PDA

View Full Version : Apple HDTV Tuner?




MacRumors
Jan 29, 2003, 02:23 AM
Mudbug notes that TechTV reported today that part of the reasoning behind the price drop on the 23" Apple LCD is that Apple intends to bring out a 23" HDTV-Tuner enabled LCD.



rainman::|:|
Jan 29, 2003, 02:03 PM
Wait, so the LCD would have a tuner in it? why not just use zoomed video (i think that's right) and have a PCI card that supports HDTV in, then you can use your computer as a tuner... i mean, i doubt Apple is going to compete in the way of actual HDTV sets...

forgive me if i sound like an idiot, i have a very limited knowledge of this sort of thing...

pnw

vniow
Jan 29, 2003, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
Wait, so the LCD would have a tuner in it? why not just use zoomed video (i think that's right) and have a PCI card that supports HDTV in, then you can use your computer as a tuner... i mean, i doubt Apple is going to compete in the way of actual HDTV sets...



There are about four different HDTV tuner cards for the PC, but none avalible for the Mac.

Unfortunately, since the PCI buses of most PCs can't handle the full uncompressed HDTV sugnal, it has to output it through the card, using the video card as a pass through and the output is only VGA so you have to buy a $400 adapter to get it to work with an Apple display.

On a lighter note, the HDTV cards for the PC compress the signal using hardware down tp 19.2MB/s so it fits nicely into the bandwith of FW400 with plenty of room to spare in FW800.

bennetsaysargh
Feb 1, 2003, 07:42 PM
i would love for apple to come out with a tv tuner. plain and simple. it would be a great idea.
even though micro$oft would eventually do the same thing

yzedf
Feb 1, 2003, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
i would love for apple to come out with a tv tuner. plain and simple. it would be a great idea.
even though micro$oft would eventually do the same thing

Why would Apple moving into that market be such a great thing?

Reminds me of the late 80's early 90's when Apple lost their focus... they really did suffer back then. I hope they don't do that again.

medea
Feb 2, 2003, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by yzedf


Why would Apple moving into that market be such a great thing?

Reminds me of the late 80's early 90's when Apple lost their focus... they really did suffer back then. I hope they don't do that again.
I agree with yzedf, and I'm not convinced that television needs (or will be) part of the digital hub, Jobs hates TV anyways. I own a TV and that is what I generally watch DVDs and videos on, maybe down the road a few years a TV and computer will be two in the same, but I dont think that is plausible right now, not that it cant be done, but for lack of a market.

Over Achiever
Feb 2, 2003, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by paulwhannel
Wait, so the LCD would have a tuner in it? why not just use zoomed video (i think that's right) and have a PCI card that supports HDTV in, then you can use your computer as a tuner... i mean, i doubt Apple is going to compete in the way of actual HDTV sets...
It would be nice for me, with a powerbook, having the tuner built into the moniter is very helpful.

And when I'm not using the computer, it can standalone and be a TV for me to watch HDTV...I would love it.

cubist
Feb 2, 2003, 12:21 PM
Ah. So it could be a box with ADC in and out, and use a USB interface to control the tuner, making it very few cables. You don't get the TVR functionality that way, though.

Nah, it makes no sense. Nobody is going to buy a 23" LCD because they want to watch TV.

Maybe a physically bigger, but lower-resolution panel which hangs on the wall, and attaches to a headless iMac with a bluetooth keyboard and mouse?

Gateway tried this market and failed, but presumably because Windows made it too klutzy and geeky. Apple could possibly do it, but I still find it pretty doubtful. Video games have only invaded the living room by heavily suppressing their computer lineage.

Spock
Feb 2, 2003, 09:11 PM
Microsoft has already stepped into this market with WindowsXP Media Edition. Apple has already tried this The Macintosh T.V and the Quadra AVs, Performa's, the 20th Anv.Mac Etc... all had built in tuners.

GeneR
Feb 5, 2003, 07:06 PM
I can see why this made page 2...

mcs37
Jan 6, 2004, 08:57 AM
I've been advocating HDTV in Macs for quite some time right now. Given the general convergence of the TV and the computer, the success of recording programs like TiVo, the new waves of HDTV machines hitting the market with increasing demand, the beautiful Mac LCDs, and the fact that Apple always tries to stay on top of the newest things, I think a Mac + HDTV solution would be incredible. Personally I've been hoping for a PowerBook 15" with an HDTV tuner built-in (perhaps the coax connector can be through FW800). I watch most of my movies on my PC anyway--might as well bring in high-quality HDTV.

My only question is can the powerbooks fit an HDTV tuner? How big are those things nowadays?

e-coli
Jan 6, 2004, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by mcs37
Given the general convergence of the TV and the computer

Do we really need to go over this again?

DaveGee
Jan 6, 2004, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by mcs37
I've been advocating HDTV in Macs for quite some time right now. Given the general convergence of the TV and the computer, the success of recording programs like TiVo, the new waves of HDTV machines hitting the market with increasing demand, the beautiful Mac LCDs, and the fact that Apple always tries to stay on top of the newest things, I think a Mac + HDTV solution would be incredible. Personally I've been hoping for a PowerBook 15" with an HDTV tuner built-in (perhaps the coax connector can be through FW800). I watch most of my movies on my PC anyway--might as well bring in high-quality HDTV.

My only question is can the powerbooks fit an HDTV tuner? How big are those things nowadays?

Huh?

Isn't this a dead thread from just under a year ago? What made you this this was going to happen now??

D

Flowbee
Jan 6, 2004, 07:37 PM
See the "How many forum members does it take..." thread.:D

Mudbug
Jan 6, 2004, 08:56 PM
wtf - this was from a year or so ago...
probably the last time I watched techtv... :)

Moo
Jan 6, 2004, 09:46 PM
I've been using Apple products since '83. Working on my 6th or 7th Mac now. Since '84, lots of things have changed in the world of technology and for the most part, Apple has alway been ahead of the curve. Here is the ironic thing...The Mac is probably the best platform for creating HD content however, for playback or storage, we have no options.
I will be picking up a new G5 in the next month or two (depending on when Steve Jobs announces new models), and when I do, it sure would be the icing on the cake if there was some new card, or device using FW800, or Wi Fi to do something new, elegant, and oh so simple and obvious but yet, previously unheard of ( remember when GUI, iPod, iTunes, the first computer without a flopy, the mouse etc. were introduced?)
It certainly would be cool if something that operates in the HD arena came out of apple to become the next "Me Too" product of the next 5 years.

wdlove
Jan 7, 2004, 06:43 PM
Isn't EyeTV a tuner for the Mac?

Mudbug
Jan 7, 2004, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by wdlove
Isn't EyeTV a tuner for the Mac?

yes, but not an HDTV tuner... the additional resolution requires a different tuner for the signal. EyeTV doesn't offer that (yet)

Spock
Jan 7, 2004, 10:34 PM
How old is this thread?

RichardCarletta
Jan 7, 2004, 11:27 PM
to build such an item for the PowerMacs using Firewire 800 . Personally, I think Formac which makes the Studio dtv is the company that is the best prospect for such a product . The Studio DTV which is a great product , converts most types of anolog video to digital or the other way as well as a builtin tv tuner to create dvd quality quicktime movies . Plus by using their superdivideon Superdrive or Apple's superdrive , you can burn them to dvd-r . I would however, expect Apple to increase the resolution of their standard displays to at least 2056 X 1536 first so that HDTV could be displayed at its best (including the eMac ) .

Mr. EMan
Jan 9, 2004, 11:08 AM
as often said by www.theinquirer.org

agentmouthwash
Jan 9, 2004, 01:41 PM
this is a good idea. Gateway started selling consumer products like this and it's working out for them.

Apple already makes the screen, they might as well have it so you can use it as a TV set too!

rodaddy
Jan 9, 2004, 02:45 PM
maybe they will somehow use pixlet. hell someone has to

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 9, 2004, 02:55 PM
Say what you may but its a good idea to bring the tv into the digital hub. i have been wanting to add tv to my mac but since iam planning on a new mac this year iam waiting to see what apple does. when that new mac does come it will have Tv connected to it one way or another and then i can plant my big fat butt in this chair and not move it till im ready:)

GregA
Jan 12, 2004, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by mcs37
Personally I've been hoping for a PowerBook 15" with an HDTV tuner built-in (perhaps the coax connector can be through FW800). I watch most of my movies on my PC anyway--might as well bring in high-quality HDTV. I can understand the benefits of HDTV on a huge screen (50" or bigger) but is there really much to gain on a 15" screen?

Sure Apple, do it if it's simple... but the cost/benefit doesn't seem to make it here. (I am still all for Apple getting involved in my TV and stereo in several ways... just not this one)

CmdrLaForge
Jan 12, 2004, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by yzedf
Why would Apple moving into that market be such a great thing?

Reminds me of the late 80's early 90's when Apple lost their focus... they really did suffer back then. I hope they don't do that again.

Yep, you are right. Apple should definitly stay focused. If they just make it as an value add to there displays at no additional costs its great, otherwise they should better find a 3rd party supplier for a card

killmoms
Jan 12, 2004, 02:30 PM
If not an actual HDTV tuner, I would AT LEAST like them to include RGB and/or YUV component inputs on their high end Cinema displays. I'm saving up for either a G5 tower at some point in the future or a Cinema display. As a college student with a relatively limited budget who's interested in HD, having a screen that could be used for both TV and computer display would be awesome. The 23" screen is already large enough to display even the highest HD resolution (1080i) with no downscaling. I'd like to buy the display, but if I still need to buy a separate TV to watch HD... well, I just can't swing it now. If it just had the right inputs, I could buy a separate tuner (as will likely be the case anyway, at least in the beginning).

--Cless

macshark
Jan 14, 2004, 04:49 PM
It is reasonable for Apple to go ahead and do something like this. The incremental cost of an HDTV tuner is pretty minimal compared to the cost of a 23" panel. I beleive Philips introduced a single chip HDTV tuner/decoder chip solution about 6 months ago.

Adding component video inputs could also be interesting, but adding a second DVI input is probably a better solution. Most HDTV equipment is switching to DVI interfaces going forward.

yamabushi
Jan 15, 2004, 11:23 AM
Lots of good ideas. I hope to see at least one of them come true. I have a cable television jack on the wall right behind my monitor that is just waiting for something like this.

ffakr
Jan 16, 2004, 11:00 PM
Originally posted by yzedf
Why would Apple moving into that market be such a great thing?

Reminds me of the late 80's early 90's when Apple lost their focus... they really did suffer back then. I hope they don't do that again.

Apple had a max of 23 different models of computers at one time during this period. That's dillution. They had different models that were pretty much identical as far as customers could tell.

Apple isn't doing this now. They have enough products to fill markets that demand them. They have a high end tower, a high end home machine, and a 'discount' machine for edu (that the low end home market demanded). They've got a low end laptop and a high end laptop with enough monitor sizes to fill demand.

Moving into different areas doesn't dilute the core product line. Apple doesn't confuse desktop buyers with an iPod. Microsoft has proven that they can be very successful with ver divergent products. If MS was afraid of losing focus, they'd stick to software. The do, however, make very nice mice and good keyboards. They make networking products that I've not use, but that I've not hear anyone complain about. They make a Game console that turned out quite nice.

I don't think losing focus is a big concern. Apple's hardware is strong and getting much stronger. The iPod rules the music market as does ITMS. I think they could get away with Monitors that double as HDTVs. This is different from Gateway.. a failing PC company that is branching to Home Entertainment as a last ditch effort to stay in business. Apple's at the top of their game. They have cash, profits, and quite a bit of consumer confidence from the iPod.

I'm not sure why Apple would increase the cost of their monitors in this way but they often do things I don't expect. They have, in the past, introduced new technologies at new price points so it's entirely possible that they've figured out how to add HDTV tuners for significantly less than $399 (the price of an external HDTV tuner for a standard HD capable TV). I'd expect that this would only be offered as a version of the 23" Cinema display (if it's true). heck, maybe they do have a 30" in the works.

RichardCarletta
Jan 17, 2004, 10:29 AM
If the Formac Studio DTV can be made and sold for $300 today as well as an external HDTV tuner for a standard HD capable TV can be made and sold for $400 , I say go for it. However, standard resolutions for Apple Monitors would have to increase across the product line. There is no point to HDTV if you can't watch it at its most highest resolution picture detail. Yes Apple increase your standard resolution and size of your monitors to a minimum 19" 2056 X 1536 and bring HDTV to your customers. Heck , you might as well make the eMac a 19" model now . you could offer a 19 " G5 2 GHZ Superdrive model as a highend model for just under $1500 . You could have a lowend 19 " G4 1.33 GHZ combo drive model for schools to buy for under $1000 . Maybe keep a super low end OS 9 bootable 17" G4 1 GHZ combo drive model for a Walmart exclusive machine for $600 ( I know , that idea is good for a laugh. No way in hell Apple would do that . )

wdlove
Jan 17, 2004, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by yamabushi
Lots of good ideas. I hope to see at least one of them come true. I have a cable television jack on the wall right behind my monitor that is just waiting for something like this.

I'm with you yamabushi. I also have a cable jack in my Den, unused at the moment just waiting. Also have a nice Anthro desk just waiting to be put together for the new G5 in the future. It will just fit in front of the wall where the cable jack it located. It would be awesome with a nice 23" Cinema Display.

ffakr
Jan 17, 2004, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by RichardCarletta
However, standard resolutions for Apple Monitors would have to increase across the product line.

Apple's resolutions on their monitors are very standard.
17" at 1280x1024
20" at 1680x1250
23" at 1920x1200

typical PC LCDs..
17-18.1" at 1280x1024
20" at 1600x1200 (Apple's is higher)
23" at 1920x1200 (sony P232)

There is no point to HDTV if you can't watch it at its most highest resolution picture detail.
There are two HDTV standards...
720p 1028x720

Edit: The following is wrong.. but I'm not fixing it because of the next two posts.
1080i 1280x1080
Apple's 17" lcd can display the highest quality HTDV signal just fine.
the 17" can only do 720p

He's an HDTV primer..
http://www.nbc.com/nbc/footer/HDTV.shtml

Yes Apple increase your standard resolution and size of your monitors to a minimum 19" 2056 X 1536 and bring HDTV to your customers.

A resolution that high would make the machine virtually unusable for most tasks. 19" LCDs have viewable space of 13" by 15" at 4-3 aspect ratio. That would be a pixel density of 136 pix/inch on the horizontal (118 vert). Web graphics are optimised for 72-75dpi. Everything would look way too small. All your text would be 55% smaller.

Heck , you might as well make the eMac a 19" model now . you could offer a 19 " G5 2 GHZ Superdrive model as a highend model for just under $1500 . You could have a lowend 19 " G4 1.33 GHZ combo drive model for schools to buy for under $1000 .
I think Apple could probably hit those price points and I think they will move the entire desktop line to the G5 asap (by late summer) but a 19" eMac would be a questionalbe chioce. I think it would be a nice machine but it introduces two big issues. First off, flat tubes are heavy.. The eMac weighs over 50lbs. A 19" eMac of the same quality would be extremely heavy. Second, eMac is still the edu machine. The current one is already big, but you can still manage to see over it of around it in a lab. It it gets too big, it becomes worthless edu because you can't use it in digital classrooms (lecture style rooms). Finally, apple is very concious of how much heat their machines generate when they need to fit in edu. In a room of 20 machine, adding 100watts of heat per machine is like putting a small space heater in the room.
I think eMac will stay 17".. but I'd like to see apple enable dual head support by default and maybe allow for higher rez on the tube.. just so it's available.

mr_austin
Jan 17, 2004, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by ffakr

There are two HDTV standards...
720p 1028x720
1080i 1280x1080
Apple's 17" lcd can display the highest quality HTDV signal just fine.
He's an HDTV primer..
http://www.nbc.com/nbc/footer/HDTV.shtml


a quote from the URL you referenced..

The 720p format makes a picture with 720 vertical lines, each with 1280 pixels horizontally -- so in computer display terms, it has a resolution of "1280 x 720". 720p uses progressive scanning, like computers, which sends a complete picture 60 times per second. 720p provides the smoothest possible motion rendition, but it does not have as much resolution as 1080i.


The 1080i format makes a picture with 1080 vertical lines, each with 1920 pixels horizontally -- so in computer display terms, it has a resolution of "1920 x 1080". 1080i uses interlaced scanning, like traditional TV, which alternates sending odd lines and even lines and thus sends a complete picture 30 times per second. 1080i provides the highest possible resolution, but has the same motion rendition as traditional TV.

So, HDTV is 1280x720 or 1920x1080. The 17 inch CANNOT display native 1080i. This is why the 23-incher was a big deal when it came out, because even the originaly 22 incher (1600x1200?) couldn't even do it.

Put me down for someone who would seriously think about a 23incher (or 30 incher) if there was a mac hd tuner w/ tivo-like capabilities...

-a

ffakr
Jan 17, 2004, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by mr_austin


So, HDTV is 1280x720 or 1920x1080. The 17 inch CANNOT display native 1080i. This is why the 23-incher was a big deal when it came out, because even the originaly 22 incher (1600x1200?) couldn't even do it.

Put me down for someone who would seriously think about a 23incher (or 30 incher) if there was a mac hd tuner w/ tivo-like capabilities...

-a

I don't know how I miss-read that.. I was flipping back and forth between tabs when I replied.
I still don't think we should be hoping for significantly higher resolution LCD monitors. I don't want to use a non-native resolution for everything but HDTV. If Apple added this to a monitor, it'd still primarily be a computer monitor.

So, I guess there is actually two good reasons for limiting this to the 23"... the ability to hide the additional cost in an already expensive monitor and the issue of resolution. If Apple did this and only supported 720p, people would pan it as a half-assed attempt.

DavidCar
Jan 19, 2004, 03:15 PM
I think there should be a way to put a broadcast HDTV signal onto an Apple HD Cinema display, perhaps in the form of an HD All-in-Wonder card for a Mac. But I understand there is a frame rate problem that would need to be solved, and it is unclear to me how difficult it would be for the manufacturers of such cards to solve the problem.


HD Cinema Display as Video Monitor


As mentioned, the Apple HD Cinema Display (as well as all other TFT displays) cannot display the range of frame rates that are necessary to display video (23.976fps to 60 fields). The EDP100 (Ecinema Display Processor) from Ecinema Systems (www.ecinemasys.com) was developed to convert HD SDI signals to the DVI signal the TFT displays require. This is done by de-interlacing the source video and adding (variable) 3:2 pulldown on the fly. EDP also provides access to the CLUT of the signal through a program that lets engineers match the "look" of the monitor to that of a specific profile such as a projector or HD camera. The 10-bit signal is preserved internally and converts to 8-bit on output (TFTs are RGB 8 bits per pixel). The EDP100 will also support vectorscope and waveform and camera reticule overlays.


While the EDP100 was designed with the HD Cinema Display in mind, it will also be of value to a wide range of production applications, such as digital I/O boards, live monitoring of HD cameras in the field, graphics systems with I/O capability, and DLP and D-ILA projectors with DVI inputs. The product is expected to ship in early 2003.

Old HD Cinema Review (http://videosystems.com/ar/video_apple_hd_cinema/index.htm)

It is not clear if this product is presently shipping, but a search on EDP100 shows it at a "great value" of $8,000. So are my dreams of an HD All-in-Wonder card for an HD Cinema display unrealistic, or am I comparing Apples with oranges?

Great Value for Wide Cinema Display (http://store.drrawstock.com/ecinemaedp100.html)

mr_austin
Jan 19, 2004, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by DavidCar

It is not clear if this product is presently shipping, but a search on EDP100 shows it at a "great value" of $8,000. So are my dreams of an HD All-in-Wonder card for an HD Cinema display unrealistic, or am I comparing Apples with oranges?


This isn't a tuner, it's a HD-SDI -> DVI converter. Ie, you would plug a D5 deck or some such into it - it's a commercial grade product.

Ideally, I'd love something more like the all-in-wonder - a card with a tuner on it with capture abilities. Getting that to a reasonable price is going to be a trick, though.

-a

DavidCar
Jan 19, 2004, 10:49 PM
My concern if it is presently possible to even get a broadcast HDTV signal onto an Apple HD Cinema display, or if the frame rate is an expensive problem to solve. I just found an HDTV Tuner that has both DVI and firewire outputs. ($700) Could I buy one of these and connect it to a Mac with an HD Cinema display, or would I discover after a long struggle that there is an insurmountable incompatibility? I think it is premature to be seeing an Apple Display with a built in HDTV tuner. Maybe we'll find out tomorrow.

Product Overview: The SIR-T165 Digital TV Set-Top Box can receive Digital Television (DTV) over-the-air broadcasts and deliver them to a compatible HDTV-ready TV or DTV-capable computer monitor. If your TV is not HDTV-ready, the receiver can also convert a DTV signal to a standard NTSC (analog) signal and send it through the composite, S-Video, or component video outputs. An antenna (not included) is required to receive these broadcasts. The SIR-T165 will also receive analog TV broadcasts, either from an antenna or cable TV, through the RF inputs. In addition, you can connect and switch between up to three external sources (DVD, AV1 and AV2). The SIR-T165 has advanced digital connectors such as a DVI output and FireWire input and output.

killmoms
Jan 20, 2004, 03:20 PM
What in the world is so prohibitive about frame rates to the displays? There's three frame rates for HD: 24 frames per second, 30frames per second, and 60 fields per second. The only one non-native would be 24fps, since the refresh rate of LCDs is 60Hz (effectively, it's different than CRTs in method and appearance.) So they vSync 24fps or tune down the display's refresh rate somehow.

Look at it this way, MacOS X will play a movie whether it's 2fps or 120fps on any display. And there are plenty of LCD HDTVs out there. This doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem. HDTVs themselves are basically large computer monitors of one type or another anyway.

--Cless

Moo
Jan 26, 2004, 06:45 PM
Steve Jobs from MacWorld Magazine...

Do you have any other thoughts about where your competitors are taking their strategies? For example, Windows Media PCs are computers attached to TV sets.


Well, we've always been very clear on that. We don't think that televisions and personal computers are going to merge. We think basically you watch television to turn your brain off, and you work on your computer when you want to turn your brain on.


Are there some complementary aspects to it?


Well, they want to link sometimes. Like, when you make a movie, you burn a DVD and you take it to your DVD player. Someday that could happen over AirPort, so you don't have to burn a DVD -- you can just watch it right off your computer on your television set. But most of these products that have said, "Let's combine the television and the computer!” have failed. All of them have failed.


I don't understand why you'd want to mouse around on your TV set.


The problem is, when you're using your computer you're a foot away from it, you know? When you're using your television you want to be ten feet away from it. So they're really different animals.


Over the years, the media and analysts have always focused on market share. But although Mac market share is relatively small, Apple is profitable and is making products that affect the entire industry.


Apple's market share is bigger than BMW's or Mercedes's or Porsche's in the automotive market. What's wrong with being BMW or Mercedes?


So you're very comfortable with Apple as it is today.


I think we're having fun. I think our customers really like our products. And we're always trying to do better. But I think we're leading the industry and we're having a good time.

kjwebb
Jan 27, 2004, 12:07 AM
If Apple do make any form of HDTV tuner (in-screen, in-mac, seperate product), they would have to make sure that it is compatible with Australian DTV Standards, American DTV standards, Britsh DTV standards etc.

And for peoples information, there are 3 types of HDTV in Australia.

576p - Used for the Seven and SBS networks
720i (I think it's interlaced, it may be 720 Progressive) - Not Used
1080i - Used by ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corperation), Ten and Nine Networks

killmoms
Jan 27, 2004, 04:16 PM
Moo: We get what Steve said. We're not talking about a set-top thing like Windows XP Media Center Edition. We're talking about a display that's SO FREAKIN EXPENSIVE that we expect it to do more than just be able to accept ADC. I don't want an HD tuner, but some YUV and/or RGB component inputs would be nice. So if we wanted Apple's expensive display to double duty, we could.

--Cless

DavidCar
Jan 27, 2004, 05:53 PM
I agree with Cless. I want to be able to justify the expense of a HD Cinema display by having the option of watching HDTV. If that were not possible, I would feel my 1920 x 1200 display was crippled somehow.

If I understand correctly, having an RGB or YUC input would introduce an analog step between the digital broadcast signal (in the case of a tuner) and the digital display, which would be less than ideal, but workable.

I asked in an earlier post whether a firewire signal from an HD Tuner could be displayed, but as far as I can tell, even a program like Final Cut Express or Final Cut Pro cannot accept a firewire HD signal.

Not that I want to buy Final Cut Pro and a special PCI card just to accept input from an HDTV Tuner, so I can watch HDTV on an HD Cinema display. I want to know how much it takes to make the connection at the moment so maybe I can predict when it will be possible to do it more conveniently in the future.

So far it doesn't look encouraging. So much for the "HD" part of the HD Cinema display, as far as I am concerned.

GregA
Jan 27, 2004, 06:57 PM
Originally posted by DavidCar
I want to be able to justify the expense of a HD Cinema display by having the option of watching HDTV. If that were not possible, I would feel my 1920 x 1200 display was crippled somehow.

If I understand correctly, having an RGB or YUC input would introduce an analog step between the digital broadcast signal (in the case of a tuner) and the digital display, which would be less than ideal, but workable.

I asked in an earlier post whether a firewire signal from an HD Tuner could be displayed, <snip>Wouldn't it be better to look for a HD Tuner with a DVI (or ADC) output?

Of course that may be another part of the iBox rumour. A HD-TV Tuner so you can watch Digital TV or stuff from iLife, on a HD screen. (AND a low end SD digital TV tuner with analog outs, for watching digital TV or iLife on your current TV set).

DavidCar
Jan 28, 2004, 01:40 AM
I expect that the DVI output of an HDTV Tuner would be intended for HDTV compatible televisions with DVI inputs that can accept 1080i, 720p, etc. I doubt that connecting the tuner via a DVI/ADC adapter to a 1920 x 1200 HD Cinema display would work.

Also, if the Mac could accept an HD Firewire signal, which might not be possible, perhaps a program for a digital HD video recorder could then be developed.

mr_austin
Jan 28, 2004, 02:36 AM
Originally posted by DavidCar
I expect that the DVI output of an HDTV Tuner would be intended for HDTV compatible televisions with DVI inputs that can accept 1080i, 720p, etc. I doubt that connecting the tuner via a DVI/ADC adapter to a 1920 x 1200 HD Cinema display would work.

This is just a question of getting the LCD to recognize the format + display it correctly, right? I don't think that there would be a huge cost adding whatever chip that the DVI plasma sets have. I think you're right about the current HD cinema, but in the future?

Also, if the Mac could accept an HD Firewire signal, which might not be possible, perhaps a program for a digital HD video recorder could then be developed.

Sure it's possible, it's just a question of cost vs. market. HD is a lot of data - lots of HD space. Personally, I'd opt for the DirecTV HD DVR (even at about a grand) before I put something in my mac. With EyeTV type products not flying off the shelves at a much lower price point, It's not really an attractive project from a money-making standpoint.

I don't think there's a HUGE market for this type of thing, but I bet there are a lot of people who would love a HDTV and would love a giant Cinema display, and can't really afford and/or justify either. Getting a 2-for-1 could be a good way to push people over the edge.

RichardCarletta
Jan 28, 2004, 06:15 AM
I am not convinced that LCDs are good enough yet to handle the demands of displaying HDTV or as well as a good old CRT is . CRTs still produce color more faithfully . Sure LCDs are cool and takeup much less space , but they still need about 5 more years of improvements before I will be convinced to use them for HDTV.

As for the eMac , a 19" CRT would not be too big for a classroom . I own a 15 " CRT iMac and a 19" tv/vcr combo right next to each other in my bedroom . The iMac sits right on top of my two drawer metal filing cabinet which is about 27 " away from the side of my bed . The 19" tv/vcr combo is about 22 " away from the left of the iMac sitting on a 1 drawer piece of furniture that's the same height as the 2 drawer file cabinet. . Comparing them side by side I noticed the space required on my iMac for the speakers , cd-rom drive , and headphones jacks would easily fit the space under the screen of my 19" tv/vcr combo . Infact 2 main reasons that my 19" tv/vcr combo has a bigger case under the screen is because they used bigger speakers and vcrs are so big and and cumbersome.

As for tiny items or text on a website , there is this item available on macs called a control strip where you can change the screen solutions and color settings, change the sound volume , open certain programs , choose printers, ect. so even on a 19" 2056 X 1536 display you don't need a magnifying glass to see the items.

killmoms
Jan 29, 2004, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by mr_austin
I don't think there's a HUGE market for this type of thing, but I bet there are a lot of people who would love a HDTV and would love a giant Cinema display, and can't really afford and/or justify either. Getting a 2-for-1 could be a good way to push people over the edge.

I'm not talking about using the Mac as a PVR at all. I'm simply talking about using the Cinema display as an HDTV monitor. Just displaying an image. No more, no less. Not "displaying an image in a window on the MacOS X desktop." Not "recording HD streams to my hard drive to watch later." Just "displaying the TV."

And, I'm not convinced that color reproduction on CRTs is any better than on LCDs, especially quality ones like the Apple displays. In fact, I had always understood LCDs to have more faithful and consistant color reproduction than CRTs. As far as I was concerned, the only remaining advantage of CRTs over LCDs is the refresh time, making CRTs more suited for fast-paced action games. And from what I understand, this gap is quickly lessening.

--Cless

DavidCar
Jan 30, 2004, 01:13 AM
One of the problems as I understand it, as far as getting a broadcast HDTV signal to an HD Cinema Display, is that a de-interlacing function must reside somewhere. Perhaps the next version of the Cinema displays will have such a function for signals coming into some kind of HDTV input.

What I don't understand is that Final Cut Pro, which requires a 350 Mhz G4, can take an NTSC Firewire signal and display it. It seems then that a dual 2Mhz G5 should be able to accept an HDTV Firewire signal from an HDTV tuner and display that on an HD Cinema Display.

As far as market goes, on the PC side there seems to be a market for All-in-Wonder cards, and myHD TV cards.

MacRAND
Feb 3, 2004, 03:36 AM
Originally posted by ffakr
I'm not sure why Apple would increase the cost of their monitors in this way but they often do things I don't expect. They have, in the past, introduced new technologies at new price points so it's entirely possible that they've figured out how to add HDTV tuners for significantly less than $399 (the price of an external HDTV tuner for a standard HD capable TV).
I'd expect that this would only be offered as a version of the 23" Cinema display (if it's true).

Heck, maybe they do have a 30" in the works. Hold it right there, let's do an instant replay using our eyeTV200: "...maybe they do have a 30" in the works."
Maybe some of these rumors about a 30" LCD being added by Apple as their new high-end Cinema Display collection are actually true. This would mean...
a. that the resolution of the 30" would be very high, making HDTV look really good
b. including an HDTV receiver in a 30" makes really good sense
c. movie editors doing NLE on a Mac, whether with Apple FCP4 or AVID for Mac, not only need plenty of real estate for the windows of their elected application (a 23" is barely big enough, and a 30" would really solve a lot of problems
d. wall mounting a 30" makes sense, a thin metal frame is better than the wide plastic we have today, mounting three (3) 30" Cinema Displays abreast on a studio wall would be awesome - one in the middle with an HDTV tuner, two more with one on each side (no additional tuners necessary, but is it an "option") would be Surround Sight, shades of Cinemax.
e. digital movie editors often need to be able to display their product on a TV (besides just viewing the images on a computer monitor) to check the expected output to a TV set, especially color and framing of the images.
f. Watching broadcast/cable TV and DVD discs displayed on a HDTV 30" monitor would be outstanding.
g. Like analog TV moving to HDTV, the Mac with its new digital monitors should follow the same digital path, it only makes sense.

Taking a contra position, I have had Formac TV tuner capability for about a year and a half now and I've never felt the need to use it or even hook it up. This is slowly changing. Now that I'm doing more DV editing, including VHS and Hi8 transfers via Formac Studio, my interest in incorporating TV into my computer system is shifting. When I bought the Formac Studio with TV, I didn't know i could have saved some money and got it without that capability, or I would have. Another influence is the recording of TV programs to Hard Drive instead of tape; I'm gradually getting bug. Wow, random access to TV programs instead of looking for a scene on a 2 hour tape.

I'm even attracted to Elgato's eyeTV 200 and the eyeHOME (MacAddict, Mar2004, page 10; review of Mac Expo 2004 Multimedia Devices) and thinking about how I might make them part of my overall system. I'm also mindful of a recent suggestion (less a rumor, more a prediction) that Elgato's next step is to offer an HDTV FireWire 800 version of their eyeTV line (first USB, then FireWire400, next FW800), and that seems to make sense as the next step.

But it all comes back to the rumor of a new 30" Apple Cinema Display (with receiver?) and high enough resolution & contrast ratio to handle top-end HDTV.
Hmmmm! :rolleyes: Bet it would to be expensive!
What do you think?

DavidCar
Feb 3, 2004, 12:12 PM
I think a built in HDTV receiver in a 30 inch display would add extra mostly unneeded expense to an already expensive display. I can imagine a 30 inch display with a YUC input. An EyeTV HD Firewire 800 sounds like a natural progression, and should give a better picture (digital-digital-digital) than going through the analog YUC input (digital-analog-digital)

howtoplaydead
Feb 3, 2004, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by vniow
There are about four different HDTV tuner cards for the PC, but none avalible for the Mac.

Unfortunately, since the PCI buses of most PCs can't handle the full uncompressed HDTV sugnal, it has to output it through the card, using the video card as a pass through and the output is only VGA so you have to buy a $400 adapter to get it to work with an Apple display.

On a lighter note, the HDTV cards for the PC compress the signal using hardware down tp 19.2MB/s so it fits nicely into the bandwith of FW400 with plenty of room to spare in FW800.

yes, there is one available for the mac, i can't remember the anything about it other then: it was of some rediculous price and on a MacAddict in 2002,upwards of more than a dual g5.

WhoPhD
Feb 5, 2004, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by vniow
There are about four different HDTV tuner cards for the PC, but none avalible for the Mac.
Really? I am using a Nova-T card in my PCI bus right now, with iTele software downloaded, and last year I was recording Star Trek in HDTV.

Here, I turned some of it into 3ivx MPEG-4 so my customers can see it on the 23" HD at the Apple store where I work (excuse the compression, G5 recommended):

Enterprise opening sequence (http://www.progsoc.org/~whophd/digital/Enterprise.mov)

Don't forget to "View Normal Size" :)


Unfortunately, since the PCI buses of most PCs can't handle the full uncompressed HDTV sugnal, it has to output it through the card, using the video card as a pass through and the output is only VGA so you have to buy a $400 adapter to get it to work with an Apple display.
I don't think that's the way to do it. The stuff's already MPEG-2 compressed, rather well I might add, at the network before it gets to their stick, and to your rabbit-ear antenna.

This is what travels down the PCI bus, around 15Mbps-20Mbps, depending on whom you're viewing.

A G5 can easily decompress this on-the-fly, even with MPlayer's code unoptimised for PowerPC. QuickTime's decoder can do better but is fussy with encapsulation and won't do AC-3 and won't let you edit :(

To view, a G4 desktop (not laptop) is recommended, and should be possible to get 24 to 30fps with some coding improvements. Everybody, say nice things to John Dalgleish :) you will encourage him to write a fast new MPEG player for iTele.


On a lighter note, the HDTV cards for the PC compress the signal using hardware down tp 19.2MB/s so it fits nicely into the bandwith of FW400 with plenty of room to spare in FW800.
No, encoding HDTV in real time is the domain of $x00,000 hardware at the moment, trust me.

Being in the 20Mbps area means that Firewire and USB2 are entirely feasible and this means that the only thing standing between you and watching HDTV on a beautiful 17" widescreen laptop is some further code optimisation.

This is what will hopefully happen when you get an EyeTV 400.

CK.

WhoPhD
Feb 5, 2004, 06:42 AM
Originally posted by kjwebb
And for peoples information, there are 3 types of HDTV in Australia.

576p - Used for the Seven and SBS networks
720i (I think it's interlaced, it may be 720 Progressive) - Not Used
1080i - Used by ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corperation), Ten and Nine Networks [/B]

Don't single out Australia as if it's got something nobody else is using. MP@HL MPEG-2 requirements have always included 480p, 576p, 720p (not 720i, by the way) and 1080i. And these have to be at both the framerate sets 25/50 and 24/30/60 used in "both" world regions.

The main thing (and this applies to everybody's case anyway) is to somehow reinterpolate 1080i50 and 1080i60 (not to mention 576i50 and 480i60) into their progressive-scan equivalents ... because an LCD screen is always producing a progressive-format picture, purely because of its physical characteristics.

CK.

tji
Feb 5, 2004, 10:15 PM
For those of us in the US, there are no HD PCI cards available. Though, there are some interesting possibilities:

- Linux card, with open sourced drivers: http://www.pchdtv.com/

- USB 2.0 based device. Only windows drivers available so far: http://www.usbhdtv.com/

- Firewire. Several Off The Air (OTA) tuners have firewire inputs/outputs, and most HD capable HD tuners will have firewire (I think this was mandated by the FCC). Apple's firewire SDK already has tools for recording & playing back HD transport streams with AV gear: http://developer.apple.com/firewire/index.html


I have been playing around with this stuff on a cheap PC for a couple years. I've got a homebrew PVR using an HD PCI card.

With digital TV being standard MPEG2, it's very close to what's already floating around in Macs today. Being able to downscale HD content & store to DVD, or otherwise manipulate it in OS X, iMovie, iDVD, Final Cut, etc. would be great.

Adobe75
Feb 15, 2004, 03:18 PM
As for Apple including a digital/HD tuner inside the (or any for that matter) is a bad idea. It is meant as a computer display, and I agree with Job's saying that computers and TVs are different beasts. Computer displays and TV screens are different because people are either watching TV OR using their computer, not both. However, with the advent of HDTV, computer screens are a nice alternative to spending thousands on a plasma screen. I think it would be a good idea though to include connections that would make it possible to hook up the Cinema Displays as an HD monitor directly (ie.. no ADC).

Not only are computers good for displaying HD content, they are great for PVR and capture/edit functions. I have been looking at getting some sort of digital/HD tuner device for my mac and have yet to find anything.

I own an EyeTV, which if you like 320x240 MPEG1 over USB is qute nice. The EyeTV 200 is a big improvement using Firewire and MPEG2, but just looking at the price made me shutter. The Formac offering looks clumsy to say the least. Since it imports in DV, using it as a PVR will lead to huge file sizes, but good quality NTSC video. It has some nice AV in/out as well.

The nice thing about digital TV (ATSC) is that it is already compressed into MPEG2 at the TV station. Most of the HD cards for PC just take this transport stream (.ts or .tp) and record it straight to the PC's hard drive. At 19.8Mbit/sec for HD video, this will be about 9GB per hour, but the quality is stunning. Most of these PC HD cards use hardware decoding, but one from Dvico, the Fusion, uses software decoding, and it shows in the price: a nice low $150.http://www.dvico.com/products_mul_hd3.html
The PC can do this in software due to DirectX video acceleration on a modest PIII at 800. Without DxVA, you'd need about a 1.5GHz chip. I've played with software decoding on the mac using VLC. Playing a 1920x1080i transport stream on my PowerBook G4 800, it is really choppy and about 2fps. The only mac able to play it without dropped frames is the dual 2GHz G5. The single 1.6 GHz G5 drops some frames.

Well what about video acceleration on the mac? The way I understand it is that the graphics chip takes over much of the MPEG-2 decoding process (ATI's Radeon or higher end NVidia). This is what Apple did with the DVD Player app in Mac OS X, and is why a 350MHz iMac G3 can play a DVD just fine. I can attest to this as in DVD Player on my Powerbook, a DVD takes around 25% of the CPU, while when playing the same DVD in VLC, it takes about 70-80%. Apparently VLC can't take advantage of the graphics card API like DVD Player can.

What Apple or any other company (ElGato hint hint) should do:
Build a Firewire device similar to the Dvico Fusion and price it at under $200. Now we can get digital transport streams into our macs. Then, with Apple's help, develop a PVR app like EyeTV to play these streams with video acceleration. I'm thinking anything over a 700MHz G4 with cache should be able to handle it with video acceleration.

This would sell big. Imagine having the device Firewire bus-powered. Plug it into your powerbook and attach an antenna (or have a built-in antenna) and you'll have a portable HDTV. WOW

xStep
Feb 16, 2004, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by Macrumors
Mudbug notes that TechTV reported today that part of the reasoning behind the price drop on the 23" Apple LCD is that Apple intends to bring out a 23" HDTV-Tuner enabled LCD.

What price drop. Hasn't it been $1999 for some time now?

DavidCar
Feb 16, 2004, 06:54 PM
The post that you quoted is over a year old.

MacRAND
Feb 16, 2004, 10:24 PM
Originally posted by tji
For those of us in the US, there are no HD PCI cards available. Though, there are some interesting possibilities:
- Linux card, with open sourced drivers: http://www.pchdtv.com/
- USB 2.0 based device. Only windows drivers available so far: http://www.usbhdtv.com/
- Firewire. Several Off The Air (OTA) tuners have firewire inputs/outputs, and most HD capable HD tuners will have firewire (mandated by the FCC).
Apple's firewire SDK already has tools for recording & playing back HD transport streams with AV gear: http://developer.apple.com/firewire/index.html
With digital TV being standard MPEG2, it's very close to what's already floating around in Macs today. Being able to downscale HD content & store to DVD, or otherwise manipulate it in OS X, iMovie, iDVD, Final Cut, etc. would be great. HDTV signal compared to DV on a computer is Huge!
FinalCut Pro4 messes with HD but doesn't really handle it too well on a Mac yet.
Until G5, AVID was almost ignoring G4 Macs in favor of high power Intel chip PCs for its top end editing suites. Now we got proprietary MoJo. :)
Storage of HD signal is a serious problem. Rendering and conversion times can be crippling and expensive to manage.

From another part of the Mac universe sprang the Big Mac supercomputer cluster using 1100 dual G5 Macs. Now Apple is helping Virginia Tech migrate from those G5 towers to much smaller and even more efficient G5 Xserves and Xserve TB RAIDS.

All this is making my Video Editing buddies salivate. They're thinking a small cluster of G5 Xserves combined with large Xserve RAIDS equals amazing real time rendering on a Mac at GB transfer speed.

Steve Jobs is intimately familiar with high end rendering as CEO of PIXAR.

The new G5 Macs have PCI-X slots and a huge capability in high bandwidth transfer of data over Ethernet and using fiber optics.

The Cinema Studio Displays are getting long in the tooth and there are constant rumblings about 30" monitors in G5 matching Aluminum frames, but nothing yet appears on the visable horizon except a bunch of multi-colored Mini-iPods. A distraction?

How is Apple going to deliver to us a display larger than 23" with high-contrast, high-resolution, bright vibrant color picture quality at a reasonable price so we can afford 1, or maybe 2 or 3 large 16:9 monitors to effectively and efficiently display and even wrap-around us with HDTV quality picture for high-end NLE in the next generation of FinalCut Pro?

If not a flat monitor, has Apple been experimenting with a front projector, or rear projection? Where could they find the picture quality for the next generation of computer monitor technology to usher in HDTV using a home computer? An HD Mac?

D L P - Digital Light Processing™

Consider for a moment Texas Instrument's decade old technology of Digital Light Processing™ that Mitsubishi and Pioneer almost destroyed with an ugly and expensive first experiment. Along came Samsung and said let us give it a try. When Samsung was ready for production the picture was no longer ugly, the set no longer cost over $10 to $15 thousand dollars, it was beautiful and priced below $4,000. To production they did go on the strength of an EXCLUSIVE contract for several years ending in the final months of 2003. This is 2004 and RCA, PHILIPS, PANASONIC and others have jumped on the SAMSUNG DLP bandwagon to manufacture really nice, large, beautiful rear projection sets, all at under $3,999.

Essentially, every pixel on a DLP chip is a reflective mirror, which magnifies the light generated from the chip and as a result there is no limit to the size of the screen using DLP technology.

A DLP TV has a bright, high-contrast image comparable to a computer monitor perfect for Hi-Definition TV and viewable from a wide angle. All DLP TVs perform exceptionally well when displaying images from DVD media.

Have you seen the crowds of people standing around watching about a dozen of $3,400 screens 40, 50 and 60" in width at Fry's, Ultimate Electronics, and your local TV store, while the smaller $4,500 to $11,000 plasma and LCD screens sit on the wall almost totally neglected? Is the practical use of the technology behind Apple's current line of Cinema Displays becoming too expensive for an increase in size, and obsolete?

Apple will incorporate HD into our Macs and will make them HDTV signal aware. The reception, manipulation and projection of a high-definition image is all part of the evolving digital hub, if Apple wants to be part of the future. Input to our computer/TV monitors can come from broadcast, download, transfer, or pulled up from memory banks. ;)

And, Uncle Steve, computers will be incorporated into Home Entertainment and Family Information Centers, because it doesn't make any difference where the iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie, DVD movie, cable TV, satellite feed, DV file, or other digital image and sounds comes from, as long as it gets up there on that screen and to our ears so we can enjoy the experience.

But there is a catch to using DLP. Every year or 2 you have to buy a new BULB currently costing between $250 and $500. Regardless, and whether the image is projected to the front or from the rear, I believe I have seen a crystal clear image of the future, and the experience is a true epiphany. DLP may be the manifestation of HD images to come at a reasonable price to consumers. It is a clearer view through the looking glass as reflected on tiny dancing mirrors than we have been use to seeing. :p
Yep! I remember the advent of color TV viewed through poor quality round screens. Heavens, I remember the eve of black & white TV in the late 40's, and the excitement of watching other children sitting on bleacher benches in a Peanut Gallery, who were there to see and hear Howdy Doody, Clarabelle and Buffalo Bob in person. We could see those children and characters through "the tube" and we knew it was real. HDTV isn't just "real", it's fantastically surreal imagery almost beyond belief.

Xapplimatic
Feb 17, 2004, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by vniow
There are about four different HDTV tuner cards for the PC, but none avalible for the Mac.

Unfortunately, since the PCI buses of most PCs can't handle the full uncompressed HDTV sugnal, it has to output it through the card, using the video card as a pass through and the output is only VGA so you have to buy a $400 adapter to get it to work with an Apple display.


A VGA to ADC adaptor costs $400 on what planet!? The DVI to ADC Deviator from Dr Bott only costs $99. A VGA to DVI adaptor is an additional $35. But IMHO, running a digital high def screen off a blurry old low def analog display card is a stupid idea in the first place. Figures some junk vendor for the PC would come up with such a brain fart.

Adobe75
Feb 17, 2004, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Xapplimatic
A VGA to DVI adaptor is an additional $35.

Last time I checked, a VGA connector does not carry a DVI signal, which is needed to drive Apple's LCDs. I don't even think a VGA to DVI adapter exists. What you mean is a DVI to VGA adapter, since the VGA signal is carried through a DVI connector.

Adobe75
Feb 17, 2004, 05:58 PM
To view, a G4 desktop (not laptop) is recommended, and should be possible to get 24 to 30fps with some coding improvements. Everybody, say nice things to John Dalgleish you will encourage him to write a fast new MPEG player for iTele.


I've been talking with John Dalgleish through e-mail about possibly writing a driver for a US (ATSC) HDTV card. He has expressed interest and needs a few "guinea pigs" to actually stick HD cards in our macs and test out the driver for him (he's from Australia). His web site (http://www.defyne.org/dvb/)

We've discussed the open-source HD-2000 Linux board, but that is a 5v card which won't work in the G5. The most appealing option to me is the Dvico Fusion HD card, since it is the cheapest at $150. (copperbox.com has them open box for $135)

In the current versions of iTele, he has gotten a full HDTV stream to play via software on a dual >1GHz G4 mac. He has expressed interest in using the GPU acceleration, but ATI and Apple are really tight-lip about it for no apparent reason.

Well, anyway... he'd like to go forward with writing a driver if he can gather a few testers. You'd need to have a decent mac with PCI slots, a PC with PCI slots, and of course the Dvico Fusion II HD card. Send me an e-mail (agill(at)cableone.net) if you are interested. If we get a few people with the right hardware, then John can get started :-)
Hopefully Apple or ElGato doesn't come out with their own product in the mean time! Or.. hopefully they do.

ratspg
Feb 19, 2004, 07:07 PM
HDTV would be sweet, but it would probably rank in a lot of $$$$$$ :(.. Im going to buy a 50inch plasma though, I like those.

killmoms
Feb 21, 2004, 04:07 PM
Plasma is a waste of money. Plasma screens suffer horribly from burn in. It only takes somewhere in the range of 1 - 3 years, depending on the quality of the display. If you watch a lot of 2.35:1 movies (not full 16:9), or 4:3 TV, you should avoid plasma like the plague.

Best quality picture is still a direct-view CRT, but they don't go above 34". If you need something bigger, rear-projection TVs are okay, but I'd go for DLP front projection + a good screen for ridiculous quality, brightness, and sizes as large as 110".

Me? I'm buying a 32" Samsung CRT off Amazon w/ the help of my roommates for next year.

--Cless

MacRAND
Feb 21, 2004, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by Cless
Plasma is a waste of money. Plasma screens suffer horribly from burn in.
Best quality picture is still a direct-view CRT, but they don't go above 34". If you need something bigger, rear-projection TVs are okay, but I'd go for
DLP front projection + a good screen for ridiculous quality, brightness, and sizes as large as 110".
Me? I'm buying a 32" Samsung CRT off Amazon ...Cless, you have excellent taste.
a. Plasma - expensive waste of money, after only a few years, burn-in very likely.
b. LCD - small 17 - 20" getting reasonably priced, 23 - 30" and above, very expensive. Dead pixel problems, but getting better through improved manufacture. LG is larges manufacturer or LCD screens regardless of who puts their name on the outside box.
c. DLP by Texas Instruments used by Samsung, RCA, Philips, Panasonic and others, reasonably priced considering large size of projection (front or rear) beginning at 40" - 70" rear all the way to 110" front, ridiculously good quality, bright, beautiful color with excellent contrast ratio. Like looking out a window when used for HDTV. http://www.dlp.com/dlp_technology/default.asp
d. CRT TV classic with flat screen, ranges from 13" to 34", take your pick. Excellent picture in high-end sets. Most notable for quality 32" - 34" sets are Panasonic, JVC and recently RCA. Sony is good but has a commercialized (for consumers) shift in color, and has a poor reputation for using cheap power supplies and built-in obsolescence.

A. Front projection can be excellent and easily provides the largest screen size, along with portability - unless the larger ones (read- very expensive $14,000 - $30,000 projectors) are ceiling mounted. Other projectors can be hand-held and cost less than $1,000. Look for names like RUNCO, BenQ, InFocus, Sharp, Toshiba and Mitsubishi among more than 40 brands.
http://www.dlp.com/about_dlp/about_dlp_manufacturers_listing.asp
B. Rear projection provides the typical Large Screen TV box, with illumination projected by any of the above 4 types a through d. Besides the picture source itself (DLP, LCD, etc.) the kind and quality of the lenses (often 3, one for each color) glass or mere plastic. Mitsubishi, Toshiba, JVC, SONY and Pioneer have long been leaders, but now DLP has brought in amazing picture quality through Samsung, Philips, Panasonic and RCA.
C. Classic CRT TV.

If you are in the market for HDTV, I'd follow the Cless advice and look hard at DLP for large screen ($2,800 up) and CRT for 34" and smaller ($2,700 or less).

Compare:
Apple HD Cinema Display sports a 23-inch LCD (viewable) thin film transistor (TFT) active-matrix LCD that supports an astonishing 1920 by 1200 pixel resolution.
350:1 contrast ratio

Below:
Samsung's new 56-inch DLP Television - HLP5685 (no price listed, soon to be released)
Designed with the new HD2 Plus Texas Instrument DMD Chipset, the Samsung Proprietary Cinema Smooth Gen 4 Optic System with outstanding black levels that weigh in at
3,000:1 contrast ratio, a dramatic performance improvement. Functional enhancements include discreet IR code operation HDMI, DVI and PC inputs, plus 3 HD component inputs.

How would you like to Edit a DV movie using FinalCut Express on a 56-inch DLP HD monitor?

DavidCar
Feb 21, 2004, 09:34 PM
I read that a HLP5685 is still 720p, which in my case wouldn't meet my primary requirements as a PC Monitor. Even 1080 would be less than the 23" Cinema's 1200. You've got me curious enough, though, to check out DLP next time I'm at Ultimate Electronics.

For what i would want, the Divco Fusion card looks interesting, if it can be adapted to a Mac. I also saw a recent rumor of Apple doing something new with video by July or August.

Evan_11
Feb 21, 2004, 10:26 PM
That Samsung DLP set looks killer. Speaking of Star Trek it looks like it would be right at home on the bridge of the enterprise. Count me in on DLP. The rear projection sets look much better than LCD, weigh a fraction and have no convergence issues like RP tube sets and are only lacking Plasmas ease of placement but that is negligible. I think within a couple of years we'll be able to purchase the above mentioned set and work at the same rez as the current 23" HD cinema display. Fun times if you're a video editor.

MacRAND
Feb 22, 2004, 01:43 AM
Originally posted by DavidCar
I read that a HLP5685 is still 720p, which in my case wouldn't meet my primary requirements as a PC Monitor. Even 1080 would be less than the 23" Cinema's 1200. You've got me curious enough, though, to check out DLP next time I'm at Ultimate Electronics. Resolution and price range are two things that I could not initially find on this Samsung DLP, until now.
...we really have our eye on is the HLP5685W, a 56-inch, floor-standing rear-projection DLP HDTV that's only 13 inches deep.
Samsung's HLP5685W DLP HDTV
HD-2: twice as slim?
Companies have been promising that LCD, LCoS, and DLP rear-projection TVs would slim down to sizes that begin to rival flat-panel displays, and the HLP5685W is evidence of that progression. The set is powered by Texas Instruments' new HD-2 Plus chip that allows for a 1,280 x 720 resolution, enough to show every pixel of 720p HDTV. This 56-incher has both a DVI and a HDMI connection, which are compatible with the latest cable and satellite set-top boxes, as well as with DVI DVD players.
The HLP5685W is due out in September and will sell for just less than $5,499. By comparison, a plasma display of a similar size would retail for more than $10,000. That said, we're still a little surprised to see that prices for DLP rear-projection sets aren't dropping--even for models that aren't all that slim.
For example, in June 2004, Samsung is set to release a second floor-standing 56-inch DLP set that's not quite as thin and is also powered by the new TI HD-2 Plus chipset. That TV is tentatively priced at around $5,000Samsung's resolution of 1,280 x 720 doesn't even match a 1280 x 1024-pixel 17-inch Apple Studio Display; and the
$5,000 price tag is a bit steep, even for a
Contrast ratio as high as 3,000:1

Let's keep looking, prices have to come down and quality will most certainly be going up. But I just love Samsung's pedestal style and 13" depth for this rear projection model and the gorgeous color picture, which blows away LCD and plasma.:cool:

wdlove
Feb 22, 2004, 01:28 PM
I have a front projection Sharp DLP, it's 10 years, still has the original bulb. It does have some red spots, which a technician says indicates degredation of the bulb. The main problem with this type of system is that it needs a darkend room. Is the rear projection better?

MacRAND
Feb 23, 2004, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by wdlove
I have a front projection Sharp DLP, it's 10 years, still has the original bulb. It does have some red spots, which a technician says indicates degredation of the bulb. The main problem with this type of system is that it needs a darkend room. Is the rear projection better? Check it out at the store, seems to be a much brighter picture than the rest.

RazorWriter
Jun 4, 2004, 07:14 PM
Google found me this page (http://www.sysage.com.tw/Gst/Events/GActAll_S.asp?CatPK=116), which has some tantalizing data.

Some kind of meeting schedule, mostly in Japanese (er, Chinese), but containing english phrases such as Power Mac - G5 HDTV !

Can someone translate please?

BrianKonarsMac
Jun 4, 2004, 07:38 PM
HDTV is the next "killer app" of the digital hub...I cannot believe Jobs does not see it. If the popularity of Tivo and DVR's is not proof enough, combine this with everyone using PC's and Mac's as DVR's currently. Integrating the TV (with HD capability) with a Mac GUI and expected ease of use, would launch them directly into the spotlight of the home entertainment system just like the iPod did to portable audio. I see an average of 50+ iPods a day on the Chicago el train (red/brown lines). Apple needs to be the pioneer into this field and gain as significant of a lead as possible to shield them from the guarenteed competition they'll face. My computer run's everything in my apartment, including my TV (ghetto-rigged), why doesn't Apple make my experience a little more pleasurable? I want to give them the money, they just won't take it.

bastula
Jun 4, 2004, 08:57 PM
Google found me this page (http://www.sysage.com.tw/Gst/Events/GActAll_S.asp?CatPK=116), which has some tantalizing data.

Some kind of meeting schedule, mostly in Japanese (er, Chinese), but containing english phrases such as Power Mac - G5 HDTV !

Can someone translate please?

Here is a translation from babelfish:
======================

Apple the HDTV high picture prime number position regards the news solution symposium



Date
Time
Place

200.4/5/28 million ~ 200.4/5/28 million
13:30 ~ 17:00
Taibei Asian and Pacific clubhouse big view hall B area



Active object:
Dissemination industry



Participation expense:
Free


Subject



Apple the HDTV high picture prime number position regards the news solution symposium


Active content



Dear dissemination advanced:

Along with this January 1 European first Gao Huachih the television (High Definition Television, HDTV) serves officially begins broadcasting, believed everybody has all felt to several revolutions is like a raging fire launches in the world, future along with Gao Huachih the television popularization, large will promote the people when will watch the image the vision to enjoy. In the future, no matter will be the music, the sports, the performance, the cultural activity perhaps the documentary film, all will penetrate HDTV with to present by the highest quality transmission.

Since continuously, Apple all has provided the field best potency video and music of equipment and the software with the good quality, in the often new product publication always can newly let the person informer one, startled be colorful for it. This will, in view of Gao Huachih the video and music dissemination demand, what type Apple give you the solution?

Please attends our symposium! At the meeting, we besides for you introduced the HDTV equipment, will share Power Mac - G5 by the Apple video and music system conformity partner tripod with two handles front computer with each position the HDTV non-linear editing solution, will tell you by the actual equipment and the picture, how will utilize Apple Final Cut Pro HD, will help you the video and music market to pull out the first prize in Gao Huachih in, to snatch takes the initiative!

The seat is limited, please as soon as possible registers! !

Sponsor unit: Gathers the large science and technology limited liability company
Does jointly the unit: The Apple computer/tripod with two handles front computer limited company/newly records the limited liability company

Agenda:

1:30~2:00 registration
2:00~3:00 HDTV specification introduction
HDTV regards the news equipment introduction
Power of Mac - G5 tripod with two handles front computer system conformity plan HDTV non-linear film editing introduction
Apple Xserve RAID 3.5TB supervelocity, ultra large capacity magnetism small dish array introduction
3:00~3:10 the ~~~ middle place rest, visits the equipment to demonstrate ~~~
3:10~4:10 Apple Computer Final Cut Pro HD, Shake 3.5, Motion product introduction and demonstration
4:10~4:30 several contents management
4:30~4:45 exchange and discussion


====================

So it looks like there is nothing new from this page. Sorry :(. Maybe something will crop up soon?

By the way, the language is Chinese Traditional, according to my girlfriend. Here (http://world.altavista.com/babelfish/trurl_pagecontent?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sysage.com.tw%2FGst%2FEvents%2FGActAll_S.asp%3FCatPK%3D116&lp=zt_en) is a link to the translated page.

sambo.
Jun 5, 2004, 07:22 AM
please tell me you can get a TV PCI card, just a standard TV card for now, that fits a mac......... :D

tji
Jun 5, 2004, 12:17 PM
We've discussed the open-source HD-2000 Linux board, but that is a 5v card which won't work in the G5. The most appealing option to me is the Dvico Fusion HD card, since it is the cheapest at $150. (copperbox.com has them open box for $135)
I've seen some discussions from Linux users on this issue. They had newer boards that they didn't think it would work with, but it did. The spec's on the pchdtv.com site may be incorrect.

In the current versions of iTele, he has gotten a full HDTV stream to play via software on a dual >1GHz G4 mac. He has expressed interest in using the GPU acceleration, but ATI and Apple are really tight-lip about it for no apparent reason.
That's really unfortunate, since it is a standard API under Windows (DxVA), and the linux API (XvMC) is becoming more popular with beta support in xine, vlc, and other apps (of course, that's only supported by Nvidia, ATI has not supported Linux XvMC).

With the FusionHDTV software, you need a fast P4 to do full quality software processing (probably ~ 3GHz), but with DxVA it can be done on an 800MHz P3. To do any sort of multitasking or PVR functionality, I would say that MPEG2 acceleration is pretty much a requirement.

Apple is really missing the boat here, since most of their machines for the last 5 years have had support for MPEG2 acceleration. The only exceptions are some of the Nvidia cards. (Only the GeForce4 MX, FX line, and newer cards have full DxVA).

Well, anyway... he'd like to go forward with writing a driver if he can gather a few testers. You'd need to have a decent mac with PCI slots, a PC with PCI slots, and of course the Dvico Fusion II HD card. Send me an e-mail (agill(at)cableone.net) if you are interested. If we get a few people with the right hardware, then John can get started :-)
Hopefully Apple or ElGato doesn't come out with their own product in the mean time! Or.. hopefully they do.
I have a couple Fusion cards, but unfortunately my Macs can't use them ( Cube and PowerBook).

Given Apple's fairly tight relationship with ATI, the soon to be released HDTV Wonder ( http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/S&V/ati_hdtv_wonder.shtml ) might be a better option. It is supposed to be released very soon, and is reported to cost ~ US$100.

mikefl420
Jun 6, 2004, 03:20 AM
I think the idea of composite video in and S video in would be great on Apples higher end HD displays. With software allowing you to select the input and choose full screen or PIP mode. This would be great for video capture and editing. If the resolution is there, why not? I doubt that would be too expensive. I know I'd love to be able to watch the news or a movie by hooking my Digital Cable or DSS in when I'm working. Hell, even take a break and select the XBox for a bit of stress relief and play, all while never leaving my studio... Ahhhh.... :D

TednDi
Jun 8, 2004, 03:01 PM
Can one output using the optical out on the airport express a video signal?

thanks?

Also could apple build in functionality into this little puppy then enable it later?
For example support for the firewireless?

Nobody has had a chance to get hold of one no?

thx

FFTT
Jun 8, 2004, 09:14 PM
Several very ignorant years ago, I purchased Quicktime Pro
thinking I could stream in video through my 300 Mhz G3 with a 24,000 bps
dial up signal and thus eliminate the need for cable or satellite T.V.

:rolleyes:

Now technology has improved greatly while my ignorance remains
intact.

Actually, I posted to these forums recently wishing that Apple would
soon follow and much improve on what is already being offered by DELL.

Although I would never dream of purchasing a Dell product, I can't ignore
the coolness of their 23' HDTV/ CPU monitor with picture in picture for
around $1,400

The only downfall is Dell's poor resolution quality compared to the Apple
23" cinema displays.

I imagine that Apple could very easily combine what it knows about video quality with this new technology and thus give us the ability to monitor
what's going on in our CPU while watching our favorite HDTV shows.

I think it's quite reasonable to predict that Apple will consider the
HDTV/CPU MEDIA CENTER in future products.

~Shard~
Jun 8, 2004, 11:55 PM
So is this going to tie into the new display rumors now? Might as well toss a HDTV tuner into the mix with these rumored 30" HD LCDs with DVI, no ADC, etc. Hmm, these could be some sweet display upgrades coming soon!

hvfsl
Jun 10, 2004, 05:12 AM
to build such an item for the PowerMacs using Firewire 800 . Personally, I think Formac which makes the Studio dtv is the company that is the best prospect for such a product . The Studio DTV which is a great product , converts most types of anolog video to digital or the other way as well as a builtin tv tuner to create dvd quality quicktime movies . Plus by using their superdivideon Superdrive or Apple's superdrive , you can burn them to dvd-r . I would however, expect Apple to increase the resolution of their standard displays to at least 2056 X 1536 first so that HDTV could be displayed at its best (including the eMac ) .

Well on the PC, to display compressed HD-TV, you need a 2.5Ghz cpu with a 128MB graphics card (Geforce 4Ti or faster). So I expect only the G5s could display it ATM.

djohan
Jun 10, 2004, 11:09 AM
what i think they are doing in this "year of the wireless" ..is to replace the d-sub cable with the rumored "wifi firewire" thus making the big screen, a tv, a hd tuner, a monitor..and so on.....put away your computer in a closet...use the tv/monitor as the screen with your wireless mouse and keyboard..or kick back and relax with a tvshow..or play some music on the tv/monitor from the sofa with the newly released airexpress and a possible remote controller to that..

TednDi
Jun 10, 2004, 06:08 PM
I think that the optical out will be for video as well as for audio and that there will be more under the hood of the airport express like firmware update 2.0 enabling firewireless and a bunch of other goodies announced at wwdc.

like HDTV support using a newly rewritten quicktime and the i-whatever you want to call it movie store for use with the handheld to come thingy.

What I really want is some feedback about the optical out. I know that it is used now rather widely for 5.1 or greater digial audio but DOES IT HAVE THE BANDWIDTH for video??

thanks to all!!

illitrate23
Jun 11, 2004, 06:51 AM
please tell me you can get a TV PCI card, just a standard TV card for now, that fits a mac......... :D
Elgato (http://www.elgato.com/) do the eyeTV box that'll hook up to your mac's firewire port and will play tv on the screen - or record it to hard disc like a PVR
i've got the eyeTv200 hooked up to a G4 Cube and it's not too bad. i imagine if i used it on something with a bit more power that the 450mhz Cube that it'd look fine for watching normal tv

MacQuest
Jun 14, 2004, 02:42 AM
It would be nice for me, with a powerbook, having the tuner built into the moniter is very helpful.

And when I'm not using the computer, it can standalone and be a TV for me to watch HDTV...I would love it.

Ditto. :)

sambo.
Jun 14, 2004, 04:43 AM
cheers illitrate23;
will have to check it out once the new machines arrive.

i like the idea of the new screens being HDTV comp. don't have to buy a tele now....... :eek:

DavidCar
Sep 25, 2004, 04:14 PM
This is sort of on the subject of Apple and TV, but

In the next few months I should have the option of bringing an optical fiber into my basement with offers of "triple play" services, namely internet, telephone and television. The television will apparently be some sort of ethernet iptv protocol from the fiber interface box to the set top box, which will then convert the iptv to a regular tv signal. An example of such set top boxes can be found here:

http://www.digitalstudio.net.au/products/amino.html

I'm still interested in the idea of putting tv onto an Apple monitor, so does any one know if I can substitute an Apple computer for such a set top box? I'm sure the software would have to involve some kind of digital rights management. Probably some sort of HDTV options and pay per view, or online movie rental options will eventually be available also.

gooddog
Oct 1, 2004, 05:59 AM
Mudbug notes that TechTV reported today that part of the reasoning behind the price drop on the 23" Apple LCD is that Apple intends to bring out a 23" HDTV-Tuner enabled LCD.

**************************

Could it mean that a 23" iMac G5 is sneaking up over the horizon ???

For X-mas , maybe ??????

MMMuuaahh Hah :D

---gooddog

GeeYouEye
Oct 1, 2004, 12:17 PM
Am I the only one who notices that this thread is a year old? Give it up already, there's a very good reason this never made it off page 2.

gooddog
Oct 2, 2004, 03:11 PM
I agree with yzedf, and I'm not convinced that television needs (or will be) part of the digital hub, Jobs hates TV anyways. I own a TV and that is what I generally watch DVDs and videos on, maybe down the road a few years a TV and computer will be two in the same, but I dont think that is plausible right now, not that it cant be done, but for lack of a market.

*******************************

Why would I want to blow huge wads of hard-earned cash to buy LCD real estate twice ; once for computing and again for TV viewing ? Who cares if SJ hates TV ? We love it. College kids in dorms and small apartment dwellers share the same lack of space and $ that make a 23" HD Cinema Display with a great tuner and elegant Apple software a super bargain. At arm's length, the 23" gives the same solid angle as a huge wall-mounted plasma tv. I am now watching all my TV shows on my 15" 800MHz FP iMac and FORMAC studio unit . Even with this meager set-up, all my Windows-using friends express envy and ask about buying a system like mine. The FORMAC uses about 36% of my little iMac's processor. So it slows down other tasks . But with a G5 and lotsa stuffings, or a HDTV enabled 23", life could be much more luxurious and convenient. I still drop down from full-screen to a small box on the FORMAC to watch the news as I do my other computing.

For nice Nature shows and flicks, I go to full-screen.

I just don't get it.

Why do people keep repeating the "no tv for Mac" mantra ?

---gooddog :rolleyes:

DavidCar
Oct 2, 2004, 06:34 PM
Good to hear from someone who is making it work. Fie on the skeptics.

ASP272
Oct 11, 2004, 02:10 PM
When I was in college I had a tiny room. I used a TV tuner equipped Performa 6320 CD for my television and computing needs. It worked out great! I think if they added a tuner card to an iMac or eMac they could produce the same dual purpose machine, only in much higher resolution than I was getting! Of course, it would be sweet to have a 30" CPU display and HDTV set in one. It would work well in my den where my Mac is but no TV set.

DavidCar
Oct 11, 2004, 04:02 PM
On a related subject, I read on http://news.com.com/ that Microsoft's Windows XP Media Center Edition will be updated this week. Some predict that version 3 of the software will be the "sweet spot" and that the popularity of such systems will increase in the future. Will Apple compete?

aswitcher
Oct 11, 2004, 04:16 PM
**************************

Could it mean that a 23" iMac G5 is sneaking up over the horizon ???

For X-mas , maybe ??????

MMMuuaahh Hah :D

---gooddog

And hey, they may even put a 128 Meg video card into it

Over Achiever
Oct 12, 2004, 09:14 AM
Imagine my surprise when I realized that I was quoted ... and I posted in this thread over a year ago! O.o

One year ... still nothing from Apple. The Samsung, Sharp Aquos TVs are looking promising, yet they aren't quite HD yet. Still would be nice to have a second LCD for this powerbook that doubles as a TV. ^ ^

-OA

camperslo
Oct 14, 2004, 05:46 AM
The EyeTV 500 is a HDTV tuner for the Mac.
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetv500

I don't know if they're actually shipping - some show them as backordered.
http://www.smalldog.com/product/12653606

It looks like it was announced last June.
http://www.macnn.com/news/25244

gooddog
Oct 15, 2004, 08:46 PM
The EyeTV 500 is a HDTV tuner for the Mac.
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetv500

I don't know if they're actually shipping - some show them as backordered.
http://www.smalldog.com/product/12653606

It looks like it was announced last June.
http://www.macnn.com/news/25244

***********************************

I read that the Square Shooter amplified antenna is the best for apt. dwellers.

Have you used it ? If not, what do you think is best ? I live in L.A. near Culkver City and Marina Del Rey -- not sure about terrestrial HDTV reception here -- how to find out BEFORE buying antenna and receiver ?

Also, I read in the Q/A El Gato site that, to display full size 1080i HDTV, you need a Dual G5 PowerMac. Guess iMac G5 won't do :(

---gooddog

DavidCar
Oct 15, 2004, 09:23 PM
Also, I read in the Q/A El Gato site that, to display full size 1080i HDTV, you need a Dual G5 PowerMac. Guess iMac G5 won't do


The iMac doesn't have a full size 1080i screen, so that may help. Also, I wonder if CoreImage in Tiger will help El Gato take advantange of doing processing in the graphics processor in the future. As I recall, they claim they need the Dual G5 in full size because they cannot use the graphics processor the way they would like. Also as I recall, they had a later software update that said it was better at using the graphics processor. Probably you would see a full picture on an iMac, but at a reduced frame rate. It would be nice if they answered that iMac question specifically on their website.

plasmadis
Oct 22, 2004, 04:22 AM
According to a post at this link:

http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/8536

This guy says he has no trouble viewing HDTV with the EyeTV 500, on just his 1.25 GHz G4 PowerBook, after installing the latest software. So, I'm thinking my 1.8 GHz G5 iMac should handle it just fine.

I'm anxiously waiting to get one and try it out, but right now I just can't spare the $350.

Yes, I've heard good things about the Square Shooter as an off-the-air HDTV antenna as well. It won an Innovations award at last year's CES. Right now I'm just using a cheap Silver Sensor antenna, with a FusionHDTV card in my PC. It's decent, but after what I've been reading about the Square Shooter, I could probably be getting better results.

The FusionHDTV card in the PC is OK, except that it occasionally forces the machine to reboot, and trying to record with it is very flaky. I'm hoping for a much better HDTV experience on the Mac.

plasmadis
Oct 29, 2004, 04:26 AM
Got the EyeTV 500. Sweetness.

aswitcher
Oct 29, 2004, 04:56 AM
Got the EyeTV 500. Sweetness.

Hows it perform?

Does it record easily and automatically?

Does it chew HDD space?

Can you do SD rather than HD to save record space?

csimon2
Oct 29, 2004, 10:28 AM
this product is going to kick some major ass in the next few weeks (or months depending on how long it takes to finalize), when the next software update is available. I have beta tested the current preview, and let's just say, that all of your antenna worries are about to go out the door! I can't get into detail too much right now, but I am sure there will be an announcement on xlr8yourmac.com, if ElGato wants to, pretty soon. Needless to say, the next software revision is a major update, we're talking OS X 10.0 to 10.1 monumental update here, at least for me.

As far as questions about watching HDTV on your mac with it: 720p (1280x720) receptions can be easily displayed by most modern macs without hinderance at full resolution. FOX and ABC broadcast 720p. But, unless your monitor is capable of displaying 1920x1200 resolution, you are not watching "true" 1080i HDTV. CBS, NBC, and PBC broadcast in 1080i, and when viewing these channels on your display, the signal is down-converted to match your screen's resolution (1440x900 for example). Of course, the picture still looks fantastic, but it isn't true 1080i, and therefore doesn't qualify for ElGato's faq about needing a dual G5 to display true 1080i.

I will say however, to view true 1080i with the EyeTV 500, it does NOT require a dual G5. It does require at least 64MB per monitor on G4s however (not just a 64MB card, because if you have only a 64MB card, and two monitors, then the card only gives 32MB to each display, and 1080i will drop frames on those screens). I have a Dual 1.25GHz G4, with a Nvidia GeForce 4 Titanium 128MB card, and 1.75GB RAM, along with a Radeon 7500 PCI 32MB card. When viewing the EyeTV from the DVI or VGA on the Radeon, it crawls (except when using S-Video at 800x600, which works fine). When viewing EyeTV from the GeForce Ti, everything is nice and smooth. On either the 1280x1024 LCD I have (via ADC), or the 1920x1200 CRT I use (via DVI).

As far as the software for those wondering, it is indeed a charm to use. Much better than the Formac Studio TVR software I use, or the AlchemyTV DVR software I use as well (yes, I'm THAT much into watching and recording TV on my mac). It is a breeze to use, and the integration with TitanTV to schedule and record is very nice. If only there was a way to schedule recordings via a TiVo-like on screen display, rather than having to use a web browser, scheduling would be perfect. It records without a hitch now with version 1.6.3. I had problems in the past, but the most recent official update seems to have fixed this. Have a G4 and a Revolution card? You can also output the sound digitally to an external receiver without having to go through the system, and this results in MUCH better positional audio. 1080i consumes about 8GB per hour for disk space. 720p can vary quite a bit I have found, from 3GB to 6GB. And you cannot do SD instead of HD, as the EyeTV 500 does no encoding itself, it just passes through the HD signal via firewire to your mac unfettered.

ElGato technical support is the best in the business. The most thorough and responsive answers I've ever gotten from a computer company. Want to see a new feature added? They are very receptive, and have already added a few of the features I was crying out for when I purchased this box.

The only caveat I will say about the EyeTV500, is that converting the HD MPEG-2 streams to SD MPEG-2 for DVD backup is still a pain in the ass. They have fixed the audio problems that plagued the first few versions of the software for the 500, but converting the video can still take hours and hours depending on the method you choose, and even then, it is sometimes hard to sync up the audio and video together. If your sole intent is to make DVDs from the EyeTV 500's recordings, I would suggest waiting until full Toast 6 interoperability is made (Toast 6 currently crashes when attempting to use an HD source for DVD encode and burning).

Also, to those waiting for Apple to release a monitor for HDTV viewing with builtin ports, realize that even if they did do this, this method would only allow viewing, not recording. You would need a HDTV capture card (like the fusion) or box tuner like the EyeTV 500.

Laslo Panaflex
Oct 29, 2004, 10:50 AM
I have beta tested the current preview, and let's just say, that all of your antenna worries are about to go out the door! I can't get into detail too much right now, but I am sure there will be an announcement on xlr8yourmac.com, if ElGato wants to, pretty soon.
Please, go into detail when you get the chance, because I would love to use this product with my SA HD digital cable box that charter provides, we only have 1 over the air HD network in our area, and it's CBS, which I never watch.

DavidCar
Oct 29, 2004, 11:11 AM
I thought EyeTV 500 was only for over the air HD broadcasts, as digital cable is encoded in a different way.

Laslo Panaflex
Oct 29, 2004, 11:17 AM
I thought EyeTV 500 was only for over the air HD broadcasts, as digital cable is encoded in a different way.

Yes, it is, but this gentleman is saying that all your antena worries are going to go away, in my case, the antena issuse is my only worry. I hope means digital transmission decoding . . . probably not though.

csimon2
Oct 29, 2004, 11:22 AM
The forthcoming update has nothing to do with digital cable boxes, SD or HD unfortunately. While I have consistently asked that some kind of DVHS function be added to the second firewire port for something like this, it appears it will require a major firmware update (the new preview requires one, and it applied without a hitch) or a different box altogether (EyeTV 700 possibly?). I have been told that ElGato IS looking into it. You are on the right track about cable though. And true, digital cable is encoded in a different manner than OTA. I'll post more details Monday if it hasn't been posted on xlr8yourmac by then.

wdlove
Oct 29, 2004, 11:26 AM
this product is going to kick some major ass in the next few weeks (or months depending on how long it takes to finalize), when the next software update is available. I have beta tested the current preview, and let's just say, that all of your antenna worries are about to go out the door! I can't get into detail too much right now, but I am sure there will be an announcement on xlr8yourmac.com, if ElGato wants to, pretty soon. Needless to say, the next software revision is a major update, we're talking OS X 10.0 to 10.1 monumental update here, at least for me.

The antenna issue is the very reason that I decided against the EyeTV 500. Reception would be poor. Then only about 4 channels would be available. I'm interested in the EyeTV 200 because it will work with Cable. The good customer support is important to me also.? Do they have a 800 number or is is a paid service?

csimon2
Oct 29, 2004, 12:08 PM
All support I have used thus far, has been via email. It is free, and they are very fast and responsive, amazingly so considering its usually the same guy that I talk to.

I just talked to Mike at xlr8yourmac.com about releasing the info, and he says his site will be updated shortly. Maybe not today, but possibly this weekend or very early next week. Considering he has talked to ElGato personally and confirmed it is OK, I will just let his site make the official announcement. I imagine my report will be included on his site, and everyone can refer to that. I will post future updates here as well though, notifying ya'll of the progress being made. I haven't been this excited about a software update in quite a while. :D

I personally would hold off on any purchase of any version of EyeTV until this info is officially released very shortly and you can make a more informed decision. Also, if antenna is your only choice, understand that DTV is MUCH stronger than Analog. With Digitial TV, you either receive a perfect picture or don't. Unlike analog. One way to test, is to see if you can currently receive any local analog channels. The ones you do, even if they are grainy or fuzzy, will likely come in crystal clear if the station is broadcasting Digital now.

blackcrayon
Oct 29, 2004, 01:43 PM
If you have a firewire port on your digital cable box, you can already do limited recording with VirtualDVHS (apple firewire sdk) or iRecord. Of course, the transmission must not be encrypted, but many are not... (Some cable providers aren't encrypting ANY channels- even their premium ones).

http://home.comcast.net/~macpvr/irecord.html

There is no way to watch live TV yet (other than starting a recording and quickly viewing the file with vlc, you'll just be about 3 seconds behind real time). But it seems that the hardware is already in place, the cable box, and your mac... (If your digital cable box doesn't have a firewire port, ask your cable provider for one that does- they have to offer it by FCC regulation - err- provided you live in the US)

cube
Oct 29, 2004, 01:51 PM
8-VSB is very susceptible to multipath interference. If you live in an urban area, you have been warned.
And for distant transmitters, remember a DTV image is all-or-nothing.

csimon2
Oct 29, 2004, 02:07 PM
"If you have a firewire port on your digital cable box, you can already do limited recording with VirtualDVHS (apple firewire sdk) or iRecord."

Yes, this will work as well, but with the live viewing and poor interface errors you mentioned. I would be happy to see ElGato actually just sell a version of their software alone that can interface with a HD digital cable STB. Imagine, if you could pay... say $50 for their EyeTV software, which would allow live viewing, scheduling, recording to the mac, and archiving to DVD all from one app. That would be really nice, and an option available to many more people. The prohibitive upfront cost of the hardware to begin with is what I am sure deters most. Even though with cable, you probably average out to roughly the same as an EyeTV over 15 months (when you include the extra co$t for the box, the "right" to use the DVR capabilities, and the access to an HD tier; for my cable company, the cost of an HD DVR box+DVR scheduling+Digital Gateway is $19.49/m over what I currently pay) you don't have to pay it all up front and it is less noticable to your immediate wallet.

MarcelV
Oct 29, 2004, 02:22 PM
If you have a firewire port on your digital cable box....

You forgot to finish the sentence....

...a firewire port on your digital cable box that is activated would be the correct phrase. The cable industry as well as satellite providers are disabling the firewire ports due to industry pressure from content owners, who don't want to have their content copied.

It's nice to have a box able to do this, but if there are no boxes that have firewire out, what good does this do.

csimon2
Oct 29, 2004, 04:08 PM
...a firewire port on your digital cable box that is activated would be the correct phrase. The cable industry as well as satellite providers are disabling the firewire ports due to industry pressure from content owners, who don't want to have their content copied.


Actually, the ports are required to be open by the FCC. This is primarily why those with first generation HD boxes from last year saw the previously disabled ports on their STB opened earlier this year. While the ports are required to be open, the only content protected for the consumer currently are the local broadcast channels. If a cable company wants to disable the content pass through on ESPN HD or HBO HD, they have full right to do so. But for right now, ABC and such must remain unencrypted.

aswitcher
Oct 29, 2004, 05:00 PM
Thanks for the detailed review.

Well for me PB then I guess SDTV is the way to go. I really want to watch one channel and record another like the new PVRs do coming out about the same price as the elgato stuff but then they aren't very com puter friendly.

Mmm, I think I'll wait to see what develops next year or if prices drop signficantly on the 400 series.

csimon2
Oct 29, 2004, 11:45 PM
I've been known to watch live TV on the tele in my comp room, while recording HD with the EyeTV 500 and SD with the AlchemyTV DVR. How's that for PIP/Live Pausing? Writing this up, kind of makes me realize I have spent WAY TOO MUCH money on this.

wdlove
Oct 30, 2004, 12:09 PM
I've been known to watch live TV on the tele in my comp room, while recording HD with the EyeTV 500 and SD with the AlchemyTV DVR. How's that for PIP/Live Pausing? Writing this up, kind of makes me realize I have spent WAY TOO MUCH money on this.

I have been offered a 20% discount on the EyeTV 200. Elgato Customer Support said that I must decide prior to the end of November. Will this update fit that time frame?

wdlove
Oct 30, 2004, 12:10 PM
I've been known to watch live TV on the tele in my comp room, while recording HD with the EyeTV 500 and SD with the AlchemyTV DVR. How's that for PIP/Live Pausing? Writing this up, kind of makes me realize I have spent WAY TOO MUCH money on this.

I have been offered a 20% discount on the EyeTV 200. Elgato Customer Support said that I must decide prior to the end of November. Will this update fit that time frame?

csimon2
Oct 30, 2004, 02:14 PM
If the update isn't released by then (slight possibility because it is pretty major and requires a firmware update for current owners), at least the details of it will be released before the end of November. I'm surprised xlr8youmac.com hasn't updated with the details yet, but I know he's been rather busy, so it shouldn't be much longer.

I will say, that if you are looking for a full-fledged analog converter-DVR for your mac, this update will not effect/compete with the EyeTV 200 product in the ATV arena. The EyeTV 500 is only and will always only be for DTV.

Also, when I say "way too much on this", I am talking about the combined purchase of the Studio TVR ($300), the AlchemyTV DVR ($120), and the EyeTV 500 ($300). In fact, I don't find the EyeTV 500 that overpriced, especially when you compare it to the cost of buying a HD TiVo Sat Receiver and HDTV.

gopher
Nov 3, 2004, 11:38 AM
I almost got an EyeTV 500, but then elected to go for the EyeTV 200 because the HDTV wouldn't record in MPEG-2 on the box. At least that's what I was told by Elgato when I e-mailed them to ask about the differences between their boxes. With the EyeTV 200, while I don't get HDTV, I get the more important MPEG-2 encoding on the box instead of on my computer.

csimon2
Nov 3, 2004, 12:30 PM
go for the EyeTV 200 because the HDTV wouldn't record in MPEG-2 on the box.

I guess what you mean is that the EyeTV 500 doesn't encode MPEG-2 from analog. That is correct. It does record in MPEG2 however, as it records the pure HD MPEG2 stream directly from the source. No encoding is needed and thus the picture is as good as it can be.

With the EyeTV 200, while I don't get HDTV, I get the more important MPEG-2 encoding on the box instead of on my computer.
I guess this is the correct way of stating this. The basic difference between EyeTV 200 and 500, is that the EyeTV 200 takes an analog cable or OTA signal and encodes it through hardware via its encoder. The 500 on-the-other-hand, has an HD tuner that tunes into HD signals and transmits them to your machine without needing to encode first. This doesn't mean that the 500 is only for HD however, as the forthcoming update will allow tuning of all receivable digital channels in your area, whether they are HD or digital SD.

Which brings me to an update about the information on the next update. ElGato has asked that I wait on announcing full details of what they have planned, and I am going to oblige them on this. But, I will say that the above paragraph gives a major hint as to what's coming.

DavidCar
Nov 3, 2004, 01:48 PM
csimon2:
This doesn't mean that the 500 is only for HD however, as the forthcoming update will allow tuning of all receivable digital channels in your area, whether they are HD or digital SD.


Elgato website:
EyeTV 500 is a feature-rich digital video recorder for digital terrestrial television (ATSC). Watch, record, timeshift, edit and archive free over-the-air HDTV and digital standard-definition television (SDTV) on your Mac in crystalline digital quality.

It will be interesting to see what the forthcoming update entails, but I read this to say the EyeTV 500 already does both HD and SD.

csimon2
Nov 3, 2004, 03:59 PM
I could see how my previous post could be misinterpreted. What I meant or probably should have said, is that currently, all of the SD channels I receive are located on the same frequency as the HD ones. (ie, I can get ABC News Now in addition to ABC HD, and PBS Kids and PBS Net in addition to PBS HD.) With this update, channels that are only available in DTV SD format, are also available. Its probably still kind of hard to fully understand what I mean or how this will work/is different without letting the all the details out.

csimon2
Jan 12, 2005, 09:45 AM
Well, the cat can finally be let out of the bag. Because ElGato asked me not to leak any details, I complied. But now that version 1.7 of their software has been released, I am no longer under those restrictions. v1.7 of their software allows EyeTV 500 users to update their box to be QAM tuner enabled. This means if you have some form of cable service (read: not sattelite), then you can basically use a standard cable outlet and connection as your antenna to receive HD, if you're lucky enough to have a cable company who support this (at this time, many do). With the QAM tuner functionality, I am able to receive over 50 channels, sometimes over 60 depending what the cable company is experimenting with that week. My local HDTV stations never lose signal quality, and the software is both very refined and stable now. While only 7 of the channels I get are HD (only locals) the remaining are composed of 5 digital cable only channels and the entire Music Choice channel lineup. This QAM functionality is fantastic, and a real boon to TV buffs who want to have the highest quality backups of their favorite shows, especially if they want to put them onto DVD (although it does require a re-encoding, the subsequent encode looks far superior to a SD capture to DVD). :)

mikeylebeau
Jan 12, 2005, 11:23 AM
That's really sweet. Any idea how we can find out if our cable company supports QAM tuner functionality?

-mike

csimon2
Jan 12, 2005, 11:38 AM
Well, its either trial and error or call them (cable company) up and see if they will help you out with info. Even if you can't find an answer beforehand, ElGato are really great with their customer support, and if you are within 30 days of purchase, they will most likely accept a return for a very small restocking fee.

mikeylebeau
Jan 12, 2005, 11:45 AM
I'm a little concerned that since I'm not very familiar with HD technology, if I call up and don't ask it the right way I won't get the answer I need... Will they understand what I mean if I ask whether they support QAM tuner functionality?

-mike

wdlove
Jan 12, 2005, 01:37 PM
Well, its either trial and error or call them (cable company) up and see if they will help you out with info. Even if you can't find an answer beforehand, ElGato are really great with their customer support, and if you are within 30 days of purchase, they will most likely accept a return for a very small restocking fee.

Will the new EyeTV still work if your Cable is just basic? I'm still not convinced that it is worth the $60 price to upgrade. Part of that money goes to support the Red Sox, which I consider welfare for millionaires. I just want to be able to watch some of the regular shows on my Mac. Is it still true that the tuner that comes with the software is sufficient? With my Cable setup, don't have a Cable provided box.

csimon2
Jan 12, 2005, 01:52 PM
I think a reasonable conversation would start like this:

"Hi, yes, I am looking into buying an HDTV and it says that it has a builtin QAM tuner on it. With your basic+expanded cable service, does that mean I will be able to watch the local HD channels without a cable box on the TV?"

You may also want to check your area and what other users are saying about HD channels and QAM tuners around there. A good resource is this forum: http://www.avsforum.com/

mikeylebeau
Jan 12, 2005, 01:53 PM
Thanks for the help!

-mike

DavidCar
Jan 13, 2005, 07:17 PM
The question I have is whether or not the elgato 500 respects the broadcast flag. One review says it does, while another says it does not. Which is it, and will they suddenly change in July, according to law?

http://eff.org/broadcastflag/eyetv500.php

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/002188.php

csimon2
Jan 14, 2005, 01:02 PM
The question I have is whether or not the elgato 500 respects the broadcast flag. One review says it does, while another says it does not.
Is one of those links supposed to contradict the other? Unless I read it wrong, they each say the same thing, that the broadcast flags won't effect the EyeTV 500. But, if you purchase a EyeTV 500 after July, it is conceivable the ElGato will be forced to release an updated version that does respect the flags. In any event, even with flags, you shouldn't have a problem with broadcast network stuff (ABC, FOX, NBC, CBS, WB, UPN). These stations (as I understand it) are supposed to remain unencrypted for the immediate future with devices like the EyeTV (this is a mandate from Congress) and STBs.

The real issue is with premium cable services like HBO or Starz. Premium services don't fall under the same regulatory control as do free OTA channels do, and thus there is a different committee, one practically controlled by Hollywood, that oversees this. In the end, this doesn't matter too much at all, as receiving premium channels with an EyeTV 500 is merely a matter of luck. And even if you do receive them right now, I suspect it would only be a matter of time before your cable company realizes that people are receiving their more expensive products for free and will disable that ability. But, clear QAM should always be broadcasted for your local channels, and as a local station HD tuner and recorder, the EyeTV 500 works great.

Will the new EyeTV still work if your Cable is just basic?
Yes. In fact, all I had for the past two months was basic+expanded without a STB, and I receive the same channels as I did previously now that I have a HD DVR STB from my provider. BTW, I'm with you, because if it weren't for the ability to timeshift HD programming on the STB, no way would I pay for the digital services required for it either.

DavidCar
Jan 14, 2005, 01:48 PM
You're right, both links I posted say the same thing about the flag. When I got to posting references, my thinking was the elgato 500 doesn't respect the flag at the moment, but should I be sure to buy one before midnight June 30th in order to preserve my future options, even if my present computer can't handle it. I have not decided that question yet. And I am wondering if my real deadline is June 30th for buying the 500, or should I just download the present firmware while it is still legal for them to offer it, then if I get a limited version later I can just install the earlier firmware. (If that approach would work)

My concern is that my earlier links imply that the broadcast network stuff will be using flags, and I'm thinking encryption is a different thing.

About a third of the way down on this page:

http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/04/07/13/2232216.shtml?tid=137&tid=129&tid=9&tid=3

you can find this paragraph, apparently incorrect:

Unfortunately, the EyeTV 500 respects the so-called "broadcast flag" that prevents you from recording television programs for the purpose of time-shifting. Because this constitutes a violation of your Fair Use rights, I am urging all netizens to boycott all high-definition TV products while my lawsuit against the RIAA is pending.

csimon2
Jan 15, 2005, 06:52 PM
I'm quite familiar with a couple of ElGato developers, I will ask for clarification on this next week. I really don't think there is anything to worry about, but it is vague.

wdlove
Jan 15, 2005, 07:25 PM
I'm quite familiar with a couple of ElGato developers, I will ask for clarification on this next week. I really don't think there is anything to worry about, but it is vague.

So will the EyeTV 500 still work best for my situation? Basic Cable hookup with no box provided by the company, would be just a direct link.

csimon2
Jan 16, 2005, 10:56 AM
If you just want to receive and record your HDTV local network channels, then yes, the EyeTV 500 is an ideal solution with just basic cable. As I said previously, before this month I only had basic cable, and I get the same number of channels with the EyeTV 500 now with digital cable as I did with just basic. I would highly recommend checking out avsforum.com though and looking at what others are saying for your area before purchase.

RealDeal
Jan 21, 2005, 08:31 AM
waiting for good price hdtv - ideally a bigger30+ inche screen- go Apple!

ftaok
Jan 21, 2005, 09:52 AM
waiting for good price hdtv - ideally a bigger30+ inche screen- go Apple!You should check out EyeTV's minimum specs for the Eye500. I recall a reviewer mentioning that even with a Dual G5 PowerMac, there was problems with playback of 1080i material. Your 1.6 G5 iMac might not have enough horsepower.

Edit - I just check the website. A 500mhz G4 is the minimum, but in the FAQ, there's reference that a Dual G5 is required for full-sized, full-frame rate playback. So I guess your iMac will be able to record and playback HD material, but maybe a sizes smaller than 1920x1080i.

csimon2
Jan 21, 2005, 10:27 AM
Just for clarification once again, because I mentioned this in an earlier posting, the dual G5 spec requirement is meant to be a "safe" listing for playing back full framerate 1080i at its native resolution. I have a dual G4 1.25GHz with 1.75GB RAM, and a 128MB nVidia GeForce4 Ti and I can play back 1080i at 1920x1080 on a 1920x1200 CRT monitor no problem. 720p is never a problem either, and I have three displays connected to my machine (a second, ADC display is connected to the Ti card, and the third is connected to a Radeon 7500 PCI). Whether you have the ability to playback 1080i depends on a combination of things from my testing and experience. First and foremost, it appears the video card is the primary factor. You need at least a 64MB card, but most likely a 128MB card. Next, dual processors are a factor, as it likely a single processor G4 will not be able to playback 1080i without dropping frames no matter what. The third is RAM installed. If you have under a gig installed, and want to do other things with your mac while watching, hiccups are going to ensue.

As far as 1080i on a iMac G5, you will not be able to display true 1080i resolution on the builtin monitor anyway. As the max resolution of the 20" is 1680x1050, even playing 1080i full screen would require scaling down some. I would imagine that on a 17" iMac G5, playing 1080i full screen would result in no errors (because it has to scale down quite a bit). On a 20" with plenty of RAM, I suspect that would be fine as well. I also doubt that using a firmware hack to enable dual displays with the iMac G5 in order to use a higher resolution monitor for 1080i would help. Remember, if you do this, you are effectively splitting the 64MB video card into two 32MB cards, which wouldn't be enough for 1080i IMHO. Understand though, that while iMac G5 or Powerbook (except PB 128MB models possibly) owners won't be able to playback full resolution 1080i, watching 1080i scaled down somewhat will still look remarkable and much better than analog.

gopher
Jan 21, 2005, 11:37 AM
waiting for good price hdtv - ideally a bigger30+ inche screen- go Apple!

Check out Sears. I got a really nice Samsung TX-P3064W on sale for $720. Ask them when it goes on sale again to give you a call. It comes with DVI input.

wdlove
Jan 21, 2005, 11:44 AM
You should check out EyeTV's minimum specs for the Eye500. I recall a reviewer mentioning that even with a Dual G5 PowerMac, there was problems with playback of 1080i material. Your 1.6 G5 iMac might not have enough horsepower.

Edit - I just check the website. A 500mhz G4 is the minimum, but in the FAQ, there's reference that a Dual G5 is required for full-sized, full-frame rate playback. So I guess your iMac will be able to record and playback HD material, but maybe a sizes smaller than 1920x1080i.

I have been wanting to get EyeTV 500 myself. Have realized that currently that's impossible, just have a dual 450 Power Mac. As mentioned it should really scream with a 2.5 G5. By then should be the 500 should be even better. How soon for another update?

gooddog
Jan 24, 2005, 04:28 AM
Why would Apple moving into that market be such a great thing?

Reminds me of the late 80's early 90's when Apple lost their focus... they really did suffer back then. I hope they don't do that again.

***********************************

Here's why : after posting many times about not wanting to dish out big bucks for a 16X9 HD LCD twice (one for TV/the other for computing ) ... and Apple ignoring me,
I finally GOT FED UP with endless waiting followed by bitter disappointment.

I had hoped that with the 30" Apple display at the top of the line and the 23" now the mid-size panel, AND with the 23" price now down to about the price of an iMac G5 ;
the time was here for Apple to put out a 23" iMac G5 with a better GPU and a few more goodies .... this would mirror what happened when the 20" FP iMac G4 came out for about the previous price of a 20" display alone.

BUT NOOOOOOOO !

So I broke down and got a 30" LCD from Costco (Sceptre) for $1300 and later a big-ol' Sanyo/Dish 925 recording HD satellite receiver and a Squareshooter antenna for terrestrial.

It is heaven. I am sure it is not as heavenly as the twice-as-many-pixels Apple 30", but it is still hog heaven -- even when hooked to my 12" Powerbook.

GUESS WHAT HAPPENED IN MY BRAIN ----

I lost 50% of my libido for the 23" or even 20" iMac G5 !!!!

I was shocked !

Like when I lost interest in comic books just as I got a job that payed enough for my dreamed-of comic book mountain :(

Where , before, I feared I would impulse my way to the ED store and order the 20"
(just before the 23" came out - GGggRRRRR !!!!) ...

I now feel that I can wait until heck freezes over for the 23" G5 iMac ---

MY LARGE SCREEN LUST IS SATED !!! <:O

--------------

I will still get it and do HD TV etc. with it ...
but I am not in a big hurry.

This means that these thousands of $ that I would have spent gladly with Apple HD, I am now spending instead with Sanyo/Dish/Sceptre/et al.

MORAL : If Apple doesn't move into HD TV and all other aspects with a G5 23" iMac HDTiVo -- then people will be snared by the
dedicated HDTV units and all the associated
expenses will come out of potential iMac sales.

---gooddog

/

: * ] AAaaRRRrrFFfff !!!

\

_________________________ :eek:

DavidCar
Jan 27, 2005, 01:34 AM
***********************************
I now feel that I can wait until heck freezes over for the 23" G5 iMac ---
MY LARGE SCREEN LUST IS SATED !!! <:O

In my case I would need to justify a 23" or 30" as a computer monitor first, then as an HDTV second.

But now I am wondering how a Mac mini with a 23" HD Cinema display and an EyeTV 500 would work out. The 23" can do 1920x1080, and I am expecting that with Tiger and CoreImage/CoreVideo, more of the graphics chip processing power will be available for new EyeTV 500 software, so maybe a mini with CoreVideo could do full frame rate at 1920x1080. But then I read somewhere the graphics chip in the mini might be underpowered (32MB) for this. And then I expect new EyeTV software would have to support the broadcast flag if it came out in July or so, or am I confusing software with firmware?

csimon2
Jan 28, 2005, 09:13 AM
While its not like it is required for running Tiger, the mac mini will not support full Core Image capability. The mobility Radeon 9200 and 32MB is not enough horsepower to qualify. While Apple used to have a webpage listing what graphics cards would fully support CoreImage, it seems that since MWSF they have changed the webpage and no long list it; but here is a page that tells you what cards will be compatible: http://www.cubeowner.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9109&st=0
Also, I highly doubt that a single processor G4 will be able to handle full resolution 1080i. Maybe it will do full 720p with no issue, but 1080i is more processor intensive and therefore you would likely see frames dropped. For instance, I have had issues with viewing 1080i on a Powerbook 12" and that sucker's video card is CoreImage qualified. I do suspect though that the macmini would be able to do 1080i scaled down in a window or full-screen on a lower resolution monitor. And of course it would still look fantastic.

gopher
Jan 28, 2005, 09:01 PM
While its not like it is required for running Tiger, the mac mini will not support full Core Image capability. The mobility Radeon 9200 and 32MB is not enough horsepower to qualify. While Apple used to have a webpage listing what graphics cards would fully support CoreImage, it seems that since MWSF they have changed the webpage and no long list it; but here is a page that tells you what cards will be compatible: http://www.cubeowner.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9109&st=0
Also, I highly doubt that a single processor G4 will be able to handle full resolution 1080i. Maybe it will do full 720p with no issue, but 1080i is more processor intensive and therefore you would likely see frames dropped. For instance, I have had issues with viewing 1080i on a Powerbook 12" and that sucker's video card is CoreImage qualified. I do suspect though that the macmini would be able to do 1080i scaled down in a window or full-screen on a lower resolution monitor. And of course it would still look fantastic.

I'm pretty sure I saw what could only have been 1080i at Macworld. From a Powerbook G4. Though the Radeon 9700 probably helped the display that I saw. It was playing back a DVD. And of course it is a single processor laptop G4 with twice as much videoRAM than the Macmini. I'm about to try the sam experiment with my HDTV as early as Tuesday.

csimon2
Jan 29, 2005, 12:31 AM
Ahh, first of all I mentioned I was talking about a 12" Powerbook (1.33GHz) = 64MB GeForce 5200 = 1024x768 builtin display = dropped frames even on scaled down 1080i (not 720p though)

Secondly, a DVD is only 720x480 resolution. 1080i is 1920x1080. That's six times the resolution of a DVD.

DavidCar
Jan 29, 2005, 01:56 AM
For instance, I have had issues with viewing 1080i on a Powerbook 12" and that sucker's video card is CoreImage qualified. I do suspect though that the macmini would be able to do 1080i scaled down in a window or full-screen on a lower resolution monitor. And of course it would still look fantastic.

It will be interesting to know if your Powerbook 12" still has 1080i issues after Tiger is released, and the CoreImage qualified processor can start running CoreImage -- and if EyeTV takes advantage of it.

I'm still thinking through all my options. I should be able to obtain a Fiber-to-the-Home connection in the next few weeks/months, and I will be interested to see if I can get the kind of HDTV RF signal that can be input to the EyeTV 500 cable input. That will have some influence on the kind of equipment I decide to get. If things do not work out for a G5, I may have to settle for a mini, and scale down the resolution.

madforrit
Feb 9, 2005, 11:07 AM
Hey everyone,

I have a question about my setup and was wondering if you guys could help me figure out the most cost-effective way to do what I want...

I just got DISH Network with HD (no local channels in HD however, which is a bummer...). In the main room, the DISH-provided receiver is hooked up to a HDTV...great. In another room, I have another DISH-provided HD receiver, my Mac (DP 2.5, 20" screen), and no TV. I'd like to be able to hook up my Mac to the DISH system...what's the easiest way to do this? If I get an EyeTV500, does the coax from the satellite dish just hook into the EyeTV, effectively bypassing the DISH-provided receiver? Or is there a better way to send the signal from the DISH receiver (model 811 by the way) to the EyeTV or similar device (e.g. just standard RCA outs and ins?). And lastly, how much would my different options cost me?

Thanks for your help! I'm sort of new at the convergence between TV and Mac... :o

csimon2
Feb 10, 2005, 10:48 AM
Hmmm, best way to connect the Dish HD to your mac?... Well, does the Dish receiver have a Firewire port on it and is it activated? If so, you can use AV/C browser to record the native MPEG-2 streams to your mac, then view them through VLC. This will yield the best quality, but you will probably need some sort of TV monitor to view what is going on with the receiver. A second option, because it sounds like you may have some money to spend, is if the Dish receiver has RGB out, then get the Canopus TwinPact 100 and capture from the RGB over firewire. A third option would be to get the ADS Pyro A/V Link which has Component input connectors. And yet another option would be to just use the SVideo connections on the receiver with either a Miglia AlchemyTV DVR PCI card or ATI EyeTV Wonder USB 2.0 box and capture uncompressed. An EyeTV 500 would not work for your situation.

DavidCar
Feb 15, 2005, 12:18 AM
I just came across this, and I don't quite get it yet, but:

http://hiddenwires.co.uk/resourcesnews2005/news20050214-04.html

"With EyeConnect software, anyone can turn their Macintosh into a digital media center, opening up a whole new way of enjoying digital entertainment throughout the home", said Freddie Geier, CEO Elgato Systems. "People can use EyeConnect software to watch EyeTV recordings or movies on a big-screen television, to display organized albums of digital photographs on an electronic picture frame, or to play their iTunes music collection and MP3s on a Dolby Digital audio system."

GregA
Feb 15, 2005, 12:27 AM
In another room, I have another DISH-provided HD receiver, my Mac (DP 2.5, 20" screen), and no TV. I'd like to be able to hook up my Mac to the DISH system...what's the easiest way to do this?Since you're asking about the EASIEST way...

Does your DISH receiver have a VGA (etc) port? Could you connect it straight to the 20" screen?

Disadvantage of this is that you don't get recording to your Mac's hard disk.

Remember disadvantage of using SVideo connectors is you're converting a HD digital signal to analogue, and then back to digital - and the clarity will suffer to some degree. Not sure how much.

madforrit
Feb 16, 2005, 01:18 AM
Since you're asking about the EASIEST way...

Does your DISH receiver have a VGA (etc) port? Could you connect it straight to the 20" screen?

Disadvantage of this is that you don't get recording to your Mac's hard disk.

Remember disadvantage of using SVideo connectors is you're converting a HD digital signal to analogue, and then back to digital - and the clarity will suffer to some degree. Not sure how much.

Thanks for the input. I tried hooking up the display directly, as the receiver has DVI out. Unfortunately in this case, the display is an Apple Cinema (previous version with plastic frame) and I think it's not possible to use it as a TV (same reason why it can't be used as a screen with a Xbox?).

I ended up ordering the AlchemyTV DVR PCI card. Haven't installed it yet, but hopefully it will work decently.

GregA
Feb 16, 2005, 07:08 AM
Thanks for the input. I tried hooking up the display directly, as the receiver has DVI out. Unfortunately in this case, the display is an Apple Cinema (previous version with plastic frame) and I think it's not possible to use it as a TV (same reason why it can't be used as a screen with a Xbox?).

I ended up ordering the AlchemyTV DVR PCI card. Haven't installed it yet, but hopefully it will work decently.I don't have info on the old Apple Cinema display, or on your receiver... so I'm not the person to ask.

I still see no reason why it wouldn't work if you have DVI out - may need to fine tune some settings. However, this thread here is pretty old so this is probably not the place to ask. Best to start a new question, or ask on the Apple support forums perhaps? Good luck!

csimon2
Feb 16, 2005, 10:19 AM
Well, for one, unless he is using a ADC to DVI converter box, its not physically possible to connect the receiver to a previous gen Apple Cinema Display. Second, the quality should be very good on viewing and capturing. Because the signal of Dish Network doesn't get nearly as filtered and routed as a local cable company's, there is already a lot less noise in the image. And with less noise, connecting to the receiver with SVideo should be very nice. You should get some good detail and definition with the setup, much more so than if you use the composite input. Obviously, the signal won't be as good as the original or if you had a Component analog input device, but it should certainly suffice.

madforrit
Feb 16, 2005, 04:16 PM
Well, for one, unless he is using a ADC to DVI converter box, its not physically possible to connect the receiver to a previous gen Apple Cinema Display. Second, the quality should be very good on viewing and capturing. Because the signal of Dish Network doesn't get nearly as filtered and routed as a local cable company's, there is already a lot less noise in the image. And with less noise, connecting to the receiver with SVideo should be very nice. You should get some good detail and definition with the setup, much more so than if you use the composite input. Obviously, the signal won't be as good as the original or if you had a Component analog input device, but it should certainly suffice.

I do have an ADC to DVI box, but when connected, nothing gets output to the display and the power button just blinks three times occasionally. I was guessing this was the same reason people have mentioned you can't use these displays as screens when outputting a NTSC signal (e.g. when connecting a gaming console via DVI).
Will update when I get the card installed! Thanks for your comments everyone.

RealDeal
Mar 10, 2005, 01:22 AM
Check out Sears. I got a really nice Samsung TX-P3064W on sale for $720. Ask them when it goes on sale again to give you a call. It comes with DVI input.

checking reviews - the Samsung 15"/ 17" flatscreens great bang- per- buck (for my Mini).

Will keep eye's peeled- thx- :D

GFLPraxis
Mar 13, 2005, 12:01 PM
There are about four different HDTV tuner cards for the PC, but none avalible for the Mac.

Unfortunately, since the PCI buses of most PCs can't handle the full uncompressed HDTV sugnal, it has to output it through the card, using the video card as a pass through and the output is only VGA so you have to buy a $400 adapter to get it to work with an Apple display.

On a lighter note, the HDTV cards for the PC compress the signal using hardware down tp 19.2MB/s so it fits nicely into the bandwith of FW400 with plenty of room to spare in FW800.

But Apple has PCI-X. So what if the PC's can't handle the uncompressed HDTV signal? Sucks to be them.

weldon
Mar 13, 2005, 05:41 PM
But Apple has PCI-X. So what if the PC's can't handle the uncompressed HDTV signal? Sucks to be them.
Nobody can handle uncompressed HDTV on consumer equipment. Uncompressed ATSC is huge, something like 1.5 Gigabits/sec.

There's a lot of misinformation in the post you quoted. HDTV cards don't compress the signal - they are essentially tuners that allow you to receive the already compressed signal that is being sent over the air with ATSC or over cable with QAM. Once the signal is decompressed, it's too big to move over PCI. The cards work by decompressing and sending the analog or digital uncompressed data over a high-bandwidth/high-speed connection like component cables on the analog side or DVI/HDMI on the digital side.

csimon2
Mar 13, 2005, 05:45 PM
Note that HDTV and HD are different. HDTV is currently just MPEG-2 HD at 1080i and 720p. Almost any computer of the last three years can at least capture a HDTV signal as it is only about 19-26mbps/sec (2.375-3.25MB/sec). This is less than DV25's data rate BTW (3.4MB/s). But HD uncompressed, which is different and has nothing to do with TV broadcast rates, can be 1080i, 1080p, or 720p, and the rates of uncompressed can be anywhere from 130-180MB/sec. Obviously, it would take quite a disk array to successfully capture this without dropping frames.

rikers_mailbox
Mar 14, 2005, 03:31 PM
Note that HDTV and HD are different. HDTV is currently just MPEG-2 HD at 1080i and 720p. Almost any computer of the last three years can at least capture a HDTV signal as it is only about 19-26mbps/sec (2.375-3.25MB/sec). This is less than DV25's data rate BTW (3.4MB/s). But HD uncompressed, which is different and has nothing to do with TV broadcast rates, can be 1080i, 1080p, or 720p, and the rates of uncompressed can be anywhere from 130-180MB/sec. Obviously, it would take quite a disk array to successfully capture this without dropping frames.

How does H.264 fit into all of this? Does it allow for the capture of near-HD quality video at a fraction of the bit rate?

It seems Apple is making a big deal out of Tiger and H.264. . is there something up their sleeve?

gopher
Mar 14, 2005, 03:50 PM
How does H.264 fit into all of this? Does it allow for the capture of near-HD quality video at a fraction of the bit rate?

It seems Apple is making a big deal out of Tiger and H.264. . is there something up their sleeve?

Yes it is Steve Jobs announcement at Macworld San Francisco 2005. "2005 will be the year of HD." H.264 provides real as HD video quality over Quicktime streaming. Quicktime 7, which will be part of Tiger will offer H.264 as a standard, and the new iChat will have it too in Tiger.

rikers_mailbox
Mar 14, 2005, 04:04 PM
Yes it is Steve Jobs announcement at Macworld San Francisco 2005. "2005 will be the year of HD." H.264 provides real as HD video quality over Quicktime streaming. Quicktime 7, which will be part of Tiger will offer H.264 as a standard, and the new iChat will have it too in Tiger.

hmm. . makes me wonder what they'll do with the tight integration of H.264. Perhaps there is truth in HD receiver/recorder rumors?

weldon
Mar 14, 2005, 10:08 PM
How does H.264 fit into all of this? Does it allow for the capture of near-HD quality video at a fraction of the bit rate?

It seems Apple is making a big deal out of Tiger and H.264. . is there something up their sleeve?
It really doesn't mean anything for HD capture because we don't have consumer cards capable of analog HD capture. Digital sources, either broadcast or packaged media, are already compressed. Broadcast HD is already compressed MPEG-2 at anywhere from 9 to 15Mbps. Reencoding to MPEG-4 AVC could save space by keeping similar quality at a lower bitrate, but this will introduce transcoding artifacts. This is similar to what happens if you take a 192kbps MP3 and reencode to 128kbps AAC. Not a good idea.

Packaged media is going to be 12-15Mbps VC-1 or H.264 (MPEG-4) and this is also compressed so no need to "capture" to H.264 on your Mac.

The reason that H.264 is a big deal on Tiger is threefold...

1) The more efficient codec allows for better videoconferencing at similar or lower bitrates. This requires more CPU to encode and decode, but Macs are fast enough to handle it now.

2) H.264 AVC HP is one of the two mandatory codecs for HD packaged media (eg, HD-DVD and Blu-ray). Strong support for H.264 decoding could (in theory) make the Mac a great platform to playback HD media. We still need VC-1 though to make sure those Blu-Ray drives in future Macs (based on my speculation that Apple joined the Blu-Ray association to include drives in Macs) will play all HD media.

3) H.264 support in Tiger means that future versions of iMovie, FCP Express, FCP, etc. should have strong support for fast encoding of movies into a high-def format that can be burned to a Blu-ray disc for playback in any Blu-ray HD set-top player. In essence, this makes the Mac a great platform to create HD content targeted at either HD-DVD or Blu-ray.

DavidCar
Mar 15, 2005, 11:45 AM
On the subject of PCI Cards for HD Video, this just came up on MacWorld:

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/03/15/tempox/index.php

http://www.sonnettech.com/product/tempo-x_esata8.html

"Astonishing sustained read/write performance numbers in excess of 545 MB/s are possible—that’s more than enough to capture and process uncompressed 10-bit High Definition video!"

weldon
Mar 15, 2005, 11:58 PM
Well, technically this is just a drive controller that's fast enough to move HD video files around for editing, etc. It doesn't solve the problem of getting uncompressed analog video into a format on the computer that you can playback and/or edit. HD capture is still a pro-level application and prices start around $2000 for a 10-bit capture card. You need gobs of storage because computers aren't fast enough to do real-time encoding yet. So you need to capture the uncompressed video to disk first and then edit/encode.

csimon2
Mar 16, 2005, 09:04 AM
HD capture is still a pro-level application and prices start around $2000 for a 10-bit capture card. You need gobs of storage because computers aren't fast enough to do real-time encoding yet. So you need to capture the uncompressed video to disk first and then edit/encode. Actually, you can get an HD capture card for around $600. I have a DeckLink HD PCI card, and it works brilliantly. As far as real-time encoding, it is possible to do this. You can easily transcode from HDCAM to DVCPRO HD or Photo-JPEG with the cards. And there are real-time HD MPEG-2 encoders as well. But if you're suggesting there is no way to encode real-time from HD to more compressed formats such as MPEG-4, DivX, or SV3, then that is correct.

weldon
Mar 16, 2005, 09:43 PM
Actually, you can get an HD capture card for around $600. I have a DeckLink HD PCI card, and it works brilliantly. As far as real-time encoding, it is possible to do this. You can easily transcode from HDCAM to DVCPRO HD or Photo-JPEG with the cards. And there are real-time HD MPEG-2 encoders as well. But if you're suggesting there is no way to encode real-time from HD to more compressed formats such as MPEG-4, DivX, or SV3, then that is correct.
Yes, but I was specifically talking about analog HD capture because the original context was about recording HD broadcasts in a PVR (consumer) application. I was pointing out that if you need to capture ATSC, it's already compressed. If you want to capture the analog HD output from a STB you need some pro-level gear to do that.

You have the Decklink HD card which works over SDI. The Blackmagic analog-sdi converter (Decklink multibridge) costs $1500-$2000 on top of the SDI capture card. A WVHS deck costs $3500-$5000 new. I'm sure there are some other solutions out there, but I don't know of a way to take analog HD over component cables and get it into your computer for less than $2000.

csimon2
Mar 16, 2005, 11:01 PM
If you can easily capture broadcast ATSC digitally over firewire (as with a EyeTV 500 or Moto DCT-6412) for less than $350, why in the world would you want to capture it as analog uncompressed? There would be absolutely no benefits to this, other than maybe saving you the conversion time of going from MPEG-2 to Uncompresed to edit with. But I doubt anyone would find spending a couple of thousand dollars worth it. Because it certainly wouldn't make the video quality any better than the original MPEG-2.

weldon
Mar 17, 2005, 08:28 AM
If you can easily capture broadcast ATSC digitally over firewire (as with a EyeTV 500 or Moto DCT-6412) for less than $350, why in the world would you want to capture it as analog uncompressed?
Exactly my point. If you review the thread from where I jumped in, the question was "How does H.264 fit into all of this? Does it allow for the capture of near-HD quality video at a fraction of the bit rate?" My response is that you don't need H.264 for consumer HD capture because all the HD that you can get is already compressed. In the interest of further discussion, I then allowed for the scenario where you might want to capture analog HD from a STB that only has analog. But now this is no longer a consumer application because capturing analog HD is intensive and therefore expensive.

As I mentioned earlier, H.264 does have applications for iMovie HD and FCP where you want to encode from HDV, HDCAM, uncompressed HD, etc. But this process is separate from HD capture.

clsoto
Mar 17, 2005, 11:36 PM
There are about four different HDTV tuner cards for the PC, but none avalible for the Mac.

Unfortunately, since the PCI buses of most PCs can't handle the full uncompressed HDTV sugnal, it has to output it through the card, using the video card as a pass through and the output is only VGA so you have to buy a $400 adapter to get it to work with an Apple display.

On a lighter note, the HDTV cards for the PC compress the signal using hardware down tp 19.2MB/s so it fits nicely into the bandwith of FW400 with plenty of room to spare in FW800.

Hi,

There is a HDTV tuner for the Mac. I use my "Elgato EyeTV 400 FireWire DVB-T Digital Terrestial TV Tuner400" all the time and I can watch HDTV stations (Sydney, Australia) on my iMac and Powerbook.

I am assuming you are in the US and if you go to www.elgato.com I'm sure they have a TV tuner for the Mac that can be used in the US.

Cheers,
clsoto

DavidCar
Mar 18, 2005, 12:21 AM
There has been discussion on this thread earlier of the ElGato 500 which works for HDTV in the USA, particularly with respect to when the ElGato 500 is going to respect the broadcast flag.

But another question I had on the more recent subject: What is the output of a consumer HD video camera? Firewire 800? (I thought after my post regarding high speed PCI cards for moving HD to disk drives that it wasn't exactly related to the original question of video capture.)

csimon2
Mar 18, 2005, 08:41 AM
David, HDV is currently the only really affordable "consumer" HD format. It transfers to disk the information through a Firewire 400 port, as its recorded datarate is well within FW400 specifications. HDV, while it still looks great, is recorded to tape heavily compressed.

And, just as an FYI, DVCPRO HD, which is much less compressed than HDV, but costs thousands more, also uses Firewire 400.

mkoesel
Mar 31, 2005, 06:55 AM
With the EyeTV 200, while I don't get HDTV, I get the more important MPEG-2 encoding on the box instead of on my computer.
I guess this is the correct way of stating this. The basic difference between EyeTV 200 and 500, is that the EyeTV 200 takes an analog cable or OTA signal and encodes it through hardware via its encoder. The 500 on-the-other-hand, has an HD tuner that tunes into HD signals and transmits them to your machine without needing to encode first.

Pardon me csimon2 for quoting such an old post, but I think it makes a good segue into a question I'd like to pose.

What about a theoretical "EyeTV 600" that would do the following:

Take in an digital TV signal (either OTA ATSC or QAM) and re-encode it into MPEG4 Part 10 (H.264) and then trasmits them to your machine via firewire just like the EyeTV 500 does.

My reason for wanting such a device are twofold:

1) Apple's direction for HD video appears to be all H.264 starting with Tiger. Having the HDTV hardware encode to this format would allow editinging of the video with most future apple software, without having to re-encode it (which as I understand would be an extremely timeconsuming task -- on the order of a hours per recorded hour of HDTV).

2) Perhaps apple will support decoding of H.264 in hardware (via Radeon) for thrid parties. My understanding (according to ElGato's FAQ) is that Apple will not release the hardware specs (or APIs) necessary to leverage the ATI hardware for MPEG2 decoding. They use this in their own DVD Player application, but no other application has (or can). Perhaps part of their hesitance is that they wish to protect their investment in QuickTime 7 and H.264. So this device might be better accepted by apple. Now I have know deep knowledge of the ATI hardware found in Macs so I don't know how suitable it is for the task of decoding H.264. But I thought it might be a possibility.

What do you think. A good idea or a bad one?

csimon2
Mar 31, 2005, 08:46 AM
What about a theoretical "EyeTV 600" that would do the following:
Take in an digital TV signal (either OTA ATSC or QAM) and re-encode it into MPEG4 Part 10 (H.264) and then trasmits them to your machine via firewire just like the EyeTV 500 does.While that does indeed sound nice, I really doubt it will happen any time soon. What you're basically talking about is a small hardware AVC encoder box, and they just aren't affordable at this time. The reason for the MPEG2 encoding on the 200 is the relative cheapness of the MPEG2 hardware encoder chips these days. And the cost of the current 500 can be attributed to the cost of an ATSC tuner, which still haven't dropped that much in price. Add a hardware AVC encoder, and you're talking about the cost of a mac mini or emac. Also, other than time saved for transcoding, there wouldn't be much benefit in having a box that encoded HD MPEG2 content to AVC. Picture quality won't be any better, and HD AVC has the same system requirements of HD MPEG2, maybe even moreso. Currently, you can transcode 720p HD MPEG2 into a QT editable format at about 3:1. 1080i is about 5 or 6:1. I imagine that once QT 7 is released, and AVC is optimized for it, that software transcoding time will be similar. And that isn't too bad IMO.

kiwi_the_iwik
Apr 2, 2005, 07:12 AM
What about reports that the new iMac may have a 23" HD monitor, and therefore perhaps a built-in TV tuner and D/A converter?

I'm only postulating this because I noticed the eyeTV 200 has dropped in price on the UK Apple web site by £35 - a substantial reduction. It may well be that Elgato won't be able to compete with the new G5 iMac and have decided to pull that model.

Also, many of the posts here have been talking about the speculation of the link between a 23" monitor and a TV tuner. Since a member of the new iMac line is rumoured to have a 23" monitor, maybe this may be the way things will progress...

FrancisSawyer
Apr 4, 2005, 06:48 AM
ATSC "HD" comes in at a piss-poor 19 megabits per second MAXIMUM, folks. Any modern computer can handle that. Even a Mac. Of course, calling it HD is a fraud.

Also: "Second, the quality should be very good on viewing and capturing. Because the signal of Dish Network doesn't get nearly as filtered and routed as a local cable company's, there is already a lot less noise in the image."

Not so. The signal is digital; it either makes it there or it doesn't. If it's crappy, you'll get obvious freeze-ups and blocking. But you won't get more or less "noise" in the image.

I don't know about Dish Network, but Comcast digital cable is somewhat better than DirecTV in terms of crappy MPEG-2 artifacts. They're both bad pictures, no question. But DirecTV is terrible.

It's great how all these vendors are laughing at the ignorance of the public with their "digital quality" marketing. Notice how they never even claim the picture is "good"? They won't even use the word. Check it out.

csimon2
Apr 4, 2005, 09:24 AM
ATSC "HD" comes in at a piss-poor 19 megabits per second MAXIMUM, folks. Any modern computer can handle that. Even a Mac. Of course, calling it HD is a fraud. Have you actually seen HD programming? Maybe your provider does a bad job relaying the signal, but from what I have been watching for the past year, I don't see how anyone could call it "piss-poor". Is it anywhere near uncompressed HD? Obviously not. But what do expect? Let me restate that, what do you reasonably expect? And, as far as any modern computer being able to handle HD signals, if by modern, you mean any computer in the last year or two, then you are correct. Any mac from the G3 on can handle capture of a HDTV signal. But, as far as playback, that is a whole other beast. 1080i MPEG-2 at full resolution playback (ie, not scaled down to fit your low-res monitor) is very processor intensive when there isn't a dedicated hardware decoder present. On the mac, minimum specs would be a Dual 1.25 G4 with 1.5GB RAM.

I don't know about Dish Network, but Comcast digital cable is somewhat better than DirecTV in terms of crappy MPEG-2 artifacts. They're both bad pictures, no question. But DirecTV is terrible. Dish Network, IMO, has the best digital picture of all the major services. I say this, not as a current DN subsriber either, but I used to subscribe, and was way more satified with it than I have been with DirecTV and local digital cable services since then.

sancgreal
Apr 9, 2005, 12:04 AM
imacG5 that comes with a hdtv-tuner would sell well, especially in australia.

since analogue television is being phased out: by 2007, a release of an imacG5 with hdtv capabilities would be well received. The whole elgato external tv-tuner thing available right now in aus is very expensive: about a third of the cost of buying the imac itself.

but yes, apple may not be ready yet to compete with hdtv-lcd enabled sets available today.

ftaok
Apr 10, 2005, 09:12 AM
imacG5 that comes with a hdtv-tuner would sell well, especially in australia.

since analogue television is being phased out: by 2007, a release of an imacG5 with hdtv capabilities would be well received. The whole elgato external tv-tuner thing available right now in aus is very expensive: about a third of the cost of buying the imac itself.

but yes, apple may not be ready yet to compete with hdtv-lcd enabled sets available today.
Personally, I don't see this happening, at least not in the next 5 years or so. Right now, the standards for HD around the world are all scattered. Apple would have to have different iMacs for different regions of the world. It's not like pre-loading Macs with different language OS's.

Besides, if Apple were to put HD tuning capabilities into Macs (not just the iMac), who's to say that they wouldn't up the price to what an eyeTV costs?

What they might do, is come out with their own HD box that would connect to any newish Mac via Firewire. This box would have the necessary inputs and outputs. Stuff like component inputs, 5.1 audio, HDMI, CableCard (for the US), etc. Probably wishful thinking on my part. Especially with other dedicated options that are much cheaper and more reliable (i.e. Tivo, Cable company's DVRs, etc.)

wdlove
Apr 10, 2005, 01:45 PM
The United States is due to phase out analog TV in 2007 also. The majority of customers still aren't ready. The TV sets are too expensive for the average customer. TV stations have a way to go also. At least this is what I have observed. As of now would just prefer to stay with basic cable, $9.16/mo.

Lacero
Apr 10, 2005, 01:47 PM
2008 will see mass adoption of HDTV. It's been 20 years since I've heard of HDTV and I can't wait any longer. By that time, computers will be fast enough to handle HDTV and we'll see an explosion of HDTV content. (downloaded via broadband, no doubt)

watanabe
Apr 11, 2005, 09:20 AM
I think HDTV purchases are going to skyrocket in 2006, driven
by the next-gen consoles coming out this christmas that will
be able to drive games at HDTV.

And a cheap 27" HDTV is only $500.

jtt
Apr 11, 2005, 10:43 AM
And a cheap 27" HDTV is only $500.

Where would you find that?

watanabe
Apr 11, 2005, 10:56 AM
I'm sorry, I mispoke. I bought a 27" HDTV over a year ago, looks like
the low-end is even cheaper now!

Best Buy has a 27" Advent HDTV. HT2751A. $399.

I ended up going with a Samsung 27" HDTV for $550, it was an open box
that was normally $750.

Neither are widescreen, and its not a famous brand name, but when
I looked at it a year ago, its picture was pretty decent, and HDTV is
just so much better than standard def.

Widescreen is a mixed win, imo, with HDTV not being widespread yet. You
still end up with black bars for a lot of TV content. But for games, I expect
they will be able to handle both widescreen vs normal, since it is computer generated.

Archi-tech
Apr 12, 2005, 08:30 PM
I have one of these and it is really nice for HDTV content. Lots of HDTV bit-torrent content out there, it can be burnt to DVD and played in this thing at HD quality. Also anything you can author in iMovieHD you can burn to DVD and play with this box.

http://www.iodata.com/usa/products/products.php?cat=HNP&sc=AVEL&pId=AVLP2%2FDVDLA

I like it and I thought you might too.

:cool:

Maccie
Apr 16, 2005, 10:16 PM
I have an Apple 30" Cinema Display and just bought an EyeTV 200. I must say that although I can't say I know much about video, I expected more and I'm disappointed. I've seen other postings and I can see that I'm expecting too much. First, DVD's on the 30" display aren't that great. Then, the EyeTV is worse. It's OK at the Normal setting, but full screen is worse than VHS.

Am I simply waiting for DVD and EyeTV to catch up with the Cinema Display? Are there HD DVDs out there at least? Would purchasing the EyeTV 500 be helpful?

If anyone has any answers, please let me know. :confused:

csimon2
Apr 16, 2005, 11:03 PM
The EyeTV 200 looks pretty darn good when you consider what it is it is capturing and playing. NTSC is only 640x480, your 30" display is 2560x1600, WAY more and requiring A LOT of stretching to fill that screen. The results are similar to watching SD on a HDTV. Only, it is even more so because the 30" resolution is even higher than HDTVs.

An EyeTV 500 WOULD help you out quite a bit with quality, but even at full screen there will be some stretching. Also, the EyeTV 500 only can display ATSC and QAM, and there is a lot less available content in these formats than there is SD NTSC.

DavidCar
Apr 16, 2005, 11:37 PM
Shouldn't SD NTSC look the same on any 30" screen that can display at least 640x480? Then shouldn't a home theater screen look worse than a 30" HD Cinema display for SD TV? It would just be the case that the 30" HD Cinema could look so much better with a higher resolution signal, such as from an EyeTV 500.

My TV just died, so I'm thinking this through as well. I expect I could still get network TV in digital off the air with an EyeTV 500, but my VHS collection would become useless. My DVDs would still work, and I would be ready for HD DVD when that becomes available.

ffakr
Apr 16, 2005, 11:49 PM
LCDs ALWAYS look like crap when they aren't running at native resolution. The problem with the HD setup on the 30" cinema display is that the Display is too good for the video. If you try to go full screen with a lower resolution video screen it will look like crap.. just like if you bought a 30" HD LCD TV and ran old analog TV on it.

Try to get the video to play with the monitor at native resolution. There has to be a way to do this, though You'll get a black border around the video. You should see that the quality of the video increases significantly though it will be smaller in spacial dimension.

Rod Rod
Apr 17, 2005, 04:26 AM
I have one of these and it is really nice for HDTV content. Lots of HDTV bit-torrent content out there, it can be burnt to DVD and played in this thing at HD quality. Also anything you can author in iMovieHD you can burn to DVD and play with this box.

http://www.iodata.com/usa/products/products.php?cat=HNP&sc=AVEL&pId=AVLP2%2FDVDLA

I like it and I thought you might too.

:cool:
That thing simply rocks. It can play video from USB hard drives and USB flash media (pen drives, etc.), as well as (as you said) files burned onto regular DVDs.

As for playing iMovie HD stuff burned to DVD, for HD material you'll have to export it to a WM9 HD or DivX file (otherwise iMovie's built in DVD export will downconvert it to standard def.)

DavidCar
May 6, 2005, 03:32 PM
The broadcast flag, which was once a subject on this old thread in relation to ElGato's EyeTV 500, has, at least for the moment, been struck down.

http://news.com.com/Court+yanks+down+FCCs+broadcast+flag/2100-1030_3-5697719.html?tag=nefd.lede

wdlove
May 6, 2005, 04:03 PM
The broadcast flag, which was once a subject on this old thread in relation to ElGato's EyeTV 500, has, at least for the moment, been struck down.

http://news.com.com/Court+yanks+down+FCCs+broadcast+flag/2100-1030_3-5697719.html?tag=nefd.lede

It's good to see that the courts are keeping up with new technology. The same problem occurred when VHS tapping was introduced.

GFLPraxis
May 9, 2005, 09:59 AM
There are about four different HDTV tuner cards for the PC, but none avalible for the Mac.

Unfortunately, since the PCI buses of most PCs can't handle the full uncompressed HDTV sugnal, it has to output it through the card, using the video card as a pass through and the output is only VGA so you have to buy a $400 adapter to get it to work with an Apple display.

On a lighter note, the HDTV cards for the PC compress the signal using hardware down tp 19.2MB/s so it fits nicely into the bandwith of FW400 with plenty of room to spare in FW800.

Considering the G5 has PCI-X, it should be doable.

weldon
May 9, 2005, 11:19 AM
Considering the G5 has PCI-X, it should be doable.
We've already been over this on the previous page. The post you are quoting is full of errors and misconceptions. Let it suffice to say that you can use the Elgato EyeTV 500 to receive ATSC or QAM HDTV programming and display it on your Mac. In order to decode HDTV with this product you will need a dual-processor G5.

If you are really interested in doing uncompressed HDTV in real-time, you need something other than a Mac. PCI-X isn't fast enough to handle real-time uncompressed HDTV processing.

DavidCar
May 10, 2005, 07:52 PM
Anyone using an EyeTV 500 with a 30" display? I'm curious how that works in practice.

A comment at MacCentral claims that Core Video will not support GPU accelerated decoding of MPEG-2 Transport streams, or even that "OS X does not recognize nor support MPEG-2 transport streams". I had speculated on this thread earlier about ElGato possibly being able to use Core Video, but that apparently is not possible. I also thought ElGato's software would allow me to do anything I wanted with the files.

http://www.macworld.com/forums/u****reads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=newsthread&Number=322138&page=0&view=collapsed

csimon2
May 11, 2005, 09:02 AM
In order to decode HDTV with this product you will need a dual-processor G5.Dual processor 1GHz G4 with at least 1.5GB RAM and 128MB video card will suffice for ATSC HDTV playback on the mac.

If you are really interested in doing uncompressed HDTV in real-time, you need something other than a Mac. PCI-X isn't fast enough to handle real-time uncompressed HDTV processing.WRONG! Where you got this misconception, I'd like to know. But I edit and playback 720p Uncompressed all the time on my maxed out Dual 1.25GHz G4, and 1080i Uncompressed is easily doable on my Dual 2.5GHz G5. I don't know what you mean exactly by "realtime". Yes, not all rendering and effects are realtime, but the same is true for SD and D1. FCP5 will add more HD realtime-capable effects though. BTW, in order to capture HD Uncompressed, all you need is a Dual 2.0GHz G5 with a BlackMagic HD capture card in the PCI-X slot and a fast enough disk array. This works fine.

csimon2
May 11, 2005, 09:08 AM
I also thought ElGato's software would allow me to do anything I wanted with the files. What do you want to do, that you think you can't? With the proper tools, trust me, anything can be done to your captured files.

weldon
May 11, 2005, 10:43 AM
Dual processor 1GHz G4 with at least 1.5GB RAM and 128MB video card will suffice for ATSC HDTV playback on the mac.
From the Elgato EyeTV 500 spec sheet...

"Dual G5 processors required for full frame rate HDTV playback at full
1920x1080 resolution."

WRONG! Where you got this misconception, I'd like to know. But I edit and playback 720p Uncompressed all the time on my maxed out Dual 1.25GHz G4, and 1080i Uncompressed is easily doable on my Dual 2.5GHz G5. I don't know what you mean exactly by "realtime". Yes, not all rendering and effects are realtime, but the same is true for SD and D1. FCP5 will add more HD realtime-capable effects though. BTW, in order to capture HD Uncompressed, all you need is a Dual 2.0GHz G5 with a BlackMagic HD capture card in the PCI-X slot and a fast enough disk array. This works fine.
We're talking about different things. Of course you can capture HD, edit HD, and playback HD on a PowerMac G5. I was just responding to what I thought were erroneous notions about how uncompressed HD is handled for display on a computer. The OP was saying that PC's can't handle uncompressed HD for capture and real-time display. I was pointing out that if you really wanted to bring 1.5GBps in on a PCI-X card, process it for display (eg. filter, scale, deinterlace), and then send 1.5GBps out over the PCI-X bus, you were going to max out the 2GBps bandwidth of the PowerMac. That's what I meant by real-time - processing HD for display as it comes in.

As you pointed out, the PowerMac G5 is more than adequate to work with HD for capture and editing.

csimon2
May 11, 2005, 10:49 AM
From the Elgato EyeTV 500 spec sheet...

"Dual G5 processors required for full frame rate HDTV playback at full
1920x1080 resolution." Weldon, I thought you have been following this discussion for a while... I have mentioned numerous times that the specs listed by ElGato are just the recommended specs listed so that playback will be fine if someone hasn't done any kind of upgrade to their system over the stock configuration. I am a high-level tester for ElGato products, and I have tested the EyeTV 500 and other products for them on multiple systems. From these tests, that is how I was able to determine that 1080i playback, without dropped frames and at full-resolution, is possible on a dual G4.

I was just responding to what I thought were erroneous notions about how uncompressed HD is handled for display on a computer. I was pointing out that if you really wanted to bring 1.5GBps in on a PCI-X card, process it for display (eg. filter, scale, deinterlace), and then send 1.5GBps out over the PCI-X bus, you were going to max out the 2GBps bandwidth of the PowerMac. That's what I meant by real-time - processing HD for display as it comes in. Guess I'm a little confused as to what you are referencing here. Most editors who work with HD, don't scale or worry about filtering it on input monitoring. Can't really see a point to it. Also, if you are bringing it in, why would you send it out at the same time? The only thing I can come up with is monitoring the signal on an external dedicated display, which can easily be done with the DeckLink HD Plus, or similar cards. Boards like that have hardware builtin so that the mac isn't involved in tedious processes that a dedicated chip could do better.

DavidCar
May 11, 2005, 01:15 PM
What do you want to do, that you think you can't? With the proper tools, trust me, anything can be done to your captured files.

The poster at MacWorld provided some clarifying comments, and he was lamenting the lack of support of MPEG-2 transport streams in OSX, so that I could not play back an EyeTV file in Quicktime without first doing a conversion. And also that Windows users can use the GPU to accelerate MPEG-2 decoding, but Mac users cannot. Otherwise, he likes his EyeTV 500, and has ordered a second one.

I don't understand the lack of GPU support. I would expect ElGato could get some specifications from ATI directly on how to use the GPU decoding features.

BTW, I found a review indicating the latest iTunes can play an EyeTV MPEG file, but it does not say which version of EyeTV.

http://www.amug.org/amug-web/html/amug/reviews/articles/h264/

I'm still trying to grasp all the issues here. My TV just died, I may be able to justify buying a new computer, and there is an EyeTV 500 rebate available until the end of June, so I expect to make a decision by then. I've also noted various posts of people buying extra EyeTV 500 cards, so I hope there's not a run on them.

csimon2
May 11, 2005, 01:23 PM
The poster at MacWorld provided some clarifying comments, and he was lamenting the lack of support of MPEG-2 transport streams in OSX, so that I could not play back an EyeTV file in Quicktime without first doing a conversion. Conversion is simple and quick with MPEG StreamClip, so no real worries there. Also, VLC plays transport streams fine, and the EyeTV software itself does a great job converting transport streams to QT compatible program streams. Though, I must warn that QT does not have a proper AC3 decoder, and therefore cannot decode the audio correctly. This is where VLC is again handy.

I don't understand the lack of GPU support. This is an issue with Apple, in that they do not allow access to the hardware MPEG-2 decoding aspects of the video card to third parties.

BTW, I found a review indicating the latest iTunes can play an EyeTV MPEG file, but it does not say which version of EyeTV. Sounds interesting, but from my guess, I would say this is for EyeTV 200 users, due to QT's limitations currently.

Rod Rod
May 11, 2005, 02:57 PM
This is an issue with Apple, in that they do not allow access to the hardware MPEG-2 decoding aspects of the video card to third parties.
Apple's own DVD Player application decodes MPEG2 in the CPU (not the GPU) as far as I can tell.

I agree about MPEG Streamclip. It's worth having the MPEG Playback Component (20 or 30 bucks) to use that free piece of software.

csimon2
May 11, 2005, 03:20 PM
Apple's own DVD Player application decodes MPEG2 in the CPU (not the GPU) as far as I can tell. Pretty sure that Apple's DVD Player software uses the GPU for at least some tasks, unlike VLC, which isn't able to use it all.

Rod Rod
May 11, 2005, 03:32 PM
Pretty sure that Apple's DVD Player software uses the GPU for at least some tasks, unlike VLC, which isn't able to use it all.
I'd hope so, but everything I've read about it indicates that it's all in the CPU. I guess I'll snoop around to confirm or debunk.

edit: of course, video scaling would be in the GPU but what I'm interested in is whether the MPEG2 decoding happens in the GPU at all.

One thing is certain, however: MPEG2 encoding on Macs is all CPU. Apparently that doesn't change in DVDSP 4, although it allows distributed computing (for MPEG2 and H.264 encoding) to other CPUs on your local gigabit network - which is the main reason why the addition of gigabit ethernet to the iMac G5 is awesome.

DavidCar
May 11, 2005, 03:46 PM
I'd hope so, but everything I've read about it indicates that it's all in the CPU. I guess I'll snoop around to confirm or debunk.

edit: of course, video scaling would be in the GPU but what I'm interested in is whether the MPEG2 decoding happens in the GPU at all.

One thing is certain, however: MPEG2 encoding on Macs is all CPU. Apparently that doesn't change in DVDSP 4, although it allows distributed computing (for MPEG2 and H.264 encoding) to other CPUs on your local gigabit network - which is the main reason why the addition of gigabit ethernet to the iMac G5 is awesome.

I found an article yesterday critical of Apple's DVD player. These comments are specific to the mini, but likely have broader application:

"As if the image quality issues weren't bad enough, there's another problem with Apple's DVD player - CPU utilization. It appears that Apple's DVD player has no support for the Radeon 9200's hardware-assisted DVD decoding, including motion compensation and iDCT support. The result is that playing a DVD eats up between 40% - 60% of the 1.25GHz G4 in the Mac mini, which is fine for playback, but unacceptable if you plan on doing anything else while playing a DVD. "

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2349&p=5

jxpx777
May 11, 2005, 07:23 PM
maybe down the road a few years a TV and computer will be two in the same, but I dont think that is plausible right now, not that it cant be done, but for lack of a market.

The problem is that unless you have a surplus of Macs lying around, you probably won't put your Mac in the same place as your TV, nor should you. If I am watching a DVD or TV, I don't want someone disturbing me with their latest .mpg that they think is so hilarious. I have one desktop Mac and I like it in my office where I get work done. If I had a wireless display, that would be another thing, but the ones (http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/wirelessmonitors/) that (http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/category/category_slc.asp?CatId=1574) are available are way too expensive. Perhaps bringing TV to computer isn't the way to go. TiVo seems to do a good job of bringing computer to TV. If that is the answer, God, let's hope it's better than WebTV or whatever that crap was M$ tried to pawn off on us.

weldon
May 11, 2005, 07:49 PM
From these tests, that is how I was able to determine that 1080i playback, without dropped frames and at full-resolution, is possible on a dual G4.
Thanks for the clarification. I just pulled the specs to try and offer the simple answer.

Guess I'm a little confused as to what you are referencing here. Most editors who work with HD, don't scale or worry about filtering it on input monitoring. Can't really see a point to it. Also, if you are bringing it in, why would you send it out at the same time? The only thing I can come up with is monitoring the signal on an external dedicated display, which can easily be done with the DeckLink HD Plus, or similar cards. Boards like that have hardware builtin so that the mac isn't involved in tedious processes that a dedicated chip could do better.
Yeah, I'm not talking about editors at all. I'm talking about display in a home theater application. The OP was saying that PC's used a solution that involved decoding the ATSC MPEG-2 stream in hardware and then sending the uncompressed signal to the video card via passthrough to avoid hitting the system bus - like that was some kind of problem. As you said, there are hardware solutions for that because it's simpler that way - it's not a problem, it's a feature. In my mind, the OP was clearly confused so I offered the simple solution first and then suggested that dealing with uncompressed HD for Home Theater use was more complicated than he thought.

For HT use, there are plenty of good ways to use a computer to do extra processing. In particular, fixed pixel displays like to get fed at their native resolution. A computer can often do a better job of resizing the video than the circuitry in the display. De-interlacing is another good use in DVD playback. dscaler is the preferred software on the PC. For these applications you would want to bring the video in and output in real-time. There are a lot of good solutions for dealing with SD today on the PC-side. Not so many with HD because there isn't enough bandwidth to move all that data around for real-time output.

DavidCar
Jun 7, 2005, 11:02 AM
Any thoughts about what Intel Inside will do to software development for an EyeTV 500? I expect it does what I would want it to do now, but may need some natural software improvements in the future. If I take on a Cocoa development project, I would want a PowerMac now, and not wait for the future. But there are questions about where PPC PowerMac sales are going, and about whether every software developer will adopt universal binaries, or move to Cocoa if they have not done so already.

DavidCar
Jun 8, 2005, 12:31 PM
My ElGato question was answered in this MacWorld article:

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/08/unfazed/index.php

"... all Elgato products would run natively on Macs with PowerPC and Intel chips and that he expects a “relatively painless transition for end users and most developers.”

Rod Rod
Jun 8, 2005, 06:30 PM
My ElGato question was answered in this MacWorld article:

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/08/unfazed/index.php

"... all Elgato products would run natively on Macs with PowerPC and Intel chips and that he expects a “relatively painless transition for end users and most developers.”
Thank you for the followup. That was very kind of you. Hopefully, if this question comes up in the future, people will use the search feature in these forums and find the answer you provided.

pionata
Oct 29, 2005, 09:37 PM
Ok, just read this entire thread and still dont know if its possible to plug a ps3 through eyeTV 500 and stream it on a cinema 23-30" apple display. Anyone knows?

mr_austin
Oct 29, 2005, 09:55 PM
Ok, just read this entire thread and still dont know if its possible to plug a ps3 through eyeTV 500 and stream it on a cinema 23-30" apple display. Anyone knows?

The PS3 has HDMI out, the eyeTV 500 has antenna in (and QAM cable), so as far as I know, no. But there may be a solution eventually, since the PS3 ain't shipping anytime soon,

generik
Oct 29, 2005, 10:22 PM
Hi,

Is there a DVB-T receiver that works on both Windows and Mac?

I currently have a Nebula DigiTV receiver that really works great, and will probably get a Elgato one for my new PB, but I don't really like the idea of getting things that don't play nice with each other :rolleyes:

carpe diem
Oct 30, 2005, 07:04 AM
I think that it is possible to plug a ps3 into a ACD the guy at hmv told me so.

pionata
Oct 30, 2005, 10:30 AM
Great, Im getting a cinema 23" early next week with a mac mini (I realy hope I get a 64 vram model) in order to have apple care to cover the monitor.

DavidCar
Oct 30, 2005, 07:50 PM
I thought the whole theory behind HDMI was to prevent the full resolution signal from getting to something like an eyetv 500.

javiercr
Oct 31, 2005, 11:57 AM
Great, Im getting a cinema 23" early next week with a mac mini (I realy hope I get a 64 vram model) in order to have apple care to cover the monitor.

apple care will cover the monitor because you are buying a mini???

ftaok
Oct 31, 2005, 12:20 PM
apple care will cover the monitor because you are buying a mini???
Yes, AppleCare will cover the monitor, as long it's purchased on the same receipt. Make sure you buy them both on the same receipt/purchase order, etc.

FireArse
Oct 31, 2005, 12:49 PM
edit: of course, video scaling would be in the GPU but what I'm interested in is whether the MPEG2 decoding happens in the GPU at all.


If any of you guys are interested in Hardware Decoded MPEG 2 I think (not exactly sure) this software does it.

It's written by a guy who's a genious in OpenGL and Core Image - wrote the media playing app all by himself in Christmas 2004 i think. Seriously gives VLC a run for its money when playing video's. It doesn't have all the bells and whistles, BUT it does save on CPU because a more significant amount of work is offloaded to the GPU. I have a 128MB 9600 and it runs fine - use the only version available - it seriosuly rocks!

http://www.cs.pdx.edu/~feelgood/opengl/cocoa/GLPlayer_Tech_Demo.dmg

Try it on your Mini's (i know they dont support Core Image, but hey!)
I am in the UK and am interested in a good Tuner for my PM. Elgato seem to be the only ppl in the area - any of you recommend a good model for good reception and support for freeview stuff?

Thanks,

F

Rocketman
Oct 31, 2005, 06:34 PM
Why would Apple moving into that market be such a great thing?

Reminds me of the late 80's early 90's when Apple lost their focus... they really did suffer back then. I hope they don't do that again.


1. I wish I could easily and reliably archive the stuff I save to my DISH brand DVR and DIRECTTV at one place.

The existing remotes support other devices so only the CPU would be required since the tuner, display and audio currently exist.

Rocketman

BWhaler
Nov 2, 2005, 08:15 AM
Why would they put it in the display?

Much better and bigger market to put it on a card.

DavidCar
Nov 2, 2005, 09:38 AM
Why would they put it in the display?

Much better and bigger market to put it on a card.Remember this thread is almost three years old. The idea of putting the tuner in the display is where it started, but is more recently it is just about HDTV on a Mac in general.

skellener
Nov 12, 2005, 07:34 PM
Remember this thread is almost three years old. The idea of putting the tuner in the display is where it started, but is more recently it is just about HDTV on a Mac in general.

Yeah, after all, Steve declared 2005 the Year of HD.... :rolleyes:

Ahahahahahahaha! What a joke!

Just like he declared 2004 the "Year of the Laptop"! :rolleyes:

Everyone knows that last year was unequivocally the "Year of the iPod" and this year is without a doubt "Year of the Video iPod". :cool:

"Year of HD" my a**! Other than releasing a few higher res displays what has Apple really done with HD? Final Cut? Sure. I'll give you that. iMovie? Yeah right...so how many people ran out and bought prosumer HDV camcorders to use with iMovie? And how about burning those HD movies to HD media? Oh that's right, there is no HD media!

Had Steve announced HD video downloads for iTunes I would have been impressed. But that didn't happen. We didn't even get DVD quality downloads.

I am a die hard Apple/Mac fan and a big supporter of Steve J. but man, sometimes he's just out right wrong! ;)

ffakr
Nov 13, 2005, 11:04 AM
Yeah, after all, Steve declared 2005 the Year of HD.... :rolleyes:

Ahahahahahahaha! What a joke!
...
Everyone knows that last year was unequivocally the "Year of the iPod" and this year is without a doubt "Year of the Video iPod". :cool:

"Year of HD" my a**! Other than releasing a few higher res displays what has Apple really done with HD? Final Cut? Sure. I'll give you that. iMovie? Yeah right...so how many people ran out and bought prosumer HDV camcorders to use with iMovie? And how about burning those HD movies to HD media? Oh that's right, there is no HD media!

I don't like to be a Mac appologist, but Apple has HD rez powerbooks, Apple has HD support in their consumer and Pro video apps, Apple's got a 30" lcd display and dual-channel DVI support in about half their product line to run that massive display (even in the Powerbooks).
In addition, the cost of HD TVs have plumetted. I've seen 27-30" HD ready LCDs for well under $1000. Plasmas are all down $1000+. I believe it was JVC that released a solid state HD video camera this year (and impressive piece of hardware) and though I'm not following this closely I'm sure I've seen several 'pro-sumer' HD cameras on the market.

Soo, you needed to vent because Jobs couldn't make JVC, Sony, and others find more customers. Jobs failed because you didn't bother to buy an expensive HD video camera.
Here's a shocker for you, Jobs doesn't actually control Apple's customers and he certainly doesn't control JVC's or Samsung's or Sony's.

Jobs said it was the year of HD and he directed Apple to do what they could to support HD. Damn him for not controlling the rest of the world.

Nice straw man argument.

skellener
Nov 13, 2005, 01:06 PM
Jobs said it was the year of HD and he directed Apple to do what they could to support HD.
No HD content in iTunes for sale. No HD tuners available on the Mac (installed on that new iMac would have been the ticket). Video iPod not even capable of DVD quality playback, let alone HD content. No HD drives or media yet. There could have been alot more done for the "Year of HD". Yes, some of the Apple displays are now HD capable. I just think he may have been a bit early to the party. Maybe next year will be the "Year of HD". This year sure wasn't.

ffakr
Nov 13, 2005, 02:13 PM
No HD content in iTunes for sale. No HD tuners available on the Mac (installed on that new iMac would have been the ticket). Video iPod not even capable of DVD quality playback, let alone HD content. No HD drives or media yet. There could have been alot more done for the "Year of HD". Yes, some of the Apple displays are now HD capable. I just think he may have been a bit early to the party. Maybe next year will be the "Year of HD". This year sure wasn't.


I just pushed out some wedding photos in a QuickTime movie with a soundtrack. Just Ken Burns affect. Plenty of room for compression with each film having a static time.

3min 55 seconds at 720x 480 resolution and it was over 100MB.

You seriously want HD content on iTunes movie store? Are you kidding?
seriously.

What's typical size for a 30-60 minute TV show in HD? What would it take a typical DSL line to download that?

I don't disagree Jobs is early to the party, but as far as Apple is concerned it was the year of HD. They moved their software lines AND their hardware lines to support HD. Everything is there if you want to work in HD. Just because you haven't bought a $2000 video recorder and a $5000 Mac doesn't mean Apple hasn't provided HD support.

Sunrunner
Dec 8, 2005, 03:43 PM
I just pushed out some wedding photos in a QuickTime movie with a soundtrack. Just Ken Burns affect. Plenty of room for compression with each film having a static time.

3min 55 seconds at 720x 480 resolution and it was over 100MB.

You seriously want HD content on iTunes movie store? Are you kidding?
seriously.

What's typical size for a 30-60 minute TV show in HD? What would it take a typical DSL line to download that?

I don't disagree Jobs is early to the party, but as far as Apple is concerned it was the year of HD. They moved their software lines AND their hardware lines to support HD. Everything is there if you want to work in HD. Just because you haven't bought a $2000 video recorder and a $5000 Mac doesn't mean Apple hasn't provided HD support.


I totally agree. HD quality (or even broadcast quality) video will not be on iTunes in the near future. Perhaps when everyone has either cable or fiber in their homes...

GregA
Dec 8, 2005, 04:10 PM
I just pushed out some wedding photos in a QuickTime movie with a soundtrack. Just Ken Burns affect. Plenty of room for compression with each film having a static time.

3min 55 seconds at 720x 480 resolution and it was over 100MB.
I've found standard quicktime compression unimpressive - though the h264 stuff is really good (half the size and twice the quality). Which were you using?
What's typical size for a 30-60 minute TV show in HD? What would it take a typical DSL line to download that?The h264 websites say that HD can be done in as little as 8Mbps. MPEG2 requires double.

So for a 42 minute TV show, that'd be 2.5GB - though remember that's 1080i or 720p (which are identical amounts of screen bits - though some say 720p compresses better).

h264 sites say that standard definition (480i?) can be done in 1Mbps (that's 300MB for a 42 min show). Apple currently does a lower definition (320) in around 170MB... which fits pretty neatly with those numbers.

csimon2
Dec 9, 2005, 10:35 AM
3min 55 seconds at 720x 480 resolution and it was over 100MB.You should have easily been able to encode that clip in under 50MB at that resolution with H.264 and still have been happy with the quality.
You seriously want HD content on iTunes movie store? Are you kidding? seriously. I don't disagree Jobs is early to the party, but as far as Apple is concerned it was the year of HD. They moved their software lines AND their hardware lines to support HD. Everything is there if you want to work in HD. I don't think that HD content delivered over iTunes is a reality at this point in time. Anyone who does think so is clearly off their rocker. But, I do believe it is reasonable to expect Apple to deliver on their promise of "the year of HD". Fact is, the new Powerbooks will not display every pixel of 1080p or 1080i without scaling. The mac mini and iBooks still can't play back 1080i or 720p HDTV without dropping some frames at the native resolution. Apple delivered on HD in the PowerMacs and QT7, but I don't think it was unreasonable to expect them to make all of their hardware PCs capable of at least 480p H.264 and full HDTV playback. And then we have the iPod severely hurt by the 320x240 limitation on H.264. Actually, you would be better suited to encode to MPEG-4 Part 2 (Popwire has an excellent MPEG-4 encoder) at maximum compatible resolution so it would still look good connected to a TV.What's typical size for a 30-60 minute TV show in HD? What would it take a typical DSL line to download that?The typical size of a hour long program on 720p (~42 minutes actual) is about 2.4GB. 720p as broadcast by ABC and FOX is encoded at about 8-9Mbps. 1080i varies, as I have seen CBS at 10-12Mbps and TNT at 16-18Mbps.

csimon2
Dec 9, 2005, 10:51 AM
I've found standard quicktime compression unimpressive - though the h264 stuff is really good (half the size and twice the quality). Which were you using?The standard encoders Apple has included with QT have always been unimpressive. That is, until QT7 and their H.264 encoder. But, in the past, when QT4 introduced Sorenson Video 2, you needed the Pro encoder for optimal results. For QT5 and SV3, again the Pro encoder was needed. For QT6 and MPEG-4 (Actually, Apple almost single-handedly killed MPEG-4 Part 2 by hyping their encoder and then delivering a big pile of you know what), third party encoders were once again needed. For QT7, they have finally included a competitive encoder, although there are a few out there today that are better.The h264 websites say that HD can be done in as little as 8Mbps. MPEG2 requires double.Actually, this is very far from the truth and just hype at this time. In the early to mid nineties, the thought of compressing HD using MPEG-2 was laughable. MPEG-2 encoders at the time were far, far inferior to what thay are today. Today, with all of the advances made in MPEG-2 compression over the last decade, MPEG-2 can be delivered at 8-10Mbps for 720p and 10-12Mbps for 1080i at the same quality of H.264 or VC-1 at 6-7Mbps for 720p and 8-9Mbps for 1080i. However, because H.264 and VC-1 are both in their relative infancies, it is not unreasonable to expect both to be able to deliver 720p at 3-5Mbps and 1080i at 5-6Mbps within the next 3-5 years. The encoders for each format will improve over time as always.

DavidCar
Dec 9, 2005, 11:03 AM
Thanks csimon2 for the informative comments