[QuadList] DVD vs Blu-Ray

[Mike]

Steve,

That's right!  When was it, 60s or early 70s when we switched from cps to Hz?

-mike
Steve White <Steve.White at 800CallNow.com> wrote:James,

Thanks very much for the details.  

I'm certain the DVD originated as 16:9 and probably as HD because I've seen a reference to the fact that they were recording for release in both Blu-Ray and DVD.  I saw the show when it aired live on CBS a couple of weeks ago in some flavor of high       definition.

I'm always impressed by the knowledge this group possesses, but suppose this is what you guys do, after all.  I managed to keep an RCA CT-100 alive for several years in the early to mid-60s using components from the same chassis incarnated as a Conrac monitor.  The two cost me $75.00 and provided some serious fun and challenges...not the least of which was moving them from DC to Fitchburg, Mass and then to Charlotte, NC.  Can't believe I didn't find a way to hold on to them.

I suppose I can claim partial credit for my recollections from those days regarding the color subcarrier?  To put a VERY fine point on things, were we using the term hertz/Hz when stating a frequency back then, or did that term work its way into common use sometime later?

Regards,
Steve


On 12/23/13 1:24 PM, James Snyder wrote:
Steve, 

Strictly speaking, no DVD can be "NTSC" since NTSC was the 525 line analog television standard and DVDs are, by their nature, digital TV delivery media in the 480 line format in the former "NTSC" countries (using MPEG-2 video compression), and 576 format in the former PAL & SECAM countries.  However, "NTSC" has become a colloquialism for "480 line video" and is thus misused constantly. 

The difference between NTSC and 480 being that, since digital signals don't need horizontal or vertical blanking intervals, the extra lines used for those timing signals for analog CRTs are not included in digital video.  There were 45 lines of blanking in NTSC.  Same with 576:  the H and V blanking lines in 625 line video aren't needed in digital TV and are thus not included in the digital signals. 

DVDs have the ability to reproduce 16:9 (1.78:1) aspect ratio video, so if the people on your Garth Brooks DVD don't look squished, most likely the video was orginated in 16:9 480 line digital video.  I can't imagine anybody creating anything in actual NTSC analog today. It would look like crap with all the analog artifacts. 

Hope this helps, 

James 
------------------------------------------------ 
James Snyder 
Senior Systems Administrator 
Library of Congress - 
  National Audio Visual Conservation Center (NAVCC) 
Motion Picture, Broadcasting & Recorded Sound Division (MBRS) 
Packard Campus for Audio Visual Conservation 
http://www.loc.gov/avconservation/packard/ 



Thanks for the opportunity to ask, can someone help me get a better grasp of DVD vs Blu-Ray formats? 

I recently received a video disc labeled as an NTSC DVD of the Garth Brooks "Blame It All On My Roots" performance in Las Vegas. Playback on my Blu-Ray deck displays as full screen on a new Panasonic plasma screen capable of 1080p without obvious aspect ratio distortions. 

Garth's performance is incredible; lighting, camera work, audio, direction all are great.  Apparently, there is currently no Blu-Ray disc available. 

- Is it technically correct to label the DVD as NTSC when the image displayed is 16:9? 

- What's the likely resolution/format?  Any suggestions on how I could have confirmed that without asking you? 

Many thanks, 
Steve 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://quadvideotapegroup.com/pipermail/quadlist_quadvideotapegroup.com/attachments/20131224/796536d3/attachment-0004.html>