Does uncompressed video have an associated colorspace?

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:03 pm

Tab. wrote:broadcast (400some x 240/480), vhs (300some x 240/480)

Whaffuck? But why the hell would the NTSC make a TV's resolution different from the resolution that its only (at the time) input source used? That doesn't make any fucking sense (but then again, I'd expect nothing logical from the morons who decided on 29.97 FPS...)

Tab. · Post by **Tab.** » Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:10 pm

to be honest I dunno why broadcast's resolution is that except bandwidth limitations, although 29.97 (I think you mean 59.94) was not set to what it is stupidly

IIRC when color was introduced and it was piggybacked onto the existing 60hz signal there just wasn't enough bandwidth and framerates had to be reduced by 1000/1001. I'd like to see you come up with a better and more efficient solution to making color broadcast work and especially in the 50's

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 2:47 am

Tab. wrote: framerates had to be reduced by 1000/1001.

ErMaC says they were always 29.97

Tab. · Post by **Tab.** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 10:48 am

sorry, nope, back when TV's were only black and white the standard was 60hz in America (ntsc) because that's the standard AC electrical frequency and likewise for 50hz in europe (pal). When color was piggybacked on the fraction was introduced. I don't have the electrical engineering book I got this from off hand but I am right :\

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 9:47 pm

But before color was introduced, the standard was 720x480 @ 30 FPS?

Tab. · Post by **Tab.** » Wed Jun 11, 2003 9:56 pm

NO. The standard was 240 lines interlaced at 60HZ. There was no width because analog lines don't really carry true width in the way we think of it with pixels.

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 12:13 am

Tab. wrote:NO. The standard was 240 lines interlaced at 60HZ.

Which produces 480 lines every 2 hz, which gives 30 actual frames (not fields) per second with a height of 480 lines each.

I'm starting to wonder why the hell this topic is still alive. My question was answered a long time ago...

klinky · Post by **klinky** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 12:40 am

yeah but if you muxed the fields of those 2 cycles together you'd get a ugly frame unless you de-interlaced or blended them together.

The thing about interlacing is that it only looks pretty on a interlaced display.

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 12:52 am

klinky wrote:yeah but if you muxed the fields of those 2 cycles together you'd get a ugly frame unless you de-interlaced or blended them together.

Or you knew which 2 fields went together

Tab. · Post by **Tab.** » Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:02 am

the Black Monarch wrote:
Tab. wrote:NO. The standard was 240 lines interlaced at 60HZ.
Which produces 480 lines every 2 hz, which gives 30 actual frames (not fields) per second with a height of 480 lines each.

I'm starting to wonder why the hell this topic is still alive. My question was answered a long time ago...

way to jump subjects.. we were just talking about the changing of the standard and how ermac was wrong :|
tech knowledge = penis size :O hell yeah