BBC HD vs ITV1 HD

In message , Kennedy McEwen
writes

In combining your analogue and digital terminology, I think you forgot
about the sampling laws. They were just as relevant in the sampled
vertical scan axis of vidicon and derivative tubes as they are with
today's digital technology.

Fair point, that'll teach me to attempt to think after coming home from
the pub!

--
When my grandfather became ill, my grandmother rubbed goose-fat into his back.
He went downhill quite quickly after that.
- Milton Jones

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
I've just worked on my first HD drama - shot 25p. And I found the
judder on movement most offputting. Dunno if it was made worse by the
LCD monitor on the P2 field recorder - but it looked pretty similar on
the LD's one. I'll be interested to see what it looks like when
transmitted.


Was the sound HD as well;-?...

Pretty certain the Panny P2 is the same as a Digibeta - 16 bit 48kHz. But
up to 8 imbedded tracks.

--
*What was the best thing before sliced bread?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Mark Carver wrote:
tony sayer wrote:

Was the sound HD as well;-?...

Presumably 5.1 ?

Actual location sound recording is pretty well always mono. Background
wildtracks stereo, though.

5.1 is purely post production.

--
*I have a degree in liberal arts -- do you want fries with that

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 3 May 2009 05:27:39 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

That's not how I read what he said. He said that they

.... most probably ...
need to buffer,
that is to wait until the whole field has been received before
displaying the field, unlike CRTs, which display the field
line-by-line. He's saying that the two fields do indeed remain
separate, because most LCDs don't deinterlace them at all. They are
displayed without modification, but separately, not at the same time.

Last sentence incorrect. To me the photo looks like they *are* being
displayed at the same time. I can't see a better explanation of it,
and perhaps it's significant that noone else has suggested one either.

That's not what he suggests with his web image though. If the only
difference between LCDs and CRTs was the instant v's progressive
build-up of the field then the LCD image on his web page would show
blank lines for the field that is not currently being displayed. Either
that or the LCD set is doing Bob-type de-interlacing, but he goes to
extreme lengths to draw attention to the fact that the lines are not
identical pairs - but they are not blank either.

Exactly. I think you've understood my arguments perfectly.

In fact, I think he has been chasing wild geese as a result of
misinterpreting the image on his web page. It is relatively trivial to
create an image similar to that on his web page based on standard bob
and weave interlacing procedures. At no point on his web page does he
mention what the exposure time is for the photo,

Yes I do, 1/100s

however if the LCD
updates a field or frame during the exposure then you will get an image
that has identical characteristics as those that have sent him off on
his goose cull. Did he synchronise the camera shutter with the LCD
update? If so, how?

No, in the notes for the Ancillary Demonstration Of Artifacts
experiment I make it plain that I have no way of doing that. I
certainly would have used it if I could. However, the shutter speed
of half the field rate was chosen to minimise the chances of that
happening.

Also, your argument is self inconsistent. If "standard bob and weave
interlacing procedures" look the same as simple buffering with no
deinterlacing at all, why would a manufacturer bother with the former?

======================================

Please always reply to news group as the email address in
this post's header does not exist. Alternatively, use the
contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html

Tony Quinn wrote:

http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/ShowP...d=35F166739819
E82B861D0175514CB62D?product=BVM-L230&pageType=Overview&category=BVM&site
=biz_en_GB

at more than 1o0k per unit - I don't imagine that sub 1k telly will be
any more intelligent

What currency is that 100k in, coz it certainly ain't Dollars, Quid, or Euros
for that product !!



--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

In message , Mark Carver
writes
Tony Quinn wrote:

http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/ShowP...d=35F166739819
E82B861D0175514CB62D?product=BVM-L230&pageType=Overview&category=BVM&site
=biz_en_GB
at more than 1o0k per unit - I don't imagine that sub 1k telly will
be any more intelligent

What currency is that 100k in, coz it certainly ain't Dollars, Quid, or
Euros for that product !!

It's clearly a typo for 10k
--
If one person has delusions, we call them psychotic. If, however, 1.5 billion
people have delusions we must apparently call them a religious group, and
respect their delusionary state.

"Dave Farrance" wrote in message
...

There you go. They all say you're wrong. Epic win for Java Jive. If
you're persistently obnoxious, then who's going to defend you, even when
you're right?

You wouldn't know whether I'm wrong or right.

Out of curiosity, do you conduct yourself this way when you're
face-to-face with people as well, or is it just on the net?

It's called a discussion. If people say things which are scientifically
incorrect, then they can expect me or others with more knowledge of the
subject to correct them.

On May 2, 6:55*pm, Tony Quinn wrote:
In message , Kennedy McEwen
writes



In article , jamie powell
writes

"Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL" wrote in
...

Each field represents a different part of that moment in time, though..
Although there is no actual movement within the frame, there is a
difference between the two fields that must be resolved.

The "no actual movement within the frame" is what the TV uses to activate
its pulldown detection.

So how does the TV discriminate between real motion in a small part of
the frame (couple of players on the pitch move between fields) and
spatial differences where the image of some objects in one field are
spatially different from the other field?

What if there is no motion in the image - does the TV get confused
after a while and decide it isn't interlaced after all? *;-)

How does it handle the difference between spatial differences in the
fields, motion differences and noise on old video recordings?

I don't think LCD panels are that smart.

They're incredibly stupid - even this one

http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/ShowP...ionid=35F16673....
E82B861D0175514CB62D?product=BVM-L230&pageType=Overview&category=BVM&site
=biz_en_GB

at more than 1o0k per unit - I don't imagine that *sub 1k telly will be
any more intelligent

--
What sort of idiot buys intohomeopathy- well the sick and the vulnerable,
those driven to despair by sleeplessness and pain, the 15% of people with lower
IQs, the gullible and naive, passive people who are easily bullied and cajoled.
young and inexperienced people. The mentally ill, and the easily manipulated.

I've used Homeopathy, I'm not gullible,not passive am not young and
am not easily bullied and cajoled.

I am someone who bothered to learn about Homeopathy from books, found
the research by Ennis, got past the phony BBC documentary which
supposedly "repeated" her experiment, and figured out that there are
things about our biology, physiology and biochemistry that we don't
know.

What sort of idiot buys into criticizing Homeopathy? - Well those who
shut off their thinking processes the moment they are confronted with
something unexplained and decide that their high school or college
chemistry "knowledge" is sufficient "proof" and superiour to that of
scientific researchers. The Homeopathy sceptic is probably an
armchair "scientist" ready to poke fun at the nonsensical idea of high
dilution solutions with "nothing" in them doing anything - even when
case after case of cured or ameliorated by Homeopathy illness is
presented by MD's who were themselves initially sceptical.

The same sort of idiot who confidently spouts nonsense about
"evidence" based standard medicine while people are being irradiated,
or poisoned to death with "chemotherapy" in order to "eradicate" their
tumour.

Oh yes, THAT kind of idiot.

Citizen Jimserac

"jamie powell" wrote:

"Dave Farrance" wrote

There you go. They all say you're wrong. Epic win for Java Jive. If
you're persistently obnoxious, then who's going to defend you, even when
you're right?

You wouldn't know whether I'm wrong or right.

Actually, I would, and here my opinion on that isn't what you seem to
think, judging from that response. Look again at how I worded my above
comment, and see my previous comment about mice-teeth artifacts in this
thread. So as I said, who's going to defend the persistently obnoxious,
even when right?

Out of curiosity, do you conduct yourself this way when you're
face-to-face with people as well, or is it just on the net?

It's called a discussion. If people say things which are scientifically
incorrect, then they can expect me or others with more knowledge of the
subject to correct them.

How's the more knowledgeable corrections from others working out for you
here? But of course, if it was actually your *intention* to canvass
support for Java Jive's, ahem, interesting theory about non-deinterlacing
by sneakily presenting a contrary opinion in a counterproductive way, then
you must be very clever and by all means keep on doing what you're doing.

--
Dave Farrance

Citizen Jimserac wrote:

The same sort of idiot who confidently spouts nonsense about
"evidence" based standard medicine while people are being irradiated,
or poisoned to death with "chemotherapy" in order to "eradicate" their
tumour.

That's right, fancy having "evidence" based medicine. Where would we be
if people started believing "evidence", eh? What nonsense to suggest that
radiation kills tumours -- when radiation really gives anybody or anything
superpowers as anybody would know if they've been to the cinema recently.
"Evidence", pah! We don't need no steenking "evidence".

--
Dave Farrance