Help, no "blacker than black" bar, PLUGE - Page 15 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #421 of 424 Old 08-14-2005, 08:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 6,997
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimwhite
Blanking = Blacker-than-Black :D

:cool:
Err - surely this is only true of US NTSC (and not Japanese NTSC) composite isn't it? In all other analogue systems (PAL, SECAM, Japanesse NTSC-M, analogue component etc.) blanking and black are the same level. It is only the US implementation of NTSC-M that incorporates a black-level set-up, which means blanking is below black?

AIUI analoge component outputs - in both 480 and 576 standards - shouldn't have NTSC-M US set-up on their black levels, so black and blanking should be the same level?
sneals2000 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #422 of 424 Old 08-14-2005, 08:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
sneals2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 6,997
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kram Sacul
It's all screwed up. We need dvds to be mastered using 0 to 255.
Hmm - that would make them incompatible with the broadcast video gear used to produce them though.

If you take an SD or HD master tape of a film-transfer or a TV show - it will be 16-235. Digital TV broadcasts are based on 16-235.

Why should DVD be different?

There are very good "real world" reasons for allowing scope for over and under shoot in digital TV sampling systems - especially where you have conversion to or from analogue composite or component signals involved. If you clip an analogue overshoot or undershoot you can introduce ringing and other nasty picture artefacts.

As usual - just as with non-square sampling (as used in standard def digital TV), PC video implementations are not thought through properly...

(How many PC video applications incorrectly assume 720x576 or 720x480 are 4:3 and 16:9 for digital video? Loads - except that 720x576 is not 4:3 or 16:9, 702x576 is... 720x576 is slightly wider. There is a similar issue with 720x480...)
sneals2000 is offline  
post #423 of 424 Old 12-21-2005, 02:03 PM
 
tbrunet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 2,750
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmunsil
An O-scope is not going to show you nearly enough detail to see the tiny excursions you typically see in most content.
Don
100% wrong..one can "see", every line, every pixel, in fact it's the only way for us "humans" to observe and measure video detail in real time!

thomas
tbrunet is offline  
post #424 of 424 Old 12-21-2005, 06:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jimwhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Saint Petersburg, FL USA
Posts: 5,372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
"(How many PC video applications incorrectly assume 720x576 or 720x480 are 4:3 and 16:9 for digital video? Loads - except that 720x576 is not 4:3 or 16:9, 702x576 is... 720x576 is slightly wider. There is a similar issue with 720x480...) "

you're assuming all pixels are square.... :D

:cool:

Jim White
St. Petersburg, FL
jimwhite is offline  
Closed Thread Home Theater Computers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off