Connect with us

TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??

Discussion in 'Electronic Repair' started by mm, Jan 8, 2011.

  1. Don't think anyone with sense claims any of these are
    #1 is meaningless, because "in the studio", you can display RGB directly,
    without encoding.

    I remember an article about 15 years ago in one of the pro publications
    arguing over color TV standards. The author -- who was someone famous (it
    might have been Henry Kloss, but don't hold me to that) -- said that the
    best color TV images he'd ever seen were NTSC. He was talking in terms of
    optimum reception and display.
  2. The reality is much more mundane. NTSC was perfectly fine.
    They don't? I've never understood how an automatic Hue control would work on
    a PAL set.

    NOTE: I just started browsing the Wikipedia article, which is loaded with
    errors. For example, it says:

    "PAL was developed by Walter Bruch at Telefunken in Germany."

    Note "developed" (not "invented"). Herr Bruch might have added useful
    features, but PAL is basically the original NTSC proposal.

    "NTSC receivers have a tint [sic] control to perform colour correction
    manually. If this is not adjusted correctly, the colours may be faulty. The
    PAL standard automatically cancels hue errors by phase reversal, so a tint
    control is unnecessary. Chrominance phase errors in the PAL system are
    cancelled out using a 1H delay line resulting in lower saturation, which is
    much less noticeable to the eye than NTSC hue errors."

    Just about everything there is wrong. I think.

    The anticipate cost of the additional circuitry was one of the reasons NTSC
    dropped phase alternation. The Wikipedia article states that a PAL receiver
    "needs" a 1H delay line, but I don't see why that is an absolute

    NTSC gets around the frame-rate difference with 3:2 pull-down. European TV
    simply runs the film 4% faster, at 25fps. Neither system is ideal. At least
    Blu-ray displays motion pictures at their correct frame rate.

    It was actually designed to get around the problems of recording video
    images on tape.

    By the way... PAL has no more /horizontal/ resolution than NTSC. (The
    bandwidth/line is about the same.) The extra hundred scanning lines is nice,
    but the eye judges resolution more by horizontal resolution.
  3. Oh they most certainly do as they are either 525/60 or
    Correction. My NAD MR-20 also had a vertical hold control.
  4. People like to make stupid acronyms. Innovations
    Perhaps the most-brilliant reverse acronym was for PCMCIA (personal computer
    memory-card international association):

    "People can't memorize computer-industry acronyms"
  5. It depends upon what you mean by SECAM. SECAM as a color and video encoding
    method was designed as you say, to improve video recordings. SECAM as an over
    the air transmission system used by France was designed to produce a signal
    that could not be received by an NTSC or PAL TV set, would not display any
    color nor have any audio. Or vice versa.

    This meant that you could only receive French SECAM TV signals on French TV
    sets, and French viewers could not receive foreign signals.

    Many countries did use SECAM over the air signals that were compatible with
    PAL, and except for the color could be received on PAL TVs and vice versa.
    (look up PAL B/G versus SECAM D/K).

    Two system (PAL/(me)SECAM) TV sets and VCRs were common, and if I remember
    correctly unmodifed PAL VCRs could play (me)SECAM tapes to a two system TV

  6. That isn't the definition of resolution.

    If 30 fps is needed for 'less blurring in live action' how come Hollywood
    managed at 24 fps for the large screen?
  7. It would be a very stupid studio that did so if it were intended for
    analogue transmission.
  8. The vertical/horizontal resolution relationship is correct with PAL 625
    lines. Unless US eyes differ from the rest of the world.
  9. Viewing distance. Large screens are watched much farther away than TVs.

  10. When colour started in the UK, it was only on one UHF channel out of 3.
    The other two were still 405 line VHF. So the first colour sets were dual

    Given the US never attempted to make sets to the UK mono standard of 405
    lines - which pre-dated any US one - just why do you think they'd have
    been interested in any other UK market? A few years later, UK colour sets
    were UHF only when the other channels went colour.

    I also doubt any US manufactured set would have been cheaper in the UK
    after transport and setting up a service/dealer network, etc. US cars, for
    example, have never been competitive here, price wise.

    Your idea that the whole world should adopt US standards regardless of
    local conditions was just to protect their home industries says much.
    It's the reason why the far east has taken over the manufacture of such
    things. They tend to make what people want, rather than what the
    manufacturers think they should have. And the UK is equally as guilty.
  11. I take it light blurs with distance, then?

    Does that make large screen TVs ok at 25 fps?
  12. Don't think anyone with sense claims any of these are
    How about "under ideal conditions"?
  13. Have you ever worked in TV production? There are very good reasons why you
    wouldn't watch RGB in the studio if it is to be encoded later.
  14. Where they? I have never seen a dual standard (405/625) line TV set on a
    website, listed on various collectors pages, nor do any of the people who
    have video tours of their 405 line TV collections on youtube have any.

    I'm not saying they did not exist, but if they did, people are going to a lot
    of trouble to omit them. You'd figure the guy who has one of the
    last 405 line TV sets (the model, not the actual set) and proudly shows it,
    would have one of the first 405/625 sets too.
    Well, they would not. But in 1956 back when the UK was still stuck in the
    1930's, you could buy a US color TV off the salesroom floor. If the BBC wanted
    to go to color, they could of just adopted the US system, and let people
    import US sets with transformers until one with 240 volt power supplies
    became available.

    BTW, what you said about 405/625 line sets in general was not true, BBC one
    was a dual service, the second BBC channel was never 405. It started in
    1963, two years before there were color broadcasts.

    As for tuners, ALL US sets had UHF tuners by the summer of 1964.
    Bad example. UK cars are mirror images of US ones, the only difference
    between an NTSC set receiveing NTSC signals in the UK versus the US was the
    power line voltage. An external transformer would have been around $25, which
    on a $1,000 item was trivial.

    We've long since established that by 1956 the power line frequency did
    not matter.

    WTF? Now you are projecting. Since PAL is the original NTSC standard as
    proposed, the UK had no TV network to speak of (just left overs from the
    1930's), why not adpot an off the shelf technology that's already in use.

    People wanted color TVs in 1956, they did not want a british system with
    little or no benefit except that it would take nine years before the
    first broadcast.

    In the 1950's the concept of COTS (commerical off the shelf technology) did not
    exist and I'm not sure it has ever existed at the BBC. To be blunt, if the
    BBC had adopted the RCA system 100%, there would have been color TV in the
    UK in 1957.

    So what real benefit did PAL provide?
    Actually they did not. They started making what they wanted you to buy, but
    at a price so low you could afford to buy it and live with the missing features.

    Look at VHS. VHS forced out all the other systems because the EU was going to
    impose VCR quotas. To prevent it, the Japanese manufacturers, except for Sony
    stopped making PAL and SECAM VCRs in favor of NTSC ones. They literally sold
    the NTSC ones BELLOW COST just to keep the factories running.
    (look up "dumping" and VCR).

    People did not want VHS VCRs, they wanted BETAMAX VCRs. But when the equivalent
    VHS VCR was on sale for half of a Sony, they bought them anyway.

  15. You can't have looked very hard. Dual standard sets - both colour and
    monochrome - were plentiful at one time.
    Some could - if they had the money.
    If the US makers wanted to sell sets in the UK they could have made them
    to UK spec. But your strange logic seems against this.
    BBC 2 started off as UHF 625 mono. Because it was planned to start colour
    there in the future. BBC1 and ITV were 405 (VHF) only until they too went
    colour on UHF.
    I presume you mean all new ones?
    Mirror image? Have you ever looked at the design of a car? UK makers
    managed to produce pretty well every model in RHD and LHD. As did just
    about every other in the world. Another example of 'take what you get or
    leave it'?
    And even more trivial and cheaper to make a new power supply?
    It *can* matter to power supplies.

    Because it was so poor. As anyone who had seen the actual results in the
    '50s would remember...
    Where did I ever say the US should have used UK technology? It's you who
    are saying the reverse.
    And we'd have been saddled with an inferior system relying on imported
    equipment. Those coffins of cameras not suited to UK production methods.
    The best TV service in the world.
    JVC cornered the VCR rental market with VHS. But you could buy a variety
    of makes including Sony BetaMax. At the same time as the Philips VCC
    system. VHS was the most popular system for all the wrong reasons - as
    So why didn't your manufactures with that vast economy of scale compete?
    You found the money to put man on the moon but couldn't make a domestic
    VCR. Even with all the expertise of Ampex.
  16. It would be a very stupid studio that did so
    No, but I understood what you were getting at. You have to see the image as
    the consumer will see it.
  17. Meat Plow

    Meat Plow Guest

    I saw 1 open delay line. In an RCA tube set back in 1980. I might have
    paid less than 10 bucks for it. Never saw another failed.
  18. Which video processing systems? I take it you mean something not used in
    the studio?

    But pray tell of a composite video studio which had RGB available from
    anything other than a single camera, etc.
  19. Sigh. Now I'm really sure you've never worked *in* TV.
  20. Ah. News. Hence all the references to U-Matic and VHS as if they were
    broadcast systems.
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day