[DVtyro]

@old_tv_nut, frankly, my math is too rusty get into it again. I do not strive for understanding these graphs on a level of a video engineer, but I would like to be able to compare two machines looking at the graphs. After all, these graphs were published in all pop-sci magazines, and a regular reader was supposed to understand them. All I want is conceptual understanding.

Please, see the attached picture.

• Deviation from sync tip to peak white is used for brightness - yes/no ?
• Deviation has no relation to resolution - yes/no?
• Wider deviation means more contrast, means more S/N - yes/no?
• Moving the sync tip to higher frequencies, even if deviation is not changed, extends luma bandwidth, which increases luma resolution - yes/no?
• Luminance sideband to the LEFT of sync tip describes the level of detail? Or the whole luminance band INCLUDING the deviation describes the level of detail? Higher frequency means more detail?
• Is the detail described by the luminance band for a "pixel", for a line, for a whole screen? The graphs I posted show a wiggly line between sync tip and peak white, I presume this is the third dimension, time. Sync tip is a pulse for the start of each line, right? So I can draw this graph in three dimensions: (f, U, t). The simplified 2D graph that I posted before in (f, U) coordinates is a snapshot of one "pixel", how much detail it has, how much frequency information. The higher the luminance frequency, the more high-frequency detail, that is, more alternating white and black pixels? Um, so I guess I cannot get it for one pixel, maybe for like two adjacent pixels? Not sure...
• Were Beta VCRs more compatible from the start compared to VHS, or moving deviation to higher frequencies without widening the deviation is inherently more compatible? If JVC did the same, would regular VHS machines be able to play such an improved format? Because from what I've read, old Beta machines could play SuperBeta recordings.
• Umatic, including Umatic SP, uses the same "color under" technique, and looking at the graphs, it is no better than SVHS and Hi8. I suppose, the only reason Umatic was preferred by pros was because they had all the needed interconnects, could connect to TBC, had timecode, etc. But the sheer image quality of an original recording was no better than on SVHS and Hi8, yes/no?
• I suppose, regular VHS has never been used by pros. Well, maybe by some, on some small regional stations, but never at a large scale, and there were no standard VHS machines that had all the needed pro features to interconnect with other pro equipment?