Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc,comp.dcom.telecom.tech
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Subject: Re: UK phones are backward?? (was Re: Demon users have to download 
	whole message?)
Organization: Green Hills and Cows

In article <49tmn4$hqm@news.paonline.com> edellers@shivasys.com (Ed
Ellers) writes:

>As for 100 Hz TVs, that's a *receiver* technology; the transmission system 
>is little different from ours, and in fact most of the gear is bought from 
>the same companies (often Japanese or European).  The only reason that 100 
>Hz field doubling was invented was to get rid of the horrible flicker you see 
>on 50 Hz PAL or SECAM displays...something that isn't a problem over here.

This has been one of the biggest annoyances of European TV: the damn
flicker. I am happy to see that that problem has finally been solved.

Just to answer the poster to whom you responded:

One of the reasons the US clings to a 40-year-old TV system is that it
still looks pretty fornicating good, even compared to Hi-Falutin PAL
and SECAM. The Japanese make most of the stuff that both generates and
displays television signals around the world. What system do THEY use?
Good old NTSC.

Just because a system may display more horizontal lines and pigs out
bandwidth does not mean that it necessarily looks any better.

-- 
 John Higdon  |    P.O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
 john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 |   +1 500 FOR-A-MOO    | +1 408 264 4407
              |         http://www.ati.com/ati             | 

From: rees@umich.edu (Jim Rees)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom.tech
Subject: Re: UK phones are backward?? (was Re: Demon users have to download 
	whole message?)
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 1995 10:18 -0500
Organization: University of Michigan CITI

In article <1995Dec4.072145.28798@zygot.ati.com>, john@zygot.ati.com
(John Higdon) writes:

  Just because a system may display more horizontal lines and pigs out
  bandwidth does not mean that it necessarily looks any better.

The advantage of PAL is that the alternating phase makes it easy for the
receiver to cancel out phase errors.  A properly designed receiver, which
includes anything made in the last 15 years, won't have these phase errors
to begin with.  So PAL's advantage is history.

NTSC is also backwards compatible to the old US B&W standard.  I have a 1947
TV set that still works fine.  In the UK, old B&W TV sets no longer work.
"New" and "improved" aren't necessarily the same thing.

Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc,comp.dcom.telecom.tech
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Subject: Re: UK phones are backward?? (was Re: Demon users have to download
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 1995 22:07:44 GMT

In article <4a10hs$kn1@redwdnl.redwood.nl> rob@redwood.nl (Rob J. Nauta)
writes:

>But at least the color is proper. NTSC (never the same color) uses a
>relative signal strength to determine all color, while PAL properly
>uses the RGB colors to make a good image. Depending on where you live
>in the USA, you could be watching some channels with a permanent color
>distortion, purple, green, yellow are the most common.

I don't know if you have bothered to actually look at properly
operating NTSC in the past twenty years or so, but the claims you make
about color distortion are just flat out not true. Theorizing aside, it
is reality that counts. Color rendition on modern NTSC equipment is as
good on any broadcast system in the world.

There were a number of papers written fifteen or twenty years ago that
discussed the fact that any of the phase-locked systems' theoretical
superiority with regard to color rendition has been rendered moot by
improved implementations of NTSC. 

Do you REALLY think that the US does not possess the technology to have
whatever TV system it desires?

-- 
 John Higdon  |    P.O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
 john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 |   +1 500 FOR-A-MOO    | +1 408 264 4407
              |         http://www.ati.com/ati             | 

Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc,comp.dcom.telecom.tech
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Subject: Re: UK phones are backward?? (was Re: Demon users have to download
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 1995 08:31:32 GMT

In article <30C900DA.4E231240@hcremean.async.vt.edu> Lee Cremeans
<lee@hcremean.async.vt.edu> writes:

>Well, you're mostly right; in fact, there really AREN'T any truly
>AmericanTV makers anymore! 

It has been many years since the manufacturers of TV sets developed the
significant technology used therein. Even the mighty Sony licenses
technology from US firms.

-- 
 John Higdon  |    P.O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
 john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 |   +1 500 FOR-A-MOO    | +1 408 264 4407
              |         http://www.ati.com/ati             | 

Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc,comp.dcom.telecom.tech
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon)
Subject: Re: European/American differences (was UK phones are backward??)
Organization: Green Hills and Cows
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 19:00:18 GMT
Lines: 23

In article <49u7h5$dvs@mn5.swip.net> ricard@brax.se writes:

>Why would the conversion from 24 fps to 30 be better or easier to 
>accomplish. I've never noticed anything strange with American films
>broadcast in Europe. American TV shows sometimes look odd though.

Easy. When a film (24 FPS) is transfered to NTSC, some slight of hand
is performed taking advantage of the field rate. Rather than treating
the TV system as "30 FPS", it uses the field rate of 60 Hz. (Actually,
it is just a shade less due to color phase considerations, but you get
the idea.)

Film frames are recorded alternately with two and three fields. That
means that every other video frame contains a film frame transition.
The net result is a perfectly smooth conversion, undetectable by the
eye--and without doing any speed doctoring.

Converting 24 FPS to a 50 Hz field rate is somewhat more problematical.

-- 
 John Higdon  |    P.O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
 john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 |   +1 500 FOR-A-MOO    | +1 408 264 4407
              |         http://www.ati.com/ati             | 

Subject: Re: UK phones are backward?? (was Re: Demon users have to download
From: john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) 
Date: Dec 9, 1995
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom.tech

In article <4a9f6o$h2i@redwdnl.redwood.nl> rob@redwood.nl (Rob J. Nauta)
writes:

>I do not think that, although the USA leads in computers, that there
>are any innovative TV producers in the USA. In Europe, we have Philips,
>but in the USA contemplacy with mass production has made the TV
>industry fat and slow, with Japan leading them the way, even more so
>than the car industry.

I don't know how to tell you this, but technology development is a
separate entity from manufacturing. Much of the technology that the
Japanese incorporate into their very fine products is licensed from
firms who have headquarters within a few miles of where I live in
Silicon Valley. If you look at the underside of many Sony products, you
will see "Technology licensed by Faroudja Laboratories, Inc."

Where stuff is made has nothing to do with where it is invented and
developed. The point is that NTSC works just fine. Why? Because
technology developed in the US over the past decades has enabled it to
look just as good as any of the other systems in common use throughout
the world.

Your PAL TV has no "color" and "tint" controls? That's nice. I cannot
remember the last time I adjusted those controls on any set I own.
Current NTSC implementations have virtually eliminated the need for
these adjustments. So the only thing left is the picture quality
itself. Having seem most of the world's TV standards in action, I can
assure you that the US is not suffering with dim, crappy-looking TVs.

Putting this back into a telephone context, this whole thing reminds me
of comments made recently by someone outside the US who remarked that
in HIS country, where telephones had NOT been deregulated, he could
dial a number on the other side of the continent and it would ring in
seconds--as opposed to the US where he supposed that a person had to go
through a bunch of operators and negotiate a deal with a long distance
company to make a transcontinental call. He was completely incredulous
when I told him that transcontinental calls in the US were dialed and
were completed instantaneously. (Hell, calls to some other countries
complete instantaneously--even overseas--and have for some time.)

One should be completely aware of the total reality before making
judgments about one thing or another. Before anyone goes on about how
much better something is than something else, it is a good idea to
actually lay hands on both.

-- 
 John Higdon  |    P.O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
 john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 |   +1 500 FOR-A-MOO    | +1 408 264 4407
              |         http://www.ati.com/ati             |