Color Television: The Way it Was Meant to Be

Automatic Washer - The world's coolest Washing Machines, Dryers and Dishwashers

Help Support :

I Hope You're Right!

"As for the NTSC system, I heard rumblings on another forum at some point suggesting that the next President may order a stay of execution for the NTSC system. I don't know if this is possible, or if it's even likely to happen--my best guess is NO--but one never knows."

This would only be sensible at this point. At present, the NTSC system gives us a television system capable of reaching and informing 99.9% of the nation's population within seconds. In case of national emergency or disaster, the means exist to get everyone up to speed, quickly and painlessly.

With tne new digital system, we already know there are reception problems in many areas. The new system has not been completely tested. It will not be capable of reaching everyone in the nation for some time. If our enemies attack us, or some other dreadful circumstance occurs soon after the scheduled digital transition, there will be many people - a lot of them lower-income - who will not be reachable as fast as formerly.

In addition, no one seems to have thought through what's going to happen when millions and millions of NTSC sets are obsoleted and need to be discarded. Heavy metals and toxic substances galore are present in all TV's - and there are no means presently in place to recycle it all. The best guess for disposal is that TVs will get shipped to Third World countries for breakdown, dumping our toxic waste on other nations.

The reason for the digital transition is so that the huge amount of bandwidth needed for analogue transmission can be freed up, for things like cellphones. But that takes bandwidth expressly designated as owned by we the people, and auctions it off to private interests, with we the people footing much of the bill for the transition. That stinketh.

If there's any public outcry about the transition, I hope that people here will add their voices, and help save NTSC. Digital is all very well in a way, but if we must have it, let's have a fully-tested system before we make the switch, and let's run the two systems concurrently for a while longer to be certain. As matters stand, February 20th would be a really bad time for some attack or catastrophe to strike America.
 
Sorry No...

The new digital standard has been tested and in use for almost a decade. Currently I receive about 28 digital stations OTA and free. There is no reason to delay the inevitable. You can easily get a converter for $10-$20 with Govt. coupon -- all you have to do is ask for it.

I've been happily watching HD digital TV since 2002 and I can't imagine going back to NTSC. The fact is the bulk of Americans get their TV from cable or SAT providers, even low income. And TV as not being made obsolete, the cable or SAT box will work exactly the same 8-5-09 as they do on 8-5-08, and those on OTA just need that cheap box.

One of the main reasons for the change is to get a little flexibility for first responders. The fire and police often can not communicate with each other on the current system. 9-11 was a big impetus to forcing this long needed change. Of course there was a lot of pressure to sell the now freed up airspace, and that certainly did not hurt.

NTSC has served us well but it's time has long passed.
 
Didn't European countries dump PAL and go with digital broadcasting some time ago?
When the conversion is complete, you could take a digital TV with you anywhere in the world and it would work?

We always had Zenith sets. Some of our neighbors had RCA sets (like the XL-100) and I found them to be overly contrasty and they seemed to have a greenish tinge to the picture. Has anyone else noticed this?
 
New digital broacasting-at least the convertors will allow listners to use their older analog sets.You won't see the image in HD.You will need a HD capable or ready set for that and the more expensive convertor.-one that outputs 720P or 1080I.The discards will be the analog equipment from the TV stations-esp the transmitters-ones built even into the 70's had PCB containing parts-capacitors and transformers.When one station I used to service put their older analog RCA Tx on the curb-was sorta sad-and expensive peice of equipment put on the curb like an old washer!Neighboring stations stripped it for parts.They replaced it with a newer solid state Harris analog transmitter.Wonder what they do with that when the station has to run all digital?
also WRC TV was the first TV broadcaster in the DC area to go digital--Was at work at the time-and had a spectrum analyzer set for their frequency-no TV-when the station manager turned on the new Digital transmitter-its signal showed up on our analyzer.Took up the whole 5Meg channel.Digital broadcasting takes up the same bandwidth.The FCC wants to free up some of the older channels-Low band VHF-channels 2-5.Those are to be auctioned off to whatever service buys them.High band VHF and UHF will be kept.I can agree that broadcasters should be able to similcast on analog NSTC until the "penetration" of digital sets goes over 50% .
 
Over here...

Hey Guys

Colo(u)r didnt arrive over here until 1967 when one of the then 3 channels (BBC2)started showing 2-3 hours a day of colour transmissions(The first one being Wimbledon 67).

The reason BBC2 was chosen was at that time it was the only 625 line/UHF station, BBC1 and ITV were still using 405/VHF.

Initially colour sets were hugely expensive and unreliable, the starting price was around £250(about half the cost of a Mini!)so most were rented. Another complication was the fact that sets had to be dual standard.

UHF and PAL 625 colour came to all channels progressivly from 69-73 although the 405/VHF system ran alongside it until 1984.

One advantage of our late adoption of colour was the PAL system- although the sets are more complicated/expensive than NTSC versions the colour reproduction is better and PAL sets have never actually needed Hue/Tint controls despite the fact some early sets were fitted with them !.

Our analogue switch off has started and is being done region by region ending with the Meridian area(mine)in 2012.

Seamus

http://www.digitaluk.co.uk/
 
A Curmudgeon's View

For the collectors it's going to be a very sad day. I've always loved the fact you could take a 30 or 40 year old portable set, plug it into a cig lighter in the car, hook up a battery pack, find a stray outlet and flip the on-switch. Standing alone it still "understands" the messages in the ether. Adding a digital box into the equation renders the set nothing more than a mouthpiece of the new era. Forget about the clunk, clunk, clunk of the turret tuner. It's akin to gutting a classic radio and wiring the speaker into an iPod. While I don't collect hand-helds (Sony Watchman with the side-view CRT?) there are those that are playing with low-power transmitters and achieving poor results. Attaching any kind of cord defeats the purpose for them.

I'll certainly be building a closed network for my vintage sets but, unfortunately, I'm not in an area served by cable and don't have the need for ump-teen dish channels. I'd like to think the push to convert half a billion sets to digital isn't driven solely by monetary gains but I'm not entirely convinced. How 'bout we bring the content up to par first??
 
I haven't decided yet...

I don't watch a lot of tv any more. In fact, if I watch more than an hour a week, I must be in the hospital (I am not in the hospital at the moment).

I usually just use my 13 inch Sanyo as a monitor for my stand alone dvd player.

I haven't decided about getting a converter box. Money is only a small part of my indecision.

I just find books and the internet to be more interesting/involving.

Lawrence/Maytagbear
 
MattL

"The new digital standard has been tested and in use for almost a decade. Currently I receive about 28 digital stations OTA and free."

That may be true in your area. It is not true everywhere.
 
We don't have analog (PAL) television for almost 2 years now, but as most households in the Netherlands have a cable connection which still continues analog broadcasting in addition to digital channels, there were very few problems with the switchover. Most people didn't even notice it.
 
Variable reception

I had a really nice Admiral 21" round tube color set in 1970, I wish I still had it. The color phosphors on those tubes were very accurate.

I do have an HDTV and two sets with converter boxes. The HDTV and one set are connected to an attic antenna, the other is on rabbit ears. Compared to NTSC, the color is much more consistent.

However, the overall reception is quite variable, some nights it is unwatchable, because of pixtallation and sound dropouts. I have the Zenith converter which is supposed to be a good one. I don't know how this will change when the stations go all digital, perhaps they will apply more power to the digital or put it up on the top of the tower. (We have heard that some of the digital transmitters are mounted on the side of the tower.) I can say that if this is the way it will be, you will hear a huge outcry of outrage.

Like I said, when the signal is good the picture is beautiful, and I do like the extra channels. Some stations broadcast 4 stations instead of one. But if I can't get a reliable signal??

Granted, I do have satellite Dish Network for the HDTV, but choose not to buy HD service due to the extra expense, and I don't want that extra expense for every little set I have that I use occassionally.

Martin
 
I think my area might be a problem area for digital. It's certainly a problem for both NTSC TV and radio. I have to think digital will be...troublesome.

My understanding is that digital is cleaner, even when the signal is slightly corrupted, but if it corrupts too far, it'll stop working. Analog is easily corrupted, and you can see the corruption, but it can continue working, until the user turns it off, frustrated by the more static-than-picture picture

I personally haven't bought into digital TV in any shape, form, or color. I haven't decided if/when I will, either. I'm not much of TV watcher. For a long time, I didn't even have a functioning TV set in service.

My roommate, on the other hand, despite a large DVD and VHS collection, does watch TV. So, there will need to be a conversion box, or a new TV. (Guess which appears to be the current fantasy?) Reality, given the bad reception, is quite likely cable--if it's available as a realistic option here. That would allow for the other fantasy I hear about--getting a new ISP that's less evil than the current ISP.
 
Colour in 1975

In Australia we've had 625 line B&W since 1956 just in time for the Melbourne Olympic Games. I guess that's the advantage of being a late adopter.

The link shows the program on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) that brought colour into Aussie homes.

There has been Digital TV broadcasting in Metro areas here since 2001 with a cutoff date for analog in metro areas of 2012. Digital TV has improved reception in a lot of regional areas here. Michaels mother has always had patchy TV reception accross all channels, and with the set top box she now gets all her local channels, plus the Brisbane ones crystal clear.

 
Energy

A number of you have stated that we should continue to run dual streams for the foreseeable future, are you aware of how much that adds to the energy bill of a station?

As to reception, some stations are operating their digital output at a lower level, to save money. Some are on temporary frequencies and will be moving to a different channel in Feb. The bulk of stations will remain in the UHF range, but a few have opted to move to VHF because they can get a bigger punch there. This complicates things since people who use OTA will have to have bigger antennas, though some high gain UHF antennas will pick up high band VHF. As to my reception, I have access to 3 markets so those 28 stations have duplicates. To me it proves how robust the digital signal is.

Broadcast stations have invested tons of money for the transition and are investing more with the switch coming in Feb. I can imagine they would not be very happy if somehow this is delayed. Many people have no idea what they are missing. All HD content, except a movie or two, is wide screen. The detail is phenomenal when done correctly as is the sound.
 
MattL:

While I certainly take your point about energy consumption, I cannot feel even the tiniest bit sorry for stations about the expense of digital conversion, nor any expenses incurred by running dual streams, as you put it.

The frank fact of the matter is that our airwaves are the property of the people of the United States. Radio and TV stations licence that bandwidth to make money for themselves. The bandwidth used for NTSC television transmission is an immensely valuable commodity; TV stations make a lot of money off something that belongs to you and me. Our politicians are, in effect, taking that bandwidth away from a use We the People have enjoyed for over half a century, and licencing it out for other uses that will generate more revenue, not a penny of which will do the average person - who, after all, owns that bandwidth - any good whatsoever.

Yes, the HDTV picture is pretty. But consumers are having to foot a large bill for a conversion that not all of them want, or can afford, so that cellphone companies can make a killing over and above the one they're already making.

It stinketh.
 
Power consumption of TV transmitters-in general the UHF ones will consume more power than VHF models.the main reasons-the UHF ones are less efficient-and more power has to be run from the UHF to serve the same coverage area.another fac tor for both is antenna gain and transmission line loss-there can be up to about 1db loss on the line that connects the transmitter to the antenna-you have to figure the distance from the tranmsitter building-then how tall is the stations tower.UHF can also use waveguide-but only on the channels in the middle of the UHF band on up.the waveguide has lower losses.but--can have greater windloading on the tower.Yes--if the station has to run two tranmsitters-analog and digital-power consumption is a factor.also the cost to maintain the transmitters-you have to factor in replaceable parts such as tubes and circuit boards.
But the good side of the running both-You can have more revenue from the advertising to pay for the costs of the tranmsitters and antennas and the power used.for digital-on the same channel-stations can run up to four low def 480P programs at once-that gives them 4 more places for ad revenue.Thats why some are anxious to go to digital.to run the 1080 High def programs takes up the whole channel.You can only run just that HD show.
Yes it may be true the airwaves are the property of the people-but the FCC does have to regulate their use.Its like the idea of free speech-you just can't yell "FIRE" in the crowded theater!And as technology changes-there is going to be changes in the uses of the airwaves.Its also you can't just go on the air unless your station and transmitter are licensed.You have to remember you need that license to go on the air-except of course cellphones,and handitalkies.In general all radio and TV stations have more than one license for each facility-one for the station itself and the other for each transmitter the station has for that channel or frequency-and the station has to tell the FCC how the tranmsitters are used-if they are both the same model and age-Main-alternate-main.If dissimilar-Main-Auxillary.The licenses have to be posted where the transmitter is installed.Stations also cannot run below the licensed power unless its "Parameters at Variance"because of a transmitter or transmission line-antenna problems.they have to notify the FCC of this and again when the problem is fixed and the station is running at normal parameters.I have had to deal with this.A station can be fined if they caught running below or above their licensed power.Yes--sometimes DJ's will try to turn transmitter power up--they don't always understand licenes and whatnot.and damage to the transmitter and its associated equipment.
 
Good Grief!

Reading the concerns raised here reminds me of the exact same situation we had a few years back in Germany when we began the conversion to digital terrestrial broadcasting.
Yes, it sucks that 'our' property is being sold, but that is just the way things are under conservative politicians, they talk big about capitalism and since most folks fall for it, they get away with it - was that way in Europe, is that way in the States. You don't like it, stop voting for Republicans.
The actual conversion was painless and has worked perfectly in my part of Germany. We were, of course, the trial area and the problems were resolved over a period of eight years and not the few months many stations here will have. Of course the Americans have learned from our mistakes - this is a proven, older technology and not something brand new. Now that the United States is not the world technology leader but among the third tier countries in technology, we benefit enormously from the years of experience other nations have gathered. Yes, the was damning by faint praise and it makes me sad.
I have been hooking converter boxes up around here for friends and seen the exact same advantages and disadvantages as we had back in Europe - great sound, great picture or nothing at all. The converters are exactly the same technology, just different firmware, just as expected...
Never The Same Color twice won't be missed, after all - the old color sets weren't the problem, they faithfully reproduced the lousy broadcast. Fed a clean input from the converter box, our 1971 Wards is showing the best picture of her life, the 1967 round screen in the garage has vibrant colors beyond anything she has shown in the last 41 years.
 
One thing I do remember back in the 60's as people were buying color TV's was that they also needed to upgrade their antenna systems. The outdoor antennas that were used for B&W just did not provide enough signal for color. And the television dealers didn't tell you this until you called them to say your picture is snowy.
Out neighbors would spend about $125.00 for a new antenna system , I put ours in. I used a Winegard antenna with 75ohm coax lead in. Perfect picture. In fact last year I drove by the house I grew up in Hinsdale, IL and that Winegard antenna I put up in 1966 is STILL up there on the roof! And it appears to be in good condition!
 
Emailed my local PBS Station Engineer

I was curious about the power issue, I recall reading it was fairly expensive, here's the comment I got from Gary:

"Our power costs are 17% higher since June 20th thanks to a rate increase by our local utility, well, as is every commercial customer.

Yes, we are paying for two transmitters and yes we are getting tired of it. I haven't run the numbers with the new rates but I think we at about 1,000/month for the digital transmitter and 5,000/month for the analog transmitter. The FM bill is another 3,000/month for the analog and digital transmitters. (but that digital, HD radio, has been broken for about two weeks)

Donations are welcome."

Their digital signal is pretty decent, so I doubt they will be increasing power too much. At this point they kill the digital transmitter at midnight, the analog runs 24/7.

The converter boxes are no big deal. I picked up a couple to play with, odds are I'll give them to family members, they do a fine job. Actually provide more info than you get now, which is none, and are easy to use.

I have to agree with Keven, the US is really a third rate country when it comes to technology. I've read for years how much better European cell phone technology is, as well as internet speed. The next level of Video technology which will increase resolution 3+ times what HD is today is in the works. Odds are we'll only see it as we do DVDs, after this format change we will be living with ATSC for the next 50 years.
 
Can't really blame the Republicans on the digital tv issue-the system as it stands now was from President Clintons FCC appointee.other services --besides Cell Phones were pettioning the President and FCC back then to free up spectrum space for the other services besides broadcast television.Remember the technology changes-more people are using cable and satellite delivored TV programs than terristrial broadcasts.even back then when Clinton was president.Both vice president Al Gore and Bill Clinton were pushing for the digital TV broadcasting when they were still in office.the Republicans just still carryied the system thru.
 

Similar threads

seedub
Today's P-O-D 28/05/2025
Replies
1
Views
54
appnut
appnut
C
New Evaporator Defrost for 1964 Frigidaire Imperial 19
Replies
19
Views
214
carmine
C
Chetlaham
Correct Way of Treating Stains
Replies
8
Views
49
launderess
launderess
Ultramatic
Vintage Appliance Advertisements: Part Twenty-nine
4 5 6
Replies
101
Views
1K
phillymatt53
P
combo52
1973 Poppy Frigidaire trash compactor
Replies
12
Views
218
combo52
combo52

Latest posts

Back
Top