Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

50 hz framerate bad for sports? Opinions sought...

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 6:16:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

50 hz framerate bad for sports? Opinions sought...
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 12:48:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004, manitou910 wrote:
> I find it incredible that the PAL nations are clinging to an antiquated
> refresh rate as they prepare for HDTV when there is absolutely on reason to
> do so.

There's an excellent reason: it's different from the US.

Europe remains convinced that they have a superior analog TV system than
the US, even though that hasn't been the case since the 1970s. They're
convinced that they will presently have a superior digital TV system
(whenever they finish deploying it) and will someday have a superior HDTV
system.

I see no point to argue it with the Europeans. In fact, anything that
causes them to waste more money in anti-US temper tantrums (Galileo being
another example) is a good thing.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 2:20:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:p ine.LNX.4.62.0409110840210.13478@shiva0.cac.washington.edu...
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004, manitou910 wrote:
>> I find it incredible that the PAL nations are clinging to an antiquated
>> refresh rate as they prepare for HDTV when there is absolutely on reason
>> to do so.
>
> There's an excellent reason: it's different from the US.
>
> Europe remains convinced that they have a superior analog TV system than
> the US, even though that hasn't been the case since the 1970s. They're
> convinced that they will presently have a superior digital TV system
> (whenever they finish deploying it) and will someday have a superior HDTV
> system.
>

Mark...just curious in your television time-line what you think happened in
the 1970's that somehow made our NTSC television sytem superior to PAL? PAL
has always provided a better more defined and higher resolution picture than
NTSC. Refresh rate is only one aspect of the picture. Resolution and color
fidelity of PAL has always exceeded that of NTSC.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 5:25:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Charles Tomaras wrote:

> Mark...just curious in your television time-line what you think happened in
> the 1970's that somehow made our NTSC television sytem superior to PAL? PAL
> has always provided a better more defined and higher resolution picture than
> NTSC.

No. PAL has absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in horizontal resolution
compared to NTSC, nor vertical luma resolution. NONE. ZERO.

OF course, of you have 7 or 8 MHZ channels, yes, you have
higher resolutionm. That has nothing to do with PAL. Of course,
PAL DOES have 1/4 the VERTICAL color resolution of NTSC.


> Refresh rate is only one aspect of the picture. Resolution and color
> fidelity of PAL has always exceeded that of NTSC.

No. The color fidelity of NTSC has long ... since the
1970s ... been exactly the same as PAL.

The big advantage of NTSC only came into place, really,
when comb filters became common in NTSC sets, which are
capable of completely decoding the color/luma, totally
removing artifacts in static pictures and reducing them
greatly in moving ones.

The MAJOR problem is not PAL, but something disconnected
from it, 50Hz. That will not disappear until all scanning
type displays are gone, and the 50-60Hz conversion disaster
for moving objects will not go away until Moore's Law
has worked several more powers of 10 on the power of
affordable computers.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 6:01:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:16:40 -0700, "http://CBC.am/"
<mikehack@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>50 hz framerate bad for sports? Opinions sought...
>
>
>
well all sport i see on tv is at 50hz, being a uk resident.
what do you suggest is a better speed ?
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 6:32:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

http://CBC.am/ wrote:

> 50 hz framerate bad for sports? Opinions sought...

50hz is bad for everything.

Too much flicker (strobe-like for anyone used to watching 60hz), and
interlace artifacts ('jaggies') are more evident than at 60hz,
especially 60hz with 3D comb filtering.

I find it incredible that the PAL nations are clinging to an antiquated
refresh rate as they prepare for HDTV when there is absolutely on reason
to do so. A power supply running at 50hz can support any refresh rate,
as Euro PC owners well known.

At least if the standard is progressive scan, it will be easier to
manufacture displays which run at 75 or 100hz.







C.
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 8:57:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Mark Crispin wrote:
>
>> I find it incredible that the PAL nations are clinging to an
>> antiquated refresh rate as they prepare for HDTV when there is
>> absolutely on reason to do so.
>
> There's an excellent reason: it's different from the US.
>
> Europe remains convinced that they have a superior analog TV system than
> the US, even though that hasn't been the case since the 1970s. They're
> convinced that they will presently have a superior digital TV system
> (whenever they finish deploying it) and will someday have a superior
> HDTV system.
>
> I see no point to argue it with the Europeans. In fact, anything that
> causes them to waste more money in anti-US temper tantrums (Galileo
> being another example) is a good thing.

It's as if European movies were shot at 18fps.







C.
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 9:27:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

http://CBC.am/ wrote:

> 50 hz framerate bad for sports? Opinions sought...

Depends on what you compare it with.

--
znark
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 9:34:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

http://CBC.am/ wrote:
> 50 hz framerate bad for sports? Opinions sought...
>
>
>
>

I don't think that a difference like 50 vs 60 Hz
would make much if any difference IF the images were
played back on a non-scanning display.

The problems I have complained about come from
conversions between teh two frame rate: they are
simply horrendously bad, and no help is likely in the
immediate future.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 12:10:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:chvfv2$mk1$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> Charles Tomaras wrote:
>
>> Mark...just curious in your television time-line what you think happened
>> in the 1970's that somehow made our NTSC television sytem superior to
>> PAL? PAL
>> has always provided a better more defined and higher resolution picture
>> than NTSC.
>
> No. PAL has absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in horizontal resolution
> compared to NTSC, nor vertical luma resolution. NONE. ZERO.
>
> OF course, of you have 7 or 8 MHZ channels, yes, you have
> higher resolutionm. That has nothing to do with PAL. Of course,
> PAL DOES have 1/4 the VERTICAL color resolution of NTSC.
>
>
>> Refresh rate is only one aspect of the picture. Resolution and color
>> fidelity of PAL has always exceeded that of NTSC.
>
> No. The color fidelity of NTSC has long ... since the
> 1970s ... been exactly the same as PAL.
>
> The big advantage of NTSC only came into place, really,
> when comb filters became common in NTSC sets, which are
> capable of completely decoding the color/luma, totally
> removing artifacts in static pictures and reducing them
> greatly in moving ones.
>
> The MAJOR problem is not PAL, but something disconnected
> from it, 50Hz. That will not disappear until all scanning
> type displays are gone, and the 50-60Hz conversion disaster
> for moving objects will not go away until Moore's Law
> has worked several more powers of 10 on the power of
> affordable computers.
>
> Doug McDonald

One area in which 625/50 does beat 525/60 is vertical resolution.
Ok so on analogue TV it's only the black and white resolution but on digital
and on DVDs etc it's the colour as well. 625/50 has 576 lines resolution,
525/60 only has 480. There is no arguing with that.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
ng@bgdsv.co.uk
To email me remove the letter vee.
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 12:10:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:

>
> One area in which 625/50 does beat 525/60 is vertical resolution.
> Ok so on analogue TV it's only the black and white resolution but on digital
> and on DVDs etc it's the colour as well. 625/50 has 576 lines resolution,
> 525/60 only has 480. There is no arguing with that.
>

That's just the geometry. The dot rate of the two systems is essentially
identical. PAL has better geometric resolution. NTSC has better temporal
resolution.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 12:10:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10k6k8526uti1bb@corp.supernews.com...
> Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:
>
>>
>> One area in which 625/50 does beat 525/60 is vertical resolution.
>> Ok so on analogue TV it's only the black and white resolution but on
>> digital and on DVDs etc it's the colour as well. 625/50 has 576 lines
>> resolution, 525/60 only has 480. There is no arguing with that.
>>
>
> That's just the geometry. The dot rate of the two systems is essentially
> identical. PAL has better geometric resolution. NTSC has better temporal
> resolution.
>
> Matthew

By that comparison then you must think that 24 frame film has really bad
temporal resolution whatever that means. I work in the film and video
business as a sound mixer and have been on countless NTSC shoots and a good
number of PAL shoots (for British clients) and I can unequivocally tell you
that the PAL stuff I've seen over the last 15 years in this business has
always looks better to my eyes than the NTSC stuff when viewed on broadcast
grade field monitors. The increased resolution is quite apparent as it the
increased color fidelity of PAL. You can quote whatever you want to quote
but I've seen the difference and there isn't much question that PAL is a
superior system and we have been hog-tied by NTSC in the United States for
decades now. Most of my experience over this time has been with industry
standard Betacam and Digital Betacam sources. I'll also add that the hoops
we have to jump through to deal with the 29.97 frame rate of NTSC Color
video is ridiculous compared to the ease of using the PAL 25 frame per
second rate. It also makes for much easier conversion from 24fps film than
going from 24 - 29.97 with all of the image cadence degrading
pull-down/pull-up schemes we have to deal with. From time to time I run into
a perfectly competent PAL raised sound mixer or video person who when
confronted with the realities of the 29.97 NTSC world are totally amazed
that we would put up with it.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 12:10:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Charles Tomaras wrote:

> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:10k6k8526uti1bb@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Brian Gregory [UK] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>One area in which 625/50 does beat 525/60 is vertical resolution.
>>>Ok so on analogue TV it's only the black and white resolution but on
>>>digital and on DVDs etc it's the colour as well. 625/50 has 576 lines
>>>resolution, 525/60 only has 480. There is no arguing with that.
>>>
>>
>>That's just the geometry. The dot rate of the two systems is essentially
>>identical. PAL has better geometric resolution. NTSC has better temporal
>>resolution.
>>
>>Matthew
>
>
> By that comparison then you must think that 24 frame film has really bad
> temporal resolution whatever that means.

It does. That is one of the reason that modern projectors don't project
at 24FPS.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 12:10:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Charles Tomaras wrote:

>
> By that comparison then you must think that 24 frame film has really bad
> temporal resolution whatever that means. I work in the film and video
> business as a sound mixer and have been on countless NTSC shoots and a good
> number of PAL shoots (for British clients) and I can unequivocally tell you
> that the PAL stuff I've seen over the last 15 years in this business has
> always looks better to my eyes than the NTSC stuff when viewed on broadcast
> grade field monitors.


Have you EVER seen PAL on a system that has the same bandwidth
as an NTSC system? Ever been to Brazil?


Doug McDonald
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 12:10:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Matthew L. Martin wrote:

>
> It does. That is one of the reason that modern projectors don't project
> at 24FPS.
>
>

No it's not .... movie projectors still project a picture that
has a temporal limit at 24 Hz.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 12:10:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:chvr3h$r20$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> Charles Tomaras wrote:
>
>>
>> By that comparison then you must think that 24 frame film has really bad
>> temporal resolution whatever that means. I work in the film and video
>> business as a sound mixer and have been on countless NTSC shoots and a
>> good number of PAL shoots (for British clients) and I can unequivocally
>> tell you that the PAL stuff I've seen over the last 15 years in this
>> business has always looks better to my eyes than the NTSC stuff when
>> viewed on broadcast grade field monitors.
>
>
> Have you EVER seen PAL on a system that has the same bandwidth
> as an NTSC system? Ever been to Brazil?

I speak only for what I have seen working in the United States on broadcast
field monitors.
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 12:10:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Doug McDonald wrote:

> Matthew L. Martin wrote:
>
>>
>> It does. That is one of the reason that modern projectors don't
>> project at 24FPS.
>>
>>
>
> No it's not .... movie projectors still project a picture that
> has a temporal limit at 24 Hz.

Yes, but by showing each frame mulitple times the effect of flicker
caused by the low frame rate is reduced.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 12:56:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message


> Most of my experience over this time has been with industry
> standard Betacam and Digital Betacam sources. I'll also add that the hoops
> we have to jump through to deal with the 29.97 frame rate of NTSC Color
> video is ridiculous compared to the ease of using the PAL 25 frame per
> second rate. It also makes for much easier conversion from 24fps film than
> going from 24 - 29.97 with all of the image cadence degrading
> pull-down/pull-up schemes we have to deal with. From time to time I run
into
> a perfectly competent PAL raised sound mixer or video person who when
> confronted with the realities of the 29.97 NTSC world are totally amazed
> that we would put up with it.

They normally just don't bother, but run 4% slow n'est pas?

>
> Charles Tomaras
> Seattle, WA
>
>

Yes the frame rate of NTSC is better, color fidelity has improved from
the grungy green days, but there is no getting away from the lower vertical
resolution.

Why do you think there is room for extra shots, outtakes etc. on US DVDs?

Because there is less information in the film!

In any event on a 100Hz set the flicker is not evident.

BTW IMHO having watched all three in quick succession, whilst NTSC is much
inferior to PAL, SECAM is very slightly better. OTOH SECAM was another sad
example of the "yellow headlights" problem of French technical arrogance,
which greatly exceeds that of Europe (cited elsewhere in this thread) as a
whole or even the US.
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 12:56:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "Charles Tomaras" <tomaras@tomaras.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>>Most of my experience over this time has been with industry
>>standard Betacam and Digital Betacam sources. I'll also add that the hoops
>>we have to jump through to deal with the 29.97 frame rate of NTSC Color
>>video is ridiculous compared to the ease of using the PAL 25 frame per
>>second rate. It also makes for much easier conversion from 24fps film than
>>going from 24 - 29.97 with all of the image cadence degrading
>>pull-down/pull-up schemes we have to deal with. From time to time I run
>
> into
>
>>a perfectly competent PAL raised sound mixer or video person who when
>>confronted with the realities of the 29.97 NTSC world are totally amazed
>>that we would put up with it.
>
>
> They normally just don't bother, but run 4% slow n'est pas?
>
>
>>Charles Tomaras
>>Seattle, WA
>>
>>
>
>
> Yes the frame rate of NTSC is better, color fidelity has improved from
> the grungy green days, but there is no getting away from the lower vertical
> resolution.
>
> Why do you think there is room for extra shots, outtakes etc. on US DVDs?
>
> Because there is less information in the film!

What part of essentially identical dot rate do you not understand? Do
the arithmetic:

625 * 25 = 15625
525 * 30 = 15750

The number of TV lines per scan line is identical. If anything, NTSC
compresses better _because_ of better temporal resolution. The changes
from field to field are less.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
September 12, 2004 1:51:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
news:p ine.LNX.4.62.0409110840210.13478@shiva0.cac.washington.edu...
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004, manitou910 wrote:
>> I find it incredible that the PAL nations are clinging to an antiquated
>> refresh rate as they prepare for HDTV when there is absolutely on reason to
>> do so.
>
> There's an excellent reason: it's different from the US.

Depends where you're looking from, the number of 50Hz PAL sets and nations quite
out number NTSC gear.


Az.
September 12, 2004 3:19:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Aztech" <az@tech.com> wrote in message
news:KrK0d.1185829$y4.209234@news.easynews.com...
> "Mark Crispin" <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in message
> news:p ine.LNX.4.62.0409110840210.13478@shiva0.cac.washington.edu...
> > On Sat, 11 Sep 2004, manitou910 wrote:
> >> I find it incredible that the PAL nations are clinging to an antiquated
> >> refresh rate as they prepare for HDTV when there is absolutely on
reason to
> >> do so.
> >
> > There's an excellent reason: it's different from the US.
>
> Depends where you're looking from, the number of 50Hz PAL sets and nations
quite
> out number NTSC gear.
>
Forgetting India, Europe, and the rest of the known world, I would expect
that amount of Chinese viewers alone would far outnumber the worlds 525/60
viewers, so I'm not holding my breath that we are going to change standards
just to accommodate the US.

I regularly watch CBS satellite feeds and region one DVD's in 525/60 and to
be absolutely honest, along with some American friends who live here in the
UK, can't really see that much, if any difference.


> Az.
>
>
September 12, 2004 4:05:44 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:chvuh4$s71$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> http://CBC.am/ wrote:
> > 50 hz framerate bad for sports? Opinions sought...
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> I don't think that a difference like 50 vs 60 Hz
> would make much if any difference IF the images were
> played back on a non-scanning display.
>
> The problems I have complained about come from
> conversions between teh two frame rate: they are
> simply horrendously bad, and no help is likely in the
> immediate future.
>

I tend to agree with you there Doug. I can remember years ago when Dallas
was a high rating TV show here in the UK, it was shot in what I presume was
high quality 35 mm film. However maybe for cost reasons they decided to
shoot it on 525/60 videotape and standards convert it to 625/50. IMHO it was
from that day on that its popularity went down hill enormously, when even
non technical people used complain that objects appeared to be jerky and
blurry as they moved across the screen.


> Doug McDonald
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 4:05:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

"ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2qhejpFt97cvU1@uni-berlin.de...


< snip >

> I tend to agree with you there Doug. I can remember years ago when Dallas
> was a high rating TV show here in the UK, it was shot in what I presume
was
> high quality 35 mm film. However maybe for cost reasons they decided to
> shoot it on 525/60 videotape and standards convert it to 625/50. IMHO it
was
> from that day on that its popularity went down hill enormously, when even
> non technical people used complain that objects appeared to be jerky and
> blurry as they moved across the screen.

I'm in the US. I've seen British tapes (going back to Monty Python days)
and
always noticed the jerky effect. We're getting your "Keeping Up Appearances"
on our TV these days and even though the video quality is excellent (good
color,
good S/N), the jerkiness is as bad as it ever was.

Aside: Live US programs on the Armed Forces TV Network as seen by me
in Japan have the temporal look of film. I suspect it has to do with frame
rate
reduction so they can mux the most channels onto a single digital satellite
signal.
My curiosity never reached the point where I wanted to inquire about
precisely
*what* they were doing to the signal(s). However, at the time I was taken
aback
when I looked at what I knew to be a live news program that yet had the look
of being film.
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 4:05:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

"Sal M. Onella" <salmonella@food.poisoning.org> wrote in message
news:4pQ0d.293664$Oi.151846@fed1read04...
> I'm in the US. I've seen British tapes (going back to Monty Python days)
> and
> always noticed the jerky effect. We're getting your "Keeping Up
> Appearances"
> on our TV these days and even though the video quality is excellent (good
> color,
> good S/N), the jerkiness is as bad as it ever was.

Just curious what equipment you were watching the British tapes on?
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 4:24:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <10k6upajubbdu21@corp.supernews.com>, Matthew L. Martin
wrote:
> >> It does. That is one of the reason that modern projectors don't
> >> project at 24FPS.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > No it's not .... movie projectors still project a picture that
> > has a temporal limit at 24 Hz.
>
> Yes, but by showing each frame mulitple times the effect of flicker
> caused by the low frame rate is reduced.

Flicker is not the same as temporal resolution. The multiblade shutters
in film projectors do reduce the appearance of flicker, but simply by
repeating the same information several times. The temporal resolution
of cine film is still 24fps however many times you show each frame.

Rod.
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 4:24:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

In article <chufkr$qjt$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu>, Http://CBC.am/
wrote:
> 50 hz framerate bad for sports? Opinions sought...

Sports bad for television. That's my opinion.

Rod.
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 4:24:01 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote in message
news:VA.000007a4.00cba05b@escapetime.nospam.plus.com...
>
> Flicker is not the same as temporal resolution. The multiblade shutters
> in film projectors do reduce the appearance of flicker, but simply by
> repeating the same information several times. The temporal resolution
> of cine film is still 24fps however many times you show each frame.

Yes it is Rod...and that's why it looks so damn good and has been leaving
audiences mesmerized for so many decades. The temporal effects of 24fps are
what makes a movie a movie. Why do you think all of the popular HD cameras
for cinematic production are being used in 24 frame mode? Why do you think
the hottest selling semi-pro DV camera is the Panasonic DVX-100...because
it's got a 24frame progressive mode. Taking the video world by storm because
people can finally shoot video that has the temporal feeling of film.

Charles Tomaras
Seattle, WA
September 12, 2004 4:38:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

"Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote in message
news:VA.000007a5.00cba397@escapetime.nospam.plus.com...
> In article <chufkr$qjt$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu>, Http://CBC.am/
> wrote:
> > 50 hz framerate bad for sports? Opinions sought...
>
> Sports bad for television. That's my opinion.
>

And it's just as bad on radio, we've just gotten over the Olympics on Radio
5, and it now appears that we are going to be bored to death with the Ryder
Cup.


> Rod.
>
September 12, 2004 6:37:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:chvuh4$s71$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> http://CBC.am/ wrote:
>> 50 hz framerate bad for sports? Opinions sought...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> I don't think that a difference like 50 vs 60 Hz
> would make much if any difference IF the images were
> played back on a non-scanning display.
>
> The problems I have complained about come from
> conversions between teh two frame rate: they are
> simply horrendously bad, and no help is likely in the
> immediate future.

That's quite a broad sweep, there's a great variation in equipment and
techniques used in production, if you're referring to a real-time converter on
the end of an NTSC/PAL chain that has MPEG2 stages then I'd agree. In Athens,
AOB may well have used analogue PAL kit, so you have the added problem of a
composite footprint instead of a clean SDI (4:2:2) feeds.

However, we have to get real and ask what's relevant today, 60Hz isn't a native
format for modern production in US, lots of series are now filmed and posted
using HDCam 24fps, most shows produced in HD in the US. Off-line DEFT
conversions for 50Hz and 60Hz countries are quite decent.

If you sit down and watch CSI then a film on your HDTV you're not watching 60Hz
originated material, if you're watching on a plasma you won't even be viewing at
60Hz.


Az.
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 7:34:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

In article <IDO0d.610266$ic1.63051@news.easynews.com>,
"Aztech" <az@tech.com> writes:
>
> If you sit down and watch CSI then a film on your HDTV you're not watching 60Hz
> originated material, if you're watching on a plasma you won't even be viewing at
> 60Hz.
>
Note that watching REAL 60Hz originated sports, it does look really good
(assuming enough of the total payload being allocated.) CSI type 24p
(or film) originated stuff does look wonderful when done correctly, but
the logical counterpart to CSI is the wonderful American football video being
done in true HDTV. In theory, 24p originated stuff being played out
in 60i isn't alot less efficient (for good quality) than 1080p at 24Hz,
even though the true 24Hz thing would be slightly better.

When being spoiled by watching HDTV 1080i at 60Hz NFL American football,
then the transcoded 50Hz errsatz HDTV from the Olympics were a big
letdown. I am NOT meaning to blame 50Hz per se. The conversion with
the lack of ability to take advantage of the huge amount of redundancy
in the 24p originated material makes the conversion from 50i appear
to be quite problematical. (The 50Hz interlaced scheme doens't provide
the same large amount of redundancy that 24p does.)

As a stylized comparison for similarity, the 50Hz Olympics were the same
kind of letdown as the crummy Fox American football widescreen stuff.

So, summing this up (I know that I can be confusing to read):

24p originated material being played out at 1080i at 60Hz can look
damned good because of the large amount of redundancy, and the limitations
because of the 19mbps (or probably 16mbps) allocation are less troublesome
than they would initially appear to be.

1080i originated at true 60Hz can really stress the encoders because of the
tight 19mbps allocation, but assuming extremely clean video sources and
proper encoder design, the video quality can still be very very good. In
fact, the 1080i at 60Hz can be better all around than the 24p stuff, especially
for sports, because of more temporal resolution.

For ugly problems, think about the transcoding problems from 50i to 60i in
realtime, where the 1080i (at 60Hz) signal is already a tight fit in the
19mbps payload. Now, take a look at the conversion artifacts from 1080i at
50Hz to 60Hz, and trying to convert motion at that speed. One might be tricked
into comparing 50Hz of 1080i with the 24p at 1080 being 'similar', but they
aren't. The amount of redundancy for 24p is GUARANTEED to be very very high,
while 50i can have lots of changes from field to field. This means that the
conversion from 50i to 60i will potentially be artifact laden, and even
converting from PAL 50i to US HDTV at 60i might be problematical to provide
a picture that compares favorably with a PAL picture!!!

It really is JUST WRONG to continue ot use 50Hz for television, because there
are no real advantages or justifications for maintaining that ancient scanrate
whose justification was originally based upon power supply interference (hopefully,
Europeans have solved power supply ripple problems.)

If our European 'ex-allies :-)' wish to maintain incompatibility with the US,
then perhaps they should make a justifiable decision and choose a 72Hz update
rate!!! The 72Hz would provide perfect film reproduction, and high value
productions with film look would be fully interchangeable with the US. For
European domestic sports, then the 72Hz would guaranteed be better than the
US (for Chauvinistic reasons.) The 72Hz for film material would provide INCREDIBLE
amounts of redundancy, but for high temporal resolution video, then the
payload needs would be higher than for film.

Perhaps for the 'standard' HDTV rate in Europe, they should choose a 720p72
type standard... This would also maintain a measurable difference between
the distribution format (1280x720) vs. a mastering format (1920x1080), therefore
mitigating some of the paranoia from the studios.

John
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 12:01:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Charles Tomaras wrote:

> "Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote in message
> news:VA.000007a4.00cba05b@escapetime.nospam.plus.com...
>
>>Flicker is not the same as temporal resolution. The multiblade shutters
>>in film projectors do reduce the appearance of flicker, but simply by
>>repeating the same information several times. The temporal resolution
>>of cine film is still 24fps however many times you show each frame.
>
>
> Yes it is Rod...and that's why it looks so damn good and has been leaving
> audiences mesmerized for so many decades. The temporal effects of 24fps are
> what makes a movie a movie.

24FPS was chosen because it was the lowest generally acceptable frame
rate. This was an economic decision, not a technical one.

> Why do you think all of the popular HD cameras
> for cinematic production are being used in 24 frame mode?

For similar reasons as 24FPS on film. Bits cost money and more bits per
second means fewer seconds per unit of storage.

> Why do you think
> the hottest selling semi-pro DV camera is the Panasonic DVX-100...because
> it's got a 24frame progressive mode. Taking the video world by storm because
> people can finally shoot video that has the temporal feeling of film.

Which doesn't make it a good thing.

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 12:01:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10k8ekieocgej48@corp.supernews.com...
> Charles Tomaras wrote:
>
>> "Roderick Stewart" <rjfs@escapetime.nospam.plus.com> wrote in message
>> news:VA.000007a4.00cba05b@escapetime.nospam.plus.com...
>>
>>>Flicker is not the same as temporal resolution. The multiblade shutters
>>>in film projectors do reduce the appearance of flicker, but simply by
>>>repeating the same information several times. The temporal resolution
>>>of cine film is still 24fps however many times you show each frame.
>>
>>
>> Yes it is Rod...and that's why it looks so damn good and has been leaving
>> audiences mesmerized for so many decades. The temporal effects of 24fps
>> are what makes a movie a movie.
>
> 24FPS was chosen because it was the lowest generally acceptable frame
> rate. This was an economic decision, not a technical one.
>
>> Why do you think all of the popular HD cameras for cinematic production
>> are being used in 24 frame mode?
>
> For similar reasons as 24FPS on film. Bits cost money and more bits per
> second means fewer seconds per unit of storage.


I've got to dissagree with you on some of this. While 24fps may have
intially been chosen as the lowest frame rate that was acceptable, it has
become a temporal standard that is so desireable that the professional HD
and video community has adopted it. NONE of the professional or semi-pro
cameras that support 24p are doing so for reasons of storage. They are doing
so because the users desire and demand it. The first generation of Sony HDTV
cameras had no 24p support...it was added to later models due to user
demand.

Professional users are looking for the temporal effects of film and also for
the control over depth of field that film affords. Your idea of super
lifelike reality is NOT what film makers are looking for. They want to
control the mood and control your depth of field. The goal is NOT to give an
audience a huge ultra lifelike image they can interpret in any way...the
goal is to control and direct the viewers interpretation. That's called
movie making.

I realize this is now off track from the original post and that news, sports
and documentary have different considerations....but 24p is not going away
from dramatic movie making any time soon and for good reason.
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 1:16:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

Aztech wrote:

> That's quite a broad sweep, there's a great variation in equipment and
> techniques used in production, if you're referring to a real-time converter on
> the end of an NTSC/PAL chain that has MPEG2 stages then I'd agree. In Athens,
> AOB may well have used analogue PAL kit, so you have the added problem of a
> composite footprint instead of a clean SDI (4:2:2) feeds.

I **seriously** doubt that last statement, since it was HD.





>
> However, we have to get real and ask what's relevant today, 60Hz isn't a native
> format for modern production in US, lots of series are now filmed and posted
> using HDCam 24fps, most shows produced in HD in the US. Off-line DEFT
> conversions for 50Hz and 60Hz countries are quite decent.
>

Are they decent for sports? I'm talking about the horribly bad
Olympics. OR are they decent for conversions where actors walk about
a set and don;t move more than a few pixels per frame, whereas
swimmers, divers, or gymnasts can move an arm or leg several
times its width in a frame, and pans can move backgrounds
as much.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 1:22:16 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

John S. Dyson wrote:

>
> As a stylized comparison for similarity, the 50Hz Olympics were the same
> kind of letdown as the crummy Fox American football widescreen stuff.


Huh?? The recent Fox widescreen football has been EXCEEDINGLY good,
not as good as ABC's 720p, but very very good indeed. It has been
done with 720p cameras, converted to 480i, and then back to
720p ... very well indeed. Today, of course, the 480i
intermediate step will be gone and it will be 720p all the way.
(Assuming it all works the first try, of course.)

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 1:49:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

Aztech wrote:

>
> However, we have to get real and ask what's relevant today, 60Hz isn't a native
> format for modern production in US,


Of course it is ... ABC and FOX do all their premium sports in
720p, and are trying and eventually will go to it for
all sports. Sports is by far the most important product
for the consumer.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 2:28:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Charles Tomaras wrote:

>
> Professional users are looking for the temporal effects of film and also for
> the control over depth of field that film affords. Your idea of super
> lifelike reality is NOT what film makers are looking for. They want to
> control the mood and control your depth of field. The goal is NOT to give an
> audience a huge ultra lifelike image they can interpret in any way...the
> goal is to control and direct the viewers interpretation. That's called
> movie making.

But now that people are used to TV ... and will soon be used to
HDTV, made by HDTV cameras, they will start looking at movies
(and seriously movie-look TV shows) as "inferior" in quality due,
mainly, to the lack of depth of field, secondly to the presence of
film grain, and thirdly to the flattening and dulling effect of the
intensity compression that film produces. They will seem fuzzy and
old-fashioned. I predict that film will become more TV-like,
more realistic.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 2:37:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <u9-dnYYPsJqLIt7cRVn-rQ@comcast.com>, Charles Tomaras wrote:
> > Flicker is not the same as temporal resolution. The multiblade shutters
> > in film projectors do reduce the appearance of flicker, but simply by
> > repeating the same information several times. The temporal resolution
> > of cine film is still 24fps however many times you show each frame.
>
> Yes it is Rod...and that's why it looks so damn good and has been leaving
> audiences mesmerized for so many decades. The temporal effects of 24fps are
> what makes a movie a movie.

The temporal effects of 24fps are what give rise to motion deficiencies such as
the "waggon-wheel effect", where rotating objects can appear to be moving at
the wrong speed, or even backwards, because the temporal resolution is too low.
These effects do not occur in nature, and are therefore artefacts of the
system. A higher temporal resolution, frame rate, sampling rate (or whatever
you choose to call it), will reduce this effect. As long as it's higher than
the repetition rate of common visual occurrences the effect can be eliminated
for most practical purposes.

It hasn't left me "mesmerised" for decades. It's been annoying me for decades,
because it's a fault that film has, and normal broadcast television doesn't
have. Ironically, now that we have the opportunity to set standards for the
future, people are actually suggesting modifications to television standards
that will give television systems a new deficiency they didn't have before. not
my idea of an improvement.

> Why do you think all of the popular HD cameras
> for cinematic production are being used in 24 frame mode? Why do you think
> the hottest selling semi-pro DV camera is the Panasonic DVX-100...because
> it's got a 24frame progressive mode. Taking the video world by storm because
> people can finally shoot video that has the temporal feeling of film.

If 24fps video takes over from 50fps and 60fps, then it won't be because of
more lifelike rendition of movement, because it quite simply, and objectively,
hasn't got this.

The takeover may still happen, but for any of a variety of other reasons, in
the same way that, for example, VHS videotape effectively wiped out 8mm cine
film for home movie recording, simply because it was cheaper and more
convenient, not because the picture quality was better.

To return to my original point, which you seem to refute, if information is
recorded at 24fps, then showing each frame several times doesn't increase the
temporal resolution. The brightness flicker frequency of the display will be
higher (which may make it less tiring to watch), but picture information will
still only be updated 24 times per second, so moving objects will move as
jerkily as they did before.

Rod.
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 2:37:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

In article <ci0g3o$25uk$1@news.iquest.net>, John S. Dyson wrote:
> It really is JUST WRONG to continue ot use 50Hz for television, because there
> are no real advantages or justifications for maintaining that ancient scanrate
> whose justification was originally based upon power supply interference (hopefully,
> Europeans have solved power supply ripple problems.)

Wasn't 60Hz scanning chosen for exactly the same reason?

> If our European 'ex-allies :-)' wish to maintain incompatibility with the US,
> then perhaps they should make a justifiable decision and choose a 72Hz update
> rate!!

You could say that the US is maintaining incompatibility with Europe. And Africa. and
Asia. And Australia. So who's "incompatible"?

Rod.
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 3:25:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10k6qu5153sjhc4@corp.supernews.com...

> >
> > Why do you think there is room for extra shots, outtakes etc. on US
DVDs?
> >
> > Because there is less information in the film!
>
> What part of essentially identical dot rate do you not understand? Do
> the arithmetic:
>
> 625 * 25 = 15625
> 525 * 30 = 15750

The bit where you confuse dot rate with line rate!

If you are still in any doubt about this try looking at NTSC and PAL
pictures on the same high quality set.

Remember more information implies better pictures (see previous post above).

>
> The number of TV lines per scan line is identical. If anything, NTSC
> compresses better _because_ of better temporal resolution. The changes
> from field to field are less.
>
> Matthew
>
> --
> Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
> You can't win
> You can't break even
> You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 3:25:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:chvr3h$r20$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> Charles Tomaras wrote:
>
> >
> > By that comparison then you must think that 24 frame film has really bad
> > temporal resolution whatever that means. I work in the film and video
> > business as a sound mixer and have been on countless NTSC shoots and a
good
> > number of PAL shoots (for British clients) and I can unequivocally tell
you
> > that the PAL stuff I've seen over the last 15 years in this business has
> > always looks better to my eyes than the NTSC stuff when viewed on
broadcast
> > grade field monitors.
>
>
> Have you EVER seen PAL on a system that has the same bandwidth
> as an NTSC system? Ever been to Brazil?
>
>
> Doug McDonald

You don't have to go to Brazil. When antilog satellite was still dominant
one could easily receive PAL broadcasts from the EU, Secam from France (TF1
etc.) and some NTSC from the Americas (Galavsion, Fox etc. on 43 and 45W).
It was thus very easy to make comparisons without getting out of your
armchair (well once you had fitted a 1.2m Gregorian dish anyway) on a
multistandard TV - like my then top of the range Philips.

The results: -

NTSC was consistently the worst, with colouration on some channels and the
line structure visible.

PAL was good.

SECAM was ever so slightly better, although may have been due to other
factors than the signal structure.

nevertheless

RGB from a digital source (DTT or DST) produces better pictures than any
composite signal mostly IMHO because the horizontal colour resolution is not
compromised.

however

the best picture of all was generated as an RGB wide screen image by France
Supervision using the now nearly defunct D2-MAC system. As FS occupied a
whole physical channel with a single logical channel, there was minimal
compression resulting in a superb quality image.
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 3:25:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:10k6qu5153sjhc4@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>>>Why do you think there is room for extra shots, outtakes etc. on US
>
> DVDs?
>
>>>Because there is less information in the film!
>>
>>What part of essentially identical dot rate do you not understand? Do
>>the arithmetic:
>>
>>625 * 25 = 15625
>>525 * 30 = 15750
>
>
> The bit where you confuse dot rate with line rate!

There is no confusion on my part. Did you not see:

"The number of TV lines per scan line is identical".

> If you are still in any doubt about this try looking at NTSC and PAL
> pictures on the same high quality set.
>
> Remember more information implies better pictures (see previous post above).

There is no more information in PAL. There is a _CLEAR_ tradeoff of
vertical resolution for frame rate.

>>The number of TV lines per scan line is identical. If anything, NTSC
>>compresses better _because_ of better temporal resolution. The changes
>>from field to field are less.
>>

Matthew

--
Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
You can't win
You can't break even
You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 3:25:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

R. Mark Clayton wrote:

>>
>>
>>Have you EVER seen PAL on a system that has the same bandwidth
>>as an NTSC system? Ever been to Brazil?
>>
>>
>>Doug McDonald
>
>
> You don't have to go to Brazil. When antilog satellite was still dominant
> one could easily receive PAL broadcasts from the EU, Secam from France (TF1
> etc.) and some NTSC from the Americas (Galavsion, Fox etc. on 43 and 45W).
> It was thus very easy to make comparisons without getting out of your
> armchair (well once you had fitted a 1.2m Gregorian dish anyway) on a
> multistandard TV - like my then top of the range Philips.
>
> The results: -
>
> NTSC was consistently the worst, with colouration on some channels and the
> line structure visible.
>
> PAL was good.
>


But you were not watching AT EQUAL BANDWIDTH. And were you watching
on a TRUE NTSC TV with proper NTSC 3D decoding?

Doug McDonald
September 12, 2004 5:25:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

"John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:ci0g3o$25uk$1@news.iquest.net...
> In article <IDO0d.610266$ic1.63051@news.easynews.com>,
> "Aztech" <az@tech.com> writes:
>>
>> If you sit down and watch CSI then a film on your HDTV you're not watching
>> 60Hz
>> originated material, if you're watching on a plasma you won't even be viewing
>> at
>> 60Hz.
>>
> Note that watching REAL 60Hz originated sports, it does look really good
> (assuming enough of the total payload being allocated.) CSI type 24p
> (or film) originated stuff does look wonderful when done correctly, but
> the logical counterpart to CSI is the wonderful American football video being
> done in true HDTV. In theory, 24p originated stuff being played out
> in 60i isn't alot less efficient (for good quality) than 1080p at 24Hz,
> even though the true 24Hz thing would be slightly better.

So when they produce something like Wimbledon in 720/1080p 25fps it will
essentially go through the same process as CSI, the HD version of Blue Planet
was post in 25fps, if you watch either show you're watching a conversion, I
don't see why the latter suddenly becomes problematic because it originates from
foreign shores.

<
> If our European 'ex-allies :-)' wish to maintain incompatibility with the US,
> then perhaps they should make a justifiable decision and choose a 72Hz update
> rate!!! The 72Hz would provide perfect film reproduction, and high value
> productions with film look would be fully interchangeable with the US. For
> European domestic sports, then the 72Hz would guaranteed be better than the
> US (for Chauvinistic reasons.) The 72Hz for film material would provide
> INCREDIBLE
> amounts of redundancy, but for high temporal resolution video, then the
> payload needs would be higher than for film.

50Hz is much the same as your 60Hz issues, it's a legacy of the power grid, it
doesn't hold any relevance to the display device unless people start buying huge
50Hz CRT's for HD in Europe, which isn't going to be the case.

It would have been nice if 72Hz were adopted as a universal format, however
given the future proliferation of scanless devices the bandwidth might be better
spent on providing high resolutions, like 1080p and spending more money on even
better DEFT conversion.

Conversions are a lot nicer now we've rid ourselves of multi-generational
composite formats in production, hence the choice of 24fps for native US
production.

Az.
September 12, 2004 5:31:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

"Sal M. Onella" <salmonella@food.poisoning.org> wrote in message
news:4pQ0d.293664$Oi.151846@fed1read04...
>
> "ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:2qhejpFt97cvU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> < snip >
>
>> I tend to agree with you there Doug. I can remember years ago when Dallas
>> was a high rating TV show here in the UK, it was shot in what I presume
> was
>> high quality 35 mm film. However maybe for cost reasons they decided to
>> shoot it on 525/60 videotape and standards convert it to 625/50. IMHO it
> was
>> from that day on that its popularity went down hill enormously, when even
>> non technical people used complain that objects appeared to be jerky and
>> blurry as they moved across the screen.
>
> I'm in the US. I've seen British tapes (going back to Monty Python days)
> and
> always noticed the jerky effect. We're getting your "Keeping Up Appearances"
> on our TV these days

Hardly the best example of modern production techniques, it would be filmed in
analogue PAL and god knows what it was converted on and how long ago.

Maybe something like 'The Grid' in HD is a better example?

Az.
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 8:48:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

What part of 625 lines verses 525 lines is so hard to understand. Granted,
NTSC is scanned more often, but so what? PAL has more lines per frame, which
renders a sharper picture. I remember watching German TV when I was
stationed there in the 70's, and I remember how much clearer their picture
was than anything that I saw here in the good old USA.

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:10k8ed9lf39eic7@corp.supernews.com...
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
>> news:10k6qu5153sjhc4@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>
>>>>Why do you think there is room for extra shots, outtakes etc. on US
>>
>> DVDs?
>>
>>>>Because there is less information in the film!
>>>
>>>What part of essentially identical dot rate do you not understand? Do
>>>the arithmetic:
>>>
>>>625 * 25 = 15625
>>>525 * 30 = 15750
>>
>>
>> The bit where you confuse dot rate with line rate!
>
> There is no confusion on my part. Did you not see:
>
> "The number of TV lines per scan line is identical".
>
>> If you are still in any doubt about this try looking at NTSC and PAL
>> pictures on the same high quality set.
>>
>> Remember more information implies better pictures (see previous post
>> above).
>
> There is no more information in PAL. There is a _CLEAR_ tradeoff of
> vertical resolution for frame rate.
>
>>>The number of TV lines per scan line is identical. If anything, NTSC
>>>compresses better _because_ of better temporal resolution. The changes
>>>from field to field are less.
>>>
>
> Matthew
>
> --
> Thermodynamics and/or Golf for dummies: There is a game
> You can't win
> You can't break even
> You can't get out of the game
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 9:21:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <ci1nu2$o9h$4@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
Doug McDonald <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> writes:
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
>>>
>>>
>>>Have you EVER seen PAL on a system that has the same bandwidth
>>>as an NTSC system? Ever been to Brazil?
>>>
>>>
>>>Doug McDonald
>>
>>
>> You don't have to go to Brazil. When antilog satellite was still dominant
>> one could easily receive PAL broadcasts from the EU, Secam from France (TF1
>> etc.) and some NTSC from the Americas (Galavsion, Fox etc. on 43 and 45W).
>> It was thus very easy to make comparisons without getting out of your
>> armchair (well once you had fitted a 1.2m Gregorian dish anyway) on a
>> multistandard TV - like my then top of the range Philips.
>>
>> The results: -
>>
>> NTSC was consistently the worst, with colouration on some channels and the
>> line structure visible.
>>
>> PAL was good.
>>
>
>
> But you were not watching AT EQUAL BANDWIDTH. And were you watching
> on a TRUE NTSC TV with proper NTSC 3D decoding?
>
Most 'multistandard' TVs don't really decode NTSC correctly (by todays
standards), but only to the level that a small 13" TV might today here
in the US. The hardware that is required to decode PAL isn't really
able to decode NTSC to the standards that even consumers are used to
in the US.

John
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 9:21:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

John S. Dyson wrote:

>
> Most 'multistandard' TVs don't really decode NTSC correctly (by todays
> standards), but only to the level that a small 13" TV might today here
> in the US. The hardware that is required to decode PAL isn't really
> able to decode NTSC to the standards that even consumers are used to
> in the US.


I think you have hit the big point ... if people are not
watching true NTSC on a true, current, NTSC set, they
cannot do a proper comparison.

On the other hand, the converse is not true, as any 50Hz
(not one of the 100 Hz one that are available) TV will show
the disaster of most (50Hz) PAL. A fair comparison requires
close in time visits to the US and Brazil.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 9:23:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

In article <ci1m2o$nts$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
Doug McDonald <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> writes:
> John S. Dyson wrote:
>
>>
>> As a stylized comparison for similarity, the 50Hz Olympics were the same
>> kind of letdown as the crummy Fox American football widescreen stuff.
>
>
> Huh?? The recent Fox widescreen football has been EXCEEDINGLY good,
> not as good as ABC's 720p, but very very good indeed. It has been
> done with 720p cameras, converted to 480i, and then back to
> 720p ... very well indeed. Today, of course, the 480i
> intermediate step will be gone and it will be 720p all the way.
> (Assuming it all works the first try, of course.)
>
However, it still looked crummy when compared with true HDTV. The
fox sports stuff looked worse than their 'fox widescreen' prime time
stuff.

John
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 9:24:00 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

John S. Dyson wrote:

>
> However, it still looked crummy when compared with true HDTV. The
> fox sports stuff looked worse than their 'fox widescreen' prime time
> stuff.


Uh ... have you watched it recently, like last week? It
was exceedingly good. Today does not count ... it is supposed
to BE true 720p HDTV ... I'm now going home to see if it is.

Doug
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 9:27:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv,sci.engr.television.advanced (More info?)

In article <X6Y0d.1232700$6p.213527@news.easynews.com>,
"Aztech" <az@tech.com> writes:
> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:ci0g3o$25uk$1@news.iquest.net...
>> In article <IDO0d.610266$ic1.63051@news.easynews.com>,
>> "Aztech" <az@tech.com> writes:
>>>
>>> If you sit down and watch CSI then a film on your HDTV you're not watching
>>> 60Hz
>>> originated material, if you're watching on a plasma you won't even be viewing
>>> at
>>> 60Hz.
>>>
>> Note that watching REAL 60Hz originated sports, it does look really good
>> (assuming enough of the total payload being allocated.) CSI type 24p
>> (or film) originated stuff does look wonderful when done correctly, but
>> the logical counterpart to CSI is the wonderful American football video being
>> done in true HDTV. In theory, 24p originated stuff being played out
>> in 60i isn't alot less efficient (for good quality) than 1080p at 24Hz,
>> even though the true 24Hz thing would be slightly better.
>
> So when they produce something like Wimbledon in 720/1080p 25fps it will
> essentially go through the same process as CSI, the HD version of Blue Planet
> was post in 25fps, if you watch either show you're watching a conversion, I
> don't see why the latter suddenly becomes problematic because it originates from
>
> foreign shores.
>
If the origination was in 25p instead of 50i, then it would look roughly
equivalent to CSI (in ideal conditions), but with less than desirable
temporal resolution for high speed sports. 50i is the problem (which you
seemed to gloss over.)

>
> 50Hz is much the same as your 60Hz issues, it's a legacy of the power grid, it
>
But, by chance, the 60Hz is over the threshold for more people in more
situations for avoiding the worst of flicker. If the 50Hz accomodated people
might sometimes complain about 60Hz, just imagine HOW BAD that 50Hz must
appear to 60Hz accomodated people (with 100's of times more sensitivity
to flicker.)

Instead of continuing the tuning the very flickery system to power lines,
why not design it correctly from scratch? 60Hz is above the threshold for
many people (by far) much more so than 50Hz flicker.

John
!