Mailing List Archive

> > http://www.nop.org/inkling/dtv/
>
> > This is where I read the LED status being in the driver. He patched
> > it to be feed out with the signal strength. Then his pchdtvr program
> > picks it up. Nice program BTW. He claims he doesn't use Myth, oh well.
> > I patched this against the 2.6.7 kernel and have had great success....
> > No sure it really differs much from the 2.6.6 patch on pchdtv.com
> > functionally, ( diff between them spits out a lot )
>
> The documentation on that site seems to indicate the LED status monitoring is
> the only significant addition. Your mention of it got me thinking about
> looking at the lights on my card while trying to tune NBC and FOX (both right
> around 50). I took a look at the lights while running the signal program, and
> with readings in the 45-52 range, the green light was locked in solid, so I
> went ahead and manually edited my db to set the low-end threshold to 45
> (since the slider only goes down to 50), and wouldn't you know it, even with
> signal strength fluctuating between 45-47 (on FOX), I can watch them just
> fine.

Well I'm glad this discussion ended up to be so helpful :)

Looking to the future.. What should happen here is the reed-solomon
failures ( red LED blinks ) should become in someway part of the
actual pcHDTV drivers. MythTV should then use this information to
detect whether or not to allow a channel to be brought up. Signal
strength could still be used, it would just have to be made more
consistant with the reed-solomon decoding. Consistant enough that the
signal strength being above a number, say 50, means that there are no
reed-solomon failures. Again, I believe there is a normalization
equation using frequency that can be used here.


--
Anthony Vito
anthony.vito@gmail.com

I think the v4l2 signal interface in the 2.6.x drivers changed the
thresholds range a bit. I don't mind patching the low end threshold to
40% if it is working for people.

-- Daniel

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004, Jarod Wilson wrote:

]On Tuesday 12 October 2004 12:58, Anthony Vito wrote:
]> Jarod Wrote:
]> > here (48), and also works fine at 50. ABC, CBS, WB and PBS all come in
]> > around 60-70, no problems with any of them.
]>
]> No WB here :'( All I want to watch is gilmore girls! ( yes, my only
]> source of content is OTA digital, no cable, no NTSC. )
]
]Heh. The only thing I don't get in HD now is UPN, but I think I have slight
]interest in maybe one show on that network...
]
]> > Are you running a straight-up pcHDTV 1.3 driver, or are you using the
]> > 1.4ulmo patches also?
]>
]> I have to give credit where credit is due. I use the 2.6.7 patch and
]> videodev.h found here.
]>
]> http://www.nop.org/inkling/dtv/
]
]Huh, cool.
]
]> This is where I read the LED status being in the driver. He patched
]> it to be feed out with the signal strength. Then his pchdtvr program
]> picks it up. Nice program BTW. He claims he doesn't use Myth, oh well.
]> I patched this against the 2.6.7 kernel and have had great success....
]> No sure it really differs much from the 2.6.6 patch on pchdtv.com
]> functionally, ( diff between them spits out a lot )
]
]The documentation on that site seems to indicate the LED status monitoring is
]the only significant addition. Your mention of it got me thinking about
]looking at the lights on my card while trying to tune NBC and FOX (both right
]around 50). I took a look at the lights while running the signal program, and
]with readings in the 45-52 range, the green light was locked in solid, so I
]went ahead and manually edited my db to set the low-end threshold to 45
](since the slider only goes down to 50), and wouldn't you know it, even with
]signal strength fluctuating between 45-47 (on FOX), I can watch them just
]fine.
]
]

On Monday 18 October 2004 05:58, Daniel Thor Kristjansson wrote:
> I think the v4l2 signal interface in the 2.6.x drivers changed the
> thresholds range a bit. I don't mind patching the low end threshold to
> 40% if it is working for people.

I'm not certain how low I can go before it goes completely haywire, but
definitely still good in the 45-50 range. The weather was pretty bad here
yesterday, so my signal kept plummeting down a ways below, and video got
pretty bad during the baseball games at times, but I think it was driving the
signal strength down by double-digits at times. So I would say 45 is
definitely a safe number for me, but with the warning already present, I
don't think 40 is unreasonably low.

--
Jarod C. Wilson, RHCE
jcw@wilsonet.com

Got a question? Read this first...
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
MythTV, Fedora Core & ATrpms documentation:
http://wilsonet.com/mythtv/
MythTV Searchable Mailing List Archive
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 08:32:04 -0400, Doug Larrick <doug@ties.org> wrote:
> Joe Barnhart wrote:
> > I would love to hear from anyone who is playing
> > streams at 1920x1080i with no stutters or poor video
> > quality. What kind of system are you using? Xv or
> > XvMC? Intel or AMD? Video card?
>
> Works quite well for me. P4, 2.8 GHz, OSS emulation on ALSA, no XvMC,
> nVidia FX5200.

Does your processor have hyperthreading? What's the bus speed?

Thanks,
Lane

Lane Schwartz wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 08:32:04 -0400, Doug Larrick <doug@ties.org> wrote:
>
>>Joe Barnhart wrote:
>>
>>>I would love to hear from anyone who is playing
>>>streams at 1920x1080i with no stutters or poor video
>>>quality. What kind of system are you using? Xv or
>>>XvMC? Intel or AMD? Video card?
>>
>>Works quite well for me. P4, 2.8 GHz, OSS emulation on ALSA, no XvMC,
>>nVidia FX5200.
>
>
> Does your processor have hyperthreading? What's the bus speed?

Yes, HT. 2.6 kernel to take advantage of it. 800 MHz FSB.

-Doug
_______________________________________________
mythtv-users mailing list
mythtv-users@mythtv.org
http://mythtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mythtv-users

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 08:58:31 -0400 (EDT), Daniel Thor Kristjansson
<danielk@mrl.nyu.edu> wrote:
>
> I think the v4l2 signal interface in the 2.6.x drivers changed the
> thresholds range a bit. I don't mind patching the low end threshold to
> 40% if it is working for people.
>
> -- Daniel
>

Bringing down the threshold for now is probably a good idea. Thanks
for the offer :) . Without being able to normalize the signal
strength across all channels, the best solution I see for the
intermediate term is to offer a threshold on a per-channel basis. ( is
that already a feature?? if it is, someone slap me upside the head. )

--
Anthony Vito
anthony.vito@gmail.com