Cheapest Way to Convert Your 2D TV into 3D! (Plus Smartphone Options!)

I have never been a fan of 3D, I find it gimmicky and it detracts from what a movie really offers. But now that it looks like 3D is going to be phased out (according to sources and rumors on LG and Samsung TV's), this means it will--for now--become a deprecated technology. And if it is one thing I like, it is breathing new life into old technology!

The Cheapest Method, Absolute Cheapest Method(s)

Why Do It?
Again, I am not a huge fan of 3D. While it can be fun, I normally want to watch a movie the way it was meant to, on a 2D plane. But that does not mean it does not have its place for consumers and viewers. 3D can be cool, and if you have children, I am sure they will be more than fascinated with 3D images and video.

Price
The biggest drawback to 3D is the upfront costs. You must buy a Blu-ray player that supports 3D playback. You must buy a TV that supports 3D content, which will usually comes with the glassware needed to watch the 3D properly. Or you can buy a 3D-ready TV, which then means buying another device to allow 3D playback on the TV, as well as the individual glasses for you to watch 3D videos with. Do not forget that you will need some 3D Blu-ray discs.

You can purchase a subscription to a streaming service that provides 3D content, but I should note that almost all reviewers and critics agree that the best 3D experiences come from 3D Blu-ray (which is likely because the bitrates will be much higher allowing for maximum quality).

All this means is a lot of money. You have a nice 1080p TV, but no 3D support? Too bad. A great Blu-ray player, but no 3D support? Too bad. A great movie that would look great in 3D? Too bad. The most obvious solution would be to buy everything again and ensure that it all supports 3D.

But why do this? If 3D is really ending, then why spend loads of cash on something that will eventually be rendered all but useless? I have a better way...

3D Blu-ray vs. Online Streaming Services
The biggest pro of 3D Blu-ray, as stated above, is that it should have better quality. Because it is being streamed directly from a disc as opposed to relying on Internet bandwidth, it will undoubtedly be better.

Most steaming services require around 5Mbps in order to watch HD content. 3D content is usually rated around twice that (although you may not find it in the requirements section of a streaming provider). With a dedicated 3D Blu-ray player you can easily get from anywhere between 25-60Mbps, depending on the Blu-ray. And because it does not depend upon a speedy Internet connection, a 3D Blu-ray player will have no problem outputting the 3D Blu-ray in its intended quality.

This does not mean that it will look horrid to watch over a streaming service, just that it will not give the optimal quality some may seek.

On the other side is cost, one of the reasons I am writing this article. A streaming service might come in handy here. Netfix costs $7.99 per month for a basic package. This does not include HD content, so at a minimum, a Netflix subscription to obtain 3D content would cost $9.99 per month. Hulu costs $7.99 per month. Many people might have one service or the other (or both), so this may end up being a cost reduction in the methods I will give below.

And if you prefer to own your 3D videos, services like VUDU or Amazon Video sell 3D videos at varying prices. Although, I would guess that these videos will still not be at the high quality 3D Blu-ray offers.

So, the major factors are quality versus cost. Blu-ray movies are getting quite cheap, and with the new 4K Blu-rays slowly coming out, it is even more likely to get cheaper. However, if you just want to pay-to-play, and avoid the need to buy more disc racks, a streaming service may be of better use.

The Cheapest Method
Assuming you have nothing but a TV, this will be the most inexpensive way to allow your TV to play 3D movies. Now, the movies will look only as good as your TV, so I would advise at least a 720p-capable TV, however, what I will describe should work on any TV that has input connections. I will also mention that your TV does not have to be 3D-ready.

The Requirements (A)
There are three main items you will need in order to get your 2D TV ready for 3D:

• A device that is capable of reading and playing 3D movies.
• A device to allow 3D playback on your 2D TV.
• A 3D video or game. (Optional)

A device capable of reading and playing 3D movies would be either a Blu-ray player, or something like an Android TV Box. Blu-ray players can be cheap, but may not have as many features like WiFi capability, or the ability to use USB flash drives. If you are purely about using 3D Blu-ray discs, then a standalone 3D Blu-ray player is what you want.

You can get a standalone player for a little more than $20 on eBay, but these are often missing accessories or have problems like "does not play DVDs". Some might be a great deal, so keep your eye out for one! Refurbished or new players go for around $60 and up on Amazon. And used players typically range anywhere from $35 and up. The nice thing about some of these players is that they have support for apps like Netflix or Hulu, which will give you the option of playing 3D from either a Blu-ray disc or online streaming service.

The other option, the one I prefer, is an Android TV Box or Android stick. Android sticks are tiny and will not have all the extra inputs that an Android TV Box will have, and some use HDMI instead of USB. The only advantage of an Android stick over an Android TV Box should be not having the need of an external power supply. The method I will explain will require that you have the ability to output HDMI, and Android sticks do not have this. And if your TV only has only one HDMI input, and your Android stick uses HDMI, then you may not be able to do what I am going to elaborate on. Because of this, I will be focusing on Android TV Boxes.

An Android TV Box is just a small device that has Android on it. The box can have several inputs and outputs, but the most important are to have at least one USB input (or TF, also known as SD, card slot), and one HDMI output. An Android TV Box can be expensive, but you can find ones for about $20 if you get a really good deal. On Amazon, you can get one for less than $40. On eBay, likely even less. Though, the more expensive it is, the more RAM, storage, and/or CPU processing power it should have. Some will even come with WiFi AC. Most of this is unnecessary, but you should get smoother playback on an Android TV Box than any Android stick.

Most boxes will probably support at least 1080p, so that should not be an issue. However, I would strongly suggest getting one that handles codecs like H.265 or VP9. And if so, you will want a strong CPU since those codecs require more CPU power to be read properly and smoothly. I recommend getting a quad-core model with at least 2GB of RAM. Although, you will probably still get decent results with a dual-core 1GB RAM model. Ensure that whatever you buy can take at least 32GB if it only has a SD card slot. You may need something larger, but for most situations, 32GB should suffice.

The final big point is to look for in an Android TV Box is that it supports 3D video, not just supports 3D gaming, or something similar. 3D gaming is different than streaming the 3D content we are discussing. 3D gaming or 3D GPU acceleration normally means games that are played in a 3D perspective, not viewed in 3D.

If you do happen to get an Android TV Box that supports 3D video, you can avoid getting a separate device for playing 3D! All you will need are a pair of 3D glasses that you can get on Amazon for around $12. Or a child pair on Amazon for about $8. The only drawback is that it will only be able to use videos that you have downloaded. It will not work with a video game console or you cable connection...

But remember, this is not just for 3D playback, you can do so much more with an Android TV Box than a standalone Blu-ray player! It is essentially a tablet or smartphone without a screen. You can play games on it, write emails, screen mirror, and still use Netflix or Hulu if you so desire.

As for a device that allows 3D playback on your 2D TV, there are several devices available. Some are specific to certain TV manufacturers, others are all-encompassing. What do most of these have in common? They cost quite a lot. If you want the best of the best of 3D, you will probably want one of those. The TV manufacturer-specific models will be less pricey than the all-encompassing options, but either way, they will be in the hundreds of dollars. And if you choose one for your TV brand, then change TV brands, you will lose your way to watch 3D.

The least expensive answer is a Cellnorth 3D Video Wizard. These can be bought for less than $40 new, and possibly less for used, but all the ones I have seen used are still about $40. This device comes with a remote, (at least) two pairs of 3D glasses (yellow/blue for a wider and more natural color spectrum), and a small console. The console converts 3D video signals to work with 2D TV's. While there are some conversion devices out there that are a bit cheaper, this one seems to be the best. It sports two HDMI inputs (where many have only one), and supports not only side-side and top-bottom 3D, but frame-packing for full resolution 3D playback, where possible (i.e. PS3, Blu-ray player, etc.).

The one drawback many will find is that the glasses cause the screen to be a bit darker. The normal ways to combat this is to either watch 3D videos or play 3D games in a darkened room, or at night, or increase the brightness of their screen display. The other (better) option is to adjust your visual settings, like the viewing modes, to something that helps color and increases brightness.

A positive, that may still hold true, is that Cellnorth apparently gives really good support. From replacing broken items to giving extra items free, this is something you hope for whether a product costs $40 or $400. In addition, the device should come with a 1-year guarantee.

The final thing you will need is a 3D video or game. This will depend on how you want to obtain and watch the 3D video. If using a online streaming service, simply go to that service from your standalone Blu-ray player (if it supports Netflix or Hulu) or Android TV Box and find some 3D content to play. I will talk about games more in-depth in the next section, but keep them in mind.

You can skip getting a 3D video or game if you just want to upconvert 2D content to 3D. This will save you some money, but real 3D content is where you will find the best quality!

Now, if you have a 3D Blu-ray disc and have a standalone Blu-ray player, it should be no problem to throw it in and play it. But if you have a 3D Blu-ray movie and want to use an Android TV Box, there will be a bit of work involved, but not much.

You will need a PC with a Blu-ray reader and MakeMKV. This is a free program, but needs the free registration key to operate. I do not like to link to other tutorials, but here are the steps to get a full HD image in a ".mkv" format to give you the full quality of a 3D Blu-ray from MakeMKV. Once you have the file, load it onto a USB flash drive, external USB HDD, or SD card.

Another cheap option is to buy a 3D video from VUDU or Amazon Video and load them in the same fashion.

The Setup
The setup is going to be fairly easy if you already have all the items prepped.

*IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A HDMI PORT ON YOUR TV, YOU WILL NEED A HDMI-TO-COMPOSITE OR HDMI-TO-COMPOSITE OR HDMI-TO-COAXIAL ADAPTER!

Standalone 3D Blu-ray Player

1. Put the 3D Blu-ray disc inside the player.
2. Attach the output HDMI of the 3D Blu-ray player to a HDMI input of the 3D Video Wizard.
3. Then attach the output HDMI of the 3D Video Wizard to the a HDMI on your TV.

Android TV Box

1. Put the USB flash drive or SD card (that contains the 3D video) in the box.
2. Make sure that you have installed a media player that plays 3D on your Android TV Box. Attach the output HDMI of the Android TV Box to the 3D Video Wizard.
3. Then attach the output HDMI of the 3D Video Wizard to the a HDMI on your TV. 

Note: If your Android TV Box already supports 3D videos, you will not need the 3D Video Wizard.

From here, it is just a matter of turning everything on and getting it going. The Blu-ray player should be easy enough by booting up and pushing play. Ensure that the 3D Video Wizard is turned on. (If you have two HDMI devices plugged into the 3D Video Wizard, use the supplied remote to choose which source you want to view.) Click the 2D/3D button on the 3D Video Wizard remote to enable the conversion. Put on your glasses and you are done!

The Android TV Box is almost identical, the only difference being that you will have to push play on your media playback app within Android.

You now have a 2D/3D setup that should cost you $100 or less!

Absolute Cheapest Method(s)
The main item that many people may already have is a Blu-ray reader. If you do have this, it is probably sitting in your PC. As long as it reads 2x or better, it should be able to play 3D Blu-ray discs. You may even have a standalone Blu-ray player, and this too may be able to play 3D Blu-ray discs. Or maybe you have a PS3/PS4 or Xbox 360/One.

The second item some people may already have is an Android tablet or smartphone with MHL or HDMI output capability.

This goes back to the standalone player versus Android device option above, but with many more risks involved as I will divulge in a bit.

The Requirements (B)
Having a Blu-ray player of some sort may help bring down your setup costs as you now only need two items:

• A device to allow 3D playback on your 2D TV.
• A 3D video (or game).

This gets a little trickier to explain as there are many variables involved. I will go through them one-by-one.

If you have a Blu-ray reader in your PC, then you will still need two more items in addition to the other two listed above. You will need software on your PC that can properly playback 3D Blu-ray movies. And you will need a HDMI cable that can be hooked up to your PC and extend to your TV.

One problem may be is if you have an old graphics card, you may only have a VGA output. You could use a VGA-to-HDMI converter, but VGA only sends video through, so you will still need a way to output the sound. Likewise, if you only have DVI available from your graphics card, you would need a DVI-to-HDMI converter, but again, it only transports video, so outputting sound becomes the issue. One solution to this is HDMI conversion cables that also have a 3.5mm jack or yellow component that can be plugged in to both your PC and TV to help export the sound. You could also purchase a conversion box that will take the cables and output them to other cables, avoiding conversion cables altogether (but adding more cables).

A further issue is if you do not have a TV with a HDMI input and instead have component or composite cables. You now have the opposite problem where you have HDMI coming from the PC, but need component for the TV. Again, you will need either a cable that converts it to the appropriate cables needed, or an adapter box. If this is the case, remember that the quality of what you see will be greatly deteriorated (moreso for component cable inputs than those with composite cables inputs).

If you have a standalone Blu-ray player, but it does not specify that it works for 3D Blu-ray discs, there is a chance it might work. I assume that some have software/hardware restrictions to ensure that this is not possible, but others may not (or can be hacked to allow such playback). The only way you will know is if you can get yours hands on a 3D Blu-ray disc and check if it works. If it does, then you are good to go. If not, you are out-of-luck...

The other item regarding playback of 3D Blu-ray discs is having a console like a PS3/PS4, or a Xbox 360/One. The Xbox 360 does not have a Blu-ray player, but it does have some game titles that support 3D playback. So, most of your content will have to be in 2D and then upconverted to 3D. There is a slight chance that a hacked Xbox 360 using XMPlayer could play ripped 3D Blu-ray discs, but I have not been able to test this...

As for a PS3/PS4 or a Xbox One, you should be able to treat it just like a standalone 3D Blu-ray player.

If one of these options applies to you, then you just need a device that can read and play 3D playback. If you have an Android device from recent years (2013+), then you may be able to perform 3D playback. If your smartphone or tablet has a Snapdragon 800 or higher, or a Exynos 5 or higher, then it should be able to output 60fps at a resolution of at least 1080p. Other CPU's like MediaTek should also be able to perform 60fps if they are from the 6500 series or newer. 60fps is important because it will give you true 3D playback as opposed to other methods.

The first problem is that you have to make sure that your phone or tablet supports HDMI or MHL out. If it only supports MHL, you will need an adapter to change from MHL to HDMI. And even HDMI will still require a special cable for your Android device.

The second problem is one of power. You might have a huge battery, or great battery life, on your smartphone or tablet, but watching a movie will drain it fast. You should not lose all your battery life on a single movie, but the device may be working a bit harder than normal, and you may not want to risk having your video shutdown in the middle of it. If you do not want to risk it, you will need an adapter that can split your output to not only HDMI but to a cable for charging. On top of that, you will have to make sure that the adapter supports charging and not just data transfer. There are adapters that do this split, but I am unsure if they have charging or not. I am sure some do, but which ones are the real question.

If you are lucky and have a special tablet (like some from China), you may actually have a DC jack and HDMI out, avoiding these problems altogether.

I have not tested anything with Android devices in this sense, so while in theory this should work, there is no guarantee.

And let us not forget that even if you have one of these devices, you will still need the 3D Video Wizard system regardless. Unless you bought an Android TV Box, where you just need to buy some 3D glasses for your 3D videos.

3D, 2D, 1D NoD
So, that is how you can get the cheapest possible 2D-to-3D conversion possible for your TV. I did not want to spend hundreds of dollars getting a 3D setup for something that is on its way out the door, but I would like to be able to use 3D whenever I feel like it. And if 3D is really coming to an end, 3D Blu-ray discs should become cheaper and cheaper (except for Disney movies, they always take forever to drop in price!).

On the flip side, even if you set this up and hate it, you have not wasted that much money. The devices listed have multiple purposes, which means you would really just spend a bit of cash on the 3D Video Wizard and (possibly) some movies.

PlayLater - Is It Really HD Recording?

There are many ways to download media streams in this day and age, many of which are illegal or frowned upon. But I want to discuss a program that does just that - and as far I have read, legally. More importantly I want to delve into whether or not what they state as HD recordings are actually so. That program is PlayLater.

The Rundown

PlayLater
Mediamall is the company behind PlayLater and PlayOn. PlayOn is a media server that allows you to stream media from your PC - as well as many other devices - to your TV. This is not a new technology feat by any means, and there are several other companies that have similar software.

PlayLater is a time-shift recording program that can record in SD or HD (if opted for and purchased). It relies on the PlayOn server to stream from many different sources. It can be likened to screen capturing software, but it is different. Here are a couple of differences that make it unique:

• While PlayLater does do live recording-like screen capturing, a screen of the actual source footage is never needed or seen.
• PlayLater requires logins to (most) popular media streaming sites such as Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, HBO Go, YouTube, etc. Screen capturing software merely captures what is being shown regardless if it is a paid service or not.

Why Bother?
There are plenty of free screen capturing programs out there, so why not just use that? Well, I think there are a few good reasons that PlayLater can become a necessity:

The first is ease-of-use. It is simple to get running and all settings are already defaulted for you. Some screen capture software is fairly simple, but it can also be tedious in setting up. This may be more trouble than what it is worth for some.

The second is that not all media streaming sites are easily captured. Without advanced knowledge, sometimes it becomes impossible to capture streams from certain sites. And even if possible, the potential additional tasks of having to crop out certain items might be cumbersome to perform for every single recording.

The third is that this is good for travelers. In some foreign countries bandwidth can be so restrictive (or just not abundant) that buffering plagues a 20-minute video making it a 50-minute experience. Throw in a proxy or VPN and buffering becomes a complete nightmare. But with PlayLater, even with a proxy or VPN, and given just enough bandwidth, a show or movie is recorded and then playable without such hiccups.

Is It Legal?
There are many that contend that it is not, but ask for evidence from those that believe as such and they will be hard-pressed to find anything to the contrary.

In the US, there is a law that allows for time-shifting. This was created when VCR's became widely popular so that people could watch shows and movies at a later time if they had to be somewhere else when the media was shown on TV.

Today is a bit different with all the new technological methods of recording media. Because piracy is everywhere, it becomes an even bigger problem as people will not just record a show or movie and watch it, but later upload it to the web and allow others to download it.

As I have mentioned in a previous article the heart of the problem is really in TV networks losing funding and support due to ratings, which in turn affects DVD and Blu-ray creation and sales. And the sales that they do make are often diminished due to pirating of a DVD or Blu-ray.

However, PlayLater still exists, and has for some time. It has been featured in numerous popular magazines, and claims that it is perfectly legal. You have to remember that PlayLater is essentially a DVR for your computer. It does the exact same thing, however, networks cannot get ratings from it as they can with devices like a TiVo...

Downsides
There are some apparent downsides for both the end-users and the companies that provide the media streaming:

• The quality of the recordings, albeit with large bitrates and hefty files, are decent to great depending on your PC setup. Animations seem to fare far better than live action shows or movies regardless of your hardware and bandwidth.
• The files seem padded to me, but even if not, you will need quite a bit of hard drive or SSD storage space to have more than a few recordings on hand.
• Because PlayLater is meant for "average" users, there are almost no settings that can be changed to squeeze out better quality and/or shrink file sizes.
• While it is not impossible to download and pirate streams from a DVR, it is in no means an easy task. With PlayLater, the file given is one you are meant to be able to use on portable devices and TV sets. This makes it much more susceptible to piracy than more common time-shifting devices.
• I have encountered bugs that would not allow me to login to a media streaming site, or simply disallow me from recording at all. I will discuss this further below.

So Is It HD?
To reiterate from a past article, HD is considered 720p, full HD is considered 1080p. PlayLater does only the former so anything HD is allegedly in 720p.

I first became suspicious of PlayLater recently when I wanted to grab some Sesame Street episodes for my daughter. The quality was fairly bad. Watchable, but in no way could I mistake it for HD content. I was writing in the support forums and came to find out that many users had already determined that Netflix was not actually recorded in 720p, but at a much lower resolution. The shows or movies were then reencoded to a resolution of 1280x720, which is not 720p, it is just an upscaling of a smaller resolution. This problem with Netflix has supposedly been fixed, but as I will explain later, upscaling SD content has not...

H.264 Profiles
I had entered a discussion on being able to increase bitrates, but this led me into delving into the recorded files themselves and seeing what details would shed light onto the subject. The bitrates were actually quite high from what I had expected to see. I then went online and compared the file to specifications readily available to view for that of illegal online content of seemingly far better quality. That content was using only half the bitrate of what PlayLater was using...

To preface my next paragraph, there are several H.264 profiles ranging from baseline, to main, to high. Main and high can handle HD content, and high profiles are meant for HD quality. The lower-leveled the profile the more compatibility across devices and the less CPU power needed for live recordings. The higher-leveled the profile the higher the quality of a file.

While I thought the bitrate was and is an issue for PlayLater, it was more in terms of overdoing the bitrate. In other words, I don't think you could achieve (much) higher quality files by increasing the bitrate. So there had to be another possible culprit that was hindering good 720p quality. This led me to H.264 profiles.

The real concern I noticed was the profile being used to do the recording in PlayLater was a main profile level 3.0. Content in HD should have a minimum main profile level 3.1 in order to achieve 720p at a maximum of 29.97 frames per second. However, my PlayLater recordings are done at a main profile level 3.0 at a 1280x720 resolution with 29.97 frames per second.

If you go to Wikipedia they try to explain the many aspects of these profiles in greater depth. You will see that there is no 1280x720 resolution listed for a main profile level of 3.0. Regardless, I did some basic calculations and determined that the two resolutions in common between main profile level 3.0 and 3.1 are increased almost identically by 267%. Using this number I determined that even if main profile level 3.0 could support 720p, it would have have a maximum frame rate of just over 11fps.

Standards
A simple jump from 3.0 to 3.1 seems like nothing to worry about. But these are not small jumps by any means, and the amount of extra data that can be used can vastly improve quality for these profiles. Again, that is if that profile can be used to its full extent. If you do check Wikipedia, you will see the differences between them in these terms.

While a lower-leveled profile does mean more compatibility for more older devices, this should be put into perspective with an example: The iPhone 3GS was the first iPhone to accept and display videos with a main profile of 3.1. Other apple products of that time are similar, anything before (e.g. iPhone 3G) was restricted to a main profile of 3.0. The iPhone 3GS was released in 2009, almost six years ago!

Main profile level 3.1 is the standard for bringing 720p content to devices, and it should be followed, but it doesn't have to be as we will soon learn.

CPU Power
It is true that more CPU power is needed to record at higher levels, but again, the main profile level 3.1 is not new. It has been around for a long time now and while CPU power for that profile may have been somewhat of concern years ago, today most any laptops or desktop computers easily supply the necessary CPU power to record live at a main profile level of 3.1.

To given you a simple example of how much CPU power is truly needed, I can easily achieve a main profile level of 3.1 on my computer which I have decided to currently use along with a Phenom X II 1100T. This is an unlocked AMD CPU with 6-cores. It runs at 3.3GHz and can "turbo" itself to 3.7GHz.

That sounds like an amazing CPU, so of course it can do what is needed. But, there are a couple of factors that are important not to forget: 

• Just because it has a higher frequency than some modern CPU's, that does not mean it is faster or better, that is just a common misconception.
• More importantly, this chip was a top-of-the-line CPU... almost 5 years ago!
• There are newer, cheaper CPU's that can perform as well or better than the CPU I am using now. And better yet, YOU DON'T NEED THIS MUCH POWER FOR MAIN PROFILE LEVEL 3.1!

Reasoning
Now, I am sure that the settings of how PlayLater encodes could use some tweaking for higher quality HD content, but the aspect about the H.264 profile just bugged me too much. 

The only possible reason I could see a company wanting to use it is because it is used for both their SD and HD recordings, so instead of giving different profiles, they could just keep them the same. Essentially, this is just laziness of their part. But even this seems like idiotic logic because you would have to force "720p" into a main profile level 3.0, as opposed to not having to at all for level 3.1.

The argument that it requires more CPU power seems invalid, as well as the need for compatibility across devices, especially if you read what I wrote above on the subjects. And I was told that many people are just using a PC as a media center. There is no way to know if a person uses a PC as a media center or not, and why would you use something that would have to be ridiculously old in order to record HD content? 

The only other way I could see "720p" being done with a main profile of 3.0 is by upscaling. Which, again, means that it is not really 720p at all. It is just a lesser quality video enlarged to be the same resolution as 720p, but certainly not the same quality that it should or could have.

I was told it was possible to change a video file's "labels", which would just be in namesake alone. However, it seems unlikely MediaMall did this as why would they forget something as significant as a profile. Even if so, other aspects are truly as detailed, so the profile would be the only thing they would really need to change.

Evidence to the Contrary
Trying to give PlayLater the benefit of the doubt I started to do some searching for articles or posts that would suggest 720p is possible with a main profile level 3.0. I found one media streaming site that did suggest that it used a main profile level 3.0 at one time, but that it had since updated to level 3.2.

I found a couple of Chinese IP cameras that also suggested they used a main profile level 3.0, but whether they actually do or not is beyond me. Chinese specifications are not known for being accurate.

I decided to try to see if I could make a video on Premiere Pro with a resolution of 1280x720 using a main profile level 3.1. When attempted, Premiere Pro would give an error saying that the profile needed to either be increased for the resolution wanted, or that the frame rate would need to be decreased.

I tried to check the label of a PlayLater recording, and the program I was using at first could not find any. Once I changed some settings I got multiple profiles, including high and baseline. Something was definitely not right...

After some discussion with someone on the subject, they stated it should not be possible to encode at 720p while using main profile level 3.0 if following the standard constraints. However, if someone was able to force or go beyond the constraints of the profile for an encoder, then it could be possible.

The First Response
The support forum is fairly good for responses that are not time-sensitive. But people with the software have a support area in the settings to email questions, which I find has a much faster response time.

I had already asked the questions I wanted to in the forum, but I figured I would just take the direct approach. I asked two questions, the first about why main profile level 3.0 was being used, and the second asking if Amazon was like Netflix in that real 720p recordings were not taken?

The reply I got was short, but mainly sidestepped the issues at hand. To paraphrase, I was told that there would be no problems for recording HD. And this is (somewhat) correct, but this didn't really answer anything I asked.

Initially, I wanted to reply with a bunch of information, but it was a lot and some came out as too much of an attack. I instead shortened my response to just ask how the main profile level 3.0 was implemented, and if there was documentation I could read on it. I also reiterated the problem about Netflix as the support staff's reply seemed to indicate as though recordings were in HD, despite the many users who stated otherwise on their forums. I also explained that reencoding a source that is less than 720p and then upscaling was not true 720p.

A final remark made on their part was that of CPU power needed for an increase in profile level. I fought the urge to explain what I have done so in this article, if anything, I would bring up at a later time.

The only interesting point they did say was that GPU encoding was on the way. Although, there was no ETA on when it would happen, and no information on if they were taking an OpenGL, OpenCL, or dual approach. They did add that this may cause them to make some changes, but the keyword there is 'may'.

The Second Response
This response was even less helpful than the last. They admitted they had no documentation to point me to in order to help me understand how their encoder was setup. I was told I could look at the video to know if it was a 720p recording.

This was disheartening. I wanted some real answers not, "I don't know." I don't expect support staff to know everything, but to know nothing is frustrating.

I replied that all I could do to check a recording is see its resolution size and its profile, by which a resolution size doesn't mean 720p, and that the profile being used was being used improperly.

I reiterated my question on why the profile was being used, and gave a bit of information on why CPU power and compatibility were non-issues for what I was asking. I went so far as to say that if they could not give me a real answer, then I would be happy to handed off to someone in the company that had some.

Testing
At this point I realized there were really only one of two problems occurring. Either the profile really was the issue, or the encoding settings were. Of course there could be a bit of both, but to me, one or the other is the main hindrance in getting proper and satisfactory 720p recordings.

I decided to find an encoder that would allow me to bypass the constraints of a profile and enable me to perform a simple test. The test would be to take a 720p video that ran at 29.97fps, identical settings to what these "720p" recordings are from PlayLater. I would then take that sample video and use FFMpeg to manually enter parameters into a command line interface that would enable me to use the same settings and bitrate, with only the profile changed.

The first step to achieve this was to create a 720p@29.97fps file. To do this I used Adobe Premiere Pro. I decided to use a sample from an old music video I had shot in 1080p of the same frame rate. I shrunk it down to 720p, placed it in a MP4 container, and changed the main profile level from 3.2 to 3.0. The 29.97fps remained the same. No other settings were changed. I used a 1-pass VBR and did not enable any extra render settings to help maintain quality. The video came under just 9 seconds with an overall bitrate of 3100+Kbps, quite similar to most of my PlayLater recordings.

The next step was to put it in FFMpeg and give it the parameters necessary to output a similar file but with a main profile level 3.0. I typed in the commands and had to wait a couple of seconds.

The results were that the files looked identical. I expected this because if the stream stays the same - the raw file in the container - then the quality should remain the same. It would only be worse if the bitrate somehow dropped, or something else was constrained, but it wasn't.

What this meant was that the profile, while not being a standard and a no-no for professional encoding, was not an issue for PlayLater. Meaning that it must be something with the encoding settings. The problem there is that we have little real control over the settings. You can choose from Auto, Max, and others, but nothing that would enable us to specify bitrates, profiles, frame rates, resolutions, etc.

The Third Response
This email was just as pointless as the last. I was again told how moving up the profile would be a problem for users and that there were "settings" that could help with quality.

I wrote back asking what data they had to suggest that their users did not have systems capable of running main profile level 3.1 (since none was cited)? I even went so far as to explain that I could think of no friends from a third-world country that did not have computers capable of sustaining live recordings at this level.

Even ignoring that, I stated that it should be a feature for HD users, since that is what the profile is for. It does not have to be an across-the-board implementation. And explained that I knew of no other company that had a business plan where staying behind was the best idea. If anything, people allowed backwards compatibility while updating and upgrading, which further opens up your audience.

I continued with stating that they were right about no quality enhancement by jumping up profiles, but because there was no way to increase the settings of the PlayLater's encoder, no one could ever test this and be sure.

I then just made my point that if the profiles are not the issue, then the encoder settings are. All my settings are set to max so the problem isn't there. I asked that he help me with that issue so we could determine where the real problem lies.

My final words in this reply were about sending me some sample clips of what HD is supposed to look like from PlayLater. This would tell me if the same crappy quality I am getting is just what is MediaMall considers HD, and if it was better it would mean that something on my end was the problem.

The Fourth Response
I received another email explaining that they did have data and that most people were using "old" laptops and PC's for media servers. Of course, "old" is a preference word that doesn't determine or give any information.

The reply stated that they would not be implementing main profile level 3.1 now, but that it may occur when they released a PlayLater version that supported GPU encoding. However, no ETA could be given.

Mention was made of the VPN I used and that it may be why my recordings are unsatisfactory. This could be true, but I had no way of knowing giving my present conditions.

The only other interesting information I was told was that they knew exactly which VPN site I had been using recently, which is somewhat frightening in these post-Snowden times. Although, there is not much they could actually do with that data, I did send another email asking what else they collected from its users.

Another Set of Emails
Recalling that when I Initially purchased PlayLater I could not download Amazon Prime Instant Videos, I decided to try again and see if it was still an issue I should bring up with PlayLater support.

This time it did work, which was great, but having solved that issue another took its place. I had decided to download an old 90's cartoon show, something that was created during a time HD was not around on TV channels. It did record and the quality was fine, but the resolution was at 1280x720... This show would have likely been created and displayed in 480i, but certainly not at 720p.

I tried another 90's cartoon show from Amazon, as the previous one did run long enough where it could have been made in HD at some point. However, I did download from the first season so that shouldn't have mattered. Anyways, I chose a show that was not even around during the times HD came to pass for networks and channels. Yet again I got a video at 1280x720.

Puzzled, I contacted PlayLater support and explained my dilemma. Being somewhat obtuse, as I had noticed previously, they thought my problem was with the black bars created by the 4:3 aspect ratio.

My reply reiterated that I was recording a SD show in HD resolution. The response I received gave me a workaround to get 480i (or 480p as stated) to achieve the actual resolution the shows were broadcast in, and came on DVD.

Before I forget, I was also told that I could not get any samples. I am not sure why as YouTube and other sites they list are free, so I'm not sure why they couldn't take a minute to product a sample...

Wait, What Now?
I sent one final email explaining what HD was, which is not just resolution but quality. The support person I was talking to kept referring to these recordings as if they were HD, which they are clearly not. I then realized something and asked another important question: Is PlayLater able to differentiate between quality and resolution, or just resolution?

About 10 minutes later I got an email with a partial answer. Amazon allegedly does not communicate if what it is showing is in SD or HD. Therefore, PlayLater can only go by the resolution that is given. And if Amazon determines that you have a slow Internet connection it may reduce the quality but still give a resolution of 1280x720.

Eager to know more, I asked if this applied to all channels, or if PlayLater could determine the difference between SD and HD on some channels? And if so, was there a list anywhere users could view to know. I was told that it applies to all channels. Which means, even sources that are should be or start off in HD, may have a final output of mostly SD!

Admittedly, Amazon, or any other channel, is not going to try to work with PlayLater on this matter (or any other) because MediaMall is essentially doing something they frown upon.

But this could easily be argued as falsely advertising HD recordings. A normal user might think they are getting 720p recordings, when in reality they are not. They won't even know it if they aren't looking for it. This is similar to the current NVIDIA GTX 970 debacle where it was advertised as 4GB GDDR5 RAM, but it was actually 3.5GB and an additional .5GB. They are currently in a class action lawsuit about this...

Furthermore, it seems unfair that the user is forced to recognize this and fix it. Especially when considering the average user would not even know it is an issue. For a company trying to make a product easy for users, does that give them the right to knowingly withhold information to trick users into only thinking they got what they paid for?

The Final Test
There was only one other test I could perform to see if the quality was bad because of my circumstances. I enlisted the help of my brother who is back in the USA. He has a great Internet connection and the ability to use Netflix. All he needed was my login credentials to use PlayLater, and then he could record an episode I had already recorded while overseas. If the two looked the same, the problem was with PlayLater. If his copy was better, then it was likely my VPN and Internet connection.

We coordinated a time and at that time began preparation. I had him setup PlayOn and PlayLater and ensure his computer had all the same settings as mine. The only difference was that my Internet speed was shown as "High", and his as "Max". My CPU was shown as "Max", and his as "High".

I also want to mention that we share the same Netflix and Amazon Prime account, and the Amazon video used was a HD purchase I made. Those that might argue that the HD purchase should not be shared are not considering a Bluray or DVR. If I bring a Bluray to anyone's house and watch it even if they haven't purchased it as well, there are no laws being broken. If I go to someone's house and watch a recorded show from their DVR, there are no laws being broken.

We started with my Amazon HD purchase - an animated episode from last year - and after a few failed attempts finally made a full recording. I then had him upload the video and send me a link so I could compare the copy I recorded to "his".

His copy was far superior in quality. You could see it jump from more of a SD to HD version in the very beginning, but it seemed to hold throughout the rest of the video. His copy also had a ever-so-slightly higher bitrate, but were talking a matter of 40Kbps. My copy was a larger file, but once I viewed mine and his, I realized that mine had some advertisements that must've been removed since that time.

From here we moved on to Netflix. We used a live action show that I had already downloaded, a kids show if you must know. After a few attempts we were unable to record the show. Not even a partial recording could be made. The recording would begin at last for a short time before abruptly failing. We decided to call it quits, and try again later.

I decided to record a clip from Comedy Central, which required no login of any sort. In doing so, I could use one of their short clips. The choice was just under a minute. My assumption was that as long as we could start the recording, we would probably be able to finish before failing.

A few days later my brother and I scheduled a time to try this last clip. Without going into too much detail, no recordings were made. The server was reset several times, the program restarted just as many, and even a change of venue back to Netflix proved fruitless. This just goes to show that a nice interface is worthless without a functioning product.

The test completed successfully proved one thing, bandwidth, which can be restricted by where you live and what speeds you opted for, or by a proxy or VPN, does have an impact on PlayLater recording. As described above, even if a recording starts off in HD, it can switch into SD but PlayLater will continue to record in HD resolution.

The Rundown
So let's go over all the facts we know:

1. PlayLater records in a main profile of level 3.0. While not standard for 720p, and considered bad practice to do so, it can be done. This should not affect the quality.
2. PlayLater records in an arguably high bitrate, which at face value would lend to quality video recordings.
3. PlayLater creates large files, which at face value would lend to quality video recordings.
4. PlayLater cannot distinguish between a SD or HD stream, only resolution. This means it can produce videos that are in HD resolution but are actually SD quality.
5. PlayLater cannot distinguish if a HD source has been reduced to SD. This means it can produce videos that seem to be HD quality (or are at first) but are actually in SD quality.
6. PlayLater relies on abundant bandwidth to record HD, which can greatly affect how "good" a HD recording looks.
7. PlayLater virtually makes no change in bitrate if a recording is done in SD or HD, which may make it harder to discern if a file is actually in SD or HD.
8. PlayLater can still be quite buggy, which means that even with a powerful CPU, a copious amount of RAM, and an Internet connection with blistering speeds, you may still be unable to record HD because PlayLater doesn't work perfectly or properly at most times.

PlayLater has a smooth interface, and easy enough controls, but problems still occur quite frequently. The majority of the bugs I encounter is about failing to record. Normally, closing out PlayLater (and ending the process in the Task Manager), then restarting PlayLater fixes it. Sometimes just restarting the PlayOn server from PlayLater's settings will fix this too. And in some occasions, nothing seems to fix this. While there are other concerns, this major point of conflict should take priority over all others due to the simple fact that if PlayLater doesn't work, it's a waste of money.

The Verdict
PlayLater can and will make HD recordings. The main problem is if your computer can handle live recording, and if so, do you have the necessary bandwidth to achieve true HD results. And even if all that, will PlayLater actually work or just bug out?

So, in all honesty, the answer is yes and no. If you have a new computer with an Internet connection that allows for high speeds, chances are you can get true HD recording. However, if you are in a foreign country that has decent speeds at best, and are forced to use a proxy or VPN, there is a probability that you will not be able to get true HD recordings (even if you have a top-of-the-line computer).

And again, it can come down to PlayLater just not working. PlayLater seems to work perfectly about 30% of the time in my experience. Most of the time it's a game of will it work and how to make it work. During those times, I would say you have a 50% chance of getting it to work.

Final Words
PlayLater is a good product, however, it has many sides to it. Things that you will not learn before purchasing it. Those who are in first-world countries may appreciate it more than those who are not. Then again, foreign and third-world country users may still appreciate its abilities if not using it for HD purposes, or HD is not a real concern.

In either case, given the requirements, HD recording is possible and looks great. If you can survive the bugs, and its secrets, then it can be a worth-while purchase. The support is also good about replies, although, they may not be as good at given answers to certain questions...