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.
First hidef first post (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Fine kerning doesn't matter, if there's only Arial and Comic Sans MS to look at.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm browsing on a Spectrum 48k, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I didn't know we could post such long posts on Slashdot. Time to code a remote filesystem that works by storing data in Slashdot posts!
Re: (Score:2)
The Citroen (Score:4, Insightful)
Way ahead of it's time, as well. What a ride!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Is that web page ahead of it's time or do I just need to update my browser? ow.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Way ahead of it's time, as well. What a ride!
When asked about the 2CVs performance and acceleration, many owners said it went "from 0-60 in one day". Others jokingly said they "had to make an appointment to merge onto an interstate highway system".
Yep, a heck of a ride ...
I was once driven around Strasbourg in a 2CV, on a route that involved going up and down kerbs, steps, pedestrian areas and gardens (don't ask). I can honestly say that it did things that would be impossible in most modern cars, and much more smoothly than a 4x4. I remember bracing myself for the bump I expected when we approached a kerb at 20 mph, and none came - the ultra spongy suspension just took the impact and the car raise up slowly. The same soft suspension made the car lean on every bend in a most
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
DS != 2CV.
The DS was a luxury car, I think De Gaulle used one, with a hydraulic suspension, you could make the care go higher or lower on its wheeels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citroen_DS [wikipedia.org]
The 2CV was a very cheap, noisy, reliable and easy to maintain people's car. It set some kind of record, with 40+ years in production. I had one for a while, I remember trying to go as fast as possible when going downhill, so that I wouldn't slow down to 10 mph before I reached the top of the next hill. Felt kinda like a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The 2CV was not designed for highways. It wasn't even designed for roads. It was developed as an upgrade from horse and cart and as such spent most of its time on dirt tracks and fields.
Off-road (especially in soft mud) they are still extremely capable and can out perform most anything not 4WD.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
2CV: http://dummidumbwit.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/26-citroen-2cv.jpg [wordpress.com]
DS: http://theinvisibleagent.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/citroen_ds.jpg [wordpress.com]
Needless to say, about the only thing they have in common is the chevron badge... and front-wheel drive.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They cheated, I think later models had up to 6HP, instead of the basic 2, then 4.
This didn't catch on. . (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Obviously the movie studios were afraid of having their content available to consumers in such high resolutions!
But for all I know, that may not be entirely a joke.
Re:This didn't catch on. . (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't doubt that (you can certainly fit a feature film's worth of 1080p on a dual layer DVD, but copyright holders waited for a more DRM-infected format), but I think bandwidth would have been the bigger issue. Lord knows they didn't have digital compression back then, never mind a decent implementation like h.264. I don't know a damn thing about analog compression, but I imagine that it's all inherently lossy so applying much would defeat the purpose of having the increased resolution in the first place.
Re:This didn't catch on. . (Score:5, Interesting)
As a frequent pirate of movies, let me just say: 8-9GB for a 1080p movie (in h.264) is not sufficient to make compression artifacts non-noticeable on any decent display. And I've yet to find a codec that is better than h.264.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Have you tried that on video that wasn't horribly compressed to begin with?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Huh, I'm the same, but everyone still looks at me weird when I tell them I don't actually own a TV... :P
Re: (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: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
7) You are not the average TV consumer
Summary is wrong, not higher res that 720p (Score:5, Informative)
The TV featured dual resolution capability, with the higher setting offering better resolution than 720p â" 819 lines.
Nice try, but "by today's standards, it could be called 737i with a maximum theoretical resolution of 816x737 pixels with a 4:3 aspect ratio (10Mhz * 40.8 / 1000 *2 = 816)" Now compare this to the 720p standard which is 1280x720 pixels and a much higher resolution.
You've mist the most obvious difference... (Score:2)
Re:Summary is wrong, not higher res that 720p (Score:5, Informative)
This is wrong, not insightful. The horizontal resolution is restricted by the video bandwidth. The 819-line system had up to 10MHz of video bandwidth. That translates to ~488 cycles per line (bandwidth / (lines + frame rate)). Some of that is wasted on blanking and sync (the 625-line system "wastes" 12us out of 64us per line). Correct digitization requires at least 2 pixels per cycle, so that translates to a horizontal resolution of ~800 pixels, no matter what aspect ratio. 720p is 1280 pixels wide.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>>>horizontal resolution of ~800 pixels, no matter what aspect ratio. 720p is 1280 pixels wide.
It's actually closer to ~920 pixels per line..... and also you didn't take into account that the 1280x720 image is stretched across a wider screen. If you use the IEEE method of measuring horizontal resolution (i.e. how many pixels fit inside a standard square image), the older set and the new digital set are virtually identical at approximately 700 pixels. i.e. They resolve the fine detail in the cent
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: (Score:2)
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
Re:Summary is wrong, not higher res that 720p (Score:4, Informative)
Also in analog connected picture displays such as CRT TV sets, the horizontal scanlines are not divided into pixels, and therefore the horizontal resolution is related to the bandwidth of the luminance and chroma signals. For television, the analog bandwidth for luminance in standard definition can vary from 3 MHz (approximately 330 lines edge-to-edge; VHS) to 4.2 MHz (440 lines; live analog tv) up to 7 MHz (660 lines; DVD). In high definition the bandwidth is 37 MHz (720p/1080i) or 74 MHz (1080p/60).
Even a hypothetical widescreen System E (the 819 line French system) would not be as high resolution as 720p due to its relatively limited 10MHz analog bandwidth.
Re: (Score:2)
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: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: (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the biggest factors to the glacial pace of desktop display resolution this decade may be web standards.
A sudden jump in DPI just doesn't isn't practical for the pixel-for-pixel nature of the web (however much the W3C may try to change that). Sure, newer browsers will scale entire layouts to higher resolutions, but the image quality and often layout integrity lose a lot in the process. So, display manufacturers have kept everything in the 72-96 dpi range so that everything looks more or less the same.
Re: (Score:2)
That would make sense, except that widescreen's become horribly ubiqitous and at the same time even on a 4:3 most pages are still a narrow vertical strip in a field of background.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does that bother you? It's not like you need to run your browser in full screen all the time...
Don't get me wrong - I'm not a widescreen advocate and I'd go back to my 2048x1536 CRTs if my eyes could still take it, but 16:10 isn't as bad as it sounds.
Even on 1680x1050 (which is perfect for me on 15.4" laptops in terms of pixel density, I've found), I've got enough room for a 1050x1050 browser window/Word/PDF and 630x1050 left for E-Mail, IM, widgets or whatever. Being able to view two full A4 PDFs side
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously widescreen just exacerbates this problem... however, my reply is still valid, even for hi-res 4:3 or 5:4 screens... just use the extra space for something else ;)
Re: (Score:2)
It is possible to avoid making a narrow strip but most people don't do it.... Just make sure at least one column can be stretched horizontally without looking terrible. The biggest issue is there isn't an easy way to say 'make this x px (or name your favorite unit) wide and then expand the rest of the page to 100% of the screen's width'. Or at least I haven't found one that doesn't involve javascript.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
That's because today's monitors are widescreen (16:9) instead of the old standard (4:3). Comparing 22" 4:3 with 24" 16:9 doesn't actually mean you have more space in the vertical direction, but you have many more pixels in the horizontal direction.
Personally, I hate widescreen monitors. Unless you watch movies on your computer (which I don't) I don't see the point. Most of the work I do is page layout, and the typical pages I work on have a vertical orientation, so going to a widescreen monitor is a step
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the work I do is page layout, and the typical pages I work on have a vertical orientation
Sounds like you would benefit from a dual monitor setup with one of the monitors in portrait orientation. This is surprisingly easy to do nowadays, and not expensive. Apologies if I've stated the obvious.
--
.nosig
Re: (Score:2)
Not everybody likes bioshockvision.
Re: (Score:2)
I had that at my last job. The portrait monitor was great for web browsing and document writing. The landscape monitor did email, VxWorks, and Visual Studio.
Two-page spread (Score:2)
Most of the work I do is page layout, and the typical pages I work on have a vertical orientation
A two-page spread is wide. Try making two windows in your web browser, control-clicking them in the Windows taskbar so that they're both selected, and choosing one of the Tile options. Do this on a 1920x1200 pixel monitor, and it's almost like having two 1024x1280 portrait monitors.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
AMD (formerly ATI) offer some kind of free tool to users of their graphics card that does the same thing.
I think it might be called Hydravision or something like that. I used it until I installed Windows 7 when I found that the new Aero snap and improved multi-monitor stuff was enough for my needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but you are getting older (Score:3, Funny)
Get off of my lawn!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Funny Fact: none of those was actually able to display that resolution. Scanning, yes. But the pitch of the dot/grill mask was not sufficient.
-> "build in" antialiasing/blur filtering.
The "real" resolution of those monitors was usually at least 30% lower than the maximum supported one. everything above just pushed beyond nyquist and make your black lines gray.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as we're lamenting the long-gone days of high-DPI displays:
My 4.5 year old Dell Inspiron 6000d with its 15.4" WUXGA+ display does 1920x1200 just fine, thanks.
And I just parked a 19" Viewsonic Trinitron by the dumpster after it developed a power supply problem. That thing managed ungodly resolutions at sane refresh rates, but it ain't shit compared to the 20" 1600x1200 IPS LCD in front of me in terms of total usability. The Trinitron tube, at high resolutions, had some real convergence issues which
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the max resolution on a 22" LCD available to the general public is 3840 x 2400. This is the IBM T220 and it was first sold in 2001, later replaced by the T221 which used the same LCD panel but had better electronics support. Viewsonic and iiyama rebadged and sold them too. It was eye-wateringly expensive (more than ten thousand bucks) and frankly not very good with a low refresh rate, crap viewing angles, low contrast and brightness compared to other lower-res LCD panels on sale even back then.
htt
Re:And how far we have not come (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's sickening.
Yeah, but if you stop trying to focus on those tiny, flickering CRT pixels for a while, the queasiness will pass.
widescreen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck the aspect ratio. I want higher pixels per inch.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe to highlight the difference from 16:9 (widescreen broadcast TV)
Re: (Score:2)
Speak for yourself. I have two (also old) 21" Eizo FlexScans (I think they are from 2000) which can do 2048*1536. So I have a total of 4096*1536. Do you know what I payed? 200€!
Now those CRTs did cost 2500€ (converted price, ignored loss of value for simplicity) when they were new. For that price I would get twenty-five displays. With a total resolution of 10240*7680 !!
That is a bit more than those 1200px, isn't it? :)
Of course if you want those fancy TFTs, with their annoying problem to be able t
Re: (Score:2)
I like running high resolutions on smaller displays because everything looks sharper, not because I'd like more viewing area (and consequently, a minuscule UI, as you rightly pointed out.)
Re:And how far we have not come (Score:4, Funny)
Really? I'm not all that hot on using a microscope just to see my cursor...
Bah. Lazy young whippersnappers. In my day the displays were fluorescent orange on black, and the cursor was only one pixel in size. You didn't hear us complaining about the size of the cursor - we were just glad to have one at all, after the cursor shortages brought on by the war! You kids and your lah-dee-dah arrow cursors and 16 million colors don't know what you've got!
John Logie Baird was thinking of this too (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing new, just a young person thinking wow they could do that back then
The revolution was the sweat shops of Asia and quality control.
Digital HD was a rush, needing real skill. A duct tape effort
http://www.bairdtelevision.com/colour.html [bairdtelevision.com]
Thin CRT? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Thin CRT? (Score:4, Interesting)
> But what I want to know is, why hasn't anyone mass produced a Thin CRT yet?
They've been prototyped -- 10 years ago, I was convinced that the future of television was the Field Emission Display (FED) after I saw a demo at CES. Absolutely *beautiful*. The best of all worlds. Bright, saturated, distortion-free, and viewable from angles just like a regular CRT.
Basically, coat a sheet of glass with colored phosphors, and put individually-addressable solid-state electron sources behind them. To light up a particular phosphor group, turn on the emitters behind it to make it glow. Unfortunately, the technology went nowhere. :(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_emission_display [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
> But what I want to know is, why hasn't anyone mass produced a Thin CRT yet?
They've been prototyped -- 10 years ago, I was convinced that the future of television was the Field Emission Display (FED) after I saw a demo at CES. Absolutely *beautiful*. The best of all worlds. Bright, saturated, distortion-free, and viewable from angles just like a regular CRT.
Basically, coat a sheet of glass with colored phosphors, and put individually-addressable solid-state electron sources behind them. To light up a particular phosphor group, turn on the emitters behind it to make it glow. Unfortunately, the technology went nowhere. :(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_emission_display [wikipedia.org]
Isn't that roughly how an OLED display is put together? If so, maybe you'll have cause to celebrate in the next couple years.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In OLED, the current is run directly into an organic light emitting diode. Whereas FED/SED had an electron gun pointed at each phosphor pixel (more or less). Still, I guess OLED is closer to FED/SED than an LCD.
Yet another production plant? (Score:2)
LCD's can be used in LOTS of places, they are simple and reliable and known tech.
Your thin CRT would have a hard sell, they would be useless in laptops, be very heavy and offer what exactly as a benefit?
People want flat, setting up an entire production facility just for TV's and MAYBE computer screens that you will have to sell with "yes we know it is bloody thick and heavy but it looks much better, well, no, you probably can't see it in the brochure but trust us!".
People want flat. I don't think mosts d
Re: (Score:2)
"Your thin CRT would have a hard sell, they would be useless in laptops, be very heavy and offer what exactly as a benefit?"
You barely thump most laptop LCD panels and the damned thing will break.
That extra quarter inch of glass won't break nearly as easily.
I'd prefer durability over lightweight and flimsy any day.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not quite the #1 defect. The lack of the ability to stab someone in the face over the internet might just be the #1 defect. :)
Re: (Score:2)
YOu're the only one.
Crisp, reliable CRT = big bux.
Crisp, reliable(ish) LCD = cheap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Prototype SED screens (thin CRTs) have been made and I think still are being worked on. They also eliminate some of the other downsides of CRT screens (flicker, for example)
The video on the site is garbage... (Score:2)
They never show it in use or any actual video being displayed on it.
Buffoons! For all I know (being the internet) its just an old TV! SHOW ME THE MONEY!
I'm gonna go play uncharted 2...
Re: (Score:2)
Clarification please... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's 480p. Fox tried that as their standard (they called it widscreen enhanced or something) for a while before getting a clue and going with HD like everyone else. A lot of cheaper-than-HD "enhanced definition" TV's were on the market that were 480p.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the 441-line system was a Nazi-developed format, exported to occupied France.
Propaganda evidently required a better format than the crappy 180-line system they used for the 1936 Olympics.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.earlytelevision.org/german_prewar.html [earlytelevision.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Not disputed by me. I was simply noting the origin of the 441 line system mentioned in the parent link.
Re: (Score:2)
It just seems amazing that France would have been for all intents and purposes be broadcasting 57 years ago what we American's are being sold as HD TV today
It might sound a little less amazing if you asked how many channels were available.
Re: (Score:2)
So 57 years ago France was already broadcasting 441 lines. I was under the impression, that in the USA, today, that 480 lines were being broadcast and sold as the low end of HD.
You would be wrong. NTSC (US analog) standard definition is 525 vertical lines, of which 486 are visible (plus or minus several depending on overscan). This is usually referred to as "480i60", as in, 480 vertical lines, interlaced, 60 fields per second.
The ATSC over-the-air television standard used in the US can carry a variety of fo
In low-def YouTube? (Score:2)
Ow...it hurts my eyes...and my brain...
Easy in B/W. Harder in color. (Score:5, Informative)
It's not that hard to do high-definition monochrome TV. You just need to crank up the horizontal sweep rate and use higher-bandwidth amplifiers. Color, though, requires more holes in the shadow mask or stripes on the screen, and the alignment tolerances are tighter.
France had 819-line monochrome broadcast TV in the 1950s. But with the transition to color around 1960, Europe went to a uniform 625 lines. Kind of sad, but making special color TV tubes for France just wasn't worth the trouble.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it could have been worse. They could have gone with NTSC.
They did even better: they used SECAM, outrageous accent and all!
...laura
Re: (Score:2)
They did even better: they used SECAM, outrageous accent and all!
Ah yes, the "System Engineered by a Committee of AMphibians".
Praise to Flaminio Bertoni (Score:2)
That leaves the French exclusively with absolute design mingers. (That is, if design is the correct verb for the process they use to envision cars.) In itself that's an achievement.
Praise to Flaminio Bertoni.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for the unique bit, probably just the "vintage 19
Re: (Score:2)
They had finite bandwidth.
Re:off the rez (Score:5, Informative)
The screens in the black and white tubes didn't limit resolution, but the spots size (focus) of the beam could. In practice that's mainly a problem with very small screens and high brightness levels, as seen with c.r.t.s in projection sets. Those sure could look awful...
In practice the resolution from left to right is limited by the video bandwidth. On a high end analog computer monitor that may exceed 100 MHz. That essentially limits the minimum width of vertical lines.
But unlike the case with analog computer monitors where stored digital pixel information has a corresponding fixed position on a line, a true analog signal can have intensity changes occur anywhere along the line. To approximate that digitally would take a minimum of two pixels being averaged. (It's the same theory that dictates using at least 40 KHz sampling to sample 20 KHz audio). Trying to use too few of digital pixels (sub-sampling) is what causes aliasing (the jaggies). Analog tv does have that problem, but only in the vertical direction due to the fixed line count/position.
In an analog television, the bandwidth is limited not by the video amplifier section, but by the "i.f." intermediate frequency strip of filters/amplification. By mixing the incoming signals with an adjustable internal oscillator, the tv tuner shifts the desired channel down to the intermediate frequency, there the i.f. filters pass the desired signal while attenuating that of the adjacent channels. That design approach avoids the need to retune a whole group of filters just to change channels. (When first done with A.M. radios, the breakthrough was called SuperHetrodyne) To get higher horizontal detail requires wider filters, and tv channels spaced more widely (greater spectrum bandwidth). The use of too much spectrum was the main limiting factor in preventing opting for higher quality analog. Also, a wider channel means more noise bandwidth (more is captured), so higher resolution would require increased transmitter power to get the desired signal to noise ratio (not notice snow).
The U.S. system used A.M. transmission, but with only part of the lower sideband transmitted in order to save bandwidth. Normal A.M. sidebands are mirror images of each other. With that redundant carrying of information, one sideband could actually be eliminated (you've heard of S.S.B. or single-sideband), but that was too big of a feat to be viable when tv standards were set. The compromise of vestigal sideband gave U.S. black and white tv slightly less than 4.5 MHz of bandwidth out of a 6 Mhz channel. The sound signal (F.M.) was placed 4.5 MHz up from the visual carrier frequency, so the usable video spectrum could extend quite that far. As with single-sideband, putting the same sideband transmission power as A.M. into a narrow channel reduces noise, so coverage is improved.
N.T.S.C. color stuffs additional information into the spectrum used by black and white. Because of the horizontal (line) scan rate being a samping rate of sorts, the video bands exist in clusters spaced that rate (15.750 Khz for B&W, changed to 15.734 Khz for color) occupying spectrum like the teeth of a comb. The added color information centers on a frequency 3.579545 MHz above the video carrier, a choice which causes the sidebands created by the color information to have a comb=like spectrum with the peaks falling right between those of the black and white. If you every had someone trying to sell you a tv that used comb filtering, maybe now you can almost understand why that was a good thing. It allowed recovering as much as possible of the detail present in both the black and white and color parts of the signal while minimizing interferrence effects between them. On old black and white tvs with pretty good signal bandwidth one could actually see a pattern in the parts of the picture where there was bright color content. It looked sort of like regularly spaced lighter/darker dots from left to right on each line. But the choice of frequencies/spacing was such that al
Re: (Score:2)
I'll third the motion: Thanks.
It's seldom a shame that posts can't be modded past 5, but reading this makes me wish it were possible.