240, 405 & 625

[PaulM]

Sorry for any offence - not intended, but it's only a bit of fun! If we take these things too seriously then what's the point of the hobby?

I don't HATE 405, I just genuinely feel that the UK made a mistake. It wasn't the end of the world, and we coped, and hey, it's only television. It's not important. Nobody dies, nobody gets hurt (usually - unless Noel Edmonds is involved).

I was cornered by one throw away comment about avoiding 405 - that's why I tend to not go on forums - it can all get too serious.

Cheers,

Paul M

[Mark the Mender]

Originally Posted by PaulM

and hey, it's only television. It's not important.

I have read this thread with interest, having done a thesis for my degree I can understand the OP sentiments but that quote says it all!
I shall not comment further as the other post seem to have said it all

Mark

[PaulM]

Hey, that was not meant to be taken seriously! The gag about Noel Edmonds . . .


Paul M

[murphyv310]

Hi Paul.
Thanks for that. Please lets enjoy the hobby and not get too serious and hot under the collar.
Forums are good and they have their place.
I certainly would like to have a chat face to face with you and Jeffrey, I have a quest for knowledge, and would love to prove you wrong, but in a mannerly and friendly way.

[PaulM]

Trevor,

Re: << I certainly would like to have a chat face to face with you and Jeffrey >>


Anytime! I have a V310 that needs fixing . . . .

Cheers,

Paul M

[hans]

In Norway 625 was transmitted on VHF in the beginning. When we got more programmes UHF was also used. 625 on VHF gave excellent pictures. UHF reception was not allways as good as VHF. In my upinion 625 was a good sysem well suited for screen sizes up to 32".

When you restarted the tv service in 46 405 probably was the only alternative. You wanted tv in 46 and 405 was the only option at the time, 625 was not ripe at the moment. The question was tv or not tv.

The change to 625 was probably a little late. Dual standard colour sets shold have been avoided.

[ppppenguin]

Originally Posted by hans9001

The change to 625 was probably a little late. Dual standard colour sets shold have been avoided.

Unfortunately they were unavoidable in both the UK and France. In the UK once the decision to stay with 405 had been made in 1946 it was very difficult to make the move to 625. After 1953 there were a lot of TVs in use, expensive to buy and difficult or impossible to modify. 625 was started in 1964 with BBC2 with colour following in 1967. The only ways we could have avoided dual standard colour would have been to delay colour by quite a few years or introduce colour on 405.

[hans]

If 625 was introduced in the mid 50's the 405 service could have been terminated in the mid 60's. Multi colour systems would have been expensive. If 405 colour was introduced a switch to another tv system might not have happened before digital came. In the 70 and 80's the usual tv veiwer might not have seen any difference between the systems, but 405 on a big tv is not good enough.

[brianc]

The BBC were spending a lot of money increasing the 405 line coverage in the mid '50s and to re-equip the existing stations as well as introduce new ones would have been a waste of money. The main aim of the BBC at the time was to provide an excellent TV service to as large a percentage of the population as possible in the shortest time and at the lowest price. Why go to any extra expense for so little gain. The british broadcast TV industry was not short of export orders from the '50s to the '80s, so the domestic market being 405 made little or no difference to their influence on the world stage. The TV set manufacturers may have lost out somewhat but I can't see that we could have kept the Japanese at bay even if we had changed the standard in the '50s.

[murphyv310]

I do agree with Hans that 405 would not have been good on a large screen for example on a 33 or 40 inch.
It actually might be good on for instance a 32inch 16x9 tube as the height of a 32 inch widescreen tube is 15 inches tall and the 21 inch tube in my old V320 Murphy is 16 inches at the highest point, certainly on a 21 inch tube on 405 the line structure is not in any way annoying at normal viewing distances.

405 would probably been fine on an LCD or plasma too, even on those you don't see a line structure on 625 lines with a 50 inch screen!

[channel405]

As we know, the operators of the digital platforms in their infinite wisdom and quest to deliver the best possible service to us, squeeze any remaining quality out of the pictures to give us a greater choice of rubbish. The resulting video is no higher than 405 lines 50 years ago, subjectively lower as there was no compression artefacts/blockiness etc back then, I mean, you can't even see the grass amidst the green mushiness during the rugby! 405 lines on a 50" plasma would probably look very much the norm to the average viewer apart from the lack of colour. So, we've gone full circle, it almost wasn't worth the pain of the 625 switchover!

[brianc]

I fully agree with channel405's digital cr*p comment. Modern pictures are generally very poor unless a still picture is displayed, not to mention lip-sync . As an ex-telecine operator, I was trained to notice poor lip-sync, but now, non-sync audio seems the norm. There are hooks in the compression systems to lock the audio but they seem not to be used. It's dreadful.

[hans]

Let's stick to analogue. I'm afraid the thread will be closed if we mix digital and programme content into it. I think this thread is interesting and would not have it closed. This is theme is not only about technology but also about the people deciding what technology we get, which makes it even more interesting.

[murphyv310]

Hans I agree about getting the thread closed, I was worried about that way back and I drew out because it was far too heated at one point.
But what I do wonder though is how 405 would actually look like on a 40 inch LCD. I am aware that there is no scanning in old way so there is no light apertures (the lines) to consider so that is one reason you don't see the line structure on 625. So there must be a certain "filling in" which must reduce vertical resolution. If our 40 inch LCD could be fed with 405 I assume that due to the processing of the signal this "filling in" would only make matters worse. But would the public be aware of this, of course I am assuming we had gone down the 405 NTSC route.
My own feeling would be that a 40 inch CRT on 405 would be much better than a LCD perhaps the difference would be far greater on 405 than 625.

[Ray Cooper]

Originally Posted by murphyv310

..I do wonder though is how 405 would actually look like on a 40 inch LCD....

Don' even think about it...

This is a bit like saying 'I wonder what 16mm film would look like if projected to fill a Cinerama screen'. Awful, of course.

But I don't blame the designers (if any existed) of 16mm film for its inability to fulfil a demand that was never even envisaged when conceived: though I do blame any people that want to misuse it in this way.

Let's face it: 405 died, peacefully of old age rather than infirmity, back in 1985 when 40-inch screens were the preserve of the science fiction pages. Viewed on screens of, say, less than 21" in size it gave very adequate pictures right up to the time that the service closed. It possibly outstayed its welcome for a few years towards the end, in much the same way that an aged relative gibbering in the corner embarrasses one by the recollection of his former glories, but in reality there was no way the service could have been wound down until 625-line coverage at least reasonably matched that from the old 405 system.

[hans]

Originally Posted by murphyv310

Hans I agree about getting the thread closed, I
My own feeling would be that a 40 inch CRT on 405 would be much better than a LCD perhaps the difference would be far greater on 405 than 625.

You can try. Most modern sets have some sort of zoom function. The picture you get might have some "fill in" done to it, so this would be how 405 would be today.

Many people talk warm about NTSC, but choosing NTSC when better options were available had been a mistake. 405 NTSC in 1967 had been a dinosaur. It was 13 years after 525 NTSC with lower resolution and lower refresh rate.

[Brian R Pateman]

Originally Posted by hans9001

Let's stick to analogue. I'm afraid the thread will be closed if we mix digital and programme content into it.

You are right in your supposition Hans.

It is being kept an eye on (as with all threads) and I'm finding it interesting too without my moderator's hat on.

[ppppenguin]

The question of standards conversion is relevant to this topic. Optical conversion has existed in principle since the dawn of TV. Either directly with camera pointing at monitor or via film recording. Quality is variable, quite often poor, especially if field rate conversion is required. Until the early 1960s this was the only way.

In 1962 the IEE held an an international TV conference in London. In some ways this was a forerunner of IBC. In the introductory talk Dr RCG Williams of Philips said: The question of picture definition and line standards is one of great delicacy. There was a whole section devoted to standards conversion. This was led by AV "Val" Lord of BBC Research and Eric Rout of BBC Designs. At this point the line standards converter that was to become the 625>405 CO6/501 was well advanced and its design was discussed in some detail. These methods had solved the problem of line number conversion in a way that was workable for over a decade until digital video became feasible.

Field rate conversion was another matter. In discussion at the end of the session Val Lord said that there seemed very good prospects of an acoustic 20ms delay. This was actually done in time for the 1968 Mexico olympics by Eric Rout and his team at BBC Designs. Soon followed by a bi-directional PAL<>NTSC converter from BBC Research. This monster was rapidly overtaken by the IBA's "DICE" and then the BBC's "ACE. From that point in the mid 1970s the national standards were no longer a significant barrier to international programme exchange.

[Maarten]

Originally Posted by Ray Cooper

Don' even think about it...

This is a bit like saying 'I wonder what 16mm film would look like if projected to fill a Cinerama screen'. Awful, of course.

Yet, the point is that most people on analogue cable systems in the Netherlands actualy watch 405'ish lines on their 40" LCD. Think about it: Widescreen is no longer transmitted using PAL+ or anamorphic, so the picture content is actually somewhere in that ballpark. What's old is new again.

[murphyv310]

Hi.
I realise I was the starter of this somewhat controversial thread. I also felt at times it was a heated thread as well, it has been interesting and enlightening and for me it has made me see how people think and persieve what we are in this country.
British people have always been eccentric to others, namely the Europeans and the Americans, in a way I can understand how they feel, look at us, we had 405 for years, we also had a strange coinage system (Pounds, Shillings & Pence), We drive on the left. According the the EU we use (used) a strange measure of weight and liquids, Our horse races are even odder with furlongs, the list goes on.
So my final word is 405 lines was OUR heritage just like the rest. Well done for it, to me it wasn't eccentric, it might be that way to others, but it gave me a good job and it did for others for a long time, there is not much in the country now that we have put our minds to doing, we now import a crane from China to go to Rosyth with a sea journey of over 14,000 miles, so what have we done? We have lost direction, and in many ways.

Thanks to all that have contributed, and lets not forget the great things we have done on this forum and as a nation.