On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 11:26 AM, Brian Wood <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:beww@beww.org">beww@beww.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Thursday 25 December 2008 09:10:13 Michael Tiller wrote:<br>
<br>
> So the question is...is there any strategy we could follow that would avoid<br>
> this situation and make things easier for both parties. I'm not sure there<br>
> is but I figured it was worth considering.<br>
<br>
</div>My approach was to just purchase an HD-PVR and a VDPAU-capable video card, put<br>
them on the shelf and wait for the code to become mature enough for the devs<br>
to endorse general users running them. That time will come, I am sure.<br>
<br>
Sometimes the hardest thing to do is nothing.</blockquote><div><br>Agreed. That is definitely an option (that I explicitly listed in a separate but related thread). The problem is that while it is pretty easy to wait when you know the specific duration of your wait, it is much more difficult when the duration is completely unknown.<br>
<br>I've got my HD-PVR set up and can record using "cat /dev/video1 > recording.mpg". Being *so close* makes it that much harder to wait. :-) Which makes me wonder...is there any way to "pervert" an existing V4L recording device to use the HD-PVR? I don't care about the UI, etc. I can hand configure that. Has anybody considered that? Just to be clear, what I'm talking about is hand configuring some other capture device (PVR-150?) but somehow fooling Myth into using that to actually grab content from the HD-PVR. Just curious. :-)<br>
<br>--<br>Mike<br><br></div></div><br>