bgowland Wrote:I was thinking the other day that he might have a 'Special Edition' vBulletin client with buttons for 'Post your logs...', 'No', 'Never going to happen', 'Maybe in a future release', 'This is fixed for the next release'.

I'm starting to think that sub IS a macro. Over 30,000 posts awesome software, and updates, and last but not least, a bunch of little macros running around...

Quote:Kinda like THHGTTG - the answer is 42 - but are you sure you know what the question is?

Yes

sub Wrote:Mainly because I dont want to, but there are other reasons also.

On the forum the other day there was some guy that claimed his software card used 10% of his Core2Duo. I wonder if that is I frame only encoding, or low bitrate or just made up stats. Hmm, maybe I answered my own question, too many people would be having trouble with poor picture quality, and high cpu cycles and etc...

pastro Wrote:On the forum the other day there was some guy that claimed his software card used 10% of his Core2Duo. I wonder if that is I frame only encoding, or low bitrate or just made up stats. Hmm, maybe I answered my own question, too many people would be having trouble with poor picture quality, and high cpu cycles and etc...

Actually a software card would work a lot like a transcode on the fly. A faster computer would of course be better.

When I first started a year ago, I had a BT464 or 787 or whatever... My computer displayed a picture, and I could record to a huge AVI But I couldn't do much more. I looked at GB-PVR twice during that time, reading subs web page and knew from the get go, I wouldn't be able to use the card if I wanted to use GB-PVR. So I looked further...

Then it dawned on me that a Hardware based card is probably the way to go anyway (I just didn't want to spend any money...)

I grabbed a PVR 150 because it was the one 'everyone' was using... (It seemed right from the start GB-PVR was Hauppauge-centric)

I certainly wish we COULD make it easier for more software card guys to see the light!!!

zehd Wrote:Actually a software card would work a lot like a transcode on the fly. A faster computer would of course be better.

Yeah I understand this issue. Implemented a software version of ADSL, (Glite) on windows. Nightmare..

zehd Wrote:I certainly wish we COULD make it easier for more software card guys to see the light!!!

I think the only hope is that the cost of the HW encoder starts to approach the AD capture cost and software encoders get less attractive cost wise. As more manufacturers build HW encoders into their OEM systems, the price will come down and eventually the Software encoders go away. Course that didn't happen with v.34 modems it went pretty much to the software direction but that's a lot less mips than Mpeg.

I understand hardware encoder is better than software, but am I going to buy a new card just because a piece of software doesn't work with it? Well no, especially when there are others that work pretty well. I was hoping to get some help from a so called "supportive community," but instead I got a lecture in life. Fine, I'll move on and look elsewhere.

By the way, I really appreciate the small cult mentality of some posters here. You can go around and brag about your hardware encoding of 4 tv card at 4% cpu, while I'm perfectly happy with my software encoding of 1 tv show at 10% cpu.

craigslist4me Wrote:I understand hardware encoder is better than software, but am I going to buy a new card just because a piece of software doesn't work with it? Well no, especially when there are others that work pretty well. I was hoping to get some help from a so called "supportive community," but instead I got a lecture in life. Fine, I'll move on and look elsewhere.

By the way, I really appreciate the small cult mentality of some posters here. You can go around and brag about your hardware encoding of 4 tv card at 4% cpu, while I'm perfectly happy with my software encoding of 1 tv show at 10% cpu.

Dont take it that way. The guys werent trying to pick on you - I think they're just sick of a seeing post or two a day where someone asks why there software encoder device doesnt work with GB-PVR. There actually been a few of these posts since your one.

At the end of the day I have just chosen to not provide any support for software encoder cards in GB-PVR. There are other software packages out there for owners of these types of cards.

I think there is very few of these fullscreen PVR type apps that support these older style of cards, so there is a lot of people doing the rounds, trying all these types of apps including GB-PVR, deperately hoping to find one that works with their card - regardless of the fact their card is not on the supported hardware list.

craigslist4me Wrote:I understand hardware encoder is better than software, but am I going to buy a new card just because a piece of software doesn't work with it? Well no, especially when there are others that work pretty well. I was hoping to get some help from a so called "supportive community," but instead I got a lecture in life. Fine, I'll move on and look elsewhere.

By the way, I really appreciate the small cult mentality of some posters here. You can go around and brag about your hardware encoding of 4 tv card at 4% cpu, while I'm perfectly happy with my software encoding of 1 tv show at 10% cpu.

I think you did get a little bit of a raw deal and I'm sorry about that. At any rate, having a PVR whether software or hardware encoded is really the end goal. It's too bad that GBPVR doesn't support your card since it truly is an impressive app with lots of user support.

Btw,
I still am interested in what bitrate and resolution gave an encoder at 10% of your cpu. Normally the decoder uses less cycles than the encoder and you had the opposite results which is interesting.

craigslist4me Wrote:I understand hardware encoder is better than software, but am I going to buy a new card just because a piece of software doesn't work with it? Well no, especially when there are others that work pretty well. I was hoping to get some help from a so called "supportive community," but instead I got a lecture in life. Fine, I'll move on and look elsewhere.

By the way, I really appreciate the small cult mentality of some posters here. You can go around and brag about your hardware encoding of 4 tv card at 4% cpu, while I'm perfectly happy with my software encoding of 1 tv show at 10% cpu.

I'm sorry that you feel this way. It's not a cult thing. :eek:

It's purely technical. It's similar to having someone say 'How come I can't get GB-PVR to run on my MAC...?'

sub Wrote:...so there is a lot of people doing the rounds, trying all these types of apps including GB-PVR, deperately hoping to find one that works with their card

been there , done that... spent days and nights to get an unsupported card to work on almost every PVR software that didn't satisfy, pulled my hair and came to the conclusion I was acting like a donky (had something to do with a stone I believe) ran to the store bought a PVR150 and was up and running in a couple of hours.

zehd Wrote:It's purely technical. It's similar to having someone say 'How come I can't get GB-PVR to run on my MAC...?'

yeah, why is that ....... no just kidding, doesn't mean I wouldn't love to try it on my mac.....and I don't mean a bootcamped mac.

One of these days, when all the broadcasters go digital, this question will go away (except for "how do I copy my tapes")