Joe Votour wrote:
I've read the thread you you mention, and call me
skeptical, but I don't buy it 100%.
Uhhh. OK. If you want to focus on the anthill on top of the mountain
instead of the mountain itself... The point of quoting that post was
not to say that the tuner definition is correct (considering I don't
have a clue which tuner the OP is using)--it's the other 98% of the
content that gives several tips on how to improve signal quality... I
assumed that was clear from the fact that I was replying to (and
quoting) Greg's post where he says, "In my case it turned out to be a
signal strength problem."
Yes, a poor cable signal can cause all sorts of
problems. But short of doing a comparison between a
PVR-500 in Windows and the same card in Linux, you
just can't say that you have the tuner definitions
100% correct.
"The tuner definitions are correct according to the tuner datasheets,"
doesn't say that the tuner definitions are 100% correct... I never
claimed that they were right--only right according to the datasheets... :)
I work in the video industry, having worked on a
set-top box, and before that, cable modems. The main
supplier of tuner chips that we use (starts in "B",
ends in "com", you figure the middle out) is the
absolute worst.
When their datasheet isn't outright lying, it's
missing information, and when the datasheet is
complete, the reference code is totally different.
Then, there's also information that is only given to
the largest customers who pay a ton of money.
Excellent. Then, with your experience in finding the lies and missing
information in datasheets, I can't wait to see a patch for your tuner
definition posted to the V4L list... I won't be offended if you, or
anyone else, change the definition. I'll be extremely pleased if
someone finds a better definition. That's the point of open-source,
anyway. If I wanted my code to stay as broken as the day I wrote it,
I'd work for a commercial software company. ;)
Right now, I have a PVR-250 that is of quality that is
much greater than my PVR-500 in the same machine. The
TV does show that the signal isn't the greatest - but,
when signal runs through the PVR-500, every now and
then I get wavy lines and static, which is not visible
on the TV, or the PVR-250.
Since I have access to the equipment at work, I'll be
bringing home a cable analyzer to check my signal
level, but not everybody has access to this. I'm
hoping that perhaps an upgrade in the ivtv driver (I'm
using the 0.2 series) will help out. I might just
have to run a Windows/Linux comparison at some point.
Excellent. I'm looking forward to seeing your results. I can't do the
Windows/Linux comparison myself--as I don't have Windows or an RF
modulated feed with which to test the tuner.
Mike
-- Joe
--- "Michael T. Dean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Greg Woods wrote:
On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 17:01 -0400, Michael Tiller
wrote:
I don't know if the BTTV card just sucked (it was
a Win-TV card) or if
there was some kind of interference with the
PVR-150?!? If anybody
knows of a reason why the presence of the PVR-150
should make the BTTV
signal suck and knows a way to address the
problem, I'm all ears.
I tried to use a pcHDTV-3000 in the same machine as
a PVR-150, and had
the same problem: the PVR-150 looked great, the
signal for the 3000
sucked. In my case it turned out to be a signal
strength problem.
As I posted in the other signal strength thread, you
should check out:
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/ivtv/devel/17953#17953
Mike
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
http://mail.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
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
