| Discussion of cameras used for production would more
| properly go in rec.video.production.

Then I take it that in your view input format isn't a proper discussion for
rec.video.desktop?
| Do you mean the Direccion General de Inteligencia, the
| Cuban secret police? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DGI
| Cuba uses NTSC (which I found surprising, I would have
| assumed SECAM as the rest of the Communist Bloc)

I guess you don't watch movies, right?
DGI: Digital Graphics/Imaging

What Communist Bloc?

SECAM is French, though SECAM content is produced in PAL, and only at the
transmitter converted to SECAM by a very simple process.

| I guess that depends on how you define "NTSC" and "PAL".
| Most people define it as the dimension of the frame in pixels,
| and the frame rate (and the interlaced fields). You can be sure
| that people who try to mix NTSC and PAL very quickly discover
| that they are quite real, whether in analog or in digital form.

NTSC and PAL and SECAM are defined as SMPTE ( http://www.smpte.org )
defines them.
All are standards for encoding color video signals. Digital video signal
encoding is completely different (MPEG2 for example.)
Pixels are not part of NTSC, PAL, or SECAM.

| Except for the handful of people on the bleeding edge who have
| HDV, etc. camcorders, every other camera represented here is
| either NTSC or PAL. Regardless of whether it is analog or digital.
| It has been that way since first NTSC (and then PAL) camera
| and continues to this day, unabated.

Well, there you go again, posting about video cameras!
And you are wrong about digital video recording; the encoding is neither
NTSC, PAL nor SECAM.

| NTSC and PAL are not even processed the same in digital
| form. For example, in DV (the most widely-used digital video
| codec), NTSC is sampled 4:1:1 (Y,U,V) while PAL is
| sampled 4:2:0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4:2:0

What makes you think that the signal from the sensors of a digital camcorder
is encoded in NTSC or PAL before recording? If you have a COMPOSITE, analog
signal output it may be NTSC or PAL, but not if the output is a digital
signal.

| Actually, people who are motivated to do quality video editing
| never use computer monitors for qualitative evaluation of TV
| pictures. You just cannot display a proper television picture on
| a computer monitor. Mainly because of the very great difference
| in gamma transfer curve, and also because of differences in
| colorimetry. A good television monitor likely costs more than
| your whole computer system (or maybe 2x or 3x more).

People who are motivated to do quality video editing use digital signals,
and produce a digital recording.
Which brings up the question, what do you mean by a good televison monitor?
Certainly in editing on a non-linear system a NTSC or PAL analog monitor is
not appropriate. Of course you can display a proper television picture on a
computer monitor. You are completely wrong about the 'gamma transfer curve'
as the display adapter in a computer can set whatever gamma curves are
desired (good computer monitors come with color rendition files.)

The real use of a 'good' television monitor is to determine quickly the time
stability of the content, blanking, and framing. More elaborate,
quantitative instruments are required to do any real evaluation (waveform
monitor and vectorscope for analog NTSC/PAL, more elaborate instrumentation
for digital signals - see
http://www.tektronix.com/Measurement/cgi-bin/framed.pl?Document=/Measurement/App_Notes/25_7049/eng/&FrameSet=television
..)

| If you post that again in ~5 years, you might be right.

You are refering to my statement: "And NTSC, PAL, SECAM, and variants are
being marginalized with the advent of High Definition TV."
My statement is correct - 'are being marginalized' means 'are in the process
of marginalization.' One example is the imminent demise of analog TV
broadcast in the USA.

***

Finally, I don't know if your assertions are typical of rec.video.desktop,
but if they are, I'd say a little cross-fertilization is a Good Thing.
alt.com.hardware.overclocking, for one, includes some broadly knowledgeable
contributors.

Phil Weldon

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
| "Phil Weldon" wrote...
| Would you have the rec.video.desktop newsgroup exclude
| discussion of digital cameras?
|
| Discussion of cameras used for production would more
| properly go in rec.video.production. Cameras as used
| for capture/record devices in NLE systems would seem
| to be appropriate for r.v.d But that would be apparent to
| anyone who hung around either newsgroup for more than
| a couple of days. But, in reality the two newsgroups are
| so similar that discussions frequently slop over into the
| other newsgroup and many of us read them interchangably.
|
| How about DGI?
|
| Do you mean the Direccion General de Inteligencia, the
| Cuban secret police? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DGI
| Cuba uses NTSC (which I found surprising, I would have
| assumed SECAM as the rest of the Communist Bloc)
|
| Keep in mind that with a digital train, NTSC or PAL NEVER
| exist except for possible display on an analog NTSC or PAL
| monitor.
|
| I guess that depends on how you define "NTSC" and "PAL".
| Most people define it as the dimension of the frame in pixels,
| and the frame rate (and the interlaced fields). You can be sure
| that people who try to mix NTSC and PAL very quickly discover
| that they are quite real, whether in analog or in digital form.
|
| Except for the handful of people on the bleeding edge who have
| HDV, etc. camcorders, every other camera represented here is
| either NTSC or PAL. Regardless of whether it is analog or digital.
| It has been that way since first NTSC (and then PAL) camera
| and continues to this day, unabated.
|
| NTSC and PAL are not even processed the same in digital
| form. For example, in DV (the most widely-used digital video
| codec), NTSC is sampled 4:1:1 (Y,U,V) while PAL is
| sampled 4:2:0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4:2:0
|
| And the monitors used for the kind of editing discussed in the
| newsgroup are NEVER NTSC or PAL.
|
| Actually, people who are motivated to do quality video editing
| never use computer monitors for qualitative evaluation of TV
| pictures. You just cannot display a proper television picture on
| a computer monitor. Mainly because of the very great difference
| in gamma transfer curve, and also because of differences in
| colorimetry. A good television monitor likely costs more than
| your whole computer system (or maybe 2x or 3x more).
|
| And NTSC, PAL, SECAM, and variants are being marginalized
| with the advent of High Definition TV.
|
| If you post that again in ~5 years, you might be right.
|
|