----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/sit ... ewsLang=en
-- M. Shane Sturgeon
Elgato Unveils First HDTV Digital Video Recorder for the Mac
-
TIPS List
- Archives
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:09 pm
- Location: HDTV Magazine
- Contact:
-
TIPS List
- Archives
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:09 pm
- Location: HDTV Magazine
- Contact:
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
FYI, I noticed from the press release that this product needs a dual G5
system for full frame rate playback.
From this former mac user (1986-1995), not to start a flame war here, but I
think that's pathetic and I can't
believe you need that much mac-based horsepower to play back simple ATSC
streams.
The slowest MyHD-equipped PC in my house, with a P4 1.8 GHz CPU, is happy
as a clam to run ATSC streams and 720P WMV files all day without any
problems.
What a waste of CPU cycles.........especially for a product category that's
been available (and working just fine thank you) for wintel for at least 2
years, maybe more.
sj
FYI, I noticed from the press release that this product needs a dual G5
system for full frame rate playback.
From this former mac user (1986-1995), not to start a flame war here, but I
think that's pathetic and I can't
believe you need that much mac-based horsepower to play back simple ATSC
streams.
The slowest MyHD-equipped PC in my house, with a P4 1.8 GHz CPU, is happy
as a clam to run ATSC streams and 720P WMV files all day without any
problems.
What a waste of CPU cycles.........especially for a product category that's
been available (and working just fine thank you) for wintel for at least 2
years, maybe more.
sj
-
raff
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:43 am
- Location: Voorhees, NJ
Tips,
It could be, (mind you it's been some time since I opened a MAC) that MAC's used to use some of the main CPU for graphics off-load and 3D rendering. I'm not sure if they still do, but asking for that much CPU sure makes me think they do. Kind of odd, since MAC is a great video editing computer.
It could be, (mind you it's been some time since I opened a MAC) that MAC's used to use some of the main CPU for graphics off-load and 3D rendering. I'm not sure if they still do, but asking for that much CPU sure makes me think they do. Kind of odd, since MAC is a great video editing computer.
-
TIPS List
- Archives
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:09 pm
- Location: HDTV Magazine
- Contact:
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Try to play that same stream in the VideoLan Client! (http://videolan.org)
The reason why MyHD has no problems, is that it has a MPEG decoder on
the board, so that's why you can use some crappy Wintel box to run it
(gives 400MHz as the minimum spec.) Remember the $600 OTA tuner, it
also needs the ability to decode the transport stream. So, try and
run that same transport stream in VLC--then you'll see that you're
not wasting cycles, but, using all you've got!
My dual 1.25GHz G4 can play both 720, and 1080 streams (even my
800MHz TiBook can play 720P), but chokes on WMV, but, that's the
usual mediocre Mac port that we get from Micro$oft.
Now it would be nice if El Gato put a decoder in their box, but, it
would then be just bit more expensive.
You've got to realize that MPEG-2 takes a lot of power to decode
(since the transport streams we get OTA are compressed.) Maybe if
Apple adds the new HD-DVD MPEG codec we'll be much faster.
erik g
But, with a G5, I can get the new 30" LCD display and have plenty of
room for all my windows even when playing 1080 at full resolution!!
Try to play that same stream in the VideoLan Client! (http://videolan.org)
The reason why MyHD has no problems, is that it has a MPEG decoder on
the board, so that's why you can use some crappy Wintel box to run it
(gives 400MHz as the minimum spec.) Remember the $600 OTA tuner, it
also needs the ability to decode the transport stream. So, try and
run that same transport stream in VLC--then you'll see that you're
not wasting cycles, but, using all you've got!
My dual 1.25GHz G4 can play both 720, and 1080 streams (even my
800MHz TiBook can play 720P), but chokes on WMV, but, that's the
usual mediocre Mac port that we get from Micro$oft.
Now it would be nice if El Gato put a decoder in their box, but, it
would then be just bit more expensive.
You've got to realize that MPEG-2 takes a lot of power to decode
(since the transport streams we get OTA are compressed.) Maybe if
Apple adds the new HD-DVD MPEG codec we'll be much faster.
erik g
But, with a G5, I can get the new 30" LCD display and have plenty of
room for all my windows even when playing 1080 at full resolution!!
-
TIPS List
- Archives
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:09 pm
- Location: HDTV Magazine
- Contact:
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Eric nails it. Our MPEG-2 decoding is done completely in software. And then
there's the motion adaptive deinterlacing, that's done in software as well.
We try to use OpenGL as much as possible for the task of moving the decoded
video data out to the display, so that helps, too. On some older Macs we run
into memory bus bandwidth issues with this, so that's a limiting factor in
addition to processor performance.
By the way -- we're quite proud of our software decoder's performance -- we
believe we can hold our own against the VideoLAN client any day.
Adam
--
Adam Steinberg
Director, Product Line Management
Elgato Systems LLC
900 Kearny Street Suite 750 San Francisco, CA 94133-5145
T 415/391-0310 x235 F 415/391-0329 www.elgato.com
Eric nails it. Our MPEG-2 decoding is done completely in software. And then
there's the motion adaptive deinterlacing, that's done in software as well.
We try to use OpenGL as much as possible for the task of moving the decoded
video data out to the display, so that helps, too. On some older Macs we run
into memory bus bandwidth issues with this, so that's a limiting factor in
addition to processor performance.
By the way -- we're quite proud of our software decoder's performance -- we
believe we can hold our own against the VideoLAN client any day.
Adam
--
Adam Steinberg
Director, Product Line Management
Elgato Systems LLC
900 Kearny Street Suite 750 San Francisco, CA 94133-5145
T 415/391-0310 x235 F 415/391-0329 www.elgato.com
-
TIPS List
- Archives
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:09 pm
- Location: HDTV Magazine
- Contact:
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Yeah, I understand the point you make, I guess I just did not make that
clear in my original email. While I have not yet had a hands-on demo of the
EyeTV 500, in my experience, on issues of price, performance, system heating
and usability, hardware-based MPEG decoding generally beats software
based-MPEG decoding every time. (For instance, if you haven't, you should
see what MyHD does for the "lowly" DVD, what a miracle that is, but I
digress...)
EyeTV 500 for the Mac @ $349 without MPEG decoder, needs at least a $3K
investment for the Mac and proper video card to run, probably closer to
$3.5K and up once you get the right memory and accessories etc.
MyHD for the PC @ $289 with MPEG decoder, can pretty much run on Grandma's
PC....(I exaggerate for emphasis)
I'm not saying that a dual G5 Mac with EyeTV isn
Yeah, I understand the point you make, I guess I just did not make that
clear in my original email. While I have not yet had a hands-on demo of the
EyeTV 500, in my experience, on issues of price, performance, system heating
and usability, hardware-based MPEG decoding generally beats software
based-MPEG decoding every time. (For instance, if you haven't, you should
see what MyHD does for the "lowly" DVD, what a miracle that is, but I
digress...)
EyeTV 500 for the Mac @ $349 without MPEG decoder, needs at least a $3K
investment for the Mac and proper video card to run, probably closer to
$3.5K and up once you get the right memory and accessories etc.
MyHD for the PC @ $289 with MPEG decoder, can pretty much run on Grandma's
PC....(I exaggerate for emphasis)
I'm not saying that a dual G5 Mac with EyeTV isn
-
TIPS List
- Archives
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:09 pm
- Location: HDTV Magazine
- Contact:
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
The memory bus issue is mostly what keeps the G4 and earlier Macs from
achieving acceptable performance levels by current standards, is it not?
This, of course is not helped by the processor inadequacies.
The G5 is better, but still a step or two behind the 400+ MHZ DDR bus of
those "crappy" Wintel boxes with SSE2 optimization and processor
architecture designed for this type of processing (which show better MPG
decoding benchmarks in single processor configuration than G5 in dual
processor configuration!) and can be purchased for less than half of what a
Mac costs. ( And lets not forget about AMD based machines, which also beat
the G5 hands down and are often even less costly than the Intel based boxes)
I always wonder why these Mac versus pc discussions always deteriorate into
discussions that consist of negative labels, of BMWs and the people that
know quality versus those idiots duped by MS, rather than of actual
performance numbers versus cost??
I really wanted to avoid this kind of discussion on tips, but I confess what
when confronted with derogatory comments that have no basis in fact, I feel
compelled to reply...If only Eric had skipped the word "CRAPPY"...which
brings nothing to any technical discussion.
Phil
The memory bus issue is mostly what keeps the G4 and earlier Macs from
achieving acceptable performance levels by current standards, is it not?
This, of course is not helped by the processor inadequacies.
The G5 is better, but still a step or two behind the 400+ MHZ DDR bus of
those "crappy" Wintel boxes with SSE2 optimization and processor
architecture designed for this type of processing (which show better MPG
decoding benchmarks in single processor configuration than G5 in dual
processor configuration!) and can be purchased for less than half of what a
Mac costs. ( And lets not forget about AMD based machines, which also beat
the G5 hands down and are often even less costly than the Intel based boxes)
I always wonder why these Mac versus pc discussions always deteriorate into
discussions that consist of negative labels, of BMWs and the people that
know quality versus those idiots duped by MS, rather than of actual
performance numbers versus cost??
I really wanted to avoid this kind of discussion on tips, but I confess what
when confronted with derogatory comments that have no basis in fact, I feel
compelled to reply...If only Eric had skipped the word "CRAPPY"...which
brings nothing to any technical discussion.
Phil
-
TIPS List
- Archives
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:09 pm
- Location: HDTV Magazine
- Contact:
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Correction in Apple DVI #'s it is actually 1280 x 800 DVI dual link for
total of 2560x1600:
I wrote:
Dual-link DVI is a definitely a "bleeding edge" area. Per design, DVI single
link channels are limited to 2048x1536 maximum. The 3840x2400 and 2560x1600
DVI feeds are actually comprised of dual 1920x1200 (or 1280 x1200 for Apple)
channels emanating from a properly configured dual output DVI video card
I meant:
Dual-link DVI is a definitely a "bleeding edge" area. Per design, DVI single
link channels are limited to 2048x1536 maximum. The 3840x2400 and 2560x1600
DVI feeds are actually comprised of dual 1920x1200 (or 1280 x 800 for Apple)
channels emanating from a properly configured dual output DVI video card
sj
Correction in Apple DVI #'s it is actually 1280 x 800 DVI dual link for
total of 2560x1600:
I wrote:
Dual-link DVI is a definitely a "bleeding edge" area. Per design, DVI single
link channels are limited to 2048x1536 maximum. The 3840x2400 and 2560x1600
DVI feeds are actually comprised of dual 1920x1200 (or 1280 x1200 for Apple)
channels emanating from a properly configured dual output DVI video card
I meant:
Dual-link DVI is a definitely a "bleeding edge" area. Per design, DVI single
link channels are limited to 2048x1536 maximum. The 3840x2400 and 2560x1600
DVI feeds are actually comprised of dual 1920x1200 (or 1280 x 800 for Apple)
channels emanating from a properly configured dual output DVI video card
sj
-
TIPS List
- Archives
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:09 pm
- Location: HDTV Magazine
- Contact:
----- HDTV Magazine Tips List -----
Adam,
While we've got your attention, is the 500 just pulling down the
transport stream so we can play with it in the DVHS apps? Is this
what the built in editor is handling? Is there a S-Video/composite
input to encode external sources (know it handles NTSC but that's the
tuner) or will we need the usual boxes?
erik g
Adam,
While we've got your attention, is the 500 just pulling down the
transport stream so we can play with it in the DVHS apps? Is this
what the built in editor is handling? Is there a S-Video/composite
input to encode external sources (know it handles NTSC but that's the
tuner) or will we need the usual boxes?
erik g
-
TIPS List
- Archives
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:09 pm
- Location: HDTV Magazine
- Contact:
Well, as noted on other tech websites the Apple is yet to use theThe memory bus issue is mostly what keeps the G4 and earlier Macs from
achieving acceptable performance levels by current standards, is it not?
This, of course is not helped by the processor inadequacies.
The G5 is better, but still a step or two behind the 400+ MHZ DDR bus of
those "crappy" Wintel boxes with SSE2 optimization and processor
architecture designed for this type of processing (which show better MPG
decoding benchmarks in single processor configuration than G5 in dual
processor configuration!) and can be purchased for less than half of what a
Mac costs. ( And lets not forget about AMD based machines, which also beat
the G5 hands down and are often even less costly than the Intel based boxes)
full power of the G5 (Tiger will start to add the full 64-bit
architecture--Longhorn is still years away.) So there's lots of room
to grow. But, for those of us with Macs it's the whole experience.
Who cares if you get a few seconds less in processing when doing
something when it takes you half an hour to figure out how to do it.
Hopefully people will notice that now one would pick the computer
that does the best job for the task at hand. And even price is
starting to become less valid, since now with a G4/5, Apple RAID, a
Decklink HD card and Final Cut Pro almost anyone can get into HD
content production much cheaper than a windows system. For instance
all of HD.net's production is done on Macs. Yes, when live you need
more power so you usually see a SGI O2 or similar.
And, more recently my comfort level for a Mac is greatly increased by
all the virus/worm/malware, etc. that inundates Windows users. To
each his own.
This is why I'm wary of the newer DVR systems with the new Microsoft
interfaces. Can you say "Microsoft TV for dummies".
And, by the way when I said "crappy" I was talking not about the
system itself I was talking about the age of the system (i.e. Sasha's
1.8Gz certainly makes a lowly 400MHz look 'crappy'.)
erik g