This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The article mentions the bit rate of roughly 400 MBit/s. By my calculation, standard definition digital PAL would have a bit rate of around 160 MBit/s at 8-bit per sample and 4:2:2 color sampling.
In the first paragraph the article claims Digital video was first used in television cameras and then goes on to explain the first VTR which was of course analogue. The next paragraph claims 1960s lunar probes used digital imaging, but in reality they were also analogue. Furthermore the latter sent still images, not video. Third, the article claims that the Sony Mavica was an example of digital video, but once again this camera stored still image as an analogue signal. It appears the author confuses rastered images and digital, still image and moving image all the time. This article needs a serious cleanup. Anorak2 ( talk) 04:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how (or why), but the article returned to the state that warranted these complaints. I've reverted this wholesale rewrite of the history section because it was worse than uninformative--it was incorrect. As noted above, neither magnetic tape nor electronics imply digital. 98.202.51.77 ( talk) 10:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
References
I came to Wikipedia to look up some of the terminology in article Digital Video & HDTV.
Digitized Video Standards NTSC PAL SMPTE 259M CCIR 656 EU95 SMPTE 292M
Serial Digital Video Formats SMPTE 259M ITU-R601 CCIR 656 EU95 SMPTE 292M
Are "ITU-R601" and "CCIR 656" the same as CCIR 601? Did EU95 become DVB ?
-- 65.70.89.241 17:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to add along the terminology lines that for someone coming to the digital video page to simply gain a basic understanding of the topic, they would be confused by much of the language used throughout the article. There are advanced mathematical equations and large words that aren't appropriate for all learners. By eliminating some of the article's advanced elements or explaining more complicated terminology within the article, the page would become much more accessible to readers. Avam11 ( talk) 19:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
can someone make a section on this please? -- Alex Ov Shaolin 19:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This section needs a lot of work. There's some pov in there, some wrong information and a strange bias toward this one specific camera:
If there is no objection, I'll take a crack at fixing this up. Focomoso ( talk) 22:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that this section (really most of the article in general) be more thoroughly referenced. There are numerous assertions that have no references at all. I'm really surprised that someone ranked this as a B-grade article. It's well written, but is it verifiable? I wish I could help, but I stumbled on this looking for an explanation of the various digital video file formats. I think the point of the encyclopedia is to be a resource for folks looking for general info, but it should also should give them the ability to go further by pointing to the sources of information. Best of luck with it MichaelKrobinson ( talk) 17:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The article mentions the bit rate of roughly 400 MBit/s. By my calculation, standard definition digital PAL would have a bit rate of around 160 MBit/s at 8-bit per sample and 4:2:2 color sampling.
In the first paragraph the article claims Digital video was first used in television cameras and then goes on to explain the first VTR which was of course analogue. The next paragraph claims 1960s lunar probes used digital imaging, but in reality they were also analogue. Furthermore the latter sent still images, not video. Third, the article claims that the Sony Mavica was an example of digital video, but once again this camera stored still image as an analogue signal. It appears the author confuses rastered images and digital, still image and moving image all the time. This article needs a serious cleanup. Anorak2 ( talk) 04:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how (or why), but the article returned to the state that warranted these complaints. I've reverted this wholesale rewrite of the history section because it was worse than uninformative--it was incorrect. As noted above, neither magnetic tape nor electronics imply digital. 98.202.51.77 ( talk) 10:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
References
I came to Wikipedia to look up some of the terminology in article Digital Video & HDTV.
Digitized Video Standards NTSC PAL SMPTE 259M CCIR 656 EU95 SMPTE 292M
Serial Digital Video Formats SMPTE 259M ITU-R601 CCIR 656 EU95 SMPTE 292M
Are "ITU-R601" and "CCIR 656" the same as CCIR 601? Did EU95 become DVB ?
-- 65.70.89.241 17:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to add along the terminology lines that for someone coming to the digital video page to simply gain a basic understanding of the topic, they would be confused by much of the language used throughout the article. There are advanced mathematical equations and large words that aren't appropriate for all learners. By eliminating some of the article's advanced elements or explaining more complicated terminology within the article, the page would become much more accessible to readers. Avam11 ( talk) 19:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
can someone make a section on this please? -- Alex Ov Shaolin 19:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This section needs a lot of work. There's some pov in there, some wrong information and a strange bias toward this one specific camera:
If there is no objection, I'll take a crack at fixing this up. Focomoso ( talk) 22:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that this section (really most of the article in general) be more thoroughly referenced. There are numerous assertions that have no references at all. I'm really surprised that someone ranked this as a B-grade article. It's well written, but is it verifiable? I wish I could help, but I stumbled on this looking for an explanation of the various digital video file formats. I think the point of the encyclopedia is to be a resource for folks looking for general info, but it should also should give them the ability to go further by pointing to the sources of information. Best of luck with it MichaelKrobinson ( talk) 17:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)