| 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?
formatting link
| Cuba uses NTSC (which I found surprising, I would have | assumed SECAM as the rest of the Communist Bloc)
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
formatting link
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