Noob question, but why is it necessary to have the buffer require a 2 second start time?
Why could it not just drop frames at a rate not easily noticed until the buffer was full? That would solve the surfing problem in a simpler way. On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 16:10:24 -0800, Brad Templeton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 05:30:50PM -0500, Michael Starks wrote: > > > > I had an idea about how the delay might be reduced when changing > > channels. In a 2+ tuner system, can one tuner "leapfrog" the other and > > start buffering the next or previous channel, depending on the direction > > the user is surfing? > > > > For example, I start at channel three. > > Tuner two starts buffering channel four. > > I go to channel four and start reading the buffer. > > Tuner 1 starts buffering channel five. > > Thought of this years ago and blogged it earlier on this year: > > http://ideas.4brad.com/archives/000103.html > > But oddly, just reposted it yesterday in some other myth discussion > areas. Something whose time has come -- if it weren't for the fact > that part of "getting" a PVR is to realize that channel surfing > is a silly idea. > > > _______________________________________________ > mythtv-users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users > > >
_______________________________________________ mythtv-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
