Talk:Digital video/Archive 1

Uncompressed digital video bit rate
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.
 * Agreed; the "400MB/s" comment probably hinted at the upper limits of those interfaces, rewriting that sentence would be good.--C xong (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

digital vs electronic, video vs still
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)


 * Done :) Anorak2 (talk) 04:56, 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)


 * Here's a source that shows that digital video on magnetic tape arrived when Sony introduced the D1 videocassette in 1988. It's counter intuitive given the binary nature of magnetic poles, but magnetic tape can be used to store both analog and digital signals; unless a video or audio source is converted to a digital signal, the magnetic tape is storing analog. Only recently did we have sufficiently sophisticated electronics to encode audio/video into a digital signal. 98.202.51.77 (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Article terminology
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)


 * There have been significant improvements in accessibility. Jargon and equations have been removed. ~Kvng (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

comparison with analogue formats
can someone make a section on this please? -- Alex Ov  Shaolin  19:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comparisons are made throughout; there are now 15 occurrences of analog in the article. ~Kvng (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Technical overview
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)
 * Motion Strobing: This line, "They can both shoot at 24 frames per second, which results in motion strobing (blurring of the subject when fast movement occurs)." is incorrect. That is not the definition of motion strobing (it's the definition of "motion blur"). Motion strobing as defined in Digital Compositing for Film and Video By Steve Wright, "an unpleasant artifact in which an object's motion takes on a jerky and "staccato" appearance due to the lack of appropriate motion blur."
 * Motion strobing is not unique to 24 fps or to progressive scan. Neither is motion blur. They're both simply more apparent at slower frame rates.
 * The article implies that motion strobing is a reason that "progressive scanning video cameras tend to be more expensive than their interlaced counterparts". The two are unrelated. (Progressive scan cameras tend to be more expensive because the chips have to read more data at a specific moment rather than getting to read half the data and spreading it out).
 * Panasonic DVX100: Why mention this specific camera and no other?
 * "Progressive scan camcorders such as the Panasonic DVX100 are generally more desirable because of the similarities they share with film." This is pov: The "film look" is not necessarily more desirable.
 * "Note that even though the digital video format only allows for 29.97 interlaced frames per second [or 25 for PAL], 24 frames per second progressive video is possible by displaying identical fields for each frame, and displaying 3 fields of an identical image for certain frames." This is a specific case applied incorrectly to the general (I suspect as a result of getting too much technical information from a single source that is specific to the camera mentioned above). There is nothing inherent to dv that requires a frame rate of 29.97. Only to NTSC. It is true that many cameras use a pulldown to record 24 frames with their native 29.97 hardware, but true 24p cameras exist and there's no reason hardware can't be built at any arbitrary frame rate.

History
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)


 * Referencing is good except for the subsection. ~Kvng (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)