What is your dream SageTV client?

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by Skybolt

This is a crazy suggestion, but I wonder what would happen if Silicon Dust got involved with this whole mix? Maybe we should make them aware of this?

Saw your post in the general area, and I realize you just found out about this, but you have a lot of catching up to do.

This was discussed a few times in the "Come back to Sage" thread (which originally started in that general forum where you just posted your short-lived farewell, and then got moved here).

[Skybolt]

OK, I guess I'll have to do some reading first. Thanks.

[Fuzzy]

I'm planning on, at some point after the source is opened up and some improvements can be made the the network encoder api, contact silicondust about adding the network encoder capability directly into the firmware of the HDHR products - so sage would ultimately autodetect them on the network... at least that's my plan. The network API is very lightweight, so it should have no problem fitting in their firmware.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

I'm planning on, at some point after the source is opened up and some improvements can be made the the network encoder api, contact silicondust about adding the network encoder capability directly into the firmware of the HDHR products - so sage would ultimately autodetect them on the network... at least that's my plan. The network API is very lightweight, so it should have no problem fitting in their firmware.

Side Note: One aspect of the network tuner API that I thought was odd (for a network turner) is that is appears to want direct access to a file being recorded, from sagetv end... I played with writing a network tuner several times and that part of the API always troubled me. After we get the code, I'll likely better understand the requirements.

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by stuckless

Side Note: One aspect of the network tuner API that I thought was odd (for a network turner) is that is appears to want direct access to a file being recorded, from sagetv end... I played with writing a network tuner several times and that part of the API always troubled me. After we get the code, I'll likely better understand the requirements.

right, that's because the API was written:

1. In the xp days, where network file access was pretty wide open
2. targetting another sagetv instance or sagetvrecorder on a different windows pc.

So direct access was just 'easy'. There were also very little 'standardized' methods for grabbing a live stream over a network.

Now, if starting from scratch, it would all be server initiated, and using something like rtsp to grab the stream and have the server instance write the file. That's what I envision adding to the API. The nice thing is, the API does support version reporting, so we'd be able to make changes and not necessarily break current functionality.

[stuckless]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

right, that's because the API was written:

1. In the xp days, where network file access was pretty wide open
2. targetting another sagetv instance or sagetvrecorder on a different windows pc.

So direct access was just 'easy'. There were also very little 'standardized' methods for grabbing a live stream over a network.

Now, if starting from scratch, it would all be server initiated, and using something like rtsp to grab the stream and have the server instance write the file. That's what I envision adding to the API. The nice thing is, the API does support version reporting, so we'd be able to make changes and not necessarily break current functionality.

That makes sense, and yeah, I think it would great to open up that API to expose the remote file as a stream, under a new API level. (Jeff is cringing has he reads how people are going to bastardize his creation(s) -- once the source is available )

[Fuzzy]

Originally Posted by stuckless

(Jeff is cringing has he reads how people are going to bastardize his creation(s) -- once the source is available )

Nah, I think he already bought into that specific change...

Originally Posted by Narflex

I really like this idea. This would be far too cool if it actually happened.

[traker1001]

Ahh, platform doesn't matter. MY dream client talks, Speaks menus, speaks guide info and such that that V.I. can use it.

[skiingwiz]

I agree that the changes of getting a custom run of hardware, like an updated hd300, is low (though that would be great). What we can strive for though is an image for a commonly available box. There might even be someone willing to flash them and sell them for $10 over cost.

The alternative is (as has been discussed) an app for an existing platform. The great thing is that if the community wants it, we can have both!

[Gustovier]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy

Nah, I think he already bought into that specific change...

The other aspect of this is leverage the DLNA capabilities of the silicon dust prime tuner. We wouldn't be able to open source this part but someone could obtain dtcp-ip licenses / keys and now you have access to premium copy once content such as HBO, etc. It's been done from windows software so certainly possible with some development and a little funding. The end product would have to be put up for sale.

[Fuzzy]

You'd also have to have a completely different playback mechanism to be able to play back the DTCP-IP files, as I'm pretty sure DirectShow wouldn't fly. Also, extenders would likely be out. The other 'option' is to possible provide a downgrading transcoder, so that it could capture the protected content, and then downgrade it and output it to an unprotected file - this is supported by the CableLabs spec, and is how they can provide unprotected analog outputs of the high value content - I don't think anything specifically calls out the type of output in the specs, so technically, a transcoder could do the equivalent. That's a lot of licensing voodoo that I really am not inclined to do as long as HD-PVR's work.

[emveepee]

Thanks for all the feedback, it has been very interesting. I have been trying to figure out where to take this after the poll closed.

Note I am biased since I am firmly against a one-box solution. My opinion is the concept is doomed to failure since it will be obsolete before it hits the street. People complained here in Canada because they didn't like 3 year phone contract and I think 2 years is too long for tech.

Here are my observations:

- I saw very little interest in a kodi client, maybe not surprising because people wanting kodi have left. Also SageTV doesn't provide added value to people using other backend-ends and there already are at least 5 open source alternatives. It will come on it's own especially if someone adds remote live tv to the backend streaming or hacked recordings live serverwmc.

- the HTPC seems dead, even with the quality cheap NUCs and Celerons being available. That was the most surprising find and in some ways they will be missed. A good PC is still the best way to get all the features. I am kind of glad there wasn't interest in Bay Trail though so it's just about price.

- DRM isn't going away, but it is a difficult target.

- An RPi and Chromebox pure Linux client doesn't seem worth pursuing.

- Android seems to be the desired platform but I personally don't think the hardware it's there yet. It's not just de-interlacing, there are auto-framerate issues and HD-Audio concerns to consider. Somebody else needs to focus on this though if SageTV is to grow.

- an "HD400" sure seems to be the desired end-state

So where does that leave me? From my perspective coming as a non-user the only things that set SageTV apart from the other PVR options I have are the "free" EPG, a choice of Windows and Linux platforms and the HD extenders. Nothing here is guaranteed so I figure the extender will be the low-hanging fruit, once the code is out and the 21 day limit is removed .

I thought of a few options. First the RPi2 or Chromebox could be an extender but that doesn't lead to the HD400 and realistically that also is a custom Kodi on a platform like OpenElec and syncing that is a challenge. People want the feature of the next Kodi before the previous version is even out. I think Kodi Isengard as a good example, it's not just about new functionality, it includes key PVR functionality for closed captioning.

The other option I have in mind is working with SageTV and Hauppauge to get the MediaMVP HD working as as an HD300. I proposed doing this years ago to both companies and there were issues that may no longer be relevant. At least I do know how to the code for the Sigma Design SDK and I believe I could accomplish this with the benefit Hauppauge could sell a few more boxes. A problem with this approach is that it only leads to the end-state when Hauppauge or some other vendor see a future in SageTV and that could be over a year from now.

Martin

[trk2]

Originally Posted by emveepee

The other option I have in mind is working with SageTV and Hauppauge to get the MediaMVP HD working as as an HD300. I proposed doing this years ago to both companies and there were issues that may no longer be relevant. At least I do know how to the code for the Sigma Design SDK and I believe I could accomplish this with the benefit Hauppauge could sell a few more boxes. A problem with this approach is that it only leads to the end-state when Hauppauge or some other vendor see a future in SageTV and that could be over a year from now.

Martin

Have you considered the WD TV boxes as possible extenders? I know they use Sigma Design and the firmware is available to be edited.

[emveepee]

Originally Posted by trk2

Have you considered the WD TV boxes as possible extenders? I know they use Sigma Design and the firmware is available to be edited.

I did but they didn't respond. That is typical. I suggest the market is all about volume and margins now. The number of SageTV users would be a blip for WD, (and Roku, ATV and FTV) that wouldn't get any attention.

Hauppauge and Popcorn Hour have really been the only companies that have ever responded. Popcorn Hour (Syabas) where actually very interested and I build a client for NextPVR with the hope of a client for SageTV but Jeff wanted to keep the code closed back then. Eventually the PCH devices stopped working because Syabas opted to compile their own code into the SDK libraries, breaking compatibility with what I had done. They also had a lot of mgt. so contacts died out. In hindsight perhaps larger userbase from SageTV things might have worked out differently

Martin

[7up]

@emveepee - I largely agree with your conclusions. As much as I think Kodi is a useful piece of software, I don't want to see SageTV become just another backend. At some point, there has to be a first step which does not have to be the only option for extenders, so maybe the best option is moving forward with parallel pathways.

RPi2 and Chromebox Linux based extenders. If existing SageTV Linux version could be integrated with OpenELEC, install would be not be too complicated for end users, Kodi would be available if desired and they are reasonably priced. This option seems like the path of least resistance and a good place to start.

Android/IOS apps. If SageTV is to have broad appeal it needs find a way to Android and IOS devices. I am optimistic generic Android boxes will improve as Android 5/Android TV makes it to more devices. My experience with a sub 100 dollar Android box has been that it handles most video formats including deinterlacing 1080i mpeg2 and has potential to be a good (not necessarily perfect) SageTV client. This does not address the current mpeg2 limitations of devices such as FireTV but perhaps if one wants to use such a device it will come with the understanding that transcoding will be necessary. Because it allows integration of SageTV with other online streaming services/apps, a SageTV extender Android app is worth pursuing.

MediaMVP-HD - Great idea if this can result in more "HD-300"s. Hopefully whatever obstacles exist can be overcome as the hardware looks like a great fit.

[nyplayer]

Originally Posted by 7up

RPi2 and Chromebox Linux based extenders. If existing SageTV Linux version could be integrated with OpenELEC, install would be not be too complicated for end users, Kodi would be available if desired and they are reasonably priced. This option seems like the path of least resistance and a good place to start.

I could definitely go for a RPI and Chromebox full Client.

[stlbearboy]

I will be using z-box Nanos as my extenders once sage is open sourced. My hd-200s are running on their last legs.

[cncb]

Originally Posted by emveepee

The other option I have in mind is working with SageTV and Hauppauge to get the MediaMVP HD working as as an HD300. I proposed doing this years ago to both companies and there were issues that may no longer be relevant. At least I do know how to the code for the Sigma Design SDK and I believe I could accomplish this with the benefit Hauppauge could sell a few more boxes.

This sounds good. Does the Hauppauge box support the same codecs, DTS decoding, and HD Audio passthrough like the HD300?

[emveepee]

Originally Posted by cncb

This sounds good. Does the Hauppauge box support the same codecs, DTS decoding, and HD Audio passthrough like the HD300?

They are both SMP8655 based, but some of the functionality is based on what Hauppauge licensed.

Martin

[matterofrecord]

I would suggest once we have narrowed down all the options we could all put some money toward a trusted user, possibly narflex, so that they could buy all the viable extender options and do an honest review on what box would make the best extender? Thoughts?