Talk:Pinnacle PCTV HD Card (800i): Difference between revisions

From LinuxTVWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
I have this card partially working under Slackware 10, linux 2.6.24, and the latest v4l-dvb drivers from mercurial. The analog tv-tuner works with Mplayer except that I cannot get the audio working. The dvb drivers worked after manually loading the sh51409 module as well as manually creating the dvb adapter files. It seems the sh51409 module is not autoloaded correctly and the frontend is not recognized without this. As long as the sh51409 module is loaded prior to the tuner modules everything seems to work.
I have this card partially working under Slackware 10, linux 2.6.24, and the latest v4l-dvb drivers from mercurial. The analog tv-tuner works with Mplayer except that I cannot get the audio working. The dvb drivers worked after manually loading the s5h1409 module as well as manually creating the dvb adapter files. It seems the s5h1409 module is not autoloaded correctly and the frontend is not recognized without this. As long as the s5h1409 module is loaded prior to the tuner modules everything seems to work.
--[[User:Turinturambar|Turinturambar]] 00:41, 24 March 2008 (CET)
--[[User:Turinturambar|Turinturambar]] 00:41, 24 March 2008 (CET)



Revision as of 23:42, 23 March 2008

I have this card partially working under Slackware 10, linux 2.6.24, and the latest v4l-dvb drivers from mercurial. The analog tv-tuner works with Mplayer except that I cannot get the audio working. The dvb drivers worked after manually loading the s5h1409 module as well as manually creating the dvb adapter files. It seems the s5h1409 module is not autoloaded correctly and the frontend is not recognized without this. As long as the s5h1409 module is loaded prior to the tuner modules everything seems to work. --Turinturambar 00:41, 24 March 2008 (CET)

Why are there two pictures? What value is added? I put up the second shot as a higher quality replacement for the first picture. --GBob 23:25, 30 October 2007 (CET)

Sure, detail is more resolvable in the image you submitted, but it omits a portion of the card (i.e. pci riser) that the other included. Consequently, what value was added by replacing the first picture with one that better highlights known elements, yet does so at the expense of removing other important/interesting information/features conveyed by the former? --CityK 13:28, 31 October 2007 (CET)
Ah, I did not know that the riser was important, I was just trying to add, what I felt, was a better picture (just in case the extra detail proves useful, for example if there's a bug with this revision of the cx23883 chip). I'd be more than happy to add back in the riser (I have the full image still around). In the original the logo and other details were washed out by the flash and white balance, and I was just trying to make it easier for other people to match the card. --GBob 17:05, 31 October 2007 (CET)