User talk:Rcooley~enwiki

Archive: #1.

VHS / S-VHS / VCD

Regarding your recent edit and comment on Video CD: VHS does in fact have a full compliment of scan lines. It is, instead, lacking in horizontal resolution (around 200 pixels). SVHS improved the horizontal resolution by a factor of about 2, but it did not change the number of scan lines (it couldn't go any higher). If VHS did not have full height, it could not have been able to preserve interlacing, which would provide much worse (less smooth) motion on TV recording, and would have made movies (film transfers) look terrible, as they require 3:2 pulldown for NTSC (~60Hz) display. VCD had a specific mode for 24fps material, but an analog tape format like VHS really couldn't practically do something similar. Rcooley (talk) 19:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your message! Well I must appologize for my edit; I see from the VHS article that I was wrong about the vertical resolution of VHS. I really thought I remembered reading that VHS was half the vertical resolution, hence its obvious fuzzy lack of detail, but I see now that this is due to lack of horizontal res, not vertical. I do see what you mean about needing to preserve interlacing for compatibility. Again, thank you for your correction and clear explanation of this. --Ds9kicks (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MP2 is NOT Musicam

I see you edited LOTS of entries where MP2 (alias MPEG-1 Layer II) is interchangeably called Musicam. When I look at the entry for Musicam it redirects to MPEG-1 Audio Layer II. I'm afraid that until there is an entry for Musicam that is different from the entry for MP2 people won't understand the difference. I'm no expert in this and would like to learn it too . Do the right thing and create the Musicam entry or make substantial changes to MP2 article. 24.81.130.107 (talk) 07:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The history of MP2 does greatly involve Musicam (they aren't entirely independent), the naming confusion remains widespread, and Musicam probably couldn't even sustain an article on its own merits any more than ASPEC or OCF could (see MP3), so the redirect will no doubt need to stay.

Before I made those changes, I put an appropriate mention and authoritative citation at the very top of MPEG-1 Layer II about Musicam, and even if I hadn't, Wikipedia inaccuracy doesn't change facts. The poor quality of the MP2 and MP3 articles is unfortunate. It's perfectly understandable you'd like to read more on the subject, but I don't feel I have any particular obligation, just because I corrected a common mistake, other than perhaps providing a good citation (which I have already done). I help where I can, but my time is limited, and an in-depth explanation of one bit of trivia about Musicam/MP2 is just not a high priority right now. Thank you for your interesting comments. Rcooley (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]