TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??

[William Sommerwerck]

** Everyone knows that NTSC stands for:
"Never Twice the Same Color"

Though that might be the common opinion, it is, of course,
untrue. There is nothing inherently unstable or inaccurate
about NTSC.

** You have got to be the most ignorant wanker on the planet.

When was the last time you adjusted the Hue control on an NTSC receiver?

** Go fuck yourself - asshole.

NTSC inherently suffers from sensitivity to phase shift in the sub-
carrier during transmission and reception that cause color changes
on the screen -- particularly so when changing channels.
PAL does not.
Hence the famous acronym as quoted by me.
Go fuck yourself.

Wouldn't it be nice if you actually knew what were talking about?

Both NTSC and PAL use subcarrier phase to convey hue. (The amplitude is
roughly the saturation.) Both systems are sensitive to non-linear phase
errors.

Because PAL alternates phase between lines, the non-linear color errors are
in opposite directions, and the eye tends to average them out -- at the
expense of saturation. (Complementary colors sum to white.) High levels of
non-linear phase can produce visible "saturation banding" on a PAL set, just
as they can cause "color banding" on an NTSC set.

PAL was adopted in Europe because European distribution systems suffered
from relatively high levels of non-linear phase. The American distribution
system did not, so abandoning phase alternation was not a major loss.

The wildly inaccurate reverse acronym was based on sloppy engineering in the
studio -- nothing inherent in NTSC.

I doubt that any American member of this group has adjusted the Hue control
on their NTSC set for at least 30 years.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

1) NTSC I and Q color difference, PAL R-Y, B-Y
2) Different primaries, especially green. PAL had a smaller color
gamut.
3) Different color bandwidth for different colors. NTSC had 1.3
MHz for I and 0.5 MHz for Q. PAL was equal for R-Y and B-Y.
4) Excellent interleaving of chroma-luminance frequency
components which was largely destroyed by the phase alteration.

That isn't immediately clear to me. How badly would pahse alteration affect
the frequency components of the subcarrier?

You left out 3.5. The I and Q primaries' color and bandwidth are based on
how the eye actually perceives color. NTSC not only transmits more color
information, but uses the available bandwidth more effectively.

As a note, much of the advantage of points 2), 3) and 4) was lost
on early sets which just used 0.5 MHz bandwidth for decoding both
chroma components and bandwidth limiting the luminance signal to
minimize chroma-luma crosstalk.

Actually, most early sets (at least RCA) had full-bandwidth color. RCA
continued to offer such sets for two or three years. I suspect many current
sets using digital processing are full-bandwidth, but there's no easy way to
know which is which.

When integrated circuits became available, dual bandwidth chroma
decoders started appearing...

Not that I'm aware of. Such sets require a second delay line, which runs up
the cost.

as well as comb filters to separate the luminance and chroma
signals.

Correct.

More accurate phosphors were also gradually used in
sets. The result was a major improvement in picture quality with
the original 1953 broadcast standards. No such receiver
improvement was possible with the PAL system.

Oh? Why?

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <slrniijjom.4r1.gsm@cable.mendelson.com>,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Think you're well into hindsight. When the UK PAL system was finalised
(1960?), computers were some esoteric device in a lab. But in any case
a major priority of any colour TV system then was that it can be
easily receivable on a monochrome only set - and not make that set
more expensive to produce.

That's almost irrelevant. When the UK went to digital TV broadcasts (was
that around 2000 with Sky's digital terrestrial service?)

No. Sky doesn't broadcast terrestrial signals in the UK. Satellite and
cable only.

Terrestrial digital started in '98 with a consortium including the BBC and
ITV.

there was no no need to continue to support PAL. After all much of their
material was NTSC anyway.

So you think they should have gone to NTSC? Why would the Uk replace a
better newer system with an older inferior one?

Digital was in addition to the UHF PAL service - with it carrying all the
same channels and more.

They were encoding the signals in one place,
so there was no restriction on what equipment was used except cost, and
on the set end they could of used anything they wanted.

I expect they chose PAL because it was the existing standard, and they
could buy subassemblies cheaply.

PAL has nothing to do with any digital transmission. Some of the
originating sources may still have been PAL at some point though.
STBs had a PAL output for use with sets with no line input.

However ATSC was compeltely different. It was supposed to be a new
standard, not a re-hashing of an old one. There was no need to keep NTSC
compability as long as it could be created in set top boxes.

That applies to any STB. What goes in is irrelevant provided it will
interface with the domestic TV.

Note that there were and still are two other incompatble digital TV
standards in use in the US. The cable companies use one of their own,
and the DBS companies use a different one. Since there are two
competing DBS companies, each using their own incompatible encryption,
you could say there are four incompatible ones.

So the US is in a bit of a mess? ;-)

They all use some sort of MPEG TS transmission, but the streams can not
be read with the other company's devices.

That's business politics for you.

--
*The longest recorded flightof a chicken is thirteen seconds *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Why would the rest of the world want multi-standard TVs? You might if you
lived within reception distance of another country with a language you
understood well and it used a different system - but how often does this
happen?

It happened all over Europe, all of the time. But the big draw was
"foreign films".

In the UK, PAL VHS would playback NTSC tapes on a PAL TV for many a year.
Bit of a cludge, but it worked well enough for the poor quality of VHS.

No they would not. They had to be kludged to do it in the first place and
often were.The TV sets had to be capable of syncing at 60 fields per second
instead of 50, the video speeds of the recorders had to be modified and
the NTSC color signals inverted every other line.

Those VCRs were actually multisystem VCRs with EXTRA circuitry to convert
NTSC to PAL (by the line inversion). What they lacked was the 3.57mHz color
carrier circuitry and may of had NTSC 4.43.

Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it.

 

[Allodoxaphobia]

On Sat, 8 Jan 2011 18:34:08 +0000 (UTC), Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Allodoxaphobia wrote:

Who are these "they"?

Akai, Sony, Toshiba, JVC, NEC, Hitachi, Sharp, Panasonic (National),
Memorex (Radio Shack house brand) are just the TV's and VCR's I've owned.

Then the OP should've been to alt.corp.akai, alt.corp.sony,
alt.corp.toshiba, alt.corp.jvc, alt.corp.nec, alt.corp.hitachi,
alt.corp.sharp, alt.corp.panasonic , etc.

Not to sci.electronics. *repair*

 

[David]

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
news:igcn56$kck$1@news.eternal-september.org...

1) NTSC I and Q color difference, PAL R-Y, B-Y
2) Different primaries, especially green. PAL had a smaller
color
gamut.
3) Different color bandwidth for different colors. NTSC had 1.3
MHz for I and 0.5 MHz for Q. PAL was equal for R-Y and B-Y.
4) Excellent interleaving of chroma-luminance frequency
components which was largely destroyed by the phase alteration.

That isn't immediately clear to me. How badly would pahse
alteration affect
the frequency components of the subcarrier?

You left out 3.5. The I and Q primaries' color and bandwidth are
based on
how the eye actually perceives color. NTSC not only transmits
more color
information, but uses the available bandwidth more effectively.

As a note, much of the advantage of points 2), 3) and 4) was
lost
on early sets which just used 0.5 MHz bandwidth for decoding
both
chroma components and bandwidth limiting the luminance signal
to
minimize chroma-luma crosstalk.

Actually, most early sets (at least RCA) had full-bandwidth
color. RCA
continued to offer such sets for two or three years. I suspect
many current
sets using digital processing are full-bandwidth, but there's no
easy way to
know which is which.

When integrated circuits became available, dual bandwidth
chroma
decoders started appearing...

Not that I'm aware of. Such sets require a second delay line,
which runs up
the cost.

as well as comb filters to separate the luminance and chroma
signals.

Correct.

More accurate phosphors were also gradually used in
sets. The result was a major improvement in picture quality
with
the original 1953 broadcast standards. No such receiver
improvement was possible with the PAL system.

Oh? Why?

1) They were stuck with the smaller color gamut because of the
color primary choices used in the encoding.
2) They could not use wide bandwidth decoders because the chroma
encoding was equal bandwidth.
3) Comb filtering in PAL is not nearly as effective since the
chroma components are 'smeared' out rather than tightly
interleaved between the main luminance components. The phase
alteration and the 25 Hz offset of the chroma carrier in PAL
(look up Hannover bars) kills the effective use of comb filters.

Your point 3.5 is well taken. Regarding the second delay line,
the extra delay needed in the I channel was just a simple lumped
component all pass filter that could be fabricated at very low
cost. I also remember the time when early VCRs actually included
the NTSC pre-distortion phase compensator that was part of the
broadcast standard to compensate for the nonlinear delay of the
IF stages in the receivers. The theory was that you pay only once
in the broadcast encoder rather than in every TV set. I actually
bought a few of these on the replacement part market to use in
other video projects for about $1.00 each. It was a passive
module with three leads containing a few inductors and
capacitors. I installed one in a RF modulator I had and they sure
eliminated the chroma smear and sharpened up the luminance. It is
interesting that even with SAW IF filters which could have been
made with uniform group delay, they are fabricated to reproduce
the delay characteristics of the older tuned inductor-transformer
IF amplifiers.

David

 

[Morris Goodman]

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 08:16:59 -0500, mm <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jan 2011 04:58:32 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

Did they make digital TVs compatible from
the US to Europe to Asia to Australia, etc?

The following gives an indirect answer...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_terrestrial_television

...which appears to be "no". There is no law of nature that prohibits a
multi-voltage, multi-standard receiver, but there is a law of economics --
there's little or no demand for one, as it would be useful only to people
who travelled a lot.

The reason I care is the opposite of that. There are only two
DVDR-with-harddrives for sale in the US, and one is cheaper than the
one I have, which itself is inferior in design. The other may be
better or not. However there are other models for sale in Australia,
and probably other parts of the world. I want to buy one from
Australia and use it here.

As for a single-inventory non-portable "universal" receiver... It would cost
more than a set that received only the local standard, so, again, you have
economics working against a multi-standard receiver.

What i had in mind wasn't** a multi-standard receiver but their
adopting one standard for the whole world, something they didnt' do
with B&W or color tv, for understandable reasons.

From reading the first few replies I guess the reason there is no
single standard now is so that the digital tv would play on analog
televisions, that making a set-top box or digital to analogue
converter which would also change frame rate was considered hard.

**OTOH, I am a broken DVD player that plays both NTSC and PAL dvds and
the girl who gave it to me said it cost 40 dollars. It even has a
button on the remote to change from NTSC to PAL and back. So the part
that handled the second format couldn't have been more than 5 dollars,
maybe 10, right? Maybe much less. Doesn't that mean it would cost
no more to include that in tvs?

(Strangely it does refer to needing matching regions, but gives no
indication on the box, on the player, or in the manual, what region it
is. My friend said it played the US and Europe and Japan, regions 1
and 2.

How odd to come across you in a group other than SCJM!

 

[Meat Plow]

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 14:21:01 +1100, Phil Allison wrote:

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson"


NTSC stands for National Television Standrds Comittee, PAL for Phase
Alternating
Line, and SECAM is a French acronym for what could be loosely
translated as
system of transmitting color TV.


** Everyone knows that NTSC stands for:

" Never Twice the Same Color"

and SECAM =

" Something Essentially Contrary to the American Method "



.... Phil

And PHIL = PLEASE HELP I'M LOST!!

....heh



--
Live Fast, Die Young and Leave a Pretty Corpse

 

[William Sommerwerck]

3) Comb filtering in PAL is not nearly as effective since the
chroma components are 'smeared' out rather than tightly
interleaved between the main luminance components. The phase
alteration and the 25 Hz offset of the chroma carrier in PAL
(look up Hanover bars) kills the effective use of comb filters.

Never heard of Hanover bars. (Though I've lived in PA, I've never been in
any, either.) I didn't realize PAL had this basic problem.

Your point 3.5 is well taken. Regarding the second delay line,
the extra delay needed in the I channel was just a simple lumped
component all pass filter that could be fabricated at very low
cost. I also remember the time when early VCRs actually included
the NTSC pre-distortion phase compensator that was part of the
broadcast standard to compensate for the nonlinear delay of the
IF stages in the receivers. The theory was that you pay only once
in the broadcast encoder rather than in every TV set.

Which is one of the problems with SECAM. Transmitting only one color signal
per line simplifies encoding and recording (at the studio) at the expense of
a more-expensive receiver.

I actually
bought a few of these on the replacement part market to use in
other video projects for about $1.00 each. It was a passive
module with three leads containing a few inductors and
capacitors. I installed one in a RF modulator I had and they sure
eliminated the chroma smear and sharpened up the luminance. It is
interesting that even with SAW IF filters which could have been
made with uniform group delay, they are fabricated to reproduce
the delay characteristics of the older tuned inductor-transformer
IF amplifiers.

This, also, is new to me. I'd always assumed there was no correction in one
part of the system for errors in another.

 

[The Peeler]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 01:45:08 +1100, "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au>
wrote:

"William Sommerwanker is a Cunt

** Everyone knows that NTSC stands for:

"Never Twice the Same Color"

Though that might be the common opinion, it is, of course,
untrue. There is nothing inherently unstable or inaccurate
about NTSC.

** You have got to be the most ignorant wanker on the planet.

When was the last time you adjusted the Hue control on an NTSC receiver?


** Go fuck yourself - asshole.

NTSC inherently suffers from sensitivity to phase shift in the sub carrier
during transmission and reception that cause colour changes on the screen -
particularly so when changing channel.

PAL does not.

Hence the famous acronym as quoted by me.

Go fuck yourself.

G'day mate,

Take it somewhere else, eh?

Thanks, cocksucker.

 

[Phil Allison]

"William Sommerwanker is a Lying Cunt "

** Everyone knows that NTSC stands for:
"Never Twice the Same Color"

Though that might be the common opinion, it is, of course,
untrue. There is nothing inherently unstable or inaccurate
about NTSC.

** You have got to be the most ignorant wanker on the planet.

When was the last time you adjusted the Hue control on an NTSC receiver?

** Go fuck yourself - asshole.


NTSC inherently suffers from sensitivity to phase shift in the sub-
carrier during transmission and reception that cause color changes
on the screen -- particularly so when changing channels.
PAL does not.
Hence the famous acronym as quoted by me.
Go fuck yourself.


Wouldn't it be nice if you actually knew what were talking about?

** Go fuck yourself - you stinking, autistic asshole.

PAL was adopted in Europe because European distribution systems suffered
from relatively high levels of non-linear phase. The American distribution
system did not, so abandoning phase alternation was not a major loss.

** Absolute pack of lies.

NTSC inherently suffers from sensitivity to phase shift in the sub-
carrier during transmission and reception that cause color changes
on the screen - particularly so when changing channels.

The wildly inaccurate reverse acronym was based on sloppy engineering in
the
studio -- nothing inherent in NTSC.

** Significant phase shifts occur during propagation and in domestic antenna
systems.

Go fuck yourself - you stinking, autistic asshole.



...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"mm"

The reason I care is the opposite of that. There are only two
DVDR-with-harddrives for sale in the US, and one is cheaper than the
one I have, which itself is inferior in design. The other may be
better or not. However there are other models for sale in Australia,
and probably other parts of the world. I want to buy one from
Australia and use it here.

** In case you are still unaware - the DTV coding system used in the USA is
quite different from that used in Europe and most places including
Australia.

Look it up on Wiki - you trolling, fucking PITA idiot.


..... Phil

 

[Jim Yanik]

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in
news:slrniij9su.1og.gsm@cable.mendelson.com:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
SECAM was actually adopted because the French were idiots. They
wanted a system that was relatively easy to record on videotape.
Unfortunately, it made the receiver more-complex and expensive. A
classic example of lousy engineering.


The over the air signals were also spaced differently than PAL and
instead of FM audio like everyone else in the world, they used AM. So
even if you could maniptulate your TV tuner into picking up the video
signal, and did not mind watching it in black and white, there was no
sound.

The rest of the world that did adopt SECAM used the PAL over the air
channel spacing and audio carriers, so that a PAL VCR could
record/play the signals with very little modification if any at all
and a PAL TV could play them in black and white, with audio.

The system was called MESECAM (Middle East Secam because many arab
countries adopted it). I think the Warsaw Pact countries, Soviet Union
and China (PRC) also did, but the Soviet VCRs ran at a different speed
than the regular ones.

There was also NTSC 4.43, which was a 60Hz NTSC signal with the color
subcarrier at 4.43 mHz. It was developed as a cheap way of adding NTSC
capability to multisystem VCRs and TV sets, but was never broadcast
over the air.

That's why I said that the OP must of either spent the last 30 years
under a rock or in the US. In the US no one cared, everything was NTSC
or converted to it for sale, while elsewhere in the world, everyone
was trying to get multisystem TV sets and VCRs.

You could buy them the US too, but only in stores that catered to
foreigners, visitors and sailors on leave.

Geoff.

when I was at TEK,I used to have a chart with all the worlds TV systems,and
their differences.
I tossed all that stuff when I was laid off,didn't have room for all the
stuff I'd have kept if I could. I repaired and calibrated TEK NTSC and PAL
video test equipment.I did a little bit of digital video,and -one- SECAM
unit,so I won't claim any expertise with SECAM.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

[Jim Yanik]

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <gsm@mendelson.com> wrote in
news:slrniiicdo.om2.gsm@cable.mendelson.com:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
As stupid as always. VITS took care of that over 30 years ago.

The real problem was not that the NTSC system did not have the
autocorrection that was in the original design and used in the PAL
system. The real problem was that there was a knob on the TV set that
could make everything change color.

Even with the early 1960's transmission errors, and differences
between the actual colors of various sources, if the color control was
set and left at 'about right", it always would have been a watchable
picture.

The problem was that almost no one had any clue of how to adjust it
properly, and most were set and left in a very wrong postion, while
others were being constantly misadjusted.

All of the TV magazines, science mags, etc had articles on how to
properly adjust your TV set, and I'm sure that for everyone who read
and followed them, there were 10 times the people who didn't.

Which really didn't matter,as the program sources varied widely in color
accuracy.

It was really bad in area where there were many TVs, such as a
department store. For some strange reason, the cheap TV's were never
adjusted properly and the expensive ones always were.

Geoff.

*VIRS* was the VITS signal meant for autocorrection,but it wasn't used much
IIRC.

VIRS = vertical interval reference signal
VITS = vertical interval test signals.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

[Jim Yanik]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in
news:igc78f$66b$1@news.eternal-september.org:

The real problem was not that the NTSC system did not have
the autocorrection that was in the original design and used in
the PAL system. The real problem was that there was a knob
on the TV set that could make everything change color.

Actually, the real problem was that the networks didn't give a damn
about getting the color right.

They got their video from a number of different sources,who also didn't put
much effort into correct color.

This changed (I think) sometime in the late 70s. I've owned a number
of color TVs since then (want me to list them?), and don't remember
even once having touched the Hue control (incorrectly called the Tint
control on most sets).

Likely the addition of VIRS circuitry.

It's significant, though, that if the average [censored] is given free
hand to adjust the Hue control, flesh tones almost always wind up on
the green side.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 08:10:43 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

I doubt that any American member of this group has adjusted the Hue control
on their NTSC set for at least 30 years.

True. US receivers use the VIR (Vertical Interval Reference) on line
20 for chroma phase correction to automagically correct both static
and differential phase errors. I think this started in about 1980.

In a past life, when I was doing video, it meant "Now That Seems
Crazy", "Nobody Thinks Such Crap", or "Nail Through Some Coax".

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Zrupfter]

"mm" <NOPSAMmm2005@bigfoot.com> wrote
(I bought it by mistake, didn't notice the PAL, can't play it on my
DVD player**, but can on the computer. **The DVD player in the other
thread is broken.)
--

I bought a PAL DVD set from Australia (I'm in Canada),
and took a chance since many NTSC players are able to
play back PAL.
My LiteOn, Toshiba, and Apex DVD players are all able to
play it back, while my Samsung and Pioneer give 'error'
messages. You may find that some cheap import players
almost always play PAL *and* NTSC DVDs.

 

[mm]

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:25:51 +1100, "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au>
wrote:

"mm"

The reason I care is the opposite of that. There are only two
DVDR-with-harddrives for sale in the US, and one is cheaper than the
one I have, which itself is inferior in design. The other may be
better or not. However there are other models for sale in Australia,
and probably other parts of the world. I want to buy one from
Australia and use it here.


** In case you are still unaware - the DTV coding system used in the USA is
quite different from that used in Europe and most places including
Australia.

Do I trust the word of a jackass?

Look it up on Wiki - you trolling, fucking PITA idiot.

Do I take advice from jackasses?

Kerplunk.

.... Phil

 

On Jan 9, 6:45 am, "Phil Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au> wrote:

"William Sommerwanker is a Cunt



** Everyone knows that NTSC stands for:

"Never Twice the Same Color"

Though that might be the common opinion, it is, of course,
untrue. There is nothing inherently unstable or inaccurate
about NTSC.

** You have got to be the most ignorant wanker on the planet.

When was the last time you adjusted the Hue control on an NTSC receiver?

** Go fuck yourself  -  asshole.

NTSC inherently suffers from sensitivity to phase shift in the sub carrier
during transmission and reception that cause colour changes on the screen -
particularly so when changing channel.

PAL does not.

Hence the famous acronym as quoted by me.

Go fuck yourself.

....  Phil

Yes it does which is why VITS was developed in the '70s like Terrell
pointed out. Hue issues in the US were non-existent for the last 30+
years. Then we turned the whole analog mess off after running digital
for 10+ years

G˛

 

On Jan 9, 8:18 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

1) NTSC I and Q color difference, PAL R-Y, B-Y
2) Different primaries, especially green. PAL had a smaller color
gamut.
3) Different color bandwidth for different colors. NTSC had 1.3
MHz for I and 0.5 MHz for Q. PAL was equal for R-Y and B-Y.
4) Excellent interleaving of chroma-luminance frequency
components which was largely destroyed by the phase alteration.

That isn't immediately clear to me. How badly would pahse alteration affect
the frequency components of the subcarrier?

You left out 3.5. The I and Q primaries' color and bandwidth are based on
how the eye actually perceives color. NTSC not only transmits more color
information, but uses the available bandwidth more effectively.

As a note, much of the advantage of points 2), 3) and 4) was lost
on early sets which just used 0.5 MHz bandwidth for decoding both
chroma components and bandwidth limiting the luminance signal to
minimize chroma-luma crosstalk.

Actually, most early sets (at least RCA) had full-bandwidth color. RCA
continued to offer such sets for two or three years. I suspect many current
sets using digital processing are full-bandwidth, but there's no easy way to
know which is which.

When integrated circuits became available, dual bandwidth chroma
decoders started appearing...

Not that I'm aware of. Such sets require a second delay line, which runs up
the cost.

as well as comb filters to separate the luminance and chroma
signals.

Correct.

More accurate phosphors were also gradually used in
sets. The result was a major improvement in picture quality with
the original 1953 broadcast standards. No such receiver
improvement was possible with the PAL system.

Oh? Why?

WHO CARES? Analog is thankfully gone.

G˛