psychological problem

"Alan White" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:16:20 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

...
It must cost only buttons to produce, so I wonder why
nobody else has thought of it.

Do you remember the 'Victoria to Brighton' in one minute in the '50s?

There's a few on Youtube, including Leeds-London on the M1.

Bill

On Jul 27, 5:16*pm, Roderick Stewart
wrote:
In article 0c074c69-30fd-4abf-8006-

, wrote:
I rarely watch broadcast television in any of its forms and when I do
it's usually German analogue (yes I speak German).

I don't speak German but sometimes watch their transport TV channel on the
internet - "Bahn TV". They have a great programme at 2330 (our time) where
they just clamp a camera on the front of a train and broadcast the entire
journey, usually an hour or so. It's completely mindless, but surprisingly
restful to watch. There is no commentary, no music, no camera moves, no
gimmicks whatsoever, just a brief scrolling caption telling the name of
each station as we approach. No, I'm not a train freak. It's just like
going on a journey and being able to watch the scenery because somebody
else is driving. It must cost only buttons to produce, so I wonder why
nobody else has thought of it.

Yes I've seen that There's also one on the HR channel called
Hessenbilder, where they just show random towns and cities throughout
mainland Europe - the architecture, and the people going about their
daily lives - and play soothing light trance music.
It's much better than the BBC's offering of "Pages from Ceefax".

On Jul 27, 4:09*pm, Mark Carver wrote:
wrote:
On Jul 27, 3:25 pm, Mark Carver wrote:
wrote:
Define 'clean analogue reception'.
A signal from an analogue transmitter fed from a lightly or zero compressed
digital link.
Like Crystal Palace for instance.

What sort of digital link would that be then?

A BT 'Facilityline' circuit, which London is festooned with. 270 Mb/s
uncompressed SDI. Or an Energis (or is it C&W now ?) 140 Mb/s composite link,
to name but two.

Well it's either one or the other, so which one?
In any event, the BBC have ARCs within their playout system-
everything's in a 16:9 frame remember - and if, as other people have
suggested, they're moving to a server-based programme source, then
high bitrates for said sources seem less likely.

Admittedly I haven't seen TV from Crystal Palace, but all the UK
analogue transmissions I've seen since 1999 have looked just as bad as
Winter Hill does, with the exception of S4C analogue. I think people
are just used to the low quality, because they have nothing better to
compare it with.

Also, how much of is
ARCd 14:9, and how many horizontal samples are there? It's looking
less like clean analogue after all, isn't it

I muck around with ARCs quite often, I've not noticed any artefacts looking at
the output on pro kit, that's not to say there aren't. I'll stick a frequency

ARCing can only be done either by discarding lines or, as with the
'pro' ones, by deinterlacing, rescaling-via-interpolation, then
reinterlacing again. Either way, it will always be lossy.

sweep though one next time I'm playing. I thought it's commonly accepted that
UK analogue transmission, with clean reception, (and a decent input feed to
the Tx) looks subjectively better for most than DVB. Perhaps I'm wrong. I'm no
where near Winter Hill's service area, so I can't comment on that Tx (though
you seem to be the only person on Usenet that has a problem with its analogue
quality ?)

Yes I'd agree it still looks better than direct-to-home DVB, due to
higher bitrates, but worse in some ways.
I hope they increase freeview bitrates after analogue switch-off, but
now that people have bought these PVRs, they probably won't, as it
would shorten recording times :|

In article , Bill Wright wrote:
3-sat used to do this with a road journey every night after closedown. I've
often thought about recording the output from the cameras on my van, as
evidence when some clot crashes into me.

I bet there are some people already doing this. Within a few years you'll be
able to buy a standard DIY kit from Halfords, a few years after that it'll be
available as a built-in option on some new cars, then they'll all offer it,
then it'll be a legal requirement for all cars and included in the MOT test,
and next thing after that insurance companies will start turning down claims
unless they're supported by video evidence from them. I'd guess it'll all
happen in less than 10 years.

You mark my words.

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

wrote:
On Jul 27, 4:09 pm, Mark Carver wrote:

What sort of digital link would that be then?
A BT 'Facilityline' circuit, which London is festooned with. 270 Mb/s
uncompressed SDI. Or an Energis (or is it C&W now ?) 140 Mb/s composite link,
to name but two.

Well it's either one or the other, so which one?

It may not be either of them, but something else. I doubt you'd see any
difference at home between any of the 34 Mb/s distribution systems

In any event, the BBC have ARCs within their playout system-
everything's in a 16:9 frame remember - and if, as other people have
suggested, they're moving to a server-based programme source, then
high bitrates for said sources seem less likely.

Typical server storage bit rates are 30-50 Mb/s

Admittedly I haven't seen TV from Crystal Palace, but all the UK
analogue transmissions I've seen since 1999 have looked just as bad as
Winter Hill does, with the exception of S4C analogue.

Well that's very interesting, because since about 1996 S4C has distributed its
signal to its analogue transmitters using early 1990s design Thomson 34 Mb/s
codecs.

Also, how much of is
ARCd 14:9, and how many horizontal samples are there? It's looking
less like clean analogue after all, isn't it
I muck around with ARCs quite often, I've not noticed any artefacts looking at
the output on pro kit, that's not to say there aren't. I'll stick a frequency

ARCing can only be done either by discarding lines or, as with the
'pro' ones, by deinterlacing, rescaling-via-interpolation, then
reinterlacing again. Either way, it will always be lossy.

Yes, but by the time there's PAL code/decode artefacts and filtering added
(remember we're talking about analogue transmission) I doubt you'd notice any
conversion artefacts when using a decent quality ARC (Axon, Snell and Wilcox,
etc).


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

On Jul 27, 8:07*pm, Mark Carver wrote:

It may not be either of them, but something else. I doubt you'd see any
difference at home between any of the 34 Mb/s distribution systems

Depends upon which codec is used.



Typical server storage bit rates are 30-50 Mb/s

Compressed using MPEG2?
Stll lower than many digital tapes. They must have some seriously big
hard drive arrays.


Admittedly I haven't seen TV from Crystal Palace, but all the UK
analogue transmissions I've seen since 1999 have looked just as bad as
Winter Hill does, with the exception of S4C analogue.

Well that's very interesting, because since about 1996 S4C has distributed its
signal to its analogue transmitters using early 1990s design Thomson 34 Mb/s
codecs.

I knew they were using an older technology, but I prefer it to MPEG2.
The bilingual service of S4C has no DVB version, and although they may
be using server-based playout for it by now, the last time I checked
it still looked good, at least while Welsh 4:3 programmes were being
shown.

ARCing can only be done either by discarding lines or, as with the
'pro' ones, by deinterlacing, rescaling-via-interpolation, then
reinterlacing again. Either way, it will always be lossy.

Yes, but by the time there's PAL code/decode artefacts and filtering added
(remember we're talking about analogue transmission) I doubt you'd notice any
conversion artefacts when using a decent quality ARC (Axon, Snell and Wilcox,
etc).

PAL artefacts and ARCing artefacts each affect the picture in very
different ways.

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in
message .myzen.co.uk...
You mark my words.

We always do.

Bill

wrote:

Typical server storage bit rates are 30-50 Mb/s

Compressed using MPEG2?
Stll lower than many digital tapes. They must have some seriously big
hard drive arrays.

Yes, but remember that archiving is still done on tape based systems [1], the
servers don't hold the entire programme library, only what is to be broadcast
in the coming days.

[1]
http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/ShowProduct.action?product=PetaSite+S200&site=biz_ en_GB&pageType=Overview&imageType=Main&category=BC MassStorage

I knew they were using an older technology, but I prefer it to MPEG2.
The bilingual service of S4C has no DVB version, and although they may
be using server-based playout for it by now, the last time I checked
it still looked good, at least while Welsh 4:3 programmes were being
shown.

But they are still ARC'd from a 16:9 playout environment.

PAL artefacts and ARCing artefacts each affect the picture in very
different ways.

I don't think I've ever noticed an ARC artefact on analogue TV. Have you got a
screen shot to illustrate your point ? I've not seen in the 10 years I've
occupied these groups a single mention of such an effect (yours excepted).

You seemed to have missed my original point. Upconverted C4 SD, via the C4 HD
channel looks better than the same output as seen on analogue.

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

On Jul 28, 7:31*am, Mark Carver wrote:

Yes, but remember that archiving is still done on tape based systems [1], the
servers *don't hold the entire programme library, only what is to be broadcast
in the coming days.

That seems odd - because if a programme was repeated at some point in
the future, it'd have to be recopied?
The whole server thing also adds yet another MPEG recode into the
chain, bringing it to at least 3 (at least 4 for people watching the
English sub-regions of BBC1).


[1]
http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/ShowProduct.action?product=PetaSite+S2....

Interesting


I knew they were using an older technology, but I prefer it to MPEG2.
The bilingual service of S4C has no DVB version, and although they may
be using server-based playout for it by now, the last time I checked
it still looked good, at least while Welsh 4:3 programmes were being
shown.

But they are still ARC'd from a 16:9 playout environment.

Well, the lack of a DVB version of the same channel means it doesn't
have to be widescreen equipped. So although they would have to ARC
16:9 material to 14:9, this was/is probably done before it reached the
vision mixers etc. and no further ARCing would be needed.


PAL artefacts and ARCing artefacts each affect the picture in very
different ways.

I don't think I've ever noticed an ARC artefact on analogue TV. Have you got a
screen shot to illustrate your point ? I've not seen in the 10 years I've
occupied these groups a single mention of such an effect (yours excepted)..

What sort of thing are you looking for? In the case of 16:9FHA
converted to 14:9 and 16:9 letterbox, the artefacts would simply be a
loss of sharpness, due to the rescaling process, and an unnatural
tracking of movement, due to the deinterlace-reinterlace process.
Nothing that one can point to in a screenshot.
In the case of 16:9FHA converted to 4:3 centre-cut, no rescaling or
deinterlacing is required, so the above doesn't apply, but the picture
would still be lacking in horizontal samples, assuming the 16:9
programme source was 720x576.


You seemed to have missed my original point. Upconverted C4 SD, via the C4 HD
channel looks better than the same output as seen on analogue.

I was merely pointing out the reasons why it looks better - ie. the
shortcomings of the SD broadcast chains, most of which could be
avoided or improved upon if broadcasters cared.

In article o.uk.invalid,
Alan Pemberton wrote:
only has control of pan, tilt, zoom and focus, all other parameters are
controlled by the vision or 'racks' engineer in the control room/OB tech
area.
The Europeans call this function 'shading'.

Do they really? I wonder why? The original BBC iconoscope cameras were
such that they needed constant adjustment. So much so that it was
impossible to cut instantly between them. Camera changes had to be by
means of very slow dissolves, during which the 'racks' operators
adjusted the 'shading' of both the cameras involved.

Yes, "tilt" and "bend" were the adjustments. I think the slow dissolves were
because the engineers only had one monitor and could only see the picture as
it was brought up on air. Surprising that such a simple idea as previewing a
shot before transmitting it wasn't thought of right at the start.

Or maybe it was just to be kind to the primitive sync separators everybody
would be using then, in case the sudden change in signal level on a picture
cut would cause TV sets to lose lock. Or perhaps both.

I would have thought that by the time telly reached the continent this
practice would have been outdated. But terms tend to stick around in
broadcasting circles, even in this competitive, multichannel era...

I'm sure the continent had television before the various orthicon tubes
appeared, so I guess they must have had to tilt and bend as well.

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