<nigelg@lpilsley.co.uk> wrote in <iGnd59AWRhgDFwDe@lpilsley.co.uk>:
In message <b3u3o115eckabf8lkbmbmsc0b4epmag7kg@4ax.com>, Colum Mylod
cmylod@despammed.comREMOVE> writes
Not sure why another poster's pic would be better in SECAM since
almost (?) all TVs I've ever examined had a SECAM to PAL converter
stage, thus negating any Gallic claims of superiority (on top of
studios being PAL originally, SECAM was tx onwards only).
SECAM overcomes some of the problems with PAL, but it also introduces
some of it's own - in general there's nothing to choose between them.
Eh, before going into a long technical compare SECAM PAL, consider this:
SECAM has bad black and white compatibility (some FM carrier is always present
in non colored areas of the picture... and moving...)
SECAM cannot be faded, so they use PAL in the studios.
I think for weak signals PAL is superior, FM is noise sensitive in weak signals.
SECAM was something like:
'System Encené Contre Amerique' (xcuse my French), and as NTSC was a rather
genius idea, SECAM had to go trough for all I remember at least 4 versions
before it was anywhere usable.
But PAL was invended by Dr Bruch in Germany and fixed the phase sensitivity
for NTSC (by alternating phase 180 degrees each line), while keeping the
good parts of NTSC (quadrature modulated carrier that is zero in non colored
areas).
In my view at that time (as profi, I worked with both encoders in the studio),
SECAM was a joke ;-)
When politics start steering engineering you get things like SECAM.
Can you imagine the French..... the wine and food is good, but SECAM was bad,
the food is VERY good in France.