Is that true - LG is the old Gold Star? I made the terrible mistake
of buying a Gold Star VCR many years ago. It literally quit
one day after the warranty was up...


Oh yeah! They almost disappeared. But some genius must've thought that if they stay low for a while - which they did - change the name - which they also did --- people will forget and buy them again. Worked perfect, and now they are one of the largest players, aren't they?


I wish I had a way to check the HDMI, but really can't afford right now to upgrade neither my projector, nor my TV. The manual is terrible and doesn't give any valuable specifications - it tells you how to connect the different connections, makes it clear that 1080i is the highest resolution and it's only possible over HDMI. It also says that with anything above 480p only the HDMI output is active.

In the future I am sure the output resolution will be much more important, but right now it looks good enough, let's not forget that most HDTV broadcasts these days are nothing more than upscaled NTSC sources.

In the future I am sure the output resolution will be much more important, but right now it looks good enough, let's not forget that most HDTV broadcasts these days are nothing more than upscaled NTSC sources.

Huh? All primetime programming (with the exception of reality shows and game shows) is HD quality. Maybe you meant to say that most DTV programming is still a 480i source that is upscaled with the exception of primetime programming.

I might actually buy one of these if they were around $99...but $200+ seems too much for too little. I'm actually looking for one for my grandparents (they have OTA only) but don't want to limit their viewing to 480p when they decide to upgrade their tube TV.

Just found out it does have a flex time recording mode for timer recording. Another flash back is that you have to power off to activate timer recording.

I am beginning to think that maybe it does output actual HD. The display on every channel indicates what type the broadcast is: SD, HD, or DTV (that's with the digital tuner). I guess the only way to tell would be hooking up with HDMI.

I agree that it's a bit too much money, but on the other hand compared to the other models we've seen so far, this one seems to be the only one with a QAM tuner, and that could make a big difference for people with basic cable only. Add to that the bunch of tunerless recorders and it looks even better.

If I actually had at least basic cable I would rather buy a previous generation recorder with a hard drive, but right now I really need the digital tuner.

HD via HDMI only - sounds like the way of the future - HDMI can be better controlled than component. And like most previous models no component input.

Considering that the Sammy 206 stand alone tuner is about $170 a $200 DVDr with a tuner seems OK for now - I expect prices to drop quickly especially by the time we get to the analog shutdown.

So I did my first recording today - Desperate house wives off of over the air HDTV. I must say I am not all that impressed. The image is certainly better than anything I've ever seen from over the air recording, but no where near DVD quality.

Frankly, I've had better results with analog recorders with basic cable. As far as picture quality goes the Samsung DVD-R135 was the biggest "wow" I've managed, but that model had buzzing sound on the tuner part.

The recording, and the straight HD feed looks much better on my small 480i tube TV, but on my projector at 480p the image is much softer and somewhat blurry, compared to DVD and compared to the best analog basic cable recordings I've had. I've noticed this on every HD channel that I get - they look great on the tube TV, and notably soft on the projector.

I already mentioned that the brightness levels are very inconsistent from one channel to the next, and especially compared with DVDs.



Ooops! Forgot to mention that I made the recording in the highest 1 hour quality mode, on a DVD+WR, a LiteOn disc I've been using for about a year with my old LiteOn recorder. There were no problems with the disc, but the signal did get pixelated for about a minute during the 1 hour show.

First of all, the LG DR787T should have it's own thread! I almost missed this discussion buried in this particular thread. ;)

I bought this brand new LG model Friday from Best Buy, and then returned it the next day. Here's why:

1) I noticed audio sync problems on the HD Channels I tuned in.
2) It does not output the HDTV signal with Dolby Digital through HDMI. While I already knew it would downgrade the signal to fit on a DVD when recording, I was expecting it to at least be viewable in HD with Dolby Digital while watching it live. I guess that would make the unit more complicated (and expensive). It is indeed a 480p with PCM Audio signal upconverted only through the HDMI.
3) 780p/1080i only available through HDMI, not component. The only HDMI port on my LCD TV is reserved for my PS3. :(
4) No fan! As the previous poster noted, this unit gets hot. The lack of a fan was pretty surprising to me. Perhaps the heat issue is causing the audio sync issue?

Interesting first try for an ATSC DVD Recorder. I look forward to the new efforts from other manufacturers.

thanks for the update, so far I've crossed off Sony and now LG...who's next to be crossed off my list?

First of all, the LG DR787T should have it's own thread!

What's stopping you from starting one? :confused:

First of all, the LG DR787T should have it's own thread! I almost missed this discussion buried in this particular thread. ;)

I bought this brand new LG model Friday from Best Buy, and then returned it the next day. Here's why:

1) I noticed audio sync problems on the HD Channels I tuned in.
2) It does not output the HDTV signal with Dolby Digital through HDMI. While I already knew it would downgrade the signal to fit on a DVD when recording, I was expecting it to at least be viewable in HD with Dolby Digital while watching it live. I guess that would make the unit more complicated (and expensive). It is indeed a 480p with PCM Audio signal upconverted only through the HDMI.
3) 780p/1080i only available through HDMI, not component. The only HDMI port on my LCD TV is reserved for my PS3. :(
4) No fan! As the previous poster noted, this unit gets hot. The lack of a fan was pretty surprising to me. Perhaps the heat issue is causing the audio sync issue?

Interesting first try for an ATSC DVD Recorder. I look forward to the new efforts from other manufacturers.


Did you get Dolby Digital from the digital outputs? I haven't found a single program with 5.1 DD yet and beginning to think that the tuner just doesn't decode it.

I haven't returned mine yet, but probably will closer to the 30 day period. I haven't had any sync problems. It doesn't look like any new recorder will deliver anything above 480p over component. I don't know, but this recorder is very close to the price of the older generations, and in my opinion delivers a lot more.

most prime time dramas and comedies are in DD 5.1.

First of all, the LG DR787T should have it's own thread!Where did you buy yours?

I was just in my local BB in Mesa, AZ. They had the LG in stock. I am waiting to see it if outputs 720p/1080i out of the ATSC tuner before I spend $229+tax

i think its a fantastic deal even if it doesnt have the following..

QAM
HDMI
ouput to 720p or 1080i....who actually cares for that??

i am buying for the simple fact it has A OTA DIGITAL TUNER!!!!!

cable sucks
hdmi is usless for now component is just as good to me.
720p or 1080i ueseless for those without hdtv 's like myself.

to all those who doesnt buy one for stupid reasons leaves more for people like me who actually need/use the damn thing..

this place is getting worse than videohelp.com

remember the big dork lordsmurf from there always whining and complaining about little things??

. . . this place is getting worse than videohelp.com . . .

This isn't a helpful comment, IMHO.

I'm just a newbie here, but appreciate the variety of thoughts and experiences being expressed. I can think for myself and decide what's more important to me, thanks.

This entire topic has helped me to better understand the relationship of this upcoming digital switchover, the role of digital tuners and HD over OTA, for example.

- ooofest

.... this place is getting worse than videohelp.com....


Wow some opinion you have there, so insightful and non-biased.

I am one that spends a lot of money on cable, and has two HD DVR's on two different TV's. However there are times that on one TV I want to watch a show while two other are recording. Monday's are an example. I have 24 and Hero's recording and would like to watch a third show. Having a DVD recorder that would pass a QAM HD signal to my Samsung that only has a non-QAM ATSC tuner would be perfect.

I was just in my local BB in Mesa, AZ. They had the LG in stock. I am waiting to see it if outputs 720p/1080i out of the ATSC tuner before I spend $229+tax
You'll be disappointed: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=818511

You'll be disappointed: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=818511
I've read that post (it's copied from this thread) but the poster doesn't know if the LG outputs an HD signal since he does not have a TV with HDMI to test.

i think its a fantastic deal even if it doesnt have the following..

QAM
HDMI
ouput to 720p or 1080i....who actually cares for that??



If you have an HDTV and want to use the tuner to just watch (not record) an HD program in HD, then it must output 1080i/720p...so there are a lot of people that actually care for that. The other 2 you can probably live without as long as it had component out.

So, if you have an HDTV and you don't mind that it isn't being used to its fullest potential, then by all means purchase one. If I was buying one to hook up to an old tube TV and planning to sell it when I got rid of the TV, then it would be a great device.

sivartk;
Exactly, to justify purchase, for me, it has to act as a stand alone stb and record (unfortunately) 16/9 to sd dvd.

You guys are gonna make me go to Walmart and pick up a TV with HDMI! I've caught a serious upgrade bug now. I want to change all of my equipment.

fyi from here.
http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/LGline2007.html

LG is making a comeback with digital set-top receivers, in a roundabout way. The DR787T Super Multi Digital Tuner/DVD Recorder does it all — DVD playback and recording in all popular formats, 720p and 1080i upconversion via HDMI, and ATSC/NTSC/QAM reception. It also has a USB 2.0 interface for photos and music and a FireWire 1394 port for digital camcorders.

The RC797T is another unique product. It combines a VHS player/recorder, DVD player/recorder, and ATSC/NTSC/QAM reception in one box, along with that ubiquitous USB 2.0 jack and 1394 input. Both VHS and DVD playback can be upconverted to 720p or 1080i through an HDMI output. This STB/recorder, like the DR787T, can control cable and satellite STBs for scheduled recordings, and both are compatible with Simple Link.

For recording, both the DR787T and RC797T down-convert all HD signals to SD resolution, and then bump ‘em to 480p, 720p, or 1080i for playback. There are also “plain vanilla” versions of both products without the digital/analog TV tuners, known as the DR700N and RC700N, respectively.

So — what was missing? For starters, how about all those CableCARD slots? It appears that CableCARD will take its place in the “nice try, but no cigar” hall of fame shortly. Only LG’s PVR-equipped sets will have them for 2007. For whatever reasons, consumers are sticking with their cable boxes. (Let’s see if that changes after the analog TV shutdown in 2009!)

I've read that post (it's copied from this thread) but the poster doesn't know if the LG outputs an HD signal since he does not have a TV with HDMI to test.

I think in the comments by atrac, he said that the HDMI output
only put out 480p then upconverted signal? He does have a
HDTV.

So as of right now, do we know which ones of these will output true HD through component and give the user the ability to stretch/zoom the screen to fill a 16:9 display with a 4:3 content?

No unit to this point reviewed by anyone outputs true HD.

And it's likely to stay that way. Further, HD output via upconversion is only available through the HDMI port. No HD out of component, only 480P tops.

And it's likely to stay that way. Further, HD output via upconversion is only available through the HDMI port. No HD out of component, only 480P tops.
What bugs me is that this is a decision the manufacturers make. For example my HD DVR outputs HD just fine over component. I think they are trying to paint us into a corner. Also, I think that there a a couple of Samsung DVD players that can be hacked to upscale over component.

And it's likely to stay that way. Further, HD output via upconversion is only available through the HDMI port. No HD out of component, only 480P tops.

I'm still holding out for the Panasonic units.

What bugs me is that this is a decision the manufacturers make. For example my HD DVR outputs HD just fine over component. I think they are trying to paint us into a corner. Also, I think that there a a couple of Samsung DVD players that can be hacked to upscale over component.
In my opinion this is because of pressure from the content providers. They want the ability to control that HD signal getting to our display devices. I doubt if there will be many more products coming out that will output a HD signal on anything but HDMI.

It's disappointing so far that none of them output true HD signal. May be we should hope that the government will pass the law that offers the $40 coupon for the purchase of DTV boxes. :) I wonder if that passes, how will they assure that the coupons will only be used by those who are depending on OTA analog receptions? Probably no good for online order anyway.

I have a front projector that should be delivered by the end of the month and want to view HD broadcasts on it. It would also be nice to record, but it doesn't have to record in HD. It will be connected to my system via an HDMI cable. I currently get analog cable but my understanding is that a QAM tuner should be able to pick up the lower digital (more specifically HD) channels for free (the ones "in the clear"). Now I know Samsung has a tuner that gets the job done for about $179 except for the fact that it doens't record and is hard to find. I was hoping to get a DVD recorder with the built in NTSC/ATSC/QAM tuners so I could watch HDTV without downconversion and record in 540i (720p or 1080i would be nice but that obviously won't happen for a while). Are you guys saying the LG automatically downconverts all signals (whether recorded or not)? If so, that's just plain stupid. I hope the newer Toshiba's don't downconvert non-recorded HD signals. Does anyone know when they'll be released? Do you guys know of any other DVD-Rs with NTSC/ATC/QAM tuners that don't downconvert non-recorded HD signals?

It's disappointing so far that none of them output true HD signal. May be we should hope that the government will pass the law that offers the $40 coupon for the purchase of DTV boxes. :) I wonder if that passes, how will they assure that the coupons will only be used by those who are depending on OTA analog receptions? Probably no good for online order anyway.
NTIA Issues DTV Coupon Rule (http://www.twice.com/article/CA6423646.html?nid=2402) :D

I have a front projector that should be delivered by the end of the month and want to view HD broadcasts on it. It would also be nice to record, but it doesn't have to record in HD. It will be connected to my system via an HDMI cable. I currently get analog cable but my understanding is that a QAM tuner should be able to pick up the lower digital (more specifically HD) channels for free (the ones "in the clear"). Now I know Samsung has a tuner that gets the job done for about $179 except for the fact that it doens't record and is hard to find. I was hoping to get a DVD recorder with the built in NTSC/ATSC/QAM tuners so I could watch HDTV without downconversion and record in 540i (720p or 1080i would be nice but that obviously won't happen for a while). Are you guys saying the LG automatically downconverts all signals (whether recorded or not)? If so, that's just plain stupid. I hope the newer Toshiba's don't downconvert non-recorded HD signals. Does anyone know when they'll be released? Do you guys know of any other DVD-Rs with NTSC/ATC/QAM tuners that don't downconvert non-recorded HD signals?

You are not going to get HD recording without BluRay or HD-DVD.

It looks like the LG cannot be used as a HD tuner: LG Review (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=818511#post10012691)

I was looking at the Samsung tuner yesterday at BB and I saw no mention of QAM, I think it is OTA only, but I could be wrong.

NTIA Issues DTV Coupon Rule (http://www.twice.com/article/CA6423646.html?nid=2402) :D

I bet they will assure that the applicable DTV boxes will only be the ones that contains only ATSC tuner (no QAM) and only output 480 signal. That way, these boxes are most likely used by people who receive OTA signal and used only for existing SD analog sets. :(

NTIA Issues DTV Coupon Rule (http://www.twice.com/article/CA6423646.html?nid=2402) :D

These coupons will ONLY apply if there is no digital output, e.g. - max is S-video. That might work for a tunerless recorder pretty well.

These coupons will ONLY apply if there is no digital output, e.g. - max is S-video. That might work for a tunerless recorder pretty well.

Component signals are not digital output. :D
Anyhow, I agree with you on that.
What I am afraid of is that it it passes, it will steer the whole market of devices with DTV tuners toward that due to its mass quantities.

Component signals are not digital output. :D


Right, I know that... (typing faster than my brain works - or maybe it IS my brain!) :o

NTIA Issues DTV Coupon Rule (http://www.twice.com/article/CA6423646.html?nid=2402) :DVery interesting, thanks for the information. Looks like you should apply for your coupons early, according to the article if initial funding runs out and it has to be extended, the additional coupons will be restricted to OTA-only households.

NTIA Issues DTV Coupon Rule (http://www.twice.com/article/CA6423646.html?nid=2402) :D

So in other words, they can check if there are cable running to your household?
However, even households that have cable may still have OTA sets and that will not be fair?

Yes, thank you, very informative. So now that the final ruling and specs have been set we should start seeing these converter boxes appear around the time the vouchers can be requested (1/2008) and get a sense of what they are going to cost (above the $40 voucher). I have a feeling that people who were early adopters of HD-TV without digital tuners (the old HDTV-ready sets) are going to get screwed. Screwed in 2 ways: first they will not be able to use one of these vouchers to subsidize their purchase of an HD tuner; second HD tuners will probably be low volume (compared to the SD converter boxes) and hence scarce, limited selection and expensive.

Another poster has said these are dangerous times to be buying video electronics -- I agree.

NTIA Issues DTV Coupon Rule (http://www.twice.com/article/CA6423646.html?nid=2402) :D

Other permitted features include battery power operation, as well as external AC/DC power; additional cables such as a cable with 3 female RCA connectors for composite video (yellow connector) and stereo left and right audio (white and red connectors), the display of additional signal quality information as determined by the manufacturer, and compliance with energy standards such as the EPA Energy Star program or state regulatory authorities.

I'm hoping that is a typo. I've never seen a STB with male connectors.

I can't wait to get a coupon and a box to try and hook up my 1985 B&W 12" TV with no RF input...should be a fun challenge.

So I guess we should get a couple of these to maintain resale value of your current analog only TV's.

You are not going to get HD recording without BluRay or HD-DVD.
What about recording to hard drive? Tivo 3 does this now.

Other permitted features include battery power operation, as well as external AC/DC power; additional cables such as a cable with 3 female RCA connectors for composite video (yellow connector) and stereo left and right audio (white and red connectors), the display of additional signal quality information as determined by the manufacturer, and compliance with energy standards such as the EPA Energy Star program or state regulatory authorities.

I'm hoping that is a typo. I've never seen a STB with male connectors.

I can't wait to get a coupon and a box to try and hook up my 1985 B&W 12" TV with no RF input...should be a fun challenge.

So I guess we should get a couple of these to maintain resale value of your current analog only TV's.

After reading more about the NTIA initial proposals. It seems that they only suggest composite video out, not even S-video. Though I think they don't forbid that and most manufacturers should provide that.
I think it provides an analog RF out that you can connect to the antenna of your 12" TV.

These coupons will only be for analog output receivers to connect to your current analog only tv. I believe it may be based on a zip code and info provided by cable and sat. Because if you get OTA from them, you may not be eligible. Funny how these recent ATSC receivers/DVD recorders fit this

I guess not:http://www.twice.com/article/CA6423646.html?nid=2402

These coupons will only be for analog output receivers to connect to your current analog only tv. I believe it may be based on a zip code and info provided by cable and sat. Because if you get OTA from them, you may not be eligible. Funny how these recent ATSC receivers/DVD recorders fit this

I guess not:http://www.twice.com/article/CA6423646.html?nid=2402

According to the initial proposals that I read, they require you to fill out an application to request the coupons (max of 2 per household) and also certify (by signing the form?) that you receive only OTA analog signal and that no other household member is also requesting the coupon.

It's confusing, but there's a "meeting" on the 19th, and then again,http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/2007/DTVfinalrule_031207.htm
This needs it own thread? Or is there one already?

RCA Gauging Retail Demand For D/A STB (http://www.twice.com/article/CA6423666.html?nid=2402)

In my opinion this is because of pressure from the content providers. They want the ability to control that HD signal getting to our display devices. I doubt if there will be many more products coming out that will output a HD signal on anything but HDMI.

I agree, but why would that prevent a manufacturer from allowing the DVD recorder to output true hi-def live over HDMI, even if it could only record and play back in DVD resolution? I'd like to simplify the clutter of boxes in my home theater -- a little, anyway, and the industry is not making it easy.

Here's another entry, this one from JVC: http://www.jvc.com/press/index.jsp?item=545&pageID=3&PressKitID=10

The news release says, "JVC’s new Timer Link feature senses the signal, automatically powers up and begins recording. Recording automatically stops and the recorder shuts off when the program ends. JVC research shows that the vast majority of set-top boxes come equipped with a timer."

Does that "vast majority" include the Samsung DTB-H260F? If so, then we could "roll our own" hi-def receiver + DVD recorder by pairing up these two units.

I will put my own 2 cents worth regarding these new DVD recorders outputting true HD on live broadcasts.

It sounds easy to do, but adding a feature like this adds a bunch of technical challenges. Don't forget these are 1st generation recorders with digital tuners and the manufactures were rushing to get something (anything) out the door as soon as possible so that the shelves wouldn't be empty. Adding a this feature would increase the time to market and increase the risk of missing release deadlines.

If customer feedback indicates that this is a feature that people are wanting, they will add it to next years model when a slip in release date doesn't mean empty shelves.

It sounds easy to do, but adding a feature like this adds a bunch of technical challenges.

And these technical challenges woud be? One multiplexer chip to route the HD signals to the output? The circuit board would need changing anyway to add the ATSC tuner chip in. So I can only see what's happening so far it if the layout changes on the board was somehow easier to not to mux and route the signal to the existing HDMI and/or component connectors.

And these technical challenges woud be? So I can only see what's happening so far it if the layout changes on the board was somehow easier to not to mux and route the signal to the existing HDMI and/or component connectors.
Yep and that saved them 3 cents. :rolleyes:

And these technical challenges woud be? One multiplexer chip to route the HD signals to the output? The circuit board would need changing anyway to add the ATSC tuner chip in. So I can only see what's happening so far it if the layout changes on the board was somehow easier to not to mux and route the signal to the existing HDMI and/or component connectors.My guess is that what you are suggesting is not even an option.
IMHO I think there are somewhat unrealistic expectations as to what these new DVDRs should be capable of doing just because they are now being equipped with ATSC/QAM/NTSC tuners. I suspect these new tri-mode tuner chips are relatively inexpensive devices that output only 480i which makes them drop-in replacements for the all-analog tuner chips they are replacing. What could be cheaper for the manufacturer than simply taking last years design and replacing a single tuner chip (especially a chinese or korean job-shop). The price bump we will see in the recorders selling price will be a combination of new patent license fees for ATSC tuners and marketing -- "new improved" models always initially cost more.

I could see down the road of a couple product cycles where a maufacturer may decide to put in a more sophisticated tuner to allow HD pass through. This could be marketed to those early HD-TV adopters who bought HD-ready sets without tuners -- at a suitably increased price to capture the added value.

If customer feedback indicates that this is a feature that people are wanting, they will add it to next years model when a slip in release date doesn't mean empty shelves.

Wasn't the March 1 date set in stone several years ago? Rush? lack of a sense of urgency is more like it....but that is every business for you.

My guess is that what you are suggesting is not even an option.
IMHO I think there are somewhat unrealistic expectations as to what these new DVDRs should be capable of doing just because they are now being equipped with ATSC/QAM/NTSC tuners. I suspect these new tri-mode tuner chips are relatively inexpensive devices that output only 480i which makes them drop-in replacements for the all-analog tuner chips they are replacing. What could be cheaper for the manufacturer than simply taking last years design and replacing a single tuner chip (especially a chinese or korean job-shop). The price bump we will see in the recorders selling price will be a combination of new patent license fees for ATSC tuners and marketing -- "new improved" models always initially cost more.

I could see down the road of a couple product cycles where a maufacturer may decide to put in a more sophisticated tuner to allow HD pass through. This could be marketed to those early HD-TV adopters who bought HD-ready sets without tuners -- at a suitably increased price to capture the added value.

It has been stated by a Panasonic insider that the new Panasonic models will use the ATI (AMD) Theater 312 demodulator chip. This chip handles the QAM and ATSC tuning and outputs an MPEG transport stream. The NTSC tuner chip must still be a separate unit -- which is good news.

Hopefully the data from the 312 chip is fed directly into the upconvert circuit so that we can get true 720/1080 output when watching live TV.

From the AMD website: "For digital terrestrial reception, the advanced equalizer in the Theater 314/312/311 provides exceptional dynamic and static multi-path performance. Superior performance in harsh environments is achieved by the use of robust synchronization and equalization algorithms."

Sounds like a 5th gen tuner, or better.

-jamieson

My guess is that what you are suggesting is not even an option.
IMHO I think there are somewhat unrealistic expectations as to what these new DVDRs should be capable of doing just because they are now being equipped with ATSC/QAM/NTSC tuners. I suspect these new tri-mode tuner chips are relatively inexpensive devices that output only 480i which makes them drop-in replacements for the all-analog tuner chips they are replacing.

If you are talking about chips like the ATI(AMD) 260 chip, the "tri-mode" means they added world-wide formats. This chip does HD formats. There is still signal conditioning needed on the output stage, so it probably isn't 100% a "drop in", AFAIK. I haven't seen a data sheet on the chip, however, and I would assume the LG unit would use their own chip. And, these chips, being high volume, OEM based, can be customized somewhat. But I was a product development engineer and manager for alot of years for electronic products, and I gotta say, from what I know, I don't think it'd be that big a deal to pass HD through technically. Of course, like I said, it depends upon the board design, and of course, their own company politics, marketing, product goals, etc.

So I'm still holding on hope that one of the other vendors will include HD passthrough. We'll probably know one way or another next month, when the bulk of the recorders show up. If nobody does it, then even the next product cycle could be without -- we may not see it until blu-ray or hd-dvd recorders hit. I know they are working on those product specs now. Of course, digital rights politics will play a big part in the release of those products.

Another poster said: I will put my own 2 cents worth regarding these new DVD recorders outputting true HD on live broadcasts.

It sounds easy to do, but adding a feature like this adds a bunch of technical challenges.

I am reluctant to call somebody else's task "hard" or "easy" without more information. BUT: I've had live HD together with 480i recording for several years now by putting together a Motorola HD receiver and a Toshiba RD-XS32 DVD recorder. And anyone who could drop a MyHD card into a computer could have achieved the same thing for a couple of years now.

Novices at home can do all this . . . surely the industry can do better than we've seen so far.

The circuit board would need changing anyway to add the ATSC tuner chip in.

Yes the circuit board needs to be re-spun, to replace the existing tuner circuit with a new tuner module, but that is largely isolated to one section of the schematic. Using the current approach, the output circuit doesn't need to change. To pass the native resolution through requires changes to the output circuit and those changes add time and risk.

It may be a simple change, but anytime you take something that works and modify it, you risk breaking it and making it not work. I have seen it time and time again where a simple change goes bad and takes a lot more time to fix that it should.

In a normal year you risk making the company look foolish and unable to release the product on time, but at least you can make more of last years model continue to sell last them until the new one is released. Not optimal, but manageable. This time around they aren't allowed to make more of last years model. Once the stores are sold out, that is it and the shelves will stay empty until this years model is available.

Wasn't the March 1 date set in stone several years ago? Rush? lack of a sense of urgency is more like it....but that is every business for you.

These dates have changed several times over the years. Wasn't the analog shutdown originally supposed to happen in 2006? Until recently, I think most companies were expecting the date for digital recorders to be pushed out and didn't start working on it until they realized that wasn't going to happen.

These dates have changed several times over the years. Wasn't the analog shutdown originally supposed to happen in 2006? Until recently, I think most companies were expecting the date for digital recorders to be pushed out and didn't start working on it until they realized that wasn't going to happen.
The TV side was somewhat set but the small set (below 13") and other TV related stuff (DVDr, PC cards) were gong to get a reprieve until Katrina happened. Then politicians said all equipment must be converted to give the market time to adjust to the shutdown.

And these technical challenges woud be? One multiplexer chip to route the HD signals to the output? The circuit board would need changing anyway to add the ATSC tuner chip in. So I can only see what's happening so far it if the layout changes on the board was somehow easier to not to mux and route the signal to the existing HDMI and/or component connectors.

I wouldn't say it's a technical challenge. However, it may not be as easy as you said either. I am not familiar with the circuitry of the HDMI output, but I think it is all provided by one single chip (or portion of a chip) which provides all the digital signals (clocks, protocols, data etc.). The architecture of most chips may not be flexible enough for it to add another set of signal (HD & SD) conveniently or cost effectively. Don't forget, the HDMI is probably dedicated by the circuitry that upconverted the 480i signal from DVD playback to HD out.

I wouldn't say it's a technical challenge. However, it may not be as easy as you said either. I am not familiar with the circuitry of the HDMI output, but I think it is all provided by one single chip (or portion of a chip) which provides all the digital signals (clocks, protocols, data etc.). The architecture of most chips may not be flexible enough for it to add another set of signal (HD & SD) conveniently or cost effectively. Don't forget, the HDMI is probably dedicated by the circuitry that upconverted the 480i signal from DVD playback to HD out.

You may be right. These devices have sorta turned into commodities, with probably high levels of integration (few chips). Without seeing the schematics, like someone else said, it's just guessing. But all designs won't be identical. And product differentiation is what enables one vendor to get a higher price than another. So I'm still gonna wait before springing for a STB tuner or doing the HTPC route.

Hey, has anybody looked to see if these things can pass through dolby digital 5.1 from the OTA sources? One of these would still be useful to me if I can get that since I can split the cable and run one into my tv and get the hd from its built-in tuner.

Hey, has anybody looked to see if these things can pass through dolby digital 5.1 from the OTA sources? One of these would still be useful to me if I can get that since I can split the cable and run one into my tv and get the hd from its built-in tuner.


Mine doesn't, only pcm.

That's so frustrationg. What the hell are they trying to sell us? These things hardly have any use at all. If even one of the devices I have had all the features it should have had, I would never have had any problem, but as it turns out you have to buy 3 or 4 devices to accomplish the task that one device should be able to.

it seems that the newly released one are aimed at people that use OTA DTV with a 480i/p TV (I.e. tube, EDTV)....since the resolution isn't any higher. I'm not one of those people.

I don't think so. If so, then they don't need HDMI upconvertion output.

it seems that the newly released one are aimed at people that use OTA DTV with a 480i/p TV (I.e. tube, EDTV)....since the resolution isn't any higher. I'm not one of those people.
I disagree. I think that these 1G ATSC DVD Recorders are aimed at consumers that already have an HDTV with digital tuners.

They don't seem to be marketed to folks with HD monitors that want to consolidate ATSC (and QAM) tuning into one box.

Personally, I would love it if someone made a ATSC/QAM DVD Recorder that acted as a full-resolution digital tuner as well. You can't have too many tuners is what I always say.

ft

Unless your TV/Monitor has a really bad scaler, you won't notice any difference between component out (480p) or HDMI out (720p/1080i).

I disagree with you there. In general it better to up-convert in the digital domain than it is to up-scale the image in the analog domain.

If the $ 5000 HDTVs selling now actually included any video outputs (firewire or S-VHS would be nice) then I could use the included OTA HD tuner in the TV to view a HD signal, down-rez the signal and out put it to a stand alone DV recorder.

Unfortunately most manufacturers have removed these video outputs (even RCA) so that it is impossible to record and archive an OTA HD signal in any resolution without additional expense (Tivo fees) or complexity (PC hookup).

While including digital tuners in TVs opened an entire free gateway to HDTV, most people have chosen to ignore the opportunity and pony up big fees to get an inferior HDTV signal from their satellite or cable company. On top of that they also pay a monthly fee to be able to record, if not archive, much of their content HD and otherwise.

I was hoping that the new DVD recorders would make it possible to view and archive (albeit in a lower resolution) an HD program at the same time without the assistance of my friendly cable or satellite provider. Doing so would be a lot easier with the new recorders if they passed a true HDTV signal out.

I still think these new recorders will provide the best opportunity to record OTA HD at a lower resolution for limited cost until Blue Ray or HD-DVD recorders come out (don't hold your breath for digital rights issues to settle out).

Currently if you have a HDTV without any video outputs, there simply is no way to archive OTA HD viewing at any resolution without attaching your horses to the gravy train of your cable or satellite company (assuming you don't want to bother with PC hookups or buy the one high rez VHS recorder out there).

I have a Sony DHG-HDD250 (hard to find, but still are available new in stores) in which I can watch and record HDTV (or any DTV or Analog TV for that matter) without paying a monthly fee. Are these boxes cheap? No, but I don't want to spend $60+ dollars a month to just watch/record the local channels in HD when a simple $50 antenna in the attic and $550 HD DVR will do the job. I "break even" in about 10 months. So far, I've had one of these (and no cable) since June of last year, so I'm almost at the break even point.

Do I miss cable? No. The occasional football game I can't watch, yes, but that is just an excuse to invite my self over and spend time with family and friends.

If it didn't have HDMI, then the TV (assuming an HDTV) would upconvert anyway. I think that the "upconversion" feature is just a marketing scam and a "reason" for consumers to buy more DVD players. Unless your TV/Monitor has a really bad scaler, you won't notice any difference between component out (480p) or HDMI out (720p/1080i).

I don't get you. You were arguing that the new ATSC recorders were really for analog/EDTVs as they don't output true HD signals. Then I said that if they were really for analog/EDTV then they don't need to provide an HDMI output with upconvertion capability. The cost of providing HDMI and upconvertion hardware is not exactly negligable. HDMI is a digital interface and analog/EDTV mostly don't have HDMI input. Your above comment is irrelevant, IMO. Nobody will add significant cost to their ATSC recorders in the hope of selling more of their DVD players.
There may be a reason why they do not output true HD signal (other thread in this topic), may be due to architecture of chips etc. However, I don't think these newer ATSC recorders are mainly intended for non-HDTV.

I don't get you. You were arguing that the new ATSC recorders were really for analog/EDTVs as they don't output true HD signals. Then I said that if they were really for analog/EDTV then they don't need to provide an HDMI output with upconvertion capability. The cost of providing HDMI and upconvertion hardware is not exactly negligable. HDMI is a digital interface and analog/EDTV mostly don't have HDMI input. Your above comment is irrelevant, IMO. Nobody will add significant cost to their ATSC recorders in the hope of selling more of their DVD players.
There may be a reason why they do not output true HD signal (other thread in this topic), may be due to architecture of chips etc. However, I don't think these newer ATSC recorders are mainly intended for non-HDTV.

The marketing of features can often get vastly distorted due to the ignorance of the general public. For example, point and shoot digital cameras now have 10 mpixel memories. That's doesn't make sense, because lenses on those cameras can't resolve much past 4-5 mpixels. And stuffing more mpixels on a small sensor makes it noisier. Why do they do it? Cause the uneducated consumer equates "more" with "better". Plus if a competitor has 10Mpixels, every manufacturer needs to have 10mpixels to or they don't sell product. It becomes a "standard" feature.

Having HDMI outputs with upscaling to as high as 1080p is the same thing. Competitors have it; you gotta have it too. Also, the consumer's knowledge may just know connectors. HDMI=better. I got one on my TV, gee, this has one too! I got 1080P, this has it too! It has ATSC and QAM (don't know what those are, but it must be good) Yeh, this one has the features. Never mind 480p is what is native and could be upscaled in the set. Never mind that the thing doesn't record at 1080P or 1080i or 720P or passthrough these from the tuner. Once the feature is commoditized, it's cheap, as it's built into the chipsets and volume production.

It cost more to educate the consumer than just give them checklist features at the commodity level. If you are talking a $500-$1000 recorder you can afford(and need) to educate them as to why you make smart product choices. And many of your consumers are more product savy (like the typical member here) and will reward your choices. This is why Denon can get $350 plus for a DVD-player-only, while LG is lucky to get $200 for a DVD-player-recorder.

The marketing of features can often get vastly distorted due to the ignorance of the general public. For example, point and shoot digital cameras now have 10 mpixel memories. That's doesn't make sense, because lenses on those cameras can't resolve much past 4-5 mpixels. And stuffing more mpixels on a small sensor makes it noisier. Why do they do it? Cause the uneducated consumer equates "more" with "better". Plus if a competitor has 10Mpixels, every manufacturer needs to have 10mpixels to or they don't sell product. It becomes a "standard" feature.

Having HDMI outputs with upscaling to as high as 1080p is the same thing. Competitors have it; you gotta have it too. Also, the consumer's knowledge may just know connectors. HDMI=better. I got one on my TV, gee, this has one too! I got 1080P, this has it too! It has ATSC and QAM (don't know what those are, but it must be good) Yeh, this one has the features. Never mind 480p is what is native and could be upscaled in the set. Never mind that the thing doesn't record at 1080P or 1080i or 720P or passthrough these from the tuner. Once the feature is commoditized, it's cheap, as it's built into the chipsets and volume production.

It cost more to educate the consumer than just give them checklist features at the commodity level. If you are talking a $500-$1000 recorder you can afford(and need) to educate them as to why you make smart product choices. And many of your consumers are more product savy (like the typical member here) and will reward your choices. This is why Denon can get $350 plus for a DVD-player-only, while LG is lucky to get $200 for a DVD-player-recorder.

I don't disagree with you, but the original argument is Travis saying that these new ATSC recorders are intended really for analog/EDTV, not for HDTV. Once you assume the TV connected is HDTV then it already contradicts his original argument. I think you should follow the original statements.
By the way, I don't think the HDMI/upconverter is part of the ATSC tuner chip. The upconverter is non-trivial and not that long ago require considerable expertise to do it right. It requires to de-interlace the 480i signal and then upconvert to 720p/1080i signals. All these require consideration hardware. So these ATSC recorders are also intended for HDTV, not just analog/EDTV. Note that I am not arguing that these HDMI upcoverter really provide improvement to HDTV, just that the marketing target of these recorders must also include HDTV since they are willing to add hardware to appeal to the HDTV community.

"just that the marketing target of these recorders must also include HDTV since they are willing to add hardware to appeal to the HDTV community. "

the inclusion of HDTV-capable interface may be marketing driven, a number's game so to speak.

What you are asking for (or possibly expecting) is a hi-def ATSC tuner with a built-in burner that is capable of recording a down-converted signal onto an SD DVD-R. That is not what they are selling you with these 1st gen DVD recorders. These things are meant to take in a signal and record 480i onto a disk -- that's it. They are not meant to be stand-alone hi-def tuners. Since their primary purpose is to record 480i, they don't need to have anything to do with hi-def output. They throw in HDMI upconversion because now just about every new cheap player coming out has it -- that doesn't mean it's any good, or better than what your $2000 HD-TV has built-in, but as was noted above people are starting to expect it.
[I love the Jessica Simpson commercial in "Dukes of Hazzzard" motif: " 1080i, I don't know what it is, but I want it."]

The thing is that the addition of HD output from the ATSC chip is trivial in the grand scheme of things - HD output was not excluded because of cost. It was a political, schedule or content driven decision.

Lets not forget these first units are coming out from china/korea, where cost is the only driver. Add to that, they probably produced the designs themselves. They are not up to the level of Japanese design expertise.

I'm waiting for the soon-to-be-released Panasonic units to set the feature/performance bar.

it is unlikely those china-units are designed by chinese manufacturers - they are simply not there yet.

it wouldn't surprise me if the panasonic is also made in china.

i think the decision to NOT output HD from atsc is mostly marketing. however, it is still a puzzle why everyone is doing this.

it is still a puzzle why everyone is doing this.Sounds exaggerated or simply not true. Can't make this kind of assertion with only one ATSC unit out.

I was told by an insider that the Panasonic DMR-EZ17K should start trickling into BestBuy this weekend. Other Panys already in mass production.

Sounds exaggerated or simply not true. Can't make this kind of assertion with only one ATSC unit out.

of all the units we have seen, none outputs HD.

I was told by an insider that the Panasonic DMR-EZ17K should start trickling into BestBuy this weekend. Other Panys already in mass production.

any indication that it will output HD?

Looks like the new tunerless Samsungs are now listed on BB.com, as well as the two LG models.

of all the units we have seen, none outputs HD.


What all units? Only the LG has been talked about so far.

What all units? Only the LG has been talked about so far.

Philips revealed in its product literature that the tuner is digital SDTV - standard def on the two units announced so far.

Philips revealed in its product literature that the tuner is digital SDTV - standard def on the two units announced so far.

Add to that no tuners from Samsung and Sony, and it seems like we will be better off with last generation HDD recorders.

Add to that no tuners from Samsung and Sony, and it seems like we will be better off with last generation HDD recorders.

This has been my position for months now. DVD recorders are standard definition recording devices. High def was never part of the prosition. I'll take the ones with the HDDs. Especially now that they have become an endangered species.

Also I have no need for OTA recording. I'm not going to trade an HDD for the ability to record digital standard def OTA. My guess is that analog cable will be around for years. Even if it is not my STB works fine. And my IR blaster works great for STB channel control for timer recordings.

got a look at the manual for the 787, which was left out on the shelf at BB today on my lunch hour. Looks like it does 'chasing playback / time shifting' for those who might be interested.

I was told by an insider that the Panasonic DMR-EZ17K should start trickling into BestBuy this weekend. Other Panys already in mass production.

Whoo-hoo! :) So we'll finally be able to tell if it has HDMI or not (previous releases were contradictory on this). If it does, I'm buying one! :D

1) I was really looking for one for my grandparents so they could watch OTA DTV with an option for HDTV if / when they decide to upgrade their set. I wanted to be future proof for them since they are on a limited income.

2) I was also trying to get rid of a "box" in my home theater...hoping I could use it to watch HDTV and also playback DVD's (and record if I get the urge). I tried (and still own) the LG LST-3510A (combo DVD Player / HDTV Tuner) but its DVD player doesn't like a lot of home movies and even some pressed movies.

I only use OTA and do have ways to record HDTV --> SD DVD, but I was hoping for a one box solution.

Leave it to me to always be the exception and not the rule...now if they had a HD DVD / Blu-Ray recorder here in the states, I'd be all over it.

1) I was really looking for one for my grandparents so they could watch OTA DTV with an option for HDTV if / when they decide to upgrade their set. I wanted to be future proof for them since they are on a limited income.

2) I was also trying to get rid of a "box" in my home theater...hoping I could use it to watch HDTV and also playback DVD's (and record if I get the urge). I tried (and still own) the LG LST-3510A (combo DVD Player / HDTV Tuner) but its DVD player doesn't like a lot of home movies and even some pressed movies.

I only use OTA and do have ways to record HDTV --> SD DVD, but I was hoping for a one box solution.

Leave it to me to always be the exception and not the rule...now if they had a HD DVD / Blu-Ray recorder here in the states, I'd be all over it.


Well I can see your needs, and totally agree on all the boxes. As I said in another post, it's not even the boxes that bother me as much, but all the cables and the mess they make to connect them, not to mention the constant need for additional power outlets.

But I don't entirely understand the logic in not getting an ATSC DVD recorder, because in the future your parents might want to get an HDTV set, chances are it will have its own ATSC tuner which could be used for watching real HDTV, and use the recorder's for what it's meant - to record in standard definition.

Anyway, I know everyone will jump all over me again, but I am still not convinced that HDTV looks that much better than DVD, especially on screens bellow like 50". My last roommate had a 42" Hitachi plasma, and every single recent DVD looked as good, and sometimes better than even the best HDTV broadcasts we watched from cable. I remember watching the 3d season of the O.C. on DVD on the plasma, and was amazed at how much better it looked compared to some HDTV programs.

...Anyway, I know everyone will jump all over me again, but I am still not convinced that HDTV looks that much better than DVD, especially on screens bellow like 50"...
I agree. I have a 26" Toshiba SD widescreen TV while my brother
has a 32" HDTV. Most programs and DVD's look about as good
on my SDTV as they do on his HDTV.

Anyway, I know everyone will jump all over me again, but I am still not convinced that HDTV looks that much better than DVD, especially on screens bellow like 50". My last roommate had a 42" Hitachi plasma, and every single recent DVD looked as good, and sometimes better than even the best HDTV broadcasts we watched from cable. I remember watching the 3d season of the O.C. on DVD on the plasma, and was amazed at how much better it looked compared to some HDTV programs.

I'll agree under 27" but watching a sporting event in SD vs HD on my 42" plasma is night and day (I recorded the superbowl on my HD DVR and fed to the DVDR at the same time, flipping between the inputs you can notice a big difference).

On normal type sitcoms / dramas, I can tell a difference, but do I really need to see more wrinkles or more pimples...probably not....sports, however is a big difference.

I might bite the bullet and buy my grandparents a SD DVD Recorder if nothing else appears in the next few months. For no other reason other than to take back my Samsung HDTV tuner from them and eliminate about 5 boxes and 3 remotes worth of confusion along with the manual switch to go from DVD to TV (their TV only has 1 composite input)

I agree. I have a 26" Toshiba SD widescreen TV while my brother
has a 32" HDTV. Most programs and DVD's look about as good
on my SDTV as they do on his HDTV. With that size set you would have to be sitting about 4 feet from the screen to see a difference. How distant are the screens?

any indication that it will output HD?I would find it absurd if the 1080P panys didn't output native HD. Why advertise 1080p if you can't pass native 1080i or 720p?

I'll agree under 27" but watching a sporting event in SD vs HD on my 42" plasma is night and day (I recorded the superbowl on my HD DVR and fed to the DVDR at the same time, flipping between the inputs you can notice a big difference).

On normal type sitcoms / dramas, I can tell a difference, but do I really need to see more wrinkles or more pimples...probably not....sports, however is a big difference.

I might bite the bullet and buy my grandparents a SD DVD Recorder if nothing else appears in the next few months. For no other reason other than to take back my Samsung HDTV tuner from them and eliminate about 5 boxes and 3 remotes worth of confusion along with the manual switch to go from DVD to TV (their TV only has 1 composite input)


Totally - SD TV looks like crap compared to HDTV, but what I was comparing was HDTV to DVD - commercially released, latest crop DVDs.

Sounds like the LG would be perfect for your grandparents - it even has RF modulator, so they can use it with the familiar ch 3. And depending on what brand the TV is, the LG's remote might be able to control it as well.

Totally - SD TV looks like crap compared to HDTV, but what I was comparing was HDTV to DVD - commercially released, latest crop DVDs.


I was comparing HDTV to a downconverted HDTV signal. My HD DVR can output both SD (480i) and HD (1080i) at the same time so I can easily compare the same image from the same DTV source on the same display. I don't have analog cable, so I can't compare that...only the downconverted HD image.

I might buy my grandparents a $25 Sony remote that I could program some macros into for them. I thought about the Harmony, but then I remembered they only had dial up...I can only image how long that update would take :p (They are so far out, they can't receive cable or DSL)

With that size set you would have to be sitting about 4 feet from the screen to see a difference. How distant are the screens?
The HDTV is about 10' from the couch in the living room.
My SDTV is about 6' from my easy chair in my bedroom. :)

This has been my position for months now. DVD recorders are standard definition recording devices. High def was never part of the prosition. I'll take the ones with the HDDs. Especially now that they have become an endangered species.

Also I have no need for OTA recording. I'm not going to trade an HDD for the ability to record digital standard def OTA. My guess is that analog cable will be around for years. Even if it is not my STB works fine. And my IR blaster works great for STB channel control for timer recordings.About the most sensible post I've read here so far ;).

I've got two older units with HDD's and IR blasters that work fine. One even has the codes for and can control most satellite tuners. I'll stick with those.

I may consider a unit in the future if:

1.) It includes an HDD, and/or

2.) It's ATSC tuner is markedly improved from any of the ones I have now that I can record from - especially in the area of sensitivity, and/or

3.) It includes a guide that gets it's info through the digital realm, and which can be used to DIRECTLY program recordings (not like the Panny's, where you still have to program both the unit AND the satellite tuner separately).

Otherwise, I have no need to upgrade anything I've already got just to record (and output) SD.

Anyway, I know everyone will jump all over me again, but I am still not convinced that HDTV looks that much better than DVD, especially on screens bellow like 50". My last roommate had a 42" Hitachi plasma, and every single recent DVD looked as good, and sometimes better than even the best HDTV broadcasts we watched from cable. I remember watching the 3d season of the O.C. on DVD on the plasma, and was amazed at how much better it looked compared to some HDTV programs.Bobbyslav,
please reserve your judgement on this until you have made the comparison on a true native 1080 x 1920 display over 50" like a Sony Bravia (drool) or SXRD. On those displays the difference between SD and HD-DVD is quite noticable.

I don't wish to get flamed for my opinion, but 720 displays are not Hi-Def. Yes, they satisfy the "official" definition of HD because they are >480, but visually they are not Hi-Def. 1080 is real HD and you can easily tell the difference in a side-by-side comparison. 720 was a developmental stop-gap while the manufacturers learned how to make denser 1080 displays the market could afford.

Bobbyslav,
please reserve your judgement on this until you have made the comparison on a true native 1080 x 1920 display over 50" like a Sony Bravia (drool) or SXRD. On those displays the difference between SD and HD-DVD is quite noticable.

I don't wish to get flamed for my opinion, but 720 displays are not Hi-Def. Yes, they satisfy the "official" definition of HD because they are >480, but visually they are not Hi-Def. 1080 is real HD and you can easily tell the difference in a side-by-side comparison. 720 was a developmental stop-gap while the manufacturers learned how to make denser 1080 displays the market could afford.


Wow!

It's not a judgment, it's a personal opinion.

A lot of us can't afford 1080p displays, and a lot of the programming is not in that resolution either.

Who in their right mind will keep two displays "side-by-side" just so they'll feel good about the "oh what a difference"?

Who in their right mind will keep two displays "side-by-side" just so they'll feel good about the "oh what a difference"?

The same people who by a car by the badge? :rolleyes:

Wow!

It's not a judgment, it's a personal opinion.

A lot of us can't afford 1080p displays, and a lot of the programming is not in that resolution either.

Who in their right mind will keep two displays "side-by-side" just so they'll feel good about the "oh what a difference"?OK, an opinion then, that's what I meant by judgement. Didn't mean to come off so stiff ;-)

All I'm saying is if you want to see a real difference in SD vs. HD DVD quality just take a stroll in Circuit City and you can see a side-by-side comparison of a Sony Bravia or SXRD with any number of 720 displays. If you go on a slow night they will demonstrate a couple different sources for you. An SD-DVD looks pretty darn good on a widescreen 720 display and not much different from an HD source. That is not the case with a native 1080 display. When I first saw an SXRD it was surrounded by 720 displays all displaying HD source and it stopped me dead in my tracks. At that instant I knew I would never buy anything less than 1080.

And I do believe most major network broadcast HD is 1080 (FOX is the only one I know broadcasting in 720).

...for my opinion, but 720 displays are not Hi-Def. Yes, they satisfy the "official" definition of HD because they are >480, but visually they are not Hi-Def. 1080 is real HD and you can easily tell the difference in a side-by-side comparison. 720 was a developmental stop-gap while the manufacturers learned how to make denser 1080 displays the market could afford.

Are you saying 1920x1080 is the only high def? I understand that plasmas with 1024x768 is not high def but what about 1280x720 or 1366x768?.

Hot car!

And I do believe most major network broadcast HD is 1080 (FOX is the only one I know broadcasting in 720).

Fox is 720p
ABC is 720p
NBC is 1080i
CBS is 1080i
Your set is 1080p....looks like some conversion has to be made all the time.
My set is a 720p, so a conversion only happens 1/2 of the time.

I also did the in-store side by side comparison of sports and the 720p sets (both using OTA HD feed) seemed more fluid on 720p than a 1080p set. Since sports is what I watch most on my TV (along with sitcoms, but who cares) that was my reference source.

Plus, the difference in price between my 42" $999 plasma and the Sony SXRD must be significant. I have my DLP projector for my movie watching :D

(Sorry, forget the CW, but is there anything worth watching anyway...in my area they are 1080i)

Hot car!

Thanks!

I am still not convinced that HDTV looks that much better than DVD, especially on screens bellow like 50".It's not just the screen size, it's also the resolution and how close you sit to it.

If you have a full-resolution display AND if you sit closer than about 2-3X it's width (ie, 100 inches from a screen that's 50 inches wide) then you will see quite a difference. If not, then the money you're spending to get an HD signal to your display is being wasted.

An HD picture can look great on a 19" computer monitor because you're sitting right in front of it. An SD picture will look very fuzzy by comparison.

Fox is 720p
ABC is 720p
NBC is 1080i
CBS is 1080i

I also did the in-store side by side comparison of sports and the 720p sets (both using OTA HD feed) seemed more fluid on 720p than a 1080p set. Since sports is what I watch most on my TV (along with sitcoms, but who cares) that was my reference source.
ESPN is 720p also.

There's so much more to good picture than pixels...

I agree, the best picture I've seen is the Sony Blue Ray player, with the Sony 1080p SXRD, which combined cost three times as much as what I paid for my car. Then I read a very valid point on projector central, how the big stores always set up Blu Ray with the best possible displays and the best possible material - I noticed it's always either Chicken Little, or the Incredibles. At the same time they put HD DVD on some 20" 720p Samsung LCD, and play some really dark movie on it.

And even so I never find myself lusting over those Sony displays. Well for one thing I don't like that company, they have serious delusions about the worth and quality of their products. But also no matter how great the picture on those displays looks, I don't think that it looks $8000 better than my own home theater.

There's so much more to good picture than pixels...

Too bad we don't see this statement more often here. I couldn't agree more. Content aside, there is much more to a good picture than pixels (contrast ratio, etc).

Too bad we don't see this statement more often here. I couldn't agree more. Content aside, there is much more to a good picture than pixels (contrast ratio, etc).


I guess one of the reasons pixels (be it cameras or tvs) are placed above all else is due to the fact they can be measured and compared using numbers, unlike saturation or contrast ratio - which are jacked up to each manufacturer's desire. And so for the most part need to be measured by eye - which in turn gets rejected as opinion. wish all manufactures would adhere to a common testing process to measure contrast ratio.

Well, since we're still on the pixel issue, let me just say that I bought my Samsung 1080p set because I saw how horrible a 1080i signal looked on a 720p set. everytime you see text on screen that moved it always had jagged edges. I think it is easier to convert 720p to 1080p than it is to convert 1080i to 720p.

There's so much more to good picture than pixels...I will certainly agree with that; the rest of the controls have to be set properly and the build quality of the TV has to be there to begin with. But in the case of 2 properly adjusted, quality video displays of equal dimensions, the number of pixels on the screen, the resolution, sets the bar for the level of detail that can be displayed.

Everyone has a personal taste, that's why there are so many flavors of ice cream. In my case, after seeing 1080 vs. 720 I lost my taste for anything less. BTW a 55" SXRD runs ~$2500 at retail which is what people were paying for 720 DLP less than 2 years ago. If you don't like Sony, JVC makes more models of LCOS 1080 TVs than anybody.

I guess one of the reasons pixels (be it cameras or tvs) are placed above all else is due to the fact they can be measured and compared using numbers, unlike saturation or contrast ratio - which are jacked up to each manufacturer's desire. And so for the most part need to be measured by eye - which in turn gets rejected as opinion. wish all manufactures would adhere to a common testing process to measure contrast ratio.TV displays are like audio speakers; the only spec on the paper you pay any real attention to is the price. The performance of the unit has to be judged by the buyers senses. If it makes him go oooooh . . . then that's the one he'll buy.
Is it subjective -- of course.
Does it cause the consumer a problem -- no, not really.
Does it cause the manufacturer a problem -- absolutely.

Now where's that Panasonic DVD recorder that someone said would be out this weekend? ;)

TV displays are like audio speakers; the only spec on the paper you pay any real attention to is the price. The performance of the unit has to be judged by the buyers senses. If it makes him go oooooh . . . then that's the one he'll buy.
Is it subjective -- of course.
Does it cause the consumer a problem -- no, not really.
Does it cause the manufacturer a problem -- absolutely.

I agree completely. I bought my 720p Samsung DLP two years ago. I looked at 1080i plasma, and LCD, and the 720p DLP looked far better, IMO. I did not look at LCOS. If I were to buy another display today, I would look at LCOS, and 1080p DLP, preferably with a LED bulb. Although I have not noticed any PQ problems with 1080i signals on my 720p, I do think upconverting 720p and 1080i to 1080p should produce better results than down converting 1080i to 720p. I should think that converting 1080i tp 1080p would be much like the line-doublers of old, easy to do, and a significant upgrade. I think that 1080p is likely to be the highest standard for consumer equipment for at least a decade or perhaps two.

Anyone seen a Panasonic out yet? I went by Best Buy today and they had both LGs and two Samsungs 155 and 357 - both tunerless. I wanted to see them in real to believe, I still don't get why would anyone release a DVD recorder without a tuner and price the same as the ones with tuners, be it NTSC.

Also looked at the Philips, which is now posted on BB.com as "coming soon". Read the manual on-line, and from what I saw the menu structure and the screen shots looked exactly the same as the old Funai models. I bet that's who will be making the "Philips". Which might be a good thing, since the Funai was actually a decent machine.

So far I am still keeping my LG 787 and honestly loving it, but often feel like the picture is a bit grainy. Still can't decide if it's the program material or the machine. Hoping that something else will come out before the 30 day return period so I can compare.

I get 6 local clear QAM channels, 3 are 720p, 3 are 1080i. So either way some conversion has to be done. I don't know if it's better to up-convert and add in data, or down-convert and throw out data.

I have read several times that 720p is better for moving images and 1080i better for still images. That with interlacing, a moving image could obviously get shifted between the fields, thereby causing loss of sharpness.

Perhaps that is why the "sports" networks (ABC, FOX, ESPN) use 720p. Just a thought.

you are correct about the sports....IMO they look better in 720p. When my brother was shopping for TV's we found 2 Sony's (same models, only difference was one was 720p and the other the 1080p)....they had antennas hooked up to them so we tuned into FOX and watched football side by side on the TV's. You could tell a difference in the edges.

I also agree that CBS shouldn't be considered a "sports" network...their NCAA coverage is horrible...cutting in on your local close game (I.e. 1 point) to show you another one...give me a break....the radio has better coverage.

Now where's that Panasonic DVD recorder that someone said would be out this weekend? ;)
LOL, I actually stopped by at a Best Buy today and looked. But I live in the boonies, and we'll likely be MUCH later than anyone else to get something. There was just old models and, I think, a tunerless model or two. Looking at the local COSTCO for new models, I found that there was WAY too many old models stacked up. Guess there is still enough old stock to keep alot of shelves full for a bit. I bet the mfgs that figured they'd be late on new models turned up the production lines before March to make certain everyone had something to sell. Others just pulled the tuner out and changed the model number :rolleyes:

I think that 1080p is likely to be the highest standard for consumer equipment for at least a decade or perhaps two.

I'll take the under with every penny to my name. Just over 10 years ago tv screens were curved, there was no "progressive scan". To think that 1080P will be the standard for more than 5-6 years is a stretch.

The new wave of direct-to-the-house fiber is going to make the possibility for massive amounts of data (i.e. TV picture resolution) possible.

I'll take the under with every penny to my name. Just over 10 years ago tv screens were curved, there was no "progressive scan". To think that 1080P will be the standard for more than 5-6 years is a stretch.

The new wave of direct-to-the-house fiber is going to make the possibility for massive amounts of data (i.e. TV picture resolution) possible.
You can't get around the law of physics - there's only so much that one can cram into a 6MHz RF slot - which will probably never change. Since we're talking about ATSC, with it's OTA implications - 1080P will certainly be the limit for a very long time.

Not only that there's no need for anything higher - even if a 60" 1080P flat panel TV comes down to $500 in 10 years it doesn't mean that's what people will buy - the avg home just doesn't need a TV much more than about 42" where the extra resolution of 1080P is virtually not noticeable. All of this increase in size of TVs is like the previous run away fads that surpersized everything in society (SUVs, food portions, house sizes, salaries of sports figures, etc.).

All of this increase in size of TVs is like the previous run away fads that surpersized everything in society (SUVs, food portions, house sizes, salaries of sports figures, etc.).

Ok, so I definately hadn't take OTA into account, which was certainly an oversight as i just hopped here from another thread.

However, the things you mention above continue to escalate. Perhaps for movies and general programming there be little need for more than 1080P in the near future, but need rarely drives production and want. I think that gaming will lead the charge for higher resolutions. Gamers tend to sit darn close to the TV (i.e. 5-6 feet away from a 50"), and thus can even see some of the flaws in 1080P.

Also, with things like 4X already on the horizon, i just think that the need for "more more more" will keep driving manufacturers to keep going bigger.

You can't get around the law of physics - there's only so much that one can cram into a 6MHz RF slot...Yep, I remember hearing that same sort of argument used to "prove" that a voice-grade line could never carry data at more than about 3000 baud. And it was true, 3000 baud (signal changes per second) remains the about max for a voice circuit. But with QAM they were able to pack more than one bit of information into a single signal state and with compression on top of that they've cranked modems up to 50K+ bits per second range.

So I'm very skeptical of "they can never do..." types of arguments.

OTOH, I do believe that 1080P x 1920 HD is here for quite a while. It takes a tremendous amount of coordination to shift to a new broadcast standard - the not-quite-yet-de-facto ATSC standard has been in the works for a couple of decades. It still has quite a ways to go before something else will replace it.

Remember that the only reason that you need something with more than 1920 pixels of horizontal resolution is if it's covering more than about 30-40 degrees of your field of view. That's quite a lot. Judging from a lot of the posts I've seen here there are plenty of folks with HD displays that are still sitting too far back to get all the benefit from them. They're going to have to go to larger screens or sit closer to them before they'll even start to see the limitations in HD technology. It seems that a lot of people are a little uncomfortable sitting close enough to a screen to be able to resolve all of the detail in an HD image.

Also, depending on screen size, sitting too close can force you to constantly shift your eyes from side to side to view the whole image (the reason why I only have one row in my 15' deep home theater with a 100" screen :D)

. . . Not only that there's no need for anything higher - even if a 60" 1080P flat panel TV comes down to $500 in 10 years it doesn't mean that's what people will buy - the avg home just doesn't need a TV much more than about 42" where the extra resolution of 1080P is virtually not noticeable. . .

I just bought a used 32" HD-ready 4:3 CRT television which is only a few years old . . . for less than 1/4 its original purchase price. It's all the screen size we need now, and we're primarily SD viewers with only some periodic HD needs. Plus, our viewing angles for this corner television seem best served by a CRT for the price, and viewing distance really couldn't stand a much larger display without seeming somewhat overwhelming, IMHO.

Mated with our piecemeal-acquired, middle-of-the-line surround setup, everything just works well for comfortable den viewing by all members of the family, for each of their favorite shows. The universal remote pulls it all together.

No supersizing needed, here.

We happened to visit some family friends at their place for the first time, and sat in their tv room . . . in front of a 70" rear projection television. Impressive setup all-around (i.e., Pioneer Elite series A/V receiver, etc.) , but there's no way we could put up with that on a daily basis.

- ooofest

We happened to visit some family friends at their place for the first time, and sat in their tv room . . . in front of a 70" rear projection television. Impressive setup all-around (i.e., Pioneer Elite series A/V receiver, etc.) , but there's no way we could put up with that on a daily basis.

- ooofest

?? What is there to " put up with?" You are watching in a tiny tiny TV and you think watching on a 70" is something to "put up with?"

I would never "put up with" watching a tiny 32" TV.

I do put up with my 92" projection system...quite well in fact. I would'nt put a 32" TV in my bathroom.

?? What is there to " put up with?" You are watching in a tiny tiny TV and you think watching on a 70" is something to "put up with?"

I would never "put up with" watching a tiny 32" TV.

I do put up with my 92" projection system...quite well in fact. I would'nt put a 32" TV in my bathroom.

Sorry, but it felt like far too much an image area for being about 7-8' away from the screen. For all of us. It was just our collective impression - nothing personal against your setup, of course.

Our friends saw these reactions and mentioned how most of their visitors are taken back by the view, so it apparently does take some getting used to in their configuration with relation to the display. As I mentioned, it was otherwise impressive.

With regard to our "tiny" screen, we can't physically fit more without changing our current television stand and/or technology type (i.e., away from a CRT) in the space available for this particular room I described. I did not prefer the views of LCD or plasma displays (in the stores) when viewing from the range of angles and distances that our current couches offer of the television screen. We're also 5'-8' away from screen, depending upon where you sit - this size is fortunately working just right for us with our predominantly SD viewing content. The HD content is OK - a more dedicated widescreen display would be an improvement, but no big deal to me or my spouse. If we grow as years go by, we'll do so - even this 32" television was a step up from our 27" of the past 9 years.

Glad you enjoy your setup.

- ooofest

Unless your tube TV is an HDTV, your "HD" content isn't HD, but rather a down-converted HD signal to an SD signal. Just an an FYI (when you do start looking for a new TV), a 42" Widescreen will give you about the same image height as your 32" Standard tube TV.

Unless your tube TV is an HDTV, your "HD" content isn't HD, but rather a down-converted HD signal to an SD signal. Just an an FYI (when you do start looking for a new TV), a 42" Widescreen will give you about the same image height as your 32" Standard tube TV.

Yup, I understand, but appreciate your offering that clarification.

Essentially, when we become more serious about HD content, any serious display upgrade will also come along with a room redesign, I suspect.

This is actually half of a larger, rectangular room that was cordoned off for den and kid's art/craft/toy areas. We're already considering how to eventually migrate the kid's stuff into other areas of the house as they grow, and may "reclaim" the full space for primarily television-viewing and music listen functions again, one day. At that point, we'll see what works for the new arrangements of furniture. YEARS from now :) .

And, that was the point of my post supporting some prior views in this thread: we don't need bigger or more powerful components right now to feel happy with our viewing and listening setup in the family room. There's always future growth considerations, but that's tempered by various personal, physical space and budgetary factors, of course.

- ooofest

Just an an FYI (when you do start looking for a new TV), a 42" Widescreen will give you about the same image height as your 32" Standard tube TV.Very valid point. We have a 32" Sony in the family room that we sit fairly close to. So, we are really very happy with the veritcal image size of ~19". When I first started to think about a widescreen upgrade, 42" seemed logical since it gave us ~20" vertical screen size. Then we got into the habit of watching DVD's in letterbox mode to see the whole panorama. The 2.3 aspect ratio put the grey bars above and below which cut the effective vertical image size well below what we like. This led me to my current interest of 55"-60" widescreen (and, of course 1080). Playing a 2.3 aspect ratio on that size screen gives us back a vertical picture height of a bit over 20".

These are my considerations. It is all so wonderfully subjective -- nobody's right and nobody's wrong.

Now where's that Panasonic DVD recorder that someone said would be out this weekend? ;)In stock at Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMR-EZ17K-Recorder-Tuner-Black/dp/B000NWZP5U/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3219723-1869761?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1174453318&sr=8-1

What is happening in July is that all new equipment (STB's) a cableco introduces into the system must be controlled at the encryption level by a cable card. This process can no longer happen in a closed environment like it is done with current cableco STB's ... Gov't at work I guess. Maybe it was a nice idea at the time.But isn't this good, in fact, this would solve my problem? I want to be able to time shift or record from digital cable, analog cable will be going away soon. This is a VERY basic desire, who isn't going to need that capability? To do so everyone will need a DVD recorder with a CableCARD slot, if you do not want to rent a Cable company crappy box. Comcast is now in my area not charging for CC.

So a DVD recorder without a CC slot forces me to rent the crappy box and use its tuner, then output from the box to the DVD recorder. In my case, a DVD recorder without a CC is not very useful.

In stock at Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMR-EZ17K-Recorder-Tuner-Black/dp/B000NWZP5U/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3219723-1869761?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1174453318&sr=8-1

I was ready to buy, but no HDMI output. That LG is very tempting while I try to stay patient. ;)

I was ready to buy, but no HDMI output. That LG is very tempting while I try to stay patient. ;)With in a couple of weeks we should see HDMI models from pany and the Toshiba vr650 should be available.

In stock at Amazon

anywhere to find its user manual? has anyone confirmed that it will output full resolution hdtv signal?

anywhere to find its user manual? has anyone confirmed that it will output full resolution hdtv signal?

1. Manual at http://service.us.panasonic.com/OPERMANPDF/DMREZ17.PDF

2. Unlikely it will output full resolution HDTV signal, as it has only component outputs. But I would hope to be proven wrong in this speculation.

The manual says: " HD programming is Down-converted and recorded in SD". Sounds doubtful it will output it in HD.



Yup, the specifications state for the component out 480i/p.



It's also a bit vague on QAM reception. It says something about Digital cable channels 1-135. Anyone know how many there are on digital cable? Sounds more than that, plus the analog cable channels are also listed at 1-135.

Aplogize if this has already been posted (new panasonic recorders will all have ATSC tuners):

http://news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/338452.html

when we were disappointed about the LGs not passing full res HD, someone mentioned that we should wait for the Panasonic. Well, the Panasonic doesn't sound like a cure at all.

so again, we have not found a dvd recoder that passes full res HD.

It's also a bit vague on QAM reception. It says something about Digital cable channels 1-135. Anyone know how many there are on digital cable? Sounds more than that, plus the analog cable channels are also listed at 1-135.

That would be the true channel number (1-135), which I believe is normal. Most cable companies just assign an alias number. For example, with my QAM tuner channel 83.3 is FOX, but through the cable box it is 1501.

That would be the true channel number (1-135), which I believe is normal. Most cable companies just assign an alias number. For example, with my QAM tuner channel 83.3 is FOX, but through the cable box it is 1501.


So I still don't understand if you think the Panasonic has a QAM tuner or not...

So I still don't understand if you think the Panasonic has a QAM tuner or not...

Well, I didn't read the specs, but OTA channels only go to 69 (and ATSC will only go to 51 after Feb 2009), so I guess it could be talking about the analog tuner, but you said it mentioned digital, so I was assuming it was the QAM tuner.

Hmmm... Someone has to buy it and report already!! It's been discovered a whole hour ago.

The Manual for the DMR-EZ27 is out, see the thread in "DVD Recorders".

Looks like the EZ17 model downconverts the HD signal to SD and outputs only 480i/480p over the component outputs.

The "step up" model EZ27 supports 1080p, 1080i, 720p, and 480i/p over the HDMI connection but after reading through the manual I still can't tell if it will pass thru true HD when watching live programming.

On page 6 it says: "This DVD recorder has a tuner which allows it to directly receive and record analog and terrestrial digital channels. High Definition (HD) programming is “down-converted” and recorded in Standard Definition (SD)."

I guess we'll still have to see when someone gets one and tries it out.

The Manual for the DMR-EZ27 is out, see the thread in "DVD Recorders".

Looks like the EZ17 model downconverts the HD signal to SD and outputs only 480i/480p over the component outputs.

The "step up" model EZ27 supports 1080p, 1080i, 720p, and 480i/p over the HDMI connection but after reading through the manual I still can't tell if it will pass thru true HD when watching live programming.

On page 6 it says: "This DVD recorder has a tuner which allows it to directly receive and record analog and terrestrial digital channels. High Definition (HD) programming is “down-converted” and recorded in Standard Definition (SD)."

I guess we'll still have to see when someone gets one and tries it out.

I think that means it downconverts just for recording purposes, as expected, and that it should pass full HD over the HDMI output, but not the component. Hope I am right.

The 27 looks exactly the same to me as the 17. The most worrisome indication I found was a little foot note on the page for watching TV. It says that multichannel audio broadcasts are decoded in 2.0 stereo sound, which is not the standard for HD broadcasts right? If they're not outputting the audio in the real format, what's the likelihood that the video would be any different?

what about this from the article posted by dsmith901:

"In addition, the EZ47V and EZ27 feature 1080p digital video up-conversion, HDMI 1.3 output and SD Card slots for viewing and transferring JPEG or TIFF formatted still photos."

I don't believe HDMI 1.3 is mandated by FCC so why put in the upgraded output if only SD? :confused:

I just had another thought....


After reading the "FAQ" on the 27 model, couldn't help but laugh, because it doesn't answer the single question that's is on everybody's mind: Does it output HD in true resolution?

If it did, that's a BIG DEAL, and a huge selling point for the model. I'd bet money that if it did, it would be in GIANT BOLD letters on the first page of the manual, on the largest stamp on the box, and prominently displayed on the front panel of the recorder.

The fact that it is so hard to find out, makes me believe that it will down-convert.

what I want to know is who is the moron who decided for every manufacturer that their devices will output SD video and DD2.0 audio when the devices are clearly capable of something a lot better.

that's just so mentally retarded, to say the least.

what I want to know is who is the moron who decided for every manufacturer that their devices will output SD video and DD2.0 audio when the devices are clearly capable of something a lot better.

that's just so mentally retarded, to say the least.

Probably the CFO or someone that said...how can we make more profit per unit off of these than last years models.

what I want to know is who is the moron who decided for every manufacturer that their devices will output SD video and DD2.0 audio when the devices are clearly capable of something a lot better.

that's just so mentally retarded, to say the least.
You'll have to wait for next year's models for HD output. Although folks think it is possible today, the technology is not here yet for a $199 recorder to output HD.

Ron

You'll have to wait for next year's models for HD output. Although folks think it is possible today, the technology is not here yet for a $199 recorder to output HD.

Ron
I'm sure you're right, just as most companies are not releasing
their hard drive models yet.

You'll have to wait for next year's models for HD output. Although folks think it is possible today, the technology is not here yet for a $199 recorder to output HD.
Why limit it to $200? I'll pay more.

what I want to know is who is the moron who decided for every manufacturer that their devices will output SD video and DD2.0 audio when the devices are clearly capable of something a lot better.

It would have been the product line manager. All of the companies were faced with the same situation, where they had to get a product on the market as quickly as possible because they could no longer sell the old one. Adding additional features adds development time and risk (two things you don't want to add when facing a hard deadline).

Besides, this gives them features they can add to next years model to make people want to replace their old one. ;)

what I want to know is who is the moron who decided for every manufacturer that their devices will output SD video and DD2.0 audio when the devices are clearly capable of something a lot better.

that's just so mentally retarded, to say the least.DD5.1 takes up a lot more room on a disk than does 2.0. The storage capacity of a DVD-R is already limited and they need every byte they can get for PQ. If it were a HDD equipped model then I would agree there would be no excuse -- other than my notion that these are last years models with an ATSC tuner and a newly designed box.

Why limit it to $200? I'll pay more.
So will I. I'll gladly pay considerably more if the right recorder
comes along. In my case that means a DVD recorder with
an ATSC tuner and a hard drive.

DD5.1 takes up a lot more room on a disk than does 2.0.

Very true, but what would keep them from passing the signal while watching live.

I have a fear that all non-HDD models will only output SD and Dolby 2.0. Why? Mainly just because of the time chase feature.

Think about it. If you are watching a recorded SD / DD 2.0 recording and you "catch up" to real time, how smooth with the resolution change and sound change be? Also if you are watching/recording HD/DD 5.1 and hit pause, rewind etc, how smooth will that be.

We just have to hope that someone comes out with a DVD recorder with:

500GB+ hard drive that can record HD / DD 5.1 and playback the same
Record to DVD at SD / DD 2.0 (real time from the hard drive is fine for me)
Limit the time chase feature to the hard drive.

That would satisfy me and I'd easily pay $600-$800 for one :cool:

Very true, but what would keep them from passing the signal while watching live.True, I interpreted the comment as having to do with recording.

Why limit it to $200? I'll pay more.
Haven't folks already complained that the ATSC models are $40 more than last year's NTSC only models?

Ron

where they had to get a product on the market as quickly as possible because they could no longer sell the old one.

that would be true if FCC told those guys of the March 07 deadline in Feb 07, :).

those guys knew of this deadline for a long long time. were they simply sleeping until Feb 28, 2007?

Well, they might as well.

DD5.1 takes up a lot more room on a disk than does 2.0.

I don't know. on a typical multi-language track, aren't they usually a few hundred KB for each language? that's like <1% of the disk space.

Think about it. If you are watching a recorded SD / DD 2.0 recording and you "catch up" to real time, how smooth with the resolution change and sound change be? Also if you are watching/recording HD/DD 5.1 and hit pause, rewind etc, how smooth will that be.Actually there would be no change if you catch up to real time. If you are watching in chase-play you are viewing what has/is being recorded off the disk in a monitor mode. Even if you catch up to real time you are still watching what is being recorded in monitor mode, just a couple seconds behind real time. So you still have all the functionality of pause and rewind. The only time there would need to be a change is if you switch out of chase-play mode to view real time TV direct through the tuner. This is never going to be smooth because you have to jump a couple seconds.

What you are asking for (and I would like also) is a HD tuner with HDD DVR functionality and a built-in burner for archiving in SD. There has been ample opportunity for manufacturers to put one of these on the market already. I ask the questions: why hasn't TiVo ever put a burner in their unit; why haven't the cable co's put one in their DVR's; how come Sony didn't put one in theirs? Could it be there simply is not a market for this large enough to be of interest? I hope that is not the case, but compared to the way other consumer electronics are quickly updated, shipped to the channel and promoted, these things are starting to look like an after-thought.

I don't know. on a typical multi-language track, aren't they usually a few hundred KB for each language? that's like <1% of the disk space.I just happen to be looking at the DVD "Babel". The DD5.1 English audio track is 429 MB. The DD2.0 audio track is 184 MB.

I don't understand how could commercially released DVDs have enough space for the highest quality 2+ hour movie, with 5.1 sound, and a bunch of extras, and the consumer recorders are limited to one hour of best quality with 2.0 sound. It's definitely not a problem with capacity, I feel like we're given an entirely different technology. Plus if a computer software can encode 5.1 why not stand alone recorders?

Not to mention that a few years ago the flagship Philips model did encode the recordings in 5.1.

bobbyslav - commercial DVDs are double layer.

And by the way the diff between EZ17 and EZ27 are HDMI output and SD card slot right?

bobbyslav - commercial DVDs are double layer.

And by the way the diff between EZ17 and EZ27 are HDMI output and SD card slot right?


So!? There are double layers for consumers, right? At the best quality they still give you 2 hours, no extras, no 5.1.

I just don't buy it that the reason there are no 5.1 recorders is the lack of space on the disc.

I don't understand how could commercially released DVDs have enough space for the highest quality 2+ hour movie, with 5.1 sound, and a bunch of extras, and the consumer recorders are limited to one hour of best quality with 2.0 sound. It's definitely not a problem with capacity, I feel like we're given an entirely different technology. Plus if a computer software can encode 5.1 why not stand alone recorders?

Not to mention that a few years ago the flagship Philips model did encode the recordings in 5.1.

Commercial DVDs are dual layer which can hold 8.5 GB of data. 2+ hours
A single layer DVD-R/+R only holds 4.7 GB of data, so at the same level of video quality and saving the dolby 2.0 and 5.1 stream, you will only get 1+ hour of video

Why only record the 2.0 sound, its a tradeoff between speed, quality, size, and cost. The DVD recorder has to encode an HD quality feed down to MPEG-2 and record it in real time (1 hour), so the video encoder is probably optomized more for speed than size or quality.

By only saving the 2.0 sound, that leaves more room on the disc for the video portion. If they chose to record the 5.1 sound, there would be less room for the video data, so video quality would suffer.

Commercial DVDs are dual layer which can hold 8.5 GB of data. 2+ hours
A single layer DVD-R/+R only holds 4.7 GB of data, so at the same level of video quality and saving the dolby 2.0 and 5.1 stream, you will only get 1+ hour of video

Why only record the 2.0 sound, its a tradeoff between speed, quality, size, and cost. The DVD recorder has to encode an HD quality feed down to MPEG-2 and record it in real time (1 hour), so the video encoder is probably optomized more for speed than size or quality.

By only saving the 2.0 sound, that leaves more room on the disc for the video portion. If they chose to record the 5.1 sound, there would be less room for the video data, so video quality would suffer.

Again - - there are double layer DVD-Rs for consumer recorders.


I am not sure how accurate these claims are, but here it is:

http://www.amazon.com/Coby-DVD-R1280-Channel-Recorder-Progressive/dpB000BJ29NG


and a little article on the subject:

http://hometheater.about.com/od/dvdrecorderfaqs/f/dvdrecgfaq11.htm

Philips revealed in its product literature that the tuner is digital SDTV - standard def on the two units announced so far.I don't see where they reveal this. Can you explain further? They talk about outputing 720p and 1080i and viewing hdtv in the Philips manual. Woohoo!!! :-)

I don't see where they reveal this. Can you explain further? They talk about outputing 720p and 1080i and viewing hdtv in the Philips manual. Woohoo!!! :-)


If you look on the Philips website, on the 3505 info page it says SDTV tuner.

http://www.consumer.philips.com/consumer/catalog/tree/en/us/consumer/home_entertainment_gr_us_consumer/dvd_home_theater_ca_us_consumer/dvd_recorders_su_us_consumer/ce/dvd_recorders?proxybuster=F3K3KYR3JSFXVJ0RMRCSHP3HKFSESI5P

Again - - there are double layer DVD-Rs for consumer recorders.


I am not sure how accurate these claims are, but here it is:

http://www.amazon.com/Coby-DVD-R1280-Channel-Recorder-Progressive/dpB000BJ29NG


and a little article on the subject:

http://hometheater.about.com/od/dvdrecorderfaqs/f/dvdrecgfaq11.htm

I don't trust about.com on most anything home theater, a lot of incorrect information.

First there are no 5.1 sources you can record?? My HD DVR does just that to most prime time programming.


However, the second factor is probably more political than technical: even if you are successful at making a copy of a DVD video, you are prevented from making a copy of the multi-channel soundtrack, thus preventing you from making an "exact" copy of a DVD on a DVD recorder that could be "passed off" as the original.

If you are able to copy the video with a DVD recorder from a pressed DVD, it is in NO WAY an exact copy (sound aside) since DVD recorders only have analog inputs, it is thus a generational loss (much like copying a VHS tape with 2 VCRs).

Take what they say with a grain of salt.

I don't understand how could commercially released DVDs have enough space for the highest quality 2+ hour movie, with 5.1 sound, and a bunch of extras, and the consumer recorders are limited to one hour of best quality with 2.0 sound. It's definitely not a problem with capacity, I feel like we're given an entirely different technology. Plus if a computer software can encode 5.1 why not stand alone recorders?

Not to mention that a few years ago the flagship Philips model did encode the recordings in 5.1.In very round numbers -- XP recording mode encodes at ~10Mbps which fits 1 hr on a single layer DVD-R and SP mode encodes at approx 1/2 that bitrate (~5Mbps) to fit 2hr on a single layer disk. Commercial DVD's are 2-layer and encode the video at an average of 6-8Mbps. However, commercial DVD encoders are sophisticated computer-based multi-pass encoders that yield a very large dynamic range for the VBR encoding. VBR is variable-bit-rate which means the encoder applies the bits where they are needed most -- it allocates a high bitrate (upto 9Mbps) for complex changing scenes and a low bitrate for largely static scenes. This provides for much higher effective video quality than would be attained by a static bitrate of 6-8Mbps.

So that is how a commercial DVD can fit so much high quality recording on a disk. A couple examples: the movie "Babel" runs 2:23 and takes up 6,666MB with all its soundtracks, the extras take up another 1GB. The movie "The Departed" is another large movie (2:31) that takes up 7,524MB with all it's soundtracks; the extras take up about 223MB additional on the disk. Many other movies are much smaller and only take up ~4,500MB which leave lots of room for extras. And a lot of large movies come out as 2-disk sets so they can give you lots of extras.

Consumer DVDR's use encoder chips that encode video on the fly in a single pass. They do a good job but they are what they are and so the dynamic range of the VBR encoding is very narrow. That means they need a higher bitrate to achieve the same quality a good multi-pass VBR encoder is capable of.

As to this Phillips recorder you refer to that encoded 5.1 audio. Can you please cite the model number. I am not aware of any DVD recorder that has ever recorded 5.1 sound. To do so the recorder would have to have either a digital audio input or a digital tuner. This has been discussed often over the years and to my knowledge, no one has ever cited a recorder that had digital audio inputs; such a unit would be news indeed. And, of course, recorders with digital tuners are only now making their appearance and we know none of them encode 5.1.

I don't understand how could commercially released DVDs have enough space for the highest quality 2+ hour movie, with 5.1 sound, and a bunch of extras, and the consumer recorders are limited to one hour of best quality with 2.0 sound.Aside from the dual-layer issue mentioned by gtxjoe, there's also the issue of codec efficiency. Commercially pressed disks use multi-pass encoders which can take quite a lot of time to determine exactly where higher bitrates are required to maintain quality, and where lower bitrates can be used. This means that they get get much better quality per minute while at the same time using less space than the real-time, on-the-fly encoders used in DVD recorders.

I also think that there are royalty issues with DD 5.1 which would make it more expensive to implement.

So basically as I said: we, the consumers, get a different technology. But it is possible to recorder the 5.1 soundtrack on a normal DVD.

I can't remember the model number, I am tempted to say DVDR85, but not sure. From what I remember it was supposed to encode 5.1 from it's firewire port. Some of the early digital receivers and HDTVs were using that for their digital connections. As I've said before - after component video, no new type of connection every seems to get fully implemented. Firewire was supposed to be the answer, then all of a sudden we get DVI and come on! let's upgrade again. That lasted about a month, and we get HDMI so let's spend more thousands of dollars, only so three months later there will be a newer version of HDMI, which of course can't be just updated.

So yeah, it'e been a while so it might've been just a press release or something, but I am fairly sure there was one such a recorder designed for HDTV receivers with firewire (same way as the D-VHS machines work), and of course for those camcorders that record in 5.1 sound.

I ask the questions: why hasn't TiVo ever put a burner in their unit; why haven't the cable co's put one in their DVR's; how come Sony didn't put one in theirs? Could it be there simply is not a market for this large enough to be of interest? I hope that is not the case, but compared to the way other consumer electronics are quickly updated, shipped to the channel and promoted, these things are starting to look like an after-thought.

Are you referring only to TiVo manufactured units? Toshiba, Pioneer, Humax and others all had HDD DVD Recorders with TiVo on them.

A year or so ago, I read comments about an upcoming Philips DVD-R that would record DD 5.1. When I searched for more information, all I could find was a non-US model that was proposed. I never saw such a unit for sale, although I mostly stopped looking when it looked like it would not be offered in the US.

I am sure that plenty of us would love to have DD 5.1 recording capability. To get DD 5.1 copies today, I have to rip/compress/burn on my computer. The audio comes out great but sometimes the added video compression (e.g., from a dual-layer source to a single-layer target) is pretty apparent. I mostly make working copies for my young grandchildren (copies of their DVDs to avoid mis-handling accidents with their original DVDs).

What you are asking for (and I would like also) is a HD tuner with HDD DVR functionality and a built-in burner for archiving in SD. There has been ample opportunity for manufacturers to put one of these on the market already. I ask the questions: why hasn't TiVo ever put a burner in their unit; why haven't the cable co's put one in their DVR's; how come Sony didn't put one in theirs? Could it be there simply is not a market for this large enough to be of interest? I hope that is not the case, but compared to the way other consumer electronics are quickly updated, shipped to the channel and promoted, these things are starting to look like an after-thought.

But you can do the equivalent by using a HD DVR such as the Motorola 6412 (Comcast in my case) to record HD shows and copy them to a SD DVD recorder via S-video in 480i format and 2 channel audio. As long as they don't insert the flag to prevent copies this is a decent alternative. I think it will be years before we see an affordable HD/BD HDD DVR recorder with HD burner, which is what we all want.

I also think that there are royalty issues with DD 5.1 which would make it more expensive to implement.Yeah, look at dolby digital and ask why it stock has doubled.

But you can do the equivalent by using a HD DVR such as the Motorola 6412 (Comcast in my case) to record HD shows and copy them to a SD DVD recorder via S-video in 480i format and 2 channel audio. Yes, of course, that is the current solution. My post was directed towards the current discussion here over the desire for the new ATSC-equipped DVDR's to pass the HD signal through and thus act as an HD tuner with a built-in burner for archiving in SD all in 1 box.

Are you referring only to TiVo manufactured units? Toshiba, Pioneer, Humax and others all had HDD DVD Recorders with TiVo on them.No, my post refers to why have no makers of HiDef DVR's ever put a burner in to archive in downconverted SD (i.e. TiVo, Sony or the units supplied by cable, sat or fios).

that would be true if FCC told those guys of the March 07 deadline in Feb 07, :).

those guys knew of this deadline for a long long time. were they simply sleeping until Feb 28, 2007?

Well, they might as well.

I read elsewhere on this forum that the OEMs were expecting the FCC to push out the March 07 deadline like many of the other deadlines got pushed out. I don't know when they realized that the deadline wasn't going to move, but I figure it was about a year ago (maybe even less). That isn't enough time to design a bunch of new products from the ground up. It is much easier to modify last years models and add only what you need to add. Don't forget they also had to add digital tuners to all of their small TVs this year as well. It isn't inconceivable for a manufacturer to have to add tuners to 20 or more different product models.

I read elsewhere on this forum that the OEMs were expecting the FCC to push out the March 07 deadline like many of the other deadlines got pushed out. I don't know when they realized that the deadline wasn't going to move, but I figure it was about a year ago (maybe even less). That isn't enough time to design a bunch of new products from the ground up. It is much easier to modify last years models and add only what you need to add. Don't forget they also had to add digital tuners to all of their small TVs this year as well. It isn't inconceivable for a manufacturer to have to add tuners to 20 or more different product models.Agreed. For whatever reason (most probably cost issues) the manufacturers have dragged their heels throughout the entire conversion process. Now that the axe has finally fallen there is no going back for them. It's probably best to just sit back, watch and wait a year for them to get their product cycles going. Obviously TVs will have their first priority so it may well be a year or so before recorders start showing up that have feature sets appropriate to digital tuners.

It's probably best to just sit back, watch and wait a year for them to get their product cycles going.Hopefully Sony or some one else will come thru with a nice 1080p product in a few months instead of a year.

Hopefully Sony or some one else will come thru with a nice 1080p product in a few months instead of a year.I would like to see them out from the majors ASAP, if for no other reason than to start the product cycles so a couple generations have issued before I actually have to buy one in Feb '09.

Hopefully Sony or some one else will come thru with a nice 1080p product in a few months instead of a year.

If I remember correctly, Sony was one of the last out with a hard drive (they didn't have a HDD Model in 2003 when I bought my DVDR), so don't expect too much from them soon.

Moreover, if you look at Sony's website now, their current DVDR offerings are all tuner-less and HDD-less. Seems clear what they are betting on.

Moreover, if you look at Sony's website now, their current DVDR offerings are all tuner-less and HDD-less. Seems clear what they are betting on.The've announced ATSC tuner versions but no price or date.
http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/003804.html
Can record dual layer DVDs though.

The've announced ATSC tuner versions but no price or date.
http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/003804.html
Can record dual layer DVDs though.And of the 4 models listed as forthcoming, the two tunerless models have made it to their website. Let's see how long it takes them to release the other 2 models with tuners.

And of the 4 models listed as forthcoming, the two tunerless models have made it to their website. Let's see how long it takes them to release the other 2 models with tuners.
A couple of weeks ago there were none on the Sony site.
It's one of the sites I check daily. :)
Then there was one, then two and now they show three (http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_BrowseCatalog-Start?CategoryName=hav_DVD_DVDRecorders&Dept=tvvideo)
and all are tunerless. :(

... and like all the other models so far it doesn't pass HD to the HDMI output.

At Walmart:

Phillips DVDR3505/37 DVD Recorder
Magnavox ZC352MW8 DVD Recorder
Magnavox ZV450MW8 DVD/VHS Recorder

On all three boxes; SDTV Tuner for Digital Television Reception

I just happen to be looking at the DVD "Babel". The DD5.1 English audio track is 429 MB. The DD2.0 audio track is 184 MB.

I checked a couple disks and you are right and I was wrong.

I don't see where they reveal this. Can you explain further? They talk about outputing 720p and 1080i and viewing hdtv in the Philips manual. Woohoo!!! :-)

we can keep dreaming, cannot we?

... and like all the other models so far it doesn't pass HD to the HDMI output.

This is kind of expected from a tuner-less model. There is no HD Input, so passing HD output doesn't really make any sense.

so we can safely strike out Panasonic and Sony.

who else is left?

it is simply amazing how "consistent" or "coordinated" the product offerings are across all the manufacturers. it is like they had a meeting on this and agreed on and carried out the same product development strategy.

of course, I wasn't suggesting any collusion.

This is kind of expected from a tuner-less model. There is no HD Input, so passing HD output doesn't really make any sense.
I was talking about the units with the tuner - it's got HDMI but it only passes the unconverted SD signal from the tuner, like all other models so far.

As was suggested it seems like V1.0 of everyone's DVDr with an ATSC tuner is a first half hearted attempt with true HD output missing. I wonder if the no name brand makers will step in and up the ante with real HD output or maybe real HD output is reserved for the upcoming HDD models. :confused:

Toshiba has put the Spec Sheets for their recorders up on their web site.
Not enough information in them to determine if they'll pass 720p or 1080i from the ATSC tuner to the display, though. Hopefully the Owner's Manuals will be available soon.

D-R550 (http://www.tacp.toshiba.com/tacpassets-images/models/d-r550/docs/d-r550_spec.pdf)
D-VR650 (http://www.tacp.toshiba.com/tacpassets-images/models/d-vr650/docs/d-vr650_spec.pdf)

Bob

At Walmart:

Phillips DVDR3505/37 DVD Recorder
Magnavox ZC352MW8 DVD Recorder
Magnavox ZV450MW8 DVD/VHS Recorder

On all three boxes; SDTV Tuner for Digital Television Reception

How much $$ ? They're not listed on their web site yet.

do any of them record the anamorphic (widescreen) flag yet? I need one for my grandparents (who still have an SD set and use OTA only), but would like to at least future proof so their recordings today won't play back window boxed if/when they get a widescreen TV. The Panasonic only records the flag on DVD-RAM :( (no different than my 4 year old Panasonic machine)

it is simply amazing how "consistent" or "coordinated" the product offerings are across all the manufacturers. it is like they had a meeting on this and agreed on and carried out the same product development strategy.

of course, I wasn't suggesting any collusion.


I wouldn't be surprised if it is more than just coordination. If things are as usual most models are probably made by Funai for all the "big ones".

Then there was one, then two and now they show three (http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_BrowseCatalog-Start?CategoryName=hav_DVD_DVDRecorders&Dept=tvvideo)
and all are tunerless. :(

The third one in the list (SLV-D380P) is a DVD player/VCR combo. It is highly unlikely anyone will put a digital tuner in one of those.

I read elsewhere on this forum that the OEMs were expecting the FCC to push out the March 07 deadline like many of the other deadlines got pushed out. I don't know when they realized that the deadline wasn't going to move, but I figure it was about a year ago (maybe even less). That isn't enough time to design a bunch of new products from the ground up.

True, but that wouldn't explain why Sony discontinued its HDTV recorder -- instead of adding a DVD burner to the existing design, which would give it a solid entry into this market.

(And just why did Sony discontinue its HDTV recorder? Consumer complaints centered on the TV Guide Onscreen system, which never quite seemed to work right, but that's a matter for another thread.)

True, but that wouldn't explain why Sony discontinued its HDTV recorder -- instead of adding a DVD burner to the existing design, which would give it a solid entry into this market.

(And just why did Sony discontinue its HDTV recorder? Consumer complaints centered on the TV Guide Onscreen system, which never quite seemed to work right, but that's a matter for another thread.)

I own two of those tuners since August 06 and have had zero TVGOS problems (granted I use OTA and QAM only, no cable card). It would be nice if they put a recorder into these units, but for now I have to use my Panny E80H in combo with this to archive TV programs.

That is the unit I waiting for...HD DVR with DVD recorder built in.

I own two of those tuners since August 06 and have had zero TVGOS problems (granted I use OTA and QAM only, no cable card). It would be nice if they put a recorder into these units, but for now I have to use my Panny E80H in combo with this to archive TV programs.

That is the unit I waiting for...HD DVR with DVD recorder built in.

Sounds like that's what most of us want -- An ATSC/QAM tuner that can record HD to a hard drive, output true HD, and archive to DVD. Seriously, building up and maintaining a HTPC is looking better every day.

That is the unit I waiting for...HD DVR with DVD recorder built in.From the outset of this thread and a couple others, I think that is what everyone is basically waiting for -- I know I am. Hopefully the wait will not be too long and be over by 2/09, but I have my doubts. And, of course keeping with the American way, we want them on the shelves of walmart/target for less than $200. That marketing concern may have a lot to do with why they aren't here already.

Until then I'm perfectly happy with my 2yr old E-85. If it ever breaks before 2/09, I would probably go back to one of my Sony VCRs before I'd buy a replacement DVDR without a HDD.

True, but that wouldn't explain why Sony discontinued its HDTV recorder -- instead of adding a DVD burner to the existing design, which would give it a solid entry into this market.

My guess is that the MSRP was too high and as a result not enough people bought them. Adding a DVD burner would only cause the price to go up even more.

so we can safely strike out Panasonic and Sony.

who else is left?

We can't 100% rule out Panny yet, as no-one has actually checked the 27 model. But since the 17 and 27 probably share a bunch of circuitry to lower manufacturing costs, I'd say we have a 90% probability it doesn't do 720P/1080i and DD5.1 passthrough. Yet it'll have 1080P upscaling of a downscaled signal! (nice checklist item for the premium unit :rolleyes: )

Bummer, I'll have to buy a "limited choice", separate tuner to get real HDTV!

My opinion is the engineers at these companies have been busy enough with the whole HDTV transition. It's been a bit more revolutionary, design wise, than evolutionary. The recorder and separate tuner part of the market has been too low in profit comparatively to take engineers off the HDTVs. If they had hired more engineers to work on recorders and such, what would they do with them once the whole HDTV transition has happened? It was incremental improvements before HDTV. Once the product development transition has passed, and LCD HDTVs are the standard product line, it'll be incremental improvements in that area again. Then we'll see more engineers let loose on other consumer products like recorders and the like.

Seriously, building up and maintaining a HTPC is looking better every day.
I'll be doing just that till the market comes around and provides what many people want - the only down side for now is the QAM functionality is difficult to get.

We can't 100% rule out Panny yet, as no-one has actually checked the 27 model. But since the 17 and 27 probably share a bunch of circuitry to lower manufacturing costs, I'd say we have a 90% probability it doesn't do 720P/1080i and DD5.1 passthrough. Yet it'll have 1080P upscaling of a downscaled signal! (nice checklist item for the premium unit :rolleyes: )

It took several rounds before the folks at Panasonic Customer Support understood what I was asking about on the '27 model...

<pre>Thank you for your response. The signal that passes through the recorder
is 480i or 480p. This signal will then up convert to 720i, 720p, or 1080i
when watching television. We hope this information is helpful to you.

Thank You,
Panasonic Consumer Support</pre>

an ideal recorder would be one that passes native signals, provides guide-based recording, buffers on HDD and records onto DVD.

a HDD-less recorder in my view is crippled. a HDD-less recorder that doesn't pass native signal is retarded.

Sounds like that's what most of us want -- An ATSC/QAM tuner that can record HD to a hard drive, output true HD, and archive to DVD. Seriously, building up and maintaining a HTPC is looking better every day.


No, I'm not looking for that at all. I'm looking for a recorder that will record digital to hardrive and allow fast copying to DVD. I dont really expect any digital recorders to be recording Hi Def, any time soon at a reasonable cost.

But I'd be quite satisfied with a hrad sick recorder model that had a an ASTC tuner.

Rick

"hrad sick" huh? Hard disc??

I'm one of the most that want a HD DVR with built in SD DVD Recorder. I only archive about 15% of what I record so that would allow me to enjoy HD quality during playback and SD quality for my archives...for now I will stick with my 2 unit set-up (HD DVR / DVDR with Hard Drive)

"hrad sick" huh? Hard disc??

I'm one of the most that want a HD DVR with built in SD DVD Recorder. I only archive about 15% of what I record so that would allow me to enjoy HD quality during playback and SD quality for my archives...for now I will stick with my 2 unit set-up (HD DVR / DVDR with Hard Drive)
Me too!

But it must include widescreen flag management. And, DD 5.1 audio DVD recording would be nice.

We can't 100% rule out Panny yet, as no-one has actually checked the 27 model. Yes, we can rule them out. An insider who works close to the Panasonic design team has told us it won't pass native HD signal. We will have to wait till next years models for native HD from Pany.

Toshiba will pass HD signal through?

Okay, did a little research on the Toshiba model and found these specs (http://www.tacp.toshiba.com/dvd/product.asp?model=d-vr650). The text of the specs say "SD Bridge Recording".

Not seeing a definition on that page, I Googled the phrase and found that it is referenced on some literature for one of their 26" HDTV's with a QAM/ATSC tuner / VCR (http://www.toshiba-latino.com/PDF%20Productos/MW26H82_spec.pdf) (PDF). Per the specs sheet, it says

SD Bridge Recording allow the user to record content received via the HD
tuners onto VHS in a Standard Definition format. Models with this feature will
receive the HD signal, downconvert it to SD and record it on a VHS tape. The
recording will be unconverted during playback.

If they use the same tuner with the same terminology in a TV that will display a 1080i source natively (it is an HDTV), I am assuming (maybe incorrectly) that the tuner in the D-VR650 (VR550) will behave the same way. Pass the native signal and then down-convert it for recording on a disc.

Can anyone prove my assumption (hope) incorrect?

Now where's that Panasonic DVD recorder that someone said would be out this weekend? ;)
The EZ17(silver) is now listed as in stock at J & R.

Can anyone prove my assumption (hope) incorrect?
Not without more info.

http://www.brightandsleek.com/pdf/PHILIPS-DVDR3575H.pdf
Interesting product brochure for the hard disk version.
Also if you want to help to keep an updated list of ATSC recorders you can at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_recorder#Comparison_of_2007_ATSC_DVD_recorders

Amazon has been selling the e17 models for about a week. I got mine last
night. I wish it had a zoom function and the bars on widescreen are unequal.
This I want to talk to Panasonic about.
Plan on using DVD-RAM for some functions. I have just glanced at the manual.

Amazon has been selling the e17 models for about a week. I got mine last
night. I wish it had a zoom function and the bars on widescreen are unequal.
This I want to talk to Panasonic about.
Plan on using DVD-RAM for some functions. I have just glanced at the manual.
Do you shut the recorder off to for timer recordings to work
Thanks Joe

Yes, it has to be turned off for timer recordings.
I also have the Panny E95H so I have a leg up on the remote and
some of the functions.

Yes, it has to be turned off for timer recordings.
I also have the Panny E95H so I have a leg up on the remote and
some of the functions.

I wonder what they were thinking ?
Joe

Amazon has been selling the e17 models for about a week. I got mine last
night. I wish it had a zoom function and the bars on widescreen are unequal.
This I want to talk to Panasonic about.
Plan on using DVD-RAM for some functions. I have just glanced at the manual.Keep us posted :D Look forward to more details. How is the image quality compared to your other recorders?

There's a lot of Wally items at B&M that are not on the web site. In accordance to forum rules, no prices are to be posted other than MSRP. I do not know the MSRP of any of the listed units.

How much $$ ? They're not listed on their web site yet.
At Walmart:

Phillips DVDR3505/37 DVD Recorder
Magnavox ZC352MW8 DVD Recorder
Magnavox ZV450MW8 DVD/VHS Recorder

On all three boxes; SDTV Tuner for Digital Television Reception

I am interested in DL recording on the EZ17. Is it like previous panasonic units....you have to record each layer as a seperate recording? No continuous dl record?

The quality is better than regular OTA. It is an SD tuner and all of my OTA channels
change picture format all the time. What I have recorded so far had to be zoomed
on my tv to cut the bars down.
About the DL - recording. Page 10 talks about that subject. Sounds like +R DL
is the better choice. I think there is a link to the manual in this forum.

The quality is better than regular OTA. It is an SD tuner and all of my OTA channels
change picture format all the time. What I have recorded so far had to be zoomed
on my tv to cut the bars down.
About the DL - recording. Page 10 talks about that subject. Sounds like +R DL
is the better choice. I think there is a link to the manual in this forum.What a lot of people are going to be hoping for is whether the tuner will pass through hi-def signals as native hi-def rather than as downconverted to SD then upconverted again. Can you shed some light on this.

It took several rounds before the folks at Panasonic Customer Support understood what I was asking about on the '27 model...

<pre>Thank you for your response. The signal that passes through the recorder
is 480i or 480p. This signal will then up convert to 720i, 720p, or 1080i
when watching television. We hope this information is helpful to you.

Thank You,
Panasonic Consumer Support</pre>

Well, not entirely correct, as their manual states 1080P as well!

Plus there is no such thing (afaik) as 720i.

Not knowing about the new models with digital tuner, I just bought the Panasonic DMR-ES15 which I like. Now I see the EZ17 which includes the qam tuner for cable.

What I would like to do is record the comcast local hi def channels (downconverted, of course) since the quality will be better than the comcast analog locals.

The potential problem is I don't subscribe to digital cable only basic. My tv has a qam tuner
that can pull in hd locals and sometimes my neighbors' vod. Comcast changes the channel assignments every couple of months and I have to rescan to get them back. Will the EZ17 be able to record these?

I have a week left to return the ES if so. Many thanks for any response.

I don't know about the Panasonic, but the one I have LG does tune the clear QAM channels from basic cable, I don't see a reason why the Panasonic wouldn't.

There's a lot of Wally items at B&M that are not on the web site. In accordance to forum rules, no prices are to be posted other than MSRP. I do not know the MSRP of any of the listed units.


At Walmart:

Phillips DVDR3505/37 DVD Recorder
Magnavox ZC352MW8 DVD Recorder
Magnavox ZV450MW8 DVD/VHS Recorder

On all three boxes; SDTV Tuner for Digital Television Reception


I checked at a Walmart today, and they did not have any of these yet.

Not knowing about the new models with digital tuner, I just bought the Panasonic DMR-ES15 which I like. Now I see the EZ17 which includes the qam tuner for cable.

What I would like to do is record the comcast local hi def channels (downconverted, of course) since the quality will be better than the comcast analog locals.

The potential problem is I don't subscribe to digital cable only basic. My tv has a qam tuner
that can pull in hd locals and sometimes my neighbors' vod. Comcast changes the channel assignments every couple of months and I have to rescan to get them back. Will the EZ17 be able to record these?

I have a week left to return the ES if so. Many thanks for any response.

I think the Panny has QAM(hi-def locals cable); I'd be surprised if it didn't. To be certain, check the beginning of this thread. There is a link to the manual. The last page of the manual has the specifications.

BTW, what does "neighbors' vod." refer to?

I was at Target today and they had all of the DVD recorders on clearance. I am thinking something should be happening soon. Just checked their website, they have listed both Panasonics - the EZ17, and the version with a VHS combo for order arriving in 2-6 weeks.

Local BB yesterday had several Toshiba RD-XS35's ($349, 160GB HDD) stacked at the end of the aisle where they typically display their DVD players and recorders. Making room all the new models?

BTW, what does "neighbors' vod." refer to?
Thanks for the responses. I was unsure since the hi def channels constantly change throughout the year. The biggest is example is the neighbors' video on demand. It can show up on at least 30 different channels. You just have to be on the "correct" channel at the right time. It is strange to watch the movie fast forward, reverse, etc.,

Never heard of this store before, but they're showing the Toshiba in stock.

http://www.brightandsleek.com/ProductDetails.asp?source=yahooshopping&utm_source=YahooShopping&utm_medium=prcomp&utm_term=DR550&utm_campaign=DR550&ProductCode=DR550

Never heard of this store before, but they're showing the Toshiba in stock.

http://www.brightandsleek.com/ProductDetails.asp?source=yahooshopping&utm_source=YahooShopping&utm_medium=prcomp&utm_term=DR550&utm_campaign=DR550&ProductCode=DR550
They have been showing in stock for at least a week. Obvious to me that it is fraudulent marketing.

BTW, what does "neighbors' vod." refer to?

On some cable systems (FIOS excepted) you normally can see in clear QAM whenever someone in the neighborhood orders a PPV or VOD stream. It's very hit and miss since it only last a short time and moves around a lot of chs.

I checked with all of my local Walmarts and Best Buys within a 40 mile radius and none of them have the Philips 3505 in stock yet. The lady at Best Buy told me that when it appears in stock on their web page, then they will probably be in stock in the stores. In other words, order it online first to get it first. I would be willing to wait for walmart to get one display and play with it first.

Brian

I checked with all of my local Walmarts and Best Buys within a 40 mile radius and none of them have the Philips 3505 in stock yet. The lady at Best Buy told me that when it appears in stock on their web page, then they will probably be in stock in the stores. In other words, order it online first to get it first. I would be willing to wait for walmart to get one display and play with it first.

Brian
Personally, I'm waiting for the Philips DVDR3575H/37
with the 160 GB hard drive. :)

Personally, I'm waiting for the Philips DVDR3575H/37
with the 160 GB hard drive. :)


I saw the 3575 for order at brightandsleek.com but I have never heard of that store before and not sure how legitimate it is.

I saw the 3575 for order at brightandsleek.com but I have never heard of that store before and not sure how legitimate it is.
I haven't heard of them either, plus his price is some $28.00
higher than CompuMusic even counting the free shipping,
but I put one in a Wish List anyway. :)
I've been corresponding with both stores...

Are there any credible specs for the 3575 listed anywhere? I assume this is the first HDD equipped digital tuner unit?

Are there any credible specs for the 3575 listed anywhere? I assume this is the first HDD equipped digital tuner unit?

Looks like this is coming directly from Philips, but who knows...

http://www.brightandsleek.com/pdf/PHILIPS-DVDR3575H.pdf

Looks like this is coming directly from Philips, but who knows...

http://www.brightandsleek.com/pdf/PHILIPS-DVDR3575H.pdf
It is from Philpis, but marked "Preliminary" and,

"Test leaflet, for internal use only!
© 2007 Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
All Rights reserved.
Specifications are subject to change without notice.
Trademarks are the property of Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.
or their respective owners. www.philips.com"

Are there any credible specs for the 3575 listed anywhere? I assume this is the first HDD equipped digital tuner unit?
It's not only the first, it's the only one in the US so far.

In the preliminary 3575 PDF, it says SDTV Tuner for Digital Television Reception. I guess this is the same as the others release thus far, no HD passthru. I tried the LG one, no passthru, but did receive a lot of clear QAM channels that seemed to be the entire analog lineup (basic/extended, no payperview and no premium).

The LG went back as the unit I had would not output to HDMI, even when trying to use the cable/port my HD-A2 is on.

I would love to have the 160GB hard drive, but I'm afraid it would put me out of my budget range. I am just getting a new DVD player to replace my origianl GE purchase several years ago. Going to the 3505 would give me several things I do not currently have, namely HDMI and recording capability. I am in south Texas by the way and have been checking the stores around Houston.

Brian