Everyone Vs. Everyone

Post by **metaleggman** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:32 pm

Wow, mr genius thinks he knows more about dot crawl than me and mozgus

J/k, but no fucking duh there is dot crawl on almost all sources. That's why I have always thought cable TV looks atrocious, or anything coming from a non-atsc RF tuner for that matter. That and interlacing. I detest interlacing...

Oh, and btw, no fucking duh again that it is the sources job to create a progressive picture, that is, unless you have one of those LCD, plasmas, or non-crt projection TVs. They do it themselves through a process of 3:2 pull down, just in case you didn't know that

^just telling ya how it is from that scart thread

And no, dot crawl is a natural occurence in all analog sources (its like static and noise in audio stuff) so the only way to solve it completely would be to use high quality digital sources and cables. Even then though, you get dot crawl from the polygons themselvs, which, btw, is where the problem originates. eg, open paint and take out the line tool. Start playing around and notice how there are those jagged edges that make up the line? Thats dot crawl in its purest form (unless you have a vga monitor, but w/e, im just makin it more complicated) pretty much. Now, one of the ways software developer have gotten around this is to use smaller polygons, filter effects, and anti-aliasing. Notice all that overdone lighting in most next gen games? Like HDR? that is technically one of the ways to help hide it.

Oh, just wanted to say sumpin else. Dot crawl was not used to simulate transparencies. Again, take out paint and just do an alternating pattern like a checkerboard. Now, take one of the colors and think of it as a blank value, eg transparent. That is what it looks like. Becuase of how small and crappy transparencies were back then, it makes sense why you would think that i admit. Also, your picture is like that, not only because of the luma and the chroma interfering from each other, but because of all the other interference leading to a mass amount of noise in the video signal. That, and compression. You may not think it, but cable companies and satelite companies use compression on their menu pictures resluting in them lookin crumby. Its like take a good looking bitmap and saving it in jpeg format in paint and then it looks like shit.

Post by **lordofduct** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:12 am

hey... I said it is a natural occurance. You repeated me. (maybe not in that verbage... but when I say it is occuring due to crosstalk on cables... that is something natural and not graphical... as I stated). What I find real funny is that most all your posts in the other thread bitching about PSX/Saturn having tons of dot crawl are now missing. Not sure if the mods deleted them, but you seemed to attack those systems (and then added the N64 later) about their bad dot crawl like it was a graphical problem specific to that generation.

And the mesh you are talking about is the trick that they used that utilized the dotcrawl to create the transparancy effect.

When you view that mesh properly (i.e. you can see it in emulators) it looks odd. But when you add in the crosstalk that 'naturally' (oh the verbage is what makes YOU right) occuring interferances from analog signaling it blurs the mesh and it appears to be a transparency.

Next 3:2 pull down is the process of converting a 24fps film (ie 35mm Hollywood films) into NTSC standard. NTSC due to its frequency must run at 29.97 fps, if you passed a 24fps film at that speed it would look faster then it was supposed to. So they repeat frames of the film in a 3 2 pattern

AAA BB CCC DD

Go study.

You MAY be confused with the 3:2 perspective ratio used by standard definition televisions. like hrmmm, 720X480... what is the ratio of that so often seen resolution? 3:2!!!!

If you wanna act like you know something then stop repeating me and stop giving bad information. I've been studying video for a very long time.

Oh and because it seems you like to describe so much in depth to make it seem like your answer is different when it is the same... he is exactly what 3:2 pulldown does. The original process (as it was changed when progressive scan became used more often, but this is where it got its name), in interlaced video a frame is broken into two frames... one carries half the frame, the other carries the other half of the information. So fram A becomes A1 and A2. The pattern then flashes the next frames B2 in the place of where A2 was going to be if the frames repeated. like so.

A1A2A1 B2B1 C2C1C2 D1D2 this carbon copying does this really funny thing when passed over 24 frames. You get this ratio of 5:4

AA AB BC CC DD EE EF FG GG HH II IJ JK KK LL MM MN NO OO PP QQ QR RS SS TT UU UV VW WW XX

Notice with 24 letters (A-X) representing each frame of 24fps 35mm film, then put it in the 3:2 pulldown algorithm, place the resulting formula into an interlaced pattern (2 half frames per full frame) and you get 30 frames of film! the pulldown part of the name comes from the fact that this theoretically "slowed down" the speed of the film when played at the NTSC frequency of 60hz (29.97fps, split with interlacing creating 2 frames per frame making a 29.97*2 relation which ~ equals 60hz).

Yeah it is off by .03 (actually more like .0237598231458934 randome digits), the NTSC standard used to be 60hz (30fps interlaced) until colour TV was introduced in America. The scientists and organizations behind NTSC were required to formulate a way to broadcast B+W and colour simultaneousily on the same signal with the same restrictions and be backwards compatible with the already existing B+W TVs because the Gov't didn't want people in an uproar about having to replace their brandnew B+W TV sets they spent so much money on.

The long math problem that resolved the problem couldn't get it to exactly 60hz and have proper colour and backwards compatability. So a brilliant mind decided to slide the scale a little bit one direction and found the odd ball anomoly of a number like 29.97 interlaced fit perfectly and was still close enough to allow backwards compatability and all that hoo ha.

Furthermore this is also why the US uses the YUV colour system (and not RGB like so many people think) due to the fact that the luminance (Y) so similar to the B+W NTSC frequency already used (luminance saves nearly all the same infor monochrome displays already used) could be utilized with the Chrominace (UV) part of the YUV colour scheme to create colour on the already created backbone of television broadcasting.

And composite video was BORN!

For more information and a more detailed description of the history of the YUV colour scheme, 29.97Hz interlaced frequency and other amazing and interesting sciences behind television... go read about somewhere else.

[edit]
I forgot one last thing. TVs and their 3:2 pulldown conversion. This is your TV doing the same thing that the original algorithm did. TVs run at 60hz, it uses the same idea of the original (as I stated before the name was originally chosen due to the interlacing, but has evolved since) to fix frame rate issues from video sources such as DVD players.

Time for me to go to bed, but tomorrow I'll post some REAL sources. Not a freaking forum. That forum link of yours in the other thread was help for finding SCART converters (but what is the sense of getting SCART then), but using it as an informative source is like me writing a Science paper using your misguided information as a source.

Post by **metaleggman** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:51 am

Lol, and you say i'm saying the same thing you are doing.

hey... I said it is a natural occurance. You repeated me. (maybe not in that verbage... but when I say it is occuring due to crosstalk on cables... that is something natural and not graphical... as I stated). What I find real funny is that most all your posts in the other thread bitching about PSX/Saturn having tons of dot crawl are now missing. Not sure if the mods deleted them, but you seemed to attack those systems (and then added the N64 later) about their bad dot crawl like it was a graphical problem specific to that generation.

Well, they are missing either because some mod was being anal or just to personally spite me. Either way, I don't care, as it's really just cencorship of sorts and mozgus knows I said it, and since that's who I was discussing that dot crawl stuff with, it really doesn't matter. And since Deleted posts aren't necesarrily deleted permanently (well...at least not on VB boards). And Dot crawl was a major problem during that generation, both because of the limited anti-aliasing capable on those systems (or well, I don't think the PSX or the SS did AA, but some games may have been able to utilize it). And it is a graphical problem. Remember, Wikipedia isn't always right. Your not always right. I'm not always right. Now, I know you might say, "of course I don't think I'm always right!" But I've dealt with enough people on other forums to know, even if they say otherwise, the do (sometimes not always, like I said, I'm not always right) think they are always right. But like I said otherwise in my original post, the problem lies both in the graphical portion and the natural interferences.

And the mesh you are talking about is the trick that they used that utilized the dotcrawl to create the transparancy effect.

When you view that mesh properly (i.e. you can see it in emulators) it looks odd. But when you add in the crosstalk that 'naturally' (oh the verbage is what makes YOU right) occuring interferances from analog signaling it blurs the mesh and it appears to be a transparency.

Do you have any proof? Because me thinks that transparency back then just sucked and thats why on good ol' computer monitors it looks horrible. People must agree with me, because someone on the wiki for SS said that. If you don't believe me i'll pull up a quote about its poor transparency ability. OH, and that isn't verbage, its called I was agreeing that it was that AND that it that it was interference from other things, something you didn't say.

And I do know what 3:2 pull down is with film. Its just that no DVD has film frame rates to my knowledge, so I assume that is how they get interlaced signals to the progresssive form. If I was wrong, sorry, I'm no expert and have not been studying it for many years. Prolly just the past one and a half, so I always accept new advice and shit to add to me homelearned cache of knowledge. You went of on a tangent (an interesting one that is

) though with the TV thing...

You MAY be confused with the 3:2 perspective ratio used by standard definition televisions. like hrmmm, 720X480... what is the ratio of that so often seen resolution? 3:2!!!!

Don't you mean 4:3? I have never seen nor owned a 3:2 aspect ratio Televisiom set...Or is perspective some other thing?

I forgot one last thing. TVs and their 3:2 pulldown conversion. This is your TV doing the same thing that the original algorithm did. TVs run at 60hz, it uses the same idea of the original (as I stated before the name was originally chosen due to the interlacing, but has evolved since) to fix frame rate issues from video sources such as DVD players.

So wasn't I right?

I like this discussion I'm having with you

Debates are always fun, as long as both sides are willing to learn that is. People thinking they are lecturing never learn shit

Post by **lordofduct** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:09 am

Can't sleep... grrrrrr.

So wasn't I right? Confused

I like this discussion I'm having with you Smile Debates are always fun, as long as both sides are willing to learn that is. People thinking they are lecturing never learn shit Sad

It seems you were saying that 3:2 was to fix interlaced to progressive scan... not frame rate.

metaleggman wrote: Oh, and btw, no fucking duh again that it is the sources job to create a progressive picture, that is, unless you have one of those LCD, plasmas, or non-crt projection TVs. They do it themselves through a process of 3:2 pull down, just in case you didn't know that
^just telling ya how it is from that scart thread

Second 640X480 is a 4:3 aspect. 720/480=1.5 which is 3/2 or the ratio 3:2. Math prevails.

Type "3:2 aspect" into a google search (or just click the link) and you'll notice there are lots of displays with that aspect ratio. Even Apple talks about it.

I wasn't using Wikipedia as a source. You are probably referring to the SCART thread where I stated I wouldn't use Wikipedia for the fact you'd say the exact same thing. I did not say it WAS my source... it is a source available on the web though. Congruently... you seem to use forums as sources! ohhhh... forums are so legitimate.

Proof of the interference thingamabob for the mesh fake transparency? hrmmm... as you stated on a GOOD computer monitor the fake transparancy looks like crap (as I stated as well with the emulator analogy)... but hey, on regular composite TVs using RCA or RF it looks ok... still meh, but as I said... the key word... FAKE.

DVDs DO have framerates... they have to. DVD utilizes the MPEG2 format which requires a framerate. It is a compression algorithm which details 'key frames', there are two different kinds of key frames... and all frames in between them are written as alterations of those 2 different types of key frames. Look up MPEG2 compression to learn more about it.

Post by **lordofduct** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:33 am

There was also something somewhere (I'm tired) about people who think their always right, but will probably say I don't think that.

I will have to admit something to you... I do. I really do... you know why? Because I listen to everything stated to me, weigh it against all reputable sources I have, use my own logics and math to prove it to myself and in all will then decide if I believe it. But I will not believe it to the death... if someone disproves what has been proven to me then I will alter my belief to accept now proven fact. The problem is proving it... you have to properly do that.

My comments so far were of my self - proven statements against what I consider your unproven statements. Thus driving you to come up with some information as a rebuttle. So far I have not been met with anything that has shook the foundation of my sources. As I stated I don't have the sources to post here. The reason is because my sources aren't the internet. My source is years of studying, I was tought electrician work, plumbing, wiring, cable and truck driving from my father (though plumbing and truck driving are irrelevant to the topic), I am a Math major in college and have studied through all Calculus and in my free time 'attempt' to work in 4 dimensional theory and develope new ways of dealing with 4 dimensional Calculus, I also have been a computer/console/TV repair guy out of my house as a hobby since I was 10. I have read many books on this subject AND used my information in the field to find out that it works. This is what I base my statements on.

Here I am... a dork dressed as a woman saying "HI!!!!"

I'm the dorky guy in glasses. Not the blondes... they are my ex girlfriends Jewls and Lyn.

As I am already amidst this little biography... I have a large drive to learn everything thrown my direction so I can pull myself out of the pit that is my awful existence. I come from 2 coke dealing parents. My father who was an amazing business man and had millions at my birth went bankrupt over a horrible accident on a logging field he had investments in. At age 5 my parents were divorced, my father gone from millions (he made all on his own as well) to pennies and all of our property accept for my father's childhood home left. I spent my life poor and on welfare in a family of 7 kids (4 legitimate, 3 step/illigitimate). I stayed with my mother while 2 brothers were in and out of mental institutes. I moved to FL were I was infected with drug addiction and selling... I even took sex as a payment. I concluded my juvenile and futile ways with the death of my youngest brother, father, step mother, grandfather and uncle all in the last few years along with several of my friends.

For this life alone, everyday I gain more and more reasons to work harder and harder at not losing it all... by learning.

Post by **metaleggman** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:47 am

ok...

DVDs DO have framerates... they have to. DVD utilizes the MPEG2 format which requires a framerate. It is a compression algorithm which details 'key frames', there are two different kinds of key frames... and all frames in between them are written as alterations of those 2 different types of key frames. Look up MPEG2 compression to learn more about it.

Are there movie formats that don't have framerates? Because i know DVDs have frame rates, not to mention that they use mpeg-2. I said that i didn't believe there were any dvds which used a flim frame rate, 24.4 fps or w/e you said. Just sayin.

and i wasn't sayin 720x480 was 4:3, I was just sayin that I never seen any displays which truly utilize it, and your link sorta proves that. the macs just support that. though it seems to be quite important in photography.

I wasn't using Wikipedia as a source. You are probably referring to the SCART thread where I stated I wouldn't use Wikipedia for the fact you'd say the exact same thing. I did not say it WAS my source... it is a source available on the web though. Congruently... you seem to use forums as sources! ohhhh... forums are so legitimate.

and where is this coming from? numba von, I used the forum as a way to help RB see if he wanted to get all the supplies to use scart on his tv! this is because i got the idea just about a week ago. numba two, i was a agreeing on you aabout wikipedia not being a good place to source from.

Ya, I wouldn't quote wikipedia on that, considering someone said the SS was capable of HDTV and on some of the video forums people said some of the SS had 16:9 asect ratios lol. w/e, i'll take your word for it, considering I like 480p, so why would I not want it...

Post by **lordofduct** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:58 am

DVDs due use the 24fps at times. I've ripped quite a few that did. I thought you were saying that DVDs didn't have a set framerate... I didn't understand you were saying that you think they don't use the 24fps.

Yeah, most displays don't actually use 3:2... there are some... less then some. I was just stating it is an aspect ratio... perspective... doodad. aspect is the correct term.

And my post just before this one states most of my sources (the one with the pic of me). Oh and the word study in that post means books, tech manuals/sheets, teachers and technicians... along with application in the real world. Of course the internet has also been a source of mine as well, but I am very scepticle of the internet, I need multiple unbias different websites of which atleast one or two has to be a very reputable source (like the company who made the hardware, the OED, dictionarys, or collegial institutions, etc.) Also any source that is unreputable must have adequate sources themselves (I ALWAYS check the sources of Wikipedia posts, if there are none, or if the sources are very bias... then no show for them on my belief).

Personally I love Wikipedia though. It is a very good 'quick' referrence. When it deals with very well known often searched topics it is pretty spot on. But when you deal with not so common areas of study it gets a little hazy. The website is dependant on editors who are very active. Most of which are very educated and know their stuff. The problem is there is tons of people out there who edit the posts that know a lot about say Chemistry, but how many people out there who are fit to edit information about lesser topics? Not many people who are at the proper level to be reputable want to edit Wikipedia on something so out there as the Sega Saturns technical aspects... and then think of all the wanna be know it alls who are arrogant enough to think they DO know everything about it and end up being the editor for it.

I think I know a lot about the Sega Saturn... but never would I consider myself fit enough to edit Wikipedia... it is supposed to be an open free encyclopedia; people should be able to depend on that and if I edited it then it would no longer be dependable. Now I would find myself dependable enough to edit a Wiki article on Algebra/Trig/Geometry, I for one believe I have mastered these courses, and my school career reflects that.

Post by **metaleggman** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 9:23 pm

yep, and thats exactly why you can't use wikipedia as a bibliographic referance for school work. I love how kids get so worked up about it, considering it makes total sense, they are just being lazy, especially considering all the private databases the school gives us access too. Plus, like you mentioned, a lot of the stuff has sources listed, so you can just list that site that was cited

Ya, learning things through experiance is better than using the internet, which is why you really can't learn subjects over the internet. Colleges have that, but its quite impersonal and the only positive thing about that is the conveinance factor.

Damn, this isn't much of angry people thread...

Post by **grittykitty** » Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:16 pm

wikipedia was pretty great about a year ago, but now that everyone and their idiot brother knows about it people go and post just any kind of crap now: aside from all the vandalism notices on certain articles i see now, this japanese band i like is on there and someone just babelfished a japanese page into english and the translation is... well, babelfished! it's horrible i tells ya. so in short, wikipedia sucks.

except for when i just want some quick info, like whether or not a tomato is a fruit or vegetable

Post by **neohx_7** » Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:25 am

metaleggman wrote:yep, and thats exactly why you can't use wikipedia as a bibliographic referance for school work. I love how kids get so worked up about it, considering it makes total sense, they are just being lazy, especially considering all the private databases the school gives us access too. Plus, like you mentioned, a lot of the stuff has sources listed, so you can just list that site that was cited

Ya, learning things through experiance is better than using the internet, which is why you really can't learn subjects over the internet. Colleges have that, but its quite impersonal and the only positive thing about that is the conveinance factor.

Damn, this isn't much of angry people thread...

Would you please download Firefox 2.0 and start using spellcheck, you moron. Also, I've blocked your avatar and sig because they are fucking annoying to look at over and over again. That goes for some others here as well. Alright, carry on with your myths about dot crawl...