NTSC

Will someone please tell me what NTSC stands for?

alkem

...
Will someone please tell me what NTSC stands for?

alkem


No ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTSC

() wrote in
:

Will someone please tell me what NTSC stands for?

National Television Standards Committee

But, it's used as a shorthand name for the analog TV transmission
standard used in the US.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Peter H. Coffin wrote:
Will someone please tell me what NTSC stands for?
Never Twice Same Color

A silly joke which ceased to be value about 30 years ago.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

"Peter*H.*Coffin" wrote:

"Mark Crispin" wrote:

"Peter H. Coffin" wrote:

Will someone please tell me what NTSC
stands for?

Never Twice Same Color

A silly joke which ceased to be value about
30 years ago.

And what's *your* point?

And what's *your* point about his point?

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Teeda wrote:
"PeterÂ*H.Â*Coffin" wrote:
"Mark Crispin" wrote:
"Peter H. Coffin" wrote:
Will someone please tell me what NTSC
stands for?
Never Twice Same Color
A silly joke which ceased to be value about
30 years ago.
And what's *your* point?
And what's *your* point about his point?

More importantly, the original poster asked an innocent question of what
NTSC stood for. The question should have been answered, rather than
making a joke which a great many newsgroup readers wouldn't even
understand as it refers to the state of technology before they were born.

Furthermore, it perpetuates the myth that, somehow, PAL is "better" and
the Europeans have been enjoying "better" quality analog TV video than we
have. The television systems (note the plural) most frequently used with
PAL have more scan lines, but at the terrible cost of a 50Hz refresh rate.

PAL color itself is inferior to NTSC in any modern analog equipment. The
phase shift was a clever hack for the instability of 1960s vacuum tube
front ends, but with anything made in the past 30 years it is simply a
burden on the signal that reduces color resolution.

One of the great absurdities of world TV is something called PAL-M in
South America. PAL-M uses PAL color on top of television system M (which
is the only television system used with NTSC color).

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

In article
,
Mark Crispin wrote:


The question should have been answered, rather than
making a joke which a great many newsgroup readers wouldn't even
understand as it refers to the state of technology before they were born.


That's THEIR problem.


Exactly. The Civil War happened before any of us here today were born.

Back to the subject: I was in high school when the FCC approved the RCA
NTSC color system over the competing CBS system. I am not an electronic
engineer by any means but I understood the concepts enough to realize it
was a lot of compromise with the color to get it all into those existing
6 MHz bands and also have black and white compatibility.

What I don't understand at all is how the manufacturers were (circa
1980?) able to greatly improve the color and stop all the crappy color
bleed and herringbone that we suffered through the first 20, or so,
years. Any expert here that can help me understand that?

"Mark Crispin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Teeda wrote:
"Peter H. Coffin" wrote:
"Mark Crispin" wrote:
"Peter H. Coffin" wrote:
Will someone please tell me what NTSC
stands for?
Never Twice Same Color
A silly joke which ceased to be value about
30 years ago.
And what's *your* point?
And what's *your* point about his point?

More importantly, the original poster asked an innocent question of what
NTSC stood for. The question should have been answered, rather than
making a joke which a great many newsgroup readers wouldn't even
understand as it refers to the state of technology before they were born.

Furthermore, it perpetuates the myth that, somehow, PAL is "better" and
the Europeans have been enjoying "better" quality analog TV video than we
have. The television systems (note the plural) most frequently used with
PAL have more scan lines, but at the terrible cost of a 50Hz refresh rate.
***************************

Maybe you know offhand, but I seem to recall that the 625 line PAL also
requires more bandwidth; like 7 MHz channel spacing. I think SECAM is 8 MHz.

Tam,
*****************************

PAL color itself is inferior to NTSC in any modern analog equipment. The
phase shift was a clever hack for the instability of 1960s vacuum tube
front ends, but with anything made in the past 30 years it is simply a
burden on the signal that reduces color resolution.

One of the great absurdities of world TV is something called PAL-M in
South America. PAL-M uses PAL color on top of television system M (which
is the only television system used with NTSC color).

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Sam Spade wrote:


Back to the subject: I was in high school when the FCC approved the RCA
NTSC color system over the competing CBS system. I am not an electronic
engineer by any means but I understood the concepts enough to realize it
was a lot of compromise with the color to get it all into those existing
6 MHz bands and also have black and white compatibility.

What I don't understand at all is how the manufacturers were (circa
1980?) able to greatly improve the color and stop all the crappy color
bleed and herringbone that we suffered through the first 20, or so,
years. Any expert here that can help me understand that?

Simple. The availability of low cost, high performance transistors,
integrated circuits, and advanced filter technologies.

They replaced a dozen or so vacuum tubes with marginal performance and
capability to do the job with a few thousand or so integrated
transistors with superior performance and capabilities. They replaced
filters made with coils and capacitors, with advanced acoustic surface
wave filters with superior performance. Further, they replaced circuits
designed using slide rules, pencils, and paper, with ones designed
using advanced digital computers and circuit emulation techniques.

Oh, and they did this all at a reduced cost.

In a word, technology made great advances.

On Apr 27, 3:55 pm, Sam Spade wrote:
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
In article
,
Mark Crispin wrote:

The question should have been answered, rather than
making a joke which a great many newsgroup readers wouldn't even
understand as it refers to the state of technology before they were born.

That's THEIR problem.

Exactly. The Civil War happened before any of us here today were
born.

Back to the subject: I was in high school when the FCC approved
the RCA
NTSC color system over the competing CBS system. I am not an
electronic
engineer by any means but I understood the concepts enough to
realize it
was a lot of compromise with the color to get it all into those
existing
6 MHz bands and also have black and white compatibility.

What I don't understand at all is how the manufacturers were (circa
1980?) able to greatly improve the color and stop all the crappy
color
bleed and herringbone that we suffered through the first 20, or so,
years. Any expert here that can help me understand that?

Enter the 2 and better yet, 3 line comb filters. The excessively
crappy look of any composite video source has to do with separating
the chroma from the luma. Initially it was done with the most
practical components at the time namely coils and capacitors. The
chroma was filtered out with simple 'traps' - adequate at first but
not very good performance. In '83 I got my Sony ProFeel monitor and
tuner. 2 line comb filter with analog 1 line delay. Tuner had a SAW
(surface acoustical wave) IF filter and selectable separate or
intercarrier audio. This was a massive improvement over the previous
consumer eletronics. We actually used the tuner as a back-up network
feed (using another network affiliate feed) at the TV station I worked
at because the performance was sufficiently good.

GG