Jeff, Keven has done a wonderful job and I ask you to please read the links that I'm going to provide you so that you might understand why I was so appalled by your remark about Edgar Reitz.
Television under the Swastika
- Thread starter oldhouseman
- Start date
Help Support :
Ok, as a dumbfuck American who lost two uncles and a grandfather to WWII, and who knows nothing about history, I'll just sit back and let y'all wax poetic about Germany's "Heimat", and let you try and "reclaim your history from America". Let's just forget that German aggression and atrocities were responsible for both global conflagrations since 1900, and for permanently stripping the entire world of its innocence. Thanks much.
On second thought I'm not quite done yet...I lost two uncles and a grandfather whom I never met on my mothers side (who happens to be German), and an uncle and several other family members on my fathers side, (English), so you are not so special.
I'm done with AW, I have never seen more drama and attacks on other members on any other website as I have seen here.
I have enough "drama" in my own life...more "drama" than most of you can even imagine.
Now I'm really done, I tried...I really tried to be civil and friendly, but I can see that was fruitless.
I'm done with AW, I have never seen more drama and attacks on other members on any other website as I have seen here.
I have enough "drama" in my own life...more "drama" than most of you can even imagine.
Now I'm really done, I tried...I really tried to be civil and friendly, but I can see that was fruitless.
Oh, Jeff,
that is exactly the whole problem. If we don't work through what happened and acknowledge the horrors of the Nazis, then how shall we ever prevent such an occurrence in the future?
Imagine, for a second, that there had been no change in the underlying culture of educated, influential Germans. Picture this: The entire basis for accepting responsibility for the Nazi atrocities, the rational for "never again war", the justification for educating our youth and trying to, if only, symbolically, make reparations for what had happened were only based on what the Americans said.
Fine enough, as long as the Americans were led by people such as Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Carter, Bush#41, to name only a few. Men who stood for social justice and human rights. Men who tried to avoid war and, if war proved unavoidable, went before the UN with the facts to plead their case. Easy, when the culture and government of America is so noble.
But, what then when a president should arise or a scandal occur, when an ambassador be found out telling lies, or, yet, a grave breech in relations, a disagreement over justice and treaties should arise? Would we want German peacefulness and awareness of the evils of torture and suspending civil rights to be cast aside as the moral superiority of the US came into question? Surely not.
Germany permitted itself the worst of all sins, the sin of self-indulgence. At the time the Nazis seized control, their "seizing" was more a case of "being welcomed with a nod and a wink". You can only prevent such things when a concept of true democracy, true government of the majority without abridging the rights of the minority arises from within.
that is exactly the whole problem. If we don't work through what happened and acknowledge the horrors of the Nazis, then how shall we ever prevent such an occurrence in the future?
Imagine, for a second, that there had been no change in the underlying culture of educated, influential Germans. Picture this: The entire basis for accepting responsibility for the Nazi atrocities, the rational for "never again war", the justification for educating our youth and trying to, if only, symbolically, make reparations for what had happened were only based on what the Americans said.
Fine enough, as long as the Americans were led by people such as Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Carter, Bush#41, to name only a few. Men who stood for social justice and human rights. Men who tried to avoid war and, if war proved unavoidable, went before the UN with the facts to plead their case. Easy, when the culture and government of America is so noble.
But, what then when a president should arise or a scandal occur, when an ambassador be found out telling lies, or, yet, a grave breech in relations, a disagreement over justice and treaties should arise? Would we want German peacefulness and awareness of the evils of torture and suspending civil rights to be cast aside as the moral superiority of the US came into question? Surely not.
Germany permitted itself the worst of all sins, the sin of self-indulgence. At the time the Nazis seized control, their "seizing" was more a case of "being welcomed with a nod and a wink". You can only prevent such things when a concept of true democracy, true government of the majority without abridging the rights of the minority arises from within.
oldhouseman
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 838
OK Ken and Jeff
Now can we get back to the subject. Television technology. I was hoping we could have a discussion about the invention of television.
And NOT POLITICS.
Now can we get back to the subject. Television technology. I was hoping we could have a discussion about the invention of television.
And NOT POLITICS.
Well, more like, flat.
What fascinates me about TV in the pre-fifties era is how very differently it came across than either stage or film. I should have thought the early productions would be like films of that era, but they aren't, at all. Everyone I have seen is curiously flat and two-dimensional in its staging. Does anyone know what the technical and optical limitations were? Was this a situation in which you needed enormous amounts of indirect light, the field-of-depth was very limited and the early cameras had a 4bit range of contrast?
What fascinates me about TV in the pre-fifties era is how very differently it came across than either stage or film. I should have thought the early productions would be like films of that era, but they aren't, at all. Everyone I have seen is curiously flat and two-dimensional in its staging. Does anyone know what the technical and optical limitations were? Was this a situation in which you needed enormous amounts of indirect light, the field-of-depth was very limited and the early cameras had a 4bit range of contrast?
Well, I for one am not getting into a debate about WWII. The Nazi regime was horrific and caused immense suffering and damage on a scale that is almost unimaginable.
On the technicalities of pre-1950s television. There were a LOT of technical limitations compared to film. Early TV cameras were enormous and very immobile compared to film cameras. They also lacked sophisticated lenses and were VERY expensive. All of this meant that crews had to work with simple shots that didn't require much movement of the camera other than panning / tilting. It also meant that they couldn't afford to use multiple cameras.
The poor resolution and poor contrast meant that scenes had to be simple and harshly lit.
Mixing and switching also wasn't too sophisticated so, options were very limited compared to film production.
All of this meant that live programming often looked like crude stage shows and lacked the sophistication of film.
More complex programming had to be shot on film and was broadcast using a telecine unit.
On the technicalities of pre-1950s television. There were a LOT of technical limitations compared to film. Early TV cameras were enormous and very immobile compared to film cameras. They also lacked sophisticated lenses and were VERY expensive. All of this meant that crews had to work with simple shots that didn't require much movement of the camera other than panning / tilting. It also meant that they couldn't afford to use multiple cameras.
The poor resolution and poor contrast meant that scenes had to be simple and harshly lit.
Mixing and switching also wasn't too sophisticated so, options were very limited compared to film production.
All of this meant that live programming often looked like crude stage shows and lacked the sophistication of film.
More complex programming had to be shot on film and was broadcast using a telecine unit.
thanks, mrx
I am so spoilt by today's camera and lens technology, I never even gave that aspect of things a thought...of course, those cameras would have weighed a ton.
Quite agree about not bringing the Nazis into it right now - not while their atrocities are any less horrible today, but because even such non-political discussions just plain aren't possible in our web family right now.
I am so spoilt by today's camera and lens technology, I never even gave that aspect of things a thought...of course, those cameras would have weighed a ton.
Quite agree about not bringing the Nazis into it right now - not while their atrocities are any less horrible today, but because even such non-political discussions just plain aren't possible in our web family right now.
To give you an idea of the differences. An early electronic television camera was about the size of a large double wardrobe and cost in modern equivlants about US$10m+ each!! They were an investment equivilant to a very high end hospital MRI scanner or something of that level of complexity today and nearly physically as large.
On top of that they were fragile (full of tubes/valves) and prone to regular breakdowns thus required a lot of maintenence.
The other production and gallery switching equipment was also very combersome.
Television production was an extremely capital intensive business at the time.
Practical sized studio cameras really only began to appear in the 1950s. You start to see equipment that was a lot more flexible appearing around then.
Even until the 1970s, tv cameras were generally only used for live programming. Most production was still done on film.
Video tape technology only became cost-effective, high enough quality and realiable enough by the 1970s to be used for serious production.
Earlier video tape technology didn't really provide enough quality and it was also very difficult to splice and edit compared to film.
By the 1970s you started to see video tape become dominant and linear video edit suites appearing.
It was in the 1970s that the cost of tv production equipment began to drop enough for small tv channels to be a viable option.
The drop in costs made it possible for initially tens of channels on cable. That became hundreds of channels on cable and satellite... and then the technology became so cheap and user friendly that we're putting videos of washing machines up on youtube that are available to anyone on the planet to see and putting cameras and edit software into our mobile phones that is more sophisicated than most 1970s TV studios
On top of that they were fragile (full of tubes/valves) and prone to regular breakdowns thus required a lot of maintenence.
The other production and gallery switching equipment was also very combersome.
Television production was an extremely capital intensive business at the time.
Practical sized studio cameras really only began to appear in the 1950s. You start to see equipment that was a lot more flexible appearing around then.
Even until the 1970s, tv cameras were generally only used for live programming. Most production was still done on film.
Video tape technology only became cost-effective, high enough quality and realiable enough by the 1970s to be used for serious production.
Earlier video tape technology didn't really provide enough quality and it was also very difficult to splice and edit compared to film.
By the 1970s you started to see video tape become dominant and linear video edit suites appearing.
It was in the 1970s that the cost of tv production equipment began to drop enough for small tv channels to be a viable option.
The drop in costs made it possible for initially tens of channels on cable. That became hundreds of channels on cable and satellite... and then the technology became so cheap and user friendly that we're putting videos of washing machines up on youtube that are available to anyone on the planet to see and putting cameras and edit software into our mobile phones that is more sophisicated than most 1970s TV studios
whirlcool
Well-known member
"I love Lucy" was one of the first television shows to be produced on film. Desi Arnaz wanted it that way. CBS didn't want to pay for it, so the Araz's paid for the film themselves thereby actually owning the episodes. It's also because of this that we can now enjoy this show today. Before that it was either live or on Kinescope.
Even more amazing is the size of the new HD cameras. They are about as big as an early home video camera. At church we switched from the Phillips LK10 cameras to Ishigama HD's and they weigh about 15 lbs and can easily be carried on your shoulder!
But after 10 years of working television at our church, I gave it up a few months ago. But at least I went to HD camera school and learned how to shoot a show in HD vs NTSC.
Even more amazing is the size of the new HD cameras. They are about as big as an early home video camera. At church we switched from the Phillips LK10 cameras to Ishigama HD's and they weigh about 15 lbs and can easily be carried on your shoulder!
But after 10 years of working television at our church, I gave it up a few months ago. But at least I went to HD camera school and learned how to shoot a show in HD vs NTSC.
