As a medium for archiving video
cassettes,
I think it is feasible. There is no
point storing VHS tapes electronically in any higher quality that VCD, I
think
1Gb per movie is probably about right, so 300 movies would cost around £320
to
store over two 160Gb drives.
As a video server for DVD's I agree
quality
vs cost vs space just
does
not make it feasible for home use which is why I guess we still only see it
in
hotels.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Watt
[mailto:kennwatt@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 19 April 2002
10:53
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Video
Server, was [OT] Interesting HD article
The only problem here is HDD space in
the
long term, this was discussed on another group recently. If you think 1Gb
per
movie @ VCD quality then you soon easily eat up and surpass even the
largest of
drives available today. If you want a decent quality then you can easily
double
or triple that figure and, for me, VCD quality just doesn't cut
it!
In two years time...who knows it will
probably be the way to go, but for now I reckon that it's impractical
although feasible.
K.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stainton-James, Mark
(London)
[mailto:stainmar@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 19 April 2002
10:29
To: 'ukha_d@xxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Video
Server,
was [OT] Interesting HD article
Surely
by far the easiest way of doing this today is just to use Showshifter or
Tivo
with no subscription as a video server, that way the hard graft of software
development and hardware matching has already been
done.
A
video
server in my mind is financially almost there. In disk space terms alone,
say
VCD (no point doing more for VHS) quality and an average of 120minutes per
film
I reckon that is about 1Gb per film, or in cash terms £1 per film for
direct
access and digital storage.
.
For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subscribe: ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
Unsubscribe:
ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
List owner:
ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo! Terms of
Service.