#1
|
||||
|
||||
The 1st micro-tv by "Philco"
Long before walk-man tv by "Sony", a company named "Philco" made a micro-tv. Where there any good those sets?
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I know of no "micro" TVs that Philco ever made.
Could you give us an example of one they actually produced? . |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Sounds like a Philco Safari portable. I have two of them, one is working with absolutely nothing done to it!
Is this what you are referring to? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The Safari is not a "micro-tv" by size, although it does use a small CRT.
. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
It was micro compared to other sets back then.
Yes, that is the tv. |
Audiokarma |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Reliability was good, performance was good, and the unique magnifying mirror in the back makes the 2" CRT appear the same size as a 17" tube at normal viewing distance....If viewing a letterboxee program today you can get a bigger illusions by sitting further back and letting the mask cutoff the letterbox.
__________________
Tom C. Zenith: The quality stays in EVEN after the name falls off! What I want. --> http://www.videokarma.org/showpost.p...62&postcount=4 Last edited by Electronic M; 04-29-2024 at 12:09 AM. Reason: I'm stupid... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
. |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
“ the unique magnifying mirror in the back makes the 2" CRT appear the same size as a 17" tube at normal viewing distance...”
I think you meant 7 inches. ”Micro TV” The term was first used by Sony with their introduction of the model Micro TV 5 303 series in 1962.
__________________
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
17" was not a typo. It's from a review in one of the period electronics magazines. The screen magnifier makes the apparent image size grow as you walk farther back and at the max distance before the opening clips the top and bottom when watching my working set the image appears the same size to me as a period 17" direct view set does at that distance... Its good enough to be a decent living room set from its era if you like to sit a good ways back from it.
__________________
Tom C. Zenith: The quality stays in EVEN after the name falls off! What I want. --> http://www.videokarma.org/showpost.p...62&postcount=4 |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I have two working Safari’s, tan and black. I know of the magazine you speak of and when I read that article, I tested my sets and no way did I see 17 inches. More like 7 inches max and you have to be in the sweet spot to see the effect. I will say that when I tested, did not have ability to look across my room. I imagine it would be like looking at a projection hologram trying to find the sweet spot. Edit: The below link shows one of my Safari’s photographed from about 4.5 feet away. For comparison, the color set is a Sony KV4000 with 3.7 inch screen. https://visions4netjournal.com/wp-co.../IMG_3892.webp
__________________
Last edited by etype2; 04-30-2024 at 09:12 PM. |
Audiokarma |
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
Tom C. Zenith: The quality stays in EVEN after the name falls off! What I want. --> http://www.videokarma.org/showpost.p...62&postcount=4 |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
At 4.5 feet away, the parallax is so severe that if you move your head slightly in either direction, the image is lost.
__________________
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
I can't remember seeing anything like that. Perhaps it's something that is dependent on different vision characteristics of different viewers.
__________________
Tom C. Zenith: The quality stays in EVEN after the name falls off! What I want. --> http://www.videokarma.org/showpost.p...62&postcount=4 |
|
|