What port is that one on the left?

Your mom's asshole

>>59543100
SCART

your left or my left

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCART

It's scart you teenager

how fucking young are you

Why are connectors from the 70s still used? Shouldn't everything be wireless in two thousand fucking seventeen?

>>59543136

>everything wireless

go away

>>59543134
>>59543128
Reminder that in burgerland scart didn't exist
It's great having RGB support on literally everything, it's a feel ony yuropoors will understand

>>59543224
>Reminder that in burgerland scart didn't exist

Wait what?

>>59543261
burgers have to use RCA connections and chant an ancient ritual to comcast in order to have the approval of the god given congress of the us of a to maybe consider getting a color tv

>>59543261
Yeah we have RCA wires instead for a/v. It would be 4 wires: RGB or YPbPr for video and white (I think) for audio

>>59543261
Yep, it was pretty much an europe-only thing.

File: vhf switchbox.gif (13KB, 497x308px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 497x308px

>>59543261
>70s era

>>59543355
God damn it those things were a pain in the ass. And usually degraded quality.

>>59543224
My dad always told me it's called "EUROSCART"

>>59543134
This!

>>59543100
It's "SCART".

>>59543339
Japs also had SCART albeit differently wired.

>>59543113
ha hahaha haa

>>59543100
it's a BRAP port these guys are lying to you
>>59543122
>>59543128
>>59543224
>>59545767
>>59546593

File: composite_cable.gif (45KB, 600x350px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 600x350px

>>59543100
why do euros have such an unwieldy looking mess of a connector instead of this?

>>59547306
Scart can carry composite component and s-video

>>59543224
>tfw you never experienced teletext

>>59547444
>component

RGB also sound input and output.

>>59547455

Teletext was absolutely great my old man was a stockbroker it was essential, definitely

USB-D

>>59547482
As a teenaged burger it blew my mind

I'm envious of the euros for having had SCART and also somewhat envious of PAL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de6a-p_PIyM

>>59547574
NTSC was a disaster until SONY introduced the Trinitron.

Remembe the channel where it was the pov of a train going through various places in europe? Or the giga channel where it was some video game. Or the flowmotion videos, space night, rave party. German tv was so awesome.

>>59547574
Pal the reds and blues looked fucked up but they had hd a lot quicker than us

>>59547534
>people were paid to make shitty 2D sprites of nude women
>you are born too late to get this job
Why even live

File: teletext_sex_line_advertisements.jpg (97KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1200x800px

>>59547602
Deutschland JA!

>>59547482
teletext was way faster and more usable than the shitty molasses channel guides they have now

>>59547505
Wait what? Burgers didnt have teletext?

>>59547639
Or the random frontal nudity on like hr during 5pm. Random uncut german penis and german vagina. On a channel I picked up with a tv attenna lol

>>59547306
because composite looks like shit

File: 1489965982484.jpg (80KB, 1465x1209px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1465x1209px

>It's an Americans get confused by SCART thread

>>59547675
Nope. Our tv sucked but was way better than what its become now. We also have to pay for cable. When i lived in germany i just needed to buy a box from someone and install a dish and had like 50 free tv channels

>>59547616
Nobody was paid, the website's programmer made it. That's why it's shitty.

>>59543328
>4 wires
>YPbPr

That's component, which we only used for like five years before HDMI.

RCA to most Americans means one yellow cable for composite video, and two cables, red and white, for stereo audio.

>>59547664
Also muh fucking stocks,weather reports,sports results efc

Also Teletext was a reason TV Guides were never really a much of a major thing in Europe.

>>59543100
ITS SHART YOU RETARD

>>59547717

Satellite TV and hell even cable back in the analog days was amazing

>>59547812
It's not as though the picture could have been sharp at all on the average zenith bedroom TV. I was mostly happy just to not be using RF.

>>59547931
I noticed that german tv has degraded ever since they let viacom buy a bunvh of channels and turn german tv into burger reality crap. Viva and mtv when they competed with each other was how it shouldve been instead of becoming burger mtv. I still watch euro tv sometimes with a vpn and zattoo

>>59547938
RGB even through a bottom barrel TV looked pretty good.

>>59543118
this.

>>59547639

Back in the day when we still made a lot of consumer electronics

GRUNDIG,Blaupunkt,Nordmende,Metz,Loewe and Telefunken etc

>>59543224
NZ has SCART you freak we have supported it since sky T.V (80's) became a thing and guess what high quaity HD bluray supports it too in my country.

>>59545372
it's to differentiate it from the JP21 standard; same plug, different pinouts

Europoors probably didn't even need RGB.
PAL/SÉCAM was infinitely superior to NTSC to start with.

The only time it was worse was with video games, but that was the fault of developers, not the technology.

>>59548064
NZ is in Europe nerd.

At least when it comes to technology the world used to split into two halves.
Europe and the USA.

Europe includes the EU, Australia, NZ, South Africa, etc.
The USA includes the USA, Canada, Japan, etc.

>>59548116
Then we have the mixed markets like Hong Kong&Malayasia which seemed to use both.

>>59548135
Yeah, in places with a regional overlap (South America, Asia) it was common for home video releases to be done in American standards.

This was because European televisions would accept a 60Hz NTSC picture, but American sets wouldn't accept a 50Hz PAL picture.

It was still common for things made in 50Hz countries but for worldwide distribution to be produced to 60Hz standards quite recently (if it's still not happening now).

>>59548295
>jvc multisystem interi'art crt masterrace

>>59548295
>American sets wouldn't accept a 50Hz PAL picture
Is this still the case? In 2017?

>>59548295
not every TV supports PAL-60

>>59548407
Yes

>>59547720
>website

Samsung has multisystem 4k tvs in america.. did not know that. Good thing i own a 4k samsung tv

>>59548437
The only time I've ever encountered a TV that didn't support both NTSC *and* PAL-60 was one which was made when colour television began (early seventies).

Almost any european TV with composite/component input will support it. The main issue was with sets that relied on RF modulators (but they were already rare by the mid-late nineties).

>>59548455
Jesus fucking Christ.
That's an artificial limitation then, because the TVs all come from the same factories (and probably even production lines) to the same designs.

>>59543224
This is bullshit my American 32" RCA CRT had scart, my OG xbox could use it

>>59548516
Samsung has multisystem tvs here, i didnt think any of them were multisystem

>>59543224
>>59543309
>scart shit
Why are you praising this shit 3rd world?

>>59548718
It was convenient really, just one plug and it did everything much like hdmi now

File: 1489929345263.jpg (41KB, 500x600px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x600px

>>59543100
its a scat port...

>>59548768
It's literately (not the meme) the worst connector ever to be mass produced. Big, dumb, expensive, and poor quality. Vast majority of use was rf and composite.

>>59548768
It did more than HDMI in some cases.
If you connected a TV to a cable box and a VCR, it could automatically route the connections and change cable channels for timer recordings.

Often, a cable box wouldn't be an "input", but rather through SCART it would automatically put the additional programmes in the television's default channel list.

The only problem it had was pins breaking, but you really shouldn't be reconnecting and disconnecting a cable so frequently as to break the pins anyway.

>>59548816
I would've say coaxial rf connecters where the worst at least with rf you can always cut off the shitty screw type for something better, scart is unfixable shit so your kind of right

>>59543224
>It's great having RGB support on literally everything, it's a feel ony yuropoors will understand

just like 50hz ;^)

>>59548917
10hz for extra resolution and better colours? this is supposed to be bad?

not to mention that films can never have judder when PAL telecined

>>59548917
I'm glad ntsc 60hz pretty much became standard when it came to computer monitors and shit

>>59548950
>films
>RGB
Look a retard and underage.

>>59548951
computer monitors aren't ntsc 60hz, they're not even 60 hz. CRT ran at all kinds of weird framerates, and even LCD's are full progressive scan RGB @ 60.0 rather than 59.whatever

>>59548295
There is an interesting feature on a Dr Who, DVD, "The Claws of Axos" about recovering a 625 line PAL recording from a Canadian NTSC tape.

Which is of course impossible normally but it was a BBC NTSC conversion so there was extra information in the signal as an artefact of the conversion process.

It also has some stuff about analogue NTSC and PAL conversion using analogue delay lines. Its actually all quite ingenious stuff.

>>59548978
Most monitors i've ever own have been 59.94 which is pretty much kept from the ntsc refresh rate of 59.94

>>59548981
I know a fair bit about standards conversion.

The reason they could get back the full motion was because PAL->NTSC is an additive process fieldrate wise.
They would essentially just duplicate a field every x frames. All you have to do to restore the original fieldrate was remove the duplicates.
It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be much better.

Today standards conversion is done by means of interpolation and phase correlation.
A machine literally re-renders each frame based upon motion vectors.
Makes a much better conversion that is almost indistinguishable from the original, but is almost impossible to undo.

If you want to see how good modern standards conversion is, watch a foreign sporting event shot using the standard that your country doesn't use. Those in the US/CA could watch Premier League football for example.
If the broadcaster has used a quality converter like a Snell&Willcox one, the video will look perfect.

>>59549153
I collect documentaries and many encoders on P2P and especially in "The Scene" drop 50% of the time dimension of true interlaced TV documentaries.

So I get the original DVDs and deinterlace them to 50 or 60 progressive FPS myself, so far with ffmpeg "mcdeint". The results are acceptable but nowhere near perfect.

What is the best software deinterlacer?
I don't care how slow it is. If it takes a month to deinterlace one documentary, that's okay

>>59548950
speeding up films is weird

File: Motion Pictography.png (153KB, 1254x1138px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1254x1138px

>>59549549
Depends on the motion picture.

Personally I watch
Flicks at 2.0x
Movies at 1.5x
Cinema at 1.0x
Kino at 0.8x
Kinematography at 0.5x

File: refresh rates.png (15KB, 410x413px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 410x413px

>>59548978
Your average computer monitor can run all sorts of refresh rates too, they just aren't necessarily presented in its EDID.

>>59549549
but slowing them back down is easy, and if the transfer has pitch correction I dare you to tell the difference, I watched OG star wars with pitch correction and it was perfect.

contrarily, an NTSC "hard telecine" is basically impossible to undo

>>59549504
QTGMC is generally considered to be the best that you'll be able to access.

That being said, I usually keep shit as 1:1 remux, even from DVD.
It's the best for storage, anyway as you lose literally 0 quality.

>>59549153
I'm remembering it wrongly.
They recovered colour to combine with the NTSC from B&W telecine.
i.e., the artefact in the conversion was chromadots in the B&W film which they recovered as colour information.

http://www.insell.co.uk/colourisation/Recovery_of_Colour_Information_0-2.htm

Er, guys, you need to update the example there.

>>59549696
>That being said, I usually keep shit as 1:1 remux, even from DVD.
>It's the best for storage, anyway as you lose literally 0 quality.
I keep the original DVD for archival purposes plus the deinterlaced encode to actually watch

>QTGMC
Thanks

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-24 at 02.52.02.png (191KB, 1616x1008px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1616x1008px

>>59547455
Dutch teletext still works.

Also available online.

http://nos.nl/teletekst

>>59549669
You what?
NTSC films are easily fixed. The only problem arises when they break the pattern, like when two film sources are edited together after telecine.

Pitch/speed shifting is hard to correct well though, if it was converted properly to begin with.

>>59549745
Nah, you are thinking of two different things.

Some were recovered via telerecordings (like in your link).
Some were recovered from NTSC conversions (using reverse standards conversion).
I am unaware of cases where both techniques were used simultaneously.

File: Screen Shot 2017-03-24 at 02.57.08.png (183KB, 756x944px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 756x944px

>>59549851
>2016
>Not looking at stocks on Teletext.

>>59549858
it's not hard at all, you play it back at 24 fps or lower the pitch by 4%

>>59549858
This is the entry for it:

>The Restoration Team refined their technique of REVERSE STANDARDS CONVERSION and combined it with the technique of matching the luminance signal from surviving 16mm telerecordings, such as the process done using the COLOUR RECOVERY above, with help from techniques used during the CHROMADOT COLOUR RECOVERY (below) which will help in identifying geometric distortions on the recordings.

>>59550059
That makes reasonable sense.
I was unaware of any situation where this was used.

>>59550029
Pitch shifting and audio resampling is significantly more computationally complex and destructive than undoing a telecine.

A well authored DVD won't even require re-encoding to reverse telecine.
In a bad situation, all that needs to be done is the removal of every 1/6 frames.

>>59550136
>>>59550029 (You)
Pitch shifting and audio resampling is significantly more computationally complex and destructive than undoing a telecine.

in a modern implementation? no.
in an analog implementation? not even relevant.

pulldown, like the rest of ntsc, is just a really bad idea

>>59550211
I'm not gonna say that pulldown is a good idea, but it is easier to work with than speed changes.

TVs are increasingly able to undo the pulldown in real time on a telecine'd input.
You can't do that with speed or pitch.

Most NTSC DVDs aren't even authored with a telecine. The internal stream is 24fps with flags that tell the player to pulldown if it needs to. If you play that kind of DVD on a Blu-ray player, it'll output that as a perfect 24fps stream.

None of this is possible with a PAL DVD.

If you had to watch a DVD without any filtering whatsoever? Sure you'd pick the PAL one. But NTSC pulldown has been a non-issue for many years.

And audio resampling? Some DVDs on the market today have audible artefacts from the pitch correction already, before you even consider doing your own modifications.

>>59547306
We had both

>Mom is taking a bath
>im supposed to be asleep
>late at night the TV is on low volume
>sneak to the tv mute the volume and put some porn
>fap furiously before mom comes out
>that supersonic speed you change channel and put the volume on when you hear a sound of the bathroom

good times

>>59550278
>You can't do that with speed or pitch.
literally just set playback framerate to 24, done. it requires 0 computation, pitch shifts automatically and the resampling is likely done anyway so basically a free operation

for encoded pitch shift the overhead is again zero

and the whole thing has 0% chance of judder ever

>>59543100
SMARTLINK

>>59547306
What are you talking about?
SCART is European.

>>59550875
Oh sorry, ignore that.
Calling SCART instead of three seperate RCAs a mess confused me.

>>59548951
ntsc had better vertical color resolution, but only if you use a composite/s-video input

>>59548950
>extra resolution
only vertical resolution because bandwith was limited.
also
>50hz flicker
System M does not have this problem.

>>59549669
NTSC hard telecines are undoable unless the fields are blended.

>>59549696
>QTGMC
>the best
It's not the best. it only supports fully interlaced material and it fails spectacularly with 2:2, 2:3, 2:3:3:2, 2:2:2:3, 3:2:3:2:2, 6:4, 5:5 pulldowns or mixed film/video material (which is the worst type of interlaced material).
If you have a Intel card try DGBobIM (http://rationalqm.us/mine.html), it does motion-compensated deinterlacing and cadence detection.

>>59550938
>50hz flicker
what? that's not a thing

look up ntsc judder

>>59550541
>framerate to 24
23.976 (24000/1001)
say thanks to the NTSC developers for the retarded choice of framerate for their color system (59.940059...).

>>59551045
NTSC:
>plays films almost at the original frame rate. Pitch is hardly altered
>judder
>flicker is unnoticeable
PAL/SECAM:
>sped up films with weird pitch
>no judder
>50hz flicker

decide what's best.

>>59551065
context mate

we're talking about PAL, where movies are simply run at 25.0 fps, undoing it is as simple as playing it back at 24.0 fps instead

>>59551106
what flicker? I've watched 50hz TV all my life and never noticed any flicker

the pitch on a good transfer is already corrected and then the speed difference is basically unnoticable

if you have more advanced playback capabilities you just reduce the speed again yourself,

perfect movie playback
better resolution
better colours

what's the downside?

File: 1328769702586.jpg (57KB, 550x407px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 550x407px

>2017
>NTSC

>>59551140
have you ever watched 60i content in a CRT TV(like a NTSC DVD, preferrably a live show or a TV series recorded in video)? AFAIK european TVs do support NTSC (unlike american ones that don't support PAL).
Even on a CRT monitor you can try this, put the monitor at 50Hz, then at 60 and finally, 75 Hz and note how the screen feels.

>>59543100
It's SCART, a technology that was still used well into the 2000s. I've got a CRT TV from a film company which still used these up until like 7 years ago. Think of it as an ancient HDMI port.

>>59543355
>coax still around and kicking
Other standards are you even fucking trying

>>59547306
Composite is ultimate shit quality, S-Video is a bad way to try to make it acceptable
Composite looked like shit on everything unless you had uber expensive equipment with advanced comb filtering, which were still somewhat bad and only became acceptable when advanced digital filtering became the norm
Yuropoors had perfect RGB from the get go
>>59547931
Satellite TV isn't really amazing nowadays, back then there was a ton of FTA channels, pay channels weren't encrypted or used shitty scrambling or weak ass encryption
Nowadays it's just a fuckton of encrypted signals all around with really few news/religious/educative FTA channels

>scat

>>59551287
SCART is the shit when it comes to retro gaming.