|
|
Origins of PAL: 1956 radio engeenering airticle from UK mag -- phase alternations (and effects) considered...
Origins of PAL: 1956 radio engineering article from UK mag -- phase
alternations (and effects) considered... I can't remember the exact magazine name, however. HDTV's origins are easier to trace, but wavlet DTV seems to be nearly absent from all technical literature. |
"http://HireMe.geek.nz/" wrote in message ... Origins of PAL: 1956 radio engineering article from UK mag -- phase alternations (and effects) considered... Actually, phase alternation was considered by the NTSC team, but declined because of several technological problems at that time. John |
"John Dyson" wrote in message ... "http://HireMe.geek.nz/" wrote in message ... Origins of PAL: 1956 radio engineering article from UK mag -- phase alternations (and effects) considered... Actually, phase alternation was considered by the NTSC team, but declined because of several technological problems at that time. John I believe it was the delay-line technology that lagged behind everything. Size perhaps ? Remenbering how big the original Philips delay lines were in early sets. I believe there was a picture of a delay line developed for the SECAM system that was about 2 feet long in 'Wireless World' in the early sixties. Mike Davison |
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 11:20:23 +0100, "J.Michael Davison"
wrote: "John Dyson" wrote in message ... Actually, phase alternation was considered by the NTSC team, but declined because of several technological problems at that time. I believe it was the delay-line technology that lagged behind everything. You do not necessary need a delay line to receive PAL. In "Simple PAL" used previously by some small portable receivers, the averaging was done visually on the screen between adjacent lines. When the Japanese TVs appeared on the European market in 1970s, they "converted the PAL signal to NTSC" before decoding, to avoid some PAL patent issues, apparently just inserted the PAL switch in front but did not use the delay line. So if the delay line was too costly for consumer electronics when NTSC formalised the standard, the standard could have used phase alteration, but only expensive second generation receivers would have included this phase error cancelling a few years later. Paul |
Paul Keinanen wrote:
So if the delay line was too costly for consumer electronics when NTSC formalised the standard, the standard could have used phase alteration, but only expensive second generation receivers would have included this phase error cancelling a few years later. That's true, but a better way was used: intrinsically fix the "problem" that PAL was designed to cover up with a kludge solution. The color problem for NTSC was fixed long before color sets became big sellers. I bought a color TV set for our dorm when I was in college in 1962, not my money of course. This was a mid-level Heathkit set. It worked fine. The color was quite accurate both for local originated material and network material. You did have to adjust the "tint" control as parts aged, but once a month or so was quite sufficient. And, of course, semiconductors solved the problem permanently and completely by allowing feedback circuits. Doug McDonald |
"Paul Keinanen" wrote in message ... On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 11:20:23 +0100, "J.Michael Davison" wrote: "John Dyson" wrote in message ... Actually, phase alternation was considered by the NTSC team, but declined because of several technological problems at that time. I believe it was the delay-line technology that lagged behind everything. You do not necessary need a delay line to receive PAL. In "Simple PAL" used previously by some small portable receivers, the averaging was done visually on the screen between adjacent lines. True but no simple-PAL TV was ever manufactured in Europe for mass sale. If I remember a Mullard lecture about the PAL system, the eye can tolerate/average out a 20degree phase error. DeLuxePAL with a delay line can correct for a 70degree phase error this being converted to an amplitude error by the delay line so probably there would be noise apparent in the chroma signals which is less disturbing visually than purple faces. A 5degree phase error was said to be noticeable in the NTSC system So if the delay line was too costly for consumer electronics when NTSC formalised the standard, the standard could have used phase alteration, but only expensive second generation receivers would have included this phase error cancelling a few years later. Did I say anything about cost ? It probably did enter into it but glass delay line technology didn't show its face until that 2feet long glass delay line was produced for SECAM on which work began in 1956(ref Wikipedia) which is 3 years after the NTSC system was set in stone. Mike D. |
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:47:48 +0100, J.Michael Davison
wrote: You do not necessary need a delay line to receive PAL. In "Simple PAL" used previously by some small portable receivers, the averaging was done visually on the screen between adjacent lines. True but no simple-PAL TV was ever manufactured in Europe for mass sale. If I remember a Mullard lecture about the PAL system, the eye can tolerate/average out a 20degree phase error. You can see phase errors much less than that, which is why all broadcast grade 1 monitors used to use simple PAL (we struggle to buy them with the facility these days) - you want to see the phase errors so you can do something to correct them. DeLuxePAL with a delay line can correct for a 70degree phase error this being converted to an amplitude error by the delay line This is rather misleading. Delay line PAL can cope with any error in principle. The thing is, the bigger the error, the more SATURATION you lose, not amplitude. It is a function of the cosine of the phase error, so at 90 degrees you get black and white. At 70 degrees, you have lost 2/3 of your colour, which is rather noticeable. so probably there would be noise apparent in the chroma signals No there wouldn't. Visually there is probably less noise on the picture because there is less noisy chroma signal. which is less disturbing visually than purple faces. A 5degree phase error was said to be noticeable in the NTSC system Indeed, and it is uncorrectable if it's a differential phase errro, which is why NTSC is so crap. |
"Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message ... Indeed, and it is uncorrectable if it's a differential phase errro, which is why NTSC is so crap. "The pioneers take all the arrows." |
"Sal M. Onella" wrote in message news:[email protected] "Paul Ratcliffe" wrote in message ... Indeed, and it is uncorrectable if it's a differential phase errro, which is why NTSC is so crap. "The pioneers take all the arrows." On worked on early RCA Color sets in 56 through 59, and some live broadcasts out of NYC on NBC such as the Bell Telephone Hour were perfection. Even early CBS live color broadcasts direct from film of the Wizard of Oz were absolute perfection. No color shift or phase shift and beautiful color that would make your mouth water. Early color video tape inserted into live shows were noisy and lacking in resolution. Sure, my first 17 inch Sony solid state color set was the first "perfected" NTSC color set I saw, but it simply could not reproduce color with the beauty and accuracy of those tube based RCA sets. Changes in color saturation was an issue until some time in the early 60's, from what I remember. Today NTSC simply does not suffer from any of the issues PAL was designed to address. Richard. |
Richard wrote:
Indeed, and it is uncorrectable if it's a differential phase errro, which is why NTSC is so crap. On worked on early RCA Color sets in 56 through 59, and some live broadcasts out of NYC on NBC such as the Bell Telephone Hour were perfection. I did not own a color set until 1962, but two neighbors did, one of thm dating from the day (actually, two days BEFORE) our NBC station went all-color locally in 1954. That one was the station's weatherman, and his son was in some of my school classes. I personally was there and "on camera" when the station went color. Even in 1954 the local programming in color was quite reliable. The color was, as others have said, gorgeous. Most live network programming as also OK, most of the time, though admittedly there was the occasional offset of say 10 degrees. Early color tape could be awful. Early local color telecines were ALWAYS awful. The NTSC system of that day DID require that the equipment with its myriads of overheated vacuum bottles (and no feedback!) be kept in tune ACTIVELY ... meaning that somebody had to check it. That was the only actual problem ... PAL would have allowed sloppiness to be covered up. But, of course, PAL was simply infeasible as a consumer technology in 1950-1953 when color TV was developed ... and we note, NOT developed by Europeans, who simply adapted the ideas of the Americans (even, of course, SECAM, which used a subcarrier and split luma-chroma rather than actual RGB). Doug McDonald |
"Doug McDonald" wrote in message ... Richard wrote: Indeed, and it is uncorrectable if it's a differential phase errro, which is why NTSC is so crap. snip The NTSC system of that day DID require that the equipment with its myriads of overheated vacuum bottles (and no feedback!) be kept in tune ACTIVELY ... meaning that somebody had to check it. That was the only actual problem ... PAL would have allowed sloppiness to be covered up. No PAL was designed so that such active adjustment was not required. But, of course, PAL was simply infeasible as a consumer technology in 1950-1953 when color TV was developed ... maybe and we note, NOT developed by Europeans, who simply adapted the ideas of the Americans (even, of course, SECAM, which used a subcarrier and split luma-chroma rather than actual RGB). is this chauvinism or arogance? true the Europeans threw away their ten year lead by having a silly war, but the first scheduled broadcast TV started on 1st October 1936 in London using the Marconi electronic system - still the basis of all analogue broadcasts today. Doug McDonald |
"Doug McDonald" wrote in message ... But, of course, PAL was simply infeasible as a consumer technology in 1950-1953 when color TV was developed ... and we note, NOT developed by Europeans, who simply adapted the ideas of the Americans (even, of course, SECAM, which used a subcarrier and split luma-chroma rather than actual RGB). Eh ! ALL monochrome compatible colour TV systems use split luma-chroma with the chroma carried by a sub-carrier system. Monochrome compatibility was the cornerstone of NTSC, PAL and SECAM so black and white TV owners were not denied a TV service. Frame sequential RGB systems were not deemed to be compatible or practicable for that matter. Mike Davison. |
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
The NTSC system of that day DID require that the equipment with its myriads of overheated vacuum bottles (and no feedback!) be kept in tune ACTIVELY ... meaning that somebody had to check it. That was the only actual problem ... PAL would have allowed sloppiness to be covered up. No PAL was designed so that such active adjustment was not required. Incorrect!! PAL, as a 1950's thing, if it were actually to have been deployed, would have had the same technical problems as NTSC, and would have required MORE tweeking to keep working CORRECTLY. What it was designe to do was COVER UP mistakes ... and in doing so, it lost saturation. But, of course, PAL was simply infeasible as a consumer technology in 1950-1953 when color TV was developed ... maybe and we note, NOT developed by Europeans, who simply adapted the ideas of the Americans (even, of course, SECAM, which used a subcarrier and split luma-chroma rather than actual RGB). is this chauvinism or arogance? true the Europeans threw away their ten year lead by having a silly war, but the first scheduled broadcast TV started on 1st October 1936 in London using the Marconi electronic system - still the basis of all analogue broadcasts today. Uh ... perhaps you might take reading comprehension lessons? I said COLOR TV. In any case, electronic TV per se was developed in parallel in Europe and the US. After WWII, of course, the US simply annihilated Europe in the deployment of TV. Until Europe got cable and satellite, most people there had FAR fewer stations to watch than people in the US did. England had only ONE TV "network" at a time when my hick town in Texas had three networks and one independant station. And Europe is STILL seriously backwards ... you have no HDTV, for example. Doug McDonald |
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:12:02 -0500, Doug McDonald
wrote: After WWII, of course, the US simply annihilated Europe in the deployment of TV. Until Europe got cable and satellite, most people there had FAR fewer stations to watch than people in the US did. England had only ONE TV "network" at a time when my hick town in Texas had three networks and one independant station. So what? It's not quantity but quality. But that is something you Americans will never understand, even if you lived to be 1000. And Europe is STILL seriously backwards ... you have no HDTV, for example. Our content is much better than yours, but alas it is rapidly heading towards the same dreadful standards that you enjoy. 5000 channels of crap. Great, just what I need. |
|
"Doug McDonald" wrote in message ... R. Mark Clayton wrote: true the Europeans threw away their ten year lead in television by having a silly war, but the first scheduled broadcast TV started on 1st October 1936 in London using the Marconi electronic system - still the basis of all analogue broadcasts today. Uh ... perhaps you might take reading comprehension lessons? I said COLOR TV. In any case, electronic TV per se was developed in parallel in Europe and the US. Just first in the UK. After WWII, of course, the US simply annihilated Europe in the deployment of TV. Overhauled for the reason stated above - that's one of the reasons why the USA had colour first. Until Europe got cable and satellite, most people there had FAR fewer stations to watch than people in the US did. England had only ONE TV "network" at a time when my hick town in Texas had three networks and one independant station. That was a political and economic problem rather than a technical issue. South Africa didn't get TV until 1976. And Europe is STILL seriously backwards ... you have no HDTV, for example. really. Doug McDonald |
Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
After WWII, of course, the US simply annihilated Europe in the deployment of TV. Until Europe got cable and satellite, most people there had FAR fewer stations to watch than people in the US did. England had only ONE TV "network" at a time when my hick town in Texas had three networks and one independant station. So what? It's not quantity but quality. But that is something you Americans will never understand, even if you lived to be 1000. A typical European answer. The European idea that only the elites (and only Europeans can be that, of course) can tell the lowly proles what they should enjoy. Now I, personally, DO hold that elites do exist ... though I hold that Europe holds no special corner on the market of them ... and that governments should provides incentives and sometimes even subsidies to keep quality available. Sometimes even standards are needed (i.e. technical quality). HOWEVER, I also hold that for most of the people most of the time for most of the spectrum space, "vox populi, vox dei". I am not aware of what you Europeans mean by "quality" about regular OTA TV. We in America have a cable and satellite channel called BBC America that plays BBC aired entertainment programs (as opposed to things like BBC nature programs that air on other cable channels). And the programming is simply dreadfully awful. It is not what I call "quality". And Europe is STILL seriously backwards ... you have no HDTV, for example. Our content is much better than yours, but alas it is rapidly heading towards the same dreadful standards that you enjoy. 5000 channels of crap. Great, just what I need. Could you kindly explain what is "quality" in entertainment programming? Doug McDonald |
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. Doug McDonald |
"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. 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. Doug McDonald |
In article , Doug McDonald 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. Just to set the record straight, a broadcast service was started on 2 November 1936 on two standards that at the time were considered "high definition" (and they were, compared with what had gone before), a mechanical one with 240 lines 25 frames per second using intermediate film, and an all-electronic one using 405 lines 25 frames per second with 2:1 interlace, giving 50Hz flicker which was much less visible than the mechanical system. By Februiary 1937 it had been decided to abandon the mechanical system, so the electronic one remained permanent, apart from the interruption of the war. Baird had demonstrated the feasibility of television with a working demonstration of a mechanical 30-line system in 1926. Details of techniques have changed since then, but the fundamental principles of the generation of a television signal are the same today as in the 405 line system started in 1936. Rod. |
"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 |
"Doug McDonald" wrote in message ... 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. Sorry Zworykin was born in Europe and exhibited his first television system there in 1910. After that everybody got into the pie. but, basically speaking, it was people at RCA that developed the very critical image orthicon. You will be telling us they invented radar next... Doug McDonald |
In message
Doug McDonald 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. Out of interest, which U.S. City benefitted from a regular off-air television broadcast service using electronically sourced pictures before November 1936 ? Cheers ! Gareth. Hayes, Middlesex, England. |
"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. Like we had quadriphonic radio broadcasts in the seventies. I would guess that more than 99% of broadcast TV in the US is 525 line. 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". Oh I am so sorry for my idiocy, I thought that by done you meant development complete and a working system making regular scheduled PUBLIC broadcasts, not some lab curiosity. 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. Gosh, so why was it so long before broadcasts started int eh US then? 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. Well dream on. More likely that the Europeans (these days tending to include the French) will get it right. One only has to look at the technical shambles that the US has for cellphones to realise that. They also imagine that their solution is best no matter what - e.g. airport landing guidance (unless they gave in). Doug McDonald Then there is US cars... |
"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message ... Like [the UK] had quadriphonic radio broadcasts in the seventies. And that's someting to be proud of? Did you ever listen to them? |
"R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message
... "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. Like we had quadriphonic radio broadcasts in the seventies. I would guess that more than 99% of broadcast TV in the US is 525 line. Germany and Sweden have been doing DD5.1 radio broadcasts for a while now. SR send out a 640Kbps DD5.1 stream and a 1.5Mbps DTS stream. Az. |
In article , Doug McDonald wrote:
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. Baird's pioneering work paved the way for others to follow. No-one would deny the Wright brothers their proper place in history simply because commercial airlines don't use propellor-driven canvas biplanes today, so it is absurd to say Baird played no important part in television simply because we no longer use whirling disks. Lots of people had ideas, but that's all they were until Baird made something that actually worked. You need more than an idea to make a commercial reality; you need the will, and the money, to develop it into something, and for that you need somebody to show that it can be done. Rod. |
"Pete Fraser" wrote in message ... "R. Mark Clayton" wrote in message ... Like [the UK] had quadriphonic radio broadcasts in the seventies. And that's someting to be proud of? Did you ever listen to them? No, although I have quad preamps picked up at an RSGB show for 80p. The point was that these were on the QS? standard that was never adopted. I likewise suspect that the US HD system will be superseded quite soon. |
"Gareth Rowlands" wrote in message ... In message Doug McDonald 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. Out of interest, which U.S. City benefitted from a regular off-air television broadcast service using electronically sourced pictures before November 1936 ? Or 1946 for that matter! Cheers ! Gareth. Hayes, Middlesex, England. |
Gareth Rowlands wrote:
In message Doug McDonald 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. Out of interest, which U.S. City benefitted from a regular off-air television broadcast service using electronically sourced pictures before November 1936 ? None ... that's what I said. Can you read? Doug McDonald |
R. Mark Clayton wrote:
Like we had quadriphonic radio broadcasts in the seventies. I would guess that more than 99% of broadcast TV in the US is 525 line. Nowhere near 99%. Prime time is about half true HDTV. Prime time is 1/8 of the day, so 1/2 of 1/8 is 1/16, which is 6%. There are also HDTV broadcasts outside prime time, including much sports, including at some time on Sunday as many as 10 different HDTV broadcasts, one afternoon soap opera (yes, I know), and Jay Leno, soon Letterman too. Now cable and satellite are probably much closer to 99% LDTV (LDTV means worse resolution than NTSC.) Well dream on. More likely that the Europeans (these days tending to include the French) will get it right. Come to you senses, come to America, and look at our HDTV. Your jaw will fall off. Doug McDonald |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com