[mythtv-users] Resolution

[James L. Paul]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 03 December 2003 12:20, papenfuss at juneau.me.vt.edu wrote:
> > > 	VHS also has a general problem of only providing 3MHz bandwidth, while
> > > a full NTSC signal is 6MHz...  I believe this is SVHS's major
> > > improvement, it provides 5MHz or more.
> >
> > There you go! That's the easiest way of explaining it, rather than trivia
> > about the way VHS stores fields on tape. However it stores the video on
> > tape, VHS results in less bandwidth than needed for NTSC. And the term
> > crosstalk is when I should have been using instead of bleed.
>
> 	Actually, not to pick any more nits (seem to be lots of them on this
> thread), but the 3MHz bandwidth on the tape is the fundamental limitation
> for the *horizonal* resolution (i.e. "lines" of analog resolution).  The
> interlacing and crosstalk stuff has more to do with the *vertical*
> resolution, or rather the number of scanlines.  If the crosstalk were very
> appreciable, captured video that had easily visible interlacing would show
> it on every other line.  These adjacent *field* scanlines (not frame...
> i.e. 1-3-5-7) would bleed together a bit.  If anything, that's all I was
> able to see was "a bit" of analog ghosting/ringing between "adjacent"
> lines.  The VHS tape that I played with to test the interlacing was done
> with SP, so it probably doesn't do as much smearing as on LP or SLP.

I think we're talking about very similar things but in different ways. :)

> 	Boy... sure got myself into a mess here.  Let's all agree that VHS
> sucks... :)

Me too. ;) And I agree wholeheartedly!

> -Cory
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/zmVPT8BYaKRUpkQRAq0YAJ9yq+Zxk7Jb7pCBOzTs3T0uSO0XUwCfQEVj
5FJoWowcdrPYSzhcU+kXTlU=
=cQHY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----