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
  #31  
Old March 20th 17, 05:24 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Mark Carver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,524
Default TV system conversion

On 20/03/2017 10:56, Roderick Stewart wrote:


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


Peace At Last ?

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
  #32  
Old March 20th 17, 05:37 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Huge
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 116
Default TV system conversion

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

On 2017-03-20, Mark Carver wrote:
On 20/03/2017 10:56, Roderick Stewart wrote:


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


Peace At Last ?


Perfection At Last.

Never Twice the Same Color [sic]

System Essentially Contrary to the American Method


--
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 6th day of Discord in the YOLD 3183
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
  #33  
Old March 20th 17, 05:44 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
pamela
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 348
Default TV system conversion

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

On 04:50 18 Mar 2017, Bill Wright wrote:

At the time when when I was a baby the only way was to point a
camera at a screen. Results were unimpressive.

By 1964 things had moved on and conversion was electronic. The
equipment had 2,000 transistors and occupied two full height
racks.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/sta...number=5266568

I have just bought a gadget that converts TVI and AHD to HDMI,
VGA, and CVBS. It handles 720p and 1080p at all frame rates. All
VGA modes are supported. CVBS is PAL or NTSC, 25 or 30fps.

This device is the size of a paperback book and cost 55. It
works perfectly. I would love to go back in time and show it to
the engineers of 1950!


But it wouldn't work on their old fashioned electricity. :-(

If anyone's interested it's a Scatterbox CNV200.

Bill


  #34  
Old March 20th 17, 11:55 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
bilou[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default TV system conversion


"Mark Carver" wrote in message
...

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 !

Hi
FM allowed for clipping of the chrominance to preserve
chroma SNR on a long chain of AM repeaters.
As far as I know it was never used in France, may be in USSR
but it was also useful in Video Tape Recorders.


  #35  
Old March 21st 17, 05:54 AM 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 28, 2017.

Roderick Stewart
wrote in :

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?


There is no German acronym. Apparently they came up with a pleasing
sounding acronym first and invented its meaning later. It was English
from the beginning because they wanted to sell it internationally.
"Phase Alternation by Line" is the most sensible interpretation I have
found. Maybe the "by" was omitted at some stage because "PAbL" wouldn't
have sold as well.

--
John Peel is not enough

http://www.wschwanke.de/ http://www.fotos-aus-der-luft.de/
usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de
  #36  
Old March 21st 17, 06:15 AM 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 28, 2017.

pamela wrote
in :

This device is the size of a paperback book and cost 55. It
works perfectly. I would love to go back in time and show it to
the engineers of 1950!


But it wouldn't work on their old fashioned electricity. :-(


Why not?

--
John Peel is not enough

http://www.wschwanke.de/ http://www.fotos-aus-der-luft.de/
usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de
  #37  
Old March 21st 17, 10:00 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
pamela
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 348
Default TV system conversion

The author has marked this message not to be archived. This post will be deleted on March 28, 2017.

On 06:15 21 Mar 2017, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

pamela wrote
in :

This device is the size of a paperback book and cost 55. It
works perfectly. I would love to go back in time and show it to
the engineers of 1950!


But it wouldn't work on their old fashioned electricity. :-(


Why not?


Have you seen how chunky old wiring from the 1950s used to look
like? Modern electronics wouldn't work properly using those bulky
old electrons because today's seminconductors are contructed with
extremely tiny wires.
  #38  
Old March 21st 17, 10:38 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 934
Default TV system conversion

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 06:15 21 Mar 2017, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

pamela wrote
in :

This device is the size of a paperback book and cost 55. It
works perfectly. I would love to go back in time and show it to
the engineers of 1950!

But it wouldn't work on their old fashioned electricity. :-(


Why not?


Have you seen how chunky old wiring from the 1950s used to look
like? Modern electronics wouldn't work properly using those bulky
old electrons because today's seminconductors are contructed with
extremely tiny wires.


Well today's electrons are digital, unlike the old analogue "vinyl"
electrons :-)

  #39  
Old March 21st 17, 01:38 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
brightside S9
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 657
Default TV system conversion

The author has marked this message not to be archived. This post will be deleted on March 28, 2017.

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:38:14 -0000, "NY" wrote:

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 06:15 21 Mar 2017, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:

pamela wrote
in :

This device is the size of a paperback book and cost 55. It
works perfectly. I would love to go back in time and show it to
the engineers of 1950!

But it wouldn't work on their old fashioned electricity. :-(

Why not?


Have you seen how chunky old wiring from the 1950s used to look
like? Modern electronics wouldn't work properly using those bulky
old electrons because today's seminconductors are contructed with
extremely tiny wires.


Well today's electrons are digital, unlike the old analogue "vinyl"
electrons :-)


Give over, according to Feynman there is only 1 electron in the whole
universe, it just moves backwards and forwards in time appearing as
many electrons to all observers.

--
brightside S9
  #40  
Old March 22nd 17, 06:22 AM 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 29, 2017.

pamela wrote
in :

Have you seen how chunky old wiring from the 1950s used to look
like? Modern electronics wouldn't work properly using those bulky
old electrons because today's seminconductors are contructed with
extremely tiny wires.


Were the atoms bigger too? That would explain why they were so keen on
splitting them.

--
John Peel is not enough

http://www.wschwanke.de/ http://www.fotos-aus-der-luft.de/
usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de
 




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.