In article ,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Think you're well into hindsight. When the UK PAL system was finalised
(1960?), computers were some esoteric device in a lab. But in any case
a major priority of any colour TV system then was that it can be
easily receivable on a monochrome only set - and not make that set
more expensive to produce.

That's almost irrelevant. When the UK went to digital TV broadcasts (was
that around 2000 with Sky's digital terrestrial service?)

No. Sky doesn't broadcast terrestrial signals in the UK. Satellite and
cable only.

Terrestrial digital started in '98 with a consortium including the BBC and
ITV.

there was no no need to continue to support PAL. After all much of their
material was NTSC anyway.

So you think they should have gone to NTSC? Why would the Uk replace a
better newer system with an older inferior one?

Digital was in addition to the UHF PAL service - with it carrying all the
same channels and more.

They were encoding the signals in one place,
so there was no restriction on what equipment was used except cost, and
on the set end they could of used anything they wanted.

I expect they chose PAL because it was the existing standard, and they
could buy subassemblies cheaply.

PAL has nothing to do with any digital transmission. Some of the
originating sources may still have been PAL at some point though.
STBs had a PAL output for use with sets with no line input.

However ATSC was compeltely different. It was supposed to be a new
standard, not a re-hashing of an old one. There was no need to keep NTSC
compability as long as it could be created in set top boxes.

That applies to any STB. What goes in is irrelevant provided it will
interface with the domestic TV.

Note that there were and still are two other incompatble digital TV
standards in use in the US. The cable companies use one of their own,
and the DBS companies use a different one. Since there are two
competing DBS companies, each using their own incompatible encryption,
you could say there are four incompatible ones.

So the US is in a bit of a mess? ;-)

They all use some sort of MPEG TS transmission, but the streams can not
be read with the other company's devices.

That's business politics for you.

--
*The longest recorded flightof a chicken is thirteen seconds *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

** Everyone knows that NTSC stands for:
"Never Twice the Same Color"

Though that might be the common opinion, it is, of course,
untrue. There is nothing inherently unstable or inaccurate
about NTSC.

** You have got to be the most ignorant ****** on the planet.

When was the last time you adjusted the Hue control on an NTSC receiver?

** Go **** yourself - asshole.


NTSC inherently suffers from sensitivity to phase shift in the sub-
carrier during transmission and reception that cause color changes
on the screen -- particularly so when changing channels.
PAL does not.
Hence the famous acronym as quoted by me.
Go **** yourself.


Wouldn't it be nice if you actually knew what were talking about?

Both NTSC and PAL use subcarrier phase to convey hue. (The amplitude is
roughly the saturation.) Both systems are sensitive to non-linear phase
errors.

Because PAL alternates phase between lines, the non-linear color errors are
in opposite directions, and the eye tends to average them out -- at the
expense of saturation. (Complementary colors sum to white.) High levels of
non-linear phase can produce visible "saturation banding" on a PAL set, just
as they can cause "color banding" on an NTSC set.

PAL was adopted in Europe because European distribution systems suffered
from relatively high levels of non-linear phase. The American distribution
system did not, so abandoning phase alternation was not a major loss.

The wildly inaccurate reverse acronym was based on sloppy engineering in the
studio -- nothing inherent in NTSC.

I doubt that any American member of this group has adjusted the Hue control
on their NTSC set for at least 30 years.

1) NTSC I and Q color difference, PAL R-Y, B-Y
2) Different primaries, especially green. PAL had a smaller color
gamut.
3) Different color bandwidth for different colors. NTSC had 1.3
MHz for I and 0.5 MHz for Q. PAL was equal for R-Y and B-Y.
4) Excellent interleaving of chroma-luminance frequency
components which was largely destroyed by the phase alteration.

That isn't immediately clear to me. How badly would pahse alteration affect
the frequency components of the subcarrier?

You left out 3.5. The I and Q primaries' color and bandwidth are based on
how the eye actually perceives color. NTSC not only transmits more color
information, but uses the available bandwidth more effectively.


As a note, much of the advantage of points 2), 3) and 4) was lost
on early sets which just used 0.5 MHz bandwidth for decoding both
chroma components and bandwidth limiting the luminance signal to
minimize chroma-luma crosstalk.

Actually, most early sets (at least RCA) had full-bandwidth color. RCA
continued to offer such sets for two or three years. I suspect many current
sets using digital processing are full-bandwidth, but there's no easy way to
know which is which.


When integrated circuits became available, dual bandwidth chroma
decoders started appearing...

Not that I'm aware of. Such sets require a second delay line, which runs up
the cost.


as well as comb filters to separate the luminance and chroma
signals.

Correct.


More accurate phosphors were also gradually used in
sets. The result was a major improvement in picture quality with
the original 1953 broadcast standards. No such receiver
improvement was possible with the PAL system.

Oh? Why?

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Why would the rest of the world want multi-standard TVs? You might if you
lived within reception distance of another country with a language you
understood well and it used a different system - but how often does this
happen?

It happened all over Europe, all of the time. But the big draw was
"foreign films".



In the UK, PAL VHS would playback NTSC tapes on a PAL TV for many a year.
Bit of a cludge, but it worked well enough for the poor quality of VHS.

No they would not. They had to be kludged to do it in the first place and
often were.The TV sets had to be capable of syncing at 60 fields per second
instead of 50, the video speeds of the recorders had to be modified and
the NTSC color signals inverted every other line.

Those VCRs were actually multisystem VCRs with EXTRA circuitry to convert
NTSC to PAL (by the line inversion). What they lacked was the 3.57mHz color
carrier circuitry and may of had NTSC 4.43.

Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it.

On Sat, 8 Jan 2011 18:34:08 +0000 (UTC), Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Allodoxaphobia wrote:

Who are these "they"?

Akai, Sony, Toshiba, JVC, NEC, Hitachi, Sharp, Panasonic (National),
Memorex (Radio Shack house brand) are just the TV's and VCR's I've owned.

Then the OP should've been to alt.corp.akai, alt.corp.sony,
alt.corp.toshiba, alt.corp.jvc, alt.corp.nec, alt.corp.hitachi,
alt.corp.sharp, alt.corp.panasonic , etc.

Not to sci.electronics. *repair*

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 14:21:01 +1100, Phil Allison wrote:

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson"


NTSC stands for National Television Standrds Comittee, PAL for Phase
Alternating
Line, and SECAM is a French acronym for what could be loosely
translated as
system of transmitting color TV.


** Everyone knows that NTSC stands for:

" Never Twice the Same Color"

and SECAM =

" Something Essentially Contrary to the American Method "



.... Phil

And PHIL = PLEASE HELP I'M LOST!!

....heh



--
Live Fast, Die Young and Leave a Pretty Corpse

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

1) NTSC I and Q color difference, PAL R-Y, B-Y
2) Different primaries, especially green. PAL had a smaller
color
gamut.
3) Different color bandwidth for different colors. NTSC had 1.3
MHz for I and 0.5 MHz for Q. PAL was equal for R-Y and B-Y.
4) Excellent interleaving of chroma-luminance frequency
components which was largely destroyed by the phase alteration.

That isn't immediately clear to me. How badly would pahse
alteration affect
the frequency components of the subcarrier?

You left out 3.5. The I and Q primaries' color and bandwidth are
based on
how the eye actually perceives color. NTSC not only transmits
more color
information, but uses the available bandwidth more effectively.


As a note, much of the advantage of points 2), 3) and 4) was
lost
on early sets which just used 0.5 MHz bandwidth for decoding
both
chroma components and bandwidth limiting the luminance signal
to
minimize chroma-luma crosstalk.

Actually, most early sets (at least RCA) had full-bandwidth
color. RCA
continued to offer such sets for two or three years. I suspect
many current
sets using digital processing are full-bandwidth, but there's no
easy way to
know which is which.


When integrated circuits became available, dual bandwidth
chroma
decoders started appearing...

Not that I'm aware of. Such sets require a second delay line,
which runs up
the cost.


as well as comb filters to separate the luminance and chroma
signals.

Correct.


More accurate phosphors were also gradually used in
sets. The result was a major improvement in picture quality
with
the original 1953 broadcast standards. No such receiver
improvement was possible with the PAL system.

Oh? Why?

1) They were stuck with the smaller color gamut because of the
color primary choices used in the encoding.
2) They could not use wide bandwidth decoders because the chroma
encoding was equal bandwidth.
3) Comb filtering in PAL is not nearly as effective since the
chroma components are 'smeared' out rather than tightly
interleaved between the main luminance components. The phase
alteration and the 25 Hz offset of the chroma carrier in PAL
(look up Hannover bars) kills the effective use of comb filters.

Your point 3.5 is well taken. Regarding the second delay line,
the extra delay needed in the I channel was just a simple lumped
component all pass filter that could be fabricated at very low
cost. I also remember the time when early VCRs actually included
the NTSC pre-distortion phase compensator that was part of the
broadcast standard to compensate for the nonlinear delay of the
IF stages in the receivers. The theory was that you pay only once
in the broadcast encoder rather than in every TV set. I actually
bought a few of these on the replacement part market to use in
other video projects for about $1.00 each. It was a passive
module with three leads containing a few inductors and
capacitors. I installed one in a RF modulator I had and they sure
eliminated the chroma smear and sharpened up the luminance. It is
interesting that even with SAW IF filters which could have been
made with uniform group delay, they are fabricated to reproduce
the delay characteristics of the older tuned inductor-transformer
IF amplifiers.

David

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 08:16:59 -0500, mm
wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jan 2011 04:58:32 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Did they make digital TVs compatible from
the US to Europe to Asia to Australia, etc?

The following gives an indirect answer...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital...ial_television

...which appears to be "no". There is no law of nature that prohibits a
multi-voltage, multi-standard receiver, but there is a law of economics --
there's little or no demand for one, as it would be useful only to people
who travelled a lot.

The reason I care is the opposite of that. There are only two
DVDR-with-harddrives for sale in the US, and one is cheaper than the
one I have, which itself is inferior in design. The other may be
better or not. However there are other models for sale in Australia,
and probably other parts of the world. I want to buy one from
Australia and use it here.

As for a single-inventory non-portable "universal" receiver... It would cost
more than a set that received only the local standard, so, again, you have
economics working against a multi-standard receiver.

What i had in mind wasn't** a multi-standard receiver but their
adopting one standard for the whole world, something they didnt' do
with B&W or color tv, for understandable reasons.

From reading the first few replies I guess the reason there is no
single standard now is so that the digital tv would play on analog
televisions, that making a set-top box or digital to analogue
converter which would also change frame rate was considered hard.

**OTOH, I am a broken DVD player that plays both NTSC and PAL dvds and
the girl who gave it to me said it cost 40 dollars. It even has a
button on the remote to change from NTSC to PAL and back. So the part
that handled the second format couldn't have been more than 5 dollars,
maybe 10, right? Maybe much less. Doesn't that mean it would cost
no more to include that in tvs?

(Strangely it does refer to needing matching regions, but gives no
indication on the box, on the player, or in the manual, what region it
is. My friend said it played the US and Europe and Japan, regions 1
and 2.

How odd to come across you in a group other than SCJM!

3) Comb filtering in PAL is not nearly as effective since the
chroma components are 'smeared' out rather than tightly
interleaved between the main luminance components. The phase
alteration and the 25 Hz offset of the chroma carrier in PAL
(look up Hanover bars) kills the effective use of comb filters.

Never heard of Hanover bars. (Though I've lived in PA, I've never been in
any, either.) I didn't realize PAL had this basic problem.


Your point 3.5 is well taken. Regarding the second delay line,
the extra delay needed in the I channel was just a simple lumped
component all pass filter that could be fabricated at very low
cost. I also remember the time when early VCRs actually included
the NTSC pre-distortion phase compensator that was part of the
broadcast standard to compensate for the nonlinear delay of the
IF stages in the receivers. The theory was that you pay only once
in the broadcast encoder rather than in every TV set.

Which is one of the problems with SECAM. Transmitting only one color signal
per line simplifies encoding and recording (at the studio) at the expense of
a more-expensive receiver.


I actually
bought a few of these on the replacement part market to use in
other video projects for about $1.00 each. It was a passive
module with three leads containing a few inductors and
capacitors. I installed one in a RF modulator I had and they sure
eliminated the chroma smear and sharpened up the luminance. It is
interesting that even with SAW IF filters which could have been
made with uniform group delay, they are fabricated to reproduce
the delay characteristics of the older tuned inductor-transformer
IF amplifiers.

This, also, is new to me. I'd always assumed there was no correction in one
part of the system for errors in another.

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 01:45:08 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"William Sommer****** is a ****

** Everyone knows that NTSC stands for:

"Never Twice the Same Color"

Though that might be the common opinion, it is, of course,
untrue. There is nothing inherently unstable or inaccurate
about NTSC.

** You have got to be the most ignorant ****** on the planet.

When was the last time you adjusted the Hue control on an NTSC receiver?


** Go **** yourself - asshole.

NTSC inherently suffers from sensitivity to phase shift in the sub carrier
during transmission and reception that cause colour changes on the screen -
particularly so when changing channel.

PAL does not.

Hence the famous acronym as quoted by me.

Go **** yourself.

G'day mate,

Take it somewhere else, eh?

Thanks, cocksucker.

"William Sommer****** is a Lying **** "

** Everyone knows that NTSC stands for:
"Never Twice the Same Color"

Though that might be the common opinion, it is, of course,
untrue. There is nothing inherently unstable or inaccurate
about NTSC.

** You have got to be the most ignorant ****** on the planet.

When was the last time you adjusted the Hue control on an NTSC receiver?

** Go **** yourself - asshole.


NTSC inherently suffers from sensitivity to phase shift in the sub-
carrier during transmission and reception that cause color changes
on the screen -- particularly so when changing channels.
PAL does not.
Hence the famous acronym as quoted by me.
Go **** yourself.


Wouldn't it be nice if you actually knew what were talking about?

** Go **** yourself - you stinking, autistic asshole.



PAL was adopted in Europe because European distribution systems suffered
from relatively high levels of non-linear phase. The American distribution
system did not, so abandoning phase alternation was not a major loss.


** Absolute pack of lies.

NTSC inherently suffers from sensitivity to phase shift in the sub-
carrier during transmission and reception that cause color changes
on the screen - particularly so when changing channels.


The wildly inaccurate reverse acronym was based on sloppy engineering in
the
studio -- nothing inherent in NTSC.


** Significant phase shifts occur during propagation and in domestic antenna
systems.

Go **** yourself - you stinking, autistic asshole.



...... Phil

"mm"

The reason I care is the opposite of that. There are only two
DVDR-with-harddrives for sale in the US, and one is cheaper than the
one I have, which itself is inferior in design. The other may be
better or not. However there are other models for sale in Australia,
and probably other parts of the world. I want to buy one from
Australia and use it here.


** In case you are still unaware - the DTV coding system used in the USA is
quite different from that used in Europe and most places including
Australia.

Look it up on Wiki - you trolling, ****ing PITA idiot.


..... Phil

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in
:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
SECAM was actually adopted because the French were idiots. They
wanted a system that was relatively easy to record on videotape.
Unfortunately, it made the receiver more-complex and expensive. A
classic example of lousy engineering.


The over the air signals were also spaced differently than PAL and
instead of FM audio like everyone else in the world, they used AM. So
even if you could maniptulate your TV tuner into picking up the video
signal, and did not mind watching it in black and white, there was no
sound.

The rest of the world that did adopt SECAM used the PAL over the air
channel spacing and audio carriers, so that a PAL VCR could
record/play the signals with very little modification if any at all
and a PAL TV could play them in black and white, with audio.

The system was called MESECAM (Middle East Secam because many arab
countries adopted it). I think the Warsaw Pact countries, Soviet Union
and China (PRC) also did, but the Soviet VCRs ran at a different speed
than the regular ones.

There was also NTSC 4.43, which was a 60Hz NTSC signal with the color
subcarrier at 4.43 mHz. It was developed as a cheap way of adding NTSC
capability to multisystem VCRs and TV sets, but was never broadcast
over the air.

That's why I said that the OP must of either spent the last 30 years
under a rock or in the US. In the US no one cared, everything was NTSC
or converted to it for sale, while elsewhere in the world, everyone
was trying to get multisystem TV sets and VCRs.

You could buy them the US too, but only in stores that catered to
foreigners, visitors and sailors on leave.

Geoff.


when I was at TEK,I used to have a chart with all the worlds TV systems,and
their differences.
I tossed all that stuff when I was laid off,didn't have room for all the
stuff I'd have kept if I could. I repaired and calibrated TEK NTSC and PAL
video test equipment.I did a little bit of digital video,and -one- SECAM
unit,so I won't claim any expertise with SECAM.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in
:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
As stupid as always. VITS took care of that over 30 years ago.

The real problem was not that the NTSC system did not have the
autocorrection that was in the original design and used in the PAL
system. The real problem was that there was a knob on the TV set that
could make everything change color.

Even with the early 1960's transmission errors, and differences
between the actual colors of various sources, if the color control was
set and left at 'about right", it always would have been a watchable
picture.

The problem was that almost no one had any clue of how to adjust it
properly, and most were set and left in a very wrong postion, while
others were being constantly misadjusted.

All of the TV magazines, science mags, etc had articles on how to
properly adjust your TV set, and I'm sure that for everyone who read
and followed them, there were 10 times the people who didn't.

Which really didn't matter,as the program sources varied widely in color
accuracy.

It was really bad in area where there were many TVs, such as a
department store. For some strange reason, the cheap TV's were never
adjusted properly and the expensive ones always were. :-)

Geoff.


*VIRS* was the VITS signal meant for autocorrection,but it wasn't used much
IIRC.

VIRS = vertical interval reference signal
VITS = vertical interval test signals.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

The real problem was not that the NTSC system did not have
the autocorrection that was in the original design and used in
the PAL system. The real problem was that there was a knob
on the TV set that could make everything change color.

Actually, the real problem was that the networks didn't give a damn
about getting the color right.

They got their video from a number of different sources,who also didn't put
much effort into correct color.

This changed (I think) sometime in the late 70s. I've owned a number
of color TVs since then (want me to list them?), and don't remember
even once having touched the Hue control (incorrectly called the Tint
control on most sets).

Likely the addition of VIRS circuitry.

It's significant, though, that if the average [censored] is given free
hand to adjust the Hue control, flesh tones almost always wind up on
the green side.




--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"mm" wrote
(I bought it by mistake, didn't notice the PAL, can't play it on my
DVD player**, but can on the computer. **The DVD player in the other
thread is broken.)
--
I bought a PAL DVD set from Australia (I'm in Canada),
and took a chance since many NTSC players are able to
play back PAL.
My LiteOn, Toshiba, and Apex DVD players are all able to
play it back, while my Samsung and Pioneer give 'error'
messages. You may find that some cheap import players
almost always play PAL *and* NTSC DVDs.

On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 08:10:43 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

I doubt that any American member of this group has adjusted the Hue control
on their NTSC set for at least 30 years.

True. US receivers use the VIR (Vertical Interval Reference) on line
20 for chroma phase correction to automagically correct both static
and differential phase errors. I think this started in about 1980.

In a past life, when I was doing video, it meant "Now That Seems
Crazy", "Nobody Thinks Such Crap", or "Nail Through Some Coax".

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Jan 9, 6:45*am, "Phil Allison" wrote:
"William Sommer****** is a ****



** Everyone knows that NTSC stands for:

"Never Twice the Same Color"

Though that might be the common opinion, it is, of course,
untrue. There is nothing inherently unstable or inaccurate
about NTSC.

** You have got to be the most ignorant ****** on the planet.

When was the last time you adjusted the Hue control on an NTSC receiver?

** Go **** yourself *- *asshole.

NTSC inherently suffers from sensitivity to phase shift in the sub carrier
during transmission and reception that cause colour changes on the screen -
particularly so when changing channel.

PAL does not.

Hence the famous acronym as quoted by me.

Go **** yourself.

.... *Phil

Yes it does which is why VITS was developed in the '70s like Terrell
pointed out. Hue issues in the US were non-existent for the last 30+
years. Then we turned the whole analog mess off after running digital
for 10+ years

G²

On Jan 9, 8:18*am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
1) NTSC I and Q color difference, PAL R-Y, B-Y
2) Different primaries, especially green. PAL had a smaller color
gamut.
3) Different color bandwidth for different colors. NTSC had 1.3
MHz for I and 0.5 MHz for Q. PAL was equal for R-Y and B-Y.
4) Excellent interleaving of chroma-luminance frequency
components which was largely destroyed by the phase alteration.

That isn't immediately clear to me. How badly would pahse alteration affect
the frequency components of the subcarrier?

You left out 3.5. The I and Q primaries' color and bandwidth are based on
how the eye actually perceives color. NTSC not only transmits more color
information, but uses the available bandwidth more effectively.

As a note, much of the advantage of points 2), 3) and 4) was lost
on early sets which just used 0.5 MHz bandwidth for decoding both
chroma components and bandwidth limiting the luminance signal to
minimize chroma-luma crosstalk.

Actually, most early sets (at least RCA) had full-bandwidth color. RCA
continued to offer such sets for two or three years. I suspect many current
sets using digital processing are full-bandwidth, but there's no easy way to
know which is which.

When integrated circuits became available, dual bandwidth chroma
decoders started appearing...

Not that I'm aware of. Such sets require a second delay line, which runs up
the cost.

as well as comb filters to separate the luminance and chroma
signals.

Correct.

More accurate phosphors were also gradually used in
sets. The result was a major improvement in picture quality with
the original 1953 broadcast standards. No such receiver
improvement was possible with the PAL system.

Oh? Why?

WHO CARES? Analog is thankfully gone.

G²

On Jan 9, 1:39*pm, Jim Yanik wrote:
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote :





Michael A. Terrell wrote:
* As stupid as always. VITS took care of that over 30 years ago. *

The real problem was not that the NTSC system did not have the
autocorrection that was in the original design and used in the PAL
system. The real problem was that there was a knob on the TV set that
could make everything change color.

Even with the early 1960's transmission errors, and differences
between the actual colors of various sources, if the color control was
set and left at 'about right", it always would have been a watchable
picture.

The problem was that almost no one had any clue of how to adjust it
properly, and most were set and left in a very wrong postion, while
others were being constantly misadjusted.

All of the TV magazines, science mags, etc had articles on how to
properly adjust your TV set, and I'm sure that for everyone who read
and followed them, there were 10 times the people who didn't.

Which really didn't matter,as the program sources varied widely in color
accuracy.



It was really bad in area where there were many TVs, such as a
department store. For some strange reason, the cheap TV's were never
adjusted properly and the expensive ones always were. :-)

Geoff.

*VIRS* was the VITS signal meant for autocorrection,but it wasn't used much
IIRC.

VIRS = vertical interval reference signal
VITS = vertical interval test signals.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Thanks for that. In knew I was using the wrong term but I haven't
worked in a broadcast station since '85. The CBS affiliate in Madison
WI had the Tektronix VIRS corrector for the incoming network feed. One
of the engineers modified it to compensate for blacks below setup. The
only FCC citation the station got in 30 years was from the black level
on the CBS show 'The Price Is Right' when they spin the wheel.

G²

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 08:25:51 +1100, "Phil Allison"
wrote:


"mm"

The reason I care is the opposite of that. There are only two
DVDR-with-harddrives for sale in the US, and one is cheaper than the
one I have, which itself is inferior in design. The other may be
better or not. However there are other models for sale in Australia,
and probably other parts of the world. I want to buy one from
Australia and use it here.


** In case you are still unaware - the DTV coding system used in the USA is
quite different from that used in Europe and most places including
Australia.

Do I trust the word of a jackass?

Look it up on Wiki - you trolling, ****ing PITA idiot.

Do I take advice from jackasses?

Kerplunk.


.... Phil

Zrupfter wrote:
I bought a PAL DVD set from Australia (I'm in Canada),
and took a chance since many NTSC players are able to
play back PAL.
My LiteOn, Toshiba, and Apex DVD players are all able to
play it back, while my Samsung and Pioneer give 'error'
messages. You may find that some cheap import players
almost always play PAL *and* NTSC DVDs.

What error message. I'll bet it was "incorrect disk", or something related
to region code, not because it was PAL.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it.

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
As stupid as always. VITS took care of that over 30 years ago.

The real problem was not that the NTSC system did not have the autocorrection
that was in the original design and used in the PAL system. The real problem
was that there was a knob on the TV set that could make everything change
color.


The problem was that there were too many places in the system to
adjust the phase, and no way to match the phase of multiple sources
outside a single studio. The coaxial & microwave relays used by TV
networks needed amplifiers and correction circuits at regular
intervals. Every location required the careful adjustment of all
parameters so a usable signal was availible at the other end. I freind
of mine worked ATT longlines back then and told me what a PITA it was to
keep the system working properly. Not only was there a master E_W feed,
but most of it could be rerouted around an outage, even if the phasing
didn't match. that was the reason that ATT was able to quickly piece
together a nationwide feed to all network TV stations, no matter which
network on the day JFK was killed.


Even with the early 1960's transmission errors, and differences between
the actual colors of various sources, if the color control was set and
left at 'about right", it always would have been a watchable picture.

The problem was that almost no one had any clue of how to adjust it properly,
and most were set and left in a very wrong postion, while others were
being constantly misadjusted.

All of the TV magazines, science mags, etc had articles on how to properly
adjust your TV set, and I'm sure that for everyone who read and followed
them, there were 10 times the people who didn't.

It was really bad in area where there were many TVs, such as a department store.
For some strange reason, the cheap TV's were never adjusted properly and the
expensive ones always were. :-)


one of the problems with the cheap Tvs were that people would play
with the settings. Some people liked everyone to look like they were
wearing clown makeup. Or as one idiot put it when i told him not to
toch one of our TVs, "If I'm buying a color TV, I want all the color I
can get!"


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

William Sommerwerck wrote:

** Everyone knows that NTSC stands for:
"Never Twice the Same Color"

Though that might be the common opinion, it is, of course,
untrue. There is nothing inherently unstable or inaccurate
about NTSC.

** You have got to be the most ignorant ****** on the planet.

When was the last time you adjusted the Hue control on an NTSC receiver?
That's not a rhetorical question.


William, Phil is a mentally ill Aussie who rarely takes his
medicine. Just ignore him.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

Meat Plow wrote:

On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 14:21:01 +1100, Phil Allison wrote:

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson"


NTSC stands for National Television Standrds Comittee, PAL for Phase
Alternating
Line, and SECAM is a French acronym for what could be loosely
translated as
system of transmitting color TV.


** Everyone knows that NTSC stands for:

" Never Twice the Same Color"

and SECAM =

" Something Essentially Contrary to the American Method "



.... Phil

And PHIL = PLEASE HELP I'M LOST!!


Pathetic Halfwit Infecting Lambs.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Those rates were chosen because the studio lights were arc lights and
flashed on and off at the power line rate, so the TV cameras had to be
syncronized to them or you would get moving black stripes across the
screen.

Don't arc lights work on DC?

But I don't think that's correct. For it to work, TV would have to be
mains locked. It was in the very early days, but later was pulse generator
locked with no direct reference to mains other than being nominally the
same frequency. Mains lock was really just to make receiver design simpler.

The only type of light I've seen which gives problems flicker wise on a TV
camera is fluorescent. Before high frequency ballasts became available,
the work round was to use them in groups of three - from different phases.


Early TVs often had a faint hum bar in the vertical. By being locked
to the line frequency, it was fixed to one location, and most people
never saw it.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

In article ,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Think you're well into hindsight. When the UK PAL system was finalised
(1960?), computers were some esoteric device in a lab. But in any case
a major priority of any colour TV system then was that it can be
easily receivable on a monochrome only set - and not make that set
more expensive to produce.

That's almost irrelevant. When the UK went to digital TV broadcasts (was
that around 2000 with Sky's digital terrestrial service?)

No. Sky doesn't broadcast terrestrial signals in the UK. Satellite and
cable only.

Terrestrial digital started in '98 with a consortium including the BBC and
ITV.

there was no no need to continue to support PAL. After all much of their
material was NTSC anyway.

So you think they should have gone to NTSC? Why would the Uk replace a
better newer system with an older inferior one?

Digital was in addition to the UHF PAL service - with it carrying all the
same channels and more.

They were encoding the signals in one place,
so there was no restriction on what equipment was used except cost, and
on the set end they could of used anything they wanted.

I expect they chose PAL because it was the existing standard, and they
could buy subassemblies cheaply.

PAL has nothing to do with any digital transmission. Some of the
originating sources may still have been PAL at some point though.
STBs had a PAL output for use with sets with no line input.

However ATSC was compeltely different. It was supposed to be a new
standard, not a re-hashing of an old one. There was no need to keep NTSC
compability as long as it could be created in set top boxes.

That applies to any STB. What goes in is irrelevant provided it will
interface with the domestic TV.

Note that there were and still are two other incompatble digital TV
standards in use in the US. The cable companies use one of their own,
and the DBS companies use a different one. Since there are two
competing DBS companies, each using their own incompatible encryption,
you could say there are four incompatible ones.

So the US is in a bit of a mess? ;-)


Why? Dish or Direct supply all the equipment and install it, just
like the various CATV companies.


They all use some sort of MPEG TS transmission, but the streams can not
be read with the other company's devices.

That's business politics for you.


So, you think someone should be able to us one company's equipment to
steal service from another?


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

David wrote:

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...

A DC synchronization aka "sync" pluse was included to
keep everything together so if signal got scrambled, the TV
would bring it back together quickly.

Actually, the sync pulses keep the horizontal and vertical
scanning in the
receiver at the same frequency and phase as the transmitted
signal.

Those rates were chosen because the studio lights were arc
lights and flashed on and off at the power line rate, so the TV
cameras had to be syncronized to them or you would get moving
black stripes across the screen.

This might have been a consideration, but the principal concern
was "hum
bars" in the receiver. Modern power supplies are sufficiently
well-filtered
that this isn't a concern.

The RCA system for compatible color TV (compatible with black
and white), used 1/4 of the color information based on the fact
that your eye only sees about that much.

Actually, it's more like 1/3.

The color information was encoded on a phase modulated 3.57MHz
subcarrier, which at the time was beyond the picture
information, but
still within the transmitted signal.

Actually, it was within the picture (luminance) information. NTSC
has always
had a potential video bandwidth of 4.2 MHz.

The original RCA system, alternated the phase of the carrier
every line,
so that it would fix itself if there was a transmssion or
syncrhonization
problem. To save money, the National Television Standards
Commitee
(NTSC) which chose the standard, dropped the alternating phase.

Actually, it was dropped because it didn't seem possible at the
time to
design a reasonably priced receiver that would take full
advantage of this
feature (in particular, the elimnation of the Hue control). Also,
the US
distribution system didn't have problems with non-linear phase,
so PAL had
little practical advantage.

Also, the original proposal used red and blue color-difference
signals,
rather than the more-efficient I and Q. The original NTSC
proposal was
virtually identical to PAL. (If you don't believe this, I have a
copy of
"Electronics" magazine that confirms it.)

The French used a different color encoding system called SECAM,
which was also based on the RCA system (1/4 color, 4.43mHz
color
carrier) but designed to be totally incompatible so that you
could not
watch French TV in England and vice versa.

SECAM stands for "sequential avec memoire".

SECAM was actually adopted because the French were idiots. They
wanted a
system that was relatively easy to record on videotape.
Unfortunately, it
made the receiver more-complex and expensive. A classic example
of lousy
engineering.

Actually there are more differences between PAL and NTSC color
encoding than the alternation of the phase:

1) NTSC I and Q color difference, PAL R-Y, B-Y
2) Different primaries, especially green. PAL had a smaller color
gamut.
3) Different color bandwidth for different colors. NTSC had 1.3
MHz for I and 0.5 MHz for Q. PAL was equal for R-Y and B-Y.
4) Excellent interleaving of chroma-luminance frequency
components which was largely destroyed by the phase alteration.

As a note, much of the advantage of points 2), 3) and 4) was lost
on early sets which just used 0.5 MHz bandwidth for decoding both
chroma components and bandwidth limiting the luminance signal to
minimize chroma-luma crosstalk. Also most sets did not use the
NTSC primary phosphors so a lot of the advantages of NTSC were
lost for a few decades. When integrated circuits became
available, dual bandwidth chroma decoders started appearing as
well as comb filters to separate the luminance and chroma
signals. More accurate phosphors were also gradually used in
sets. The result was a major improvement in picture quality with
the original 1953 broadcast standards. No such receiver
improvement was possible with the PAL system. Regarding VITS,
that was introduced, but very few sets used it.


Really? Entire chipsets were made to use it and they reduced the
cosst to build new TVs. Just because it wasn't etched on the CRT's
face doesn't mean it wasn't used.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote:

mm wrote:
But thoss were in the analog signals. When they went to digital, why
didn't they stop using PAL or stop using NTSC? That is my point.

Because they could. :-)

Seriuosly the digital standards were developed with keeping the old systems
in play, even if they were no longer needed.

What tied them to both PAL and ntsc at the same time?

Regional pride?

Or was it because they wanted current analog tvs to be able to receive
digital signals that went through a set-top digital to analog
converter, and some tvs wanted 50 cycle and others 60 cycle, so if the
air-borne signal was the same, it couldnt' be converted to one of 50
or 60?


It really did not matter. Maybe in 1983 when digtially encrypted HBO satellite
receviers were designed, but in 2005 when the US conversion started, it was
simple enough to use anything they wanted and produce NTSC or PAL or computer
RGB output or all three on a set top box.


There were no 'digtially encrypted HBO satellite receviers' in 1983.
An external 'Video Chiper II' was used with recievers on a small list
that were tested to work with the 'Video Chiper II'. Most commercial
grade C-bnad receivers had a low pass filter in the video amplifier that
prevented them from working. The interesting thing was that the cheaper
equiment that was barely better than consumer grade made up most of that
list. United Video Cablevision in Cincinatti, Ohio was one of the
systems picked to do field testing before the system went live. I
modified all our Collins-Rockwell receivers to work with the 'Video
Chiper II' test units. They freaked out when I sent them the test data
and told them what hardware I was using. BTW, the test unit serial
number was 16.

It wasn't until combo consumer grade recievers wer built that the
'Video Chiper II' was changed into a plug in module so it could be
replaced or upgraded as the securtiy software changed.

Also, note that the original 'Video Chiper' was full digial
scrambling built for the military, while the 'Video Chiper II' digitized
the audio and inverted the sync on the video. VC units cost over a
million dollars each. HBO wanted a way to turn off the feed to CATV
systems who were late, or didn't even try to pay thier bills. A well
known MSO in the early '80s was over six months behind on everything
except their payroll and utility bills. HBO wanted to make them catch
up, and stay that way.


The actual encoding is not PAL or NTSC anyway. H.264 which is the current
standard for high end compression does not have a fixed frame rate. I mentioned
that in a previous posting.

With a fast enough decoder chip you can take any resoltuion and frame rate
and put out anything else. My Western Digitial TV Live unit will take
almost any compressed video file up to 1080P60 (1080x720 60 frames a second)
and put it out on the fly, with audio in sync from 480i60 (standard NTSC),
or 560i50 (standard PAL), in composite, 480P60 or 560P60 in component,
or digital in HDMI with several choices in between.

Why you could not slap an ATSC or DVB-T or the Japanese standard tuner
chip (or all three) on it instead of a USB port or ethernet is more of a
matter of product placement than anything else.

Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it.


--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

wrote:

On Jan 9, 8:18 am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
1) NTSC I and Q color difference, PAL R-Y, B-Y
2) Different primaries, especially green. PAL had a smaller color
gamut.
3) Different color bandwidth for different colors. NTSC had 1.3
MHz for I and 0.5 MHz for Q. PAL was equal for R-Y and B-Y.
4) Excellent interleaving of chroma-luminance frequency
components which was largely destroyed by the phase alteration.

That isn't immediately clear to me. How badly would pahse alteration affect
the frequency components of the subcarrier?

You left out 3.5. The I and Q primaries' color and bandwidth are based on
how the eye actually perceives color. NTSC not only transmits more color
information, but uses the available bandwidth more effectively.

As a note, much of the advantage of points 2), 3) and 4) was lost
on early sets which just used 0.5 MHz bandwidth for decoding both
chroma components and bandwidth limiting the luminance signal to
minimize chroma-luma crosstalk.

Actually, most early sets (at least RCA) had full-bandwidth color. RCA
continued to offer such sets for two or three years. I suspect many current
sets using digital processing are full-bandwidth, but there's no easy way to
know which is which.

When integrated circuits became available, dual bandwidth chroma
decoders started appearing...

Not that I'm aware of. Such sets require a second delay line, which runs up
the cost.

as well as comb filters to separate the luminance and chroma
signals.

Correct.

More accurate phosphors were also gradually used in
sets. The result was a major improvement in picture quality with
the original 1953 broadcast standards. No such receiver
improvement was possible with the PAL system.

Oh? Why?

WHO CARES? Analog is thankfully gone.


And digitial TV is a waste of time.

--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

"Jeff Liebermann is a Jerk Off "


I doubt that any American member of this group has adjusted the Hue
control
on their NTSC set for at least 30 years.

True. US receivers use the VIR (Vertical Interval Reference) on line
20 for chroma phase correction to automagically correct both static
and differential phase errors. I think this started in about 1980.


** So ****ing what ??????????????????

NTSC color started in the USA in the early 1950s.

The famous irreverent NTSC acronym way predates 1980.

You stupid, ****ing ****head.




..... Phil

In article ,
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Early TVs often had a faint hum bar in the vertical. By being locked
to the line frequency, it was fixed to one location, and most people
never saw it.

I'm not sure when the UK came off mains lock - somewhere like the late
'50s. And there must have been older TVs still in use when this happened,
as even some very early single channel ones were converted when ITV
started in the mid '50s. And I can't remember rolling hum bars being
common.

--
*It ain't the size, it's... er... no, it IS ..the size.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
So the US is in a bit of a mess? ;-)


Why? Dish or Direct supply all the equipment and install it, just
like the various CATV companies.


They all use some sort of MPEG TS transmission, but the streams can
not be read with the other company's devices.

That's business politics for you.


So, you think someone should be able to us one company's equipment to
steal service from another?

It's what the OP apparently wants. A universal TV.

--
*Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Michael A. Terrell wrote:
WHO CARES? Analog is thankfully gone.


And digitial TV is a waste of time.

Certainly in the UK the ability to cram in more 'choice' at the expense of
technical quality is very noticeable.

So 'digital' gets the blame rather than those who control it.

--
*Some people are only alive because it is illegal to kill.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
So, you think someone should be able to us one company's equipment to
steal service from another?

Is that a serious question or just a troll?

I never said anything about stealing. There are economies of scale in
service, support and repair realized by using the same equipment with the
same standards.

As for preventing theft or signal piracy, there are standards in place for
external decryption add ons for satellite and cable TV receivers. They
range from a simple memory chip with encryption keys on it, to custom
decryption hardware.

The form factor is a credit card sized smart card, like the one used for
GSM SIMs (subscriber ID modules) in the early phones.

Using standard hardware and transmission methods allows a customer to buy
the exact receiver they want, have it installed in the location and setup
they want and get the support options they want.

The program provider sends them a decryption card which they insert in the
receiver and then watch the programs they pay for. Since the interface
standard is an open one, anyone can build receivers and program providers
are free to choose the encryption method they want without being wedded to
a particular receiver.

These devices exist not only as parts of a receiver, but as an add on for
home theater PCs. I have seen them sold for Windows and Mac computers.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
So, you think someone should be able to us one company's equipment to
steal service from another?

It's what the OP apparently wants. A universal TV.

Why does a universal TV imply theft? He just wants the ability to buy
whatever program material HE wants, and not be subject to the whims of the local
licensee of a studio to determine if they want to sell it or not.

I'll give you an example. If you are a Star Trekfan, watch a movie
called "Galaxy Quest". Even If if you hate Star Trek, you'll love it.
Imagine an episode of Star Trek with Tim Allen, Allen Rickman, Sigourney
Weaver and equivalent quality writing.

Never shown in Israel in the theaters, never imported as a DVD, except in
the stores that imported zone 1 (US) DVDs. Around five years after release
made it to cable TV.

Is wanting to buy a DVD of it theft?

In the early 1980's the woman I was dating loved a movie called "Children
of Paradise". Since considered THE BEST FRENCH FILM, it was ignored in the US
except in "art houses" and rare in them. In order to get her a copy I had to
buy one in PAL in the UK or SECAM in France (it's black and white, not much
difference between them). Then it had to be converted to NTSC. In those days,
it was done by aiming a camera at TV screen. :-(

Don't worry, in case anyone cares a BD rip is now floating around the internet.
:-(

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it.

I doubt that any American member of this group has adjusted
the Hue control on their NTSC set for at least 30 years.

True. US receivers use the VIR (Vertical Interval Reference) on line
20 for chroma phase correction to automagically correct both static
and differential phase errors. I think this started in about 1980.

??? How can the reference signal correct a differential phase error?


** So ****ing what ??????????????????
NTSC color started in the USA in the early 1950s.
The famous irreverent NTSC acronym way predates 1980.
You stupid, ****ing ****head.

The point being that the problems with NTSC had nothing to do with the
design of the system, but the failure of the networks to establish high
standards of image and signal quality. As these were gradually put into
place, the supposed "inherent problems" with NTSC gradually disappeared.
This WAS NOT due to the use of VIR on consumer receivers. VIR was primarily
to catch and correct problems along the signal chain.

The lie that PAL is somehow inherently superior to NTSC refuses to die. NTSC
is the "better" system. Period.

In article ,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
So, you think someone should be able to us one company's equipment
to steal service from another?

It's what the OP apparently wants. A universal TV.

Why does a universal TV imply theft? He just wants the ability to buy
whatever program material HE wants, and not be subject to the whims of
the local licensee of a studio to determine if they want to sell it or
not.

So no different to cable companies or DVDs etc. They also want to control
who can watch their copyright.

--
*Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Jan 9, 10:52*pm, "Phil Allison" wrote:
I doubt that any American member of this group has adjusted the
Hue
control
on their NTSC set for at least 30 years.

True. *US receivers use the VIR (Vertical Interval Reference) on
line
20 for chroma phase correction to automagically correct both
static
and differential phase errors. *I think this started in about
1980.

*** So ****ing what *??????????????????

* NTSC color started in the USA in the early 1950s.

* The famous irreverent NTSC acronym way predates 1980.

Yes and it became a non-issue over 30 years ago


* *You stupid, ****ing ****head.

.... *Phil

For someone as brilliant as you in electronics and audio, when it
comes to American TV, you're one of the most ignorant blowhard
buffoons I've run across.

Happy New Year to you.

G²

On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 19:42:39 -0500, "Zrupfter"
wrote:


"mm" wrote
(I bought it by mistake, didn't notice the PAL, can't play it on my
DVD player**, but can on the computer. **The DVD player in the other
thread is broken.)
--
I bought a PAL DVD set from Australia (I'm in Canada),
and took a chance since many NTSC players are able to
play back PAL.
My LiteOn, Toshiba, and Apex DVD players are all able to
play it back, while my Samsung and Pioneer give 'error'
messages. You may find that some cheap import players
almost always play PAL *and* NTSC DVDs.

I only have one DVD player, a Philips, and it wouldn't play it. But
I've seen it once, via the computer, and once is enough.

I only brought it up because if the PAL DVD is "all regions", then it
seems to me when a DVD is labelled PAL, they aren't (necessarily?)
referring to a region. Unless *ALL* PAL DVD's are region-free?


Someone gave me the other DVD player because it was broken, the one
that does both PAL and NTSC is by Colby, DVD-224, and looking for
info, I see that it's only 40 dollars, sometimes given as premiums,
and often breaks early. I doubt I can fix it, but I'll look inside.