Pioneer DVR 533H-S Recorder

[JoeSomebody]

Hi,

I have the pioneer DVR 533H-S. I've been using it for a couple of weeks and have been happy. I really don't have a clue about this stuff for the most part but heard something very disheartening recently.

I have an older style tv, not a fancy HD or widescreen. I've heard that when you record on DVD and play it on a big screen, the quality is not nearly as good? I hear that it has a lot do with pixelation, etc.

My question is, why would anyone pay so much for a recorder (referring to me here) if the quality is not that nice on a big screen? If my DVDs I'm making are going to look blocky or pixely when I try watching them on a larger screen tv someday, doesn't that defeat the purpose of DVD recording being so much better than VHS that there is no comparison? I can watch a VHS that I record in SP and I don't notice the quality or appearance any diff on a reg tv vs a large/big screen one.

Perhaps I'm jumping the gun and I hope so. I just want to make sure my investment is worth it rather than spending a ton of money on something that only looks nice on a little 27" tv...

Looking forward to any feedback from people with more knowledge than I have...and trust me I don't have much with this stuff!!

Thanks!

[redwudz]

I have a 633H-S and I think the quality is very good. I use it more for time shifting at present. I think the main complaint you will hear is about the noise from the hard drive and the slowness of navigating the the TV guide feature.

I previously owned a 'Walmart' DVR which was difficult to use. (When it even worked) I regretted wasting my money on that, but I am happy with the Pioneer.

If you do a forum search for 'Pioneer 533' in this forum, you might get a few more opinions.

BTW, the quality is much better than a VHS tape.

[JoeSomebody]

As long as the quality is better, but from what I've heard, even in SP mode the pixelation is terrible when watched on bigger screens??

Also, when you record to the Hard Drive say using SP, if u record to DVD using XP, does the quality change at all?

Also, is there a big diff between XP and SP?

[lacywest]

I use a 51" Sony High Definition rear projection type TV and I use the Panasonic DMR-E50S and the Pioneer 220 DVD recorders and from 15 feet away ... it is not bad.

I record on to the hard drive in my Comcast cable box and transfer to my DVD recorders.

For best quality I use the Pioneer and pause it during commercials and un-pause it when the commercials are over.

For instance ... Sci-Fi Friday ... 3 one hour shows can be recorded in about 40 minutes each = 120 minutes ... if I'm sitting there keeping a close eye on when the commercials kick in.

But I usually set the recording time for 2 HRs and 10 minutes or if I am going to be busy perhaps ... 2 Hours and 20 minutes ... quality is very nice.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday ... 11:41 AM ... here is a addon ... after what ... John "FulciLives" Coleman said ....

I have Comcast Cable in my area and the Sci-Fi Channel looks like crap ... We had Directv here for awhile at the same time and the Sci-Fi channel was very very clear ... I was tempted to keep it just because of how clear Directv brought the Sci-Fi channel into our home.

I would have canceled Comcast and went with Directv but we are not able to get PacBell DSL here ... for a high-speed Internet connection [I missed having a DSL connection by 1200 feet] ... I had DSL for years but I moved in with my girlfriend and married her.

Anyways ... when I did view the image on my Sony 51" HD TV ... the recordings made with the Panasonic DMR-E50S was very watchable. But to save $70 bucks a month ... we canceled Directv. Directv uses Pacbell DSL to provide their customers a high speed Internet connection.

[FulciLives]

I have the 531 model (same as the 533 model but mine lacks a firewire port) ... I also have a 51" 16x9 HDTV (CRT Rear Projector) and I am happy with the quality but you have to consider the source.

A commercial made DVD looks great that big.

But other sources will vary. Some cable TV channels look great, some look ok, some look bad and some are unwatchable.

The better the quality of the input the better the quality of the Pioneer's recording.

I have less trouble with VHS and LaserDisc and analog cable channels because while the quality may not always be super great they are analog and don't have that damn "digital" look.

Many digital channels have MPEG artifacts from the get go meaning they will be there on the Pioneer's recording but it isn't the fault of the Pioneer.

I love the size of my new TV (got the Pioneer recorder around Sept. of 2005 just got the 51" TV in December 2005) especially when watching a DVD but many TV channels are painfull to watch now.

Of course due to the size of my room I am almost 2 feet closer than the "optimal" sitting distance of my TV.

So if anything, when buying a big TV, make sure you are not sitting TOO CLOSE to it!

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[trhouse]

Maybe this is the thread you saw,

https://www.videohelp.com/forum/archive/t286000.html

It is not just screen size but monitor resolution that determines what you will see. Higher resolution reveals details ( or the lack of it ) and faults not visible in lower resolution products.

I suspect many think that they will convert video to dvd once and that is the end of the story. I wonder how true that is? I have burnt more than 600 dvd-r's for a big family project but it is not done. Already requests are coming in for dvd dual/double layer instead.

[jcuervo811]

Does anybody know if any of these recorders with built in harddrives are able to capture PAL signals as well as NTSC.

[Frobozz]

Does anybody know if any of these recorders with built in harddrives are able to capture PAL signals as well as NTSC.

In the U.S. it is rare for a DVD recorder to handle both PAL and NTSC. One that I know does is the Pioneer PVR-9200. If you live in a PAL broadcast country then NTSC playback should be included in most if not all models, but I don't know about NTSC recording.

[JoeSomebody]

So is it the tvs that are causing this or poor recording ability by the recorders? In other words, is it that the DVD quality (when recording) diminishes when watched on bigger screens or is it that the bigger screens have poorer pictures? Trying to figure out which is the culprit here.

I'd like to take my recorder back if it's the DVD recorder that causes this? I think I've noticed that on big screens the pixelation/blockiness in general on many stations and dvds being watched. I'm just trying to understand whether or not as tvs get better these dvds will look better on them, OR if it's all in the DVD.

Sorry for the questions

[Wile_E]

Yes, the bigger your TV, the poorer 720x480/576 will look. Let's face it. 720x480/576 is poor resolution, considering that computer monitors go up 1600x1200 and higher. A 1080i(1920x1080) resolution helps a lot, if you got the right equipment to get you the full result. But even 1920x1080 isn't really that good. You can't just blow it up to a 100" projection screen and expect it to look crisp. It will look better than lower resolutions, but I still haven't seen a crisp HDTV projector or HDTV bigscreen. It won't happen!

Theatres are still where the detail is, because they are using 35mm and 70mm film. This has major detail to project across that big screen. Even though it is analog! Many companies are digitizing their films at 4000x3000 levels. Now if only we had TV's that could support that resolution, everything would be dandy!

[jcuervo811]

Does anybody know if any of these recorders with built in harddrives are able to capture PAL signals as well as NTSC.

In the U.S. it is rare for a DVD recorder to handle both PAL and NTSC. One that I know does is the Pioneer PVR-9200. If you live in a PAL broadcast country then NTSC playback should be included in most if not all models, but I don't know about NTSC recording.

The reason I ask is because I am in the military stationed in Germany and I own two satellite systems. One is called the Armed Forces Network which broadcasts in NTSC and other is SKY which broadcast in PAL. I would like to purchase this Pioneer model if it had the capability of capturing from either satellite system. Thanks for the reply.

[Frobozz]

The reason I ask is because I am in the military stationed in Germany and I own two satellite systems. One is called the Armed Forces Network which broadcasts in NTSC and other is SKY which broadcast in PAL. I would like to purchase this Pioneer model if it had the capability of capturing from either satellite system. Thanks for the reply.

The models that Pioneer makes for Europe are different from those I know about in the U.S. Here is Pioneer's list of models available in Germany: http://www.pioneer.de/de/product_overview.jsp?category_id=501&taxonomy_id=367-402

[victoriabears]

Philips dvd recorders can record either, but will only do that via the rca or s video inputs not the cable tuner.
other chepies like Day Tek or Curtis/RJ Tech do as well, I have those.

[trhouse]

So is it the tvs that are causing this or poor recording ability by the recorders?

A bit of both. VHS was fine for most viewing on standard definition TV but the recording side improved with the advent of DVD. Then TV improved with the advent of HDTV. Now the ante is to be raised on the recording side again with the struggle between Blu-Ray and HD DVD.

It is the continuing technological change. Some day you will think of DVD in the same terms as you do VHS right now.

[Seeker47]

Some cable TV channels look great, some look ok, some look bad and some are unwatchable.

The better the quality of the input the better the quality of the Pioneer's recording.

Many digital channels have MPEG artifacts from the get go meaning they will be there on the Pioneer's recording but it isn't the fault of the Pioneer.

You have just hit upon the Dirty Little Secret of digital broadcasting, whether via cable or satellite: they use way too much COMPRESSION . . . either due to cost saving or available bandwidth, I would guess. That is why you'll see dark splotchies on many night scenes or low-light shots or if there is a very dark background. And that is why you may see motion artifacts when someone is moving very rapidly. (This happens on many DVDs, also.) I think this is going to vary to some extent according to who your sat or cable provider is, the particular channel you are watching, and how good your gear is, but it's NEVER going to be a non-factor with what's in the marketplace now.

I always find it really funny that the mags that review all this exotic and cost-is-no-object gear (like Perfect Vision or Home Theatre) NEVER EVER seem to mention these inherent, broadcast-related deficiencies.

[FulciLives]

Some cable TV channels look great, some look ok, some look bad and some are unwatchable.

The better the quality of the input the better the quality of the Pioneer's recording.

Many digital channels have MPEG artifacts from the get go meaning they will be there on the Pioneer's recording but it isn't the fault of the Pioneer.

You have just hit upon the Dirty Little Secret of digital broadcasting, whether via cable or satellite: they use way too much COMPRESSION . . . either due to cost saving or available bandwidth, I would guess. That is why you'll see dark splotchies on many night scenes or low-light shots or if there is a very dark background. And that is why you may see motion artifacts when someone is moving very rapidly. (This happens on many DVDs, also.) I think this is going to vary to some extent according to who your sat or cable provider is, the particular channel you are watching, and how good your gear is, but it's NEVER going to be a non-factor with what's in the marketplace now.

I always find it really funny that the mags that review all this exotic and cost-is-no-object gear (like Perfect Vision or Home Theatre) NEVER EVER seem to mention these inherent, broadcast-related deficiencies.

The thing I find amusing (in a sad way) is that many analog cable channels look better on my 51" 16x9 HDTV than most of the digital channels!

On demand stuff looks very good and HBO and SHOWTIME both look pretty good but most other digital channels just do not look good at all and with my particular cable provider the digital Sci-Fi channel is unwatchable it is SO bad and this was a channel I used to watch alot (and now it's like I don't have it ... the quality is so bad I can't stand watching it).

I noticed this on my 20" TV but now with the 51" 16x9 HDTV it is even more apparent.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Seeker47]

The thing I find amusing (in a sad way) is that many analog cable channels look better on my 51" 16x9 HDTV than most of the digital channels!

On demand stuff looks very good and HBO and SHOWTIME both look pretty good but most other digital channels just do not look good at all and with my particular cable provider the digital Sci-Fi channel is unwatchable it is SO bad and this was a channel I used to watch alot (and now it's like I don't have it ... the quality is so bad I can't stand watching it).

I noticed this on my 20" TV but now with the 51" 16x9 HDTV it is even more apparent.

What I find mystifying is the unpredictable randomness of this. Our cable provider -- never very good, though you'd expect them to be from the rates they charge -- has just nearly doubled their channel roster. So, on the higher digital tiers of service we're now seeing several channels we never got before, such as Starz Cinema, Showtime Xtreme, Flix etc., PLUS we are now getting the Eastern as well as the Western feeds of many premium channels (more like satellite service, I guess), so there will be additional choice of times for viewing or recording.

O.K., so your Sci-Fi Channel, which a long time ago was analog here (fair P.Q.), but a couple years ago got bumped up to a 3-digit # location (digital -- better P.Q.), now exists on both analog & digital channels. The new 2-digit analog version looks like fuzzy CRAP. The new 3-digit digital location looks acceptable, but clearly not as good as the old 3-digit digital channel location.

I was flipping through the new channel lineups and came across a new, Eastern feed of MoreMax, and it was razor sharp -- great P.Q., as good as it gets with non-HD service and a 10 year old CRT ! Another premium service, just a couple channel #s up or down from it can look terrible. It's like "Roll the Dice and See What Comes Up."

I think a service like HBO may feel it has a brand name to protect, and maybe takes some pains to insure that their picture quality does not suck, whoever the provider is or whatever the assigned channel location happens to be.

A neighbor who may or may not know something about this told me that this cable provider has cut a lot of corners in the quality of their infrastructure. (Amplifiers ? Repeaters ? Something like that.) How else to account for this hodgepodge ?

[vhelp]

Pardon my 10 cents here ...

I sounded the horn on all this nonsense you guys are *now* discovering
(where you prob called me dummy for, back then) several years ago.

I think that many of you (at the time) were ignorant to my horn-tooting
in all, and its only now, that you have devices of *slightly* higher
quality, are exhibiting the trueth.

Its really too bad, now that you all (or some of use, whom are willing
to be trueful about these quality issues) are coming forth and sharing
this trueth. (but its a little too late)

Now, as other users have indicated.. they are becoming more treturous
at their sceaming and video quality deployment tackects and are still
getting away with it. pfew. Oh well.

But, because many are sold on HDTV and other higher quality devices,
the battel between good and evil will not prevail. The good old days
of Analog is going bye-bye, as some of you have indicated (in other
thread topics - elsewheres) And, MPEG is here to stay, in the things
of broadcasting via television stations. And, they will use whatever
means necessary to bring in more revenue, at the expense of quality.

The main thing that kills quality (weather regarding above issues
or not) is the frames-per-second (fps) which these dvd recorders use,
is is 29.970 fps, for NTSC.

Those of you's whom are Advanced Level grade, know all too well, that
The less fps processed, the max quality can be obtained. But, it is
not possible with (current) dvd recorders, as they are branded with
29.970 fps (vs. 23.976 fps) though the 23.976 fps would bring in 20%
(percent) more quality than 29.970 fps would.

It is there, that dvd recorders are failing. That, plus the fact that
they tamper/jimmy their source with MPEG baloney. I mean, how can you
contend with a 29.970 fps and MPEG baloney (artifacts) and maintain quality ?
You can't. So, you have to resort to a 2nd generation processing. That
entails re-MPEG-encoding, and that may require Editing/Filtering, as a part of
the process. Now, there is nothing wrong with this, if that is your
only alternative or other reasoning for this endeavor. But it does
suggest a hint of source-generation-loss.. a comprmise for the luxoury
of high-tech equipment.

Still, dvd recorders have their uses. They just can't replace a good
S-VHS vcr in terms of transfer quality. Remembering what was noted
above, and factoring that into this last notation here.
If I were just recording tv programs just to watch at a luxoury time,
I would definately choose the dvd recorder over the vcr. It's just too
easy and flexible. But, if quality and archival was my main objective, and
source content as well, I would probably go with the S-VHS vcr instead.

Why ?

Because you would get the maximum pixel representation vs. MPEG artifacts.

When I first received Satellite (DirecTV) back in 2001, the MPEG artifacts
were at an all-time minimum. You could record to an S-VHS will very good
quality, and capture it, and process it to a fianl MPEG.

And, a few months back or so, I found some pre-recorded S-VHS tapes that I
randomly tested for quality purposes. I was pretty amazed at the results.
I captured it with my ADVC-100 and encoded it, using my tipicle MPEG encoding
standards of CBR and 9000 bitrate. I was pretty excited at the results,
however.

As long as they continue to taint the source and final MPEG for broadcasting,
any device used to capture/record it will result in next to good results,
but never great quality.. though that is a subjective statement from me

In the coming months, I plan on getting Cable. But, I'm definately going
to ask for Analog Cable !!

@ fulci

If your source is VHS or Laserdisc, by now, you know that you will never
see macroblocks or anything else, during capturing (i've posted this fact
many times over, in past topics) But, fwiw, if your cap device is an MPEG
type, you *will* have them in your source - no matter what the content.

But, the good news is that you won't have those tipicle/common issues
listed above with these two source mediums.

But of course you know this

>> ..just got the 51" TV in December 2005.. 16x9 HDTV..

Lucky you. Now I have someone that can test my VHS / Laserdisc WS
16x9 Anamorphic transfer/conversions for me

(yoda313 has [and is] now into OTA (antenna) content. Maybe I (we) should
look into that as an alternative. I think that source type does not have any
(or as much) macroblocks/pixelations broadcasted) - but I'm not sure

-vhelp 3744