On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Dieter BSD wrote:
> [ Added multimedia@ as that is a more appropriate list than hackers ]
>
>> I just moved into a very cramped apartment
>> we are using a broadcast signal only [current US {NYC} standards]
>
> Recording ATSC takes very little CPU. Recording NTSC
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Dieter BSD wrote:
> user.vdr writes:
>> Recording doesn't require any compression unless you are transcoding
>> in real-time. There's no difference between recording ATSC, NTSC, PAL,
>> etc, and it's actually irrelevant what the stream is.
>
> This is incorrect.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Wojciech Puchar
wrote:
>>
>> An old Pentium 4 3ghz can decode HD with plenty of cpu resources to
>> spare so unless a person using something older than that, they've
>> certainly got "modern" cpu power.
>
> actually even intel atom D525 is OK if decoder can be mul
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Dieter BSD wrote:
>> With very very very few exceptions, all analog NTSC broadcasts have
>> been switched to digital, by the FCC mandated deadline of June 12,
>> 2009.
>
> As long as there remain some NTSC broadcasts, there might be some
> that you wish to watch.
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Dieter BSD wrote:
>> Yes, technically there are still some that exist, for now. However,
>> their death certificate is signed and they're so few that it's not
>> worth mentioning.
>
> If you don't think NTSC is worth mentioning, why do you keep posting
> the same i
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Dieter BSD wrote:
>>> The cx88wiki URL above describes the cx88 software (in ports).
>>> For tuners without a hardware encoder, raw video/audio is the only
>>> thing you can get from the tuner when receiving NTSC.
>>
>> Nope.
>
> Prove me wrong. Post the command
6 matches
Mail list logo
