After some more finagling, I finally found a setting that does the trick for me:
If you recall on the previous post, I mentioned that whenever I tried to transcode a .wtv file directly, the expression encoder GUI would not display an image preview. In addition to the lack of a preview (and thus, lack of editing), the resulting files would always have the sound out of sync.This led me in the direction of de-muxing the media using graphstudio, re-muxing into a .ts file, then using the .ts file as the source. This approach yielded bad results in expression studio. The resulting file would not have any sound, even though the imported .ts file would be detected as having a sound track, and it would play the sound track fine on VLC. The only workable setting I had was transcoding using handbrake. It did the job well, except that handbrake has no cutting capability.
I have Expression encoder 4 now set up to use the ffdshow decoders and the haali media splitter, and I disabled the AC3 filter. This conflagration proved to be the correct one for me. Not only can I see the video in the preview window, but I actually produce wmv files with WMA pro 5.1 channel surround! I'd say try installing MS Expression encoder 4, ffdshow and haali media splitter. That alone is probably enough to get the job done.
I must also mention that I wound up installing the HD-PVR bundled total media extreme during my testing, but no other filters or codecs show up on the expression encoder options, so I presume the installation has no effect in my success.
I still feel this approach is overkill for what I really want (rescale the video and mux into a different container), but it is a workable solution. I'll report if I find something better... :)
Monday, August 2, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
HD-PVR: Setting the cap quality under Windows MCE
I forgot to post this update a while back,
If the default quality settings are not to your liking, there's a way to change them, but you need GraphStudio or another DirectShow filter tool.
The easiest way to get to the correct spot is to use a .wtv file to load the filter graph. Then, right-click on the PVR module to get to the properties, and change it to the bitrate you want. Click OK to save, and that's it.
If the default quality settings are not to your liking, there's a way to change them, but you need GraphStudio or another DirectShow filter tool.
The easiest way to get to the correct spot is to use a .wtv file to load the filter graph. Then, right-click on the PVR module to get to the properties, and change it to the bitrate you want. Click OK to save, and that's it.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Windows 7 MCE + HD-PVR + transcode = Neverending frustration
Recently, I decided to make some upgrades to my HTPC portfolio, and as always with these things, the experience has been painful. The story always goes about the same with these things: if you want to do something slightly out of the predetermined storyline, your're simply fucked and SOL.
I got myself a shiny new HD-PVR from Hauppauge. The device is an HD capture device that relies on the component video outputs of whatever you wish to capture. it captures video as AVHCD (H.264) and audio as AC3. I'm using it at the moment as a supplement to my TV company's DVR because the damn thing has a tiny drive (120G) in relative terms for HD content, which is all I care about.
The device does the trick as advertised, but when you want to make it work under the umbrella of Windows Media Center, there are a few hoops you need to jump through. There's a beta set of drivers on the Hauppauge website that works fine for me. My one major issue with it is that the resulting file (1080 with AC3) seems to be a little too much for my HTPC to handle (although it's supposed to have enough video ans CPU horsepower to support blu-ray video, but I digress), and I would love to rescale the captured file down to 720p. This is where my deviation from the norm happens, and this is where I get severely punished for it...
When the HD-PVR is connected to MCE, the captured files are saved in the MS-only wtv container format. This container format along with the video codec makes working with the recorded files almost impossible. Most of the usual suspects (Handbrake, Avisynth, Avidemux) do not understand that container type. There's another ms format, but the conversion is only permitted when the recording compression is MPEG2. Since the HD-PVR does not record in MPEG2, I cannot convert to the other, friendlier format...
lots of googling and forum reads pointed to some alternatives: Microsoft Live movie maker and Expression encoder.
Live Movie Maker is a pretty simple app to use, but the default encoding profiles are very limited. The latest beta version from Live wave 4 allows you to define your own profiles, which is very nice. However, the application only allows the use of the windows media codec 9, which means only stereo sound, and only WMV files. Another thing that turns people off is the fact that the installation drags some other components of the windows Live bundle that honestly have nothing to do with the movie maker.
I gave it a try anyways, but the deal killer was sound severely lagging the video. Scratch that one...
I read on some AVS forums that Expression encoder supports the container and the compression format, and the commercial version ($50) allows you to save as mp4, and it also supports windows media audio codec pro 10, which can save 5.1 and 7.1 audio. I downloaded the free version 4 and gave it a try. The UI is very polished and it allows a little more editing control than Movie Maker.
The problem with Expression encoder 4 is that the source video can be loaded, and encoded, but the source video does not show on the preview window. This makes any kind of editing impossible. The closest thing one can do is to play the original, note the cut points by hand, and enter them in the clips property window. If you've ever done any kind of video editing, you know this is a futile exercise. one of my encoding attempts using 5.1 produced a file that had no sound when I played it back on my PC. The media property window showed the Windows Media 5.1 as I expected, but I got nothing. I didn't bother to check it on the MCE system because my PC is has a 5.1 setup, and the original plays correctly.
More googling and forum reads yielded some other options:
A) 3 steps,
- Dump the video and audio streams using GraphStudio.
- Put them back together (MUX) using TsMuxer as a transport stream (.ts) file
- Transcode using handbrake or some other editor that understands .ts files.
As kludgey as this sounds, it is remarkably simple. It requires some level of understanding most people don't have, but could easily acquire. I'll post a recipe for this later.
This yields a file with all the right things in it. Handbrake is more than happy to process the file. This is, however, a 3-step process, and does not allow for any video cuts other than at the beginning and end.
B) Install a media splitter that understands .ts files, so Expression Encoder can load the file. for this, I used the haali media splitter and the AC3 filter for the audio decoding. I also installed ffdshow, but I thing you can skip that step.
Remember how I mentioned earlier that Expression Encoder does not show the video preview when working with the .wtv file? It it more than happy to show it to me using this method! That is one of the more frustrating aspects of this endeavor. The video and audio are identical to the .wtv file, but they're inside a different container. That's it! how come the MS container does not work in an MS product???? Shenanigans!!!!
This approach worked exactly once for me. Every subsequent attempt always ends the same way: the job fails after a little while. I now cannot seek through the imported video without locking up Expression Encoder. I probably made the fatal sin of uninstalling the software and re-installing it... These codecs are so sensitive that one false move, and you're fucked... :(
So for now, my only available compromise is option A, and living with the uncut original. Cutting out commercials is really not that big of a deal for me because I'm not really interested in archiving the recordings. The main motivation for me was saving space.
I also heard of Format Factory. I will give it a shot and update.
Do you know of any .ts or .wtv editors that understand the HD-PVR format and don't cost an arm and a leg? If you've read this far, you know I'm not shy to try something free that's not too convoluted :)
Later,
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Sammy's at the Longwood: What happened?
If you've lived in the Boston area for a long while, and had to spend any time around the medical area, you remember Sammy's kebab cart on Francis street, just in front of the Brigham and Women's hospital. The food was the student's best friend. It was delicious and relatively cheap.
Many many years later, I found myself in the area and now Sammy's has grown into a proper place in the Longwood food court behind Dana Farber.
With good memories and a better appreciation for middle-eastern food, I head over and order some of my favorites: Lamb Shawarma , Mujedara, and Falafel with tahini sauce.
Having tasted all three, I can deduce one of two possibilities: Either my taste for middle eastern food has evolved, or Sammy's has gone down at terminal velocity.
Having tasted both dry and wet versions of Mujedara (from Byblos and Cafe Barada, respectively), Sammy's was neither. While present, I could not taste any of the key ingredients in the dish (lentils and onions), but instead I tasted the cucumber dressing they put on top of it for some reason. I like the dressing, mind you, but not on this dish. It over-powered everything else, so I ended up discarding the vast majority of it. My favorite type is the wet type, and from Cafe Barada in Cambridge. It is creamy, and the lentil flavor is just perfect.
The two key characteristics of Falafel that I love are the crunchy outside and the moist inside. Sammy's was the exact antithesis: soggy and dry. Here again, my recommendation is Cafe Barada. They make then in the traditional dual half-moon shape (think very large skittles). They are crispy on the outside and moist on the inside. Some other shops make them crispy, but usually kind of greasy. Barada's are very light and I think just lovely.
The Shawarma tasted like stewed lamb strips rather than the slow roasted goodness I am used to. The Lamb tasted overcooked (not in a good way) and while edible, it was definitely not what I consider good. The best one I've had so far is actually from a Greek place in Newton called Farm grille. Try them and see for yourself. They're non-traditional by the fact that theirs is actual sliced lamb rather than the usual meatloaf-like base.
I admit: this might be the traditional case of reality not living up to the memory. It was a let-down and I will adjust my expectations next time. I think for a "joint", the place is good. Just don't expect it to become your benchmark for middle eastern food.
Later,
Many many years later, I found myself in the area and now Sammy's has grown into a proper place in the Longwood food court behind Dana Farber.
With good memories and a better appreciation for middle-eastern food, I head over and order some of my favorites: Lamb Shawarma , Mujedara, and Falafel with tahini sauce.
Having tasted all three, I can deduce one of two possibilities: Either my taste for middle eastern food has evolved, or Sammy's has gone down at terminal velocity.
Having tasted both dry and wet versions of Mujedara (from Byblos and Cafe Barada, respectively), Sammy's was neither. While present, I could not taste any of the key ingredients in the dish (lentils and onions), but instead I tasted the cucumber dressing they put on top of it for some reason. I like the dressing, mind you, but not on this dish. It over-powered everything else, so I ended up discarding the vast majority of it. My favorite type is the wet type, and from Cafe Barada in Cambridge. It is creamy, and the lentil flavor is just perfect.
The two key characteristics of Falafel that I love are the crunchy outside and the moist inside. Sammy's was the exact antithesis: soggy and dry. Here again, my recommendation is Cafe Barada. They make then in the traditional dual half-moon shape (think very large skittles). They are crispy on the outside and moist on the inside. Some other shops make them crispy, but usually kind of greasy. Barada's are very light and I think just lovely.
The Shawarma tasted like stewed lamb strips rather than the slow roasted goodness I am used to. The Lamb tasted overcooked (not in a good way) and while edible, it was definitely not what I consider good. The best one I've had so far is actually from a Greek place in Newton called Farm grille. Try them and see for yourself. They're non-traditional by the fact that theirs is actual sliced lamb rather than the usual meatloaf-like base.
I admit: this might be the traditional case of reality not living up to the memory. It was a let-down and I will adjust my expectations next time. I think for a "joint", the place is good. Just don't expect it to become your benchmark for middle eastern food.
Later,
Living with a 3G microcell: an update.
A quick update on the Micro cell:
As many others have mentioned in the AT&T forums, the micro cell is not all that... If you happen to have some coverage (no matter how small) around your place, your phone will happily attempt to hand-off the call from your micro-cell to the macro-cell, causing your call to be dropped. No warning, no (good) reason. The micro cell can accept a hand-off from a macro cell, but the opposite is not true.
This makes for an extremely annoying and disappointing user experience. Supposedly, Cisco (the manufacturers of the micro cell) are working on a fix, but for now it's still on a "coming soon" stage.
One of the suggestions is to get a new SIM card for the phone, which I haven't done just yet. I will update once I do that. Knowing that I coughed up 150 bux for a beta product is not a good feeling, but that's one of the perils of early adoption...
Later,
As many others have mentioned in the AT&T forums, the micro cell is not all that... If you happen to have some coverage (no matter how small) around your place, your phone will happily attempt to hand-off the call from your micro-cell to the macro-cell, causing your call to be dropped. No warning, no (good) reason. The micro cell can accept a hand-off from a macro cell, but the opposite is not true.
This makes for an extremely annoying and disappointing user experience. Supposedly, Cisco (the manufacturers of the micro cell) are working on a fix, but for now it's still on a "coming soon" stage.
One of the suggestions is to get a new SIM card for the phone, which I haven't done just yet. I will update once I do that. Knowing that I coughed up 150 bux for a beta product is not a good feeling, but that's one of the perils of early adoption...
Later,
Monday, June 7, 2010
AT&T 3G Microcell on a FIOS network. Pitfalls to avoid.
If you recently bought a 3G microcell, and your internal network is not one of the usual router defaults like 192.168.0.x or 192.168.1.x, beware: the 3G microcell seems to be a little picky about those...
In my case, I am on FIOS with an internal network with that's neither of the above (192.168.100.x), using a Linux box for both DHCP and DNS, and forwarding a few services to an internal box. I bought the thing, did the online pre-registration, and started the connection. No matter what, the thing would not connect. Besides the fact that they want attempt cycles of 90 minutes, there is nothing that one can check on the damn box to know what's really happening. :(
After checking both the FIOS and the ATT&T forums, it seemed that the best setup is to configure the microcell IP to be reserved, and set that IP to be the DMZ (to bypass any firewall issues). still didn't work...
I found a list of required ports for the thing, which include:
Even though it was already in a DMZ, I set the forwarding rules for the ports. Still, nothing. Called the tech support line and gave them the whole list of things I've done. He had no more ideas...
Finally, I found another post in the FIOS forums that simply said: "I had to reset the firewall to factory defaults, and it worked".
I took the plunge and did the same. Which, by the way, includes a default IP numbering based on 192.168.1.x. Reserved the IP for the thing, set it as a DMZ, and it worked. Not believing that something as dumb as a numbering difference could cause the problem, I set the router back to a 100 based IP, going through the same process to reserve the IP for the unit and setting it as the DMZ. Reboot everybody, and immediately stops working! Revert back to a 1.x IP, and everything works again...
So, my solution was the difficult one: renumber the entire internal network to the 192.168.1.x, and reconfigure all the systems in the house (many!) I cannot imagine something that silly was the cause of all the pain. Knowing that the firewall has been port forwarding all this time without issue leads me to blame the microcell for all this pain. It probably has some dumb internal rule.
So, if you get said device, here's my recommended setup:
I hope the tale help you if you run into a similar situation.
Later,
In my case, I am on FIOS with an internal network with that's neither of the above (192.168.100.x), using a Linux box for both DHCP and DNS, and forwarding a few services to an internal box. I bought the thing, did the online pre-registration, and started the connection. No matter what, the thing would not connect. Besides the fact that they want attempt cycles of 90 minutes, there is nothing that one can check on the damn box to know what's really happening. :(
After checking both the FIOS and the ATT&T forums, it seemed that the best setup is to configure the microcell IP to be reserved, and set that IP to be the DMZ (to bypass any firewall issues). still didn't work...
I found a list of required ports for the thing, which include:
- 443 TCP (HTTPS)
- 123 UDP (NTP)
- 500 UDP (IPSEC)
- 4500 UDP (IPSEC NAT)
Even though it was already in a DMZ, I set the forwarding rules for the ports. Still, nothing. Called the tech support line and gave them the whole list of things I've done. He had no more ideas...
Finally, I found another post in the FIOS forums that simply said: "I had to reset the firewall to factory defaults, and it worked".
I took the plunge and did the same. Which, by the way, includes a default IP numbering based on 192.168.1.x. Reserved the IP for the thing, set it as a DMZ, and it worked. Not believing that something as dumb as a numbering difference could cause the problem, I set the router back to a 100 based IP, going through the same process to reserve the IP for the unit and setting it as the DMZ. Reboot everybody, and immediately stops working! Revert back to a 1.x IP, and everything works again...
So, my solution was the difficult one: renumber the entire internal network to the 192.168.1.x, and reconfigure all the systems in the house (many!) I cannot imagine something that silly was the cause of all the pain. Knowing that the firewall has been port forwarding all this time without issue leads me to blame the microcell for all this pain. It probably has some dumb internal rule.
So, if you get said device, here's my recommended setup:
- Make sure your network in on 192.168.0.x or 192.168.1.x (most of you will be)
- Check that your MTU is 1492 (no more than 1500), this is the default in most cases, but check.
- Check that IP fragment blocking is disabled (default for me)
- Set up a reserved DHCP address for the microcell (check your documentation). For the FIOS (actiontec) router it is under the advanced settings/ip allocation
- Set up the reserved IP as the DMZ for the firewall. Some people frown on this, but that thing is locked up so tight, it is close to impossible to hijack it for a nefarious purpose.
I hope the tale help you if you run into a similar situation.
Later,
Friday, May 7, 2010
Pairings? Really?
If you've been in the Boston area for a few years, you probably remember a forgettable Todd English place called Bonfire. It was located on the Boston Park plaza hotel. Well, apparently the location has some special kind of cursed vibe, because now there's a wine bar called Pairings, and it's almost as disappointing as Bonfire...
My wife and I heard about the place and were very excited. Finally! A proper wine bar in Boston! After checking out some great places in New York and California, we felt that finally Boston was getting its due. But alas, we were disappointed :( There's more variety and ambiance at the local wine shop's evening tasting than at this place!
The place is for all intents and purposes a wine bar, but with a name like pairings, you'd expect at the very least-well-pairings! If you consider a general-purpose listing of average American wines, a sprinkle of usual Napa names and a smidgen of other wines on two pages, followed by a tiny menu of bar bites "Pairings", then you've arrive at the correct place! I expected a proper wine bar and what I got was more akin to a wine expo: No character, just a pile of average wines to sample with a few recognizable names here and there.
We asked the bartender if there were any pairings with the wines, he replied: "no". Strike one. We then asked: "Do you offer wine flights?" and he replied "Flights? What's that?" (Strike two) We explained and then he retorted: "No". Strike three... Even after all that, we still decided to look over the wine list by the glass. We sighed, then walked out.
It's sad to see a business with so much unrealized potential go untapped. With a better rounded list, a quasi-knowledgeable staff, and actual pairings and other proper wine bar features besides a pretend cellar room, the place could be so much more. I am sure that the competition from restaurants doing their own feature wine nights offer options (and competition) for those of us that actually want to experience wine, so maybe I'm missing the point. Maybe what they're trying to do is to take the pub experience and apply it to wine: Provide some selection, keep margins high and get the average muck that sells cheap but rakes in a good profit.
All that ranting notwithstanding, maybe you like the place as-is, or we walked in on a bad day where the good staff was at home. Maybe, but I am certain that their chance for a first impression is long gone, and I will not make any effort to return there.
Later,
My wife and I heard about the place and were very excited. Finally! A proper wine bar in Boston! After checking out some great places in New York and California, we felt that finally Boston was getting its due. But alas, we were disappointed :( There's more variety and ambiance at the local wine shop's evening tasting than at this place!
The place is for all intents and purposes a wine bar, but with a name like pairings, you'd expect at the very least-well-pairings! If you consider a general-purpose listing of average American wines, a sprinkle of usual Napa names and a smidgen of other wines on two pages, followed by a tiny menu of bar bites "Pairings", then you've arrive at the correct place! I expected a proper wine bar and what I got was more akin to a wine expo: No character, just a pile of average wines to sample with a few recognizable names here and there.
We asked the bartender if there were any pairings with the wines, he replied: "no". Strike one. We then asked: "Do you offer wine flights?" and he replied "Flights? What's that?" (Strike two) We explained and then he retorted: "No". Strike three... Even after all that, we still decided to look over the wine list by the glass. We sighed, then walked out.
It's sad to see a business with so much unrealized potential go untapped. With a better rounded list, a quasi-knowledgeable staff, and actual pairings and other proper wine bar features besides a pretend cellar room, the place could be so much more. I am sure that the competition from restaurants doing their own feature wine nights offer options (and competition) for those of us that actually want to experience wine, so maybe I'm missing the point. Maybe what they're trying to do is to take the pub experience and apply it to wine: Provide some selection, keep margins high and get the average muck that sells cheap but rakes in a good profit.
All that ranting notwithstanding, maybe you like the place as-is, or we walked in on a bad day where the good staff was at home. Maybe, but I am certain that their chance for a first impression is long gone, and I will not make any effort to return there.
Later,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
