HD Component capture with H.264 Encode

[unkyjoe]

I know it has been announced, but I guess this makes it official?

January 11, 2008 | by Rachel Cericola

Hauppauge isn’t the first company to unveil the HD PVR. However, at $249, they might one of the more affordable options.

The HD PVR is a USB-enabled device that connects to any high-def cable or satellite box, and records HD into the H.264 AVC format. Included software allows for playback on a PC.

It can also make AVCHD recordings, which is the format used on Blu-ray players. The recordings, however, can be made onto a traditional DVD disc. Hauppauge says about two hours of Blu-ray content can fit on a 4.7GB DVD.

Sadly, there are no product photos yet; however, the HD PVR will be available sometime in Q1 2008.

I cant wait till Sage gets its hands on one of these and integrates it.

Good things come to those who wait

* merged *

[mikesm]

Originally Posted by morikaweb

This must be a limitation to moto cable box's only. My *C moto box allows me to chose native output mode via a button on the front panel.

What model do you have? A DCH? If so, I'm upgrading!

[peternm22]

Originally Posted by mikesm

What model do you have? A DCH? If so, I'm upgrading!

I think by *C, he's referring to Starchoice, a Canadian satellite company that uses Motorola receivers. The current HD receiver from Starchoice is the DSR505.

Voom, the short lived US HD only satellite company, used the same receivers for their service. I don't think they can be used for cable tv though.

-Peter

[morikaweb]

I think by *C, he's referring to Starchoice, a Canadian satellite company that uses Motorola receivers. The current HD receiver from Starchoice is the DSR505.

Voom, the short lived US HD only satellite company, used the same receivers for their service. I don't think they can be used for cable tv though.

Yes *C means Star Choice and I am using a Moto DSR 505, though the 530's also have the capability to chose the output format, including native.

*C bought the Voom hardware, re-branded them and redistributed them in Canada as "refurbished" units.

No cable systems are completely different than satellite systems and are not compatible. Also its interesting to note that their system had never been cracked to my knowledge.

As far as I know no other DTH provider in North America uses this hardware, and it is not compatible with any other company's systems.

BTW, I'm a she not he.

[peternm22]

Originally Posted by morikaweb

BTW, I'm a she not he.

Oops, sorry!

[gblinckmann]

Originally Posted by briands

In purely theoretical terms would this device likely capture a digital audio stream ???

This is a good question. I'd really hate to go back to just stereo after having content in 5.1 surround sound. That would be a major limitation. I would imagine that capturing the digital audio should be fairly easy as that's not encrypted. Has anybody heard if this box will capture better than analog stereo audio?

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by gblinckmann

This is a good question. I'd really hate to go back to just stereo after having content in 5.1 surround sound. That would be a major limitation. I would imagine that capturing the digital audio should be fairly easy as that's not encrypted. Has anybody heard if this box will capture better than analog stereo audio?

I believe it's been reported several times that the device will capture the original digital audio stream.

[dagar]

There was also some mention of 'special sauce' SW to sync the A+V. Which makes total sense when you think about the time necessary to go through the CODEC (A->D) for the video it will introduce some amount of delay (probably some qty of milliseconds).

So I'm wondering if that special sauce SW is part of the appliance (the capture device) firmware. Or if it is something that requires host processing. Heck we may even get to see a picture of the device one day

[mikesm]

Originally Posted by dagar

There was also some mention of 'special sauce' SW to sync the A+V. Which makes total sense when you think about the time necessary to go through the CODEC (A->D) for the video it will introduce some amount of delay (probably some qty of milliseconds).

So I'm wondering if that special sauce SW is part of the appliance (the capture device) firmware. Or if it is something that requires host processing. Heck we may even get to see a picture of the device one day

There are reference designs for incorporating the multichannel sound for h.264 encoders. It should work fine. SPDIF is digital, so the chip doesn't need to encode it.

[gblinckmann]

Originally Posted by dagar

Heck we may even get to see a picture of the device one day

Oh, now wouldn't that be nice!

[dagar]

Right, it needs to syncronize the two streams (audio and video).

[korben_dallas]

Originally Posted by dagar

Right, it needs to syncronize the two streams (audio and video).

This is no more difficult than current analog encoders which grab the video and audio seperately. In fact, it's probably easier since the audio is digital and never encoded/transcoded.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by korben_dallas

This is no more difficult than current analog encoders which grab the video and audio seperately. In fact, it's probably easier since the audio is digital and never encoded/transcoded.

Wildly guessing, I would think it would be harder since you're encoding one and not the other. I don't know how video/audio synchronization occurs, but I would think it would be easier if both digital sources were created at the same time. I'm sure they have a plan though. I saw on the AVS forums that this might be done by software during playback, rather than on the encoder card. I'm pretty curious about this, as I would hate to lose AC3 audio.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by reggie14

Wildly guessing, I would think it would be harder since you're encoding one and not the other. I don't know how video/audio synchronization occurs, but I would think it would be easier if both digital sources were created at the same time. I'm sure they have a plan though. I saw on the AVS forums that this might be done by software during playback, rather than on the encoder card. I'm pretty curious about this, as I would hate to lose AC3 audio.

Who knows, it may be able to transcode the AC3 audio to AAC(5.1). Thats how I do my software encoding. Not quite sure what container the device will be muxing into. Mp4 supports AAC(5.1), not sure if mpeg-4 TS streams do.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

Who knows, it may be able to transcode the AC3 audio to AAC(5.1). Thats how I do my software encoding. Not quite sure what container the device will be muxing into. Mp4 supports AAC(5.1), not sure if mpeg-4 TS streams do.

I don't understand the point of this unless you're going to be using a PC client with discreet analog outputs. The HD Extender translates AAC 5.1 to PCM stereo before it sends it to the receiver. There's not that huge of a size difference between AAC 5.1 and AC3 5.1 so I don't really see the need to transcode the audio. I'm using an MKV wrapper so that I can use AC3.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

I don't understand the point of this unless you're going to be using a PC client with discreet analog outputs. The HD Extender translates AAC 5.1 to PCM stereo before it sends it to the receiver. There's not that huge of a size difference between AAC 5.1 and AC3 5.1 so I don't really see the need to transcode the audio. I'm using an MKV wrapper so that I can use AC3.

First, I wasn't trying to suggest that the device transcode the audio. I'd be fine with AC3.

The reason I do it is to save space. I transcode down to 192kbps which is usually half the size. And also for greater compatibility with portable devices and QT. Which turns out I've so far used neither. I didn't realize when I first started encoding this way (maybe 2 years ago), that a Sage Extender box would down-convert AAC(5.1) to stereo even when outputting via optical.

[Taddeusz]

Yea, 2 years ago hard drives were more of a commodity than they are now. When you can go out and get a 500GB hard drive for sometimes as low as $100 US it kind of makes keeping things as small as possible a little strange. Personally, I value quality over small size. I'll trade a few hundred MB if it's going to give me a noticeable jump in quality. All my DVD conversions so far are around the 1GB/hr mark including audio. I figure that's a pretty good trade-off when compared to that of the original DVD.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

The reason I do it is to save space. I transcode down to 192kbps which is usually half the size. And also for greater compatibility with portable devices and QT. Which turns out I've so far used neither. I didn't realize when I first started encoding this way (maybe 2 years ago), that a Sage Extender box would down-convert AAC(5.1) to stereo even when outputting via optical.

If anyone actually had a receiver that could decode AAC it would probably be easy for Sage to let the extender output AAC. The issue isn't with Sage, its with the available HT hardware on the market. Perhaps Sage could do real time transcoding to AC3-5.1, but its not something I'm terribly concerned about.

[lobosrul]

Originally Posted by reggie14

If anyone actually had a receiver that could decode AAC it would probably be easy for Sage to let the extender output AAC. The issue isn't with Sage, its with the available HT hardware on the market. Perhaps Sage could do real time transcoding to AC3-5.1, but its not something I'm terribly concerned about.

Actually, I was thinking it would be possible for it to ouput 6 raw PCM channels. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Originally Posted by Taddeusz

Yea, 2 years ago hard drives were more of a commodity than they are now. When you can go out and get a 500GB hard drive for sometimes as low as $100 US it kind of makes keeping things as small as possible a little strange. Personally, I value quality over small size. I'll trade a few hundred MB if it's going to give me a noticeable jump in quality. All my DVD conversions so far are around the 1GB/hr mark including audio. I figure that's a pretty good trade-off when compared to that of the original DVD.

Going from 384kbps AC3 , to 192kbps isn't much of a loss to me, I dont think I can hear the difference. Generally I use Nero to encode DVD's, in which case I'm forced to go with AAC audio. On occasion I'll use mencoder when Nero for some reason refuses to IVTC. Then I keep AC3 audio.

With my own custom scripts I transcode HDTV @ 1 GB per 42 minute show (hour before commercials are gone). I scale 1080i down to 720 and crop by 10%. So effectively its about 640 lines. It stays fairly close to the original quality (if 720p). Thats with x264 high-profile, and 192kbs audio.

[Taddeusz]

Originally Posted by lobosrul

Actually, I was thinking it would be possible for it to ouput 6 raw PCM channels. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Not through the optical output. It could be possible across HDMI but I don't know if the HD Extender is capable of that.