IMHO, Digital SECAM video is better than Analog NTSC video

Discussion in 'Professional Video Production' started by Radium, Oct 9, 2006.

  1. Radium

    Radium Guest

    http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4249212.html

    Quotes:

    1. "In the following description of the invention, input signals are
    assumed to be 8-bit pulse-code-modulated (PCM) video signals which have
    been produced by sampling and quantizing NTSC analogue composite video
    signals in response to sampling pulses having a sampling frequency of
    10.74 MHz."

    2. "Referring to FIG. 1, the PCM video signal fed from an input
    terminal IN is supplied directly and through a chroma-inverter 11 to a
    first switch 12. In the NTSC color television signal, the subcarrier
    phases between adjacent frames are different from each other by
    180.degree.. In order to provide a frame-phase-compensated video signal
    having the subcarrier in phase for every frame, a switching signal
    generator 10, the chroma inverter 11 and the first switch 12 are
    employed. The switching signal generator 10, which is supplied with the
    vertical synchronizing signal SYNC separated from the NTSC analogue
    composite video signal, generates a switching signal SW having a
    repetition period equal to two frames (1/15 second) and having a pulse
    width of one frame (1/30 second). The first switch 12 is driven by the
    switching signal SW, thereby to provide the frame-phase-compensated
    video signal a at its output. The frame-phase-compensated video signal
    a is supplied through a second switch 13 to a picture memory 14 for
    storage therein, which has a capacity of one frame of the 8-bit PCM
    video signal, i.e., about 2.86 mega-bits, and then stored therein."

    3. "The slicer circuit 16 provides a one-bit pulse c of logic "1" for
    each sample of the PCM video signal when the absolute value."

    4. "The chroma inverter 22 and the third switch 23 are identical to the
    chroma inverter 11 and the first switch 12, respectively, and perform
    the reverse phase-compensation to the latter to provide the NTSC PCM
    video signal at a terminal 24."

    http://www.talkaboutsatellitetv.com/group/rec.video.satellite.dbs/messages/176380.html
    quote:

    "There is uncompressed PCM for video. The data rate is 270 Mbit/sec for
    standard definition, 525 line, 60 field interlaced. The computer folks
    refer to this as 480i. For Hi def, the data rate bumps up to 1.5
    Gbit/sec for 1920x1080 interlaced. This stuff is only seen in studios
    and post production facilities."

    Hmm. Well I would like to see some 2000 X 2000 X 2000 voxels
    progressive [non-interlaced] 32-bit PCM video signals which have been
    produced by sampling and quantizing SECAM analogue video signals in
    response to sampling pulses having a sampling frequency of 1 Hz.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voxel

    VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: While NTSC and PAL use an amplitude-modulated
    carrier for video, SECAM uses FM video.

    I really like FM video. Don't know why ;-)

    Bob Eld wrote in
    http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.basics/msg/1fe38e9f4f89aa01?hl=en&
    :
    What if the WMV [Windows Media Video] digital compression is used and
    the color resolution is decrease sufficiently? Its possible to have a
    supreme quality in terms of number of pixels and frame rate. All you
    have to do is compress the WMV's color resolution and you can get a
    bit-rate that is low enough not to hog bandwidth and at the same time,
    the image resolution and frame rate will be that of a first-class video
    signal.


    Regards,

    Radium
     
    Radium, Oct 9, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Radium

    FCP User Guest

    Perhaps, but sometimes don't you suspect that all this is a giant
    struggle to buff the moldy cheese?

    Well, in my opinion, Lemon pie is better than Pecan. Usually. Unless the
    Pecan Pie is cooked by someone excellent and the Lemon pie is cooked by
    someone lame. Maybe.

    And while we're at it, Does it matter which one is "better" if they're
    both being watched on a Video iPod while on a crowded train?

    What about on a LCD laptop on a transatlantic flight?

    A 1999 Barco projector in a 350 seat hall?


    Its NICE when something is measurably better.

    It's even NICER when that difference is noticible.

    And it's REALLY Nice when someone (anyone) actually notices the
    difference.

    But none of those things are typical.

    Usually the ONLY place where the quality is seen and appreciated is in
    the properly lit studio, seen by people with educated eyes, on
    calibrated monitors.

    Then it goes out in the world and you're lucky if anyone watches at all.

    Strive for quality, in what you can control, by all means.

    Even better - strive for quality from everyone associated with the work.

    But understand that no matter how much you strive, there WILL be
    compromises to quality.

    Learn what it makes sense to struggle for. Learn what you can "live
    with" and what you simply can't.

    Learn what to let go of. And when to hold on to the highest possible
    standards.

    And do your best.

    The rest is out of our hands.

    (Sorry, I'm rambling, but it's been a long production chain of one
    project after another and there's still no end in sight - sigh!)
     
    FCP User, Oct 9, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. And digital NTSC is better than analog SECAM.
    So what?
     
    Richard Crowley, Oct 9, 2006
    #3
  4. Radium

    JoeBloe Guest


    Fucking snip already!

    Who watches NTSC anymore? Bwuahahahahahah!

    Also, look at the difference in the creation dates for the two
    standards, Mr. Techno Wiz.

    I think they call it a no brainer.

    Both are STILL low res compared to HD, digital or analog.
     
    JoeBloe, Oct 9, 2006
    #4
  5. Radium

    JoeBloe Guest

    As of today, I believe that Windows Vista is better than any
    previous version, even though both are made by a bad chef.
     
    JoeBloe, Oct 9, 2006
    #5
  6. Radium

    jd Guest


    Stupid Americans and Japs do. They are behind the rest of the world.
     
    jd, Oct 9, 2006
    #6
  7. Radium

    David McCall Guest

    Yeah, but those other slow countries have to wait around for a 25th of a
    second
    to see a full frame, we can see it in a mere 30th of a second
    with smoother motion as an extra benifit. :)

    David
     
    David McCall, Oct 9, 2006
    #7
  8. I live in a slow country, but to beat you I go to the cinema and
    see a new picture every 0,013888888888888888888888888888889 sec.
    Beat that, buster! :))

    cheers

    -martin-
    --
     
    Martin Heffels, Oct 9, 2006
    #8
  9. Radium

    Radium Guest

    No it isn't
     
    Radium, Oct 9, 2006
    #9
  10. Thank you for your opinion.
    I will repeat the part you snipped: "So what?"
    And I'll raise you a "Who Cares?"
     
    Richard Crowley, Oct 9, 2006
    #10
  11. Radium

    ThePunisher Guest

    Repeating frames makes smoother motion, hahahahah!!!!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ntsc#Framerate_conversion
     
    ThePunisher, Oct 9, 2006
    #11
  12. Radium

    Joshua Zyber Guest

    At least NTSC plays back at the proper speed.
     
    Joshua Zyber, Oct 9, 2006
    #12
  13. Is that why Europeans returning home from NTSC-land
    get headaches from their PAL/SECAM 25Hz framerate
    flicker? Or perhaps from that primitive 2 vertical line
    resolution color subcarrier? :)

    (OTOH, this entire discussion is juvenile and pointless
    and I don't really give a fat flying burrito, I am only toying
    with you-all. :)
     
    Richard Crowley, Oct 10, 2006
    #13
  14. Radium

    JoeBloe Guest

    You're a goddamned retard.

    Actually, poor Americans do.

    I do not.

    No, we are not behind the rest of the world, dumbass. The wide form
    factor CRAP that was in the UK was far INFERIOR to even our first
    generation of HDTV supplied by General Instrument.

    Even compared to my first analog CRT HD set, ANY of that old WS CRAP
    made here there or anywhere else comes nowhere close. You are
    clueless.
     
    JoeBloe, Oct 10, 2006
    #14
  15. Radium

    JoeBloe Guest

    You got the math 100% ass backwards, dumbass. Cinemas are at 24fps,
    which is SLOWER, not faster.
     
    JoeBloe, Oct 10, 2006
    #15
  16. Do you know that cinema's project at 48fps and even 72fps (with double or
    triple shutter), to avoid image-flicker? I don't think you do, or else you
    wouldn't call me dumbass :p

    cheers

    -martin-
    --
     
    Martin Heffels, Oct 10, 2006
    #16
  17. Radium

    jd Guest


    Wrong, retard.

    Time to go back to school.
     
    jd, Oct 10, 2006
    #17
  18. You don't get a new picture every 1/48 or 1/72 of a second though, it
    just repeats the same picture two or three times.

    Rod.
     
    Roderick Stewart, Oct 10, 2006
    #18
  19. Radium

    Veggie Dave Guest

    On what planet would this be happening on then?
     
    Veggie Dave, Oct 10, 2006
    #19
  20. Radium

    Mr. Tapeguy Guest

    Mr. Tapeguy, Oct 10, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.