Simple Frreview PVR

J G Miller wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:02:22 +0100, Peter Chant wrote:

It would be easier to stick with analog but I don't think the
government takes this view.

And neither do I.

Recording digital television sources is far easier and less prone to
degredation of the material during the recording or afterwards than
with analog.

Not disagreeing at all. Don't panic - I'm not going to win the election,
replace all PC's with Imperial typewriters, replace mobile phone masts with
public call boxes and revert to analog!

My general though, which I had not articulated properly, was that although
we are gaining sophistication the complexity of the user interface is
growing to match.

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

In message , Peter Chant
wrote
Alan wrote:


"Which?" under the guise of Ricability have some recommendations on PVRs
based on ease of use (geared towards older users)
http://www.ricability-digitaltv.org.uk/about-us.htm


Thanks - some stuff to look at. Pity that the EPGs on some are hard to
read, being overlaid on the tv picture.

If this is one reason not to buy it may be worth asking (via newsgroups
or forums) someone who owns a box if the observation is true. Sometimes
the overlay transparency is a user setting and could be adjusted down to
0.

In article , Peter Chant wrote:
Interesting - I was thinking along the lines of the monitor I have in front
of me right now. On previous PC at least the difference between DVI and VGA
was night and day. Though I have seen reasonable VGA in other places.

In my experience the quality differences between video sources have much more
to do with the quality of the original material than anything else. All other
things being equal, if you can see any difference between DVI and VGA, there is
something wrong with one of them.

It happens that I have a situation where all other things can be made equal,
because the graphics card in my PC has both types of output and my 24"
widescreen monitor has both types of input, so I can connect both and switch
between them. Despite most of my working lifetime in television having been
concerned in some way with the assessment of picture quality, so that I am
therefore reasonably sure what to look for, I cannot see any difference between
them whatsoever.

It's a bit different in the case of the TV, which has several types of input,
of which I am using SCART for SD PVRs and HDMI for the output of a PC media
centre. Some of the amateur internet video material is pretty grim despite
presumably being "upscaled" to 1920x1080 for the HDMI feed, and some of the SD
video from DVDs can look very good. I don't think the cables or the types of
signals have much to do with it.

Rod
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

"Peter Chant" wrote in message
...

My general though, which I had not articulated properly, was that although
we are gaining sophistication the complexity of the user interface is
growing to match.

A point I completely agree with. Despite (like many others here) looking
for a really simple PVR for my mum - as simple as a VCR - I realised there
simply isn't one.

Luckily she's fine with the one I got her (an early Digifusion, which is now
obsolete, so I can't recommend it). But there was a substantial learning
curve.

Old folk seem to become comfortable with the idea of a Program Guide
(because they use the Radio Times). Navigating around the guide with the
arrow buttons seems alien at first, but they get used to it and there is
surely no alternative.

Delays between key-presses and the highlight moving are a MAJOR source of
confusion, especially when they occur intermittently. They always say
"Oooh, what have I done wrong?". Unfortunately, every PVR I've seen does
this sometimes (shaving a dollar off the price by putting a barely-adequate
processor in there).

Once the program is highlighted, we have another problem. If the program is
in the future, the PVR offers to record it. If it's running now, the PVR
switches to it. Again, this is very confusing - two entirely different
things happen for the same button press. Very often there is an impossibly
subtle difference in the Guide between a program currently being
transmitted, and one in the future.

My mum seems to appreciate her machine having two different buttons: on hers
the Red button sets the program to record, and the Enter button selects that
channel to watch. But of course what happens when she presses the Enter
button on a program in the future (I actually can't remember, but the answer
isn't intuitively obvious).

I've noticed that a lot of people get in a muddle when they've finished with
the Program Guide (e.g. set a program to record later on). How do they get
rid of the Guide, which is still on the screen?

After that, how do they watch a program they've recorded? My mum's machine
offers a handy button which brings up a list of all recorded programs.
Would that all PVRs did that.

Oh, and one thing that must be left out: chase play. It seems to cause the
most abject confusion. Why is the news running ten minutes late? Why, when
I pressed the Stop button, didn't it stop, but jump forward instead?

I believe the problem is that the manufacturers want the biggest and best
feature list, which inevitably leads to a more complex interface. It must
take courage to leave out most of those features and build something with a
really simple, elegant user interface that has been comprehensively tested
in somebody's Usability Labs.

SteveT

Alan wrote:


Thanks - some stuff to look at. Pity that the EPGs on some are hard to
read, being overlaid on the tv picture.

If this is one reason not to buy it may be worth asking (via newsgroups
or forums) someone who owns a box if the observation is true. Sometimes
the overlay transparency is a user setting and could be adjusted down to
0.

Thanks, a good suggestion.

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

Roderick Stewart wrote:

In article , Peter Chant wrote:
Interesting - I was thinking along the lines of the monitor I have in
front
of me right now. On previous PC at least the difference between DVI and
VGA
was night and day. Though I have seen reasonable VGA in other places.

In my experience the quality differences between video sources have much
more to do with the quality of the original material than anything else.
All other things being equal, if you can see any difference between DVI
and VGA, there is something wrong with one of them.

It happens that I have a situation where all other things can be made
equal, because the graphics card in my PC has both types of output and my
24" widescreen monitor has both types of input, so I can connect both and
switch between them. Despite most of my working lifetime in television
having been concerned in some way with the assessment of picture quality,
so that I am therefore reasonably sure what to look for, I cannot see any
difference between them whatsoever.


I think sometimes there are just bad combinations. I remember connecting up
a PC and reasonable CRT monitor up that were probably five years apart (this
was some time back) and picture quality was nowhere near what it should have
been - for either. Connecting up a contemporary monitor and all was fine.

Work machine using VGA on LCD monitor is almost as/about as sharp as my one
at home using DVI. Minimal difference.

It's a bit different in the case of the TV, which has several types of
input, of which I am using SCART for SD PVRs and HDMI for the output of a
PC media centre. Some of the amateur internet video material is pretty
grim despite presumably being "upscaled" to 1920x1080 for the HDMI feed,
and some of the SD video from DVDs can look very good. I don't think the
cables or the types of signals have much to do with it.


Useful info. Sounds like its not worth getting too excited about trying to
use HDMI over Scart for standard definition.

My media PC is using S-video - TV is widescreen CRT - don't feel the need to
change it until it breaks. Also innards of PC are ancient. Did try making
a VGA to Scart cable - but given the set up I decided to stick with S-video,
a lot of hastle for probally a small difference that I'm happy to live with.



--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

In message , Steve Thackery
wrote

"Peter Chant" wrote in message
...

My general though, which I had not articulated properly, was that although
we are gaining sophistication the complexity of the user interface is
growing to match.

A point I completely agree with. Despite (like many others here)
looking for a really simple PVR for my mum - as simple as a VCR - I
realised there simply isn't one.

But were VCRs that simple? The same arguments about the complexity of
VCRs a decade or so ago are just being repeated for PVRs today. I'll bet
the majority of PVR users don't touch more than about half a dozen
buttons of their remote on a regular basis.
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Java Jive wrote:

Perhaps you are beyond this stage already, but the section on PVRs in
this document on my site may be of some assistance ...

http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/Audi...TVInTheUK.html

Thanks. Where my parents are there was approximately one month from being
analog only to digital only - for terrestrial. There is no cable. Never
got around to satelite - however, now that they have digital terestrial
there is little incentive to go for satelite.

Pete

--
http://www.petezilla.co.uk

On 16/04/2010 18:19, Peter Chant wrote:

Now if you want an easy to operate recorder forget the DVD variants.
Horrendously complicated and in my experience not reliable enough.
You have two choices:
1. Sky+ HD it has a big clear remote control, clear EPG, simple to operate.
1. Humax 9300T PVR. clear uncluttered epg, series link, press OK to
record in the future, press the red record button to record now.
The Humax costs £180 ish (one of payment), Sky+ £120 a year minimum.
I went for the Humax and I'm very pleased with it.
Don't buy the Thomson "top up tv" box that currently available cheap.
It's poo and unreliable even tho' it's mega cheap.
Dave
--
Blow my nose to email me

In article , Peter Chant wrote:
I think sometimes there are just bad combinations. I remember connecting up
a PC and reasonable CRT monitor up that were probably five years apart (this
was some time back) and picture quality was nowhere near what it should have
been - for either. Connecting up a contemporary monitor and all was fine.

Aren't you just comparing monitors here, not connections? I wouldn't find it
very surprising if two monitors five years apart performed differently.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/