31-01-2021, 07:54 PM
SECAM to PAL conversion can work, but it's far from ideal. There's no equivalent to a comb filter decoder for SECAM. If any of the FM subcarrier gets into the PAL output it causes nasty artefacts. So the only way is to brutally filter the input luminance. From my own limited experience the decoder chips make as good a job of it as possible. In other words, not very. Going the other way, from PAL to SECAM, works better.
SECAM is utterly vile in the studio because you can't directly mix or fade it. So in France they often produced in PAL and converted to SECAM for transmission. It's not surprising that France was a leader in the move to use analogue components for production. One day, if I'm in the mood, I'll relate some stories about the Moscow Olympics and SECAM.
Basic 50<>60 conversion (by droppiing or repeating fields) will always look jerky. Though it's not too bad on much material. Been there, done that.
SECAM is utterly vile in the studio because you can't directly mix or fade it. So in France they often produced in PAL and converted to SECAM for transmission. It's not surprising that France was a leader in the move to use analogue components for production. One day, if I'm in the mood, I'll relate some stories about the Moscow Olympics and SECAM.
Basic 50<>60 conversion (by droppiing or repeating fields) will always look jerky. Though it's not too bad on much material. Been there, done that.
www.borinsky.co.uk Jeffrey Borinsky www.becg.tv