BBC HD vs ITV1 HD

Louis Barfe wrote:

On May 3, 5:22*pm, "jamie powell" wrote:

I suspect that, where this discussion is concerned, people are keeping
out of it because they don't have enough knowledge of the subject to know
who's right and who isn't and they want to avoid making fools of
themselves.

Perhaps, but you seem to have made a fool of yourself while also, as
it transpires, being right. That's quite an achievement.

And some. Talking to Jamie is a bit like talking to somebody that had just
had a dip in **** but was apparently convinced that he smelled of roses.
It's probably best if you follow Adrian's advice and killfile him. I did a
couple of weeks back.

On Sun, 3 May 2009 16:38:26 +0100, Kennedy McEwen
wrote:

Not at 1/100th of a second it isn't. Assuming that the LCD simply
updates the displayed field at the PAL rate of 1/50th of a second, ie.
every 20mS. Your shot is 10mS long.

So IIRC the frame flyback is about 1.6ms long (?), this means there is
a 1 in 8 chance of seeing this effect if it caused by screen updating.
That's being generous and assuming the screen starts to update the
entire field everywhere instantly and takes the full flyback time to
do it, both of which may be questionable.

If the screen is updated sequentially, or if it updates much more
quickly, and because in the former case the pictures are only of a
relatively small area of the middle of the screen, this probability
would have to be reduced, perhaps substantially.

I have six other pictures taken in the same batch, which I have just
examined, and they all show similar effects, mostly over quite
substantial areas of the picture.

This gives a probability of your explanation being the correct one of
(1/8)^7 or 0.000000476837158203125.

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

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

Java Jive wrote:
First, a clarification, that particular picture was taken during the
ancillary artifacts experiment, and so shows the larger 22" LCD, and
you've made me realise that I haven't noted that on the page. Next
time I republish I'll correct that.

However, the basis of your argument is still valid. I've just used a
hand lens to count the picture elements on the 22", and, perhaps
rather surprisingly, its vertical resolution is somewhere around that
of the 15".

But while the point you raise is interesting in its own right, you
still have to find an alternative explanation of the picture which
appears to show the lines from two fields side by side. What is your
explanation for this?

Snips some context because it's backwards due to top posting :-(

I can't claim to know what your TV does - you may be right, I also have
no preference in favor of CRT or LCD. I don't actually own an LCD
monitor or TV yet, so the following are just thoughts really.

HD TVs - it does seem from reviews that they have deinterlacers, in fact
somewhere on the site linked to there is a claim that most recent SD TVs
have adaptive deinterlacers - shame I can't find where to post a link.
Here are some others that refer to deinterlacers for HD -

http://www.prad.de/en/tv/specials/ifa2007-teil3.html

http://www.prad.de/en/tv/specials/if...3.html#Toshiba

Which has a link to a spec sheet -

http://www.genesis-microchip.com/pro...20FLI8548H.pdf


You say on your site that chips would be too expensive - well I am not
so sure. I know more about computer graphics than TVs, ATI cards have
for years claimed to be able to do adaptive per pixel deinterlacing.
More recently the HD series cards have on chip H264 decoders and the
lower end ones are not that expensive. I've tested a couple of BBC HD
samples (not very critically) on mine and it deinterlaced the one that
was interlaced.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL wrote:
Interesting answer, Simon. I'm deeply sceptical about the value of
high-resolution audio, and it seems that you are too. I think I can see
the value of capturing as much as possible in a recording studio, but,
outside that controlled environment the returns diminish massively.
Meanwhile, for most home listening, CD seems to me still very much fit
for purpose.

If you look at the original work on selecting the parameters for CD, it
can be deduced that it was designed to use semi pro video recorders for
the PCM side - and that the sampling rate etc was higher than actually
needed for a end user medium.

Original (low-band) U-Matic, yes, as it was the most practical solution
at the time. Later there was some overlap with the spec of the Sony F1
PCM format too, I think. That was designed to work with Betamax (and can
probably work with anything that has sufficient video bandwidth and
doesn't have a line-replacing dropout compensator).

24/96 or whatever may well be needed for number crunching during
processing etc, but not for the end user.

I carefully navigated around that (or so I thought), but I wasn't
ignoring it.

Obviously you need deeper mix buses etc. and there is a good argument
for better resolution until final output, but generally speaking the CD
production chain (or for download or whatever) tends to be far less
complex than the broadcast chain, and the material higher quality to
start with. For telly general purposes, assuming some technical
competence at the sharp end, 16/48 ought to be quite sufficient.

Digressing slightly, I went to a presentation about dubbing 5.1 for HDTV
at a trade show in January. What was interesting wasn't so much the
mixing itself, but the storage requirements, which are hugely increased
because of the difficulty of compatibility.

Broadly, you can't easily and simply go 5.1 -- stereo -- mono (because
5.1 isn't stereo compatible), so a prudent person makes and keeps
separate stereo mixes. But then you still need international premixes
(M+E broadly speaking) in a variety of formats, so it all gets more than
slightly messy. ISTR (need to find the notes) that you need space for
about 16 audio channels on the server, which isn't trivial.

Ho hum.
--
SimonM
----- TubeWiz.com -----
Video making/uploading that's easy to use & fun to share
Try it today! (now with DFace blurring)

"Zero Tolerance" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 May 2009 08:16:14 -0700 (PDT), Citizen Jimserac
wrote:



yawn..


yeah, well there was this bald headed foreign professor bloke on the bbc4
telly last year, who done a programme about atoms, It done my head in trying
to get round the concepts of auntie matter that could explode If they met
one another and parallel universities what are living among us now and we
don't know it and like I said he was a professor, so I reckon that he knows
a lot more about it then u do!

"Kennedy McEwen" wrote in message
...

I disagree - its that simple. What you refer to as "mice teeth" only
occurs if the object extends over several lines and has consistent motion
between fields. There is no way to discriminate between that and true
spatial detail on small objects or if the motion is inconsistent.

I'm not going to repeat myself again. If you can't see the flaws in your
logic, then re-read what I've already explained.


How? On small objects there are no "mice teeth" artefacts that can be
distinguished between that and real detail.

See above.


There you go again, using generic words like "recognising" without
realising how complex a process recognition is. I doubt that LCD TV sets
have enough processing power to recognise any spatial objects at all, let
alone determine whether they have moved from one field to the next. As
previously explained recognising motion requires 2D correlation of one
field with the other - even doing that locally requires a lot of
processing, and even then it has to be implemented for every local area of
the field since the TV has no prior knowledge of which areas are in
motion.

Again, I'm not repeating the same responses to the same arguments.
You're going round in circles here.


No TV manufacturer uses simple weave deinterlacing. Some very cheap PC
monitors with auxilliary composite/s-video inputs might.

I didn't claim that they did, just made a comment about the performance of
weave as a process.

So what exactly do you claim that they use, since you're so convinced
(wrongly) that their hardware is too feeble to carry out any form of proper
deinterlacing?


OK, lets look at the numbers involved in your simple "recognition" process
for a "computer chip". For simplicity, lets assume a standard resolution
CCIR image with two fields of 720x288 pixels. How local should the motion
detection processing be? Lets say 16x16 pixels, but it might need to be
even finer than that. That's 810 local regions in each field. How much
motion are we looking for between fields, which determines the correlation
width required? Lets say we are only interested in movement of up to half
the region of interest in any direction. Then each 16x16 local patch in
one field needs to be correlated across a larger 32x32 patch in the other,
to determine the local motion. That is 1024 individual cycles of 256
multiplications and accumulate operations, or half a million integer
operations for each local area, assuming hardware multiplier acceleration.
So every 20mS that "computer chip" in your LCD has to implement about 400
million integer arithmetic operations, or 2 billion integer operations a
second - and that is just to detect a very limited amount of local motion,
let alone analyse the result.

To put that into proportion, I am typing this now on a CISC processor
which has a 2.8GHz clock cycle. Accumulation takes around 4 clock cycles
if the operation is pipelined, but multiplications take around 20 clock
cycles. So, at best, even ignoring data fetch and write cycles, the best
this computer chip could achieve is around 140 million MAcc operations a
second, and the LCD panel would need about 15 of them just to do the local
area computation. It would still need a few RISC chips to achieve your
simple "recognition" - far too expensive for even the top range LCD
panels, let alone the cost of the necessary memory architecture to permit
that level of parallel processing. And the situation gets geometrically
worse as the amount of motion being recognised between fields increases or
we start to consider recognising local motion with any of the HD
standards.

hahaha What a load of quackery.
Think you can blind me with pseudo-science, and by randomly quoting a few
x86 CPU specs, do you?
You're way out of your league and it shows.

There are millions of LCD/Plasma TVs out there, happily deinterlacing (and
detecting pulldown of) video signals in exactly the ways I've described, day
in day out with no problems, and still you're not convinced.


So no, I don't think it is as simple as you claim, nor do I believe that
computer chips are the answer to the problem that you so readily overlook.
That is why I asked you *how* this was done - your explanation would be
fine if it wasn't so difficult to implement. However by consistently
failing to even understand the complexity of what you are suggesting I can
only conclude that you know less about *how* it is actually implemented,
assuming it is, than I do already.

I've said virtually nothing about *how* it's implemented at the software
algorithm level in individual TVs. Such information is not generally made
public - manufacturers do not share their intellectual property for all to
steal.

However, if you have a PC TV card, then I suggest you download, read about,
and play with some of the freely-available deinterlacers available for PCs,
such as those included with DScaler.
I'm not here to spoonfeed you.

In response to Zero Tolerance.


Allow me to save you AND me a lot of trouble and explain my purpose -
yes, I got fed up one day that people
such as yourself were telling us how they esteem science but then
attacking Homeopathy as some sort of quackery ( I have no doubt there
are few out there, just as in other branches of medicine). I do
indeed search out comments such as yours and, rather than let them
stand unopposed, register my objections.

You see, what I am stating is NOT that Homeopathy has been proven or
that the science of it has been fully explained, - all of that
remains under research. What I am stating is that there is
insufficient scientific evidence to make any sort of definitive
conclusion regarding this system of medicine and that, therefore, what
you are saying and what I am saying is nothing more than OPINION.
But, your statements, unfortunately, appear to represent themselves as
more than opinion and I believe that this attitude constitutes a
dangerous undermining both of science and of personal medical freedom
to chose.

You have made a number of statements which seek to impugn genuine
scientists, genuine MD's and other health professionals as "quacks"
for utilizing or researching Homeopathy. Your position is a commonly
taken one. In an astounding posting at his blog, Abel Pharmboy
responded to me that he thought everyone connected with Homeopathy was
engaged in some sort of fraud and this is from a guy who is a fully
scientifically trained pharmacologist and whose opinions I otherwise
respect highly. Does he think the MD's and other highly trained
medical professionals using Homeopathy are idiots or something?
Apparently so.

Again and again I hear complete distortions about Homeopathy - that
Ennis' experiments have not been repeated, that they were repeated by
a BBC documentary but failed, that they were somehow connected with
the Benveniste
experiments, whose laboratory was turned into a circus sideshow by the
"Amazing" Randi - apparently you have not had a chance to tell me that
nobody has met his million dollar "challenge" to which I would respond
that a Greek Homeopath named Vitoulkas spent an incredible 5 years
attempting to negotiate with Randi to set up such an experiment.
After 5 years of "negotiations" after which Vitoulkas had reserved
hospital rooms and staff to conduct the experiment, the "Amazing"
Randi became "ill" for several months, he was the ONLY negotiator,
after which Vitoulkas was stunned to receive a note from Randi that
the negotiations should begin again at ground zero and that all other
arrangements had been discarded. Vitoulkas was additionally amazed
to see, at Randi's web site, the statement that it was he, Vitoulkas,
who had "withdrawn" from the negotiations! It is clear that enough
"scientific" and other objections can be introduced into the
negotiations, in my opinion, to make ANY attempt at satisfying the
ever changing "requirements" an impossibility - for example, has the
challenger ruled out the influence of cosmic rays?

http://www.vithoulkas.com/content/view/1973/lang,en/

My point is that you make clear in your mind the difference between
your opinions and your knowledge and keep that in mind before making
sweeping statements about Homeopathy or any other system of medicine.

The presentation on current Homeopathy research by Dr. Iris Bell MD,
PhD to
learn more. It is quite convincing, but that is just my opinion.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wYO6nNQGe1M

It is from a University debate on Homeopathy, you can find links to
those opposed, I think their comments and arguments are quite good
too!

Iris Bell, M.D., Ph.D. discusses the fact that there are a
statistically significant number of high quality studies showing
homeopathy works and briefly overviews them.

A list of scientific journals from Dr. Bell's presentation:
http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.o...icles/view,173

Next, a great blog, by a Homeopath who takes on all comers - critics
and those in agreement alike. Great reading:
http://laughingmysocksoff.wordpress.com/

The attempt to destroy an entire system of medicine nearly succeeded
here in the states - the closed Homeopathic medical colleges had a
curriculum nearly identical to the standard medical colleges of the
day with the exception that courses related to Homeopathy were added.

In 2011, the first Homeopathic medical college in the U.S. since the
last one closed in the 1930's will open in Arizona. I'd like to see
them be given a chance to prove their medicine along with all the many
other Homeopathy researchers and practitioners who practice and are in
the process of proving it today.

By all means be critical of Homeopathy if you are convinced it is
wrong - but please do not tell us that you have knowledge and
scientific certainty that it cannot work or that your opinion is
somehow better because any expected mechanism of its action might
violate your college chemistry knowledge or personal "common sense".
Two centuries of clinical evidence, and current research, say
otherwise.

Thanks
Citizen Jimserac

In article ,
Louis Barfe's IbMePdErRoIoAmL wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If you look at the original work on selecting the parameters for CD, it
can be deduced that it was designed to use semi pro video recorders for
the PCM side -

I remember things like the PCM-F1, designed to be paired with a portable
Betamax deck.

Originally NTSC U-Matic. So anything with an equal or higher luminance
bandwidth will do.

and that the sampling rate etc was higher than actually
needed for a end user medium.

NICAM's 32KHz, isn't it?

And 11 bit companded. If you mean the end user version.

--
*Forget about World Peace...Visualize using your turn signal.

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

On Sun, 3 May 2009 14:43:27 -0700 (PDT), Citizen Jimserac
wrote:

Allow me to save you AND me a lot of trouble and explain my purpose -

I appreciate your comments and do see where you're coming from. I
admit that I don't necessarily agree with everything you say, but
that's the nature of debate, after all.

insufficient scientific evidence to make any sort of definitive
conclusion regarding this system of medicine and that, therefore, what
you are saying and what I am saying is nothing more than OPINION.
But, your statements, unfortunately, appear to represent themselves as
more than opinion and I believe that this attitude constitutes a
dangerous undermining both of science and of personal medical freedom
to chose.

Again, I do see your point, and while I'm perfectly content to admit
that I don't have encyclopaedic scientific and medical knowledge, I do
like to think that I do at least have a logical mind and am open to
new ideas. In many ways I'm content to agree that what I'm saying is
only my "opinion" but that strikes me as very much a slippery slope,
for such representation is how good things are undermined.

We see this so much in today's mainstream media, where nothing can
ever be reported as a matter of fact - that everything must be a
"debate" and a matter of "opinion". It leads of a lot of muddled
thinking and I do fear that it risks sucking us back into the dark
ages. "Do witches exist? Science and the common sense of millions of
people says no, but this man says that they do. So clearly with two
opinions of equal weight, we'll never know for sure."

Ultimately there has to be some definition of truth - the things that
we know are real, the things that we can see and touch and measure,
the things that we can predict, and verify, and repeat. Those seem
like pretty good yardsticks to start with, which is why I have
considerable affinity for 'the scientific method'.

Equally, I love surprises - I love new information turning things
upside down, changing the game and altering the whole way that we
think about things. I like that too - but the information has to be
good, has to be trustworthy, has to be truthful. "Ghosts are real, we
can't prove it but they just are" doesn't do it for me. "We can prove
the existence of something that we can't yet explain" totally floats
my boat, and such an argument has my immediate attention. There's a
genuine mystery, something new to learn and understand. I think that's
what we all seek, in one way or another.

In the thousands of years before Newton and Galileo were around, it
could be observed that there was a force which propelled apples, cats,
and perhaps mead-soaked college students towards the ground when they
fell from trees. Even though they didn't know what gravity was, they
knew it was there. Even though they couldn't explain it, they could
see that it always happened. It was constant and repeatable.

Eventually an explanation was found - and it was pretty damn perfect.
In fact it was so perfect that they could take that explanation and
make predictions with it. "If gravity is real, then the way that
Uranus moves means that there must be an eighth planet about 4 and a
half billion kilometers away from the sun" -- and there was! How cool
is that?

So, OK, perhaps it's just a matter of my "opinion" but I do think
there's a lot more validity to a way of thinking which explains that
which is observable, in contrast to the 'homeopathic' approach which,
to me, seems rather like trying to prove something which, in probably
the majority of studies, cannot even be shown to be present.

I'm aware of James Randi and his million dollar challenge but I think
that even without the million dollars, genuine scientific discoveries
aren't very likely to remain unobserved for too long.

that a Greek Homeopath named Vitoulkas spent an incredible 5 years
attempting to negotiate with Randi to set up such an experiment.

I've heard this put around a few times but I fear that neither side
brings any light to the table. Certainly it is known that Randi
suffered a heart attack in February 2006 so those who use quotation
marks when observing that Randi became "ill" are behaving
disengenuously at best. Fundamentally if Mr Vitoulkas can prove
homeopathy so easily, he doesn't need to muck about with the likes of
Randi. He should do the research, prove the claims, and become the
world-recognised saviour of homeopathy the world over. If he can prove
- even if he cannot explain - something which has evaded scientific
scrutiny and repeatability for such a long time, he'd find himself on
the receiving end of a Nobel or two. Or three. Or four. No fooling.

The presentation on current Homeopathy research by Dr. Iris Bell MD,
PhD to learn more. It is quite convincing, but that is just my opinion.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wYO6nNQGe1M

Must admit I don't have the time to watch it right now, but I will do,
and I thank you for the link.

By all means be critical of Homeopathy if you are convinced it is
wrong - but please do not tell us that you have knowledge and
scientific certainty that it cannot work or that your opinion is
somehow better because any expected mechanism of its action might
violate your college chemistry knowledge or personal "common sense".

I make no claim for my statements other than that they are the product
of my own critical thinking. I claim no qualifications (which enables
what I say to be easily dismissed as "unscientific opinion" by those
who seek to do so) and I certainly don't claim to be any kind of
expert. I'm an interested observer, and nothing more.

But that said, even with a sub-college knowledge of chemistry, I can
see the gaps in an argument which claims that you can obtain a
recognised, powerful and repetable effect from an active ingredient
which has been diluted so many times that none of it is still there.

It'd be amazingly cool if it were true - but as I'm sure you'll have
heard other people say before, "extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence", and so far I'm not aware of any decent proof
that homeopathy even works in the first place - let alone that science
"cannot explain it".

Two centuries of clinical evidence, and current research, say
otherwise.

I suspect that we won't agree any time soon, but I remain entirely
open to having my mind changed, and indeed I hope that it will be.

Appreciate your time - thanks for the discussion.

--

On Sun, 03 May 2009 21:01:06 +0100, Andy Furniss
wrote:

Snips some context because it's backwards due to top posting :-(

I *prefer* reading the new stuff without having to reread the old
stuff, unless, as now, it's a point by point rebuttal, when
interleaving is best.

HD TVs - it does seem from reviews that they have deinterlacers, in fact
somewhere on the site linked to there is a claim that most recent SD TVs
have adaptive deinterlacers - shame I can't find where to post a link.
Here are some others that refer to deinterlacers for HD -

http://www.prad.de/en/tv/specials/ifa2007-teil3.html

You've just made me wade through 30 odd pages press card vacuousness,
with, if I got them all, 5 mentions of 'deinterlac', all in the
vaguest possible terms. Of course, it's a review, not a scientific
article, but (s)he doesn't quote a single reputable source for
anything said. Further, probably to simplify comparisons, they use
their own standardised specsheet, but at the cost of us not seeing the
original manufacturers', which might have told us something about the
technology, though, as I've often bemoaned here, specs ain't what they
used to be.

The most 'convincing' quote, though it's hardly authoritative, is:
'Just like the M8 range, the F86 series includes "Movie-Mode", which
changes the sensitivity of the deinterlacer to film material.' So
where did he get that from? Well, if I know anything about trade
fairs, shows, and the like, he's either read some blurb, which might
carry some weight, or he may have just listened to the spiel of one of
the stand attendants, who may, or may not, have not what (s)he was
talking about. Even the blurb can be suspect. For one thing, it's
usually written by marketeers rather than technical design people, for
another, even the technical people still peddle myths such as "The
Persistence Of Vision".

http://www.prad.de/en/tv/specials/if...3.html#Toshiba

Which has a link to a spec sheet -

http://www.genesis-microchip.com/pro...20FLI8548H.pdf

Search term 'deinterlac', no matches found.

You say on your site that chips would be too expensive

I think they would have been for the cheapest models, though of course
as LCDs have come in there will have been increasing economies of
scale. BTW, at the time mine were anything but cheap! The bigger one
does have an optional Comb Filter, but I never use it - apparently
like most people here, I think the pictures look best the less they
mucked about with.

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

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