On 11/15/07 17:33, VDR User wrote:
> ...
> Klaus has made it very clear that he only cares how VDR works in his
> environment and if you want that support then you should use different
> software.  I'm sure a large number of users don't like hearing that
> but it is what it is.  Klaus has the right to include or neglect
> anything he wishes in VDR, and users do have the option to use
> something else instead.

Some comments in this thread (and others) sound as if there is
an imminent need to switch to HDTV/H.264, because otherwise we
won't be able to watch tv any more within a few months. I don't
see any real incentive in taking all the extra efforts to do
HDTV. The programmes I usually watch are all broadcast in normal
MPEG2, SDTV. Even if I had the ability to receive HDTV, I would have
to pay extra to actually see anyting - so what's the point?

For my taste currently manufacturers, broadcasters and studios are
way too busy trying to *prevent* people from enjoying HDTV than to
*enable* them to do it. Just take the infamous HDCP, for instance.
You can have a tv set that does HDCP, and also a receiver that does it,
but that doesn't necessarily mean that these two can actually work
together. And unless both receiver and tv set are from the same manufacturer,
chances are both manufacturers will point fingers at each other and
say "it's their fault"...

I'm not saying that VDR will never, ever do HDTV/H.264 (after all
there are already patches to support that). It's just that I don't
feel like spending time on this right now. And if this means that
some VDR users who absolutely need this, and maybe also prefer
shiny bells-and-whistles user interfaces, will switch to a different
program, that's perfectly ok with me. Everybody should use the
software that best suits their needs ;-)


vdr mailing list

Reply via email to