Last night's "Cilla at the BBC" (https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b067543w/cilla-at-the-bbc)
contained a segment (about 0:16 to 2:53) from the Royal Variety
Programme 1964, in which the line structure was very noticeable; what
would this have been recorded on? (The superimposed text was at higher resolution.) Other than that, it mostly seems to have been good quality
when well-lit - though quite a lot of noise in black sections. (That
wasn't exclusive to that bit - the bit at say 3:22-3:40, which was
obviously from film, was also noisy in the dark sections.)
(There's also a lovely example of ?icon* flare at 0:44-0:47, and around
it.)
On 28/05/2023 01:31, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Last night's "Cilla at the BBC"Standard Plumbicon flare. A bright light in shot for too long could write
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b067543w/cilla-at-the-bbc)
contained a segment (about 0:16 to 2:53) from the Royal Variety
Programme 1964, in which the line structure was very noticeable; what
would this have been recorded on? (The superimposed text was at higher
resolution.) Other than that, it mostly seems to have been good quality
when well-lit - though quite a lot of noise in black sections. (That
wasn't exclusive to that bit - the bit at say 3:22-3:40, which was
obviously from film, was also noisy in the dark sections.)
(There's also a lovely example of ?icon* flare at 0:44-0:47, and around
it.)
off the tube, or, as a minimum, need the tube to be "rested" for a while.
The artifacts you mention look like the result of shooting on a 405 line camera, then converting to 625 lines.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
(There's also a lovely example of ?icon* flare at 0:44-0:47, and around
it.)
On Sun, 28 May 2023 01:31:01 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
(There's also a lovely example of ?icon* flare at 0:44-0:47, and around
it.)
Image orthicon secondary emission known in the trade as 'throw off'. I
drove IO cameras as a 'racks' (vision control) operator for 5 years. 3"
and 4.5" Pye and Marconi cameras.
Did any colour cameras use IOs, or did colour always require vidicon/plumbicon/saticon tubes.
"The Other John" <nomail@home.org> wrote in message news:u4vciu$roo6$1@dont-email.me...
On Sun, 28 May 2023 01:31:01 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
(There's also a lovely example of ?icon* flare at 0:44-0:47, and around
it.)
Image orthicon secondary emission known in the trade as 'throw off'. I
drove IO cameras as a 'racks' (vision control) operator for 5 years. 3"
and 4.5" Pye and Marconi cameras.
The secondary emission of IOs is instantly recognisable: bright lights (or reflections of the sun on things) get an dark patch in the centre, and conversely very dark areas in a "sea" of white get a light patch in the centre. It's very recognisable in early episodes of Top of the Pops
because that used a lot of low-angle shots which caught some of the studio lights in shot.
Did any colour cameras use IOs, or did colour always require vidicon/plumbicon/saticon tubes.
"The Other John" <nomail@home.org> wrote in message news:u4vciu$roo6$1@dont-email.me...
On Sun, 28 May 2023 01:31:01 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
(There's also a lovely example of ?icon* flare at 0:44-0:47, and
around it.)
Image orthicon secondary emission known in the trade as 'throw off'. I drove IO cameras as a 'racks' (vision control) operator for 5 years.
3" and 4.5" Pye and Marconi cameras.
The secondary emission of IOs is instantly recognisable: bright lights
(or reflections of the sun on things) get an dark patch in the centre,
and conversely very dark areas in a "sea" of white get a light patch in
the centre. It's very recognisable in early episodes of Top of the Pops because that used a lot of low-angle shots which caught some of the
studio lights in shot.
Did any colour cameras use IOs, or did colour always require vidicon/plumbicon/saticon tubes.
In article <u51qd9$1biu7$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"The Other John" <nomail@home.org> wrote in message
news:u4vciu$roo6$1@dont-email.me...
On Sun, 28 May 2023 01:31:01 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
(There's also a lovely example of ?icon* flare at 0:44-0:47, and
around it.)
Image orthicon secondary emission known in the trade as 'throw off'. I
drove IO cameras as a 'racks' (vision control) operator for 5 years.
3" and 4.5" Pye and Marconi cameras.
The secondary emission of IOs is instantly recognisable: bright lights
(or reflections of the sun on things) get an dark patch in the centre,
and conversely very dark areas in a "sea" of white get a light patch in
the centre. It's very recognisable in early episodes of Top of the Pops
because that used a lot of low-angle shots which caught some of the
studio lights in shot.
Did any colour cameras use IOs, or did colour always require
vidicon/plumbicon/saticon tubes.
There was an American advert stuck up in Pres A where the caption was "The secrets in the big tube". One US make used an IO for luminance and
vidicons
for the colors.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
"The Other John" <nomail@home.org> wrote in message >news:u4vciu$roo6$1@dont-email.me...
On Sun, 28 May 2023 01:31:01 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
(There's also a lovely example of ?icon* flare at 0:44-0:47, and around
it.)
Image orthicon secondary emission known in the trade as 'throw off'. I
drove IO cameras as a 'racks' (vision control) operator for 5 years. 3"
and 4.5" Pye and Marconi cameras.
The secondary emission of IOs is instantly recognisable: bright lights
(or reflections of the sun on things) get an dark patch in the centre,
and conversely very dark areas in a "sea" of white get a light patch in
the centre. It's very recognisable in early episodes of Top of the Pops >because that used a lot of low-angle shots which caught some of the
studio lights in shot.
Did any colour cameras use IOs, or did colour always require >vidicon/plumbicon/saticon tubes.
In message <u51qd9$1biu7$1@dont-email.me> at Mon, 29 May 2023 10:14:22,
NY <me@privacy.invalid> writes
"The Other John" <nomail@home.org> wrote in message >news:u4vciu$roo6$1@dont-email.me...
On Sun, 28 May 2023 01:31:01 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
(There's also a lovely example of ?icon* flare at 0:44-0:47, and around >>> it.)
Image orthicon secondary emission known in the trade as 'throw off'. I
drove IO cameras as a 'racks' (vision control) operator for 5 years. 3" >> and 4.5" Pye and Marconi cameras.
The secondary emission of IOs is instantly recognisable: bright lights
(or reflections of the sun on things) get an dark patch in the centre,
and conversely very dark areas in a "sea" of white get a light patch in
the centre. It's very recognisable in early episodes of Top of the Pops >because that used a lot of low-angle shots which caught some of the
studio lights in shot.
I remember hearing or reading that the TOTP studio were often given
cameras (or tubes?) nearing the end of their life, as they (that
programme) were liable to damage them anyway, by doing that sort of
thing. Whether there's any truth in that (or where I heard/read it), I
can't say.
Did any colour cameras use IOs, or did colour always require >vidicon/plumbicon/saticon tubes.
Others have said yes; I was going to say no as I'd assume the effect
wasn't completely co-sited (in the picture) between tubes, so I'd assume
if it did occur you'd get a sort of kaleidoscope colour effect around
the effects, which I don't remember seeing.
As to my original query (about the very obvious line structure in the
1964 RVP material near the beginning), and the response from someone
that it looked like 405 standards-converted to 625 - thanks for that response. I would assume a fairly basic conversion? Perhaps with limited number of levels too?
In article <HffXfxMAVQdkFwj7@255soft.uk>,[]
J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
As to my original query (about the very obvious line structure in the
1964 RVP material near the beginning), and the response from someone
that it looked like 405 standards-converted to 625 - thanks for that
response. I would assume a fairly basic conversion? Perhaps with limited
number of levels too?
In early 1964 at TVC we had two types of standards converter, both optical. >One used CPS-Emitron cameras, the other a Marconi MkIV IO. However by the
time BBC2 started we also had fully electronic ones, initially a single BBC >RD one, which was supplemented with 4DD ones. All 625<405. Once the DD ones >arrived the RD one was modified to work 405<625.
No limitation of levels anywhere.
I remember hearing or reading that the TOTP studio were often given
cameras (or tubes?) nearing the end of their life, as they (that
programme) were liable to damage them anyway, by doing that sort of
thing. Whether there's any truth in that (or where I heard/read it), I
can't say.
In message <5aac536a39charles@candehope.me.uk> at Mon, 29 May 2023
21:00:02, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> writes
In article <HffXfxMAVQdkFwj7@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver[]
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
As to my original query (about the very obvious line structure in the
1964 RVP material near the beginning), and the response from someone
that it looked like 405 standards-converted to 625 - thanks for that
response. I would assume a fairly basic conversion? Perhaps with
limited number of levels too?
In early 1964 at TVC we had two types of standards converter, both
optical. One used CPS-Emitron cameras, the other a Marconi MkIV IO.
However by the
So basically camera-at-monitor.
time BBC2 started we also had fully electronic ones, initially a single
BBC RD one, which was supplemented with 4DD ones. All 625<405. Once the
DD ones arrived the RD one was modified to work 405<625.
No limitation of levels anywhere.
The RVP material in the Cilla programme made the line structure look
very obvious, and stable, so I presume it wasn't camera/monitor, which I presume would tend to blur things, and certainly not produce the stepped appearance of the diagonal lines of the announcer, or of Cilla's
neckline.
On Mon, 29 May 2023 21:04:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
I remember hearing or reading that the TOTP studio were often given
cameras (or tubes?) nearing the end of their life, as they (that
programme) were liable to damage them anyway, by doing that sort of
thing. Whether there's any truth in that (or where I heard/read it), I >>can't say.
Programmes would be booked into whatever studios were available. (TOTP
was usually given TC6 or TC8). The set of cameras belonging to a
particular studio normally stayed there, and I don't recall tubes ever
being changed for any other reason than to replace faulty or blemished
ones. A complete tube swap would be a fairly major undertaking anyway, >requiring a lengthy lineup procedure afterwards.
Rod.
In message <mh7b7i9ljgu7nur0obgqlcnd8bu28bdng8@4ax.com> at Tue, 30 May
2023 08:06:49, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes
On Mon, 29 May 2023 21:04:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
I remember hearing or reading that the TOTP studio were often given >>>cameras (or tubes?) nearing the end of their life, as they (that >>>programme) were liable to damage them anyway, by doing that sort of >>>thing. Whether there's any truth in that (or where I heard/read it), I >>>can't say.
Programmes would be booked into whatever studios were available. (TOTP
was usually given TC6 or TC8). The set of cameras belonging to a
particular studio normally stayed there, and I don't recall tubes ever >>being changed for any other reason than to replace faulty or blemished >>ones. A complete tube swap would be a fairly major undertaking anyway, >>requiring a lengthy lineup procedure afterwards.
Rod.
Ah, so the rumour of TOTP being where EOL kit was sent was just that, a >rumour.
I _do_ remember TOTP (and similar) doing rather a lot of things that one >would think wouldn't do the cameras/tubes any good, though, such as
getting the lights in picture (causing trails and afterimages) - _did_
they?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 167:36:44 |
| Calls: | 10,385 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,057 |
| Messages: | 6,416,540 |