The First High-Definition TV, Circa 1958 222
An anonymous reader sends us to Gizmag for a look at a recent auction of a large collection of antique TVs. The star of the show was the Teleavia type P111, one of the earliest examples of high-definition TV. This rare 1958 console-stand television was designed by Flaminio Bertroni, who was also responsible for the iconic Citroen DS. The TV featured dual resolution capability, with the higher setting offering better resolution than 720p — 819 lines. This early attempt at a high-def standard, originating in France in 1949, didn't catch on in the marketplace.
The Citroen (Score:4, Insightful)
Way ahead of it's time, as well. What a ride!
Re:off the rez (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the unique bit, probably just the "vintage 1958" bit, and not a whole lot beside that.
And how far we have not come (Score:5, Insightful)
Computer displays are the same way. Twelve years ago I had a vertical resolution of 1200px in a 21" monitor. Today on a 24" monitor, that's still the best sold in any store. It's sickening.
Re:Summary is wrong, not higher res that 720p (Score:1, Insightful)
TV CRT's don't have an actual horizontal resolution like you are thinking. The set is obviously 4:3 but if they had built a widescreen version it would indeed have higher resolution than 720p. There's nothing surprising about this either. The technology for high-def isn't some new fangled thing.
Re:And how far we have not come (Score:5, Insightful)
It gets worse if you just count 9 years ago. In 2001 we had a max vertical resolution of 1536 on a 22" monitor. Today on a 24" monitor you have either 1080 or 1200.
Re:And how far we have not come (Score:5, Insightful)
We're still seeing the same thing today (Score:3, Insightful)
Just as we say today "wow, they had 737i prototypes in 1958!" one day in the future we will marvel "wow, they had 4096p prototypes all the way back in 2002! [nhk.or.jp]"
Re:And how far we have not come (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Easy in B/W. Harder in color. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This didn't catch on. . (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, HDMI is a joke. But there's a deeper issue going on... who hasn't noticed that TV as we've known it is almost dead?
1) I don't bother with rabbit ears.
2) I have a television but it's never on except to play video games.
3) I never turn on a set to see "what's on".
4) When I want to "watch TV", I turn to my Mac Mini, and surf to Hulu, Netflix or sometimes directly to the major networks.
5) I'm oblivious to the network behind most of the shows I watch. I typically go to the networks' sites last, and then only when I have time to kill. Which is rare.
6) I watch the shows I want, when I want, starting from the beginning. If I don't like a show, I switch to another show, which also starts right up, exactly when I want it to. When I stay at a Hotel, I find the "channel surfing" experience annoying since I can't start the shows at the beginning!
I have plenty of money to buy a TV. I just don't care to - Hulu/Netflix/Mac-Mini with a nice screen and Altec Lansing speakers give me a much more satisfactory experience. (seriously, who knew speakers so small could PUMP like that with good fidelity to boot?)
The only thing I really miss is the remote - the Mac Mini remote doesn't work with the browser. Wireless mice are annoying since the pointer tends to bounce around, and the batteries die quickly. But it's a small price to pay...
Re:This didn't catch on. . (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't be sheepish! When they say "TV" you say: "Why would you want one of those?".
Turn the conversation around, and make them justify spending $XX money without even getting video "on demand".
Re:This didn't catch on. . (Score:3, Insightful)
Hrm. My 52" Samsung does just fine with these "on demand" tasks, coupled with a PS3 and a spare core on my Q6600. A little pricey, and a lot wasteful, for sure. But then, I'm a lot more comfortable on my couch with a beer and a smoke than in front of my PC when it comes to consuming passive entertainment. And it lets me watch with my friends and family, as well.
To each his own, I guess.
Unnecessary then, unnecessary now (Score:3, Insightful)
And you know what? Most people will still not notice any difference, especially if they have to shell out for HDMI 50.0 monster cable or put up with quantum encryption DRM. Human eye doesn't have a terribly high resolution and frankly sharpness of graphics is behind so many factors that make a movie/TV show worth watching that it will never be a deciding factor. I don't see any difference in enjoyment of watching a dated James Bond movie vs the latest action flick, except the former is usually more witty. I do avoid any media that I can not watch or rip on my laptop or iphone.
Re:This didn't catch on. . (Score:3, Insightful)
7) You are not the average TV consumer