> Playing games with pre-buffering is probably a waste of time.
> It's difficult to say where the person will go next (e.g. Change from
> watching Channel 5 with Ch+-, Fav+-, Prev, '61', etc). A much more useful
> approach was discussed a few weeks ago. It's possible (with an
> ivtv-devic
But oddly, just reposted it yesterday in some other myth discussion
areas. Something whose time has come -- if it weren't for the fact
that part of "getting" a PVR is to realize that channel surfing
is a silly idea.
That's been the sentiment of most people on the list. Bottom line
is once you'v
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 06:49:33PM -0600, Dan Littlejohn wrote:
> Noob question, but why is it necessary to have the buffer require a 2
> second start time?
>
> Why could it not just drop frames at a rate not easily noticed until
> the buffer was full? That would solve the surfing problem in a
>
Noob question, but why is it necessary to have the buffer require a 2
second start time?
Why could it not just drop frames at a rate not easily noticed until
the buffer was full? That would solve the surfing problem in a
simpler way.
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 16:10:24 -0800, Brad Templeton
<[EMAIL PRO
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 05:30:50PM -0500, Michael Starks wrote:
> I had an idea about how the delay might be reduced when changing
> channels. In a 2+ tuner system, can one tuner "leapfrog" the other and
> start buffering the next or previous channel, depending on the direction
> the user is surfi
Not only that, but this feature would become moot if one tuner were
recording a program :-/
Dan Ferris wrote:
You would have to enable/disable this on the fly, for channel surfing.
it's obviously only workable for incremential surfing in one
direction (going up, or going down).
This would al
I'm not sure how popular having favorites set. But what if the other
tuner tuned to the next favorite channel up or down depending on which
direction you are going. Either that, or have a scan mode that would
change through the channels every 5 or 10 seconds, when you are in
that mode it then uses
You would have to enable/disable this on the fly, for channel surfing.
it's obviously only workable for incremential surfing in one
direction (going up, or going down).
This would also be useful for switching channels back and forth (aka,
hitting the 'last' button)... but you would probably be re
Hello,
Michael Starks wrote:
I had an idea about how the delay might be reduced when changing
channels. In a 2+ tuner system, can one tuner "leapfrog" the other and
start buffering the next or previous channel, depending on the direction
the user is surfing?
For example, I start at channel three.
> I had an idea about how the delay might be reduced when changing
> channels. In a 2+ tuner system, can one tuner "leapfrog" the other and
> start buffering the next or previous channel, depending on the direction
> the user is surfing?
>
> For example, I start at channel three.
> Tuner two star
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:30:50 -0500, Michael Starks
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I had an idea about how the delay might be reduced when changing
> channels. In a 2+ tuner system, can one tuner "leapfrog" the other and
> start buffering the next or previous channel, depending on the direction
> the
I had an idea about how the delay might be reduced when changing
channels. In a 2+ tuner system, can one tuner "leapfrog" the other and
start buffering the next or previous channel, depending on the direction
the user is surfing?
For example, I start at channel three.
Tuner two starts buffering
12 matches
Mail list logo
