On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 03:23:26 -0700) it happened Spurious Response
wrote in
:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:15:16 GMT, Jan Panteltje
wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:41:12 +0100) it happened Chris Jones
blind_mousewrote:

Well you just go and sit in your studio and watch your test cards then.
What actually matters is the picture quality that people (don't) get in
their homes.

Here is a screenshot of a testcard from satellite:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard-2.png
So what is wrong?
767x576 png, how you have a monitor with that resolution ;-)

Now this picture travelled 40000 km.


The best purchase you can make for examining such things:

http://www.amazon.com/Digital-Video-...vd&qid=1185003
634&sr=1-12

http://www.videoessentials.com/

I cannot do a capture from the HD DVD output, but I'd bet that even my
Std DVD (it's a combo disc) side would look quite good coming though the
computer, and I could post it in a.b.s.e.

This oughtta be good... ;-]

If you want to test the monitor, Nokia monitor test is really nice:
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multime...tor-Test.shtml
Good for CRT monitors, but also reveals a lot about LCD.

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:15:16 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje
wrote in :

On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:41:12 +0100) it happened Chris Jones
blind_mousewrote:

Well you just go and sit in your studio and watch your test cards then.
What actually matters is the picture quality that people (don't) get in
their homes.

Here is a screenshot of a testcard from satellite:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard-2.png
So what is wrong?
767x576 png, how you have a monitor with that resolution ;-)

Now this picture travelled 40000 km.

Actually there is something wrong in that testcard due to 16:10 aspect
translation, here is the one from a normal 4:3 screen:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard.png

This one is 1:1 pixel for pixel as it is received, the previous one
was rescaled to 767x576, this one is as it comes in here in 720x576 PAL.
Now that is a lot better!

"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:31:48 GMT) it happened "Arfa Daily"
wrote in
:


"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Jul 2007 16:35:53 GMT) it happened "Arfa Daily"
wrote in
:

To enlighten the others: to buy anything with any sort of analog
output
sucks,
as analog is dead at least here in the Netherlands (except for audio).
Buying a settop box with USB output, if you have a laptop with USB,
creates the
portable TV with much better quality and recording possibility.
The USB settop box I bought runs from a 12 V adapter, so also from a
car
battery.
I researched quite a bit to get the best deal, and SCART was not part
of
that,
let alone a horrible interference prone, PAL coding artefacts
decorated
UHF analog output.
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/dvb-t-nl.txt

You must have some rubbish kit over there then. A good PAL analogue TV
set,
with a decent signal going in, beats a crappy highly compressed digital
signal, hands down, every time.

Well, maybe you do not have digital yet.
And for sure you have not seen the HDTV tests on satellite like those
from
France.
I am not denying mpeg2 compression has artefacts, but those very much
depend on
bandwidth (bitrate), and bitrate is a bit less then 4000 kbps on digital
here.
(non HD).
Although that is less then DVD max, it is absolutely enough for a
stunning
_noise free_, _moire free_ (PAL & NTSC composite), _easy to record_ (as
.ts),
_no loss editing_ (digital), _space saving_ (both on disk and in the
ether),
allowing as many sub-channels as you like (more languages, more
subtitles,
teletext, other services, timecode, all in the same stream).

It seems to me you do not _HAVE_ digital yet.
I have had digital sat now for about 7 years, and terrestrial for about
a
year.
As to range an signal to noise, I can get stations that I could only get
with a lot of noise and some reflections too in analog, now as clear as
glass.
Really, only an inexperienced person would claim that composite PAL
in _whatever way_ was better.
And I know composite PAL better then many of you here, as I worked many
years
at the source,
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 :-)

Of COURSE I have digital, foolish person. That is how I am able to comment
on this. I have had analogue satellite since it was first available as
DBS,
and I changed over to digital as soon as that became available. I also
still
take analogue from the terrestrial transmissions, and carry out repairs to
digital terrestrial STBs as part of my living, so I am able to compare all
standards at all times. I feed signals around my house at UHF, and have
perfectly clean signals at every TV - and there are a lot of them. As far
as HDTV signals go, they just about manage to get back up to the standard
of
a *good* analogue transmission. As far as your opinion of my being
inexperienced goes, I have been directly involved with this stuff from the
service angle for 37 years. If that makes me 'inexperienced' in your eyes,
sobeit.

As for beat interference atrifacts from tweed jackets and loud ties, this
has not been much of a problem for years, since people in studios were
dressed properly for the job. Even so, I would still rather see a 'busy'
tie
on a newsreader, than motion artifacts - both edge pixelation and motion
blur - any day of the week.

It's all very well saying that compression artifacts are a product of
available bandwidth, but that bandwidth is much limited with terrestrial
digital, if you want to pack in the number of channels that they seem to
want to. This allows for a perfectly satisfactory picture so long as it is
standing still, but does not if the bitrate needs to go up high enough to
prevent motion artifacts. For the most part, however, I would agree with
you
that this is not an issue with the satellite transmissions, where the
limiting factor becomes how good a transponder, bit rate-wise, the station
can afford to lease.

Make no mistake, I am not trying here to compare a good digital signal -
say
Sky Movies Premiere - with a poor noisy anlogue signal. What I am saying
is
that the general public is being 'sold a pup' with the digital terrestrial
channels, where even the best quality transmissions, struggle to produce a
picture subjectively as good as that produced on a *good* analogue TV with
a
*good* analogue PAL signal going in.

Arfa

A very interesting posting.
Indeed.
Sure, we must see that the 'aim of the game' is to sell new stuff to the
customers.
In many case 'new' is not 'better', as we see for example with mp3 on
portable players and even being played via HiFi, but then Vinyl was
better then 44100 CD LOL hahahahahaha
Well according to some anyways.
In the same way MPEG2 (or H264) or whatever compression is not a lossless
compression and YES has artefacts, BUT these are (the system is designed
that way) not normally percieved as anying.

The truth for me is that movies I have seen in the past on VHS do not
touch
me more then movies I see in HD, or normal digital.

So 37 years, that puts you back to 1970, I started in professional
broadcasting
in 1968....
Almost a year after color started here.
I have seen it all, from iconoscope camera upwards...

So, anyways, stuff needs to be sold, the madness started with widescreen,
stretching people so they became really short and fat, and the consumer
bought it...
LOL

And even that still goes on.
In the early color days transmisisons were closely guarded by many
specialized capable
engineers with years of experience and training.
Thse days anyone can but a digital camera and produce quality that is
better.
Or quality that is worse.

I have my house wired with cat, RJ45 is the connector, no UHF cables here,
except form an antenne in the attick for long range digital terrestial.

I absolutely have to disagree about the quality of HD satellite versus
analog PAL, you must be joking right?

At a resolution of 1980x1080i there is NO WAY analog can compare.
I wanted to show you a screenshot, so I tuned to Astra HD promo,
shows National Geograhics Channel, I have to agree no HD material :-)
just flipper in the water etc....

The French had much better high detail demos.....

Of course if you watch 1920x1080 progressive downscaled via UHF on a PAL
TV
in the other room it will not be better then than PAL TV's say 6MHz
bandwidth, but I am sure you know that, SAME for settop box on a SCART
with
50MHz bandwidth video amps, you need 200MHz pixel clock at least.

I can only repeat: real HDTV you must see it to believe it, and the
conclusion
is that perhaps you only ever watched BBC and astra flipper stuff without
any details.



Well, I have a friend who runs a large Sky installation company, and he has
the latest dog's ******** HD Sky box, and the latest dog's ******** Sony all
singing and dancing LCD widescreen TV and home cinema system, all hooked
together HDMI, and when he showed me it on a Sky HD demo (and presumably Sky
have hand picked this content to be the best available, unless the Frogs
know something that they don't) I have to say that I was a little
disappointed. Yes, when you get right up to the screen, you can see the
hairs on the bee's legs - very impressive - but when you sit far enough back
for the viewing of that size of TV to be 'comfortable', the resolution of
your eyes is not good enough to pick out that level of detail anyway.

I would have to be stupid to maintain that on paper at least, the digital
satellite broadcasts in HD are not better than analogue PAL transmissions,
but subjectively, as I have been maintaining from the start, on a good
analogue TV with a good analogue signal going in, there is not a lot to
choose, and unless you are talking top-notch digital as in satellite HD, in
many cases, I still maintain that subjectively (there's that word again...)
the PAL analogue solution wins out over the average digital one. There are
also, of course, undeniable advantages to digital TV, but I really don't
think at this stage, that picture quality is one of them.

Of course, the artifacts placed on the picture by the digital display device
only serve to exacerbate the situation, but that's another story ...

Arfa

"Jan Panteltje" wrote in message
...
On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 00:01:51 GMT) it happened "Arfa Daily"
wrote in
:


On my PC I have voice control, I can just say:
show BBC1
show ITV1
show ARD
show RAIuno

and in a second or so (as the motorized dish moves to a different sat)
I have it on the 1680x1050 LCD (no not yet 1980).
All it needs is a PCI card and a satellite dish.


Aha ! So you are comparing wide bandwidth high bit rate satellite
transmissions, displayed on your high res PC screen, with an analogue PAL
signal. That is not quite the same as a low bit rate highly compressed
digital terrestrial transmission, displayed on an ordinary household TV
set.


That makes no sense, terrestial digital, here where I am, uses the SAME
bandwith
as satellite.
An HOW can you compare the 2 things if you watch both on the same set?
Of course it will be worse, now you have the problems of BOTH, minus
the advantages of digital.
As I stated befo Buy a good digital setup.

See my response ref my friend's 'good digital setup'

Arfa

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:10:53 GMT) it happened "Arfa Daily"
wrote in :

Well, I have a friend who runs a large Sky installation company, and he has
the latest dog's ******** HD Sky box, and the latest dog's ******** Sony all
singing and dancing LCD widescreen TV and home cinema system, all hooked
together HDMI, and when he showed me it on a Sky HD demo (and presumably Sky
have hand picked this content to be the best available, unless the Frogs
know something that they don't) I have to say that I was a little
disappointed. Yes, when you get right up to the screen, you can see the
hairs on the bee's legs - very impressive - but when you sit far enough back
for the viewing of that size of TV to be 'comfortable', the resolution of
your eyes is not good enough to pick out that level of detail anyway.

I would have to be stupid to maintain that on paper at least, the digital
satellite broadcasts in HD are not better than analogue PAL transmissions,
but subjectively, as I have been maintaining from the start, on a good
analogue TV with a good analogue signal going in, there is not a lot to
choose, and unless you are talking top-notch digital as in satellite HD, in
many cases, I still maintain that subjectively (there's that word again...)
the PAL analogue solution wins out over the average digital one. There are
also, of course, undeniable advantages to digital TV, but I really don't
think at this stage, that picture quality is one of them.

Of course, the artifacts placed on the picture by the digital display device
only serve to exacerbate the situation, but that's another story ...

Arfa

OK, that is a good argument, how far away you are from the screen.
I am getting old and near-sighted, I need glasses to see small detail
close up, so that does require me to sit close in front of a big monitor with
glasses, or get a projection screen of huge size..... without glasses.
I am close to the monitor, close to the TV.
I can still see pixels on the 1680x1050 screen, so I am not too worried.
Finally managed to grap some sort of HD content from SkyPromo:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/00000300.ppm

1920x1088 Now how about PAL composite ;-)

This is how I grabbed it in Linux:
xdipo -c 1 -g '10.5 E' -f 12610.5 -p v -s 22000 -a 133 134 -o q1.ts

The 10.5 replace it where you see the satellite,
the recording is transport stream q1.ts
I wrote xdipo.


Then I let it run for a few seconds, and converted all frames to pnm
pictures with the magic command:
mplayer -vo pnm q1.ts
This generated
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6266897 2007-07-27 16:50 00000001.ppm
.....
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6266897 2007-07-27 16:50 00000300.ppm
.......

300 had at least some detail.

Now you need a 1980x10808 monitor.....

More then 6MB for a screenshot.... :-)

Arfa Daily wrote:

the whole trick is just to suspend your belief in science and reality

Exactly.... it's dumbing down.

No surprise were're breeding a generation of idiots.

Graham

Arfa Daily wrote:

"msg" wrote
Eeyore wrote:

'The Prisoner' was always clearly full-blown escapionist nonsense. Along
with the likes of The Avengers. Entertaining but not to be taken seriously
ever.


Indeed... In one of the many cycles of airing 'The Prisoner' on PBS here
in the States, there was 15 minutes of psycho-social analysis and commentary
at
the end of each episode, some segments even included Mr. McGoohan who
evidently
had some control over production and scripts. It was all very heavy, full
of
cold-war themed allegory and psychiatric theory, existentialism, psychedelic
references,
etc., etc.

BTW, humor My spell checker always suggests replacing your handle with
'Eyesore' /humor


I seem to think that Patrick McGoohan was executive producer or some such,
and the concept was born out of his earlier black and white show "Danger Man
". I remember seeing an interview with him ( which was rare as he didn't do
interviews about the show normally ) on a programme that examined the whole
series, and he was asked about the final two parter "Fallout" I think it's
called. He said that by that time, the whole story thread had gone out of
the window, and they literally had no clue as to how to end it, or even
really what exactly it had been about in the first place. It had basically
just got swept along with the hype and its popularity, until it became a
living thing just existing to keep the fans happy. It was a brave decision
to end it in the way that they did, and it probably let a lot of fans down.
I love Lost to bits - except when it's going through one of its frustrating
patches - but I think that there may be rather more parallels with The
Prisoner than are at first apparent, and that Lost might be heading down the
same road ...

Can you remind me how The Prisoner ended ?

If you haven't been to Portmeirion you should btw. It's a lovely place. It's the
ultimate 'folly'.

Graham

none wrote:

Eeyore wrote
Spurious Response wrote:

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

It seems you have degraded into an alternate ego. The very same one that all the regular
posters here have regularly found very offensive.

It's that moron DarkMatter.

Massive Prong and many more....


He's nymshifted again to avoid bozo bins.

Yes, I was aware of that but he had almost been behaving himself until this recent outburst.

Graham

Jan Panteltje wrote:

I absolutely have to disagree about the quality of HD satellite versus
analog PAL, you must be joking right?

Most posters seemed to be comparing the 'normal' signal that's readily available to us via
terrestrial broadcast, cable or satellite. Certainly not any HD ones.


Graham

Spurious Response wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Spurious Response wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Especially when the engine pod is totally detached from the fuselage / wing and there's
obviously no fuel lines rmaining. I simply couldn't keep a straight face. Actually it was
more of a grimace. Are Americans really so stupid that they accept this kind of nonsence
without objection ?

You have to watch the episode that came later that actually had video of
the crash. along with the reason for it.

The wings were literally ripped off the plane, and the plane itself was
ripped apart, and the whole mess was being pulled toward the Island.

Viola! No fuel laden wings to cause burning explosive frenzies!

You're an idiot.

Every large passenger jet has a fuel tank *between the wings*. Boeing call it the CWT (centre
wing tank). It was the CWT that exploded on TWA800.


That part landed in the water, idiot. I am talking about the show, so
don't go getting confused, cockroach. I know how easy it is for you to
forget how to grasp what you read.

Obfuscation noted.

So you accept that not all the fuel is stored in the wings or not ?

Graham

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Chris Jones blind_mousewrote:

Well you just go and sit in your studio and watch your test cards then.
What actually matters is the picture quality that people (don't) get in
their homes.

Here is a screenshot of a testcard from satellite:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard-2.png
So what is wrong?
767x576 png, how you have a monitor with that resolution ;-)

Now this picture travelled 40000 km.

Have you considered a brain transplant ?

A stationary picture is no way to evaluate the quality of a compressed signal.
It eliminites the most offensive aspect of compression, motion artifacts.

Graham

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Well, OK, may I suggest Seagate HDs, I have one up 24/7 now for 6 years.

And I had two of their top flight Barracuda series ( SCSI server types ) die in
under a month each.

Graham

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:44:31 +0100) it happened Eeyore
wrote in
:



Jan Panteltje wrote:

Chris Jones blind_mousewrote:

Well you just go and sit in your studio and watch your test cards then.
What actually matters is the picture quality that people (don't) get in
their homes.

Here is a screenshot of a testcard from satellite:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard-2.png
So what is wrong?
767x576 png, how you have a monitor with that resolution ;-)

Now this picture travelled 40000 km.

Have you considered a brain transplant ?

No, but come to think of it, yes, yours.

A stationary picture is no way to evaluate the quality of a compressed signal.
It eliminites the most offensive aspect of compression, motion artifacts.

Graham

Look mr rabbit, if I had made available a video clip, you would have complained
you needed a real testcard, and I would be sued for copyright infrigment.

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:46:52 +0100) it happened Eeyore
wrote in
:



Jan Panteltje wrote:

Well, OK, may I suggest Seagate HDs, I have one up 24/7 now for 6 years.

And I had two of their top flight Barracuda series ( SCSI server types ) die in
under a month each.

Graham

Yea, the way it is, some people ... you should not lend your car to either.
Or even your hanky.

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:15:16 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje
wrote in :

On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:41:12 +0100) it happened Chris Jones
blind_mousewrote:

Well you just go and sit in your studio and watch your test cards then.
What actually matters is the picture quality that people (don't) get in
their homes.

Here is a screenshot of a testcard from satellite:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard-2.png
So what is wrong?
767x576 png, how you have a monitor with that resolution ;-)

Now this picture travelled 40000 km.

Actually there is something wrong in that testcard due to 16:10 aspect
translation, here is the one from a normal 4:3 screen:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard.png

This one is 1:1 pixel for pixel as it is received, the previous one
was rescaled to 767x576, this one is as it comes in here in 720x576 PAL.
Now that is a lot better!

There's still plenty of bleed betwen the colours.

Graham

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

A stationary picture is no way to evaluate the quality of a compressed signal.
It eliminites the most offensive aspect of compression, motion artifacts.


Look mr rabbit, if I had made available a video clip, you would have complained
you needed a real testcard, and I would be sued for copyright infrigment.

So you accept it was pointless to post such a link. Good.

Graham

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Eeyore
Jan Panteltje wrote:

Well, OK, may I suggest Seagate HDs, I have one up 24/7 now for 6 years.

And I had two of their top flight Barracuda series ( SCSI server types ) die in
under a month each.

Yea, the way it is, some people ... you should not lend your car to either.
Or even your hanky.

Hankies are a disgusting way of speading germs.

Graham

PeteS wrote:

Traver wrote:

If high-rel is of upmost importance, we struggle to find tin-lead
parts.

I'm currently consluting in the aerospace / military equipment area and
this place goes to the length of re-balling BGAs with eutectic tin-lead
solder, clearing and refinishing pins etc. - i.e. if it's not the right
finish, the company refinishes the part.

There are some non SnPb finishes that are ok in non-safety critical
systems, but safety critical (flight control computers, FADECs etc) must
have a tin-lead solder profile. Gets to be a real problem with small
passives.

Pushes up the price of everything, of course.

The effort invoved in puting lead back on components always strikes me as one of
the more bizarre aspects of RoHS. Talk about proof the idea was fundamentally
wrong in the first place !

Graham

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:46:31 +0100) it happened Eeyore
wrote in
:



Jan Panteltje wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

A stationary picture is no way to evaluate the quality of a compressed signal.
It eliminites the most offensive aspect of compression, motion artifacts.


Look mr rabbit, if I had made available a video clip, you would have complained
you needed a real testcard, and I would be sued for copyright infrigment.

So you accept it was pointless to post such a link. Good.

Graham

Mixomatose was actually also a solution to the rabbit plague of overpopulation.

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:04:35 +0100) it happened Eeyore
wrote in
:



Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:15:16 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje
wrote in :

On a sunny day (Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:41:12 +0100) it happened Chris Jones
blind_mousewrote:

Well you just go and sit in your studio and watch your test cards then.
What actually matters is the picture quality that people (don't) get in
their homes.

Here is a screenshot of a testcard from satellite:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard-2.png
So what is wrong?
767x576 png, how you have a monitor with that resolution ;-)

Now this picture travelled 40000 km.

Actually there is something wrong in that testcard due to 16:10 aspect
translation, here is the one from a normal 4:3 screen:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard.png

This one is 1:1 pixel for pixel as it is received, the previous one
was rescaled to 767x576, this one is as it comes in here in 720x576 PAL.
Now that is a lot better!

There's still plenty of bleed betwen the colours.

Graham

Poor rabbit guy, do you not know UV in YUV is reduced resolution?
In PAL it is even half that vertically.
There

But yes, most rabits are grey, and have no color problem.
Mixomatose was their problem IIRC.

So what problem do you have with this one then:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/00000300.ppm
?
You know this is part of a moving scene that you can see yourself on Sky HD
Promo, just one frame of it.

Oh you cannot see Sky HD, well you can see this.
Artefacts, WHAT artefacts?

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Eeyore wrote
Jan Panteltje wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

A stationary picture is no way to evaluate the quality of a compressed signal.
It eliminites the most offensive aspect of compression, motion artifacts.


Look mr rabbit, if I had made available a video clip, you would have complained
you needed a real testcard, and I would be sued for copyright infrigment.

So you accept it was pointless to post such a link. Good.


Mixomatose was actually also a solution to the rabbit plague of overpopulation.

FYI, Eeyore is a donkey, not a rabbit.

Graham

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
Chris Jones wrote:
blind_mousewrote:

Well you just go and sit in your studio and watch your test cards then.
What actually matters is the picture quality that people (don't) get in
their homes.

Here is a screenshot of a testcard from satellite:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard-2.png
So what is wrong?
767x576 png, how you have a monitor with that resolution ;-)

Now this picture travelled 40000 km.

Actually there is something wrong in that testcard due to 16:10 aspect
translation, here is the one from a normal 4:3 screen:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard.png

This one is 1:1 pixel for pixel as it is received, the previous one
was rescaled to 767x576, this one is as it comes in here in 720x576 PAL.
Now that is a lot better!

There's still plenty of bleed betwen the colours.


Poor rabbit guy, do you not know UV in YUV is reduced resolution?
In PAL it is even half that vertically.
There

I though that your precious digital tramsmission method was supposed to
eliminate the limitations of PAL, not replicate them.

Graham

wrote:

Mixomatose was actually also a solution to the rabbit plague of overpopulation.

FYI, Eeyore is a donkey, not a rabbit.

Graham

Then you will like this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=un94-rFgeio

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:02:49 +0100) it happened Eeyore
wrote in
:



Jan Panteltje wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
Chris Jones wrote:
blind_mousewrote:

Well you just go and sit in your studio and watch your test cards then.
What actually matters is the picture quality that people (don't) get in
their homes.

Here is a screenshot of a testcard from satellite:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard-2.png
So what is wrong?
767x576 png, how you have a monitor with that resolution ;-)

Now this picture travelled 40000 km.

Actually there is something wrong in that testcard due to 16:10 aspect
translation, here is the one from a normal 4:3 screen:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard.png

This one is 1:1 pixel for pixel as it is received, the previous one
was rescaled to 767x576, this one is as it comes in here in 720x576 PAL.
Now that is a lot better!

There's still plenty of bleed betwen the colours.


Poor rabbit guy, do you not know UV in YUV is reduced resolution?
In PAL it is even half that vertically.
There

I though that your precious digital tramsmission method was supposed to
eliminate the limitations of PAL, not replicate them.

Graham

It does not replicate these, it uses a compression scheme that takes advantage
of the fact that the eye has less receptors for color then for BW.
As did PAL.
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard.png
You did not even look Fri Jul 27 20:20:02 CEST 2007
Your no donkey, you are CHICKEN!!!!!

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:21:18 GMT) it happened Jan Panteltje
wrote in :

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 19:02:49 +0100) it happened Eeyore
wrote in
:



Jan Panteltje wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
Jan Panteltje wrote:
Chris Jones wrote:
blind_mousewrote:

Well you just go and sit in your studio and watch your test cards then.
What actually matters is the picture quality that people (don't) get in
their homes.

Here is a screenshot of a testcard from satellite:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard-2.png
So what is wrong?
767x576 png, how you have a monitor with that resolution ;-)

Now this picture travelled 40000 km.

Actually there is something wrong in that testcard due to 16:10 aspect
translation, here is the one from a normal 4:3 screen:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard.png

This one is 1:1 pixel for pixel as it is received, the previous one
was rescaled to 767x576, this one is as it comes in here in 720x576 PAL.
Now that is a lot better!

There's still plenty of bleed betwen the colours.


Poor rabbit guy, do you not know UV in YUV is reduced resolution?
In PAL it is even half that vertically.
There

I though that your precious digital tramsmission method was supposed to
eliminate the limitations of PAL, not replicate them.

Graham

It does not replicate these, it uses a compression scheme that takes advantage
of the fact that the eye has less receptors for color then for BW.
As did PAL.
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/testcard.png
You did not even look Fri Jul 27 20:20:02 CEST 2007
Your no donkey, you are CHICKEN!!!!!

EH I MENT:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/00000300.ppm

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 25 Jul 2007 14:47:25 -0400) it happened Spehro Pefhany
wrote in
:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:03:35 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:


Jan Panteltje wrote:

Joe Chisolm wrote

Dr Howard Johnson (High Speed Digital Design) had this article in
his email newsletter (and posted on his site). Interesting read.
Rollback RoHS: http://www.sigcon.com/Pubs/news/10_01.htm
Well seems [all] we have to [do is] make some traces .65mm apart :-)
Some ? ALL !
AFAIK this exemption only applies to component lead finishes.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Too bad....
How about conductive glue replacing solder?
Na, will have to wait until the first EU politician's cellphone fails in
some emergency.


Or their kid's game console stops working; wait - that's already
happening

Cheers

PeteS

Traver wrote:
On Jul 25, 1:29 pm, Joe Chisolm wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:42:47 +0100, Eeyore wrote:
The debate about lead free solders seem to be nearly as politically
charged as that about anthropogenic global warming and a casualty seems to
be useful data.
I've read plenty of comments to the effect that lead-free is less reliable
in the long term (vibration seems to be a key weakness AIUI - maybe also
thermal cycling) which presumably explains the exemptions for certain
categories, yet I've also seen some studies that claim it can out-perform
lead containing solders.
Is there any real hard and fast information out there that one can rely on
?
The main issue for lead free in military and aerospace electronics is
tin whiskers. Tin solder will
grow conductive whiskers that even penetrate conformal coatings. In
low power circuit,
the whisker will short something out. In a high power circuit, it
might burn up like a fuse,
but if it happens in a satellite (no atmospheric pressure) the little
whisker will cause
a plasma arc capable of passing huge amounts of current.

We in the defense electonics industry fight with this issue every day
and the information
is very confusing. Parts turn lead free midstream in production and
seems impossible to
keep tack of it. Every company is dealing with it differently. We stay
away from certain
finishes like bright tin and look at the spacing of components and
coatings on our boards.
This can mitigate some of the reliability risks of lead free.

If high-rel is of upmost importance, we struggle to find tin-lead
parts.


I'm currently consluting in the aerospace / military equipment area and
this place goes to the length of re-balling BGAs with eutectic tin-lead
solder, clearing and refinishing pins etc. - i.e. if it's not the right
finish, the company refinishes the part.

There are some non SnPb finishes that are ok in non-safety critical
systems, but safety critical (flight control computers, FADECs etc) must
have a tin-lead solder profile. Gets to be a real problem with small
passives.

Pushes up the price of everything, of course.

Cheers

PeteS

Jan Panteltje wrote:

Your no donkey, you are CHICKEN!!!!!

And you're an IDIOT.

Graham

Jan Panteltje wrote:

wrote:

Mixomatose was actually also a solution to the rabbit plague of overpopulation.

FYI, Eeyore is a donkey, not a rabbit.


Then you will like this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=un94-rFgeio

You really are an idiot.

Graham

Jan Panteltje wrote:

EH I MENT:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/00000300.ppm

No you didn't.

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Jan Panteltje wrote:

Eeyore
Jan Panteltje wrote:

Well, OK, may I suggest Seagate HDs, I have one up 24/7 now for 6
years.

And I had two of their top flight Barracuda series ( SCSI server types )
die in
under a month each.

Yea, the way it is, some people ... you should not lend your car to
either.
Or even your hanky.

Hankies are a disgusting way of speading germs.

Graham

No they're not. It's better than sneezing all over a lift full of people, or
standing there sniffing a dripping stream of snot repeatedly back up your
nose, or wiping it on the back of your hand like anyone under the age of 40
does now ...

Arfa

On a sunny day (Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:51:00 +0100) it happened Eeyore
wrote in
:



Jan Panteltje wrote:

EH I MENT:
ftp://panteltje.com/pub/00000300.ppm

No you didn't.

You have not looked, you are chicken to be proved wrong,
your monitor could not even display it likely.
You lost the argument.
Uttering IA or insults changes nothing.
You know zero about the subject of dgital and little
about analog TV.

BYE

certified rabbit free

Spurious Response wrote:

Seems one must fully encapsulate a finished assembly in transformer
varnish under vacuum to lock out the whisker growth.

Tin whiskers will grow through conformal coatings.

Graham

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Jan Panteltje wrote:
Eeyore
Jan Panteltje wrote:

Well, OK, may I suggest Seagate HDs, I have one up 24/7 now for 6
years.

And I had two of their top flight Barracuda series ( SCSI server types )
die in
under a month each.

Yea, the way it is, some people ... you should not lend your car to
either. Or even your hanky.

Hankies are a disgusting way of speading germs.

No they're not. It's better than sneezing all over a lift full of people, or
standing there sniffing a dripping stream of snot repeatedly back up your
nose, or wiping it on the back of your hand like anyone under the age of 40
does now ...

It seems you misunderstood me. I use disposable tissues in place of 'hankies'.

The idea of a piece of cloth that one uses many times to collect ever more germs
is plain disgusting. The idea of offering it to someone else begs belief.

Graham

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 22:22:16 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



Spurious Response wrote:

Seems one must fully encapsulate a finished assembly in transformer
varnish under vacuum to lock out the whisker growth.

Tin whiskers will grow through conformal coatings.

Graham

This dude has real problems along those lines:
http://tinyurl.com/27xc98


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Spurious Response wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:56:31 -0400, PeteS wrote:

Glen Walpert wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:42:47 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:

The debate about lead free solders seem to be nearly as politically
charged as that about anthropogenic global warming and a casualty seems
to be useful data.

I've read plenty of comments to the effect that lead-free is less
reliable in the long term (vibration seems to be a key weakness AIUI -
maybe also thermal cycling) which presumably explains the exemptions
for certain categories, yet I've also seen some studies that claim it
can out-perform lead containing solders.

Is there any real hard and fast information out there that one can rely
on ?

Graham

Don't look to this newsgroup for factual info on lead free! Instead
look at actual test results in the trade publications such as SMT
magazine:
http://smt.pennnet.com/home.cfm
They have published numerous tests comparing various lead free
materials and processes with tin-lead. Some lead free materials and
processes are better than others (no surprise) and picking the best
one for your situation is non-trivial.

My nutshell summary of the published test results is that lead free is
significantly harder to do right than tin-lead, requiring tighter
process controls, but if done right it can be more reliable than
tin-lead for non-shock situations. Lead free is harder, stronger and
more brittle than tin-lead so tin-lead will deform plastically under
high shock when lead free will break, however lead free will withstand
more hot-cold cycles than before failure than tin-lead (better fatigue
resistance). So you need to know what the significant failure
mechanisms are in your design to pick the most reliable materials.

Glen

Another major issue is tin whiskers. We have hard evidence at
$WeBuildAvionics (where I am currently consluting) that the current Pb
Free / RoHS solder mixes have significant problems with growing
whiskers, leading to wonderful issues such as short circuits developing
under BGAs a few months after production. In a Flight control computer
(don't laugh - in a fly by wire environment it's the ONLY flight control
and virtually all late model airliners use it) this is Not a Good Thing
[tm].

The whole RoHS / Pb free thing is a political issue - the processes for
Pb Free use more hazardous substances than they get rid of.

Typical EU beauraucrats - unelected, overpaid and have to find something
to regulate to justify their existence. [1]

Cheers

PeteS

[1] Their existence, even from birth, might not be justifiable.


Damn. You actually made a post that I agree with 100%.

Seems one must fully encapsulate a finished assembly in transformer
varnish under vacuum ....

Sorry, I wasn't concentrating and I thought you were still talking about the
bureaucrats, I thought that would be a very effective solution.

to lock out the whisker growth.
Oh.. well can we still do the bureaucrats afterwards? ??

Chris

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arfa Daily wrote:

"msg" wrote
Eeyore wrote:

'The Prisoner' was always clearly full-blown escapionist nonsense.
Along
with the likes of The Avengers. Entertaining but not to be taken
seriously
ever.


Indeed... In one of the many cycles of airing 'The Prisoner' on PBS
here
in the States, there was 15 minutes of psycho-social analysis and
commentary
at
the end of each episode, some segments even included Mr. McGoohan who
evidently
had some control over production and scripts. It was all very heavy,
full
of
cold-war themed allegory and psychiatric theory, existentialism,
psychedelic
references,
etc., etc.

BTW, humor My spell checker always suggests replacing your handle
with
'Eyesore' /humor


I seem to think that Patrick McGoohan was executive producer or some
such,
and the concept was born out of his earlier black and white show "Danger
Man
". I remember seeing an interview with him ( which was rare as he didn't
do
interviews about the show normally ) on a programme that examined the
whole
series, and he was asked about the final two parter "Fallout" I think
it's
called. He said that by that time, the whole story thread had gone out of
the window, and they literally had no clue as to how to end it, or even
really what exactly it had been about in the first place. It had
basically
just got swept along with the hype and its popularity, until it became a
living thing just existing to keep the fans happy. It was a brave
decision
to end it in the way that they did, and it probably let a lot of fans
down.
I love Lost to bits - except when it's going through one of its
frustrating
patches - but I think that there may be rather more parallels with The
Prisoner than are at first apparent, and that Lost might be heading down
the
same road ...

Can you remind me how The Prisoner ended ?

If you haven't been to Portmeirion you should btw. It's a lovely place.
It's the
ultimate 'folly'.

Graham


Oh boy, where do you start on that one ? Apart from the fact that it's been
probably 10 years since I last saw it, I seem to recall the whole story
being a really surreal thing full of 'hidden meanings' and 'symbolism' (or
maybe not ?? ) about what Number 1 was and what it all meant and how it
related to society. There was loads of debate and interpretation stuff at
the time as I remember. I have this hazy memory of some kind of court
proceedings going on and him somehow coming face to face with himself. The
whole concept of what we thought it was about, was turned on its head I
think ( a bit like Lost ). The next thing I remember is him being in a taxi
and being back in London driving over a bridge somewhere near Westminster -
or maybe that's from another episode. Actually, there must be loads on the
web about this, rather than trusting my memory. Hang on a minute whilst I go
and look ....

..... OK. Try this for size. Seems to be as good a synopsis and analysis as
any


http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/classic/pr...eventeen.shtml

Arfa

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


PeteS wrote:

Traver wrote:

If high-rel is of upmost importance, we struggle to find tin-lead
parts.

I'm currently consluting in the aerospace / military equipment area and
this place goes to the length of re-balling BGAs with eutectic tin-lead
solder, clearing and refinishing pins etc. - i.e. if it's not the right
finish, the company refinishes the part.

There are some non SnPb finishes that are ok in non-safety critical
systems, but safety critical (flight control computers, FADECs etc) must
have a tin-lead solder profile. Gets to be a real problem with small
passives.

Pushes up the price of everything, of course.

The effort invoved in puting lead back on components always strikes me as
one of
the more bizarre aspects of RoHS. Talk about proof the idea was
fundamentally
wrong in the first place !

Graham


Seconded on that, and a point that I've been making since the start in the
various scribblings I've done for the trade rags etc.

Arfa

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Arfa Daily wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Jan Panteltje wrote:
Eeyore
Jan Panteltje wrote:

Well, OK, may I suggest Seagate HDs, I have one up 24/7 now for 6
years.

And I had two of their top flight Barracuda series ( SCSI server
types )
die in
under a month each.

Yea, the way it is, some people ... you should not lend your car to
either. Or even your hanky.

Hankies are a disgusting way of speading germs.

No they're not. It's better than sneezing all over a lift full of people,
or
standing there sniffing a dripping stream of snot repeatedly back up your
nose, or wiping it on the back of your hand like anyone under the age of
40
does now ...

It seems you misunderstood me. I use disposable tissues in place of
'hankies'.

The idea of a piece of cloth that one uses many times to collect ever more
germs
is plain disgusting. The idea of offering it to someone else begs belief.

Graham


Surely it's better to keep your own germs to yourself on your own hanky in
your own pocket, until such time as you commit it to the washing machine,
where the nasty little buggers will be purged? You can't reinfect yourself
when you have a cold or whatever, it just runs its course.IMHO, it's dumping
your germs into the public domain where they can infect others, by way of a
'disposable' tissue, that ranks as disgusting ... :-\

Arfa

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 ?

Depends on the standards in use where they work. PAL where you live, SECAM
in others, and NTSC is still others.

Don't talk about stuff you have no experience of. It makes you look even
more retarded than normal. I was the technical manager for an editing
equipment hire company some years back. I do know what I'm talking about.

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

Spot on. There has always been smaller stations (also poorer economically
andd then technically).

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

Graham

--
JosephKK
Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.Â*Â*
--Schiller