Sky reveals HDTV launch lineup

In article ,
Fred_eg_bowinatuck wrote:
We had our first (dual standard GEC 2029) colour receiver in 1969. I
remember being severely ****ed off expecting to see the Moon landing in
colour, only for it to be shown in 405 lines B\W on BBC1.

I don't think NASA provided the pictures of Apollo 11 in colour anyway,
so you weren't missing out. Colour missions only came (if at all) towards
the end of the Apollo programme (1971 ish ?)

Didn't they take a mechanical 'sequential' 3 colour disc camera with them?

Maybe they did, but that was stills,
so not available for the live landing broadcast!

The Apollo 11 mission took a monochrome vidicon camera, but later missions
(from either 12 or 14 onwards, can't be sure) did indeed use a single tube
camera with a spinning frame-sequential filter wheel, and they used it for live
television pictures. Yes, there was colour fringing when objects moved, but at
the time it was the most effective way of sending colour pictures. For stills,
they also took specially modified Hasselblad medium format film cameras.

Rod.

In article , Ad C wrote:
I am not really in the market for HD yet, I doubt I will for a few
years. for a start HD will only be with Sky and I am telling Sky to go
away next month anyway. But I would like to know if I will still be able
to get CRT, but then by the time I am ready I expect the CRT will have
vanished. We will see what happens in the next 5-10 years.

Probably very little. The television formats currently being referred to as
"high definition" have been around for the past twenty years, and are
roughly equivalent to 2 megapixels. It's already possible to buy a mobile
phone that includes a 2 megapixel camera, so I suspect that if we ever do
get around to implementing "HDTV" on any scale, we may be less than
inpressed by it.

We certainly won't be impressed by anything we see during the transition
period if it follows the usual pattern, for example the transition from 4:3
to 16:9 or the transition from analogue to digital broadcasting. During
this time (which will last at least a generation and probably more), most
of the equipment in use or being demonstrated in the shops will be set up
wrongly or fed with inappropriate signals, and most of the punters who buy
it won't fully understand what they've bought or how to get anything better
from it than what they already had.

Rod.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
AD C wrote:
In article ,
says...

Sure you can. They are quite common in the US. After all CRT
computer monitors are definitely HD ready.


That may be true, but most computer monitors are about 19inch, ok you
can get some larger ones. what you can get in the USA do not mean you
can get them here.

You can buy 40" widescreen HD CRT sets in the USA.

You'd need two rooms. One for the TV and another to watch from (after
knocking a hole in the wall).

--
Max Demian

Max Demian wrote:
"Adrian" wrote in message
...
AD C wrote:
In article ,
says...

Sure you can. They are quite common in the US. After all CRT
computer monitors are definitely HD ready.


That may be true, but most computer monitors are about 19inch, ok
you can get some larger ones. what you can get in the USA do not
mean you can get them here.

You can buy 40" widescreen HD CRT sets in the USA.

You'd need two rooms. One for the TV and another to watch from (after
knocking a hole in the wall).

If I could buy one here, I wouldm my 36" looks small.
--
Adrian A

Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Ad C
wrote:
I am not really in the market for HD yet, I doubt I will for a few
years. for a start HD will only be with Sky and I am telling Sky to
go away next month anyway. But I would like to know if I will still
be able to get CRT, but then by the time I am ready I expect the CRT
will have vanished. We will see what happens in the next 5-10 years.

Probably very little. The television formats currently being referred
to as "high definition" have been around for the past twenty years,
and are roughly equivalent to 2 megapixels.


720p has the following resolution:

1280 x 720 = 921,600 pixels

whereas 1080i is:

1920 x 1080 x 0.74 = 1,534,464 pixels



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview, DAB & MP3 Player Prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...tal_radios.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...rs_1GB-5GB.htm
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/mp...e_capacity.htm

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...

Probably very little. The television formats currently being referred to
as
"high definition" have been around for the past twenty years, and are
roughly equivalent to 2 megapixels.

Which formats were those?
And which broadcaster carried them?

Loz

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
Fred_eg_bowinatuck wrote:
We had our first (dual standard GEC 2029) colour receiver in 1969.
I
remember being severely ****ed off expecting to see the Moon
landing in
colour, only for it to be shown in 405 lines B\W on BBC1.

I don't think NASA provided the pictures of Apollo 11 in colour
anyway,
so you weren't missing out. Colour missions only came (if at all)
towards
the end of the Apollo programme (1971 ish ?)

Didn't they take a mechanical 'sequential' 3 colour disc camera with
them?

Maybe they did, but that was stills,
so not available for the live landing broadcast!

The Apollo 11 mission took a monochrome vidicon camera, but later missions
(from either 12 or 14 onwards, can't be sure) did indeed use a single tube
camera with a spinning frame-sequential filter wheel, and they used it for
live
television pictures. Yes, there was colour fringing when objects moved,
but at
the time it was the most effective way of sending colour pictures. For
stills,
they also took specially modified Hasselblad medium format film cameras.


I stand corrected, it was probably the terribly converged B\W picture on 405
that gave the illusion of colour!


Rod.

loz wrote:
"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...


Probably very little. The television formats currently being referred to
as
"high definition" have been around for the past twenty years, and are
roughly equivalent to 2 megapixels.


Which formats were those?
And which broadcaster carried them?

1125 line/60Hz HDTV, carried on satellite by NHK in Japan, an analogue system,
still in use today I think

http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/Dave/ISE_Multimedia/node382.html

The EBU proposed a 1250 line/50 Hz system for Europe, but it never got further
than the test transmission stage.

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

.... With lenses by Zeiss. I count myself very lucky to have acquired a 1970
Zeiss calendar advertising their own involvement. It has stunning shots of
the earth and moon, including the famous "Earth Rise Over The Moon", and
Apollo space craft.

Because they have grown up with them seeing them from an early age, younger
generations probably can't easily assimilate the impact that the space
photos had at the time. At very least you would have to try to imagine that
like us, you had never seen anything like them before. Then, they hit me
like an express train between the eyes, and even now they still have immense
impact.

Close up the Earth is big, blue, and beautiful, but even from as near as the
moon, it already borders on insignificance and fragility. I find it no
coincidence that most of the world's most important environmental movements
started in the years around and following the publication of these photos.
They weren't solely responsible of course, but they were definitely a
significant factor.

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
om...
For stills,
they also took specially modified Hasselblad medium format film cameras.

In article , Ivan wrote:
The Apollo 11 mission took a monochrome vidicon camera, but later missions
(from either 12 or 14 onwards, can't be sure) did indeed use a single tube
camera with a spinning frame-sequential filter wheel, and they used it for
live
television pictures. Yes, there was colour fringing when objects moved,
but at
the time it was the most effective way of sending colour pictures. For
stills,
they also took specially modified Hasselblad medium format film cameras.


I stand corrected, it was probably the terribly converged B\W picture on 405
that gave the illusion of colour!

Maybe. Which reminds me that the moon landing broadcasts that went out on BBC1
would only have been on 405 lines, and I think BBC2 was officially still
monochrome until the following Christmas or New Year. However, if you'd been in
Television Centre when they showed that phone conversation with the President
in a little oval cutout keyed into the monochrome picture from the moon, you'd
have seem the president in colour. But I won't be surprised if you don't feel
that you missed very much.

Rod.