Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > uk.tech.broadcast > #70373 > unrolled thread

1950s cinema broadcast

Back to article view | Back to uk.tech.broadcast

Contents

  1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-23 10:39 +0100
    Re: 1950s cinema broadcast NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-07-23 11:05 +0100
      Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-23 12:02 +0100
        Re: 1950s cinema broadcast liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-07-23 13:50 +0100
        Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-23 15:26 +0100
    Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-07-23 10:15 +0000
    Re: 1950s cinema broadcast richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-07-23 11:29 +0000
      Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-23 13:46 +0100
        Re: 1950s cinema broadcast richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-07-23 13:00 +0000
          Re: 1950s cinema broadcast liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-07-23 15:35 +0100
            Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-23 16:38 +0100
              Re: 1950s cinema broadcast liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-07-23 17:42 +0100
                Re: 1950s cinema broadcast wolfgang s <see@sig.nature> - 2026-08-19 09:04 +0000
                  Re: 1950s cinema broadcast NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-08-19 14:12 +0100
                    Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-08-19 14:00 +0000
                    Re: 1950s cinema broadcast liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-08-19 15:21 +0100
                      Re: 1950s cinema broadcast wolfgang s <see@sig.nature> - 2026-08-20 02:31 +0000
                  Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-08-19 14:00 +0000
                    Re: 1950s cinema broadcast NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-08-19 15:36 +0100
                      Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-08-19 15:15 +0000
                        Re: 1950s cinema broadcast NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-08-19 18:26 +0100
                          Re: 1950s cinema broadcast wolfgang s <see@sig.nature> - 2026-08-20 02:37 +0000
                        Re: 1950s cinema broadcast tony sayer <tony@bancom.co.uk> - 2026-08-20 23:25 +0100
                          Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-08-21 10:30 +0000
                            Re: 1950s cinema broadcast angus@magsys.co.uk (Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd) - 2026-08-21 14:14 +0100
                              Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-08-21 18:13 +0100
                      VVS (was: Re: 1950s cinema broadcast) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-08-19 21:25 +0100
                        Re: VVS NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-08-19 22:52 +0100
                        Re: VVS Old John <watcombeman@yahoo.co.uk> - 2026-08-20 06:16 +0000
                          Re: VVS John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-08-20 09:54 +0100
              Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-07-23 17:43 +0100
                Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-23 20:20 +0100
                  Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-24 09:48 +0100
                    Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-24 10:27 +0100
                      Re: 1950s cinema broadcast MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> - 2026-07-24 10:50 +0100
                        Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-24 11:03 +0100
                          Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-07-24 15:36 +0100
                        Re: 1950s cinema broadcast JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-07-24 15:34 +0100
                          Re: 1950s cinema broadcast JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-07-24 15:42 +0100
                      Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-24 11:58 +0100
                        Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-24 12:33 +0100
                          Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-07-24 15:43 +0100
                            Re: 1950s cinema broadcast JMB99 <mb@nospam.net> - 2026-07-24 15:51 +0100
                              Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-07-24 15:57 +0100
                            Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-24 16:25 +0100
                              Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-07-24 17:16 +0100
                                Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-24 17:23 +0100
                            Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-24 21:10 +0100
                              Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-25 09:41 +0100
                                Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> - 2026-07-26 11:11 +0100
                                  Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-26 13:34 +0100
                                    Re: 1950s cinema broadcast John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-07-26 13:53 +0100
                                      Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-26 21:42 +0100
                                        Re: 1950s cinema broadcast John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> - 2026-07-27 08:31 +0100
                                          Re: 1950s cinema broadcast NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-07-27 10:34 +0100
                                            Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-27 15:28 +0100
                                        Re: 1950s cinema broadcast NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-07-27 10:30 +0100
                          Re: 1950s cinema broadcast wolfgang s <see@sig.nature> - 2026-08-19 09:12 +0000
                        Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-07-24 13:17 +0100
                          Re: 1950s cinema broadcast richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-07-24 13:00 +0000
                            Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-24 14:11 +0100
                              Re: 1950s cinema broadcast NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-07-24 19:04 +0100
                                Re: 1950s cinema broadcast liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-07-25 19:45 +0100
                                  Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-07-25 20:15 +0000
                                    Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-25 22:58 +0100
                                      Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-25 23:13 +0100
                                    Re: 1950s cinema broadcast liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-07-26 10:58 +0100
                              Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-24 21:28 +0100
                            Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-25 09:47 +0100
                          Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-24 21:12 +0100
                            Re: 1950s cinema broadcast NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-07-24 23:15 +0100
                      Re: 1950s cinema broadcast NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-07-24 18:52 +0100
                        Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-25 10:04 +0100
                          Re: 1950s cinema broadcast NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-07-25 10:29 +0100
                            Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-25 16:58 +0100
                              Re: 1950s cinema broadcast NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-07-25 18:54 +0100
                                Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-25 23:06 +0100
                              Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Charles Hope <clh@candehope.me.uk> - 2026-07-25 18:15 +0000
                            Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-26 08:53 +0100
                              Re: 1950s cinema broadcast NY <me@privacy.net> - 2026-07-26 09:29 +0100
                                Re: 1950s cinema broadcast liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-07-26 10:58 +0100
                                  Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-26 13:44 +0100
                        Re: 1950s cinema broadcast liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-07-25 19:45 +0100
                      Re: 1950s cinema broadcast wolfgang s <see@sig.nature> - 2026-08-19 09:08 +0000
        Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-23 16:27 +0100
    Re: 1950s cinema broadcast liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) - 2026-07-23 13:02 +0100
      Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-23 13:41 +0100
    Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Dave W <davewi11@yahoo.co.uk> - 2026-07-25 19:53 +0100
      Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-26 21:47 +0100
        Re: 1950s cinema broadcast "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2026-07-27 15:41 +0100
          Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> - 2026-07-27 16:32 +0100
            Re: 1950s cinema broadcast richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2026-07-27 16:55 +0000
              Re: 1950s cinema broadcast Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2026-07-28 16:08 +0100

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

#70478

On 19/08/2026 16:15, Charles Hope wrote:
> On 19/08/2026 15:36, NY wrote:
>> As a matter of interest, how ubiquitous are standards converters 
>> nowadays? Do most studios / mixing desks have one so they can take in 
>> "foreign" video and convert it to a source that can be mixed with 
>> studio, OB and "VT" (I realise actual VT is rarely used, if ever, 
>> these days).
>>
> all signals are in digital format nowadays. I imagine that it would be 
> very [easy] to process the signals to an alternative digital type.
I presume rescaling to s different number of pixels is very easy, but 
converting between 25 and 29.97 fps is the hard problem: as it was for 
analogue.

I noticed at the time of Trump's election (not sure whether it was first 
or second term) there were interviews on UK news with Americans sitting 
in bars. And there were US TV screens in view. If the reports had been 
filmed with UK equipment, you'd expect 25/30 beating; whereas if they'd 
been filmed with US equipment there would be no beating but there'd be 
jerkiness on rapid movement such as camera panning or people walking past.

I'm always surprised that when analogue TV broadcasting in the US 
ceased, they didn't take the opportunity to redefine their standard back 
to exactly 30 fps again (as it was in the days of B&W) because the need 
for the 1000/1001 conversion factor was due to the RF transmission of 
analogue, and wouldn't affect baseband analogue output from digital 
sources (eg in their equivalent of Freeview boxes).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70482

NY <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:1164p13$2rbtr$1@dont-email.me:

> I noticed at the time of Trump's election (not sure whether it was first 
> or second term) there were interviews on UK news with Americans sitting 
> in bars. And there were US TV screens in view. If the reports had been 
> filmed with UK equipment, you'd expect 25/30 beating; whereas if they'd 
> been filmed with US equipment there would be no beating but there'd be 
> jerkiness on rapid movement such as camera panning or people walking past.

It seems that frame rate conversion methods have become extremely good. 
You don't see jerky motion any more, even with US-originated live 
footage.

> I'm always surprised that when analogue TV broadcasting in the US 
> ceased, they didn't take the opportunity to redefine their standard back 
> to exactly 30 fps again

Probably because they needed to remain compatible during the transition 
period.

-- 
Currently listening:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yMTnAw0yYg

http://www.wschwanke.de/  usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70485

In article <3jtglm-tlnc.ln1@newsauth.orpheusnet.co.uk>, Charles Hope
<clh@candehope.me.uk> scribeth thus
>On 19/08/2026 15:36, NY wrote:
>> On 19/08/2026 15:00, Charles Hope wrote:
>>> The UK standards converters were at Tolsford Hill, near Dover, at the 
>>> UK end of the trans-channel link. They remained there until the GPO 
>>> upgraded the radio link to London to 625 capability. Subsequently, all 
>>> the UK conversion was done at Television Centre (where I was a shift 
>>> leader, 1964-73).
>> 
>> As a matter of interest, how ubiquitous are standards converters 
>> nowadays? Do most studios / mixing desks have one so they can take in 
>> "foreign" video and convert it to a source that can be mixed with 
>> studio, OB and "VT" (I realise actual VT is rarely used, if ever, these 
>> days).
>> 
>all signals are in digital format nowadays. I imagine that it would be 
>very to process the signals to an alternative digital type. I retired 
>before analogue signals went out of fashion,
>
>
>> I presume they also have to be able to take various esoteric mobile 
>> phone video formats, and rescale and add borders (for vertical video).
>

I do have a photo of a standards converter on test at Pye TVT must have
been around 1969 or thereabouts, must see if i can upload it someplace
but theres a photo of one here in Argentina looks exactly the same and
to think all that is almost fag packet size now!

there was one of a recent flicker stream of someone who worked at Either
Pontop pike or maybe Kirk O Shots around 1980  a much smaller unit!..


https://www.facebook.com/groups/1425282661005351/posts/2305801032953505/

-- 
Tony Sayer


Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. 

Give him a keyboard, and he will reveal himself.

                

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70486

On 20/08/2026 23:25, tony sayer wrote:
> In article <3jtglm-tlnc.ln1@newsauth.orpheusnet.co.uk>, Charles Hope
> <clh@candehope.me.uk> scribeth thus
>> On 19/08/2026 15:36, NY wrote:
>>> On 19/08/2026 15:00, Charles Hope wrote:
>>>> The UK standards converters were at Tolsford Hill, near Dover, at the
>>>> UK end of the trans-channel link. They remained there until the GPO
>>>> upgraded the radio link to London to 625 capability. Subsequently, all
>>>> the UK conversion was done at Television Centre (where I was a shift
>>>> leader, 1964-73).
>>>
>>> As a matter of interest, how ubiquitous are standards converters
>>> nowadays? Do most studios / mixing desks have one so they can take in
>>> "foreign" video and convert it to a source that can be mixed with
>>> studio, OB and "VT" (I realise actual VT is rarely used, if ever, these
>>> days).
>>>
>> all signals are in digital format nowadays. I imagine that it would be
>> very to process the signals to an alternative digital type. I retired
>> before analogue signals went out of fashion,
>>
>>
>>> I presume they also have to be able to take various esoteric mobile
>>> phone video formats, and rescale and add borders (for vertical video).
>>
> 
> I do have a photo of a standards converter on test at Pye TVT must have
> been around 1969 or thereabouts, must see if i can upload it someplace
> but theres a photo of one here in Argentina looks exactly the same and
> to think all that is almost fag packet size now!
> 
we had the prototype of the Pye machine at TVC, 8 racks (bays) of it. 
TMost of the space was taken up with quartz delay lines,

> there was one of a recent flicker stream of someone who worked at Either
> Pontop pike or maybe Kirk O Shots around 1980  a much smaller unit!..
> 
Yes, the IBA came up wth a much smaller one,>
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/1425282661005351/posts/2305801032953505/
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70487

> we had the prototype of the Pye machine at TVC, 8 racks (bays) of 
> it. TMost of the space was taken up with quartz delay lines,
> 
> > there was one of a recent flicker stream of someone who worked 
> > at Either
> > Pontop pike or maybe Kirk O Shots around 1980  a much smaller 
> > unit!..
> > 
> Yes, the IBA came up wth a much smaller one,>
> > 
> > 
> https://www.facebook.com/groups/1425282661005351/posts/23058010329
> 53505/

The standards converters at UK transmitters were 625 to 405 lines only, no
frame store needed, so much simpler.  

Marconi sold the IBA DICE (Digital Intercontinental Conversion Equipment) which
was the first digital unit (two racks).  

Angus

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70488

On 2026/8/21 14:14:0, Angus Robertson - Magenta Systems Ltd wrote:
[]
> The standards converters at UK transmitters were 625 to 405 lines only, no
> frame store needed, so much simpler.  
> 
> Marconi sold the IBA DICE (Digital Intercontinental Conversion Equipment) which
> was the first digital unit (two racks).  
> 
> Angus
> 
> 
One of the BBC ones can be seen operating - with a guided tour of it - 3
minutes into https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lhfs7FjKspw .  Gerry had it
so as to be able to demonstrate his 405-line sets, including a rather
fine sideboard-sized one (that had belonged to the postmaster-general, I
think). The converter was about the shape and size of a wardrobe - and
Gerry had it next to his bed where most people would /have/ a wardrobe.
The museum continues, in the sheds, but the house has been converted
into flats, so I don't know what happened to the converter (or that TV).
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here: this is the war room!"
(Dr. Strangelove)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70479 — VVS (was: Re: 1950s cinema broadcast)

On 2026/8/19 15:36:30, NY wrote:
[]
> I presume they also have to be able to take various esoteric mobile 
> phone video formats, and rescale and add borders (for vertical video).

Why do they _do_ that - to vertical video? I mean, especially, show a
blown-up blurred version of what's in the vertical strip; not only do I
find it aesthetically irritating from an engineering point of view, I
actually find it distracting.

(If I was in charge of such, I'd mostly leave the sides blank, and
occasionally put text in the black area saying "shot with 'phone held
vertically" - and maybe sometimes give a spoken warning beforehand, as
they still do with "flashing images".)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Sometimes I'm so sweet even I can't stand it. ~ Julie Andrews

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70480 — Re: VVS

On 19/08/2026 21:25, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> On 2026/8/19 15:36:30, NY wrote:
> []
>> I presume they also have to be able to take various esoteric mobile
>> phone video formats, and rescale and add borders (for vertical video).
> 
> Why do they _do_ that - to vertical video? I mean, especially, show a
> blown-up blurred version of what's in the vertical strip; not only do I
> find it aesthetically irritating from an engineering point of view, I
> actually find it distracting.
> 
> (If I was in charge of such, I'd mostly leave the sides blank, and
> occasionally put text in the black area saying "shot with 'phone held
> vertically" - and maybe sometimes give a spoken warning beforehand, as
> they still do with "flashing images".)

I would be a lot less polite in my in-margin comments, impugning the 
sanity of anyone who holds a phone in portrait mode for shooting a 
video. ;-)

I agree that the only acceptable margins are black or a plain, dark 
colour (eg navy blue). Like you, I find moving image in the margin 
intensely distracting.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70483 — Re: VVS

On 19 Aug 2026 at 21:25:17 BST, ""J. P. Gilliver"" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

> On 2026/8/19 15:36:30, NY wrote:
> []
>> I presume they also have to be able to take various esoteric mobile
>> phone video formats, and rescale and add borders (for vertical video).
> 
> Why do they _do_ that - to vertical video? I mean, especially, show a
> blown-up blurred version of what's in the vertical strip; not only do I
> find it aesthetically irritating from an engineering point of view, I
> actually find it distracting.
> 
> (If I was in charge of such, I'd mostly leave the sides blank, and
> occasionally put text in the black area saying "shot with 'phone held
> vertically" - and maybe sometimes give a spoken warning beforehand, as
> they still do with "flashing images".)

I do so agree! It is pointless and distracting. It's not as though a blank or
black screen was in some way indecent.
-- 
An infinitely complex system can fail in an infinite number of ways.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70484 — Re: VVS

On 20/08/2026 07:16, Old John wrote:
> On 19 Aug 2026 at 21:25:17 BST, ""J. P. Gilliver"" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 2026/8/19 15:36:30, NY wrote:
>> []
>>> I presume they also have to be able to take various esoteric mobile
>>> phone video formats, and rescale and add borders (for vertical video).
>>
>> Why do they _do_ that - to vertical video? I mean, especially, show a
>> blown-up blurred version of what's in the vertical strip; not only do I
>> find it aesthetically irritating from an engineering point of view, I
>> actually find it distracting.
>>
>> (If I was in charge of such, I'd mostly leave the sides blank, and
>> occasionally put text in the black area saying "shot with 'phone held
>> vertically" - and maybe sometimes give a spoken warning beforehand, as
>> they still do with "flashing images".)
>
> I do so agree! It is pointless and distracting. It's not as though a blank or
> black screen was in some way indecent.
>
There was probably a focus group involved in the decision.

-- 
Tciao for Now!

John.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70390

On 23/07/2026 16:38, Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:35:09 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
> (Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
>> Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <d2346lttlohe7fodvlb091s9s1trglmr44@4ax.com>,
>>> Scott  <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> According to this article:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.earlytelevision.org/british_experimental.html
>>>>>
>>>>> the event was transmitted live in colour to Great Ormond Street
>>>>> hospital to bw viewed by children there.
>>>
>>>> Fascinating. This seems to be a private television broadcast by Pye
>>>> Limited from three TV cameras overlooking Parliament Square, not the
>>>> extensive BBC coverage. As my friend's father worked Rank at the time,
>>>> I wonder if there could have been some experimentation going on.
>>>
>>> It seems unlikely to me that the only receivers would have been the
>>> ones in the hospital.  Probably Pye had receivers set up somewhere for
>>> their own experimentation, and it's quite possible that others in the
>>> industry were invited and even brought their children along.
>>
>> They were probably Pye-badged Philips receivers, a lot of Pye stuff was
>> Philips, long before Pye were bought out by them. (The lster BBC's OB
>> colour TV units were all designed by Philips but had to be badged "Pye"
>> so the BBC weren't seen to be buying foreign equipment.)
> 
> But am I correct that the BBC coverage was not 'filmed' in colour (for
> conversion to monochrome)? Was it recorded at all or did the BBC leave
> this to the film industry? Was there a method of recording video in
> 1953 other than using film?

The BBC cameras were monochrome, transmitted live and recorded onto cine 
file to be flown across the Atlantic (by the RAF) so Canada/US could 
watch it when they got up.

The colour film was a completely different exercise, with conventional 
cine cameras. When they show film of the Coronation I think it's always 
this that they show, often converted to monochrome to make it look "old".

-- 
Max Demian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70391

On 2026/7/23 17:43:17, Max Demian wrote:
> On 23/07/2026 16:38, Scott wrote:
[coronation, 1953]
>> But am I correct that the BBC coverage was not 'filmed' in colour (for
>> conversion to monochrome)? Was it recorded at all or did the BBC leave
>> this to the film industry? Was there a method of recording video in
>> 1953 other than using film?

I'm pretty sure the BBC coverage was 405 live only. I _think_ the only
way to record video at the time was indeed Kinescope or similar
recording to film. (VERA was some years later wasn't it?)
> 
> The BBC cameras were monochrome, transmitted live and recorded onto cine 
> file to be flown across the Atlantic (by the RAF) so Canada/US could 
> watch it when they got up.
> 
> The colour film was a completely different exercise, with conventional 
> cine cameras. When they show film of the Coronation I think it's always 
> this that they show, often converted to monochrome to make it look "old".
> 
that would make sense: I remember reading somewhere that the BBC feed
was recorded to film using one field only (which make sense: the
fast-pull-down camera was many years into the future, so attempting to
film both frames would have missed part of one field, which would have
looked horrible), which would have made it less than 200 lines of active
content, pretty grotty - and the "film" I have seen, though not great,
has I think mostly been better than that, so your suggestion of colour
stock monochromed sounds plausible. I had never thought of that - I'd
always thought it was good for the date. That would explain why.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind.
- Mahatma Gandhi (according to the film Gandhi [1982])

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70392

On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:20:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>I'm pretty sure the BBC coverage was 405 live only. I _think_ the only
>way to record video at the time was indeed Kinescope or similar
>recording to film. (VERA was some years later wasn't it?)
[...]
>that would make sense: I remember reading somewhere that the BBC feed
>was recorded to film using one field only 

Yes. There was no way of electronically recording a video signal at
the time. Kinescope recording, as the Americans called it,  or FR
(Film Recording), as the BBC called it, was the only way, and it was
only possible at that time to record alternate fields.

The 405 line system had 15 lines of blanking in each field interval,
therefore only 187.5 active picture lines in each field, so the only
recording that exists of the coronation broadcast is about five hours
of monochrome film with a vertical resolution of 187.5 lines.

Because of the importance of the occasion, there were also various
teams using film cameras to make documentaries or cinema news items,
and some of them were using colour film, so we have some of the event
in colour, but this was separate from the actual broadcast.

Rod.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70393

On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:48:32 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:20:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>I'm pretty sure the BBC coverage was 405 live only. I _think_ the only
>>way to record video at the time was indeed Kinescope or similar
>>recording to film. (VERA was some years later wasn't it?)
>[...]
>>that would make sense: I remember reading somewhere that the BBC feed
>>was recorded to film using one field only 
>
>Yes. There was no way of electronically recording a video signal at
>the time. Kinescope recording, as the Americans called it,  or FR
>(Film Recording), as the BBC called it, was the only way, and it was
>only possible at that time to record alternate fields.

Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by
the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it
a limitation in how fast the camera could be run. 
>
>The 405 line system had 15 lines of blanking in each field interval,
>therefore only 187.5 active picture lines in each field, so the only
>recording that exists of the coronation broadcast is about five hours
>of monochrome film with a vertical resolution of 187.5 lines.
>
>Because of the importance of the occasion, there were also various
>teams using film cameras to make documentaries or cinema news items,
>and some of them were using colour film, so we have some of the event
>in colour, but this was separate from the actual broadcast.
>
What about the earlier query about showing live colour in cinemas.
Clearly, this was separate from the BBC but was Pye for example
experimenting with colour TV cameras? Could my friend have seen live
coverage in colour in a Rank cinema? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70394

On 24/07/2026 10:27, Scott wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:48:32 +0100, Roderick Stewart
> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:20:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
>> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm pretty sure the BBC coverage was 405 live only. I _think_ the only
>>> way to record video at the time was indeed Kinescope or similar
>>> recording to film. (VERA was some years later wasn't it?)
>> [...]
>>> that would make sense: I remember reading somewhere that the BBC feed
>>> was recorded to film using one field only
>>
>> Yes. There was no way of electronically recording a video signal at
>> the time. Kinescope recording, as the Americans called it,  or FR
>> (Film Recording), as the BBC called it, was the only way, and it was
>> only possible at that time to record alternate fields.
> 
> Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by
> the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it
> a limitation in how fast the camera could be run.
>>
>> The 405 line system had 15 lines of blanking in each field interval,
>> therefore only 187.5 active picture lines in each field, so the only
>> recording that exists of the coronation broadcast is about five hours
>> of monochrome film with a vertical resolution of 187.5 lines.
>>
>> Because of the importance of the occasion, there were also various
>> teams using film cameras to make documentaries or cinema news items,
>> and some of them were using colour film, so we have some of the event
>> in colour, but this was separate from the actual broadcast.
>>
> What about the earlier query about showing live colour in cinemas.
> Clearly, this was separate from the BBC but was Pye for example
> experimenting with colour TV cameras? Could my friend have seen live
> coverage in colour in a Rank cinema?

I remember a few days after the coronation that our entire school 
marched to a local cinema to see it on a colour film. Possibly after all 
the years your friend is confusing that film with live TV.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70395

On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:50:36 +0100, MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> wrote:

>On 24/07/2026 10:27, Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:48:32 +0100, Roderick Stewart
>> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:20:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
>>> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm pretty sure the BBC coverage was 405 live only. I _think_ the only
>>>> way to record video at the time was indeed Kinescope or similar
>>>> recording to film. (VERA was some years later wasn't it?)
>>> [...]
>>>> that would make sense: I remember reading somewhere that the BBC feed
>>>> was recorded to film using one field only
>>>
>>> Yes. There was no way of electronically recording a video signal at
>>> the time. Kinescope recording, as the Americans called it,  or FR
>>> (Film Recording), as the BBC called it, was the only way, and it was
>>> only possible at that time to record alternate fields.
>> 
>> Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by
>> the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it
>> a limitation in how fast the camera could be run.
>>>
>>> The 405 line system had 15 lines of blanking in each field interval,
>>> therefore only 187.5 active picture lines in each field, so the only
>>> recording that exists of the coronation broadcast is about five hours
>>> of monochrome film with a vertical resolution of 187.5 lines.
>>>
>>> Because of the importance of the occasion, there were also various
>>> teams using film cameras to make documentaries or cinema news items,
>>> and some of them were using colour film, so we have some of the event
>>> in colour, but this was separate from the actual broadcast.
>>>
>> What about the earlier query about showing live colour in cinemas.
>> Clearly, this was separate from the BBC but was Pye for example
>> experimenting with colour TV cameras? Could my friend have seen live
>> coverage in colour in a Rank cinema?
>
>I remember a few days after the coronation that our entire school 
>marched to a local cinema to see it on a colour film. Possibly after all 
>the years your friend is confusing that film with live TV.

She is very convinced she saw it live in colour at a Rank cinema (her
father was employed by J Arthur Rank) and went to the window to watch
the procession pass. Richard Tobin posted a link upstream
(https://www.earlytelevision.org/british_experimental.html) indicating
the event was transmitted live in colour to Great Ormond Street
hospital. My friend and I are wondering if this could have occurred
also at a (London) cinema. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70402

On 24/07/2026 11:03, Scott wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:50:36 +0100, MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 24/07/2026 10:27, Scott wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:48:32 +0100, Roderick Stewart
>>> <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:20:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
>>>> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm pretty sure the BBC coverage was 405 live only. I _think_ the only
>>>>> way to record video at the time was indeed Kinescope or similar
>>>>> recording to film. (VERA was some years later wasn't it?)
>>>> [...]
>>>>> that would make sense: I remember reading somewhere that the BBC feed
>>>>> was recorded to film using one field only
>>>>
>>>> Yes. There was no way of electronically recording a video signal at
>>>> the time. Kinescope recording, as the Americans called it,  or FR
>>>> (Film Recording), as the BBC called it, was the only way, and it was
>>>> only possible at that time to record alternate fields.
>>>
>>> Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by
>>> the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it
>>> a limitation in how fast the camera could be run.
>>>>
>>>> The 405 line system had 15 lines of blanking in each field interval,
>>>> therefore only 187.5 active picture lines in each field, so the only
>>>> recording that exists of the coronation broadcast is about five hours
>>>> of monochrome film with a vertical resolution of 187.5 lines.
>>>>
>>>> Because of the importance of the occasion, there were also various
>>>> teams using film cameras to make documentaries or cinema news items,
>>>> and some of them were using colour film, so we have some of the event
>>>> in colour, but this was separate from the actual broadcast.
>>>>
>>> What about the earlier query about showing live colour in cinemas.
>>> Clearly, this was separate from the BBC but was Pye for example
>>> experimenting with colour TV cameras? Could my friend have seen live
>>> coverage in colour in a Rank cinema?
>>
>> I remember a few days after the coronation that our entire school
>> marched to a local cinema to see it on a colour film. Possibly after all
>> the years your friend is confusing that film with live TV.
> 
> She is very convinced she saw it live in colour at a Rank cinema (her
> father was employed by J Arthur Rank) and went to the window to watch
> the procession pass.

Do cinemas have windows?

-- 
Max Demian

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70401

Kinematograph Weekly - Thursday 04 June 1953

Coronation for Cinema Scope
The Coronation will be filmed in Cinema Scope with the lens being used 
to make the 20th Century-Fox production " Prince Valiant." The camera 
position is Achilles Statue, Hyde Park Corner. 20th-Fox informed the 
KINE. on Tuesday night that the Board of Trade had granted the licence 
for showing the film to invited audiences only.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70403

On 24/07/2026 15:34, JMB99 wrote:
> Kinematograph Weekly - Thursday 04 June 1953
> 
> Coronation for Cinema Scope
> The Coronation will be filmed in Cinema Scope with the lens being used 
> to make the 20th Century-Fox production " Prince Valiant." The camera 
> position is Achilles Statue, Hyde Park Corner. 20th-Fox informed the 
> KINE. on Tuesday night that the Board of Trade had granted the licence 
> for showing the film to invited audiences only.
> 



Prestatyn Weekly - Saturday 21 March 1953

Your Chance To See The Coronation
NOVEL CINEMA CONTEST
Cinemagoers in Rhyl and district have got a good chance of seeing the 
Coronation by winning one of the prizes offered in a novel competition 
sponsored by Odeon and Gaumont theatres throughout Great Britain. The 
contest begins on Monday, March 30.
For identifyving the voices of twelve film stars from records, prizes 
are offered of ten double seats on the Coronation route, free 
first-class travel to and from London, and a cash sum for expenses; and 
1,000 double seats to see the Coronation on big-screen cinema television.
Winners of the seats at the London. Doncaster, Manchester and Leeds 
theatres showing big-screen television will see the J. Arthur Rank 
Organisation’s remarkable *“Cintel” equipment reproducing for the first 
time an event of international historic importance actually as it 
happens, For audiences outside London it will be the first time cinema 
television has been publicly demonstrated,l The records of the stars 
will be played in every complete programme at Rhyl Oceon for three weeks 
from March 30, Each record will carry the voices of four well-known 
British stars discussing films made in Coronation Year.
By special arrangement with a London mewszpaper, which is cooperating 
with Odeon and Canmont in distributing thousands of big-screen 
television seats to charities, there will be a further opportunity for 
those people identifying the stars correctly to win a £250 cash award,
Further details will be available later.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#70396

On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:27:52 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

>>Yes. There was no way of electronically recording a video signal at
>>the time. Kinescope recording, as the Americans called it,  or FR
>>(Film Recording), as the BBC called it, was the only way, and it was
>>only possible at that time to record alternate fields.
>
>Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by
>the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it
>a limitation in how fast the camera could be run. 

Exactly as you say. 405 lines were scanned in two vertical passes,
each covering half of the lines. The blanking interval between
vertical scans was designed to allow sufficient time for the electron
beam to be deflected back to the top of the picture for the next scan,
but it was not sufficient for the mechanical system in a film camera
to move the film to the next frame. The best (or  least worst)
compromise for film recording was for the shutter to blank the light
path for an entire field. This gave the mechanism time to work, at the
cost of missing half the lines.

Later 'fast pull-down' film systems were designed specifically for
recording from CRT displays, with mechanisms that could advance the
film during the vertical blanking interval (or slightly longer). They
would capture all (or most) of the lines in the picture during two
vertical scans. Vertical resolution would be the same as the video
source, and it could look better as long as nothing in the picture
moved. If anything did move, the two consecutive fields would have
slightly different picture content, which was not a problem when
displayed electronically 50 times per second as intended, but would
look odd superimposed on single frames of film shown 25 times per
second.

Rod.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | uk.tech.broadcast

csiph-web