Origins of PAL: 1956 radio engeenering airticle from UK mag -- phase alternations (and effects) considered...

In article , Doug McDonald wrote:
That's all there is to it. A proper NTSC system has a wider
color gamut, period.


So what? It wasn't the point at issue.

Oh but is WAS the point at issue!! The point was that
teh official NTSC color rendition is superior to the
official PAL one. We are pointing out that NTSC
is superior to PAL. This is one reason: better
color rendition.

At the risk of sending this discussion into an ever decreasing spiral,
let's just emphasise again that this "better color rendition" is a
theoretical ideal that is probably never achieved in the real world. It
could only happen in those rare instances where the cameras used to
make a programme and the CRT in the TV set used to display it both
happened to be made for the same set of primary colours, and all the
electronic circuitry was correctly lined up. The differences between
the NTSC and PAL primaries (Actually, aren't they standardised by the
SMPTE and the EBU?) are minute compared with all the other variables,
so it is academic to claim superiority for either of them.

Rod.

In article , Doug McDonald wrote:
The fact is, NTSC is completely decodeable at the
consumer level, while PAL is apparently only decodeable
only by a very few devices that only the BBC has. This
makes a tremendous difference on the quality of the
image seen on actual home TVs.

Actually, unless you examine the screen very carefully while it is
displaying test signals, and you know exactly what to look for, it
makes practically no visible difference at all. Many TV sets in the UK
are multi-standard with auto-switching, and viewers can watch tapes,
DVDs and satellite signals on various standards without even being
aware of what type of signal they're watching.

Rod.

In article ,
Roderick Stewart writes:
In article , Doug McDonald wrote:
The fact is, NTSC is completely decodeable at the
consumer level, while PAL is apparently only decodeable
only by a very few devices that only the BBC has. This
makes a tremendous difference on the quality of the
image seen on actual home TVs.

Actually, unless you examine the screen very carefully while it is
displaying test signals, and you know exactly what to look for, it
makes practically no visible difference at all.

After reading the patent on the BBC decoder, it does certainly look
interesting, but the patent isn't a full decoder (per se.) However, you
keep on forgetting one thing: american TVs are quite a big bigger
on average, and any kind of disturbance is visible. Small TVs almost
always look sharper (even one without a comb), but that doesn't
deal with the large TV issue.

John

John Dyson wrote:

The bottom line: it cannot be 3D decoded in the home, and that
is sad, because it would have significantly improved the analog OTA image
quality. If the NTSC color encoding techniques and gamut were generally
used (instead of PAL encoding), you'd see little or no difference on
an A/B comparison, unless you would use a full 3D decoder (not likely
for PAL) and/or have full gamut NTSC phosphors.


It is not unlikely, many "Home" PAL TVs in Australia actually have a
true
comb 3d decoder and give the same results as NTSC.


My 29 inch Mitsubishi gives the same decoding capabilities as my
professional
adaptive comb filter 3D decoder used with standards converters and in
an AB test on the set show no difference between the inbuilt and the
external professional decoders unless I turn off the comb filter
functions in the menu.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:14:28 +0000 (UTC), John S. Dyson
wrote:

All the crap about chromaticity is waffle designed to confuse the ignorant
reader.

If a 'very good green' isn't in your gamut, you cannot display it. The
'Green' in the NTSC gamut is certainly better. It seems like you are
talking beyond your competency. Just because there is a too-complex
idea for you, this doesn't mean that the idea is wrong.

You ****ing arrogant little ****. Typical attitude of a lot of Yanks.
And you wonder why the world wants to blow you up?

Bandwidth affects how much detail you get in the colour information. It
does not affect what the colour is.

Well, actually it can affect the color in the transitions.

Well yes, obviously. But once it has settled it is irrelevant.

Along with
'bandwidth', actually the phase shift that occurs with most filter
designs can also cause hue problems. Eventually, the hue will settle
to as correct as it can be (assuming that the bandwidth is adequate at

Oh God. Get real, as you would say.

all, and you have an adequate gamut provided by your phosphors or filters,
the matrix is correct, etc.)

Yawn.

"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:29:31 -0500, Doug McDonald
wrote:

They have had it repeated that PAL is superior
so many time ... for one and only onme obsolete reason ...
that they actually believe it.

Because it's true. Why would we not have implemented NTSC otherwise?

It *was* true. Back when it was difficult to design a signal chain with low
diff phase.
Now it is easy, the one-time advantages of PAL do not apply, and NTSC
is the superior system.


The fact is, NTSC is completely decodeable at the
consumer level, while PAL is apparently only decodeable

You never actually seem to define what this 'decodable' means.
My TV decodes PAL into R, G and B just fine. There will always be
cross-luminance and cross colour (assuming that's what you are
talking about) whatever the system. The actual hue of the colours
will NEVER NEVER EVER be wrong on PAL. It will be on NTSC. This is
the point. Do you get it?

The appearance of cross luminance on PAL is different. In my opinion
PAL has the advantage here. However, the 15 Hz cross color of
NTSC is much less objectionable than the mixed 6.25 / 18.75 Hz
crosscolor of PAL.

The overwhelming problem with PAL (well System I or G
or whatever) is the 50 Hz flicker. It's way worse than 60 Hz System
M flicker. Of course, this will go away with non-CRT displays and
frame-store processing, but at the moment NTSC is the better system.


only by a very few devices that only the BBC has. This
makes a tremendous difference on the quality of the
image seen on actual home TVs.

Crap.

Apparently the Europeans have been brainwashed. It's
apparently a congenital ability, bred into them
during the 20th century.

God, you're just as ****ing arrogant and ignorant as Dyson.

They have had it repeated that PAL is superior
so many time ... for one and only onme obsolete reason ...
that they actually believe it.

Is this a genetic or environmental issue?

Europeans see in colour. Americans see in color. While most natural
objects have approximately the same color as colour, this is not
true of certain cheap inkjet printer inks, and I don't know what
the situation is with CRT phosphors.

The exceptions make possible things like the joke T-shirt which
will be seen by Americans as red-on-black saying "God save the
Queen" and which will be seen by Europeans as green-on-white saying
"God bleep the Queen", thereby making it likely that the person
wearing it will get beaten up by both sides.

You never actually seem to define what this 'decodable' means.
My TV decodes PAL into R, G and B just fine. There will always be
cross-luminance and cross colour (assuming that's what you are
talking about) whatever the system. The actual hue of the colours
will NEVER NEVER EVER be wrong on PAL. It will be on NTSC. This is
the point. Do you get it?

Does anyone have the formula for converting red color, green color, and
blue color images to red colour, green colour, and blue colour images?

Gordon L. Burditt

"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:14:28 +0000 (UTC), John S. Dyson
wrote:

All the crap about chromaticity is waffle designed to confuse the
ignorant
reader.

If a 'very good green' isn't in your gamut, you cannot display it. The
'Green' in the NTSC gamut is certainly better. It seems like you are
talking beyond your competency. Just because there is a too-complex
idea for you, this doesn't mean that the idea is wrong.

You ****ing arrogant little ****. Typical attitude of a lot of Yanks.
And you wonder why the world wants to blow you up?

.... er, why would anybody want to read past here?

Your pal, Sal

In article ,
Paul Ratcliffe writes:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 00:14:28 +0000 (UTC), John S. Dyson
wrote:

All the crap about chromaticity is waffle designed to confuse the ignorant
reader.

If a 'very good green' isn't in your gamut, you cannot display it. The
'Green' in the NTSC gamut is certainly better. It seems like you are
talking beyond your competency. Just because there is a too-complex
idea for you, this doesn't mean that the idea is wrong.

You f*cking arrogant little sh*t. Typical attitude of a lot of Yanks.
And you wonder why the world wants to blow you up?

You are the person who brings of the issue of 'ignorance.' I simply provide
a mirror for you to see it. The UKers who just met me a few weeks ago
in the UK wouldn't likely have deemed me arrogant, but I do have a bit
of transparent honesty that can sometimes be unpleasant. When you look
at those who wish to 'blow us up', you'll also mostly see cases of extreme
ignorance who sometimes have just enough technical knowledge to cause serious
damage.

Using low-class language isn't really appropriate in technical discussion
either.

John

Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
se?


The fact is, NTSC is completely decodeable at the
consumer level, while PAL is apparently only decodeable


You never actually seem to define what this 'decodable' means.
My TV decodes PAL into R, G and B just fine.

Uh, no. It decodes the DC COMPONENT.

There will always be
cross-luminance and cross colour (assuming that's what you are
talking about) whatever the system.


Uhh, NO ... in NTSC. And that is the point.
What decodeable means in this context is that one
can retrieve the original luma and chroma from
a composite signal without crosstalk. Because
of the simple phase structure of NTSC, the
3D decoders in consumers sets do a truly excellent
job of this decoding.

Doug McDonald