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.

TV system conversion



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old March 19th 17, 09:18 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 934
Default TV system conversion

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...
"NY" wrote in
:

That's not a conversion artefact but a defect of SECAM. You get (sorry
used to get) those streaks with native SECAM reception. Of course
conversion can't remove them.


I knew about crosshatch patterning but not about streaks.


By crosshatch pattern do you mean cross luminance? Yes that's slightly
worse with SECAM as well, but not badly. The typical "SECAM fire" I was
talking about consists of blue/red/magenta streaks to the right of
sharp edges.


What I remember at times was a fine +/- 45 degree lattice pattern (like a
garden trellis) overlaid on patches of certain colours. Was that how SECAM
showed cross-luminance.

Here's a clip that shows SECAM fire under more typical conditions. It has
blue/red streaks on bright spots almost throughout, but not in a

disturbing way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkyqVuIyuP4



Yes, the coloured patches to the right of the bright areas (and even
not-so-bright ones) is fairly typical of what I remember. It's particularly
noticeable around https://youtu.be/HkyqVuIyuP4?t=23m58s on the men's medals.

The lettering on the banner at https://youtu.be/HkyqVuIyuP4?t=16m5s seems to
have horizontal banding. Obviously there's a a lot of motion blur as the
camera pans past it.

Gordon Bennett! That's one hell of a hairdo that the woman interviewer has
https://youtu.be/HkyqVuIyuP4?t=25m36s - the amount of hairspray she must
have used would destroy the ozone layer! Is the windshield on her microphone
big enough? :-)

Interesting that the filmed inserts such as
https://youtu.be/HkyqVuIyuP4?t=33m57s don't have anywhere near as much
colour streaking to the right of everything. Lower contrast, perhaps?

The one thing I haven't seen examples of is the sharp pointed horizontal
spikes to the right of saturated areas.

Good old Leonid Brezhnev with his black-slug eyebrows:
https://youtu.be/HkyqVuIyuP4?t=6m40s . I'd forgotten about him.


Was SECAM thought to be technically superior to PAL (maybe replacing one set
of artefacts with another) or was the main motivation for the French
developing it the "not invented here" syndrome of PAL?

  #22  
Old March 19th 17, 10:16 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Wolfgang Schwanke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 285
Default TV system conversion

The author has marked this message not to be archived. This post will be deleted on March 27, 2017.

"NY" wrote in
o.uk:

What I remember at times was a fine +/- 45 degree lattice pattern (like
a garden trellis) overlaid on patches of certain colours. Was that how
SECAM showed cross-luminance.


I think the cause is that SECAM is FM, hence the colour carrier is
always present at full amplitude. With NTSC and PAL the amplitude
defines saturation, thus the carrier goes to zero on black/grey/white
areas. This reduces cross luminance quite a bit. On East German
television they used to completely shut off colour during black&white
broadcasts to avoid this, so they occasionally broadcast a "true"
black&white signal like in the old days.

Interesting that the filmed inserts such as
https://youtu.be/HkyqVuIyuP4?t=33m57s don't have anywhere near as much
colour streaking to the right of everything. Lower contrast, perhaps?


Probably

Was SECAM thought to be technically superior to PAL (maybe replacing
one set of artefacts with another) or was the main motivation for the
French developing it the "not invented here" syndrome of PAL?


SECAM was invented before PAL. I think it's fair to say that regarding
picture quality PAL is better, but SECAM is said to be more robust
especially under poor reception. France's insistance on using it
instead of PAL was partly political to protect its domestic industry,
and so was their campaigning in the Eastern block. Conversely the
inventor of PAL claims in a book that he had no support from the German
government, and all the campaigning for PAL abroad was entirely
Telefunken's initiative. But he is biased, so maybe he's not telling
the whole story. In any case there was a lot of politics going on.

--
John Peel is not enough

http://www.wschwanke.de/ http://www.fotos-aus-der-luft.de/
usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de
  #23  
Old March 19th 17, 11:02 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Chris Youlden[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default TV system conversion

On 19/03/2017 18:05, Mark Carver wrote:
On 18/03/2017 14:58, NY wrote:


You are talking in the present, none of this is relevant any more, and
from the mid 80s, the only place in France you'd find a SECAM coder in
use, (in the Tx chain) was the transmitter site.


SECAMs advantage was always its robustness in the transmission chain.
The old analogue distribution networks comprising miles of microwave
circuits didn't cause differential phase and gain like they did PAL.

I don't know whether the French ever carried out RBS tests, but if they
did it would be interesting to know the quality of picture received at
the end of a multihop rebroadcast similar to the BBC having all
transmitters on RBS from CP to Scotland.



The French in recent decades did everything before the transmitter as
PAL, then from the early nineties as component video (just as we did,
with our PAL encoders way downstream too) (BBC regional studios pted)

Mind you, even on NTSC tellies, US pictures look odd, in a
way that is difficult to define - something to do with contrast and
tonal range.


Not any more, it's a digital component world, contemporary American TV
pictures are as good European ones. Better you might argue, coz they are
running at 30 frames/Sec not 25.


+1

A couple of years ago I watched an NFL match on a fairly large tv in a
bar in Boston, MA and was extremely impressed with the quality.




--

Chris

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

  #24  
Old March 20th 17, 07:54 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,906
Default TV system conversion

On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 23:16:08 +0100, Wolfgang Schwanke
wrote:

What I remember at times was a fine +/- 45 degree lattice pattern (like
a garden trellis) overlaid on patches of certain colours. Was that how
SECAM showed cross-luminance.


I think the cause is that SECAM is FM, hence the colour carrier is
always present at full amplitude.


It's always present at *some* amplitude. There is a filter to reduce
its amplitude at its unmodulated frequency, i.e. where there is no
colour, though it's never zero.

[...]

SECAM was invented before PAL. I think it's fair to say that regarding
picture quality PAL is better, but SECAM is said to be more robust
especially under poor reception. France's insistance on using it
instead of PAL was partly political to protect its domestic industry,
and so was their campaigning in the Eastern block. Conversely the
inventor of PAL claims in a book that he had no support from the German
government, and all the campaigning for PAL abroad was entirely
Telefunken's initiative. But he is biased, so maybe he's not telling
the whole story. In any case there was a lot of politics going on.


Does anyone know what "PAL" really stands for? All the books I've seen
give it as "Phase Alternation Line" or "Phase Alternation Linewise",
but I've always assumed that it must have been named in German and
the English translation contrived to keep the same initials, hence the
rather inelegant phrase that we've become used to. Perhaps the
original name is something neater in its own language?

Rod.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

  #25  
Old March 20th 17, 08:03 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Mark Carver[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default TV system conversion

On 19/03/2017 23:02, Chris Youlden wrote:
On 19/03/2017 18:05, Mark Carver wrote:
On 18/03/2017 14:58, NY wrote:


You are talking in the present, none of this is relevant any more, and
from the mid 80s, the only place in France you'd find a SECAM coder in
use, (in the Tx chain) was the transmitter site.


SECAMs advantage was always its robustness in the transmission chain.
The old analogue distribution networks comprising miles of microwave
circuits didn't cause differential phase and gain like they did PAL.


Yes, which is why the USSR adopted the system. The chroma channel in
SECAM was intrinsically FM. I can remember playing with a SECAM SPG, and
turning the chroma signal up and down in amplitude, it made no
difference until the 'quieting point' to the received picture.
The downside was the triangular noise spectrum for FM, so I don't
now how it fared there ?

I don't know whether the French ever carried out RBS tests, but if they
did it would be interesting to know the quality of picture received at
the end of a multihop rebroadcast similar to the BBC having all
transmitters on RBS from CP to Scotland.


Umm, good question !

Not any more, it's a digital component world, contemporary American TV
pictures are as good European ones. Better you might argue, coz they are
running at 30 frames/Sec not 25.


+1

A couple of years ago I watched an NFL match on a fairly large tv in a
bar in Boston, MA and was extremely impressed with the quality.


Yes, same for me, 18 months ago, on a tour of Boston and New England.
Very impressive, and also the D-Sat platform Direc TV that we had in
some of our B&B rooms.


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
  #26  
Old March 20th 17, 09:05 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Taylor[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default TV system conversion

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 07:54:22 +0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:


Does anyone know what "PAL" really stands for? All the books I've seen
give it as "Phase Alternation Line" or "Phase Alternation Linewise",
but I've always assumed that it must have been named in German and
the English translation contrived to keep the same initials, hence the
rather inelegant phrase that we've become used to. Perhaps the
original name is something neater in its own language?

Rod.


No, but Wikipedia has this mildly amusing story.

"When interviewed by German talk show host Hans Rosenthal on why he
had named it the "PAL system", Bruch replied that certainly no German
would want to have a "Bruch-System" had his family name been used as
the eponym; Bruch in German is synonymous with "broken"."

And it would seem quite logical that, as Telefunken were trying to get
the system widely adopted they should create an English name for it,
and PAL is a very good, friendly name, rather better than NTSC.
  #27  
Old March 20th 17, 10:00 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Mark Carver[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default TV system conversion

On 20/03/2017 09:05, Bill Taylor wrote:

"When interviewed by German talk show host Hans Rosenthal on why he
had named it the "PAL system", Bruch replied that certainly no German
would want to have a "Bruch-System" had his family name been used as
the eponym; Bruch in German is synonymous with "broken"."


It didn't prevent the term Bruch Blanking though !

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=53nnX4fnnNIC&pg=PA289&lpg=PA289&dq=bruch+ blanking&source=bl&ots=1umP3dht5J&sig=BPccmfY8yhan h7wbZm9Bn_hsRhw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiyrqyL6OTSAh VpK8AKHfauBDgQ6AEIIzAC#v=onepage&q=bruch%20blankin g&f=false

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
  #28  
Old March 20th 17, 10:56 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Roderick Stewart[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,906
Default TV system conversion

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:05:37 +0000, Bill Taylor
wrote:


Does anyone know what "PAL" really stands for? All the books I've seen
give it as "Phase Alternation Line" or "Phase Alternation Linewise",
but I've always assumed that it must have been named in German and
the English translation contrived to keep the same initials, hence the
rather inelegant phrase that we've become used to. Perhaps the
original name is something neater in its own language?

Rod.


No, but Wikipedia has this mildly amusing story.

"When interviewed by German talk show host Hans Rosenthal on why he
had named it the "PAL system", Bruch replied that certainly no German
would want to have a "Bruch-System" had his family name been used as
the eponym; Bruch in German is synonymous with "broken"."

And it would seem quite logical that, as Telefunken were trying to get
the system widely adopted they should create an English name for it,
and PAL is a very good, friendly name, rather better than NTSC.


Yes, as a *word*, PAL sounds friendly in English, but I've always
thought "Phase Alternation Line[wise]" sounded really awkward.

Rod.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

  #29  
Old March 20th 17, 02:38 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Graham.[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 334
Default TV system conversion

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 10:56:16 +0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 09:05:37 +0000, Bill Taylor
wrote:


Does anyone know what "PAL" really stands for? All the books I've seen
give it as "Phase Alternation Line" or "Phase Alternation Linewise",
but I've always assumed that it must have been named in German and
the English translation contrived to keep the same initials, hence the
rather inelegant phrase that we've become used to. Perhaps the
original name is something neater in its own language?

Rod.


No, but Wikipedia has this mildly amusing story.

"When interviewed by German talk show host Hans Rosenthal on why he
had named it the "PAL system", Bruch replied that certainly no German
would want to have a "Bruch-System" had his family name been used as
the eponym; Bruch in German is synonymous with "broken"."

And it would seem quite logical that, as Telefunken were trying to get
the system widely adopted they should create an English name for it,
and PAL is a very good, friendly name, rather better than NTSC.


Yes, as a *word*, PAL sounds friendly in English, but I've always
thought "Phase Alternation Line[wise]" sounded really awkward.

Rod.


Agreed. The LAP System it is then.
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%
  #30  
Old March 20th 17, 04:58 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Tim+[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 162
Default TV system conversion

Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Sun, 19 Mar 2017 23:16:08 +0100, Wolfgang Schwanke
wrote:

What I remember at times was a fine +/- 45 degree lattice pattern (like
a garden trellis) overlaid on patches of certain colours. Was that how
SECAM showed cross-luminance.


I think the cause is that SECAM is FM, hence the colour carrier is
always present at full amplitude.


It's always present at *some* amplitude. There is a filter to reduce
its amplitude at its unmodulated frequency, i.e. where there is no
colour, though it's never zero.

[...]

SECAM was invented before PAL. I think it's fair to say that regarding
picture quality PAL is better, but SECAM is said to be more robust
especially under poor reception. France's insistance on using it
instead of PAL was partly political to protect its domestic industry,
and so was their campaigning in the Eastern block. Conversely the
inventor of PAL claims in a book that he had no support from the German
government, and all the campaigning for PAL abroad was entirely
Telefunken's initiative. But he is biased, so maybe he's not telling
the whole story. In any case there was a lot of politics going on.


Does anyone know what "PAL" really stands for?


I thought it was Perfect At Last, as opposed to Never The Same Colour. ;-)

I'm sure the Internet knows. ;-)

Tim
--
Please don't feed the trolls
 




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 11:31 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.