Maker Pro
Maker Pro

TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??

W

William Sommerwerck

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.

#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.
 
W

William Sommerwerck

Jan 1, 1970
0
The reality is much more mundane. NTSC was perfectly fine.
Given receivers were fitted with a front panel hue control, it must
have been a known issue. PAL sets have no such device.

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.

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

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
requirement.

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.

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.
 
W

William Sommerwerck

Jan 1, 1970
0
Oh they most certainly do as they are either 525/60 or
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.

Correction. My NAD MR-20 also had a vertical hold control.
 
W

William Sommerwerck

Jan 1, 1970
0
People like to make stupid acronyms. Innovations
People Don't Need and Always Off Line, for example.

Perhaps the most-brilliant reverse acronym was for PCMCIA (personal computer
memory-card international association):

"People can't memorize computer-industry acronyms"
 
G

Geoffrey S. Mendelson

Jan 1, 1970
0
William said:
It was actually designed to get around the problems of recording video
images on tape.

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
set.

Geoff.
 
D

Dave Plowman (News)

Jan 1, 1970
0
Because it does it 30 times a second instead of 25. Less bluring in live
action.

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?
 
D

Dave Plowman (News)

Jan 1, 1970
0
#1 is meaningless, because "in the studio", you can display RGB directly,
without encoding.

It would be a very stupid studio that did so if it were intended for
analogue transmission.
 
D

Dave Plowman (News)

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.

The vertical/horizontal resolution relationship is correct with PAL 625
lines. Unless US eyes differ from the rest of the world.
 
G

Geoffrey S. Mendelson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dave said:
If 30 fps is needed for 'less blurring in live action' how come Hollywood
managed at 24 fps for the large screen?

Viewing distance. Large screens are watched much farther away than TVs.

Geoff.
 
D

Dave Plowman (News)

Jan 1, 1970
0
The political reason was to keep the UK electronics companies in work, to
avoid cheap sets made in much larger quantities in the US.

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
standard.

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.
 
D

Dave Plowman (News)

Jan 1, 1970
0
Viewing distance. Large screens are watched much farther away than TVs.

I take it light blurs with distance, then?

Does that make large screen TVs ok at 25 fps?
 
W

William Sommerwerck

Jan 1, 1970
0
Don't think anyone with sense claims any of these are
It would be a very stupid studio that did so if it were intended
for analogue transmission.

How about "under ideal conditions"?
 
D

Dave Plowman (News)

Jan 1, 1970
0
How about "under ideal conditions"?

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.
 
G

Geoffrey S. Mendelson

Jan 1, 1970
0
Dave said:
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
standard.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.

Your idea that the whole world should adopt US standards regardless of
local conditions was just to protect their home industries says much.

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?
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.

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.

Geoff.
 
D

Dave Plowman (News)

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.

You can't have looked very hard. Dual standard sets - both colour and
monochrome - were plentiful at one time.
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.

Some could - if they had the money.
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.

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.
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.

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.
As for tuners, ALL US sets had UHF tuners by the summer of 1964.

I presume you mean all new ones?
Bad example. UK cars are mirror images of US 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'?
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.

And even more trivial and cheaper to make a new power supply?
We've long since established that by 1956 the power line frequency did
not matter.

It *can* matter to power supplies.

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.

Because it was so poor. As anyone who had seen the actual results in the
'50s would remember...
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.

Where did I ever say the US should have used UK technology? It's you who
are saying the reverse.
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.

And we'd have been saddled with an inferior system relying on imported
equipment. Those coffins of cameras not suited to UK production methods.
So what real benefit did PAL provide?

The best TV service in the world.
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.

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
elsewhere.
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.

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.
 
W

William Sommerwerck

Jan 1, 1970
0
It would be a very stupid studio that did so
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.

No, but I understood what you were getting at. You have to see the image as
the consumer will see it.
 
M

Meat Plow

Jan 1, 1970
0
NTSC delay lines for TV sets were about $3 for replacments in the mid
'60s. I only saw one open delay line and one with physical damage in
40+ years. The open delay line removed the luminanve signal, leaving
only moving colored splotches on a black screen.

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.
 
D

Dave Plowman (News)

Jan 1, 1970
0
It would be very stupid to make a statement like that when you know
nothing of how the video was processed. Some video processing systems
could use either composite or RGB+Sync, but decoding the video first
added more timing errors that had to be corrected elsewhere in the
system.

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.
 
D

Dave Plowman (News)

Jan 1, 1970
0
I produced & directed a live newscast for a year in '73 & 74 at Ft.
Greely, AK.

Ah. News. Hence all the references to U-Matic and VHS as if they were
broadcast systems.
 
Top