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

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

--

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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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: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.

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: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.

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: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.

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

________

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)

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