"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
R. Mark Clayton wrote:


In any case, electronic TV per se was developed in parallel
in Europe and the US.


Just first in the UK.

Huh?

I realize that you had a small "official" broadcast
effort in one city in what, 1936.


It was regular scheduled broadcasts of the EMI / Marconi 405 line VHF
electronic system from 1/1036-3/9/39 in then the largest city in the world.
They also pioneered outside broadcasts and several other inovations before
the war.

This system was used until ~1980, although it superceded by 625 line UHF
system from the mid sixties, with PAL colour from ~1969.

USA is still stuck with 525 lines and what is the [almost universally
accepted as] inferior NTSC colour system. True these days the main
deficiency of NTSC is its lower resolution rather than poor colour fidelity
of old (green faces etc.). OTOH I can view all three systems here and
although all are inferior to systems that can deliver RGB (D[2]-MAC &
digital) and Secam is subjectively better than both.

But you did not
actually get the electronic part done right before
the US.

So when did broadcasting start in the USA then? Why don't you withdraw this
remark as it is just wrong.

You had this guy called Baird that was all
about puttering around with whirling disks.

Back in the twenties. There were trial broadcasts of a poor reslution
mechanical system devised by baird in the early thirties. I was not
refering to those.



Doug McDonald

In a previous post the statement was made:
I can view all three systems here and
although all are inferior to systems that can deliver RGB (D[2]-MAC &
digital) and Secam is subjectively better than both.


I am intrigued that you consider SECAM to be better than PAL or NTSC.

As someone who has worked with all three systems I would rate them in
the order PAL, NTSC, SECAM.

The SECAM system uses an FM subcarrier to carry the colour information
for R-Y and B-Y on alternate lines IE R-Y on a line, B-Y on the next
and so on. A delay line is necessary to get simultaneous signals for
demodulation which means of course that the colour vertical resolution
is half that of NTSC or PAL with the best possible decoding.

As the SECAM system cannot operate with no colour subcarrier,(there
would be wideband noise from the FM demodulators in the absence of
subcarrrier giving "confetti") the compatible monochrome picture also
has subcarrier crawling all over it even with a black and white
picture. Later versions of SECAM reduce the subcarrier amplitude in
monochrome sections of the picture, but other than having a low pass
filter below the subcarrier frequency (thus restricting the luminance
bandwidth) there is no way of getting rid of the subcarrier crawl on
the picture.

Incidentally the PAL system design by Walter Bruch of Telefunken was
published in several journals.
I will have a look and give some issue dates if anyone is interested.

"Ian Mackenzie" wrote in message
om...
In a previous post the statement was made:
I can view all three systems here and
although all are inferior to systems that can deliver RGB (D[2]-MAC &
digital) and Secam is subjectively better than both.


I am intrigued that you consider SECAM to be better than PAL or NTSC.

As someone who has worked with all three systems I would rate them in
the order PAL, NTSC, SECAM.

The SECAM system uses an FM subcarrier to carry the colour information
for R-Y and B-Y on alternate lines IE R-Y on a line, B-Y on the next
and so on. A delay line is necessary to get simultaneous signals for
demodulation which means of course that the colour vertical resolution
is half that of NTSC or PAL with the best possible decoding.

Very interesting, however in PAL and NTSC the horizontal colour resolution
is approx 8 pixels.

As the SECAM system cannot operate with no colour subcarrier,(there
would be wideband noise from the FM demodulators in the absence of
subcarrrier giving "confetti") the compatible monochrome picture also
has subcarrier crawling all over it even with a black and white
picture.

Indeed.

Later versions of SECAM reduce the subcarrier amplitude in
monochrome sections of the picture, but other than having a low pass
filter below the subcarrier frequency (thus restricting the luminance
bandwidth) there is no way of getting rid of the subcarrier crawl on
the picture.

However I referred to the subjective appearance.


Incidentally the PAL system design by Walter Bruch of Telefunken was
published in several journals.
I will have a look and give some issue dates if anyone is interested.

R. Mark Clayton wrote:


USA is still stuck with 525 lines and what is the [almost universally
accepted as] inferior NTSC colour system.

You are obviously not well read, Mr. van Winkle.

The US has THREE TV standards, one indeed 240 lines (525
scanning, 480 active), 720, and 1080.


But you did not
actually get the electronic part done right before
the US.


So when did broadcasting start in the USA then? Why don't you withdraw this
remark as it is just wrong.


I did NOT say "broadcasting", you idiot! I said "development".
Development proceeded in parallel in Europe and the
US, and many key developments were made first in the US,
especially of camera tubes. And one vitally key
patent was first made in the USA by Philo Farnsworth,
a patent that neither RCA nor EMI was able to get around.

I agree that England had the first "official" TV
"broadcasts". There is no quibble about that.

But they did NOT have the first regular COLOR TV broadcasts,
which were in the US, nor the first regular HD broadcasts,
which were in Japan (though not digital.)

And of course Europe today is completely backwards in the
TV field.

Doug McDonald

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
R. Mark Clayton wrote:


USA is still stuck with 525 lines and what is the [almost universally
accepted as] inferior NTSC colour system.

You are obviously not well read, Mr. van Winkle.

The US has THREE TV standards, one indeed 240 lines (525
scanning, 480 active), 720, and 1080.


But you did not
actually get the electronic part done right before
the US.


So when did broadcasting start in the USA then? Why don't you withdraw
this remark as it is just wrong.


I did NOT say "broadcasting", you idiot! I said "development".
Development proceeded in parallel in Europe and the
US, and many key developments were made first in the US,
especially of camera tubes. And one vitally key
patent was first made in the USA by Philo Farnsworth,
a patent that neither RCA nor EMI was able to get around.

I agree that England had the first "official" TV
"broadcasts". There is no quibble about that.

But they did NOT have the first regular COLOR TV broadcasts,
which were in the US, nor the first regular HD broadcasts,
which were in Japan (though not digital.)

And of course Europe today is completely backwards in the
TV field.

Doug McDonald

It is well known that the UK was put at a disadvantage in the development of
Color TV because they insisted on the use of that extra "u". Took lots of
technology to overcome that disadvantage.

Richard.

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
R. Mark Clayton wrote:


In any case, electronic TV per se was developed in parallel
in Europe and the US.


Just first in the UK.

Huh?

I realize that you had a small "official" broadcast
effort in one city in what, 1936. But you did not
actually get the electronic part done right before
the US. You had this guy called Baird that was all
about puttering around with whirling disks.



A tad disingenuous I think Doug.. as Baird despite all the odds that were
stacked against him was much more of a pioneer in the world of television
than even the majority of Brits realise, most whom probably wouldn't even
recognise his name. http://www.burdaleclose.freeserve.co.uk/new_page_60.htm



Doug McDonald

ivan wrote:

the US. You had this guy called Baird that was all
about puttering around with whirling disks.



I read somewhere that because EMI and the RCA at that time were financially
linked, there was a was a reasonable degree of co-operation and exchanges of
ideas between the two teams.


This is correct. The very first person to actually devise and
build an electronic p[ickup tube that worked was Philo Farnsworth,
with the image dissector, a tube the was so insensitive that it was
a joke for television. Vladimir Zworykin was father of the
Iconoscope (duplicated by EMI as the Emitron) which was
a rather clumsy first attempt at a charge and discharge system.
None of this was European. Also note that Zworykin's original
1923 patent application was a useless joke.

After that everybody got into the pie. but, basically speaking,
it was people at RCA that developed the very critical image orthicon.

Doug McDonald

ivan wrote:

I realize that you had a small "official" broadcast
effort in one city in what, 1936. But you did not
actually get the electronic part done right before
the US. You had this guy called Baird that was all
about puttering around with whirling disks.




A tad disingenuous I think Doug.. as Baird despite all the odds that were
stacked against him was much more of a pioneer in the world of television
than even the majority of Brits realise, most whom probably wouldn't even
recognise his name. http://www.burdaleclose.freeserve.co.uk/new_page_60.htm


Nobody doubts that Baird was the pinnacle of the dead end
of mechanical television. That is clear.

But it does not matter. What matters is electrons
moving in a vacuum. Today we can watch TV ... at least
VHF TV or very low power UHF TV, or a DVD, without
any electrons moving through a vacuum at all. But for 50 or
more years, years in which TV became more universal than
indoor plumbing, electrons in a vacuum reigned supreme.

Doug McDonald

"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
ivan wrote:

I realize that you had a small "official" broadcast
effort in one city in what, 1936. But you did not
actually get the electronic part done right before
the US. You had this guy called Baird that was all
about puttering around with whirling disks.




A tad disingenuous I think Doug.. as Baird despite all the odds that
were
stacked against him was much more of a pioneer in the world of
television
than even the majority of Brits realise, most whom probably wouldn't
even
recognise his name.
http://www.burdaleclose.freeserve.co.uk/new_page_60.htm


Nobody doubts that Baird was the pinnacle of the dead end
of mechanical television. That is clear.

But it does not matter. What matters is electrons
moving in a vacuum. Today we can watch TV ... at least
VHF TV or very low power UHF TV, or a DVD, without
any electrons moving through a vacuum at all. But for 50 or
more years, years in which TV became more universal than
indoor plumbing, electrons in a vacuum reigned supreme.



Bairds mirrors and spinning discs are 80 year-old mechanical technology,
with no place in the modern digital world..... by the way Doug, what's DLP
all about?

http://www.earlytelevision.org/yanczer_scophony.html

Baird's achievements extended well beyond the reach of mechanical
television, and just like Farnsworth people on both sides to the Atlantic
are belatedly coming around to recognising their achievements, even more so
when considering that they were both virtually one-man bands pitted against
huge corporate finances and interests.




Doug McDonald

ivan wrote:


Bairds mirrors and spinning discs are 80 year-old mechanical technology,
with no place in the modern digital world..... by the way Doug, what's DLP
all about?


of course DLP is mechanical

and scanner systems just like the one you put in a URL
are commerccially available, with similar technology,
including the acoustic-optic modulator, however, they
use monster lasers for light

But it is immaterial ... we are discussing the history
of TV, what made it commonplace.

For that, Baird was not responsible. Farnsworth and
Zworykin were, along with, later, myriads of others.

Doug McDonald