Someone has converted a 1957 Bush B&W 405 line TV to receive FREEVIEW.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1024868/From-Dixon-Of-Dock-Green-Life-On-Mars--Britains-oldest-digital-TV.html

http://tinyurl.com/5qka43


MB

"MB" <MB@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:3130303030373135484B925205@invalid.invalid...
> Someone has converted a 1957 Bush B&W 405 line TV to receive FREEVIEW.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1024868/From-Dixon-Of-Dock-Green-Life-On-Mars--Britains-oldest-digital-TV.html
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5qka43

"and a lead so the tube wouldn't burn out." ?

Journalists Huh! Especially Daily Mail!

Graham

MB <MB@invalid.invalid> writes:

> Someone has converted a 1957 Bush B&W 405 line TV to receive FREEVIEW.

Why's this news? 625-to-405 line converters have been available for
many years, and there's a thriving community of old TV collectors and
restorers.

(Oh, the Daily Mail... ignore me.)

-- 
Adam Sampson                          <http://offog.org/>

MB wrote:
> Someone has converted a 1957 Bush B&W 405 line TV to receive FREEVIEW.
> 

Presumably he now has to pay for a colour licence ....

-- 
Adrian C

In article , Adam Sampson
 scribeth thus
>MB <MB@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> Someone has converted a 1957 Bush B&W 405 line TV to receive FREEVIEW.
>
>Why's this news? 625-to-405 line converters have been available for
>many years, and there's a thriving community of old TV collectors and
>restorers.
>
>(Oh, the Daily Mail... ignore me.)
>

Tho we used to convert some 405 line sets to 625 but some were more
suitable than others. So is someone still doing a 405 to 625 standards
converter?..

Course if your just looking to an old 405 line set to work with a
freeview adapter then you're less stuff to convert after all its just a
625 line monitor with a video input really...
-- 
Tony Sayer

In article , Adrian C
<email@here.invalid> scribeth thus
>MB wrote:
>> Someone has converted a 1957 Bush B&W 405 line TV to receive FREEVIEW.
>> 
>
>Presumably he now has to pay for a colour licence ....
>

Yep has this set in reality had a colour chassis fitted?..
-- 
Tony Sayer

In article <3130303030373135484B925205@invalid.invalid>,
   MB <MB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Someone has converted a 1957 Bush B&W 405 line TV to receive FREEVIEW.

 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1024868/From-Dixon-Of-Dock-Green-Life-On-Mars--Britains-oldest-digital-TV.html

> http://tinyurl.com/5qka43


And they don't know how to photograph a TV?

-- 
*What boots up must come down *

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

tony sayer wrote:
> In article , Adrian C
> <email@here.invalid> scribeth thus
>> MB wrote:
>>> Someone has converted a 1957 Bush B&W 405 line TV to receive FREEVIEW.
>>>
>> Presumably he now has to pay for a colour licence ....
>>
> Yep has this set in reality had a colour chassis fitted?..

Ah, the following I didn't know until now...

<http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/conditions.jsp>

"A black and white licence is not valid for the installation or use of 
colour TV equipment except where a digital box is installed or used with 
a black and white television set, as long as the digital box is not 
designed to record television programmes."

I'm doing a U turn on my last post, can someone let me across the 
central reservation?

-- 
Adrian C

"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
news:4fac436facdave@davenoise.co.uk...
> In article <3130303030373135484B925205@invalid.invalid>,
>   MB <MB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Someone has converted a 1957 Bush B&W 405 line TV to receive FREEVIEW.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1024868/From-Dixon-Of-Dock-Green-Life-On-Mars--Britains-oldest-digital-TV.html
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/5qka43
>
>
> And they don't know how to photograph a TV?

Do you sometimes get the feeling that most or all of previously known basic 
knowledge has been lost? I do.

Graham

"Graham"  wrote in message 
news:U5-dnTU6W5ApvNHVnZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> "Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message 
> news:4fac436facdave@davenoise.co.uk...
>> In article <3130303030373135484B925205@invalid.invalid>,
>>   MB <MB@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Someone has converted a 1957 Bush B&W 405 line TV to receive 
>>> FREEVIEW.
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1024868/From-Dixon-Of-Dock-Green-Life-On-Mars--Britains-oldest-digital-TV.html
>>
>>
>> And they don't know how to photograph a TV?
>
> Do you sometimes get the feeling that most or all of previously 
> known basic knowledge has been lost? I do.
>

It hasn't been lost, it's just that it's cheaper not to use it, of 
course in time it will be lost... :~(

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 19:52:10 +0100, :Jerry: wrote:

>>> And they don't know how to photograph a TV?
>>
>> Do you sometimes get the feeling that most or all of previously 
>> known basic knowledge has been lost? I do.
> 
> It hasn't been lost, it's just that it's cheaper not to use it, of 
> course in time it will be lost... :~( 

I can't figure out how cost comes into knowing how to take a photo of an 
active TV screen. Any "professional" photographer worth... ah, 
professional - Daily Mail, OK I conceed.

I think the really sad part is that no one appears to have noticed as they 
still used the picture.

-- 
Cheers
Dave.

"Dave Liquorice"  wrote in message 
news:nyyfbegfubjuvyypbz.k26a2o1.pminews@srv1.howhill.net...
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 19:52:10 +0100, :Jerry: wrote:
>
>>>> And they don't know how to photograph a TV?
>>>
>>> Do you sometimes get the feeling that most or all of previously
>>> known basic knowledge has been lost? I do.
>>
>> It hasn't been lost, it's just that it's cheaper not to use it, of
>> course in time it will be lost... :~(
>
> I can't figure out how cost comes into knowing how to take a photo 
> of an
> active TV screen. Any "professional" photographer worth... ah,
> professional - Daily Mail, OK I conceed.
>

The point is, 20 (perhaps only 10) years ago two people would have 
attended, the 'junior hack' interview the luck-less person and a 
*professional* photographer to take the pictures. It's nothing to do 
with the perceived quality of the publication, I've seen crap images 
used in what passes for quality publications.

> I think the really sad part is that no one appears to have noticed 
> as they
> still used the picture.
>

Hmm, you are assuming that, if they had a choice of images, that they 
didn't all suffer the same sort of errors...

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:34:53 +0100, Adrian C <email@here.invalid>
wrote:

><http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/conditions.jsp>
>
>"A black and white licence is not valid for the installation or use of 
>colour TV equipment except where a digital box is installed or used with 
>a black and white television set, as long as the digital box is not 
>designed to record television programmes."

That's kind of nuts. Why does 'recording' a programme make it colour?
--

In article ,
	Zero Tolerance wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:34:53 +0100, Adrian C <email@here.invalid>
> wrote:

>><http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/conditions.jsp>
>>
>>"A black and white licence is not valid for the installation or use of 
>>colour TV equipment except where a digital box is installed or used with 
>>a black and white television set, as long as the digital box is not 
>>designed to record television programmes."

> That's kind of nuts. Why does 'recording' a programme make it colour?

...because the recording could then be taken elsewhere and viewed on a
colour set.

-- 
Paul Martin

In article ,
   Graham  wrote:
> > And they don't know how to photograph a TV?

> Do you sometimes get the feeling that most or all of previously known
> basic knowledge has been lost? I do.

Perhaps the Mail uses amateurs as photographers these days - rather like
much of broadcasting. ;-)

-- 
*Can vegetarians eat animal crackers?

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Adrian C wrote:
> MB wrote:
>> Someone has converted a 1957 Bush B&W 405 line TV to receive FREEVIEW.
>>
> 
> Presumably he now has to pay for a colour licence ....

I wonder if he now gets a pesky DOG in the top right hand corner saying; 
'Press Grey'.

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

"Paul Martin"  wrote in message 
news:slrng4oo97.5aj.pm@thinkpad.nowster.org.uk...
> In article ,
> Zero Tolerance wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:34:53 +0100, Adrian C <email@here.invalid>
>> wrote:
>
>>><http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/conditions.jsp>
>>>
>>>"A black and white licence is not valid for the installation or use of
>>>colour TV equipment except where a digital box is installed or used with
>>>a black and white television set, as long as the digital box is not
>>>designed to record television programmes."
>
>> That's kind of nuts. Why does 'recording' a programme make it colour?
>
> ...because the recording could then be taken elsewhere and viewed on a
> colour set.
>
> -- 
> Paul Martin 

But, it's not realtime viewing then. I believe you don't need a television 
licence to view recorded programs.

"Smolley"  wrote in message 
news:qcadnQru6KZJRNHVRVnyiQA@bt.com...
>
> "Paul Martin"  wrote in message 
> news:slrng4oo97.5aj.pm@thinkpad.nowster.org.uk...
>> In article ,
>> Zero Tolerance wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:34:53 +0100, Adrian C <email@here.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>><http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/conditions.jsp>
>>>>
>>>>"A black and white licence is not valid for the installation or 
>>>>use of
>>>>colour TV equipment except where a digital box is installed or 
>>>>used with
>>>>a black and white television set, as long as the digital box is 
>>>>not
>>>>designed to record television programmes."
>>
>>> That's kind of nuts. Why does 'recording' a programme make it 
>>> colour?
>>
>> ...because the recording could then be taken elsewhere and viewed 
>> on a
>> colour set.
>>
>> -- 
>> Paul Martin 
>
> But, it's not realtime viewing then. I believe you don't need a 
> television licence to view recorded programs.

You believe wrong, think about what you are implying, if you were 
correct how short a period of time is it before a time-shift recording 
becomes a (on the fly) broadcast delay?... Legally, recording of a 
broadcast programme is nothing more than time-shifting the *live* 
broadcast, considering that the recording is meant to be an archive 
recording.

"Mark Carver" <mark.carver@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
news:6b430vF39ep8kU1@mid.individual.net...
> Adrian C wrote:
>> MB wrote:
>>> Someone has converted a 1957 Bush B&W 405 line TV to receive 
>>> FREEVIEW.
>>>
>>
>> Presumably he now has to pay for a colour licence ....
>
> I wonder if he now gets a pesky DOG in the top right hand corner 
> saying; 'Press Grey'.
>

...and if so, just what do they expect him to press?

":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> wrote in message 
news:HI-dnZnutcf8Q9HVnZ2dnUVZ8uednZ2d@bt.com...
>
<snip>
> Legally, recording of a broadcast programme is nothing more than 
> time-shifting the *live* broadcast, considering that the recording 
> is meant to be an archive recording.

Oops, that should have been;

...considering that the recording is NOT meant to be an archive 
recording.

In article , Paul Martin wrote:
> >><http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/conditions.jsp>
> >>
> >>"A black and white licence is not valid for the installation or use of 
> >>colour TV equipment except where a digital box is installed or used with 
> >>a black and white television set, as long as the digital box is not 
> >>designed to record television programmes."
> 
> > That's kind of nuts. Why does 'recording' a programme make it colour?
> 
> ....because the recording could then be taken elsewhere and viewed on a
> colour set.

From a built-in hard drive?

Rod.

"Roderick Stewart"  wrote in 
message news:VA.00000408.009517e6@removethisbit.beeb.net...
> In article , Paul Martin 
> wrote:
>> >><http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/conditions.jsp>
>> >>
>> >>"A black and white licence is not valid for the installation or 
>> >>use of
>> >>colour TV equipment except where a digital box is installed or 
>> >>used with
>> >>a black and white television set, as long as the digital box is 
>> >>not
>> >>designed to record television programmes."
>>
>> > That's kind of nuts. Why does 'recording' a programme make it 
>> > colour?
>>
>> ....because the recording could then be taken elsewhere and viewed 
>> on a
>> colour set.
>
> From a built-in hard drive?
>

Pizzle-head, it would be quite easy to just move the whole unit to 
another room or location!

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:37:41 +0100, ":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID>
wrote:

>Legally, recording of a 
>broadcast programme is nothing more than time-shifting the *live* 
>broadcast, considering that the recording is meant to be an archive 
>recording. 

Legally, you need a licence to watch "live or virtually as-live"
television. A timeshift recording doesn't count.

--

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 22:22:46 +0100, :Jerry: wrote:

>> I think the really sad part is that no one appears to have noticed 
>> as they still used the picture.
> 
> Hmm, you are assuming that, if they had a choice of images, that they 
> didn't all suffer the same sort of errors... 

But these days they all use digital cameras (pros or reporters) and can 
see the photo they have just taken and thus, if they use their eyes, see 
the problem. It should have been corrected at the time of shooting.

It's all symptomatic of lack of training and falling standards to 
accomodate the lack of training.

-- 
Cheers
Dave.

In article ,
	Smolley wrote:

> But, it's not realtime viewing then. I believe you don't need a television 
> licence to view recorded programs. 

You don't need a TV licence to record PRERECORDED programmes. ie.
Commercial DVDs and VHS tapes.

-- 
Paul Martin

"Zero Tolerance"  wrote in message 
news:484d0fc6.6725390@enews.newsguy.com...
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:37:41 +0100, ":Jerry:" 
> <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID>
> wrote:
>
>>Legally, recording of a
>>broadcast programme is nothing more than time-shifting the *live*
>>broadcast, considering that the recording is meant to be an archive
>>recording.
>
> Legally, you need a licence to watch "live or virtually as-live"
> television. A timeshift recording doesn't count.
>

But you need it to RECEIVE, if you make a time-shift you need a TVL. 
The TVL is not, and has not been for some years, a licence for a 
television set - it's a licence to receive.

"Paul Martin"  wrote in message 
news:slrng4q461.851.pm@thinkpad.nowster.org.uk...
> In article ,
> Smolley wrote:
>
>> But, it's not realtime viewing then. I believe you don't need a 
>> television
>> licence to view recorded programs.
>
> You don't need a TV licence to record PRERECORDED programmes. ie.
                                          ^^^^^^^^^^^
> Commercial DVDs and VHS tapes.
>

...but you do need permission to make copies... I assume you mean 
*view* pre-recorded programmes?! :~)

"Dave Liquorice"  wrote in message 
news:nyyfbegfubjuvyypbz.k27cmm1.pminews@srv1.howhill.net...
> On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 22:22:46 +0100, :Jerry: wrote:
>
>>> I think the really sad part is that no one appears to have noticed
>>> as they still used the picture.
>>
>> Hmm, you are assuming that, if they had a choice of images, that 
>> they
>> didn't all suffer the same sort of errors...
>
> But these days they all use digital cameras (pros or reporters) and 
> can
> see the photo they have just taken and thus, if they use their eyes, 
> see
> the problem. It should have been corrected at the time of shooting.

That requires the person taking the pictures to know 1/. that the 
image is crap and 2/. things could be better 3/. how to take a better 
picture...

>
> It's all symptomatic of lack of training and falling standards to
> accomodate the lack of training.
>

I haven't said anything less!

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:36:31 +0100, Roderick Stewart wrote:

>> ....because the recording could then be taken elsewhere and viewed on a
>> colour set.
> 
> From a built-in hard drive?

Built in HDD stays in the box but box is taken else where or colour 
monitor is connected to it with out moving it.

-- 
Cheers
Dave.

In article , :Jerry:
<INVALID@INVALID.INVALID> scribeth thus
>
>"Zero Tolerance"  wrote in message 
>news:484d0fc6.6725390@enews.newsguy.com...
>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 08:37:41 +0100, ":Jerry:" 
>> <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Legally, recording of a
>>>broadcast programme is nothing more than time-shifting the *live*
>>>broadcast, considering that the recording is meant to be an archive
>>>recording.
>>
>> Legally, you need a licence to watch "live or virtually as-live"
>> television. A timeshift recording doesn't count.
>>
>
>But you need it to RECEIVE, if you make a time-shift you need a TVL. 
>The TVL is not, and has not been for some years, a licence for a 
>television set - it's a licence to receive. 
>
>

O dear!, AN INTERESTING THREAD DEGENERATING INTO ANOTHER TV LICENCE
ARGUMENT;(................
--

In article ,
	:Jerry: wrote:

> But you need it to RECEIVE, if you make a time-shift you need a TVL. 
> The TVL is not, and has not been for some years, a licence for a 
> television set - it's a licence to receive. 

My TV licence has a double-oh in it. Does that allow me to kill time?

-- 
Paul Martin

In article ,
	:Jerry: wrote:

> "Paul Martin"  wrote in message 
> news:slrng4q461.851.pm@thinkpad.nowster.org.uk...
>> In article ,
>> Smolley wrote:
>>
>>> But, it's not realtime viewing then. I believe you don't need a 
>>> television
>>> licence to view recorded programs.
>>
>> You don't need a TV licence to record PRERECORDED programmes. ie.
>                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Commercial DVDs and VHS tapes.

> ...but you do need permission to make copies... I assume you mean 
> *view* pre-recorded programmes?! :~) 

Oops! Brain fart.

-- 
Paul Martin

In article , Dave 
Liquorice wrote:
> >> ....because the recording could then be taken elsewhere and viewed on a
> >> colour set.
> > 
> > From a built-in hard drive?
> 
> Built in HDD stays in the box but box is taken else where or colour 
> monitor is connected to it with out moving it.

"Taken elsewhere" doesn't mean the same as "with out moving it".

Can you imagine anyone actually going to the trouble of unplugging a PVR and 
transporting it to different premises just to watch yesterday's TV? Then 
presumably they'd move it back again. Maybe they'd have several PVRs they 
could swap on a regular basis, just to provide somebody with a constant 
supply of yesterday's TV. I wonder what the petrol and/or postage costs of 
this arrangement would be compared with the cost of a licence? 

Rod.

In article , :Jerry: wrote:
> > But these days they all use digital cameras (pros or reporters) and 
> > can
> > see the photo they have just taken and thus, if they use their eyes, 
> > see
> > the problem. It should have been corrected at the time of shooting.
> 
> That requires the person taking the pictures to know 1/. that the 
> image is crap and 2/. things could be better 3/. how to take a better 
> picture...

They need something more than just to *know* when something is wrong; 
they need to *care* that it's wrong, otherwise it'll never be put right. 
Some of the video clips on YouTube suggest there exists a class of person 
who is capable of looking at something they've just done that is 
blatantly wrong and and would be easy to change, but not giving a 
monkey's - otherwise how could you explain pictures that are sideways, 
too dark to see if the subject is even human, or have sound that is 
completely unintelligble - so it is entirely possible that some of these 
people are ending up in broadcasting.

> > It's all symptomatic of lack of training and falling standards to
> > accomodate the lack of training.
> >
> 
> I haven't said anything less! 

I would go further and suggest careful selection of who is worth the 
bother of training in the first place, as some would clearly be lost 
causes no matter what you tried to teach them.

Rod.

"Roderick Stewart"  wrote in
message news:VA.00000409.02db309f@removethisbit.beeb.net...
<snip>
>
> Can you imagine anyone actually going to the trouble of unplugging a
> PVR and
> transporting it to different premises just to watch yesterday's TV?

How about this, PVR in one room, TV in another, normally connected to 
a PS3...

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:12:18 퍝, Roderick Stewart wrote:

> Can you imagine anyone actually going to the trouble of unplugging a PVR 
> and transporting it to different premises just to watch yesterday's TV"different premises" like next door, by foot...  There are some strange folk out there. If they thought they could walk the box to a neighbour to 
avoid the licence fee they would.

> I wonder what the petrol and/or postage costs of this arrangement would 
> be compared with the cost of a licence? 

To these strange folk that cost wouldn't occur to them. I reckon the 
£139.50 Colour TV licence is good for about 250 to 350 miles at the true 
cost of running a vehicle.

-- 
Cheers
Dave.

"tony sayer"  wrote in message
news:uCbY+JHcj9SIFw$6@bancom.co.uk...
> In article , Adrian C
> <email@here.invalid> scribeth thus
>>MB wrote:
>>> Someone has converted a 1957 Bush B&W 405 line TV to receive FREEVIEW.
>>
>>Presumably he now has to pay for a colour licence ....
>
> Yep has this set in reality had a colour chassis fitted?..

What would be intersting is to convert it to colour without fitting a
different chassis or tube, which I think could be done with one of the
standards converters they do here:
http://www.earlytelevision.org/hock_converter.html plus a big colour wheel
and a motor to spin it at 1500 rpm. Oh, and you'd also have to extend the
range of the vertical hold control up to 150 Hz, and increase the line scan
to about the same as a PC monitor, 30kHz, but apparently it can be done.
(See also http://www.earlytelevision.org/gray_monitor.html and
http://converter.home.comcast.net/~converter/ )

It looks like their converter is actually from NTSC to CBS field sequential
colour, so the Freeview pictures would have to be converted to NTSC first.
However, this can be quite easily done these days. My DVD Recorder for
example, will convert live passthrough video from PAL to NTSC if you select
NTSC as the output format for playing DVDs.

In message <g2km1o$t6t$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, Stephen 
 writes

>It looks like their converter is actually from NTSC to CBS field sequential
>colour, so the Freeview pictures would have to be converted to NTSC first.
>However, this can be quite easily done these days. My DVD Recorder for
>example, will convert live passthrough video from PAL to NTSC if you select
>NTSC as the output format for playing DVDs.

That'll be NTSC 4.43, not NTSC 3.58 I suspect.
-- 
If one person has delusions, we call them psychotic. If, however, 1.5 billion
people have delusions we must apparently call them a religious group, and
respect their delusionary state.

Roderick Stewart wrote:

> I would go further and suggest careful selection of who is worth the 
> bother of training in the first place, as some would clearly be lost 
> causes no matter what you tried to teach them.
> 
> Rod.
> 

Picture the scene.

- Youngster, Short attention span, London Media employed photographer 
has standard issue DSLR & Flash.
- Old Guy, rabbiting about the moon landing, price of fish, old folks 
and digital TV etc...

Youngster thinks.

"This smart camera/flash combo has got an auto program. Why not use it 
and get the hell out'a here. Hmmm, Nice day outside. Did Susan say she 
was going to meet me at the pub?"

(BTW Geeky interest - download the .JPG from the web page and check out 
the IPTC metadata in something like Irfanview)

-- 
Adrian C

In news:4fac7157b3dave@davenoise.co.uk,
Dave Plowman (News)  typed, for some strange, 
unexplained reason:
: In article ,
:    Graham  wrote:
: > > And they don't know how to photograph a TV?
:
: > Do you sometimes get the feeling that most or all of previously
: > known basic knowledge has been lost? I do.
:
: Perhaps the Mail uses amateurs as photographers these days - rather
: like much of broadcasting. ;-)

Hey, I take exception to that..! I'm an amateur photographer and I can 
take better pictures than anybody at the Mail with my eyes shut..!

Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:
> 
> Hey, I take exception to that..! I'm an amateur photographer and I can 
> take better pictures than anybody at the Mail with my eyes shut..!
> 

Ivor, have a look at that photograph.

It's got a little field depth in it, a open aperture fast lens in use?

The subject has a lot of bright sunshine light behind it, and a light 
source in front (a flash gun bounced probably to avoid reflections on 
the guy's forehead and the screen - or another window?)

So what shutter speed did the camera / photographer select?

It's horribly slow - a bit faster than 1/25 but still slow.

Does not compute ...

Unless this was all done in the dark, horrible day outside, no flash - 
and everyone was crossing fingers that pushing it through photoshop 
would save the day...

-- 
Adrian C

"Tony Quinn"  wrote in message
news:YiWzYNJGWhTIFwTR@tqvideo.co.uk...
> In message <g2km1o$t6t$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, Stephen
>  writes
>
>>It looks like their converter is actually from NTSC to CBS field
>>sequential colour, so the Freeview pictures would have to be converted to
>>NTSC first. However, this can be quite easily done these days. My DVD
>>Recorder for example, will convert live passthrough video from PAL to NTSC
>>if you select NTSC as the output format for playing DVDs.
>
> That'll be NTSC 4.43, not NTSC 3.58 I suspect.

I'm pretty sure it's NTSC 3.58. I think the subcarrier dot pattern looks
right for NTSC 3.58 as far as I can tell, and the TV's on screen display
thinks that's what it is also. The DVD recorder is a Philips DVDR 3305.
(Which incidentally is infuriatingly unreliable when it comes to actually
recording DVDs as it is liable to reset itself randomly leaving you with
half a recording that's unplayable because it has no TOC.)

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:37:05 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> The DVD recorder is a Philips DVDR 3305. (Which incidentally is 
> infuriatingly unreliable when it comes to actually recording DVDs 

Must be a trait of Philips. We had a Philips DVD/HDD recorder, nice user 
interface and easy to use but the DVD side packed up twice within its 
warranty year, the second time I rejected it for a refund.

Now have a Sony but the UI is not a patch on the Philips. It's terribly 
slow to react to button pushes on the remote and there is no winking light 
on the front to tell you it saw the command.

-- 
Cheers
Dave.

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 12:28:14 +0100, ":Jerry:" <INVALID@INVALID.INVALID>
wrote:

>But you need it to RECEIVE, if you make a time-shift you need a TVL. 
>The TVL is not, and has not been for some years, a licence for a 
>television set - it's a licence to receive. 

Of course. But if you're not the person receiving and making the
timeshift (let's say someone records the programme for you) then that
would not appear to require a licence. 

--

In article , Zero Tolerance wrote:
> >But you need it to RECEIVE, if you make a time-shift you need a TVL. 
> >The TVL is not, and has not been for some years, a licence for a 
> >television set - it's a licence to receive. 
> 
> Of course. But if you're not the person receiving and making the
> timeshift (let's say someone records the programme for you) then that
> would not appear to require a licence. 

Yesbut...  I think it's not permitted to make recordings off-air for 
anything other than your own personal use. It's a technicality that 
everybody ignores as it would be insanely impractical to enforce and 
normally doesn't cost anybody anything, but using it to claim exemption 
from paying a licence would be tantamount to trying to excuse one 
offence by admitting to another.

Rod.

"Roderick Stewart"  wrote 
in message 
news:VA.00000418.01773ce8@escapetime.removethisbit.myzen.co.uk...
> In article , Zero Tolerance 
> wrote:
>> >But you need it to RECEIVE, if you make a time-shift you need a 
>> >TVL.
>> >The TVL is not, and has not been for some years, a licence for a
>> >television set - it's a licence to receive.
>>
>> Of course. But if you're not the person receiving and making the
>> timeshift (let's say someone records the programme for you) then 
>> that
>> would not appear to require a licence.
>
> Yesbut...  I think it's not permitted to make recordings off-air for
> anything other than your own personal use.

Indeed, that would certainly break the copyright laws and probably the 
TVL laws (depending to whom the timeshift copy was given/loaned.

 It's a technicality that
> everybody ignores as it would be insanely impractical to enforce and
> normally doesn't cost anybody anything, but using it to claim 
> exemption
> from paying a licence would be tantamount to trying to excuse one
> offence by admitting to another.
>

Indeed, it would be like trying to mitigate a speeding offence by 
claiming that you hadn't seen the speed restriction sign - <police 
officer>"OK Sir, I won't book you for speeding but I'll book you for 
DWC instead"</police officer>! Ignorance of the law is no defence...

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 14:03:54 +0100, tony sayer  wrote:


>Tho we used to convert some 405 line sets to 625 but some were more
>suitable than others. So is someone still doing a 405 to 625 standards
>converter?..
No longer in production but one on Ebay - Item number: 330242776180
And circuits to build on the linked manufacturer's website.

Geo