There is no official standard for delivering 1080p over analog, even though it can be done. The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) may change that.
Even in the absence of a standard, however, 1080p component video has made its way into a surprising amount of consumer devices.
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv HD Freak wrote: | There is no official standard for delivering 1080p over analog, even though | it can be done. The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) may change | that. | |
At $66.00 to see the standard, I'll pass. But does anyone know if 1080p24 and 1080p30 are in the existing standard, or are part of the new change, or not yet defined?
Further, why is "HD Freak" cross posting all of these posts to the alt.video.vcr newsgroup?
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv UCLAN wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: | |> In alt.tv.tech.hdtv HD Freak wrote: |> | There is no official standard for delivering 1080p over analog, even though |> | it can be done. The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) may change |> | that. |> | |> |
Perhaps because he thinks 1080p60 component video matters to VCR enthusiasts.
I know of no stand-alone VCRs that even have component video inputs. And computer software might be of interest to VCR enthusiasts, too, but that doesn't mean that posts of that subject should be crossposted here.
You didn't notice the plural form "posts" was used? If so, what do MediaMax HD Server, ZeroWire, or Panasonic's latest monitor offerings have to do with VCRs?
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv UCLAN wrote: | snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: | |> | Further, why is "HD Freak" cross posting all of these posts to the |> | alt.video.vcr newsgroup? |> |> Perhaps because he thinks 1080p60 component video matters to VCR enthusiasts. | | I know of no stand-alone VCRs that even have component video inputs. And | computer software might be of interest to VCR enthusiasts, too, but that | doesn't mean that posts of that subject should be crossposted here.
I don't know of any such VCRs, either.
| You didn't notice the plural form "posts" was used? If so, what do | MediaMax HD Server, ZeroWire, or Panasonic's latest monitor offerings | have to do with VCRs?
No I didn't notice the plural. I see that now that you point it out. It certainly makes no sense to me that he cross post to alt.video.vcr.
Ummm..so what? Someone in your family die because he spreads it around?
I don't really get why it's an issue.
That's just poor old phil. He is an ignorant, self centered, hypocritical blow hard. He lives to read what he types.
Matthew
You don't, eh? Since he crossposted all four articles to six newsgroups, all these newsgroups will have to put up with the wayward threads and flame wars that result from the wayward threads in all six groups.
*Multi-posting* ONLY to appropriate groups keeps the garbage from one group out of the others.It is no wonder that a major Usenet distributor limits crossposting to FOUR groups (which is why I had to eliminate two groups from the original post.)
Most of our VCRs at work have component video inputs, but this doesn't change things of course ;)
Consumer VCRs, not professional VCRs. ;)
Apparently you're not familiar with Digital Betacam and Betacam SP.
GG
Those are consumer VCRs? News to me...
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv David Matthew Wood wrote: | In article , | UCLAN wrote: | |> snipped-for-privacy@ipal.net wrote: |> |> > | Further, why is "HD Freak" cross posting all of these posts to the |> > | alt.video.vcr newsgroup? |> > |> > Perhaps because he thinks 1080p60 component video matters to VCR |> > enthusiasts. |> |> I know of no stand-alone VCRs that even have component video inputs. And |> computer software might be of interest to VCR enthusiasts, too, but that |> doesn't mean that posts of that subject should be crossposted here. |> |> You didn't notice the plural form "posts" was used? If so, what do |> MediaMax HD Server, ZeroWire, or Panasonic's latest monitor offerings |> have to do with VCRs? | | Most of our VCRs at work have component video inputs, but this doesn't | change things of course ;)
Professional models I take it. Are they using a recording format that makes use of some variant of the NTSC carrier (like VHS) and thus require re-encoding to NTSC, or are they digital that takes the raw component directly to compression (like DV/DVC) ?
In alt.tv.tech.hdtv G-squared wrote: | On Aug 19, 11:02 am, UCLAN wrote: |> David Matthew Wood wrote: |> >>I know of no stand-alone VCRs that even have component video inputs. And |> >>computer software might be of interest to VCR enthusiasts, too, but that |> >>doesn't mean that posts of that subject should be crossposted here. |>
|> >>You didn't notice the plural form "posts" was used? If so, what do |> >>MediaMax HD Server, ZeroWire, or Panasonic's latest monitor offerings |> >>have to do with VCRs? |>
|> > Most of our VCRs at work have component video inputs, but this doesn't |> > change things of course ;) |>
|> Consumer VCRs, not professional VCRs. ;) | | Apparently you're not familiar with Digital Betacam and Betacam SP.
MLM might claim I didn't do any research (I didn't in this case), but I would call these as definitely professional equipment.
hehe Just thought I'd mention it anyway. Like I said though, that doesn't change anything ;)
Betacam is not a consumer format. Never was.
(snip)
Actually, BetaCam IS a consumer format...as was the "M" format from Panasonic. The 1/2" tapes were originally used in home formatted machines. You can use the tape cassettes in home machine without problem. I have 4 Betamax's that I use BetaCam tapes in. On a side note, 3/4" was originally meant for home use, but later that idea was abandoned and it found it's home in broadcast and industrial uses.
I saw BetaCam HD at The Iowa State Fair back in 1998 and I can tell you the version of HD that was on display was MUCH better than the standards ultimately adopted that we have today.
For the smaller Betacam S cassettes, the cassettes themselves are interchangeable. However, they are still considered completely different formats, as the recordings between the two machines are completely incompatible with each other - you can't make a recording in a Betacam deck and then play it back in a Betamax deck, or vice verca.
On Aug 20, 9:54 am, David Matthew Wood wrote: > In article , "NJM1"
I mis read the thread earlier which was why I mentioned Betacam in the first place. My mistake. M and Betacam took advantage of cassette manufacturing which was already in place.
That's fine for oxide tapes but not for the metal SP tapes.
Early Betamax used the same processing as U-Mat. In fact, Beta SP was migrated back as U-Matic SP
We had small cameras but nothing to record on besides U-Mat. No broadcaster _liked_ having to use it but they _really_ wanted to get away from 16 mm film.
Betacam HD is limited to 1440 pixel so 1920 is scaled to fit. Betacam SRW does not do that.
GG
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required