Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Broadcast engineering and technology task force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Television (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Language and Naming Conventions[edit]

I suggest that we use American English names and descriptions for technical aspects of television, with the explicit exception of colour or analogue when referring to technologies that are based almost entirely outside of North America (examples include PAL, SECAM, and SCART). --tonsofpcs (Talk) 03:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC), edited before any replies: tonsofpcs (Talk) 03:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, American English. However focus should be more on improving quality, not just converting articles to American English. —IncidentFlux [ TalkBack | Contributions ] 10:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
This suggestion wasn't meant to be explicitly more important than any other, but it needed to be said, lest we would have issues later on. Any problem is a problem, no matter how small, and I hope that this taskforce can relieve many of them. -tonsofpcs (Talk) 01:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Analog television systems and color encoding schemes.[edit]

I suggest that we use the following conventions:

  • NTSC to reference the current NTSC system (2 fields per frame, 30*1000/1001 frames per second, 525 lines) and current NTSC standard color encoding used together
  • NTSC color to reference the NTSC standard color encoding either alone or used with another system
  • NTSC system to reference the current NTSC system
  • NTSC black and white system, black and white NTSC, or original NTSC to reference the original NTSC system (2 fields per frame, 30 frames per second, 525 lines)
  • PAL to reference the PAL colour system
  • SECAM to reference the SECAM (colour) system
  • B/D/G/I/K to reference the system commonly used with PAL (2 fields per frame, 25 frames per second, 625 lines)
  • The individual system letters to reference individual systems. NOT using M for the NTSC system
  • NTSC-J to reference the 0-IRE based Japanese NTSC variant, including both color and system information
more naming conventions are needed, but this is the basis, please comment on this.
--tonsofpcs (Talk) 04:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont know how much I could really help[edit]

I am more familiar with distribution than the actual platforms... but, I do enjoy templating so if you would like I can throw together a couple of templates for ya. for example, here is a userbox you could use if you want

Schwarzbeck UHALP 9108 A.jpg This user is a member of the B.E.a.T. Taskforce.

if you want I can add that as a sub page for the task force. I can also create one for talk pages to explain when an article is within the scope of your task force.

Other than that I may could help you with a few articles about distribution if you want. I am not as familiar with NTSC and PAL and have nothing really to add those those subjects but let me know, I have this page watched so I will see it if you reply here. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 20:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I am withdrawing from all projects that I have joined so I will be withdrawing from this one as well. I wish you the best of luck with your editing %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 20:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolutions, comparisons, and non-square pixels[edit]

The community should come to a consensus on how to handle issues of analog resolution, pixel resolution, comparisons thereof, and how to handle non-square pixels and comparison thereof. Please leave suggestions and discuss these issues. --tonsofpcs (Talk) 18:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure where it applies, and am unfamiliar with the subject either way... can you show me examples of where a decision could benifit an article? That may help me to understand what it is that we intend to decide on and will give me a chance to do more research on the subject. %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 18:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain what you mean? It seems to me that digital display resolution, with rectangular pixels, can best be described by its size in pixels, including the aspect ratio of the pixels themselves, I suppose. For analog resolution, MTF is the most complete description. One could list the spatial frequency at which the MTF drops below 50%, for example. I haven't seen any good discussion of how to compare the two. There is Kell factor, but that page doesn't define the term well and I haven't found any descriptions that do the concept justice. In the end, it seems that digital displays have the interesting property that they can display sharp edges exactly, so long as those lines are pixel-aligned. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The main issue doesn't seem to be in describing them as we can all agree that DV supports video that is 720 pixels wide x 480 pixels high with a pixel aspect 0f 0.9 (leading to a 4:3 display) and that VGA is 640x480 with pixel aspect 1 (still 4:3), but how do we compare these three? If you look at various articles and various 'resolution comparison' images over time, they each handle this different ways, almost all of which I believe can be considered wrong from many points of view; there is a need for a standard so that we are consistent. Honestly, I think we should never compare analog and digital resolutions directly (and numerically) but in articles that need this distinction, discuss the differences and the merits for each, but we do need to come to a consensus as to what to do with varying pixel aspects for digital formats. --tonsofpcs (Talk) 19:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)