OSNews

actually this could be a very good place to advertise. anybody who sees it is going to be on a computer and i bet most of us have a tv in the same room.

What are the main differences between PAL and NTSC?

PAL has a better resolution than NTSC (PAL has more lines). NTSC also has a problem in that it uses 29.97 frames per second, where most (if not all) films are shot in 24 frames (this can be solved with a process called 3:2 pulldown, but it creates problems [1]). PAL uses 25fps, meaning films actually run 4.2% faster on PAL; no additional techniques are needed here.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine#Telecine_judder

I like the way that when I try to vote your comments up for being funny, I get told I can't abuse the system

By whom?

By whom?

Or, better yet, what the hell is funny about that post...?

By whom?

Users can't vote on admin comments. if you try, the site says something about this feature being disabled to prevent abuse. This applies to voting up as well as voting down.

Or, better yet, what the hell is funny about that post...?

Maybe I misread the thread, but I thought the original poster was being a prat by questioning your knowledge of video transmission formats as a way of showing that you shouldn't be given(or loaned) free TVs.
Your competent, straight-up demonstration of knowledge (or ability to research) seemed like a droll putdown.

IIRC PAL is actually clocked at 50Hz interlaced (so is as if it was 25Hz - not all scanlines are drawn each cycle) and NTSC is something like 60Hz interlaced.

PAL has a higher resolution, but suffers from noticable flicker when compared to a US TV.

PAL is actually clocked at 60Hz (interlaced) in Brasil.

PAL I is used in the UK, PAL M moist of Europe. They are not compatible. The sound carrier is not the same and a PAL M broadcast will produce no sound on a PAL I TV.

PAL B, G, H, I, and N are compatible with one another, while PAL M (used only in Brazil and Laos) is not.

Didn't I tell you this is HELL.

Edited 2007-02-26 19:42

Okay, so is it N or B that most of Eourope use? Whichever it is doesn not work correctly with broadcast TV in the UK.

All the chaos of refresh rates is ties to the frequency of electricity. Mad, eh? ;-)

but suffers from noticable flicker

For people who notice the flicker at 50Hz, there are 100Hz TVs.

heh, I notice the flicker at 60hz on tvs and up to about 80hz on computers CRTs... its either 85hz and up or no go.

60hz kills my eyes. I get headaches I cannot imagine PAL...

I'm the same way! The first computer I had that didn't use a TV was my Atari ST, and it ran at either NTSC or PAL, depending on the game I was playing. A lot of the European games required the 50hz switcher. It flickered a lot, though once you were into the game you didn't notice too terribly bad. But then after I got my PC and my 21" CRT monitor, it has to be at 85hz. At 75hz I can still see the flicker, and at 60hz it kills my eyes.

In fact whenever I have to sit at a workstation and almost always in Windows XP it doesn't set the highest refresh rate by default, so I have to change it. One time I did this on a Win2k machine at work for someone, then they did the upgrade to WinXP and the person who worked on it asked me to fix it because staring at her screen was making her ill.

Refresh rate is very important for CRTs, but my LCD on my laptop is fine at 60hz and looks great. Fortunately I have an HTPC connected to a 21" monitor at 100hz for watching TV on

That's what I said before, for people like you, there are 100hz PAL TVs that show every frame twice,

No, modern "100HZ TV" does not show you same frame twice. There is nice algorithm based on idea that used in video codecs (motion interpolation). Search "Pixel+" (Philips) or DNI (Samsung), they analyze couple if frames, detect moving objects and recreate new frames between original, so moving look very smooth. Same trick used in InterVideo DVD software player. Of course it cannot always correctly detect such areas but personally i like it.

Edited 2007-03-03 08:18

SECAM - System Essentially Contrary to the American Method
NTCS - Not the Same color
PAL - Perfect at Last

Never Twice Same Colour (color) :-)

>OSNews isn't exactly the best place to advertise for them, right?

Wrong. OSNews is a tech magazine. Anything tech goes.

NTSC is used across the pond, PAL is used by European countries including the UK.

PAL is also used in several South-American and Asian countries.

You can. Most monitors have an OSD with which you can edit colour properties, including a slider with which you can effectively turn it into a grayscale monitor.

You can probably do this via your operating system's display properties as well. And, in OSX, there is an option to turn the entire OS grayscale (iirc).

ok please tell me at least one brand which can do that from the OSD. Bcoz no software, system's display props, NVIDIA or ATI tools allow such a thing. I tried everything.

please tell me at least one brand which can do that from the OSD.

You could hack up a VGA cable and work out an averaging circuit to feed your monitor.
http://www.epanorama.net/documents/vga2rgb/interfacing.html

Down towards the bottom. That design is to drive a monochrome monitor. I think you'd connect the averaged output to the R, G, and B pins if you wanted to drive a color monitor in shades of gray.

It also mentions in the link above that monochrome monitors only connected the green signal line. Older VGA cards would detect this and mix the colors for you. You might just try taking a VGA cable and snipping off the red and blue pins. It says newer cards may not detect the change though.

So why do you want to do this, BTW?

Edited 2007-02-26 20:33

My Viewsonic 2025wm will go greyscale in the OSD. Select the Color option and then User Color. Drop the RGB values to zero.

You can. Most monitors have an OSD with which you can edit colour properties, including a slider with which you can effectively turn it into a grayscale monitor.

Using the *very* scientific sample of the two LCDs and the one CRT on my desk (Dell 2001FP and IBM L171p LCDs, IBM E74 CRT), you cannot remove all color from the display like you could with older monitors. They all have individual RGB sliders (as opposed to the older "color" slider or knob), and even with them all pushed to zero, the monitor looks dim, but not grey-scale.

I have an older CRT at home, I'll have to try that.

"Using the *very* scientific sample of the two LCDs and the one CRT on my desk (Dell 2001FP"

Dell 2001FP...best monitor for the money, period. I have 2 of them on my desk, it's better than its replacement IMO.

As for using a computer in a entertainment setup, why not. Its just a matter of using a single gp computer rather then a increasing array of specialized ones...

Computers are jacks of all trades. My entertainment setup is a component (specialised) setup in which something that actually has a boot time and can crash has no place.

"...boot time and can crash..."

You're missing out on a better experience if you let such bogus arguments stop you. Boot time is a non-issue for servers, which are always on. Crashing is a defect in a specific implementation, not the general class, and may be seen in components as well as computers.

My MythTV system never crashes. But I have a DVD player which locks up on some discs, and the power cord must be unplugged - the front panel 'power' switch is logic level and is ignored when the player locks up.

I get more use and enjoyment out of my entertainment system since I added a computer. Perhaps MythTV or Windows MCE is not for you, but please attribute the faults to the specific application, not to the gerneral concept.

Again. I don't have to boot my computer or load the CD app to be able to play a CD. I just pop it in my Technics CD player et voila. No confusing menus, no pop-ups, no screaming interfaces. Just, pure, music. No crap.

I don't have to boot my computer or load the CD app to be able to play a CD.

That's one of the specific things I like about using a computer as my stereo/music library: I don't think I've played audio directly from a CD in 2 or 3 years. I find it much more convenient to rip the CDs and have them immediately available, rather than hunting through hundreds of physical discs.

No confusing menus, no pop-ups, no screaming interfaces.

Not all media playing apps are usability nightmares.

Booting your computer to play a CD *would* be stupid, and I don't know why you insist that's how it has to be.

My desktop gets turned off. My laptop gets turned off. My entertainment center server is always on. Boot time is NOT a factor. No one is suggesting that you use your desktop computer in your entertainment center.

I don't want to search for a CD and load it into my player. I just select the album, song, or playlist and it plays. Right now, faster than I could find the CD on my shelves. In my living room, in my bedroom, or in my computer room. It's faster and easier than using my old player.

I don't doubt that you've seen bad interfaces on some applications. So have I. And I've seen bad interfaces on some components. Bad interfaces are not inherent in either approach, and neither are good interfaces.

If I were to apply your complaints about computers in entertainment systems to components, I'd say that components take too long to play a CD because of the time it takes to plug in the cables, decipher the confusing connector labels, find the CD in the box of random stuff in the other room, clean the CD, unwrap the shrinkwrap, and replace the batteries in the remote control. All of those issues can happen, but all of them are either one-time issues or are avoided in well-configured systems. So are the issues you raise.

A proper computer-based entertainment system can be fast and easy to use. Your desktop is not a proper entertainment system, it's designed for other uses. Try a dedicated entertainment system someday, preferably before dismissing the idea again.