This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
What to the letters "BT" stand for in the "recommendation"?
I'm thinking of moving (renaming) this page to BT.709. "Rec." is the historical prefix, from the days when the organization was CCIR (dealing with radio). CCIR and CCITT (which had its own Recs.) were incorporated into ITU. However, there are other "Recs." from ITU, such as ITU-T G.709. The cover page of the document itself reads "Recommendation ITU-R BT.709-5," so the Rec. and the 709 aren't contiguous. It seems to me that BT.709 is relatively unambiguous, and it matches the notation in the standard itself. Also, I propose the same treatment for Rec. 601. Comments? ( talk) 20:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC-5)
"Whenever SDTV is upconverted to HDTV, or HDTV is downconverted to SDTV, at the studio or at the consumers' premises, luma-chroma matrixing is required."
Quote:"The colours produced by red, green and blue signals, with each of the others turned off, should be within the EBU tolerance boxes in EBU Tech 3273 [13]. The difference between the gamuts of ITU-R BT.709 [2] (HDTV) and EBU (SDTV) [14] systems is so small as to be negligible." Source:EBU – TECH 3321
So I delete the Part. -- 88.78.4.253 ( talk) 15:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The article says that 709 was first approved in 1990. However, 709-1, which is the first revision listed, is dated 11/93. I'm not completely sure what's going on here, but this is at least unclear - can anyone help clear this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.27.22 ( talk) 15:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
The caption of the first figure, depicting the BT.709 primaries on the CIE 1931 x, y chromaticity diagram has numerous issues:
Accordingly, I have edited the caption to remove the errors of fact and improve readability. Lovibond ( talk) 23:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
In looking at this article, and the talk page here, it became clear the article had never been updated to reflect the changes in BT.709-6. In addition, the article had gathered a lot os, eh, dust, errors, and even some unsupported/unreliable opinion. Did my best to bring it all into Wikipedia standards, and hopefully did not miss anything, I mainly targeted the "big chunks" and went for clarity. I'm certainly happy to discuss further if anyone has questions or comments. For background, I'm a professional in the Hollywood film and television industry, and this is a subject I am very familiar with.
Some things to do still: put the frame rates into a table, perhaps gamut comparisons with other formats, gamut mapping, the use as the canonical set of primaries for unbound formats like EXR, etc etc. -- Myndex ( talk) 18:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
And to ADD: I just saw that my note on what was changed did not post with the change in history ?!? Weird. Might have been due to using the visual editor. -- Myndex ( talk) 18:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
It derived BT.709 primaries. By B. Powell. Also there is some paper from him: "Influence of display primaries on the colorimetric characteristics of colour television", that is by Australian broadcasting corporation, report No 136. 2A00:1370:812D:F205:108B:718F:EEAD:CC70 ( talk) 06:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
This article has become a total train wreck of irrelevant information. It is now composed of a ton of edits by editors where english is not their first language, and whose IP addresses originate in Russia, and have added unsupported opinion, and mangled or made so much of this into irrelevant babble it is shocking. What is going on? This is happening with a number of other related color articles. Myndex ( talk) 01:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)