Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Origins of PAL: 1956 radio engeenering airticle from UK ma..

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
October 1, 2004 11:02:22 PM

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

Origins of PAL: 1956 radio engineering article from UK mag -- phase
alternations (and effects) considered...

I can't remember the exact magazine name, however.

HDTV's origins are easier to trace, but wavlet DTV seems to be nearly absent
from all technical literature.
Anonymous
October 10, 2004 1:24:13 AM

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

"http://HireMe.geek.nz/" <mikehack@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news:cjl27h$eh8$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> Origins of PAL: 1956 radio engineering article from UK mag -- phase
> alternations (and effects) considered...
>
Actually, phase alternation was considered by the NTSC team, but declined
because of several technological problems at that time.

John
Anonymous
October 10, 2004 3:20:23 PM

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

"John Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net> wrote in message
news:cka7e9$2p41$1@news.iquest.net...
>
> "http://HireMe.geek.nz/" <mikehack@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:cjl27h$eh8$1@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
> > Origins of PAL: 1956 radio engineering article from UK mag -- phase
> > alternations (and effects) considered...
> >
> Actually, phase alternation was considered by the NTSC team, but declined
> because of several technological problems at that time.
>
> John
>
I believe it was the delay-line technology that lagged behind everything.
Size perhaps ? Remenbering how big the original Philips delay lines were in
early sets. I believe there was a picture of a delay line developed for the
SECAM system that was about 2 feet long in 'Wireless World' in the early
sixties.
Mike Davison
Anonymous
October 10, 2004 6:20:36 PM

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

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 11:20:23 +0100, "J.Michael Davison"
<mike@g1sbn.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

>
>"John Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net> wrote in message
>news:cka7e9$2p41$1@news.iquest.net...

>> Actually, phase alternation was considered by the NTSC team, but declined
>> because of several technological problems at that time.

>I believe it was the delay-line technology that lagged behind everything.

You do not necessary need a delay line to receive PAL. In "Simple PAL"
used previously by some small portable receivers, the averaging was
done visually on the screen between adjacent lines.

When the Japanese TVs appeared on the European market in 1970s, they
"converted the PAL signal to NTSC" before decoding, to avoid some PAL
patent issues, apparently just inserted the PAL switch in front but
did not use the delay line.

So if the delay line was too costly for consumer electronics when NTSC
formalised the standard, the standard could have used phase
alteration, but only expensive second generation receivers would have
included this phase error cancelling a few years later.

Paul
Anonymous
October 10, 2004 6:20:37 PM

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

Paul Keinanen wrote:

>
> So if the delay line was too costly for consumer electronics when NTSC
> formalised the standard, the standard could have used phase
> alteration, but only expensive second generation receivers would have
> included this phase error cancelling a few years later.
>


That's true, but a better way was used: intrinsically fix the
"problem" that PAL was designed to cover up with a kludge
solution.

The color problem for NTSC was fixed long before color sets
became big sellers. I bought a color TV set for our dorm
when I was in college in 1962, not my money of course.
This was a mid-level Heathkit set. It worked fine. The color
was quite accurate both for local originated material and
network material. You did have to adjust the "tint" control
as parts aged, but once a month or so was quite sufficient.

And, of course, semiconductors solved the problem
permanently and completely by allowing feedback circuits.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 12:47:48 AM

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

"Paul Keinanen" <keinanen@sci.fi> wrote in message
news:355im09vns1tgu1dufvurtsneeb9a4h75a@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 11:20:23 +0100, "J.Michael Davison"
> <mike@g1sbn.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Dyson" <dyson@iquest.net> wrote in message
> >news:cka7e9$2p41$1@news.iquest.net...
>
> >> Actually, phase alternation was considered by the NTSC team, but
declined
> >> because of several technological problems at that time.
>
> >I believe it was the delay-line technology that lagged behind everything.
>
> You do not necessary need a delay line to receive PAL. In "Simple PAL"
> used previously by some small portable receivers, the averaging was
> done visually on the screen between adjacent lines.

True but no simple-PAL TV was ever manufactured in Europe for mass sale. If
I remember a Mullard lecture about the PAL system, the eye can
tolerate/average out a 20degree phase error. DeLuxePAL with a delay line can
correct for a 70degree phase error this being converted to an amplitude
error by the delay line so probably there would be noise apparent in the
chroma signals which is less disturbing visually than purple faces. A
5degree phase error was said to be noticeable in the NTSC system

> So if the delay line was too costly for consumer electronics when NTSC
> formalised the standard, the standard could have used phase
> alteration, but only expensive second generation receivers would have
> included this phase error cancelling a few years later.

Did I say anything about cost ? It probably did enter into it but glass
delay line technology didn't show its face until that 2feet long glass delay
line was produced for SECAM on which work began in 1956(ref Wikipedia) which
is 3 years after the NTSC system was set in stone.
Mike D.
Anonymous
October 11, 2004 8:12:02 PM

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

R. Mark Clayton wrote:

>
>>The NTSC system of that day DID require that the equipment with its
>>myriads of overheated vacuum bottles (and no feedback!) be kept
>>in tune ACTIVELY ... meaning that somebody had to check it. That was
>>the only actual problem ... PAL would have allowed sloppiness
>>to be covered up.
>
>
> No PAL was designed so that such active adjustment was not required.
>
Incorrect!!

PAL, as a 1950's thing, if it were actually to have been
deployed, would have had the same technical problems
as NTSC, and would have required MORE tweeking to keep
working CORRECTLY. What it was designe to do was COVER UP
mistakes ... and in doing so, it lost saturation.

>
>>But, of course, PAL was simply infeasible as a consumer
>>technology in 1950-1953 when color TV was developed ...
>
> maybe
>
>>and we note, NOT developed by Europeans, who simply
>>adapted the ideas of the Americans (even, of course, SECAM,
>>which used a subcarrier and split luma-chroma rather than
>>actual RGB).
>
> is this chauvinism or arogance?
>
> true the Europeans threw away their ten year lead by having a silly war, but
> the first scheduled broadcast TV started on 1st October 1936 in London using
> the Marconi electronic system - still the basis of all analogue broadcasts
> today.


Uh ... perhaps you might take reading comprehension lessons?
I said COLOR TV.

In any case, electronic TV per se was developed in parallel
in Europe and the US. After WWII, of course, the US simply
annihilated Europe in the deployment of TV. Until Europe
got cable and satellite, most people there had FAR fewer stations to
watch than people in the US did. England had only ONE
TV "network" at a time when my hick town in Texas had three networks
and one independant station.

And Europe is STILL seriously backwards ... you have no HDTV,
for example.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 1:48:28 AM

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

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ckegbg$llt$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> But, of course, PAL was simply infeasible as a consumer
> technology in 1950-1953 when color TV was developed ...
> and we note, NOT developed by Europeans, who simply
> adapted the ideas of the Americans (even, of course, SECAM,
> which used a subcarrier and split luma-chroma rather than
> actual RGB).
Eh !
ALL monochrome compatible colour TV systems use split luma-chroma with the
chroma carried by a sub-carrier system.
Monochrome compatibility was the cornerstone of NTSC, PAL and SECAM so black
and white TV owners were not denied a TV service. Frame sequential RGB
systems were not deemed to be compatible or practicable for that matter.
Mike Davison.
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 12:15:20 PM

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

In sci.engr.television.advanced Alan <nospam@w6yx.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
> Indeed, quality counts. That is why we prefer NTSC, which is a better system
>once the base technology is able to deal with its needs.

In what respect is it a better system? Remember we're talking about
colour encoding systems here, so any mention of 60Hz vs 50Hz will be
irrelevant.
--
Jim Easterbrook
BBC Research & Development <http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/&gt;
*** All opinions are mine and might not be shared by the BBC ***
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 3:42:40 PM

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

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ckesv3$r2i$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> true the Europeans threw away their ten year lead

in television

>> by having a silly war, but the first scheduled broadcast TV started on
>> 1st October 1936 in London using the Marconi electronic system - still
>> the basis of all analogue broadcasts today.
>
>
> Uh ... perhaps you might take reading comprehension lessons?
> I said COLOR TV.
>
> In any case, electronic TV per se was developed in parallel
> in Europe and the US.

Just first in the UK.

> After WWII, of course, the US simply
> annihilated Europe in the deployment of TV.

Overhauled for the reason stated above - that's one of the reasons why the
USA had colour first.

> Until Europe
> got cable and satellite, most people there had FAR fewer stations to
> watch than people in the US did. England had only ONE
> TV "network" at a time when my hick town in Texas had three networks
> and one independant station.

That was a political and economic problem rather than a technical issue.

South Africa didn't get TV until 1976.

>
> And Europe is STILL seriously backwards ... you have no HDTV,
> for example.

really.

>
> Doug McDonald
Anonymous
October 12, 2004 6:07:11 PM

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

R. Mark Clayton wrote:

>>
>>In any case, electronic TV per se was developed in parallel
>>in Europe and the US.
>
>
> Just first in the UK.

Huh?

I realize that you had a small "official" broadcast
effort in one city in what, 1936. But you did not
actually get the electronic part done right before
the US. You had this guy called Baird that was all
about puttering around with whirling disks.


Doug McDonald
October 12, 2004 11:25:12 PM

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

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ckha10$kjm$2@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
> >>
> >>In any case, electronic TV per se was developed in parallel
> >>in Europe and the US.
> >
> >
> > Just first in the UK.
>
> Huh?
>
> I realize that you had a small "official" broadcast
> effort in one city in what, 1936. But you did not
> actually get the electronic part done right before
> the US. You had this guy called Baird that was all
> about puttering around with whirling disks.
>
>
I read somewhere that because EMI and the RCA at that time were financially
linked, there was a was a reasonable degree of co-operation and exchanges of
ideas between the two teams.


> Doug McDonald
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 3:03:59 AM

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

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ckha10$kjm$2@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
>>>
>>>In any case, electronic TV per se was developed in parallel
>>>in Europe and the US.
>>
>>
>> Just first in the UK.
>
> Huh?
>
> I realize that you had a small "official" broadcast
> effort in one city in what, 1936.


It was regular scheduled broadcasts of the EMI / Marconi 405 line VHF
electronic system from 1/1036-3/9/39 in then the largest city in the world.
They also pioneered outside broadcasts and several other inovations before
the war.

This system was used until ~1980, although it superceded by 625 line UHF
system from the mid sixties, with PAL colour from ~1969.

USA is still stuck with 525 lines and what is the [almost universally
accepted as] inferior NTSC colour system. True these days the main
deficiency of NTSC is its lower resolution rather than poor colour fidelity
of old (green faces etc.). OTOH I can view all three systems here and
although all are inferior to systems that can deliver RGB (D[2]-MAC &
digital) and Secam is subjectively better than both.

> But you did not
> actually get the electronic part done right before
> the US.

So when did broadcasting start in the USA then? Why don't you withdraw this
remark as it is just wrong.

> You had this guy called Baird that was all
> about puttering around with whirling disks.

Back in the twenties. There were trial broadcasts of a poor reslution
mechanical system devised by baird in the early thirties. I was not
refering to those.

>
>
> Doug McDonald
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 3:20:54 AM

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

In article <ckha10$kjm$2@news.ks.uiuc.edu>, Doug McDonald wrote:
> >>
> >>In any case, electronic TV per se was developed in parallel
> >>in Europe and the US.
> >
> >
> > Just first in the UK.
>
> Huh?
>
> I realize that you had a small "official" broadcast
> effort in one city in what, 1936. But you did not
> actually get the electronic part done right before
> the US. You had this guy called Baird that was all
> about puttering around with whirling disks.

Just to set the record straight, a broadcast service was started on 2
November 1936 on two standards that at the time were considered "high
definition" (and they were, compared with what had gone before), a
mechanical one with 240 lines 25 frames per second using intermediate
film, and an all-electronic one using 405 lines 25 frames per second
with 2:1 interlace, giving 50Hz flicker which was much less visible
than the mechanical system. By Februiary 1937 it had been decided to
abandon the mechanical system, so the electronic one remained
permanent, apart from the interruption of the war. Baird had
demonstrated the feasibility of television with a working demonstration
of a mechanical 30-line system in 1926.

Details of techniques have changed since then, but the fundamental
principles of the generation of a television signal are the same today
as in the 405 line system started in 1936.

Rod.
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 10:51:38 AM

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

In a previous post the statement was made:
>I can view all three systems here and
> although all are inferior to systems that can deliver RGB (D[2]-MAC &
> digital) and Secam is subjectively better than both.
>

I am intrigued that you consider SECAM to be better than PAL or NTSC.

As someone who has worked with all three systems I would rate them in
the order PAL, NTSC, SECAM.

The SECAM system uses an FM subcarrier to carry the colour information
for R-Y and B-Y on alternate lines IE R-Y on a line, B-Y on the next
and so on. A delay line is necessary to get simultaneous signals for
demodulation which means of course that the colour vertical resolution
is half that of NTSC or PAL with the best possible decoding.

As the SECAM system cannot operate with no colour subcarrier,(there
would be wideband noise from the FM demodulators in the absence of
subcarrrier giving "confetti") the compatible monochrome picture also
has subcarrier crawling all over it even with a black and white
picture. Later versions of SECAM reduce the subcarrier amplitude in
monochrome sections of the picture, but other than having a low pass
filter below the subcarrier frequency (thus restricting the luminance
bandwidth) there is no way of getting rid of the subcarrier crawl on
the picture.

Incidentally the PAL system design by Walter Bruch of Telefunken was
published in several journals.
I will have a look and give some issue dates if anyone is interested.
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 5:59:22 PM

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

R. Mark Clayton wrote:

>
> USA is still stuck with 525 lines and what is the [almost universally
> accepted as] inferior NTSC colour system.

You are obviously not well read, Mr. van Winkle.

The US has THREE TV standards, one indeed 240 lines (525
scanning, 480 active), 720, and 1080.


>>But you did not
>>actually get the electronic part done right before
>>the US.
>
>
> So when did broadcasting start in the USA then? Why don't you withdraw this
> remark as it is just wrong.
>

I did NOT say "broadcasting", you idiot! I said "development".
Development proceeded in parallel in Europe and the
US, and many key developments were made first in the US,
especially of camera tubes. And one vitally key
patent was first made in the USA by Philo Farnsworth,
a patent that neither RCA nor EMI was able to get around.

I agree that England had the first "official" TV
"broadcasts". There is no quibble about that.

But they did NOT have the first regular COLOR TV broadcasts,
which were in the US, nor the first regular HD broadcasts,
which were in Japan (though not digital.)

And of course Europe today is completely backwards in the
TV field.

Doug McDonald
October 13, 2004 7:14:47 PM

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

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ckjtue$j8g$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
>>
>> USA is still stuck with 525 lines and what is the [almost universally
>> accepted as] inferior NTSC colour system.
>
> You are obviously not well read, Mr. van Winkle.
>
> The US has THREE TV standards, one indeed 240 lines (525
> scanning, 480 active), 720, and 1080.
>
>
>>>But you did not
>>>actually get the electronic part done right before
>>>the US.
>>
>>
>> So when did broadcasting start in the USA then? Why don't you withdraw
>> this remark as it is just wrong.
>>
>
> I did NOT say "broadcasting", you idiot! I said "development".
> Development proceeded in parallel in Europe and the
> US, and many key developments were made first in the US,
> especially of camera tubes. And one vitally key
> patent was first made in the USA by Philo Farnsworth,
> a patent that neither RCA nor EMI was able to get around.
>
> I agree that England had the first "official" TV
> "broadcasts". There is no quibble about that.
>
> But they did NOT have the first regular COLOR TV broadcasts,
> which were in the US, nor the first regular HD broadcasts,
> which were in Japan (though not digital.)
>
> And of course Europe today is completely backwards in the
> TV field.
>
> Doug McDonald

It is well known that the UK was put at a disadvantage in the development of
Color TV because they insisted on the use of that extra "u". Took lots of
technology to overcome that disadvantage.

Richard.
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 7:22:19 PM

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

"Ian Mackenzie" <100246.2055@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:27f1d4f3.0410130551.25a180f5@posting.google.com...
> In a previous post the statement was made:
>>I can view all three systems here and
>> although all are inferior to systems that can deliver RGB (D[2]-MAC &
>> digital) and Secam is subjectively better than both.
>>
>
> I am intrigued that you consider SECAM to be better than PAL or NTSC.
>
> As someone who has worked with all three systems I would rate them in
> the order PAL, NTSC, SECAM.
>
> The SECAM system uses an FM subcarrier to carry the colour information
> for R-Y and B-Y on alternate lines IE R-Y on a line, B-Y on the next
> and so on. A delay line is necessary to get simultaneous signals for
> demodulation which means of course that the colour vertical resolution
> is half that of NTSC or PAL with the best possible decoding.

Very interesting, however in PAL and NTSC the horizontal colour resolution
is approx 8 pixels.
>
> As the SECAM system cannot operate with no colour subcarrier,(there
> would be wideband noise from the FM demodulators in the absence of
> subcarrrier giving "confetti") the compatible monochrome picture also
> has subcarrier crawling all over it even with a black and white
> picture.

Indeed.

> Later versions of SECAM reduce the subcarrier amplitude in
> monochrome sections of the picture, but other than having a low pass
> filter below the subcarrier frequency (thus restricting the luminance
> bandwidth) there is no way of getting rid of the subcarrier crawl on
> the picture.

However I referred to the subjective appearance.

>
> Incidentally the PAL system design by Walter Bruch of Telefunken was
> published in several journals.
> I will have a look and give some issue dates if anyone is interested.
Anonymous
October 13, 2004 8:59:21 PM

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

ivan wrote:

>>the US. You had this guy called Baird that was all
>>about puttering around with whirling disks.
>>
>>
>
> I read somewhere that because EMI and the RCA at that time were financially
> linked, there was a was a reasonable degree of co-operation and exchanges of
> ideas between the two teams.


This is correct. The very first person to actually devise and
build an electronic p[ickup tube that worked was Philo Farnsworth,
with the image dissector, a tube the was so insensitive that it was
a joke for television. Vladimir Zworykin was father of the
Iconoscope (duplicated by EMI as the Emitron) which was
a rather clumsy first attempt at a charge and discharge system.
None of this was European. Also note that Zworykin's original
1923 patent application was a useless joke.

After that everybody got into the pie. but, basically speaking,
it was people at RCA that developed the very critical image orthicon.

Doug McDonald
October 14, 2004 12:42:34 AM

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

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ckha10$kjm$2@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
> >>
> >>In any case, electronic TV per se was developed in parallel
> >>in Europe and the US.
> >
> >
> > Just first in the UK.
>
> Huh?
>
> I realize that you had a small "official" broadcast
> effort in one city in what, 1936. But you did not
> actually get the electronic part done right before
> the US. You had this guy called Baird that was all
> about puttering around with whirling disks.
>
>

A tad disingenuous I think Doug.. as Baird despite all the odds that were
stacked against him was much more of a pioneer in the world of television
than even the majority of Brits realise, most whom probably wouldn't even
recognise his name. http://www.burdaleclose.freeserve.co.uk/new_page_60.htm



> Doug McDonald
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 12:42:35 AM

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

ivan wrote:

>>I realize that you had a small "official" broadcast
>>effort in one city in what, 1936. But you did not
>>actually get the electronic part done right before
>>the US. You had this guy called Baird that was all
>>about puttering around with whirling disks.
>>
>>
>
>
> A tad disingenuous I think Doug.. as Baird despite all the odds that were
> stacked against him was much more of a pioneer in the world of television
> than even the majority of Brits realise, most whom probably wouldn't even
> recognise his name. http://www.burdaleclose.freeserve.co.uk/new_page_60.htm


Nobody doubts that Baird was the pinnacle of the dead end
of mechanical television. That is clear.

But it does not matter. What matters is electrons
moving in a vacuum. Today we can watch TV ... at least
VHF TV or very low power UHF TV, or a DVD, without
any electrons moving through a vacuum at all. But for 50 or
more years, years in which TV became more universal than
indoor plumbing, electrons in a vacuum reigned supreme.

Doug McDonald
October 14, 2004 2:32:59 AM

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

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ckk8rd$oda$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> ivan wrote:
>
> >>I realize that you had a small "official" broadcast
> >>effort in one city in what, 1936. But you did not
> >>actually get the electronic part done right before
> >>the US. You had this guy called Baird that was all
> >>about puttering around with whirling disks.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > A tad disingenuous I think Doug.. as Baird despite all the odds that
were
> > stacked against him was much more of a pioneer in the world of
television
> > than even the majority of Brits realise, most whom probably wouldn't
even
> > recognise his name.
http://www.burdaleclose.freeserve.co.uk/new_page_60.htm
>
>
> Nobody doubts that Baird was the pinnacle of the dead end
> of mechanical television. That is clear.
>
> But it does not matter. What matters is electrons
> moving in a vacuum. Today we can watch TV ... at least
> VHF TV or very low power UHF TV, or a DVD, without
> any electrons moving through a vacuum at all. But for 50 or
> more years, years in which TV became more universal than
> indoor plumbing, electrons in a vacuum reigned supreme.
>
>

Bairds mirrors and spinning discs are 80 year-old mechanical technology,
with no place in the modern digital world..... by the way Doug, what's DLP
all about?

http://www.earlytelevision.org/yanczer_scophony.html

Baird's achievements extended well beyond the reach of mechanical
television, and just like Farnsworth people on both sides to the Atlantic
are belatedly coming around to recognising their achievements, even more so
when considering that they were both virtually one-man bands pitted against
huge corporate finances and interests.




> Doug McDonald
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 2:33:00 AM

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

ivan wrote:

>
> Bairds mirrors and spinning discs are 80 year-old mechanical technology,
> with no place in the modern digital world..... by the way Doug, what's DLP
> all about?


of course DLP is mechanical

and scanner systems just like the one you put in a URL
are commerccially available, with similar technology,
including the acoustic-optic modulator, however, they
use monster lasers for light

But it is immaterial ... we are discussing the history
of TV, what made it commonplace.

For that, Baird was not responsible. Farnsworth and
Zworykin were, along with, later, myriads of others.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 3:05:05 AM

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

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ckk8fq$o6g$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> ivan wrote:
>
>>>the US. You had this guy called Baird that was all
>>>about puttering around with whirling disks.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I read somewhere that because EMI and the RCA at that time were
>> financially
>> linked, there was a was a reasonable degree of co-operation and exchanges
>> of
>> ideas between the two teams.
>
>
> This is correct. The very first person to actually devise and
> build an electronic p[ickup tube that worked was Philo Farnsworth,
> with the image dissector, a tube the was so insensitive that it was
> a joke for television. Vladimir Zworykin was father of the
> Iconoscope (duplicated by EMI as the Emitron) which was
> a rather clumsy first attempt at a charge and discharge system.
> None of this was European. Also note that Zworykin's original
> 1923 patent application was a useless joke.

Sorry Zworykin was born in Europe and exhibited his first television system
there in 1910.

>
> After that everybody got into the pie. but, basically speaking,
> it was people at RCA that developed the very critical image orthicon.

You will be telling us they invented radar next...

>
> Doug McDonald
>
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 3:15:24 AM

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

In message <ckha10$kjm$2@news.ks.uiuc.edu>
Doug McDonald wrote:

> I realize that you had a small "official" broadcast
> effort in one city in what, 1936. But you did not
> actually get the electronic part done right before
> the US.

Out of interest, which U.S. City benefitted from a regular off-air
television broadcast service using electronically sourced pictures
before November 1936 ?

Cheers !

Gareth.

Hayes, Middlesex, England.
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 3:15:35 AM

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

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ckjtue$j8g$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
>>
>> USA is still stuck with 525 lines and what is the [almost universally
>> accepted as] inferior NTSC colour system.
>
> You are obviously not well read, Mr. van Winkle.
>
> The US has THREE TV standards, one indeed 240 lines (525
> scanning, 480 active), 720, and 1080.
>

Like we had quadriphonic radio broadcasts in the seventies. I would guess
that more than 99% of broadcast TV in the US is 525 line.

>
>>>But you did not
>>>actually get the electronic part done right before
>>>the US.
>>
>>
>> So when did broadcasting start in the USA then? Why don't you withdraw
>> this remark as it is just wrong.
>>
>
> I did NOT say "broadcasting", you idiot! I said "development".

Oh I am so sorry for my idiocy, I thought that by done you meant development
complete and a working system making regular scheduled PUBLIC broadcasts,
not some lab curiosity.

> Development proceeded in parallel in Europe and the
> US, and many key developments were made first in the US,
> especially of camera tubes. And one vitally key
> patent was first made in the USA by Philo Farnsworth,
> a patent that neither RCA nor EMI was able to get around.
>

Gosh, so why was it so long before broadcasts started int eh US then?

> I agree that England had the first "official" TV
> "broadcasts". There is no quibble about that.
>
> But they did NOT have the first regular COLOR TV broadcasts,
> which were in the US, nor the first regular HD broadcasts,
> which were in Japan (though not digital.)
>
> And of course Europe today is completely backwards in the
> TV field.

Well dream on. More likely that the Europeans (these days tending to
include the French) will get it right. One only has to look at the
technical shambles that the US has for cellphones to realise that. They
also imagine that their solution is best no matter what - e.g. airport
landing guidance (unless they gave in).

>
> Doug McDonald

Then there is US cars...
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 3:15:36 AM

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

"R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ckkcun$av4$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
> Like [the UK] had quadriphonic radio broadcasts in the seventies.

And that's someting to be proud of?
Did you ever listen to them?
October 14, 2004 4:16:06 AM

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

"R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ckkcun$av4$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
> "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:ckjtue$j8g$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> USA is still stuck with 525 lines and what is the [almost universally
>>> accepted as] inferior NTSC colour system.
>>
>> You are obviously not well read, Mr. van Winkle.
>>
>> The US has THREE TV standards, one indeed 240 lines (525
>> scanning, 480 active), 720, and 1080.
>>
>
> Like we had quadriphonic radio broadcasts in the seventies. I would guess
> that more than 99% of broadcast TV in the US is 525 line.

Germany and Sweden have been doing DD5.1 radio broadcasts for a while now. SR
send out a 640Kbps DD5.1 stream and a 1.5Mbps DTS stream.


Az.
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 10:38:27 AM

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

In article <ckkca2$pia$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>, Doug McDonald wrote:
> But it is immaterial ... we are discussing the history
> of TV, what made it commonplace.
>
> For that, Baird was not responsible. Farnsworth and
> Zworykin were, along with, later, myriads of others.

Baird's pioneering work paved the way for others to follow. No-one
would deny the Wright brothers their proper place in history simply
because commercial airlines don't use propellor-driven canvas biplanes
today, so it is absurd to say Baird played no important part in
television simply because we no longer use whirling disks. Lots of
people had ideas, but that's all they were until Baird made something
that actually worked.

You need more than an idea to make a commercial reality; you need the
will, and the money, to develop it into something, and for that you
need somebody to show that it can be done.

Rod.
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 1:02:59 PM

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

"Pete Fraser" <pete@rgb.com> wrote in message
news:10mrgmgcfatne65@news.supernews.com...
>
> "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:ckkcun$av4$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
>>
>> Like [the UK] had quadriphonic radio broadcasts in the seventies.
>
> And that's someting to be proud of?
> Did you ever listen to them?
>
>
>

No, although I have quad preamps picked up at an RSGB show for 80p. The
point was that these were on the QS? standard that was never adopted. I
likewise suspect that the US HD system will be superseded quite soon.
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 1:04:19 PM

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

"Gareth Rowlands" <gareth.see_sig_block@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:f8ea74fd4c.news@lightfox.plus.com...
> In message <ckha10$kjm$2@news.ks.uiuc.edu>
> Doug McDonald wrote:
>
>> I realize that you had a small "official" broadcast
>> effort in one city in what, 1936. But you did not
>> actually get the electronic part done right before
>> the US.
>
> Out of interest, which U.S. City benefitted from a regular off-air
> television broadcast service using electronically sourced pictures
> before November 1936 ?

Or 1946 for that matter!

>
> Cheers !
>
> Gareth.
>
> Hayes, Middlesex, England.
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 5:57:51 PM

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

> No, although I have quad preamps picked up at an RSGB show for 80p. The
> point was that these were on the QS? standard that was never adopted. I
> likewise suspect that the US HD system will be superseded quite soon.

The only thing I see happening in the near future with US HDTV is
migration to 1080p instead of 1080i. By "near" I mean decades.

Eric
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 6:15:31 PM

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

Gareth Rowlands wrote:

> In message <ckha10$kjm$2@news.ks.uiuc.edu>
> Doug McDonald wrote:
>
>
>>I realize that you had a small "official" broadcast
>>effort in one city in what, 1936. But you did not
>>actually get the electronic part done right before
>>the US.
>
>
> Out of interest, which U.S. City benefitted from a regular off-air
> television broadcast service using electronically sourced pictures
> before November 1936 ?
>


None ... that's what I said. Can you read?

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
October 14, 2004 6:20:29 PM

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

R. Mark Clayton wrote:

>
> Like we had quadriphonic radio broadcasts in the seventies. I would guess
> that more than 99% of broadcast TV in the US is 525 line.

Nowhere near 99%. Prime time is about half true HDTV. Prime time
is 1/8 of the day, so 1/2 of 1/8 is 1/16, which is 6%. There
are also HDTV broadcasts outside prime time, including much sports,
including at some time on Sunday as many as 10 different
HDTV broadcasts, one afternoon soap opera (yes, I know),
and Jay Leno, soon Letterman too.

Now cable and satellite are probably much closer to 99% LDTV
(LDTV means worse resolution than NTSC.)


> Well dream on. More likely that the Europeans (these days tending to
> include the French) will get it right.

Come to you senses, come to America, and look at our HDTV.

Your jaw will fall off.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
October 15, 2004 12:21:10 AM

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

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ckmjhu$je0$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
>>
>> Like we had quadriphonic radio broadcasts in the seventies. I would
>> guess that more than 99% of broadcast TV in the US is 525 line.
>
> Nowhere near 99%. Prime time is about half true HDTV. Prime time
> is 1/8 of the day, so 1/2 of 1/8 is 1/16, which is 6%. There
> are also HDTV broadcasts outside prime time, including much sports,
> including at some time on Sunday as many as 10 different
> HDTV broadcasts, one afternoon soap opera (yes, I know),
> and Jay Leno, soon Letterman too.
>
> Now cable and satellite are probably much closer to 99% LDTV
> (LDTV means worse resolution than NTSC.)
>

Er you seem to be rubetting and accepting my point at the same time. There
are loads of channels in the US (EU too), but just what percentage of the
overall output is HDTV? <1% I would guess. Is CNN HD? NBC, CBS your local
station etc.
>
>> Well dream on. More likely that the Europeans (these days tending to
>> include the French) will get it right.
>
> Come to you senses, come to America, and look at our HDTV.

We have it too, though not much yet.


BTW France Supervision did some trial broadcasts using DMAC in the mid
nineties - very realistic pictures.

>
> Your jaw will fall off.
>
> Doug McDonald
>
Anonymous
October 15, 2004 3:34:55 AM

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

In message <ckmj8j$j1c$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>
Doug McDonald wrote:

> > Out of interest, which U.S. City benefitted from a regular off-air
> > television broadcast service using electronically sourced pictures
> > before November 1936 ?

> None ... that's what I said. Can you read?

Show me where your word "None" appears in the paragraph you wrote below,
and which I replied to :

>>> I realize that you had a small "official" broadcast
>>> effort in one city in what, 1936. But you did not
>>> actually get the electronic part done right before
>>> the US.

G.

--
http://www.rat.org.uk gareth at lightfox dot plus dot com
October 15, 2004 2:18:36 PM

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

"Jim Easterbrook" <jim.easterbrook@rd.bbc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ckg3qn$jr4$2@nntp0.reith.bbc.co.uk...
> In sci.engr.television.advanced Alan <nospam@w6yx.stanford.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Indeed, quality counts. That is why we prefer NTSC, which is a better
>> system
>>once the base technology is able to deal with its needs.
>
> In what respect is it a better system? Remember we're talking about
> colour encoding systems here, so any mention of 60Hz vs 50Hz will be
> irrelevant.
> --
> Jim Easterbrook
> BBC Research & Development <http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/&gt;
> *** All opinions are mine and might not be shared by the BBC ***

Better with respect to the fact that NTSC provides more accurate color.

Richard.
October 15, 2004 2:26:10 PM

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

"Gareth Rowlands" <gareth.see_sig_block@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:2e8afafd4c.news@lightfox.plus.com...
> In message <ckmj8j$j1c$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>
> Doug McDonald wrote:
>
>> > Out of interest, which U.S. City benefitted from a regular off-air
>> > television broadcast service using electronically sourced pictures
>> > before November 1936 ?
>
>> None ... that's what I said. Can you read?
>
> Show me where your word "None" appears in the paragraph you wrote below,
> and which I replied to :
>
>>>> I realize that you had a small "official" broadcast
>>>> effort in one city in what, 1936. But you did not
>>>> actually get the electronic part done right before
>>>> the US.
>
> G.
>
> --
> http://www.rat.org.uk gareth at lightfox dot plus dot com


Well, if you are ever in Schenectady, NY, feel free to visit the Palace
Theater, where GE's late 1930's TV hardware is on public display (not
functioning mind you). That city started TV in the States, although there
were very few people who could see the broadcasts.

Richard.
Anonymous
October 15, 2004 10:41:56 PM

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

In message <10mvng3chsr6j1e@corp.supernews.com>
Richard wrote:

> Well, if you are ever in Schenectady, NY, feel free to visit the Palace
> Theater, where GE's late 1930's TV hardware is on public display (not
> functioning mind you).

Thank you. I have friends in the Broadcast industry living and working
in the NYC area, and would welcome the chance.

I must admit to being somewhat intrigued by your statement that NTSC
"provides more accurate color".

Can you enlighten me as to which specific aspect of PAL encoding is
responsible for providing 'inaccurate color' ?

Thanks,

Gareth.

--
http://www.rat.org.uk gareth at lightfox dot plus dot com
Anonymous
October 15, 2004 10:41:57 PM

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

Gareth Rowlands wrote:
> In message <10mvng3chsr6j1e@corp.supernews.com>
> Richard wrote:
>
>> Well, if you are ever in Schenectady, NY, feel free to visit the
>> Palace Theater, where GE's late 1930's TV hardware is on public
>> display (not functioning mind you).
>
> Thank you. I have friends in the Broadcast industry living and
> working in the NYC area, and would welcome the chance.
>
> I must admit to being somewhat intrigued by your statement that NTSC
> "provides more accurate color".
>
> Can you enlighten me as to which specific aspect of PAL encoding is
> responsible for providing 'inaccurate color' ?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gareth.


Reluctantly entering the fray...

Equal-band color subcarriers? Certainly arguable, since I'm pretty sure
all modern NTSC sets use equal-band decoding.

In any case it's not fair to say 'inaccurate' as much as 'theoretically
less accurate', since neither system is all that 'accurate'.

NYC to Schenectady is roughly London to Manchester, BTW

--
Jim
Anonymous
October 16, 2004 2:46:05 AM

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

"J.Michael Davison" <mike@g1sbn.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ckerit$q2j$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:ckegbg$llt$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> > But, of course, PAL was simply infeasible as a consumer
> > technology in 1950-1953 when color TV was developed ...
> > and we note, NOT developed by Europeans, who simply
> > adapted the ideas of the Americans (even, of course, SECAM,
> > which used a subcarrier and split luma-chroma rather than
> > actual RGB).
> Eh !
> ALL monochrome compatible colour TV systems use split luma-chroma with the
> chroma carried by a sub-carrier system.
> Monochrome compatibility was the cornerstone of NTSC, PAL and SECAM so
black
> and white TV owners were not denied a TV service. Frame sequential RGB
> systems were not deemed to be compatible or practicable for that matter.
> Mike Davison.

Trivial, perhaps: The US NASA used a color-wheel system for some of the
Apollo TV transmissions from the moon. I don't know if it was frame
sequential
or field sequential -- I thought field-sequential.
Anonymous
October 16, 2004 10:08:13 AM

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

In article <ckmjhu$je0$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>,
Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> writes:
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
>>
>> Like we had quadriphonic radio broadcasts in the seventies. I would guess
>> that more than 99% of broadcast TV in the US is 525 line.
>
> Nowhere near 99%. Prime time is about half true HDTV. Prime time
> is 1/8 of the day, so 1/2 of 1/8 is 1/16, which is 6%. There
> are also HDTV broadcasts outside prime time, including much sports,
> including at some time on Sunday as many as 10 different
> HDTV broadcasts, one afternoon soap opera (yes, I know),
> and Jay Leno, soon Letterman too.
>
During my recent visit to the UK (just returned today), I realized
that even our HDTV (16:9) shows are NOT necessarily shown in 16:9 and/or
PALPlus in UK.

>
> Come to you senses, come to America, and look at our HDTV.
>
> Your jaw will fall off.
>
PALPlus looks okay (on 100Hz TV), but it is far far far from HD. I had
also noticed that the 100Hz TV showed obtrusive scanlines (even small
screen, Loewe TV), yet I don't see a visible scanline on my own TV,
even displaying NTSC on the HDTV. Any kind of artifacting, including
visible scanlines, helps to confuse or distract the human vision system.

The flicker still persists (on 50Hz TV sets), but the 100Hz display
(perhaps imperfect, however) makes the PAL video look generally better.
My travelling companion (a co-worker) initially thought I was very
wrong about the 'flickerfest' problem until I informed him that our
hotel (Aztec in Bristol) seemed to provide each of us with 100Hz TV sets.
Initially, I was somewhat worried about my reputation when I looked at my
first true UK TV set in 21yrs, and it took a few minutes (1-2minutes) for me
to realize that it was a 100Hz TV. Star Trek, Next Generation (even with
NTSC composite 60i post production), didn't really look bad. Apparently,
they took advantage of NTSC 3D combing to remove the NTSC artifacting,
and did a good quality conversion. To me, the TNG broadcasts looked
little different from pristine NTSC reception of the same thing using
my HDTV.

Perhaps the worst case that I saw was a transcoded King of Queens. It
looked horrendous, perhaps even worse than the early Dr Who looked
here. (Given that show is done in 24p, and that looked like a moderatly
current episode, then there is NO excuse for artifacting other than doing
something silly like
24p(original) --> 60i(US submaster) --> 50(i/p) (broadcast)--> 100i (tv)
There is almost NO excuse for using a 60i scan in the process.

Also, some morning news shows are done in PAL, and the conversion
to digital is done without 3D comb (there aren't any commodity PAL
3D combs, however a few SPECIALTY devices.) The color flashing even
on non moving subjects still persisted, even on the digital version.
In the US, the concept of providing a moderately high end, composite
`video analog capable TV set without a 3D comb would result in almost
a totally failed product.

John
Anonymous
October 16, 2004 10:35:39 AM

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

In article <818d63fe4c.news@lightfox.plus.com>,
Gareth Rowlands <gareth.see_sig_block@127.0.0.1> writes:
> In message <10mvng3chsr6j1e@corp.supernews.com>
> Richard wrote:
>
>> Well, if you are ever in Schenectady, NY, feel free to visit the Palace
>> Theater, where GE's late 1930's TV hardware is on public display (not
>> functioning mind you).
>
> Thank you. I have friends in the Broadcast industry living and working
> in the NYC area, and would welcome the chance.
>
> I must admit to being somewhat intrigued by your statement that NTSC
> "provides more accurate color".
>
PAL TV sets just cannot give an accurate green (period.) Claiming that
NTSC is perfect would be wrong, but it is amazing when you do an a-b
with a closer-to-NTSC phosphor gamut. On phosphor based displays, the gamut
issue is problematical with practical, safe, low cost phosphors. On
filter based designs, I suspect that there is more freedom.

>
> Can you enlighten me as to which specific aspect of PAL encoding is
> responsible for providing 'inaccurate color' ?
>
Actually, the fact that PAL isn't as completely decoded as NTSC
kind-of makes those color flashes more likely (which even appeared on
some apparently digital broadcasts due to BBC not using their cool
3D comb and/or not using component instead of composite in critical
parts of the infrastructure.) That kind of color flashing artifact
provides an essentially TOTAL FAILURE on the section of the scene.

Perception-wise, color on NORMAL scenes, assuming non-3D comb solvable
situations, NTSC and PAL aren't that different. As technology is improved
(e.g. motion prediction or equivalent is included to allow 3D combing
to work on PAL50), then NTSC decoding will also be improved. The
major hole in coming with 3D combs on NTSC is that the decoding drops
to the level of 2D comb on the portions of the scene that change too
much.

(The advantage of 3D comb isn't just related to color, but
the luma detail is also higher because of the elimination of the diagonal
detail problem -- essentially chopping off the diagonal detail at around
the chroma subcarrier frequency. Other, non color aspects of 3D combs is
off topic, however.)

John
Anonymous
October 16, 2004 3:27:14 PM

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

John S. Dyson wrote:
>
> Also, all too often, I had seen (this last week) that even shows
> that are 16:9 in the US aren't provided as 16:9 in the UK.
>
> Frankly, with a new 100Hz TV set, the perceivable detail and image
> quality does appear to seem better than on a 50Hz TV set...

It's not even as good, because interlace artifacts are exacerbated (I
had the opportunity to make side-by-side comparisons at The Sony Store
in Milan a few months ago). The only benefit is reduction of flicker
associated with 50hz.

However, even the 50hz flicker problem is minimal if a set is properly
calibrated and the white level kept low.

It would be much better in PAL countries to sell high-end TVs with
Faroudja circuits to convert the signal to 576p and then show the image
at 75hz -- which would eliminate both flicker and interlace artifacts.








C.
Anonymous
October 16, 2004 3:35:13 PM

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

John S. Dyson wrote:
>>
>>>Like we had quadriphonic radio broadcasts in the seventies. I would guess
>>>that more than 99% of broadcast TV in the US is 525 line.
>>
>>Nowhere near 99%. Prime time is about half true HDTV. Prime time
>>is 1/8 of the day, so 1/2 of 1/8 is 1/16, which is 6%. There
>>are also HDTV broadcasts outside prime time, including much sports,
>>including at some time on Sunday as many as 10 different
>>HDTV broadcasts, one afternoon soap opera (yes, I know),
>>and Jay Leno, soon Letterman too.
>
> During my recent visit to the UK (just returned today), I realized
> that even our HDTV (16:9) shows are NOT necessarily shown in 16:9 and/or
> PALPlus in UK.
>
>>Come to you senses, come to America, and look at our HDTV.
>>
>>Your jaw will fall off.
>
> PALPlus looks okay (on 100Hz TV), but it is far far far from HD. I had
> also noticed that the 100Hz TV showed obtrusive scanlines (even small
> screen, Loewe TV), yet I don't see a visible scanline on my own TV,
> even displaying NTSC on the HDTV. Any kind of artifacting, including
> visible scanlines, helps to confuse or distract the human vision system.

This would be because 576i (even at 100hz) is considerably fewer scan
lines than 1080i or 720p at 60hz.

OTOH, with Faroudja DCDi deinterlacing even 480p from NTSC sources
completely blows away anything I've seen from a PAL source.

> The flicker still persists (on 50Hz TV sets), but the 100Hz display
> (perhaps imperfect, however) makes the PAL video look generally better.
> My travelling companion (a co-worker) initially thought I was very
> wrong about the 'flickerfest' problem until I informed him that our
> hotel (Aztec in Bristol) seemed to provide each of us with 100Hz TV sets.
> Initially, I was somewhat worried about my reputation when I looked at my
> first true UK TV set in 21yrs, and it took a few minutes (1-2minutes) for me
> to realize that it was a 100Hz TV. Star Trek, Next Generation (even with
> NTSC composite 60i post production), didn't really look bad. Apparently,
> they took advantage of NTSC 3D combing to remove the NTSC artifacting,
> and did a good quality conversion. To me, the TNG broadcasts looked
> little different from pristine NTSC reception of the same thing using
> my HDTV.
>
> Perhaps the worst case that I saw was a transcoded King of Queens. It
> looked horrendous, perhaps even worse than the early Dr Who looked
> here. (Given that show is done in 24p, and that looked like a moderatly
> current episode, then there is NO excuse for artifacting other than doing
> something silly like
> 24p(original) --> 60i(US submaster) --> 50(i/p) (broadcast)--> 100i (tv)
> There is almost NO excuse for using a 60i scan in the process.
>
> Also, some morning news shows are done in PAL, and the conversion
> to digital is done without 3D comb (there aren't any commodity PAL
> 3D combs, however a few SPECIALTY devices.) The color flashing even
> on non moving subjects still persisted, even on the digital version.
> In the US, the concept of providing a moderately high end, composite
> `video analog capable TV set without a 3D comb would result in almost
> a totally failed product.

Were you able to compare Sony and Loewe 100hz sets?







C.
Anonymous
October 16, 2004 3:41:05 PM

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

John S. Dyson wrote:
>
> PAL TV sets just cannot give an accurate green (period.) Claiming that
> NTSC is perfect would be wrong, but it is amazing when you do an a-b
> with a closer-to-NTSC phosphor gamut. On phosphor based displays, the gamut
> issue is problematical with practical, safe, low cost phosphors. On
> filter based designs, I suspect that there is more freedom.
>
>>Can you enlighten me as to which specific aspect of PAL encoding is
>>responsible for providing 'inaccurate color' ?
>
> Actually, the fact that PAL isn't as completely decoded as NTSC
> kind-of makes those color flashes more likely (which even appeared on
> some apparently digital broadcasts due to BBC not using their cool
> 3D comb and/or not using component instead of composite in critical
> parts of the infrastructure.) That kind of color flashing artifact
> provides an essentially TOTAL FAILURE on the section of the scene.
>
> Perception-wise, color on NORMAL scenes, assuming non-3D comb solvable
> situations, NTSC and PAL aren't that different. As technology is improved
> (e.g. motion prediction or equivalent is included to allow 3D combing
> to work on PAL50), then NTSC decoding will also be improved. The
> major hole in coming with 3D combs on NTSC is that the decoding drops
> to the level of 2D comb on the portions of the scene that change too
> much.
>
> (The advantage of 3D comb isn't just related to color, but
> the luma detail is also higher because of the elimination of the diagonal
> detail problem -- essentially chopping off the diagonal detail at around
> the chroma subcarrier frequency. Other, non color aspects of 3D combs is
> off topic, however.)

It's no coincidence that the first NTSC consumer set with a 3D comb
filter, Sony's XBR100 (introduced nine years ago), was widely hailed as
the best consumer TV in history.

3D combs now are pretty well standard in America for higher end TVs.
I'd say they are mandatory if NTSC sources are to be rescaled
effectively to 480p, or higher.







C.
Anonymous
October 17, 2004 12:10:55 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:xA2cd.103397$a85.99573@fed1read04...
>
> "J.Michael Davison" <mike@g1sbn.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ckerit$q2j$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> > news:ckegbg$llt$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> > > But, of course, PAL was simply infeasible as a consumer
> > > technology in 1950-1953 when color TV was developed ...
> > > and we note, NOT developed by Europeans, who simply
> > > adapted the ideas of the Americans (even, of course, SECAM,
> > > which used a subcarrier and split luma-chroma rather than
> > > actual RGB).
> > Eh !
> > ALL monochrome compatible colour TV systems use split luma-chroma with
the
> > chroma carried by a sub-carrier system.
> > Monochrome compatibility was the cornerstone of NTSC, PAL and SECAM so
> black
> > and white TV owners were not denied a TV service. Frame sequential RGB
> > systems were not deemed to be compatible or practicable for that matter.
> > Mike Davison.
>
> Trivial, perhaps: The US NASA used a color-wheel system for some of the
> Apollo TV transmissions from the moon. I don't know if it was frame
> sequential
> or field sequential -- I thought field-sequential.
>
Correct. It was a sequential system on those later moonshots - you could see
that when there was significant movement. The single tube colour camera was
still in development so rotating filters in front of a vidicon type of tube
was the only way for size and weight if colour pictures from the moon were
wanted.
Mike D.
Anonymous
October 17, 2004 12:27:51 AM

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

In article <ckrsvk$mp6$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"J.Michael Davison" <mike@g1sbn.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:ckqffr$1c39$1@news.iquest.net...
> <snip>
>> PAL TV sets just cannot give an accurate green (period.)
> That must be bunk.
> The mathematics for deriving the luminance and colour difference signals for
> both the NTSC and PAL systems is the same only the onward encoding for
> broadcast is different.
>
Actually, technically the gamut is different on PAL vs. NTSC. PAL just
doesn't reach as far into the green. Look it up before using the term
'bunk.' It is obvious that there just might be a provincial viewpoint
where NTSC specs aren't very well known (i.e. thinking like PAL is the
one true standard, right?)

>
>> > Can you enlighten me as to which specific aspect of PAL encoding is
>> > responsible for providing 'inaccurate color' ?
>
> I'd like an answer there as well.
>
>> Actually, the fact that PAL isn't as completely decoded as NTSC
>> kind-of makes those color flashes more likely (which even appeared on
>> some apparently digital broadcasts due to BBC not using their cool
>> 3D comb and/or not using component instead of composite in critical
>> parts of the infrastructure.) That kind of color flashing artifact
>> provides an essentially TOTAL FAILURE on the section of the scene.
>>
>> Perception-wise, color on NORMAL scenes, assuming non-3D comb solvable
>> situations, NTSC and PAL aren't that different. As technology is
> improved
>> (e.g. motion prediction or equivalent is included to allow 3D combing
>> to work on PAL50), then NTSC decoding will also be improved. The
>> major hole in coming with 3D combs on NTSC is that the decoding drops
>> to the level of 2D comb on the portions of the scene that change too
>> much.
>>
>> (The advantage of 3D comb isn't just related to color, but
>> the luma detail is also higher because of the elimination of the diagonal
>> detail problem -- essentially chopping off the diagonal detail at around
>> the chroma subcarrier frequency. Other, non color aspects of 3D combs is
>> off topic, however.)
>
> No there's no answer there just a lot of waffle.
>
My answer is technically quite correct, however you must be a non-techie
who is fearful of technical accuracy, just familiar with jargon? Please
refer to your ignorance of the wider NTSC gamut. (To make you feel better,
cheap NTSC TVs are limited to the same narrower PAL-like gamut, and most
people don't notice the lack of relatively more accurate green unless you
do a direct comparison. When doing such a comparison, the difference
is rather strong, where it becomes obvious that the limited gamut is
deficient.)

Without a 3D comb, you get your color flashing all over the place on
difficult scenes, but you'll get used to the inaccurate and 'noisy' color.
The multiline 2D combs help, but don't solve the problem, but that is the
FALLBACK mode for the full 3D NTSC combs.

Q: do you know what a 3D comb is? Do you know why good NTSC recievers
use them, and why PAL receivers cannot (but would like to) use them?
Given your lack of knowledge about the differences in gamut, perhaps the
characteristics in PAL that make 3D combing so very difficult are also
unknown by you? Hint: it is related to phasing and timing, but not
solely (or substantially) caused by the 50Hz flicker rate -- however there
is a dependency upon the 50Hz flicker rate.

John
Anonymous
October 17, 2004 12:32:03 AM

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:ckqffr$1c39$1@news.iquest.net...
<snip>
> PAL TV sets just cannot give an accurate green (period.)
That must be bunk.
The mathematics for deriving the luminance and colour difference signals for
both the NTSC and PAL systems is the same only the onward encoding for
broadcast is different.

> > Can you enlighten me as to which specific aspect of PAL encoding is
> > responsible for providing 'inaccurate color' ?

I'd like an answer there as well.

> Actually, the fact that PAL isn't as completely decoded as NTSC
> kind-of makes those color flashes more likely (which even appeared on
> some apparently digital broadcasts due to BBC not using their cool
> 3D comb and/or not using component instead of composite in critical
> parts of the infrastructure.) That kind of color flashing artifact
> provides an essentially TOTAL FAILURE on the section of the scene.
>
> Perception-wise, color on NORMAL scenes, assuming non-3D comb solvable
> situations, NTSC and PAL aren't that different. As technology is
improved
> (e.g. motion prediction or equivalent is included to allow 3D combing
> to work on PAL50), then NTSC decoding will also be improved. The
> major hole in coming with 3D combs on NTSC is that the decoding drops
> to the level of 2D comb on the portions of the scene that change too
> much.
>
> (The advantage of 3D comb isn't just related to color, but
> the luma detail is also higher because of the elimination of the diagonal
> detail problem -- essentially chopping off the diagonal detail at around
> the chroma subcarrier frequency. Other, non color aspects of 3D combs is
> off topic, however.)

No there's no answer there just a lot of waffle. Is there no deficiency
observed on off-air NTSC signals due to the unequal bandwidths of the I and
Q suppressed subcarriers in the NTSC transmission specification ? At least
in the UK PAL system I transmissions the U and V bandwidths are the same.
Mike D.
Anonymous
October 17, 2004 12:32:04 AM

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

J.Michael Davison wrote:
> "John S. Dyson" <toor@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:ckqffr$1c39$1@news.iquest.net...
> <snip>
>
>>PAL TV sets just cannot give an accurate green (period.)
>
> That must be bunk.
> The mathematics for deriving the luminance and colour difference signals for
> both the NTSC and PAL systems is the same only the onward encoding for
> broadcast is different.


It's not the math. It is that the OFFICIAL NTSC green
primary is GREEN, and the official PAL one is yellow-green.

True, it is not clear how well this applies in teh real world
of not-official NTSC primaries. Nevertheless, the greens
produced on RP-LCD or RP-DLP sets are far superior to
CRT one, because both the green and red hues are purer.
Greens, are monochromatic 546nm, are not really as they should be in the
530-535 region, but are vastly superior to the rare earth
phosphor yellow-green usually seen.

Doug McDonald
!