From: Brian Inglis
Subject: Re: Digital divide by ten, 1949 style
Organization: Systematic Software
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 22:13:00 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 16:13:00 MDT
On Sun, 22 Sep 2002 17:29:21 -0400, Philip Nasadowski
>In article ,
> John Woodgate wrote:
>> Well, it started like that, but that simple modification doesn't work.
>> So other bells and whistles were added.
>> Also, a more sensible bandwidth
>> was allocated, enabling the horizontal resolution to be more comparable
>> with the vertical.
>Well, since the brits were dumping 405 line operation, that was
>possible. The US didn't really have that luxury..
>> I think it's certain that a major incentive was to find something better
>> than NTSC and different from SECAM, (Something Essentially Contrary to
>> the American Method?) which, as originally envisaged, had many defects.
>Does *anyone* outside of France or Russia even understand SECAM? Do the
>French understand it? Did the inventor understand it? It's a bizzare
>system that seems to be poorly documented :(
>When you read a description of PAL, it seems almost like NTSC, just
>modified for European tastes.
It's been many years, but I found few similarities between PAL
and NTSC colour encoding when I first came over here and looked
at the dufferences -- colour appeared to have been designed into
the PAL system, whereas it appeared to be a kludge added onto the
side of the NTSC system.
Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca)
fake address use address above to reply
email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org spam traps