Could have fooled me. I would have guessed that 'amateur, computer based video editing and production' required displays of some sort, and being amateur, that squeezing as much performance out of less expensive equipment and that this thread would be on topic for the Usenet newsgroup rec.video.desktop .
Phil Weldon
Gentlemen, | This discussion was NEVER even remotely on-topic for the | rec.video.desktop newsgroup (which is about television editing) | And it has gone far afield from even the original inappropriate topic.
Well this topic "Was" dead 3 days ago untill you posted to it again..
How is it not relevant to rec.video.desktop.. are there no technical discussions over there about monitors?
- Mike ================================== What I love about usenet... no stupid Moderators..
">
There are but the monitor issue with desktop video as with digital photography is calibration, not bandwidth. The best place to ask such a question would probably be comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video.
-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
It requires mains power also. But that doesn't make it an appropriate place to dicuss house wiring.
No. Not this kind of discussion. Televiaion (NTSC, PAL, etc.) is actually much *lower* bandwidth than most computer monitors.
If rec.video.desktop is only for matters to do with television editing, seems to me a more appropriate name for this group (e.g. rec.video.tv-editing) would have gone a long way towards preventing many an inadvertent off-topic post.
Ken
Agreed. But it does make sense in the context of the rec.video hirearchy. And besides, we are stuck with it for better or worse. The name was decided before any of us got here.
'Richard Crowley' wrote: | No. Not this kind of discussion. Televiaion (NTSC, | PAL, etc.) is actually much *lower* bandwidth than | most computer monitors.
Would you have the rec.video.desktop newsgroup exclude discussion of digital cameras? How about DGI? Keep in mind that with a digital train, NTSC or PAL NEVER exist except for possible display on an analog NTSC or PAL monitor. And the monitors used for the kind of editing discussed in the newsgroup are NEVER NTSC or PAL. And NTSC, PAL, SECAM, and variants are being marginalized with the advent of High Definition TV.
Phil Weldon
| No. Not this kind of discussion. Televiaion (NTSC, | PAL, etc.) is actually much *lower* bandwidth than | most computer monitors. |
Discussion of cameras used for production would more properly go in rec.video.production. Cameras as used for capture/record devices in NLE systems would seem to be appropriate for r.v.d But that would be apparent to anyone who hung around either newsgroup for more than a couple of days. But, in reality the two newsgroups are so similar that discussions frequently slop over into the other newsgroup and many of us read them interchangably.
Do you mean the Direccion General de Inteligencia, the Cuban secret police?
I guess that depends on how you define "NTSC" and "PAL". Most people define it as the dimension of the frame in pixels, and the frame rate (and the interlaced fields). You can be sure that people who try to mix NTSC and PAL very quickly discover that they are quite real, whether in analog or in digital form.
Except for the handful of people on the bleeding edge who have HDV, etc. camcorders, every other camera represented here is either NTSC or PAL. Regardless of whether it is analog or digital. It has been that way since first NTSC (and then PAL) camera and continues to this day, unabated.
NTSC and PAL are not even processed the same in digital form. For example, in DV (the most widely-used digital video codec), NTSC is sampled 4:1:1 (Y,U,V) while PAL is sampled 4:2:0
Actually, people who are motivated to do quality video editing never use computer monitors for qualitative evaluation of TV pictures. You just cannot display a proper television picture on a computer monitor. Mainly because of the very great difference in gamma transfer curve, and also because of differences in colorimetry. A good television monitor likely costs more than your whole computer system (or maybe 2x or 3x more).
If you post that again in ~5 years, you might be right.
| Discussion of cameras used for production would more | properly go in rec.video.production.
Then I take it that in your view input format isn't a proper discussion for rec.video.desktop? | Do you mean the Direccion General de Inteligencia, the | Cuban secret police?
I guess you don't watch movies, right? DGI: Digital Graphics/Imaging
What Communist Bloc?
SECAM is French, though SECAM content is produced in PAL, and only at the transmitter converted to SECAM by a very simple process.
| I guess that depends on how you define "NTSC" and "PAL". | Most people define it as the dimension of the frame in pixels, | and the frame rate (and the interlaced fields). You can be sure | that people who try to mix NTSC and PAL very quickly discover | that they are quite real, whether in analog or in digital form.
NTSC and PAL and SECAM are defined as SMPTE ( ) defines them. All are standards for encoding color video signals. Digital video signal encoding is completely different (MPEG2 for example.) Pixels are not part of NTSC, PAL, or SECAM.
| Except for the handful of people on the bleeding edge who have | HDV, etc. camcorders, every other camera represented here is | either NTSC or PAL. Regardless of whether it is analog or digital. | It has been that way since first NTSC (and then PAL) camera | and continues to this day, unabated.
Well, there you go again, posting about video cameras! And you are wrong about digital video recording; the encoding is neither NTSC, PAL nor SECAM.
| NTSC and PAL are not even processed the same in digital | form. For example, in DV (the most widely-used digital video | codec), NTSC is sampled 4:1:1 (Y,U,V) while PAL is | sampled 4:2:0
What makes you think that the signal from the sensors of a digital camcorder is encoded in NTSC or PAL before recording? If you have a COMPOSITE, analog signal output it may be NTSC or PAL, but not if the output is a digital signal.
| Actually, people who are motivated to do quality video editing | never use computer monitors for qualitative evaluation of TV | pictures. You just cannot display a proper television picture on | a computer monitor. Mainly because of the very great difference | in gamma transfer curve, and also because of differences in | colorimetry. A good television monitor likely costs more than | your whole computer system (or maybe 2x or 3x more).
People who are motivated to do quality video editing use digital signals, and produce a digital recording. Which brings up the question, what do you mean by a good televison monitor? Certainly in editing on a non-linear system a NTSC or PAL analog monitor is not appropriate. Of course you can display a proper television picture on a computer monitor. You are completely wrong about the 'gamma transfer curve' as the display adapter in a computer can set whatever gamma curves are desired (good computer monitors come with color rendition files.)
The real use of a 'good' television monitor is to determine quickly the time stability of the content, blanking, and framing. More elaborate, quantitative instruments are required to do any real evaluation (waveform monitor and vectorscope for analog NTSC/PAL, more elaborate instrumentation for digital signals - see .)
| If you post that again in ~5 years, you might be right.
You are refering to my statement: "And NTSC, PAL, SECAM, and variants are being marginalized with the advent of High Definition TV." My statement is correct - 'are being marginalized' means 'are in the process of marginalization.' One example is the imminent demise of analog TV broadcast in the USA.
***Finally, I don't know if your assertions are typical of rec.video.desktop, but if they are, I'd say a little cross-fertilization is a Good Thing. alt.com.hardware.overclocking, for one, includes some broadly knowledgeable contributors.
Phil Weldon
Heck no. Before 1959 there was a lot of American interest in Cuba. So NTSC was introduced before El Presidente took control with his July 26th Movement.
Quite real, and quite incompatible :-(
Market protection?
I think that is only half the truth. Printers have very high-quality computer-monitors to check their work on. And those are very expensive as well.
That's what they are saying already since ages. Seeing is believing :-)
cheers
-martin-
-- Never be afraid to try something new. Remember that a lone amateur built the Ark. A large group of professionals built the Titanic. Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
ITU-R BT.470 would be more authoritative at least for PAL and SECAM than anything SMPTE says.
But let me help: what Richard means is that, in common everyday speech people tend to call 625-line / 50 Hz formats (and their digital equivalents, such as 720×576) "PAL" and 525-line / 59.94 Hz formats (and their digital equivalents, such as 720×480) "NTSC" - regardless of whether the colors are actually encoded as PAL or NTSC.
That's inaccurate, sloppy usage, of course (and there are some PAL-N/PAL-M countries where this implied "PAL = 625/50/576, NTSC =
525/59.94/480" relationship doesn't even hold true), but those are still the name tags that people most commonly attach to these formats. Why? Because "PAL" and "NTSC" are usually more convenient and more compact for this kind of use than the other available alternatives. The message usually gets through by using "PAL" or "NTSC" even though the terminology is a bit off. You may not like it and I don't like it either, but it's impossible to get people stop using these terms sloppily. (Hardware manufacturers and software houses use them in a sloppy way, too.)He doesn't think that. He just uses the acronyms "PAL" and "NTSC" as name tags for 625/50 and 525/59.94 Hz formats, as described above.
Yes, but up until the last couple of years they have monitored the results on a professional-grade, color-calibrated, 15 kHz analog CRT-based video monitor - such as one of these:
Professional production has moved or is in the process of moving to HD, and people are buying flat panels instead of CRT-based sets - but we were not discussing HD here.
As long as the majority of tv sets are still SD and CRT-based, and as long as we're still shooting and processing standard-definition interlaced video, professional-grade CRT-based 15 kHz video monitor is the way to go. Flat panels can't show interlaced signals the way CRT-based sets do (simply because panels don't update the picture by scanning), and their color rendition is different. Things are about to change in the next couple of years as more and more people are replacing their CRT-based sets with TFT panels and as we're starting to get HD-based consumer video formats, but we're not there yet.
What do you mean by "analog" monitor? For example, all CRT-based VGA-monitors are "analog" by definition.
The pro-grade 15 kHz analog video monitors used for video editing typically have component (Y'PbPr) or RGB inputs, or, in some cases, SDI.
As long as analog PAL, SECAM, and NTSC transmissions are still on air (or on the cable), people should also check that their video stays within the legal broadcast levels. This can be done without visual aids, but it still doesn't hurt to check how the pictures will actually look when encoded to true composite PAL or NTSC. The old analog systems have their limitations with allowed color saturation or workable adjacent colors. These sort of checks and practices will of course become obsolete when the analog transmissions are turned off for good, but they're not quite obsolete yet.
For starters, many TFT panels have severe issues with their black level (the backlight is shining through) and a limited color bit depth, which causes banding on color ranges. Then there's the viewing angle issue: colors will look different depending on the angle from which you look at them. Some monitors will also clip black and white levels. Then you have the problem of not being able to assess whatever flickery problems interlaced scanning might cause to certain types of pictures when displayed on a regular CRT-based tv set. The list goes on and on; gamma is but one of the problems.
Of course, many many many video processing programs don't even _allow_ you to adjust anything to a given specification, or two programs may display the same video with different colors/luminance range (the
16...235 vs. 0...255 luminance range issue.) Regular color calibration generally doesn't even apply to video overlays. What is more, when watching your interlaced videos on a computer screen, you often get to see only half of the motion since many video players (and NLE apps with preview functions) don't even _try_ to display the video on field-by-field basis. If you don't monitor on a CRT-based interlaced video monitor, you might have something as trivial as the field order wrong without realizing it, which will make the video look horrible when it is played back on a regular CRT-based tv set.Followups have been set to go back to rec.video.desktop only.
-- znark
You know we have all kinds of off topic discussions over here at sci.electroincs.repair I once asked about the best way to go about cutting glass and all sorts of peple jumped in with suggestions.. I didn't get any flames for posting off topic.. Allthough I do admit crossposting to 10 different newsgroups can be a bit irritating.
You must be annoyed with this since you are probably using google groups and this keeps poping up in the active older topics box or whatever it is called.. If you use outlook instead you'd have to scroll way down to see this topic since it sorts everything by the first date it was posted.
Just some thoughts..
- Mike
Perhaps you mean "CGI" ?
Google doesn't seem to know your definition of "DGI".
And SECAM was also selected by the USSR and propogated across the communist bloc specifically to implement another degree of state-controlled flow of information (to prevent the populous from accidentally receiving any non-approved propaganda).
People on the right side of The Pond would take great exception to the notion that SMPTE defines PAL (or SECAM :-) Perhaps you have your standards authorities confused?
SMPTE is a US-based organization. My membership certificate is in the other room. Furthermore, the NTSC compatible color standard was defined by the "National Television Standards Committee", not the by SMPTE.
Likely true in your theoretical world. Certainly not the case in the real world.
A popular subject in r.v.d and r.v.p
You are so far from the kind of digital video that we deal with every day that I have no clue where you are coming from. I am unable to even respond to that very remarkable statement.
Try reading an explanation of one popular form of digital video (DV):
If you read carefully, you will not that I did not say that. I said that the video is encoded into (as a real-world example) DV-NTSC or DV-PAL or MPEG 1 - 4 with NTSC or PAL dimensions and frame-rates.
And yet the most popular digital video codecs on this planet (DV and SDI) are defined in either NTSC or PAL varieties. They are not even recoverable without the knowledge of whether they were encoded as NTSC or PAL.
Which are QC checked on a real television (NTSC or PAL) monitor, NOT on a computer display.
A Sony BVP or Ikegami monitor and their ilk. Have you ever seen pristine NTSC or PAL video on a calibrated broadcast-quality color television picture monitor?
You seem to have no experience editing video, linear or non-linear.
You are entitled to your view of the world. People who do quality video for a living do not share that view.
You seem to be aware of only the technology part of making good video, and completely ignoring the "art". No amount of technology can substitute for an experienced camera shader with a good eye and a calibrated picture monitor.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.