Review: Elgato EyeTV 500

nsayer writes "My wife and I just took delivery of an EyeTV 500 - Elgato's brand-new box for U.S. over-the-air digital television. Elgato makes PVR hard- and software for Macs. With the 500, HDTV reception and recording functionality has arrived for the Macintosh." Pudge reviewed the original (USB, NTSC) EyeTV nearly two years ago; read on for the rest of nsayer's review of the FireWire-based 500 model (first mentioned earlier this month). The 500 will play back both standard and high-definition digital signals, but only broadcast, not cable.

The package is simple. The 500 comes with the box itself, which is slightly larger in all dimensions than a paperback book; an IR remote control and batteries; a CD; a quick-start card; and a standard 6-wire FireWire cable. The back of the box has antenna-in and -out jacks (the purpose for the antenna-out jack is unknown. As delivered, it has a plastic cover on it), two FireWire jacks and a DC power input jack (there is no power supply, um, supplied, and DC power input is optional. They do not recommend you plug bus-powered devices into it if the EyeTV device itself is bus-powered). The front panel has a window with the IR remote control receiver and a status LED. The box is light for its size and liberally perforated with ventilation holes, but in extended use I couldn't detect any heat.

The installation procedure is simplicity itself: You connect an antenna to the antenna jack, you connect the FireWire cable between your computer and the box, you insert the CD into your computer and drag the EyeTV application from the CD to your Applications folder (or anywhere else you want it). The first time you start the EyeTV application, you'll get a setup wizard that will ask about your EyeTV hardware, discover it, and begin the auto-tune procedure.

This is the first place that EyeTV stumbles ever so slightly: The purpose of the auto-tune procedure is to fill in the channel list used for the channel up and down buttons and for the channel list drop-down menu. It takes a couple of minutes to complete, but the first time I did it, the EyeTV missed a station that I knew it should have found. When I repeated the procedure, it found that one, but missed a different one. Finally, the third try yielded 28 streams (I have a good outdoor antenna in Santa Clara, CA, aimed at the Mt. Sutro tower). Elgato should add some way of manually adding or deleting channels (I don't really care about non-English language and home shopping channels).

The other thing to keep in mind is that this receiver is designed strictly for over-the-air reception, and for good reception, you'll very likely need a good outdoor antenna. If you get cable TV, then this isn't for you.

The software integrates well with TitanTV.com, which provides program-guide information. You can click on shows on the TitanTV web site and watch the EyeTV tune to the correct channel or set up to record the show. Recording shows is more or less on a timed schedule basis - it's not quite up to the standard of a TiVo season pass. But the software does poll Titan for schedule changes (if you allow it).

Once you've recorded a show, an iMovie-like editor lets you locate the commercials and cut them out, although the job of finding and marking them is a manual procedure. Once you've marked them, you can compact the show, which permanently removes the marked sections, reclaiming the disk space they were taking.

And speaking of disk space, the CPU and hard disk requirements for digital TV content are enormous. 1080i shows can take potentially 20 GB per hour. An episode of CSI:Miami, after being compressed to 41 minutes, takes 11 GB. A 41-minute episode of The Tonight Show takes 8. Simply displaying these streams at full size in a window takes about 75% of the available CPU of my wife's 1.6 GHz single-proc G5. I wouldn't recommend buying one of these for a machine less powerful than that. The software will scale the image down if it needs to, so it won't outright fail on lesser hardware (and you will be able to access multicasted streams), but the big selling point of this box is being able to watch 1080i shows at full size on your 23" cinema display. If you want to do that, you'll need some serious processor muscle.

All in all, I give this product a big thumbs-up. Digital TV will truly revolutionize broadcast television over the course of the next few years just the way color did for our parents and grandparents. At $299, the EyeTV 500 is a great way for Mac owners to get started without spending a lot, but still enjoying all of the benefits (and breathtaking pictures) Digital TV has to offer.

Thanks to nsayer for this review. Have an interesting review in mind? Slashdot welcomes feature-length submissions.

Comments

TiVo

[webword]

What about marketing efforts? What about documentation? If this isn't user friendly (usability is king!) then will this ever take off? What is the market perception going to be? Basically, what is the *business* behind the EyeTV 500? Bombs away!!

Digital Broadcast

[GICodeWarrior]

Looks pretty sweet. I don't even have a HDTV yet, but with this I could view it using my computer.

Massive HD Space

[thedogcow]

This setup could be very cool with an attached 23 or 30 inch Cinema Display...

As far as HD space goes, could one use the newly discussed h.263 codec that was presented at WWDC to compress the movies into smaller file sizes?

Re:Massive HD Space

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as HD space goes, could one use the newly discussed h.264 codec that was presented at WWDC to compress the movies into smaller file sizes?

there - fixed that for you.

Re:Massive HD Space

[Anonymous Coward]

It was h.264, it's different. h.263 is used in video-telephony and old MPEG1 at very low resolutions.
Anyway I think that if the Elgato software supports exporting via quicktime (very likely) and you have MacOS X Tiger, it is very possible to do what you are talking about.
h.264 has HDTV resolution transparency at 8 Mbps, so a 41 minute episode of CSI:Miami would take 2.5 GB.

giandrea

Re:Massive HD Space

[Bakafish]

It just dumps a native HDTV MPEG2 stream to disk. It is not QuickTime. I don't doubt that someone will make a transcoder that will be able to re-compress these streams since the format is standard and there is obviously a need. The new H.264 codec is not part of QuickTime yet though, so don't hold your breath.

Re:Massive HD Space

[jcr]

This setup could be very cool with an attached 23 or 30 inch Cinema Display...

Yes, it is.. ;-)

-jcr

Too expensive

[hackstraw]

$300 is too much to pay for a tv tuner and mpeg encoder.

Considering the price of a real TV or a PVR in the same ballpark price that do the similar (or more functions), I don't see the justification for the expense. This is another example of where computers impare normal functioning of human logic.

Re:Too expensive

[MikeXpop]

It's very good if say, you have a laptop and want to record directly onto the computer for viewing later at another location.

I can tell you from experience plane rides are much more enjoyable with all 3 seasons of Family Guy.

Re:Too expensive

[Anita Coney]

I don't know where you live, but in the US HDTV tuners generally cost more than 300 bucks.

The cheapest I could find on Amazon was $299.87, but it did NOT allow you to record and edit what you watch.

Most HDTV monitors sold are just that, monitors. They do not include HDTV tuners. And even if your HDTV TV comes with a built in HD tuner, you cannot record HD content.

I'm not saying that Elgato has the best deal, buy it certainly is a good deal.

The best deal is ATI's upcoming HD version of its AIW series, which will only cost about 200 bucks. It comes with a remote. And if you have an ATI graphics card in your PC, you could use ATI's component video out adapter to connect your computer directly to your HDTV monitor.

Re:Too expensive

[paulkchen]

Umm, hello? Did you bother to read at all? This thing records HD.

Have you priced an HD DirecTivo or the DishNetwork HD PVR? They're $1000.

Re:Too expensive

[hackstraw]

Umm, hello? Did you bother to read at all? This thing records HD.

Yeah, I read it and HD doesn't interest me. I own an HDTV and it makes DVDs look good, and many TV chanels look bad. There is no content for HDTV (not much more on standard TV either), and when there is the tuners will be commodity products. I was actually commenting more on teh EyeTV 200, which is analogue and costs the same $300 as the 500 model. For $100, I would get the 200 model so I could consolodate all of my media stuff on my back porch. Right now, I have a TV, reciever, speakers, and a CD player. Soon, I will have a computer and speakers. Thats it.

But not until the usability and cost can justify itself.

Re:Too expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you seen the pcHDTV (HD-2000) tuner card?
It is <$200, and is Linux-only! Many are making a decent HDTV system using it...

Re:Too expensive

[Anita Coney]

Cool, thanks for pointing it out!

Re:Too expensive

[iwadasn]

I don't know about that. My computer monitor is vastly better than my TV (which I don't have). I have one of these converters (the cheaper $199 one), and it works great. You tell me where I can get a 17 inch TV + Tivo + DVD burner for $200, praytell.

In addition, the little tiny box takes up much less space than a TV + TIVO + DVD player/burner.

In addition, being able to use the space on my hard drives (about 400 GB now) for either computer stuff, or TV stuff is also quite an edge. And I can share out the TV shows over FTP or windows sharing, or whatever. It's just nice to have everything in one place.

Re:Too expensive

[steve_bryan]

Well, you certainly have strong opinions. Too bad you have your facts muddled. I would agree they aren't paring the price down to the bone, but it is not exceptional. For the sake of clarity it should be mentioned there is no mpeg encoder for HDTV in the box. The signal is transmitted already digitally compressed with 8VSB modulation (in the US). So you are buying a receiver with 8VSB demodulation and FireWire interface. A similar box from Samsung (the T165) has a list price of $700 but can regularly be found for $300 - $400. It also includes more functionality though I don't know if it is engineered as well. There are also some FireWire based PVR's from LG and Zenith (Zenith is owned by LG ELectronics of S. Korea). They include a hard drive and cost about $1,000.

The beauty of this type of product (TV tuner for a PC or Mac) is the low cost of entry. If you already have a good high resolution monitor and huge cheap hard drive, all you are missing is the tuner to enjoy HDTV. Where are you going to buy an HDTV that includes recording capability for $300? Right now the prices of truly stratospheric for large flat thin monitors (plasma or LCD). This allows you to enjoy HDTV now and wait for the inevitable price drop so your desired monitor is hundreds rather than thousands of dollars.

Note that there is the assumption that your viewing needs are no more than a few hours or less per day. The rest of the time your Mac can be devoted to its usual tasks. Even when a program is being broadcast you have the option of recording it in the background and watching when it is convenient. Simply recording the transport stream is a low resource capability that could be accomplished on a rather modest Mac (I know what I'm talking about as I've been using VirtualDVHS on the Mac for some time). It's the MPEG decompression that is taxing and even that is not out of reach if you use the transport stream decoder in VLC (free software from videolan.org). I'm assuming that elgato is recording the transport stream like all the other HDTV tuners.

Re:Too expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but they are even more fun with all 4 (production, not airing) seasons of Futurama.

Re:Too expensive

[steve_bryan]

"I own an HDTV and it makes DVDs look good"

At the risk of being provocative (what, on slashdot?) I have to ask if you've had your vision checked recently. OTA HDTV blows DVD out of the water! Even if the material on Leno is lame the picture is stunning. Just for the record the resolution of DVD is 720 x 480 interlaced. That is about half the resolution that FOX was using (480p) but is being cranked up to 720p which is 1280 x 720. The other HD resolution is 1080i or 1920 x 1080 interlaced.

Never mind. What I'm guessing you mean is that you enjoy watching DVD's on your HDTV but not the TV stations. Depending on your location there might not be much available to your antenna but all the major networks are doing their new programs in HD. That includes PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, WB, UPN, and FOX (with FOX making the transition this fall). We get all those in Minneapolis except for UPN. That is a lot of programs and they all put DVD to shame for picture quality but that is no guarantee the story will be similarly improved.

On the other hand if you are watching upconverted regular programming or 480i the picture is usually better than NTSC but seldom as good as DVD.

Re:Too expensive

[silentbozo]

Actually, it's not an mpeg encoder. The previous versions for analog TV were encoders. This version takes the mpeg2 stream straight from the digital broadcast and pipes it onto your hard drive. As a result, it's good for broadcast digital only - it cannot encode analog sources (because it isn't an mpeg encoder.)

Think of it as a tuner that is willing to talk to your Mac via firewire, and a software suite that allows you to record that stream to your HD and play it back at will. Assuming that El Gato doesn't cripple this functionality in compliance with the proposed broadcast copying flag, $300+ may very well be cheap if it's the only way you can record digital TV off the air, without having to reencode the signal.

Re:Too expensive

[spotteddog]

From the processor requirements and load, I'm betting the mpeg decoder is in software. I bet the only thing in the box is the HDTV tuner and firewire interface.

That makes it $100 more than the pci card tuner for linux , which is about what I would expect for the external support circuits, enclosure, and Mac markup.

Re:Too expensive

[flimflam]

Just for the record the resolution of DVD is 720 x 480 interlaced

Most DVD's (at least ones that you rent) are actually encoded as 480P/24, so you actually will see a significantly better picture (with the proper DVD player) on an HDTV than on an NTSC one.

Re:Too expensive

[steve_bryan]

"Most DVD's (at least ones that you rent) are actually encoded as 480P/24"

I wish there were a little more clarity on this issue (at least in my own mind). When I've read the comments of experts on the subject, like Jim Taylor, I get the impression that the DVD video format itself diminshes the source resolution to interlaced even if using 480P/24 source.

In any case I would readily agree that DVD's have superior resolution to NTSC so they benefit from playback on HDTV (and HTPC). On the other hand it is not even close to the resolution afforded by ATSC. That is the surprisingly unrecognized fact that the absolute best resolution video signal available to the home viewer is no longer laserdisc, cable, satellite, or DVD. It is rabbit ears. Commercial supported (or PBS) over the air (OTA) digital TV meets or exceeds the resolution from all the other sources (OK, I've glossed over pre-recorded DVHS but their crippling copy protection and limited life time of the format makes them no more than a footnote).

Re:Too expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, it's not an MPEG encoder. The device records in DV format, which is editable and easily imports into iMovie and Final Cut Pro without the need to transcode.

Re:Too expensive

[tenton]

I have to agree with you; HD programming blows DVDs away. Of course, I'm in the Los Angeles area, so the signals are being broadcasted.

My HDTV has made regular TV looks worse; that's natural (DVDs made my LDs look bad and VHS tapes even worse). With HD programming, I have trouble watching regular TV, especially sports. Stanley Cup playoffs and the NBA Finals (both 720p) looked gorgeous and crisp; far better than even DVDs (the SD broadcast looked blurry and fuzzy).

Re:Too expensive

[flimflam]

Well, strictly speaking they do have NTSC resolution (it's still 720x480), but it's frame-based compression, and there is no temporal difference between the two fields of each frame (this is really a content-issue, there's no technical reason this has to be the case, but nobody would ever make a 48i DVD). It's the lack of temporal displacement that affords the increased resolution: for each temporal sample, you have 480 vertical lines of resolution instead of 240 (one field). This doesn't really give you double the perceived resolution, but it's about 50% more.

As to whether the resolution is decreased by the format, that's kind of a trick question. The luminance channel is full resolution, but the chroma is subsampled a bit more than some other formats (but in line with other consumer gear). The problem is that the amount of compression varies a great deal between different DVDs, so even though this doesn't strictly speaking affect resolution, it will affect perceived resolution once you start getting noticable compression artifacts.

It's true that it's still not HD, but it's not bad.

Re:Too expensive

[steve_bryan]

"SD broadcast looked blurry and fuzzy"

Ain't it the truth. Last season I had trouble watching football games that were not in HD. I'll be in luck this year because it seems like a lot more games will be available in HD.

I stopped watching the local UPN broadcast of Enterprise because the affiliate is owned by FOX which has declined to upgrade the UPN affiliate station to HD even though UPN is producing it in HD. That's when I discovered suprnova.org and Azureus. The considerably compressed (to 350 MB) file is still much better than the SD broadcast from the local affiliate. I'd happily record and view the local station if it were not for the corporate shenanigans that allow one network to buy another's affiliates (the situation is even slightly more convoluted and tawdry than I've described).

Re:Too expensive

[steve_bryan]

"the amount of compression varies a great deal between different DVDs"

That factor and the issue of the quality of the source material are both probably more important than 480i versus 480p for DVDs. On the other hand the first time I saw "Fastlane" in widescreen 480p on FOX I got very confused. I was new to HDTV and had heard FOX did not provide "real" HDTV but that picture was very impressive. It seemed sharper and better than any DVD I had seen on my PC.

In the end I'd agree with your statement "it's still not HD, but it's not bad". I am glad ATSC decided to go a lot further than DVD quality.

Still waiting for component HD recording

[sdo1]

Is it just the "rules" that prevent HD component recording? Right now there's a huge variety of devices that can record from composite or s-video (TiVo, VCRs, DVD recorders, video capture cards on your computer, etc). I just want to dump HD component video into a recorder the same way I dump it into my TV.

The big problem right now is that I can record over-the-air HD with devices like this (and even some HD VCRs and HD capture cards in computers), but I can't record the analog HD signal out of my DirecTV HD box and if I ever got digital cable, I wouldn't be able to record that one either. If I want to record DirecTV HD, my only option right now is to get a HD TiVo (for about $1000), but that's not an archiving solution. (and yes, I know there's hacks, but I'm talking off-the-shelf technology that my mom could use).

I'm very well versed in this stuff but I find it incredibly frustrating trying to sort out exactly what types of signals I can record and when.

-S

Re:Still waiting for component HD recording

[totalnet]

I thought broadcast HD signal has MPEG2 stream embedded in it. All the tuner card does it de-modulate the HD signal and the computer save the MPEG2 stream to your hard drive. BTW, a very large MPEG2 file. I think most of the stand alone HD recorders will down compress the MPEG2 video to use up less space. So computer base HD tuners are the way to go, if you want the highest quality.

Re:Still waiting for component HD recording

[ncc74656]

Is it just the "rules" that prevent HD component recording? Right now there's a huge variety of devices that can record from composite or s-video (TiVo, VCRs, DVD recorders, video capture cards on your computer, etc). I just want to dump HD component video into a recorder the same way I dump it into my TV.

It's not that so much as that there's not a sufficiently low-cost MP@HL MPEG-2 encoder chip out there that can be embedded in a recorder. Existing HD recorders rely on having the original digital stream available and recording that, instead of reencoding an already-decoded signal (which introduces more loss anyway).

Re:Still waiting for component HD recording

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, the EyeTV 500 respects the so-called "broadcast flag" that prevents you from recording television programs for the purpose of time-shifting. Because this constitutes a violation of your Fair Use rights, I am urging all netizens to boycott all high-definition TV products while my lawsuit against the RIAA is pending.

It would in theory be possible to create a device that ignores the "broadcast flag" or hack an existing device to behave fairly. Unfortunately, under the draconian laws of the so-called "United" States of America, this is illegal. Of particular import is the DCMA that would make this act a federal felony. I, too, have a lawsuit pending to render the DCMA unconstitutional.

In conclusion, I recommend a total and far-reaching boycott.

Sincerely,
Seth Finklestein
Media Rights Privacy Expert Watchdog

Re:Still waiting for component HD recording

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just the "rules" that prevent HD component recording? Right now there's a huge variety of devices that can record from composite or s-video (TiVo, VCRs, DVD recorders, video capture cards on your computer, etc). I just want to dump HD component video into a recorder the same way I dump it into my TV.

It's the "Rules" of economics. It takes a *huge* amount of processing power to compress a live HDTV stream, or a *huge* amount of bandwidth to store it to disk uncompressed.

You can buy analog HDTV recording gear right now, but it just costs a fortune because the amount of data it has to process is an order of magnitude larger than what you need to deal with for SDTV

Wait for a few more iterations of moore's law to pass and you'll eventually see consumer-grade analog HDTV recording.

Re:Still waiting for component HD recording

[steve_bryan]

'Unfortunately, the EyeTV 500 respects the so-called "broadcast flag"'

Ouch, are you certain of this? They've implemented it a full year earlier than required? If that is truly the case then I will never buy another product from elgato. They can go out to lunch with Jack Valenti all they want but they will not get another penny of my money.

Good luck in your lawsuits.

Re:Still waiting for component HD recording

[ceenvee703]

I think the deal is that it's a LOT easier to just take the digital signal and dump it to disk, rather than taking an analog signal and redigitizing it (with all the corresponding CPU and D/A conversion required to not drop any frames).

Of course, advantage of the analog signal is... no broadcast flag. That's probably the other reason you're not finding any component inputs anywhere...

There are PC and Mac high-end video cards that capture component video, but they start at $500 and go up to thousands.

iMovie-like editor?

[green pizza]

Why not just encode the SD material into DV25, which the MacOS loves. Then users can just use iMovie to edit. Why do devices like this insist on shipping with software intended to reinvent the wheel? I would love a simple PVR for my PowerBook, but I don't need editing features, I can use iMovie for that.

Re:iMovie-like editor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then use iMovie, the files are MPEGs.

Re:iMovie-like editor?

[Bakafish]

Because:

A) This is a HDTV recorder, it does do *digital* SD, but all of the streams are simply dumped in RAW MPEG2 off of the decoder chip. There is no onboard transcoder chip that could re-encode that stream to DV on the fly, and it would be useless to downsample all the HDTV resolution streams to DV as it wouldn't be HD anymore.

B) Transcoding RAW MPEG2 to DV in software is way slower than realtime, and would actually INCREASE the amount of space required to store the information by a lot.

C) The RAW MPEG2 stream can conceivably be dumped directly to DVHS, or piped to the FireWire port on an HDTV (Mitsubishi, Sony, etc...) Try doing that with DV.

If you want to use iMovie, no one is stopping you. You can transcode it yourself. In order to record in DV you would have to give up the ability to watch TV in realtime, or they would have to invest in a onboard chip to do the transcoding (think thousands of dollars per box.) So that's why.

By the way, there are FireWire *standard* definition Tuner units for the Mac that record in Native DV, but again this is HD.

Re:iMovie-like editor?

[Baumi]

The Austrialian/European version of EyeTV for digital over-the-air TV (DVB-T standard) doesn't convert the video format at all - it "just" singles out one MPEG2 stream from all those transmitted and sends it over to be saved on the Mac's HD.

My guess is that the HDTV version works the same way. Re-encoding the material on the fly would probably be too processor intensive, so it's easier to have a simple editor built into the software. Besides: iMovie is pretty self-contained. It wants its own project files,etc. For simple editing, you'd want something like QuickTime Pro, which can edit a single file without all the hassles iMovie puts you through. And, basically, EyeTV's editor feels almost like QuickTime Pro (a bit better with the thumbnails and such) but it comes with the device and is integrated into the recording and scheduling software whereas QuickTime Pro costs extra money and is an external application.

If you really need to do some iMovie tricks with your recordings, I'm sure there's a way to turn them into a DV stream, but most poeple won't want to do that, so I think it's wise they don't force users to create an iMovie project just to edit out some simple commercials - EyeTV's own editor does that just fine.

Antenna Out

[turbotalon]

DUUUH- The antenna out is for simple pass-through, just like VCR's and most TV's have so you can use several devices on the same antenna or cable without using a splitter. How long has this guy been doing A/V stuff??

Misunderstood...

[bgarcia]

Elgato makes PVR hard- and software for Macs.

Did anyone else read that as "Elgato makes a hard-to-use PVR, as well as some Mac software?"

Re:Misunderstood...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I read that as "Elgato makes PVRs hard."

How long till the MPAA and broadcasters come after

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see the execs being very unhappy when their digital broadcasts are being shared over the net - without commericals.

DMCA anyone?

Antenna out...

[kulakovich]

Antenna out is for the rest of your boxes, you insensitive clod!

But seriously, though - your source should go to your primary recorder, then out to any other inline devices, then to your tv. That way you get the best signal into the recorder.

For instance, You'd go from source, to the eyeTV, to your VHS recorder, to your projector, then to your regular TV, were you to have all those things.

My curiousity is this whole "but not with cable" thing. Just how does it block that?

kulakovich

Re:Antenna out...

[steve_bryan]

"My curiousity is this whole "but not with cable" thing. Just how does it block that?"

It doesn't block it. They just use a different modulation scheme for digital cable. 8VSB is used for OTA digital TV while most cable companies use some variant of QAM. You need a QAM demodulator which is fairly rare for PC tuners. DVico makes a PCI board that handles 8VSB and QAM but it is PC only. A reason for the scarcity is that cable companies have a nasty habit of scrambling their signal and requiring you to use their STB. The cable card initiative remains an unfulfilled promise.

On the other hand if this product (EyeTV 500) handles NTSC (ie analog TV) then it should be no big deal to view and record unscrambled analog cable TV. It is digital cable TV which is remains out of reach. Oddly enough some of the chips that provide 8VSB demodulation include QAM but the makers of the PC TV tuners don't enable that capability (see AccessTV for the PC and the recent community efforts).

Re:Antenna out...

[smclean]

But seriously, though - your source should go to your primary recorder, then out to any other inline devices, then to your tv. That way you get the best signal into the recorder.

Once they make a hack to record from this puppy, this *will* be your primary recorder!

Re:Antenna out...

[nvrrobx]

OTA HD reception is ATSC based, while cable based HD is QAM - a different type of tuner.

This site has some more useful information about the differences.

Inputs?

[Anonymous Coward]

Very interesting that you can't just plug in a s-video input, or a coaxel one at that.

Re:Inputs?

[Mr. Cancelled]

Yeah, what's up with that? Talk about alienating a HUGE potential market. I have an ATI AIW on my media box, but was seriously considering something like this for my Mac (which is in a different area of the house). I guess EyeTV won't be getting my hard earned cash! On a related note, all of Eye TV's recorders (that I've seen) record in mpeg2 format - Does the Mac have a decent Mpeg2 editing solution yet? It's very frustrating that I can chop commercials off my mpegs on my Winbox in seconds, but there's only choppy workarounds at best for doing the same thing on my new Mac (which seems to prefer DV only ). I really can't understand why Quicktime Pro doesn't support this (and I wish I would have known before buying the pro version from Apple. Their documentation's VERY misleading).

Still a little confused

[turbotalon]

Why can't it record off of cable? Does cable use different frequencies for the same channels or something? I thought they were the same...

Re:TiVo

[hype7]

Basically, what is the *business* behind the EyeTV 500?

Well, I can't speak for the developers, but this thing does HDTV right?

Well, the first thing that springs to my mind is that 30" behemoth Apple announced a couple of weeks ago...

-- james

Would love it

[afidel]

except it's Mac only. I love Firewire but for some reason people who produce Firewire products like to make them Mac only, excluding about 80% of the potential audience.(PC's are about 95% of the audience but quite a few don't have Firewire).

Re:Would love it

[Microlith]

I/O DATA out of Japan makes a firewire TV tuner that is both PC and MAC compatible, for about 23000yen or so (maybe more?)

Only problem is that they don't sell it outside of Japan, and it's frigging impossible to get anyone to import electronics like computer components.

Re:Would love it

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Mac folks wonder why firewire doesn't catch on like it should and why USB2 is so popular.

Re:Would love it

[Jeremy Erwin]

So? My chances of picking up a random USB-2.0 product off the shelves and finding that it uses some kind of windows only driver are still quite high. My chances of picking up a random firewire device off the shelf and finding that it works with my mac are a bit more encouraging.

Firewire continues to be used in digital video-- it is unlikely that your cable box, hdtv, of digital vcr will be equipped with usb ports, but 1394a ports are quite common.

Re:Would love it

[steve_bryan]

"except it's Mac only"

Are you sure of this? I know they are only shipping with Mac software but if it conforms to FireWire AVC standards it should be possible to drive from the PC. That is part of the beauty of the FireWire stuff: it is supposed to be platform neutral. For instance VirtualDVHS on the Mac works fine with the DVico Fusion I board in my PC. I can record to the Mac over FireWire from the Fusion board and play back on the Mac locally or the PC over FireWire.

Based on what is written in this review I have my doubts if they are conforming to existing standards. For instance where do they get 20 GB per hour? ATSC is no more than a 20 Mbps stream which is less than 10 GB per hour if you just dumped it to your drive. Is this some sort of pre-emptive Broadcast Flag nonsense?

In any case, at this price the Samsung T165 is probably a better buy for Mac users. But the Roku dropped from $500 to $300 (similar product but no tuner or FireWire) so maybe the EyeTV 500 will come down to something closer to $200 where it would be a more attractive choice.

Re:Would love it

[am 2k]

Based on what is written in this review I have my doubts if they are conforming to existing standards.

I can assure you that the device does conform to the AVC Tuner standards. I should know, I wrote the initial drivers for testing the hardware on Mac OS X (for EyeTV 300 though)...

Re:Would love it

[steve_bryan]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. That is quite encouraging to hear. I didn't find out about your reply sooner because my damn mail program treated the notice from slashdot as junk mail. I'm glad I periodically check to see what the filters are doing.

My concern about issues of standards was caused by the report that accompanied the article which seemed to make odd claims about saved file size.

If you have cable - just use firewire

[igorsway]

If you own a Mac and have cable, I don't think you need to purchase any additional hardware to capture HDTV. Check out the link below. http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20040 426151111599&query=hdtv

Re:If you have cable - just use firewire

[igorsway]

Here's a working link. HDTV to a Mac

Re:If you have cable - just use firewire

[wolrahnaes]

Is there a similar method to do this on Windows or Linux? I was considering buying a USB2 HDTV tuner for my laptop, but if I can just hook up to a regular HD cable box that would be nice.

Recording Digital Video off of Cable

[cbelt3]

For the nonce, this solution seems to be functional. Get the firewire enabled video box, record into DV compatible tool, and away you go.

Re:Recording Digital Video off of Cable

[foidulus]

The only problem with that solution is that you pretty much have to have a high end G5 to record the stuff. And also, for live broadcasts such as sports, can you just watch instead of recording it?

This isn't the device I want

[green pizza]

I want a souped-up ReplayTV.

I currently have a DirecTivo, basiclly a two-tuner Tivo with built-in two-tuner DirecTV reciver. It's great... but it can't record my local TV. Now, DirecTV will be adding a few of my city's local channels to their broadcast in 2005, but not all of the channels.

What I really want is a box with about 5 inputs and 2 outputs. I would like it to switch between my VCR, DVD player, generic DirecTV box (or two), and tune local TV stations. HD capability would be nice too. Add in PVR/timeshifting features and the ability to control said devices. Software upgradability would be nice, perhaps in the future it could learn how to control my future DVD player/recorder to burn to disc some of the shows I have recorded.

I basiclly want a PVR that's also the hub of my home theater. I want to keep discrete components (use my TV as a display, use my audio reciever as an amp, etc) but I need some sort of switching/recording hub to control it all.

An HTPC is an interesting concept, but until it can handle multiple channels of video I/O, it's not of much use to me.

Re:This isn't the device I want

[darrylo]

MythTV can do multi-channel recordings, either on the same PC (via multiple encoder cards) or via multiple PCs (each with one or more encoder cards). With multiple PCs, however, LAN bandwidth can be an issue. (For fairly high-quality recordings, say 600-700KB/sec per channel.) Your power bill can be an issue, too. ;-)

Distributed, multi-channel recordings are very nice. If you have multiple PCs, you can also do distributed TV watching (watch a recorded program on a PC other than the one which recorded it).

MythTV also has the cool feature where, if all the encoder cards on your current PC are busy recording shows (which means that you can't watch something else), MythTV will transparently use another encoder on another PC, and stream that output to your current PC. Sehr cool.

Unfortunately, MythTV can be a royal pain to install and configure. The easiest approach is to use something canned like KnoppMyth, but the current version (R4V4.1) still needs a fair amount of hacking/tweaking to work with high-quality encoding cards like the Hauppauge PVR-250 or PVR-350. Still, it's better than starting from scratch.

Seems like too much for too little.

[Lifix]

The system requirements, processor drain, and memory usage seem like too high a price to pay, certainly for longterm useage. Maybe I don't understand the benefits, but my Tivo does everything that this does, only better.

Re:Seems like too much for too little.

[nsayer]

Your TiVo does not do the one thing that this box does: receive and record HDTV (unless you spent about $1000 for an HD DirecTivo).

Re:Seems like too much for too little.

[toddhisattva]

You can of course use QuickTime to transcode into a tiny little MPEG-4 file for long-term storage.

Re:Seems like too much for too little.

[Lifix]

Your TiVo does not do the one thing that this box does: receive and record HDTV (unless you spent about $1000 for an HD DirecTivo). No, I just have regular TiVo, however when presented with the option in the article, or a HD DirecTivo I would easilly pick the Tivo simply because I don't want to buy a G5.

Do this for free with your digital cable box...

[Casshan]

If you have a modern digital cable box with Firewire outputs, just download iRecord and connect your Mac to the box with a quality firewire cable. iRecord is developing quickly into a good PCPVR solution for digital cable boxes.

The interesting thing is that you can record anything the box is showing over the firewire output, including video on demand, HDTV, Music Choice, and digital-tier cable channels.

You can then take the captured MPEG2 transport stream and convert it to a standard MPEG file by using VLC's advanced output options in the file open dialog.

Now if someone can figure out how to send the MPEG transport stream back to the digital cable box for playback...

Re:Do this for free with your digital cable box...

[EulerX07]

connect your Mac to the box with a quality firewire cable

Did the salesman tell you the bits would sound better, or that the 0's and 1' would have more warmth to it? Any firewire cable will do, paying more for it won't make it better.

Re:Do this for free with your digital cable box...

[Glendale2x]

Now if someone can figure out how to send the MPEG transport stream back to the digital cable box for playback...

The 6200 I was playing with was incapable of such a task - it had an output channel, but no input channel. Unfortunately I don't have it anymore since I do all my recording OTA and I don't have cable. With OTA tuners you can send the stream back to the tuner and have it play in all its high definition glory on a widescreen TV.

This guy beat me to an application; all I have to show is a modified version of VirtualDVHS that responds to remote control commands from a Mits integrated HDTV. See it here. It basically pretends to be a VCR and uses the TV's internal event timer to do recordings.

Another alternative for Mac users...

[homgran]

A few months ago, I stumbled upon this page which explains how to record and play back HDTV signals using free tools and a cable box.

Regarding playback, VLC can *just* manage to play back HD 1080i recordings on my 1GHz TiBook (using the OpenGL playback option), so it sounds like it does not require the gargantuan system specs stated in the above article.

Now if only we could recieve HDTV in the UK. :/

Re:Another alternative for Mac users...

[Exitthree]

Since you have a 1 GHz TiBook, am I correct in assuming that it's running at a vertical resolution of less than 1080 pixels? Perhaps it runs because it is scaled down for your screen. Or are you displaying it on an external monitor?

Huh?

[HarveyBirdman]

You mean the HDVR2? I get my locals from the bird, but a friend hooked up an existing antenna for his. It records those just fine.

Re:Huh?

[green pizza]

HDVR2 will be handy when all of my local stations go digital (two are holding out for the deadline). But this still leaves me with no easy way to plug in additional inputs (such as from a VCR or Camcorder). Three is also no easy way to seamlessly integrate the beast with a video switcher to handle multiple inputs from different devices.

My audio reciever, on the other hand, has a built-in composite/svideo/component video switcher, which is somewhat handy, but it's more of an edge device (like my tv/monitor). I want a core video switch/pvr that can switch, record, and route multiple video streams for my home theater.

HD Without Extra Hardware ( sort of )

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out
AVS Forum - Mac HD PVR

and

Some interesting software

If you have a cable box with a firewire port (most HD cable boxes have them, and if yours does not then you can get one from the cable company as there is a law saying that it must be available to you - at least that's what I have been told and the cable company agreed)... Anyway, it works pretty well.. Have fun.

Designed for digital stations

[green pizza]

Why can't it record off of cable? Does cable use different frequencies for the same channels or something? I thought they were the same...

Modern TVs can tune both cable and over-the-air stations in a similar manner, and certain cable and air stations share the same frequencies, but not all.

This device is designed for tuning and recording digital (including HDTV) stations. To get these, you need an over-the-air antenna.

Digital cable comes in a variety of flavors, depending on your cable provider. There is no easy way for Elgato to support these. (And there may even be legal issues as some digital cable boxes have bizzare authentication systems).

Are you nuts?

[Scott Richter]

For instance, You'd go from source, to the eyeTV, to your VHS recorder, to your projector, then to your regular TV, were you to have all those things.

This guy's doing HDTV and you want him to put it through his damned *VCR* first? Ugh! If you put the TV last, you ensure that you see the worst signal possible all the time. I'll take the possibility that my VCR gets a crappy signal - after all, how often do I use it now?

The way to daisychain this is to go through things that'll preserve the digital signal first, then the TV, then export the TV's signal to whatever legacy recording devices you have that have intermittent need of a signal. Either that or use a good splitter to divide the video signal upstream. But don't put a hi-def video signal through your VCR and it's shitty aluminum coax connector - think of the children!

Re:Are you nuts?

[kulakovich]

Yes. I am nuts.

I was under the impression that there was only an "antenna in" and "antenna out" which I assumed was RF connectors.

If I am wrong, Hooray!- then I'll buy one.

So, certainly, never intentionally degrade your signal. However - if you watch most of your video from recording, then you'd want the recorder first to preserve the signal I think.

kulakovich

buy these while you can...

[enrico_suave]

and any other hdtv PC/mac related stuff before the broadcast flag kicks in =(

Looks pretty cool, i've got to see if I can get my hands on one of these (although it looks like I can get 3 DTV stations over the air where I live... 1 is pbs the other a WB affiliate... =( )

e.

Apple provides free HDTV recording tools at ADC

[jeffehobbs]

(link to previous critically acclaimed post).

It doesn't sound nearly as elegant as the ElGato solution -- they make good stuff -- but for a quick n' dirty geek HDTV recording hack, the example code Apple provides actually does work.

~jeff

Don't bother purchasing these right now...

[Critical_]

The biggest problem right now with the HDTV stand-alone recorder boxes and computer HDTV tuners is that they cannot record from digital cable. Digital Cable uses QAM (quadrature amplitude modulation) which means that it generates 4 bits out of one baud for encoding HDTV channels. Cracking that is the holy grail of HDTV recording and there are many users out there willing to put up lots of cash as an incentive for this happen. The point is over-the-air (OTA) HDTV is unencrypted and can be recorded for the time being using both stand-alone and computer equipment. Both satellite-based and digital cable-based HDTV use either QAM64 or QAM256 which cannot be tuned well by any equipment out today. There was a Dish 5000 reciever that could be hacked to output HDTV digital streams over firewire but the modulation on the network has changed so the box cannot decrypt the streams anymore for output. I would suggest waiting for the time being.

To qualify the above statement, DViCO makes the Fusion HDTV QAM PCI card for desktops which unofficially claims to tune QAM256 but it still has problems with QAM64. Link A simple seach at the AVS Forums should provide more information on current issues with the card. Lastly, for you laptop PC owners out there, Sasem makes a USB HDTV tuner which claims to tune QAM but is really only useful for OTA HDTV at the moment. Link ATI will be releasing an HDTV card soon but I am not aware if it has any QAM tuning abilities.

Re:Don't bother purchasing these right now...

[Wesley Felter]

You'll never see a digital cable PCI card, since it would be almost impossible for a PCI card to meet the OpenCable robustness requirements.

Your best bet is to get a digital cable box with Firewire (your cable company is legally required to provide one) and hook it up to your computer.

Re:Don't bother purchasing these right now...

[yo5oy]

can you point me to the law that mandates firewire on digital settop boxes as my google fu wasn't up to par? TIA.

Re:Don't bother purchasing these right now...

[Wesley Felter]

It's actually an FCC regulation.

This post below explains why it can't record

[Anonymous Coward]

http://features.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11440 1&cid=9697669

Re:TiVo

[hackstraw]

Lets summarize:

G5 ~ $2,000 (It does not appear as though any laptop or lower end machine can power this thing)
30" display ~ $3,300
TV card ~ $300

Total = $5,600

Wanna buy a bridge?

Fun thing to do with EyeTV

[piecewise]

I have an EyeTV.. The "old" USB model that records crappy quality cable TV. My favorite thing to do is to record a certain channel while I sleep, from say 3am to 5am. Instead of the morning news, I browse through all the crap that happens on TV when we aren't watching... to complement my collection of crap on TV while I AM watching.

New software released today

[Bakafish]

ElGato just released version 1.5 today that lowers CPU requirements for HDTV playback. I read reports of dual 866 G4 being able to play back a full 1080i stream.

The review was vague about being able to receive standard VHF and UHF over the air broadcasts. The online documentation also doesn't specifically indicate that it can receive them. And no Cable input? I mean come on, how is that useful. All the PCI based solutions provide dual antenna inputs. I could understand the lack of Cable based HDTV, but it should at least allow you to record and play standard def cable.

Re:New software released today

[nsayer]

The review was vague about being able to receive standard VHF and UHF over the air broadcasts

Allow me to clarify:

The EyeTV 500 does not receive analog signals at all. It only receives digital TV signals and only works with a normal UHF/VHF antenna receiving broadcast signals over-the-air.

Re:New software released today

[Anonymous Coward]

FY'all'sI: I received my EyeTV 500 two days ago, made my own attenna by sticking in a 15" piece of copper motor wire to the antenna port and away I went! I pick up 9 channels using that dinky antenna. I'm only missing my local Fox channel. That's just a matter of a larger|better|raised|directed antenna.

My PB12" G4 866MHz uses about 25-30% CPU to record a 1080i HDTV stream (while NOT displaying it). Playback of the stream at 1024x768 after it's done recording consumes about 95% CPU. I experience very few dropped frames due to the OS needing 5-10% CPU from time to time. Recording and playing simultaneously consumes 100% CPU and results in noticable-but-less-than-annoying dropped frames on the playback (the recording is fine, it still has all the frames).

I would bet that a 1.25 MHz G4 or better could record and playback at 1024x768 without a hitch.
It's when you want to playback at the full 1920x1080 that you need a G5 or two.

I took the recorded stream and saved it to a Quicktime-wrapped MPEG-2 stream. I dropped that on bbDemux and got an M2V and AC3 out of it. I used DiVA to transcode the M2V to Quicktime-wrapped 3ivx (it transcoded at 5fps; damn I need a G5). I attempted to transcode the AC3, but haven't found a tool that will do it properly yet. I've tried the 3 currently-popular ones (can't recall them off the top of my head), but they all yield corrupt audio.

All of the above was using version 1.3.9 software. I'll try the new stuff tonight and update my numbers.

Re:New software released today

[Bakafish]

That's what I thought. This is an issue obviously as you would need an EyeTV 200 and EyeTV 500 to have a decent system, sigh.

Re:New software released today

[Bakafish]

Damn, too bad you AC'ed because I'm interested to see how the 1.5 software does with this box. I'll D/L it for my EyeTV USB and see how it is myself. I'm sure someone will make a nice drag and drop transcoder (come on fourty-two) that will make down sampling this easier. The H.234 codec should be interesting too.

Re:New software released today

[beerits]

I've tried the 3 currently-popular ones (can't recall them off the top of my head
Did you try ffmpegX.

Re:New software released today

[Anonymous Coward]

Turns out the 1.5 software is just 1.3.9 (which is what came with the EyeTV 500) with the added ability of supporting all previous EyeTVs. So there was no increase in performance for me.

The AC3 transcoder I tried was mAC3dec. I got an output file, but it was 50% recognizable sound with digital-scratchy with pops and whirs.

Thanks for the tip of ffmpegX. I'll give that a try.

Another datapoint: my local PBS station broadcasts in 640x480. At that lower resolution, I can record, playback and do timeshifting without pegging my 866MHz G4.

Is it known whether....

[jet_silver]

this device respects the broadcast flag or not? I've seen this device hyped several places but no one seems to be saying.

Re:TiVo

[Exitthree]

Why? You end up with an extremely sharp 30" TV that also doubles as a sweet gaming rig (with the top of the line GeForce) and powerful workstation. Considering that a slightly larger plasma display only costs a little bit more, you end up with a lot of extra perks for your money.

Re:How long till the MPAA and broadcasters come af

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet more technology that will become outlawed if INDUCE/IICA passes.

compliance

[Leadmagnet]

in compliance with /. anti-MS policy the names Microsoft & Windows now appears in this thread.

Re:compliance

[Anonymous Coward]

I whole heartedly support this ridiculous post and this shitty thread!

Also, obligatory Stallman-esque OSS zealotry:

I refuse to awklowlidge the existance of Mac OSX on the grounds that it is not completely and truly 100% Free.
You are either a slave to the Man or Free. What say you men? GULGULGUGULGUGLGU

Re:TiVo

[TheLittleJetson]

their TV player and recorder program is very nice. the only thing that frustrates me is there's no CLI app to schedule recordings with.

Mod parent up..

[Anonymous Coward]

Very important info and answers a frequent question

Cable

[Detritus]

Cable uses a different carrier modulation method (QAM) than over-the-air HDTV (8-VSB). Some of the new TV sets include demodulators for both QAM and 8-VSB.

Wrong link in the article on homepage

[vijaya_chandra]

This is off-topic, but as is obvious I am too lazy to go to the sourceforge site for slash to submit a bug

Pudge reviewed the original (USB, NTSC) EyeTV nearly two years ago;

The shortened article in the /. home has the link for 'Pudge reviewed the original' pointing to only slashdot.org and not to the exact review. The article which you see in this page has the correct link though.

Re:How long till the MPAA and broadcasters come af

[Wesley Felter]

They already "fixed" this "problem" with the broadcast flag

not worth it

[Anonymous Coward]

no cable, no cash. i'm not shelling out extra $$$ for over-the-air broadcasts!

Not modulation, but likely encryption

[sounds]

OTA HDTV uses 8VSB (Eight Vestigial Side Band) modulation, which is more complex than QAM. Its not the modulation that makes Digital Cable hard to crack, but likely some kind of encryption, or perhaps merely obscurity. There are probably standard chips available to decode QAM, just like there are chips for receiving HDTV.

QAM has 4 codes, not 4 bits, which equates to only 2 bits. 8VSB has 8 codes, which equates to 3 bits. You've got the right idea in general, but you're a long way from cracking the technology.

Streaming

[lucidcake]

In case you've got a fast enough network, you can stream (almost) live TV and recordings using CyTV (GPL). I can't tell for sure whether it works with EyeTV 500, but it does with the USB, 200, 300, and 400 versions, so I don't think there will be a problem.

The next version will use ffmpeg for integrated realtime transcoding, so bandwidth requirements will be lower (but the server Mac should be a powerful machine). Disclaimer: I'm the developer of CyTV, so this comment is biased!

Firewire out to TV/LCD that support firewire input

[sellers]

Why could you not have the firewire out from the EG500 goto a LCD HDTV that support firewire?

Plus - doesn't this thing have a ATSC tuner for over the air? Those things retail for $300-$400. Ebay for $100-$300

So - $300 for this unit is not bad - although not as flexible (inputs/outputs).

And the pass Ant out (RF) is for signal passthrough of receiption from antenna - I doubt it's signal from the ATSC tuner or PVR.

I'll keep my TiVo

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is cool and all, but ya know, when I am rebooting my Mac to install 10.3.5 I don't have to worry about waiting until it is done recording an evening's worth of TV.

KISS!

What about LG

[gaderson]

The biggest problem right now with the HDTV stand-alone recorder boxes and computer HDTV tuners is that they cannot record from digital cable.

What about the LG PVR?

MPEG2 Acceleration needed

[tji]

This is great, it gives Macs the hardware needed to receive HD. But, it seems like the playback will be a bit rough. Without MPEG2 accel, it takes a ridiculous amount of CPU power to display good HD.

On the x86 side, an 800MHz cpu can do it when using DxVA. If Apple would open up the APIs for hardware accel, this could be a much more accessible solution.