision had the ability to turn off the IR receiver if you didn't rent a remote from them, obviously years ago.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Comparing HD and SD file sizes is sort of irrelevant.


On our Comcast system we have all SD channels in digital, I just checked and a recording on the SD channel takes about 1/4 the space of the same channel recorded in HD, so for some people who don't care about the picture, they get 4 times the recording space, my wife does that and watches only some of what she records, her 3TB drive is about 75% full using the SD record, works for her, I have my own Roamio that is only used to record HD, so we both get what we want. (Her TV is a HD 32" in the kitchen)


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

lew said:


> Some "interesting" thoughts in this thread.
> 
> Second issue. Doesn't Comcast charge extra for HD. Comcast would need some special firmware so the box won't output HD. Maybe deactivate HDMI and component outputs? Physically remove the ports from the motherboard. Maybe a STB mfg already has a box which is custom programmable. Cablevision had the ability to turn off the IR receiver if you didn't rent a remote from them, obviously years ago.


With triple play you get HD without any extra HD charge, I have been using triple play for the last six or more years so I don't know if cable only customers do pay a HD charge now. Comcast in CT does charge $2.99/month + tax for an analog only (non HD first 100 ch) box, it has a ch. 2 RF output, so I guess you could use an old Series 2 or maybe even a Series 1 with that RF Comcast box.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Giving it more thought..The kind of customer who is using a SD box, either with an old TV set or with an HD set, is the kind of customer who might require a service call to swap out the box.

The process of dropping SD channels, when a HD version is available, is probably a lot more expensive then we think.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

lew said:


> Giving it more thought..The kind of customer who is using a SD box, either with an old TV set or with an HD set, is the kind of customer who might require a service call to swap out the box.
> 
> The process of dropping SD channels, when a HD version is available, is probably a lot more expensive then we think.


Good point, and I would have to get my wife a 6Tb drive upgrade !!!


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

If they plan to convert to H.264 then they're going to need to upgrade a lot of those old boxes anyway.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> If they plan to convert to H.264 then they're going to need to upgrade a lot of those old boxes anyway.


Not if the HD boxes already support h.264.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Well if they only do HD then I guess that's true. I assumed they would convert SD as well since that would allow them to cut those down by 40-50% with little to no visual loss in quality.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Well if they only do HD then I guess that's true. I assumed they would convert SD as well since that would allow them to cut those down by 40-50% with little to no visual loss in quality.


From the letter I received from xfinity(Comcast)


> As part of our HD Enhanced Program, we are upgrading the way we deliver HD channels in your area.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Dan2Makedell said:


> if they only do HD then I guess that's true. I assumed they would convert SD as well since that would allow them to cut those down by 40-50% with little to no visual loss in quality.


Converting SD makes no sense,JMO, once you've decided to swap out old boxes you might as well ditch SD


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Yeah they'll probably just keep compressing the sh*t out of SD until it's so unwatchable that people switch to HD on their own. Then they can ditch the SD channels all together.


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Yeah they'll probably just keep compressing the sh*t out of SD until it's so unwatchable that people switch to HD on their own. Then they can ditch the SD channels all together.


What about the channels that are SD only where it makes no sense to up-convert them to HD?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Are there still channels like that? Other then local access, broadcast sub channels and CSPAN?


----------



## lpwcomp (May 6, 2002)

Dan203 said:


> Are there still channels like that? Other then local access, broadcast sub channels and CSPAN?


I was mostly thinking of the broadcast sub-channel "networks" like MeTV, Antenna TV, Movies, etc.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

krkaufman said:


> Not in this context...


That rule is kind of useless anyway. Even on the same provider, bitrates can vary widely from channel to channel.



lew said:


> To answer the OPs question...I have FiOS, an hour show (White Collar) recorded with mpeg2 is around 7-8 Gigs.


On Comcast, you're real lucky if an HD recording takes up 7 gigs. Most are more like 5. I wish we were getting those sorts of bitrates, although they have improved PQ a lot over the past few years. We're all MPEG-2.



> All this talk about bandwidth and sticking it to SD customers.


Doing HD-only isn't sticking it to the few remaining SD customers. In fact, their PQ would get slightly better, as the downconversion would happen really close to their TV, so they'd get the full resolution of whatever crappy cable they are using.



> I guess they could just greatly reduce the number of premium stations offered in SD.


They have a lot of DTAs, but they could just offer Digital Starter (or equivalent) in SD, and have Digital Preferred and the premiums only in HD. That would save a lot of bandwidth.



> Second issue. Doesn't Comcast charge extra for HD.


Depends on the market. Some do, some don't. They are bundling aggressively now, so they could just build HD in to the higher tier packages.



lessd said:


> On our Comcast system we have all SD channels in digital, I just checked and a recording on the SD channel takes about 1/4 the space of the same channel recorded in HD


Considering that a 2TB TiVo is basically a bottomless pit, even with HD, and they have 6TB TiVos out there now, that's no an issue. If someone is constantly filling up their 2 or 3TB TiVo with HD, then they need to re-acquaint themselves with their delete key. SD is a far worse situation.



lpwcomp said:


> Not if the HD boxes already support h.264.


Most do. On the Moto side, all DCX boxes support it, the DCT's and DCH's do not, but they are the old clunkers that need to go anyway. It's not really that big of a deal to do a transition at this point.

---

All that being said, if you look down the pipe, even with an all-digital, H.264 HD, 860mhz plant, there just isn't going to be enough bandwidth. Comcast wants to offer UHD, and DOCSIS 3.1. Even if you put the UHD over IP using DOCSIS 3.1, there still just isn't enough room for everything to fit. SDV is going to have to be a reality if they want to compete with DirecTV *and* offer gigabit internet. Either that, or some tough decisions are going to have to be made in terms of not carrying stuff in HD, or SD, or UHD, or not really getting to gigabit or something.

The math just doesn't add up.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Considering that a 2TB TiVo is basically a bottomless pit, even with HD, and they have 6TB TiVos out there now, that's no an issue. If someone is constantly filling up their 2 or 3TB TiVo with HD, then they need to re-acquaint themselves with their delete key. SD is a far worse situation.


Making a derogatory statement about how someone want to use their TiVo is at best impolite


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> Making a derogatory statement about how someone want to use their TiVo is at best impolite


Well, it needed to be said.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Well, it needed to be said.


Why would you care if someone wants to watch HDTV from TiVo in SD, what possible harm to you or the community does that cause ? Are you trying to keep people that watch SD from saying they do, what your point, if it just that SD people are not getting the full experience of HDTV, we all know that, the great thing is our freedom to do things how we may want, as long it does not cause other people problems. My wife recording SD and watching SD on the kitchen HDTV may drive me nuts, but why does it seem to drive you nuts. (Unless your thinking about making her your wife)


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> Why would you care if someone wants to watch HDTV from TiVo in SD, what possible harm to you or the community does that cause ? Are you trying to keep people that watch SD from saying they do, what your point, if it just that SD people are not getting the full experience of HDTV, we all know that, the great thing is our freedom to do things how we may want, as long it does not cause other people problems. My wife recording SD and watching SD on the kitchen HDTV may drive me nuts, but why does it seem to drive you nuts. (Unless your thinking about making her your wife)


No, I was making a point about TiVo in that it is basically a bottomless pit, so that if anyone is running out of space with only HD channels available on a 2 or 3TB TiVo, that's a user problem, and not a TiVo problem.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> No, I was making a point about TiVo in that it is basically a bottomless pit, so that if anyone is running out of space with only HD channels available on a 2 or 3TB TiVo, that's a user problem, and not a TiVo problem.


For you it basically a bottomless pit, I understand as it also that way for me, (and I only have a 2Tb drive in my Roamio) my wife does things differently, she may record 200 episodes of say Shark Tank, or a complete new TV series, than if she has time will start to watch the new series and if she likes it she will not have the wait between each episode. She can scan each Shark Tank for stuff that she may have interest in. Does she watch the 2000 hours or more of stuff she has now recorded in SD, no way, but it is her decision, I call it DVR* OCD* 
Somebody on this Forum did complained about his wife not wanting to erase recordings, because my wife has her own Roamio Plus with a 3Tb drive, this is not a problem in my house.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> For you it basically a bottomless pit, I understand as it also that way for me, (and I only have a 2Tb drive in my Roamio) my wife does things differently, she may record 200 episodes of say Shark Tank, or a complete new TV series, than if she has time will start to watch the new series and if she likes it she will not have the wait between each episode. She can scan each Shark Tank for stuff that she may have interest in. Does she watch the 2000 hours or more of stuff she has now recorded in SD, no way, but it is her decision, I call it DVR* OCD*
> Somebody on this Forum did complained about his wife not wanting to erase recordings, because my wife has her own Roamio Plus with a 3Tb drive, this is not a problem in my house.


I have a 2TB Premiere. Even with 3 roommates, the only time the thing wasn't a bottomless pit was during the Olympics, and that was only because it had 500GB of normal TV shows on it, and I was recording huge numbers of shows to only watch little bits and pieces of it, but it offered enough headroom to see all the things that I wanted to see.

DVRs are not intended to re-create Xfinity On Demand or Netflix. TiVo has some big drive options, which are nice if you're too busy to watch everything for a few weeks, or even a few months, but they are still DVRs. They have plenty of room for proper DVR usage.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

Bigg said:


> ... for proper DVR usage.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Bigg said:


> Comparing HD and SD file sizes is sort of irrelevant.


Not irrelevant at ALL, because I record a LOT in HD (nowadays), but also record a lot in SD.. because of file sizes.. (and wanting to easily copy to an iPad to watch in VLC)


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> DVRs are not intended to re-create Xfinity On Demand or Netflix. TiVo has some big drive options, which are nice if you're too busy to watch everything for a few weeks, or even a few months, but they are still DVRs. They have plenty of room for proper DVR usage.


If my wife wants to re-create Xfinity OD what/or who does that harm, and your words "*proper DVR usage*" sounds like social manners, for a DVR, are you kidding me, is her Roamio having its feelings hurt ???


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

lessd said:


> If my wife wants to re-create Xfinity OD what/or who does that harm, and your words "*proper DVR usage*" sounds like social manners, for a DVR, are you kidding me, is her Roamio having its feelings hurt ???


Technically it's not strictly legal. The fair use ruling technically only covered time shifting, not archiving. The catch is there was no specific time limit given to qualify what's "shifting" and what's "archiving".

But to each their own I say. If the MSOs decide to get rid of SD then I'm sure you're wife would adapt. Or you could get her a bigger drive so she could continue to do what she does. There was a time when TiVos only held a couple dozen hours of even SD. People have adapted, one way or another, to bigger drives and HD and they will continue to do so if things change. We're an adaptable species.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Dan203 said:


> Technically it's not strictly legal. The fair use ruling technically only covered time shifting, not archiving. The catch is there was no specific time limit given to qualify what's "shifting" and what's "archiving".
> 
> But to each their own I say. If the MSOs decide to get rid of SD then I'm sure you're wife would adapt. Or you could get her a bigger drive so she could continue to do what she does. There was a time when TiVos only held a couple dozen hours of even SD. People have adapted, one way or another, to bigger drives and HD and they will continue to do so if things change. We're an adaptable species.


True enough, if SD goes away in a few years the TCF will have a way to use a 12Tb drive, that will give her about 1900 hours of HD record time, or she will adapt, I tossed about 200 VCR tapes when we started with TiVo, she had only watch about 10% of what I tossed, she did adapted.
I sure she not going to brought up on illegal archiving charges, unless someone on this Forum rats her out.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> If my wife wants to re-create Xfinity OD what/or who does that harm, and your words "*proper DVR usage*" sounds like social manners, for a DVR, are you kidding me, is her Roamio having its feelings hurt ???


Systems are meant to do certain things. The DVR was meant to timeshift, not re-create XoD, Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

With the new Plex app and a NAS with 24TB of space you could probably recreate those things with nothing but TiVo recordings.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Systems are meant to do certain things. The DVR was meant to timeshift, not re-create XoD, Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon Prime.


Maybe you signed a different agreement than I did, but I never signed anything that told me how long I can keep a TiVo recording, where did you see any legal document about what any DVR was meant to do ?? or any document at all, OK I know a DVR is not meant to hit someone over the head with, but if TiVo did not want archiving, the software could have been written to stop it, as in you could keep a recording for say 2 months than your TiVo will erase it, space needed or not.
People (maybe even you) have said they use* BitTorrent* to steal programs *er* watch something they missed, is that more legal than archiving on a DVR? TiVo is or has come out with a NAS with 24TB (that about 3700 hours of HD record time), if not for archiving what would be the reason for such a product ?? maybe to record the full Olympic venues.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Bigg said:


> I have a 2TB Premiere. Even with 3 roommates, the only time the thing wasn't a bottomless pit was during the Olympics, and that was only because it had 500GB of normal TV shows on it, and I was recording huge numbers of shows to only watch little bits and pieces of it, but it offered enough headroom to see all the things that I wanted to see.
> 
> DVRs are not intended to re-create Xfinity On Demand or Netflix. TiVo has some big drive options, which are nice if you're too busy to watch everything for a few weeks, or even a few months, but they are still DVRs. They have plenty of room for proper DVR usage.


Thanks for your post. I really like it when people instruct me on the proper use of my own TiVo.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> Maybe you signed a different agreement than I did, but I never signed anything that told me how long I can keep a TiVo recording, where did you see any legal document about what any DVR was meant to do ?? or any document at all, OK I know a DVR is not meant to hit someone over the head with, but if TiVo did not want archiving, the software could have been written to stop it, as in you could keep a recording for say 2 months than your TiVo will erase it, space needed or not.
> People (maybe even you) have said they use* BitTorrent* to steal programs *er* watch something they missed, is that more legal than archiving on a DVR? TiVo is or has come out with a NAS with 24TB (that about 3700 hours of HD record time), if not for archiving what would be the reason for such a product ?? maybe to record the full Olympic venues.


I also didn't sign a document saying that my Honda Civic isn't a race car, or that my Keurig isn't for running a coffee shop.

The TiVo Mega is a ridiculous product that is aimed at a luxury audience who will pay ridiculous prices for things that they don't need.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> I also didn't sign a document saying that my Honda Civic isn't a race car, or that my Keurig isn't for running a coffee shop.
> 
> The TiVo Mega is a ridiculous product that is aimed at a luxury audience who will pay ridiculous prices for things that they don't need.


You could race Honda Civic at a race track if you paid, breaking the law with any product is bad (including racing your car on a public road, but I don't know if a licensed coffee shop can use a Keurig) , but how is one breaking the law by what they legal record on their TiVo, no matter how long they keep the recording ??.

Maybe someone in the USA needs a TiVo Mega, how would you know, though I agree with you that it is ridiculous product.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> You could race Honda Civic at a race track if you paid, breaking the law with any product is bad (including racing your car on a public road, but I don't know if a licensed coffee shop can use a Keurig) , but how is one breaking the law by what they legal record on their TiVo, no matter how long they keep the recording ??.
> 
> Maybe someone in the USA needs a TiVo Mega, how would you know, though I agree with you that it is ridiculous product.


I didn't say anything about legal or illegal. What I said is whether it's meant to do that. Sure, I could bring my Civic to the track, but I'm not going to complain when it can only get to 90mph, because it's a Civic.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> I didn't say anything about legal or illegal. What I said is whether it's meant to do that. Sure, I could bring my Civic to the track, but I'm not going to complain when it can only get to 90mph, because it's a Civic.


And I not going to complain when my 2Tb Roamio only has 157 hours of record time. If I use a painted brick as a door stop, what then, as a building brick was never meant to be used as a door stop, I am sure most people use stuff for things that they were never meant for, like using newspaper for packing etc. I find it somewhat nuts that you think products can and should only be used for what they were original made for, as that not the way most of the world works. I can think of many examples in my own home, but I not going to spend the time listing them.
Their are examples where you are correct, like one should not drive a golf cart on a public interstate highway etc.


----------



## shwru980r (Jun 22, 2008)

Bigg said:


> DVRs are not intended to re-create Xfinity On Demand or Netflix. TiVo has some big drive options, which are nice if you're too busy to watch everything for a few weeks, or even a few months, but they are still DVRs. They have plenty of room for proper DVR usage.


False. The larger hard drives allow a user to accumulate large quantities of programming that can be viewed months or years after it is recorded. This in turn makes the the need for on demand or Netflix unnecessary since a user has a higher probability of finding a show to watch right on their own Tivo. Most every TV show available on demand or on Neflix was first shown on TV and could have been recorded by Tivo anyway.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> I find it somewhat nuts that you think products can and should only be used for what they were original made for, as that not the way most of the world works.


I didn't say that at all. What I did say, however, is that TiVo isn't designed to be an On Demand library in your living room, because it doesn't do a good job at doing that. A DVR is for using as a DVR, for recording things, watching, and deleting them, on a weekly or maybe a monthly basis. Yeah, a lot of us have crap hanging around that we haven't gotten around to watching or whatever, and has been on there forever, but not hundreds or thousands of hours of it. If you do a decent job of managing your DVR, you won't have a whole lot of stuff on it just sitting there, it will be an in-and-out type of operation.

I can't say I'm perfect at DVR management, mine was a disaster for a while, plus I had roommates, although I alone had several hundred GB of HD content just sitting around, but I'm getting much better at making the watch or delete decision, and now I'm down to 6%. I figure with weekly news shows that I have set up to auto-delete after 5 or 10 episodes, I should get down to about 2-3% consistent disk utilization on my XL4 during the summer, and stay at 10-15% or lower during the TV seasons.



shwru980r said:


> False. The larger hard drives allow a user to accumulate large quantities of programming that can be viewed months or years after it is recorded. This in turn makes the the need for on demand or Netflix unnecessary since a user has a higher probability of finding a show to watch right on their own Tivo. Most every TV show available on demand or on Neflix was first shown on TV and could have been recorded by Tivo anyway.


To a certain extent. It's great as a buffer for when there is a storm of programming on all at once or you're traveling or there are a bunch of people using the thing, but it's still not meant to re-create Netflix in your living room.

A lot of stuff on Netflix isn't from TV at all, they are either documentary movies, Ted Talks, Netflix originals, etc. The comparison really is just to say that TiVo isn't for re-creating an on demand library locally.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> I didn't say that at all. What I did say, however, is that TiVo isn't designed to be an On Demand library in your living room, because it doesn't do a good job at doing that. A DVR is for using as a DVR, for recording things, watching, and deleting them, on a weekly or maybe a monthly basis. Yeah, a lot of us have crap hanging around that we haven't gotten around to watching or whatever, and has been on there forever, but not hundreds or thousands of hours of it. If you do a decent job of managing your DVR, you won't have a whole lot of stuff on it just sitting there, it will be an in-and-out type of operation.


If my wife is happy with her 2000 hours of TiVo recorded crap (not her words) and does not complain about how poor TiVo is at managing the 2000 hours, what the problem ?? Why do you care. She has her own Roamio so it does not interfere with my Roamio experience, nor should it interfere with your use of your TiVo, I just find it strange you care so much about something that has nothing to do with you or for that matter anybody outside of wife. I repeat my self, but if I want to use a building brick for a door stop or a screwdriver to pry something open, jobs that both items were not design to do, why does this upset you?


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> I didn't say that at all. What I did say, however, is that TiVo isn't designed to be an On Demand library in your living room, because it doesn't do a good job at doing that. A DVR is for using as a DVR, for recording things, watching, and deleting them, on a weekly or maybe a monthly basis. Yeah, a lot of us have crap hanging around that we haven't gotten around to watching or whatever, and has been on there forever, but not hundreds or thousands of hours of it. If you do a decent job of managing your DVR, you won't have a whole lot of stuff on it just sitting there, it will be an in-and-out type of operation.


If my wife is happy with her 2000 hours of TiVo recorded crap (not her words) and does not complain about how poor TiVo is at managing the 2000 hours, what the problem ?? Why do you care. She has her own Roamio so it does not interfere with my Roamio experience, nor should it interfere with your use of your TiVo, I just find it strange you care so much about something that has nothing to do with you or for that matter anybody outside of my wife. I repeat my self, but if I want to use a building brick for a door stop or a screwdriver to pry something open, jobs that both items were not design to do, why does this upset you?


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> If my wife is happy with her 2000 hours of TiVo recorded crap (not her words) and does not complain about how poor TiVo is at managing the 2000 hours, what the problem ?? Why do you care. She has her own Roamio so it does not interfere with my Roamio experience, nor should it interfere with your use of your TiVo, I just find it strange you care so much about something that has nothing to do with you or for that matter anybody outside of wife. I repeat my self, but if I want to use a building brick for a door stop or a screwdriver to pry something open, jobs that both items were not design to do, why does this upset you?


Because SD quality sucks. My original point is that comparing SD and HD file sizes is irrelevant, and that point stands true, as anyone who knows what they are doing with TiVo will go through and delete the SD duplicate channels anyway. No one in their right mind would record SD when they could record HD. It's not like we have 80GB HD-DVRs anymore.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Because SD quality sucks. My original point is that comparing SD and HD file sizes is irrelevant, and that point stands true, as anyone who knows what they are doing with TiVo will go through and delete the SD duplicate channels anyway. No one in their right mind would record SD when they could record HD. It's not like we have 80GB HD-DVRs anymore.


I will start the process to commit my wife who obviously not in her right mind wanting to watch SD TV on her HDTV so she can hold onto 2000 hours of recordings. We have some great mental intuitions near by, and I am sure you will testify for me about her horrible mental SD TV condition, I now see how this SD condition is as bad as any drug or alcohol dependence, I may even start a class action law suit against TiVo for making it so easy to make SD recordings when a HDTV is connected, that gave too much for her to resist, she could not handle it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> I will start the process to commit my wife who obviously not in her right mind wanting to watch SD TV on her HDTV so she can hold onto 2000 hours of recordings. We have some great mental intuitions near by, and I am sure you will testify for me about her horrible mental SD TV condition, I now see how this SD condition is as bad as any drug or alcohol dependence, I may even start a class action law suit against TiVo for making it so easy to make SD recordings when a HDTV is connected, that gave too much for her to resist, she could not handle it.


Aside from your ridiculous hyperbole, my point is that type of behavior isn't a valid argument for comparing the file sizes, as TiVo users who know what they are doing kill off as many of the SD duplicate channels as they can find anyway.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Aside from your ridiculous hyperbole, my point is that type of behavior isn't a valid argument for comparing the file sizes, as TiVo users who know what they are doing kill off as many of the SD duplicate channels as they can find anyway.


My wife knows what she is doing and gets about 4 time the record space using the SD channel in place of the HD channel, so it* is *a valid argument for comparing the file sizes, it that simple (Comcast in our area has no analog channels left)
I can't figure out why you have such a big problem with the way my wife uses her TiVo in the SD mode, I am sure not going to try to stop her, she has her Roamio, I have my Roamio, and I can afford both Lifetime TiVos, so what the problem.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

lessd said:


> My wife knows what she is doing and gets about 4 time the record space using the SD channel in place of the HD channel, so it is a valid argument for comparing the file sizes, it that simple (Comcast in our area has no analog channels left) I can't figure out why you have such a big problem with the way my wife uses her TiVo in the SD mode, I am sure not going to try to stop her, she has her Roamio, I have my Roamio, and I can afford both Lifetime TiVos, so what the problem.


If you ignore it, it'll go away.


----------



## telemark (Nov 12, 2013)

I tried ignoring my wife, but she's still here.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

telemark said:


> I tried ignoring my wife, but she's still here.


Not quite what I had in mind, but I like your thinking!


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> My wife knows what she is doing


Apparently not, because if she did she would have deleted the SD duplicates a long time ago, and would learn to familiarize herself with the clear button.



> so it* is *a valid argument for comparing the file sizes


There's no practical reason, as channels you have in HD should be recorded in HD, and channels you only get in SD, you only get in SD.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Bigg said:


> Apparently not, because if she did she would have deleted the SD duplicates a long time ago, and would learn to familiarize herself with the clear button.
> 
> There's no practical reason, as channels you have in HD should be recorded in HD, and channels you only get in SD, you only get in SD.


Point successfully missed.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> Apparently not, because if she did she would have deleted the SD duplicates a long time ago, and would learn to familiarize herself with the clear button.


She does not record in both SD and HD, just SD, and she knows how to use the clear button, but why would she clear something she may want to watch sometime ?? You seem not to understand that she wants 3000 hours of record time available to her even if it in SD, her decision, not yours or for that matter not my decision.



Bigg said:


> There's no practical reason, as channels you have in HD should be recorded in HD, and channels you only get in SD, you only get in SD.


How would get record time of 3000 hours that way, 99% of what she records is available in HD, she knows that but wants the 3000 hours, if you have a inexpensive way of her getting 3000 hours in HD let us all know, and don't tell me about the Mega TiVo, she happy with her SD TV watching, what else would count beside getting you mad for some reason.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

lessd said:


> She does not record in both SD and HD, just SD, and she knows how to use the clear button, but why would she clear something she may want to watch sometime ?? You seem not to understand that she wants 3000 hours of record time available to her even if it in SD, her decision, not yours or for that matter not my decision.


She should get out of 2007 and join the present with [almost] everything in HD. Most TiVos have more than enough space for HD recordings.



> How would get record time of 3000 hours that way, 99% of what she records is available in HD, she knows that but wants the 3000 hours, if you have a inexpensive way of her getting 3000 hours in HD let us all know, and don't tell me about the Mega TiVo, she happy with her SD TV watching, what else would count beside getting you mad for some reason.


No one needs 3000 hours of storage. Obviously she isn't going to watch most of it, so she needs to properly manage her NPL. I don't even know how you'd navigate through an NPL that long, as TiVo has never made a box that is actually meant to hold more than about 300 hours, and those are the largest models (250GB Series 2 Humax in SD or 3TB Roamio Pro in HD). The 3TB Roamio Pro could cram closer to 500 hours with Comcast's insane compression, but I digress...


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

Bigg said:


> I don't even know how you'd navigate through an NPL that long,


You can use the Channel Up/Down buttons to jump a page at a time, or use the Skip button to jump between the Bottom and Top of the list.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

It is as futile to reason with a person who has renounced the use of reason as it is to administer medicine to the dead.

I'm sure that in the long run, Bigg's prejudice against SD will prevail, just as in the present nobody watches silent films. And I personally share his antipathy towards SD. However, in the short run to disparage someone for preferring to record SD over HD is to mistake one's own desires for the laws of the universe.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

ej42137 said:


> It is as futile to reason with a person who has renounced the use of reason as it is to administer medicine to the dead.
> 
> I'm sure that in the long run, Bigg's prejudice against SD will prevail, just as in the present nobody watches silent films. And I personally share his antipathy against SD. However, in the short run to disparage someone for preferring to record SD over HD is to mistake one's own desires for the laws of the universe.


Well said !! :up:

Someday, like silent films, SD will not be available and then my wife may be upset with Comcast, but not me. About 6 months after getting TiVos into my home she stopped using the VCRs another month later I tossed 3 big garbage bags of VCR tapes she had recorded, she has watched about 5% of it, never heard a word from her after the toss. With TiVo all the garbage recordings don't show in the home, no stacks of VCR tapes and VCRs themselves, so progress has been made as nobody can see how much she has recorded on her TiVo by just walking into our home as a guest, with the exception of Bigg himself, 

PS read post #2 http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=10556311#post10556311

The part about using SD to save space


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

krkaufman said:


> You can use the Channel Up/Down buttons to jump a page at a time, or use the Skip button to jump between the Bottom and Top of the list.


That must be pretty painful! The NPL gets pretty out of hand at 1TB of HD recordings. I couldn't imagine 3TB of SD!


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

Bigg said:


> That must be pretty painful! The NPL gets pretty out of hand at 1TB of HD recordings. I couldn't imagine 3TB of SD!


That what folders are for, some of my wife folders have over 200 recordings in them.
And don't ask how she knows what to watch because I don't know or care, as long as she does not complain to me.


----------



## HarperVision (May 14, 2007)

lessd said:


> That what folders are for, some of my wife folders have over 200 recordings in them. And don't ask how she knows what to watch because I don't know or care, as long as she does not complain to me.


She needs an in*TiVo*ntion!


----------



## CoxInPHX (Jan 14, 2011)

For a TiVo customer in Atlanta w/ a Series 3 and affected by the MPEG4 transition

Has anyone tried or been able to get TiVo to transfer their S3 Lifetime Service to a Premiere acquired from a 3rd party, ether new-old stock or used?


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

CoxInPHX said:


> For a TiVo customer in Atlanta w/ a Series 3 and affected by the MPEG4 transition
> 
> Has anyone tried or been able to get TiVo to transfer their S3 Lifetime Service to a Premiere acquired from a 3rd party, ether new-old stock or used?


Transfer lifetime service. NO

discounted lifetime service on a newly purchased unit YES

That was a few years ago. I don't know if you'll do much better then the current loyalty discount


----------



## agredon (Jul 26, 2011)

bluemcduff said:


> Not a bad idea, but I was thinking the FCC should be more aggressive. As in, prohibit carrying SD duplicates and carrying the highest quality version of what a network gives.
> 
> For instance, if the Discovery Channel is provided in HD, that's all you can carry. But if you've got a channel that's SD only, you can carry it until such time they have an HD version.
> 
> ...


I support dropping the SD versions of channels that play predominately new content such as Sports Channels and News Channels. That said, some channels play a lot of older content that was never in HD. It is a waste of space to record an upconverted HD version of SD content, especially when my TV does a better job of upconverting than certain channels.

Plus, some channels (those owned by Turner - TNT, TBS, etc...) use a "progressive" stretch on SD that is upconverted to HD, which causes objects at the edges of the screen to appear terribly out of proportion. This is unfortunate as the quality otherwise of upconverted SD on TNT is actually quite good. Charmed for example would look great on TNT if they would just leave it at 4:3.

[EDIT] Some channels (e.g. Disney, FOX Animated Shows, etc...) didn't record anything in HD until 2010, which means a lot of their older content (even early seasons of relatively recent shows) is in SD.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

bluemcduff said:


> From what I know, the locals will still be in MPEG-2 as I saw somewhere that the Series 3 will only get local channels post-transition.
> 
> We're still missing some of the new local subchannels so I'm hoping some of the new capacity can go to that.
> 
> If they really wanted to get on my good side, they'd drop all the SD channels with HD equivalents.


Fios has dropped the SD Playboy Channel. HD only. I don't subscribe. I read the tivo message telling me the channel is no longer.

I wonder if this is a test case. See what kind of support issues this generates.


----------



## krkaufman (Nov 25, 2003)

lew said:


> Fios has dropped the SD Playboy Channel. HD only. I don't subscribe. I read the tivo message telling me the channel is no longer.


You can just say you only subscribed to it for the documentaries.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

krkaufman said:


> You can just say you only subscribed to it for the documentaries.


Years ago Playboy was included in whatever premium package I had. The documentaries weren't great. The soft core adult programming wasn't great. The channel isn't worth, to me, whatever Verizon is charging.

I tuned to Playboy SD channel to see what we're getting on that channel. Currently there is a screen telling you to tune to the HD channel.

A few posters in this thread think cable companies should junk the SD channels. I wonder if this is a first step test.


----------

