Bourdeau, pipolin, pourriez vous m'expliquer que quoi s'agit ? :-)

Le
kowalski
Back to ITU
We have now have the 576 active lines at 52 μs per line length, in
which the picture
information is contained, which we need for our digital final product.
● 576 lines a 52μs
The International Telecommunication Union says that of the 864
horizontal samples, 720
are (line-) active. Those go into the final product, remaining 144 are
"digital blanking".
That is obviously a contradiction!
We have a line of 64 μs "length", which after (ITU-conform) sampling
consists of 864 digital
values.
So again we calculate:
64μs / 864 = 74.074ns
So, in a line of 64 μs there are 864 samples with a “lengthâ=
€ of 74.074
ns each.
● Period duration for a single pixel = 74.074 ns
we multiply this value by the 720 pixels, which ITU recommends.
74.074ns * 720 = 53.3333μs
The "window" suggested by the ITU is thus larger, than the 52 μs
existing video
information.
● - 720 pixel = 53.3333 μs
We now divide the "genuine" active 52 μs by the calculated period
duration/pixel:
52μs / 74.074ns = 702.0007 = ~702 pixel
There are only 702 active pixels!
Vidéos High-Tech et Jeu Vidéo
Téléchargements
Vos réponses Page 1 / 4
Gagnez chaque mois un abonnement Premium avec GNT : Inscrivez-vous !
Trier par : date / pertinence
*.-pipolin-.*
Le #21155161
Dans son message précédent, kowalski a écrit :
Back to ITU
We have now have the 576 active lines at 52 μs per line length, in
which the picture
information is contained, which we need for our digital final product.
● 576 lines a 52μs
The International Telecommunication Union says that of the 864
horizontal samples, 720
are (line-) active. Those go into the final product, remaining 144 are
"digital blanking".
That is obviously a contradiction!
We have a line of 64 μs "length", which after (ITU-conform) sampling
consists of 864 digital
values.
So again we calculate:
64μs / 864 = 74.074ns
So, in a line of 64 μs there are 864 samples with a “length” of 74.074
ns each.
● Period duration for a single pixel = 74.074 ns
we multiply this value by the 720 pixels, which ITU recommends.
74.074ns * 720 = 53.3333μs
The "window" suggested by the ITU is thus larger, than the 52 μs
existing video
information.
● - 720 pixel = 53.3333 μs
We now divide the "genuine" active 52 μs by the calculated period
duration/pixel:
52μs / 74.074ns = 702.0007 = ~702 pixel
There are only 702 active pixels!



un copier coller ?

--
Toutes les fautes d'orthographes de ce message sont sous copyright et
sont la propriété exclusive de l'auteur de ce message, toutes
reproductions est interdite et donnerais lieu à des poursuites.
© pipolin
Dominique Bourdeau
Le #21155331
"*.-pipolin-.*"
Dans son message précédent, kowalski a écrit :
Back to ITU
We have now have the 576 active lines at 52 ?s per line length, in
which the picture
information is contained, which we need for our digital final product.
? 576 lines a 52?s
The International Telecommunication Union says that of the 864
horizontal samples, 720
are (line-) active. Those go into the final product, remaining 144 are
"digital blanking".
That is obviously a contradiction!
We have a line of 64 ?s "length", which after (ITU-conform) sampling
consists of 864 digital
values.
So again we calculate:
64?s / 864 = 74.074ns
So, in a line of 64 ?s there are 864 samples with a "length" of 74.074
ns each.
? Period duration for a single pixel = 74.074 ns
we multiply this value by the 720 pixels, which ITU recommends.
74.074ns * 720 = 53.3333?s
The "window" suggested by the ITU is thus larger, than the 52 ?s
existing video
information.
? - 720 pixel = 53.3333 ?s
We now divide the "genuine" active 52 ?s by the calculated period
duration/pixel:
52?s / 74.074ns = 702.0007 = ~702 pixel
There are only 702 active pixels!



un copier coller ?



ça vient de là http://www.arachnotron.nl/videocap/doc/Karl_cap_v1_en.pdf

Mais il n'a pas tout mis car il ne comprend pas la suite.....
*.-pipolin-.*
Le #21155411
Dominique Bourdeau a écrit :
"*.-pipolin-.*"
Dans son message précédent, kowalski a écrit :
Back to ITU
We have now have the 576 active lines at 52 ?s per line length, in
which the picture
information is contained, which we need for our digital final product.
? 576 lines a 52?s
The International Telecommunication Union says that of the 864
horizontal samples, 720
are (line-) active. Those go into the final product, remaining 144 are
"digital blanking".
That is obviously a contradiction!
We have a line of 64 ?s "length", which after (ITU-conform) sampling
consists of 864 digital
values.
So again we calculate:
64?s / 864 = 74.074ns
So, in a line of 64 ?s there are 864 samples with a "length" of 74.074
ns each.
? Period duration for a single pixel = 74.074 ns
we multiply this value by the 720 pixels, which ITU recommends.
74.074ns * 720 = 53.3333?s
The "window" suggested by the ITU is thus larger, than the 52 ?s
existing video
information.
? - 720 pixel = 53.3333 ?s
We now divide the "genuine" active 52 ?s by the calculated period
duration/pixel:
52?s / 74.074ns = 702.0007 = ~702 pixel
There are only 702 active pixels!



un copier coller ?



ça vient de là http://www.arachnotron.nl/videocap/doc/Karl_cap_v1_en.pdf

Mais il n'a pas tout mis car il ne comprend pas la suite.....



il n'a toujours pas compris que l'on ne mets pas de nom ni de pseudo
dans les sujets, et pourtant, c'est simple a comprendre, alors
comprendre les problèmatiques de rafaichissement de diffuseurs, c'est
même pas la peine...

--
Toutes les fautes d'orthographes de ce message sont sous copyright et
sont la propriété exclusive de l'auteur de ce message, toutes
reproductions est interdite et donnerais lieu à des poursuites.
© pipolin
kowalski
Le #21155521
On 8 fév, 18:45, *.-pipolin-.*
alors
comprendre les problèmatiques de rafaichissement de diffuseurs, c'est
même pas la peine...



arf c'est doooommage ! ça ne parle pas de rafraichissement d'écran....
Tu as toujours des problèmes de lecture, visiblement... :-D
kowalski
Le #21155651
On 8 fév, 18:33, "Dominique Bourdeau" wrote:

> Dans son message précédent, kowalski a écrit :
>> Back to ITU
>> We have now have the 576 active lines at 52 ?s per line length, in
>> which the picture
>> information is contained, which we need for our digital final product.
>> ? 576 lines a 52?s
>> The International Telecommunication Union says that of the 864
>> horizontal samples, 720
>> are (line-) active. Those go into the final product, remaining 144 are
>> "digital blanking".
>> That is obviously a contradiction!
>> We have a line of 64 ?s "length", which after (ITU-conform) sampling
>> consists of 864 digital
>> values.
>> So again we calculate:
>> 64?s / 864 = 74.074ns
>> So, in a line of 64 ?s there are 864 samples with a "length" of 74.074
>> ns each.
>> ? Period duration for a single pixel = 74.074 ns
>> we multiply this value by the 720 pixels, which ITU recommends.
>> 74.074ns * 720 = 53.3333?s
>> The "window" suggested by the ITU is thus larger, than the 52 ?s
>> existing video
>> information.
>> ? - 720 pixel = 53.3333 ?s
>> We now divide the "genuine" active 52 ?s by the calculated period
>> duration/pixel:
>> 52?s / 74.074ns = 702.0007 = ~702 pixel
>> There are only 702 active pixels!



ça vient de làhttp://www.arachnotron.nl/videocap/doc/Karl_cap_v1_en.p df

Mais il n'a pas tout mis car il ne comprend pas la suite.....



...La suite, tu nous l'expliqueras après... pour le moment ce qui
m'intéresse c'est ce que j'ai posté.
Tu as une idée de quoi ça parle pour me faire un topo ?
*.-pipolin-.*
Le #21155641
kowalski avait soumis l'idée :
On 8 fév, 18:45, *.-pipolin-.*
alors
comprendre les problèmatiques de rafaichissement de diffuseurs, c'est
même pas la peine...



arf c'est doooommage ! ça ne parle pas de rafraichissement d'écran....
Tu as toujours des problèmes de lecture, visiblement... :-D



sans blague, c'est bien que tu en parles, parce que ca illustre très
bien le fait que lorsque tu es coincé sur un sujet, tu en changes, les
rafraichissement te poses un problème, alors tu reviens sur tes délires
de format et de pixel visibles...

alors, celon toi, comment sa se passe pour afficher une source en deux
canaux a 24 images seconde sur un diffuseur avec un rafraichissement a
120 hz ?

--
Toutes les fautes d'orthographes de ce message sont sous copyright et
sont la propriété exclusive de l'auteur de ce message, toutes
reproductions est interdite et donnerais lieu à des poursuites.
© pipolin
kowalski
Le #21155631
On 8 fév, 18:08, *.-pipolin-.*
Dans son message précédent, kowalski a écrit :



> Back to ITU
> We have now have the 576 active lines at 52 μs per line length, in
> which the picture
> information is contained, which we need for our digital final product.
> ● 576 lines a 52μs
> The International Telecommunication Union says that of the 864
> horizontal samples, 720
> are (line-) active. Those go into the final product, remaining 144 are
> "digital blanking".
> That is obviously a contradiction!
> We have a line of 64 μs "length", which after (ITU-conform) sampli ng
> consists of 864 digital
> values.
> So again we calculate:
> 64μs / 864 = 74.074ns
> So, in a line of 64 μs there are 864 samples with a “lengt h” of 74.074
> ns each.
> ● Period duration for a single pixel = 74.074 ns
> we multiply this value by the 720 pixels, which ITU recommends.
> 74.074ns * 720 = 53.3333μs
> The "window" suggested by the ITU is thus larger, than the 52 μs
> existing video
> information.
> ● - 720 pixel = 53.3333 μs
> We now divide the "genuine" active 52 μs by the calculated period
> duration/pixel:
> 52μs / 74.074ns = 702.0007 = ~702 pixel
> There are only 702 active pixels!

un copier coller ?



Houlàlà c'est bien, tu te surpasses !!!! on a vachement avancà ©... :-D
*.-pipolin-.*
Le #21155621
kowalski a pensé très fort :
On 8 fév, 18:08, *.-pipolin-.*
Dans son message précédent, kowalski a écrit :

Back to ITU
We have now have the 576 active lines at 52 μs per line length, in
which the picture
information is contained, which we need for our digital final product.
● 576 lines a 52μs
The International Telecommunication Union says that of the 864
horizontal samples, 720
are (line-) active. Those go into the final product, remaining 144 are
"digital blanking".
That is obviously a contradiction!
We have a line of 64 μs "length", which after (ITU-conform) sampling
consists of 864 digital
values.
So again we calculate:
64μs / 864 = 74.074ns
So, in a line of 64 μs there are 864 samples with a “length” of 74.074
ns each.
● Period duration for a single pixel = 74.074 ns
we multiply this value by the 720 pixels, which ITU recommends.
74.074ns * 720 = 53.3333μs
The "window" suggested by the ITU is thus larger, than the 52 μs
existing video
information.
● - 720 pixel = 53.3333 μs
We now divide the "genuine" active 52 μs by the calculated period
duration/pixel:
52μs / 74.074ns = 702.0007 = ~702 pixel
There are only 702 active pixels!



un copier coller ?



Houlàlà c'est bien, tu te surpasses !!!! on a vachement avancé... :-D



"on" ?

tu es tout seul, crétin...

--
Toutes les fautes d'orthographes de ce message sont sous copyright et
sont la propriété exclusive de l'auteur de ce message, toutes
reproductions est interdite et donnerais lieu à des poursuites.
© pipolin
kowalski
Le #21155611
On 8 fév, 19:08, *.-pipolin-.*
kowalski a pensé très fort :



> On 8 fév, 18:08, *.-pipolin-.* >> Dans son message précédent, kowalski a écrit :

>>> Back to ITU
>>> We have now have the 576 active lines at 52 μs per line length, in
>>> which the picture
>>> information is contained, which we need for our digital final product .
>>> ● 576 lines a 52μs
>>> The International Telecommunication Union says that of the 864
>>> horizontal samples, 720
>>> are (line-) active. Those go into the final product, remaining 144 ar e
>>> "digital blanking".
>>> That is obviously a contradiction!
>>> We have a line of 64 μs "length", which after (ITU-conform) samp ling
>>> consists of 864 digital
>>> values.
>>> So again we calculate:
>>> 64μs / 864 = 74.074ns
>>> So, in a line of 64 μs there are 864 samples with a “len gth” of 74.074
>>> ns each.
>>> ● Period duration for a single pixel = 74.074 ns
>>> we multiply this value by the 720 pixels, which ITU recommends.
>>> 74.074ns * 720 = 53.3333μs
>>> The "window" suggested by the ITU is thus larger, than the 52 μs
>>> existing video
>>> information.
>>> ● - 720 pixel = 53.3333 μs
>>> We now divide the "genuine" active 52 μs by the calculated perio d
>>> duration/pixel:
>>> 52μs / 74.074ns = 702.0007 = ~702 pixel
>>> There are only 702 active pixels!

>> un copier coller ?

> Houlàlà c'est bien, tu te surpasses !!!! on a vachement avanc é... :-D

"on" ?

tu es tout seul, crétin...



Parle pour toi, je te rappelle que je ne suis ni tout seul, ni crétin,
mais que je compte sur ton aide ... tu sais ou tu ne sais pas de quoi
ça parle ?
kowalski
Le #21155741
On 8 fév, 19:01, *.-pipolin-.*
kowalski avait soumis l'idée :

> On 8 fév, 18:45, *.-pipolin-.*
>> alors
>> comprendre les problèmatiques de rafaichissement de diffuseurs, c'es t
>> même pas la peine...

> arf c'est doooommage ! ça ne parle pas de rafraichissement d'écran. ...
> Tu as toujours des problèmes de lecture, visiblement... :-D

sans blague, c'est bien que tu en parles, parce que ca illustre très
bien le fait que lorsque tu es coincé sur un sujet, tu en changes,



Non changer de sujet par embarras, c'est ta spécialité, la preuve
maintenant !

les
rafraichissement te poses un problème, alors tu reviens sur tes délir es
de format et de pixel visibles...



Je vais m'occuper de ton cas pour les rafraichissements, ne sois pas
impatient de te prendre une branlée comme ça !!!!
:-)

Alors tu sais de quoi ça parle ou pas ?
Publicité
Poster une réponse
Anonyme