[mythtv-users] PVR-250 or 350?

[Scott Blomfield]

You might keep in mind though that MJPEG streams take a lot more CPU to
decode than MPEG streams though.
I was trying to find the email where Isaac pointed this out, but I
couldn't find it quickly.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph A. Caputo [mailto:jcaputo1 at comcast.net] 
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 7:56 AM
To: Discussion about mythtv
Subject: RE: [mythtv-users] PVR-250 or 350?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mythtv-users-bounces at mythtv.org
> [mailto:mythtv-users-bounces at mythtv.org]On Behalf Of Milos Prudek
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 2:15 AM
> To: Discussion about mythtv
> Subject: Re: [mythtv-users] PVR-250 or 350?
>
>
> > Yes; with the caveat that if you use the PVR-x50, the ivtv
> driver is still
> > in the alpha stage, so be warned; but if you pick a reputedly
> stable version
> > and don't go upgrading it willy-nilly, you should be OK.
>
> Do you think that it would be safer to use a BrookTree (bttv) based
> card, because the kernel driver is more mature?

I suppose so, for the time being, but you'll need more CPU available as
you'll be doing software encoding.


> What about PVR-250's hardware encoder? Is it supported by Myth?

Yes; both the -250 and -350 encoders are supported the ivtv driver &
Myth;
also the Hauppauge Freestyle (similar to the -250, but different cable
IO
connections, IIRC).

> Is there a bttv card with a hardware encoder supported by Myth?

Nope.  You could look into a hardware MJPEG card like the Matrox (G400 I
think), which is supported by Myth.

-JAC