That's why I unsubscribed from this thread. Remember I grew up with monochrome TV and no VCR's I was not introduced classic films on tape. Nostalgia is one thing but the transfers from film to DVD of the best of the old B&W TV only enhance the experience IMO.
I understand the nostalgia thing, I still have friends that listen to stoner rock on LP's played nice and wet.
I recently discovered I could connect my old S-VHS tape player to my HDTV, long after I had dumped a collection of tapes. As an experiment, I purchased a few tapes at a thrift store for 25c a pop and particularly wanted to watch Deliverance with Bert Reynolds. The image was terrible compared to a digitized version, perhaps because my TV has no SVS input, just the yellow video cable.
I'm not into nostalgia personally, but, have picked up obsolete stuff over the years that was once expensive to purchase and then later sacrificed on the alter of progress.
With the internet, everything has a value, and my mothballed gear has become quite valuable.
Having long moved on to digital, for the life of me, I cannot get my ears around the vinyl fad, it must all be a nostalgia thing.
I'm not into nostalgia personally, but, have picked up obsolete stuff over the years that was once expensive to purchase and then later sacrificed on the alter of progress.
With the internet, everything has a value, and my mothballed gear has become quite valuable.
Having long moved on to digital, for the life of me, I cannot get my ears around the vinyl fad, it must all be a nostalgia thing.
Sounds like your pinch roller is worn out, specifically that it has been compressed on one side. Get yourself another VCR. Avoid any VCR that you pickup that isn't either 4 head or 6 head or 8 head (yes they exist). We have the pick of the litter now and there is no point in getting worn out second rate stuff.
wow/flutter shouldn't be present on a modern 6 head VCR.
Last edited:
I think that there is some kind of horridness with our brains going on regarding progressive video formats too, I think that we should've stuck with interlaced formats and simply just increased the resolution.
Plenty of them out there still. Great to hear that Plasma is still rocking strong.
very low bandwidth digital video encompasses pretty much everything streaming on netflix and youtube. I assure you we can get a better looking picture from a video tape here in our house with less blockiness (and very little analog tape noise).
But the thing is, when you play it back on a CRT the analog tape noise just disappears, it doesn't even show up. You see the noise simply isn't present, it comes and goes too quickly to ever show up on the screen, the only time that I ever see noise on a CRT monitor is when its constant and there is tape damage.
Just remember back, if you ever had the chance, to watch a grainy tv show from a far off transmitter with a bad antenna, everybody did it and still managed to enjoy the tv program anyway. Yet today if we ever see ever a single pixel out of place we scream bloody murder that HDMI cable has broken again.
The reason is the display type, a CRT or Plasma simply deals with analog noise much better than a modern day LCD does. I think it translates the noise into a pure white pixel and leaves it stuck on the screen for longer. or the receiver is simply of crappier quality in modern day LCD tv sets.
In either case something crappy is going on with modern tv sets.
I buy the VHS tapes of my favorite show off ebay and watch them straight up. A full complete set of Star Trek Voyager on VHS tape is very tempting to me right now. So is The X-Files. I can't say anything bad about the whole idea of buying your favorite 90's shows on VHS tape.
At lealst it won't be re compressed into MPEG-2 at a low bitrate like it would on DVD. I'm sure that if you blew the picture up you would prefer a good condition analog VHS tape over the DVD version of The X-Files any day.
There is also the fact that I can easily buy a 90's tv show on Laserdisc and then copy it to tape for easier viewing, and once the tape is worn out do it all over again in 20 years time. (it does take a long time to wear out a tape.)
There is also something to be said about the poor mastering quality of modern day DVD box set releases of tv shows. Typically they are poor and done to a budget. Not so with the VHS versions. WYSIWYG with an analog format.
This isn't just about the nostalgia trip. Go off and watch your favourite DVD's on a CRT monitor today and count the number of digital MPEG-2 artifacts that you can see on the screen.
In fact, this is homework for all of you, go off and find an old CRT television and if you can't see anything then up the brightness on the screen and play back a DVD video on the television and count the number of digital compression artifacts that you see. So much for your "perfect" technology. *snicker*
My dirty passionate rant: (You were warned)
The universe is analog. Lets split this argument into two facets here, analog vs digital and VHS/Betamax vs Modern digital codecs.
Clearly a battle between VHS/Betamax vs Modern digital codecs will be lost every single time that is just a silly argument. But my nostalgia trip consists of seeing the video in its originally released form in the 1990s, I guess you could call that a nostalgia trip but when I'm having the trip I don't see it that way, I see it as analog being a little technology demon inside of the VCR screaming its little head off saying to the world, LOOK AT ME, look at my great picture, my great sound, for the 1990s, this is the best that I could do with analog technology of the time and my god did we just run with it, we didn't wait 10-20 years for something superior to come along, no, this is the best that we could achieve with analog technology of the time and this is what we made. This is the best of analog video and audio.
As for analog vs digital, in a puritan sense analog would win if we had access to a replicator that could reproduce the originally captured analog audio and video signal perfectly down to the subatomic level then yes, analog would be superior.
But in a pratical sense digital would win, every time. In a sense digital is really just rudimentary replicator technology (from star trek).
And yes a digitally replicated video and audio signal, no matter what resolution it is, a fifty billion P, don't care. It would be technically superior to everything out there forever and ever. , But the only problem with that is that it feels like we didn't create it. It feels like we didn't create digital video and audio reproduction technology at all. It feels like its a technology that has came from outer space and invaded all of our homes and all of our theatres. Its a technology that has no place and no origin on this planet earth anywhere. Not in a million years could you ever create a digital camera or a digital dvd player from sticks and stones and other organic things from planet Earth and that is how it will ALWAYS feel to me. The trouble with that though is that I feel like its not human at all. Its too perfect. There is no flaw in it at all, there is nothing to say that we created it, the bible tells us that we all were created imperfect, we walked out of eden imperfect, god told us we were imperfect, and even if you are an atheist I'm 100% sure that you could argue that a human being could never create a perfect cup of coffee. AND THAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH ALL DIGITAL FORMATS.
We are imperfect human beings. Yet we created digital technology which is a perfect technology. It doesn't make sense.
That is why I watch VHS and Betamax, because it feels like its a technology that we, us, humans created, here on planet earth, with organic materials, organic free range Betamax video tapes roaming about and then captured and put up on the shelf for all of us to purchase and use.
The point is, digital technology is scarily perfect. I've never been more scared of a technology in my entire life. Digital prescision has no place in our society no place in our makeup of being human beings, no sense of failure, no sense of fault, no way that it could possibly ever fail us as human beings, let us down, fail to let the dog out in the morning, fail to not take the garbage out of a morning, fail to not take our joobbbs.
And that is why I hate it. That is why I still own an analog Kenwood TH-F7 and why I just dreamed of having one in my hands as I was rescuing a girlfriend from outer space from sudden doom in a school hallway somewhere and we had to hold a protest of some sorts in the hallway or else she wouldn't be able to metamorphasize into a moth and go through the metamorphosis process and turn into a moth and I couldn't then save her life.
The point is, digital isn't human. Analog is human. That's why millions of rockers the world over still listen to cassette tape, why VHS is making a resurgence, why people are STILL TO THIS DAY spending thousands on home theater systems then playing back Laserdiscs instead of DVD or Bluray. Its imperfect, analog formats are not anywhere near as intimidating as digital is.
And my god are analog formats easy to use. insert tape, press play, press fast forward to skip.
Try doing that in a car sometime with a modern touch screen display as the car rocks around, try picking another track or album.
Me? I've got a cassette deck, All I've gotta do is hit the EJECT button and get another tape out of the center console.
The ease of use.
The low cost. A single tape is just a single month's netflix subscription minus the cost of a computer or widescreen tv, my Sony Trinitron came off the side of the street! All I had to do was resolder the dry joint on the delay line to get rid of a horizontal line.
The compression in the audio (dreamy, amazing, wonderful, orgasmic!)
Getting the best out of a dead format, is an awesome feeling.
The lack of intimidation that I get while watching an analog format.
The "good enough" picture clarity and sound quality that I get.
The visual and tactile feedback that I get from a cassette tape.
The "human" feeling, the X-Factor that I get knowing that WE invented something so stupid and so inferior as an analog video or audio format, and the feeling knowing that we triumphed over nature to make this technology, makes it all up worthwhile for me.
Oh yeah, No copy protection besides Macrovision, no tracking and GPS location, no CELLULAR chirping going on, no monthly subscription, no login credentials required. Its a great way to get away from it all, to get away from the modern world and just close the door and watch an old classic in peace without having to listen to the garbage thats going on out in the modern world.
The fact that I'm willing to be so passionate about this should say something grand.
let there be rock.
Last edited:
As an aside, the January 1965 issue of Radio-Electronics, page 33, describes what we know as the Trinitron, as the Lawrence tube, with patent rights held by Paramount who designated the tube as the Chromatron. It goes on to state that the only significant company having a license to make Chromatrons is Sony. There is some additional trivia about the Lawrence tube in the article.
Win W5JAG
edit:
https://www.americanradiohistory.co...ronics/60s/1965/Radio-Electronics-1965-01.pdf
See, Color TV - Today and Tomorrow
Last edited:
Hi Nigel.
Worn/glazed pinch roller will contribute W/F.
Most common cause is the supply reel back tension regulator band...this is a felt strip that gathers plastic wear dust which causes increased/erratic back tension value.
The solution is to disconnect one end of the band and scrub the plastic powder out of the felt with a small stiff (cut back) art brush.
A new pressure roller will ensure no tape walking and consequent tape edge damage.
You get to see VHS faults in greater detail ?.
So many modern adverts insult the intelligence of the viewer.....are you saying old adverts don't lol ?.
Dan.
Something about your post still really irks me.
Know what I find really odd about you scott. You bash the very format which quite literally puts a video camera in front of a film and hits play on the projector and the VCR. As far as simplicity goes that is pretty much the best that you can get, and is the reason behind why there is so much fanfare behind keeping that fuddy duddy old Laserdisc format still around. You must think those people are completely nuts!
I'm 100% sure that unbelievers here who sit down and watch a high quality 6-8 head VHS tape of a recording of a film would say that it is a faithful reproduction of said film without digital artifacts AND without noise.
With the right technology (high end VCR, Laserdisc Player, CRT or Plasma TV) I'm sure that anyone here would prefer the analog videotape over a MPEG-2 DVD, simply because one is uncompressed.
I wouldn't be suprised if in this thread somewhere there exists somebody who would butcher a John Logie Baird Mechanical television and insert a modern LCD screen in the cabinet just because it is technically superior on paper. I suspect that these same people are behind the argument that MPEG-2 DVD is superior to uncompressed analog VHS and Betamax.
If the sheer horror and insanity of that statement is lost on you. They are saying that an MPEG-2 bitstream is superior to an analog signal because the only reason why it is technically superior is because the tape drops out more often than a DVD with a VHS tape. Sorry but that statement is like saying that DVD never suffers from scratches and scuffs. The statement is stupid.
I've done tests in capturing to raw MagicYUV and then compressing at the highest bitrate possible, 15,000kbps (highest bitrate possible with MPEG-2) into MPEG-2 and I can 100% say that the original is not the same as the export. Yes it is close but it is still adding crap into the picture and it is just a close approximation.
MPEG-2 is after all a lossy codec. And scott is saying that this is the best that we will ever be able to achieve with DVD. Sorry but if that is the best that we can ever hope to achieve then nuts to that! I'm going to buy into Laserdisc and Betamax and VHS even harder now.
Yes tape dropouts occur, no where near as often as you think it does and I never notice it on a CRT monitor, but my computer notices it all of the time on a cheap tape and the counter increases by 1 or 2 or 10 (on a really bad cheap tape that has been recorded to tons of times). BUT STILL life goes on, the counter increases the computer discards that frame and LIFE MOVES ON , ITS NOT A KILLER of your joy or fun or anything like that. the DVD fans are just being a snob! Just like cassette tapes it all depends on the quality of the tape that you buy, if you buy the cheapest tape you will get crap quality with tons of dropouts, so don't buy cheap crappy tape. Simple as that.
And guess what. The price of the best quality VHS tape out there is now only $7 per tape. TDK E-HG. And if you ever need new tape stock to refill an old Betamax cartridge with? The tapes are interchangable, you can put VHS tape stock into a Betamax tape and insert it into a Betamax VCR and it will work!
So the future of both VHS and Betamax is still very strong. And Laserdisc is going nowhere fast. But try and get a couple of Trinitrons, those are disappearing.
And even if all of those machines fail we still have Betacam SP decks and tapes and Plasma tv sets to look forward to.
Last edited:
The final nail in the coffin when it comes to VHS:
Ordinary VHS tape recorded in SP mode on a S-VHS deck in anamorphic:
YouTube
And here is analog Betacam SP: YouTube
Sony PVV3 Betacam Portable
And here is analog Sony HDVS: YouTube
There isn't anything wrong with analog. its just equal to digital that is uncompressed.
And I would endorse an uncompressed digital format IF it were available to the consumer, but it isn't.
Ordinary VHS tape recorded in SP mode on a S-VHS deck in anamorphic:
YouTube
And here is analog Betacam SP: YouTube
Sony PVV3 Betacam Portable
And here is analog Sony HDVS: YouTube
There isn't anything wrong with analog. its just equal to digital that is uncompressed.
And I would endorse an uncompressed digital format IF it were available to the consumer, but it isn't.
Last edited:
Because I scored an episode of Beyond 2000 from 1987 yesterday.
And because we live in a society of blind people.
Last edited:
Sharp made a similar TV tube but called theirs the Linitron. I think they were sold here in the 80's and 90's.
My last picture tube TV was a 36 inch flat screen CRT Sony Trinitron. That boat anchor weighed in at 260 pounds, and about 250 of that was glass! It did have a most excellent picture. When my wife an I finally caved into the modern TV era we got a Sony. She liked the picture on the Sony the best even though it was considerably more expensive than the others. We still have it.
Has Sony lost it's edge?
I bought a Sony "prosumer" DSC-F828 digital camera in about 2004 it worked great, and still does. It was used for all the pictures on my web site and most of what was posted here until 2014 or so. A few other cameras have come and gone since then, but I found myself looking for a pocket camera last Christmas since my Panasonic ZS15 has been dropped a few too many times, but still works.
I found myself waffling between a Sony and a Canon at a Best Buy on Black Friday. Both were on sale at the same discounted price, both offered the means to do automated time-lapse video in camera, but the Sony came with an extra battery and a 64GB memory card, so I got the Sony.
It seems to work good, but despite what the sales sheet still says on Sony's web site, it does NOT do time-lapse. After getting the camera home and setting it up I find out that in order to do time-lapse, you have to set up a Sony account for the camera so that you can purchase apps with the camera like a Google Play or iTUNES account. After doing that I find that the time-lapse app is NOT available for the camera that I purchased. The camera is supposed to function as a WiFi node such that it can be controlled directly from a smartphone, but that doesn't work right, control through a Wifi router works OK, but who carries those out on a photo shoot.
Multiple emails, and customer service requests on Sony's web site have gone unanswered, except for one that told me to upgrade the camera's firmware. OK, it's at version 1.00, but no new firmware is available. So I have a shiny new Sony that's taken maybe 15 pictures in 6 months.
If this is how they choose to do business, I will NOT be buying any more Sony products.
I brought 4 cameras (counting my phone that does 4K video) on a recent 1 week vacation. The Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 took 32,000+ pictures (mostly time-lapse), the Moto G5+ phone about 200 pictures and some video, the Sony DSC-HX80 zero pictures, and the Panasonic DMC-ZS15 zero pictures.
I have to admit much of what I say is 50/50 if I believe it myself. What I like is how people react. Venus don't give up. Some here are people who will not play by the rules. Not of the forum, the ones of polite behaviour.
" De gustibus non est disputandum " or, de gustibus non disputandum est. I have always said it's one must not debate taste. It's not the best translation, it's my one. I am not sure the idea is Roman, sounds older to me. I notice in French it's so close the latin is used. Après tout... degustibus non est disputandum. After all...
Douglas Self wrote to me that evidence for listening fatigue is non existant. He reasoned that visual fatigue would be worse. I wrote back and said not really as the brain-eye visual bandwith might be 10 MHz and hearing 16 kHz ( realistic ). In both cases the reaction time might say in some ways faster. What this thread here shows is visual fatigue exists to many. However does it exist as much in nature? Driving makes me less fatigued visually. I'm tired, but don't have the tight head feeling. What is very interesting here is less is more can be true. Maybe in the same way as the perpetual avoidance of discussing setting a bandwith by ear is a no-no subject so is the visual ( I know this to be untrue as best use of bandwith is a great science ). I accept bandwith might be too simplistic. To return to the visual bandwith. I would suggest much that is dangerous in nature 250 000 years ago or more has the same bandwidth as anything modern, thus TV is the easier illusion. Sound is very different and our we have more reason to doubt we work well with some audio. 10 minutes often. The 3 minute 45 disc was a good idea.
Some say data compression shows how easy it is to fool the eye. That's not really right. Say we are driving along in the car processing 10 MHz plus of imformation into a computer made of meat ( brain ). Evolution could be said to have thought of driving as a future task. The brain looks as often as possible to see danger. If no danger is seen it says sometimes " how beautiful ". What I guess is happening is the brain is retaining the last imformation of beauty and showing the danger as a concern, back to beauty when it can. That's a neat trick and allows TV to work. Robot cars, no thanks. Robot helper, yes please. A meat computer, what a daft idea, it would never work.
Now to show how little I know. If I watched VHS on CRT I saw on PAL the 625 lines. Why don't I see lines on modern TV? I think it's a big reason I like modern TV best. As I seldom prefer modern anything, that's humble pie from me. The question I am asking is are the lines processed away or were they never on the VHS tape? NTSC to PAL VHS was easy so maybe not. Americans always said they could see 25/50Hz frame rate of our TV. We didn't to the same extent see it who used PAL. I find that interesting. I have books on TV dating to 1936 ( Practical TV ) The editor was brother to the designer of the Hurricane aircraft. Do you know 1936 reads as very modern, the war killed that. They seemed to be intelligent in a way I seldom meet now. It's the time of Alan Blumlein. The least significant thing he did was patent stereo. In 1935 Harries Valve Co made a Beam Tetrode that became via a time at RCA the KT66 ( 807 and many more ). The same year Blumlein patened what we now calll Ultra Linear fedback for Beam Tetrode / Pentode valves called distributed load working. Blumlein perhaps is a reason why I have the freedom I do. His 405 line TV work was a cover for Radar. H2S being his really big deal. BTW, I prefer the EL34 a true pentode.
807 possibly was the first time new being better was questioned against true triodes. Schade of RCA offered local feedback to enhance how it works ( not UL ). If you read TV circuits they often have the same devices as audio. The combined triode pentode like PCL86 often used.
" De gustibus non est disputandum " or, de gustibus non disputandum est. I have always said it's one must not debate taste. It's not the best translation, it's my one. I am not sure the idea is Roman, sounds older to me. I notice in French it's so close the latin is used. Après tout... degustibus non est disputandum. After all...
Douglas Self wrote to me that evidence for listening fatigue is non existant. He reasoned that visual fatigue would be worse. I wrote back and said not really as the brain-eye visual bandwith might be 10 MHz and hearing 16 kHz ( realistic ). In both cases the reaction time might say in some ways faster. What this thread here shows is visual fatigue exists to many. However does it exist as much in nature? Driving makes me less fatigued visually. I'm tired, but don't have the tight head feeling. What is very interesting here is less is more can be true. Maybe in the same way as the perpetual avoidance of discussing setting a bandwith by ear is a no-no subject so is the visual ( I know this to be untrue as best use of bandwith is a great science ). I accept bandwith might be too simplistic. To return to the visual bandwith. I would suggest much that is dangerous in nature 250 000 years ago or more has the same bandwidth as anything modern, thus TV is the easier illusion. Sound is very different and our we have more reason to doubt we work well with some audio. 10 minutes often. The 3 minute 45 disc was a good idea.
Some say data compression shows how easy it is to fool the eye. That's not really right. Say we are driving along in the car processing 10 MHz plus of imformation into a computer made of meat ( brain ). Evolution could be said to have thought of driving as a future task. The brain looks as often as possible to see danger. If no danger is seen it says sometimes " how beautiful ". What I guess is happening is the brain is retaining the last imformation of beauty and showing the danger as a concern, back to beauty when it can. That's a neat trick and allows TV to work. Robot cars, no thanks. Robot helper, yes please. A meat computer, what a daft idea, it would never work.
Now to show how little I know. If I watched VHS on CRT I saw on PAL the 625 lines. Why don't I see lines on modern TV? I think it's a big reason I like modern TV best. As I seldom prefer modern anything, that's humble pie from me. The question I am asking is are the lines processed away or were they never on the VHS tape? NTSC to PAL VHS was easy so maybe not. Americans always said they could see 25/50Hz frame rate of our TV. We didn't to the same extent see it who used PAL. I find that interesting. I have books on TV dating to 1936 ( Practical TV ) The editor was brother to the designer of the Hurricane aircraft. Do you know 1936 reads as very modern, the war killed that. They seemed to be intelligent in a way I seldom meet now. It's the time of Alan Blumlein. The least significant thing he did was patent stereo. In 1935 Harries Valve Co made a Beam Tetrode that became via a time at RCA the KT66 ( 807 and many more ). The same year Blumlein patened what we now calll Ultra Linear fedback for Beam Tetrode / Pentode valves called distributed load working. Blumlein perhaps is a reason why I have the freedom I do. His 405 line TV work was a cover for Radar. H2S being his really big deal. BTW, I prefer the EL34 a true pentode.
807 possibly was the first time new being better was questioned against true triodes. Schade of RCA offered local feedback to enhance how it works ( not UL ). If you read TV circuits they often have the same devices as audio. The combined triode pentode like PCL86 often used.
You don't see them because they are not there.
The analog TV used 525, 625 or some other number of analog stripes of continuously varying intensity to "paint" a TV picture.
A modern digital TV uses a fixed number of tiny squares (pixels) that can be set to a fixed number of colors. A "1080" TV uses 1920 pixels horizontally by 1080 pixels vertically (over 2 million) to create the picture.
In a still frame all 2 million pixels are correct and the picture looks good. The compression algorithm attempts to update the changing pixels on the fly such that the entire picture doesn't get repainted on each scan, just the changes. This falls apart on a total scene change. Here the pixel size starts out quite large and the number of color choices are few in the first frame of the new scene. The scene is updated in each frame with smaller pixels and more color choices, hopefully faster than the eye / brain processor can detect these approximations.
The earlier video compression algorithms failed in this aspect and sometimes the compression was obvious. Worse case was a football / futbol game where the spectators were waving colored flags against a fixed background. Fire, explosions, car chase scenes and other fast motion against some fixed high contrast objects were bad, especially if the scene was panned.
Back in 1988 I flew to Singapore for 2 weeks. At first the flicker was quite obvious, but after a few days I didn't notice it at all.......the brain adapts.
There might not be much evidence of listener fatigue, but too many higher order harmonmics, or audible IMD will make me turn the sound off after a few minutes.
We (Motorola) did a study on cell phone audio almost 20 years ago. It was found that the brain is busy reconstructing the missing bits of sound information left out by the codec (speech compressor). This causes listener fatigue and user DISTRACTION while driving. Some codecs were worse than others. That's as far as I will go with the subject.
Video distraction / fatigue? I don't know, I'm more prone to turn the TV off due to program content than due to video quality. If I'm going to watch something interesting where a high quality stream is available, I will turn on the Samsung and watch it in 4K / 60 Hz.....it just looks better. My day to day video screen (the one I'm typing on now) is a 4 year old 1080 TV set that cost $149. The Samsung is sharper, but this one is more convenient. As long as I can read the text, it's fine.
Very interesting. When DivX came out I felt it was OK against VHS but not better ( hard to say as different ). Now that number of whatevers can paint a really good picture. My PVR on SD is very good. My first DivX was Quatermass and the Pit on Ilford Colour ( 1965? ) and Forbidden Planet. I would guess it wasn't the DivX , it was the hook up to PAL.
I guess also a Sony Trinitron could work like a modern TV if the PAL/NTSC time base removed. PC monitors must be an example of HD via CRT. I seem to remember the last Sony CRT could do USB etc. I am told the BBC were still using CRT for HD until recently and it wasn't cheap.
I find the more interesting a thing is, the more likely I sleep. It's like a good meal. I often have to watch four times to complete it. Maths does it, I'm not bored. Colleen says ouch when I watch. I say ouch if I don't ( real life is ouch to me ). Something new on Pi will always get recorded. I think I read most real munbers are irrational, as are humans.
I guess also a Sony Trinitron could work like a modern TV if the PAL/NTSC time base removed. PC monitors must be an example of HD via CRT. I seem to remember the last Sony CRT could do USB etc. I am told the BBC were still using CRT for HD until recently and it wasn't cheap.
I find the more interesting a thing is, the more likely I sleep. It's like a good meal. I often have to watch four times to complete it. Maths does it, I'm not bored. Colleen says ouch when I watch. I say ouch if I don't ( real life is ouch to me ). Something new on Pi will always get recorded. I think I read most real munbers are irrational, as are humans.
Sony did produce some Multiscan computer monitors using the Trinitron CRT technology. I had a CDP-1302 13 inch version. They were popular in the early 90's. The reliability was "decidedly un-Sony like" as one reviewer put it.
Mine died several times due to the same fault. There was a PC board on the back of the CRT neck. It contained 3 X TO220 case resistors, one for each color gun. These would overheat and eventually die. The originals were rated at 5 watts, the replacement parts purchased from the Miami Sony parts depot were rated for 10 or 12 watts......it didn't matter, without a heat sink, they still died, so I added a heat sink to each resistor and my monitor outlived its usefulness.
I'm sure that some Hi Def CRT TV's were produced, but I never saw one. Then again, I don't watch much TV.
There were some good CRT monitors capable of high resolution made (or branded) by other vendors. I had a 21 inch flat screen Dell branded CRT that did 1920 X 1440 resolution, capable of 72 P Hi Def TV....but Hi Def TV didn't exist yet! I believe it was actually made by LG using their new "Flatron" shadow mask technology. This was supposed to beat the Sony Trinitron mask, but died with the CRT. The old Dell had an awesome picture, but weighed in at over 100 pounds.
The local Motorola plant (where I worked) leased their PC's. When the lease was up the hard drives were archived and the leasing company sold the rest to a refurb company. The CRT monitors were unwanted, and wound up at a local computer show where I got mine for $50. I used it for several years before getting an LCD.
I will seek out video that teaches me something, whether it is electronics, music, photography, or general science, I'll watch it. How to use the latest video editing or music production software, I'm all over it. Math.....I passed those classes in college and never looked back. That would put me to sleep. I also find myself watching a lot of "amazing places" types of video in 4K. These are usually places I'll never visit, or things I'll never do, like cliff diving, or base jumping.
Try this one on a 1080 TV and tell me it doesn't make you squirm.
YouTube
I beg to differ - and made a lot of money doing just that!
CRT TVs usually came set-up for crap. Using training and some expensive tools, I could get them look pretty darn good, and matching other displays. I generally calibrated monitors in editing suites and TV stations, not a lot of HT. Most of my clients didn't believe it could be done until they saw it. LCD needs similar calibration, but things are getting better, due in large part to the ISF.Tubelab: I read the following in your post: "In a still frame all 2 million pixels are correct and the picture looks good. The compression algorithm attempts to update the changing pixels on the fly such that the entire picture doesn't get repainted on each scan, just the changes. This falls apart on a total scene change. Here the pixel size starts out quite large and the number of color choices are few in the first frame of the new scene. The scene is updated in each frame with smaller pixels and more color choices, hopefully faster than the eye / brain processor can detect these approximations. "
Quite incorrect. Please look at how the video compression algorithms work today (MPEG2 or MPEG4 or now HEVC). There are different types of frames sent (I, B or P in the case of MPEG2) - when there's a scene change, a proper encoder will send an I frame (which is akin to a JPEG - information about the entire image). For the remainder of the GOP, only the differences are sent (B or P frames).
What you were describing was most likely due to insufficient bandwidth allocated to the video stream (or a poorly designed encoder).
Rich
Quite incorrect. Please look at how the video compression algorithms work today (MPEG2 or MPEG4 or now HEVC). There are different types of frames sent (I, B or P in the case of MPEG2) - when there's a scene change, a proper encoder will send an I frame (which is akin to a JPEG - information about the entire image). For the remainder of the GOP, only the differences are sent (B or P frames).
What you were describing was most likely due to insufficient bandwidth allocated to the video stream (or a poorly designed encoder).
Rich
True, I have not kept up with the latest in video compression. My statement was a simple generalization based on what I remember from the early days of digital TV development, before DTV actually went on the air.
The artifacts I describes earlier were obvious on the first generation of Direct TV satellite broadcasts. These were not even hi-def. I believe that were MPEG2, but I am not really sure. Some sporting events, especially college football games were nearly unwatchable.
I don't know what Comcast uses today but their video streams vary in quality depending on the channel being watched and the time of day. Some channels break up, pixelize, or display a few frames of low res video. These events seem to coincide with a scene change or PTZ event, hence my assumption.
Yes, theyr'e stuffing too many streams through a cable to maximize their revenue stream.
A critical viewer could find the convergence errors created by simply rotating the TV set 90 degrees, due to the effects of the earth's magnetic field. Want the best picture, put the TV where the screen faced North or South.....and keep magnetic fields (especially vacuum cleaners) away from the TV set!
The artifacts I describes earlier were obvious on the first generation of Direct TV satellite broadcasts. These were not even hi-def. I believe that were MPEG2, but I am not really sure. Some sporting events, especially college football games were nearly unwatchable.
I don't know what Comcast uses today but their video streams vary in quality depending on the channel being watched and the time of day. Some channels break up, pixelize, or display a few frames of low res video. These events seem to coincide with a scene change or PTZ event, hence my assumption.
Yes, theyr'e stuffing too many streams through a cable to maximize their revenue stream.
A critical viewer could find the convergence errors created by simply rotating the TV set 90 degrees, due to the effects of the earth's magnetic field. Want the best picture, put the TV where the screen faced North or South.....and keep magnetic fields (especially vacuum cleaners) away from the TV set!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.