View Full Version : 1954 Color TV ID


tornadoman
07-30-2016, 12:21 PM
I was perusing the Getty Images site today and came across this pic of a color set dated Jan. 01, 1954. Was wondering if this is an actual color set, or a B&W set with a color image added after the fact?

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/family-viewing-picture-idHM6520-001

http://www.gettyimages.com/license/2664328

Steve D.
07-30-2016, 12:31 PM
I was perusing the Getty Images site today and came across this pic of a color set dated Jan. 01, 1954. Was wondering if this is an actual color set, or a B&W set with a color image added after the fact?

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/family-viewing-picture-idHM6520-001

http://www.gettyimages.com/license/2664328

Totally fake color insert. May even be a European receiver used in the photo.

-Steve D.

tornadoman
07-30-2016, 12:49 PM
I did notice on the caption the alternate "colour" spelling. So may very well be a European set.

zeno
07-30-2016, 01:31 PM
FAKE
Even B&W sets didnt have tubes that were that rectangle.
Its also way to brite.

73 Zeno:smoke:

etype2
07-30-2016, 04:32 PM
I was perusing the Getty Images site today and came across this pic of a color set dated Jan. 01, 1954. Was wondering if this is an actual color set, or a B&W set with a color image added after the fact?

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/family-viewing-picture-idHM6520-001

http://www.gettyimages.com/license/2664328


This image is reported to be an experimental British television (Pye?) using the American Lawrence Chromatron (Chromatic Labratory) CRT.

In the 1953 Queen Elizabeth coronation, several Chromatron televisions were set up in a children's hospital in London and the kids got to see closed circuit color television during the coronation. There were several Pye color television cameras set up along the parade route. The BBC did not broadcast the coronation in color.

http://www.visions4.net/journal/chromatron/

Steve McVoy
07-30-2016, 04:33 PM
Not a fake:

http://www.earlytelevision.org/british_experimental.html

It used a Chromatron CRT, which is masked like that:

http://www.earlytelevision.org/chromatron.html

tornadoman
07-30-2016, 04:46 PM
Yep that's a definite match with the pic I posted. Such a large size screen compared to the 15GP22 at the time.

MRX37
07-30-2016, 04:54 PM
Yeah in 1954 the *only* color option available would have been a CT-100 and that ain't no CT-100

Also January 1954, so not even that yet.

Eric H
07-30-2016, 04:59 PM
The set may have been real but I still wonder if the picture has been doctored?
The image just seems too bright compared to the surroundings, maybe they did a composite like we do now because photographing a working CRT set is hard to do.

etype2
07-30-2016, 05:19 PM
The image could be a cut and paste job, but it also could be real. The Chromatron CRT was extraordinary bright, being 85% efficient compared to three tube shadow mask CRT which was 15% efficient.

That would explain the overexposure in the image plus the fact that just about any television image will look overexposed when the television is captured in bright light like this image is.

Is that the Queen herself on the set?

David Roper
07-30-2016, 08:30 PM
Why does the table lamp cast no light whatsoever on the cabinet of the set, only the wall behind it? :saywhat:

MRX37
07-30-2016, 09:18 PM
Real or otherwise, I would love to see a working Chromatron and compare to your typical CRT.

Hagstar
07-30-2016, 09:53 PM
Getty recently demanded a $120- payment from a photographer for posting her own photo on her own website. It turned out they have made literally billions of dollars claiming copyrights on and selling "rights" to public domain images. And so they are being sued by said photographer for one billion dollars.

So it's probably fake :)

John H.

etype2
07-30-2016, 10:37 PM
Why does the table lamp cast no light whatsoever on the cabinet of the set, only the wall behind it? :saywhat:

The television is illuminated from above. Look at the trim piece below the screen and the the lower speaker cut out, both lit from above. The child legs in red appear to be illuminated from above as well.

etype2
07-30-2016, 10:49 PM
Getty recently demanded a $120- payment from a photographer for posting her own photo on her own website. It turned out they have made literally billions of dollars claiming copyrights on and selling "rights" to public domain images. And so they are being sued by said photographer for one billion dollars.

So it's probably fake :)

John H.

The source of the photo is attributed to Radio Times Hulton Picture Library per the ETF site. It is also well documented by many sources that at least two Chromatrons were at the children's hospital displaying closed circuit color images of the coronation in 1953.

If you Google "Pye", you will find photos of the color camera used for the closed circuit color telecast to the two Chromatrons at the hospital.

Why would this image be a fake? What would be the motivation to fake the photo?

old_tv_nut
07-30-2016, 10:50 PM
Getty doesn't give any hint as to what type of image the source is - color print, negative, magazine image. This could be a 3rd generation copy, which has blown out the bright "TV" picture. From the lighting, the picture is obviously staged, but how MUCH of it is real is very hard to tell. Colour transparency film at the time was about ISO 12, color negative about ISO 25, so it would have to be a time exposure even with a very bright CRT. So, is the overexposure a mistake with a real CRT, or a rear-lit transparency, or???? One other suspicious thing is that the color balance of the TV image matches the lighting of the living room, which is not likely for a real CRT, more likely for a backlit transparency.

old_tv_nut
07-30-2016, 10:54 PM
Why would this image be a fake? What would be the motivation to fake the photo?

Because it would be MUCH easier to create this photo as a fake than to actually have a full color TV system running and capture this posed and carefully lighted scene.

old_tv_nut
07-30-2016, 10:59 PM
The small child moved his leg. The girl in orange moved her head. Definitely a time exposure. So maybe the TV image is real. Did they have only one chance to get it correct, and overexposed the TV? Still hard to say.

etype2
07-30-2016, 11:37 PM
Because it would be MUCH easier to create this photo as a fake than to actually have a full color TV system running and capture this posed and carefully lighted scene.

I can accept the hypothesis that it would be easier to stage the color transmission to the set. Either the cameras would need to be on scene or close by to transmit the images. And yes, the people were positioned for the photo just as many other similar photos like this were "set up".

I can just as easily accept the fact that the image is real based on what we know about Pye and the fact they were working on an experimental color system at this time. We also know they coordinated with Chomatic Labratory and transmitted the color telecast by closed circuit in 1953 to at least two Chromatrons set up in the children's hospital.

Real image on that set in the photo or not, we know that at least two Chromatron televisions were operating in London in 1953 about the same time as the photo was purported to be taken.

Pete Deksnis
08-02-2016, 01:02 PM
Here is how I have seen film exposed by professonal photographers to obtain the type of results seen here.

First of all, there is no indication that flash was used to obtain this shot. Floodlamps were used here. I'm suggesting a tripod-mounted camera, such as a bellows camera loaded with 4x5-in. or even 8x10-in. sheet film, with a manual shutter, operated by an experienced photographer, who exposed the film for a few seconds -- with the table lamp off and perhaps even the TV off.

After the initial expsure, the flood lamps were turned off, and the lamp and TV were turned on. The entire set except for those two items is now very dark.

A second exposure is made by the photogrpher. But this time the shutter is opened for many more seconds, which depends on the speed of the film and the brightness of the TV image.

The photographer then repeats the entire procedure three, four, or more times while varying the exposure times.

The odd thing about this shot though is the shadow behind the lampshade, which leads me to believe the lamp was off for the first exposure, and the overexposed TV image, which may suggest it's just one of the outtakes.

We hired studios in NYC in the seventies to shoot magazine covers this way, particularly to get a real-time trace on an oscilloscope.

Pete

old_tv_nut
08-02-2016, 01:21 PM
Hi, Pete, you are describing exactly the process I personally saw used by ad photographers for ads that could claim "real TV image" (which most did not); and this one being a discard would explain the overexposure. But that means we should be looking for a good one, which should have been published somewhere.

old_tv_nut
08-02-2016, 01:27 PM
I want to add that with the burned out image, there is no way to tell if there are any reflections in the face of the TV. Sometimes the procedure described actually used two separate shots instead of a double exposure, so the surroundings would be completely dark for the second shot and not reflect in the screen. When the screen image was cut in, it could still be advertised as "actual TV picture."

etype2
08-02-2016, 07:25 PM
Couple of things.

1. The"cameras" referred to in my post #18 was meant to be the experimental color television camera that Pye was using in 1953.
2. Today if one uses any camera set on auto in a normally lit room and photographs a television with a television image on the screen, the image on the screen will generally always be overexposed.
3. The television in the image in this post could be the experimental Pye with the Lawrence Chromatron. If this is the case, we know that the Chromatron CRT was extremely bright, being 85% efficient compared to the three gun RCA color CRT's at that time, 1953, which were 15% efficient. Just another reason the CRT image appears overexposed.

After reading the last three comments, in layman terms, I think you are saying that whoever created the image first, took a shot of the room, people and television in bright light. Then second, photographed the television CRT image in the dark and third, them combined the two images. Am I wrong in this interpretation? If this is what they did here, it didn't work because the television image is overexposed.

etype2
08-02-2016, 08:06 PM
Just noticed that the same screenshot image from the ETF is not as badly overexposed, unless "it was fixed".

So now we have to consider the sources of the two different exposures in these two photographs and we should actually see the original photograph in its pristine condition to make a definitive judgement as to whether the screenshot is real or fake. I don't see a motive to fake the photo in question way back in 1953-54.

http://www.visions4.net/journal/wp-content/uploads/image-157.jpeg

This is the camera that broadcast the closed circuit color images of the 1953 coronation.

http://www.visions4.net/journal/wp-content/uploads/image-155.jpeg

.... Which looks very similar to the image of the camera published in the book shown on the ETF website.

http://www.visions4.net/journal/wp-content/uploads/image-156.jpeg

How do we know the two images in the book weren't taken at the same time for the publication?

Pete Deksnis
08-02-2016, 09:59 PM
After reading the last three comments, in layman terms, I think you are saying that whoever created the image first, took a shot of the room, people and television in bright light. Then second, photographed the television CRT image in the dark and third, them combined the two images. Am I wrong in this interpretation? If this is what they did here, it didn't work because the television image is overexposed. There are two ways to do it: (1) take double exposures as we did with magazine covers, and (2) as Wayne noted, take two pictures, then trim and paste the TV screen picture into the overall scene.

Also, my original post described a professional technique. I actually agree with what Steve said earlier in this thread. I do not think we are seeing an actual photograph of a TV screen. It is probably a picture that was 'stripped in' to the original photograph.

Pete

etype2
08-02-2016, 10:38 PM
There are two ways to do it: (1) take double exposures as we did with magazine covers, and (2) as Wayne noted, take two pictures, then trim and paste the TV screen picture into the overall scene.

Also, my original post described a professional technique. I actually agree with what Steve said earlier in this thread. I do not think we are seeing an actual photograph of a TV screen. It is probably a picture that was 'stripped in' to the original photograph.

Pete

I can understand both techniques and if either one was used, it would not be a fake. It would be an attempt to show the overall scene and the television screen image, both properly exposed in the same photo.

I'm not convinced the television image we see in the two different exposures is a fake. One is overexposed and the other is much better. We have to consider the sources of those two photo. Are they first, second, third, etc. generation reprints? The only way to determine with some degree of certainty, is to examine the original pristine print.

Pye had working experimental field sequential color televisions with Lawrence Chromatron CRT's operating in 1953 in London.

Tom9589
08-05-2016, 01:02 PM
etype 2, just finished reading your excellent web site on the Chromatron. I have two comments.

1) The site shows some information about Muntz TV's interest in the Chromatron. Muntz was a cagey guy and must have seen the advantages. I'll bet if the Chromatron had gone into production, Muntz would have used it.

2) I worked on a project with Coca-Cola world headquarters in Atlanta in 1996 when I worked with BellSouth Wireless. I was given a grand tour facility and got into the corporate board room. They had two 56" Sony Trinitron monitors for video conferencing. Their performance was outstanding to say the least. They claimed that each monitor weighed 1500 lbs and that it took a forklift to install them. I seriously doubt that no more than a handful of the 56" Trinitrons were every made. No mention was made as to the price of these monitors.

etype2
08-05-2016, 04:06 PM
etype 2, just finished reading your excellent web site on the Chromatron. I have two comments.

1) The site shows some information about Muntz TV's interest in the Chromatron. Muntz was a cagey guy and must have seen the advantages. I'll bet if the Chromatron had gone into production, Muntz would have used it.

2) I worked on a project with Coca-Cola world headquarters in Atlanta in 1996 when I worked with BellSouth Wireless. I was given a grand tour facility and got into the corporate board room. They had two 56" Sony Trinitron monitors for video conferencing. Their performance was outstanding to say the least. They claimed that each monitor weighed 1500 lbs and that it took a forklift to install them. I seriously doubt that no more than a handful of the 56" Trinitrons were every made. No mention was made as to the price of these monitors.

Thank you for your comments.

Yes "Mad man" Muntz was colorful. He was interested in finding cheaper shortcuts in manufacturing televisions and the Chromatron would appeal to him. Beyond a prototype sketch, I known nothing about a working experimental Chromatron from Muntz.

Are you sure about 56 inches? The largest Trinitron CRT I heard about was 43 inches and they were limited addition models. If it was a custom one of a kind special project, it could have been possible, but the weight as you stated would be a major problem to overcome. I'm always learning so if it's true, would like to know more.

Tom9589
08-05-2016, 09:32 PM
The only thing I have to go on about the 56" Trinitrons is my memory. I turned in all my work notebooks when I retired. Of course Coca-Cola will have huge flat screens in their Board Room now. They did say that their Trinitron monitors were special order.

Your web site had an attached article which showed Muntz prototypes with a big shield around the grid wires and CRT to reduce the radiation of the 3.58 MHz switching signal. There was even a photo at the end of the article showing a prototype chassis that was definitely not an RCA chassis.

etype2
08-06-2016, 07:31 PM
There was even a photo at the end of the article showing a prototype chassis that was definitely not an RCA chassis.

That chassis was built by Chromatic Television Labratory. They pitched that chassis to the various television manufactures other then RCA in hopes of setting up licensing rights.

Tom9589
08-06-2016, 08:45 PM
I thought it was a little odd that a Muntz chassis sported both a power transformer and a 5U4. The caption was tricky in that it said the chassis was used in a Muntz TV, not that Muntz made the chassis.

David Roper
08-06-2016, 08:58 PM
A power transformer and 5U4 was not only common but omnipresent for the first several years of Muntz TV production, the exception being early 10" sets that used a 5V4--not as damper (they didn't have one!) but for B+.

Tom9589
08-07-2016, 12:16 PM
I do remember working on a couple of Muntz's with the 5U4 (5V4?) sitting on top of the transformer. Those TVs also didn't have fine tuning. I'll bet Muntz was real happy when they got rid of the damper tube although they went back to the design with a damper. They liked the 5V4 because its filament drew 1 amp less current than the 5U4.

NewVista
08-13-2016, 01:12 PM
The Chromatron looked Super!

Funny how Sony couldn't make it work like Dr Lawrence could in the early 50s!

Sony also couldn't make their video/audio recorders run without a pinch roller (analog-constant-tension)
like Ampex could. An Ampex customer engineer told me "Sony were very jealous of Ampex".

etype2
08-13-2016, 04:06 PM
[QUOTE=NewVista;3168351]The Chromatron looked Super!

"Funny how Sony couldn't make it work like Dr Lawrence could in the early 50s!"

I totally disagree with that comment. The Trinitron is an improved Chromatron. The Trinitron was the most successful television design in the world with a 40 year production run, until the flat panels killed the Trinitron.

After Sony acquired the patents and development rights from Paramount Pictures, Sony filed over 100 patents with their own ideas and inventions that made the Chromatron viable and renamed their invention "Trinitron". There were many other companies that worked on the Chromatron, but Sony was the first to make it work.

Doctor Lawrence through Chromatic Television Labratory, demonstrated both one and three gun Chromatron's. All of the original Chromatron principals are used in the Trinitron:

One gun, tri-color vertical phosphor stripes, high brightness by inventing the aperture grill with unbroken vertical slits allowing a greater percentage of the electron energy to reach the phosphors.

Then Sony took the Chromatron design further and improved on it with superior focusing and depth of field.

Finally, Sony actually markeded PDF Chromatrons in Japan and the U.S.

The storys about the struggles Sony had with the single cathode PDF design are true, but they did not give up and as a result the Trinitron was born, son of Chromatron.

MRX37
08-13-2016, 04:51 PM
I totally disagree with that comment. The Trinitron is an improved Chromatron. The Trinitron was the heaviest television design in the world with a 40 year production run, and countless customers ending up in hospitals for torn muscles and back injuries.

After Sony acquired the patents and development rights from Paramount Pictures, Sony filed over 100 patents with their own ideas and inventions that made the Chromatron the back breaking beast it became, and renamed their invention "Trinitron".

<snip>

The storys about the struggles customers had getting Trinitron's into and out of their homes are true, but they did not give up and as a result many Trinitrons continue to dominate living rooms all across the US... because people learned their lesson and would rather not go through the trouble of moving it again.


Fixed that for you.

dtvmcdonald
08-13-2016, 08:49 PM
The key ingredient of real Chromatron is one gun, one cathode, one grid, and dot sequential, which applies to Apple/Indextron too, AND direction to the
vertical stripes not by fine focus and sensing/feedback but active
direction with high RF electric fields at the screen and, produced by grids.

The not really Chromatron KV-7010U has three cathodes and passive (DC)
focus at the screen end by wires. The Trinitron has a much less transparent
mask and no focus, just shadowing, at the screen.

My Indextron is coming back,
I still am looking for a KV7010U.

NewVista
08-13-2016, 11:22 PM
The Trinitron is more a Shadowmask type CRT than a Chromatron

The first Trinitrons were bright, but at the expense of resolution: they were embarrassingly low resolution - even for a 12" screen -- like the low resolution GE Portacolor shadowmask with its low density (proportionally larger) holes to make it brighter.

Here's another thing the Japanese couldn't perfect: The Smartphone!
The Japanese hate losing, and nearly went broke rather than kowtow to RCA.
The SONY cinema projector uses LCOS rather than import US tech DLP chips.

etype2
08-13-2016, 11:44 PM
The key ingredient of real Chromatron is one gun, one cathode, one grid, and dot sequential, which applies to Apple/Indextron too, AND direction to the
vertical stripes not by fine focus and sensing/feedback but active
direction with high RF electric fields at the screen and, produced by grids.

The not really Chromatron KV-7010U has three cathodes and passive (DC)
focus at the screen end by wires. The Trinitron has a much less transparent
mask and no focus, just shadowing, at the screen.

My Indextron is coming back,
I still am looking for a KV7010U.

The common belief is that the Chromatron was ONLY A ONE GUN CRT. The original Lawrence Chromatron was designed to be one or three guns and one or three cathodes. The one gun design received all the attention because of its simplicity and theoretical perfect registration. Prototypes were tested in both configurations. The original Trinitron Aperture grill is less efficient then the wire grid, but never the less much brighter in its day then a shadow mask from the same time period. (1968) The Trinitrons were recognized for produceing bright well focused, high resolution images.

NewVista
08-15-2016, 09:47 AM
(1968) The Trinitrons were recognized for .. high resolution images.

Hogwash!
Ever seen a multiburst on the 1970s Tektronix 650 monitors? The resolution was abysmal!

Sony only stepped up the resolution much later to match the competition.

old_tv_nut
08-15-2016, 11:11 AM
The Trinitron originally and for a long time had a coarse grill that would produce terrible moire patterns with 3.58 MHz color subcarrier dots. The video response was strongly filtered to remove any signal above 3 MHz [edit: or maybe less]. The sets, however, did have a very good luminance transient response with carefully phase equalized, equal, preshoots and overshoots. This produced a "sharp," "clean" picture, but not a high-resolution one. TV stations loved them for at least two reasons: they eliminated any video noise above 3 MHz, and, at the time, they had the brightest pictures of any monitors, which facilitated using them for pictures visible to the camera on a set.

As a side note, Tektronix had a program to develop a monitor that had a very small spot size, fine dot pitch, and luma response out to the limit of broadcast cameras (way beyond the 4.2 MHz broadcast signal limit.) The raster lines were clearly visible, much like a monochrome tube. When they showed it to network engineers, the project was shut down, because the studio people hated it.

etype2
08-15-2016, 11:44 AM
I'm just a collector/hobbiest. I was never exposed to professional equipment. I was not thinking professional equipment. I was thinking consumer television and in the 1968 era when the Trinitron was introduced and what I saw with my own eyes. It is unfair to compare a consumer television to a professional monitor. That is where I was coming from.

Most people, when seeing CONSUMER Trinitrons for the first time back then were impressed. I too looked at a 1965/66 GE Potracolor in store showrooms. Now that was low resolution.

I saw a 7 inch and 12 inch Trinitron in the NYC Fifth Avenue showroom in 1968. The image quality blew me away. I was so impressed, that I bought one on the spot in 1968.

Speaking of professional studio monitors, I noticed through the decades that televisions control rooms seem to use Sony monitors a lot. I was never in the trade, I worked in real estate, but I base that from watching television and often times, I would see a studio control room shot filled with Sony monitors. One example, the Today Show.

I think we are straying from the original topic of this thread.

NewVista
08-16-2016, 12:05 AM
A pair of these iconic Tek monitors were auctioned off (cheaply) at last ETF!
They were iconic and ironic in so much as all that money for a soft picture!
I wonder who made the tube for the prototype hi-res Tektronix monitor?
I'm guessing their production monitors used selected standard Sony units.

NewVista
08-16-2016, 12:14 AM
... The image quality blew me away...

The consumer version no doubt had edge enhancement at the limits of its res,
-whereas the Tektronix had flat luminance with extra filtering, as was remarked, to eliminate its 3.58/aperture grille beat.

dieseljeep
08-16-2016, 11:16 AM
I do remember working on a couple of Muntz's with the 5U4 (5V4?) sitting on top of the transformer. Those TVs also didn't have fine tuning. I'll bet Muntz was real happy when they got rid of the damper tube although they went back to the design with a damper. They liked the 5V4 because its filament drew 1 amp less current than the 5U4.

All the Muntz sets, larger than 10" used a 5U4 rectifier.
The Hallicrafters 12" set, shown in a different thread used a 5V4. They built that same set for Sears as a 19" metal roundie. IIRC, that model used a 5U4, but all the smaller models still used a 5V4. The power transformer size was impressive, but seemed strange that they only used a 5V4. :scratch2:

old_tv_nut
08-16-2016, 12:15 PM
A pair of these iconic Tek monitors were auctioned off (cheaply) at last ETF!
They were iconic and ironic in so much as all that money for a soft picture!
I wonder who made the tube for the prototype hi-res Tektronix monitor?
I'm guessing their production monitors used selected standard Sony units.

IIRC, later large-screen rack-mount (19-inch rack) Tek monitors (19 inch?) had a special fine pitch Trinitron and chroma dot filter that could be switched off. Eventually, they even produced rack-mount high def monitors.

Tom9589
08-16-2016, 02:17 PM
I had a Sun Microsystems 21" monitor with a Trinitron. It was one of the best monitors I have ever seen. It had better resolution than the first generation flat screen computer monitors by far. It had more convergence adjustments than a 21" round CRT TV. It was a power hog and weighed 65 lbs. I still miss it.

NewVista
08-17-2016, 12:41 PM
IIRC, later large-screen rack-mount (19-inch rack) Tek monitors (19 inch?) had a special fine pitch Trinitron..

Around what year did these emerge?

old_tv_nut
08-17-2016, 01:08 PM
Around what year did these emerge?

I really don't remember. Would have to do some research.

Electronic M
08-17-2016, 03:38 PM
Then there were the consumer market (circa 2002) full HD resolution Super-Fine-Pitch trinitrons that had perhaps the highest resolution (dot pitch wise) tri-color CRTs ever made.

N2IXK
08-17-2016, 08:21 PM
Is the Tek 650HR the fine pitch version?

old_tv_nut
08-17-2016, 11:24 PM
looking at the illustrations:
http://www.recycledgoods.com/tektronix-650hr-monitor-19869.html

I think this may be the Tek "high-res" one, but I now believe I was confusing this with another brand of monitor that had a larger tube that filled the rack width, so all controls were at the bottom instead of the sides. The stripes appear to be visible in the closeup, and my guess is they are finer than the regular tube, but still not as fine as you would really like.

NewVista
08-18-2016, 02:31 AM
looking at the illustrations:
http://www.recycledgoods.com/tektronix-650hr-monitor-19869.html

I think this may be the Tek "high-res" one,..

The photo of its back panel shows a manufacture date of July-1982.
I think they caught a lot of flak in the 1970s for the original versions.

ceebee23
10-05-2016, 05:52 AM
The Coronation took place in June 1953 ... so no NTSC standard let alone a 405 line version was in place.
The experimental system was apparently a field sequential system.

The set is almost certainly a projection set or the image is a slide lit internally from behind.

The later 405 line NTSC tests came about as a result of pressure from ITV which wanted colour for commercial tv. Sir Lew Grade apparently believed colour would mean advertisers would pay more.

The BBC was not too keen but did carry out tests but was more interested in waiting for the 625 line system which first broadcast on UHF in 1962 as BBC2.

Colour arriving after a long debate, using PAL, on July 1 1967 for Wimbledon, although tests had been carried out in 1966.

Ironically 405 line NTSC and 625 PAL would have looked pretty similar given the actual displays ie resolved lines on the sets of the day.

Which was part of the reason BBC did not want 405 line colour.

etype2
10-19-2016, 08:42 PM
JUST NOTICED THIS RECENT POST:

"[QUOTE=ceebee23;3171224]The Coronation took place in June 1953 ... so no NTSC standard let alone a 405 line version was in place.
The experimental system was apparently a field sequential system."

TRUE. IT WAS AN EXPERIMENTAL FIELD SEQUENTIAL SYSTEM. IN FACT CHROMATIC LABORATORIES PITCHED THE FACT AT THE FCC TRIALS THAT THE CHROMATRON WOULD NOT ONLY WORK WITH THE RCA THREE GUN SYSTEM, IT WOULD WORK WITH THE CBS FIELD SEQUENTIAL SYSTEM, THEREBY ELIMINATING THE CUMBERSOME SPINNING COLOR WHEEL OR DRUM.

"The set is almost certainly a projection set or the image is a slide lit internally from behind."

POSSIBLY, OR THE PHOTO WAS AN EXPERIMENTAL CHROMATRON FIELD SEQUENTIAL COLOR TELEVISION SET UP AS DESCRIBED ABOVE BY THE VARIOUS POSTERS ON THIS THREAD.

ceebee23
10-19-2016, 10:14 PM
Would a Chromatrom screen be as flat as it appears in the image.. It would be exciting to think it was a Chromatron!

etype2
10-20-2016, 11:14 AM
Would a Chromatrom screen be as flat as it appears in the image.. It would be exciting to think it was a Chromatron!


Here is a spec sheet of the 1953 version of the color Chromatron courtesy of ETF. Notice how square and flat it looks.

http://www.visions4.net/journal/wp-content/uploads/image11.jpg

old_tv_nut
10-20-2016, 01:03 PM
A perspective transform and overlay indicates that the Chromatron on the spec sheet would not fit that cabinet.

etype2
10-20-2016, 01:25 PM
A perspective transform and overlay indicates that the Chromatron on the spec sheet would not fit that cabinet.

Interesting, but dose not debunk the fact that the photo may be an experimental Chromatron. You are basing your theory on the mass around the square image surface.

Couple of things. That overlay may not be to scale. The spec sheet states the tube is 221/2 inches. There are at least two sources that say the color Chromatron sets used in the chrildrens hospital were 20 inches. The Chromatron was manufactured in different sizes.

Electronic M
10-20-2016, 01:57 PM
Not to mention that screen surround probably shrank as development progressed.