Component vs SCART
 

On Oct 5, 9:59*pm, "j r powell" wrote:
" wrote in message

...

No this was as I said years ago. The telly was a widescreen CRT
monster. Remember those great heavy cheap sets where you thought it
would break under its own weight if you lifted one end? *I can't
actually remember but it might even have been analogue satellite that
was built in.

Analogue satellite was composite only, so there wouldn't have been an issue
here.

I do remember though that it was perfectly obvious that
they'd cobbled in a normal satellite receiver, with no serious attempt
at integration. On switching to satellite the OSGs were completely
different. The telly had been a 'bargain' and the man was very proud
of it. Apart from the fact that the satellite was composite the
picture was very poor anyway. I can't remember anything about the
aspect ratio situation. I can't remember where the Sky card went in
either.

To the best of my knowledge there were only two manufacturers which sold CRT
sets with integrated Sky Digital receivers; Panasonic and LG. A legal threat
from Sky prevented the LG models from being made for very long.
A schoolfriend had one of the LG sets and it wasn't composite only. iirc it also
didn't respond to normal Sky remotes, so they'd done more than just cobbling in
a normal receiver.

jamie.
-- *

This certainly wasn't Panasonic. It did use one remote handset for
both satellite and terrestrial though, because now you mention it I
remember being confused by the remote, so it wouldn't be a normal Sky
one. I do remember that the plastic cabinet was pale grey, for some
reason.

Until the present generation of sets, I only ever saw two satellite
IDTV sets. That was one, and the other was in a woodman's cottage. I
can't remember a thing about the telly so it must have been OK. When I
arrived the old boy was watching satellite and like a fool I started
looking round for the receiver. I had assumed that the problem would
be something to do with the trees, but in fact it was simply the fact
that the aerial had fallen out of the windowcill-mounted socket. The
room was nightmarishly cluttered and it took a while to figure out
that the aerial fed a little amp hidden under a sideboard, and that
fed the IDTV and the kitchen set. It also turned out that the cable to
the kitchen was damaged on the external wall, and I got well and truly
nettled finding this out. It was one of those jobs where you just wish
you could press rewind and do it again with the benefit of hindsight.
Worse I was doing it as a little 'freeby' for the estate owner.

Bill

Component vs SCART
 

" wrote in message
...
On Oct 5, 9:42 pm, "j r powell" wrote:
" wrote in message
Panasonic CRT set here and it has that annying fault that used to be
so common: if there's an RGB signal present at the scart it mixes with
the tuner output so you can't watch normal telly.

...that's because pin16 signalling is never meant to be on without pin8
being on
as well, and it wouldn't be if you hadn't cut the wire :p

No, I'm not talking about when pin 8 has been cut. This is with
unmolested scart leads.

That was much less common in my experience. There were many older sets where the
presence of signalling on pin8 locked them to the AV input, regardless of which
channel preset you tried to select - only teletext operation was affected by the
"RGB mixing" issue in that case.


As an aside, I'm not sure if the very earliest SCART implementations supported
autoswitching - anyone know?
Although it's been mandatory in France since 1980, the earliest SCART-enabled
set I've seen in the UK was a non-remote Philips from the mid-80s. This had a
manual button on the rear to switch between composite and RGB, and a rotary knob
on the front to switch between SCART and internal tuner.



And of course you can't adjust the picture when it's from the RGB source.

On most modern CRT sets you can.

Yes, but not on this Panasonic, which I guess will be 20 years old.

Colour saturation via RGB on such a set is typically equivalent to that of
composite with the colour control set to mid-position, which is fine for most
people. I have seen a few exceptions, however.


jamie.
--

Component vs SCART
 

j r powell wrote:

To the best of my knowledge there were only two manufacturers which sold CRT
sets with integrated Sky Digital receivers; Panasonic and LG. A legal threat
from Sky prevented the LG models from being made for very long.

I thought the legal threat was from the EC, that integrated sets *had*
to have a CI slot?

Component vs SCART
 

In article , J r powell wrote:
It's a shame they can't record everything in an uncompressed digital format
(this requires more than 1GB of disk space for every minute of uncompressed
"analogue quality" SD video incidentally), then get all the editing done and
apply multipass compression at high bitrates for the final product, before
deleting the original uncompressed files.
Compressing on-the-fly in real-time always yields inferior results.

This also begs the question of why the BBC don't apply the same multipass
technique to non-live content on their "emission-level" MPEG streams.
If CBR was used, and the bitrate kept the same across all platforms, it should
be feasible.

I'm sure it will be feasible one day, but it's unlikely we'll ever see the
results at home. Digital recording reached some kind of epitome with the compact
disc, which covers more than the audible frequency range of most people, with a
greater dynamic range than nearly everybody's living room, with every digit kept
intact, but since then the much vaunted advantages of digits have not exactly
been obvious. Digital systems these days rarely seem to offer the promised
perfection, but just different kinds of imperfection.

Rod.

Component vs SCART
 

In article , J r powell wrote:
And of course you can't adjust the picture when it's from the RGB source.

On most modern CRT sets you can.

Yes, but not on this Panasonic, which I guess will be 20 years old.

Colour saturation via RGB on such a set is typically equivalent to that of
composite with the colour control set to mid-position, which is fine for most
people. I have seen a few exceptions, however.

RGB is effectively the signal from each colour sensor in the camera fed to the
corresponding emitters on the screen without any crosstalk. Thus I take it to be
what the programme makers saw on their monitors and therefore what they intended
us to see, and on that basis I'd have no reason to want to change it.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Component vs SCART
 

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart scribeth
thus
In article , J r powell wrote:
And of course you can't adjust the picture when it's from the RGB
source.

On most modern CRT sets you can.

Yes, but not on this Panasonic, which I guess will be 20 years old.

Colour saturation via RGB on such a set is typically equivalent to that of
composite with the colour control set to mid-position, which is fine for most
people. I have seen a few exceptions, however.

RGB is effectively the signal from each colour sensor in the camera fed to the
corresponding emitters on the screen without any crosstalk. Thus I take it to be
what the programme makers saw on their monitors and therefore what they intended
us to see, and on that basis I'd have no reason to want to change it.

Rod.

And no throwing away the bits on the way to the viewers telly then;?..
--
Tony Sayer

Component vs SCART
 

In article , Tony sayer wrote:
RGB is effectively the signal from each colour sensor in the camera fed to the
corresponding emitters on the screen without any crosstalk. Thus I take it to be
what the programme makers saw on their monitors and therefore what they intended
us to see, and on that basis I'd have no reason to want to change it.

Rod.

And no throwing away the bits on the way to the viewers telly then;?..

I'd prefer it if they didn't of course, but what they do throw away doesn't seem to
be affecting the colorimetry or saturation. It just results in a different sort of
blurring when something moves fast, and the extremely offputting "face tektonics"
effect on side-lit closeups.

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

Component vs SCART
 

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart scribeth
thus
In article , Tony sayer wrote:
RGB is effectively the signal from each colour sensor in the camera fed to
the
corresponding emitters on the screen without any crosstalk. Thus I take it to
be
what the programme makers saw on their monitors and therefore what they
intended
us to see, and on that basis I'd have no reason to want to change it.

Rod.

And no throwing away the bits on the way to the viewers telly then;?..

I'd prefer it if they didn't of course, but what they do throw away doesn't seem
to
be affecting the colorimetry or saturation. It just results in a different sort
of
blurring when something moves fast, and the extremely offputting "face
tektonics"
effect on side-lit closeups.

Rod.

Yessss.......
--
Tony Sayer

Component vs SCART
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.myzen.co.uk...
In article , Tony sayer wrote:
RGB is effectively the signal from each colour sensor in the camera fed to
the
corresponding emitters on the screen without any crosstalk. Thus I take it
to be
what the programme makers saw on their monitors and therefore what they
intended
us to see, and on that basis I'd have no reason to want to change it.

Rod.

And no throwing away the bits on the way to the viewers telly then;?..

I'd prefer it if they didn't of course, but what they do throw away doesn't
seem to
be affecting the colorimetry or saturation. It just results in a different
sort of
blurring when something moves fast, and the extremely offputting "face
tektonics"
effect on side-lit closeups.

Today's implementation of sub-VHS MPEG-mush does not use the uncompressed colour
space of RGB, so even without the low bitrates it wouldn't be a faithful
reproduction of what the camera picked up.
Personally I think the colour reproduction of genuine PAL was superior.
(Whenever I dig out a pre-1999 videotape, it's always a wistful experience).

Component vs SCART
 

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.myzen.co.uk...

I'm sure it will be feasible one day, but it's unlikely we'll ever see the
results at home. Digital recording reached some kind of epitome with the
compact
disc, which covers more than the audible frequency range of most people, with
a
greater dynamic range than nearly everybody's living room, with every digit
kept
intact, but since then the much vaunted advantages of digits have not exactly
been obvious. Digital systems these days rarely seem to offer the promised
perfection, but just different kinds of imperfection.

Conventional CD players had their issues though. I was always irked during the
1990s, when pretentious people boasted about their CD collections and how much
of a music lover/audiophile they were for owning huge stacks of them.
You only get a "perfect" copy by "ripping" it to a hard drive with appropriate
error-checking software and playing it as a WAV file through a decent soundcard.
Even then, 16-bits isn't enough.

jamie.
--