MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153142009 · doi:10.1109/iscas.1990.112366

Multiplexing of luminance and chrominance in NTSC compatible extended definition systems based on subsampling

2002· article· en· W2153142009 on OpenAlexaff
Éric Dubois, R. O'Shaughnessey

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicImage and Video Quality Assessment
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChrominanceNTSCMultiplexingHigh-definition televisionComputer scienceLuminancePreprocessorFlickerComputer visionArtificial intelligenceTransmission (telecommunications)Interpolation (computer graphics)Computer graphics (images)TelecommunicationsMotion (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methods are presented for luminance-chrominance multiplexing in an NTSC (National Television System Committee) compatible extended-definition transmission scheme based on subsampling. A one-dimensional multiplexing scheme has been illustrated with a 4:1 interlaced sampling structure based on HD-MAC. This one-dimensional multiplexing scheme can also be used with the Triscan 6:1 interlaced sampling structure in a straightforward way. A two-dimensional multiplexing scheme has also been illustrated, this time using a modified Triscan sampling structure. These techniques allow methods similar to those proposed in Europe for HDTV (high-definition television) broadcasting to be used with the NTSC system. Then, all the techniques which have been developed for compatible HD-MAC to improve the quality of the compatible picture and to improve motion rendition in the HD picture can be brought to bear on this scheme. These include preprocessing and postprocessing to reduce flicker in the compatible image and motion-compensated processing for improved interpolation and moving areas in the HD picture.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.198 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicImage and Video Quality AssessmentFrench-language works237,207