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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
mm mm is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,824
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,833
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,040
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 72
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,833
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,040
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,833
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 505
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 505
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,103
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,716
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 505
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,716
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 505
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,716
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 505
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,833
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,833
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,833
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,833
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,716
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,833
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 505
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
mm mm is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,824
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
mm mm is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,824
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 505
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
mm mm is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,824
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 505
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43,017
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,716
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,716
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 505
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 505
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to sci.electronics.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is BT30 compatible with NMTB 30? Ignoramus4117 Metalworking 8 September 4th 10 04:04 AM
Hobart 27 compatible MIG gun Ignoramus11212 Metalworking 0 November 18th 08 05:26 PM
compatible IC for Holtek HT7713B Werner Electronics Repair 0 April 22nd 05 11:09 AM
X10 Compatible Smoke Detectors ? Robert11 Home Repair 7 January 17th 05 05:37 AM
Linseed Oil & Wax compatible with Dye? James Woodworking 0 December 14th 04 07:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"