Nostalgia of old tv sets

[Warped9]

^^ OVer 25 years of color experience? In the mid '60s? That's stretching the truth somewhat out of shape.

Well it was definitely still in the lab, but RCA was working on color television in the early '40s:
http://www.earlytelevision.org/rca_dot_sequential.html

Yeah, there were tests by different scientists during the late 1920s, and RCA demonstrated a system in 1940. The main problem seemed to be finding a method of transmitting color images over the airwaves, which required a different method than monochrome transmission.

It's still advertising hype. They weren't actually producing sets for the market for twenty-five years.

 

[alchemist]

This site has a lot of good information about the development of color television. I especially like the history it presents about one of our favorite birds (it's a multi-page article, so don't forget to click "Next Page" on the bottom right of each page).

 

[Warped9]

^^ Right. So at best colour sets were sold for about a dozen years by the time of TOS being broadcast.

The claim in RCA's advertisement leads one to believe they'd been selling color televisions for twenty-five years which is false. The statement isn't a blatant lie, but it is somewhat misleading and as such it's hype.

 

[BillJ]

^^ Right. So at best colour sets were sold for about a dozen years by the time of TOS being broadcast.

The claim in RCA's advertisement leads one to believe they'd been selling color televisions for twenty-five years which is false. The statement isn't a blatant lie, but it is somewhat misleading and as such it's hype.

Technically if they had twenty-five guys who each had a year of experience with color TV, it would be twenty-five years of experience.

 

[Melakon]

^ Good point on the "man-years experience", because I wondered if that's what they were actually doing in the advertisement. Of course, most of the adult-age color TV buying public at that time already knew color TV's hadn't been around 25 years, because black and white television didn't even start making headway into people's homes until around 1948-1950.

I think Bonanza was the first network show to be filmed in color, though there were earlier syndicated shows (Cisco Kid, Science Fiction Theater, Adventures of Superman) that filmed some episodes in color before there was color broadcasting.

 

[plynch]

Seargant Preston was filmed in color in the '50s too, I recently discovered via MeTV and Google. Looks pretty good too. Farsighted.

 

[Melakon]

That I didn't know. The local station might have stopped airing it in syndication before we got color TV, and I never saw it again after.

"On, King! On, you Huskies!"

 

[publiusr]

We had cable back in the mid 70s, and the cable company tried to pull in 100-mile-distant stations with just limited success. I could watch TOS on WAAY in Huntsville during the week fine, but faraway WBMG in Birmingham (now WIAT), which showed Trek on Saturdays, was only visible when it rained. I "watched" anyway. (lol)

I remember those days. You had snow--but no pixileation..that's worse to me.

 

[LMFAOschwarz]

I remember those days. You had snow--but no pixileation..that's worse to me.

Well, you'll get a little bit of both in this video: the upload is a tad "pixely"...but it definitely will give you fine folks a taste of the kinds of picture we had back in out dim and distant childhoods!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVY0TC7_hmU&feature=youtu.be
This is not meant to imply we didn't desire a better picture, but often this was as good as it got. To be honest, it didn't affect our viewing pleasure. How could it? The shows were just too cool!
I had one friend who lived about a quarter mile away from me, and he had tack-sharp reception. He was also at a higher elevation, which I guess is what made the difference.

 

[jayrath]

Seargant Preston was filmed in color in the '50s too, I recently discovered via MeTV and Google. Looks pretty good too. Farsighted.

Yes, several series were filmed in color before TV was able to broadcast it. Disney did his in color, for example.

I've come out of my self-imposed lurkerdom to confess my love of this thread. Several thoughts:

One thing about those huge, floor-model TVs is that they had MASSIVE speakers that could rattle china. Mono, of course, but still . . .

And remember when having more than one TV in a house was a sign of incredible wealth?

Television back then was a family experience. It had to be; only one set! It was much less something that you had on in the background. Programs were events, that you sat still for (until you made mad dashes to the bathroom during commercials).

For that matter, remember that we called it a "TV set?" To differentiate from its being a crystal radio set, I suppose.

I, too, first met TOS in snowy, glorious black and white. I pity the poor souls who never got to know it that way, who were robbed of then seeing it miraculously transformed to color.

And I still watch my grandmother's TV with a digital converter box. If I want higher res, I sit farther away.

 

[Maurice]

I remember those days. You had snow--but no pixileation..that's worse to me.

Well, you'll get a little bit of both in this video: the upload is a tad "pixely"...but it definitely will give you fine folks a taste of the kinds of picture we had back in out dim and distant childhoods!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVY0TC7_hmU&feature=youtu.be

I grew up with UHF and VHF and none of these simulations really capture the look. They also exaggerate how often the picture was that noisy/snowy. And they miss the "waver" when the horizontal hold wasn't set juuuust right.

 

[LMFAOschwarz]

I grew up with UHF and VHF and none of these simulations really capture the look. They also exaggerate how often the picture was that noisy/snowy. And they miss the "waver" when the horizontal hold wasn't set juuuust right.

Yeah, it is tough to capture, for sure. I remember this snow very well though, for like I said I was on the edge of the stations' broadcast range. The UHF antenna my father set up did make matters much better. The networks were much clearer (save for ABC), but yeah, the waver is missing here. A flutter or two would be nice, I agree.

Funny, I can remember riding home on the school bus, thinking that on windy days I'd get worse reception. WWLP in Springfield was my only access to neat shows like these, so weak signals, wind and antennas aside, you had to live with what you got!

Pre-Star Trek, I remember my show of choice was The Wild, Wild West. I wonder what happened to that kid, who watched Wild, Wild West, was into football, boats and motorcycles? I haven't seen him in about forty years...

jayrath, glad you're enjoying it!

 

[Maurice]

There's a pretty good "bad TV" filter in Final Cut Pro that I've used. It has horizontal and vertical hold variables, etc. I used it for a quick shot in a recent music video I directed.

 

[publiusr]

I wonder if you could combine blue ray tech with the size of those old huge laserdisks and have an analog CD reader...

 

[Metryq]

I wonder if you could combine blue ray tech with the size of those old huge laserdisks and have an analog CD reader...

None of that made any sense. Audio compact discs are digital, not analog. However, Laserdisc was analog video—hence the need for such a large disc. And what does Blu-ray have to do with any of this?

Most Blu-ray players can also play DVDs because they have a dual laser head. Since I don't have a set-top BD player, I don't know if they handle audio CD, as well. All three formats use different frequency lasers.

If you want to be nostalgic for old formats, see if there are any CED players still functioning.

 

[publiusr]

My thinking was that high def analog might be something someone would want to invent. The blue-ray packs more data in.

 

[BillJ]

I wonder if you could combine blue ray tech with the size of those old huge laserdisks and have an analog CD reader...

None of that made any sense. Audio compact discs are digital, not analog. However, Laserdisc was analog video—hence the need for such a large disc. And what does Blu-ray have to do with any of this?

Most Blu-ray players can also play DVDs because they have a dual laser head. Since I don't have a set-top BD player, I don't know if they handle audio CD, as well. All three formats use different frequency lasers.

If you want to be nostalgic for old formats, see if there are any CED players still functioning.

Both my Blu-ray players can play audio CD's.

 

[Push The Button]

I also suffered through the era of watching Trek in the form of grainy pictures on tiny black and white CRTs. I don't miss it one bit, it was awful.

 

[Metryq]

Both my Blu-ray players can play audio CD's.

Thanks for the info, Bill. I know I could have looked it up—and I assumed BD players could play audio CDs—it's just a moot point for me. I have a BD ROM drive, but I haven't put any CDs into it yet. When I buy a BD, it is ripped into the home entertainment center, and the disc goes on the shelf. Naturally, all my music is file-based, too.

My thinking was that high def analog might be something someone would want to invent. The blue-ray packs more data in.

Again, why? Sure, a blue laser would pack in more data on an analog disc, but a common BD would pack in even more on a smaller disc. If you ever used Laserdisc, you will remember that CLVs needed both sides of the disc to hold a movie in standard def. (CAVs needed several discs.)

As for this fetish for analog, it is misplaced. The world around us is analog, although I imagine some physicists might debate that. The point is, there is abundant analog-digital conversion going on, in both directions, with consumer media. Digital has a variety of advantages, especially in the areas of signal fidelity and data compression. What matters is the quality of those A/D and D/A conversions. Some formulas work better than others.

But for anyone laboring under the idea that an all-analog system is somehow "more pure" and untainted by the touch of digital, I say they know nothing at all about technology. Analog video uses a variety of techniques to make something so artificial look more "natural." One of those techniques shared with film is "quantizing" motion into discreet frames. (Doug Trumbull believes the "frame rate of the brain" is 60 fps.) We've also come to appreciate the aesthetics of creative lighting, while cinema "vérité" often looks flat and uninteresting.

One of the more esoteric aspects of video—both digital and analog—is gamma. My point is, you won't escape the artificial aspects of any format. Not all artificial styling is aesthetically pleasing. I've seen far too many movies tainted by the dreaded "teal and orange" grading.

So you were born in the wrong century if you believe analog is the pinnacle of recording.

 

[Shawnster]

I also suffered through the era of watching Trek in the form of grainy pictures on tiny black and white CRTs. I don't miss it one bit, it was awful.

There is something though about a fond memory of my dad going outside on a cold winter night at my great-grandmother's house and adjusting the antenna so I could watch an episode of Battlestar Galactica (Lost Planet of the Gods pt 1) on her old black and white TV.