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

Re: BARS NOMENCLATURE



In a message dated 96-09-26 03:23:47 EDT, Mike O. wrote:

<< Oh yes: the answer is no, nobody else seems to give a toss about this sort
 of thing. No wonder broadcasting is going to the dogs.
 Damn' shame if you ask me. Poor show and that kind of thing.
 Time was, engineers used to get horse-whipped for a wide back
porch.......... >>

Well, perhaps.  We've got this gadget from PESA that keeps track of all the
vital statistics in a video signal, and reports them on a video monitor.
 Called the "SWAT" (a clue to what we'd sometimes like to do to it
considering what an infernal pest it is--particularly when it's right), even
the dumbest tape operator can look up and and see if anything's wrong.
 Engineers who wish to make it through their morning cup of coffee
unharrassed keep the back porch, along with all the other particulars, in
fine shape.

I think the reason no formal bars nomenclature was adopted outside of the
good old BBC is because, for a lot of years, bars only came in two kinds, PAL
(full field) and NTSC (SMPTE), and it didn't take a whole lot of mental
gymnastics to figure out which was which.  That's no longer the case with all
the component formats that have proliferated, and equipment that can make
pictures--right or wrong--from just about any of them.  Consequently, either
the BBC system or something similar would be a real good idea, if we could
get enough facilities to start using it.


Christopher Bacon
DuArt Film & Video