Television's opening night on BBC 4

[Panrock]

Hi Paul. Sorry I didn't get the chance to say hello at AP on Wednesday btw.

You make a very good point. The report was "as deduced by me" so could well contain historical errors.

I had kind of assumed the original cells must likely be photomultipliers because of their appearance, and the sheer minuteness and fast moving nature of the scanning spot at 240-lines that they had to work with. Also, the need to work in complete darkness. Here we start with a pinhole sized scanning spot - albeit brilliant - not much larger than the cross-section of a human hair, which would then have been enlarged and made dimmer by the projection lens. Finally, for 240-lines, scanned over the subject at an ultra-rapid rate of knots. A sensitive pickup device of some sort would have been mandatory. I understand photomultipliers were used by Dr Hunt with his 60-line rig.

I was also influenced by my own experience in making mechanical cameras using emissive cells, which has shown photomultipliers are essential for adequate sensitivity. However I didn't have access to the huge pick-up area devices we see in pictures of the Spotlight Studio.

And I hadn't checked the history of the device. As you say these things were very new at the time and I can find no specific mention of photomultipliers being used in this context in my literature.

It's only by asking questions like this we can get closer to the truth.

Cheers,

Steve

[AidanLunn]

Originally Posted by PaulM

It has been floated today (not on this forum) that the only way to have this done properly is a crowd-funded documentary pitched to sell to one of the other channels. It could be done and it's an interesting idea.

I was thinking about this some more today and I think the best outlet for such a documentary would be somewhere where the people producing the documentary can show it to a public audience without any influence at all from "the management", the wonder of the modern age, the internet, namely a YouTube, Vimeo or Dailymotion upload.

Do other members think this would be a better idea than submitting it to a channel?

[PaulM]

I'll make this a two-parter!

Firstly, to Steve Post #61.

No worries about the AP event on Wednesday, there were a lot people there! Re the photomultiplier tubes (PMTs), I couldn't see a way that it could have been those as it just didn't fit the pictures or the state of the tech at the time. However, you can never say 'never' in this game, so I had to check! PMTs just happen to be a big thing for me at the moment as I'm running up a Rank Cintel MkIII telecine with, of course, three inside it.

Secondly, Aidan Post #62

I'm not against an internet programme - it is the future of TV after all! However, it would be really good to have something like that go out on the terrestrial network if at all possible. It's just a pipe dream at the moment, but I believe that there's sufficient interest in this from several sectors and it could be timely.

Cheers,

Paul M

[emeritus]

The impression I got was that the object of the programme was more directed to replicating the production of the first transmission in real time, in terms of what was transmitted, rather than accurately replicating the hardware, and to this extent I think it succeeded. Thus we could experience the problems that arose with the technology then in use: the need for Baird's continuity announcers to sit in total darkness in a box, having to be dug in the back by a rod to prompt him to start speaking, the need to allow for the delay in the intermediate film process, the fact that Baird's camera was fixed and couldn't follow the performers, and the huge amount of light needed for the insensitive electronic cameras. Of course, they had to fudge it, as 60 second film processing wasn't possible, but given the programme's objectives, the lack of authentic contemporary apparatus was of lesser importance.

However, I agree that it gave a misleading impression about the intermediate film process. The Science Museum booklet "Broadcasting in Britain 1922- 1972 " by Keith Geddes, says that Baird was only using the IF process because the Farnsworth camera tube that he was experimenting with at the time 'did not incorporate the vital principle of "charge storage" and never gave satisfactory results'.

Baird clearly had the same problem that the Germans had had earlier that year at the 1936 Olympics, where the frequently overcast skies provided insufficient daylight for their electronic cameras. Hence much of the outdoor Olympics coverage was via the IF process, although it seems that the German system actually managed to dry the film before scanning, and used a swivelable camera mounted on top of a truck containing the IF processor. There are several TV programmes showing the German's black box continuity announcers and the Olympics IF system on Youtube, and a few with English commentary or subtitles: Google "Fernseh unterm Dritten Reich" or "Fernsehen unterm Hakenkreuz". According to an exhibition on early TV at our local library a few years ago, Baird used 17.5mm film rather than the standard 35mm used by the Germans, for economy, and the consequential lower linear speed would have affected the audio frequency response.

I don't know if the Post Office have issued any postage stamps to commemorate the event, but they have at least managed to do a commemorative cancellation postmark.

[Oliver35]

Interesting to read this thread, I've just watched it, or most of it- and to be honest, got rather bored. A pity, as the 80th anniversary of BBC television shouldn't be a minor matter at the Beeb, and there are some fantastic stories embedded in the early days.
I hear the points that not everyone is as interested as an enthusiast may be, but the same applies to presenting any kind of heritage- I've done some work presenting to tour groups on the subject of a long-defunct steam railway of which little remains- not, on first examination, a promising subject. But the tours were popular and well-received, I think because a balance was struck between the detail and the 'human interest' narrative. It can be done, and it's worth doing. Your average joe is often more interested than you'd expect, so long as the presentation isn't too dry. The thing that struck me the most about the tv programme was that no-one really seemed excited by it. I'd have given my eye teeth to front that programme, it could have been so much fun..

[red16v]

Originally Posted by PaulM

. .... PMTs just happen to be a big thing for me at the moment as I'm running up a Rank Cintel MkIII telecine with, of course, three inside it ....

.. jump scan or line array? Do you happen to know the serial number of your machine? I still have my smpte test loop somewhere!!!!

[PaulM]

Ok, I don't want to go OT here, so very briefly, it's Serial number 680 and was the Philips Research experimental Eureka 1250 line machine. It's been stored very badly but after dozens of new 2N3055s and blue tant caps it's delivering crude 1250 line 35mm slide pictures. The Jumpscan and film traction is next and then going back to 625 (it's sort of switchable). At one point it did have Digiscan which was ripped out to do the 1250 line work but the rack frame for that didn't come with it. If you're interested in telecine, I also have a working Marconi MkVIII telecine (B3404, very rare in the UK), non-op Marconi MkVII (B3402), Rank Cintel MkII (it's huge . . .) and a Marconi Line Array (B3410) which isn't too far from working.

Back on topic, I continue to have reports and opinions fed to me about the programme and the ones from lay-viewer friends and colleagues have been very interesting. To say the least, the lay response has been mixed but most seem to agree that there was too much of the 'Challenge Hugh' and that it was all too long. On the plus side, it was a 'good story'.

Cheers,

Paul M

[red16v]

If only I had a pound for every commercial I've transmitted from a Rank Cintel Mk2 or colourised Mk1. But agree, mustn't go OT.

[paulsherwin]

I think the reaction here will be more critical than from a wider audience. Some people really like the 'living history' genre, which seems to have started with The 1900 House on C4 in 1999. Since then we've had endless stuff featuring Ruth Goodman pretending to be a farmer's wife in various periods, plus people trying to be Victorian bakers, and most recently The Victorian Slum. Specialist historians tend to hate these programmes because of the inevitable compromises, simplifications, half-truths and anachronisms they contain, but they get good audiences for the budget, which seems to be what matters nowadays.

[Ted Kendall]

I wouldn't lump Ruth Goodman in with the rest - you can tell she's been steeped in history for years, unlike most of the others. She and her fellas actually impart information and insight, instead of (ghastly word) "empathy".

[Oliver35]

Living history is good when, like the 1900's House, it's good. Although it's not universally popular, I think some of the James May programmes have been good- like the one where he reassembled a lawn mower, for example- as he really has an enthusiasm for the subject. The best though, to my mind, was the old C4 'Secret Life Of Machines' series in the '80s, which merged the science and the history in a truly creative way.

[Brian R Pateman]

Originally Posted by paulsherwin

Specialist historians tend to hate these programmes because of the inevitable compromises, simplifications, half-truths and anachronisms they contain, but they get good audiences for the budget, which seems to be what matters nowadays.

True. To most "ordinary" viewers - numbered in the millions - accuracy is irrelevant. They are watching as entertainment. I've proved this by asking colleagues who have watched a program targeted questions the day after the airing. Their answers show that they have remembered little of what they have seen.

The mere handful of technical purists, such as some members of the forum, are irrelevant to the modern programme maker.

For myself, I rarely watch television, I'm too busy to waste the time.

[stevehertz]

My objections were not based on its technical accuracy, but the overall balance and content in general. I found it irksome in places.

[McMurdo]

Here's a couple of pics from Practical Television 1935 regarding Baird's apparatus

[brianc]

The second picture shows part of a German Mechau continuous motion cinema projector. The BBC also used them at AP, Lime Grove and Riverside studios until the late 1960s!!

[dsergeant]

The picture here is of the Marconi-EMI system at the opening evening, from an article about the life of Blumlein from Television June 2000. This article gives quite a lot of information about the line standard etc used in the system - I can attach the full article (PDF) if there is interest.

Dave

[Radio Wrangler]

I went through a couple of degree course modules on TV (and designed a PAL colour synthesiser) without seeing the crucial importance of full-time charge accumulation followed by near-instant readout to the signal to noise ratio in TV. If that program hadn't happened, this thread wouldn't exist, and I'd never have connected some concepts together. I'd understood the integrating time effect in the context of 'digital' stills cameras. I don't find what's on TV nowadays entertaining. This thread is entertaining!

Once upon a time there was only one celebrity who was only famous for being famous. Now there seem to be hundreds of them. They seem to be quite wealthy from it.

Unfortunately, that programme is just a part of a media characteristic which actively protects the whole population from any actual technical content. It's unfortunate because it shapes not reflects people's interests. We are making a future population who only know about competitive game shows, mainstream sports, cookery and dancing competitions. All the consumer goods they want are going to soon have to be designed in China, not just be made there.

Just what is a Kardashian for?

David

[paulsherwin]

Unfortunately the bulk of the population has no interest in technical detail and indeed finds it alienating. I don't think this is a recent development or even arrived with television. The programming bias is exaggerated by the tendency for TV to target a young, female, downmarket audience, because that is what advertisers want (I know the BBC isn't funded by advertising but the production culture is the same).

[PaulM]

I think we're moving to describing the famous C P Snow diagnosis of the problem with science versus arts.

In the late 50s, Snow dared to warn against the dominance of an arts-centred society that was functionally technically illiterate and what was worse, proud of the fact!

A reasonable summary of his arguments is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures

This is still playing and we found it loud and clear in the programme in question. I've found that arts/humanities people that have heard of Snow don't like his observations and diagnosis one bit! Not surprising, I guess.

I have Radio Nottingham coming this morning to interview me about 'that' programme - let's see how this one goes.

Best regards,

Paul M

[Nymrod121]

Having remembered this morning that I'd set my recently-acquired Humax HDR1800T/Samsung LED HD-TV system to record this programme, I duly checked its status ... only to have the HDR's media listings displaying 'recording failed due to loss of signal'.

Technology tamed? ... one day, perhaps

Guy