General comments/observations/questions...
Posted on: Mon, 08/25/2008 - 18:39
tbthomp2
Joined: 2008-08-25
Offline
General comments/observations/questions...
I've read some comments about the Zvbox on other sites. Some of the negative comments left me scratching my head. I'd thought I would comment about them and add my own question here.
One sticking point had to do with using VGA instead of DVI/HDMI as the source. Granted, from a 'videophile' point of view DVI is best. With DVI, the desired illumination for each pixel is transmitted as binary data. VGA on the other hand determines the pixel brightness based on the amplitude at a given point in the scan. Given that VGA is analog, it's susceptible to electrical noise and other forms of analog distortion. These are all valid points for the 'purest' - I guess. However, the VGA cable to the Zvbox box would be pretty short, so I don't see much to be concerned about here. I personally have not been able to tell the difference between DVI and VGA in normal setups. Has anybody else? Under what circumstances/setups might I see such differences? I suppose VGA analog may lend itself better to QAM encoding of digital cable. Would this be a correct assumption? In either case, both VGA and DVI can easily produce the resolutions we're talking about here. Is there any real drawback from using VGA as the source?
Other negative comments revolved around the fact that the box is limited to 720p (future max of 1080i?). I suppose a 'videophile' might insist on 1080p, but for us mere mortals 720p or 1080i should do nicely - don't you think? Most experts will state that you'll have a hard time discerning 720p/1080i from 1080p on screen sizes less than 55 inches. In fact their commentary suggests that springing for the extra expense of 1080p on anything but a large HDTV is a waste. From what I understand, video sources for 1080p are limited anyway (Blue-ray DVD etc.), and are likely to remain that way. So does lacking 1080p constitute a real limitation? If so - why?
Some folks couldn't see how the Zvbox approach was useful - especially given the other available alternatives. I wonder what I might be missing, because it seems to me that the other approaches (Popcorn Hour, Xbox360, Media Extender, etc.) are all limited in some form or fashion. For example, if you like downloading/renting movies online, then your choices with Media Center are Movie Link and Cinemanow. What if I prefer Amazon Unbox or want to checkout Hulu or anybody else for that matter? Sure I can watch local videos (from hard drive or DVD) with Media Center. I can also watch content from the HDTV tuner card. That's about it. It seems that the Zvbox opens up a lot more possibilities - cruising the internet, working with office applications, whatever you can do on a PC. Am I missing something here? Some other drawback with media extenders and the like are that 1) you have to stream the video (via wireless or Cat5), and 2) you have to have a box for each TV. Each of these points has it’s drawbacks. My understanding is that the Xbox360 is quiet loud and undesirable for this application. If one has multiple HDTV's located in the house, the Zvbox approach would be a boon - wouldn't it? Only one box required and no boxes collocated with the TV.
Anyway that's my comments and questions. I find the Zvbox approach to be pretty interesting and I'll be watching to see how all this turns out. Perhaps, an additional/early X-mas gift to myself might be in order.
Hello. I just thought I would add to tbthomp2 comments. I have been involved on various sites about pros/cons of the ZvBox vs various other options (i.e. Media Extenders). One big item I think you miss on when talking about media extenders is price. Most people I have spoken to the biggest road block is spending $500+ on the ZvBox vs $200+ for a media extender. For instance, lets say you only have one HDTV, then to be honest spending $500 may not make sense when you can get much of the functionality (and in the case of the PS3 a blu ray player/game console) for much less. Even if you have 2 HDTVs it might be a close call price wise. You could agrue that there could be additional costs to have an Ethernet connection at each HDTV if there isn't one already (I do not consider wireless streaming an option if you are looking to stream HD), but at the same token there could be an additional cost to run coax to where your PC is (my office at home does not have coax, I just happen to be getting coax run in the coming weeks, so if not for this then I couldn't even consider the ZvBox). Also, you need to consider how your household utilizes the PC. Using the ZvBox essentially locks up the PC. You may have two kids, 1 wants to surf the internet, and the other wants to instead stream a movie. With the ZvBox only one of these can be done at a time. A media extender separates the functionality of the PC from that of the media streaming. Now if the ZvBox was able to localcast more then one channel by creating multiple "windows" on the PC, sweet...
In my mind, here is what you need to consider when deciding to go the Zvbox vs media extender way:
1) How many HDTVs do you have that you would like to stream/localcast to (the more you have, advantage ZvBox)?
2) What is your budget (smaller budget, advantage media extender)?
3) Do you have Cat5/6 wiring at your HDTVs (extender) vs do you have coax cable at your PC (zvBox)?
4) Is it ok to have the PC locked up when someone wants to watch the ZvChannel?
I think if you can answer these 4 questions, it should help guide you in the right direction.
Just to give a little background, I currently own a PC (Windows Vista), Xbox360, PS3, Apple TV, and SageTV HD Media extender, so i have dealt with the ups and downs of media extenders. No ZvBox yet, but that may change soon. I am not touting any one product, as since i have never actually used the ZvBox I am going solely on what I have read in reviews and discussions with Brian at ZeeVee. Just thought I would throw out there my thought process in making a decision.
All valid points. No product/solution is perfect. All have their compromises. If you have only one HDTV (or few), Cat5 available at the TV (some say Wireless N works too), and are ok with the limitations of a media extender - then go for it. Having the PC perform double duty is also a valid point - especially if you only have only one computer for everybody in the house (In my case this would never be a problem. I would get a separate computer for media serving duty if necessary).
I'm not saying that this solution renders all others obsolete. But I think that this solution has a lot of merit on it's own-right. It depends on your personal situation and what has value to you. For me - the things that give it value are:
1) Ability to localcast - simultaneously serve - to multiple HDTV's in the house
2) Only one box required no matter how many TV's are in the house
3) No box required to be collocated with the HDTV. This is especially important when the installation of the HDTV has aesthetic appeal challenges (say hanging on the wall etc.)
4) Unlimited interface to the PC. Whatever you can display/do on the PC - you can display on the HDTV. This vs. limited functionality/access of extenders (Media Center for example).
For me, I think those things mitigate – somewhat - the cost, and give value to, this box.
There are (at least) three different topics in the above posts.
- Extenders vs. the PC
- 1080i,p 720
- VGA vs. DVI
I'll take the first one in this post.....the others shortly.
Regarding Extenders, I think the major difference between what your PC can do and what an extender lets you do is vast. Extenders like the Xbox 360 can only extend whatever Media Center can do. There is a great deal of new content coming to the web every day - very little of it is added to Media Center. That's simply because each content provider has limited resources, and writing to Media Center is additional work - above and beyond the work they have to do to create a web application that everyone (not just Media Center users) can use. The gap between what you can get through Media Center vs. through a full computer will continue to grow every day.
Don't get me wrong about Media Center - I happen to like it, and use it a lot. We have an MCE machine in the kitchen, and use it to watch TV (cable and internet) when we're in that room. However, we also go to Hulu, Amazon, ABC, and check email. I connected a ZvBox to that machine, and now I have all of that capability in the family room, as well as the bedroom.
In regards to vic...
My point exactly - about the Extender vs. PC issue.
I'm not knocking Media Center for what it is. I'm just pointing out that 1) it's all you get with a media extender) and 2) it's very limited in comparison to the full funcionality of a PC.
dbone1026 covered a lot of the salient points. I couldn't have said it better myself.
As far as the VGA versus DVI question was concerned, we spent a lot of time internally debating the best interface to use. We landed on VGA as the least-common-denominator and the interface having the broadest existing set of connectors out there. That being said, I am sure there are videophiles out there that will point out the subtle difference in video quality, but in our experience, and for our resolutions, VGA works OK. We will certainly look at DVI in the future, but no committment as to when that might show up.
Obviously I am predjudiced, but as soon as you have more than a single HDTV that you want to hook up, the ZvBox is the best solution. In my case I had an HTPC (running SAGETV) connected directly to the big screen TV. With the ZvBox, now I have access to the content of that HTPC on any TV in the house, and it actually is inspring me to get MORE TVs - in the kitchen, bedrooms, etc. Small HDTVs are getting cheap enough, and they are small enough that you can populate them in places you never could have with CRTs. Nothing is cooler than running a slideshow or video all over the house during a party.
Just saying it that way - "VGA works OK" - when discussing the suitability of using VGA as a source will probably cause the 'videophile' to go ape. I can hear it now: "What do you mean by that?" "Just OK?” “Does that mean barely acceptable?"
Like I've said, I've not come across an instance where I've been able to see the difference between VGA and DVI, especially at the resolutions I normally use.
Do you see any real gains in performance (whether perceptible, or not) by looking into DVI in the future?
I can't really comment on the 720p vs 1080p, as I have only ever owned 720p/1080i tvs. I am actually getting a 58' 1080p tv in the next few weeks, so I guess I should have a good comparison then (I would think that maybe the main benefit of the 1080p for such a large screen would be better clarity/less pixelation when sitting up close, but hopefully I have no intention of sitting that close!!!) I would classify the ZvBox as a "high end" product based on its price vs most of the standard media extenders out there. With that, potential customers are more likely to be videophiles or audiophiles, so I am sure that is why the DVI vs VGA and 1080p vs 720p debate has come about. I would bet that if the ZvBox was priced more like the Popcornhour or AppleTV you would hear a lot less chatter about this. I am not making an issue about the price of the ZvBox as it is what it is (and there is definitely nothing wrong with be classified high end), just pointing out that price points in many ways determine the type of customers and their "critiques".
For me, when it was just my wife and I, we really only used one TV, so a media extender served its purpose. Now that we have a 1 year old son, things have definitely changed. I put all his dvds on my pc, so ideally I would want to be able to watch these at any tv in the house. Not all my tvs have an ethernet connection close by, and really it would be a hassle to continuously have to unplug and move an extender. That is what led to my interest in the ZvBox.
My one concern (not really a huge concern) is power management. I would asume that the ZvBox is an "always on" device (if not in use though I would assume that the power use would be negligible). It would be great if I could use it with my HP Mediasmart Server and not my PC since I leave the server on 24/7 and the PC on only when in use, but I don't think this would be practical, as all the transcoding of content via the ZvBox would be done at the PC level (the server would not have enough juice to handle this). Can the ZvBox wake up the PC from sleep/hibernation/shutdown mode or do you have to physically turn on the PC first? Best example I can think of, I would like to wake up in the morning, and if I feel like using the ZvBox just grab the ZvRemote, activate everything without having to physically go turn on my PC, and without having to leave my PC on at all times to have instant access to the ZvChannel.
Cheers
Regarding power issues: There is a PC Power button on the ZV remote control that can be used to put your computer into 'sleep' mode and take it out again, just as if you had hit the 'sleep' button on your PC.
What the 'sleep' button does on your computer is determined by the Control Panel --> Power Options --> Advanced --> "When I press the sleep button on my computer" pull down. You can configure it to do nothing, ask what to do, stand by, hibernate, or shut down (at least on my XP machine, Vista is slightly different). You probably want to have it sleep, or perhaps hibernate, but not shut down if you want the remote to be able to wake up the PC.
One minor point is that sometimes the BIOS has a configuration item having to do with powering down USB devices upon sleep, or allowing USB devices to 'wake up' the computer. You may have to drill into your computer's BIOS settings to make sure that a USB attached device (our remote control) continues to have power when the PC is in sleep mode, and that it can 'wake up' the computer as well.
Eric
The ZvBox is one of those "always-on" devices. The nominal power consumption should be roughly 10 watts - peak around 12 watts.
We debated being able to shut off the device when the PC was not actively transmitting, but have found that there are a number of televisions that continuously scan and update their channel plans. If the ZvBox were to stop transmitting, the TV could "lose" the channel, requiring a rescan to be add it back to the lineup - not something we want folks to have to do on a regular basis.