On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 10:53:55 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:

> The stupid thing is that is how my box works. Supposedly the broadcaster
> sends a start signal which when used in conjunction with the Electronic
> Programme Guide knows that I want to record the listed 7pm programme
> that is now starting at 7:15pm and records from 7:15-7:45. In this case
> it relies on both the guide being updated and the signal being sent. The
> most common complaint I have is that it starts on-time and cuts off
> early; not by much normally, just enough to annoy.
> 
> As you say I don't see why this is so hard to do exactly.

I don't either.

Last night, my DVR said it was scheduled to record "The Daily Show" from 
9:00 PM to 9:31 PM (which in and of itself was odd), but at 9:09 PM it 
hadn't started recording.  So we watched it live (no big deal, it was 
partially buffered so we were able to go back to the beginning).

At 9:30, it started recording, recorded exactly 1 minute, and then 
recorded the next show.

Of course, it decided that since it was starting to record on the channel 
we were actively watching, it just skipped 5 minutes or so of the 
interview while we were watching it, so it could record the last minute 
(which was mostly credits).

Stupid technology.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:33:41 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:

> On Wed, 02 Feb 2011 10:53:55 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>
>> The stupid thing is that is how my box works. Supposedly the broadcaster
>> sends a start signal which when used in conjunction with the Electronic
>> Programme Guide knows that I want to record the listed 7pm programme
>> that is now starting at 7:15pm and records from 7:15-7:45. In this case
>> it relies on both the guide being updated and the signal being sent. The
>> most common complaint I have is that it starts on-time and cuts off
>> early; not by much normally, just enough to annoy.
>>
>> As you say I don't see why this is so hard to do exactly.
>
> I don't either.
>
> Last night, my DVR said it was scheduled to record "The Daily Show" from
> 9:00 PM to 9:31 PM (which in and of itself was odd), but at 9:09 PM it
> hadn't started recording.  So we watched it live (no big deal, it was
> partially buffered so we were able to go back to the beginning).
>
> At 9:30, it started recording, recorded exactly 1 minute, and then
> recorded the next show.
>
> Of course, it decided that since it was starting to record on the channel
> we were actively watching, it just skipped 5 minutes or so of the
> interview while we were watching it, so it could record the last minute
> (which was mostly credits).
>
> Stupid technology.

A similar thing happened with "Sherlock" on the BBC. Not just to me but to  
a large group with different model PVRs. It didn't start recording until  
20 minutes in. The BBc claimed it must have been the EPG at fault despite  
the fact that it happily showed the programme starting at the right time.

The other problem is "Series Link" set to record on programme and it asks  
if you want to record it from that point on. Did it for "FlashForward" -  
recorded the main episode then the repeat the next night then the next  
repeat on the other channel. Ended up with three copies. For "Malcolm in  
the Middle" it'll record some, but not others. Just strange.


-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 09:00:54 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:

> A similar thing happened with "Sherlock" on the BBC. Not just to me but
> to a large group with different model PVRs. It didn't start recording
> until 20 minutes in. The BBc claimed it must have been the EPG at fault
> despite the fact that it happily showed the programme starting at the
> right time.

Ouch, that's a shame.  Hope you got to see it, because that was a very 
well done series, I thought.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

And lo On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 20:10:05 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake thusly:

> On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 09:00:54 +0000, Phil Cook v2 wrote:
>
>> A similar thing happened with "Sherlock" on the BBC. Not just to me but
>> to a large group with different model PVRs. It didn't start recording
>> until 20 minutes in. The BBc claimed it must have been the EPG at fault
>> despite the fact that it happily showed the programme starting at the
>> right time.
>
> Ouch, that's a shame.  Hope you got to see it, because that was a very
> well done series, I thought.

The benefits of a PS3 - iPlayer naturally hooked up to the TV. Even my  
parents had to use theirs to watch "Lark Rise to Candleford" which  
inexplicably failed to record; shame the official remote doesn't work with  
the web/flash interface in terms of pause etc. though; they're not used to  
the 'proper' controller.

But yes it was an enjoyable series I did like how both Mycroft and  
Moriarty were introduced; it took nerve to mislead the audience in that  
way as well as rely on their memory. I'm currently running through the  
Jeremy Brett series and I find it interesting to note the touches that  
both Cumberbatch's "Sherlock" and Downey's "Sherlock Holmes" lifted from  
it.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On 01/02/2011 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> One that really can't sing.;-)
>
> Seriously, it was almost like Graham was singing Jeremy singing Queen.
> And that's saying something.

I did not notice but I make Jeremy sound like Plácido Domingo.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Feb 2011 17:10:31 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 01/02/2011 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> One that really can't sing.;-)
>>
>> Seriously, it was almost like Graham was singing Jeremy singing Queen.
>> And that's saying something.
> 
> I did not notice but I make Jeremy sound like Plácido Domingo.

Now there's a scary thought.:-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 01/02/2011 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> Seriously, it was almost like Graham was singing Jeremy singing Queen.
> And that's saying something.

I’m listening to the repeat and I think Graham’s version is at least as 
good as the overrated Queen’s.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 12:16:41 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 01/02/2011 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Seriously, it was almost like Graham was singing Jeremy singing Queen.
>> And that's saying something.
> 
> I’m listening to the repeat and I think Graham’s version is at least as
> good as the overrated Queen’s.

Well, granted, the song doesn't have that much tonal variation....but 
still. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/02/2011 5:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 12:16:41 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 01/02/2011 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Seriously, it was almost like Graham was singing Jeremy singing Queen.
>>> And that's saying something.
>>
>> I’m listening to the repeat and I think Graham’s version is at least as
>> good as the overrated Queen’s.
>
> Well, granted, the song doesn't have that much tonal variation....but
> still. ;-)
>

But still, what?

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 19:17:29 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 06/02/2011 5:08 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 12:16:41 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/02/2011 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Seriously, it was almost like Graham was singing Jeremy singing
>>>> Queen. And that's saying something.
>>>
>>> I’m listening to the repeat and I think Graham’s version is at least
>>> as good as the overrated Queen’s.
>>
>> Well, granted, the song doesn't have that much tonal variation....but
>> still. ;-)
>>
>>
> But still, what?

But still, he could've worked harder at not sounding like Jeremy. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message