1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Can one "overclock" a CRT monitor's video input bandwidth? Need slightly higher refresh rate than m

Discussion in 'Overclocking' started by Ken Moiarty, Apr 19, 2006.

  1. White light viewable holograms date back to 1962 for reflective and 1968
    for transmissive.


    <snip>
     
    David Maynard, Apr 24, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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.

    PLEASE remove rec.video.desktop from further postings.
    Keep Usenet usenet discussions in their appropriate newsgroups
    for everyone's benefit.

    Thank you very much.
     
    Richard Crowley, Apr 25, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Ken Moiarty

    Phil Weldon Guest

    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.
    |
    | PLEASE remove rec.video.desktop from further postings.
    | Keep Usenet usenet discussions in their appropriate newsgroups
    | for everyone's benefit.
    |
    | Thank you very much.
    |
    |
     
    Phil Weldon, Apr 25, 2006
    #23
  4. 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..


    ">
     
    Michael Kennedy, Apr 25, 2006
    #24
  5. Ken Moiarty

    J. Clarke Guest

    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.
     
    J. Clarke, Apr 25, 2006
    #25
  6. Ken Moiarty

    Ken Moiarty Guest

    Actually, just reviewed the current state of stereo-3D LCD display
    technology. And I now see that many (though not all) of these in fact use
    methods other than lenticular... (lenses or otherwise) to produce image
    separation [see http://www.stereo3d.com/displays.htm], which probably
    explains why those diagrams show barriers rather than lenses.
    To quibble, "lenticular lens" is a legitimate expression here. The term
    lenticular (which derives from "lentil shaped") literally means "convex on
    both sides". Hence, "lenticular lens" is not redundant at all but in fact
    simply denotes a particular type of lens. Granted, many common lenses are
    convex on both sides; but not all. Now how this relates to how these are
    used to produce image separation in stereo-3D displays (e.g. to appear as
    cylinders), requires further elaboration than the expression all by itself
    can describe, I'm quite sure.

    Stereo-3D technology wise, the technical name admittedly is not, lenticular
    lens, but, "lenticule". [See the faq on the topic at:
    http://www.world3d.com/faqs.html] However, aside from the matter of
    nomenclature, this entity is in function a lens *.

    * Lenticule = A single lens in a lenticular sheet.
    [See Lenticular Glossary:
    http://www.world3d.com/lenticular-glossary/lenticule.htm]


    Ken
     
    Ken Moiarty, Apr 25, 2006
    #26
  7. "Phil Weldon" wrote ...
    It requires mains power also. But that doesn't make
    it an appropriate place to dicuss house wiring.
     
    Richard Crowley, Apr 25, 2006
    #27
  8. No. Not this kind of discussion. Televiaion (NTSC,
    PAL, etc.) is actually much *lower* bandwidth than
    most computer monitors.
     
    Richard Crowley, Apr 25, 2006
    #28
  9. Ken Moiarty

    Ken Moiarty Guest

    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
     
    Ken Moiarty, Apr 25, 2006
    #29
  10. 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, Apr 25, 2006
    #30
  11. Ken Moiarty

    Phil Weldon Guest

    '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.
    |
     
    Phil Weldon, Apr 25, 2006
    #31
  12. "Phil Weldon" wrote...
    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? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DGI
    Cuba uses NTSC (which I found surprising, I would have
    assumed SECAM as the rest of the Communist Bloc)
    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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
     
    Richard Crowley, Apr 25, 2006
    #32
  13. Ken Moiarty

    Phil Weldon Guest

    | 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? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DGI
    | 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 ( <http://www.smpte.org> )
    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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
    <http://www.tektronix.com/Measuremen...t/App_Notes/25_7049/eng/&FrameSet=television>
    ..)

    | 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

    | "Phil Weldon" wrote...
    | > Would you have the rec.video.desktop newsgroup exclude
    | > discussion of digital cameras?
    |
    | 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.
    |
    | > How about DGI?
    |
    | Do you mean the Direccion General de Inteligencia, the
    | Cuban secret police? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DGI
    | Cuba uses NTSC (which I found surprising, I would have
    | assumed SECAM as the rest of the Communist Bloc)
    |
    | > Keep in mind that with a digital train, NTSC or PAL NEVER
    | > exist except for possible display on an analog NTSC or PAL
    | > monitor.
    |
    | 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4:2:0
    |
    | > And the monitors used for the kind of editing discussed in the
    | > newsgroup are NEVER NTSC or PAL.
    |
    | 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).
    |
    | > And NTSC, PAL, SECAM, and variants are being marginalized
    | > with the advent of High Definition TV.
    |
    | If you post that again in ~5 years, you might be right.
    |
    |
     
    Phil Weldon, Apr 26, 2006
    #33
  14. 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
     
    Martin Heffels, Apr 26, 2006
    #34
  15. Ken Moiarty

    Jukka Aho Guest

    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:

    <http://www.expandore.com/product/Sony/Monitor/ind
    ex.htm#PROFESSIONAL%20VIDEO%20MONITORS>

    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.
     
    Jukka Aho, Apr 26, 2006
    #35
  16. Ken Moiarty

    Phil Weldon Guest

    'Jukka Aho' wrote, in part:
    | 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.
    _____

    Thanks for explaining Richard's explanations.

    Just two among many quibbles:

    RBG is neither fish nor fowl nor NTSC nor PAL nor SECAM, it is unencoded.

    Since nonlinear video editing is done on digital systems (else it could not
    be nonlinear), it is done with monitors that display the digital, unencoded
    signals, sometimes with multiple windows. The 'professional' encoded video
    monitor is a valuable quality check, but not sufficient for engineering
    purposes.

    Phil Weldon


    | Phil Weldon wrote:
    |
    | >> 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 (<http://www.smpte.org>
    | > ) defines them.
    |
    | 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.)
    |
    | >> 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
    |
    | 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.
    |
    | >> 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.
    |
    | 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:
    |
    | <http://www.expandore.com/product/Sony/Monitor/ind
    | ex.htm#PROFESSIONAL%20VIDEO%20MONITORS>
    |
    | 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.
    |
    | > 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.
    |
    | 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.
    |
    | > Of course you can display a proper television picture on a
    | > computer monitor.
    |
    | 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.
    |
    | > I'd say a little cross-fertilization is a Good Thing.
    | > alt.com.hardware.overclocking, [...]
    |
    | Followups have been set to go back to rec.video.desktop only.
    |
    | --
    | znark
    |
     
    Phil Weldon, Apr 26, 2006
    #36
  17. 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
     
    Michael Kennedy, Apr 26, 2006
    #37
  18. "Phil Weldon" wrote ...
    "Video" (nether analog nor video) does NOT EXIST
    in a vacuum. Without a definition of sweep rates, phase
    angles, etc. an analog video signal is just noise.
    Without a defenition of the frame dimensions, rate,
    color encoding, etc. digital video is just random
    ones and zeroes.
    Actually, the situation is quite the opposite. Traditional
    shadow-mask color CRTs are the only industry-standard
    monitors trusted enough to make qualitative evaluation of
    television images.

    For several years after Sony started selling pro-level trinitron
    (stripe-mask) monitors, camera shaders would not use them
    for their critical QC function because they artifically "sharpen"
    the image (by virtue of the mechanical "comb filter" effect).
    The shader is the central person responsible for the exposure,
    color match, and focus of cameras in a multi-camera live
    switched production. It is a critical function and the best
    monitor in the house is used for it.

    Have you ever seen a calibrated Sony BVP or an Ikegami
    monitor displaying a pristine NTSC or PAL video image?
    No computer monitor can reproduce that.
    There are some LCD monitors that are starting to make
    inroads on the traditional CRT market, but they are still
    unbelievably expensive. Perhaps someone just returning
    from NAB can fill us in on the state of the art.
     
    Richard Crowley, Apr 26, 2006
    #38
  19. Perhaps you mean "CGI" ?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-generated_imagery

    Google doesn't seem to know your definition of "DGI".
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_bloc
    It was in all the papers.
    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): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dv Note that
    in nearly every paragraph, the differences in DV encoding
    for NTSV vs PAL are contrasted.
    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.
     
    Richard Crowley, Apr 26, 2006
    #39
  20. Ken Moiarty

    Phil Weldon Guest

    Let us keep this short.
    Now you are moving your 'arguments' from 'amateur' non-linear editing to
    broadcast studio production.

    I assure you broadcast studio production is not done the way you present.

    I don't agree with your view of 'video', nor your view of technical
    evaluation of video signals.

    There are timing standards for video signals, and then there are color
    encoding standards, and then there are digital encoding standards for
    compression.

    NTSC and PAL severely limit the luminance bandwidth of encoded signals
    (SECAM is nearly identical to PAL.) Broadcast regulations in the various
    countries limit the bandwidth for broadcast signal. This is NOT good for
    image quality, but was a necessity. Trade-offs were made. In these color
    encoding methods the blue channel is very restricted in resolution compared
    to red, and especially to green. PAL and SECAM made the trade-off of
    gaining spatial resolution at the expense of time resolution. That is why
    PAL and SECAM have an annoying flicker, while NTSC has lower spatial
    resolution and higher time resolution. In the era when these timing
    trade-offs were made, choices were made for very simple reasons - 50 Hz
    mains power in Europe and 60 Hz in the USA. Without color, no more exact
    timing was necessary.

    | Have you ever seen a calibrated Sony BVP or an Ikegami
    | monitor displaying a pristine NTSC or PAL video image?

    Yes, since 1980.

    Phil Weldon

    | "Phil Weldon" wrote ...
    | > RBG is neither fish nor fowl nor NTSC nor PAL
    | > nor SECAM, it is unencoded.
    |
    | "Video" (nether analog nor video) does NOT EXIST
    | in a vacuum. Without a definition of sweep rates, phase
    | angles, etc. an analog video signal is just noise.
    | Without a defenition of the frame dimensions, rate,
    | color encoding, etc. digital video is just random
    | ones and zeroes.
    |
    | > Since nonlinear video editing is done on digital systems
    | > (else it could not be nonlinear), it is done with monitors
    | > that display the digital, unencoded signals, sometimes
    | > with multiple windows. The 'professional' encoded video
    | > monitor is a valuable quality check, but not sufficient for
    | > engineering
    |
    | Actually, the situation is quite the opposite. Traditional
    | shadow-mask color CRTs are the only industry-standard
    | monitors trusted enough to make qualitative evaluation of
    | television images.
    |
    | For several years after Sony started selling pro-level trinitron
    | (stripe-mask) monitors, camera shaders would not use them
    | for their critical QC function because they artifically "sharpen"
    | the image (by virtue of the mechanical "comb filter" effect).
    | The shader is the central person responsible for the exposure,
    | color match, and focus of cameras in a multi-camera live
    | switched production. It is a critical function and the best
    | monitor in the house is used for it.
    |
    | Have you ever seen a calibrated Sony BVP or an Ikegami
    | monitor displaying a pristine NTSC or PAL video image?
    | No computer monitor can reproduce that.
    | There are some LCD monitors that are starting to make
    | inroads on the traditional CRT market, but they are still
    | unbelievably expensive. Perhaps someone just returning
    | from NAB can fill us in on the state of the art.
     
    Phil Weldon, Apr 26, 2006
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.