A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

Countryfile



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old May 16th 13, 09:05 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,131
Default Countryfile

On Wed, 15 May 2013 23:58:55 +0200, Martin wrote:


Are you sure it wasn't 1960s broadcast NTSC?


NTSC colours were much more random and less realistic.


"NTSC colours" (whatever that means) were derived from the same kind
of lenses and colour splitting prism blocks that were used to produce
"PAL colours". Sometimes the same actual lenses and prisms were
routinely used for both, as cameras like the EMI 2001 could be used on
both standards, so it's difficult to see how the same cameras could
produce different colours. Both PAL and NTSC encode/decode processes
were designed to be transparent (RGB in, RGB out) and as long as
everything was correctly lined up, at least in the studio environment
you couldn't tell them apart.

Rod.
  #22  
Old May 16th 13, 09:51 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Ian Jackson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,968
Default Countryfile

In message , Roderick
Stewart writes
On Wed, 15 May 2013 23:58:55 +0200, Martin wrote:


Are you sure it wasn't 1960s broadcast NTSC?


NTSC colours were much more random and less realistic.


"NTSC colours" (whatever that means) were derived from the same kind
of lenses and colour splitting prism blocks that were used to produce
"PAL colours". Sometimes the same actual lenses and prisms were
routinely used for both, as cameras like the EMI 2001 could be used on
both standards, so it's difficult to see how the same cameras could
produce different colours. Both PAL and NTSC encode/decode processes
were designed to be transparent (RGB in, RGB out) and as long as
everything was correctly lined up, at least in the studio environment
you couldn't tell them apart.

I only started (occasionally) going to the USA in the early 80s, and I
have to admit that any of the poor quality pictures I saw were probably
not because they were NTSC. All the impairments were essentially the
same as I've seen with PAL. Presumably they had already improved TV
design by the time I got there.
--
Ian
  #23  
Old May 19th 13, 07:56 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Kennedy McEwen[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Countryfile

In message , Roderick
Stewart writes
Both PAL and NTSC encode/decode processes
were designed to be transparent (RGB in, RGB out) and as long as
everything was correctly lined up,


Yes, but the emphasis on that caveat was much more important with NTSC
than it was on PAL.

at least in the studio environment
you couldn't tell them apart.

Only if you were unconcerned by the ~20% lower resolution of NTSC or
unsusceptible to the 20% lower frame rate of PAL. Few who had "grown
up" with one were tolerant of the limitations of the other.

Nevertheless, most viewers didn't watch TV is a studio environment, and
the importance of the caveat you mentioned previously meant that, for
the general viewing public, NTSC produced less realistic and more random
colours (or should that be colors?).
--
Kennedy

  #24  
Old May 19th 13, 10:11 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Davey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,239
Default Countryfile

On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:56:38 +0100
Kennedy McEwen wrote:

In message , Roderick
Stewart writes
Both PAL and NTSC encode/decode processes
were designed to be transparent (RGB in, RGB out) and as long as
everything was correctly lined up,


Yes, but the emphasis on that caveat was much more important with
NTSC than it was on PAL.

at least in the studio environment
you couldn't tell them apart.

Only if you were unconcerned by the ~20% lower resolution of NTSC or
unsusceptible to the 20% lower frame rate of PAL. Few who had "grown
up" with one were tolerant of the limitations of the other.

Nevertheless, most viewers didn't watch TV is a studio environment,
and the importance of the caveat you mentioned previously meant that,
for the general viewing public, NTSC produced less realistic and more
random colours (or should that be colors?).


I absolutely agree with that. While living in the US during th 1980s,
and 1990s, it was a joy to return to the UK for trips and watch TV with
good colour rendition.
--
Davey.
  #25  
Old May 20th 13, 09:06 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,131
Default Countryfile

On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:56:38 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

Both PAL and NTSC encode/decode processes
were designed to be transparent (RGB in, RGB out) and as long as
everything was correctly lined up,


Yes, but the emphasis on that caveat was much more important with NTSC
than it was on PAL.

at least in the studio environment
you couldn't tell them apart.

Only if you were unconcerned by the ~20% lower resolution of NTSC or
unsusceptible to the 20% lower frame rate of PAL. Few who had "grown
up" with one were tolerant of the limitations of the other.


The numbers may suggest there would be huge differences between the
appearance of the pictures, but in reality, with real pictures rather
than test charts, all other things being equal and everything
correctly lined up, it was very difficult indeed to tell them apart.

Nevertheless, most viewers didn't watch TV is a studio environment, and
the importance of the caveat you mentioned previously meant that, for
the general viewing public, NTSC produced less realistic and more random
colours (or should that be colors?).


Yes, the transmission path to the viewers' homes is clearly where a
lot of the quality loss occurred. Maybe the programme makers in
America have a different attitude to quality of equipment and care
taken in studio lineup too, as material which had been originated
there often looked a bit dubious even directly off tape. However, on
the few occasions when I was involved in the making of NTSC programmes
at Television Centre, using the same cameras and monitors we normally
used for PAL, there weren't so many dots on the vectorscope but
otherwise everything just looked exactly the same as usual. It was, as
we used to say "All right leaving us".

Rod.
  #26  
Old May 20th 13, 09:45 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Ian Jackson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,968
Default Countryfile

In message , Roderick
Stewart writes
On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:56:38 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:






Only if you were unconcerned by the ~20% lower resolution of NTSC or
unsusceptible to the 20% lower frame rate of PAL. Few who had "grown
up" with one were tolerant of the limitations of the other.


The numbers may suggest there would be huge differences between the
appearance of the pictures, but in reality, with real pictures rather
than test charts, all other things being equal and everything
correctly lined up, it was very difficult indeed to tell them apart.

In ye dayse of CRT sets, when visiting the USA, the thing which used to
strike me most about the ordinary TV set pictures was how 'solid' they
looked. This was undoubtedly because of the total lack of any
perceptible flicker like you get with 50Hz systems (especially when
you're not looking directly at the screen). Unless you looked for it,
you weren't really aware of the coarser 525-line structure, and
otherwise the pictures looked perfectly 'normal'.





--
Ian
  #27  
Old May 20th 13, 11:20 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Davey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,239
Default Countryfile

On Mon, 20 May 2013 12:01:58 +0200
Martin wrote:

On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:45:36 +0100, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Roderick
Stewart writes
On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:56:38 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:






Only if you were unconcerned by the ~20% lower resolution of NTSC
or unsusceptible to the 20% lower frame rate of PAL. Few who had
"grown up" with one were tolerant of the limitations of the other.

The numbers may suggest there would be huge differences between the
appearance of the pictures, but in reality, with real pictures
rather than test charts, all other things being equal and everything
correctly lined up, it was very difficult indeed to tell them apart.

In ye dayse of CRT sets, when visiting the USA, the thing which used
to strike me most about the ordinary TV set pictures was how 'solid'
they looked. This was undoubtedly because of the total lack of any
perceptible flicker like you get with 50Hz systems (especially when
you're not looking directly at the screen). Unless you looked for
it, you weren't really aware of the coarser 525-line structure, and
otherwise the pictures looked perfectly 'normal'.


Did you notice that there was nothing worth watching? :-)


On my first trip to California, I found a 'The Prisoner' marathon.
Stayed up all night watching it.
--
Davey.
  #28  
Old May 21st 13, 07:33 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Kennedy McEwen[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default Countryfile

In message , Roderick
Stewart writes
On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:56:38 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

Maybe the programme makers in
America have a different attitude to quality of equipment and care
taken in studio lineup too, as material which had been originated
there often looked a bit dubious even directly off tape.


Almost certainly: American TV adopted a policy of "more=choice=quality"
long before UK TV output exceeded 2 channels, let alone the 5 analogue
options we had until recently.

It's over 30 years since Roger Waters wrote the words, about a US hotel
resident: "I Got thirteen channels of **** on the T.V. to choose from."
More applicable these days, and to the UK too.
--
Kennedy

  #29  
Old May 24th 13, 03:58 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Johny B Good[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 853
Default Countryfile

On Tue, 21 May 2013 08:33:58 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

In message , Roderick
Stewart writes
On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:56:38 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

Maybe the programme makers in
America have a different attitude to quality of equipment and care
taken in studio lineup too, as material which had been originated
there often looked a bit dubious even directly off tape.


Almost certainly: American TV adopted a policy of "more=choice=quality"
long before UK TV output exceeded 2 channels, let alone the 5 analogue
options we had until recently.

It's over 30 years since Roger Waters wrote the words, about a US hotel
resident: "I Got thirteen channels of **** on the T.V. to choose from."
More applicable these days, and to the UK too.


Weird Al Yancovich reiterated this lament of american TV in a track
called "I Can't Watch This!" (to the tune of "Can't Touch This") over
15 years ago with the notable lines of:

"Stop! Cable time, HBO and Playboy, Showtime and MPV,
I might like them more after my lobotomy.
Now why did I ever pay for this junk?
I hooked up 80 channels and each one stunk."

Seems to sum up the excerable situation we now have here in the UK.

--
Regards, J B Good
  #30  
Old May 24th 13, 07:56 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Davey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,239
Default Countryfile

On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:58:49 +0100
Johny B Good wrote:

On Tue, 21 May 2013 08:33:58 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

In message , Roderick
Stewart writes
On Sun, 19 May 2013 20:56:38 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

Maybe the programme makers in
America have a different attitude to quality of equipment and care
taken in studio lineup too, as material which had been originated
there often looked a bit dubious even directly off tape.


Almost certainly: American TV adopted a policy of
"more=choice=quality" long before UK TV output exceeded 2 channels,
let alone the 5 analogue options we had until recently.

It's over 30 years since Roger Waters wrote the words, about a US
hotel resident: "I Got thirteen channels of **** on the T.V. to
choose from." More applicable these days, and to the UK too.


Weird Al Yancovich reiterated this lament of american TV in a track
called "I Can't Watch This!" (to the tune of "Can't Touch This") over
15 years ago with the notable lines of:

"Stop! Cable time, HBO and Playboy, Showtime and MPV,
I might like them more after my lobotomy.
Now why did I ever pay for this junk?
I hooked up 80 channels and each one stunk."

Seems to sum up the excerable situation we now have here in the UK.


Yep, we've just caught up with their execrable situation.
--
Davey.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.