Visual "clipping"?

isw wrote:
>
> In article <1188874984.222039.197660@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups .com>,
> Radium <glucegen1@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi:
> >
> > Clipping in an audio signal results when an audio device receives a
> > signal that is too loud. The audio signal distorts into square-waves
> > because the "tops" of the signal are flattened. The device cannot
> > handle power levels over a certain level. When this level is exceeded,
> > clipping occurs. Clipping is usually harsher in digital devices than
> > in analog devices. Analog clipping tends to be fuzzy and soft compared
> > to digital clipping.
> >
> > What is the visual-equivalent of "clipping"? Is there a difference
> > between analog and digital in terms of visual-clipping? If so, what is
> > the difference?
>
> Clipping causes whites lose all texture -- very similar to overexposed
> film.
>
> > Auditory-clipping can damage speakers. Can visual-"clipping" damage
> > monitors?
>
> No. Prolonged blacks can damage television transmitters, however (video
> is inverted for transmission, so black requires full power from the
> transmitter).
>
> Isaac



No, only the sync tips are at 100%.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Martin Heffels wrote:
>
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:27:43 -0700, isw <isw@witzend.com> wrote:
>
> >Clipping causes whites lose all texture -- very similar to overexposed
> >film.
>
> White clipping makes you loose the texture, and some other interesting
> things occur, like the clipped area turning yellowish (solarization).
> But it's not only white which can clip, with colour-correction you can
> easily clip one of the three colour-channels. And of course you can clip
> black as well, loosing shadow detail.
>
> >> Auditory-clipping can damage speakers. Can visual-"clipping" damage
> >> monitors?
> >
> >No. Prolonged blacks can damage television transmitters, however (video
> >is inverted for transmission, so black requires full power from the
> >transmitter).
>
> I would say the transmitters would be resistant to that. Most run below
> their designed maximum power anyway.
>


Never worked at a TV transmitter site, have you? If they are
operating under the specified power, they are in violation of their
license, and no one is stupid enough to overbuy on the transmitter
requirements. The sync tips are at 100% power, and varies between full
white or black as required. Neither will damage the transmitter if left
continuously. In the early days of TV it was very common to fade to
black before and after a commercial, because everything was done by
hand. The black allowed switching sources without displaying any
glitches cause by the relay operated video switchers of the day. AFRTS
was still using relay type video switching in at least one TV station in
1974.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 12:23:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Never worked at a TV transmitter site, have you? If they are
>operating under the specified power, they are in violation of their
>license, and no one is stupid enough to overbuy on the transmitter
>requirements.

Help me here..... Since when would this be a violation? A
transmitter-license usually states the _maximum_ amount of power, so what
is different here? Stories are plenty of radio and television-stations
cutting down their power for power-saving reasons (money, money, money).

cheers

-martin-
--
Official website "Jonah's Quid" http://www.jonahsquids.co.uk

Martin Heffels wrote:
>
> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 12:23:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Never worked at a TV transmitter site, have you? If they are
> >operating under the specified power, they are in violation of their
> >license, and no one is stupid enough to overbuy on the transmitter
> >requirements.
>
> Help me here..... Since when would this be a violation? A
> transmitter-license usually states the _maximum_ amount of power, so what
> is different here? Stories are plenty of radio and television-stations
> cutting down their power for power-saving reasons (money, money, money).


In the US a station has to notify the FCC if they are not operating
at the power they are licensed for. It has to be logged on a set
schedule and kept in the station's permanent files for the FCC field
inspectors. If a station is operating below the level they are licensed
for, they are not serving the area they agreed to provide service to.
VERY few stations were ever allowed to differ from their rated power.
The only two I ever saw were on military bases where the transmitter
power was listed, with "Or as deemed necessary". These were in remote
locations and major repairs were consider as 'Depot Level' repairs.
Reduced or increased power was allowed, to stay on the air, but none of
these were high power stations. The license was deemed a 'Courtesy
License' by the FCC, which meant that they had little authority over a
military transmitter, but the 'Courtesy License' was granted to make
sure the frequency coordinators didn't assign a civilian station an
allocation that would interfere.


If your power level is too high, you can cause problems for other
stations, and if it's too low, your advertisers will demand refunds.

I was a broadcast engineer at one military and two civilian TV
stations over a 17 year period. I lost count of the AM radio stations I
did work for, or located parts and equipment to keep on the air.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On 9/04/2007, Michael A. Terrell posted this:
> Martin Heffels wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 12:23:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Never worked at a TV transmitter site, have you? If they are
>>> operating under the specified power, they are in violation of their
>>> license, and no one is stupid enough to overbuy on the transmitter
>>> requirements.
>>
>> Help me here..... Since when would this be a violation? A
>> transmitter-license usually states the _maximum_ amount of power, so what
>> is different here? Stories are plenty of radio and television-stations
>> cutting down their power for power-saving reasons (money, money, money).
>
>
> In the US a station has to notify the FCC if they are not operating
> at the power they are licensed for. It has to be logged on a set
> schedule and kept in the station's permanent files for the FCC field
> inspectors. If a station is operating below the level they are licensed
> for, they are not serving the area they agreed to provide service to.
> VERY few stations were ever allowed to differ from their rated power.
> The only two I ever saw were on military bases where the transmitter
> power was listed, with "Or as deemed necessary". These were in remote
> locations and major repairs were consider as 'Depot Level' repairs.
> Reduced or increased power was allowed, to stay on the air, but none of
> these were high power stations. The license was deemed a 'Courtesy
> License' by the FCC, which meant that they had little authority over a
> military transmitter, but the 'Courtesy License' was granted to make
> sure the frequency coordinators didn't assign a civilian station an
> allocation that would interfere.
>
>
> If your power level is too high, you can cause problems for other
> stations, and if it's too low, your advertisers will demand refunds.
>
> I was a broadcast engineer at one military and two civilian TV
> stations over a 17 year period. I lost count of the AM radio stations I
> did work for, or located parts and equipment to keep on the air.

However, the original remark was not about the *licensed* power, it was
about the *rated* power. I.e., the electrical or electronic limits, not
the legal limits.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote ...
> However, the original remark was not about the *licensed* power, it was
> about the *rated* power. I.e., the electrical or electronic limits, not
> the legal limits.

But as Mr. Terrell also observed, profit-making businesses don't
commonly waste money buying an over-powered transmitter.
They are frightfully expensive in any case.

Radium wrote:
> On Sep 3, 8:27 pm, isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <1188874984.222039.197...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups .com>,
>
>> Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Hi:
>
>>> Clipping in an audio signal results when an audio device receives a
>>> signal that is too loud. The audio signal distorts into square-waves
>>> because the "tops" of the signal are flattened. The device cannot
>>> handle power levels over a certain level. When this level is exceeded,
>>> clipping occurs. Clipping is usually harsher in digital devices than
>>> in analog devices. Analog clipping tends to be fuzzy and soft compared
>>> to digital clipping.
>
>>> What is the visual-equivalent of "clipping"? Is there a difference
>>> between analog and digital in terms of visual-clipping? If so, what is
>>> the difference?
>
>> Clipping causes whites lose all texture -- very similar to overexposed
>> film.
>
> What does this look like on a screen?
>
>>> Auditory-clipping can damage speakers. Can visual-"clipping" damage
>>> monitors?
>
>> No. Prolonged blacks can damage television transmitters, however (video
>> is inverted for transmission, so black requires full power from the
>> transmitter).
>
> Prolonged black can damage a monitor/screen? That's weird. White is
> analogous to the loudest sound a loudspeaker can playback. Black is
> analogous to a loudspeaker not being feed any signal.
>
I suggest that you go back and read the post you replied to. Do you have
a TV transmitter?
Allen

Allen wrote:
>
> Radium wrote:
> > On Sep 3, 8:27 pm, isw <i...@witzend.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <1188874984.222039.197...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups .com>,
> >
> >> Radium <gluceg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Hi:
> >
> >>> Clipping in an audio signal results when an audio device receives a
> >>> signal that is too loud. The audio signal distorts into square-waves
> >>> because the "tops" of the signal are flattened. The device cannot
> >>> handle power levels over a certain level. When this level is exceeded,
> >>> clipping occurs. Clipping is usually harsher in digital devices than
> >>> in analog devices. Analog clipping tends to be fuzzy and soft compared
> >>> to digital clipping.
> >
> >>> What is the visual-equivalent of "clipping"? Is there a difference
> >>> between analog and digital in terms of visual-clipping? If so, what is
> >>> the difference?
> >
> >> Clipping causes whites lose all texture -- very similar to overexposed
> >> film.
> >
> > What does this look like on a screen?
> >
> >>> Auditory-clipping can damage speakers. Can visual-"clipping" damage
> >>> monitors?
> >
> >> No. Prolonged blacks can damage television transmitters, however (video
> >> is inverted for transmission, so black requires full power from the
> >> transmitter).
> >
> > Prolonged black can damage a monitor/screen? That's weird. White is
> > analogous to the loudest sound a loudspeaker can playback. Black is
> > analogous to a loudspeaker not being feed any signal.
> >
> I suggest that you go back and read the post you replied to. Do you have
> a TV transmitter?
> Allen


Are you kidding? The radium troll barely has enough neurons to pound
out his drivel.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

"Gene E. Bloch" wrote:
>
> On 9/04/2007, Michael A. Terrell posted this:
> > Martin Heffels wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 12:23:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
> >> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Never worked at a TV transmitter site, have you? If they are
> >>> operating under the specified power, they are in violation of their
> >>> license, and no one is stupid enough to overbuy on the transmitter
> >>> requirements.
> >>
> >> Help me here..... Since when would this be a violation? A
> >> transmitter-license usually states the _maximum_ amount of power, so what
> >> is different here? Stories are plenty of radio and television-stations
> >> cutting down their power for power-saving reasons (money, money, money).
> >
> >
> > In the US a station has to notify the FCC if they are not operating
> > at the power they are licensed for. It has to be logged on a set
> > schedule and kept in the station's permanent files for the FCC field
> > inspectors. If a station is operating below the level they are licensed
> > for, they are not serving the area they agreed to provide service to.
> > VERY few stations were ever allowed to differ from their rated power.
> > The only two I ever saw were on military bases where the transmitter
> > power was listed, with "Or as deemed necessary". These were in remote
> > locations and major repairs were consider as 'Depot Level' repairs.
> > Reduced or increased power was allowed, to stay on the air, but none of
> > these were high power stations. The license was deemed a 'Courtesy
> > License' by the FCC, which meant that they had little authority over a
> > military transmitter, but the 'Courtesy License' was granted to make
> > sure the frequency coordinators didn't assign a civilian station an
> > allocation that would interfere.
> >
> >
> > If your power level is too high, you can cause problems for other
> > stations, and if it's too low, your advertisers will demand refunds.
> >
> > I was a broadcast engineer at one military and two civilian TV
> > stations over a 17 year period. I lost count of the AM radio stations I
> > did work for, or located parts and equipment to keep on the air.
>
> However, the original remark was not about the *licensed* power, it was
> about the *rated* power. I.e., the electrical or electronic limits, not
> the legal limits.


Its obvious that you've never built a TV station from the ground up.
Even a spare 10% transmitter power capacity could cost a couple hundred
thousand dollars in capital assets. and its unlikely the governing
agency will allow you to use equipment capable of excess power, any more
than you can build whatever tower height you want. It costs millions of
dollars to build a full power commercial TV station.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On 9/04/2007, Michael A. Terrell posted this:
> "Gene E. Bloch" wrote:
>>
>> On 9/04/2007, Michael A. Terrell posted this:
>>> Martin Heffels wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 04 Sep 2007 12:23:52 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
>>>> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Never worked at a TV transmitter site, have you? If they are
>>>>> operating under the specified power, they are in violation of their
>>>>> license, and no one is stupid enough to overbuy on the transmitter
>>>>> requirements.
>>>>
>>>> Help me here..... Since when would this be a violation? A
>>>> transmitter-license usually states the _maximum_ amount of power, so what
>>>> is different here? Stories are plenty of radio and television-stations
>>>> cutting down their power for power-saving reasons (money, money, money).
>>>
>>>
>>> In the US a station has to notify the FCC if they are not operating
>>> at the power they are licensed for. It has to be logged on a set
>>> schedule and kept in the station's permanent files for the FCC field
>>> inspectors. If a station is operating below the level they are licensed
>>> for, they are not serving the area they agreed to provide service to.
>>> VERY few stations were ever allowed to differ from their rated power.
>>> The only two I ever saw were on military bases where the transmitter
>>> power was listed, with "Or as deemed necessary". These were in remote
>>> locations and major repairs were consider as 'Depot Level' repairs.
>>> Reduced or increased power was allowed, to stay on the air, but none of
>>> these were high power stations. The license was deemed a 'Courtesy
>>> License' by the FCC, which meant that they had little authority over a
>>> military transmitter, but the 'Courtesy License' was granted to make
>>> sure the frequency coordinators didn't assign a civilian station an
>>> allocation that would interfere.
>>>
>>>
>>> If your power level is too high, you can cause problems for other
>>> stations, and if it's too low, your advertisers will demand refunds.
>>>
>>> I was a broadcast engineer at one military and two civilian TV
>>> stations over a 17 year period. I lost count of the AM radio stations I
>>> did work for, or located parts and equipment to keep on the air.
>>
>> However, the original remark was not about the *licensed* power, it was
>> about the *rated* power. I.e., the electrical or electronic limits, not
>> the legal limits.
>
>
> Its obvious that you've never built a TV station from the ground up.
> Even a spare 10% transmitter power capacity could cost a couple hundred
> thousand dollars in capital assets. and its unlikely the governing
> agency will allow you to use equipment capable of excess power, any more
> than you can build whatever tower height you want. It costs millions of
> dollars to build a full power commercial TV station.

Do you *really* think I've never built a TV station form the ground up?

Really?

Well, you're correct. It doesn't keep from speculating, however.

For example, it *might* be true that it's a good idea to spend extra
money to put in safety factors (although, to be fair, I *do* run my
100W lightbulbs at 100W). It could be cheaper in the long run than
fixing the reasult of not doing so.

The above has certinaly been true in civil construction for millennia.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")