#Analog Tech.
14 messages in this thread
Has anyone read the October 14, 1991 issue of Forbes? The cover story is
all about Analog vs Digital technology. It is a good read.
Although the articles primary focus is on consumer electronics, its clearly
points out the disadvantages of NTSC. This is going to die folks. I know
it won't be for a few years, but the analog technology of NTSC simply is
inferior to digital. This of course will touch all of us. Amiga, PC,
MAC…it doesn't matter.
Good read. Check it out.
Marty in the frozen north (man it's cold up here)
Marty,
RE: "This [NTSC] is going to die, folks…"
As a video engineer in a broadcast facility, I can tell you that you're
touching on a controversy that has raged on in professional circles for
years. The problem is that I don't think NTSC is going to "die" any time
soon.
Keep in mind that the technology that NTSC is based on was designed back in
the 1930's. Years later, when someone decided that it might be nice to
have COLOR television, a conscious decision was made that it would have to
be downward compatible with the original black-and-white signal so as not
to obsolete existing television sets. Were it not for that fact, today's
color television would undoubtedly be better than the current RS-170A spec.
Digital technology is many orders of magnitude better than the existing
format, but in order to implement digital, rather than analog, technology,
you still have the same problem: all existing television sets would
immediately become obsolete. And while people like me — who know the
difference — would happily invest in better image quality, we are in a
tiny minority. And the majority, quite understandably, would not be cheery
about throwing out every set in the house and buying new, costlier
(initially) television sets.
That impasse will keep NTSC, or another, downward-compatible standard,
alive for the forseeable future, IMHO.
Pete
Pete:
Do you think we will see 'dual-standard' sets anytime in the near future
that would allow broadcasters to begin the use of digital braodcast
standards, while also still sending NTSC?
Just curious as to your thoughts on this.
– Whapp!ng from the North Coast Michael
Mike,
That will depend on what is finally settled on as a "standard."
The problem is that the best quality would be realized by completely
ignoring existing television technology and developing a new standard,
based on 1990's technology. Among other things, you would want much higher
resolution, greatly expanded contrast ratio (the system's ability to
reproduce subtle differences in image brightness), greatly improved color
rendition, and a widescreen aspect ratio. You would want to do away with
interlacing. And, as you suggested, you would want to do all this in a
digital, rather than analog, representation.
But if you do that, you've created something so inherently different from
RS-170A that to have a "dual standard" set would be prohibitively
expensive.
The other problem is that program providers — networks, cable feeds, and
purveyors of video for sale in retail establishments — will tend to sit
back and let someone else take the risks. So if there WAS a "dual
standard" set, who would be producing programming for the digital side?
And of course, there's the problem. With minimal compatible software being
produced, production of the new machines would be VERY limited. That means
prices would be extremely high. And no one wants to pay extremely high
prices for something that may or may not succeed, and may or may not end up
as the new "standard."
That vicious circle would have to be broken, somehow, to get a new signal
format off the ground. Have you been following the HDTV controversy?
That's basically what I'm talking about — although even HDTV, as currently
being discussed, is a compromise.
Pete
"Have you been following the HDTV controversy?"
Pete:
Yeah. That's pretty much where I was coming from. Thanks for your thoughts.
– Whapp!ng from the North Coast Michael
Pete,
You might be right but you may be under estimating the industry. Ma Bell
was faced with the same problem years ago when digital switches were
introduced and the digital multiplexers. They managed to develop an
interface between the two systems. This is a problem we deal with on a
daily basis in the communications field. The problem is real apparent when
we interface fibre optics to copper cable. Maybe I have too much faith in
the engineer community. Cheers!
BARRY – via Whap!
Barry,
The difference in communications is that you're starting with an audio
signal, converting it to digital, and then ultimately back to an audio
signal. Certainly you can do that with video, and it is done now in the
existing digital formats (D1 and D2, and Panasonic's D3 formats are
examples).
But what we're saying here is that the inherent design of the RS-170A video
signal is fundamentally flawed. That signal was designed on the order of
six decades ago, based on then-current technology. It was subsequently
modified to add color to the basic black-and-white signal, in such a way as
to unintentionally introduce artifacts to the signal (without going into
great detail, the picture-detail and chroma portions of the signal overlap
somewhat, resulting in a signal that produces false colors in areas of
extremely high black and white detail). So RS-170A is limited resolution,
low contrast ratio, interlaced (which causes its own problems),
non-wide-screen, and full of visual artifacts — at its best.
So rather than taking the existing signal, and converting it to the digital
domain, what we're talking about here is completely redesigning the manner
in which the video image is represented electronically. Such a redesigned
signal would be unrecognizable to a television set of current manufacture.
I'm not saying there are no answers to this problem; but obtaining general
agreement on just what approach to take has stalled the evolution to a
better televion image for years, and I don't think anything will happen in
that direction any time in the immediate future. Certainly something will
happen sooner or later; better minds than mine will have to tell you when.
Pete
Pete,
It may be better minds, but their driven by comsumers and the almighty
buck. The American consumer seems bent on perfection. Tell the consumer
that something could be better and they will create a demand. With a
demand someone will create an interface. Gadget consumers will buy
anything that is better or different.
So it all depends on the introduction, the time frame could be shorter than
we think. Besides, evolution runs in cycles.
Thanks for responding back I enjoyed it!
BARRY – via Whap!
Hi Pete.
Thanks for your input. I respect your opinioun. I am not a video person.
I am interested in the toaster, thinking of getting one, so I have been
checking out the NewTek Forum everyday for info. I do not claim to be an
expert by any means. I probably went to far by saying that NTSC will "Die"
in most certain terms.
That said thought, I still believe it will. Lets look at the music
industry. Remember the LP record? It was a standard along with cassette
tapes. Then along comes the CD – a MUCH technology – and boom, how many
people hesistated to buy? A few at first, but after a while, people
realized that the new technology was worth it, so they bought CDs by the
score. Digital tech. is so MUCH better than NTSC that I truly believe it
has a good chance of becoming THE standard. OK, so maybe NTSC won't die,
but it could get old and tired dont ya think?
Marty
Martin,
I understand your point about CD players versus LP's. The problem with
that analogy, though, is that it doesn't apply here. Let me explain. Both
the LP and the CD represent ways of recording essentially the same audio
signal; they do not require that the signal be inherently different. In
other words, the output of both units is the same kind of signal: you do
not have to use a different kind of transmitter to transmit the output of a
CD, nor a different kind of receiver to play it. In a home setup, you can
still use the same amplifier and speakers; you will just get much better
sound.
But how successful would the CD have been if, in order to use it, you had
to not only purchase a CD player — but also throw out your old stereo
system and buy a a much more expensive new amplifier and new loudspeakers
in order to hear the output?
That's the problem with radical changes to television technology. There
have been numerous ways to RECORD the NTSC signal, from two-inch quadruplex
tape, to one-inch type "C", to 3/4", VHS, 8mm, D1, D2, D3, videodisk, etc.,
etc. As in the difference between LP and CD, these are all ways of
recording essentially the same signal. Some are better than others; some
are INCREDIBLY better than others (and you pay for the improvement: a D1
machine costs as much as a house!).
But once you change the INHERENT NATURE OF THE SIGNAL, that's a whole
different issue from finding better ways to record the existing signal.
Does this make sense?
Pete
Pete:
Thanks for taking the time to make your comments as thorough as they've
been. It' very interesting, and you've done, INHO, a great job of
explaining the situation.
– Whapp!ng from the North Coast Michael
Is this the same Pete Gould that called RE his Vista Ethernet link?
That's me!
I noticed your query over in BPFORUM. Just out of my own curiosity — what
are your plans for the Toaster? Have you seen one demoed? (No, I don't
have one over at CFE; though we DO have an Amiga. I use Impulse's
Firecracker-24 and transcode its RGB output to Y/R-Y/B-Y.)
As to the Ethernet issue… I'll be getting hold of Ampex on Monday to try
to find someone who really knows what's going on there. The sales force
has been supplied with data that says there is absolutely no way you can
have the ADO console and the Vista connected to the ADO SPU simultaneously.
This despite the clear illustration of just such a hookup in the ADO
manual.
Did you ever try that connection? It's illustrated as a BNC "T" connector
at the ADO SPU, with one leg of the "T" going to the ADO console and the
other leg going to the Ethernet card on the Vista SPU backplane.
Vista-Disk is NOT shown in that configuration.
Or are you not at the right software revision (what did you say it was
-2.0?) to have that work?
Pete
How cold is it Marty?
Surely there will be a black interface box by that time (I hope).
BARRY – via Whap!