TVs compatible, from one continent to the next??

Don't think anyone with sense claims any of these are universally superior. Each had merits and de-merits.

Think it goes something like this:-

NTSC gives the best pictures in the studio. SECAM records best. PAL transmits best.

--
*Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine*

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

People like to make stupid acronyms. Innovations People Don't Need and Always Off Line for example.

When you call them on it, they go sideways, just like asking a person to explain "why" they feel the way they do when you ask them a political or religious question.

You'll get the same response mentioning Bill Gates and Micro Soft. Despite that fact that without MS and the accidental release of the IBM PC architecture we wouldn't have the speed or power at the price we have now.

And of course, when psycho's off their meds get involved, Well....

Jeff

There are - but neither are *fundamental* to PAL or NTSC.

If the material is sourced from a composite PAL recording, it will retain the PAL footprint.

--
*Gargling is a good way to see if your throat leaks.  

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Explain how 525 lines gives superior resolution to 625?

--

*When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty*

Dave Plowman snipped-for-privacy@davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.

maybe on your planet. A cameraman has a lit of things to pay attention to. The lines on his monitor make it easy to frame the shot. Not that you would know.

No matter what answer yo got you would still pull out a ruler to measure yor dick so there was no reason to give you the pleasure.

Another case of UK engineering gone very bad - get over it.

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

Sigh. You appear to bbe an idiot. RCA & GE made most of the studio cameras in the US. A few stations got screwed when they bought Philips cameras that had no factory support and few spare parts.

it makes as much sense as the bullshit you're posting.

Yes they were used for ENG before color CCD cameras were availible.

So, you used 2" until the other formats were availible? Umatic was second generation video for use in classrooms, dubbed from the broadcast grade masters. Long beofre VHS or any beta crap was availible. I used

1" Sony at WACX in orlando for the master edit suit. OTOH, I had 13 Sony U-Matics at the transmitter site for the LaCarte Video automation system. WACX had better video quality than most of the other stations in the market. The worst used Beta and it was obvious.

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

Don't think anyone with sense claims any of these are universally superior. Each had merits and de-merits.

Think it goes something like this:-

NTSC gives the best pictures in the studio. SECAM records best. PAL transmits best.

--


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have read in broadcast periodicals that PAL needed to be converted to NTSC 
in the studio in order to use video effects switching, etc., then converted 
back for transmission. Since the two are virtually the same base signals, 
this confused me.

Back in 1970 I took course "TV production" in my Senior year. We had a nice 1" tape deck and a mixer/fader console along with two dolly mounted cameras.

By 1971, the students had trahed enough of the equipment, so that they were using a 1/2" Sone deck and hand helds on tripods.

Sigh, what a waste of studio grade gear.

Jeff

I s

Oh they most certainly do as they are either 525/60 or 625/50. While your computer will have no trouble with this, CRT sets definitely did (but could usually be adjusted). There must be some pretty dumb people all over the world buying standards converters at $200K a pop to convert 25 Hz frame rate to 30 Hz and vice cersa.

G=B2

ic was

t d s

The 1" decks you refer to are not the 1" machines used in broadcast. The broadcast flavor was the late '70s SMPTE C format built by Ampex, Sony, RCA, Hitachi and NEC but mostly Ampex and Sony. Did I miss any?

G=B2

.uk...

o e

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= =AD----- >

---------------------------------------------------------------------------= =AD----- >

I think you got your signals a little crossed. SECAM with its FM carriers for chroma cannot be faded/dissolved. SECAM signals get converted to PAL for switchers and back to SECAM for transmission. IOW SECAM is not a production format.

With saturation being the amplitude of the subcarrier, both NTSC and PAL can be easily faded/diissolved. The chroma will fade to B/W as the luma fades to black on the composite signal.

BTW who cares? I haven't seen a composite switcher in 15 years.

G=B2

The reality is much more mundane. NTSC was perfectly fine. It gained a bad reputation becuase of problems in distribution, which were managment issues, not technical ones.

The BBC, adopted the original NTSC specification calling it PAL. It included the alternating line phase (hence the name), that was found to be unecessary in the US.

For what may have been a good technical reason when the 405 line system was developed in the 1930's, by the time the new system was designed around 1960, there was absolutely no technical reason that the US system, as implemented, would not work in the UK. (50 fields/25 frames versus 60 and 30).

The political reason was to keep the UK electronics companies in work, to avoid cheap sets made in much larger quantities in the US. At that time, there was no electronics industry to speak of in Japan, so it was not a threat.

The PAL is better hype was exactly that, it was to make you think that technically it was different than NTSC and ripping off the british public was a good thing.

SECAM on the other hand really was designed to make TV Sets incompatible with NTSC/PAL and more expensive.

Geoff.

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

No kidding. One of the local high schools gets new equipment about every other year when they need to learn on beat up old junk.

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

Can you make up your mind if you're talking about what a camera has available on the viewfinder or what you'd find on a control room monitor?

Seems to me you were a 'back room boy' with no experience of production. Gawd help us if you were responsible for providing the facilities others had to work round.

--
*The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

I don't live in the US.

Pretty well the same as the few UK companies that bought RCA, then.

Well, I'm trying to think of a US broadcaster that designed much of its own equipment. If you want to debate the BBC and 'state of the art'.

I'm talking about proper broadcasting, not news. News will use domestic shot pictures if it suits them. Please stick to top end.

Which part of 1" C format don't you understand?

Seems to me you know little about broadcast standards.

--
*A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it uses up a thousand times more
memory.  

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Yup. Marconi made a clone. Very good too - with Dolby A for the main audio pair.

--
*I speak fluent patriarchy but it's not my mother tongue

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Given receivers were fitted with a front panel hue control, it must have been a known issue. PAL sets have no such device.

I wonder just how available were the delay lines needed when NTSC was introduced? They were quite an expensive component years later.

Well, film uses 24 fps. Probably for a good reason. Which makes 25 somewhat closer. But not going for NTSC allowed the use of 625 lines. And therefore better resolution.

The US have never been at the forefront of producing 240 volt 50 Hz anything - they tend to stick to the local markets.

That would have had more weight if only the UK had adopted PAL.

The French often go their own way.

--
*Who are these kids and why are they calling me Mom?

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Big snag with pro gear at one time was it needed pros to set it up and maintain it. And then there was the size.

--
*Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Well, I'm trying to think of a US broadcaster that designed much of its own equipment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That would be NBC (GE) and ABC (RCA). Of course, those networks have changed ownership in the past few years. NBC is now owned, IIRC, by Universal, while ABC is owned by Disney.