On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 02:39:39 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
martin griffith wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:

Even studio quality (directly from a PAL camera) has all sorts of artefacts,
just where the right striped shirt.

I say: Just buy a good digital set :-)

Hmm, all the pro cameras I know come out in RGB or YUV.

Nobody in the professional world should be using PAL/NTSC in the
studio's primary signal chain today

Interesting you should say that. There must be tons of gear out there that's
'legacy' so-to-speak PAL.

Read it again. He said PROFESSIONAL, and NEWER equipment is inferred.

Since when did PROFESSIONALS not use PAL ?

You COMPLETELY missed what he said, and what I referred to. The pro
cams MAIN output is NOT PAL, just as HE stated. They DO have PAL
available, but that is NOT what a studio would pump their gear with to
compose what they are going to send out onto broadcast.

Don't talk about stuff you have no experience of.

You're a goddamned idiot.

It makes you look even more
retarded than normal.

WKYABWAW.

I was the technical manager for an editing equipment hire
company some years back. I do know what I'm talking about.

Yes, perhaps about the "some years back" gear, but quite obviously not
about the current gear being used. D'OH!

Broadcast TV isn't as wealthy as it once was and don't expect equipment to be
'upgraded' on a whim.

Bull****. Broadcast TV paid 2 million a rack for General Instrument's
MCPC uplink equipment, and the HDTV version is likely a million or two
more per rack, and is now made by Motorola, and is being bought up by
stations everywhere form this end of the northern hemisphere, all the way
down to Brazil, and Columbia.

PAL (and especially UK PAL) produces a far superior picture to NTSC btw just in case
you're getting confused.

Except that this discussion was never about NTSC, dumb****.

Who is confused? Not me. Not you either... you are just ****ing stupid
about it.