TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article <NMmdnX3J6-jQBrHQnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Don't care where they were from - you can't judge any system using
domestic tapes of those days. I'm beginning to wonder about your
personal standards if you think you can.

Yawn. More America bashing.

Eh? Well I suppose you are American.

Commercially produced European tapes on European VCR & TV.

And you think commercially produced VHS or BetaMax tapes are suitable for
judging any system? And you claim to have worked in broadcasting?

The BBC did extensive testing before introducing colour. In the
first instance with NTSC RCA cameras. Huge things with 3" IO
tubes. Had a modification of NTSC to say 625 50 Hz been the way
forward, they'd not have adopted (and been part of the design) of
PAL.

Image Orthicons? That figures.

Just when do you think colour cameras stopped using them? The plumbicon
wasn't invented until '60.

I have no idea when the BBC quit using them, but Image Orthicons were
short lived in the US.

IOs where in use for mono up until the late '60s. Colour started off with
4 tube plumbicons.

The RCA TK-44 was a vidicon color camera. The
TK 46 was the same camera, but using Plumbicons. Image Orthicons
required a lot more light, and didn't provide as clean of an image as
the Vidicons. A Plumbicon is a Vidicon with a lead oxide faceplate.

IO were more sensitive than videcon. Only videcon colour cameras I've seen
were low end industrial.

And you think the few cameras you've seen are suitable for judging
any system? Just because you didn't see them doesn't mean they weren't
built. I was using an RCA TK-16 Vidicon camera in the service that was
built in the late '60s.

Vidicon cameras were usable in low light, properly designed. Not
that the BBC was renowned for state of the art. I saw one of the first
single gun color TV cameras in 1972/73, built by Magnavox for industrial
video applications. That was at Ft. Rucker, Al. where the video
production section was looking into newer cameras. If you consider 2"
Ampex industrial video, you might argue. The mobile production units
were several tractor trailers full, and they had just bought the first
Tektronix U-matic decks built.



http://afrts.dodmedia.osd.mil/heritage/page.asp?pg=archive_email1 About
half way down has an email I sent to a DOD website about the history of
AFRTS.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article <Z4-dnV0bkObeFLHQnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Other thing is control room monitors (Grade 1) are designed for close
viewing, so generally in the smaller sizes. Nor have I ever seen a
widescreen CRT with decent geometry and registration. Control room CRTs
even for widescreen were still 4:3, but underscanned, making the small
size even more of an issue.

Our control room used 25 to 30 inch monitors.

4:3. So as I said a small size when showing 16:9. If indeed you ever saw
16:9 pictures in the studio.

Underscan was
switchable. A mask was used with lines to show the hot area for cheap,
overscanned TV sets.

You think all 'cheap overscanned TV sets' had the same 'hot' area?

Sigh. Did your mother have any kids without brain damage? Quit
trying to put words in my mouth, you aren't smart enough to even try.
Proper camera work made sure that the active portion of any image was
properly framed. Proper framing was for near worst case TVs. No one
gave a shit if your $139 jpanese TV cut off 25% all the way around the
image.

And why would the engineer in charge of the actual pictures care about
home overscan? That would be left to the production side.

Tell us, how many US TV stations did you work at
as an engineer? How many state of the art NTSC studios have you built?
How many years of maintaining a commercial US TV station?

I'm beginning to wonder how well you've kept up with things. Not much by
the sound of it.

--
*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?

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

--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <Z4-dnV0bkObeFLHQnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Other thing is control room monitors (Grade 1) are designed for close
viewing, so generally in the smaller sizes. Nor have I ever seen a
widescreen CRT with decent geometry and registration. Control room CRTs
even for widescreen were still 4:3, but underscanned, making the small
size even more of an issue.

Our control room used 25 to 30 inch monitors.

4:3. So as I said a small size when showing 16:9. If indeed you ever saw
16:9 pictures in the studio.

Underscan was
switchable. A mask was used with lines to show the hot area for cheap,
overscanned TV sets.

You think all 'cheap overscanned TV sets' had the same 'hot' area?

And why would the engineer in charge of the actual pictures care about
home overscan? That would be left to the production side.

Tell us, how many US TV stations did you work at
as an engineer? How many state of the art NTSC studios have you built?
How many years of maintaining a commercial US TV station?

I'm beginning to wonder how well you've kept up with things. Not much by
the sound of it.

--
*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?

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

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Don't think you've been following things. DVDs as such
don't have either an NTSC or PAL footprint unless the
originating material had.

I don't think that's correct. There are differences in the number of
scanning lines and frame rate on NTSC and PAL DVDs.

With regard to your comment -- which is something like "there's no water in
a glass unless you've poured water into it" -- what sort of non-PAL or
non-NTSC-format material would you record on a video DVD?

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <NMmdnX3J6-jQBrHQnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

Don't care where they were from - you can't judge any system using
domestic tapes of those days. I'm beginning to wonder about your
personal standards if you think you can.

Yawn. More America bashing.

Eh? Well I suppose you are American.

Commercially produced European tapes on European VCR & TV.

And you think commercially produced VHS or BetaMax tapes are suitable for
judging any system? And you claim to have worked in broadcasting?

The BBC did extensive testing before introducing colour. In the
first instance with NTSC RCA cameras. Huge things with 3" IO
tubes. Had a modification of NTSC to say 625 50 Hz been the way
forward, they'd not have adopted (and been part of the design) of
PAL.

Image Orthicons? That figures.

Just when do you think colour cameras stopped using them? The plumbicon
wasn't invented until '60.

I have no idea when the BBC quit using them, but Image Orthicons were
short lived in the US.

IOs where in use for mono up until the late '60s. Colour started off with
4 tube plumbicons.

The RCA TK-44 was a vidicon color camera. The
TK 46 was the same camera, but using Plumbicons. Image Orthicons
required a lot more light, and didn't provide as clean of an image as
the Vidicons. A Plumbicon is a Vidicon with a lead oxide faceplate.

IO were more sensitive than videcon. Only videcon colour cameras I've seen
were low end industrial.

--
*When cheese gets its picture taken, what does it say? *

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

 

[William Sommerwerck]

I've no experience in PAL or SECAM whatsoever.
But to just unilaterally claim the NTSC is inferior --
I just don't see it. So there must be more to the
story. Maybe politics in some wild manner? That
tends to piss people off.

It appears that the incorrect belief that PAL is "superior" is based on the
fact that PAL is somewhat self-correcting for non-linear phase errors, and
that one can build a receiver that automatically corrects for static phase
errors in the burst or subcarrier.

These features, of course, have nothing whatever to do with the /basic/
image quality of the system, and aren't needed if the video distribution
system is properly designed and maintained.

In every other respect, NTSC is objectively superior to PAL.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <pan.2011.01.11.19.13.38@lmao.lol.lol>,
Meat Plow <mhywatt@yahoo.com> wrote:

How did this devolve into a PAL/NTSC pissing match? From what little TV I
watch in the evening, HD channels on TWC, I think the color rendering is
perfect. And NTSC DVD video is the same. So what's the problem here? A
lack of real things to argue about?

Don't think you've been following things. DVDs as such don't have either
an NTSC or PAL footprint unless the originating material had.

--
*Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

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

 

[Jeffrey Angus]

On 1/11/2011 6:00 PM, Meat Plow wrote:

I've no experience in PAL or SECAM whatsoever. But to just unilaterally
claim the NTSC is inferior I just don't see it. So there must be more to
the story. Maybe politics in some wild manner? That tends to piss people
off.

People like to make stupid acronyms.
Innovations People Don't Need and Always Off Line for example.

When you call them on it, they go sideways, just like asking
a person to explain "why" they feel the way they do when you
ask them a political or religious question.

You'll get the same response mentioning Bill Gates and Micro
Soft. Despite that fact that without MS and the accidental
release of the IBM PC architecture we wouldn't have the speed
or power at the price we have now.

And of course, when psycho's off their meds get involved,
Well....

Jeff

 

[Meat Plow]

On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 20:24:06 +0000, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:

Meat Plow wrote:
How did this devolve into a PAL/NTSC pissing match? From what little TV
I watch in the evening, HD channels on TWC, I think the color rendering
is perfect. And NTSC DVD video is the same. So what's the problem here?
A lack of real things to argue about?

It got there because there had to be some justification over which
system was chosen other than the country next door did something else.
Then it devoloved from ignorance of existance of multisystem TVs and
VCRs into justification why they could not exist.

To summarize, by 1985 I had bought, in Philadelphia (USA) the following:
TV set, 19 inch, 25 inch and 14 inch and VHS and BETA VCRS which would
play and record NTSC/60 3.57, NTSC/60 4.43, PAL/50, PAL/60 (TV only)
and SECAM/50 video. Tuners for NTSC, European PAL, UK PAL and non
French SECAM (aka Middle East SECAM).

In 1987 I added a VCR that would record and play PAL/60 and French
SECAM.

In 1992 I added a VCR that would do digital conversions between any of
the above.

Geoff.

I've no experience in PAL or SECAM whatsoever. But to just unilaterally
claim the NTSC is inferior I just don't see it. So there must be more to
the story. Maybe politics in some wild manner? That tends to piss people
off.



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

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <3-CdnZGZxPKod7HQnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

And you think the few cameras you've seen are suitable for judging
any system? Just because you didn't see them doesn't mean they weren't
built. I was using an RCA TK-16 Vidicon camera in the service that was
built in the late '60s.

You appear only to have heard of RCA cameras.

Vidicon cameras were usable in low light, properly designed. Not
that the BBC was renowned for state of the art.

Really?

I saw one of the first
single gun color TV cameras in 1972/73, built by Magnavox for industrial
video applications. That was at Ft. Rucker, Al. where the video
production section was looking into newer cameras.

Can you name a broadcast use for a single tube colour camera? Apart from
stunt stuff where it would be destroyed.

If you consider 2"
Ampex industrial video, you might argue. The mobile production units
were several tractor trailers full, and they had just bought the first
Tektronix U-matic decks built.

U-matic? Only ever used for news stuff here. And office viewing before VHS.

1" C Format ruled until the arrival of Beta SP and MII.

--
*Acupuncture is a jab well done*

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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article <WNudnb6b-u9rd7HQnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
4:3. So as I said a small size when showing 16:9. If indeed you ever
saw 16:9 pictures in the studio.

Underscan was switchable. A mask was used with lines to show the
hot area for cheap, overscanned TV sets.

You think all 'cheap overscanned TV sets' had the same 'hot' area?

Sigh. Did your mother have any kids without brain damage? Quit
trying to put words in my mouth, you aren't smart enough to even try.
Proper camera work made sure that the active portion of any image was
properly framed. Proper framing was for near worst case TVs. No one
gave a shit if your $139 jpanese TV cut off 25% all the way around the
image.

So why the mask on the monitors if 'proper camera work made sure that the
active portion of any image was properly framed'? Cameramen not trusted?

maybe on your planet. A cameraman has a lit of things to pay
attention to. The lines on his monitor make it easy to frame the shot.
Not that you would know.

Only time I saw an electronic mask displayed on a production control room
monitor was when things were destined for 16mm telerecording only.

And why would the engineer in charge of the actual pictures care about
home overscan? That would be left to the production side.

Notice you've omitted to answer this...

No matter what answer yo got you would still pull out a ruler to
measure yor dick so there was no reason to give you the pleasure.

--
*(over a sketch of the titanic) "The boat sank - get over it

Another case of UK engineering gone very bad - get over it.



--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <WNudnb6b-u9rd7HQnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

4:3. So as I said a small size when showing 16:9. If indeed you ever
saw 16:9 pictures in the studio.

Underscan was switchable. A mask was used with lines to show the
hot area for cheap, overscanned TV sets.

You think all 'cheap overscanned TV sets' had the same 'hot' area?

Sigh. Did your mother have any kids without brain damage? Quit
trying to put words in my mouth, you aren't smart enough to even try.
Proper camera work made sure that the active portion of any image was
properly framed. Proper framing was for near worst case TVs. No one
gave a shit if your $139 jpanese TV cut off 25% all the way around the
image.

So why the mask on the monitors if 'proper camera work made sure that the
active portion of any image was properly framed'? Cameramen not trusted?

Only time I saw an electronic mask displayed on a production control room
monitor was when things were destined for 16mm telerecording only.

And why would the engineer in charge of the actual pictures care about
home overscan? That would be left to the production side.

Notice you've omitted to answer this...

--
*(over a sketch of the titanic) "The boat sank - get over it

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

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <pan.2011.01.12.00.00.20@lmao.lol.lol>,
Meat Plow <mhywatt@yahoo.com> wrote:

I've no experience in PAL or SECAM whatsoever. But to just unilaterally
claim the NTSC is inferior I just don't see it. So there must be more to
the story. Maybe politics in some wild manner? That tends to piss people
off.

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.

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine*

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

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article <3-CdnZGZxPKod7HQnZ2dnUVZ_gadnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
And you think the few cameras you've seen are suitable for judging
any system? Just because you didn't see them doesn't mean they weren't
built. I was using an RCA TK-16 Vidicon camera in the service that was
built in the late '60s.

You appear only to have heard of RCA cameras.

Sigh. You appear to bbe an idiot. RCA & GE made most of the studio
cameras in the US. A few stations got screwed when they bought Philips
cameras that had no factory support and few spare parts.

Vidicon cameras were usable in low light, properly designed. Not
that the BBC was renowned for state of the art.

Really?

it makes as much sense as the bullshit you're posting.

I saw one of the first
single gun color TV cameras in 1972/73, built by Magnavox for industrial
video applications. That was at Ft. Rucker, Al. where the video
production section was looking into newer cameras.

Can you name a broadcast use for a single tube colour camera? Apart from
stunt stuff where it would be destroyed.

Yes they were used for ENG before color CCD cameras were availible.

If you consider 2"
Ampex industrial video, you might argue. The mobile production units
were several tractor trailers full, and they had just bought the first
Tektronix U-matic decks built.

U-matic? Only ever used for news stuff here. And office viewing before VHS.

1" C Format ruled until the arrival of Beta SP and MII.

So, you used 2" until the other formats were availible? Umatic was
second generation video for use in classrooms, dubbed from the broadcast
grade masters. Long beofre VHS or any beta crap was availible. I used
1" Sony at WACX in orlando for the master edit suit. OTOH, I had 13
Sony U-Matics at the transmitter site for the LaCarte Video automation
system. WACX had better video quality than most of the other stations
in the market. The worst used Beta and it was obvious.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <igirbc$205$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

Don't think you've been following things. DVDs as such
don't have either an NTSC or PAL footprint unless the
originating material had.

I don't think that's correct. There are differences in the number of
scanning lines and frame rate on NTSC and PAL DVDs.

There are - but neither are *fundamental* to PAL or NTSC.

With regard to your comment -- which is something like "there's no water
in a glass unless you've poured water into it" -- what sort of non-PAL
or non-NTSC-format material would you record on a video DVD?

If the material is sourced from a composite PAL recording, it will retain
the PAL footprint.

--
*Gargling is a good way to see if your throat leaks.

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

 

[Brenda Ann]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
news:51942912a5dave@davenoise.co.uk...

In article <pan.2011.01.12.00.00.20@lmao.lol.lol>,
Meat Plow <mhywatt@yahoo.com> wrote:

I've no experience in PAL or SECAM whatsoever. But to just unilaterally
claim the NTSC is inferior I just don't see it. So there must be more to
the story. Maybe politics in some wild manner? That tends to piss people
off.

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.

--


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have read in broadcast periodicals that PAL needed to be converted to NTSC
in the studio in order to use video effects switching, etc., then converted
back for transmission. Since the two are virtually the same base signals,
this confused me.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <igirlg$86a$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

In every other respect, NTSC is objectively superior to PAL.

Explain how 525 lines gives superior resolution to 625?

--
*When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty*

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

 

[Jeffrey Angus]

On 1/11/2011 7:27 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

So, you used 2" until the other formats were availible? Umatic was
second generation video for use in classrooms, dubbed from the broadcast
grade masters. Long beofre VHS or any beta crap was availible. I used
1" Sony at WACX in orlando for the master edit suit. OTOH, I had 13
Sony U-Matics at the transmitter site for the LaCarte Video automation
system. WACX had better video quality than most of the other stations
in the market. The worst used Beta and it was obvious.

Back in 1970 I took course "TV production" in my Senior year.
We had a nice 1" tape deck and a mixer/fader console along with
two dolly mounted cameras.

By 1971, the students had trahed enough of the equipment, so
that they were using a 1/2" Sone deck and hand helds on tripods.

Sigh, what a waste of studio grade gear.

Jeff

 

[Paul Feaker]

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

William, Phil is a mentally ill Aussie who rarely takes his
medicine. Just ignore him.

And you're a fucking socially retarded shut in who should take medicine.

 

On Jan 11, 3:15 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)" <d...@davenoise.co.uk>
wrote:

In article <pan.2011.01.11.19.13...@lmao.lol.lol>,
   Meat Plow <mhyw...@yahoo.com> wrote:

How did this devolve into a PAL/NTSC pissing match? From what little TV I
watch in the evening, HD channels on TWC, I think the color rendering is
perfect. And NTSC DVD video is the same. So what's the problem here? A
lack of real things to argue about?

Don't think you've been following things. DVDs as such don't have
either
an NTSC or PAL footprint unless the originating material had.

--
*Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

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

Oh they most certainly do as they are either 525/60 or 625/50. While
your computer will have no trouble with this, CRT sets definitely did
(but could usually be adjusted). There must be some pretty dumb people
all over the world buying standards converters at $200K a pop to
convert 25 Hz frame rate to 30 Hz and vice cersa.

G˛