So is HDCP encryption the end of HD recording?

[freewheeling]

I just noticed that Hauppauge finally has a tuner card that records 1080i and was initially intrigued that it also had an hdmi port. Reading up on it though it turns out that the hdmi port is pretty much useless for recording anything other than a digital camera because the video has something called HDCP encryption. It's pretty clear that the HD component cabling is going to be phased out in favor of something less bulky like hdmi, but does that mean that the days of recording HD content on something like Sage TV are limited? Doesn't HDCP encryption mean it's pretty much a dead end?

(Personally, I'd have rather seen a low profile card without the useless hdmi port.)

[PLUCKYHD]

Read the hardware forum about it isn't useless to all of us those with directv and dishnetwork are using hdmi as allot of their boxes are not hdcp compliant . You also have to remember a large part of people that buy these cards are gamers so they can record screen and video grabs and hdmi is great for them.

[jptheripper]

The colossus card is capturing via the "analog hole" http://tinyurl.com/5v3jpru

Plus there are two devices out there (The HDFURY3 and the MUX-HD) that handle HDCP and pass out unencrypted HDMI.

And finally, just as it took "them" way to long to phase out analog OTA, component HD will be around for awhile on legacy devices, whether the content providers like it or not.

Basically, these cards will last for a few years, which is the life expectancy of the computer anyway.. So in the mean time they definately serve the purpose, and serve it well.

[SHS]

The only problem is that the MUX-HD is no being made so there for good lucky find one.

[freewheeling]

Originally Posted by jptheripper

The colossus card is capturing via the "analog hole" http://tinyurl.com/5v3jpru

Plus there are two devices out there (The HDFURY3 and the MUX-HD) that handle HDCP and pass out unencrypted HDMI.

Basically, these cards will last for a few years, which is the life expectancy of the computer anyway.. So in the mean time they definately serve the purpose, and serve it well.

I'm not complaining about the Component YPP used on the HDPVR and the Colossus, but about how long SageTV will be useful. Looks like the HDFury3 is almost $400. There are cheaper devices that convert to Component YPP output though. Looks like they're around $80-$100.

[jptheripper]

There are not any devices that convert encrypted HDMI to unencrypted HDMI or component except for the HDFURY and MUX-HD.

If you know of one, please share...

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by freewheeling

I'm not complaining about the Component YPP used on the HDPVR and the Colossus, but about how long SageTV will be useful. Looks like the HDFury3 is almost $400. There are cheaper devices that convert to Component YPP output though. Looks like they're around $80-$100.

Well first, it's $249, not $400. But the bigger "issue", personally I think there will be viable if not preferable solutions to PVRs/PVR-ing before we become unable to record with SageTV. Namely, I think streaming/VOD will take over, or at least become viable alternatives.

[jptheripper]

Not in the forseeable future. Everyone I know is canceling netflix because of the price. For me, at 768KB/s (my internet in the boonies), it is non-functional. I know a total of two people that watch TV on their PCs (excluding me) and I am in IT.

With the whole net nuetrality debacle, DRM, etc.. I just dont see internet streaming every being viable as each content provider wants their own rules and restrictions. And there are Many generations (say, most over 40.. so more than half the content consumers) that VOTE against change, even good change.

I still have friends that watch tv only over rabbit ears. There are people that will never pay for tv. How does VOD/streaming work for them?

It may be a viable alternative, yes. It may even be more popular in the not so near to far future. But i think sagetv has a bright future ahead of them for quite awhile.

[reggie14]

I'm with stanger on this one. I think we'll see streaming steal away a significant market share before we'll see anything happen to component video.

True, not everyone will move to streaming, but I think the same people that use PC-based DVRs will be the ones leading the charge to streaming TV. There will always be exceptions, like people that live somewhere without high-speed internet access, but I'm guessing that number will be pretty small.

I don't think DRM will be a problem- I think one way or another we'll see a fairly standard mechanism. I suspect content creators will be less interested in maintaining tight control over how content is distributed once the business model is more mature. Right now I think most companies are struggling to figure out the best way to make money off of video streaming. I also don't think data caps will be a problem. I think pretty soon we'll see some sort of metered pricing take hold in the US. That might slow adoption initially, but I think the industry will self-regulate prices over time, partly to avoid government regulations if companies like Comcast try to abuse their near-monopoly power. It will take consumers a while to get used to metered pricing, but I think they'll get over it pretty quickly (maybe a year or two).

My group of friends must be very different than jptheripper's. I know lots of people that use Netflix Watch Now, either on laptops, blu-ray players, game consoles, or Roku boxes. In fact, for the people I know, being "geeky" doesn't seem to be correlated with using Netflix Watch Now. On the Hulu side I think there might actually be a negative correlation- I know more non-techies than techies that use Hulu. Most of them are relatively young though (<30 years).

[freewheeling]

Originally Posted by jptheripper

There are not any devices that convert encrypted HDMI to unencrypted HDMI or component except for the HDFURY and MUX-HD.

If you know of one, please share...

Sorry, I meant earlier versions of hdfury. I saw one ad that was something like $358. They're not sold at places like Newegg, and although Amazon crops up if you do a Google search they don't actually have any 3s listed, and very few of anything else. Not sure where you go to buy this sort of thing, but they're sure not making a lot of them. I found one site that had a lot of specs comparing various versions of hdfury devices, but it didn't bother to list the price of any of them.

I agree that the future of TV will be internet streaming, because the distribution costs are so cheap compared to the commercial TV model that they'll be able to serve markets that conventional TV just doesn't want to bother with (like males). But that Hulu Premium is pretty stupid. And I get a kick out of Comcast marketing XFinity as though it's something new, and not just Hulu without the TV-ready support. Like people are really going to watch TV on their computers?

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by freewheeling

I agree that the future of TV will be internet streaming, because the distribution costs are so cheap compared to the commercial TV model that they'll be able to serve markets that conventional TV just doesn't want to bother with (like males).

How is Internet streaming cheaper in terms of distribution costs? It seems like the overall distribution costs ought to be higher when you need to have a separate data stream for each TV that is on.

That being said, start-up costs for a new content provider is probably lower. And more generally the barriers to entry for new content providers is probably much lower. That might help.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by jptheripper

Not in the forseeable future. Everyone I know is canceling netflix because of the price. For me, at 768KB/s (my internet in the boonies), it is non-functional. I know a total of two people that watch TV on their PCs (excluding me) and I am in IT.

With the whole net nuetrality debacle, DRM, etc.. I just dont see internet streaming every being viable as each content provider wants their own rules and restrictions. And there are Many generations (say, most over 40.. so more than half the content consumers) that VOTE against change, even good change.

I still have friends that watch tv only over rabbit ears. There are people that will never pay for tv. How does VOD/streaming work for them?

Those people most likely aren't using a DVR now anyway, and certainly aren't using SageTV or any other PC based DVR, they're too costly/fiddly (at least in appearance).

SageTV's market is a that of leading edge/bleeding edge users, it's a very, very tiny niche market of people who are the most likely to adopt things like internet streaming or VOD.

In that group, I think streaming will be a viable alternative before SageTV's recording future darkens. Go back and read my post, I didn't say it would be soon, I didn't say it would replace normal TV, I said it would become a viable alternative to home-brew recoridng, before home-brew recording becomes impractical/impossible (OK maybe I said it better this time).

It may be a viable alternative, yes. It may even be more popular in the not so near to far future. But i think sagetv has a bright future ahead of them for quite awhile.

But that's the point, I'm not worried about SageTV at all in the near/medium term, component isn't going anywhere for a while. My point is that by the time SageTV's future darkens (however distant that may be), at least for recording, I think there will be other options than going without or going back to your dish/cable DVR.

[pjpjpjpj]

Originally Posted by stanger89

Those people most likely aren't using a DVR now anyway, and certainly aren't using SageTV or any other PC based DVR, they're too costly/fiddly (at least in appearance).

Actually, there are plenty of people here who don't pay for TV and only use rabbit ears (or, like me, homemade antennas), and use Sage... in fact, I use Sage because of the ability to get streaming/VOD (along with the DVR functionality it allows for OTA material).

I myself (along with a small but growing group out there) have NO interest in giving another dime to a cable or satellite company. As of 7 am this morning, as I was leaving for work, we have 24 shows scheduled to record in the next 48 hours (), and that's all from ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and multiple PBS stations. I don't even need the hulu/netflix queue or the new UI Mods' ability to bring streaming recordings into the TV Recordings list. Meanwhile, last weekend, I watched every basketball game I possibly could watch via the PlayOn plugin MMOD function, and they looked surprisingly good (and worked flawlessly, without a single hiccup) on my 40" HDTV.

The tone of this whole thread implies that if you can't get digital content from cable/satellite, then Sage is worthless. I won't say I'm offended (I don't take this whole thing seriously enough), but I totally disagree. I found and bought Sage because of the ability to record digital OTA, so that I could drop cable/satellite. In the three years since I did that, I estimate that I have saved around $3000, some of which (but not all) has gone into TVs, Sage equipment and PC hardware. Short of something dying, I won't need to spend another dime for several years, which was my whole goal.

You guys can argue the future of the ability to "capture digital TV from cable or satellite" via Sage, but the ability to "capture digital TV" is just fine and dandy.

[reggie14]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

The tone of this whole thread implies that if you can't get digital content from cable/satellite, then Sage is worthless. I won't say I'm offended (I don't take this whole thing seriously enough), but I totally disagree. I found and bought Sage because of the ability to record digital OTA, so that I could drop cable/satellite.

Sure, but at least based on active users on the forums, most users seem to have cable or satellite. I agree Sage works great with OTA tuners, but I think the company might have a hard time staying viable if they were only able to attract OTA-only customers.

[jnmfox]

Originally Posted by pjpjpjpj

Actually, there are plenty of people here who don't pay for TV and only use rabbit ears (or, like me, homemade antennas), and use Sage... in fact, I use Sage because of the ability to get streaming/VOD (along with the DVR functionality it allows for OTA material).

I myself (along with a small but growing group out there) have NO interest in giving another dime to a cable or satellite company. As of 7 am this morning, as I was leaving for work, we have 24 shows scheduled to record in the next 48 hours (), and that's all from ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, and multiple PBS stations. I don't even need the hulu/netflix queue or the new UI Mods' ability to bring streaming recordings into the TV Recordings list. Meanwhile, last weekend, I watched every basketball game I possibly could watch via the PlayOn plugin MMOD function, and they looked surprisingly good (and worked flawlessly, without a single hiccup) on my 40" HDTV.

The tone of this whole thread implies that if you can't get digital content from cable/satellite, then Sage is worthless. I won't say I'm offended (I don't take this whole thing seriously enough), but I totally disagree. I found and bought Sage because of the ability to record digital OTA, so that I could drop cable/satellite. In the three years since I did that, I estimate that I have saved around $3000, some of which (but not all) has gone into TVs, Sage equipment and PC hardware. Short of something dying, I won't need to spend another dime for several years, which was my whole goal.

You guys can argue the future of the ability to "capture digital TV from cable or satellite" via Sage, but the ability to "capture digital TV" is just fine and dandy.

QFT

I looked into WMC for OTA DVRing but didn't want a loud 360 as my extender. I chose SageTV because of the small low-power HD300 and the customization offered by Sage.

[panteragstk]

Am I wrong or is HDCP primarily used for Blu-ray? Aren't there quite a few people using the Collossus with HDMI? That would seem to point that there are quite a few devices from Dish and DirecTV out there that aren't even using HDCP. I wonder if any of the SA or motorola boxes out there that are unencrypted as well.

[aflat]

I stick with cable for 1 reason, live sports. If I could get that streaming, I would cut the cord so fast even FIOS's speed couldn't keep up. Trying to watch NFL games through ESPN can't be done any other way, with decent quality (tvant doesn't even count)

I'm guessing I'm not the only one in this boat.

[gplasky]

Originally Posted by panteragstk

Am I wrong or is HDCP primarily used for Blu-ray? Aren't there quite a few people using the Collossus with HDMI? That would seem to point that there are quite a few devices from Dish and DirecTV out there that aren't even using HDCP. I wonder if any of the SA or motorola boxes out there that are unencrypted as well.

The Colossus only worked with an unencrypted HDMI source. Almost all the cable boxs use HDCP. Some people have found some models of the DirectTV and Dish boxes are unencrypted. Those are the exceptions, not the rule. I know the motorola boxes are encrypted.

Gerry

[panteragstk]

Originally Posted by gplasky

The Colossus only worked with an unencrypted HDMI source. Almost all the cable boxs use HDCP. Some people have found some models of the DirectTV and Dish boxes are unencrypted. Those are the exceptions, not the rule. I know the motorola boxes are encrypted.

Gerry

I figured as much. I'm going to have to grab some unencrypted boxes when I start directv. I'm happy with OTA only, but I miss sports. Especially college sports. I'm good for NFL except Monday night. Plus I miss the powerblock on spike. I wish tv providers would just let us choose the channels we want and let us pay for those. I have no need for 80% of what is on most non ota channels.

[jptheripper]

i would love a la carte cable. I think i would get about 10 channels. Of course, comcast knows that, which is why there is no a la carte cable.