Monday, May 12, 2008

The Golden Age of Television Recording

I got my first VCR back in '83, and it used heavily for years thereafter. Now, I could record and watch TV on my schedule, not the networks. It must have been essential because when it broke back in '93 for the final time, it got replaced within the week- much faster than anything else that broke in those days. However, the possibilities really opened up when I acquired a second machine a few years later. Now I could seriously timeshift as I could record in one room, and watch in another. While two VCR's did seem a little excessive, they were well worth it, especially when I could watch a movie on DVD on a third machine, and record two feeds simultaneously.

Needless to say, all of this recording led to piles and piles of videotapes. I'm not an archiver, and watch 99% of things once, and don't watch again so I rerecord the tapes. It was still a challenge to keep multiple episodes straight, and be able to watch them in order, and I frequently complained when there were other things on the tape. I'll easily admit that under this plan, I did lose content I had taped, and in those days, the episodes weren't online on the network's website or Hulu.

For the last few years, I had my difficulties in keeping one recording machine working at the house. First, my combo deck died, then the DVD recorder that replaced it barely lasted a year, and then after a first foray into a DVR, my bargain DVD/VCR was not a bargain. After a pile of failed machines, I decided to spend the bucks, and got a good DVR, the Philips 3575.

Over the last several months, I've been pleased with the device. Finally, a machine that could timeshift all the shows I wanted, record and playback simultaneously (I needed two VCR's to do that feat), and keep it all neat and organized on the hard drive, ready for viewing. Want to timeshift an entire season? Finally, it was possible without breaking a sweat. Clearly the DVR was the best device to get the job done.

When I was getting my new cable system, I toyed with not getting a DVR, but the Philips works best with an OTA signal, and I got the Optimum folks to toss their DVR into the price (for the year at least...), so now I have two DVR's. While it may seem even more excessive than my two VCR plan of last decade, I have to say this is the best it has ever been in terms of TV recording around my house.

The Optimum DVR, a Scientific Atlanta 8300 HD, has a few tricks that the Philips can't match. The first is that it can record in HD if the program is available that way. This feature alone has me recording more of my regular shows from the local channels on the 8300. Add in a channel guide, and it's a breeze to use. No longer do I need to look up the exact times, or figure out how to switch stations when a show ends at 9PM, and the next one starts on another channel at 9PM. The box does all the work (although I do miss the first few seconds sometimes). Another benefit of the channel guide is that the recordings automatically get labeled with the titles. The final benefit is that the 8300 has dual tuners, so it can record two programs simultaneously, and even playback a third. Now this is serious timeshifting!

The only real downside to the 8300 is that the content is contained to the box. Apparently there is a way to send it to a VCR, but it sounds too labor intensive, and not worth the effort as the recording would have to be done in real time. Other than that, this machine is a winner.

So, putting it all together, for the first time, I can now record three video feeds simultaneously, something I've never been able to do before. This makes just about any timeshifting scenario possible, and I'll not watch many commercials any more. If you haven't taken the plunge for a DVR yet, I speak from experience that I've done it twice now, and it's clearly the way to record. Clearly, this is the "Golden Age of Television Recording."

Jonas



Labels: , , , ,

Back to Top

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Not Quite A Lifetime

I found this story over on Engadget about the subscription plan for the latest TiVo HD. Those greedy TiVo folks are always looking to squeeze a few extra bucks from their faithful subscribers. Here's the offer:


So after you've bought a lifetime subscription for the last TiVo box, and now buy a new TiVo box for $299, you get the special privilege of "transferring" the lifetime subscription to the new TiVo box for a mere $199. Good thing you don't have to purchase it again, I can only imagine what they would charge for that!

Seriously folks, these prices are out of sight to simply record some television. I could just buy the series on DVD when it comes out, and have dough left over. I think this means that the subscription is only for the lifetime of the box, so clearly this is not such a good deal.

--Jonas


Labels: , ,

Back to Top

Monday, October 08, 2007

NudgeCast 10/8/07

Back to Top

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

NudgeCast 9/25/07

Back to Top

Sunday, September 23, 2007

Video Tapes Gone In A Flash

For decades now, a camcorder was the one electronics device that I wanted, but did not actually acquire. This has been due to a variety of factors, which I’ll share, and as we proceed, you’ll see where I see the future of home video recording is headed currently.

The first time I saw a video camera in use, I was in middle school. One of the parents literally made a spectacle of himself by setting up a large camcorder on a tripod. This was fed into a portable VCR that was connected by multiple wires. He had a microphone mounted on the camcorder’s top, and had headphones on straight out of a recording studio. Amidst the taped down wires, and high end gear was just another parent trying to enjoy a school concert. While my first thought was “Cool!” I quickly realized that this was anything but portable, and he probably had a sherpa along to lug the gear back to his automobile at the evening’s conclusion.

Back in the early 80’s, the video went to a full sized VHS tape in some type of portable VCR. As time went on, things would get smaller, we're talking a lot smaller... eventually. The full sized VHS tape gave way to VHS-C, a more compact format that in an adapter could fit into a regular VCR for playback. Things were getting down to a self contained unit at this point. Sony, never wanting to accept a standard that they didn’t invent and control (aka: profit from), pushed the Video8 mm tape format. This gave way, in typical Sony planned obsolescence fashion to Hi8, and then on to the Digital8 mm format. While these 8 mm tapes couldn’t play back in the VCR, they did provide a compact memory format to build a camcorder around. Competitors pushed back, and offered a new digital tape in 1994, even more compact, known as miniDV which gained popularity, and is still used in many tape based camcorders to this day.

After digital tape, and with the need for more memory with hi def cameras on the horizon, manufacturers weren’t sure which direction to go in. In my view, they mistakenly pursued cameras that would record directly to discs. This was probably encouraged by companies looking to sell piles on mini discs, or the easy marketing strategy of "direct to disc" by consumers eagerly embracing DVD's for their movies at home. While the advantage of DVD playback was inherent in these discs, that advantage was outweighed by storing the delicate media while mobile, compatibility and stability problems with rewritable discs, and price premiums for the mini discs compared to the larger full size brethren. I can say that many users have enough problems burning DVD media on their desktop computer so that attempting to do this on a mobile video camera becomes a challenge that is not worth undertaking.

The latest attempt to get more storage for hi def video has turned to hard drives. Now that even miniature hard drives, like those that power the current iPod Classic, offer cavernous capacities in diminutive form factors, for the high end gear, this is a reasonable storage solution.

In my own case, for many years, camcorders were simply too expensive. When a low end camcorder was north of $500, I figured I really had to love it to justify it, and I never reached that point. Complicating things were that the computer needed a firewire port in order to import video from a tape, and they are not nearly as common as USB. Finally, when I investigated the batteries involved, and realized that they were all very proprietary, had limited life, and were quite expensive, it was a serious deal breaker each time. I chose a digital still camera back in 2001, and figured I might get a camcorder at “some point.”

Currently, camcorder prices have finally fallen to the point of affordability. There are decent cameras for less than $300, and for a few hundred more, we can get something that is really good. However, at least for now, I seriously have no interest in these devices.

In our current era of really mini electronics, many of the current camcorders simply seem too large. I know that if it doesn’t fit in my pocket easily, the odds of me using it routinely go way down. The issues of proprietary batteries, and piles of media never really got solved in my mind.

Looking at this objectively, the digital cameras are winning the battle. While there were many attempts at convergence, and the mythical “total imaging” device that could handle both stills and video equally well never quite emerged, the digital cameras got video added to their bag of tricks. In the end, while camcorders could shoot stills, they were of generally low quality. While we could argue that the video shot by digital cameras was also of low quality, I would still characterize it as acceptable quality, especially on a standard definition television set. The other tie breaker is the media. Digital cameras, with a few exceptions of Sony (oddball again!) venturing into floppy discs and mini CDR’s, have been flash memory based devices. This means that it is far easier for consumers to download their content, especially with a built in or USB flash card reader that many computers have these days. Add in the standard AA batteries and that many digital cameras fit in a pocket, and it becomes an easy choice for the consumer to choose the digital camera over the camcorder.

The other issue is what will be the final destination for the video. For an amateur filmmaker, then a camcorder is the way to go. For the rest of, to just save some clips, or to email them, or for online video postings, then a digital camera is more than adequate. The so called “You Tube friendly” cameras, like those from Casio, produce highly compressed video that is ideal for this. By using the MPEG-4 format, compression enables an hour of standard def video per hour.

The newest class of devices, exemplified by the Flip Video, also are ideal for online video postings. By taking the blueprint for a digital camera, and then reengineering the device for video over stills, they can produce an affordable product, with a lot of capability, that’s easy of use, and fits in a pocket. In fact, this is now an emerging market segment with new products from both Samsung and Sony's Netsharing Camcorder entering into the foray.

So, where are we going with all of this? For now, I’m not planning on getting a tape based camcorder, now or ever. When I buy my next imaging device, it will almost certainly be a digital still camera with video capability. With flash memory able to offer ever larger capacity cards at reasonable price points, it’s really the way to go to capture video. If I need more video capability, I’d look towards a flash based video camera.

--Jonas

Labels: , , ,

Back to Top

Tuesday, September 18, 2007

NudgeCast 9/18/07

We're talking about the current state of hard drive recording, and some preliminary impressions of the Philips 3575.


--Jonas

Labels: , , ,

Back to Top

Monday, September 17, 2007

Hard Drive TV Recorders

I've been quite forthcoming with my plan to acquire a Philips 3575, and I've had experience with last year's Polaroid 2001G. I'll have a review up, but in the meantime, one of our reader's Barry "Bear" got in touch with me, and I've collected our correspondence into the following thread. --Jonas

The New HDD TV Recorders Take a Step, But Is It In the Right Direction?

Why can't the manufactures of current HDD/DVD recorders ever design consumer video equipment that meets the needs of the consumer! Consumers today have an HDTV with an HD cable or satellite DVR. This is great; you can view in real time your show in HD, pause live TV, jump backwards and forwards and record and save the show to the HDD to play the recording again viewing it in HD! The problem everyone still faces is the ability to record an HD broadcast, edit, and then archive the edited recording to a standard DVD in SD resolution to appease the copyright gods. And they never seem include a user friendly interface where you can select from a guide the show you want to record like you're already able to do with satellite and cable DVR's manufactured currently.

For example, you see an HD show on an OTA or QAM channel that you want to record on these new HDD/DVD recorders with digital tuners. You have to manually setup a timer after you look it up on the internet, or TV Guide when it will air. Now it gets recorded. YEAH! Not really, this is where the problem starts. What you have is a recording on your HDD that is in SD resolution. If your replay the recorded show it is in SD resolution! The change in resolution from HD to SD needs to take place when you record it onto the DVD. Otherwise I still need to record the same show on my cable or satellite DVR so I can view it in HD AND I also need to record it on my new HDD recorder so I can archive it onto a DVD.

There must be a way to down-convert a HD recording off a cable or satellite DVR HDD and record it to a DVD in SD resolution. This is what we want. A HD DVR capable of receiving HD OTA and QAM broadcasts, that records to the HDD in HD resolution (which exists!) WITH a built in DVD recorder so you can archive the HD recording to a DVD in SD resolution.

I originally looked into just getting a DVD player that would play my Divx collection off my WD 250 GB portable HD thru a USB port. Well....that is just NOT an option as I tried the RCA DRC285, Philips DVP5982/37 and Pioneer DV-400V-K and none of the have enough power to run this drive from the USB ports. (Editor's note: That's a common issue as the ports in these devices generally work best with USB flash drives).

So......I decided to evaluate the Philips DVDR3575H/37. I have a Liteon 5045 which I like that but no USB port, no upconvert, no ATSC or QAM tuner.

Last month there were several Philips 3575's at Wal-Mart, but with college starting they disappeared quickly! I finally saw Amazon had them and with the mostly positive reviews I decided to get one. Then yesterday I saw the Polaroid DRA-01601A at Wal-Mart so I decided that since I have looked at 4 pieces of DVD gear why not another!

Out of the DVD players I saw.....The Pioneer wins hands down with QUALITY video and workmanship. Unfortunately, they're not currently making one with a digital tuner.

You want to see CHEAP check out the RCA. Totally plastic enclosure, but it did function as advertised.

Now for what I have observed with the HDD devices.....

Let me start by saying that I wish that everyone would get their act together. It seems like the options missing on one recorder are available on the other and vice versa!!!!!

I have had a HDD recorder for a few years now (Liteon 5045- Editor's Note: This aging LiteOn, no longer for sale, is practically legendary for its hackability) so let me see what I like about the equipment I already have. Every user has their own needs and want, I have a HD DVR from Time Warner and I can watch HD until the cows come home. But I can only archive it to SD. Having an HDD DVD recorder that accepts OTA digital HD and QAM channels will allow me to record programs I really know are keepers. Then I can edit and burn the content to a DVD.

What we need is an HD DVR that can high speed dub from the HDD down to a built in DVD (even if it is SD).

I like the ability of
- copying non copyrighted DVD videos to the HDD. Like a video juke box!
- copying MP3 audio file to the HDD. Like an audio jukebox!
- copying JPEG photos to the HDD. Like a slideshow! You can have your family and friends over and sit in fron of your 65" TV and play all your travel photos with MP3's playing simultaneously.

So the Liteon is actually a media center!

I also like.....
- the ability of editing video content recorded off the HDD. The Liteon does this, but not as well as the Philips.
- connecting a DV camera via firewire to transfer videos.
- playing VCD's
- playing PAL DVD's
- a good user interface

OK, so it's been 2-1/2 years since I purchased the Liteon. Let's compare these new DVD HDD recorders see what they offer......

New tuner to receive the new OTA Digital broadcast!
New tuner to accept QAM digital channels from your cable TV
USB ports!
Upconversion to 1080P

So from what I have seen, these are the capabilities of these 2 machines.

Polaroid DRA-01601A:
Quality workmanship: average
Quality video: above average
QAM: It really sucks, just like all the other reports! Don't go there
OTA: Seems to work A-OK
copying non copyrighted DVD videos to the HDD: Nope
copying MP3 audio file to the HDD: Nope, this thing only plays WMA files! However you can copy them to the HDD!
copying JPEG photos to the HDD: Yup
playing photos and music at same time: Manual states it will
editing video content recorded off the HDD: Yes, however I did not want to go through the pain
connecting a DV camera via firewire to transfer videos: Yes, has a firewire port. Did not try it.
playing VCD's: Manual says yes
playing PAL DVD's: YUP
good user interface: The only way I can explain the feeling I get when I use this interface is that I would rather get a mouthful of root canals without novocaine! If you go into a prison you will see convicts that killed someone because of the effects this interface had on their minds!
Remote: SUCKS!
USB: Powers my portable HDD
Upconversion: Nope
DIVX: No way

-If it loses power, you lose your timers. However time is AOK
-It can display DTV channels listing (Show name and time) like a guide for 12 hrs. However the times are all wrong.
-It has an HDMI problem. Every time I turn the unit on, I have to press the I/P button 2 times on the remote to get a picture. Must default to Interlaced 480
-It always defaults to the DVD mode. That sorta sucks!
-It has a favorites list
- Many of the buttons have different functions on the remote depending on what mode you are in. Like I am watching TV and press zoom and it shows me a list of available DTV channels and I can arrow down and select one to change the channel.
- I made a YES DVD; it took awhile. It makes a DVD with a title screen with all the different scenes like you would see in a DVD that has chapters. Sorta cool.


Philips DVDR3575H/37 (You get what you pay for)

Quality workmanship: above average
Quality video: above average
QAM: no problems so far. Not losing channels.....
OTA: AOK
copying non copyrighted DVD videos to the HDD: Nope
copying MP3 audio file to the HDD: Nope
copying JPEG photos to the HDD: Nope
playing photos and music at same time: Nope
editing video content recorded off the HDD: Yes, and quite well, wish you could merge files
connecting a DV camera via firewire to transfer videos: Yes, has a firewire port. Did not try it.
playing VCD's: Yes
playing PAL DVD's: NOPE
good user interface:Very nice interface, impressed daily
Remote: OK, however I wish it was a good as the Pioneer. You did not even need to point that at the equipment!
USB: Powers my portable HDD
Upconversion: YUP
DIVX: Yes, however you can't copy them to the HDD

They went through the effort of having this thing auto clock set the time from the PBS station, but it loses all the program settings in a long power outage! I have to test this, but I read that it does.

Noise: Philips is much quieter.
The rapid play on the Philips is really cool. You should be able to save a timeshift event.

You have to rename the timed recordings. Why can't they incorporate the OTA digital data into a guide so that you could just select what you want to watch and it would populate the title field with this data.

It has chase play and it works well.

I also read that it will not play MP3's off a DVD. Why? (Editor's Note: I don't know of any DVD player that will do this feat.)

On the Polaroid for timeshift you use 2 different buttons pause and play. On the Philips it is the same button. On the Polaroid you can save timeshift events. On the Philips no can do. They need to fix that one!

I am noticing that on the Philips, unless you have recorded a show in HQ you cannot do any High Speed Dubbing. So for example, I have 3 1 hr recordings I want to transfer to a disc. I have done my editing, and it is going to take 3 hrs to burn the disc. And I don't think I can watch TV until it is done.

I am trying to think how my Liteon does this. I think it copies the files like a computer would. No way does it take 3 freaking hours. Is the Philips doing a bit to bit copy or is it doing an analog copy! That would be real bad, as you would have quality loss.


In Closing...

The Polaroid is going back. However it had some capabilities that the Philips didn't offer: PAL playback, copying JPEG and music to HDD (and MPEG videos). The QAM tuner is hurting for sure. The manual is a waste of paper! Not to mention the lack of ability to upconvert!

So now I will continue to play with the Philips and make a decision if I should keep it or send it back. It really is the only one out there right now. Has a lot of capabilities, but it could be so much better.

What the Philips does, it does very well.

The answer for me may be to continue using my Cable HD DVR (that records to the HDD in HD resolution) coupled with my Lite-on HDD DVD recorder. At least then I could watch my programs in HD! The only regret with this setup is the quality loss I would experience by recording to the HDD DVD recorder via the S-Video input.

Frustrating for sure!

--Bear

Feel free to discuss the Philips and Polaroid DVD recorders below.


Labels: , ,

Back to Top

Thursday, September 13, 2007

It's Here!

After dealing with Wal-Mart's Site To Store, I'm pleased to report that Amazon came through- and quickly! Even though I only ordered it Monday evening, and chose super saver shipping, the Philips 3575 arrived today. I even had some time to hook it up. It's too early to form a final opinion, but it did work right out of the box. The interface is clunky, and I needed to read the manual to figure out how to record something. However, the playback was smooth, and the hard drive was just about silent. Stay tuned as I put this baby through the paces, and we share if it is worth three Franklin's of our cash.

--Jonas


 

Labels: , , , ,

Back to Top

Monday, September 10, 2007

This Is Suspicious...

I've been chronicling my attempt to buy a Philips 3575 hard drive TV recorder. After my failed Site To Store saga, my plan was to find a store in stock, and drive to the next county to get it. If I needed to take a trip, I supposed it would be worth it. Anyway, my order was canceled so I needed a plan "B," and this seemed the best way to get it.

I went on the Wal-Mart website to plan the attack. They have a feature that lets you see which stores have the item in stock, somewhat like Circuit City has had for years. Anyhow, the original store I was planning to go to is now out of it, but one even further away does apparently have stock. No biggie, I'll just use my GPS even though I have no idea where any of these stores are.

Getting to the point of this piece, I see that the price of the recorder has risen from $298 to $318. I know this is America, home of capitalism and the "all mighty dollar." Wal-Mart can charge whatever they want for this device as they are the only one selling it, so there's not exactly competition working here.

What's annoying me is this nagging feeling that my order was canceled last week, so they could raise the price this week. No one likes to feel like they are being shaken down for extra cash on the same item. The timing of this is just a little bit too close for my taste. Will the $20 be a deal breaker for me? Probably not, but as they say, it's not the amount, it's the principle.

--Jonas

Addendum: When I first researched this product, it was only available at Wal-Mart. Now, it turns out that Wally Mart does not have an exclusive on it. It can be purchased also from Amazon, J&R, and even directly from Philips. Wal-Mart is definitely price gouging and taking advantage of the situation as Amazon has it for $289, and the others $299 which sounds a lot more reasonable to me. Why was I driving to the next county again?


Labels: , , ,

Back to Top

Friday, September 07, 2007

Site To Store To Nowhere

Here We Go Again!

I've been trying to get a new hard drive based recorder. I say trying because not only is my local Wal-Mart out of it, but only one store out of the twenty closest has "limited supplies." I found out that Wal-Mart has this new Site To Store plan. It works kind of like the old Sears catalog pickup. I order it online, they ship it to the store, and they send me an email when it is ready to be picked up. By sending it through the Wal-Mart distribution channel, they don't charge me shipping. They also claimed on the site to not charge my credit card until I pick up the item. Reportedly, if I don't pick it up, I don't get charged.

With the above in mind, I decided to give it a try. My order went through. Because it was shipped through the Wal-Mart distribution channel, there is no way to track the package like with UPS or FedEx. After a week of looking up my order, and it only saying "shipped," and never receiving the email to pick it up, I started to get curious. Make that impatient. After all, the Fall TV season is starting in two weeks. I wondered if maybe I had missed the email, or it hadn't gotten past the spam filter.

I copied down my order number, and headed to the store that the device was to be shipped to. At the desk was a pleasant woman, who offered to get some help. She called on a handheld radio, and I heard several of the associates say that they were doing something, and couldn't respond. On the 3rd request, an assistant manager did respond to the desk.

I explained the situation to the at least partially disgruntled woman. She took my order number, entered it into the system, and told me it was "returned." Huh?! I never received it, so how could I return it? She then told me that the item must have arrived at the store damaged, and it was returned for credit.

I then asked if they were getting me another one. I was told "No, there's a shortage of these." She then suggested that I put the order through again.

Then, this was the final shocker. She asked me for my credit card for the refund. Huh?? I thought I wasn't being charged for this? I was told that I had been charged when I placed the order, but they would take it off now.

I left wondering, empty handed mind you, that if I hadn't gone to the store, that the charge would have been on my credit card bill for an item never received!

Overall, I am completely dissatisfied with my Site to Store experience. Last night, I received a survey from them. I started to fill it out, but after 10 minutes of filling in dots of how the experience went, I gave up. I was hoping for a text box that I could explain it to the higher ups, but I decided to simply post it here instead. Maybe they'll get the message- then again, maybe not. Next time, I'll use Amazon.

If you've used Site to Store, feel free to share below.

--Jonas


Labels: , , ,

Back to Top