TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??

[William Sommerwerck]

Don't think you've been following things. DVDs as such

don't have either an NTSC or PAL footprint unless the
originating material had.

I don't think that's correct. There are differences in the number of
scanning lines and frame rate on NTSC and PAL DVDs.

With regard to your comment -- which is something like "there's no water in
a glass unless you've poured water into it" -- what sort of non-PAL or
non-NTSC-format material would you record on a video DVD?

 

[William Sommerwerck]

I've no experience in PAL or SECAM whatsoever.

But to just unilaterally claim the NTSC is inferior --
I just don't see it. So there must be more to the
story. Maybe politics in some wild manner? That
tends to piss people off.

It appears that the incorrect belief that PAL is "superior" is based on the
fact that PAL is somewhat self-correcting for non-linear phase errors, and
that one can build a receiver that automatically corrects for static phase
errors in the burst or subcarrier.

These features, of course, have nothing whatever to do with the /basic/
image quality of the system, and aren't needed if the video distribution
system is properly designed and maintained.

In every other respect, NTSC is objectively superior to PAL.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

And you think the few cameras you've seen are suitable for judging
any system? Just because you didn't see them doesn't mean they weren't
built. I was using an RCA TK-16 Vidicon camera in the service that was
built in the late '60s.

You appear only to have heard of RCA cameras.

Vidicon cameras were usable in low light, properly designed. Not
that the BBC was renowned for state of the art.
Really?

I saw one of the first
single gun color TV cameras in 1972/73, built by Magnavox for industrial
video applications. That was at Ft. Rucker, Al. where the video
production section was looking into newer cameras.

Can you name a broadcast use for a single tube colour camera? Apart from
stunt stuff where it would be destroyed.

If you consider 2"
Ampex industrial video, you might argue. The mobile production units
were several tractor trailers full, and they had just bought the first
Tektronix U-matic decks built.

U-matic? Only ever used for news stuff here. And office viewing before VHS.

1" C Format ruled until the arrival of Beta SP and MII.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Sigh. Did your mother have any kids without brain damage? Quit
trying to put words in my mouth, you aren't smart enough to even try.
Proper camera work made sure that the active portion of any image was
properly framed. Proper framing was for near worst case TVs. No one
gave a shit if your $139 jpanese TV cut off 25% all the way around the
image.

So why the mask on the monitors if 'proper camera work made sure that the
active portion of any image was properly framed'? Cameramen not trusted?

Only time I saw an electronic mask displayed on a production control room
monitor was when things were destined for 16mm telerecording only.


Notice you've omitted to answer this...

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I've no experience in PAL or SECAM whatsoever. But to just unilaterally
claim the NTSC is inferior I just don't see it. So there must be more to
the story. Maybe politics in some wild manner? That tends to piss people
off.

Don't think anyone with sense claims any of these are universally
superior. Each had merits and de-merits.

Think it goes something like this:-

NTSC gives the best pictures in the studio.
SECAM records best.
PAL transmits best.

 

[Jeffrey Angus]

I've no experience in PAL or SECAM whatsoever. But to just unilaterally
claim the NTSC is inferior I just don't see it. So there must be more to
the story. Maybe politics in some wild manner? That tends to piss people
off.

People like to make stupid acronyms.
Innovations People Don't Need and Always Off Line for example.

When you call them on it, they go sideways, just like asking
a person to explain "why" they feel the way they do when you
ask them a political or religious question.

You'll get the same response mentioning Bill Gates and Micro
Soft. Despite that fact that without MS and the accidental
release of the IBM PC architecture we wouldn't have the speed
or power at the price we have now.

And of course, when psycho's off their meds get involved,
Well....

Jeff

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I don't think that's correct. There are differences in the number of
scanning lines and frame rate on NTSC and PAL DVDs.

There are - but neither are *fundamental* to PAL or NTSC.

With regard to your comment -- which is something like "there's no water
in a glass unless you've poured water into it" -- what sort of non-PAL
or non-NTSC-format material would you record on a video DVD?

If the material is sourced from a composite PAL recording, it will retain
the PAL footprint.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In every other respect, NTSC is objectively superior to PAL.

Explain how 525 lines gives superior resolution to 625?

 

[Jeffrey Angus]

So, you used 2" until the other formats were availible? Umatic was
second generation video for use in classrooms, dubbed from the broadcast
grade masters. Long beofre VHS or any beta crap was availible. I used
1" Sony at WACX in orlando for the master edit suit. OTOH, I had 13
Sony U-Matics at the transmitter site for the LaCarte Video automation
system. WACX had better video quality than most of the other stations
in the market. The worst used Beta and it was obvious.

Back in 1970 I took course "TV production" in my Senior year.
We had a nice 1" tape deck and a mixer/fader console along with
two dolly mounted cameras.

By 1971, the students had trahed enough of the equipment, so
that they were using a 1/2" Sone deck and hand helds on tripods.

Sigh, what a waste of studio grade gear.

Jeff

 

[Paul Feaker]

William, Phil is a mentally ill Aussie who rarely takes his
medicine. Just ignore him.

And you're a fucking socially retarded shut in who should take medicine.

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Don't think anyone with sense claims any of these are universally
superior. Each had merits and de-merits.

Think it goes something like this:-

NTSC gives the best pictures in the studio.
SECAM records best.
PAL transmits best.

The reality is much more mundane. NTSC was perfectly fine. It gained a bad
reputation becuase of problems in distribution, which were managment issues,
not technical ones.

The BBC, adopted the original NTSC specification calling it PAL. It included
the alternating line phase (hence the name), that was found to be unecessary
in the US.

For what may have been a good technical reason when the 405 line system was
developed in the 1930's, by the time the new system was designed around 1960,
there was absolutely no technical reason that the US system, as implemented,
would not work in the UK. (50 fields/25 frames versus 60 and 30).

The political reason was to keep the UK electronics companies in work, to
avoid cheap sets made in much larger quantities in the US. At that time,
there was no electronics industry to speak of in Japan, so it was not a threat.

The PAL is better hype was exactly that, it was to make you think that
technically it was different than NTSC and ripping off the british public was
a good thing.

SECAM on the other hand really was designed to make TV Sets incompatible
with NTSC/PAL and more expensive.

Geoff.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

maybe on your planet. A cameraman has a lit of things to pay
attention to. The lines on his monitor make it easy to frame the shot.
Not that you would know.

Can you make up your mind if you're talking about what a camera has
available on the viewfinder or what you'd find on a control room monitor?

No matter what answer yo got you would still pull out a ruler to
measure yor dick so there was no reason to give you the pleasure.

Seems to me you were a 'back room boy' with no experience of production.
Gawd help us if you were responsible for providing the facilities others
had to work round.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Sigh. You appear to bbe an idiot. RCA & GE made most of the studio
cameras in the US.

I don't live in the US.

A few stations got screwed when they bought Philips
cameras that had no factory support and few spare parts.

Pretty well the same as the few UK companies that bought RCA, then.

it makes as much sense as the bullshit you're posting.

Well, I'm trying to think of a US broadcaster that designed much of its
own equipment. If you want to debate the BBC and 'state of the art'.

Yes they were used for ENG before color CCD cameras were availible.

I'm talking about proper broadcasting, not news. News will use domestic
shot pictures if it suits them. Please stick to top end.

So, you used 2" until the other formats were availible?

Which part of 1" C format don't you understand?

Umatic was
second generation video for use in classrooms, dubbed from the broadcast
grade masters. Long beofre VHS or any beta crap was availible. I used
1" Sony at WACX in orlando for the master edit suit. OTOH, I had 13
Sony U-Matics at the transmitter site for the LaCarte Video automation
system. WACX had better video quality than most of the other stations
in the market. The worst used Beta and it was obvious.

Seems to me you know little about broadcast standards.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

The 1" decks you refer to are not the 1" machines used in broadcast.
The broadcast flavor was the late '70s SMPTE C format built by Ampex,
Sony, RCA, Hitachi and NEC but mostly Ampex and Sony. Did I miss any?

Yup. Marconi made a clone. Very good too - with Dolby A for the main audio
pair.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

The reality is much more mundane. NTSC was perfectly fine. It gained a
bad reputation becuase of problems in distribution, which were managment
issues, not technical ones.

Given receivers were fitted with a front panel hue control, it must have
been a known issue. PAL sets have no such device.

The BBC, adopted the original NTSC specification calling it PAL. It
included the alternating line phase (hence the name), that was found to
be unecessary in the US.

I wonder just how available were the delay lines needed when NTSC was
introduced? They were quite an expensive component years later.

For what may have been a good technical reason when the 405 line system
was developed in the 1930's, by the time the new system was designed
around 1960, there was absolutely no technical reason that the US
system, as implemented, would not work in the UK. (50 fields/25 frames
versus 60 and 30).

Well, film uses 24 fps. Probably for a good reason. Which makes 25
somewhat closer. But not going for NTSC allowed the use of 625 lines. And
therefore better resolution.

The political reason was to keep the UK electronics companies in work,
to avoid cheap sets made in much larger quantities in the US. At that
time, there was no electronics industry to speak of in Japan, so it was
not a threat.

The US have never been at the forefront of producing 240 volt 50 Hz
anything - they tend to stick to the local markets.

The PAL is better hype was exactly that, it was to make you think that
technically it was different than NTSC and ripping off the british
public was a good thing.

That would have had more weight if only the UK had adopted PAL.

SECAM on the other hand really was designed to make TV Sets incompatible
with NTSC/PAL and more expensive.

The French often go their own way.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

No kidding. One of the local high schools gets new equipment about
every other year when they need to learn on beat up old junk.

Big snag with pro gear at one time was it needed pros to set it up and
maintain it. And then there was the size.

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Explain how 525 lines gives superior resolution to 625?

Because it does it 30 times a second instead of 25. Less bluring in live action.

Geoff.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Don't think you've been following things. DVDs as such

There are - but neither are *fundamental* to PAL or NTSC.

Okay... Right...

If the material is sourced from a composite PAL recording,
it will retain the PAL footprint.

Now you've lost me. I didn't know that DVDs were -- or could be -- made from
composite sources. MPEG encoding wasn't intended to work with composite
signals -- was it?

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Oh they most certainly do as they are either 525/60 or

625/50. While your computer will have no trouble with
this, CRT sets definitely did (but could usually be adjusted).

Modern sets can't be adjusted. The last TV I owned with a vertical hold
control was the Sony KV-1920. The hold had sufficient range to lock to 50Hz
sources. Every set since then has had scan sync locked to the color burst.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Explain how 525 lines gives superior resolution to 625?

I thought we were talking about /color/ encoding and display. But since you
brought up resolution... NTSC has better color resolution.