No mention of SONY's?

[iluvJLO]

How come nobody mentions Sony recorders? Aren't they the top of the line? They're the only ones with 12-bit DAC's. All the newer series of Pioneers, Panasonics, etc are just now coming out with 12-bit DAC. So, I'm just wondering why no mention of the Sony recorders.

I have the Pio 220, it's nice but I need a Hard drive. The image quality is very crisp and detailed at a 2hr 20min recording I did, but those little macroblocks are visible. I'm thinking maybe with a 12-bit Sony DAC recorder, I can eliminate it completely.

One question regarding HDD recorders. When you record a TV program that's 2hrs at the highest setting onto the HDD, then finalize it on DVD at SP mode, will the PQ be the same as if you were recording the TV program directly to a DVD at SP? Reason I ask is because, if you record to HDD even at XP(highest mode), it's still compressing it, and then compressing it a second time when finalizing to DVD on SP. But if you were recording directly to the DVD at SP, it's only compressing once. Make any sense?

[steve2713]

To answer your last question(s), the answer is always record at the intended bitrate/setting. Any time you have to re-encode a second time you'll be sacraficing quality vs. if you'd just recorded it at its intended quality. So it's not good to record to the HD at XP, only to burn it to DVD at SP. You'll just have to plan ahead and record at its intended bitrate from the start for the best results.

[iluvJLO]

The way I look at it is, if I record it on XP to the HDD only to record it in SP on DVD, the idea behind that is that it's just like as if I were recording in SP mode directly off the Source feed. The reason for the HDD is, I record sporting events, and the running time is not at a set time. Sometimes an event can be 2hrs 15mins or 3Hrs, and I won't know ahead of time, but if I had the HDD, I could just set it at the highest mode to preserve the original feed's quality, then adjust the Rec mode for finalization onto DVD. So if the event was 2Hrs and 30mins, I could split it at 1hr 15mins on two DVD's, and preserve near identical quality as the original feed, as opposed to me recording w/o a HDD at 2Hrs 30mins on 1 dvd and sacrificing Resolution and bitrate.

[trhouse]

This missing word is lossy. The capture to XP is one lossy compression, the XP to SP is another lossy compression so information is lost twice. Why don't you capture to the hard drive in SP, then there would be only a single lossy compression?

[iluvJLO]

is there a feature on HDD recorders that just records a program Raw and uncompressed like a PC capture card? This way then, I could finalize it to XP SP or whatever I feel is appropriate?

[Noahtuck]

SONY....

[TomJones]

No, there is no uncompressed recording. The idea is to compress only once. So, for instance, if the final length of the program you are recording will be 90 min., you would select a recording speed of mn26 to record to the hdd on a pioneer. The actual program length with commercials might be 2 hrs, but you would then edit it to the 90 min. on the hdd - either directly or using the copy list. If the exact time of the final program is not known, make a conservative estimate.

Then you would make a high speed copy burn to a DVD. This is a bit for bit process with no loss of image quality.

It seems that some people get hung up on XP as something fantastic.
They should get hung up on using one encode - not two encodes. The final result will always be better.

This is just another way of repeating what other posters have replied to the initial question. Hope it helps.

[iluvJLO]

i see, then there's really no benefit for a HDD recorder other than for those who want to record a lot of shows and store it w/o using discs, then editing commercials or just deleting altogether?

My reason for getting one was to maximize PQ w/o guessing what REC setting to set it at. If a program I want to record is around 3hrs and 40mins, then you're telling me I should set it at MN(whatever setting is 3hrs 40mins), but if I do that, then I'd be getting half the resolution and terrible PQ. The whole reasoning behind using a HDD was so that I could preserve the source quality and not worry about how long the program will be and what setting I need to have it at, then maximize the quality of the source feed recorded to HDD onto a DVD's 4.3gb recording space, and or split it into 2 DVD's if necessary.. If I set it at the over 3HR mode, I'll end up with a crappy copy if I record to 1 DVD, and an even worse copy if I split it into 2 DVD's at 1HR 30mins each. If I were to set it at SP and use 2 DVD's, and the program ends up being 3hrs 35mins, I still end up wasting 25 remaining mins of DVD 2, thus not maximizing the bitrate of the remaining space, and I'll be missing some of the programming because I'm switching discs out.

Oh what a pain! If anyone understands my problem and knows a way to resolve it, please chime in

[steve2713]

You seem to be making it more confusing than it is, and I'm not even going to try to explain it anymore, no offense. JUST DON'T RE-ENCODE if you can help it. If you want, you could even record 4 hours of content at XP and split it onto 4 DVDs, that will not re-encode.

Unless you're recording garbage like cricket or some crap like that, you should be able to make an educated guess on the run time of the content you're recording. I've recorded alot of College Basketball with my 420, and not ONE game varied more than 5 minutes from the 1 hour 40 min. length, after editing commercials. Even football should not vary more than about 15 minutes from one game to the next, unless it goes to overtime.

Again, you're making it more confusing than it is. I'll just say that I could NEVER use a recorder without a HD after having my 420. DVD-RWs are not a realistic substitute for alot of the benefits that a HD provides.

[TomJones]

If a program I want to record is around 3hrs and 40mins, then you're telling me I should set it at MN(whatever setting is 3hrs 40mins), but if I do that, then I'd be getting half the resolution and terrible PQ.

No, you would use an hdd recording speed of 1/2 of 3 hr 40min which is 1 hr 50m. Then you would divide the title on the hdd or the copy list. Then you would burn two DVDs which would be completely filled with high picture quality material.

If you're interested in the best picture quality, recording should be done at full D1 resolution. Typically this means using speeds less than 2 1/2 hr.
For Pioneers it means 2hr twenty min or less. If the program is longer than this, record at a lower speed to the hdd and then divide the title.

For example. I just recorded a 160 min movie. Used an 80 min recording speed to the hdd. Then divided the 160 min title into 2 80 min titles and burned two filled DVDs. So I have two filled DVDs and only one encode was done. This gives me the best picture quality.

[Frobozz]

I understand what's bugging you about this. You don't want to waste space on a disc that could have been used for some small increment of better picture quality. Well, you just have to let go of that worry. You have a Pioneer 220 so you probably know at what setting the picture quality gets unacceptable to you. With a hard drive unit you'll get to always record at a quality setting you like regardless of how long the program is (unlike with your 220). Then burn to however many DVDs it takes to save the program. If it bothers you to have unused space on a DVD, burn the "overtime" section to an unfinalized DVD-RW. You can then copy that back to the HDD at high speed, erase the disc, and copy it back along with some other "overtime" clip until the disc is full of your "page 2's".

In order to be happy with home-burned DVDs you need to choose settings you find acceptable for picture quality and not worry about unused disc space where you could have eked out slightly better quality.

[robguy]

I agree with Steve2713. I have also found that what affects the quality of the recording the most is the quality of the transmission. If you have a low-resolution TV channel, boosting the quality to XP shows little, if any, increase in the final quality recorded onto a HDD. I did an experiment with Star Trek Deep Space 9 (SciFi Channel) at both XP and SP speeds. SP did as well as XP -- XP just chewed up a bunch more HDD space, and still had to be brought down to SP-quality in the end DVD.

If you get a higher-resolution picture, such as what you record from a high-definition channel, the quality is better at XP -- but, then again, you have to dub it at SP to get it to fit on a DVD. So, I just record at SP in the first place.

I also wouldn't want to live without my HDD on my Sony RDR-HX900, or my Panasonic DMR-E85, for that matter.

[trhouse]

Sony is soon to release a new recorder in September which will capture to the hard drive in uncompressed format It might allow you to then convert to XP, SP or whatever you like with a single encode. Here is some information on this unit.

"The highlight is RDR-HX715 DVD recorder with a hard disk and HDMI which delivers high quality uncompressed digital signals to other HDMI-equipped components such as Sony's Grand WEGA LCD rear projection high definition televisions, the company reports.

The unit incorporates a 160 GB hard drive and broad media read/write compatibility with DVD+R/+RW/-R/-RW and +R Double Layer disc compatibility.

The RDR-HX715 DVD recorder also has an i.LINK IEEE-1394 digital input."

[Synergy]

Sony is soon to release a new recorder in September which will capture to the hard drive in uncompressed format It might allow you to then convert to XP, SP or whatever you like with a single encode.

I think you are confusing the HQ+ and HQ recording modes offered on the Sony HDD models (such as the current model RDR-HX900), which can be used as part of Sony's "Dynamic VBR High Quality Dubbing" process:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=4855634#post4855634

Whether this 2-step process improves the PQ may be subjective, but the first encoding step is still compressed since a CBR, instead of VBR, MPEG-2 encoding is applied.

[trhouse]

I was referring to this,


"The highlight is RDR-HX715 DVD recorder with a hard disk and HDMI which delivers high quality uncompressed digital signals to other HDMI-equipped components"

Is this available on the 900?

[Synergy]

"The highlight is RDR-HX715 DVD recorder with a hard disk and HDMI which delivers high quality uncompressed digital signals to other HDMI-equipped components"

This is exactly where you got confused with the spec. The RDR-HX715 only has an HDMI "output" which would "send" uncompressed digital signals to other HDMI-equipped components. There is currently no DVD recorder with an HDMI input to "capture to the hard drive in uncompressed format" as claimed in your earlier post. No, the RDR-HX900 doesn't have an HDMI output as the RDR-HX715, but that doesn't change how both models record incoming video signals. However the current Japanese models of RDR-HX100 and HX90 do have the HDMI output:

http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer/dvdrecorder/products/rdr_hx100_hx90.html

[trhouse]

I see what you are saying but as it has no HDMI input so it is not passing through an HDMI signal and can output HDMI uncompressed, does that not mean it has to capture uncompressed somewhere like the hard drive?

I do not know the answer. The link you kindly provided is a Japanese language page. It may be the answer is on it.

[Synergy]

does that not mean it has to capture uncompressed somewhere like the hard drive?

First, the Sony ad quote was just misleading and the word "uncompressed" should be ignored. The only digital format close to being "uncompressed" is the DV-AVI format used by DV camcorders.

Since the MPEG-2 format adopted for the DVD standard is a compressed digital format, there will never be any "uncompressed files" captured on any DVD recorders by definition. The benefit of an HDMI output is to send the original digital signals to the best A/V component for processing and conversion to the displayed video and audio signals.

[iluvJLO]

Ok, so which HDD DVD Recorder should I get then? Hopefully I can get something similiar to my 220 in terms of PQ, and remote/Menu interface. I read the horror stories about certain recorders having HDD failures and such. Or should I wait for the 12bit DAC HDD recorders?

[Frobozz]

My recommendation is to go with the Pioneer DVR-520H. You already know most of the Pioneer way of doing things. Pioneer has 32 different settings for picture quality plus small video adjustments. It easily splits long titles into segments that can be burned across multiple DVDs. It has a High Speed option for making copies of your finalized DVDs and will let you copy unfinalized titles back to the hard drive at high speed. I think my suggestion of creating a "page 2" DVD-RW for your clips that don't fit on the main DVD will get you the quality you want without having to always guess right about the program length. The Pioneer makes doing this fairly easy.

[mr_strong]

i understand your predicament homie, i wanted to know the same things you askin right now. forget what these other guys said about the re-encoding cuz it dont re-encode nothin. if you want to record your show on the hard drive at FINE then rec it to whatever you want to the dvd then its fine it dont re-encode. its just like recording somethin off a TV, it dont go through no 2 step encoding process.

here check out my pics of what i recorded on the hard drive at FINE then i recorded it to SP on my DVD.




now does that look like some re-encoded shit to you? its just like recording off the TV man. i did that wit the 520H

[RottenFoxBreath]

i take it thats us tv ,the quality is pretty poor,compared to pal pictures.all blury n shit.

[iluvJLO]

the quality looks very good to me, but i have a question. Does it matter what video settings you have your TV at? Color, Brightness, Sharpness etc? Does having your TV at a certain setting record onto the recorder? Or does it just record whatever the receiver box signal sends? Because your screenshots colors doesn't look very rich and vibrant.

[steve2713]

mr_strong, all brawn and no .....?

homie, yo yo uhnalysisis isz off. It IS being RE-ENCODED, man. That probably has something to do with why it's not a sharp picture, either. Apparently you don't have a very good understanding of compression or how these machines work. It HAS to RE-ENCODE, it's not possible for it not to. When you record it initially, it encodes the TV feed as MPEG2 video onto your HD, lossy compression video. From there on, any time you change the recording quality, such as copying it onto a disc as SP, you are then RE-ENCODING it to another bitrate. That's what RE-ENCODING IS. ENCODING TWICE, duh... This is best avoided when possible, as MPEG2 is a LOSSY compression - that is, data is lost, there's always going to be a reduction in quality with each encoding to a lossy format, so encoding twice is obviously worse than once. It's similar to JPG images, save a JPG image over and over again as a JPG and the picture will continue to deteriorate with each new encoding/save, because it's a lossy format. Do that with a LOSSLESS compression such as a BMP file and you'll have no quality loss.

BTW, MN31 records at a higher video bitrate than FINE, FYI.

[TomJones]

Well said Steve. I though about a making a reply to strong, but my jive speak isn't very strong. Afraid of a failure to communicate.

One additional point. High speed copying sure is a lot faster than real-time re-encodes.

[mr_strong]

you fools are stupid, stop tryin to be racist up in this. if you look at that pic and think its blurry or whatever, its because its a JPG duh. and there is no re-encoding process, if there was the shit would record in REAL TIME which it dont. so get up off me, im just tryin to help that kid out and yall dumb asses are tryin to start a fight with me. laaaaame

You are in breach of the forum rules and are being issued with a formal warning. Don't try to start argument with stuff like this. Racist? Please don't pull that card here.
/ Moderator lordsmurf

[steve2713]

No racism up in this hizzy, G. I'm just coming correct and representin', foo. You be wrong, yo.

[mr_strong]

some more XP to HD to DVD on SP with NO re-encoding. this is done high speed dub.

[FulciLives]

mr_strong is one dumb ass clueless loser.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

You are in breach of the forum rules and are being issued with a formal warning. C'mon now. You know better than this. Words are not always needed.
/ Moderator lordsmurf

[mr_strong]

yo moms bitch

You are in breach of the forum rules and are being issued with a formal warning.
/ Moderator lordsmurf