BBC HD vs ITV1 HD

On Sun, 03 May 2009 23:45:25 +0100, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

NICAM's 32KHz, isn't it?

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

14 to 10 actually. Never trust a sound man to know the facts :-)

On Mon, 04 May 2009 00:41:49 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

I *prefer* reading the new stuff without having to reread the old stuff

Oh, you mean like this illogical layout --

Answer: 4

Billy Windsor asked:
Question: What is 2 + 2?

No, I mean like I've just read your hackneyed post in the thread tree,
and many times before, so I certainly don't need to read it again at
the top of a reply ...

On Mon, 04 May 2009 02:01:25 +0200, J G Miller
wrote:

[something idiotic and useless]

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

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

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

Search term 'deinterlac', no matches found.

Try interlac, it's only two pages anyway.

In article , Java Jive
writes
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.

Your arithmetic is flawed. :-(

The flyback (or refresh period) is almost irrelevant, depending on how
the image is updated.

If your shot is 10mS (1/100th) and the field period is 20mS (CCIR-I)
then you have a 50% probability of getting part of one field and part of
another in your photo if the update of all pixels in the field is
instantaneous, or near so, as you suggest. The flyback is irrelevant in
this case.

If the update from one field to the next is sequential, as in a CRT,
with no vertical blanking or flyback period then there is a 100%
probability of getting the transition in 50% of the frame. Loads of CRT
images confirm this, some of which have been referenced in this thread.

With standard CCIR-I vertical blanking of 1.6mS between frames, there is
a 100% probability of getting the transition between frames in 42% of
the image.

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.

Back to school for you then!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

On Mon, 04 May 2009 01:14:44 +0100, Java Jive wrote:

No, I mean like I've just read your hackneyed post in the thread tree

In pan, you can turn off previously quoted text if you wish.

And here are the arguments more cogently put than my previous effort,
from http://www.idallen.com/topposting.html

QUOTE

Arguments to support bottom-posting...

A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right.
Q: Why should I start my reply below the quoted text?

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?

A: The lost context.
Q: What makes top-posted replies harder to read than bottom-posted?

A: Yes.
Q: Should I trim down the quoted part of an email to which I'm replying?

UNQUOTE














and many times before, so I certainly don't need to read it again at the
top of a reply ...

On Mon, 04 May 2009 02:01:25 +0200, J G Miller wrote:

[something idiotic and useless]

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

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

In article , jamie powell
writes

"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.

It isn't the flaws in my logic that concern me so much as the failure to
address the detail in yours. I have consistently asked you *one*
question and you still refuse, or are unable, to answer that. Instead
you revert to feeble, non-specific terms like "recognise", ignoring the
implementation or capability for motuion to be confused by real spatial
detail in any practical "recognition" algorithm. I have given you
actual numbers for calculations that I believe to be required for such
motion recognition, but you dismiss them as "quackery" without prducting
any alternative. I may well be wrong, and there may be a simpler method,
but you still haven't identified it.

It is quite simple now, just one word: HOW?

You have consistently shown that you have no idea how this is achieved
yet you repeatedly state that it is.

Please re-subscribe to alt.binaries.harry.potter where your claims are
more likely to be discussed at the level of detail that suits you.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article , SpamTrapSeeSig
writes
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.

Never really understood the need for 5.1 audio. I only have two ears,
but I can't speak for some of the genetic mutations that frequent this
group. ;-)
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

In article , Kennedy McEwen wrote:
Never really understood the need for 5.1 audio. I only have two ears,
but I can't speak for some of the genetic mutations that frequent this
group. ;-)

Likewise. I can think of very very few musical or dramatic works that
have used sounds from behind the listener without the result seeming like
a gimmick, or something just done for the sake of it. When it's done with
taste and restraint it can be very effective, but to maintain what
amounts to an extra one and a half stereo systems just for these few
occasions seems like an extravagance.

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

On Sun, 03 May 2009 10:59:25 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

Dave,

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

I would have to check, but I think that Sony Digibeta is 24bit at
48kHz.

Jim.