watch TV on Apple Studio Display?

Is it feasible to watch live TV through a Mac on an Apple Studio (17")
Display (flat panel)?

This is to save space (and cost) of a TV in a room where the Mac is
going. I'm not talking about EyeTV or other low resolution solutions,
but using the Studio Display as a good TV monitor.

I assume this would require some PCI card with a cable input and a
tuner and some software that would generate a good picture on the flat
panel display, and with which it wouldn't be hard to change channels
(a remote control that could talk to the Mac would be nice).

The flat panel is on a 450 MHz G4 (AGP/Sawtooth with DVI out)
currently running Jaguar.

I guess another possibility would be a separate TV tuner with DVI out
(and no monitor), but then I'd need a DVI KVM switch too, running the
price up.

Or maybe a separate TV tuner with A/V out and a PCI card with A/V in
and appropriate software.

Any suggestions?

Thanks,
Martin

Hugh Wolf <> writes:

> On 10 Nov 2003, Martin Frost me at stanford daht edu wrote:
> > Is it feasible to watch live TV through a Mac on an Apple Studio (17")
> > Display (flat panel)?
>
> Sure, but don't expect the image to look as good at full size as it
> would on a 17" lcd tv.

Why not? Because of pixel speed? Or what?

> The best solution for viewing is, as you suggest, a pci card, and the
> only one I know of that runs in osx is the Televio:
>
> http://www.drbott.com/prod/db.lasso?code=6202-TLVO
>
> The web page says it runs in 10.2. I haven't heard any reports one
> way or the other re: 10.3.

Thanks, I'll look into it.

> You could also go with something like a Formac TVR, which I believe
> gives you full, uncompressed video via firewire. But it's a lot more
> money, so if you don't need the TiVO-like features, it's a waste. If
> you _do_ want to use it as a recorder, you need a sizable hard-drive,
> definitely something much bigger than the factory-supplied drive in
> your Sawtooth.

I already have a much bigger disk in the Sawtooth, but I don't really
want to spend the money for the Formac TVR (and the disk isn't *that*
big). (How much disk space does the Formac use per hour of video?)

> EyeTV is OK for viewing if you're not fussy, it's not expensive, its
> TiVO-ish features are well implemented, and the recordings don't
> require much space. This is what I'm using on my Sawtooth+17" lcd.
> For sure it's a very visible compromise in image quality. But for me
> the other features make it worthwhile. And, let's face it, as
> interesting as modern TV can be in some ways (writing especially),
> cinematography is very rarely a strong point in this medium, and art
> direction only occasionally so. I don't feel like I'm missing much
> that matters by watching a degraded image. Btw the Keyspan usb remote
> control works pretty well with EyeTV.

Yeah, I use EyeTV on my HD Cinema Display. Pretty low quality video
at any reasonble size, but handy for skipping parts of programs and
indeed uses not too much disk space (1 GB/hour). It's also painful to
channel surf with EyeTV, since it take a few seconds to change
channels because of the compression/buffering.

> One other point I should mention. I don't know about your Sawtooth,
> but the fan noise on mine is not neglible. This, for me, has turned
> out to be the biggest single problem with using my Mac as a TV.
> Something to keep in mind.

A good point. Right now the Sawtooth is next to a noisier PC but it
will soon be in a quieter room and there it might be more annoying
when we're just watching TV. I'm trying to avoid having both a 17"
LCD TV and a 17" Studio display taking up space on the desk if the
latter could be used for the former (of course, it'd be nice to save
some of the cost of the TV as well).

Thanks for your comments.

Martin

In article <>,
Martin Frost me at stanford daht edu <> wrote:

> (How much disk space does the Formac use per hour of video?)

In a recent email from Formac's presales support, I was told that it's
13GB/hr. However, I think it permits you to caputure at a reduced screen
res for smaller files.

--
CC

On 2003-11-16, Martin Frost me at stanford daht edu
<> wrote:
>> Sure, but don't expect the image to look as good at full size as it
>> would on a 17" lcd tv.
>
> Why not? Because of pixel speed? Or what?

I don't know the technical reason. I'm reporting this only as an
empirical observation. You can probably get a real answer on one of
the comp.sys.mac.hardware groups.



> I already have a much bigger disk in the Sawtooth, but I don't really
> want to spend the money for the Formac TVR (and the disk isn't *that*
> big). (How much disk space does the Formac use per hour of video?)

A _lot_, something like 11GB for uncompressed video.



> Yeah, I use EyeTV on my HD Cinema Display. Pretty low quality video
> at any reasonble size, but handy for skipping parts of programs and
> indeed uses not too much disk space (1 GB/hour). It's also painful to
> channel surf with EyeTV, since it take a few seconds to change
> channels because of the compression/buffering.

I agree with this assessment. For me the compromise in video quality
is worth making, but there's no question that it's seriously
degraded (and that channel switching is very slow).



Btw here's the Televio home url:

http://www.meilenstein.de/

The Dr Bott url I posted earlier is for sales only,

In article <AnMtb.16837$Dw6.74860@attbi_s02>,
Hugh Wolf <> wrote:

> On 2003-11-16, Martin Frost me at stanford daht edu
> <> wrote:
> >> Sure, but don't expect the image to look as good at full size as it
> >> would on a 17" lcd tv.
> >
> > Why not? Because of pixel speed? Or what?
>
> I don't know the technical reason. I'm reporting this only as an
> empirical observation. You can probably get a real answer on one of
> the comp.sys.mac.hardware groups.

I can't imagine why. I watch DVDs on my 22" ACD from a distance of 1 1/2
feet and they look fantastic to me.
--
Charlie Dilks
Newark, DE USA

Martin Frost me at stanford daht edu wrote:

> > Sure, but don't expect the image to look as good at full size as it
> > would on a 17" lcd tv.
>
> Why not? Because of pixel speed? Or what?

One of the others already mentioned the reason. It has to do with
the interaction between adjoining spots on the analog display (portions of
each scan line) which vary in somewhat smooth gradations (analog signal), the
interactions between successive scans of the screen, and the latency
effect of light hitting the retina (flicker fusion rate). Some of these
analog effects are lost upon digitising, so the analog voltage
signal will actually look worse on enlarged on a digitised screen to the
same size as the original CRT analog display.

On 2003-11-11, Kevin McMurtrie <> wrote:
> If NTSC is all you're
> interested in get a cheap firewire video input adaptor.

Does anyone make such a device with osx-compatible drivers? How cheap
is cheap? Of course you'd need an external tuner with a device like
this. An old vcr would work but wouldn't exactly be convenient to
use.


For reference the Televio pci card is $150, with tv and fm tuners, two
antenna inputs, composite and S-video inputs, audio line-level input,
osx viewing and tuning software, QT integration for recording, and a
remote control.

I'm not pushing this item, in fact I don't own one myself. I'm just
wondering whether it's really possible to accomplish this task as
effectively at a lower cost. If it is, with a cheap firewire device,
I'm very much interested in hearing more details.

In article <>,
George Williams <> wrote:

> Martin Frost me at stanford daht edu wrote:
>
> > > Sure, but don't expect the image to look as good at full size as it
> > > would on a 17" lcd tv.
> >
> > Why not? Because of pixel speed? Or what?
>
> One of the others already mentioned the reason. It has to do with
> the interaction between adjoining spots on the analog display (portions of
> each scan line) which vary in somewhat smooth gradations (analog signal), the
> interactions between successive scans of the screen, and the latency
> effect of light hitting the retina (flicker fusion rate). Some of these
> analog effects are lost upon digitising, so the analog voltage
> signal will actually look worse on enlarged on a digitised screen to the
> same size as the original CRT analog display.

Am I correct in assuming that that wouldn't be a factor if you have
satellite TV, or digital cable?
I haven't seen scan lines on my TVs since my cable company went to
digital a few years ago.
--
Charlie Dilks
Newark, DE USA

Charlie Dilks wrote:

> Am I correct in assuming that that wouldn't be a factor if you have
> satellite TV, or digital cable?
> I haven't seen scan lines on my TVs since my cable company went to
> digital a few years ago.

Give it a try and let us know. Digital TV transmission (and HDTV)
are what hi-res computer monitors need. The problem is that you
have a "cable box" that converts the digital signal to analog for
your television, as there is still no digital t.v. standard AFAIK.
So you would be stuck with an awful little analog-to-digital
reconversion if you tried to view it on your computer monitor.

George Williams <> writes:

> Charlie Dilks wrote:
>
> > Am I correct in assuming that that wouldn't be a factor if you have
> > satellite TV, or digital cable?
> > I haven't seen scan lines on my TVs since my cable company went to
> > digital a few years ago.
>
> Give it a try and let us know. Digital TV transmission (and HDTV)
> are what hi-res computer monitors need. The problem is that you
> have a "cable box" that converts the digital signal to analog for
> your television, as there is still no digital t.v. standard AFAIK.
> So you would be stuck with an awful little analog-to-digital
> reconversion if you tried to view it on your computer monitor.

But wouldn't you have the same analog-to-digital conversion if you
watched TV (from analog cable) on any LCD TV? I'm in fact considering
either an LCD TV or watching TV on the Apple 17" Studio Display.

Martin