I thought some of you guys might be interested in these:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=videorestore2

They appear to have been recorded in the late-60's / early 70's on a
home video recorder.
As far as I know, broadcasters were all using 625-line cameras by
then, so these transmissions will have been derived a from a standards
convertor.

This got me thinking... after WW2 nearly all EU countries moved
straight to 625-lines (the only other exception being the French, who
went for 819-lines), so why did the UK decide to stay with 405-lines?
There were only a small number of 405-line sets in existence at that
time, and just one TV transmitter, so they could have easily
simulcasted 405 in London for a few years and then phased it out,
instead of installing what was already an obsolete system throughout
the country.

In article
,
    wrote:
> I thought some of you guys might be interested in these:
> http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=videorestore2

> They appear to have been recorded in the late-60's / early 70's on a
> home video recorder.
> As far as I know, broadcasters were all using 625-line cameras by
> then, so these transmissions will have been derived a from a standards
> convertor.

> This got me thinking... after WW2 nearly all EU countries moved
> straight to 625-lines (the only other exception being the French, who
> went for 819-lines), so why did the UK decide to stay with 405-lines?
> There were only a small number of 405-line sets in existence at that
> time, and just one TV transmitter, so they could have easily
> simulcasted 405 in London for a few years and then phased it out,
> instead of installing what was already an obsolete system throughout
> the country.

It wasn't a matter of nearly all EU counties "moving to 625", it was
"starting on 625".  It was a political decision to restart and expand the
405 line service as quickly as possible.  The international 625 standard
did not actually appear for some years later.  The Coronation in 1953 gave
a major impetus to the expansion of the transmitter network on the existing
standard

There wasn't really any need to use the same standard as any other country;
film was the only recording medium and it didn't matter which system it was
shown on.  We relied on domestic manufacturers for the receivers, so again
no problem of international standards.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

"charles"  wrote in message
news:4f5e5c929fcharles@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
>
> There wasn't really any need to use the same standard as any other
country;
> film was the only recording medium and it didn't matter which system it
was
> shown on.  We relied on domestic manufacturers for the receivers, so again
> no problem of international standards.
>

You also need to remember that in 1946, Britain was almost bankrupt and
there was no money available to swap out all the pre-war broadcasting
equipment and upgrade to 625 lines. Even though most of the 405 line
equipment, cameras etc had to be substantially refurbished. Although
re-starting broadcasting on 625 lines was discussed, it was never
financially viable. On the size of screens in use at the time, the
difference between 405 and 625 lines made small improvement and certainly
did not justify the cost for a switchover.

//Clive.

In message 
, 
jamie_p84@excite.com writes
>This got me thinking... after WW2 nearly all EU countries moved
>straight to 625-lines (the only other exception being the French, who
>went for 819-lines),
<Pedant>
I'm pretty sure the French had 819 broadcasting *before* (and during) 
WWII.
</Pedant>

-- 
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

Ian Jelf wrote:

> > This got me thinking... after WW2 nearly all EU countries moved
> > straight to 625-lines (the only other exception being the French, who
> > went for 819-lines),
> <Pedant>
> I'm pretty sure the French had 819 broadcasting before (and during) WWII.
> </Pedant>


Try building a VHF transmitter to meet the bandwidth required
by 819 line television using 1940's technology.

J

"James" wrote in message news:B6GdnYc5ENeGCxnanZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@bt.com...
> Ian Jelf wrote:
>
>> > This got me thinking... after WW2 nearly all EU countries moved
>> > straight to 625-lines (the only other exception being the French, who
>> > went for 819-lines),
>> <Pedant>
>> I'm pretty sure the French had 819 broadcasting before (and during) WWII.
>> </Pedant>
>
>
> Try building a VHF transmitter to meet the bandwidth required
> by 819 line television using 1940's technology.
>

When did the Americans first introduce 525/60 on VHF?

> J
>

On Jan 9, 9:38 am, "James" <> wrote:
> Ian Jelf wrote:

> > I'm pretty sure the French had 819 broadcasting before (and during) WWII.


Nope it wasn't introduced until 1948.

> Try building a VHF transmitter to meet the bandwidth required
> by 819 line television using 1940's technology.

They did, and I'm told that the Nazis used a system with over 1000
lines to relay detailed images of maps to aid military planners.

In article ,
   James <> wrote:
> Ian Jelf wrote:

> > > This got me thinking... after WW2 nearly all EU countries moved
> > > straight to 625-lines (the only other exception being the French, who
> > > went for 819-lines),
> > <Pedant> I'm pretty sure the French had 819 broadcasting before (and
> > during) WWII. </Pedant>


> Try building a VHF transmitter to meet the bandwidth required
> by 819 line television using 1940's technology.


There was tv in France during WW2, but it was 441 lines.  819 started in
1948.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article <ob1hj.74606$c_1.42879@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
   Ivan <ivan'H'older@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> "James" wrote in message news:B6GdnYc5ENeGCxnanZ2dnUVZ8vidnZ2d@bt.com...
> > Ian Jelf wrote:
> >
> >> > This got me thinking... after WW2 nearly all EU countries moved
> >> > straight to 625-lines (the only other exception being the French, who
> >> > went for 819-lines),
> >> <Pedant> I'm pretty sure the French had 819 broadcasting before (and
> >> during) WWII. </Pedant>
> >
> >
> > Try building a VHF transmitter to meet the bandwidth required
> > by 819 line television using 1940's technology.
> >

> When did the Americans first introduce 525/60 on VHF?

1941

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In message , charles 
 writes
>In article ,
>   James <> wrote:
>> Ian Jelf wrote:
>
>> > > This got me thinking... after WW2 nearly all EU countries moved
>> > > straight to 625-lines (the only other exception being the French, who
>> > > went for 819-lines),
>> > <Pedant> I'm pretty sure the French had 819 broadcasting before (and
>> > during) WWII. </Pedant>
>
>
>> Try building a VHF transmitter to meet the bandwidth required
>> by 819 line television using 1940's technology.
>
>
>There was tv in France during WW2, but it was 441 lines.  819 started in
>1948.

I stand corrected!

Did anyone here ever see 819 pictures?   What did they look like?
-- 
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

charles wrote:

> > > > This got me thinking... after WW2 nearly all EU countries moved
> > > > straight to 625-lines (the only other exception being the French, who
> > > > went for 819-lines),
> > > <Pedant> I'm pretty sure the French had 819 broadcasting before (and
> > > during) WWII. </Pedant>
> 
> 
> > Try building a VHF transmitter to meet the bandwidth required
> > by 819 line television using 1940's technology.
> 
> 
> There was tv in France during WW2, but it was 441 lines.  819 started in
> 1948.



Just remembered there was two standards for 819 lines.

 
System E.
Line no : 819
Overall channel bandwidth : 14 MHz
Vision bandwidth : 10 MHz.
Sound/Vision spacing : 11.15 MHz

Positive modulation with AM sound.

System F.
Line no : 819
Overall channel bandwidth : 7 MHz
Vision bandwidth : 5 MHz
Sound/Vision spacing : +5.5 MHz.

Positive modulation with AM sound.


System I.
Line no : 625
Overall channel bandwidth : 8 MHz
Vision bandwidth : 5.5 MHz
Sound/Vision spacing : +6 MHz

Negative modulation with FM sound.

J

In article ,
   Ian Jelf  wrote:
> In message , charles 
>  writes
> >In article ,
> >   James <> wrote:
> >> Ian Jelf wrote:
> >
> >> > > This got me thinking... after WW2 nearly all EU countries moved
> >> > > straight to 625-lines (the only other exception being the French,
> >> > > who went for 819-lines),
> >> > <Pedant> I'm pretty sure the French had 819 broadcasting before (and
> >> > during) WWII. </Pedant>
> >
> >
> >> Try building a VHF transmitter to meet the bandwidth required
> >> by 819 line television using 1940's technology.
> >
> >
> >There was tv in France during WW2, but it was 441 lines.  819 started in
> >1948.

> I stand corrected!

> Did anyone here ever see 819 pictures?   What did they look like?

Yes, I saw them, although they were restricted bandwidth (6Mhz).  We had 
21" multistandard monitor, even close up you couldn't see the line
structure.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article ,
   James <> wrote:
> charles wrote:

> > > > > This got me thinking... after WW2 nearly all EU countries moved
> > > > > straight to 625-lines (the only other exception being the French, who
> > > > > went for 819-lines),
> > > > <Pedant> I'm pretty sure the French had 819 broadcasting before (and
> > > > during) WWII. </Pedant>
> > 
> > 
> > > Try building a VHF transmitter to meet the bandwidth required
> > > by 819 line television using 1940's technology.
> > 
> > 
> > There was tv in France during WW2, but it was 441 lines.  819 started in
> > 1948.



> Just remembered there was two standards for 819 lines.

>  
> System E.
> Line no : 819
> Overall channel bandwidth : 14 MHz
> Vision bandwidth : 10 MHz.
> Sound/Vision spacing : 11.15 MHz

> Positive modulation with AM sound.

> System F.
> Line no : 819
> Overall channel bandwidth : 7 MHz
> Vision bandwidth : 5 MHz
> Sound/Vision spacing : +5.5 MHz.

> Positive modulation with AM sound.

System F was used in Belgium, the French speaking part, so that those who'd
bought French tvs could see Belgian programmes, too.  Belgium having
already tied itself to System B channel allocations.  Remember these were
broadcast standards, probably no difference at studio level except that the
lines didn't need to be so well equalised.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

charles wrote:

> > Just remembered there was two standards for 819 lines.
> 
> >  
> > System E.
> > Line no : 819
> > Overall channel bandwidth : 14 MHz
> > Vision bandwidth : 10 MHz.
> > Sound/Vision spacing : 11.15 MHz
> 
> > Positive modulation with AM sound.
> 
> > System F.
> > Line no : 819
> > Overall channel bandwidth : 7 MHz
> > Vision bandwidth : 5 MHz
> > Sound/Vision spacing : +5.5 MHz.
> 
> > Positive modulation with AM sound.
> 
> System F was used in Belgium, the French speaking part, so that those who'd
> bought French tvs could see Belgian programmes, too.  Belgium having
> already tied itself to System B channel allocations.  Remember these were
> broadcast standards, probably no difference at studio level except that the
> lines didn't need to be so well equalised.


From the specification it give channel layout in my book.
There were 2 channels in band I with 13.15 MHz spacing between the channels,
and 8 in band III using some very odd arrangement of spacing.

As I recall talking to a LGT engineer the main problem was RF bandwidth
being very large which caused problems with planning services, problems
with the design of equipment, and antenna systems.

J

charles  wrote in
news:4f5e5c929fcharles@charleshope.demon.co.uk: 

> It wasn't a matter of nearly all EU counties "moving to 625", it was
> "starting on 625".

Several European countries had television before WW2, most in the
400s lines. For those it was "moving to 625".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_systems_before_1940
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_introduction_of_television_in_countries

> The international 625
> standard did not actually appear for some years later.

It must have been in place in 1950 because the earliest broadcasts in
this format started then.

Regards

-- 
Planet Claire has pink air
All the trees are red
No one ever dies there
No one has a head

Ian Jelf  wrote in
news:05D$2zJm7IhHFwLD@bluebadge.demon.co.uk:

> I'm pretty sure the French had 819 broadcasting *before* (and during) 
> WWII.

No. It was a 1950s effort.

-- 
Planet Claire has pink air
All the trees are red
No one ever dies there
No one has a head

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 02:26:52 -0800 (PST), jamie_p84@excite.com wrote:

>On Jan 9, 9:38 am, "James" <> wrote:
>> Ian Jelf wrote:
>
>> > I'm pretty sure the French had 819 broadcasting before (and during) WWII.
>
>
>Nope it wasn't introduced until 1948.
>
>> Try building a VHF transmitter to meet the bandwidth required
>> by 819 line television using 1940's technology.
>
>They did, and I'm told that the Nazis used a system with over 1000
>lines to relay detailed images of maps to aid military planners.

I think you probably mean they had a fax machine :)


--

wrote in message 
news:5b7c25fc-97cf-4c5e-8259-62d709d28bde@f3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>I thought some of you guys might be interested in these:
> http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=videorestore2
>
> They appear to have been recorded in the late-60's / early 70's on a
> home video recorder.
> As far as I know, broadcasters were all using 625-line cameras by
> then, so these transmissions will have been derived a from a standards
> convertor.
>
> This got me thinking... after WW2 nearly all EU countries moved
> straight to 625-lines (the only other exception being the French, who
> went for 819-lines), so why did the UK decide to stay with 405-lines?
> There were only a small number of 405-line sets in existence at that
> time, and just one TV transmitter, so they could have easily
> simulcasted 405 in London for a few years and then phased it out,
> instead of installing what was already an obsolete system throughout
> the country.


Wonderful. None of this shouting at people, silly emotional voices shit, and 
ruining closing music shit. I can remember it like yesterday!

Germany did not have television before or during the war apart from
what might be called test transmissions. There had been very few TV
sets in Berlin, and some in Hamburg. When television resumed, it
really was a start, not a conversion.

What I would like to know is untill when 405 line sets had been
available in Britain.

Any idea?



On 10 Jan., 15:53, Mike  wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 02:26:52 -0800 (PST), jamie_...@excite.com wrote:
> >On Jan 9, 9:38 am, "James" <> wrote:
> >> Ian Jelf wrote:
>
> >> > I'm pretty sure the French had 819 broadcasting before (and during) WWII.
>
> >Nope it wasn't introduced until 1948.
>
> >> Try building a VHF transmitter to meet the bandwidth required
> >> by 819 line television using 1940's technology.
>
> >They did, and I'm told that the Nazis used a system with over 1000
> >lines to relay detailed images of maps to aid military planners.
>
> I think you probably mean they had a fax machine :)
>
> --

wrote in message 
news:c4958ca4-e7c7-4a0b-92e9-19f78c99473d@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Germany did not have television before or during the war apart from
> what might be called test transmissions. There had been very few TV
> sets in Berlin, and some in Hamburg. When television resumed, it
> really was a start, not a conversion.
>
> What I would like to know is untill when 405 line sets had been
> available in Britain.
>
> Any idea?

It's a good question, and it depends on what you mean by
availible. Remember there was a thriving TV rental trade
back then, sets were unreliable, when they went faulty they
were often swapped, repaired and re-rented.
I started in that trade in 1971, by that time BBC1 and
ITV had joined BBC2 on 625/UHF but not everybody
had a UHF aerial so there were a lot of 405 only sets
around for some years. The fact that the Heath govenment
burdened us with strict credit controls meant we couldn't
offer sets for rental that were less than 3 years old, unless
the subscriber paid a large deposit. Dual-standard sets
were in use well into the 80s. There were some dual-
standard colour receivers (B&W on 405 of course) but
by the time the colour boom arrived they were all single
standard.
-- 
Graham

%Profound_observation%

On Jan 14, 1:29 am, "Graham."  wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> Dual-standard sets
> were in use well into the 80s. There were some dual-
> standard colour receivers (B&W on 405 of course) but
> by the time the colour boom arrived they were all single
> standard.

Interesting. This is all before my time - I did exist in the 80s but
only just :) but I don't recall ever seeing a dual-standard set
anywhere so most of them must have been thrown out by the early 90s?
I once read on a forum that, with the exception of Crystal Palace
which had newer transmission equipment, the service quality of 405
line transmissions declined massively over the last few years of its
operations as the standards convertors and ancient valve-based
transmitters broke down and components were no longer available to
adequately repair them.
I wonder how many people were still watching it by then.

On Jan 13, 10:44 pm, pastor.matthiasschm...@googlemail.com wrote:
> Germany did not have television before or during the war apart from
> what might be called test transmissions. There had been very few TV
> sets in Berlin, and some in Hamburg. When television resumed, it
> really was a start, not a conversion.

They did have a TV service actually, and by 1939 they were using a 441-
line system and the receivers Telefunken was producing were compact
enough to be considered 'portable' and had pure-flat screens.
The TV service in Berlin was on-air from the early 30s (the first ever
TV movie was produced by them around that time) and they also provided
live coverage of the 1936 Olympics with full outside broadcast
facilities. TVs were installed in special parlours on high streets and
in Post Offices. The daytime schedule was not unlike that of BBC1
today (cookery and lifestyle programmes etcetera).
They also fitted a 441-line transmitter to the Eiffel Tower in
occupied Paris and broadcast programming both to the locals and the
troops.

In article <fmedu1$hsn$1@registered.motzarella.org>, Graham.
 scribeth thus
>
>
> wrote in message 
>news:c4958ca4-e7c7-4a0b-92e9-19f78c99473d@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> Germany did not have television before or during the war apart from
>> what might be called test transmissions. There had been very few TV
>> sets in Berlin, and some in Hamburg. When television resumed, it
>> really was a start, not a conversion.
>>
>> What I would like to know is untill when 405 line sets had been
>> available in Britain.
>>
>> Any idea?
>
>It's a good question, and it depends on what you mean by
>availible. Remember there was a thriving TV rental trade
>back then, sets were unreliable, when they went faulty they
>were often swapped, repaired and re-rented.
>I started in that trade in 1971, by that time BBC1 and
>ITV had joined BBC2 on 625/UHF but not everybody
>had a UHF aerial so there were a lot of 405 only sets
>around for some years. The fact that the Heath govenment
>burdened us with strict credit controls meant we couldn't
>offer sets for rental that were less than 3 years old, unless
>the subscriber paid a large deposit. Dual-standard sets
>were in use well into the 80s. There were some dual-
>standard colour receivers (B&W on 405 of course) but
>by the time the colour boom arrived they were all single
>standard.

And just as well with all that poxy system switching;!...
-- 
Tony Sayer

In article <b4285a59-d5c0-4be7-b323-d84b8a9bfcf3@j78g2000hsd.googlegroup
s.com>, jamie_p84@excite.com scribeth thus
>On Jan 14, 1:29 am, "Graham."  wrote:
>>  wrote in message
>>
>> Dual-standard sets
>> were in use well into the 80s. There were some dual-
>> standard colour receivers (B&W on 405 of course) but
>> by the time the colour boom arrived they were all single
>> standard.
>
>Interesting. This is all before my time - I did exist in the 80s but
>only just :) but I don't recall ever seeing a dual-standard set
>anywhere so most of them must have been thrown out by the early 90s?
>I once read on a forum that, with the exception of Crystal Palace
>which had newer transmission equipment, the service quality of 405
>line transmissions declined massively over the last few years of its
>operations as the standards convertors and ancient valve-based
>transmitters broke down and components were no longer available to
>adequately repair them.
>I wonder how many people were still watching it by then.


No it didn't, it was OK up to the mid 80's when it finally went out of
service. Some Tx's went on reduced power as witness Ray Coopers
excellent documentary over on MB21..

The system switch was believe you me not something one had, shall we
say, much to say good about.

You didn't miss anything except a load of trouble!.
-- 
Tony Sayer

tony sayer wrote:

> >> Dual-standard sets
> >> were in use well into the 80s. There were some dual-
> >> standard colour receivers (B&W on 405 of course) but
> >> by the time the colour boom arrived they were all single
> >> standard.
> > 
> > Interesting. This is all before my time - I did exist in the 80s but
> > only just :) but I don't recall ever seeing a dual-standard set
> > anywhere so most of them must have been thrown out by the early 90s?
> > I once read on a forum that, with the exception of Crystal Palace
> > which had newer transmission equipment, the service quality of 405
> > line transmissions declined massively over the last few years of its
> > operations as the standards convertors and ancient valve-based
> > transmitters broke down and components were no longer available to
> > adequately repair them.
> > I wonder how many people were still watching it by then.
> 
> 
> No it didn't, it was OK up to the mid 80's when it finally went out of
> service. Some Tx's went on reduced power as witness Ray Coopers
> excellent documentary over on MB21..
> 
> The system switch was believe you me not something one had, shall we
> say, much to say good about.
> 
> You didn't miss anything except a load of trouble!.


http://tx.mb21.co.uk/features/coldfield/index.shtml


J

wrote in message
news:2a4337af-7d81-4395-9517-af4f339cc575@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> They did have a TV service actually, and by 1939 they were using a 441-
> line system and the receivers Telefunken was producing were compact
> enough to be considered 'portable' and had pure-flat screens.
> The TV service in Berlin was on-air from the early 30s (the first ever
> TV movie was produced by them around that time) and they also provided
> live coverage of the 1936 Olympics with full outside broadcast
> facilities. TVs were installed in special parlours on high streets and
> in Post Offices. The daytime schedule was not unlike that of BBC1
> today (cookery and lifestyle programmes etcetera).
> They also fitted a 441-line transmitter to the Eiffel Tower in
> occupied Paris and broadcast programming both to the locals and the
> troops.

If anything, Germany could hold the claim to having had the first, regular
television service in the World. By 1939 the German TV service was arguably
more advanced with a wider remit than the British service although most
receivers went to top officials and the public only ever saw them in
specially setup cinemas or post offices. Strange that the British never
marketed TV in this way.

As for the transmissions from occupied France, I read somewhere that this
was of great use to British intelligence and they setup aerials on the top
of the cliffs at Dover to receive these transmissions. These included German
newsreel footage showing bomb damage which was of great use to military
intelligence. The Germans never thought that their weak Eiffel transmissions
could ever make it across to England.

//Clive.

In article <b4285a59-d5c0-4be7-b323-
d84b8a9bfcf3@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,  wrote:
> Interesting. This is all before my time - I did exist in the 80s but
> only just :) but I don't recall ever seeing a dual-standard set
> anywhere so most of them must have been thrown out by the early 90s?

They'd probably all caught fire by then, starting with those great big 
clunky solenoid-operated switches that changed everything from the 
tuner to the wiring of the line output stage. The contacts, and the 
long paxolin strip to which they were affixed, were usually blackened.

Rod.

"Roderick Stewart"  wrote in message
news:VA.00000276.0077a6cb@removethisbit.beeb.net...
>
> They'd probably all caught fire by then, starting with those great big
> clunky solenoid-operated switches that changed everything from the
> tuner to the wiring of the line output stage. The contacts, and the
> long paxolin strip to which they were affixed, were usually blackened.
>
I must have been around 4-5 years old when I finally decided I had the savvy
to be able to switch the dual-standard TV over to BBC2 (625 lines) without
having to call in my Mum to do it at 11am each day for Playschool. However
my little fingers needed all my weight behind it to move the turret tuner
knob albeit very slowly, the result being a dead TV, no playschool and a
hasty call into the TV repairman.

On this particular Ferguson TV, you had to fair crack the tuner over to UHF
quickly with a sharp motion, doing this slowly only caused things to burn
out.

//Clive.

On Jan 14, 1:00 pm, "Clive"  wrote:
>
> I must have been around 4-5 years old when I finally decided I had the savvy
> to be able to switch the dual-standard TV over to BBC2 (625 lines) without
> having to call in my Mum to do it at 11am each day for Playschool. However
> my little fingers needed all my weight behind it to move the turret tuner
> knob albeit very slowly, the result being a dead TV, no playschool and a
> hasty call into the TV repairman.
>
> On this particular Ferguson TV, you had to fair crack the tuner over to UHF
> quickly with a sharp motion, doing this slowly only caused things to burn
> out.

I'm amazed they even attempted to make dual-standard sets since, with
the technology of the day, almost everything inside the set would've
had to be duplicated (tuner, timebase etcetera.). This would've made
dual standard sets very expensive, surely?
Plus you'd need two aerials, and presumably two aerial sockets. And
the electron beam width of the tube would've been set 'narrow' for
625, so the lines must've been very noticible on 405?

On Jan 14, 1:00 pm, "Clive"  wrote:

> I must have been around 4-5 years old when I finally decided I had the savvy
> to be able to switch the dual-standard TV over to BBC2 (625 lines) without
> having to call in my Mum to do it at 11am each day for Playschool. However
> my little fingers needed all my weight behind it to move the turret tuner
> knob albeit very slowly, the result being a dead TV, no playschool and a
> hasty call into the TV repairman.
>
> On this particular Ferguson TV, you had to fair crack the tuner over to UHF
> quickly with a sharp motion, doing this slowly only caused things to burn
> out.

The other problem was once a dual standard set had been only used on
625 for a while, which would have happened from November 1969 in some
areas, then muck and dust would start to accumulate on the 405
contacts. If you operated the changeover, you'd have problems, and
changing back to 625 would just drag the muck onto  those contacts.
Result: repair needed.

I remember about 1973 my Uncle running towards me to stop me
inquisitivly pushing his 405 button, unused for almost four years. He
took the back off the set, to show me what would have happened !

On Jan 14, 3:24 pm, jamie_...@excite.com wrote:

> I'm amazed they even attempted to make dual-standard sets since, with
> the technology of the day, almost everything inside the set would've
> had to be duplicated (tuner, timebase etcetera.). This would've made
> dual standard sets very expensive, surely?

You never saw a dual standard *colour* TV then ? Now, they were
beasts !

> Plus you'd need two aerials, and presumably two aerial sockets. And
> the electron beam width of the tube would've been set 'narrow' for
> 625, so the lines must've been very noticible on 405?

Some 405 line sets used 'spot wobble' in an attempt the blend the
lines together.

Mark Carver wrote:

> On Jan 14, 3:24 pm, jamie_...@excite.com wrote:
> 
> > I'm amazed they even attempted to make dual-standard sets since, with
> > the technology of the day, almost everything inside the set would've
> > had to be duplicated (tuner, timebase etcetera.). This would've made
> > dual standard sets very expensive, surely?
> 
> You never saw a dual standard colour TV then ? Now, they were
> beasts !


It was certainly an experience moving a 25" Decca colour dual standard
television inside a large wooden cabinet with valved innards up a flight
of stairs.

The H&S types would have with that one.

J

Clive wrote:
>  wrote in message
> news:2a4337af-7d81-4395-9517-af4f339cc575@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> They did have a TV service actually, and by 1939 they were using a 441-
>> line system and the receivers Telefunken was producing were compact
>> enough to be considered 'portable' and had pure-flat screens.
>> The TV service in Berlin was on-air from the early 30s (the first ever
>> TV movie was produced by them around that time) and they also provided
>> live coverage of the 1936 Olympics with full outside broadcast
>> facilities. TVs were installed in special parlours on high streets and
>> in Post Offices. The daytime schedule was not unlike that of BBC1
>> today (cookery and lifestyle programmes etcetera).
>> They also fitted a 441-line transmitter to the Eiffel Tower in
>> occupied Paris and broadcast programming both to the locals and the
>> troops.
> 
> If anything, Germany could hold the claim to having had the first, regular
> television service in the World. By 1939 the German TV service was arguably
> more advanced with a wider remit than the British service although most
> receivers went to top officials and the public only ever saw them in
> specially setup cinemas or post offices. Strange that the British never
> marketed TV in this way.
> 
> As for the transmissions from occupied France, I read somewhere that this
> was of great use to British intelligence and they setup aerials on the top
> of the cliffs at Dover to receive these transmissions. These included German
> newsreel footage showing bomb damage which was of great use to military
> intelligence. The Germans never thought that their weak Eiffel transmissions
> could ever make it across to England.

What sort of power did they use?
I.s.t.r. to have read that the Eiffel Tower transmitter actually 
replaced the French one, because the Germans wanted the German system to 
be used.

gr, hwh

On Jan 14, 9:14 am, tony sayer  wrote:
> In article <b4285a59-d5c0-4be7-b323-d84b8a9bf...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroup
> s.com>, jamie_...@excite.com scribeth thus
>
>
> No it didn't, it was OK up to the mid 80's when it finally went out of
> service. Some Tx's went on reduced power as witness Ray Coopers
> excellent documentary over on MB21..
>
> The system switch was believe you me not something one had, shall we
> say, much to say good about.
>
> You didn't miss anything except a load of trouble!.

In addition to the low power I've heard tales of standards convertors
losing sync and 'hum bars' appearing.
Here's a photo of some convertors, in case anyone's interested:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/russell_w_b/530394735/

If you look carefully at the aforementioned youtube clips, some
vertical banding can occasionally be seen for a split second - I
presume this is some sort of 'beat' effect?

In article ,
   Roderick Stewart  wrote:
> In article <b4285a59-d5c0-4be7-b323-
> d84b8a9bfcf3@j78g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,  wrote:
> > Interesting. This is all before my time - I did exist in the 80s but
> > only just :) but I don't recall ever seeing a dual-standard set
> > anywhere so most of them must have been thrown out by the early 90s?

> They'd probably all caught fire by then, starting with those great big 
> clunky solenoid-operated switches that changed everything from the 
> tuner to the wiring of the line output stage. The contacts, and the 
> long paxolin strip to which they were affixed, were usually blackened.

 my Ekco had a manual switch at the front between the two sets of tuning
knows.  I bought it in 1964 and got rid of it in 1969 when I got a Thorn
colour set (TX8, ISTR).  The Ekco never faultered during those 5 years so I
never bothered to look inside.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article <88376afb-5812-478f-829e-
329938cd876a@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,  wrote:
> I'm amazed they even attempted to make dual-standard sets since, with
> the technology of the day, almost everything inside the set would've
> had to be duplicated (tuner, timebase etcetera.). This would've made
> dual standard sets very expensive, surely?

Only the tuner and IF strip actually had to be duplicated. The rest 
could be switched, but it was a hairy mixture of low level RF signals 
and high voltage high current scanning currents. Sometimes there were 
separate switches connected physically by Bowden cables like the ones 
used for bicycle brakes. Happy days.

Rod.

"Clive"  wrote in message 
news:fmfmet$tr1$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
>
> "Roderick Stewart"  wrote in message
> news:VA.00000276.0077a6cb@removethisbit.beeb.net...
>>
>> They'd probably all caught fire by then, starting with those great big
>> clunky solenoid-operated switches that changed everything from the
>> tuner to the wiring of the line output stage. The contacts, and the
>> long paxolin strip to which they were affixed, were usually blackened.
>>
> I must have been around 4-5 years old when I finally decided I had the 
> savvy
> to be able to switch the dual-standard TV over to BBC2 (625 lines) without
> having to call in my Mum to do it at 11am each day for Playschool. However
> my little fingers needed all my weight behind it to move the turret tuner
> knob albeit very slowly, the result being a dead TV, no playschool and a
> hasty call into the TV repairman.
>
> On this particular Ferguson TV, you had to fair crack the tuner over to 
> UHF
> quickly with a sharp motion, doing this slowly only caused things to burn
> out.


Nice image of you at 4, I will try and complete the picture.
System switch stuck half way so line driver valve(possibly an ECC82) has 
nether
time constant network for 10125 or 15625Hz connected, so the driver does not 
oscillate.
Consequently, the line output valve (PL500) receives no drive and has no
grid-bias so it conducts heavily exceeding its anode dissipation rating.
The boost diode valve (PY88) similarly "tanks". If a fuse doesn't blow
(there probably wasn't one in this part of the circuit) the PL and PY
might well have got hot enough to melt their respective glass
envelopes and collapse under atmospheric pressure.
Mind you valve changes were easy in the field, what you
didn't want to happen is for the line output transformer to go
shorted turns etc. But often, even difficult jobs like line trannys
would be replaced in the customers living room.

We even *repaired* line transformers in the field,
RBM (Bush) single standard EHT rectifier heater winding
arcing to the transformer core comes to mind.
-- 
Graham

%Profound_observation%

Mike  wrote in
news:caOdnT8uAKb3rBvaRVnyhQA@pipex.net: 

>>They did, and I'm told that the Nazis used a system with over 1000
>>lines to relay detailed images of maps to aid military planners.
> 
> I think you probably mean they had a fax machine :)

They had a prototype 1029 line television system, but it wasn't used. 
They also had 441 line television cameras built into missiles in order 
to remote control them, also just a prototype. I remember watching a 
documentary about those some time ago, it was exactly like those 
"videos from the bomb" CNN showed during th 1991 Iraq war.

-- 
Bitte vergessen Sie nicht, Ihre Antenne zu erden


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

wrote in message 
news:88376afb-5812-478f-829e-329938cd876a@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> I'm amazed they even attempted to make dual-standard sets since, with
> the technology of the day, almost everything inside the set would've
> had to be duplicated (tuner, timebase etcetera.).
Yes
> This would've made
> dual standard sets very expensive, surely?
About 20% more expensive.

> Plus you'd need two aerials,
Yay! A full aerial job cost a week's wages!

>and presumably two aerial sockets.
Of course

 > And
the electron beam width of the tube would've been set 'narrow' for
> 625, so the lines must've been very noticible on 405?
I never noticed that.

Bill

On Jan 14, 8:11 pm, "Bill Wright" 
wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:88376afb-5812-478f-829e-329938cd876a@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com...> I'm amazed they even attempted to make dual-standard sets since, with
> > the technology of the day, almost everything inside the set would've
> > had to be duplicated (tuner, timebase etcetera.).
> Yes
> > This would've made
> > dual standard sets very expensive, surely?
>
> About 20% more expensive.
>
> > Plus you'd need two aerials,
>
> Yay! A full aerial job cost a week's wages!
>
> >and presumably two aerial sockets.
>


I remember that there were combined  Band I / III aerials for 405 and
I think I can remember "all singing and dancing" aerials that did UHF
too ...... am I rught?

In article , Bill Wright
 scribeth thus
>
> wrote in message 
>news:88376afb-5812-478f-829e-329938cd876a@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> I'm amazed they even attempted to make dual-standard sets since, with
>> the technology of the day, almost everything inside the set would've
>> had to be duplicated (tuner, timebase etcetera.).
>Yes
>> This would've made
>> dual standard sets very expensive, surely?
>About 20% more expensive.
>
>> Plus you'd need two aerials,
>Yay! A full aerial job cost a week's wages!
>
>>and presumably two aerial sockets.
>Of course
>
> > And
>the electron beam width of the tube would've been set 'narrow' for
>> 625, so the lines must've been very noticible on 405?
>I never noticed that.
>


Me neither, 'tho some sets had a "spot wobble" to try to join up the
lines on 405..

FWIW we converted some sets to 625 from 405 the worst part Was the FM
sound!..

Most sets could run the line output stage up to 625 lines with a few
tuning caps changed. There vision strip had to be reversed for neg
vision MOD but they worked and some very well too:)...

-- 
Tony Sayer

jamie_p84@excite.com wrote in news:7488ebe5-fc98-4d85-b786-
fa6caf91ca8e@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> On Jan 14, 9:14 am, tony sayer  wrote:
>> In article <b4285a59-d5c0-4be7-b323-d84b8a9bf...@j78g2000hsd.googlegroup
>> s.com>, jamie_...@excite.com scribeth thus
>>
>>
>> No it didn't, it was OK up to the mid 80's when it finally went out of
>> service. Some Tx's went on reduced power as witness Ray Coopers
>> excellent documentary over on MB21..
>>
>> The system switch was believe you me not something one had, shall we
>> say, much to say good about.
>>
>> You didn't miss anything except a load of trouble!.
> 
> In addition to the low power I've heard tales of standards convertors
> losing sync and 'hum bars' appearing.
> Here's a photo of some convertors, in case anyone's interested:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/russell_w_b/530394735/
> 
> If you look carefully at the aforementioned youtube clips, some
> vertical banding can occasionally be seen for a split second - I
> presume this is some sort of 'beat' effect?

IIRC RTE's convertor blew up some time before they shut down the Irish 405 
transmissions. I believe they just pointed a 405 camera at a 625 monitor 
for the last few months. The picture was probably no worse!

Peter

tony sayer  wrote in news:5CgdOrDw88iHFwwv@bancom.co.uk:

> In article , Bill Wright
> scribeth thus
>>
>> wrote in message 
>>news:88376afb-5812-478f-829e-329938cd876a@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>> I'm amazed they even attempted to make dual-standard sets since, with
>>> the technology of the day, almost everything inside the set would've
>>> had to be duplicated (tuner, timebase etcetera.).
>>Yes
>>> This would've made
>>> dual standard sets very expensive, surely?
>>About 20% more expensive.
>>
>>> Plus you'd need two aerials,
>>Yay! A full aerial job cost a week's wages!
>>
>>>and presumably two aerial sockets.
>>Of course
>>
>> > And
>>the electron beam width of the tube would've been set 'narrow' for
>>> 625, so the lines must've been very noticible on 405?
>>I never noticed that.
>>
> 
> 
> Me neither, 'tho some sets had a "spot wobble" to try to join up the
> lines on 405..
> 
> FWIW we converted some sets to 625 from 405 the worst part Was the FM
> sound!..
> 
> Most sets could run the line output stage up to 625 lines with a few
> tuning caps changed. There vision strip had to be reversed for neg
> vision MOD but they worked and some very well too:)...
> 

405 was double sideband AM I think? Or was it vestigial on one side?

"PeterW"  wrote in message 
news:Xns9A25D9BFF98E4PeterWpublic@192.168.1.250...
> tony sayer  wrote in 
> news:5CgdOrDw88iHFwwv@bancom.co.uk:
>
>> In article , Bill Wright
>> scribeth thus
>>>
>>> wrote in message
>>>news:88376afb-5812-478f-829e-329938cd876a@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>> I'm amazed they even attempted to make dual-standard sets since, with
>>>> the technology of the day, almost everything inside the set would've
>>>> had to be duplicated (tuner, timebase etcetera.).
>>>Yes
>>>> This would've made
>>>> dual standard sets very expensive, surely?
>>>About 20% more expensive.
>>>
>>>> Plus you'd need two aerials,
>>>Yay! A full aerial job cost a week's wages!
>>>
>>>>and presumably two aerial sockets.
>>>Of course
>>>
>>> > And
>>>the electron beam width of the tube would've been set 'narrow' for
>>>> 625, so the lines must've been very noticible on 405?
>>>I never noticed that.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Me neither, 'tho some sets had a "spot wobble" to try to join up the
>> lines on 405..
>>
>> FWIW we converted some sets to 625 from 405 the worst part Was the FM
>> sound!..
>>
>> Most sets could run the line output stage up to 625 lines with a few
>> tuning caps changed. There vision strip had to be reversed for neg
>> vision MOD but they worked and some very well too:)...
>>
>
> 405 was double sideband AM I think? Or was it vestigial on one side?
Only in the early years from Alexander Palace, then it changed to VSB.
The legacy of that was the larger gap between channel 1 and channel 2
compared to channel 2 and 3 etc.

-- 
Graham

%Profound_observation%

On 14 Jan,  
     tony sayer  wrote:

> FWIW we converted some sets to 625 from 405 the worst part Was the FM
> sound!..
> 
> Most sets could run the line output stage up to 625 lines with a few
> tuning caps changed. There vision strip had to be reversed for neg
> vision MOD but they worked and some very well too:)...

Pye TV53 was popular. the timebase would easily do 15625. I had one modified
for DXTV and a TV56 (IIRC, the 17" version) modified for UHF. I cheated in
that one in that I used a transistorised dual standard IF strip and tuner.

-- 
  BD
  Change lycos to yahoo to reply

wrote in message 
news:bb12d313-2373-43b6-94ff-4197c7f4cf9f@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I remember that there were combined  Band I / III aerials for 405 and
I think I can remember "all singing and dancing" aerials that did UHF
too ...... am I rught?

You'd better have a look at the Ancient section of my website

http://www.wrightsaerials.tv/ancient.htm

You'll learn more than could ever possibly want to know about old telly 
aerials.

Bill

In article , PeterW
 scribeth thus
>tony sayer  wrote in news:5CgdOrDw88iHFwwv@bancom.co.uk:
>
>> In article , Bill Wright
>> scribeth thus
>>>
>>> wrote in message 
>>>news:88376afb-5812-478f-829e-329938cd876a@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>>> I'm amazed they even attempted to make dual-standard sets since, with
>>>> the technology of the day, almost everything inside the set would've
>>>> had to be duplicated (tuner, timebase etcetera.).
>>>Yes
>>>> This would've made
>>>> dual standard sets very expensive, surely?
>>>About 20% more expensive.
>>>
>>>> Plus you'd need two aerials,
>>>Yay! A full aerial job cost a week's wages!
>>>
>>>>and presumably two aerial sockets.
>>>Of course
>>>
>>> > And
>>>the electron beam width of the tube would've been set 'narrow' for
>>>> 625, so the lines must've been very noticible on 405?
>>>I never noticed that.
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> Me neither, 'tho some sets had a "spot wobble" to try to join up the
>> lines on 405..
>> 
>> FWIW we converted some sets to 625 from 405 the worst part Was the FM
>> sound!..
>> 
>> Most sets could run the line output stage up to 625 lines with a few
>> tuning caps changed. There vision strip had to be reversed for neg
>> vision MOD but they worked and some very well too:)...
>> 
>
>405 was double sideband AM I think? Or was it vestigial on one side?

DSB for vision initially from Ally pally then VSB from Xtal palace tho
the original channel allocation was the same and VSB from everywhere
else..
-- 
Tony Sayer

In article ,
   PeterW  wrote:

> 405 was double sideband AM I think? Or was it vestigial on one side?

405 was originally dsb, but this was only used at AP on ch1.  By the time
other transmitters opened it used vsb.
> >

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

On 15 Jan,  
     charles  wrote:

> In article ,
>    PeterW  wrote:
> 
> > 405 was double sideband AM I think? Or was it vestigial on one side?
> 
> 405 was originally dsb, but this was only used at AP on ch1.  By the time
> other transmitters opened it used vsb.
> > >
> 
And CH1 was VSB for the London area once it transferred to CP circa 1957.

-- 
  BD
  Change lycos to yahoo to reply

On Jan 14, 9:24 pm, PeterW 
wrote:
>
> IIRC RTE's convertor blew up some time before they shut down the Irish 405
> transmissions. I believe they just pointed a 405 camera at a 625 monitor
> for the last few months. The picture was probably no worse!

Was the picture quality from the convertors quite poor then?

In article
,
    wrote:
> On Jan 14, 9:24 pm, PeterW 
> wrote:
> >
> > IIRC RTE's convertor blew up some time before they shut down the Irish
> > 405 transmissions. I believe they just pointed a 405 camera at a 625
> > monitor for the last few months. The picture was probably no worse!

> Was the picture quality from the convertors quite poor then?

It depended on how well adjusted they were.  Until 1964, all conversion was
done with a camera monitor set-up.  In 1964 BBC Research Dept produced an
electronic 625>405 machine.  The following year a production version was
made by BBC Designs Dept and 3 of these were based at TC (and one at Lime
Grove for emergency use).  Then the Research machine was modified to work
405>625.  Later a single DD one was made to do the same.  The RD one then
went home to become part of the giant (8 bay) colour one working 525>625. 
In the interim, in time for BBC2's colour service (1967), BBC DD created an
electronic colour machine which simply displayed the original 525 lines in
625 raster with a 50 line border, the line length being shrunk to keep the
aspect ratio correct.
The BBC RD machine fully converted the pictures and became available in
time for the Mexico Olympics (autumn 1968).

I could go on, but I won't bore you all.  I was a shift supervisor in the
standards converter section from 1964 to 1972, so I have first hand
knowledge.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

charles wrote:
> In article
> ,
>     wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 9:24 pm, PeterW 
>> wrote:
>>> IIRC RTE's convertor blew up some time before they shut down the Irish
>>> 405 transmissions. I believe they just pointed a 405 camera at a 625
>>> monitor for the last few months. The picture was probably no worse!
> 
>> Was the picture quality from the convertors quite poor then?
> 
> It depended on how well adjusted they were.  Until 1964, all conversion was
> done with a camera monitor set-up.  In 1964 BBC Research Dept produced an
> electronic 625>405 machine.  The following year a production version was
> made by BBC Designs Dept and 3 of these were based at TC (and one at Lime
> Grove for emergency use).  Then the Research machine was modified to work
> 405>625.  Later a single DD one was made to do the same.  The RD one then
> went home to become part of the giant (8 bay) colour one working 525>625. 
> In the interim, in time for BBC2's colour service (1967), BBC DD created an
> electronic colour machine which simply displayed the original 525 lines in
> 625 raster with a 50 line border, the line length being shrunk to keep the
> aspect ratio correct.
> The BBC RD machine fully converted the pictures and became available in
> time for the Mexico Olympics (autumn 1968).
> 
> I could go on, but I won't bore you all.  I was a shift supervisor in the
> standards converter section from 1964 to 1972, so I have first hand
> knowledge.
If I may, Charles, there some pictures (with comments from Charles) at:-
http://www.vtoldboys.com/arc10.htm

-- 
Chris Booth  BBCVT 1963 to 1993

In article , charles
 scribeth thus
>In article
>,
>    wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 9:24 pm, PeterW 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > IIRC RTE's convertor blew up some time before they shut down the Irish
>> > 405 transmissions. I believe they just pointed a 405 camera at a 625
>> > monitor for the last few months. The picture was probably no worse!
>
>> Was the picture quality from the convertors quite poor then?
>
>It depended on how well adjusted they were.  Until 1964, all conversion was
>done with a camera monitor set-up.  In 1964 BBC Research Dept produced an
>electronic 625>405 machine.  The following year a production version was
>made by BBC Designs Dept and 3 of these were based at TC (and one at Lime
>Grove for emergency use).  Then the Research machine was modified to work
>405>625.  Later a single DD one was made to do the same.  The RD one then
>went home to become part of the giant (8 bay) colour one working 525>625. 
>In the interim, in time for BBC2's colour service (1967), BBC DD created an
>electronic colour machine which simply displayed the original 525 lines in
>625 raster with a 50 line border, the line length being shrunk to keep the
>aspect ratio correct.
>The BBC RD machine fully converted the pictures and became available in
>time for the Mexico Olympics (autumn 1968).
>


>I could go on, but I won't bore you all.  I was a shift supervisor in the
>standards converter section from 1964 to 1972, so I have first hand
>knowledge.
>

Well before you fall of your perch .. write it all up for the Tx
list;-!...


Like Ray Cooper did for SC!...
-- 
Tony Sayer

On Jan 15, 6:13 pm, charles  wrote:
> In article
>
> I could go on, but I won't bore you all.  I was a shift supervisor in the
> standards converter section from 1964 to 1972, so I have first hand
> knowledge.

it's not boring :p

In article , Charles wrote:
> I could go on, but I won't bore you all.  I was a shift supervisor in the
> standards converter section from 1964 to 1972, so I have first hand
> knowledge.

We may have met once or twice. I can't put a face to your name, but I do 
remember going up to standards conversion just to see for myself the 
monster machine I'd read about in Wireless World - seven or eight bays of 
glass blocks with their attendant electronics just so we could watch 
American telly. And of course they had to have a whole spare one, so it 
seemed to add up to more gubbins than we had in a typical studio apparatus 
room downstairs. You probably wouldn't remember me though.

Rod.

In article ,
   Roderick Stewart  wrote:
> In article , Charles wrote:
> > I could go on, but I won't bore you all.  I was a shift supervisor in
> > the standards converter section from 1964 to 1972, so I have first hand
> > knowledge.

> We may have met once or twice. I can't put a face to your name, but I do
> remember going up to standards conversion just to see for myself the
> monster machine I'd read about in Wireless World - seven or eight bays of
> glass blocks with their attendant electronics just so we could watch
> American telly. And of course they had to have a whole spare one, so it
> seemed to add up to more gubbins than we had in a typical studio
> apparatus room downstairs. You probably wouldn't remember me though.

The second one wasn't a spare, it worked the other way 625>525 so that the
americans could see our pictures.  Yes, a third, either way one turned up
later.  This was made by Pye as their production prototype and needed a lot
of tlc to make it work.  Yes,  spare was a good idea, remember that the
first two were made in RD's labs and were not built to the quality standard
of production equipment.  They were really made to prove a point, but got
rushed into programme service.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

charles wrote:

> > > I could go on, but I won't bore you all.  I was a shift supervisor in
> > > the standards converter section from 1964 to 1972, so I have first hand
> > > knowledge.
> 
> > We may have met once or twice. I can't put a face to your name, but I do
> > remember going up to standards conversion just to see for myself the
> > monster machine I'd read about in Wireless World - seven or eight bays of
> > glass blocks with their attendant electronics just so we could watch
> > American telly. And of course they had to have a whole spare one, so it
> > seemed to add up to more gubbins than we had in a typical studio
> > apparatus room downstairs. You probably wouldn't remember me though.
> 
> The second one wasn't a spare, it worked the other way 625>525 so that the
> americans could see our pictures.  Yes, a third, either way one turned up
> later.  This was made by Pye as their production prototype and needed a lot
> of tlc to make it work.  Yes,  spare was a good idea, remember that the
> first two were made in RD's labs and were not built to the quality standard
> of production equipment.  They were really made to prove a point, but got
> rushed into programme service.


Prototype is the word your looking for.

J

In article , James <> wrote:
> charles wrote:

> > > > I could go on, but I won't bore you all.  I was a shift supervisor
> > > > in the standards converter section from 1964 to 1972, so I have
> > > > first hand knowledge.
> > 
> > > We may have met once or twice. I can't put a face to your name, but I
> > > do remember going up to standards conversion just to see for myself
> > > the monster machine I'd read about in Wireless World - seven or eight
> > > bays of glass blocks with their attendant electronics just so we
> > > could watch American telly. And of course they had to have a whole
> > > spare one, so it seemed to add up to more gubbins than we had in a
> > > typical studio apparatus room downstairs. You probably wouldn't
> > > remember me though.
> > 
> > The second one wasn't a spare, it worked the other way 625>525 so that
> > the americans could see our pictures.  Yes, a third, either way one
> > turned up later.  This was made by Pye as their production prototype
> > and needed a lot of tlc to make it work.  Yes,  spare was a good idea,
> > remember that the first two were made in RD's labs and were not built
> > to the quality standard of production equipment.  They were really made
> > to prove a point, but got rushed into programme service.


> Prototype is the word your looking for.

not really. I used it in my third line, where it was correct.

> J

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article , Charles wrote:
> The second one wasn't a spare, it worked the other way 625>525 so that the
> americans could see our pictures.  Yes, a third, either way one turned up
> later.  This was made by Pye as their production prototype and needed a lot
> of tlc to make it work.  Yes,  spare was a good idea, remember that the
> first two were made in RD's labs and were not built to the quality standard
> of production equipment.  They were really made to prove a point, but got
> rushed into programme service.

Considering how they worked, it's astounding anyone ever thought it would be 
practicable to make one at all. I remember thinking the glass block one-line 
delays in the aperture correctors of cameras were complicated and 
temperamental enough, but these machines had a roomful of them in a binary 
sequence if I remember correctly, just to provide a useful amount of delay - 
and then a whole load of other electronics to control how much delay was 
required at any time.

The only other vaguely related invention that impressed me in a similar way 
was the shadowmask cathode ray tube. Reading the textbook descriptions, it 
looked like one of those things that a science fiction writer might outline 
in the course of a story but which couldn't possibly be manufactured well 
enough to work in the real world. But I daresay those who have been born too 
recently to see the development of these devices with anything other than 
hindsight will not know what I am talking about.

Rod.

>The only other vaguely related invention that impressed me in a similar way 
>was the shadowmask cathode ray tube. Reading the textbook descriptions, it 
>looked like one of those things that a science fiction writer might outline 
>in the course of a story but which couldn't possibly be manufactured well 
>enough to work in the real world. But I daresay those who have been born too 
>recently to see the development of these devices with anything other than 
>hindsight will not know what I am talking about.
>
>Rod.
>

Indeed!..   youth of today etc;) None of our lot seem fazed by what's
around them these days, they seem to not appreciate what a miracle their
all singing 'n dancing mobile or MP 3 player can do for its size etc!..

Just take it all for granted;(...
-- 
Tony Sayer

On Jan 16, 11:12 am, tony sayer  wrote:

> Indeed!..   youth of today etc;) None of our lot seem fazed by what's
> around them these days, they seem to not appreciate what a miracle their
> all singing 'n dancing mobile or MP 3 player can do for its size etc!..
>
> Just take it all for granted;(...

Not all of us do :-P

charles wrote:

> > > > > I could go on, but I won't bore you all.  I was a shift supervisor
> > > > > in the standards converter section from 1964 to 1972, so I have
> > > > > first hand knowledge.
> > > 
> > > > We may have met once or twice. I can't put a face to your name, but I
> > > > do remember going up to standards conversion just to see for myself
> > > > the monster machine I'd read about in Wireless World - seven or eight
> > > > bays of glass blocks with their attendant electronics just so we
> > > > could watch American telly. And of course they had to have a whole
> > > > spare one, so it seemed to add up to more gubbins than we had in a
> > > > typical studio apparatus room downstairs. You probably wouldn't
> > > > remember me though.
> > > 
> > > The second one wasn't a spare, it worked the other way 625>525 so that
> > > the americans could see our pictures.  Yes, a third, either way one
> > > turned up later.  This was made by Pye as their production prototype
> > > and needed a lot of tlc to make it work.  Yes,  spare was a good idea,
> > > remember that the first two were made in RD's labs and were not built
> > > to the quality standard of production equipment.  They were really made
> > > to prove a point, but got rushed into programme service.
> 
> 
> > Prototype is the word your looking for.
> 
> not really. I used it in my third line, where it was correct.




The IBA designed a digital converter which was called DICE which meant
(Digital Intercontinental Conversion Equipment).

Did the BBC ever have one of these, they were made by Marconi.


J

wrote in message 
news:bb12d313-2373-43b6-94ff-4197c7f4cf9f@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 14, 8:11 pm, "Bill Wright" 
wrote:
>  wrote in message
>
> news:88376afb-5812-478f-829e-329938cd876a@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com...> 
> I'm amazed they even attempted to make dual-standard sets since, with
> > the technology of the day, almost everything inside the set would've
> > had to be duplicated (tuner, timebase etcetera.).
> Yes
> > This would've made
> > dual standard sets very expensive, surely?
>
> About 20% more expensive.
>
> > Plus you'd need two aerials,
>
> Yay! A full aerial job cost a week's wages!
>
> >and presumably two aerial sockets.
>


I remember that there were combined  Band I / III aerials for 405 and
I think I can remember "all singing and dancing" aerials that did UHF
too ...... am I rught?
>
>
I photographed one of  the latter in Wigan yesterday
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/infoweb/uhfvhf.jpg
Although vertical band III aerials with a horizontal UHF were
not uncommon I don't remember one looking quite like this
with some sort of a gamma-match on the VHF dipole.

What I didn't bargain for was the woman coming out and
asking me if she could help me. I told her what I was doing,
showed her the picture etc. But I didn't seem to quite convince her.


-- 
Graham

%Profound_observation%

In article , Roderick Stewart
 wrote:
> In article , Charles wrote:
> > The second one wasn't a spare, it worked the other way 625>525 so that
> > the americans could see our pictures.  Yes, a third, either way one
> > turned up later.  This was made by Pye as their production prototype
> > and needed a lot of tlc to make it work.  Yes,  spare was a good idea,
> > remember that the first two were made in RD's labs and were not built
> > to the quality standard of production equipment.  They were really made
> > to prove a point, but got rushed into programme service.

> Considering how they worked, it's astounding anyone ever thought it would
> be practicable to make one at all. I remember thinking the glass block
> one-line delays in the aperture correctors of cameras were complicated
> and temperamental enough, but these machines had a roomful of them in a
> binary sequence if I remember correctly, just to provide a useful amount
> of delay - and then a whole load of other electronics to control how
> much delay was required at any time.

of course, with modern H&S regulations none of the above might have
happened.  All the preliminary work was done using a mercury bath delay
line about 2' x 1' completely open to the air in the lab.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

In article ,
   James <> wrote:
> charles wrote:


> The IBA designed a digital converter which was called DICE which meant
> (Digital Intercontinental Conversion Equipment).

> Did the BBC ever have one of these, they were made by Marconi.

I don't think so, the BBC went on to create an even better one which
interpolated over 4 fields, if I remember correctly. After my time in that
department.  I moved on to discovering about rf.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

"charles"  wrote in message 
news:4f61aa31cfcharles@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
> In article
> ,
>    wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 9:24 pm, PeterW 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > IIRC RTE's convertor blew up some time before they shut down the Irish
>> > 405 transmissions. I believe they just pointed a 405 camera at a 625
>> > monitor for the last few months. The picture was probably no worse!
>
>> Was the picture quality from the convertors quite poor then?
>
> It depended on how well adjusted they were.  Until 1964, all conversion 
> was
> done with a camera monitor set-up.  In 1964 BBC Research Dept produced an
> electronic 625>405 machine.  The following year a production version was
> made by BBC Designs Dept and 3 of these were based at TC (and one at Lime
> Grove for emergency use).  Then the Research machine was modified to work
> 405>625.  Later a single DD one was made to do the same.  The RD one then
> went home to become part of the giant (8 bay) colour one working 525>625.
> In the interim, in time for BBC2's colour service (1967), BBC DD created 
> an
> electronic colour machine which simply displayed the original 525 lines in
> 625 raster with a 50 line border, the line length being shrunk to keep the
> aspect ratio correct.
> The BBC RD machine fully converted the pictures and became available in
> time for the Mexico Olympics (autumn 1968).
>
> I could go on, but I won't bore you all.  I was a shift supervisor in the
> standards converter section from 1964 to 1972, so I have first hand
> knowledge.
>
> -- 
> From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"
>
> Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11


In those days I was beginning to think that Americans actually did have
green flesh tones, because that's the way the conversions looked.
This was the early 70s so they weren't optical conversions.

Also I remember some converted material that, instead of displaying
a narrow black bar at one or both sides of the screen, repeated
the last few microseconds of each line several times giving a
"ringing" effect on the LHS of the screen. I defiantly remember
this effect on the daily Sesame Street programs so I suppose
I am talking about ITV. Who would have facilitated those conversions?

-- 
Graham

%Profound_observation%

> Also I remember some converted material that, instead of displaying
> a narrow black bar at one or both sides of the screen, repeated
> the last few microseconds of each line several times giving a
> "ringing" effect on the LHS of the screen.

That should have read RHS of the screen
-- 
Graham

%Profound_observation%

wrote in message news:4F61474995%brian13434@lycos.co.uk...
> On 14 Jan,
>     tony sayer  wrote:
>
>> FWIW we converted some sets to 625 from 405 the worst part Was the FM
>> sound!..
>>
>> Most sets could run the line output stage up to 625 lines with a few
>> tuning caps changed. There vision strip had to be reversed for neg
>> vision MOD but they worked and some very well too:)...
>
> Pye TV53 was popular. the timebase would easily do 15625. I had one 
> modified
> for DXTV and a TV56 (IIRC, the 17" version) modified for UHF. I cheated in
> that one in that I used a transistorised dual standard IF strip and tuner.
>
> -- 
>  BD
>  Change lycos to yahoo to reply

Me too. IIRC the amplification in the IF strip was spread across 3 EF80s
I remember getting a good BBC2 picture albeit with not quite enough width,
but then consoling myself that the studio monitors I had seen intentionally
under-scanned too. I can't remember if I ever got the 6Mhz sound to
accompany the picture though.
-- 
Graham

%Profound_observation%

In article <fmlbdt$bmj$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
   Graham.  wrote:

> In those days I was beginning to think that Americans actually did have
> green flesh tones, because that's the way the conversions looked.
> This was the early 70s so they weren't optical conversions.

Not so.  If the programme had come live via satellite, there was a rota of
3 earth stations in use on the Atlantic: Goonhilly, Plumeur Bodou (France)
or Raisting (Germany).  The conversion was usually done close to the earth
station since the PTTs didn't like 525/60 signals on their links.  If
reception was in Germany then they would have used an optical converter. 
This would also apply to conversions done in the USA.  There was one series
of Dallas when the purchasing department were so pleased that they'd bought
a 625 version - the picture quality was terrible.


> Also I remember some converted material that, instead of displaying
> a narrow black bar at one or both sides of the screen, repeated
> the last few microseconds of each line several times giving a
> "ringing" effect on the LHS of the screen. I defiantly remember
> this effect on the daily Sesame Street programs so I suppose
> I am talking about ITV. Who would have facilitated those conversions?

I don't think that any of these conversions were done by the BBC.  I do
remember the Tom Jones show, made at Elstree on 525 being converted at TC
for UK audiences, but once the IBA came up with DICE, I suspect most ITV
programmes used that equipment.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

"charles"  wrote in message
news:4f62222a05charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk...
> In article ,
>   James <> wrote:
>> charles wrote:
>
>
>> The IBA designed a digital converter which was called DICE which meant
>> (Digital Intercontinental Conversion Equipment).

There is an article about DICE and some of the other work done at Crawley
Court in the 1976 edition of IBA's TV and Radio:

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2337/dice1ae2.png

http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/4242/dice2tp4.png

Does anyone recognise themselves from the photo?

(The images are about 1100x600 pixels - they may resize smaller in the 
browser.)

Mortimer wrote:

> > > The IBA designed a digital converter which was called DICE which meant
> > > (Digital Intercontinental Conversion Equipment).
> 
> There is an article about DICE and some of the other work done at Crawley
> Court in the 1976 edition of IBA's TV and Radio:
> 
> http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2337/dice1ae2.png
> 
> http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/4242/dice2tp4.png
> 
> Does anyone recognise themselves from the photo?
> 
> (The images are about 1100x600 pixels - they may resize smaller in the browser.)


Consulting the IBA paperwork I have, with pen pics off all those
involved.

From left
John Barratt
John Taylor (With beard)
Not certain ?
John Baldwin (With glasses to the right of DICE)
Ian Lever (Just see his head)
Terry Corbyn ?
Clive Thirlwall (With Tash)
Billy Connolly (Stood behind Clive Thirlwall)

J

Graham. wrote:
> "charles"  wrote in message 

> Also I remember some converted material that, instead of displaying
> a narrow black bar at one or both sides of the screen, repeated
> the last few microseconds of each line several times giving a
> "ringing" effect on the LHS of the screen. I defiantly remember
> this effect on the daily Sesame Street programs so I suppose
> I am talking about ITV. Who would have facilitated those conversions?

I'm sure I read somewhere that Sesame Street was standards converted by ITN's 
DICE. Also I think ATV's Muppet Show (made at Elstree) was converted to NTSC 
by the same kit. As 'Mortimer's' link indicates the DICE could work in either 
direction.


-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

charles wrote:
> In article ,
>    James <> wrote:
>> charles wrote:
> 
> 
>> The IBA designed a digital converter which was called DICE which meant
>> (Digital Intercontinental Conversion Equipment).
> 
>> Did the BBC ever have one of these, they were made by Marconi.
> 
> I don't think so, the BBC went on to create an even better one which
> interpolated over 4 fields, if I remember correctly. After my time in that
> department.  I m