[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: BARS NOMENCLATURE



Yes, you're right, that's the proper nomenclature, but it happens
that it's rarely used because for the most part, engineers deal
pretty much with only 1 or maybe 2 flavors.  Outside of engineering
offices and labs, I'll bet most folks don't know about it... at least
on this side of the pond.

On Mon, 23 Sep 1996 06:16:18 -0400  Simon Aglionby wrote:
>Ladies and Gentlemen,
>
>Am I alone in my understanding of colour bar nomenclature (from a European
>perspective)?
>
>As a cub engineer 15 years ago at the BBC, we were taught a four digit
>representation for bars - a:b:c:d.
>
>    a is the "on" value for a _non-coloured_, ie white bar
>    b is the "off" value for a _non-coloured_, ie black bar
>    c is the "on" value for a _coloured_ bar
>    d is the "off" value for a _coloured_ bar
>
>So, I would understand :-
>
>    100:0:100:0 as 100% bars, where each RGB value is either fully on or fully
>off.
>    100:0:75:0 would be 75% bars, where RGB numbers are at 75% of max in all
>except the white bar
>    100:0:100:25 I vaguely remember as EBU, or 95%, bars (for reasons that I
>don't recall)
>    100:7.5:75:7.5 (or is it 75:7.5:75:7.5 ?) I think was the number set for
>NTSC, but its a long time ago now
>
>Is this nomenclature in use anywhere else?
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Simon Aglionby
>

--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Topazio, VP/Engineering     bt at mte.com     v:212-907-1225
Manhattan Transfer / Edit        New York, NY   f:212-687-2719

"Blame not on malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity."  -Hanlon's Razor
--------------------------------------------------------------