NTSC versus PAL
in [Repair]
|
From: Phil Allison on 3 Apr 2010 11:07 "William Sommerwanker LYING TROLL " > NTSC has always "performed well". ** MASSIVE LIE . > Poor NTSC image quality was always due to > bad studio practice. ** Another MASSIVE LIE. ..... Phil > >
From: Sylvia Else on 3 Apr 2010 20:09 On 4/04/2010 12:03 AM, William Sommerwerck wrote: >>> If the transmission network has constant group delay, >>> the hue setting should be set 'n forget, and never need >>> to be changed. > >> It's not clear to me why that wasn't the case anyway. Whatever >> phase error was introduced to the colour signal by the transmission >> system would also affect the colour burst. If the problem could be >> addressed by means of a tint control with a setting that remained >> stable even over the duration of a program, it rather seems to imply >> that a phase error between the colour burst and the colour subcarrier >> was built into the signal at the studio. > > We're talking about non-linear group delay. This is not a simple phase error > in the burst, but a non-time-constant delay across the bandwidth of the > chroma signal. Any such non-linear delay will introduce varying color errors > that cannot be corrected with a single hue setting. > > But, as you say, that kind of problem cannot be corrected with a single hue setting, so no amount of fiddling with the tint control would have produced an acceptable picture, even over a short timescale. I understand that prior to the expiry of the Telefunken PAL patent, Sony Trinitron sets for the PAL market actually threw away the chrominance signal on alternate scan lines, thus landing themselves back in NTSC territory. Those sets had a tint control, and I know from personal experience that they produced a perfectly satisfactory result (I only learnt the other day why they had a tint control). So even if non-linear delay was a theoretical problem, it appears not to have been one in practice. At least, not in the UK. Sylvia.
From: stratus46 on 4 Apr 2010 02:08 On Apr 2, 9:40 pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...(a)tpg.com.au> wrote: > <stratu...(a)yahoo.com> > > > ** More fuckwit, OFF TOPIC CRAPOLOGY !! > > > See the words " broadcast signal " - fuckhead ??? > > > Even know what it means ??? > > They still do some composite D-2 editing at CBS network. Or don't they > count as broadcast? > > ** Hey fuckwit. > > In relation to television transmission - where does one find the " > broadcast signal " ??? > > Don't strain you tiny brain thinking too hard. > > ..... Phil What the heck has the transmitter got to do with it? Anything that is right or wrong with an NTSC signal is equally right or wrong BEFORE the transmitter. The transmitter is just a way to get the signal to lots of folks at once. Or does that confuse YOU? G²
From: Dave Plowman (News) on 4 Apr 2010 05:44 In article <4bb7d8ca$0$32106$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com>, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: > I understand that prior to the expiry of the Telefunken PAL patent, Sony > Trinitron sets for the PAL market actually threw away the chrominance > signal on alternate scan lines, thus landing themselves back in NTSC > territory. Those sets had a tint control, and I know from personal > experience that they produced a perfectly satisfactory result (I only > learnt the other day why they had a tint control). Depends on what you mean by 'satisfacory'. Passable, maybe. -- *Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects * Dave Plowman dave(a)davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
From: isw on 5 Apr 2010 00:22
In article <b463273f-75d6-4957-84a4-730fa3bec602(a)l36g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, stratus46(a)yahoo.com wrote: > On Apr 2, 9:40�pm, "Phil Allison" <phi...(a)tpg.com.au> wrote: > > <stratu...(a)yahoo.com> > > > > > ** More fuckwit, OFF TOPIC CRAPOLOGY !! > > > > > See the words " broadcast signal " - fuckhead ??? > > > > > Even know what it means ??? > > > > They still do some composite D-2 editing at CBS network. Or don't they > > count as broadcast? > > > > ** Hey fuckwit. > > > > In relation to television transmission �- �where does one find the �" > > broadcast signal " �??? > > > > Don't strain you tiny brain thinking too hard. > > > > ..... � Phil > > What the heck has the transmitter got to do with it? Anything that is > right or wrong with an NTSC signal is equally right or wrong BEFORE > the transmitter. The transmitter is just a way to get the signal to > lots of folks at once. Or does that confuse YOU? You are evidently not aware that a poorly designed or operated transmitter can introduce all sorts of distortions to the signal. Talk to the engineers who designed or operated them sometime. Isaac |