<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
<!-- converted from rtf -->
<style><!-- .EmailQuote { margin-left: 1pt; padding-left: 4pt; border-left: #800000 2px solid; } --></style>
</head>
<body>
<font face="Verdana, sans-serif" size="2">
<div>I have upgraded to the latest 10.04 LTS 32-bit release of MythBuntu by using a new (virgin out of the box) disk drive and noticed only one issue regarding recorded content’s aspect ratio. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The previous 9.10 release recorded the .mpg files at the native broadcaster resolution. I see a mixture of different X and Y pixel counts in the files recorded in the /var/lib/mythtv/recordings directory. Some of the popular recorded media sizes are
1920x1080, 548x480, 720x480, and several others.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The 10.04 release seems to always record at 1920x1080 resolution independent of the broadcaster’s source format. Old TV shows, like Hogan’s Heros, that are still being broadcasted at a very grainy 548x480 are small fields of video information with large
black unused bands on top, bottom, left and right edges of the 1920x1080 *.mpg recorded file. Consequently, during playback on a Samba mounted external video player or on the computer’s 1920x1080 flat screen monitor, I see all of the black field content rather
than attempt to auto-resize the content to fit the playback screen.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Another detriment of the 10.04 resolution issue is recorded file sizes. Recording the same program on the 9.10 and 10.04 with the same quality setting (Normal) results in drastically different file sizes. The older 9.10 release could record an old TV
show at a data rate of 780 MByte/half hour. The latest 10.04 release records the same show at a rate of 3.3 GByte/half hour (and a whole bunch of dark pixels surrounding the relatively small image in the middle). I thought one of the attributes of the latest
10.04 release was the newest H.264 codecs that were both faster and more efficient at video compression. My observations don’t align with these assumptions.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Please help if you can… Many thanks to all who try.</div>
<div><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" size="2"> </font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" size="2"> </font></div>
<div><u><b>Software<br>
</b></u><b>OS:</b> MythBuntu 10.04 LTS 32-bit installed on virgin HDD disk media</div>
<div><b>3</b><font size="1"><sup><b>rd</b></sup></font><b> Party Drivers:</b> downloaded and installed the Kernel Labs firmware support for Hauppauge Tuner</div>
<div><b>Misc:</b> Ran the Update Manager, all packages are at the current release revisions<br>
</div>
<div><u><b>Hardware<br>
</b></u><b>CPU:</b> Intel i7 860</div>
<div><b>Motherboard:</b> GA-P55A-UD4P LGA 1156 P55 ATX Motherboard<br>
<b>RAM:</b> 4 GB DRAM<br>
<b>Video Card:</b> ATI Diamond HD 4650 AGP 512MB DDR2<br>
<b>HDD1:</b> 1.5 GB SATA 3Gb/s<br>
<b>Tuners:</b> Hauppauge HVR-2250</div>
<div><b>External Media Player:</b> Western Digital Live TV connected to an old NTSC analog TV (4:3 aspect)</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 10pt; "><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" size="2"> </font></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 10pt; "><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" size="2"> </font></div>
</font>
</body>
</html>