ATI TV Wonder USB 2.0 Reviewed

The problem with external TV tuners... by francismacomber · 2004-09-04 21:14 · Score: 5, Informative

My roommates constantly want to borrow it. I was so much happier with my BT878 internal card.

Sometimes portability isn't such a good thing.

Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by boaworm · 2004-09-04 21:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Agreed. I mean.. look at this quote:

prefer an outboard piece of equipment instead of cracking open their case and dropping in a daughter board.

Ok, exactly _how_ hard is it to open your case. Compared to all the trouble involved in getting new devices to work, setup programs etc. A really bad argument. I guess there might be a percentage or two of the population that cannot, and have noone to help them "cracking open their case...", but are those people likely to buy a TV-tuner anyway ? I have a BT878, just as the parent, and it works great.

--
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by Hank+Chinaski · 2004-09-04 21:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

Well, you forget all the notebook users. They just "crack open their case" when it falls from the starbucks cafe table on the marble floor.

So for them external tv is nice of course.

--
IAAL
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by DrEldarion · 2004-09-04 21:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

A percentage or two?! There are LOADS more than that who don't even know what "right-click" means, let alone how to open their computer and install a card. Most people think it's some horrible complicated process that they need to pay the people at CompUSA $50 to do.
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by Curtman · 2004-09-04 21:38 · Score: 5, Informative

I'm curious about the picture quality of this thing. I own a Hauppauge WinTV, and two ATI All In Wonder cards, and I have to say the AIW cards blow the Hauppauge out of the water when it comes to picture quality. The Hauppauge has a pretty grainy picture, and when CPU usage is high, it drops frames big time.

Of course being a Linux user, my primary concern is driver support. On that front, the Hauppauge wins easily. The driver is part of the standard Linux kernel, and capture support is fantastic. In order to watch TV on the All In Wonder I have to compile my X server with Gatos which takes about 3 hours to do, and there is sometimes quite a bit of lag between a XFree/Xorg release, and support from Gatos. I've never been able to capture video with it, but I'm not really interested in doing that, so I'll blame myself for that. Others seem to be doing it just fine. There is some pretty exciting talk about merging Gatos into Xorg on the mailing list, and I'm hoping all goes well with that effort.

I'll admit to not having read TFA, but I searched it for Linux, and didn't find it mentioned. Anyone have one of these things, and is it useable?
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-04 21:39 · Score: 0

"Ok, exactly _how_ hard is it to open your case. Compared to all the trouble involved in getting new devices to work, setup programs etc. A really bad argument. I guess there might be a percentage or two of the population that cannot, and have noone to help them "cracking open their case...", but are those people likely to buy a TV-tuner anyway ? I have a BT878, just as the parent, and it works great."

You would be surprised at the double digit percentage of people this will appeal to who do not have laptops. Heck there are people who will only buy USB/Firewire devices even if their desks are cramped and they would rather have and be better served by the cheaper internal cards. After all "screws in a box of electronics mean I should not touch them." Never under estimate the number of people afraid of computers.
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by boaworm · 2004-09-04 21:45 · Score: 1

Ok, i didn't mention laptop owners, because i dont think there are that many laptop owners that plugs their TV tuner in when they are at starbucks anyway...
But sure, there are probably a couple of people who'd like to watch tv on their laptops, point taken.

--
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by boaworm · 2004-09-04 21:48 · Score: 1

A percentage or two?! There are LOADS more

I think you missed the "AND" in my statement. AND means that you have two statemens, and that that both should be fulfilled. In my case, I said that i think there are few people who cannot do this, and have noone around doing it for them (friend, gf/bf, parent, child, neighbour etc).

Sure there are people going to "CompUSA" and pays for it, but i'd say they are around a percent or two of all total PC owners. Dont you ?

--
Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
Aristotele
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-04 22:11 · Score: 0

You're giving people way too much credit, man.
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by Tlosk · 2004-09-04 22:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

I have a couple of machines, and while opening up the case and installing a PCI card is rather trivial, I don't want to buy cards for every single machine, nor do I want to open two cases and switch a card everytime I want to do some video work on a different machine than where the card currently is.

The one machine household is becoming a rarity these days.
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by LiquidCoooled · 2004-09-04 22:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

I saw something quite remarkable the other day.

A set of jump leads for a car.
Nothing special there you might think, but these were jump leads from cig lighter to cig lighter.
The claimed benefits included not having to get under the hood, and not getting dirty.

Thinking outside the box is not always a bad idea, I can think of many many people who wouldn't know what the battery in their car even looked like. Sure this isn't for everyone, and purists would shudder at the thought, but its a product that has a market.

With usb2, and firewire as standards for moving video data around, why should we worry about having to risk damaging the computer by opening it up?

One other aspect to it, how can I crack open my computer and put in a tv card if I bought a tiny silent desktop, or a laptop computer that has no room for expansion?

Using usb/firewire is much more expansive and practical than your closed view.
I'm pleased your internal card works and your happy with it, but just because your happy/comfortable/able to install the card internally doesn't mean everyone else is.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by lachlan76 · 2004-09-04 23:05 · Score: 1

So they THINK it's hard, but that doesn't actually make it complicated. I though building a computer would be hard, but I didn't have any trouble.
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by loic_2003 · 2004-09-04 23:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Yeah, but those cigarette lighter jump leads aren't all that good. The starter motor of a car takes the largest current of all components within the vehicle, so much so that the usual path of cable in a car goes:

Battery -> Starter motor & solenoid -> everything else.
The cigarette lighters take very, very little current in comparison (you can power one from your PC's power pack! ) and the circuitry leading to them is normally only of the guage required.

It is therefore very easy to burn out a chunk of your car's wiring loom or a fuse by using these dodgy jump leads.

Also think about it, who's going to know the correct procedure for jump-starting a car but not know where the battery is?
The idea is there and it's good to think outside the box, but sometimes the box is there for a reason so it may be a safe idea not to stray too far outside the box :)

--
http://www.frenchgeek.com/
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by PhotoGuy · 2004-09-04 23:18 · Score: 4, Informative

There are differences between Hauppage cards, too. The PVR-250/350 line have hardware encoding, very high quality. There are two different versions of their USB product, one spits out direct MPEG, and I suspect is better than the one that doesn't (I had the latter, and it was disappointing.)

After being a MythTV user for a year or so, I'm amazed this type of thing isn't pretty much ubiquitous among Linux geeks such as muchself.

--
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by LiquidCoooled · 2004-09-04 23:45 · Score: 1

I know, and was taken aback by it when I saw it yesterday, there is a limit to the amount of current that can be drawn through it, but it could certainly be used to charge the other battery, even if it needed disconnecting before actually attempting to start the car. Given a choice, I would opt for the big thick high current cables with big crocodile clips anyday, but if I had a compact (european 1l engine) town car, this could be a viable option.

I didn't pay much attention to it other than "oh cool, the lighter socket is bi-directional."

The only reason I thought of it was because it was an alternative solution in the same vein as the usb tv cards.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by vidnet · 2004-09-04 23:53 · Score: 2, Funny

It is a horrible process... it kills your uptime!
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-05 01:50 · Score: 0

I have one of those cigarette lighter charger you talked about here.

Basicly it's a cable with a 16 amp fuse and a diode that says there is a current.

So you pretty much use the other cars generator as a battery charger.

I'll stick to my CTEK charger anyway.
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by blackest_k · 2004-09-05 02:03 · Score: 1

I think there are better solutions than this device on the market as far as I can tell there is no compression built into this card so If you want to capture your looking at the power of your processor to convert this to a useable form.

If you compare against adaptec's videoh or haupages hardware encoder then this is just another tv card.

However the best thing about the article is that it has inspired me to try an experiment.
My main system is away from my living room and will remain so mainly because pc towers are so ugly and I prefer to work at my desk:) however I do have a laptop with USB and a wireless network card.

In my living room I have a digital satellite decoder. hopefully 54g wireless is fast enough to allow me to mount one of my main systems hard drives as a network drive and store to that. So essentially creating a hard drive video recorder capturing in mpeg2.

The videoh even comes with a remote capable of starting the software on the host Pc.

In theory there is no reason why it will not work however the laptop is rather underpowered which is where this idea may fail.

--
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by Artifex · 2004-09-05 02:30 · Score: 1

Ok, exactly _how_ hard is it to open your case.

What if you're trying to add the functionality to a laptop, or more usefully, an iMac?

Those nifty new widescreen iMacs don't come with video tuners, nor can you install a card in them, from what I can tell.

--
Get off my launchpad!
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by TheGavster · 2004-09-05 02:49 · Score: 1

Hurrah for new hot-swappable expansion card standards! Your box doesn't even go down when the video card catches fire!

--
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by acramon1 · 2004-09-05 02:55 · Score: 1

On the other hand, opening the case may void some warranties. If my computer is fairly new, I sure as heck won't crack it open just to watch TV on it if it means I'll void the manufacturer's warranty. In these cases, a USB tuner would be ideal.

Ideal, that is, if it works under Linux. And has open drivers. =)
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-05 03:23 · Score: 1, Funny

'...who don't even know what "right-click" means, let alone how to open their computer and install a card.'

We call them "Mac users".
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by toddestan · 2004-09-05 04:07 · Score: 0, Offtopic

It would probably take several hours to charge a dead car's battery that way. A big price to pay for convienence.
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-05 04:39 · Score: 0

I have one of those and it takes about 20 minutes to charge the battery.
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by thpdg · 2004-09-05 05:11 · Score: 1

I would think most Slashdotters would have multiple PCs, and being able to move the device from box to box is why I love mine. laptops, desktops, work PCs, etc.

--
-Patrick

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by Rightcoast · 2004-09-05 05:50 · Score: 1

Sorry, as anyone who does in home service can tell you, I would put the percentage of people who own a PC but wouldn't consider installing thier own TV card at a lot closer to forty than two. I mean I have to spend at least 2 hours a day just telling housewives why their homepage is now set to a teen porn site.

Seems to happen more on mondays though with Dad home for the weekend and all.
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by owlstead · 2004-09-05 08:23 · Score: 1

Most people think that the inside of a computer case is horribly complicated. The first thing and the second thing they say when you upgrade a computer is "Is that all?". The first is when you open the case and they see that big empty space. The second time is when you install the card.

Note that I have just recently bought an internal card, and wish I hadn't for the following reasons:
- the coax cable connector does not fit really well in the slots for the PCI cards.
- with my (Hauppauge WinTV) card came an external audio cable, that uses my only available input connector
- the inside of a computer is one big noise generator, lets place the tuner outside, shall we?
- I am not able to use it with my laptop

Most importantly the linux drivers are experimental, and worse, they seem not to get a clean picture. Maybe it's the card, maybe its the cx88xx driver, but there is no way to find out. Note that this could happen as well with the external tuner, but in that case you put it into an other machine more easily.

I don't trust the connexant and cheapo tuner card though. ATI would probably perform better. Is there a linux driver for it?
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by Lost+Dragon · 2004-09-05 10:13 · Score: 1

>>Ok, exactly _how_ hard is it to open your case.

Having worked for a company that distributed a product made for use in expansion slots, I can tell you that there are a *LOT OF USERS* out there who do not want to open up the "magic computer box".
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by apdt · 2004-09-05 12:50 · Score: 1

That's because when you jump start a car, you're actually charging the flat battery enough for it to be able to start the car. You're not trying to start the car from the other battery.

How much current do you think the croc clips on your standard jump leads are capable of? Certainly not the 300A or so that the starter motor needs.

I'd guess that there's not much difference in the current capacity of the croc clips as compared to the cig lighter.

--
I lay awake last night wondering where the sun had gone, then it dawned on me.
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by Curtman · 2004-09-05 13:18 · Score: 2, Informative

Hi self. :)

Word just came in on the Gatos mailing list that Vladimir has been given CVS write access to Xorg! This should mean that some day soon, we should see TV tuner and capture support for ATI All In Wonder cards being part of the standard Xorg distribution. Congratulations to everyone working on the project.
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by bob+beta · 2004-09-05 13:49 · Score: 1

Yes, but that 1200 day uptime means you're running a kernel that doesn't support anything fancy-schmancy in the first place.

Good old kernel 1.2.13 is good enough for anybody.

--
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by 19Buck · 2004-09-05 16:25 · Score: 1

"Most people think it's some horrible complicated process that they need to pay the people at CompUSA $50 to do."
If you buy it there, you don't have to pay them anything to install it - they will do so for free.
I can't find anything on the website that specifically outlines the free installation guidelines, but trust me, they will install most stuff purchased there for no charge in store. I know because I work there.
Yes.. i know.. shut up, it pays the bills.
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by SmittyTheBold · 2004-09-05 17:19 · Score: 1

Don't forget that many people are tech-paranoid; the sight of a capacitor is enough to induce fainting spells. I've known a good many computer-literate persons who were still unwilling to install RAM without me being there. They're (along with laptop users) the target market for these plug-in-and-go devices.

--
± 29 dB
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by Nyder · 2004-09-06 10:37 · Score: 1

quoted above: " Agreed. I mean.. look at this quote:

prefer an outboard piece of equipment instead of cracking open their case and dropping in a daughter board.

Ok, exactly _how_ hard is it to open your case. Compared to all the trouble involved in getting new devices to work, setup programs etc. A really bad argument. I guess there might be a percentage or two of the population that cannot, and have noone to help them "cracking open their case...", but are those people likely to buy a TV-tuner anyway ? I have a BT878, just as the parent, and it works great."

well, most cases suck to open, actually, mainly those from HP and such. The newer cases, no, they are usually nice, but those people don't mind opening up their computer and putting in a new card.

Mom and pop, well, they don't open their computer usually, and seeing as they bought an HP Pavilion, with their uniform ugly and sucky case, well, pop ain't going to figure how to open it without busting the front panel. I've seen it happen.

--
Be seeing you...
Re:The problem with external TV tuners... by tanguyr · 2004-09-17 07:38 · Score: 1

c l a s s i c !

--
#!/usr/bin/english

So hard... by Justin205 · 2004-09-04 21:14 · Score: 1, Troll

And putting in a PCI or AGP card is really so hard...

I've been doing that sort of stuff since I was 9 or 10... It's really not terribly difficult, especially if it gives you simple directions (and all the needed screws - I hate it when I run out of screws).

The only reason I see for USB TV tuners is for laptops or other machines without the ability to add something internally.

--
"Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."

Re:So hard... by cSnoop · 2004-09-04 21:17 · Score: 0, Redundant

Would you be so kind to install one of these cards in my laptop?
Re:So hard... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-04 21:18 · Score: 0

He said he saw the use for laptops...I don't see why his post was modded Troll...
Re:So hard... by Justin205 · 2004-09-04 21:19 · Score: 0

Wow, you don't read the whole post do you?

The only reason I see for USB TV tuners is for laptops or other machines without the ability to add something internally.

--
"Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."
Re:So hard... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-04 21:20 · Score: 0, Redundant

What I want to know is why it's so hard to find TV tuner cards that fit into the PCMCIA slot- surely this has a faster bus than USB2.0, and most laptops have space for PC cards?
Re:So hard... by Justin205 · 2004-09-04 21:21 · Score: 1, Offtopic

My original post was, at first, modded down to 0 (from it's starting 1) for redundancy. ;-) The only other post at that time was talking about a roommate borrowing it. I guess the moderators are having an off day?

--
"Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."
Re:So hard... by cSnoop · 2004-09-04 21:23 · Score: 2, Funny

Wow, you don't read the whole post do you? No.... so... Do you happen to know some place where I can go and hide until everyone forgot this years stupidest post?
Re:So hard... by Qapf · 2004-09-04 21:31 · Score: 1

http://www.averm.co.uk/avermedia/products/tvtuner_ AVerTV_Cardbus.html Google wins

--
What does one cow say to the other? Moo.
Re:So hard... by Teun · 2004-09-04 21:53 · Score: 1

Nice, contrary to others this tuner does Teletext.

--
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Re:So hard... by Justin205 · 2004-09-04 22:16 · Score: 2, Funny

Do you happen to know some place where I can go and hide until everyone forgot this years stupidest post?

You can join me under this rock over here. Yeah, I'm under here for my post being modded down to hell when it wasn't really all that Trollish (and it certainly wasn't Redundant (as was originally modded), being the second or third (maybe fourth) post -- none of the before ones had any relation to mine).

--
"Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."
Re:So hard... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-04 23:46 · Score: 0

Your post was modded troll because it deserved to be. You posted a few lines about why *you* didn't see the point of something because it didn't fit *your* needs. Your post had nothing intelligent to say about anything, and did not contribute anything except for the narrow little opinion from "Justin World".

The only reason I see for USB TV tuners is for laptops or other machines without the ability to add something internally.

That's FANTASTIC that these are the only reasons *you* see for this device! We're all VERY proud of you! Other readers of slashdot have (*gasp*) imaginations, and can find uses for all sorts of uses for things. Perhaps someone would like a TV capture device that they can easily share amongst several PCs, maybe they simply want to take advantage of their unused USB 2.0 ports, maybe they don't want to be botherered opening their case when they don't need to, maybe they want to hook it up to an oqo (while you have been "doing that sort of stuff since you were 9 or 10", the majority of consumers have not, another illustration of the fact that you live in "Justin World" and should probably expand your horizons).

I don't mean to sound like a dick, in fact, I'm trying to do you a favor, no one likes the guy who knocks something and then has nothing to back it up but "cuz thats how i see it".

You're a troll who added nothing to the conversation and were modded as such. I'd say the mods were actually quite correct.
Re:So hard... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-05 00:19 · Score: 0

Personally, I also wanted DVB as well. When you throw DVB in the mix, then there is only one option....
http://www.nebula-electronics.com/products/product s.asp?class=digitv
Re:So hard... by Justin205 · 2004-09-05 00:27 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Funny how I see so many opinion based posts get modded up as Insightful or Interesting.

--
"Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you."
Re:So hard... by jellomizer · 2004-09-05 00:55 · Score: 2, Informative
Well you are ass u meing that everyone has a good old PC box that that has pleanty of free spots to put cards in, and that you will only be using that box as your primary PC. These are the issues where it can be hard impossible, or unethical.
1. Laptops: Yea thats right most laptops dont have much room to add stuff mabey 1 or 2 PMICA Slots which can be easily filled with a wireless card.
2. Small form factor PC: Those small PCs that dont have free Slots to pug in.
3. Your PC Is full: Some people just have all their slots full. It will become a hassle swaping cards for every allication you use.
4. No primary PC: Lets say a kid who has seporated parents with slit costady. Half the time they are at one parrent and the other half there are at the other. So a USB2 can be easily moved from one location to an other.
5. Not allowed to open up the computer: Say at work or at school or with people who actually dread seeing their computer open (You probably have seen them)
So there are issues where a PCI / AGP card become much harder to add.
--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:So hard... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-05 05:14 · Score: 0

You can join me under this rock over here.

I'm sorry, but thats bad grammer.
Re:So hard... by glitch23 · 2004-09-05 06:41 · Score: 1

The only reason I see for USB TV tuners is for laptops or other machines without the ability to add something internally.

Gee, and what do you know. I bet that's one of their target markets. And for people who have more than 1 pc but only want to buy one tuner and not swap out the card all the time.

--
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Re:So hard... by Master+of+Transhuman · 2004-09-05 10:39 · Score: 1

'Your post had nothing intelligent to say about anything, and did not contribute anything except for the narrow little opinion from "Justin World."'

And this was different from how many other posts on /. that get modded "Insightful"?

Your post, BTW, is set at 0.

Anybody who wants to see useful posts should set their filter to +3.

I don't, 'cause I don't care.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:So hard... by Master+of+Transhuman · 2004-09-05 10:42 · Score: 1

And you get modded "Flamebait" for saying the truth.

That's /..

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:So hard... by skids · 2004-09-05 13:42 · Score: 1

You know, people that prefer to use an external bus rather than pop their case -- that's no big deal to me. In fact the trend might be a good thing overall, as it might result in a much more modular architecture in the long run. (Imagine PCI-Express being used the way firewire and friends are, then imagine your noisy drives tucked downstairs in the basement and your sound inputs safely far away from electromagnetic interference from the rest of the PC.)

What bothers me is the way USB was crammed down the throat of the consumer, when there was already a electrical line-coding standard for transmission at those speeds, over standard twisted pair cable, with plugs anyone with a pair of $45 crimpers can make, and which can run up to 300 feet. It's called 4B/5B NRZ. Moreover, there was already a cheap, readily available source of chipsets and in fact entire device suites for this standard. You may know it as "Fast Ethernet".

But, instead of making a new industry standard frame protocol for isocronous use of fast ethernet, these corporate shylocks decided that they didn't want Joe user to be able to buy an off-the-shelf ethernet cable, minihub, and extra PC ethernet card to plug his devices in. They wanted the only cables, hubs, and PC-cards sold for this use to be sold by people who had payed them license fees. God forbid, that might even allow Joe user to decide whether to use his port as ethernet or as an isocronous-io port. Or they might let Joe user run his cables more than 20 feet away from his PC without buying a "certified" extension cable. We wouldn't want to offer THAT level of choice, flexibility and simplicity to the end user, would we now?

So, a while ago I decided that I was going to fork over as little money as possible to the purveyors of the "Unnecessary Standards Base." I won't be buying one of these anytime soon, though it would be really nice to move that noisy media-pc of mine away from my entertainment system. Now if ATI can offer a $99 solution that streams using ethernet without stepping on the toes of pro-av vendors like these guys and getting themselves sued, then they may have a sale or three to me in their future.

--
Someone had to do it.

cards... or not by l3v1 · 2004-09-04 21:25 · Score: 0, Offtopic

It's not about inserting a card into a pc being hard. It's mainly about and for people with laptops and no desktop machines around, and it's good.

Unfortunately usb tuner support under linux is not ... much :(

--
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.

Re:Nothing says "I love you!" quite like... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-04 21:28 · Score: 0

cept maybe this

USB 2 can give good video by SalsaDot · 2004-09-04 21:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

I've got an AverMedia USB 2 external tv tuner. Its nicely made and does deliver good video over USB2 HOWEVER I'm disappointed with the fact that:
- it uses the PC sound card for the audio
meaning more cables, a little clipping as
my laptop only has a mic level input and less
than perfect sync. All that USB2 bandwidth and
they dont use it for the audio???
- All the PVR software I've tried (apart than
the buggy software that comes with it) is unable
to control the tuner, though if the card is
alredy set to a channel it feeds the other PVRs
OK.

I wanted to setup a TV server for a short while. I ended up connecting the AverMedia to a VCR to guarantee the channel would not lost when the PC rebooted (VERY likely with Windows Media Encoder :)

Re:USB 2 can give good video by Norgus · 2004-09-04 22:13 · Score: 2, Informative

I had an internal avermedia card (which worked okay under linux) but it was an utter whore under windows. Caused alot of instability and the software was shit. Moral of the story: never buy Avermedia.
Re:USB 2 can give good video by yomegaman · 2004-09-05 02:51 · Score: 1

You don't even need USB2. I have a Hauppauge WinTV PVR USB, the one that does MPEG encoding, and use it on an old machine that only has USB1.1. I can watch live TV with Sage at up to the 2GB/hr setting with no problems at all, generally I use a 480x480 1.5GB/hr mode that I made and it's just fine, using about 15% of a Celeron 2.4GHz. It's really amazing how little horsepower you need for a PVR box if you have hardware encoding.

--
...wearing a skin-tight topless leather jumpsuit, with cutaway buttocks and transparent crotch panel.
Re:USB 2 can give good video by Lehk228 · 2004-09-05 04:36 · Score: 1

i agree completely, I have an AverMedia card in my machine but have not installed the drivers for it since my last re-format, the damned thing had bad windows drivers (crossbar driver would fail to install properly)

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.

Mac/Linux? by Trurl's+Machine · 2004-09-04 21:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

I don't want to troll with obligatory "will it work with Linux" or "imagine a Bewulf cluster of these", I'm sincerely interested. As a long-time iMac/iBook user, I always in theory enjoyed the idea that I don't need to open the case of my machine just to get something done, but I was always frustrated that my only way to capture TV on my computer was a quite cumbersome setup involving a DV camera with video input. I was always interested in a device like this, but of course the PCI solutions were not for me, and USB 1.1 was just too slow for anything serious. Should this thingy be anyhow supported by MacOS X with USB 2.0, I'd purchase one right away. Hints, anyone?

Re:Mac/Linux? by Mr.G5 · 2004-09-04 21:54 · Score: 5, Informative

You sould look at the Elgato EyeTV, it has a FireWire interface and a hardware-based MPEG2 encoder so it doesn't bog down your processor. The best thing is that the software is written exclusively for the Mac so it doesn't have that ported-at-the-last-second feel to it.
Re:Mac/Linux? by Mr.+Cancelled · 2004-09-05 08:51 · Score: 1
Lessee...
1. Elgato is over twice the price of the ATI solution
2. You can record in mpeg2, which means that you can't edit in any of the "big" Mac apps (iMovie, iDVD, etc) unless you convert the video to quicktime , DV, or some other compatible format (only to then have to convert back to mpeg for the actual DVD burning)
3. There's no way for me to use this on a PC with firewire apparently, so I need something else if I want to make this portable between machines
In short, it's as annoying of a solution for us who own both PC's and Mac as the PC-only version is.

Not to troll, but Apple really has to pick up its support of us "prosumers" who choose to switch, or own both PC's and Mac. I've howled previously about this. Rather recently in fact.

There's just no reason for OSX (read as "Quicktime and all related apps which utilize Quicktime's abilities") not to support such a common video format as mpeg2 for anything other than playback.

I mean I can almost forgive the fact that OSX doesn't yet have an editor that allows me to highlight syntax with the degree of control that Homesite provides me on the PC-side of things, but to make me have to jump through hoops just to chop a couple of commercials off a recording before burning to DVD is frickin' ridiculous. This is one of the primary reasons I'm typing from a Windows box right now: I keep having to jump over to Windows to accomplish something, and then find myself multitasking. Before long, I've been working back in Windows for a few hours without realizing it.

Such shortcomings in Apples offerings obviously have hurt the chances of me becoming a dedicated "switcher". But... back to the subject: "Elgato is not the perfect solution that it seems. It appears to be a nice product, but I don't they'll be seeing $270 bucks from me anytime soon.
Re:Mac/Linux? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-05 09:40 · Score: 0

You can record in mpeg2, which means that you can't edit in any of the "big" Mac apps (iMovie, iDVD, etc) unless you convert the video to quicktime , DV, or some other compatible format (only to then have to convert back to mpeg for the actual DVD burning)

Here's a free clue... MPEG2 is *not* an "edit" format. It's a final output format used at the very tail end of the video editing process. Converting from MPEG2 to DV/AVI/QT and back to MPEG2 is going to pretty well trash the quality of your video clip. Same thing goes for DivX/XVid/WM9 formats, you only ever want to convert to those once at the end of the project.

Why? QT/AVI/DV all store each individual frame of the video, MPEG2 only stores "key frames" (every 15th or 18th) and then calculations of the differences between other frames and those key frames. Depending on the accuracy of the MPEG2 motion precision and the bitrate, you will see a little or a lot of blockiness.

The *only* editing you should ever do with an MPEG2 clip is to cut out segments (e.g. removing commercials or entire blocks of frames). Ideally, you only cut at key frames, but some products will re-encode frames if you cut at one of the other frames.
Re:Mac/Linux? by Mr.+Cancelled · 2004-09-05 09:52 · Score: 1

Here's a free clue... MPEG2 is *not* an "edit" format. It's a final output format used at the very tail end of the video editing process. Converting from MPEG2 to DV/AVI/QT and back to MPEG2 is going to pretty well trash the quality of your video clip. Same thing goes for DivX/XVid/WM9 formats, you only ever want to convert to those once at the end of the project.

You are absolutely correct. Go to the head of the class and keep your clue for yourself.

Not that it applys to the subject at hand, but since you bring it up, I record direct to mpeg2 when I am recording television shows and such. I could record it as an AVI, or uncompressed DV, etc., but since my only real goal with such recordings is to archive them sans commercials, it's ridiculous to waste so much space and time to record them as non-mpeg, edit them, and then convert them to mpg2 before burning. My solution is much quicker. Again, not that the conversation's tied to this, but your reply seems to imply that I'm somehow a moron for recording to mpeg2. I disagree.

Similarly, MpegVCR can easily chop off commercials and such, without having to rencode the entire video clip (as most software does - TmpGenc's a great example). I'd even be happy recoding the output in OSX if I could simply edit an mpeg2 with the editing tools that are available. Alas, MpegVCR is Windows only, and there's nothing similar in OSX-land. Hence my post.

The *only* editing you should ever do with an MPEG2 clip is to cut out segments (e.g. removing commercials or entire blocks of frames). Ideally, you only cut at key frames, but some products will re-encode frames if you cut at one of the other frames.

I agree! So why can't I clip these segments out easily on the Mac side of things? It's simple to do in PC-land. It should be considered "low hanging fruit" to those planning Quicktime's roadmap. It's frustrating that this all-too common task is impossible on my Mac.

BTW, I've been told that Final Cut Express will do such editing. I just don't feel that I should have to fork out almost $300.00 and have to learn a fairly complex piece of software, just to edit a Pizza Hut commercial off a 30 minute mpeg clip (particularly considering I've spent almost $3000 for a top of the line Mac already!).
Re:Mac/Linux? by iantri · 2004-09-05 14:49 · Score: 1

Additionally, it also has that wonderful exclusive Mac user price tag of USD$269.00.
Re:Mac/Linux? by FDj · 2004-09-06 12:44 · Score: 1

The very EyeTV software you're bashing so vocally has an integrated editor for MPEG-2 recordings that lets you do exactly what you want. Do your fellow slashdotters a favor and learn before you speak. For more information about EyeTV and its features, check out the web site at http://www.elgato.com/.

Drivers by robpoe · 2004-09-04 21:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

So, the review shows screen shots. I think there should be a sentence at the end of EVERY review for us Linux users -

"This device DOES/DOES NOT have drivers for Linux available/in the package/on the website".

That way - we dont have to hunt it down, and we know right away which companies to support.

--
= Grow a brain...

Re:Drivers by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-04 22:23 · Score: 0

"Us" Linux users? Err, everyone on Slashdot doesn't use Linux.

If this were in the Linux section, your comment may have been valid, but otherwise you assume far too much.
Re:Drivers by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-05 02:05 · Score: 0

Grandparent doesn't imply Slashdotters are Linux users, just him and at least some other people who would benefit from a better review. Saying "We Americans have bad grammer." while in italy doesn't imply that all Italians are Americans. Dumbass.

closed captioning support by jaxdahl · 2004-09-04 21:42 · Score: 4, Interesting

Will it record closed captions and play them back when video is played back? Are other tv tuner hardware & software combos able to do this? This is why I still have a tv and vcr .. what about dvd recorders? Will these record captions too or not?

Re:closed captioning support by grondu · 2004-09-05 01:36 · Score: 2, Informative

Will it record closed captions and play them back when video is played back? Are other tv tuner hardware & software combos able to do this?

The Hauppauge PVR-250 and PVR-350 cards can do this, at least under Windows. It requires a few registry changes and recent versions of the drivers and WinTV2000. For details, see here.

--
I'm the urban spaceman babe, but here comes the twist... I don't exist
Re:closed captioning support by ImaLamer · 2004-09-05 03:21 · Score: 1

These factors is what kept me from getting a "TV Tuner" and decided on just a video/audio input system.

I'm quite happy with my VSTREAM "Xpert" DVD Maker USB 2.0. It's external, small, and supports resolutions up to 720x480. Sure, there is not a "tuner" but that is what my cable box, VCR and other things are for. Simply hook up a DVD player, PS2 or anything else that has A/V cables, even S-Video.

It's allowed me to copy VCR tapes (to XviD) and play console games on my PC. Since all it does is render the picture there isn't any extra work being done with the PC. Want closed captions? Turn that on at the VCR.

Let's me copy my camcorder movies, since their already on those tiny tapes it needs to be done anyway. In fact it's easy to put it onto a VCD or SVCD. It even comes with software to time-shift or set up timers to record shows at specific times. All that is left is to set the cable box to tune it at those times (easy on most cable boxes). If you don't have cable just put an antenna on the VCR and viola.

I'd like for there to be Linux support, but sadly there isn't. Of course it may just work, never tried... for the price though, you can't really beat it. The Windows software, while ugly, is pretty robust and if you don't like it just use VirtualDub (which is what I used to copy many camcorder recordings).

Puts the image on the screen and that is all I need.

--
Get your Unix fortune now!
Re:closed captioning support by sarahemm · 2004-09-05 12:38 · Score: 1

MythTV on Linux will do this, at least with the card I'm using (ATI TV Wonder) and most other bttv cards. It works quite well, the captions get recorded into the video file and can be turned on/off at playback time. When you export, you can export the captions as a .sub file which can be read by mplayer and displayed at play time for the exported/transcoded files too.
Re:closed captioning support by iantri · 2004-09-05 14:16 · Score: 1

The point of having "closed captions", though, is, they are encoded in the video signal, and can be turned on or off at will.
Also, VCRs that can decode closed captions are extremely unusual..
Re:closed captioning support by iantri · 2004-09-05 14:31 · Score: 1

Many DVD Recorders (read: ones that don't suck) record the captions in proper DVD format, so the will play back on any DVD player. However, some don't record them at all.
Grondu is right in that the PVR-250 and PVR-350 CAN capture closed captions, however they can not be played back without processing (to turn it into a text subtitle file, or to author to a DVD) or fiddling with GraphEdit. Also, it records it in a bastard not-entirely-compliant format. It might not work on some players. So, not easily or conveniently..
Apparently, though, MythTV with a BT878 card (most cheap tuners) can record and playback captions.. not well documented, though..
Stick with your VCR, or buy a DVD recorder.
Re:closed captioning support by ImaLamer · 2004-09-07 08:23 · Score: 1

My cheap ass RCA decodes them along with "SAP", that is spanish for most stations....

You can get cool stuff when you buy from crackheads. Everything is 40 bucks(... even DVD's for some reason)

--
Get your Unix fortune now!

There are more by Teun · 2004-09-04 21:44 · Score: 5, Informative

This is what I bought 3 weeks ago:
Pinnacle PCTV USB2.0

and am very happy with.
Very small (pack of sgarettes)
Powered through the USB port
Comes with a remote
Sensitive antenna input
Important for the traveller it will do PAL, NTSC, SECAM.
Good software

But so far no luck on Linux...

--
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."

Re:There are more by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2004-09-05 00:57 · Score: 1

Is the software any good? I had Pinnacle Studio 8 and it turned out to be the bane of most users because it was buggy and crash prone.
Re:There are more by MadChicken · 2004-09-05 03:57 · Score: 1

OT, I know. Try the absolute latest patch, I actually got it working with MPEG files this time. I'll never buy another Pinnacle Studio product though...

--
SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
Re:There are more by Teun · 2004-09-05 04:41 · Score: 1

I've got PCTV USB2 Vision Build 1.00.057 and have not had it crash yet.
When doing a lot of I/O I do get a noticeable lag between sound and picture, stopping and restarting fixes it.

--
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Re:There are more by Saberwind · 2004-09-05 06:58 · Score: 1

I have the PCTV Deluxe, which also uses the USB port. Unfortunately, when using the TV tuner software, the act of changing channels causes the audio and video to be come very choppy (restarting the software fixes this). Changing channels also incurs a 1-second delay.

I have the lastest driver (January 2003) and I've tried it on both my laptop and desktop, and had the same results. I probably won't be buying anything from Pinnacle ever again.

A good TV-card under Linux by Ramsed · 2004-09-04 21:47 · Score: 1

At the moment I am planning on buying a TV-card for recording TV shows. Apart from a wish that this card should not be too expensive, my wishes would be:

Supported under Linux (2.6)
Interface: PCI or USB 1
Optionally: onboard encoding (my cpu is a Duron800)
Optionally: TV-out

Which card would you recommend?

Re:A good TV-card under Linux by soccerisgod · 2004-09-04 21:52 · Score: 4, Informative

Important question: Where do you live? Does the area have any kind of digital tv? If so, I'd go for a dvb solution - eliminates the need of encoding your recording, just gotta grab the mpeg stream and save it on the harddisk.

To see what cards are supported in general (analog and digital), a visit to Gerd Knorr's website bytesex.org might be in order...

I personally have two Hauppauge cards, one for normal analog cable and one for DVB-t. The windows drivers are a joke, but they work well in linux...

--
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
Re:A good TV-card under Linux by Ramsed · 2004-09-04 21:57 · Score: 1

I live in the Netherlands and I don't have digital TV, just an analog cable. Thanks for the website, I'll look into it.
Re:A good TV-card under Linux by wfberg · 2004-09-04 23:36 · Score: 1

The philips saa7134 has stereo sound, good picturequality, and isn't expensive (asus brand board at computerland.nl since you're living in The Netherlands).

The windows application that asus bundles sucks (it's way to slow) and if you use DScaler, you'll have to enter the channels manually, but after that you're golden (except DScaler doesn't do PVR yet).

There's linux support for the card as well. The chipset was bundled by medion/aldi in their low-end cheap-ass computers, so they're quite prolific.

No on-board encoding or tv-out though.

I chose the philips chips over bt848/hauppage for the better picture and sound quality. If you insist on hardware encoding though, you'll end up with a more expensive card - that usually have better picture quality than lowend hauppage wintv cards anyway.

--
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Re:A good TV-card under Linux by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-04 23:50 · Score: 0

The windows drivers are a joke, but they work well in linux...
Wow, how'd you get the windows drivers working in linux?
Re:A good TV-card under Linux by Tim+C · 2004-09-05 00:12 · Score: 1

I know yuo're joking, but see this article; might wipe the smile off your face.

--
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Re:A good TV-card under Linux by Teun · 2004-09-05 00:36 · Score: 1

Haupauge is probably the way to go.
I've seen their USB1.1 box for 39 Euro at MediaMarkt in Germany and 75 on Kelkoo. But the video quality of USB1 is limited, noticeable artefacts especially in full screen mode.

--
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Re:A good TV-card under Linux by owlstead · 2004-09-05 08:30 · Score: 1

Note that I could not get my hauppauge card to work with the newest drivers and DirectX 9.0c. There seems to be a patch for 9.0b but with DirectX, there is no easy way to downgrade. Maybe I should deinstall first. But it is a pain indeed.

It seems the driver or application has problems with the video overlay. Since I can tune the card and receive teletext, I'm pretty sure the card is in order. The only problem is the picture quality: pitch black.

I can't help but thinking by thegoogler · 2004-09-04 21:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

The real market for these is in laptops... as in if your staying in a crappy motel(for a convention or something) that doesn't have a TV this would be great. or for the old game-system-in-the-car routine.

Re:I can't help but thinking by glesga_kiss · 2004-09-05 01:43 · Score: 1

if your staying in a crappy motel(for a convention or something) that doesn't have a TV this would be great.
Now that you mention it; I've never been in a hotel/motel room that doesn't have a TV. I think it's a sanity thing, most people feel uneasy in a room without a TV on nowadays. It's even on the list of things that the repo man isn't allowed to take here in the UK, along with fridges/freezers etc.
Would it work on a plane I wonder? You'd constantly have to retune, but it may be possible.

Re:So hard...[OT] by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-04 21:57 · Score: 0

Nope - you were probably the target of malicious modding.

I'd like to say it would be corrected at meta-mod, but that is always a crapshoot at best :)

(Don't sweat it - it's a small price to pay for the overall good that is Slashdot ;)

Why the hell is it a "daughter board"? by rtilghman · 2004-09-04 22:04 · Score: 1, Interesting

This is the first time I have ever seen an aux PCI board referred to with the adjective "daughter", am I alone?

I understand the continuation of the "motherboard" concept here, but daughter board makes absolutely no sense in my mind. Sure, the child analogy fits, but the "daughter" board has a PCI connector that is INSERTED into the motherboard. In every other application I have EVER seen this is referred to as a "male" connector (a female being a receiver connector into which the male is inserted).

Maybe I'm being a "right brain word fetishist", but did this description strike anyone else as odd?

-rt

Re:Why the hell is it a "daughter board"? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-04 22:23 · Score: 0

The usage is from the olden days of computing, when not every component was on the motherboard. I still have some 486 computers in the closet which have the disk controllers and the serial / parallel ports on seperate add-in cards.
Re:Why the hell is it a "daughter board"? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-04 23:10 · Score: 0

actually daughter card was used in the late 90's by matrox as a prpriatary connection adding onto the agp card via pins on their matroxg200 and g400 series to add on onboard mpeg2 encoding, it did decoding already so with their vid card + daughter card, you had a powerful tv in out setup.

this is the last use of daughter card in desktop level hardware that I have seen in use.
Re:Why the hell is it a "daughter board"? by Tim+Browse · 2004-09-04 23:13 · Score: 2, Informative

Daughter board has been used to describe a board you plug into the main board for a long time. I first heard it about 20 years ago.
Re:Why the hell is it a "daughter board"? by donscarletti · 2004-09-04 23:37 · Score: 5, Funny

I understand the continuation of the "motherboard" concept here, but daughter board makes absolutely no sense in my mind. Sure, the child analogy fits, but the "daughter" board has a PCI connector that is INSERTED into the motherboard. In every other application I have EVER seen this is referred to as a "male" connector (a female being a receiver connector into which the male is inserted).
It should be called an oedipus board. Because it is a child that inserts its male connector into its motherboard.
That was possibly the worst thing I have ever posted.

--
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Re:Why the hell is it a "daughter board"? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-05 00:05 · Score: 0

Exactly, the post is written by someone who is trying to be more technically than they actually are.
Re:Why the hell is it a "daughter board"? by cyberfunk2 · 2004-09-05 00:26 · Score: 1

They've been called daughterboards as long as I can remember.. It's not recent terminology, so your likely of the younger generation.. but it IS the right word for it.
Re:Why the hell is it a "daughter board"? by duckpoopy · 2004-09-05 02:11 · Score: 1

I last heard it about 15 years ago. Seems the author may be quite old school.

--
word.
Re:Why the hell is it a "daughter board"? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-05 03:29 · Score: 0

And sometimes they are called Riser cards too. Slashdot Morons!!!!!!Ya'll Blow Goatse.**
Re:Why the hell is it a "daughter board"? by zenneth · 2004-09-05 04:38 · Score: 0

I've always known daughter boards to be an add-on for a card you already have in your system.

ie, a small board that plugs into your video card to allow you to expand your video capabilities.

Z

--
The Chronic *WHAT* les of Narnia!
Re:Why the hell is it a "daughter board"? by glitch23 · 2004-09-05 06:44 · Score: 1

You are thinking too far outside the box. Stop that.

--
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Re:Why the hell is it a "daughter board"? by drawfour · 2004-09-05 10:36 · Score: 1

I always thought a "daughter" board was a board that plugs into the motherboard, but other boards plug into the daughter board. As such, it was kind of an "extension" of the motherboard. I think Compaq used to use this sort of setup.

WinTV PVR USB2 by Neo69 · 2004-09-04 22:06 · Score: 1

I'm also quite interested in such a device, the best i have found so far is the Hauppage WinTV PVR USB2, as it actually has a remote, can be run with beyondtv and other good application, and it encodes to Mpeg2 in hardware (at 12mbit, i don't think you would notice), which is a good thing because it reduces CPU utilization and definately helps when recording/timeshifting etc. The price tag is kinda hefty (i think the MSRP is 199) though.

Re:WinTV PVR USB2 by whypick1 · 2004-09-05 18:58 · Score: 1

I have this tuner along with BeyondTV. I used to have a ATI TV Wonder Pro using ATI MMC. My beef wasn't necessarily with the hardware, but the software ATI chose to make for it sucked ass.

Anyway, the WinTV USB2 was definitely worth every penny ($225, which included BeyondTV), as my computer is not a dedicated PVR. I got the USB unit since I'm getting a laptop, which I may dedicate for PVR duties, as I don't see myself being mobile with it. Anyway, the picture quality is as good as you can expect from coax connection, although it's not really fair to compare a 800x600 tops TV at 5+ ft. to 1280x1024 LCD from 2ft. away.However, I can honestly say though that you can record TV and play Doom 3 at the same time with dropping frames for on either side (and my rig is fairly modest; Barton 2500+, 512MB PC2700, Radeon 9500). For a gamer who wants to save TV series on his hard drive, that's a real plus. If I stressed the computer too hard on my old ATI setup, I'd risk screwing up the rest of the recording. This thing also pipes audio through USB, so that's one less cable to mess with.

Major issue I found it is that, being a hardware MPEG2 encoder, playing consoles on it using the inputs is impossible as there's a ~3 sec delay between controller input and audio/visual feedback. I was kind of hoping to use it for some Xbox sessions piping out of my Klipsch speakers, but it looks like I'll have to get a VGA converter to accomplish that.

Plus, there seems to be issues with it and wireless adapters. I've had both the Linksys WUSB11 (first rev.) and the Belkin F5D6050 hooked up to my system, and both brought up the same issue when viewing or recording TV. When recording, all signs would indicate that it was going normally, but the final file would only cap about a minute and a half. If you watch TV, then after the same time period the output will be black, and you'll need to reinitialize TV. I do need to point out that these two POS adapters barely work with XP as it is, so you can probably take it for a grain of salt.

A few minor quibbles for those of you interested:

This is not a cool-running unit, but it is by no means finger burning.
The tuner is not bus-powered. Might be an issue for those of you on the go.
The included remote only works with the WinTV app. Thankfully I have the Remote Wonder (which doesn't suck ass), so I can change channels from across my house).
No IR blasting support. Just means you'll have to shell out for one that uses a PC connection.

All in all, an awesome unit if you have the cash and are serious about turning a computer into even a part-time PVR.

Reviewer missed the point by David+Horn · 2004-09-04 22:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm sorry, the quality of that review was appalling. Why on earth does the author suggest connecting it to a receiver box, when the whole point is to allow TV on the go? What sort of person carries a receiver unit to their hotel? This is, of course, ignoring the fact that the TV Wonder is actually a receiver unit anyway.

And again, he criticises the quality of using co-ax cabling to get the TV signal to the box. Does he have any better suggestions? Wireless? ESP, perhaps. I think this reviewer needs to think very hard about what this unit was actually designed to do, before leaping in and criticising it. I didn't even bother to read the rest of the review - if he doesn't know what he's talking about in the first half, he won't in the second, either.

--
PocketGamer.org - For the gamer on the go!

Re:Reviewer missed the point by Trurl's+Machine · 2004-09-04 22:29 · Score: 1

Why on earth does the author suggest connecting it to a receiver box, when the whole point is to allow TV on the go? What sort of person carries a receiver unit to their hotel?

"TV on the go"? Whart sort of a hotel does not offer a TV-set?
Re:Reviewer missed the point by Teun · 2004-09-05 00:43 · Score: 1

"TV on the go"? Whart sort of a hotel does not offer a TV-set?
The kind my boss likes the price of.
And that's why a sensitive receiver that maybe even works with a simple piece of wire is important, it was not checked at all in this article.

--
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Re:Reviewer missed the point by duckpoopy · 2004-09-05 02:16 · Score: 1

The reviewer is the type of idiot who thinks that $200 cable are worth it, and who watches wrestling...

--
word.

Alternative? by M1FCJ · 2004-09-04 22:18 · Score: 1

I don't need a TV, you insensitive clod. I sold mine ages ago and I'm happy without makeover programs, sports channels and rubbish news. I have my DAB radio and I'm happy.

Re:Alternative? by One+Childish+N00b · 2004-09-05 02:24 · Score: 1

Trying to stay on-topic, I'm interested in one of these devices as I do a lot of travelling with my laptop, and when you're on a budget the places you end up in don't always have a TV... but the parent has a point - there is less and less point to buying a television, let alone a device to watch television when you're AWAY from the set - how many makeover programmes can you really watch in day? I could get one of these devices, sit it next to the regular 2 TVs in my house and put a different makeover/other 'reality TV' show on each of them every half hour and still not manage to see them all (shortly before I go insane at seeing Simon Cowell and sodding Sharon Osbourne pretending to argue with each other for the millionth time) - so the market for these in Britain is only going to get smaller as we get more and more cynical at the sheer amount of 'Big Brother'-esque shows that saturate our media.

In America I know you have far more channels so maybe you get more oppertunity to watch real programmes, but with just five terrestrial channels, your friends over the pond would basically be forced to watch Reality TV and daytime chatshows 24 hours a day... unless they're willing to strap a satellite dish to their notebook. The majority of the people who really can't get enough of their fix of reality TV wouldn't be able to set one of these up (no offence to any techy Big Brother fans reading this, I can only call 'em as I see 'em) even with the simplicity of 'Stick it in that hole and put the CD in, Keep clicking OK till it goes away'.

Even satellite's going the same way now - we have two or three (maybe more) channels solely dedicated to makeover shows - it's rediculous. It's not a fad that's going to go away either - it's incredibly cheap to produce and so the TV companies get the biggest slice of advertising funds funnelled into their pocket instead of back into programme development, and so we're screwed until a totally selfless media mogul comes in to rescue us and change the trend (like that's going to happen). The only channels I watch here are Paramount Comedy and UK Gold, which are both repeat channels of US and UK comedy shows respectively - Paramount has been showing two M*A*S*H episodes a day for as long as I can remember, and I must have seen every episode of that show 4 or 5 times over, and they're still funny - hundreds of times more so than Sharon Osbourne's latest attempt to remain famous by annoying the general populace.

Ladies and gentlemen, TV has died. Like every other outlet for the creative human mind, 'Reality', in one form or another, has killed it. Without satellite access, British viewers are screwed. One friend without a dish hasn't watched TV in months, others I know can go for weeks without watching a show, and those with satellite very often never touch terrestrial, so I (and they) certainly wouldn't pay money for yet another way to watch it that they're not going to use.

[END RANT]

--
Dealing with lawyers would be a lot less tedious if they all looked like Casey Novak.
Re:Alternative? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-05 04:08 · Score: 0

Excellent post, modworthy. It also explains the vast amount of DVD show seasons available. Gotta go watch "Good Times" now heh heh..

Re:Looks pretty good by slumpy · 2004-09-04 22:18 · Score: 0, Redundant

Wow, posts are getting redundant quicker than they used to.

--
http://www.commaecho.com

different cables by lucas+teh+geek · 2004-09-04 22:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

am I the only one who couldnt spot the difference in quality between the different cables? they make the claim s-video is best of the three, and from my own experiences connecting an xbox up to a big tv different ways, id say s-video does look better but those screnshots show no difference. is this something that would make a difference if i could see the moving pictures or are they just jackasses paying for more expensive cables when the bottleneck in quality is not the cables carrying the signal?

--
TIAEAE!

Re:different cables by BluhDeBluh · 2004-09-04 23:34 · Score: 1

It's not to do with bandwidth. It's more to do with the fact that within the cable the image can bleed (it's analogue, not digital remember). S-Video removes this by giving the major elements of a formable image their own cable each. RGB is technically better by splitting the image into only the parts you can see, but the US don't have a format for that. [url=http://atarilabs.com/meat/2000/1201_rgbprimer .shtml]This article might intrest you[/url] re: RGB, S-Video, Composite, Component differences.
Re:different cables by Ravadill · 2004-09-04 23:37 · Score: 1

I wouldn't listen to quality remarks from anyone obsessed with Monster (ripoff) cables. Really any half decent cable (not the 2c stuff, but not some stupid overhyped brand name) will do perfectly well with any TV quality signals.
Re:different cables by BluhDeBluh · 2004-09-04 23:38 · Score: 3, Informative

Just so happens I'm a bit thick, spend too much time on forums, put the wrong link in and messed up the last reply... so fixing it here. Sorry people! It's early here!

It's not to do with bandwidth. It's more to do with the fact that within the cable the image can bleed (it's analogue, not digital remember). S-Video removes this by giving the major elements of a formable image their own cable each. RGB is technically better by splitting the image into only the parts you can see, but the US don't have a format for that.

This article might intrest you re: RGB, S-Video, Composite, Component differences.
Re:different cables by gunpowder · 2004-09-05 02:16 · Score: 2, Interesting

am I the only one who couldnt spot the difference in quality between the different cables?

Yes, it is difficult to tell, but if you really look closely, you'll see a difference in the quality of the pictures. A good way to find out it to open each picture (1, 2, 3) in a browser-tab (not in a new window); then flip between the tabs and you'll notice the difference.

In the coax picture you'll notice the 'color bleed' and distortions: on the face (cheek, mouth) of the referee, and on his left arm (especially when compared to the composite picture). Finally the s-video screenshot is slighly sharper and has more contrast (ie. not as blurred) as the other pictures, as you can see if you look at the audience on the right side
Re:different cables by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-05 07:45 · Score: 0

I could not spot a difference between the coax and svideo connections, but the svideo and the composite have a big difference in quality you can see. Look at the edges of objects in the composite and svideo. In the svideo you can see the jaggies. That means the picture is sharp. In the composite, the edges, and presumably the details in the rest of the image, are blurred.

If only for the sake of better compression, svideo would seem to be the better choice.

Poor review. No hardware encoding is a feature? by tachyonflow · 2004-09-04 22:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

I agree with another poster that this is not a very good review.

The author advises against the use of the coax input. I think it's obvious that anybody with a digital cable box or satellite recevier will be using s-video or composite inputs to this device. Those of us with analog cable or antenna (without a cable box) will use the coax input, of course.

Referring to component video as "aka RCA" is a bit confusing. Component video may use RCA plugs (I've never had a component setup; I'm just guessing), but so does composite video.

The device apparantly does not have video compression hardware onboard, and the reviewer regards this as a feature, because "most of today's PC video compression parts still need work." I, for one, would much rather have an onboard MPEG2 video encoder (an MPEG4 encoder would be even sweeter, but these don't seem to quite be commodity parts yet.) I'm not sure why the reviewer regards video encoding hardware to be sub-par, but I've had excellent results with my PVR350. Not perfect, but much better than dropping frames when my computer is too busy doing something else to service a capture interrupt (*). I was actually pretty disappointed to realize that the device's advertised "capture video in MPEG4 format" actually just meant that they would supply software for the encoding.

(* I suppose that since this is a USB device, raw video would be captured as a stream instead of via capture framebuffer interrupts, but I could still think of better things to do with my CPU cycles and USB bandwidth.)

This review of a review brought to you by: being awake at 4:30am!

Re:barbequed bill by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-04 22:48 · Score: 0

I actually have all the episodes saved, I wouldn't know how to get them to you though, they are each 1.5 to 2.5 megabytes in size (13 episodes) and I only have a hotmail email account.

Re:Looks pretty good by somethinghollow · 2004-09-04 22:51 · Score: 1

Wow. Mod points aren't getting handed out like candy at a Mardi Gras parade like they used to. :P

Pisser, yes. But, whatever. I'll deal with the negative impacts as well as the lack of personal gratification of having the ability to tell people that they are saying the same thing as everyone else.

Re:Nothing says "I love you!" quite like... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-04 23:11 · Score: 0

lol

This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...wtf? doh.

These guys opinion went right in the toilet by ChadAmberg · 2004-09-04 23:13 · Score: 4, Informative

Once they started the "monster cable is worth it" crap. While using something like 12 over 24 guage cable might make a difference, these guys are on serious crack if they think 40$ cable is better than 10$.
They must have that psychological problem of paying more so they think it works better issue, even though independent tests show no difference.
I think I'll want to sell them the 200$ penis enlarger instead of the 15$ one...

Re:These guys opinion went right in the toilet by Judg3 · 2004-09-05 06:14 · Score: 1

Although I believe along the same lines you do, I still use monster cable for some things.
Even though I'm not an audio or videophile, the construction of Monster Cables does tend to hold up better then a 2$ cable.

Granted, I don't buy the uber-expensive ones, I do buy their midline versions. The connectors just seem better to me. The cables are thicker and better shielded and the ends are hardier.

It may not matter much, but I have read a lot about 'cross talk' when you get power, video, audio, etc cables all close together - so I'd rather just be safe then sorry.

Besides, a good investment in cables will last a lifetime (or until they change specs) whereas people will spend thousands on AV gear which they update every few years.

--
Looking for hardware (Currently need: Large Etch-a-Sketch) Have one? See my journal!

Re:Poor review. No hardware encoding is a feature? by gl4ss · 2004-09-04 23:14 · Score: 1

it's not a review, it's a plug-fest.

"With the exception of the composite connection, we'll be sticking with Monster Cable wires for testing. You pay a little more, but based on experience, we find these cables are of the best quality. Only reason we're not using Monster Cable composite cables is due to budget reasons. However, this will give us a chance to test the Theater 200's filtering."

the review itself also doesn't raise any real points about the product..., like what's the image quality compared to some real tv tuner card(that's fucking 7+ years old) when used with dscaler( http://www.dscaler.org/ ) and can it be used with pvr's, is there any kind of linux support whatsoever..

and that you won't be enjoying video on the go due to the external power requirements.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.

it's also worth mentioning that by hdd · 2004-09-04 23:18 · Score: 1

toshiba has a similar oem solution in its p15-s479 laptop with windows media center 2004. The external tuner that comes with the laptop does hardware encoding and has coax and composite input output signal via usb2. Toshiba Model No. 51109551001

--
This Sig is removed due to factual inaccuracy

RGB capture devices? by antime · 2004-09-04 23:26 · Score: 1

Related to the topic, are there any consumer-level capture devices that can use a straight RGB signal? I'd like to connect my consoles to my computer, but composite and S-video are just too fuzzy. I specifically would like to display the picture in a window, so XRGB2 etc. are not an option.

(About the "review", is there some law stating that all "hardware enthusiast" sites must be so craptastic?)

Re:RGB capture devices? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-05 07:09 · Score: 0

I'd love this, too, but how many consoles still have RGB output ability? The original SNES had it on the multi-out jack, but later revisions took it out IIRC to save a few pennies. NES never had it. You can obviously get component output on newer consoles like GameCube, but that is not pure RGB--it's ye olde YCrCb.
Re:RGB capture devices? by antime · 2004-09-05 21:03 · Score: 1

PAL hardware does - the only recent one that didn't was the N64 which for some reason didn't support anything better than S-video.

double .. was also on ask slashdot by leuk_he · 2004-09-04 23:40 · Score: 0

Hmmm this must be an important topic since this was on ask slashdot where the Adaptec VideOh! DVD Media Center USB 2.0 or the AVerMedia UltraTV USB 300 where mentioned.

rely on /. to repeat "important" hardware.... 8-)

the tv wonder was NOT recommanded by a lot of readers, but this might be the usb 1.1 tv-wonder that simply does not have enough bandtwith to the computer.

They are not for jump-starting. by Gordonjcp · 2004-09-04 23:53 · Score: 1

They are for charging up a flat battery. Plug the leads in, start the car that *will* start, let it run at a fast idle for five minutes and you should have enough in the other battery to start the car.

You'll probably find that the fag lighter socket is disconnected, along with all the other accessories, when you turn the ignition key.

Re:They are not for jump-starting. by mitherial · 2004-09-17 03:37 · Score: 1

Damn you British people! :-) Do you have any idea how odd "Fag lighter socket" sounds to non-British ears?

--
Foo?

Re:Poor review. No hardware encoding is a feature? by Captain+Zion · 2004-09-04 23:59 · Score: 2, Informative

And when he says that "component video (...) separates the video across red, green and blue" he probably meant YCrCb luminance-chrominance signals (unless the device has a SCART interface as well, which doesn't seem to be the case).

I know this might be OT for a USB TV tuner... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-05 00:17 · Score: 0

...but does anyone know of a FireWire-based external TV tuner? There is one made in Japan by IO Gear (http://www.iodata.com/usa/products/products.php?c at=GRPH&sc=VID-CAP&pId=GV-1394TV), but it is not seem to be easily available, esp. if you live in The Great White North (tm), up here in Canada.

Oh, there might be some profesionnal (sp?) grade stuff, but I'm looking for something a mere mortal could afford.

Thanks.

Why a USB/FireWire device instead of internal by MadChicken · 2004-09-05 00:22 · Score: 1

I'll tell you. I have a Radeon 64MB DDR VIVO card. I love it, it does MPEG compression using the Theater chip, so I get NO dropped frames.

However. It's also a Radeon "7200". I can't upgrade my video card without losing my capture card. Yeah I know, I could get an AIW. But why should I pay more to get exactly the same capture quality and ability? I think I would rather get a regular card, and an add-on capture card.

I also used to have a AIMLab's VHX98 - It was pretty good, but compression added some fair load to the CPU. Also couldn't capture at "just any" resolution (namely, the one I wanted). I don't know if that was a typical example of the BT8x8 cards anyway.

--
SYS 64738 NO CARRIER

Re:Why a USB/FireWire device instead of internal by Teun · 2004-09-05 01:15 · Score: 1

Why a USB/FireWire device instead of internal
Because some people carry a laptop when traveling???

--
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Re:Why a USB/FireWire device instead of internal by MadChicken · 2004-09-05 03:52 · Score: 1

Yes yes yes. Thank you for your redundancy.

But there's no "instead" for laptop users, now, is there?

--
SYS 64738 NO CARRIER

Incomplete review by Faeton · 2004-09-05 00:39 · Score: 2, Informative

So where's the part about the tuner aspect of the device? I mean, this IS a TV tuner right? Instead, he reviews it as a video-input device.

He doesn't touch upon how good it grabs crappy signal from cable TV, nor how fast the channels change. He doesn't even review the TiVO-esque function.

I think this is a 1/2 ass review that totally misses the point of having this device, which is being able to use your computer like a normal TV, which includes flipping through the channels. Just lazy!

Playing games by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-05 00:57 · Score: 0

The device apparantly does not have video compression hardware onboard, and the reviewer regards this as a feature, because "most of today's PC video compression parts still need work." I, for one, would much rather have an onboard MPEG2 video encoder (an MPEG4 encoder would be even sweeter, but these don't seem to quite be commodity parts yet.)

Actually this is pretty reasonable. A lot of hardware compressors currently introduce lag. That's not good if you're playing a console through your TV card because you don't want to own a whole set or are running a receiver's audio externally where you won't get a matching lag.

Re:Playing games by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2004-09-05 01:05 · Score: 1

I think the compressor can be bypassed on the PVR cards when playing in real time, game play doesn't need to be time shifted. Software encoding adds lag too because encoding simply takes time, a CPU doesn't automagically make encoding instantaneous. Also for efficiency, you have this hot CPU doing what a cooler running hardware compressor could be doing instead.

techlexia? by belvidere · 2004-09-05 01:23 · Score: 1

"There are LOADS more than that who don't even know what "right-click" means..."

I have a close friend who's a really bright guy--except when it comes to computers and gadgets. I have to explain the same (very) basic concepts again and again to him, and I can't understand why.

Sometimes I wonder if is there a dyslexia for technology.

Notebook users by FlyingOrca · 2004-09-05 01:51 · Score: 1

Especially the ones without a television, like me. I don't own a TV and don't want one, but there are times (e.g. winter Olympics, hockey playoffs, major events like crucial elections) when I would like to be able to watch a broadcast on my only home computer - my notebook. If the event lasts long enough, I might even consider paying for cable for a couple of months.

Thank you, ATI - I think I'll be getting one of these babies before too long.

--
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges.

Not USB powered? by Fubar411 · 2004-09-05 02:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

um, NEXT! But seriously, if this isn't USB powered, then it is absolutely no good for a notebook traveler. I can see wanting to catch some local tv while out of pocket, but to carry around this, an antenna, and a wall wart. Too much kit. I know Hauppauge has a USB one that is USB powered. Even if the quality is just ok, it would be a better solution.

Re:Not USB powered? by owlstead · 2004-09-05 08:43 · Score: 1

I don't know how many quality local broadcast that you are looking at over there (I live in Europe). But here the number of stations that you can pick up with a low quality antenna is not that big. One of the reasons mini-tv's never lifted off. What are you going to watch (completely distorted)?

I can already seeing people sitting in the train trying to focus their antenna. With an integrated digital receiver you could have something though.

Product confusion with Hauppauge by Futurepower(R) · 2004-09-05 02:08 · Score: 1

A problem with Hauppauge is product confusion. The model number PVR-250 is just a trick number. The real number is 975 or some 3-digit number beginning with 9, and the PVR-250 datasheet doesn't say anything about the real number. A 975 PVR-250 costs maybe $70, and a 980 PVR-250 costs perhaps $120, and there are other numbers, too, apparently.

One of the nastiest aspects of working in technical fields is bored marketing people who don't want to learn about their own products, and don't want to burden their small brains with any technical knowledge whatsoever. When I want to try a new product I spend sometimes an hour or more getting past that.

--
24 wars since WW2: Creating fear so rich people can profit.

Re:Product confusion with Hauppauge by enrico_suave · 2004-09-05 04:16 · Score: 1

THere is some product confusion... but it's not too hard to decypher (but one could argue that if it exists at all, then the marketing isn't so hot)

THere's the PVR250 retail, that comes with a remote and shiny box and is around 120 beans. It also has 1/8" stereo jacks for audio input.

The PVR250 MCE has RCA input jacks for audio and no remote since it's presumed that it'll be used in a MCE "class" machine with a separate remote. There are OEM and "retail" flavors.

There's also the blackbird/rosyln oem only flavor 250 that's really a 250 in name only (different connextant chipset)

*Shrug* when they comeout with the dual tuner pvr500 then the alphabet soup will be even more cloudy =)

There might be a few more revisions but those are really crusty old pvr250's with the iv15 chip. IIRC

e.

--
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
Re:Product confusion with Hauppauge by Nyder · 2004-09-06 11:19 · Score: 1

I nave the Hauppauge WinTV PVR-PCI (model 880)
it sucks. it does have hardware encoding, but i'd be damned if it uses it. I had bad audio problems when recording with it. Seems that putting another 512mb into my amd2600 (for 1 gig total, dual channel, was single channel before) helped that.
I found a web page that makes drivers for bt8X8 vid decoder cards, which is: http://btwincap.sourceforge.net/

it's a great driver, I got it to work for my card. But I haven't done any recording for it. I'm going to be working on that in the future. Currently I'm using Hauppauges lame software because the TitanTV works nice, i'm going to test every which way I can do it, because I'd like to grab quality grabs for myself, so I can view them later if I want.

--
Be seeing you...

Re:barbequed bill by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-05 02:08 · Score: 0

(posting anonymously so i don't get a karma hit for being off-topic)

Send me an e-mail and I'll send you a gmail invite. laebshade@gmail.com

Re:try Formac if you have a Mac by Whumpsnatz · 2004-09-05 02:14 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, granted it's $300, but the Formac Studio TVR is firewire. It's for Mac OS X only, though, so those without Macs are out of luck.

Internal Cards, Lousy Drivers, & BSODs by mosel-saar-ruwer · 2004-09-05 02:22 · Score: 1

Ok, exactly _how_ hard is it to open your case.

Okay, exactly how hard is it to write a stable driver for an internal PCI card -vs- how hard is it to write a stable driver for an external USB device?

Or: How many times have you gotten a BSOD from an internal PCI card -vs- how many times have you gotten a BSOD from an external USB device?

And if you don't get BSODs because you use Linux, then: How easy is it to port a driver for an internal PCI card -vs- how easy is it to port a driver for an external USB device?

And if you've got a halfway decent Northbridge chipset, your USB bus traffic won't necessarily pollute your PCI bus.

Yeah, I'd like everything internal myself, but I'm also sick and tired of lousy video drivers and lousy sound card drivers crashing my system.

Re:So hard...[OT] by moonbender · 2004-09-05 02:43 · Score: 1

Nope - you were probably the target of malicious modding.

Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

--
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.

"The files are IN the COMPUTER?!..." by -O.ster_66 · 2004-09-05 02:58 · Score: 1

...it's all so simple!

-Hasel (he's so hot right now)

--
"You get all the fun of sitting still, being quiet, writing down numbers, paying attention...science has it all."

Nope just laziness by bogie · 2004-09-05 03:07 · Score: 1

Some people just could give two shits about PC's and have no interest in them beyond the fact that the big blue "E" gets them to their homepage where they can check the weather. Its not that they are not capable of learning the basics they simply choose not to. While your busy telling your friend the same thing for the 53rd time he's making a conscious or subconscious effort to be sure he ignores what you just told him so that he can go on to different things. In one ear out the other, all on purpose. Trust me if you told him he would literally die if he didn't perform a certain set of tasks on his PC he would quickly figure it out and never forget how to perform that function.

My father who is an Attorney used to tune and maintain his old Triumph Spitefire. He had no problem remembering how to do a tuneup or fix his breaks. Yet somehow he's not smart enough to figure out how to navigate the Windows filesystem which he has been using for years? Nope, he like your friend has never just flat out tried to learn how to use a computer. If you don't "play" around with your PC or gadget and explore what you can do you'll never learn what it can do. Plus why learn something when you can just call your friend/son whenever you need to? It obviously doesn't bother them that they are technically inept so they will just continue the behavior.

--
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch

What about DTT/DVB/.. and analog receiver? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-05 03:15 · Score: 0

Hello,

here in Spain we have Digital Terrestrial Tv and digital terrestrial radio, and I want one card that receives DTT, DVB, analog tv/radio and those others... exist an all-in-one solution for analog/digital tv/radio?

Sorry for my crap english...

Kind regards...

Can't be any worse than the PCI one by Proc6 · 2004-09-05 03:48 · Score: 1

I bought my father the TV Wonder VE PCI for Father's day, since he just wanted a simple way to record video off his analog camcorder.

I never got it to work. He has a Dell 3.06 HT, and it just wasnt happening. I tried *everything*. Format, SP2, latest drivers, latest DX9, turning off HT (suggestion from support forum), a dozen display resolution / bit depth combos, capturing to different drivers, capturing to different filesystems (NTFS, Fat32, FAT), and probably a half dozen things I don't remember.

Every single time, it would play the video source on screen just fine, but soon as you hit the record button the machine would lock up solid. As in, had to power cycle it.

I had good luck with an AverTV on a 2Ghz Dell awhile back though, I should have just bought one of those for him.

--

I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!

Re:Can't be any worse than the PCI one by toddestan · 2004-09-05 04:18 · Score: 1

Try a different PCI slot?
Re:Can't be any worse than the PCI one by Proc6 · 2004-09-05 04:28 · Score: 1

Yes, did that too. Tried different PCI slots as well as everything in the BIOS that was even remotely related to PCI, Video or otherwise.

--
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
Re:Can't be any worse than the PCI one by glitch23 · 2004-09-05 06:51 · Score: 1

I had issues after reinstalling XP Pro with getting my ATI software to work again. I downloaded all their newest versions of the MMC software but everytime I would start recording the monitor would lose the video and I'd have to do a hard reboot. I called ATI. They recommended installing the chipset drivers for my nForce2 board. Oddly enough that was one set of drivers I forgot to reinstall. I tried that and it worked fine after that.

--
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
Re:Can't be any worse than the PCI one by Proc6 · 2004-09-05 06:57 · Score: 1

Hmm. He has a GeForce2 MX AGP card. I picked up the latest drivers from nVidia for that to no avail. Im guessing what you mean by the nForce chipset drivers is more for the motherboard/video combo?

--
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
Re:Can't be any worse than the PCI one by Bad_Feeling · 2004-09-05 13:38 · Score: 1

ATI TV wonder really sucks, i have one, also seen the all in one wonder those suck as well. Too many compatibility problems, piss poor drivers, just not a good product at all.

--
Disclaimer: On the other hand, I am kind of a psycho...
Re:Can't be any worse than the PCI one by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-05 17:37 · Score: 0

I wish I had seen this post for this article sooner, so that some Windows users out there suffering from ATI's incompetence would actually get a chance to read it. Even if no one will see this, I'll share what little information I have on the subject:

The ATI TV Wonder cards (I have an ATI TV Wonder PCI circa 1999/2000) work flawlessly under Windows XP, if you're using anything lower than DirectX v9.0c. You see, ATI's drivers don't include a VfW (Video for Windows) interface, so they're forced to use Microsoft's vfwwdm32.dll wrapper to communicate with capture programs like VirtualDub. The problem with this is, that ATI became too comfortable with Microsoft's implementation and didn't seem to notice that in DirectX v9.0c, Microsoft changed the wrapper interface.

There are two ways to solve the problem: (1) write some real VfW drivers and stop playing around with the wrapper service. WDM for capture cards is so 5 years ago, and (2) fix the current drivers to work with DirectX v9.0c.

The reason your ATI capture card craps out on Windows XP SP2 is because SP2 updates your DirectX to v9.0c, which is what's causing the incompatibility.

In the end, I've never really been happy with any of ATI's capture card offerings. I've owned an AIW (All-in-Wonder) PCI card before, and now this TV Wonder PCI card. Both cards don't have a dedicated MPEG processor, so capturing to MPEG in realtime is out of the question -- even on a machine that's top of the line. The bottom line is that you need the hardware encoder on-board or you're pretty much boned for format options. You can encode to XViD, but not more than 1-pass at CBR in realtime!

By the time ATI figures out the problem with their drivers and DirectX v9.0c, I'll have already purchased some other capture card and moved on with my life. If a fix comes out, I'll be more than surprised, I'll be astonished.
Re:Can't be any worse than the PCI one by glitch23 · 2004-09-05 19:56 · Score: 1

Hmm. He has a GeForce2 MX AGP card. I picked up the latest drivers from nVidia for that to no avail. Im guessing what you mean by the nForce chipset drivers is more for the motherboard/video combo?

Sort of, I'm sorry. Nforce2 is the chipset of my AMD64 motherboard. I have an ATI video card. I dont know if nVidia has any nforce2 chipsets related to video cards or not. I would hope not since that would be confusing with the motherboard chipsets.

--
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address

another review by enrico_suave · 2004-09-05 04:05 · Score: 1

Toms Hardware review

e.

--
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &

Real time display? by worseben · 2004-09-05 04:52 · Score: 1

Anybody know if any of these devices would work as an input for an XBOX? I know a lot of 'em compress on the fly so there's a delay in the picture.

Big missing reason... by Fnkmaster · 2004-09-05 04:54 · Score: 1

Seems most people have missed a big reason to go external with a TV tuner. Like any RF equipment, these suckers can get serious interference when installed in a PC. I don't know, maybe you people haven't experienced this, but I have an old btX78-based card (I don't even remember which one it is exactly, haven't used it in ages), and I noticed a non-negligible amount of noise when it was installed in my SFF IDEQ 200N PC. I found it somewhat annoying to watch (the fact that it can only get basic cable channels also makes it moderately useless without a digital cable box and IR controller). Anyway, I recently had a similar problem with the built-in audio Line In on my IDEQ - too much hiss noise, and the solution was to get an external USB Sound Blaster device. Works like a charm.

So don't diss on external USB devices - I agree, generally it's nice to have everything internal, but sometimes it's not possible.

ATI vs Adaptec Videoh by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-05 05:53 · Score: 0

Well, I have to say that the ATI family of encoders is much better than Adaptec's Videoh and probably all of the hardware MPEG 2 hardware cards. The problem is you don't have too much control over a hardware card. The output quality is also much better with ATI's theater chip.

Re:No, YOU missed the point by ergo98 · 2004-09-05 06:25 · Score: 1

But imagine if you have a dvd player or vcr you want to record from. Or even your videocamera. Hey, look at that! There's a whole lot of things out there that can output in more formats than you dreamed of.

Videocameras and DVD players generally don't have coax outputs. Obviously the use of coax is when you're using this as a tuner, which about 99.99% of people who buy TV cards do.

I agree with the parent of this thread - the nonsensical wire preaching in the review was inane, and clearly was fluff to fill up what was otherwise a fairly empty "review".

Re:Poor review. No hardware encoding is a feature? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-05 07:01 · Score: 0

I would rather have the option for both raw video frames and hardware MPEG1,2, and 4. And dare I say it'd be nice to have both at the same time.

Because although I'd like a hardware MPEG2 encoder for old VHS tapes (sorry, mpeg2enc is 1/10th real time speed on my FX-53), I don't live my entire life in MPEG2 land. I'd also want the ability to edit frame-by-frame with higher quality source footage. Such as my DV camcorder can provide. Then I'd like to transcode to my choice of xvid/MPEG4, MPEG1, etc.

So it'd be really nice to have real-time hardware MPEG1/2/4 encode/decode for PVR stuff (such as "Oh, this TV show was good/bad") and simultaneous DV encoding for later editing/archival (such as "Wow, that was so good I'd like it on DVD/SVCD/MPEG4, but I don't want the swearing scenes"). I doubt any card or USB device out there can do this in Linux or Windows right now.

Or perfect for laptops. by blanks · 2004-09-05 07:24 · Score: 1

Yeah this would be ok for your desktop, or having something that you can bring to a friends house to watch stored videos on a pc on your tv, but what Im thinking this would be good for is laptops, most laptops lack this technology.

--
TruePunk | Games

TV Wonder = ARTIFICALLY CRIPPLED! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-05 07:24 · Score: 0

I was a proud owner of an ATI All-in-Wonder Radeon for a long time. But because my system was crashing like mad, I was forced to switch to NVidia for a while. (I have since switched back, and the crashing has remained gone?!)

As a result I needed a seperate capture card. So I picked up a TV Wonder, assuming that it would work the same as my All-in-Wonder.

Well it didn't. Apparently ATI neglected to mention on the box that the TV Wonder cannot capture higher than 320x240 video! And the reason for this is not that the card cannot handle it, but rather because they chose to lock out 640x480 in the driver. There is a driver on source forge I found that works with many video capture cards and could capture 640x480 on the TV Wonder, but unfortunately it disabled the preview window in VirtualDub, and the ATI software won't work with it.

So do NOT buy a TV Wonder. Buy some other brand over the net.

And if you want a USB HDTV tuner by mmortal03 · 2004-09-05 08:25 · Score: 1

go here: Sasem OnAir USB HDTV Receiver

no. no. no. by binarybum · 2004-09-05 09:16 · Score: 1

"For PC television fans, up until now the only viable choice for TV viewing on the computer has been with an addon PCI or AGP (in the case of the All-In-Wonders) card."
what?! only if by "now" they mean circa 1998. I have had an Aver TV genie tuner with a VGA D-sub passthrough since then, and I love it for many of the same reasons people will like the external ATI device. However, my TV Genie uses no system resources whatsoever. I never understood why these didn't catch on - I have met dozens of people with crappy PCI tuners that have driver issues etc.. and none of these people had even heard of the TV Genie (all wished they had).
it's a old product, and if I were to buy something now, I'd probably go with the ATI device, but let's give credit where credit is due for external tuner solutions.
here is a farily techy review of the TV genie

--
ôó

OT: your sig by mrchaotica · 2004-09-05 09:21 · Score: 1

If you're British, why is your sig about the American election?

--

"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

Re:OT: your sig by Master+of+Transhuman · 2004-09-05 11:10 · Score: 1

Because most of the British would not like to see Dubya re-elected?

Big surprise.

Like, along with the rest of the planet.

Except the 65 million Christian Zionist fundies in the US, of course.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:OT: your sig by mrchaotica · 2004-09-05 18:00 · Score: 1

65 million? Isn't that the entire population of the US? I know it doesn't seem that way since all you see is our media, but we really aren't all religious zealots!

I would say at least 51% of this country's citizens don't approve of Shrub; I just hope the vote isn't split like it was last election (which is why I'll save my Libertarian voting for offices other than the President).

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:OT: your sig by Master+of+Transhuman · 2004-09-06 09:29 · Score: 1

Well, there are 33 million Baptists, and 4.4 million Pentecostals, 14 million Methodists, 9 million Lutherans, 5 million Presbyterians, 3.4 million Epicopalians, and a few million smaller sects.

There are 46 million Catholics - not counting Mel Gibson who counts as at least 2 Catholics all on his own.

I'd say a significant percentage of that lot support Bush, but of course actual figures are wanting.

Here is one quote I found:

A June study by The Barna Group, a Christian polling organization, said 86 percent of self-described evangelicals plan to vote for Bush in November.

Conservative Christians are arguably the nation's most influential voting bloc.

About 30 million people belong to National Association of Evangelicals member churches.

And another article states:

Depending on how studies are done, there are between 45 and 100 million "born again" or evangelical Christians in the United States. In the 2000 presidential election, 32 percent of the votes George W. Bush received came from church-going white evangelicals; and 14 percent of all voters identified themselves as part of the Christian right movement, where support for an aggressive brand of Zionism is strong.

I have found a couple articles who analyze the voting habits of Christians and discovered that more than religious views, economic status seems to govern - the poor Christians vote Democrat, the rich ones Republican.

So saying 65 million fundies support Bush may be an exaggeration - but I suspect not by much.

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!

Dumb reviewer, full of errors. by MxReb0 · 2004-09-05 09:47 · Score: 1

I'm really surprised no one else on /. has pointed these two things out. It seems really stupid to me that he says this:

"As multimedia enthusiasts can tell you, a coax connection is not the best choice for image quality, to put it mildly. To put it bluntly, it's terrible.A better option would be to use a composite cable to connect your receiver or cable box to the TV Wonder. Another option is S-Video,"

Does he miss the point of what this box does? It's a TUNER. Coax is how the signal comes into your house and if you hooked it up to you cable box, like he wants, you still have coax in the equation PLUS a huge additional box that this product is meant to replace. It the dumbest thing I've ever read.

Also, he authoritatively informs his readers that RCA splits the video signal up across red green and blue, which is completely false.

--

MAKE YOUR TIME

Re:Dumb reviewer, full of errors. by CMiYC · 2004-09-05 16:52 · Score: 1

What's funny is that a high quality coax cable is a controlled impedance. This gives coax type cables (read any text or paper on transmission-line theory) a very high amount of bandwidth. In fact, a coax cable can provide higher quality content (analog or "digital") than any other connection scheme. The reason a CableTV's system doesn't provide the highest quality picture is that its bandwidth is shared with how many other channels?

Just to cma, I know what the author meant. Its just that someone who says "a coax connection is not the best choice for image quality" doesn't understand what a coax cable really is...

It gets better. by /dev/trash · 2004-09-05 10:48 · Score: 1

Why even have jum leads from car to car? They sell battery chargers you can just plug into the lighter and start the car. Much better if it's raining, or whatnot.

In general, people are not happy w video recording by Futurepower(R) · 2004-09-06 12:00 · Score: 1

I've heard this about Hauppauge products a lot: People say they are oversold by the company.

I've had lots of problems with ATI, but those were about PCI video adapter display drivers, not major performance issues.

After reading this and other Slashdot articles on the subject, I get the impression that, in general, people are not happy with video recording products.

--
Bush's education improvements were fraud

it's a by im_rotting · 2004-09-08 01:44 · Score: 1

piece of crap

Slashdot Mirror

ATI TV Wonder USB 2.0 Reviewed

193 comments