Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Luddites

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 8:28:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

rickmccamy writes yesterday on AVSForum...
"I've got my hard won HD DNS from D*, and my surprisingly easily
received OTA from Sacramento. I only watch the DNS when there is an
issue with the OTA. I truly believe it is a new younger generation of
Luddites, raised on cable, come of age in the barren desert of the
antenna-less world of the last 35 years. We of reasonable age remember
the forest of antennas that crowned the neighborhoods of our youth.
Let's do that again. All the prissy little real estate agents can
complain of the look, but soon "and you can get great OTA HD reception
here" will be a selling point. We ancients are actually being more
receptive to new technology than the young, afraid to tell their wives
they need a rooftop antenna."

And is answered by Thomas Desmond today...

"Tell the kids that it isn't "OTA television" , but rather "wireless
television", and they'll be all over it.

I find it strange that in every business except television, wireless is
considered the advance over wired service."

Bob Miller comment...

That is because in every business except television, wireless is
considered advanced because it uses COFDM.

And in other countries even TV is considered wireless and is considered
advanced because it to uses COFDM.

Television in the US is strange because it has an ancient modulation
designed to just emulate a failed 50 year old NTSC analog modulation.
Can't expect great things when you design for the past.

Bob Miller

More about : luddites

Anonymous
April 4, 2005 11:05:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <Hn34e.4785$x4.2198@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob
Miller wrote:
> Television in the US is strange because it has an ancient modulation
> designed to just emulate a failed 50 year old NTSC analog modulation.
>
Seems odd to describe something as "failed" when it has been in regular
use throughout half the world for more than 50 years.

Rod.
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 11:05:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Roderick Stewart wrote:
> In article <Hn34e.4785$x4.2198@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob
> Miller wrote:
>
>>Television in the US is strange because it has an ancient modulation
>>designed to just emulate a failed 50 year old NTSC analog modulation.
>>
>
> Seems odd to describe something as "failed" when it has been in regular
> use throughout half the world for more than 50 years.
>
> Rod.
>
If GM loses 85% of its customers over the next five years and of those
remaining 15% of customers left the demographics read like this...

9% care little for GM cars but buy a very mundane low priced low profit
margin one from time to time.
4.6% buy GM cars because GM has the lowest price and that is all they
can afford.
..2 % buy fancy GM cars but can't wait till the GM competitors Cable car
and Sat car have more HD gizmos so that can buy one of their models and
drop GM.
..2 % steal GM cars

The US government having a political tie in with GM gives them a
contract that makes all government departments MUST BUY GM vehicles.

AND everyone in the country understands that if it was not for this MUST
BUY GM mandate that GM would have been out of business years ago.

That would be a failed GM. Similar to what broadcasters using NTSC have
been thru the last 10 years.

I say it has failed. I would listen to any argument that says different.

ATSC has already failed in my book. The FCC already has had to MANDATE
receivers to keep it afloat.

Bob Miller
Related resources
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 11:22:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Roderick Stewart wrote:
> In article <Hn34e.4785$x4.2198@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob
> Miller wrote:
>
>>Television in the US is strange because it has an ancient modulation
>>designed to just emulate a failed 50 year old NTSC analog modulation.
>>
>
> Seems odd to describe something as "failed" when it has been in regular
> use throughout half the world for more than 50 years.
>

I've asked, time and again, for bob to cite a single major network
affiliate that has gone out of business. To date he has not been able to
do so. His definition of "failed" is very different from the dictionary
definition.

Look at how he applies it to 8-VSB.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 11:27:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Bob Miller wrote:
> Roderick Stewart wrote:
>
>> In article <Hn34e.4785$x4.2198@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob
>> Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Television in the US is strange because it has an ancient modulation
>>> designed to just emulate a failed 50 year old NTSC analog modulation.
>>>
>>
>> Seems odd to describe something as "failed" when it has been in
>> regular use throughout half the world for more than 50 years.
>>
>> Rod.
>>
> If GM loses 85% of its customers over the next five years and of those
> remaining 15% of customers left the demographics read like this...

Care to cite some facts instead of posing a hypothetical argument?
Please cite a single major network affiliate that has gone out of business?

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 12:24:11 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

I would love to hear a evidence to back up such a claim. NTSC has in
fact been an enormous success and its 50 years of service and install
base (count them, every home in the US that has a television) prove
this. To make such a claim shows how ludacris Bob Miller is.

After 50 years of service it's just time to move on to something else.
FCC made their decision, the current state of HDTV in terms of
available content (which has direct impact on HD/DTV sales) proves
their decision was the right one to make.

Some people (Bob Miller) can't live with that, they have alternative
motives (e.g. investiment in counter technologies) so they're agenda is
easy to identify. They are the snakes of this newsgroup and other
public forums where they spew their propaganda.
April 4, 2005 2:23:53 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Bob Miller" <robmx@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7g54e.2129$N13.533@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Roderick Stewart wrote:
>> In article <Hn34e.4785$x4.2198@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob
>> Miller wrote:
>>
>>>Television in the US is strange because it has an ancient modulation
>>>designed to just emulate a failed 50 year old NTSC analog modulation.
>>>
>>
>> Seems odd to describe something as "failed" when it has been in regular
>> use throughout half the world for more than 50 years.
>>
>> Rod.
>>
> If GM loses 85% of its customers over the next five years and of those
> remaining 15% of customers left the demographics read like this...
>
> 9% care little for GM cars but buy a very mundane low priced low profit
> margin one from time to time.
> 4.6% buy GM cars because GM has the lowest price and that is all they can
> afford.
> .2 % buy fancy GM cars but can't wait till the GM competitors Cable car
> and Sat car have more HD gizmos so that can buy one of their models and
> drop GM.
> .2 % steal GM cars
>
> The US government having a political tie in with GM gives them a contract
> that makes all government departments MUST BUY GM vehicles.
>
> AND everyone in the country understands that if it was not for this MUST
> BUY GM mandate that GM would have been out of business years ago.
>
> That would be a failed GM. Similar to what broadcasters using NTSC have
> been thru the last 10 years.
>
> I say it has failed. I would listen to any argument that says different.
>
> ATSC has already failed in my book. The FCC already has had to MANDATE
> receivers to keep it afloat.
>
> Bob Miller

"Viacel" is a failure in my book.
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 3:41:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
> I've asked, time and again, for bob to cite a single major network
> affiliate that has gone out of business. To date he has not been able to
> do so. His definition of "failed" is very different from the dictionary
> definition.

The more I think about it, the more I believe that Bob would even be
hard-pressed to find more than a handful of *minor* TV stations that have
failed in the last 5 years.

Locally, we have several OTA stations that can't be *that* highly rated,
yet they already have digital transmitters up (and have for almost two
years). Although they don't broadcast HD, their digital 480i is *far*
better quality than their analog, so I could easily see how digital TV
could be a big help for such "special interest" stations.

--
Jeff Rife |
| http://www.nabs.net/Cartoons/OverTheHedge/TeriHatcher.g...
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 4:10:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Jeff Rife wrote:
> Matthew L. Martin (nothere@notnow.never) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>
>>I've asked, time and again, for bob to cite a single major network
>>affiliate that has gone out of business. To date he has not been able to
>>do so. His definition of "failed" is very different from the dictionary
>>definition.
>
>
> The more I think about it, the more I believe that Bob would even be
> hard-pressed to find more than a handful of *minor* TV stations that have
> failed in the last 5 years.

You are probably correct. I put that qualifier in because I think it
would eliminate any station that might have been run into the ground by
bad management. One of my local stations was dark while a purchase was
being negotiated. They had attempted a subscription service (softcore
porn) but the "encryption" was only an inverted sync. Anyone who wanted
to bother could defeat that.

> Locally, we have several OTA stations that can't be *that* highly rated,
> yet they already have digital transmitters up (and have for almost two
> years). Although they don't broadcast HD, their digital 480i is *far*
> better quality than their analog, so I could easily see how digital TV
> could be a big help for such "special interest" stations.
>

Holding a TV broadcasting license (AKA a license to print money) is
about the best way to stay profitable that I know of.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 1:02:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <7g54e.2129$N13.533@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Bob Miller
wrote:
> > Seems odd to describe something as "failed" when it has been in regular
> > use throughout half the world for more than 50 years.
> >
> > Rod.
> >
[...]
> The US government having a political tie in with GM gives them a
> contract that makes all government departments MUST BUY GM vehicles.
>
> AND everyone in the country understands that if it was not for this MUST
> BUY GM mandate that GM would have been out of business years ago.
>
> That would be a failed GM. Similar to what broadcasters using NTSC have
> been thru the last 10 years.
>
> I say it has failed. I would listen to any argument that says different.

NTSC isn't a product like a car, it's a set of technical standards. Of
course there has to be a "mandate" that equipment and programmes have to be
made to the same technical standards for the simple practical reason that a
system requiring millions of people to buy equipment couldn't possibly work
otherwise.

I don't know exactly how many people are still using NTSC, but my guess
would be "quite a lot", and I'd guess further that it will be in use for a
considerable time.

Rod.
Anonymous
April 5, 2005 4:40:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

How absurd for Bob say that NTSC has been a "failure". As a standard that
has been around for over 50 years, it has had a spectacular resiliency in
being able to keep up with changes. Having been adaptable enough to add
color, stereo sound, closed captioning, and second audio channel, all while
enabling older sets to continue to work, has been nothing less than
marvelous. You could fire up a 1950 Dumont or Hazeltine set today and still
be able to watch and hear a current OTA broadcast, in black and white (on
VHF of course), but still "just like on TV".

NTSC is not failed, just obsolete, hence the fact that we are now
transitioning to a new digital standard, even if he doesn't agree with the
use of 8VSB modulation. Given Bob's history of making inane statements, like
NTSC was a failure, I wouldn't trust his judgment regarding the
establishment of ANY sort of technical standard. Bob just has absolutely no
credibility, but we already knew that. I'm quite sure that even some of our
more intellectually challenged members of Congress can see through his BS.


<Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112628251.132509.119240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I would love to hear a evidence to back up such a claim. NTSC has in
> fact been an enormous success and its 50 years of service and install
> base (count them, every home in the US that has a television) prove
> this. To make such a claim shows how ludacris Bob Miller is.
>
> After 50 years of service it's just time to move on to something else.
> FCC made their decision, the current state of HDTV in terms of
> available content (which has direct impact on HD/DTV sales) proves
> their decision was the right one to make.
>
> Some people (Bob Miller) can't live with that, they have alternative
> motives (e.g. investiment in counter technologies) so they're agenda is
> easy to identify. They are the snakes of this newsgroup and other
> public forums where they spew their propaganda.
>
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 2:49:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Moondogg" <moon@dogg.blah> wrote in message
news:1124157265_263@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
> Phil Ross wrote:
>
> Actually, NTSC has been around for around *65* years. I believe that the
> very first TVs, made in 1939 for the NY World's Fair, used it, although
> those first TVs used different frequencies than current TV. OTA
> standards were set during WW2, and when the boys came home, the first
> real TVs, such as the RCA Victor 8TS30, were waiting. I'm not sure what
> the Nazis and the British used as a standard, but it was probably
> similar to today's PAL. (Nazi Germany was the first country to broadcast
> OTA electronic TV, in 1936 for the Olypics in Berlin.)

PAL is just a slight improvement of NTSC, and came about in the 1960s, I
believe. Don't know about the original German standard, but the UK B/W
standard used 420 (or was it 405?) lines. Because TV rentals were popular in
the UK, the old standard hung around well into the 1980s. I have heard it
being refered to as Old Peopl;e's TV.

Tam
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 2:54:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Moondogg" <moon@dogg.blah> wrote in message
news:1124157265_263@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
> Phil Ross wrote:
>
>> How absurd for Bob say that NTSC has been a "failure".

No, but it has major limitations and is now past its sell by date.

>
> Actually, NTSC has been around for around *65* years. I believe that the
> very first TVs, made in 1939 for the NY World's Fair, used it, although
> those first TVs used different frequencies than current TV. OTA
> standards were set during WW2, and when the boys came home, the first
> real TVs, such as the RCA Victor 8TS30, were waiting.

Oh dear so much inaccuracy it is difficult to know where to start!

Baird invented TV and experimental broadcasts started in 1929, 4 days a week
by 1932 and going public service in 1935. The quality was poor and this was
replaced by electronic 405 line service in 1936. See www.tvhistory.tv.


"NOVEMBER 2nd: The BBC begins a 2-year Baird-EMI competition, broadcasting
from Alexandra Palace. This is heralded as the "world's first, public,
regular, high-definition Television station".
"

> I'm not sure what
> the Nazis and the British used as a standard, but it was probably
> similar to today's PAL. (Nazi Germany was the first country to broadcast
> OTA electronic TV, in 1936 for the Olypics in Berlin.)

No they weren't, and you are confused about [colour] systems. All three
broadcast TV colour standards )NTSC, PAL, SECAM) overlay colour on top of
the original black and white signal (that everyone used), so you still get a
B&W picture on a B&W set with them all.

snip

>
> Modulation issues were big in the beginning of analog TV. Frequencies
> were changed at least once. There were two competing standards for color
> TV too-absurdly, the CBS standard required a physical color wheel
> spinning in front of the tube! Videotapes had two competing standards as
> well, with VHS winning over Beta, even though Beta was superior in many
> ways. Dueling standards are common whenever a new technology arrives-I
> believe CDs had the same issues. It looks like 8VSB has won out in the
> US from the posts here, for better or worse.

CD's did not have this, and neither did cassette tapes (unless you count 8
track), this was because the originators (Philips and Sony) licenced their
technology essentialy FoC as long as you kept to the standard.
August 17, 2005 2:01:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <ddsgkb$2ch$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>"Moondogg" <moon@dogg.blah> wrote in message
>news:1124157265_263@spool6-east.superfeed.net...
>> Phil Ross wrote:
>>
>>> How absurd for Bob say that NTSC has been a "failure".
>
>No, but it has major limitations and is now past its sell by date.
>
>>
>> Actually, NTSC has been around for around *65* years. I believe that the
>> very first TVs, made in 1939 for the NY World's Fair, used it, although
>> those first TVs used different frequencies than current TV. OTA
>> standards were set during WW2, and when the boys came home, the first
>> real TVs, such as the RCA Victor 8TS30, were waiting.
>
>Oh dear so much inaccuracy it is difficult to know where to start!
>
>Baird invented TV and experimental broadcasts started in 1929, 4 days a week
>by 1932 and going public service in 1935. The quality was poor and this was
>replaced by electronic 405 line service in 1936. See www.tvhistory.tv.
>
>

Philo T invented the electronic televison we have know and loved. Not RCA, not
Baird (Baird did have mechanical TV) The BBC basically tossed out bairds
ideas and liscenced Philo T's technology

www.farnovision.com
http://www.farnovision.com/chronicles/tfc-who_invented_...




>"NOVEMBER 2nd: The BBC begins a 2-year Baird-EMI competition, broadcasting
>from Alexandra Palace. This is heralded as the "world's first, public,
>regular, high-definition Television station".
>"
>
>> I'm not sure what
>> the Nazis and the British used as a standard, but it was probably
>> similar to today's PAL. (Nazi Germany was the first country to broadcast
>> OTA electronic TV, in 1936 for the Olypics in Berlin.)
>
>No they weren't, and you are confused about [colour] systems. All three
>broadcast TV colour standards )NTSC, PAL, SECAM) overlay colour on top of
>the original black and white signal (that everyone used), so you still get a
>B&W picture on a B&W set with them all.
>
>snip
>
>>
>> Modulation issues were big in the beginning of analog TV. Frequencies
>> were changed at least once. There were two competing standards for color
>> TV too-absurdly, the CBS standard required a physical color wheel
>> spinning in front of the tube! Videotapes had two competing standards as
>> well, with VHS winning over Beta, even though Beta was superior in many
>> ways. Dueling standards are common whenever a new technology arrives-I
>> believe CDs had the same issues. It looks like 8VSB has won out in the
>> US from the posts here, for better or worse.
>
>CD's did not have this, and neither did cassette tapes (unless you count 8
>track), this was because the originators (Philips and Sony) licenced their
>technology essentialy FoC as long as you kept to the standard.
>
>
>
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 2:01:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"GMAN" <whodothere@whocares.com> wrote in message
news:D dtnqk$tju$2@news.xmission.com...

< snip >

> Philo T invented the electronic televison we have know and loved. Not RCA,
not
> Baird (Baird did have mechanical TV) The BBC basically tossed out bairds
> ideas and liscenced Philo T's technology

Baird reported cried when he first saw the all-electronic Farnsworth TV. He
knew it was over.

Mechanical TV did last, in a way, into the 1970's. The first color TV
camera on the moon
had a spinning color wheel, a la the CBS color system, circa 1950.
August 17, 2005 3:21:05 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"GMAN" <whodothere@whocares.com> wrote in message
news:D dtnqk$tju$2@news.xmission.com...
> In article <ddsgkb$2ch$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "R. Mark
Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> Philo T invented the electronic televison we have know and loved. Not RCA,
not
> Baird (Baird did have mechanical TV) The BBC basically tossed out bairds
> ideas and liscenced Philo T's technology
>
Baird tried to demonstrate his 'electronic' system using the Farnsworth's
image dissector In a competition with the RCA/EMI system to the BBC.

However the Iconoscope from RCA and the Emitron from EMI kicked its ass.

AIUI at that time RCA and EMI were joint Anglo-American companies, so during
the development of electronic television there was a lot of very expensive
transatlantic telephone calls and information exchanged.
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 3:21:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3mf749F162lnhU1@individual.net...
>
> "GMAN" <whodothere@whocares.com> wrote in message
> news:D dtnqk$tju$2@news.xmission.com...
>> In article <ddsgkb$2ch$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "R. Mark
> Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Philo T invented the electronic televison we have know and loved. Not
>> RCA,
> not
>> Baird (Baird did have mechanical TV) The BBC basically tossed out bairds
>> ideas and liscenced Philo T's technology
>>
> Baird tried to demonstrate his 'electronic' system using the Farnsworth's
> image dissector In a competition with the RCA/EMI system to the BBC.
>
> However the Iconoscope from RCA and the Emitron from EMI kicked its ass.
>
> AIUI at that time RCA and EMI were joint Anglo-American companies, so
> during
> the development of electronic television there was a lot of very expensive
> transatlantic telephone calls and information exchanged.

It's quite clear in the invention record that the Iconoscope/Emitron were
built upon Farnsworth's work and not the reverse.
August 17, 2005 3:21:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <3mf749F162lnhU1@individual.net>, "Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"GMAN" <whodothere@whocares.com> wrote in message
>news:D dtnqk$tju$2@news.xmission.com...
>> In article <ddsgkb$2ch$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "R. Mark
>Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>> Philo T invented the electronic televison we have know and loved. Not RCA,
>not
>> Baird (Baird did have mechanical TV) The BBC basically tossed out bairds
>> ideas and liscenced Philo T's technology
>>
>Baird tried to demonstrate his 'electronic' system using the Farnsworth's
>image dissector In a competition with the RCA/EMI system to the BBC.
>
>However the Iconoscope from RCA and the Emitron from EMI kicked its ass.
>
>AIUI at that time RCA and EMI were joint Anglo-American companies, so during
>the development of electronic television there was a lot of very expensive
>transatlantic telephone calls and information exchanged.
>
>
>
>
Philo T won the patent and it was the first time RCA ever had to pay royalties
to another person or company. The BBC went with Farnsworths technology, not
EMI or Bairds.
August 17, 2005 3:21:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <io2dnZ2dnZ0RrNXwnZ2dnfXzn96dnZ2dRVn-zp2dnZ0@comcast.com>, "Randy Sweeney" <DockScience@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3mf749F162lnhU1@individual.net...
>>
>> "GMAN" <whodothere@whocares.com> wrote in message
>> news:D dtnqk$tju$2@news.xmission.com...
>>> In article <ddsgkb$2ch$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "R. Mark
>> Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Philo T invented the electronic televison we have know and loved. Not
>>> RCA,
>> not
>>> Baird (Baird did have mechanical TV) The BBC basically tossed out bairds
>>> ideas and liscenced Philo T's technology
>>>
>> Baird tried to demonstrate his 'electronic' system using the Farnsworth's
>> image dissector In a competition with the RCA/EMI system to the BBC.
>>
>> However the Iconoscope from RCA and the Emitron from EMI kicked its ass.
>>
>> AIUI at that time RCA and EMI were joint Anglo-American companies, so
>> during
>> the development of electronic television there was a lot of very expensive
>> transatlantic telephone calls and information exchanged.
>
>It's quite clear in the invention record that the Iconoscope/Emitron were
>built upon Farnsworth's work and not the reverse.
>
>
>
Exactly, both RCA eventually had to pay royalties to farnsworth and so did EMI
August 17, 2005 4:32:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"GMAN" <whodothere@whocares.com> wrote in message
news:D dts9i$tju$8@news.xmission.com...
> In article <io2dnZ2dnZ0RrNXwnZ2dnfXzn96dnZ2dRVn-zp2dnZ0@comcast.com>,
"Randy Sweeney" <DockScience@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:3mf749F162lnhU1@individual.net...
> >>
> >> "GMAN" <whodothere@whocares.com> wrote in message
> >> news:D dtnqk$tju$2@news.xmission.com...
> >>> In article <ddsgkb$2ch$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "R.
Mark
> >> Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Philo T invented the electronic televison we have know and loved. Not
> >>> RCA,
> >> not
> >>> Baird (Baird did have mechanical TV) The BBC basically tossed out
bairds
> >>> ideas and liscenced Philo T's technology
> >>>
> >> Baird tried to demonstrate his 'electronic' system using the
Farnsworth's
> >> image dissector In a competition with the RCA/EMI system to the BBC.
> >>
> >> However the Iconoscope from RCA and the Emitron from EMI kicked its
ass.
> >>
> >> AIUI at that time RCA and EMI were joint Anglo-American companies, so
> >> during
> >> the development of electronic television there was a lot of very
expensive
> >> transatlantic telephone calls and information exchanged.
> >
> >It's quite clear in the invention record that the Iconoscope/Emitron were
> >built upon Farnsworth's work and not the reverse.
> >
> >
> >
> Exactly, both RCA eventually had to pay royalties to farnsworth and so did
EMI


"What was curious about the Emitron tube was its unmistakable resemblance to
another device, the RCA Iconoscope, which Vladimir Zworykin had first
demonstrated for RCA during the same period. Both tubes employed the same
one-sided photocathode composed of discrete photoelectric islands, and an
unusual triangular scanning configuration. There is no question that the
Emitron and the Iconoscope were virtually identical devices. The only
question that stands unanswered is "which laboratory produced it first?"
J. D. McGee, one of the EMI scientists who developed the Emitron, when
interviewed in London in the spring of 21976 London, insisted that it is
possible for the same scientific development to occur simultaneously in
different places because there is frequently only one viable solution to a
problem. However, there is evidence to suggest that RCA enjoyed a
long-standing, mutual cross-license arrangement with EMI in which these two
giants shared their information and patents."
August 17, 2005 4:32:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <3mfbalF160t2oU1@individual.net>, "Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"GMAN" <whodothere@whocares.com> wrote in message
>news:D dts9i$tju$8@news.xmission.com...
>> In article <io2dnZ2dnZ0RrNXwnZ2dnfXzn96dnZ2dRVn-zp2dnZ0@comcast.com>,
>"Randy Sweeney" <DockScience@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3mf749F162lnhU1@individual.net...
>> >>
>> >> "GMAN" <whodothere@whocares.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:D dtnqk$tju$2@news.xmission.com...
>> >>> In article <ddsgkb$2ch$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "R.
>Mark
>> >> Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Philo T invented the electronic televison we have know and loved. Not
>> >>> RCA,
>> >> not
>> >>> Baird (Baird did have mechanical TV) The BBC basically tossed out
>bairds
>> >>> ideas and liscenced Philo T's technology
>> >>>
>> >> Baird tried to demonstrate his 'electronic' system using the
>Farnsworth's
>> >> image dissector In a competition with the RCA/EMI system to the BBC.
>> >>
>> >> However the Iconoscope from RCA and the Emitron from EMI kicked its
>ass.
>> >>
>> >> AIUI at that time RCA and EMI were joint Anglo-American companies, so
>> >> during
>> >> the development of electronic television there was a lot of very
>expensive
>> >> transatlantic telephone calls and information exchanged.
>> >
>> >It's quite clear in the invention record that the Iconoscope/Emitron were
>> >built upon Farnsworth's work and not the reverse.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Exactly, both RCA eventually had to pay royalties to farnsworth and so did
>EMI
>
>
>"What was curious about the Emitron tube was its unmistakable resemblance to
>another device, the RCA Iconoscope, which Vladimir Zworykin had first
>demonstrated for RCA during the same period. Both tubes employed the same
>one-sided photocathode composed of discrete photoelectric islands, and an
>unusual triangular scanning configuration. There is no question that the
>Emitron and the Iconoscope were virtually identical devices. The only
>question that stands unanswered is "which laboratory produced it first?"
>J. D. McGee, one of the EMI scientists who developed the Emitron, when
>interviewed in London in the spring of 21976 London, insisted that it is
>possible for the same scientific development to occur simultaneously in
>different places because there is frequently only one viable solution to a
>problem. However, there is evidence to suggest that RCA enjoyed a
>long-standing, mutual cross-license arrangement with EMI in which these two
>giants shared their information and patents."
>
>
And which they kiffed,borrowed, stole from Philo T.
August 17, 2005 5:03:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"GMAN" <whodothere@whocares.com> wrote in message
news:D dtt83$2me$2@news.xmission.com...
> In article <3mfbalF160t2oU1@individual.net>, "Ivan"
<ivan'H'older@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >"GMAN" <whodothere@whocares.com> wrote in message
> >news:D dts9i$tju$8@news.xmission.com...
> >> In article <io2dnZ2dnZ0RrNXwnZ2dnfXzn96dnZ2dRVn-zp2dnZ0@comcast.com>,
> >"Randy Sweeney" <DockScience@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:3mf749F162lnhU1@individual.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> "GMAN" <whodothere@whocares.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:D dtnqk$tju$2@news.xmission.com...
> >> >>> In article <ddsgkb$2ch$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "R.
> >Mark
> >> >> Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Philo T invented the electronic televison we have know and loved.
Not
> >> >>> RCA,
> >> >> not
> >> >>> Baird (Baird did have mechanical TV) The BBC basically tossed out
> >bairds
> >> >>> ideas and liscenced Philo T's technology
> >> >>>
> >> >> Baird tried to demonstrate his 'electronic' system using the
> >Farnsworth's
> >> >> image dissector In a competition with the RCA/EMI system to the BBC.
> >> >>
> >> >> However the Iconoscope from RCA and the Emitron from EMI kicked its
> >ass.
> >> >>
> >> >> AIUI at that time RCA and EMI were joint Anglo-American companies,
so
> >> >> during
> >> >> the development of electronic television there was a lot of very
> >expensive
> >> >> transatlantic telephone calls and information exchanged.
> >> >
> >> >It's quite clear in the invention record that the Iconoscope/Emitron
were
> >> >built upon Farnsworth's work and not the reverse.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Exactly, both RCA eventually had to pay royalties to farnsworth and so
did
> >EMI
> >
> >
> >"What was curious about the Emitron tube was its unmistakable resemblance
to
> >another device, the RCA Iconoscope, which Vladimir Zworykin had first
> >demonstrated for RCA during the same period. Both tubes employed the same
> >one-sided photocathode composed of discrete photoelectric islands, and an
> >unusual triangular scanning configuration. There is no question that the
> >Emitron and the Iconoscope were virtually identical devices. The only
> >question that stands unanswered is "which laboratory produced it first?"
> >J. D. McGee, one of the EMI scientists who developed the Emitron, when
> >interviewed in London in the spring of 21976 London, insisted that it is
> >possible for the same scientific development to occur simultaneously in
> >different places because there is frequently only one viable solution to
a
> >problem. However, there is evidence to suggest that RCA enjoyed a
> >long-standing, mutual cross-license arrangement with EMI in which these
two
> >giants shared their information and patents."
> >
> >
> And which they kiffed,borrowed, stole from Philo T.
>

I'm certainly not disagreeing with you, I also think that both Farnsworth
and Baird were never given anywhere near the credit for many of the 'other'
things that they achieved in their lifetimes.
August 17, 2005 5:35:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

In article <3mfd3bF157mg6U1@individual.net>, "Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"GMAN" <whodothere@whocares.com> wrote in message
>news:D dtt83$2me$2@news.xmission.com...
>> In article <3mfbalF160t2oU1@individual.net>, "Ivan"
><ivan'H'older@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >"GMAN" <whodothere@whocares.com> wrote in message
>> >news:D dts9i$tju$8@news.xmission.com...
>> >> In article <io2dnZ2dnZ0RrNXwnZ2dnfXzn96dnZ2dRVn-zp2dnZ0@comcast.com>,
>> >"Randy Sweeney" <DockScience@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Ivan" <ivan'H'older@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> >news:3mf749F162lnhU1@individual.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "GMAN" <whodothere@whocares.com> wrote in message
>> >> >> news:D dtnqk$tju$2@news.xmission.com...
>> >> >>> In article <ddsgkb$2ch$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>, "R.
>> >Mark
>> >> >> Clayton" <nospamclayton@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Philo T invented the electronic televison we have know and loved.
>Not
>> >> >>> RCA,
>> >> >> not
>> >> >>> Baird (Baird did have mechanical TV) The BBC basically tossed out
>> >bairds
>> >> >>> ideas and liscenced Philo T's technology
>> >> >>>
>> >> >> Baird tried to demonstrate his 'electronic' system using the
>> >Farnsworth's
>> >> >> image dissector In a competition with the RCA/EMI system to the BBC.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> However the Iconoscope from RCA and the Emitron from EMI kicked its
>> >ass.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> AIUI at that time RCA and EMI were joint Anglo-American companies,
>so
>> >> >> during
>> >> >> the development of electronic television there was a lot of very
>> >expensive
>> >> >> transatlantic telephone calls and information exchanged.
>> >> >
>> >> >It's quite clear in the invention record that the Iconoscope/Emitron
>were
>> >> >built upon Farnsworth's work and not the reverse.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> Exactly, both RCA eventually had to pay royalties to farnsworth and so
>did
>> >EMI
>> >
>> >
>> >"What was curious about the Emitron tube was its unmistakable resemblance
>to
>> >another device, the RCA Iconoscope, which Vladimir Zworykin had first
>> >demonstrated for RCA during the same period. Both tubes employed the same
>> >one-sided photocathode composed of discrete photoelectric islands, and an
>> >unusual triangular scanning configuration. There is no question that the
>> >Emitron and the Iconoscope were virtually identical devices. The only
>> >question that stands unanswered is "which laboratory produced it first?"
>> >J. D. McGee, one of the EMI scientists who developed the Emitron, when
>> >interviewed in London in the spring of 21976 London, insisted that it is
>> >possible for the same scientific development to occur simultaneously in
>> >different places because there is frequently only one viable solution to
>a
>> >problem. However, there is evidence to suggest that RCA enjoyed a
>> >long-standing, mutual cross-license arrangement with EMI in which these
>two
>> >giants shared their information and patents."
>> >
>> >
>> And which they kiffed,borrowed, stole from Philo T.
>>
>
>I'm certainly not disagreeing with you, I also think that both Farnsworth
>and Baird were never given anywhere near the credit for many of the 'other'
>things that they achieved in their lifetimes.
>
>
Hey, I will give credit where credit is due for Bairds pioneering work on
mechanical tv, but Philo T. "IS" the father of electronic TV as we have know
it the last 75 years
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 3:25:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Sal M. Onella wrote:

> Mechanical TV did last, in a way, into the 1970's. The first color TV
> camera on the moon
> had a spinning color wheel, a la the CBS color system, circa 1950.
>
>

Mechanical TV, with spinning color wheels, is very alive and very well,
TODAY. It is called "DLP". It probably will eventually succumb
to Moore's Law, when the chips become cheap enough to use three of them.

Doug McDonald
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 4:53:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

Doug McDonald wrote:
> Sal M. Onella wrote:
>
>> Mechanical TV did last, in a way, into the 1970's. The first color TV
>> camera on the moon
>> had a spinning color wheel, a la the CBS color system, circa 1950.
>>
>>
>
> Mechanical TV, with spinning color wheels, is very alive and very well,
> TODAY. It is called "DLP". It probably will eventually succumb
> to Moore's Law, when the chips become cheap enough to use three of them.
>

It's not just the chip count that makes the color wheel cheaper.
Mechanical registration and optics able to reduce convergence errors in
three chip implementations also add to the cost.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 6:19:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:11g6qt2t5b77c61@corp.supernews.com...
> Doug McDonald wrote:
>> Sal M. Onella wrote:
>>
>>> Mechanical TV did last, in a way, into the 1970's. The first color TV
>>> camera on the moon
>>> had a spinning color wheel, a la the CBS color system, circa 1950.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Mechanical TV, with spinning color wheels, is very alive and very well,
>> TODAY. It is called "DLP". It probably will eventually succumb
>> to Moore's Law, when the chips become cheap enough to use three of them.
>>
>
> It's not just the chip count that makes the color wheel cheaper.
> Mechanical registration and optics able to reduce convergence errors in
> three chip implementations also add to the cost.
>
> --
> Matthew
>
> I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
> Which one do you want?

The optical path from the lamp to the chips is much more complex. You have
to split the lamp output and filter it. A typical light path has dichroic
mirrors polarizers, color filters, UV filters, lenses...about a dozen
optical components. They can get dirty and can fail (usually heat and/or UV
damage in the Blue filter path). The color wheel with one chip is a rather
elegant solution if it is built well. If you don't see rainbow or streaking
effects, I'd say it is preferable for most applications.

Leonard
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 12:55:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv,alt.video.digital-tv (More info?)

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:D dvodo$cd7$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
> Sal M. Onella wrote:
>
> > Mechanical TV did last, in a way, into the 1970's. The first color TV
> > camera on the moon
> > had a spinning color wheel, a la the CBS color system, circa 1950.
> >
> >
>
> Mechanical TV, with spinning color wheels, is very alive and very well,
> TODAY. It is called "DLP".

Awk! I knew that! (We've had enough groaning from the fellows whose color
wheel drive motors bit the dust early.) Thanks.
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 2:27:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Leonard Caillouet wrote:

> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:11g6qt2t5b77c61@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Doug McDonald wrote:
>>
>>>Sal M. Onella wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mechanical TV did last, in a way, into the 1970's. The first color TV
>>>>camera on the moon
>>>>had a spinning color wheel, a la the CBS color system, circa 1950.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Mechanical TV, with spinning color wheels, is very alive and very well,
>>>TODAY. It is called "DLP". It probably will eventually succumb
>>>to Moore's Law, when the chips become cheap enough to use three of them.
>>>
>>
>>It's not just the chip count that makes the color wheel cheaper.
>>Mechanical registration and optics able to reduce convergence errors in
>>three chip implementations also add to the cost.
>>
>>--
>>Matthew
>>
>> I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
>> Which one do you want?
>
>
> The optical path from the lamp to the chips is much more complex. You have
> to split the lamp output and filter it. A typical light path has dichroic
> mirrors polarizers, color filters, UV filters, lenses...about a dozen
> optical components. They can get dirty and can fail (usually heat and/or UV
> damage in the Blue filter path). The color wheel with one chip is a rather
> elegant solution if it is built well. If you don't see rainbow or streaking
> effects, I'd say it is preferable for most applications.
>
> Leonard

Thanks for the correct amplification of the point I was attempting to
make. Basically, if you go for a three chip implementation, you may be
on the wrong side of a devil's bargain.

Matthew
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 10:58:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:11g7sgh1mimc763@corp.supernews.com...
> Leonard Caillouet wrote:
>
>> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
>> news:11g6qt2t5b77c61@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>Doug McDonald wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sal M. Onella wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Mechanical TV did last, in a way, into the 1970's. The first color TV
>>>>>camera on the moon
>>>>>had a spinning color wheel, a la the CBS color system, circa 1950.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Mechanical TV, with spinning color wheels, is very alive and very well,
>>>>TODAY. It is called "DLP". It probably will eventually succumb
>>>>to Moore's Law, when the chips become cheap enough to use three of them.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's not just the chip count that makes the color wheel cheaper.
>>>Mechanical registration and optics able to reduce convergence errors in
>>>three chip implementations also add to the cost.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Matthew
>>>
>>> I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
>>> Which one do you want?
>>
>>
>> The optical path from the lamp to the chips is much more complex. You
>> have to split the lamp output and filter it. A typical light path has
>> dichroic mirrors polarizers, color filters, UV filters, lenses...about a
>> dozen optical components. They can get dirty and can fail (usually heat
>> and/or UV damage in the Blue filter path). The color wheel with one chip
>> is a rather elegant solution if it is built well. If you don't see
>> rainbow or streaking effects, I'd say it is preferable for most
>> applications.
>>
>> Leonard
>
> Thanks for the correct amplification of the point I was attempting to
> make. Basically, if you go for a three chip implementation, you may be on
> the wrong side of a devil's bargain.
>
> Matthew

Just trying to provide some information. Just trying to inform. Not trying
to debate you nor remove the control rods from your ego reactor, Matthew.

Leonard
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 11:33:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Leonard Caillouet wrote:
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:11g7sgh1mimc763@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> Just trying to provide some information. Just trying to inform. Not trying
> to debate you nor remove the control rods from your ego reactor, Matthew.
>

Tut tut, Leonard. No need to get snippy. I was completely sincere in my
thanks.

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 11:50:29 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
news:11g8sgmqu12jrc5@corp.supernews.com...
> Leonard Caillouet wrote:
>> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
>> news:11g7sgh1mimc763@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>
>> Just trying to provide some information. Just trying to inform. Not
>> trying to debate you nor remove the control rods from your ego reactor,
>> Matthew.
>>
>
> Tut tut, Leonard. No need to get snippy. I was completely sincere in my
> thanks.
>
> --
> Matthew

Just couldn't resist poking with that pointy stick. :-)

Leonard
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 12:26:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Leonard Caillouet wrote:
> "Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
> news:11g8sgmqu12jrc5@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Leonard Caillouet wrote:
>>
>>>"Matthew L. Martin" <nothere@notnow.never> wrote in message
>>>news:11g7sgh1mimc763@corp.supernews.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>Just trying to provide some information. Just trying to inform. Not
>>>trying to debate you nor remove the control rods from your ego reactor,
>>>Matthew.
>>>
>>
>>Tut tut, Leonard. No need to get snippy. I was completely sincere in my
>>thanks.
>>
>>--
>>Matthew
>
>
> Just couldn't resist poking with that pointy stick. :-)
>

OKTHEN!

--
Matthew

I'm a contractor. If you want an opinion, I'll sell you one.
Which one do you want?
!