 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
So, given a typical PC, how much would it actually cost to equip it such
that you can record and play back TV with it? What actual hardware and
software does this require?
[No, I have no intension of doing this. I'm just curios.]
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:15:37 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> So, given a typical PC, how much would it actually cost to equip it such
> that you can record and play back TV with it? What actual hardware and
> software does this require?
A capture card is needed, and I'd recommend a sufficient amount of
memory, disk space, and a decent video card for playback.
Over here, capture cards vary in price; Hauppage is a popular brand from
what I've read/seen. There are some limitations, though - some won't do
digital channels, most won't do scrambled channels, etc. Pricing is
going to vary from a few hundred bucks to a few thousand (depending on
what other upgrades you need).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> So, given a typical PC, how much would it actually cost to equip it such
> that you can record and play back TV with it? What actual hardware and
> software does this require?
>
> [No, I have no intension of doing this. I'm just curios.]
>
You could get a Slingbox, it'll broadcast your TV stuff over
internet so you can access it anywhere with a good connection,
you can use it to control a DVR, your cable box etc.
They're a couple hundred bucks or so...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> So, given a typical PC, how much would it actually cost to equip it such
> that you can record and play back TV with it? What actual hardware and
> software does this require?
For Windows, a couple hundred bucks for the capture card and "Windows
Media Center" (aka MCE), or a more recent version of Windows. That's
pretty much what Media Center does, along with showing pictures and
music and stuff like that. It also talks to Xboxes and "media extenders"
so you can network it thru your house like AppleTV does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Center
There's also MythTV if you want to do it with Linux, don't mind the
typical expert-tolerant Linux type interfaces, and don't mind stealing
the TV listings. (Or have they fixed that lately?)
Most capture cards come with some form of primitive Windows software for
doing this.
I understand TiVo runs some form of Linux inside.
Many places sell machines in a stereo form-factor (i.e., a low flat
case) so you can put it in your stereo rack.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> For Windows, a couple hundred bucks for the capture card and "Windows
> Media Center" (aka MCE), or a more recent version of Windows.
Mmm, OK.
> I understand TiVo runs some form of Linux inside.
>
> Many places sell machines in a stereo form-factor (i.e., a low flat
> case) so you can put it in your stereo rack.
Indeed yes. And they all seem to be very expensive. I was wondering
whether the technology that goes into them is actually expensive itself,
or whether you're just paying to have something that works out of the box...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
While we're on the subject... If you wanted to, how hard is it to
connect a PC to a normal TV? (Obviously, PCs normally run at vastly
different scanrates and lack the propper connectors...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> While we're on the subject... If you wanted to, how hard is it to
> connect a PC to a normal TV? (Obviously, PCs normally run at vastly
> different scanrates and lack the propper connectors...)
I honestly can't believe you are such a computer nerd, yet so clueless
about basic PC hardware.
The only thing you need is a graphics card which supports video out,
and then you connect it to a TV (or VCR) which supports video in. I have
owned such a graphics card myself at one point.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I honestly can't believe you are such a computer nerd, yet so clueless
> about basic PC hardware.
Hey, nobody knows everything. ;-)
I know about processors and RAM and stuff, but exotic things like fancy
video processing or infrared communication are outside my experience.
> The only thing you need is a graphics card which supports video out,
> and then you connect it to a TV (or VCR) which supports video in. I have
> owned such a graphics card myself at one point.
I know my laptop has S-Video out on it. (While not really knowing what
S-Video is.) I was really astonished when I hooked my laptop up to the
TV; all the text was unreadably blurry. But then, I guess you normally
view a TV from the other side of the room, so why bother making it
produce a crisp image of something you can only see from a few feet away?
I was just wondering what it takes to connect a normal PC to a TV. It's
not something I've ever tried to do, or wanted to do, but I figured
somebody here would surely know the answer.
I know 20 years ago it required an expensive scanrate conversion box. I
haven't really looked at it since then.
(My dad claims his TV has a VGA input socket. But then, I suppose it is
an LCD, so multiple scanrates probably isn't an issue...)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I know my laptop has S-Video out on it. (While not really knowing what
> S-Video is.) I was really astonished when I hooked my laptop up to the
> TV; all the text was unreadably blurry.
Well, that's the problem with TVs (and PAL/NTSC). There's little that
can be done about it (although the quality if the video out chip in the
graphics card can help some).
> I was just wondering what it takes to connect a normal PC to a TV.
A device which converts VGA to video signal.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:21:14 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> While we're on the subject... If you wanted to, how hard is it to
> connect a PC to a normal TV? (Obviously, PCs normally run at vastly
> different scanrates and lack the propper connectors...)
Depends on your videocard. My laptop has an S=Video out, so usually I
just have to plug it in.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:11:57 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> I know my laptop has S-Video out on it. (While not really knowing what
> S-Video is.) I was really astonished when I hooked my laptop up to the
> TV; all the text was unreadably blurry. But then, I guess you normally
> view a TV from the other side of the room, so why bother making it
> produce a crisp image of something you can only see from a few feet
> away?
I have to disagree with Warp - I don't believe this is not an NTSC vs.
PAL issue; NTSC and PAL signaling are different enough that the image
would appear corrupted (different number of lines, different scanrate,
etc) and would flicker a lot (PAL is 25 fps, NTSC is 29.97 fps).
That said, you should have settings in the video drivers to select the
output format, or there should be a utility to switch it.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:08:05 -0000, Jim Henderson
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:21:14 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>
>> While we're on the subject... If you wanted to, how hard is it to
>> connect a PC to a normal TV? (Obviously, PCs normally run at vastly
>> different scanrates and lack the propper connectors...)
>
> Depends on your videocard. My laptop has an S=Video out, so usually
I
> just have to plug it in.
A friend of mine was having fun trying to do that with his laptop, no
picture. Faffing with the video drivers, no picture. Turned out he neede
d
to invoke the secret Fn+Fx key combination to switch screens. After some
pointers I think he ended up with a dual monitor setup so he could set t
he
resolution of the TV independently from his laptop screen.
--
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 Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:37:19 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
> And lo on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:08:05 -0000, Jim Henderson
> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 09:21:14 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> While we're on the subject... If you wanted to, how hard is it to
>>> connect a PC to a normal TV? (Obviously, PCs normally run at vastly
>>> different scanrates and lack the propper connectors...)
>>
>> Depends on your videocard. My laptop has an S=Video out, so usually I
>> just have to plug it in.
>
> A friend of mine was having fun trying to do that with his laptop, no
> picture. Faffing with the video drivers, no picture. Turned out he
> needed to invoke the secret Fn+Fx key combination to switch screens.
> After some pointers I think he ended up with a dual monitor setup so he
> could set the resolution of the TV independently from his laptop screen.
Yeah, often times there is a key combination to get it turned on.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:478dcc8b$1@news.povray.org...
> While we're on the subject... If you wanted to, how hard is it to
> connect a PC to a normal TV? (Obviously, PCs normally run at vastly
> different scanrates and lack the propper connectors...)
Not hard. With modern TVs aand computers all you probably need is a cable.
I've got one in the cupboard that plugs into a standard VGA socket and then
into a TV's video in. Can't remember where I got it from.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> whether the technology that goes into them is actually expensive itself,
Not in the US at least. Look up "tv capture card". I got a full-blown
system, 300G drive, 1G ram, dual core 3GHz machine with dual tuner card
and hardware mpeg, fairly high-end video card (Radeon whatever) 7.1
surround sound yadda yadda for just under $1000.
The tuner cards themselves are anywhere from $50 to $150 depending on
how many channels they can tune at once, whether they have hardware mpeg
support, etc.
If you're commenting on the horizontal boxes, they're a bit more
expensive than a tower, but the tech inside is identical, including the
motherboards and all that. It's just rearranged inside to fit.
> or whether you're just paying to have something that works out of the
> box...
Well, certainly that too.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I know my laptop has S-Video out on it.
That's what you need to hook it up. Or "composite", which is a yellow
RCA plug. (S-Video carries the color and luminescense on different
lines, or something like that. Somewhat better, but not a lot.)
> I was really astonished when I hooked my laptop up to the
> TV; all the text was unreadably blurry.
That's the TV. If you shop around for a TV that's clear, you can read
80x24 on it pretty easily.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> I have to disagree with Warp - I don't believe this is not an NTSC vs.
> PAL issue
I didn't mean to say it's an NTSC vs PAL issue, but that the NTSC/PAL
standards suck for high-definition images.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Yeah, often times there is a key combination to get it turned on.
But usually it's clearly marked. And, usually, you can do it from the
video driver settings too...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <478da781$1@news.povray.org>, dne### [at] sanrrcom says...
> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> > So, given a typical PC, how much would it actually cost to equip it suc
h
> > that you can record and play back TV with it? What actual hardware and
> > software does this require?
>
> For Windows, a couple hundred bucks for the capture card and "Windows
> Media Center" (aka MCE), or a more recent version of Windows. That's
> pretty much what Media Center does, along with showing pictures and
> music and stuff like that. It also talks to Xboxes and "media extenders"
> so you can network it thru your house like AppleTV does.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Center
>
> There's also MythTV if you want to do it with Linux, don't mind the
> typical expert-tolerant Linux type interfaces, and don't mind stealing
> the TV listings. (Or have they fixed that lately?)
>
One of the more popular systems for Windows is BeyondTV. You also get
the ability to tell their system, "Record all new episodes of X", and it
will automatically schedule them. I **do** suggest that, no matter what
you use, you set it up on its own dedicated PC. While ones recorded on
mine, and its not that bad of a system, are mostly watchable, if I am
doing anything that requires disk access or CPU use, it can fowl up the
recording, making it play back poorly (or having it not play back
watchable at all). I have no idea how well Media Center works for doing
this, but you ***won't*** find it listed as a good alternative on *any*
site dedicated to TV capture cards. Take from that what ever you want.
;)
> Most capture cards come with some form of primitive Windows software for
> doing this.
>
Don't get ATI though. The software a) didn't work when installed (not
compatible with the motherboard), b) let you watch, when the update
**finally** became available to patch it, but then wouldn't record and
c) their TV program scheduler is handled by a third party, which hasn't
released an updated version since like 90 versions ago of ATIs media
center software, so it won't show the mini-view of the channel, its not
integrated very well, and it will "look like" its set up to record, but
it won't, since a different bug prevents that. Mind you, this is on
"my" system. Some people get it to work... Fact is though, unless AMD
has redone it, now that they have ATI, their software is garbage.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> One of the more popular systems for Windows is BeyondTV. You also get
> the ability to tell their system, "Record all new episodes of X", and it
> will automatically schedule them.
Media Center does something like that. (I.e., it might not do the same
thing, but it does something you could describe the way you just
described it.)
> I **do** suggest that, no matter what
> you use, you set it up on its own dedicated PC.
Yah. Actually, I don't watch that much TV, so I'll often run bittorrent
there or POV or something. Running something that doesn't blast the CPU
or disk much, or which hits the CPU but is set to run at a lower
priority, and it seems to be fine.
> I have no idea how well Media Center works for doing
> this, but you ***won't*** find it listed as a good alternative on *any*
> site dedicated to TV capture cards. Take from that what ever you want.
I don't have any complaints about mediacenter itself. The hardware I
bought seems pretty sucky, but the actual mediacenter program itself
works fine for me. And it's quite easy to use.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> While we're on the subject... If you wanted to, how hard is it to connect
> a PC to a normal TV? (Obviously, PCs normally run at vastly different
> scanrates and lack the propper connectors...)
If you have a DVI output and a modern TV with HDMI input, then you simply
buy the correct cable which is about 10 quid. DVI and HDMI are electrically
the same, just different connectors (plus HDMI can include digital audio).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> So, given a typical PC, how much would it actually cost to equip it such
> that you can record and play back TV with it? What actual hardware and
> software does this require?
Search Amazon.co.uk for "DVB-T". That will sort you out in the UK at least
for the hardware.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> While we're on the subject... If you wanted to, how hard is it to
>> connect a PC to a normal TV? (Obviously, PCs normally run at vastly
>> different scanrates and lack the propper connectors...)
>
> If you have a DVI output and a modern TV with HDMI input, then you
> simply buy the correct cable which is about 10 quid. DVI and HDMI are
> electrically the same, just different connectors (plus HDMI can include
> digital audio).
Nobody I know of has a TV this new. However, my latest video card does
have DVI output. (Fortunately it comes with a DVI to VGA adaptor, so I
can still plug it in to my monitor and get a picture...)
Actually, for that matter, my dad can use DVI or VGA with his PC, and
there doesn't appear to be a significant difference...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:09:08 -0000, Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull>
did spake, saying:
>> Yeah, often times there is a key combination to get it turned on.
>
> But usually it's clearly marked.
Yeah IIRC a picture of two squares representing monitors. Fine if
understand that. Though saying that someone I know has a laptop with an
unmarked Bluetooth toggle which he has to remember.
> And, usually, you can do it from the video driver settings too...
Provided you know how to get into the video driver settings.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
>> And, usually, you can do it from the video driver settings too...
>
> Provided you know how to get into the video driver settings.
Most laptops I've seen have a big icon in the system tray that won't go
away. When you click it, it gives you a menu that lets you instantly
change resolution, colour depth, etc., without going through the whole
settings dialog. Usually switching output is one of the very big,
unmissable options.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:40:37 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did
spake, saying:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I have to disagree with Warp - I don't believe this is not an NTSC vs.
>> PAL issue
>
> I didn't mean to say it's an NTSC vs PAL issue, but that the NTSC/PAL
> standards suck for high-definition images.
Good job they don't use them for true-HD broadcasts then.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> (My dad claims his TV has a VGA input socket. But then, I suppose it is an
> LCD, so multiple scanrates probably isn't an issue...)
Well actually an LCD only uses 1 or 2 scanrates (usually 50 and/or 60 Hz),
the difference is that an LCD will include sophisticated DSP functionality
and a frame-buffer anyway, so scan-rate conversion comes almost for free.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> (My dad claims his TV has a VGA input socket. But then, I suppose it
>> is an LCD, so multiple scanrates probably isn't an issue...)
>
> Well actually an LCD only uses 1 or 2 scanrates (usually 50 and/or 60
> Hz),
Well, that's true...
> the difference is that an LCD will include sophisticated DSP
> functionality and a frame-buffer anyway, so scan-rate conversion comes
> almost for free.
...which is the part I was getting at.
BTW, is it true that an LCD is matrix addressible? (i.e., all the pixels
can be changed exactly simultaneously.)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> BTW, is it true that an LCD is matrix addressible? (i.e., all the pixels
> can be changed exactly simultaneously.)
You can only change a line at a time. You charge up all the "column" wires
to what voltage you want, then power up the row line which opens all the
transistors inside every sub-pixel on that row, hence they all the get the
voltage you wanted. You then turn off that row (and hence the transistors
close) and the sub-pixels remember their voltages until you come round next
frame. You can only do this process one row at a time.
So yes, it's matrix addressable, but no you can't change all the pixels
exactly at the same time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> BTW, is it true that an LCD is matrix addressible? (i.e., all the
>> pixels can be changed exactly simultaneously.)
>
> You can only change a line at a time. You charge up all the "column"
> wires to what voltage you want, then power up the row line which opens
> all the transistors inside every sub-pixel on that row, hence they all
> the get the voltage you wanted. You then turn off that row (and hence
> the transistors close) and the sub-pixels remember their voltages until
> you come round next frame. You can only do this process one row at a time.
>
> So yes, it's matrix addressable, but no you can't change all the pixels
> exactly at the same time.
I see...
For what it's worth, does "TFT" actually mean something? Or is it just a
marketing term that means "hey, this screen is great!!!1!1 please buy
me!!1"?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>
> For what it's worth, does "TFT" actually mean something? Or is it just a
> marketing term that means "hey, this screen is great!!!1!1 please buy
> me!!1"?
*T*hin *F*ilm *T*ransistor
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> For what it's worth, does "TFT" actually mean something? Or is it just a
> marketing term that means "hey, this screen is great!!!1!1 please buy
> me!!1"?
As Michael said, it is the type of transistor that is laid down onto the
glass in every sub-pixel. TFT is also called active matrix (ie each
sub-pixel is "active" because it has some control circuitry).
FWIW the opposite is passive matrix, which is basically a grid of wires,
with a layer of LC (and no electronics) between the X and Y grid lines.
Because LC needs above a certain voltage to work (let's say 5V), you can
apply +4V to each row in turn, and then a voltage between -1 and -5 V to
each column to set the brightness of just that row. If you do the frame
quick enough you can make a steady image, but then you get problems with
stray charge "spilling over" from one line to the next because there is no
time for voltages to settle.
There are numerous other problems with this method which makes it only
suitable for black and white displays or very low resolution colour displays
(eg low-end mobile phones). Any monitor or TV is going to be TFT.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook wrote:
> Yeah IIRC a picture of two squares representing monitors. Fine if
> understand that.
My god! You might need to read the instructions for the $1000 device you
just bought to use all it's functions!!
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Fri, 18 Jan 2008 03:18:18 -0000, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom>
did spake, saying:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>> Yeah IIRC a picture of two squares representing monitors. Fine if
>> understand that.
>
> My god! You might need to read the instructions for the $1000 device you
> just bought to use all it's functions!!
Yeah crazy ain't it.
Except some people do read the instructions, but six months later need to
do something they've forgotten the function for and then have to locate
the manual, which by this time had migrated to the back of some drawer or
been accidently thrown out with some rubbish.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> whether the technology that goes into them is actually expensive itself,
>
> Not in the US at least. Look up "tv capture card". I got a full-blown
> system, 300G drive, 1G ram, dual core 3GHz machine with dual tuner card
> and hardware mpeg, fairly high-end video card (Radeon whatever) 7.1
> surround sound yadda yadda for just under $1000.
We must have vastly different notions on what constitutes expensive.
--
"I owe, I owe, so it's off to work I go!" - Bumper Sticker
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> The only thing you need is a graphics card which supports video out,
> and then you connect it to a TV (or VCR) which supports video in. I have
> owned such a graphics card myself at one point.
And proper video card drivers. Take it from a Linux user who's suffered
on this issue.
--
"I owe, I owe, so it's off to work I go!" - Bumper Sticker
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 13:40:37 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I have to disagree with Warp - I don't believe this is not an NTSC vs.
>> PAL issue
>
> I didn't mean to say it's an NTSC vs PAL issue, but that the NTSC/PAL
> standards suck for high-definition images.
Oh, I see - I misread - and I agree, I get the same kind of blurriness
Andy mentioned on my NTSC TV here.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:09:08 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> But usually it's clearly marked. And, usually, you can do it from the
> video driver settings too...
"Usually" being the key...(pun not intended)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>> whether the technology that goes into them is actually expensive itself,
>> Not in the US at least. Look up "tv capture card". I got a full-blown
>> system, 300G drive, 1G ram, dual core 3GHz machine with dual tuner card
>> and hardware mpeg, fairly high-end video card (Radeon whatever) 7.1
>> surround sound yadda yadda for just under $1000.
>
> We must have vastly different notions on what constitutes expensive.
Likely. I've been a professional computer programmer for 30 years. I
don't mind spending money to get a decent system that fits my needs.
On the other hand, the TV it's plugged into is probably 15 years old at
this point. I buy quality stuff when I can.
Relatively speaking, you pile up all the hardware together, it's pretty
inexpensive for the machine it is. If you bought all the parts
individually and left out the tuner card, it would be more than $1000.
It's a pretty high-end tuner card, too. (I'm assuming you're saying
$1000 would be expensive regardless of the machine it buys. The machine
has a bunch of stuff in it I didn't list.)
A bottom-of-the-line machine from Wal-mart in the same time period was
some $300 or $400 without any OS/software on it, no DVD drive, etc.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
It's not feature creep if you put it
at the end and adjust the release date.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New escribió:
> Most capture cards come with some form of primitive Windows software for
> doing this.
Mine does. But then I noticed it also installed a plain old Video for
Windows driver, so I can capture just using VirtualDub; the same program
I use to convert bunches of PNGs (fresh out of POV-Ray) into video
files. It's a lot better than using the crappy included software.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escribió:
> I honestly can't believe you are such a computer nerd, yet so clueless
> about basic PC hardware.
I honestly can't believe I'm 17 and I would be able to answer these
questions.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <4797fbdb$1@news.povray.org>,
nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom says...
> Darren New escribió:
> > Most capture cards come with some form of primitive Windows software fo
r
> > doing this.
>
> Mine does. But then I noticed it also installed a plain old Video for
> Windows driver, so I can capture just using VirtualDub; the same program
> I use to convert bunches of PNGs (fresh out of POV-Ray) into video
> files. It's a lot better than using the crappy included software.
>
Wow! Didn't know it could do that. Mind you, the display look crappy,
with a lot of lines through it, so it doesn't "look" like its going to
come out too well (even if the result might be OK), but I guess I really
need to look into what that program actually does...
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
