Record HDTV To A FireWire DV Deck

no_such_user writes: "This is a kit to modify your DTC-100 HDTV receiver, adding firewire ports to it, and letting you record to most firewire recording devices (including miniDV/D8 camcorders/decks, your computer, etc). Playback is through the DTC-100 only (until some crafty hacker-type decides to decode the stream for PC playback). Unfortunately, I see "patent pending" on their site. I hope they're referring to the hardware design used, and not the idea of protocol converter, 'cuz I think that's been done before. For reference, a broadcast HD stream is max 20mb/s, and miniDV records at 25mb/s. How long before we see HDminiDV?"

Comments

Re:found the link and price

[Anonymous Coward]

I found the link:
http://www.jvc.ca/en/consumer/product-detail.asp ?m odel=HR-DVS1U
and here is the correct model # HRDVS1U
Price is about $ 1699.00 based on the web site.

Re:Html

[Anonymous Coward]

The html is fine, we just need to fix our browsers, remember?

Re:Danger, Will Robinson!

[Anonymous Coward]

Crimonitly, can't a guy start selling hardware mods out of his garage anymore, he's got to incorporate, hire a web design firm, get a credit card merchant account or something? Cut the guy a slackburger with cheese. It's not like he's one of these guys trying to pass off their home as a business address by calling their apartment a "suite."

Violating Content Providers' Rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Why must the Slashdot crowd constantly think of ways to get around protections put in place to allow content providers to exercise their rights to control their works?

Sure, you may wish to record that Simpsons episode or HDTV-format football game for later. The content provider, however, may not wish to give you that right. It seems stingy, but if you wish to have the right to force GPL code to remain open, you must allow others the right to keep their work closed and rare.

The DMCA does have a good purpose. It's all about ensuring creators and providers can exercise their rights, whether they wish to be open or restrictive. The common knee-jerk reaction against laws such as this, and in support of "harmless" infringement (oh, but don't infringe on the GPL!), is more like the crying of warez kiddiez and Napster leeches, crying about "free" software and "free" music, while sitting at computers purchased by parents with jobs, likely made secure by the very intellectual property rights they wish to violate on a regular basis. How hypocritical.

Re:Violating Content Providers' Rights

[cpt kangarooski]

Boy is this quite a troll. Still, it's dangerous to let these sorts of attitudes foster. Ignoring it isn't going to make it go away.

So...
Firstly, copyright does not exist in the US, unless Congress passes a law permitting it; such a law has to comply to the Copyright Clause of the Constitution and also exists in tension with the First Amendment. The Copyright Clause (CC) is a utilitarian power of Congress. Never in US history (even IIRC when we were British colonies and the Statute of Anne applied) has copyright been a natural law. That is, authors are not entitled to copyright by virtue of authorship. In other countries natural law systems do exist, and imply that even in a lawless environment authors still are entitled to control how others use their works. (though that's a good example of fuzzy thinking IMHO)

There are three provisions in the CC. First that copyright is only permitted to exist should it promote the progress of the arts and sciences. Second, that it should only be given to the author. (though it is accepted that the author can later transfer it to other parties) Third, that the copyright last for a limited time.

If anything blasts apart the misconception that the US has or could have, barring an amendment, a natural law copyright scheme the first and third do. Natural rights don't have to benefit society, and don't ever go away.

Anyway, among the wide body of people who consider the DMCA unconstitutional, one of the common opinions is this:

It still maintains the principle that it is ENTIRELY possible to use copyrighted works without the permission of the author, in ways that the author is vehemently against, make copies under certain circumstances w/o permission. This is explicit.

Yet at the same time, it makes it illegal to access the work (obviously a prerequisite to do any of those things) w/o permission.

Not only does access not involve the making of copies or other forms of wide dissemination of the work, thus placing outside of the scope of copyright, but it is in total conflict with the principles of property ownership (that you can do whatever you want with a legally purchased DVD other than, loosely, copy or publicly display it), contract law (implying that a contract was implicitly formed when this is pretty clearly not the case or the buyer's intention), fair use (which derives from the First Amendment and CC and cannot be created or destroyed by Congress, though they have chosen to recognize it), and even some of it's own language.

Phew! And I've probably forgotten one or two things from that laundry list, because it's pretty late here.

Freedom of speech and the freedom of the press necessarily imply a freedom to listen. Do you have free speech if the police force you to speak freely in a jail cell? Or arrest people for listening to what you have to say?

No. This is patently not the case. Furthermore, some forms of free speech require the usage of other content. Reviews. Parodies. Quotation. Education. These have higher social priorities than copyright, and the courts have said so (as if the requirement that it promote progress wasn't good enough) again and again. That's the facts, Jack.

Authors have the power not to sell works to people. And they have the power (loosely speaking again - there are exceptions a'plenty) to make copies. That's about it. And the latter only for a limited time.

They have no real control over what others may do with their work once it leaves their hands, save for public showings and the making of some copies, sometimes, maybe.

Personally, I don't mind SOME copyright. But I can't tolerate the copyright we're stuck with right now. It's oppressive, and pretty likely unconstitutional.

And in this great nation, the author only gets the privelege of copyright when it serves the social uses that the populace puts it to. And the people don't enjoy reading or watching or listening at the sufference of the government. If they bought it, they can read it.

Rebuttal?

Re:Violating Content Providers' Rights

[Pope Slackman]

Why must the Slashdot crowd constantly think of ways to get around protections put in place to allow content providers to exercise their rights to control their works?

If it's broadcast, and I can recieve it on my hardware, I'll do whatever the fuck I want with it - even if that means disabling consumer-hostile technologies.

I don't care about their synthetic, legislated 'rights', if they broadcast it, I have the natural right to recieve the signal and do with it what I like, whether that means capturing it, decoding it, or just watching it.

I did not ask for their signals to be broadcast to me, so they have no right to tell me what I can do
with that signal, provided I'm not distributing/profiting from the works modulated into it.
(Which would be violating pre-DMCA copyright laws)
It's almost like the Cue Cat crap; if you send me something I didn't request, nor pay for, what right do you have to get pissy about what I do with it?

Besides, time-shifting has been a right VCR owners have had for over a decade...
Why should new hardware suddenly nullify this right?

Oh, and to be honest, I don't care about the GPL.
I usually work under the BSD license, which basically just mandates I be credited for my work.

Mod me down, I've got gobs of karma.
--K

Re:Violating Content Providers' Rights

[Stealth Dave]

>Why must the Slashdot crowd constantly think of ways to get around protections put in place
>to allow content providers to exercise their rights to control their works?

Perhaps it's because the content providers give up that right when the program is broadcast. At least that's what the Supreme Court told us when they made the Beta-max decision all those years ago.

The Beta-max decision was the proverbial genie in the bottle. The courts let that genie out, and ever since then people have been using VCRs to record their favorite shows at 8pm so that they can watch them when they get home from their daughter's dance recital at 10pm. But content providers want you to watch their programs when they want you to for various reasons, among them getting you to watch the commercials rather than fast-forward through them and also for demographic control. Different people watch television at different times, and content programmers use that information to sell commercials demographically.

But now with fundamentally new media technology beginning to come out, media groups such as the MPAA, RIAA, broadcasters and cable providers (sorry, I don't know their acronyms) have learned from their past mistakes about letting things get too far along, and are fighting tooth and nail to keep the VCR genie's big brother, Digital Video, from escaping his bottle. The tools they use are encryption, proprietary formats that require strict licensing agreements (DVD-CCA), and a very big stick called the DMCA.

Of course they don't want to lose control again! Controlling information can make you a lot of money, and big corporations have to make money or they won't be big corporations for very long. But just because they want absolute control over media (and have the tools to enforce it), doesn't mean that they have the right to absolute control.

So when someone figures out how at least some consumers (in this case the tech-savvy crowd) can get back those rights, it's reason enough for a small cheer. Do they have the right to make money with their products? Of course they do. Big studio movies and network television programs wouldn't be made if they couldn't make a profit at it. Do they have the right to control when and where that content gets viewed? Within limits. When you go to see a movie, you're not allowed to take a camcorder in so you can watch it later. But if they beam it into your house or sell it to you on a tape or a disc, they give up some of their control. They can't tell you when, where or how you can watch it; they gave up those rights when the program was broadcast over public airwaves.

So here's to the geeks. Thanks for giving me back my TV. Because it's still my TV, even if it's got an HD in front of it.

Stick a fork in me. I'm done.
- Stealth Dave

--

Re:Violating Content Providers' Rights

[ender's_shadow]

what the anarchist media-sharing community has to say to you, sir: we don't give a fuck. we are not the writers of gpl code, we don't give a fuck about licenses. And we don't think the artists do either. And if they do care, then they're not really artists. But that's not necessarily think (at least not all the time that is).

Re:Violating Content Providers' Rights

[RatFink18]

And you'll be violating the providers' rights. Deal with it.

Consumers are getting their fair use rights violated by the providers. Who's rights are worth more?

like "copyright"? That little thing that lets the BSD license have any legal force?

Copyright cannot stop you from making duplicate copies of a copyrighter work so long as it falls under fair use. Time Shifting for as long as I have known is fair use. There really is no comparison to the original poster's BSD work.

It's their bundle of rights to hand out as they wish, and if they don't want you, in particular, to record or even receive such material, that's your problem. It's simple, really; comply with the provider's terms, or just don't use the material.

The flaw in this statement is that broadcasters transmit radio waves onto your property regardless of you accepting terms of a license or not. Those waves once entering your property become your property. Much like receiving an unsolicited CD from AOL. You can extract the broadcast from the signal if you wish and do whatever you like with it so long as it complies with fair use.

Re:Violating Content Providers' Rights

[b0r1s_7h3_h4x0r]

The content provider, however, may not wish to give you that right

Too bad. Our rights are not dictated by the desires of the content provider.

See the Supreme Court's ruling in Sony vs. Betamax.

3v1l_b0r1s at d4rkr0ck d0t c0 d0t uk

Re:Violating Content Providers' Rights

[b0r1s_7h3_h4x0r]

Grr.. Sony vs Universal Studios.. AKA the Betamax decision. Why must I type so badly when flaming at a troll mindlessly?
3v1l_b0r1s at d4rkr0ck d0t c0 d0t uk

How is that?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is what this guy is doing wrong? Is it illegal to supplement your car enging with a supercharger? Hell no. I can't believe you have been brainwashed by the big business machine. Repeat after me...

It is not illegal to copy software/videos/music/etc. It is illegal to give or sell such copies to anyone else without permission. I am allowed to make backup copies of any software/videos/music/etc. that I own.

Jeez, if I have a CD and decide to rip the disk to MP3 and listen to it on my portable player, that is LEGAL COPYING. If I trash the CD and give my neighbor the MP3, that is also a legal copy. I have simply transfered the rights of the meida to someone else.

You know, I bet you think it is wrong to record a TV show and watch it later with a neighbor. Oh GOD, better go after TiVo, Sony, Phillips, and every other company making recordable devices.

Re:How is that?

[LocalH]

• Quite frankly, I don't blame them, either. I wouldn't want to spend thousands of dollars on a TV show just to have some punk kid record it and 'share' it with a few thousand of his closest friends. The copies that are now in peoples possession are lost income for the industry- they could have been sold to people for profit.

Oh, yeah. When was the last time you bought a show from the owner just because you missed it? You probably called up a friend and asked, "Hey, did you tape <whatever> last night? You did? Lemme borrow it!"

I guess that all free, unfettered, unsanctioned digital video tools should now be illegal, since I can use bbMPEG and VirtualDub to edit and recompress a show, all to send it out 'willy-nilly' over the net!
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT

Re:How is that?

[maxmutt]

You are making assumptions, that even if they were correct, are pointless. Digital = copies everywhere? Why? all that is need is one copy and it can be everywhere with streaming, the number of copies is irrelevent to be everywhere. It's the distribution of the contenet that is illegal, not the copies. So what's needed is distribution protections not copy protections.

You see one slippery slope and fail to see the other more worriesome one, placing profits and income over individual rights.

Thank you for pointing out how old premises and assumptions fail to understand current technologies adn how those technoloiges must be used to fullfill the requirments that created those old assumptions.

Re:How is that?

[Burgundy Advocate]

This is talking about how you will be able to stream it to a computer. To a digital format. Digital will always mean that it can be turned into a format that is easy to redistribute. Meaning that the content is going to be everywhere- not a legal, fair-use recording of it, an illegal copy. So, the recording industry will have to put copy-protection. It's just a short, slippery slope away, and we'll all suffer from it.

I think that people should be able to make recordings for their own use. But making something available everywhere (like napster or gnutella) makes for stricter control by the content provider. (SDMI, anyone?)

Quite frankly, I don't blame them, either. I wouldn't want to spend thousands of dollars on a TV show just to have some punk kid record it and 'share' it with a few thousand of his closest friends. The copies that are now in peoples possession are lost income for the industry- they could have been sold to people for profit.

Or do you believe that 'all information and should be free'? Heh. Right.

What about my right...

[Anonymous Coward]

What about my right to time shift and reverse engineer? They cannot legally take these rights away so they invent this bullsh*t DMCA and put it in the hands of technology. Screw them. If I want to record the SuperBowl and then watch it later, I have that right. I'm not profitting from this. I'm not violating their copyright on their broadcast. I pray that they get hit by a virus and loose all their damn encryption keys. That will teach them to muck with my rights.

Same thing goes for those bastards who keep screwing with DVDs and CSS. Thanks to them, I have major problems getting XMen to work on my first generation RCA DVD player. Explain to me why a legal DVD played on a legal player should not work. It pisses me off that I have to keep ejecting and inserting the DVD until the player finally realizes that it is an acutal DVD and can play it. As soon as I get the chance, I'm going to rip all my DVDs and record them unencrypted. Violating their rights, hell no. I'm allowed to make backup copies.

Feel free to let big business and the government keep circumventing their own laws and your rights. When they come knocking on your door because of thought crimes, or better yet, crimes you haven't committed but may in the future, it is your own damn fault.

Remember, every little piece of rights they chip away makes it harder to regain all of our rights back.

Re:What about my right...

[Big Boss]

You sir, are a troll. You can think whatever you want, but the Supreme Court disagrees. And I think thier opinion means more than yours. See the Betamax case for the reality of the sitation.

Copyright law is supposed to be tempered by a concept called "Fair Use". The short version means that you are allowed to make copies for personal use provided you do not distribute said copies. This is why VCRs and TiVos are LEGAL. Just because the signal is now digital, the reality does not change. You are still allowed to make copies for personal use without distributing them. Why else would CD-R be legal? Hmmmmm??? Same thing with my DishPlayer actually, I get a digital signal from the satelite that gets recorded to the internal HD without any conversion. Yes, that's right, basicly the little brother to an HDTV version. The only difference is the bitrate. This is also quite legal. Note, I can record PPV, Premium, and normal chanels with it. With full 5.1 suround sound if it's there. I do this ALL THE TIME. This is because I frequently miss my favorite shows and this lets me record them for later viewing. Just like my VCR used to. This does not violate anyone's rights.

Now, if I were to make a copy and put it on the net for people to download, then I would be in violation of Copyright law. At that point, I am open to prosecution as is anyone who downloaded it I believe. Although that is touchy since they may have a legit copy. For example, if I download "Angel" by Aerosmith from Napster I'm legal. Why? Because I own 2 CDs with that track. Downloading just saved me the time to rip/encode it myself. This is called space-shifting. I can put the content on other media as long as I do not give it to others. The guy I downloaded from may be in violation, but I'm ok.

Yes, the pirates will be out in force distributing the content. However, look at software for a good example of how this works. Microsoft software is probably the most pirated in the world. Yet they make TONS of money and Bill Gates is the richest man in the world last I saw. Yes, stealing is wrong. On that we agree. But it's not that big a deal on the bottom line of the multinationals. They complained and threw a fit over the VCR when it came out. How it was going to be the end of movies and TV. Now they make more money from VHS than they do on Theatres! People can copy those tapes and yet they still buy them instead. I can go download MPG4 movies, yet I go buy the DVD.

Copy protection doesn't work. That has been proven time and time again. It gets cracked and the only people who suffer are the legal purchasers of the product. The pirates will get around it, it doesn't even slow them down. DMCA is worthless as well since it won't matter to them. If they are willing to steal it, they are willing to violate DMCA. Again, it targets the people who aren't likley to distribute anyway. Does this mean we throw out Copyright? No, of course not. It just means we should keep it sane. We need to keep the balance of power even. It's tipping too far in favor of the corps for my taste.

Re:What the fuck.

[dieman]

Because a new technology can do wrong, should we abolish that technology? Why do we keep guns in the hands of evil, childish, people, who can't possibly control themselves from handling that technology.

Oh, come on. Take a pill.

Grass Valley address might make it legit

[A nonymous Coward]

Grass Valley Group, who manufacture lots of TV equipment, are in Grass Valley. They were bought up by Tektronics, then I think spun off again. Haven't kept track of them for several years; they were doing HDTV work last time I visited a friend who worked there. These could well be some engineers doing their own work, or a spin off, or ...

--

Re:How I think this will all work out...

[PhilosopherKing]

This also implies you need a "Master" on the system, one of those machines will be in control and all the others slaves. Not necc. bad, but can be a pain since you wont be able to VCR-to-VCR, or whatever dominates. There is no reserving of bandwidth with USB, so expect burps. Since USB hubs are repeaters you send the signal everywhere. With Firewire, you don't need hubs as the signal is bandwidth reserved and automatically routed, not propagating along any paths that are uneccasary. Another nice thing about Firewire is all devices are peers, you DVD can talk to the Console, while the VCR talks to the Stereo, and no one device is needed to mediate it.

I'm Sorry...

[waldoj]

What was the link again?

Re:Other converter boxes

[Detritus]

Are there better / cheaper converters out there that could probably use this?

Better? Probably. Cheaper? No.

The DTC-100 is the cheapest HDTV receiver on the market right now. Panasonic has a second generation receiver, but it is twice as expensive as the DTC-100. I doubt that the board would work in anything other than a DTC-100.

The DTC-100, like other first generation ATSC receivers, has severe problems dealing with multipath (ghosts on analog TV).

Re:How I think this will all work out...

[Detritus]

USB is too slow for HDTV. You need about 19 megabit/sec of bandwidth for 1080i HDTV.

one honest question

[Lumpy]

Exactly how many of you actually own a HDTV capable television? Last time I looked at the things thay wanted $13,000.00USD for a display without the tuner. another $1000.00 for the tuner. This was the Merantz product and the Phillips unit was the same price. I told the salesman that they were nuts trying to sell it, and hge responded that they have sold 0 units to date (This is the largest HDTV dealer in Western Michigan)

The prices of the televisions are insane, and the other items like a HDTV capable VCR or a DVD player that will output a HDTV capable signal are also insanely priced.

Do they really expect the consumer to adopt this "for the filthy rich only" standard?
(Note: I'd pay $700.00 for a decent VCR, and I paid $900.00 for my DVD player. But $3800.00 is nuts.)

But out here in the real world...

[n6mod]

REAL HD is limited to 19.4Mb/s for broadcast, because that's what the 8VSB transport can carry. Uncompressed HD can be ungodly huge, but that has nothing to do with broadcast or CATV, only studios and post.

As you point out, uncompressed SD is 270Mb/s, but remember that REAL SD is 6MHz wide, and you're not going to tell me that AM and ColorBurst gets you 45 bits/Hz.

You broadcast guys should pay attention to what happens when your signal leaves the studio. It's a jungle out here.

HD MiniDV isn't limited by the encoder...

[n6mod]

First of all, all of these devices are recording the compressed stream, not doing reltime encoding. This works just like the once-and-future DVHS decks, and the Panasonic PV-HD1000 would happily record HD MPEG2.

Camcorders are a different problem, and Apotsy is quite correct that realtime MPEG2 is harder than the DV codec, which is essentially JPEG with some interleaving to distribute tape dropouts.

That said, realtime MPEG2 is very real, and has been for some time now. In recent memory, realtime MPEG2 was expensive ($50k and 2RU in '98, $5k on a PCI card more recently) but Sony has recently released a MiniDisc camcorder that does MPEG2 encoding. MSRP is $2499, but the first MiniDV cameras cost that two years ago too.

The reason you won't find HD MiniDV anytime soon is that until the HD sets break out of the volume/price chicken-and-egg problem, you won't be able to sell HD cameras, because nobody will have anything to watch the tapes on.

The 16 9 Time hack is beautiful because it produces a relatively open bitstream. But the Hollywood/Tokyo axis has another round of DVHS players coming...you thought DIVX was bad, wait until you get a load of DVI/HDCP.

Passes with flying colors...

[n6mod]

No problem.

First of all FireWire is 400Mb/s. Yes, you can run full, uncompressed SMPTE270 video over FireWire.

The worst-case broadcast bit rate for HD is 19.4Mb/s. HD is broadcast as MPEG2, so it is compressed up the ying-yang. So is Digital Cable/DSS. That 270Mb/s D1 tape gets squashed to 2-6Mb/s for that "Digital Picture" we pay so much for.

DV is usually 25Mb/s. (I say "usually", Panasonic DVCPRO has bit rates up to 100Mb/s, but that's somewhat non-standard)

My impression of the 16 9 Time product is that it encapsulates the HD bitstream in DV frames. A clever hack to be sure, but it's enough to make the DV decks happy.

As to doing data backup to your DSR-20, remember that tape has dropouts. You'd need to do a fair bit of FEC to make that backup useful. Also, the nature of video is such that all the design decisions for DV were made in favor of isochrony over data integrity. Better to let some blocks through than freeze for a few frames. This has been gone over here before, as well as on the linux1394 discussion lists.

Re:damn, you're an idiot

[LocalH]

• The livelihood of everyone involved in the creation and broadcasting of the signal. If you decide to h4x0r it, then the reprocussions will be bad for all of us- the people who earn their living from it, and us, the consumers of their product.

So content providers should be able to disable recording of off-air signals? Bullshit. The signal is free to anyone with an antenna, so the signal should be free to record. Time-shifting is a legal right that the Betamax case precedented. I can understand (somewhat) no recording off pay channels (HBO and the like) but not on free, off-air signals. That's just wrong.

• By copying into a digital format that can be distributed around the internet ad hoc, they have to make it secure so you can't just send your 5,000 closest friends copies. This is bad for everyone, since copy protection is a hassle at best, and makes it impossible to watch at worst (see: DVD region codes).

By copying into a digital format that can be edited and re-edited with no loss of quality, I can edit out commercials and have a nice library of The Simpsons on CD-R. Just because I want to record a signal esn't mean I'm automatically going to send it out to hundreds. Oh, and sure you can transfer this stuff over the net, but who really has that kind of bandwidth? Even recompressing with MPEG-4 results in largish file sizes - the average DivX-compressed movie is 600-700MB. Let's say that's two hours long. Therefore, a 30-minute show, sans-commercials (which usually comes out to about 22-23 minutes) will take up approximately 1/4th that (forgiving bitrate differences, keyframe intervals, etc) which means that one episode of The Simpsons will be roughly 150MB. Not easy to transfer, even with broadband (ever tried leeching stuff with a cable modem? Sure it's always on but it still takes a while). Now multiply that by the number of episodes out there and the number goes up exponentially.

Compressed digital video (and it's all usually compressed, unless you're working with a Video Toaster NT or other D1 equipment) is not small enough to shuttle over the net ad hoc. Hell, compressed digital audio is barely small enough.

Unless the content providers get the 10 foot long red hot poker out of their foot, they will kill HDTV. Nobody will spend the money for the quality if they can't timer-record Friends to watch after they get off work.
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT

Re:What the fuck.

[LocalH]

• What would be illegal, and very bad, is for someone to copy it and put it up on the internet. And just watch- it will happen. HDTV was never intended to have shows off of it canned and passed out on the net like acid at a phish concert.

So to prevent this, you're going to remove legal rights afforded to U.S. citizens by copyright law, all because some lamer sends out copies of last week's Survivor to his friends. Those friends probably have dial-up access (at best, DSL or cable) so it would literally take hours and hours to transfer 150-300MB files around.

It's funny - analog never had this type stuff (unless you count Macrovision, which is defeatable by a 'video stabilizer' or if you have access to one, a full fledged time-base corrector). And yet the content providers never bitched about people copying stuff and sending it out to any and all who want it (except at the very beginning when Sony released Betamax). All these so-called 'copy-protections' do is make it harder for the average Joe - not the wholesale pirate across the street - to do with the content what the law expressly permits.
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT

error in editorial comment, shocking really

[habib23]

Just for reference a broadcast HDTV is not "max 20Mb/s". This is apparently referencing the 19.4Mb/s compressed HD signal that is the "max" supported decode that most consumer HDTV's currently handle. REAL HD is a 1.5Gb/s uncompressed, though there are many compression levels beneath that. Hell, standard definition (SMPTE270)is 270Mb/s uncompressed over a dedicated lambda on the fiber. If you don't want to give the signal it's own lambda, it gets even larger if you want to encapsulate the signal in IP. ResearchChannel did just that, from Stanford to UWashington, over a year ago. (http://www.researchchannel.com/special/HDtech_9_2 2.html).

Sorry for the rant, I just couldn't let such a blatantly untrue statement pass by...

Danger, Will Robinson!

[Raetsel]

Something about this site bothers me. I can't put my finger on it exactly, but there are the tell-tales of something not quite right.

• Elementary web design (not that it's a crime.)
• Website hosted through an ISP account
  • Owner of the account is listed as (finger hdtv@oro.net)
    Login: hdtv
    Name: Richard Adams
    Directory: /home/hdtv
    Shell: /bin/bash
    Last login Sun Feb 4 12:36 (PST) on pts/5 from DX2-66.happypcs.oro.net
    No mail.
    No Plan.
    

Domain referred to (169time.com) brings an 'Unable to locate server' error, though it is registered to one Ambir Adams

• Domain registration lists an address of
  • 
    11969 Mathis Way
    Grass Valley, CA 95949
    
  
  
• But mail orders are going to
  • 
    12001 Mathis Way
    Grass Valley, CA 95949
    

Online orders only through PayPal?

No pictures of the device. Damn, this is a cool idea. I really wish this were true... but it screams " HOAX!! " even harder than the Seti@Home accelerator we saw a while back.

I pity the person who's going to have to pay the ISP bill when their website over-runs their allowed transfers for the month...

Re:Danger, Will Robinson!

[K8Fan]

Damn, this is a cool idea. I really wish this were true... but it screams " HOAX!!"

Understandable, but in this case the beta units have been in the hands of several of the most respected members of the AV Sciences Forum discussion group. This is a very high signal:noise group of home theater enthusiasts. They help each other out, party at trade shows, write excellent open-source software for video and other stuff. I'd have doubts too if these folks hadn't assured me that it is real, and works.

It's a hack, and a dammed clever one. Hopefully someone else will figure out how to interface the FireWire port this will add to the DTC-100 (and potentially any other HD reciever) to a FireWire card on a PC.

Re:I want...

[K8Fan]

Doesn't look like it is from one of the big manufacters, i.e. sony.

No, it's from a tiny group of engineers, hacking hardware. Brilliant idea...we've been discussing it over at the AV Sciences Forum web site for the past month or two.

this I think is going to be the start of a trend, people that make devices that intrest the "hacker" comunity due to some "hackability".

Agreed. I want this. They plan to make this technology available for other devices as well.

With things like the DMCA our only hope is going to be the guy in the garage that can get a blueprint to a manufacter in Asia making things like this that can be quikly altered. I bet you won't see sony making a HDTV recorder that uses any open standord connector i.e firewire

So pathetically true. The worst thing to ever happen to Sony was their purchase of Columbia/CBS. The vital Disney/Universal vs. Sony "Betamax" trial would have never happened if Sony had been in the movie business before. They are comprimised now. Panasonic made their DVHS recorder with a copy protection system, but the MPAA and it's thug Jack Valente pressured Panasonic to pull it from the market with the threat that MPAA member companies (all the big studios) would no longer buy Panasonic broadcast equipment.

They keep claiming this is about "copyright", but that is a lie. The 5C system the Panasonic DVHS had covered that perfectly well. This is about their desire to control what programs you can tape, how many time you can watch the tape, preventing you from fast-forwarding through the commercials (like the compulsary crap on DVDs) and preventing your from making copies.

Also, this is probably why Lucas is not releasing the Star Wars films on DVD. He wants to release it on this new DVHS system with horrible limitations, and per-viewing charges. Screw him and his greed.

This is DIVX all over again. Hollywood will not be happy until the "play" button is a "pay" button.

Re:How I think this will all work out...

[Xugumad]

Okay, yep, wasn't aware that much bandwidth was necessary. However, as has been pointed out, USB 2 is more than fast enough (at 480 MBits/second). While Firewire does provide the speed now (and Sony even has a hi-fi system that links together using Firewire), it is more expensive, and AFAIK there is no way of getting hubs for Firewire. Hubs, you see, would mean that it doesn't matter how many sockets your original hardware has, just buy a hub and you can plug as much as you want in!

Re:How I think this will all work out...

[Xugumad]

It would depend on what the box was set up to do. I'd have considered it relatively trivial to create a box that includes the ability to copy from one HD to another.

It does depend on what the manufactuers make the box do, but I'd be suprised if hacks (similar to multi-region for DVD) don't appear.

Re:More expensive? Yes, but not by much.

[Xugumad]

Brilliant, okay, Firewire then. However, I'm still not persuaded by the argument a few people have put forward that Firewire devices that can talk to each other are such a hot idea. This would require far more intelligence in each device than I feel is necessary.

For example, in my original model, a digital receiver simply sends the input stream it receives to whatever asks for it. In the alternative model, it has to be aware of hard drives, removable storage, displays, modems (or other network link) etc. Also, a central box can hold other hardware that it would be excessive to give individual Firewire connections too, such as an IR receiver.

How I think this will all work out...

[Xugumad]

Basically, everything is going digital. The flat displays (such as the ones discussed just a few stories ago) can take digital input, and material can easily be recorded digitally, so why should the content ever become analogue.

So, the material is recorded, encoded into MPEG or similar, and broadcast. You have a digital receiver, which receives the material, and then sends it over, say, USB cabling, into a control box, which seperates out the audio and visual, and sends them to the right system.

Now expand on this. You have a digital receiver, a hard drive (or two), a DVD-ROM drive, a control box, and a console. All items plug into a standard USB hub (possibly integrated into the control box).

To play a game, you put a DVD into the drive, and the console then contacts the DVD-ROM drive directly, pulling data off as necessary.

To play a DVD, you put the DVD into the same drive, and hit play on your remote control (which is linked to the control box).

TiVo functionality is built into the same box, which automatically detects HDs it can access, and all it has to do to record data is copy the incoming MPEG stream to the HD.

Very little duplication of components, and absolutely no loss of image/audio quality.

Oh, and yes, Firewire would work perfectly well in place of USB, although USB is cheaper and should do the job fine I feel. And before someone says that manufacturers could never be persuaded to let digital signals be sent around like that, the signals could of course be encrypted between devices, but a discussion of that is far beyond the scope of this post.

Re:How I think this will all work out...

[The-Pheon]

USB2 should work

Re:How I think this will all work out...

[willy_me]

Oh, and yes, Firewire would work perfectly well in place of USB, although USB is cheaper and should do the job fine I feel.

Sorry, USB won't work. Well I guess it could work if you had a PC tured on and managing all the data - but that would really suck. The big difference between USB and 1394 is that 1394 is a P2P design where every device is a peer. If you stick your DVD in your DVD player the data goes direct from the player to your console (or TV or whatever is using the data.) With USB the data would go to the PC then back out to the target device. In effect, your PC must be turned on and the data gets sent twice over the data lines. That 480Mbit theoretical speed just dropped to 240Mbit.

USB and 1394 are different beasts suited for different uses. USB is great for PC periferals because you are guaranteed to have the controlling PC present. It's also lower cost which is good. 1394 is perfect for those devices that need to work without a PC. Would it not be great to take a digital camera, plug it into a printer and print your pictures by pressing a button on the camera - no PC required? Well you might not think so but those people out there that hate computers and just want it to work would probably love this. 1394 is great and perfectly suited for such applications.

Willy

More expensive? Yes, but not by much.

[__aahyzr9271]

However, as has been pointed out, USB 2 is more than fast enough (at 480 MBits/second).

One problem; USB2 is not yet available, and won't be for some time.

While Firewire does provide the speed now, it is more expensive, and AFAIK there is no way of getting hubs for Firewire.

True, firewire is more expensive than USB, but its not that much more are far as computer hardware goes. Firewire is still a new technology compared to USB, but the prices are starting to go down.

You can get firewire cards for $30 and firewire hubs for less than $100. The firewire drives are still quite expensive, but you can get aruond that by getting a firewire drive bay for around $100 and supplying your own drive.

Re:Can't wait for...

[jovlinger]

Nah, It'll be free. Well, most of it. And definately(!) copy protected.

TV is really just a vehicle for advertising; as such the three most important things to a network are ratings, ratings, and ratings (a-la realestate). Currently they just have a statistical sample due to neilsen ratings about who watches what when. And the sampling is poor.

If they knew who wanted to watch which shows (and clicking on a link to watch a show is alot more WANT than just flipping a channel) and when (if they watched me, they might discover that late-20's grad students like to watch powerpuff girls and NOVA right about the midnight hour).

The copy-protection is necessary so that they get the when as well as the what, else I might go online and grab a few shows and not even watch them. Only if they can enforce streaming only do they know exactly my viewing habits.

The real purpose of all this data is to be able to target me with ads. The better targeted the ads, the more the airtime costs.

Of course, this all doesn't apply for things like HBO which have no ads, but even there they get valuable demographic data that they can use to offset the pricing structure with.

Apples and Oranges

[Markonen]

You can't just blindly compare the datarates of the DV codec and HDTV. The difference is that because the DV codec was designed for acquisition purposes, it only features intraframe compression. This allows the recorded footage to be easily editable while preserving (most of the) quality.

HDTV and MPEG were obviously designed for content delivery, where recompression and/or editing doesn't need to be lossless. This is why interframe compression can be used, resulting in significantly lower bitrates.

Re:damn, you're an idiot

[Rares Marian]

Is it correct for the RIAA to suggest I be charged for CD media I use to make my own content.

Let the hypocrites go obsolete already.

Re:damn, you're an idiot

[Rares Marian]

they have to make it secure so you can't just send your 5,000 closest friends copies.

Let's see cable caps of 15k/s/5,000 friends = 3 bytes per second. Oooh scary. DSL caps of 128k/5000 = 25.6 bps.

100Mbit/5,000 = 10Megabytes/5000 = 2k/s.

Oh and about napster.. they're full of shit too.

In the near future only 2.5 million Americans will high speed access. Read up on the statistics coming out.

Fewer from other continents because they think America is stupid for using the net so much.

Re:Note, they record the already compressed stream

[Apotsy]

Yes, I understand -- the device described in the article records the already-compressed HDTV broadcast stream onto a miniDV tape. I was just commenting on the author's trailing statement, "How long before we see HDminiDV?" I think the author is jumping to conclusions. Just because the miniDV tape mechanism is capable of recording compressed-for-broadcast HD streams, it does then follow that an HD camcorder that uses miniDV tapes for storage is just around the corner. I think HD camcorders are probably going to need heftier I/O and storage mechanisms than miniDV to be practical. Putting that much of a burden on the camera's on-the-fly compressor probably won't lead to good results.

Regarding the Linux 1394 project -- I don't think stuffing important data onto a miniDV cassette is a good idea. Most guides and how-tos for video production urge people not to use the miniDV cassettes as their primary storage for footage they want to keep. The miniDV format seems more like an unreliable kludge than something robust and well-designed. Still, if they can make it work, more power to them.

HDminiDV?

[Apotsy]

Well, here's the thing about miniDV. Certainly you can get acceptable NTSC-resolution video images at lower data rates than miniDV, but it takes time to compress the data like that, and the miniDV camcorders are forced to do their compression in real-time. That's why the miniDV data rate is so high compared to say, DSS broadcast or DVD video. Even with a powerhouse (by today's standards) desktop computer and a highly optimized video compression program ("media cleaner", as they are sometimes called), it's hard to get real-time compression at those low data rates. It's more like 50% or 75% of real-time speed, if you're lucky.

Currently, HD camcorders exist, but they record at much higher data rates than HDTV broadcast or miniDV camcorders, simply because they have to do the compression real-time. Electronics will certainly be fast enough eventually to squeeze an HD data stream down to the miniDV-data-rate real-time, but it will probably be a year or two from now before you see that sort of thing in a consumer-priced camcorder.

However, maybe by then some of those holographic storage mechanisms may have hit the market, and then you won't need in-camera compression or tapes anymore.

Re:HDminiDV?

[willy_me]

I agree. But I think it'll be more then a year or two before PCs can encode at real-time. The latest G4 from Apple claims to encode at 50% real time. I know running at 733MHz is nothing compared to a 1.5GHz P4 but that G4 has a built in DSP. Altivec screams and this is one of the few things it can really do well. I seriously doubt a P4 (or Athlon) could match a G4 for encoding video streams. (Mind you, they would be faster for just about everything else.)

I suspect it'll be another 4-5 years before your typical PC can encode a video stream in real-time.

Just to clarify a couple things.... That's MPEG2 encoding without using variable bit rates. Once VBR is used - that 50% real time goes down significantly.

Willy

Fantastic! I want...

[smoondog]

I want it... I hope more companies start coming up with ingenious ways of recording that stream. It is unfortunate, though, that without standards for the public, we'll just continue to see hacked stuff and no real products.

-Moondog

Re:Note, they record the already compressed stream

[iso]

the same as any uncompressed video or audio data: just drop the frames (ie, data loss). the damage would have to be pretty severe to be noticeable (ie in the video dropping out for a second), but it would still affect the quality. big deal: your telephone does it all the time. it's still an acceptable solution.

- j

This would be perfect with FireWire CD changer

[JoeShmoe]

What would make this ideal is if there was some CD/DVD changer that had a FireWire connection.

I mean, I can buy a 400 CD/DVD Sony changer for around $600-$700 but any computer solutions will cost me thousands of dollars because they feel the need to have servers and Ethernet.

Does anyone know if there is a device that will let me choose a single CD/DVD media and then pump it out FireWire? Imagine the possibilities.

From HD-100 to a FireWire burner. Burn your favorite TV shows, each episode on its own CD. Rack them all up and then you would have gigabytes of HD-quality media available at your fingertips. Rotate out some CDs that you are tired off and replace with new ones. Your own 200GB TiVo?

So does such a beast exist, if not, how difficult would it be to adapt a consumer CD changer to output either SCSI/IDE or FireWire? I know there are several SCSI/IDE to FireWire convertors so either output would suffice. Are they the same drive mechanics in both consumer and computer versions?

-JoeShmoe

Re:This would be perfect with FireWire CD changer

[Wesley Felter]

Escient makes one.

Re:Other converter boxes

[kcarnold]

> The DTC-100, like other first generation ATSC receivers, has severe problems dealing with multipath (ghosts on analog TV).

Second-generation receivers, though better, are still going to have problems with multipath because of inherent issues in the system being used. Future generations of receivers may very well work around the problem, but if you think about what ghosting really is and how it affects a signal, one really wide carrier isn't going to cut it. A frequency-division multiplexing system like Europe (and most of the rest of the world now) has, DVB-T, pretty well solves that issue by having multiple partially redundant carriers in a single channel, so if the receiver cannot recover the data in one of them due to ghosting, another one will likely have the needed data, so ghosting overall takes a smaller hit on the signal. That's not exactly how it works, but it's the general idea.

So the US is going with it's one-big-signal 8-VSB while almost every other country in the world except for 5 (and I think that number has gone down) uses OFDM. Why? Well maybe a portable COFDM receiver can receive a weak test signal from a transmitter in Long Island while driving down the streets of New York City (actually driving, not sitting in traffic) without a hitch, and you're lucky to get 8-VSB transmitted from towers on the top of the Empire State building if you stop, pull to the side of the road, and carefully move the antenna around until you get a signal, which drops out every time a car passes. It'll get better, yes... but do you really think that companies will innovate for the US and a few other islands of 8VSB, or the rest of the world with COFDM?

And for the on-topic portion of this comment, I watched the Superbowl on CBS in HDTV on a studio receiver -- talk about a better receiver! It has quite a few more outputs than I'd know what to do with (hint: component video is just the start), and among other things it has serial digial output, the studio standard. I think it's uncompressed or maybe slightly compressed, over a cable that really is a fat pipe. It's too bad I didn't have a card to connect it to my computer (not that I could really have had the means to record more than a few minutes of it). Firewire would have been much easier to deal with, especially if it was just Firewire-encapsulated MPEG2.

This would be sweeter if...

[Zeus305]

it worked for any HDTV device. Could you build a device to put between the hdtv box and the tv using what we know today, or would you have to decode the stream?

similar device

[Zeus305]

I think a company called Escient makes a similar device. It a dvd changer w/ firewire output, but i can't find their website.

Re:similar device

[Zeus305]

ah ha! Someone else has found it; read about it here: http://www.dvdchanger.com/

Re:Recording

[Zer0Her0]

The one thing that struck me...."Dark blonde hair" how does this work pray tell?

What's Visible?

[alexburke]

What's visible via analog outputs or camcorder viewfinder?

While a compatible DV VCR or camcorder is connected to the HDVR-100's firewire port, a special signal is visible on the viewfinder or the analog outputs of the VCR. This signal is not the actual high definition image. Instead it appears as a continuosly updating mosaic of color. At times the pattern almost takes on a discernable shape, but it is usually random and unlike anything usually seen. This special signal allows the user to verify that the DV VCR is properly connected and ready for recording, and to verify that the HDTV signal is actually being recorded. The HDTV audio and video are only available on the outputs of the DTC100. The special signal the camcorder dislays is to verify proper connections only.

So basically it's not DV-format video and therefore results in digital garbage on the viewfinder -- but according to them, it's a "special signal" they designed into the product to let you know you have their "Special Box" connected properly.

*sigh* Gotta love the marketroids...

--

Escient considered harmful

[yerricde]

Escient owns CDDB and licenses it out on ridiculous terms:

• If your program accesses CDDB, it must be a GUI program, not a console program, as it must display the CDDB logo and a clickable "mail info to CDDB" icon.
• A web browser must be installed on any computer that accesses CDDB.
• A client must access the CDDB server and no other server.
• You must accept this license, as the very idea of a CDDB indexed by a hash of track lengths is patented. Read it and weep.
• Bad, bad, bad.

Like Tetris? Like drugs? Ever try combining them?

Re:Does it pass the "Free Lunch" test?

[sik puppy]

HD is already compressed. It is broadcast at about 19.2 Mb/s. Raw HD, uncompressed for editing etc, chews up 1.5Gb/s. Various intermediate levels apply for internal (non broadcasted) signals, includin 270m/bit and a few others (sorry didn't memorize them). Firewire should be able to handle this easily. You probably want a scsi system, and ideally raid as well.

Re:Note, they record the already compressed stream

[Wesley Felter]

There are some problems, like DV format is not error-free. I don't know how they would recover from dropping blocks of data because of the wrinkled tape

MPEG-2 can also tolerate lost data.

Fire...... Wire........

[LordOfYourPants]

What does Cosmic Gate think about this? Fire......... Wire........

I want...

[slashdoter]

Doesn't look like it is from one of the big manufacters, i.e. sony. this I think is going to be the start of a trend, people that make devices that intrest the "hacker" comunity due to some "hackability". With things like the DMCA our only hope is going to be the guy in the garage that can get a blueprint to a manufacter in Asia making things like this that can be quikly altered. I bet you won't see sony making a HDTV recorder that uses any open standord connector i.e firewire

________

How long before we see HDminiDV? - LONG

[Kjella]

How long before we see HDminiDV?

Did you ever see the prices of consumer gear versus broadcast quality gear? The difference is far beyond the difference in cost, it's a matter of broadcast people having the cash and need broadcast quality so they'll just have to pay, while the average consumer will find it too expensive and settle for a "consumer" camera, which'll also make a decent profit.

Kjella

DCMA

[zoftie]

that would infringe on DCMA. Cool however, If I had DriecTV ...

Re:DCMA

[Stavros42]

Maybe not... I don't think anybody has pointed this out yet, but the DMCA states something like:

Nothing in this section [the section about circumvention] shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

I understand this to mean that you may circumvent a copy control measure for the sole purpose of fair use, i.e. timeshifting.

I am not a lawyer, so do correct me if I've misunderstood it.

Stavros
--

Re:Can't wait for...

[Fist Prost]

Since my cable company also provides my internet access I suppose this would be nothing more than the natural progression. Of course I imagine It'll be PPV, and treated with anti-copy, anti-fair use spray before they send it down the pipe to me. Only time will tell I suppose.

Fist Prost

"We're talking about a planet of helpdesks."

Can't wait for...

[Sodakar]

a site like adcritic that has all of my favorite TV shows -- archived.

Yes, I know TV networks and studios won't initially go for this, but it sure beats begging your friends for the episode of "Survivor" that you missed and forgot to tape.

Does it pass the "Free Lunch" test?

[snStarter]

This is one of those sites that makes me wonder if it passes the test about free lunches.

Clearly the full HDTV signal will have to be compressed up the ying-yang before it's going to fit into the FireWire pipe.

I'm not sure what a DV camcorder or VTR is going to do with material that is sent to it which isn't inreal DV format. Barf ismy guess. It's not like you're just sending a data stream over it. Otherwise we'd be backing up our systems to miniDV camcorders or DSR20s already.

This just doesn't feel right to me.

Re:HDTV is dead. Long live HDTV.

[tenzig_112]

1- "Tape loop" is a term. They do not exist in the video realm. 2- ABC is a major network and they are dialing back their HD exposure. Unlike web companies, broadcasters have an aversion to going out of business.

HDTV is dead. Long live HDTV.

[tenzig_112]

With such a setup you can record the HDTV broadcasts of Monday Night Football- oh, wait. That was last year. ABC discontinued HDTV simulcast in 2000. And your local affiliates have to broadcast an HD stream to maintian their FCC obligations, right? In my market, that means a tape loop- which rewinds on the air.

HD cinema may have a future. But if you assume that HDTV is the defacto future of television, go out to your local CircuitCity and check out their crappy HD demo. HD is a great technology (undersold and compromised by broadcasters hungry for free bandwidth) that may never get much of a reception due to poor business practices. To think of it that way, it sounds like an Apple product.

hack your PS2 to make a device that improves sit-come writing! (now that's a device we can all use)

Re:Note, they record the already compressed stream

[mr_exit]

I have had quite some experience with dodged up dv tapes (from doing filming in some extreme climates)

You very rarely see dropped frames.
Because dv stores the data in chunks you get dropped chunks. ie. small squares in the film will pause and then race foward as they recieve data again.
Bad enough damage and most decks will stop. some even crash (power off and on to get them going again!!)

A visual efect we made once had us taking tiny tiny needles and punching holes in the tape so that it went all crazy and digital like.

-------
Drink Coffee - Do Stupid Things Faster And With More Energy!

Re:here is a deck that might work

[tauntalum]

Unfortunately, it looks like the IEEE 1394 link only works with the MiniDV deck side. It doesn't look like it will send live video out with that digital link. Here is the link to the product info.

Sony does have a media converter for this purpose. It's listed at $499.95

Re:HDTV is dead. Long live HDTV.

[objekt]

Real tape loops don't rewind. That's why they're loops. ;-)

Note, they record the already compressed stream

[mike449]

So the DV recorder doesn't have to do any hard work, just store bits. Terrestial HDTV bitrate (20 or 25 Mbit/s?) is comparable with DV bitrate (around 29Mbit/s). Looks like this is possible.

The idea seems to be floating in the air. There are some problems, like DV format is not error-free. I don't know how they would recover from dropping blocks of data because of the wrinkled tape (DV can tolerate this).

The same problem is holding the good folks from the Linux 1394 project from giving us a reliable inexpensive 13Gbytes backup solution.

Re:Great

[ffsnjb]

Just cuz I think you're trying to be funny, I'll give you a clue. Slaughter hasn't been on camera for about a year, although he is still probably witht he WWF doing booking. Hogan has been with WCW for years, the chance of him ever going back to the WWF is 0. (expressed in c++: hogan_returning == 0;)

Yes, WCW blows ass. Is it legal for geeks to watch Raw?

No support, and yet folks still want it?

[jwiede]

Look at the options presented for the product. Nowhere are support issues available for discussion, etc. that I see. I'd strongly recommend that anyone buying into such gadgets at least make a cursory check to ensure that the company is prepared to support existing customers...and more importantly, how those existing customers feel about said product. Yeesh.

Re:damn, you're an idiot

[maxmutt]

Good job. Thanks.

Re:damn, you're an idiot

[maxmutt]

The lack of facts does not make a them irrefutable and faulty premises break the first part of the definition of logical argument, soundness, so that fulfulling the second part, validity is irrelevent.

You assume that all copying is instantly piracy. This is false. Piracy is the redistribution of material for profit, or to deny profit from the owner. Copying is perfectly legal for personal use and that is what most of these folks are arguing for. The right to copy content for thier own use, not to sell it or redistribute it. They want to make personal libraries of the things they like.

The reason for copy protection and "other evils" is more because people either fail to understand this or for profit motives.

As for your "cycle" that is only derived from superficaly observation of media exposure in the first place. Specifiacally items 2 and 3 can be demonstrated to be backwards in many cases; ie after a new technology is released, some one tries to hack it, then there is media coverage either of the technology or the hacks. This coverage can generate more interest in the technology or the hacks.

Finally, for open source, open source is about the means, not the content. 'sharing with your neighbors' means sharing the means or method of doing something, not the results of that method. So how to decrypt or save content is worth something, but I'm not interested in your copy of "The Sound of Music" or "Debbie Does Dallas". Both of which it is perfectly legal to have. If someone took those hacks and sold the content or masss distributed it then they should get nailed.

Cool

[Maskirovka]

I like the general concept...I just hope they open source the skematics. I wouldn't mind putting that together on a breadboard. Hmm...Open source skematics. Yes! thats would we need! Yeah!!!!!!

Actually I think that would most likely set off another DeCSS scandle...but then again I'm just a dumb teenager, right?

Maskirovka

here is a deck that might work

[onepoint]

Well for playback and recording you might try the following deck:

using your firewire hook-up
connect to a hs-dvr1u made by JVC
It's a dual MiniDVD and SVHS player/recorder/editing deck that has a fire wire pickup.

There are 2 type Industrial and Consumer priced at about 1200 +- 200

sorry I don't have a link

ONEPOINT

spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop music news
please help me make it better

Other converter boxes

[Roarkk]

Reading the machines site, it seems they're willing to "borrow" other converters and test them for compatibility, as well as offering a discount on the recorder for the opportunity, which begs the question: Will this only work with the DTC-100? I've been looking into getting a converter box, as HDTV is now being offered in my area, and while this would be perfect for recording, the above section of the site seems to indicate that I don't necessarily have to get the DTC-100. Are there better / cheaper converters out there that could probably use this?

Re:What the fuck.

[b0r1s_7h3_h4x0r]

"Wrong" "Illegal" "Grow up and start acting like adults"

Gee, real nice way of saying "I never learned to write a real flame, so I call names"

BTW, fuckwad, (only responding in like kind) the Supreme Court says otherwise.

Betamax

Read it, fuckwad. If the media companies have their way, no one will EVER be able to record ANYTHING, EVER AGAIN, and blaming it on 'geek' scapegoats is only one more way you buy into their half-billion disinformation campaign.

We're not fucking ourselves; They're fucking us.

3v1l_b0r1s at d4rkr0ck d0t c0 d0t uk

Nice, but...

[phantumstranger]

...there were rumours (I know, I know, we all know about rumours) that there was going to be a chip popped in the HDTVs that would only allow only a set amount of recording time per month. This was made known not long after the DeCSS verdict came out (about 2 or 3 weeks after if I'm not mistaken).

While I realize that know one really needs to tape all that much hellevision a month (gotta get away from that confounded machine!) this does have repercussions on teachers that rely on PBS for teaching aides.

If this is true what implications could that have on the the news that's in the parent post?

Go ahead mod me down.

Re:What the fuck.

[Burgundy Advocate]

Making your own copy is not illegal, and shouldn't be. That's not what I'm talking about.

What would be illegal, and very bad, is for someone to copy it and put it up on the internet. And just watch- it will happen. HDTV was never intended to have shows off of it canned and passed out on the net like acid at a phish concert.

And once it is available on the net in force, we get into the whole 'we need to add copy protection' thing. I don't blame them, either- they put a lot of money into television programs, and they shouldn't just be copied and distributed willy-nilly on gnutella or whatever the newest copying tool is.

And then, we, the consumer, suffer.

We fuck ourselves. Game over, man.

If people don't stop doing this kind of shit, then the industry will be forced to press for legeslation to prevent copying. And it'll be the fault of people like those that will 'hack' this device not using the technology as it was intended to.

Re:damn, you're an idiot

[Burgundy Advocate]

I'm assuming that your subject means 'damn, you're an idiot'. I have corrected it to avoid confusion.

The livelihood of everyone involved in the creation and broadcasting of the signal. If you decide to h4x0r it, then the reprocussions will be bad for all of us- the people who earn their living from it, and us, the consumers of their product.

By copying into a digital format that can be distributed around the internet ad hoc, they have to make it secure so you can't just send your 5,000 closest friends copies. This is bad for everyone, since copy protection is a hassle at best, and makes it impossible to watch at worst (see: DVD region codes).

I'm sorry, but my my logic is meticulous and my facts irrefutable.