On 08/12/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">ffrr</b> <<a href="mailto:ffrr@tpg.com.au">ffrr@tpg.com.au</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Ant Daniel wrote:<br><br>> On 08/12/05, *Josh Burks* <<a href="mailto:dotnofoolin@gmail.com">dotnofoolin@gmail.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:dotnofoolin@gmail.com">dotnofoolin@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:
<br>><br>> On 12/7/05, Shardayyy <<a href="mailto:shardayyy@gmail.com">shardayyy@gmail.com</a><br>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:shardayyy@gmail.com">shardayyy@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>> >
<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > Mine is PVR-500<br>> ><br>> > 30mins = 1.1 GB<br>> ><br>> > 1 hour = 2.2 GB<br>><br>> Perfectly normal for MPEG2 recordings.
<br>><br>> Josh<br>><br>><br>><br>> I tuned mine (PVR 350), no visable loss in signal (but the signal is<br>> analog from a digi set top box, so is nice and clean)<br>><br>> 30mins = 764MB<br>
> 1 hour = 1.3 GB<br>><br>> Think there's still some changes I can make to go lower. Big advantage<br>> is I can store twice as many recordings then before.<br>><br>> Ant.<br>><br>What do you mean by 'tuned'? If you are recording from a digital
<br>card, the bandwidth, and hence file size, is fixed as no processing is<br>done. It's not a matter of cleanliness.</blockquote><div><br>Btw, this is only as I understand things working, and that's only from using Myth & ivtv.
<br><br>I am recording the analog signal from my digibox (as Sky don't have an offically recognised CAM this is the only way to deal with this, yes I know about Dragon CAM, see 'officially')<br>So the input to my system is analog PVR-350 (I did mention it), the picture has better quality then terrestrial analog signals (less noise) and hence a cleaner signal.
<br><br>As the PVR card MPEG encoding has a dependancy on the consistency of data, a cleaner signal will allow for a lower sampling rate while still producing adequate picture quality.<br><br>I 'tuned' (ok bad use of words considering frequency tuning) my encoding bitrates and the picture qualtity is as good as (to my human eye) the higher bit rates I was using. (There was a graph that someone found that showed the different bitrates of various media). I believe that I can make further improvements with either bitrates, or capture size, but I have to wait for my widescreen TV to come back from repair so I can see the differences, (the little portable I'm using at the moment just wouldn't show it).
<br><br>Hope this helps explain my previous post. If I've missunderstood something let me know, as it might help me do an even better job.<br><br>Ant.<br></div><br></div>