IMHO, Digital SECAM video is better than Analog NTSC video

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4249212.html

Quotes:

1. "In the following description of the invention, input signals are
assumed to be 8-bit pulse-code-modulated (PCM) video signals which have
been produced by sampling and quantizing NTSC analogue composite video
signals in response to sampling pulses having a sampling frequency of
10.74 MHz."

2. "Referring to FIG. 1, the PCM video signal fed from an input
terminal IN is supplied directly and through a chroma-inverter 11 to a
first switch 12. In the NTSC color television signal, the subcarrier
phases between adjacent frames are different from each other by
180.degree.. In order to provide a frame-phase-compensated video signal
having the subcarrier in phase for every frame, a switching signal
generator 10, the chroma inverter 11 and the first switch 12 are
employed. The switching signal generator 10, which is supplied with the
vertical synchronizing signal SYNC separated from the NTSC analogue
composite video signal, generates a switching signal SW having a
repetition period equal to two frames (1/15 second) and having a pulse
width of one frame (1/30 second). The first switch 12 is driven by the
switching signal SW, thereby to provide the frame-phase-compensated
video signal a at its output. The frame-phase-compensated video signal
a is supplied through a second switch 13 to a picture memory 14 for
storage therein, which has a capacity of one frame of the 8-bit PCM
video signal, i.e., about 2.86 mega-bits, and then stored therein."

3. "The slicer circuit 16 provides a one-bit pulse c of logic "1" for
each sample of the PCM video signal when the absolute value."

4. "The chroma inverter 22 and the third switch 23 are identical to the
chroma inverter 11 and the first switch 12, respectively, and perform
the reverse phase-compensation to the latter to provide the NTSC PCM
video signal at a terminal 24."

http://www.talkaboutsatellitetv.com/...es/176380.html
quote:

"There is uncompressed PCM for video. The data rate is 270 Mbit/sec for
standard definition, 525 line, 60 field interlaced. The computer folks
refer to this as 480i. For Hi def, the data rate bumps up to 1.5
Gbit/sec for 1920x1080 interlaced. This stuff is only seen in studios
and post production facilities."

Hmm. Well I would like to see some 2000 X 2000 X 2000 voxels
progressive [non-interlaced] 32-bit PCM video signals which have been
produced by sampling and quantizing SECAM analogue video signals in
response to sampling pulses having a sampling frequency of 1 Hz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voxel

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: While NTSC and PAL use an amplitude-modulated
carrier for video, SECAM uses FM video.

I really like FM video. Don't know why

Bob Eld wrote in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.e...f89aa01?hl=en&
:

> Simple answer: FM is wasteful of bandwidth with other things equal. The
> video signal needs about 3-1/2Mhz of bandwidh. It would be difficult to get
> this with FM unless the channel spacing was maybe 10 to 20MHz depending on
> modulation index.

What if the WMV [Windows Media Video] digital compression is used and
the color resolution is decrease sufficiently? Its possible to have a
supreme quality in terms of number of pixels and frame rate. All you
have to do is compress the WMV's color resolution and you can get a
bit-rate that is low enough not to hog bandwidth and at the same time,
the image resolution and frame rate will be that of a first-class video
signal.


Regards,

Radium

Radium

In article <. com>,
"Radium" <> wrote:

> http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4249212.html
>
> Quotes:
>
> 1. "In the following description of the invention, input signals are
> assumed to be 8-bit pulse-code-modulated (PCM) video signals which have
> been produced by sampling and quantizing NTSC analogue composite video
> signals in response to sampling pulses having a sampling frequency of
> 10.74 MHz."
>
SNIP
>
> What if the WMV [Windows Media Video] digital compression is used and
> the color resolution is decrease sufficiently? Its possible to have a
> supreme quality in terms of number of pixels and frame rate. All you
> have to do is compress the WMV's color resolution and you can get a
> bit-rate that is low enough not to hog bandwidth and at the same time,
> the image resolution and frame rate will be that of a first-class video
> signal.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Radium

Perhaps, but sometimes don't you suspect that all this is a giant
struggle to buff the moldy cheese?

Well, in my opinion, Lemon pie is better than Pecan. Usually. Unless the
Pecan Pie is cooked by someone excellent and the Lemon pie is cooked by
someone lame. Maybe.

And while we're at it, Does it matter which one is "better" if they're
both being watched on a Video iPod while on a crowded train?

What about on a LCD laptop on a transatlantic flight?

A 1999 Barco projector in a 350 seat hall?


Its NICE when something is measurably better.

It's even NICER when that difference is noticible.

And it's REALLY Nice when someone (anyone) actually notices the
difference.

But none of those things are typical.

Usually the ONLY place where the quality is seen and appreciated is in
the properly lit studio, seen by people with educated eyes, on
calibrated monitors.

Then it goes out in the world and you're lucky if anyone watches at all.

Strive for quality, in what you can control, by all means.

Even better - strive for quality from everyone associated with the work.

But understand that no matter how much you strive, there WILL be
compromises to quality.

Learn what it makes sense to struggle for. Learn what you can "live
with" and what you simply can't.

Learn what to let go of. And when to hold on to the highest possible
standards.

And do your best.

The rest is out of our hands.

(Sorry, I'm rambling, but it's been a long production chain of one
project after another and there's still no end in sight - sigh!)

--
Bill Davis
StartEditingNow.com
DVD editing instruction with Multi-Track Movies

FCP User

And digital NTSC is better than analog SECAM.
So what?

Richard Crowley

On 8 Oct 2006 17:25:49 -0700, "Radium" <> Gave us:

>Regards,
>
>Radium


****ing snip already!

Who watches NTSC anymore? Bwuahahahahahah!

Also, look at the difference in the creation dates for the two
standards, Mr. Techno Wiz.

I think they call it a no brainer.

Both are STILL low res compared to HD, digital or analog.

JoeBloe

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 20:49:12 -0700, FCP User <> Gave
us:
>
>Perhaps, but sometimes don't you suspect that all this is a giant
>struggle to buff the moldy cheese?
>
>Well, in my opinion, Lemon pie is better than Pecan. Usually. Unless the
>Pecan Pie is cooked by someone excellent and the Lemon pie is cooked by
>someone lame. Maybe.

As of today, I believe that Windows Vista is better than any
previous version, even though both are made by a bad chef.

JoeBloe

On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:26:41 -0700, JoeBloe
<> wrote:

>On 8 Oct 2006 17:25:49 -0700, "Radium" <> Gave us:
>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Radium
>
>
> ****ing snip already!
>
> Who watches NTSC anymore? Bwuahahahahahah!


Stupid Americans and Japs do. They are behind the rest of the world.

jd

"jd" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:26:41 -0700, JoeBloe
> <> wrote:
>
>>On 8 Oct 2006 17:25:49 -0700, "Radium" <> Gave us:
>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Radium
>>
>>
>> ****ing snip already!
>>
>> Who watches NTSC anymore? Bwuahahahahahah!
>
>
> Stupid Americans and Japs do. They are behind the rest of the world.
>
Yeah, but those other slow countries have to wait around for a 25th of a
second
to see a full frame, we can see it in a mere 30th of a second
with smoother motion as an extra benifit.

David

David McCall

On Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:43:09 GMT, "David McCall" <david_____@techshop.net>
wrote:

>Yeah, but those other slow countries have to wait around for a 25th of a
>second
>to see a full frame, we can see it in a mere 30th of a second
>with smoother motion as an extra benifit.

I live in a slow country, but to beat you I go to the cinema and
see a new picture every 0,013888888888888888888888888888889 sec.
Beat that, buster! )

cheers

-martin-
--

Martin Heffels

Richard Crowley wrote:
> And digital NTSC is better than analog SECAM.

No it isn't

Radium

"Radium" wrote ...
> Richard Crowley wrote:
>> And digital NTSC is better than analog SECAM.
>
> No it isn't

Thank you for your opinion.
I will repeat the part you snipped: "So what?"
And I'll raise you a "Who Cares?"

Richard Crowley