The History of HDTV
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 сер 2024
- The History of Analog and Digital High Definition Video and Television started way earlier than most people realize. In this video i am looking back on how high definition video evolved over the years. The Japanese research and television station NHK developed an early analog HD system as early as in the 70´s. Development rapidly grew over time so as the range of compatible systems,
I hope you enjoy this trip back in time of professional analog video formats and the evolution of analog compression and resolution.
Please consider to Subscribe for more interesting videos and projects!
There is always more to discover, Projects, DIY´s or more videos about the K40 Laser cutter on my Channel:
bit.ly/3dU5cPZ
If you want to support my channel, become a Patreon:
/ mancaveeffec
Social Media Links:
Facebook: / mancave.effects
Instagram: / mancaveffects
Twitter: / effectsmancave
ManCave Effects Webpage: bit.ly/2VAvdgX
Disclaimer:
I do not own any rights of the shown video footage and photos. Links to the sources of content are named in the bottom left. If i mistakenly used footage or photos that are copyright protected, or if you are the copyright owner and don’t want your content to be shown in this video please let me know!
#MancaveEffects #History #AnalogHD
Music by:
Royalty Free Music from Epidemic Sound: goo.gl/jlJWJO
![HDVS Business Applications [North America Ver.] (1992 Analog HDTV 1080i HDVS Video Demo Disc)](/img/n.gif)
The HDC-100 utilized 5:3 aspect ratio Saticon tubes, which were 1". They resolved 1000 TVL/ph, so 1666x1000 TVL resolution per tube, and each one produced a bandwidth of 30 MHz when operating in 60i mode. They had a signal-to-noise ratio of 54 db (approximately 9 bits in digital equivalent terms) and, as you succinctly pointed out, an ASA rating of 64 when the gain setting was at 0 db. The HDC-300 changed the aspect ratio of the tubes to 16:9, with the same 1000 TVL/ph rating, which resulted in a resolution of 1778x1000 resolution, effectively, and 30 MHz of bandwidth per tube when operating at 60i. The HDV-1000 wideband analog component HD 1" VTR was based on the BVH-2000 Type C 1" analog composite VTR, and featured 30 MHz of luminance channel bandwidth, 7.5 MHz of Pr/Y-R and 7.5 MHz of Pb/Y-B color difference channel bandwidth, with the total active signal bandwidth being 45 MHz; by comparison, the analog composite (direct color) signal that regular Type C VTRs recorded was only 6 MHz wide (4.5 MHz for luma, and 1.5 MHz split between red and blue chroma with 1 MHz and 0.5 MHz bandwidths, respectively, all combined into a single 6 MHz CVBS channel). When the signal was broadcasted via a satellite earth station into a geostationary satellite, the signal was delivered as a 30 MHz Y/C signal, with 20 MHz of Y and 10 MHz of C (includes Pr and Pb bandwidth), then it was downlinked to another part of the globe as a MUSE CVBS (that's what MUSE signals were encoded as, composite) signal that had to fit within a 6 or 8 MHz channel, to be decoded by MUSE receivers, which would then be decoded into a YPrPb signal, then again into a G-Y, R-Y, B-Y signal and a Y signal, which could finally be displayed as an RGB signal on an RGB CRT TV.
Thank you, for this very informative and very unique data that is “unfindable” on google!
12:11 Digital high-definition begins.
it is truly mindblowing how far ahead japan was especially in the 80s.
Their economy stagnated in the 90s and they lost supremacy.
That's MY D1 4:2:2 (Sony DVR-2100) in this video - I am happy you used it. Akio Morita showed me the first HD system in 1981.
Cool, thanks man! I could not make out the exact source of the footage. Glad you are okay that i used it. Its quite rare footage! ;)
13:33 this logo is a brazilian official HDTV logo, born with digital broadcast in 2007 by GloboTV. In Brazil we have analog tv currently, in the little cities, but nobody use
In the 1970s , 1980s and 1990s Japan was the ultimate technology leader.
The time good stuff mostly came from Japan.
Japan led the introduction of many video formats
1970s: U-matic, Betamax, VHS and 1" Type-C videotape (co-developed by American company Ampex)
1980s: HDVS videotape, Betacam, M, Video8, VideoHi8, S-VHS, Betacam SP, MII, ED Beta, D1, D2 (co-developed by American company Ampex)
1990s: D3, Digital Betacam, W-VHS, D5 HD, D9, DV family of videocassettes (DV, MiniDV, Digital8, DVCPRO, DVCPRO50, DVCPRO HD, DVCAM), Betacam SX, D-VHS, HDCAM
@@RahmanDwi You forgot about DVD in the 1990s and Blu-Ray and HD-DVD in the 2000s.
Yes and no. Japan produced almost all economically somewhat viable stuff. But the europeans (BTS and Philips) also did some very interesting stuff. Namely the resulting camera tech from the Eureka 95 project. The BTS KCH 1000 was a 3-tube analog 1250 line camera, even better than the japanese stuff. But only less than 26 of these cameras were ever produced. Ultimately every HD system had a bandwidth problem - the technology was not ready to handle that much data. No matter if the original signal was analog or digital (Philips LDK 9000), some very heavy digital "data-lifting" was needed, which was way too expensive...
As history showed first the transition to completely digital systems was needed and the then enhancing technology made HD possible.
So: Analog HD was too good, or way ahead of time.
Nah yes and yes, Japan created first HDTV and broadcast, keep crying with your yt mayo supreirority complex@@thegammelgalopper3107
WWF's late 90s to early 2000s programming is by far the most impressive video quality I've ever seen. All the pre 90s stuff is classic of course but this one was perfect. Not too much detail unlike the 4k travesty, and not too shabby either, it has that sweet spot. I say it to this day, that era was the final frontier in terms of technology and visual aesthetics. , sadly not all good things are meant to last.
I own an early HD camera (1995) The JVC KH-100U , original MSRP $62,000 . There were events shot in the US that were intended for an HD Japanese audience.
Interesting! What outputs are on that camera?
Analog Component . It still works but has some banding in the picture. Great early HD though.
Hi. How you can output from it. I'm searching info about that camera. I know it has CCU socket and three BNC connectors on the back but I don't know what they do, is that for component or RGB video?
Thanks for this interesting video! I formerly owned an Sony HDM-3830E, which was phenomenal in just about every single way but had to let it go so I can get my own apartment. It's in Gothenburg now.
Thank you for this video. My country uses the ISDB-T Standard which is pretty much the digital successor of the MUSE System, but ironically most broadcasters in my country prefer to broadcast in 480i 4:3 instead of the 1080i resolution that ISDB-T was designed for.
Which country's that?
Also, do you know if there are any 4:3 1080 broadcasts in your country?
@@nathanpollard1223 The Philippines. Most have started HD broadcast since posting this comment over a year ago. There are no 4:3 1080i broadcasters in my country, only 4:4 480i
I wonder where the recording of the 1984 Olympics is
A lot of the resolution details of HDVS and MUSE seem to be misunderstood these days.
HDVS was an analog 1125-line signal, apparently with 37.125 MHz of bandwidth - or at least it was conventional to sample it at 74.25 MHz. It meant that the 25.86 us of active line period accounted for exactly 1920 pixels when sampled - so the active resolution of the sampled image was exactly 1920x1035. And worth noting is that the sync specification of that signal was practically identical to modern 1080i when transferred over component - that also is 1125 lines total. That way, you can hook up a MUSE LD player to a modern set and it'll display just fine, only 45 lines of the frame will be blanked out.
Or actually more, because MUSE actually cropped the studio-spec 1920x1035 signal down to the center 1870x1032 (so a modern TV will likely display black border on all sides of the screen with overscan disabled, while still recognizing the signal as 1080i - I think the assumption was that consumer displays have overscan anyway). That was further reduced to 60% of the horizontal resolution (so 1122x1032) before further compression steps. Only 1/3 of the luma channel pixels (374x1032) and 1/24 of each of the chroma channels (94x516 each) were transmitted over the air; however, different pixels of the original were transmitted each line or even frame, so the full 1122x1032 luma resolution could be reconstructed for stationary images.
Note that I'm using the term "pixel" even though the system is thought to be analog. That's because all the processing was digital; the input signal was sampled, processed, and then the pixel values selected for transmission converted back to analog. The receiver also sampled the MUSE signal and applied digital processing to reconstruct the image. The European D-MAC and D2-MAC systems (including HD-MAC which was backwards compatible with D2-MAC, just with a similar reconstruction algorithm for still images as in MUSE) used a very similar technique. Analog transmission was used, I believe, mostly because it was more efficient than any digital modulation and compression scheme known at the time.
For sources, look up:
- ITU-R Rec. BO.786 "MUSE system for HDTV broadcasting-satellite services"
- "A Guide to Standard and High-Definition Digital Video Measurements" from Tektronix for sync and timing info of various video formats, including 1035i and 1080i
Both are readily available on the web. I'm not posting links because UA-cam doesn't seem to like that.
Very interesting! But i was asking myself how did they process digital footage at the time? I could not find any vtr’s or digital image processors?
@@MancaveEffects Reportedly, the Sony HDD-1000 digital VTR has been released in 1988. MUSE test broadcasts started in 1989 and regular broadcasts in 1991, so I guess the dates add up.
Of course, design efforts for MUSE date back further into the past by about a decade, but it's not like digital signal processing didn't exist in the early 80s - the CD has been launched to consumers in 1980, following PCM adaptors that have been around since at least 1977 (and technically processed video signals). In the world of professional video, digital timebase correction has been possible since mid-70s, and the famous BT.601 standard for sampling of conventional 525 and 625-line video has been published in 1982. So I think it's safe to assume that the tech was there, even though probably hidden away in research labs and perhaps the most bleeding edge production studios.
Great job!
I remember I saw Hi-Vision TV was sold at a mall in 1994.
That 32inch costs around 800,000yen.(may be, I can't remember exactly😅 childhood memory)
As we can see in this video, 4:3 was main stream, and 29inch is still large size at that time.
"Next-gen"... dreams in the golden era...
My favorite part about HDTV sets is that they have an aspect ratio of 16:9 widescreen and resolutions of 1080i and 1080p.
Worked at sony tape plant in Alabama back in 1997,made vhs tapes that recorded hd video,wrapped in plastic with Japanese print and shipped over seas,didn't know what hd was then.
Sounds like those might've been W-VHS tapes, that format (which was an extension of VHS) was popular in Japan (and was the only country the format was available in, IINM) for recording HDTV broadcasts back in the 90s.
@@RyanSchweitzer77 W-VHS is exclusively a JVC product, p sure op was talking about HDCAM cassettes, which were produced by sony and debuted that same year
@@thetutorialhd5927 you wouldn't confuse HDCAM with anything VHS based, because HDCAM is basically HD-Beta (VHS won the home market, Beta technology, similar to U-matic 3/4", dominated much of the professional video standards from analog transitioning to digital). D-VHS was introduced in 1997 but the US was blocked from getting access to it until years later after they'd grafted DRM onto it, making later "D-Theater" branded D-VHS players and tapes, where these tapes weren't compatible with earlier D-VHS players. Linus tech tips even did a okay episode on the format, though he's definitely not fluent or comfortable talking video tech going back as far as the '90s and CRT days.
The "Firewire" or IEEE 1394 port on the D-VHS player freaked movie studios out, so D-Theater machines didn't allow the HD stream over the Firewire connection, sorta like how BD players will only show 720P over component outputs, which have no DRM, and only full 1080 over HDMI, which has DRM.
Another excellent video, clear yet compact, I thought it was a 10m video. Looking forward to your next video or laser cut project! ;)
One correction- while Unihi is often incorrectly listed as a 3/4” format, it used 1/2” wide tape. The cassette shell itself was based on the MII/D3/D5 size. To avoid a format war, this form factor was agreed upon by both Sony and Panasonic, hence the name “Unihi” implying a unified high definition format
Are there any working machines still in existence? Hard to find anything about it.
While I didn't see "back to the future" in 1035i, but I was working at a post house that was doing editing in the analogue HD format, back in the 90s.
*5:04* The 16:9 (1.77:1) aspect ratio wasn't even proposed until 1984. The closest ratios in use at the time were 1.85:1 (American widescreen) and 1.66:1 (5:3, European widescreen). Those two ratios were used mostly if not exclusively in cinema.
*One more thing:* 16:9 is basically a compromise ratio. Both 4:3 and Cinemascope content will take up 75% of a 16:9 screen when letterboxed. It can also be seen as a compromise between American and European widescreen.
Interesting!
@@MancaveEffects Oh, also, at 11:44, you say 720i, which isn't part of modern HDTV standards. 720p and 1080i are part of the standards, and the drop to 720 lines was to get progressive scan TV at 60/1.001 hz.
While on the topic, Comcast doesn't seem to transmit anything at 1080i, and all HD channels are 720p. And technically the existing standards support 1080p at 30fps or less, but they aren't used. Same goes to true integer framerates (60.00, 30.00, 24.00).
But wasn’t 720 interlaced part of what they called “HD ready” in the early days of HD transmission?
The 16:9 format was specifically designed with all at the time existing formats in mind. All different formats were brought to the same area and stacked. The resulting height came from the 4:3 format, the width from the 2.35:1 wide screen cinema format. The inner overlapping area of all formats is called the shoot area. All relevant stuff needs to be there so that it won't get cropped away when showing the video on different screens (assuming letterboxes are not used). Around that is the protect area, which might not be visible on all screens but still needs to be free of mic booms etc...
Both shoot and protect have an exterior format of 16:9.
@@thegammelgalopper3107 Being unnecessarily pedantic here, but wasn't 2.4:1* widely used at the time?
* or 2.39:1
I think 2:17 to 2:25 might have been Laserdisc footage from around 1987-1988.
Technically it was from a laserdisc, but it was from a Hi-Vision, MUSE HD-encoded laserdisc that stores a true (but compressed) 1035i high-definition image! Specifically, it's from "The Test Disc", a disc produced by Sony for use with setting up these early analog HD decoders & TVs.
Awesome video, deserves way more views. Only complaint I have is the video bitrate, in few parts it looks a bit blocky, but that might just be youtube's problem...
Some pictures and videos actually where bad quality... Thank You!
I saw no problems with the video quality. Like Mancave said, some of the footage was bad quality. Very few people are going to clean up bad footage, that they did not create, and even if they did create it, some people do not care about the quality.
this is great, thank you
i don't care to watch movies in HD, dvd is good enough for me. but seeing those HD videos from back than it's mind blowing
I prefer the softness of real 35mm film. Hd and specially 4K is way to sharp in my opinion, it almost hurts my eyes...
@@MancaveEffects dude, same‼👌😅
Very interesting video! Well done
Fascinating Stuff. I appreciate your research!
I wonder if any SD productions that were to be broadcast in SD had any parts shot in analogue HD to maximise picture quality and to be able to reframe shots in post without a noticeable loss in quality. I can also imagine that doing some video effects in HD and then storing in SD can really improve their quality and reduce blockiness
I would doubt it very much reframing wasn't really a thing back then, maybe in some hollywood production or big budget commercial to be scanned back to film. Much easier to record in the resolution you intend to output and get a good operator to compose and hold a nice framing initially. Back in the day it wasn't as easy as finding the right menu in your software, if you wanted to do some effect in the digital domain at you had to buy a really expensive box specifically for that purpose that was throwing digits around with custom chips not fast computers with software, they wern't common most of them would only work in SD unless you spent a ton of money even the SD ones wern't cheep.
In Japan, maybe, though they've historically not been terribly concerned with any sort of preservation or future proofing of content, either due to space, cost or just never anticipating there would ever be a demand. As amazing as all this tech is in Japan, their film and TV industries have only a fraction of the buying power, support industries or programming budgets as their equivalents in the US.
High quality productions in the US were shot on film, not video, any video (apart from soaps), where film has more resolution in many cases than even today's "4K" or UHD formats. That is why you can get 1080P episodes of shows like The X-FIles. They went back to their original negatives and made a new telecine transfer when digital HD broadcast and home video became mainstream.
Long prior to HD broadcasts in the US, in the '90s, some networks were doing post production in 16:9, for shows like Buffy and Space Above and Beyond, and in some cases finishing shows in 720P, like CBS' CSI if I recall, even though they were ultimately only going to be broadcast 4:3 SD.
I've got one of those HDM 2830 monitors! Insane even by today's standards.
John Logie Baird demonstrated 1000line TV system in color and even stereoscopic in 1946.
France began with their own TV system in 1949. It was 819i25. 736 active lines.
Nope, thats not even real HDTV standard high def
@@Nopebrbra it is go on the wikipedia page for electronovision which was a 812 line french tape format it says even by todays standard it would be considered hd its still in the 720p range
4:49 Reely Interesting has a genuine HD clip of Reagan’s speech on the matter. From the Convention of the National Association of Broadcasters in 1988.
"I'm told that HDTV represents an advance as dramatic as that from black and white to color..."
Their channel has to be the most amazing resource for Japanese video tech available. Their digitization process is so good. Everything from Betamax to MUSE and everything between.
He's got a lot of analog HD material out there for people like us (and historians) to view today. So thankful for him (& other people out there dedicated to showcase analog HD along with HD footage shot before the digital transition).
Amazing video, thanks 🎉
Where can I buy those old HDTV equipment?
819 lines in France in 1948.
HBO did its first HDTV test in 1987.
Great video
Is any hd videos from that 1981 Sony HDVS presentation in USA saved? (its probably would be very first HD videos ever then)
Good vid
at 2:00 there is a cool picture of a Home Box Office Master Control View terminal - can you share how you found this? I would like to see or read more about that system!
The video i grabbed this footage from is credited in the bottom left in the video. In this case you can find the entire video on UA-cam when entering the following title:
Dailymotion - ABC's 20 20 on HDTV - 1989 - part 1 of 2! - a Film TV video.mp4
@@MancaveEffects Thank you so much!
Hi,
Have you got a Brochure for the Sony HDVS electron Beam Recorder? It has an interesting graphic showing the air pressure ad different altitudes to explain how high the Vacuum used in the EBR Filament chamber was. I need a copy for a Physics teacher friend. I was many years ago the European Manger for HDVS. Best Regards Peter.
Hi Peter unfortunately i do not have any brochures i gathered most from the web though.
hi have done up alot of betacam decks myself the numbers of them that can be saved is now getting low now alot of the decks i have came from the hire
place's they did not have the room to keep them any more
2:18 that was 1990 not 1980.
100% Japanese
The clip from 1:35 to 1:52 looks somewhat interesting. Where did you find it?
Woodstock 94 was shot in MUSE
Hi I was thinking of using this camera to shoot a short film for the 80s aesthetics vibe. But then film festivals ask for high resolution screeners like in HD or 4K. Would you suggest using this camera? Also how can I up the resolution?
Unfortunately nowadays festivals etc require a certain resolution. If you want to go old school, shoot on film formats and let it scan in 2k. You can even scan super 8mm film in high resolution or go with the still standard super 16mm film format.
you can do the nnedi3 rescaling to hd in avisynth
@@yuukoyuukoi476 thanks 😊
@@MancaveEffects thanks 😊
Just use an old HDV camcorder 1440x1080, then de-interlace and resize to 1920x1080.
Did any of the early HD cameras use tube (CRT) technology? Or were they all CCD at the same time as 480i and 576i changed after 1990?
I believe all commercially available HD cameras prior to 1992 used 3 saticon tubes
I think the first models from Sony where based on tube technology
You forgot to mention the optical HD format of MUSE.
Never heared about that?👀
@@MancaveEffects OP means that MUSE Hi-Vision LaserDiscs exist. In fact, the footage at 2:16 comes from one such disc.
@@doctordothraki4378Metamorphosis, 1990, great Hi-Vision demo LaserDisc!
the definition of high definition changes as time goes on, 720p was the standard for HD, and now youtube has delisted it from HD certification. 1080p is now the minimum for "High Definition", soon 8k will be UHD and 4k will be HD.
I'm not sure 1080p'll ever be considered SD in an official manner.
I'm only 22, so I don't think I ever considered 720p as legitimately high-definition, but I'm still old enough to have spent hours & hours watching on SD sets (ignoring the times I've decided to watch a SD set when I had access to a HD 1).
It's 2022, I've access to a 4K television, & yet I've been watching a lot more SD content than HD content (only including TV content (as in the news, movies, comedies, dramas, etc.)) over the past few months. I may be an exception to the rule, but SD viewing's far from over, even in the most developed of countries, especially since HD subscriptions often cost more^.
Another thing worth considering, which's much more arbitrary in nature, is that the 'noticeable quality' between 480p or 720p & 1080p is much more pronounced than between 1080p & 4K. Maybe it really is just me, but I find there to be little improvement when watching 4K content, from 2 metres from a 55" 16:9 TV.
^ Further to this point, I think subscriptions offer a good indication of where the base of HD's considered to be. If 1080p's truly to be considered as SD, then I'd suspect that mainstream subscription services (such as Netflix & Sky) wouldn't charge extra to allow their viewers to watch content in the aforementioned resolution.
@@nathanpollard1223 Most movies have compression, film grain, etc, the difference isn't as noticeable because of that. There is a natural "smoothening" because of how film works, there should still be a difference in how much detail there is in each pixel, especially on distant objects, however most movies have some sort of motion blur or depth of field anyways so it detracts from it.
In live rendered content (games), the difference is staggering, kind of like putting on glasses for the first time. I couldn't go back to 1080p after I went to 4k games, everything looked so clear. Yet at the same time, I knew it could look better, there was still quite a bit of "aliasing" (the jagged edges of an image that isn't entirely resolved, usually objects in the far distance). The difference was so great, that I couldn't look at 1080p games at all, they looked so disgusting and blurry.
I do believe streaming has a fault to play for most 4k experiences, there is little point in viewing something in 4k if its been compressed to hell, which is what most streaming services, UA-cam and Netflix alike, do, This is typically due to cost saving measures, and the simple size of 4k content being so large. You'd likely see a bigger difference in 4k if it was less compressed. Most old videos on youtube look nearly unwatchable, despite being in a relatively acceptable 480p, this is due to that terrible compression. It can have a huge impact on raw viewing quality.
The raw specs are undeniable though, 2mp 1080p (2megapixels or 2 million pixels), vs the 8 megapixels for 4k, 8k has 32megapixels for comparison.
I read that the Film Pink Floyd live at Pompeii (1972) was recorded in Hd however according to this video Hd recording cameras were developed during the 80s. Does anybody know Anything about it?
Pretty sure that would be 35mm film which is HD in terms of resolution ability.
@@squirrelarch Whoah, thank you so much, I´ll do some research. Have a good one!
Monty Python at the Hollywood Bowl was shot using modified German Bosch-Fernseh KCK-40 cameras and recorded to German modified BCN VTR. It had 24fps and total of 655 lines. The format was called Image Vision.
A couple things are inaccurate.
WRAL-TV is based in Rall-lie (phonetic pronunciation) , *North Carolina*
Also Raleigh is not in "Washington, DC"
Minor. Not even worth mentioning
@@evhvariac2 Really, you really don't care about detail? Then you must be a sociopathic story teller that must deal with legal people for the slander and defamation cases against your lack of "minor" details! Typical male
North Carolina is several hundred miles away from Washington, D.C. which is a territory and is a completely different local and media market. Not even close! Foreign should be arrested for commenting on American subjects if they aren't even based here!
@@MinifigNewsguy LOL WHAT ARE YOU GONNA DO ABOUT IT BUDDY
I have an Philips 36ML8908/20B
It should support HD-MAC... though how can I test the higher resolutions this monitor supports?
It caps out at 480i over SCART...
Hm....
Unfortunately i dont have an answer to your question as i have never worked with HD-Mac but i would be curious to know too…
hello can you upload a video or photos in 480p on your philips tv thank you
It’s kind of hard to consider them the first efforts as other cases are documented and can be considered such as well and they did not make it even 720p it’s extremely difficult to consider it such
4,080i? Lol. That's weird. Yes, I know he said 480i, but my brain heard 4,080i, lol.
Whats the most affordable gear for a beginner to start with for analog hdvs? Im interested in making ads
The DXC-H10 could be an option, is analog HDVS and are 'easy' to find but is a CCTV style camera and you need the CCU and its remote. Maybe you can try the HDW-700/750/F900 even if they are digital they had that old analog look and are easy to adapt to modern external recorders.
Edit#1 Although most devices don't include 1035i as supported, it's possible that it won't be an issue since look like a lot of recorders supported it.
2023, digital video is still lossy compressed.
In digital cinema too (DCP, visually lossless means lossy).
Too bad!
I've heard about there being 1035i 3 tube cameras out in the world but I haven't been able to find much info on them. I'd like to try and get my hands on one. Does anyone here have any ideas?
BTS KCH 1000 :D
1250 lines
@@thegammelgalopper3107 YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo
@thegammelgalopper3107 no
@@dfkaterno its not
@@dfkaterits sony hdc 100
Guess for HD: 1994
576i is still the standard for sdtv in 2023💀
Because it was the *last* standard for SDTV (for Europe and other PAL countries). That's not going to change, ever, SD will someday just not exist. And then there will be *no* used standard for SD transmissions because there will be no need to waste time making anything in it anymore. Same with 480i NTSC.
i thought the first us hd tvs were from 1998
I prefer digital over analog.
0:58 wrong. The first HD transmission was in 1936 at the BBC studios in London, UK.
Technically correct. But not really. You are probably referring to the baird line sequential scan. This was higher definition than everything before, but still only 240 lines. way lower than SD...
The French also had a 737i system which could've roughly been translated to 816x737/368.5 each field.
Wrong
hd tv is like crtv now
I know this isn't really in the spirit of the point you were making, but you do know that 1080 (I believe 1080p, but not sure) CRTs were made?
@@nathanpollard1223 once again u got learn how it works and like i said 1080p tvs are now like crts and 4k is now like hd tvs nowdays
I'm really not going against the point you were making (which I tried to make clear), I was just making an (interesting) observation.
Also, apparently 1080 CRTs look really good.
@@nathanpollard1223 i didnt ever know there was hd crt i tought there was only 480p crt
@@nathanpollard1223 They did...I mean, you're both watching a video with them in it and Mario either hasn't watched it or isn't understanding what he's seeing.
NTSC>=720x480. Not 640x480.
NTSC Broadcast had a 4:3 aspect ratio at a resolution of 525 lines what would be 640x480 (in nowadays pixels)
@@MancaveEffects You're both off here, though he's closer to true.
NTSC has no pixel resolution as it's analog, no pixels at all, and its resolution across a horizontal scanline is not fixed. Of 525 scanlines you can think of the active picture information as the equivalent to a pixel in the vertical domain. 640x480 is a computer display format that has nothing to do with NTSC.
CCIR 601 compliant devices had a digital frame of 720x486. That is the resolution of D1, the highest quality SD digital format. And, yes, it was for 4:3 by way of non-square pixels. NTSC output devices generally did not use square pixels the way you modern people grew up with on your modern, flat, digital displays.
Framebuffers for use with NTSC video started around 512x486 like the TARGA boards in the 1980s. I'm pretty sure the Video Toaster was 720x480 but with a computer like the Amiga, its display could be tweaked to output a variety of resolutions with NTSC (or PAL) timing and various output devices and softwares would output all manner of displays from 704 to 768 across. All making a recorded 4:3 image. You had to compensate for the non-square pixels so that a circle looked like a circle and not an oval.
In fact, there were high quality character generators, and later generations of the Amiga, which could work with what was called 35ns pixels. This was like over-driving the horizontal resolution by using up to a 1440 pixels across buffer (on the Amiga at least, or 1280 without overscan). These were very thin. Imagine a 1440x486 image that still defined a 4:3 image. All you had to do was account for the pixel aspect ratio and you could make square squares and circular circles. The extremely tiny, high frequency pixels basically were a form of super super sampling.
It's actually 1999. In the USA it was 1999. You didn't specify Japan.
We (USA) were the last ones to the party