CompuServe Thread

#What is CCIR601 REALLY!

5 messages in this thread
#168289From: James M. MurphyMay 4, 1995 11:31 PM
I thought I'd open this up because I've been getting mixed messages regarding "BroadCast Standards" regarding CCIR601 Resolution. I've seen the CCIR601 Specification quoted as "BroadCast" However I've seen both 720 x 486 _AND_ 720 x 480 quoted as that Specification. I'm here to tell you that acourding to the BroadCast Engineers at the University of Wisconsin Public Television Stations it is 720 x 486! This was argued about and hashed over and over again and the bottom line was those 3 active lines of video Had to be there! Here's my Story: The Matrox Max Board Liturature Stated way back over a year ago that the Matrox Max meet the CCIR601 Specification which was 720 X 486. Matrox themselves confirmed this at last years (1994's) NAB show and at SIGGRAPH. As a Dealer I Sell and Support that particular product. In November of 1994 I sold a Matrox Max System to Wisconsin Public Television. Low and Behold when their engineers got a look at the Matrox MAX Video, it only came out at 720 x 480 not the 486 that the CCIR601 Specification Stated as well as the Matrox Liturature regarding the Max. The Illuminator Pro was of course running at 720 x 486 but once the animations or video were processed through the Max side of things, bingo down to 720 x 480. What's the big deal? WE were told! NBC, CBS, ABC :& FOX Weren't having a problem with the missing 3 lines of active video!! I won't go in to all the grusome details but technical arguments aside,….Wisconsin Public Television "Paid for 720 X 486 and By GOD that's what they're going to GET!" To Quote Bill Hubbard, their Cheif Engineer! And to Make their Point…. the State refused to pay me the $4,250 Balance they owed me on the system until this was fixed by Matrox. Remember that this problem was first brought to Matrox's Attention in November of 1994. I'm happy to say that James at Drastic Technologies whom wrote the original code and also is still writing the current code for these Boards finally got it right March of this year…that's right…5 months folks. I went without being paid for 5 months because of 3 active lines of video. BTW I understand that the other "minor" bugs still in the code are supposed to be fixed "real soon". <g> The Question I have for this Forum is? What is CCIR601 REALLY? Wisconsin Public Television and Now James Murphy Beleive it to be 720 x 486 lines. I see by reading the new Digital PVR Specification that Digital insists it's 720 x 480. So Who's right? And will THEY pay my bills when another Broadcast company deciedes to open up their "engineering books" and stick to the letter of the Law? I think It's called "STANDARDS". I'd Like to see some. Please Don't think I'm just picking on Digital, I Sell and Support their product too. I love their Product…. it works! I also happen to beleive that Digital is commited to the long haul in this industry and wants to be there for us. It's just that I've seen other board companies use the 480 spec. and I'm disturbed that Digital has now accepted this. What's so Damn Hard about Writing those extra 3 lines of Active Video in Anyway??? Just because this is "Multimedia" doesn't mean we can get away with using terms like CCIR601 Resolution and come up with TWO Definitions! If Manufacturers want to be taken seriously my BroadCast Professionals as well as Many others I think we better tighten up on the spec's a bit. I don't know about the other dealers on this forum but I'm not very happy about having to wait 5 months for payment on a specificaton "oversight". I think the people who are purchasing this equipment also should expect that when a term like BroadCast Quality is used ESPECIALLY when it's tied to CCIR601 Specifications…..It should mean the same thing to "Everybody"! END OF RANT: I'd Like to hear what others think about this. Thank you in advance for participating. Murph'
#168457From: david W. mennenohMay 5, 1995 7:03 PM
Go Jim! Based on DonL and JohnE you're correct. CCIR-601 is 720×486. Not 480. Isn't this 6 lines? You kept saying 3? Anyway, I agree with you, that this seems to be a problem. But only for dealers like you! <GD&R> DM
#168490From: James M. MurphyMay 6, 1995 12:25 AM
Thank's for jumping in there David. I'm refering to the 3 Active lines of video that are composed of the 6 interlaced lines in the 486 Spec. Again thank you for the response, It's good to know I'm not alone on the 720 x 486 question. Now if we can just get the rest of the industry to pay attention……<BG>. Murph'
#168684From: Paul LempkeMay 7, 1995 12:02 PM
Murph', 720×486 is certainly the way its supposed to be! Even though no one should really care ( its way outside the safe frame -some VTRs even write time code data in the bottom line ), I don't see why manufactures will cheap out -we can't be living that close to the edge. Short frames also lead to problems in compositing and rotoscoping -If everyone adhered to the same standard, then everyone's life would be a little easier. NTSC CCIR601 video -it's an achievable standard! -Paul
#168838From: James M. MurphyMay 8, 1995 12:51 PM
I agree! I don't know why those extra 3 active lines of video are so hard to acheive. I'm not a programmer but I've got to beleive that 486 should be as easy to solve for as 480 of course maybe there's a technology issue I'm not aware of…still if you can write a driver for a frame buffer that handles it why not the Motion JPEG CODEC? Murph'