Freeview Playback

Agamemnon wrote:
|| "Ivan" wrote in message
|| ...
||| tim..... wrote:
||||| "Ivan" wrote in message
||||| ...
|||||| Alan wrote:
|||||||| In message , Ivan
|||||||| wrote
||||||||| "Freeview Playback products from Humax, Sony and TVonics will
||||||||| be available from retailers including Comet, John Lewis,
||||||||| Argos and Tesco.
||||||||| Alba, LG and Sharp, amongst others, will also introduce
||||||||| Freeview Playback digital TV recorders later this year."
|||||||||
|||||||||
||||||||| http://tinyurl.com/3dfsb6
|||||||||
||||||||
|||||||| What's the difference between "Freeview Playback" and the
|||||||| facilities already supported on all of the different brands of
|||||||| Freeview PVRs currently on sale - including those from Humax,
|||||||| Sony and TVonics?
||||||||
|||||||| It looks like a b******t branding exercise to me.
||||||
||||||
|||||| To be honest I don't exactly know, however I would 'hazard a
|||||| guess' that it's an attempt at some form of software
|||||| standardisation, as with Sky.
|||||
||||| With TUTP and the Cable Cos having their own boxes there
||||| would seem to be a very large number of consumers who
||||| think that these boxes can do something that their video
||||| could not.
|||||
||||| Unless you want to lose market share, a broadcaster would
||||| seem to have to offer such a product. Hopefully doing so
||||| won't remove other products from the market for those
||||| of use who aren't incapable of deciding what to what for
||||| ourselves.
|||||
|||
||| I tend to find that there are many people who desperately cling on
||| to ancient VCRs and are willing to pay what ever it costs to have
||| them repaired, simply because they understand how to operate them
||| and set up timed recordings.
|||
||| Only last week someone gave me a brand-new Philips VCR, because no
||| matter how many times they went through the instruction manual they
||| just couldn't grasp how to operate it, so eventually gave up in
||| despair.
|||
||| As you rightly say, there are many people who would welcome some
||| sort of standardisation in operational features and no doubt Sky
||| was shrewd enough to realise this when they originally stipulated
||| to various manufacturers that the specifications of their receivers
||| and remotes must be identical.
|||
|||
||
|| What about the quality and sensitivity of the tuners and the
|| RAMDACs. Is this Feeview Playback standard the equivalent of VHS HQ
|| Hi-Fi Stereo?

Well on the google index I did manage to find "The first digital TV
recorders to feature the Freeview Playback brand will be ... as all digital
TV recorders must meet a strict functional specification ..." but exactly
what the 'strict functional specification' is exactly has so far eluded my
attempts to find out.

http://www.freeview.co.uk/press/pr151106

In message , Ivan
wrote


ut exactly
what the 'strict functional specification' is exactly has so far eluded my
attempts to find out.

From the Freeview site

With Freeview Playback you will be able to:

record programmes at the touch of a button

pause and rewind live TV

record one channel whilst watching another
fit TV schedules around you

get access to Freeview’s 40 free channels

According to the Freeview site 'Playback' is only the new name for
recorders that have Freeview inside.


--
Alan


news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

"Alan" wrote in message
...
In message , Ivan
wrote


ut exactly
what the 'strict functional specification' is exactly has so far eluded my
attempts to find out.

From the Freeview site

With Freeview Playback you will be able to:

record programmes at the touch of a button

pause and rewind live TV

record one channel whilst watching another
fit TV schedules around you

get access to Freeview's 40 free channels

According to the Freeview site 'Playback' is only the new name for
recorders that have Freeview inside.


http://www.pvruk.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9

The important stuff to note is series link which sky has had for yonks and
accurate recording; when something runs late you don't miss the end.


--
Alan


news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:27:23 +0100, "Ivan"
wrote:


"Freeview Playback".... Freeview, and the DTG group, are working towards a
"Freeview Playback" branded range of Digital TV Recorders (DTR), which can
be promoted as a group and will conform to certain standards.

When the manufacturing industry attempts to solve the problem of too
many different technical standards, it usually does it by introducing
yet another one, so I wonder what it will be this time? I wonder in
what way it will be marketed as superior to the 625/50 RGB signals on
a SCART connector that just about every Freeview receiver can provide
already?

Rod.

Roderick Stewart wrote:
|| On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:27:23 +0100, "Ivan"
|| wrote:
||
|||
||| "Freeview Playback".... Freeview, and the DTG group, are working
||| towards a "Freeview Playback" branded range of Digital TV Recorders
||| (DTR), which can be promoted as a group and will conform to certain
||| standards.
||
|| When the manufacturing industry attempts to solve the problem of too
|| many different technical standards, it usually does it by introducing
|| yet another one, so I wonder what it will be this time? I wonder in
|| what way it will be marketed as superior to the 625/50 RGB signals on
|| a SCART connector that just about every Freeview receiver can provide
|| already?
||

However Rod, I think the overwhelming consensus would be that the Sky system
with its identical set of specifications for every receiver (irrespective of
who the manufacturer is) and universal software is vastly superior to what
happens with the current Freeview arrangement.

Where manufacturers can go out of business leaving behind a legacy of
unusable software, also buggy software (so often complained about on these
groups) which renders some receivers almost unusable, and not forgetting the
wait in between a manufacturers turn to transmit upgraded software... which
is 'hopefully' going to sort out any problems )



|| Rod.

In message , WCZ
wrote


http://www.pvruk.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9

The important stuff to note is series link which sky has had for yonks and
accurate recording; when something runs late you don't miss the end.


The 'important stuff' has little to do with the box manufacturers but
more to do with the broadcasters. It is the broadcasters that don't
stick to the advertised start and stop times for programs. It is the
broadcasters who don't bother to change EPGs when programs run late -
some broadcasters don't even bother transmitting correct EPGs for days
at a time. It is the broadcasters who don't identify programs in a way
that receivers can organise recordings.

This is likely to change shortly but judging by their previous track
record the commercial broadcasters will not care too much about reliable
EPG. Furthermore some commercial broadcasters are already in dispute
with those advocating 'playback' because it may give the viewers the
ability to skip adverts.

Other than the limitations imposed by the poor quality of the current
broadcast EPG, my Topfield PVR appears to do nearly everything on the
pvruk list - in fact it can do some of the things included in the list
that are not currently supported by the existing EPG.

It looks as though one of the requirements will require more of the
machine's electronics to be powered during standby - in order change
program times. So much for the green lobby

--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 10:47:15 +0100, "Ivan"
wrote:

||
|| When the manufacturing industry attempts to solve the problem of too
|| many different technical standards, it usually does it by introducing
|| yet another one, so I wonder what it will be this time? I wonder in
|| what way it will be marketed as superior to the 625/50 RGB signals on
|| a SCART connector that just about every Freeview receiver can provide
|| already?
||

However Rod, I think the overwhelming consensus would be that the Sky system
with its identical set of specifications for every receiver (irrespective of
who the manufacturer is) and universal software is vastly superior to what
happens with the current Freeview arrangement.

If it means they've standardised the way the controls work, and/or the
way they're labelled then that alone is a good thing.

Not that I would know much about the workings of $ky equipment. I've
never been tempted to put as much as an extra groat in Mr M's pocket
if I can avoid it, having heard some of his staff speak at union
conferences about how his organisation treats them.

Rod.

The idea of people throwing out brand new VCRs because they can't fathom out
how to use them says it all.....hence the Ricability testing and the "low"
technical accomplishments of their recommended PVRs and ditto Freeview
Playback.In that sense the general public are all "elderly and disabled"
(eh,Alan?).As they say... "Keep it simple"...but of course all that offends
the cognoscenti of the PVR .

What's that whirring?...is there a lawnmower in the lounge!.... :-)))

Roderick Stewart wrote:

If it means they've standardised the way the controls work, and/or the
way they're labelled then that alone is a good thing.

Every Sky box, regardless of manufacturer has an identical GUI, menu
structure, and remote control handset. Channels are added, removed, or moved
in the EPG, without the need for any viewer intervention. Software upgrades
are also administered transparently. There are problems and glitches, but for
the vast majority of users the functionality of Sky's 'closed' platform is far
easier to deal with, than the hotch potch on Freeview's 'open' system.

Of course having boxes that are identical in operation etc, makes the support
for Sky far easier (read cheaper). I share the many reservations that people
have about BSkyB, but you have to give them credit on purely technical terms
for the platform and system they've built.


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

In message , cwyatt
wrote


hence the Ricability testing and the "low"
technical accomplishments of their recommended PVRs and ditto Freeview
Playback.

I wonder how Ricability have managed to test Freeview
Playback?


In that sense the general public are all "elderly and disabled"
(eh,Alan?).As they say... "Keep it simple"...but of course all that offends
the cognoscenti of the PVR .

Ricability are testing the products for ease of use. They are not
testing the technical capabilities of the box. Some people are equating
the results for ease of use with technical superiority. A box with
limited facilities is likely to be easier to use than box with greater
capabilities.

There is nothing wrong with the Ricability testing as long as the
results are put into context - quote practical and unbiased reports
for older and disabled people /quote, although it's patronising to
assume that many of this grouping cannot cope with modern technology.
There is a market for a basic, simple to use box and its a good idea to
educate manufacturers of other boxes that a simple to use interface is
better than something more complex.



What's that whirring?...is there a lawnmower in the lounge!.... :-)))


It's probably one of those very noisy TVonics PVRS (Ricability
recommended) sat under the TV
Noise level in 'On' mode - TVonics DVR-250 dB(A) = 29.1
and from a lesser box
Noise level in 'On' mode - Topfield TF5800PVR dB(A) = 23.2

I assume that Ricability think that the elderly and disabled are hard of
hearing and the noise level doesn't matter ;(
--
Alan
news2006 {at} amac {dot} f2s {dot} com