Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Electronics Repair (sci.electronics.repair) Discussion of repairing electronic equipment. Topics include requests for assistance, where to obtain servicing information and parts, techniques for diagnosis and repair, and annecdotes about success, failures and problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
For 60 years, USA tv signals and European ones, etc. were not
compatible. Did they make digital tvs compatible from the US to Europe to Asia to Australia, etc? I think they should have. If not, is it only the 50 versus 60 vertical scan rate that was the problem? I don't think I've read anything about this. |
#2
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
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. 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. |
#3
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
In article ,
mm wrote: For 60 years, USA tv signals and European ones, etc. were not compatible. Did they make digital tvs compatible from the US to Europe to Asia to Australia, etc? I think they should have. If not, is it only the 50 versus 60 vertical scan rate that was the problem? I don't think I've read anything about this. The North and South American standard is NTSC, which transmits 30 frames per second, while PAL, used in Europe, is 25 frames per second. The switch to digital didn't affect that. |
#4
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
In article ,
Smitty Two wrote: The North and South American standard is NTSC, which transmits 30 frames per second, while PAL, used in Europe, is 25 frames per second. The switch to digital didn't affect that. Digital is neither NTSC or PAL. Those are exclusively analogue. It rather annoys that DVDs are labelled as NTSC and PAL when what they're referring to is a region. -- *He who laughs last, thinks slowest. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#5
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
In article , NOPSAMmm2005
@bigfoot.com says... For 60 years, USA tv signals and European ones, etc. were not compatible. Did they make digital tvs compatible from the US to Europe to Asia to Australia, etc? I think they should have. If not, is it only the 50 versus 60 vertical scan rate that was the problem? I don't think I've read anything about this. It wasn't just a 60Hz/50Hz scanrate issue. NTSC is 525 lines (480 of picture), versus 625 lines (576 picture) for PAL. They also use different methods of modulating the color in the signal. SECAM is similar to PAL, but the color was different yet again. It depends a bit on how you will view the signals. The basic HD formats (720p, 1080i) seem to be the same everywhere, so connecting an HD receiver (satellite or cable or similar) or something like BluRay or upconverting DVD would be somewhat universal. Many electronics these days have universal power supplies, and can handle 110-220V@50-60Hz. The hard part is if you want to use an antenna. Frequencies and even the way the digital signal is modulated will vary from country to country, not to mention the differneces in SD format. -- If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying! All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!! http://home.comcast.net/~andyross |
#6
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
The North and South American standard is NTSC,
which transmits 30 frames per second, while PAL, used in Europe, is 25 frames per second. The switch to digital didn't affect that. Digital TV has its own formats and standards. It is NOT a "digitization" of NTSC or PAL. |
#7
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
In article ,
"William Sommerwerck" wrote: The North and South American standard is NTSC, which transmits 30 frames per second, while PAL, used in Europe, is 25 frames per second. The switch to digital didn't affect that. Digital TV has its own formats and standards. It is NOT a "digitization" of NTSC or PAL. Nevertheless, European TV is still 25 fps, and US TV is still 30 fps, is it not? Or am I more confused than normal today? |
#8
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
Digital TV has its own formats and standards. It is NOT
a "digitization" of NTSC or PAL. Nevertheless, European TV is still 25 fps, and US TV is still 30 fps, is it not? Or am I more confused than normal today? The latter, probably. Check with the Wikipedia article to get an idea of what the actual formats are. |
#9
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 04:51:12 -0500, mm wrote:
For 60 years, USA tv signals and European ones, etc. were not compatible. Did they make digital tvs compatible from the US to Europe to Asia to Australia, etc? I think they should have. Who are these "they"? |
#10
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
mm wrote:
For 60 years, USA tv signals and European ones, etc. were not compatible. Sort of. Multisystem TV's Were common in the 1980's. There were only 4 systems of video, although there there were lots of ways to transmit them. They were NTSC (60Hz, 3.57mHz color carrier), 50Hz PAL, 60Hz PAL, and 50Hz SECAM. There also was 405 line UK TV (dropped in the early 1980's) and NTSC 4.43 (same signal, color carrier moved to make cheaper playback equipment). I still have a 1985 Sharp TV set that will play both NTSC versions, All PAL versions, and SECAM from anywhere except France. I had a 14 system VCR that would play and record French SECAM and a different TV set to play it on. My kids use a 21 inch 4:3 CRT that is simialr, except that it does not have a French tuner. It added component and S-video instead. Did they make digital tvs compatible from the US to Europe to Asia to Australia, etc? I also have had VCRS that included digital TV standards converters. They were multisystem VCRs with the conversion feature added on top. But digital TV was not needed, analog TV's played the signals fine. It was just a matter of adding the correct hardware. I think they should have. If not, is it only the 50 versus 60 vertical scan rate that was the problem? The color carrier. NTSC used a phase modulated color carrier at 3.5mHz. PAL used a similar carrier at 4.43mHz. To fix a problem noticed in NTSC signals the BBC adopted the practice (which was in the proposed NTSC spec but dropped to save money) of alternating the phase every other line, hence the name PAL (Phase Alternating Line). TV sets which would lock on 50Hz or 60Hz signals as appropriate were not a technical issue and by 1980 almost all made would anyway. SECAM used a different decoding method, but those chips were easily found, and it was common to see TV sets and VCRS that would play/record SECAM signals broadcast using PAL over the air standards. Eastern Europe (Warsaw Pact countries), most Arab countires, China, and the USSR used some form of SECAM encoded signals with PAL frequencies. The French used a different channel spacing, and AM sound, which made their SECAM signals impossible to tune with the correct tuner. It also made Eastern European TVs worthless in France and vice versa. I don't think I've read anything about this. You either must have head your head under a rock, or live in the US and never traveled out of there. Note that I had several multisystem TV sets, VCRS (BETA and VHS), and even a portable combination AM/FM/SW receiver and TV set that looked like a Star Treck tri-corder, all puchased in the 1980's in Philly. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it. |
#11
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
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. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it. |
#12
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in
: mm wrote: For 60 years, USA tv signals and European ones, etc. were not compatible. Sort of. Multisystem TV's Were common in the 1980's. There were only 4 systems of video, although there there were lots of ways to transmit them. They were NTSC (60Hz, 3.57mHz color carrier), 50Hz PAL, 60Hz PAL, and 50Hz SECAM. There also was 405 line UK TV (dropped in the early 1980's) and NTSC 4.43 (same signal, color carrier moved to make cheaper playback equipment). I still have a 1985 Sharp TV set that will play both NTSC versions, All PAL versions, and SECAM from anywhere except France. I had a 14 system VCR that would play and record French SECAM and a different TV set to play it on. My kids use a 21 inch 4:3 CRT that is simialr, except that it does not have a French tuner. It added component and S-video instead. Did they make digital tvs compatible from the US to Europe to Asia to Australia, etc? I also have had VCRS that included digital TV standards converters. They were multisystem VCRs with the conversion feature added on top. But digital TV was not needed, analog TV's played the signals fine. It was just a matter of adding the correct hardware. I think they should have. If not, is it only the 50 versus 60 vertical scan rate that was the problem? The color carrier. NTSC used a phase modulated color carrier at 3.5mHz. PAL used a similar carrier at 4.43mHz. To fix a problem noticed in NTSC signals the BBC adopted the practice (which was in the proposed NTSC spec but dropped to save money) of alternating the phase every other line, hence the name PAL (Phase Alternating Line). TV sets which would lock on 50Hz or 60Hz signals as appropriate were not a technical issue and by 1980 almost all made would anyway. SECAM used a different decoding method, but those chips were easily found, and it was common to see TV sets and VCRS that would play/record SECAM signals broadcast using PAL over the air standards. Eastern Europe (Warsaw Pact countries), most Arab countires, China, and the USSR used some form of SECAM encoded signals with PAL frequencies. The French used a different channel spacing, and AM sound, which made their SECAM signals impossible to tune with the correct tuner. It also made Eastern European TVs worthless in France and vice versa. I don't think I've read anything about this. You either must have head your head under a rock, or live in the US and never traveled out of there. Note that I had several multisystem TV sets, VCRS (BETA and VHS), and even a portable combination AM/FM/SW receiver and TV set that looked like a Star Treck tri-corder, all puchased in the 1980's in Philly. Geoff. AFAIK,the TV systems are STILL incompatible; Europe uses different broadcast modulation schemes and different frequency assignments. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com |
#13
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
In article ,
Jim Yanik wrote: AFAIK,the TV systems are STILL incompatible; Europe uses different broadcast modulation schemes and different frequency assignments. The frequencies which suit small densely populated countries close together might well not suit a large one with large distances between centres of population. -- *Starfishes have no brains * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#14
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
"William Sommerwerck" Digital TV has its own formats and standards. It is NOT a "digitization" of NTSC or PAL. ** False argument. The video signal that is digitised varies in the number of lines and fields per second. PAL is synonymous with 50 fields per second. NTSC is synonymous with 60 fields per second. "NTSC" badged DVDs when played on most DVD players come out as " PAL 60" video - where the number of lines is correct but the field rate is 60 Hz.. The TV set in use must be able to cope with this. ..... Phil |
#15
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
Jim Yanik wrote:
AFAIK,the TV systems are STILL incompatible; Europe uses different broadcast modulation schemes and different frequency assignments. I assume in this case you are talking about digital TV. It all depends upon how you look at it. I don't know about the pre-war 405 line English system, which finally was stopped in the 1980s. However the 525 line US system and and 625 line English/French systems were basicly the same, a "flying spot" of light, zero volts being white and about one volt being black. The scanning speed was the same, the US system had less lines because it scanned 60 times a second, the English/French 50. A DC syncrchronization aka "sync" pluse was included to keep everything together so if signal got scrambled, the TV would bring it back together quickly. 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. 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. 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. 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. When the BBC adopted their 625 line system to replace the 405, they used a modification of the original RCA system with a 50 Hz field rate (25Hz frame rate) which gave them 625 lines. Because there was more modulation, 3.57mHz was still inside the picture, so they moved the color subcarrier up to 4.43 mHz. As an "in your face" they called the system PAL, Phase Alternating Line, to differentiate it from the NTSC choice. 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. 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. Although the frame rates were different, and the color carriers at different frequencies, the information was basicly the same, and pretty much encoded the same way. So it was pretty easy, but expensive to build multisystem TVs. Except for the people in the channel Islands, or on the coasts of England or France, there was no reception of signals anyway, so no one would buy them anyway. As the 1960's progressed and TV spread throught the world, variations of NTSC, PAL and SECAM were adopted either because the standards fit the former colonial powers that ran the countries or they did not fit the country next door. So the UK used PAL, the French SECAM, Germany PAL (but modified so that the tuners would not work with UK signals), East Germany used SECAM (but modified to use the cheaper west German tuners) and so on. So there were many ways of encoding the video, but it all came down to a number between 0 and 1 for brightness and 1/4 color information. In the early 1980's satellite TV became a problem. Multisystem TV sets existed, once you put a signal up, there was no way to stop someone from receiving it if they could see your signal. In the US, the requirment for a Federal license for a satellite dish was dropped, and in many places there never was one. HBO was the leader of the movement to prevent people watching these signals and pushed for a way of encrypting satellite video. What they did was to embrace the original MPEG-1 video standard, which was then encrypted using the US DES (Data Encryption Standard). DES was chosen because it was illegal to export DES chips from the US, which made it illegal to export HBO receivers. The MPEG-1 standard was simply a digital compression based by taking the two relevant bits of information, brightness and color and combining them and using various mathematical compression algorythms. In the end though what went in was very much the same INFORMATION in an analog TV signal because that's what they had coming in and that's what they wanted coming out. The MPEG-1 standard included various other things, such as the ability to have more than one video program, more than one audio channel per program, and several different digial audio compression choices from none to what later became MP3 (shortend form of it's full name). Over the years there have been improvements to the MPEG-1 standard, to become the MPEG-2 (aka MP2) which is used in DVDs. DVD's for those that don't know are MPEG-2 video streams represented in flat files, with some extra indexing information. In some places there was a short flirtation with encoding MPEG-1 signals on CDs (video CDs). Commodore made a version of the Amiga called the PC-TV, using the Philips system and I think there was a competing Sony one. VCDs took off eventually because video tapes and players and later DVDs were taxed over 200% in some countries, but computers with CD drives were not. :-) There are many compression techniques in use, but the ones used for TV transmission still work very much the same way, with the light level and color information being the same as it was in the RCA system. The data transmitted is still almost universally MPEG transmission streams, with different compression and encoding methods. Because some countries still have TV sets that flash at 60 times a second and others at 50, the frame rates of 25 and 30 have been kept, but are really meaningless. There really are three rates in use, 24 (film), 25 (used for film and video) and 30 (video). TV set's just play them and whatever decoder box you use or disk player just converts them to the national standard that is expected of them. What is loosely called MPEG-4 standards have no frame rate per se, a frame changes only when the information on the screen changes. So a live action sporting event may have the full 25 or 30 frames per second, but a photo of two people watching a sunset in silence may only have 10 or 12. As for over the air, there are three currently used systems of digital TV. It's up to the country to decide which standard is used in their country and I'm sure politics matters. The most common is the DVB-T (digital video broadcast terrestrial), which has been in use in the EU for a long time now. It's relatively simple, cheap to produce and unencumbered by expensive patents. The US uses a system called ATSC (American Television Standards Committee), which is different than the DVB-T, although it does basicly the same thing. Compared to the DVB-T system, which is much older, it uses more sophistocated chips, with more expensive patent licenses. DVB-T and ATSC tuners are incompatible. My guess is that was done so that US manufacturers could get a financial incentive for choosing that system, in terms of licensing fees, instead of fighting cheap knock-offs from China. There are companies that manufacture dual DVB-T/ATSC tuner chipsets, they are targetd to laptops but will eventually find their way into pocket TVs for travelers. The third system which I mentioned is Japanese in origin and is incompatble with the other two. I know nothing about it, except that a few south asian countries have chosen it. So if you are still reading, the answer is basicaly that while the INFORMATION has not changed since the early 1950's, the way of encoding, compressing and transmitting it has changed, but that does not make it inaccessable. While you could buy a multisystem analog TV or VCR to cross borders as it were you can still do so digitally. Since the videos transmitted are basicaly the same (MPEG transport streams) world wide, it's just a matter of a tuner chip if you go (signally) from country to country, and if you receive your signals in another method (over the internet, from a recording, etc), then they are pretty much the same. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it. |
#16
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
"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 |
#17
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
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" As stupid as always. VITS took care of that over 30 years ago. That was long before you had your last cohernet thought. -- You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's Teflon coated. |
#18
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
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. 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. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it. |
#19
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" 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. 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. :-) ** Most any TV set has internal adjustments for colour quality as well as the usual external ones. However, each maker has their own ideas of how to set the colour balance ( or colour temp) of a screen - possibly to be technically accurate OR to look " nice " to most viewers. Means that a row of different TVs in a shop all look different. Baffles the brains of nearly all potential customers who insist on the totally specious notion that they can immediately decide which is the best by just comparing them with their eyeballs. A similar nonsense goes on with stereo speakers and other bits of audio gear too. You have go NO hope WHATEVER of convincing anyone that merely looking at a pix on a screen or listening to a pair of speakers is NO WAY to tell how good either is. ..... Phil |
#20
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
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. -- *No husband has ever been shot while doing the dishes * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#21
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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. You sort of danced around it. In the very early days is when the frequency was set. Once set it stayed. That really was the point of my very long explanation. A long time ago someone decided to fix the scan rate and representation of data. The actual information used in all the TV systems was the same, it was just used with incompatable frame rates, encoding systems and transmission systems mostly for politcal reasons. TV sets that could receive, decode and play any and all signals existed. The reason that everyone did not have a universal TV set was because the price was kept lower with single system sets and countries like the UK, which made a substansial income from the TV license did not want you watching tv from France or the Republic of Ireland for free. From a technology point of view, it was obvious that the digitial TV standards MPEG and so on were designed with existing TV sets in mind. If not they would not have been a continuation of the old limited national standards with their horrible color encoding choice (1/4 of the resolution that the monochrome signal had) and instead gone with the more extensible, accurate and easily compressable RGB system used in computer data. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it. |
#22
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
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. |
#23
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
** 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. |
#24
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
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. 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). 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. |
#25
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
** Most any TV set has internal adjustments for colour quality
as well as the usual external ones. However, each maker has their own ideas of how to set the color balance (or color temp) of a screen -- possibly to be technically accurate OR to look " nice " to most viewers. There are specific standards for color temperature and color accuracy. Any "good" set should have a user selectable setting for 6500D. Many sets have have essentially perfect primaries ("perfect" in that they meet the standards). Most sets have slightly "off" tracking, however. Left to my own devices, I tend to set the color temperature rather high -- 9000K or so. This is perhaps because "noon daylight" looks yellow to me. The principal problem is that the out-of-the-box settings almost always have the brightness and contrast jacked way up, so the naive viewer will be impressed. This is roughly equivalent to "the louder speaker sounds better". |
#26
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
"William Sommer****** is a ****head " ** 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. ..... Phil |
#27
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
** 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. |
#28
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
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. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it. |
#29
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
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. |
#30
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 13:21:35 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote: In article , Smitty Two wrote: The North and South American standard is NTSC, which transmits 30 frames per second, while PAL, used in Europe, is 25 frames per second. The switch to digital didn't affect that. Digital is neither NTSC or PAL. Those are exclusively analogue. It rather annoys that DVDs are labelled as NTSC and PAL when what they're referring to is a region. If that is the case, how is it possible I have a DVD that is PAL, but all regions? (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.) |
#31
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
mm wrote:
If that is the case, how is it possible I have a DVD that is PAL, but all regions? There are three possibilities of video encoded on DVDs. NTSC film (24/1001 frames per second), PAL (film and video 25 frames per second) and and NTSC video 30/1001 frames per second. The video encoding is based upon the source material. Region encoding has absolutely nothing to do with the source material, it has to do with encryption method to limit sales in various countries. DVD players sold in the US will automatically play the video on the disk as NTSC unless they use an HDMI output, where they will may just pass it and let the TV set figure out how to play it or convert it anyway. The same with DVD players sold in PAL countries, however most of them have a setup option to either convert everything to PAL, convert it to NTSC, or leave it the way it is for a multisystem TV. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it. |
#32
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
On Sat, 8 Jan 2011 18:19:07 +0000 (UTC), "Geoffrey S. Mendelson"
wrote: mm wrote: For 60 years, USA tv signals and European ones, etc. were not compatible. Sort of. Multisystem TV's Were common in the 1980's. There were only 4 systems of video, although there there were lots of ways to transmit them. They were NTSC (60Hz, 3.57mHz color carrier), 50Hz PAL, 60Hz PAL, and 50Hz SECAM. There also was 405 line UK TV (dropped in the early 1980's) and NTSC 4.43 (same signal, color carrier moved to make cheaper playback equipment). I still have a 1985 Sharp TV set that will play both NTSC versions, All PAL versions, and SECAM from anywhere except France. I had a 14 system VCR that would play and record French SECAM and a different TV set to play it on. My kids use a 21 inch 4:3 CRT that is simialr, except that it does not have a French tuner. It added component and S-video instead. Did they make digital tvs compatible from the US to Europe to Asia to Australia, etc? I also have had VCRS that included digital TV standards converters. They were multisystem VCRs with the conversion feature added on top. But digital TV was not needed, analog TV's played the signals fine. It was just a matter of adding the correct hardware. I think they should have. If not, is it only the 50 versus 60 vertical scan rate that was the problem? The color carrier. NTSC used a phase modulated color carrier at 3.5mHz. PAL used a similar carrier at 4.43mHz. 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. 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? To fix a problem noticed in NTSC signals the BBC adopted the practice (which was in the proposed NTSC spec but dropped to save money) of alternating the phase every other line, hence the name PAL (Phase Alternating Line). TV sets which would lock on 50Hz or 60Hz signals as appropriate were not a technical issue and by 1980 almost all made would anyway. SECAM used a different decoding method, but those chips were easily found, and it was common to see TV sets and VCRS that would play/record SECAM signals broadcast using PAL over the air standards. Eastern Europe (Warsaw Pact countries), most Arab countires, China, and the USSR used some form of SECAM encoded signals with PAL frequencies. The French used a different channel spacing, and AM sound, which made their SECAM signals impossible to tune with the correct tuner. It also made Eastern European TVs worthless in France and vice versa. I don't think I've read anything about this. You either must have head your head under a rock, or live in the US and never traveled out of there. Please see my question higher up. Note that I had several multisystem TV sets, VCRS (BETA and VHS), and even a portable combination AM/FM/SW receiver and TV set that looked like a Star Treck tri-corder, all puchased in the 1980's in Philly. Geoff. |
#33
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
In article ,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: 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. You sort of danced around it. In the very early days is when the frequency was set. Once set it stayed. Sadly not when locked to mains as that frequency drifts. By rather a lot in electronic terms. That really was the point of my very long explanation. A long time ago someone decided to fix the scan rate and representation of data. The actual information used in all the TV systems was the same, it was just used with incompatable frame rates, encoding systems and transmission systems mostly for politcal reasons. TV sets that could receive, decode and play any and all signals existed. I think you're reading in the political bit. Different countries had settled on different mains frequencies rather before such things mattered much. The reason that everyone did not have a universal TV set was because the price was kept lower with single system sets and countries like the UK, which made a substansial income from the TV license did not want you watching tv from France or the Republic of Ireland for free. That is total nonsense. The TV licence is needed in the UK just to operated a TV receiver - regardless of where the progs are transmitted from. And they were single channel sets originally, because only the BBC transmitted TV and only the one channel. Not many in the UK would have been interested in French language broadcasts. ;-) From a technology point of view, it was obvious that the digitial TV standards MPEG and so on were designed with existing TV sets in mind. If not they would not have been a continuation of the old limited national standards with their horrible color encoding choice (1/4 of the resolution that the monochrome signal had) and instead gone with the more extensible, accurate and easily compressable RGB system used in computer data. 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. -- *There are two sides to every divorce: Yours and **** head's* Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#34
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
mm wrote:
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. What exactly do you want? Here in Israel you can buy a DVB-T set top box for 300 NIS ($75 US) with one having been on sale a few weeks ago for 99 NIS. It has a USB port, but no storage, which allows you to plug in a disk drive or USB memory stick, and record off the air. If your program provider uses the EPG (electronic programing guide) material, you can use it to set the device to record the programs. The recordings are raw MPEG TS (transport streams) files. Which you can use a PC to convert to something useful. You have to unplug the drive from the unit and plug it into your PC, there is no PC to device connection. I think the devices are single threaded, you can only watch one program, or record one program, or play one recording at a time. You can also buy a USB tuner stick for 99 NIS that plugs into a PC and lets you use the PC as a TV set or PVR. They all come with included software, which IMHO sucks, you can buy a program off the internet called DVBViewer which is pretty good for 15 euros. Note that you will need around a 2.6 gHz (or the equivilant multi core) PC to properly decode and record 720P or better video. You just need to be careful that the device you are buying supports the compression standard used for the video, besides the transmission standard. Israel's service is very new, so they decided to use H.264 video encoding and AAC (aka MP4a) audio encoding. Not all of the boxes on the market could decode them nor some of the programs for the USB sticks. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it. |
#35
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
In article ,
Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote: 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. 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? 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. -- *Why are they called apartments, when they're all stuck together? * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#36
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
"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 |
#37
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
"mm" 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. What tied them to both PAL and ntsc at the same time? ** The fact that folk ALL have TV sets and VCRs that work with those standards ??? You trolling bloody IDIOT !! ...... Phil |
#38
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
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. 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. |
#39
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
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?) there was no no need to continue to support PAL. After all much of their material was NTSC anyway. 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. 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. 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. They all use some sort of MPEG TS transmission, but the streams can not be read with the other company's devices. Geoff. -- Geoffrey S. Mendelson N3OWJ/4X1GM Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to misquote it. |
#40
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
|
|||
|
|||
TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??
"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. David |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Is BT30 compatible with NMTB 30? | Metalworking | |||
Hobart 27 compatible MIG gun | Metalworking | |||
compatible IC for Holtek HT7713B | Electronics Repair | |||
X10 Compatible Smoke Detectors ? | Home Repair | |||
Linseed Oil & Wax compatible with Dye? | Woodworking |