Quote:
Originally Posted by murphyv310
...When the system was tested on air it as we know was in direct competition with the Baird 240/25p system, the 405 line system won and rightly so, the reason! Simply because of entertainment value the field rate (refresh rate for computer addicts) was too low, the flicker was far to objectionable.....
|
Now that's a contentious statement. Yes the large area flicker was a problem but the main reasons M-EMI won were not really to do with having 405i50 rather than 240p25. M-EMI had a well developed system capable of multicamera studio work and OBs. Baird had a good telecine, with nothing at the time that could do decent live pictures in a practical production environment. Given time and effort they might have been able to develop the image dissector camera or possibly even make an attempt at other electronic cameras. The fact is that at the end of 1936 they didn't have any of this working.
As Paul Marshall has said, there is no fundamental reason why TV should have developed along the "live" model as it did. It could have been a largely film based service, where Baird's telecine would have been an advantage. The fact is that it did develop as a live system so Baird, and hence his system, had to lose.