|
As this forum is rarely used anymore, we've locked it. Feel free to browse and read. Questions? Please reach out to us directly. Cheers! |
|
 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Curt Palme
CRT Tech
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 24396
Location: Langley, BC
TV/Projector: All of them!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 6:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Boo! It didn't even say what its recording capacity was, nor its read/write speed (for bandwidth).
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_C_videotape
What's amazing to me is that about 20 years after this
machine was manafactured, a superior setup with much more storage, instant online access, no generational loss and superior picture quality would fit in the trunk of a Mazda Miata and probably cost 1/3. Even more amazing, a college kid can now buy a completely portable setup that is again, superior, but for what he could make working a part-time job for the year.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaximRecoil
Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder what would be possible with analog these days. What would an evolved version of Laserdisc be like if they used a Blu-Ray disc; or better yet, a [hypothetical] 12" Blu-Ray disc?
Laserdiscs used an analog encoding scheme, but they suffered from limited storage capacity (resulting in limited bandwidth), and they were also encoded in the composite domain, which isn't great. They were better than VHS or Betamax, but inferior to Betacam (which was encoded as component video).
So what if an analog encoding scheme was developed today, using RGB video and taking advantage of the storage space of a Blu-Ray? If that's not big enough, what if a 1.5 TB hard drive was used (and obviously some custom playback hardware would need to be developed for it), with a 2 hour analog-encoded movie completely filling it? Could it rival 35mm movie film? A hard drive may seem kind of big and bulky for a single movie, but it is physically smaller than a VHS tape. It is a lot more expensive of course, but there was a time when a single VHS movie cost $90 (at least that is what the rental places would charge for a replacement). And of course, eventually we'll have multi-TB storage that is small and cheap anyway. Remember when a 1 GB hard drive was huge (and expensive)? Now companies give out free trial software on 1 GB thumb drives, and a 4.7 GB DVDr costs mere pennies.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nashou66
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Posts: 16171
Location: West Seneca NY
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MaximRecoil wrote: | I wonder what would be possible with analog these days. What would an evolved version of Laserdisc be like if they used a Blu-Ray disc; or better yet, a [hypothetical] 12" Blu-Ray disc?
Laserdiscs used an analog encoding scheme, but they suffered from limited storage capacity (resulting in limited bandwidth), and they were also encoded in the composite domain, which isn't great. They were better than VHS or Betamax, but inferior to Betacam (which was encoded as component video).
So what if an analog encoding scheme was developed today, using RGB video and taking advantage of the storage space of a Blu-Ray? If that's not big enough, what if a 1.5 TB hard drive was used (and obviously some custom playback hardware would need to be developed for it), with a 2 hour analog-encoded movie completely filling it? Could it rival 35mm movie film? A hard drive may seem kind of big and bulky for a single movie, but it is physically smaller than a VHS tape. It is a lot more expensive of course, but there was a time when a single VHS movie cost $90 (at least that is what the rental places would charge for a replacement). And of course, eventually we'll have multi-TB storage that is small and cheap anyway. Remember when a 1 GB hard drive was huge (and expensive)? Now companies give out free trial software on 1 GB thumb drives, and a 4.7 GB DVDr costs mere pennies. |
They have a HD laser disc its called Hi Vision or do a search for MUSE player.
Athanasios
_________________
Don't blame your underwear for your crooked ass~ unknown Greek philosopher
"Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15." --- President Reagan
One Smart Dog!!!
Marquee High Performance Bellows now shipping!!
Marquee Modifications and Performance Enhancement
Marquee C-element and Bellow removal
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaximRecoil
Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nashou66 wrote: | | They have a HD laser disc its called Hi Vision or do a search for MUSE player. |
As far as I know, MUSE is a digital compression scheme. For broadcast, it is sent over radio waves, and is then decompressed by a decoder and sent in analog form to the display. For playback from a Hi-Vision Laserdisc (which used a red laser, like DVD), the digital video encoding is sent to a decoder box, and then sent in analog form to the display.
This is the same thing that happens with broadcast HDTV in the US today (i.e., it is sent over ordinary radio waves, the same as analog TV is). When it gets to the TV set, it is decoded by a digital tuner, and then it either directly drives a digital display, or needs to be converted to analog video in the case of an analog display. This is also what happens when you hook up a DVD or Blu-Ray player to an analog display. The digital information needs to be decoded and then converted to an analog video signal. DVD and BD players generally have built-in hardware to accomplish this (hence their analog outputs, e.g., composite, S-video, component, RGB).
In any event, nothing we have today, or had in the past, approaches the quality of modern 35mm movie film, to say nothing of larger formats such as 70mm.
Edit: This is interesting:
| Quote: | Apart from MUSE, both Sony and Sanyo released Hi-Def LDs not
MUSE-encoded, called broad-band or base-band hi-vision. They require a
specific player (ie, the X9 will not play these discs). Being not
MUSE-encoded, they do not require a MUSE decoder: output from the
player is direct Hi-Vision and goes straight to the display. Each 12"
disc side can hold up to 15 minutes. They are fantastically rare and
cost an order of magnitude more than the most expensive MUSE discs. |
So that was analog HD video, and a 12" red laser optical disc (essentially a 12" DVD) could only hold 15 minutes' worth of it. I wonder how much a Blu-Ray could hold? I'm going to wildly guess that a hypothetical 12" single layer blue laser disc could hold ~90 minutes.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnalogRocks
Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 26706
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Back in 1987 I saw a demo of an analog tape system that sported around 2200 lines of video. It looked incredible and that was the last I heard of it. Too bad. We could have has kick azz high def since the 80's with no digital compression.
Ahhhh ANALOG.
_________________
Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaximRecoil
Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 5:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AnalogRocks wrote: | Back in 1987 I saw a demo of an analog tape system that sported around 2200 lines of video. It looked incredible and that was the last I heard of it. Too bad. We could have has kick azz high def since the 80's with no digital compression.
Ahhhh ANALOG. |
How did they display it? Were there any video display devices in '87 that could display 2200 lines? Of course, if it was interlaced then the display would have only had to deal with 1100 lines.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnalogRocks
Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 26706
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MaximRecoil wrote: | | AnalogRocks wrote: | Back in 1987 I saw a demo of an analog tape system that sported around 2200 lines of video. It looked incredible and that was the last I heard of it. Too bad. We could have has kick azz high def since the 80's with no digital compression.
Ahhhh ANALOG. |
How did they display it? Were there any video display devices in '87 that could display 2200 lines? Of course, if it was interlaced then the display would have only had to deal with 1100 lines. |
Why do you say "Of Course it was interlaced" ?IT could have been progressive. I honestly don't know.
The monitor was a custom 35-40" CRT. I can't remember the manufacture. I do remember all the ooos and ahhh's around the room though. They had a camera just outside the window. We kept looking from the monitor to the window for an A/B comparison. It was impressive.
_________________
Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
Last edited by AnalogRocks on Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaximRecoil
Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AnalogRocks wrote: | | MaximRecoil wrote: |
How did they display it? Were there any video display devices in '87 that could display 2200 lines? Of course, if it was interlaced then the display would have only had to deal with 1100 lines. |
Why do you say "Of Course it was interlaced" ? |
I didn't. I said, "Of course, if it was interlaced..."
| Quote: | IT could have been progressive. I honestly don't know.
The monitor was a custom 35-40" CRT. I can't remember the manufacture. I do remember all the ooos and ahhh's around the room though. They had a camera just outside the window. We kept looking from the monitor to the window for an A/B comparison. It was impressive. |
It sounds awesome. I wish there was a way to find out more about both the tape system and the monitor. I've heard of some professional monitors in the '80s that were capable of much higher than standard resolution, but I don't know how high they went, or anything else about them. I don't think there was anything in the consumer sector at the time that could go very high.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnalogRocks
Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 26706
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MaximRecoil wrote: | | AnalogRocks wrote: | | MaximRecoil wrote: |
How did they display it? Were there any video display devices in '87 that could display 2200 lines? Of course, if it was interlaced then the display would have only had to deal with 1100 lines. |
Why do you say "Of Course it was interlaced" ? |
I didn't. I said, "Of course, if it was interlaced..."
| Quote: | IT could have been progressive. I honestly don't know.
The monitor was a custom 35-40" CRT. I can't remember the manufacture. I do remember all the ooos and ahhh's around the room though. They had a camera just outside the window. We kept looking from the monitor to the window for an A/B comparison. It was impressive. |
It sounds awesome. I wish there was a way to find out more about both the tape system and the monitor. I've heard of some professional monitors in the '80s that were capable of much higher than standard resolution, but I don't know how high they went, or anything else about them. I don't think there was anything in the consumer sector at the time that could go very high. |
Whoops, sorry I just woke up and didn't read that right.
Yeah I just spent an hour googling. I didn't find anything.
You know I don't specifically remember seeing a VTR. I wonder if they were only able to do live video? After all we were looking at a live feed from just outside the window.
_________________
Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The very first HD display I ever saw was the 32" Unity Motion direct-view CRT. I think it was something like $7,000 - and that was cheap for an HD display back in 1997 or 1998 when I first saw it. It was truly a sight to behold compared to everything we'd seen up to then. I think the only source the stores had back then to demo the display was a commercial/industrial hard-disc-based player - I think it was a Sencore.
| AnalogRocks wrote: | | We could have has kick azz high def since the 80's with no digital compression. |
No, we couldn't have. Even if we could have had it, it certainly wouldn't have been "kick azz".
1080i takes SIX times the bandwidth of 480i to store or transmit in analog. To have it at home, you'd have needed a tape the size of 6 VHS or Beta tapes, and it would have had probably only ~1000 lines of horizontal luma resolution, and color resolution being really horrible - probably in the neighborhood of 100 lines or less. Does that sound "kick azz"?
Even the MUSE Hi-Vision LD's were compressed (though in the analog space) and pathetic compared to what we have with BD today. Luma resolution was down in the 600 lines ballpark, and chroma was a pathetic 209 lines. I know because I just looked it up.
The HD we have today (at least BD) is truly "kick-azz". As much as I'm sure you hate the idea Jeremy, digital compression really made it all possible.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bbfarmht
Joined: 27 May 2006
Posts: 1273
Location: Where the Mississippi runs east to west!!
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | The HD we have today (at least BD) is truly "kick-azz". As much as I'm sure you hate the idea Jeremy, digital compression really made it all possible.
SC |
Digital- 1 Analog-0
_________________
Adam
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both"
Benjamin Franklin
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnalogRocks
Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 26706
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | The very first HD display I ever saw was the 32" Unity Motion direct-view CRT. I think it was something like $7,000 - and that was cheap for an HD display back in 1997 or 1998 when I first saw it. It was truly a sight to behold compared to everything we'd seen up to then. I think the only source the stores had back then to demo the display was a commercial/industrial hard-disc-based player - I think it was a Sencore.
| AnalogRocks wrote: | | We could have has kick azz high def since the 80's with no digital compression. |
No, we couldn't have. Even if we could have had it, it certainly wouldn't have been "kick azz".
1080i takes SIX times the bandwidth of 480i to store or transmit in analog. To have it at home, you'd have needed a tape the size of 6 VHS or Beta tapes, and it would have had probably only ~1000 lines of horizontal luma resolution, and color resolution being really horrible - probably in the neighborhood of 100 lines or less. Does that sound "kick azz"?
Even the MUSE Hi-Vision LD's were compressed (though in the analog space) and pathetic compared to what we have with BD today. Luma resolution was down in the 600 lines ballpark, and chroma was a pathetic 209 lines. I know because I just looked it up.
The HD we have today (at least BD) is truly "kick-azz". As much as I'm sure you hate the idea Jeremy, digital compression really made it all possible.
SC |
Well now your comparing Apples to Oranges. While digital may have made it convenient to brodcast 1080i signals nation wide there were ways to do it with analog too. I remember reading in Video magazine back in the day about analog compression that would give us the highdef in the alloted 6MHz spectrum. So as compared to 480i signals analog HD would be kick azz.
You see you're thinking 2009 I'm thinking 1989. It's all relative depending on your point of view.
_________________
Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecrabb
Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Mar 2006
Posts: 15909
Location: Utah
TV/Projector: JVC RS40, Epson 5010
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't see how I'm thinking 2009 or comparing apples and oranges. If anything you're looking at 1989 like it could have been 2009. I'm saying it couldn't.
Bandwidth is bandwidth, and whether you're talking analog or digital, you still have to throw away a truckload of picture information to get 1080i into a 6mhz carrier. That's COMPRESSION - a LOT of it. Even the MUSE system had to throw away something like 75% of the chroma resolution to fit it into the system's bandwidth. I'm sure it looked great compared to 480i, but at what cost? Those players were like $6,000, and it didn't hit the market in Japan until the early-90's.
I think if we could have had, we would have had it.
SC
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MikeEby
Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 5237
Location: Osceola, Indiana
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
I saw a demo of HD in 1996 at Disney's Epcot Center. I think it was running on a Barco. I knew then I would have to have it. Then our local NBC started broadcasting HD in 1999, about the only thing in HD was Jay Leno. I bought RCA DTC-100 tuner, the picture was amazing, I first had it connected to a 21" CRT computer montor.
Mike
_________________
Doing HD since the last century!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaximRecoil
Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: |
1080i takes SIX times the bandwidth of 480i to store or transmit in analog. To have it at home, you'd have needed a tape the size of 6 VHS or Beta tapes, and it would have had probably only ~1000 lines of horizontal luma resolution, and color resolution being really horrible - probably in the neighborhood of 100 lines or less. |
The part that I italicized isn't really accurate, because neither VHS nor Betamax took full advantage of the half-inch tape they used. For example, professional Betacam, S-VHS, and ED-Betamax were vast improvements over VHS or Betamax, and they used the same half-inch tape, and in the same size tape cartridges. ED-Betamax had 500 lines of horizontal luma resolution, better than NTSC DVD (though DVD has much greater chroma resolution). I think they could have gotten to 1000 lines with a one inch tape format; obviously twice as thick as a VHS or Beta tape, but that's better than 6 times the size.
The main problem with that idea back in the '80s was the lack of HD monitors, and even if they had been built for the consumer sector, they would have been incredibly expensive for something of a decent size (e.g., 25"). A PC VGA monitor could have handled ~1000i, but those were like 13" - 15" at the time I believe.
I'm more interested in what could be accomplished with analog encoding today however.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnalogRocks
Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 26706
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MaximRecoil wrote: |
The part that I italicized isn't really accurate, because neither VHS nor Betamax took full advantage of the half-inch tape they used. For example, professional Betacam, S-VHS, and ED-Betamax were vast improvements over VHS or Betamax, and they used the same half-inch tape, and in the same size tape cartridges. ED-Betamax had 500 lines of horizontal luma resolution, better than NTSC DVD....snipped |
Same size tape, different formulation. ED-Beta's picture was quite nice as compared to S-VHS or Hi8, although both of those format's had great picture too.
The downside of ED-Beta was the lack of availability. You could go into a camera shop and ask for a S-VHS tape or Hi8 tape but you get a blank stare when you ask for ED-Beta.
_________________
Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaximRecoil
Joined: 28 Nov 2008
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2009 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AnalogRocks wrote: | Same size tape, different formulation. ED-Beta's picture was quite nice as compared to S-VHS or Hi8, although both of those format's had great picture too.
The downside of ED-Beta was the lack of availability. You could go into a camera shop and ask for a S-VHS tape or Hi8 tape but you get a blank stare when you ask for ED-Beta. |
Yeah, I should have said "same half-inch tape size". My point was that you don't necessarily need to increase the size of the tape to get more quality; that can be done through using different types of tape and/or different encoding methods. You'll obviously reach a limit at some point with half-inch tape, and who knows if that limit was ever reached? We switched to digital and pretty much never looked back. Either way, a one inch tape format would give you a lot more breathing room.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Person99
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 4899
Location: Flower Mound, TX
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ecrabb wrote: | http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_C_videotape
What's amazing to me is that about 20 years after this
machine was manafactured, a superior setup with much more storage, instant online access, no generational loss and superior picture quality would fit in the trunk of a Mazda Miata and probably cost 1/3. Even more amazing, a college kid can now buy a completely portable setup that is again, superior, but for what he could make working a part-time job for the year.
SC |
That does amaze me, but the other side of the equation amazes me even more, and that is the love of old technology. There is a recent column by Ethan Winer (although he is active in HT circles he is more active in audio recording/production circles and that is the source of the column) called "When it comes to gear, old is good, but new is better". He hits the nail on the head in it:
| Quote: |
In my frequent visits to audio forums, I notice much fascination with old audio gear. I don’t know anyone who prefers old cellphones, or old computers, or even old medical cures, for that matter. Audio recording is based entirely on technology, and for the most part, technology only improves over time. So I don’t understand the obsession with ‘old’ when it comes to recording. Sure, wood used for musical instruments often improves with age, but I’m talking about gear.
I’m old enough to remember vintage gear when it was brand new! In those days, gear designers aimed to avoid the ‘tube’ sound, not to mention the hiss and distortion of analogue tape. The design goals back then were for gear to be as quiet as possible, with minimal distortion. Transformers were used because they were needed, not to add audible ‘colour’. Chemical engineers worked hard for decades to formulate magnetic tape with as little distortion and hiss as possible. Equalisers made with inductors can ring when boosted, and once upon a time that was considered a bad thing!
<snip>
In the 1970s and 1980s, I owned a large professional studio with a quarter of a million dollars worth of gear. I would have killed for the features and sheer audio fidelity I enjoy today with Cakewalk Sonar Producer [a digital audio workstation--i.e. recording studio "in a computer" for those that don't know--Dave] and its bundled plug-ins.
A current consumer-grade soundcard beats the finest analogue recorder in every way one could possibly assess fidelity.
|
_________________
Dave
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Forum powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
|
|
