Guest
Why wouldn't they send it ?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why wouldn't they send it ?
Guest
2:40 AMjurb...@gmail.com wrote:
"Why wouldn't they send it ? "
sigh... Simple: The color gamut triangle of
the ATSC *standard* - what the STANDARD
is capable of reproducing - is a tad smaller
than that of NTSC.
"To the contrary. A display may be capable of limitless
color and dynamic range, but it can reproduce only
what it is sent. "
"Why wouldn't they send it ? "
sigh... Simple: The color gamut triangle of
the ATSC *standard* - what the STANDARD
is capable of reproducing - is a tad smaller
than that of NTSC.
Guest
..... wrote: "STANDARD color gamut in ATSC. Rec. 709 is common for HD programming,
and Rec. 601 is common with SD. But ATSC doesn't care; the primaries
and the white point are specified in the stream. Maybe someday Rec,
2020 will be standard in a future version of ATSC, but for now, there
is no such thing as an ATSC standard color gamut.
- show quoted text -"
Butt the f out!
Find someone worthwhile to stalk.
Like someone you actually know.
and Rec. 601 is common with SD. But ATSC doesn't care; the primaries
and the white point are specified in the stream. Maybe someday Rec,
2020 will be standard in a future version of ATSC, but for now, there
is no such thing as an ATSC standard color gamut.
- show quoted text -"
Butt the f out!
Find someone worthwhile to stalk.
Like someone you actually know.
N
None
Guest
<thekma @ gmail.com > wrote in message
news:9ce88f9c-bdbd-4afd-a94c-a30fc847c862@googlegroups.com...
Not as simple as you say.
ATSC has no standard color gamut. Even with caps-lock, there is no
STANDARD color gamut in ATSC. Rec. 709 is common for HD programming,
and Rec. 601 is common with SD. But ATSC doesn't care; the primaries
and the white point are specified in the stream. Maybe someday Rec,
2020 will be standard in a future version of ATSC, but for now, there
is no such thing as an ATSC standard color gamut.
> is a tad smaller than that of NTSC.
news:9ce88f9c-bdbd-4afd-a94c-a30fc847c862@googlegroups.com...
2:40 AMjurb...@gmail.com wrote:
"To the contrary. A display may be capable of limitless
color and dynamic range, but it can reproduce only
what it is sent. "
"Why wouldn't they send it ? "
sigh... Simple:
Not as simple as you say.
The color gamut triangle of
the ATSC *standard* - what the STANDARD
is capable of reproducing -
ATSC has no standard color gamut. Even with caps-lock, there is no
STANDARD color gamut in ATSC. Rec. 709 is common for HD programming,
and Rec. 601 is common with SD. But ATSC doesn't care; the primaries
and the white point are specified in the stream. Maybe someday Rec,
2020 will be standard in a future version of ATSC, but for now, there
is no such thing as an ATSC standard color gamut.
> is a tad smaller than that of NTSC.
N
None
Guest
<thekmanrocks@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:66cb8f8a-c517-49c9-8baf-4f2e29aea8d5@googlegroups.com...
Sorry to disturb you with the simple facts concerning color gamuts in
video standards. But there is no ATSC color gamut standard. NTSC has a
very broad gamut, but NTSC is dead. Pointer's gamut is probably
adequate for practical use. But ATSC doesn't care. It expect the
primaries and white point to be specified in the stream; it's doesn't
define them as a standard.
You are obviously way too smart to understand that. Primary colors.
White point. Pretty simple stuff.
HFCUIS. LKF. FCK,WAFA. AASBDF. OK, li'l buddy?
news:66cb8f8a-c517-49c9-8baf-4f2e29aea8d5@googlegroups.com...
.... wrote: "STANDARD color gamut in ATSC. Rec. 709 is common for HD
programming,
and Rec. 601 is common with SD. But ATSC doesn't care; the primaries
and the white point are specified in the stream. Maybe someday Rec,
2020 will be standard in a future version of ATSC, but for now,
there
is no such thing as an ATSC standard color gamut.
- show quoted text -"
Butt the f out!
Find someone worthwhile to stalk.
Like someone you actually know.
Sorry to disturb you with the simple facts concerning color gamuts in
video standards. But there is no ATSC color gamut standard. NTSC has a
very broad gamut, but NTSC is dead. Pointer's gamut is probably
adequate for practical use. But ATSC doesn't care. It expect the
primaries and white point to be specified in the stream; it's doesn't
define them as a standard.
You are obviously way too smart to understand that. Primary colors.
White point. Pretty simple stuff.
HFCUIS. LKF. FCK,WAFA. AASBDF. OK, li'l buddy?
Guest
>"Actually, 48 FPS as projected -- each frame was shown twice. "
Didn't know that. Makes sense though.
I busted "them". I believe it was a commercial for a Sharp camcorder with good low light capabilities. They were showing what was ostensibly some kids birthday party or something. Well back then I always had six or seven head VCRs. I could tell when they pulled it down from the 48 Hz to 60 Hz. They showed each from twice but every so many cycles they would show it thrice.
The video the showed was clearly on film because a camcorders does not use 24 FPS. (or 48)
Nothing happened, WTF. I didn't buy one, I didn't initiate a class action lawsuit, in fact it is almost like who cares.
Like now, I work on "pro" audio. Know what "pro" actually means here ? It means that the FTC and IHF standards do not apply. You got an amp the has 55 volt rails which yields about 100 WPC but they can call it 3,500 watts. Technical Pro is one of the worst offenders but I have seen worse. I saw one amp supposedly 1,000 watts that had a single TO-220 type chip output. There is no way this thing was even 100 WPC.
But anyway, it is not the same with a DVD, with a good four (plus two audio) head VCR going frame by frame you can see the effect. Two frames would be the same and then three frames would be the same. And I am probably the only person in the world who knows they cheated.
Technically, if their camcorder would work in as low light as that film it was not false advertising, and I really don't recall them saying the video was taken with their camcorder. But the implication was pretty strong. Come on, they are advertising a camcorder with good low light sensitivity, What does the viewer think when he sees a kids birthday party ?
Just another example of the shit they can get away with. But the bottom line is I am so close to not giving a shit I can smell it.
Didn't know that. Makes sense though.
I busted "them". I believe it was a commercial for a Sharp camcorder with good low light capabilities. They were showing what was ostensibly some kids birthday party or something. Well back then I always had six or seven head VCRs. I could tell when they pulled it down from the 48 Hz to 60 Hz. They showed each from twice but every so many cycles they would show it thrice.
The video the showed was clearly on film because a camcorders does not use 24 FPS. (or 48)
Nothing happened, WTF. I didn't buy one, I didn't initiate a class action lawsuit, in fact it is almost like who cares.
Like now, I work on "pro" audio. Know what "pro" actually means here ? It means that the FTC and IHF standards do not apply. You got an amp the has 55 volt rails which yields about 100 WPC but they can call it 3,500 watts. Technical Pro is one of the worst offenders but I have seen worse. I saw one amp supposedly 1,000 watts that had a single TO-220 type chip output. There is no way this thing was even 100 WPC.
But anyway, it is not the same with a DVD, with a good four (plus two audio) head VCR going frame by frame you can see the effect. Two frames would be the same and then three frames would be the same. And I am probably the only person in the world who knows they cheated.
Technically, if their camcorder would work in as low light as that film it was not false advertising, and I really don't recall them saying the video was taken with their camcorder. But the implication was pretty strong. Come on, they are advertising a camcorder with good low light sensitivity, What does the viewer think when he sees a kids birthday party ?
Just another example of the shit they can get away with. But the bottom line is I am so close to not giving a shit I can smell it.
I
isw
Guest
In article <6f135efd-c02a-413c-bfcd-f9aab8a188cc@googlegroups.com>,
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
The Phase Alternation dropped the lowest interlace rate from NTSC's ~15
Hz to ~6.25 Hz, which is really visible and was responsible for PAL's
well known "high brightness flicker".
Higher spatial resolution, lower temporal resolution. Probably a wash.
Actually, 48 FPS as projected -- each frame was shown twice.
It's actually just because it's a much lower rep rate. See my comment on
PAL's interlace problem. A longer persistance phosphor would have helped
the flicker problem, but would have caused motion blur.
Isaac
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
"If you're talking about PAL, which came later, quite good arguments >can
be made that it's not better at all; just that its weaknesses are in
different places."
Well for one they eliminated the phase control. On US sets it was called the
tint or hue control and it shifted the phase of either the chroma subcarrier
or the oscillator. Their little scheme cancelled out the errors, which were
mainly caused by poor frequency response which would shift the phase of the
burst or even make the PLL in the TV have a phase error because part of the
burst is cut off. However it happened, you sometimes needed to adjust the
tint in the old days.
The Phase Alternation dropped the lowest interlace rate from NTSC's ~15
Hz to ~6.25 Hz, which is really visible and was responsible for PAL's
well known "high brightness flicker".
Also, PAL was more lines. I think it was 50 Hz which would mean they needed a
longer persistence phosphor. Also the horizontal rate was faster. They had
quite a bit more resolution bt at the cost of frame rate.
Higher spatial resolution, lower temporal resolution. Probably a wash.
But that can be dealt with, you know movies in the theaters only used to be
24 frames per second right ?
Actually, 48 FPS as projected -- each frame was shown twice.
Well people did not really have a problem with
that. They only reason it is a problem with a CRT is because the picture is
drawn in a series of lines and that makes it more visible.
It's actually just because it's a much lower rep rate. See my comment on
PAL's interlace problem. A longer persistance phosphor would have helped
the flicker problem, but would have caused motion blur.
Isaac
I
isw
Guest
In article <3cd7c0fd-4b5b-416b-8c1b-8433b6458b9c@googlegroups.com>,
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
That's not "cheating"; it's just the standard "two-three pulldown"
technique (known as "telecine") that NTSC (but not PAL) used to convert
24 FPS movies to ~30 FPS video. It wasn't frames that were repeated,
though; it was fields (a "field" consists of either the odd-numbered
lines, or the even-numbered ones).
If you numbered fields sequentially, it went
1-1-2-2-2-3-3-4-4-4-5-5-6-6-6- ...
Worked pretty well but added a motion artifact known as "judder" because
of the irregularity. It did have the advantage of making the sound run
at the proper speed (and incidentally make the movie have the "proper"
running time).
PAL, OTOH, just overcranked the film from 24 to 25 FPS. The audio
pitches were slightly too high, people talked slightly faster, and the
film was over slightly quicker.
The 2-3 pulldown worked quite well for analog TV, but gave the MPEG
folks fits until they finally realized what was messing up their
encoding efficiency. MPEG encoding is all about finding regularities and
exploiting them, but:
If you take that field sequence
1-1-2-2-2-3-3-4-4-4-5-5-6-6-6- ...
and show it with the associated film frames:
1-1-2-2-2-3-3-4-4-4-5-5-6-6-6- ...
A-A-B-B-C-C-D-D-E-E-F-F-G-G-H ...
You see that once in a while a frame (e.g. "C") consists of two fields
*not* from the same frame, but from adjacent ones. This really messes
with the correlation between odd and even lines that makes MPEG work
well. Worse, if there is a scene change just at that point, the odd
lines and even lines are from totally different images.
The MPEG guys finally figured out that the best thing to do was just
reverse the whole process (inverse telecine) to get back to 24 "proper"
FPS with no irregular pulldown and no split frames, and then encode that.
Isaac
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:
"Actually, 48 FPS as projected -- each frame was shown twice. "
Didn't know that. Makes sense though.
I busted "them". I believe it was a commercial for a Sharp camcorder with
good low light capabilities. They were showing what was ostensibly some kids
birthday party or something. Well back then I always had six or seven head
VCRs. I could tell when they pulled it down from the 48 Hz to 60 Hz. They
showed each from twice but every so many cycles they would show it thrice.
The video the showed was clearly on film because a camcorders does not use 24
FPS. (or 48)
Nothing happened, WTF. I didn't buy one, I didn't initiate a class action
lawsuit, in fact it is almost like who cares.
Like now, I work on "pro" audio. Know what "pro" actually means here ? It
means that the FTC and IHF standards do not apply. You got an amp the has 55
volt rails which yields about 100 WPC but they can call it 3,500 watts.
Technical Pro is one of the worst offenders but I have seen worse. I saw one
amp supposedly 1,000 watts that had a single TO-220 type chip output. There
is no way this thing was even 100 WPC.
But anyway, it is not the same with a DVD, with a good four (plus two audio)
head VCR going frame by frame you can see the effect. Two frames would be the
same and then three frames would be the same. And I am probably the only
person in the world who knows they cheated.
That's not "cheating"; it's just the standard "two-three pulldown"
technique (known as "telecine") that NTSC (but not PAL) used to convert
24 FPS movies to ~30 FPS video. It wasn't frames that were repeated,
though; it was fields (a "field" consists of either the odd-numbered
lines, or the even-numbered ones).
If you numbered fields sequentially, it went
1-1-2-2-2-3-3-4-4-4-5-5-6-6-6- ...
Worked pretty well but added a motion artifact known as "judder" because
of the irregularity. It did have the advantage of making the sound run
at the proper speed (and incidentally make the movie have the "proper"
running time).
PAL, OTOH, just overcranked the film from 24 to 25 FPS. The audio
pitches were slightly too high, people talked slightly faster, and the
film was over slightly quicker.
The 2-3 pulldown worked quite well for analog TV, but gave the MPEG
folks fits until they finally realized what was messing up their
encoding efficiency. MPEG encoding is all about finding regularities and
exploiting them, but:
If you take that field sequence
1-1-2-2-2-3-3-4-4-4-5-5-6-6-6- ...
and show it with the associated film frames:
1-1-2-2-2-3-3-4-4-4-5-5-6-6-6- ...
A-A-B-B-C-C-D-D-E-E-F-F-G-G-H ...
You see that once in a while a frame (e.g. "C") consists of two fields
*not* from the same frame, but from adjacent ones. This really messes
with the correlation between odd and even lines that makes MPEG work
well. Worse, if there is a scene change just at that point, the odd
lines and even lines are from totally different images.
The MPEG guys finally figured out that the best thing to do was just
reverse the whole process (inverse telecine) to get back to 24 "proper"
FPS with no irregular pulldown and no split frames, and then encode that.
Isaac
Guest
Since it was on TV and not the silver screen, that implies that the recording was made on their camcorder. There would be no reason to transfer their camcorder tape to 24 FPS film.
They are busted.
They are busted.
Guest
On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 7:26:47 PM UTC-4, vjp...@at.biostrategist.dot.dot.com wrote:
Visit Metrosonix.com, We manufacture and sell a wide variety of SCA radios.
Are such radios sold in the USA via the internet? Is the station really
"fixed"? Someone gave my uncle a radio which is said to have a special
"chip" that receives a Greek radio station. He mentioned to me that years ago
he had another one that suddenly switched to a Philipine station and he gave
it to a Filipino colleague. Amazon and Alibaba have such Metrosonix radios
but not station specific, but also do not seem to allow being sold in the
USA. THe search terms I used were <SCA FM radio>.
- = -
Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist
http://www.panix.com/~vjp2/vasos.htm
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
[Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards]
[Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Phooey on GUI: Windows for subprime Bimbos]
Visit Metrosonix.com, We manufacture and sell a wide variety of SCA radios.