A friend told me she saw the 1953 Coronation live in colour in a
cinema (her father worked for J Arthur Rank). How was this done? (1) I thought TV cameras were monochrome only. (2) I assume there were no TV screens large enough to use in a cinema (they were about 15 inches at
the time) so was a projector involved? How did the images get to the
cinema at all?
A friend told me she saw the 1953 Coronation live in colour in a
cinema (her father worked for J Arthur Rank). How was this done? (1) I thought TV cameras were monochrome only. (2) I assume there were no TV screens large enough to use in a cinema (they were about 15 inches at
the time) so was a projector involved? How did the images get to the
cinema at all?
On 23/07/2026 10:39, Scott wrote:
A friend told me she saw the 1953 Coronation live in colour in a
cinema (her father worked for J Arthur Rank). How was this done? (1) I
thought TV cameras were monochrome only. (2) I assume there were no TV
screens large enough to use in a cinema (they were about 15 inches at
the time) so was a projector involved? How did the images get to the
cinema at all?
I wonder if it *was* live. There was colour film shot of the Coronation,
and I imagine copies of it were shown in cinemas in the days after it
took place.
Could your friend be merging two memories - of seeing it live on a small
B&W TV screen, and seeing it again few days later in colour at the cinema.
A friend told me she saw the 1953 Coronation live in colour in a
cinema (her father worked for J Arthur Rank). How was this done?
A friend told me she saw the 1953 Coronation live in colour in a
cinema (her father worked for J Arthur Rank). How was this done? (1) I thought TV cameras were monochrome only. (2) I assume there were no TV screens large enough to use in a cinema (they were about 15 inches at
the time) so was a projector involved? How did the images get to the
cinema at all?
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
A friend told me she saw the 1953 Coronation live in colour in a
cinema (her father worked for J Arthur Rank). How was this done? (1) I
thought TV cameras were monochrome only. (2) I assume there were no TV
screens large enough to use in a cinema (they were about 15 inches at
the time) so was a projector involved? How did the images get to the
cinema at all?
There were several television projection systems around at that time but
they were all monochrome (not even frame-sequential colour). Perhaps
she was conflating a live B&W television cinema show with a showing of
the colour film later in the same cinema?
In article <mln36lpsq5v1jbh7eivdlcsofahirtjv9q@4ax.com>,
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
A friend told me she saw the 1953 Coronation live in colour in a
cinema (her father worked for J Arthur Rank). How was this done?
According to this article:
https://www.earlytelevision.org/british_experimental.html
the event was transmitted live in colour to Great Ormond Street
hospital to bw viewed by children there.
On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:05:36 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 23/07/2026 10:39, Scott wrote:
A friend told me she saw the 1953 Coronation live in colour in a
cinema (her father worked for J Arthur Rank). How was this done? (1) I
thought TV cameras were monochrome only. (2) I assume there were no TV
screens large enough to use in a cinema (they were about 15 inches at
the time) so was a projector involved? How did the images get to the
cinema at all?
I wonder if it *was* live. There was colour film shot of the Coronation, >and I imagine copies of it were shown in cinemas in the days after it
took place.
Could your friend be merging two memories - of seeing it live on a small >B&W TV screen, and seeing it again few days later in colour at the cinema.
She says she went to the windows of the cinema to see the procession
pass. Could it technically have been shown in monochrome in a cinema?
According to this article:
https://www.earlytelevision.org/british_experimental.html
the event was transmitted live in colour to Great Ormond Street
hospital to bw viewed by children there.
Fascinating. This seems to be a private television broadcast by Pye
Limited from three TV cameras overlooking Parliament Square, not the >extensive BBC coverage. As my friend's father worked Rank at the time,
I wonder if there could have been some experimentation going on.
On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:05:36 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 23/07/2026 10:39, Scott wrote:
A friend told me she saw the 1953 Coronation live in colour in a
cinema (her father worked for J Arthur Rank). How was this done? (1) I
thought TV cameras were monochrome only. (2) I assume there were no TV
screens large enough to use in a cinema (they were about 15 inches at
the time) so was a projector involved? How did the images get to the
cinema at all?
I wonder if it *was* live. There was colour film shot of the Coronation,
and I imagine copies of it were shown in cinemas in the days after it
took place.
Could your friend be merging two memories - of seeing it live on a small
B&W TV screen, and seeing it again few days later in colour at the cinema.
She says she went to the windows of the cinema to see the procession
pass. Could it technically have been shown in monochrome in a cinema?
In article <d2346lttlohe7fodvlb091s9s1trglmr44@4ax.com>,
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
According to this article:
https://www.earlytelevision.org/british_experimental.html
the event was transmitted live in colour to Great Ormond Street
hospital to bw viewed by children there.
Fascinating. This seems to be a private television broadcast by Pye
Limited from three TV cameras overlooking Parliament Square, not the >extensive BBC coverage. As my friend's father worked Rank at the time,
I wonder if there could have been some experimentation going on.
It seems unlikely to me that the only receivers would have been the
ones in the hospital. Probably Pye had receivers set up somewhere for
their own experimentation, and it's quite possible that others in the industry were invited and even brought their children along.
On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:29:00 -0000 (UTC), richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
(Richard Tobin) wrote:
In article <mln36lpsq5v1jbh7eivdlcsofahirtjv9q@4ax.com>,
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
A friend told me she saw the 1953 Coronation live in colour in a
cinema (her father worked for J Arthur Rank). How was this done?
According to this article:
https://www.earlytelevision.org/british_experimental.html
the event was transmitted live in colour to Great Ormond Street
hospital to bw viewed by children there.
Fascinating. This seems to be a private television broadcast by Pye
Limited from three TV cameras overlooking Parliament Square, not the >extensive BBC coverage. As my friend's father worked Rank at the time,
I wonder if there could have been some experimentation going on.
Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
In article <d2346lttlohe7fodvlb091s9s1trglmr44@4ax.com>,
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
According to this article:
https://www.earlytelevision.org/british_experimental.html
the event was transmitted live in colour to Great Ormond Street
hospital to bw viewed by children there.
Fascinating. This seems to be a private television broadcast by Pye
Limited from three TV cameras overlooking Parliament Square, not the
extensive BBC coverage. As my friend's father worked Rank at the time,
I wonder if there could have been some experimentation going on.
It seems unlikely to me that the only receivers would have been the
ones in the hospital. Probably Pye had receivers set up somewhere for
their own experimentation, and it's quite possible that others in the
industry were invited and even brought their children along.
They were probably Pye-badged Philips receivers, a lot of Pye stuff was >Philips, long before Pye were bought out by them. (The lster BBC's OB
colour TV units were all designed by Philips but had to be badged "Pye"
so the BBC weren't seen to be buying foreign equipment.)
On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:35:09 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
In article <d2346lttlohe7fodvlb091s9s1trglmr44@4ax.com>,
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
According to this article:
https://www.earlytelevision.org/british_experimental.html
the event was transmitted live in colour to Great Ormond Street
hospital to bw viewed by children there.
Fascinating. This seems to be a private television broadcast by Pye
Limited from three TV cameras overlooking Parliament Square, not the
extensive BBC coverage. As my friend's father worked Rank at the time,
I wonder if there could have been some experimentation going on.
It seems unlikely to me that the only receivers would have been the
ones in the hospital. Probably Pye had receivers set up somewhere for
their own experimentation, and it's quite possible that others in the
industry were invited and even brought their children along.
They were probably Pye-badged Philips receivers, a lot of Pye stuff was >Philips, long before Pye were bought out by them. (The lster BBC's OB >colour TV units were all designed by Philips but had to be badged "Pye"
so the BBC weren't seen to be buying foreign equipment.)
But am I correct that the BBC coverage was not 'filmed' in colour (for conversion to monochrome)? Was it recorded at all or did the BBC leave
this to the film industry? Was there a method of recording video in
1953 other than using film?
On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 15:35:09 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
In article <d2346lttlohe7fodvlb091s9s1trglmr44@4ax.com>,
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
According to this article:
https://www.earlytelevision.org/british_experimental.html
the event was transmitted live in colour to Great Ormond Street
hospital to bw viewed by children there.
Fascinating. This seems to be a private television broadcast by Pye
Limited from three TV cameras overlooking Parliament Square, not the
extensive BBC coverage. As my friend's father worked Rank at the time, >>>> I wonder if there could have been some experimentation going on.
It seems unlikely to me that the only receivers would have been the
ones in the hospital. Probably Pye had receivers set up somewhere for
their own experimentation, and it's quite possible that others in the
industry were invited and even brought their children along.
They were probably Pye-badged Philips receivers, a lot of Pye stuff was
Philips, long before Pye were bought out by them. (The lster BBC's OB
colour TV units were all designed by Philips but had to be badged "Pye"
so the BBC weren't seen to be buying foreign equipment.)
But am I correct that the BBC coverage was not 'filmed' in colour (for conversion to monochrome)? Was it recorded at all or did the BBC leave
this to the film industry? Was there a method of recording video in
1953 other than using film?
On 23/07/2026 16:38, Scott wrote:[coronation, 1953]
But am I correct that the BBC coverage was not 'filmed' in colour (for
conversion to monochrome)? Was it recorded at all or did the BBC leave
this to the film industry? Was there a method of recording video in
1953 other than using film?
The BBC cameras were monochrome, transmitted live and recorded onto cine file to be flown across the Atlantic (by the RAF) so Canada/US could
watch it when they got up.
The colour film was a completely different exercise, with conventional
cine cameras. When they show film of the Coronation I think it's always
this that they show, often converted to monochrome to make it look "old".
I'm pretty sure the BBC coverage was 405 live only. I _think_ the only[...]
way to record video at the time was indeed Kinescope or similar
recording to film. (VERA was some years later wasn't it?)
that would make sense: I remember reading somewhere that the BBC feed
was recorded to film using one field only
On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:20:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
I'm pretty sure the BBC coverage was 405 live only. I _think_ the only[...]
way to record video at the time was indeed Kinescope or similar
recording to film. (VERA was some years later wasn't it?)
that would make sense: I remember reading somewhere that the BBC feed
was recorded to film using one field only
Yes. There was no way of electronically recording a video signal at
the time. Kinescope recording, as the Americans called it, or FR
(Film Recording), as the BBC called it, was the only way, and it was
only possible at that time to record alternate fields.
The 405 line system had 15 lines of blanking in each field interval, >therefore only 187.5 active picture lines in each field, so the only >recording that exists of the coronation broadcast is about five hours
of monochrome film with a vertical resolution of 187.5 lines.
Because of the importance of the occasion, there were also various
teams using film cameras to make documentaries or cinema news items,
and some of them were using colour film, so we have some of the event
in colour, but this was separate from the actual broadcast.
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:48:32 +0100, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:20:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
I'm pretty sure the BBC coverage was 405 live only. I _think_ the only[...]
way to record video at the time was indeed Kinescope or similar
recording to film. (VERA was some years later wasn't it?)
that would make sense: I remember reading somewhere that the BBC feed
was recorded to film using one field only
Yes. There was no way of electronically recording a video signal at
the time. Kinescope recording, as the Americans called it, or FR
(Film Recording), as the BBC called it, was the only way, and it was
only possible at that time to record alternate fields.
Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by
the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it
a limitation in how fast the camera could be run.
What about the earlier query about showing live colour in cinemas.
The 405 line system had 15 lines of blanking in each field interval,
therefore only 187.5 active picture lines in each field, so the only
recording that exists of the coronation broadcast is about five hours
of monochrome film with a vertical resolution of 187.5 lines.
Because of the importance of the occasion, there were also various
teams using film cameras to make documentaries or cinema news items,
and some of them were using colour film, so we have some of the event
in colour, but this was separate from the actual broadcast.
Clearly, this was separate from the BBC but was Pye for example
experimenting with colour TV cameras? Could my friend have seen live
coverage in colour in a Rank cinema?
On 24/07/2026 10:27, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:48:32 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:20:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
I'm pretty sure the BBC coverage was 405 live only. I _think_ the only >>>> way to record video at the time was indeed Kinescope or similar[...]
recording to film. (VERA was some years later wasn't it?)
that would make sense: I remember reading somewhere that the BBC feed
was recorded to film using one field only
Yes. There was no way of electronically recording a video signal at
the time. Kinescope recording, as the Americans called it, or FR
(Film Recording), as the BBC called it, was the only way, and it was
only possible at that time to record alternate fields.
Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by
the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it
a limitation in how fast the camera could be run.
What about the earlier query about showing live colour in cinemas.
The 405 line system had 15 lines of blanking in each field interval,
therefore only 187.5 active picture lines in each field, so the only
recording that exists of the coronation broadcast is about five hours
of monochrome film with a vertical resolution of 187.5 lines.
Because of the importance of the occasion, there were also various
teams using film cameras to make documentaries or cinema news items,
and some of them were using colour film, so we have some of the event
in colour, but this was separate from the actual broadcast.
Clearly, this was separate from the BBC but was Pye for example
experimenting with colour TV cameras? Could my friend have seen live
coverage in colour in a Rank cinema?
I remember a few days after the coronation that our entire school
marched to a local cinema to see it on a colour film. Possibly after all
the years your friend is confusing that film with live TV.
Yes. There was no way of electronically recording a video signal at
the time. Kinescope recording, as the Americans called it, or FR
(Film Recording), as the BBC called it, was the only way, and it was
only possible at that time to record alternate fields.
Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by
the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it
a limitation in how fast the camera could be run.
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:27:52 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Yes. There was no way of electronically recording a video signal at
the time. Kinescope recording, as the Americans called it, or FR
(Film Recording), as the BBC called it, was the only way, and it was
only possible at that time to record alternate fields.
Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by
the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it
a limitation in how fast the camera could be run.
Exactly as you say. 405 lines were scanned in two vertical passes,
each covering half of the lines. The blanking interval between
vertical scans was designed to allow sufficient time for the electron
beam to be deflected back to the top of the picture for the next scan,
but it was not sufficient for the mechanical system in a film camera
to move the film to the next frame. The best (or least worst)
compromise for film recording was for the shutter to blank the light
path for an entire field. This gave the mechanism time to work, at the
cost of missing half the lines.
Later 'fast pull-down' film systems were designed specifically for
recording from CRT displays, with mechanisms that could advance the
film during the vertical blanking interval (or slightly longer). They
would capture all (or most) of the lines in the picture during two
vertical scans. Vertical resolution would be the same as the video
source, and it could look better as long as nothing in the picture
moved. If anything did move, the two consecutive fields would have
slightly different picture content, which was not a problem when
displayed electronically 50 times per second as intended, but would
look odd superimposed on single frames of film shown 25 times per
second.
405 lines were scanned in two vertical passes,
each covering half of the lines. The blanking interval between
vertical scans was designed to allow sufficient time for the electron
beam to be deflected back to the top of the picture for the next scan,
but it was not sufficient for the mechanical system in a film camera
to move the film to the next frame. The best (or least worst)
compromise for film recording was for the shutter to blank the light
path for an entire field. This gave the mechanism time to work, at the
cost of missing half the lines.
Could have recorded odd frames to one film reel and even frames to
another ... I wouldn't fancy the splicing job afterwards though :-P
In article <nch3emFm6gjU1@mid.individual.net>,
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Could have recorded odd frames to one film reel and even frames to
another ... I wouldn't fancy the splicing job afterwards though :-P
What would it look like if the fields were recorded as alternate
film frames, and played back at double speed?
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:50:36 +0100, MikeS <MikeS@fred.com> wrote:
On 24/07/2026 10:27, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:48:32 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:20:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
I'm pretty sure the BBC coverage was 405 live only. I _think_ the only >>>>> way to record video at the time was indeed Kinescope or similar[...]
recording to film. (VERA was some years later wasn't it?)
that would make sense: I remember reading somewhere that the BBC feed >>>>> was recorded to film using one field only
Yes. There was no way of electronically recording a video signal at
the time. Kinescope recording, as the Americans called it, or FR
(Film Recording), as the BBC called it, was the only way, and it was
only possible at that time to record alternate fields.
Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by
the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it
a limitation in how fast the camera could be run.
What about the earlier query about showing live colour in cinemas.
The 405 line system had 15 lines of blanking in each field interval,
therefore only 187.5 active picture lines in each field, so the only
recording that exists of the coronation broadcast is about five hours
of monochrome film with a vertical resolution of 187.5 lines.
Because of the importance of the occasion, there were also various
teams using film cameras to make documentaries or cinema news items,
and some of them were using colour film, so we have some of the event
in colour, but this was separate from the actual broadcast.
Clearly, this was separate from the BBC but was Pye for example
experimenting with colour TV cameras? Could my friend have seen live
coverage in colour in a Rank cinema?
I remember a few days after the coronation that our entire school
marched to a local cinema to see it on a colour film. Possibly after all
the years your friend is confusing that film with live TV.
She is very convinced she saw it live in colour at a Rank cinema (her
father was employed by J Arthur Rank) and went to the window to watch
the procession pass.
Kinematograph Weekly - Thursday 04 June 1953
Coronation for Cinema Scope
The Coronation will be filmed in Cinema Scope with the lens being used
to make the 20th Century-Fox production " Prince Valiant." The camera position is Achilles Statue, Hyde Park Corner. 20th-Fox informed the
KINE. on Tuesday night that the Board of Trade had granted the licence
for showing the film to invited audiences only.
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:58:16 +0100, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:27:52 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Yes. There was no way of electronically recording a video signal at
the time. Kinescope recording, as the Americans called it, or FR
(Film Recording), as the BBC called it, was the only way, and it was
only possible at that time to record alternate fields.
Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by
the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it
a limitation in how fast the camera could be run.
Exactly as you say. 405 lines were scanned in two vertical passes,
each covering half of the lines. The blanking interval between
vertical scans was designed to allow sufficient time for the electron
beam to be deflected back to the top of the picture for the next scan,
but it was not sufficient for the mechanical system in a film camera
to move the film to the next frame. The best (or least worst)
compromise for film recording was for the shutter to blank the light
path for an entire field. This gave the mechanism time to work, at the
cost of missing half the lines.
Later 'fast pull-down' film systems were designed specifically for
recording from CRT displays, with mechanisms that could advance the
film during the vertical blanking interval (or slightly longer). They
would capture all (or most) of the lines in the picture during two
vertical scans. Vertical resolution would be the same as the video
source, and it could look better as long as nothing in the picture
moved. If anything did move, the two consecutive fields would have
slightly different picture content, which was not a problem when
displayed electronically 50 times per second as intended, but would
look odd superimposed on single frames of film shown 25 times per
second.
Thanks for confirming this, rather as I thought. Can this 25 fps film
be upscaled using modern processing techniques?
Cinema Television Projection
by
GAUMONT - BRITISH - KALES
On 24/07/2026 12:33, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:58:16 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:27:52 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Yes. There was no way of electronically recording a video signal at
the time. Kinescope recording, as the Americans called it, or FR
(Film Recording), as the BBC called it, was the only way, and it was >>>>> only possible at that time to record alternate fields.
Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by >>>> the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it >>>> a limitation in how fast the camera could be run.
Exactly as you say. 405 lines were scanned in two vertical passes,
each covering half of the lines. The blanking interval between
vertical scans was designed to allow sufficient time for the electron
beam to be deflected back to the top of the picture for the next scan,
but it was not sufficient for the mechanical system in a film camera
to move the film to the next frame. The best (or least worst)
compromise for film recording was for the shutter to blank the light
path for an entire field. This gave the mechanism time to work, at the
cost of missing half the lines.
Later 'fast pull-down' film systems were designed specifically for
recording from CRT displays, with mechanisms that could advance the
film during the vertical blanking interval (or slightly longer). They
would capture all (or most) of the lines in the picture during two
vertical scans. Vertical resolution would be the same as the video
source, and it could look better as long as nothing in the picture
moved. If anything did move, the two consecutive fields would have
slightly different picture content, which was not a problem when
displayed electronically 50 times per second as intended, but would
look odd superimposed on single frames of film shown 25 times per
second.
Thanks for confirming this, rather as I thought. Can this 25 fps film
be upscaled using modern processing techniques?
What would be the point, when there are cine film versions available?
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 15:43:25 +0100, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 24/07/2026 12:33, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:58:16 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:27:52 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Yes. There was no way of electronically recording a video signal at >>>>>> the time. Kinescope recording, as the Americans called it, or FR
(Film Recording), as the BBC called it, was the only way, and it was >>>>>> only possible at that time to record alternate fields.
Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by >>>>> the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it >>>>> a limitation in how fast the camera could be run.
Exactly as you say. 405 lines were scanned in two vertical passes,
each covering half of the lines. The blanking interval between
vertical scans was designed to allow sufficient time for the electron
beam to be deflected back to the top of the picture for the next scan, >>>> but it was not sufficient for the mechanical system in a film camera
to move the film to the next frame. The best (or least worst)
compromise for film recording was for the shutter to blank the light
path for an entire field. This gave the mechanism time to work, at the >>>> cost of missing half the lines.
Later 'fast pull-down' film systems were designed specifically for
recording from CRT displays, with mechanisms that could advance the
film during the vertical blanking interval (or slightly longer). They
would capture all (or most) of the lines in the picture during two
vertical scans. Vertical resolution would be the same as the video
source, and it could look better as long as nothing in the picture
moved. If anything did move, the two consecutive fields would have
slightly different picture content, which was not a problem when
displayed electronically 50 times per second as intended, but would
look odd superimposed on single frames of film shown 25 times per
second.
Thanks for confirming this, rather as I thought. Can this 25 fps film
be upscaled using modern processing techniques?
What would be the point, when there are cine film versions available?
1. Historic interest as an original BBC broadcast
On 24/07/2026 16:25, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 15:43:25 +0100, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 24/07/2026 12:33, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:58:16 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 10:27:52 +0100, Scott
<newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Yes. There was no way of electronically recording a video signal at >>>>>>> the time. Kinescope recording, as the Americans called it, or FR >>>>>>> (Film Recording), as the BBC called it, was the only way, and it was >>>>>>> only possible at that time to record alternate fields.
Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by >>>>>> the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it >>>>>> a limitation in how fast the camera could be run.
Exactly as you say. 405 lines were scanned in two vertical passes,
each covering half of the lines. The blanking interval between
vertical scans was designed to allow sufficient time for the electron >>>>> beam to be deflected back to the top of the picture for the next scan, >>>>> but it was not sufficient for the mechanical system in a film camera >>>>> to move the film to the next frame. The best (or least worst)
compromise for film recording was for the shutter to blank the light >>>>> path for an entire field. This gave the mechanism time to work, at the >>>>> cost of missing half the lines.
Later 'fast pull-down' film systems were designed specifically for
recording from CRT displays, with mechanisms that could advance the
film during the vertical blanking interval (or slightly longer). They >>>>> would capture all (or most) of the lines in the picture during two
vertical scans. Vertical resolution would be the same as the video
source, and it could look better as long as nothing in the picture
moved. If anything did move, the two consecutive fields would have
slightly different picture content, which was not a problem when
displayed electronically 50 times per second as intended, but would
look odd superimposed on single frames of film shown 25 times per
second.
Thanks for confirming this, rather as I thought. Can this 25 fps film
be upscaled using modern processing techniques?
What would be the point, when there are cine film versions available?
1. Historic interest as an original BBC broadcast
That's what I said:
"(It might be interesting to some of the original film that they sent >across the Atlantic.)"
There's no need to upscale it.
Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by
the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it
a limitation in how fast the camera could be run.
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:00:33 -0000 (UTC), richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
(Richard Tobin) wrote:
In article <nch3emFm6gjU1@mid.individual.net>,Would it not look like 200 or so lines instead of 405 lines, ie very
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Could have recorded odd frames to one film reel and even frames to
another ... I wouldn't fancy the splicing job afterwards though :-P
What would it look like if the fields were recorded as alternate
film frames, and played back at double speed?
low quality TV image?
On 24/07/2026 12:33, Scott wrote:[]
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 11:58:16 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Later 'fast pull-down' film systems were designed specifically for
recording from CRT displays, with mechanisms that could advance the
film during the vertical blanking interval (or slightly longer). They
would capture all (or most) of the lines in the picture during two
vertical scans. Vertical resolution would be the same as the video
source, and it could look better as long as nothing in the picture
moved. If anything did move, the two consecutive fields would have
slightly different picture content, which was not a problem when
displayed electronically 50 times per second as intended, but would
look odd superimposed on single frames of film shown 25 times per
second.
Thanks for confirming this, rather as I thought. Can this 25 fps film
be upscaled using modern processing techniques?
What would be the point, when there are cine film versions available?
(It might be interesting to some of the original film that they sent
across the Atlantic.)
Could have recorded odd frames to one film reel and even frames to
another ... I wouldn't fancy the splicing job afterwards though :-P
If that had been done, even if the two reels had sat on a shelf
unspliced for decades, it'd be trivial to "stick" them together
digitally now.
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:00:33 -0000 (UTC), richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
(Richard Tobin) wrote:
In article <nch3emFm6gjU1@mid.individual.net>,
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Could have recorded odd frames to one film reel and even frames to
another ... I wouldn't fancy the splicing job afterwards though :-P
What would it look like if the fields were recorded as alternate
film frames, and played back at double speed?
Would it not look like 200 or so lines instead of 405 lines, ie very
low quality TV image?
On 2026/7/24 13:17:58, Andy Burns wrote:You'd want to overlay the films over each other, either by sandwiching
[]
Could have recorded odd frames to one film reel and even frames to
another ... I wouldn't fancy the splicing job afterwards though :-P
What a fascinating idea! I wonder if anyone thought of it at the time?
I've never heard of it being done.
If that had been done, even if the two reels had sat on a shelf
unspliced for decades, it'd be trivial to "stick" them together
digitally now.
The 187.5-line film of the coronation might be interesting for
historical purposes - presumably it had some camera angles the (colour,
film) people didn't. But there might also be other filmed 405-line
material, for which it's the only record. Whether upscaling would be >effective, I don't know; I've always been dubious about upscaling
anyway, but given its popularity (e. g. SD material upscaling), I'm
probably wrong.
the full- (or nearly) resolution film made by the fast-pull-down
machines can of course, and has, been digitised, and doesn't need any >upscaling (to restore the original resolution, anyway). Whether it could
be de-interlaced to regenerate the original interlaced 50 fields signal,
I don't know!
In article <nch3emFm6gjU1@mid.individual.net>,
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Could have recorded odd frames to one film reel and even frames to
another ... I wouldn't fancy the splicing job afterwards though :-P
What would it look like if the fields were recorded as alternate
film frames, and played back at double speed?
-- Richard
On 24/07/2026 10:27, Scott wrote:
Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by
the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it
a limitation in how fast the camera could be run.
Each frame (every 1/25 second) is scanned twice - once for the
odd-numbered lines and once for the even-numbered lines.
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 18:52:12 +0100, NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:So the official numbering scheme was consecutive numbers of the first
On 24/07/2026 10:27, Scott wrote:
Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by
the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it
a limitation in how fast the camera could be run.
Each frame (every 1/25 second) is scanned twice - once for the
odd-numbered lines and once for the even-numbered lines.
Sorry for going into pedant mode, but everybody describes it thus and
it's wrong.
The official numbering of lines in every analogue television was odd
and even numbered lines consecutively in the order of transmission,
not the order of their appearance on the screen. And they started
numbering them at 1, not zero as we do now in digital systems.
So in the 405 line system, for example, one field would consist of
lines with all the numbers, odd and even, consecutively from 1 to 202,
and then the next field would begin halfway through line 203, and so
on until the end of line 405, followed by line 1 of the first field of
the next picture. And similarly for 525 and 625 line systems.
On 25/07/2026 10:04, Roderick Stewart wrote:[]
So in the 405 line system, for example, one field would consist ofSo the official numbering scheme was consecutive numbers of the first
lines with all the numbers, odd and even, consecutively from 1 to 202,
and then the next field would begin halfway through line 203, and so
on until the end of line 405, followed by line 1 of the first field of
the next picture. And similarly for 525 and 625 line systems.
field and then the *same* consecutive numbering of the second field?
If that is the case, I wonder how the terms "odd field" and "even field" arose. I suppose in the sense of the order of the lines as seen on the display screen, where consecutive visible lines might (in theory!) be numbered:
1 odd, 1 even, 2 odd, 2 even,..., 202 odd, 202 even
rather than
1, 2, 3, ..., 404
OK, I'm ignoring the pesky half-lines at the beginning and end of the
fields ;-) It's interesting to see that some modern broadcasts,
especially from BBC breakfast TV and local news studios, still have half-lines even though the cameras and the signal equipment are all
digital: there is sometimes an initial half-line of "twinklies" followed
by the rest of the line with picture.
I suppose half-lines didn't matter in the days of analogue TV because
most domestic TVs were set to overscan so the half-line would be hidden
off the top or bottom of the screen. Even with underscanning, was it convention that the half-line was used for picture info or did studio
monitors blank it (eg turn off beam current as if for flyback) so as to display a perfect rectangle without those irritating extra half-lines
being seen.
I don't think the half line was used for anything; that would haveWhen I managed to turn down the picture height on a TV (not sure how I adjusted it!) the visible part of the half line (top right and bottom
screwed up the waveform, which was designed to get the (line) oscillator
in the receiver into sync for the other field. (It had to shift by half
a line duration.)
On 2026/7/25 10:29:36, NY wrote:
On 25/07/2026 10:04, Roderick Stewart wrote:[]
So in the 405 line system, for example, one field would consist ofSo the official numbering scheme was consecutive numbers of the first
lines with all the numbers, odd and even, consecutively from 1 to 202,
and then the next field would begin halfway through line 203, and so
on until the end of line 405, followed by line 1 of the first field of
the next picture. And similarly for 525 and 625 line systems.
field and then the *same* consecutive numbering of the second field?
If that is the case, I wonder how the terms "odd field" and "even field"
arose. I suppose in the sense of the order of the lines as seen on the
display screen, where consecutive visible lines might (in theory!) be
numbered:
1 odd, 1 even, 2 odd, 2 even,..., 202 odd, 202 even
rather than
1, 2, 3, ..., 404
I think what RS is describing - which from my memory is also what was
shown in the Gordon J. King books, which I think copied diag.s from some official standard - is
1, 203, 2, 204 ...
Your question of where the terms odd and even field came from is a good
one; I suppose they had to be referred to as _something_, and that
seemed as good a way as any.
OK, I'm ignoring the pesky half-lines at the beginning and end of the
fields ;-) It's interesting to see that some modern broadcasts,
especially from BBC breakfast TV and local news studios, still have
half-lines even though the cameras and the signal equipment are all
digital: there is sometimes an initial half-line of "twinklies" followed
by the rest of the line with picture.
(I've asked before here, are the scan lines - in the sensors in the
cameras - offset very slightly from the horizontal, so their output
_truly_ mimics a tube camera? I've always suspected they are _not_, and
now since the majority of viewers are using digital displays - which I'm pretty sure don't have that angular offset! - the question is now moot!)
I suppose half-lines didn't matter in the days of analogue TV because
most domestic TVs were set to overscan so the half-line would be hidden
I never saw one that _wasn't_ set to overscan (except one I'd been at) - often by a horrendous amount, far more than could be justified by the
tube geometry (even on sets with a square-cornered screen).
off the top or bottom of the screen. Even with underscanning, was it
convention that the half-line was used for picture info or did studio
I don't think the half line was used for anything; that would have
screwed up the waveform, which was designed to get the (line) oscillator
in the receiver into sync for the other field. (It had to shift by half
a line duration.)
monitors blank it (eg turn off beam current as if for flyback) so as to
display a perfect rectangle without those irritating extra half-lines
being seen.
Did studio equipment use flyback blanking? I wouldn't have thought it necessary, as surely they didn't use the AC coupling that seemed to find
its way into receivers, such that the gain sometimes wound up (or down -
405 and 625 used opposite modulation, positive for 405 I think) and
flyback lines sometimes _were_ visible on a drifted set. Weren't back-
and front-porches at a level nominally slightly below black, so the beam should have been cut off anyway?
On 24/07/2026 14:11, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:00:33 -0000 (UTC), richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
(Richard Tobin) wrote:
In article <nch3emFm6gjU1@mid.individual.net>,Would it not look like 200 or so lines instead of 405 lines, ie very
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Could have recorded odd frames to one film reel and even frames to
another ... I wouldn't fancy the splicing job afterwards though :-P
What would it look like if the fields were recorded as alternate
film frames, and played back at double speed?
low quality TV image?
Too right it would! Film recording is one hell of a bodge, and no
substitute for proper recording of the video signal
On 24/07/2026 10:27, Scott wrote:
Sorry but what does 'alternate field' mean? Is it every second scan by
the TV camera? What prevented all the fields being transferred? Was it
a limitation in how fast the camera could be run.
Each frame (every 1/25 second) is scanned twice - once for the
odd-numbered lines and once for the even-numbered lines.
If only one field is recorded to film, there is 1/50 second in which the
film can be advanced to the next frame, with the shutter closed during
that time. If both fields are recorded, there is very little time
between the end of the even field for one frame and the start of the odd field for the next frame, which puts horrendous mechanical stress on the frame-advance mechanism in the film camera and on the perforations of
the film itself.
I wonder if any FRs ever used a rotating prism (like a Cintel telecine
in reverse) so the film could be moved continuously rather than intermittently, with the prism optically matching the raster to the
frames of the film.
A friend told me she saw the 1953 Coronation live in colour in a
cinema (her father worked for J Arthur Rank). How was this done? (1) I thought TV cameras were monochrome only. (2) I assume there were no TV screens large enough to use in a cinema (they were about 15 inches at
the time) so was a projector involved? How did the images get to the
cinema at all?
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 24/07/2026 14:11, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:00:33 -0000 (UTC), richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
(Richard Tobin) wrote:
In article <nch3emFm6gjU1@mid.individual.net>,Would it not look like 200 or so lines instead of 405 lines, ie very
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Could have recorded odd frames to one film reel and even frames to
another ... I wouldn't fancy the splicing job afterwards though :-P
What would it look like if the fields were recorded as alternate
film frames, and played back at double speed?
low quality TV image?
Too right it would! Film recording is one hell of a bodge, and no
substitute for proper recording of the video signal
I seem to remember a system that recorded the video signal on a steadily-moving film - almost like an oscilloscope trace swept
repeatedly across the width of the film. It might have been mentioned
in Wireless World?
On 25/07/2026 19:45, Liz Tuddenham wrote:[]
I seem to remember a system that recorded the video signal on ap502 in Pawley. Called "Cablefilm". Used for getting short film clips across the Atlantic,
steadily-moving film - almost like an oscilloscope trace swept
repeatedly across the width of the film. It might have been mentioned
in Wireless World?
On 25/07/2026 16:58, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I don't think the half line was used for anything; that would haveWhen I managed to turn down the picture height on a TV (not sure how I adjusted it!) the visible part of the half line (top right and bottom
screwed up the waveform, which was designed to get the (line) oscillator
in the receiver into sync for the other field. (It had to shift by half
a line duration.)
left) had picture information in it and was not set to black. I could
see a pattern that roughly matched the adjacent full line immediately
below or above it.
Nowadays with digital transmission (and 576 lines rather than 575) the supposedly invisible half of the line (it would have been invisible for analogue) has twinklies, as if it is carrying Ceefax-type data.
On 2026/7/25 21:15:4, Charles Hope wrote:[]
[]p502 in Pawley. Called "Cablefilm". Used for getting short film clips
across the Atlantic,
Hang on, I've got a Pawley PDF ... yes, sounds like it's that: "By[]
exchanging bandwidth for time it was possible to send the television
signals over telephone circuits in the transatlantic telephone cable and re-form them at the receiving end. The original film was scanned slowly
so that the bandwidth required was only 4.5 kHz, but the transmission
time was then about a hundred times the normal running time of the film. Nevertheless, moving pictures could be sent more quickly than by using
an aircraft to transport the film. The pictures were of sub-standard
quality, with jerky movements, but the method enabled news items
originated on either side of the Atlantic to be seen on the same day by viewers on the other side." So it's a film-to-signal system; however, a
So in the 405 line system, for example, one field would consist ofSo the official numbering scheme was consecutive numbers of the first
lines with all the numbers, odd and even, consecutively from 1 to 202,
and then the next field would begin halfway through line 203, and so
on until the end of line 405, followed by line 1 of the first field of
the next picture. And similarly for 525 and 625 line systems.
field and then the *same* consecutive numbering of the second field?
If that is the case, I wonder how the terms "odd field" and "even field" >arose.
The lines in the first field were numbered 1, 2, 3, etc up to 202,Ah, I understand. I think if I'd been numbering them, I'd have numbered
with the field sync pulse coincident with the line sync pulse that
began line 1. Then the field sync pulse of the next field would be
halfway through line 203, the following lines being numbered 204, 205,
206 etc up to line 405, and then it would begin again.
Thus, it's wrong to say that "all the odd numbered lines are
transmitted, and then all the even numbered lines" which I've even
seen in print, in some books and magazine articles. The lines are
transmitted in numerical order, the numbering being both odd and even consecutively, beginning with 1, as you would normally count things.
On 26/07/2026 08:53, Roderick Stewart wrote:
The lines in the first field were numbered 1, 2, 3, etc up to 202,
with the field sync pulse coincident with the line sync pulse that
began line 1. Then the field sync pulse of the next field would be
halfway through line 203, the following lines being numbered 204, 205,
206 etc up to line 405, and then it would begin again.
Thus, it's wrong to say that "all the odd numbered lines areAh, I understand. I think if I'd been numbering them, I'd have numbered
transmitted, and then all the even numbered lines" which I've even
seen in print, in some books and magazine articles. The lines are transmitted in numerical order, the numbering being both odd and even consecutively, beginning with 1, as you would normally count things.
them in display order, so (in order of transmission) 1, 3, 5, ..., 2, 4,
6, ...
But if they chose to do it the other way, then that's the definitive numbering!
I wonder if all the articles that use the wrong numbering convention
assume that "the odd field" has lines which are all odd numbers?
Am I imagining this, or did engineers once develop a prototype for a TV system which used three fields per frame, before abandoning it? I mean
three fields for *every* frame, rather than alternating two and three TV fields per frame of film in the US 3:2 pull-down.
On 25/07/2026 19:45, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On 24/07/2026 14:11, Scott wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:00:33 -0000 (UTC), richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
(Richard Tobin) wrote:
In article <nch3emFm6gjU1@mid.individual.net>,Would it not look like 200 or so lines instead of 405 lines, ie very
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Could have recorded odd frames to one film reel and even frames to >>>>> another ... I wouldn't fancy the splicing job afterwards though :-P >>>>What would it look like if the fields were recorded as alternate
film frames, and played back at double speed?
low quality TV image?
Too right it would! Film recording is one hell of a bodge, and no
substitute for proper recording of the video signal
I seem to remember a system that recorded the video signal on a steadily-moving film - almost like an oscilloscope trace swept
repeatedly across the width of the film. It might have been mentioned
in Wireless World?
p502 in Pawley. Called "Cablefilm". Used for getting short film clips
across the Atlantic,
On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 21:10:35 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
The 187.5-line film of the coronation might be interesting for
historical purposes - presumably it had some camera angles the (colour,
film) people didn't. But there might also be other filmed 405-line
material, for which it's the only record. Whether upscaling would be
effective, I don't know; I've always been dubious about upscaling
anyway, but given its popularity (e. g. SD material upscaling), I'm
probably wrong.
They repeated the whole thing in real time on one of the
anniversaries, and I was able to record all five or six hours of it on
a single DVD by using the lowest quality long play setting. Because of
the limitations of the original material, hardly any quality was lost
in doing this.
the full- (or nearly) resolution film made by the fast-pull-down
machines can of course, and has, been digitised, and doesn't need any
upscaling (to restore the original resolution, anyway). Whether it could
be de-interlaced to regenerate the original interlaced 50 fields signal,
I don't know!
On 25/07/2026 09:41, Roderick Stewart wrote:[]
They repeated the whole thing in real time on one of the
anniversaries, and I was able to record all five or six hours of it on
a single DVD by using the lowest quality long play setting. Because of
the limitations of the original material, hardly any quality was lost
in doing this.
the full- (or nearly) resolution film made by the fast-pull-down
machines can of course, and has, been digitised, and doesn't need any
upscaling (to restore the original resolution, anyway). Whether it could >>> be de-interlaced to regenerate the original interlaced 50 fields signal, >>> I don't know!
Was that the original film; the one flown across the Atlantic?
NY <me@privacy.net> wrote:[]
Am I imagining this, or did engineers once develop a prototype for a TV
system which used three fields per frame, before abandoning it? I mean
three fields for *every* frame, rather than alternating two and three TV
fields per frame of film in the US 3:2 pull-down.
I've not heard of it but it would be easily adapted to field-sequential colour.
On 2026/7/26 11:11:13, Max Demian wrote:
Any film made from the actual video of the time - whether for archival purposes or to fly - would have been that made from just one field, i.
e. 187.5 lines of picture information, as that was all they could do. I _think_ what was flown to America for showing _quickly_ was if that
nature; presumably, they later got the colour film also shot at the event.
On 26/07/2026 13:34, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/7/26 11:11:13, Max Demian wrote:
Any film made from the actual video of the time - whether for archivalThe colour could have been flown to America on the same plane as the >monochrome made from the video. Pathe had a whole system in place for >getting the news to the cinemas in a hurry. Process the negative, then
purposes or to fly - would have been that made from just one field, i.
e. 187.5 lines of picture information, as that was all they could do. I
_think_ what was flown to America for showing _quickly_ was if that
nature; presumably, they later got the colour film also shot at the event. >>
edit and copy it while wet, saving a few minutes. From what I was told,
they could get an important event such as the cup final out to the
cinemas for the matinee show the following day. Motor bikes were >involved....
On 23/07/2026 10:39, Scott wrote:
A friend told me she saw the 1953 Coronation live in colour in a
cinema (her father worked for J Arthur Rank). How was this done? (1) I
thought TV cameras were monochrome only. (2) I assume there were no TV
screens large enough to use in a cinema (they were about 15 inches at
the time) so was a projector involved? How did the images get to the
cinema at all?
The coronation was black&white on TV - colour TV only started in 1967.
My first job was as a development engineer for ABB Consumer Products.
My mother took me to see the film in colour - certainly not live.
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 13:53:40 +0100, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 26/07/2026 13:34, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/7/26 11:11:13, Max Demian wrote:The colour could have been flown to America on the same plane as the
Any film made from the actual video of the time - whether for archival
purposes or to fly - would have been that made from just one field, i.
e. 187.5 lines of picture information, as that was all they could do. I
_think_ what was flown to America for showing _quickly_ was if that
nature; presumably, they later got the colour film also shot at the event. >>>
monochrome made from the video. Pathe had a whole system in place for
getting the news to the cinemas in a hurry. Process the negative, then
edit and copy it while wet, saving a few minutes. From what I was told,
they could get an important event such as the cup final out to the
cinemas for the matinee show the following day. Motor bikes were
involved....
The above process applies I assume to the monochrome since, as I
understand it, colour cine film does not have a negative (same as transparencies)?
On Sun, 26 Jul 2026 13:53:40 +0100, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:
On 26/07/2026 13:34, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2026/7/26 11:11:13, Max Demian wrote:The colour could have been flown to America on the same plane as the
Any film made from the actual video of the time - whether for archival
purposes or to fly - would have been that made from just one field, i.
e. 187.5 lines of picture information, as that was all they could do. I
_think_ what was flown to America for showing _quickly_ was if that
nature; presumably, they later got the colour film also shot at the event. >>>
monochrome made from the video. Pathe had a whole system in place for
getting the news to the cinemas in a hurry. Process the negative, then
edit and copy it while wet, saving a few minutes. From what I was told,
they could get an important event such as the cup final out to the
cinemas for the matinee show the following day. Motor bikes were
involved....
The above process applies I assume to the monochrome since, as I
understand it, colour cine film does not have a negative (same as transparencies)?
Negative is also quicker to process, as there is no need for the intermediate steps which convert the negative image produced on the film
by the initial exposure of the film to a positive.
Was the fact the TV news reports used reversal film mainly due to the
fact that you don't need to make a positive print in order to be able to assess shots for editing, or was it because less tweaking was required
to telecine from a positive than from a negative?
Did editing desks (Steenbecks) ever have a low-grade TV camera/screen to
do the reversal from negative to positive to make it easier for the
editor to assess shots, even if he then made a positive print from the
cut negative, for transmission. Or was editing always done on a
positive, and then a cutting list generated for the neg to be cut correspondingly (and then printed)?
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:53:53 +0100, Dave W <davewi11@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
On 23/07/2026 10:39, Scott wrote:
A friend told me she saw the 1953 Coronation live in colour in a
cinema (her father worked for J Arthur Rank). How was this done? (1) I
thought TV cameras were monochrome only. (2) I assume there were no TV
screens large enough to use in a cinema (they were about 15 inches at
the time) so was a projector involved? How did the images get to the
cinema at all?
The coronation was black&white on TV - colour TV only started in 1967.
My first job was as a development engineer for ABB Consumer Products.
My mother took me to see the film in colour - certainly not live.
I assume you mean broadcast colour TV. What about this link posted by
Richard Tobin earlier? https://www.earlytelevision.org/british_experimental.html
On 2026/7/26 21:47:54, Scott wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2026 19:53:53 +0100, Dave W <davewi11@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
On 23/07/2026 10:39, Scott wrote:
A friend told me she saw the 1953 Coronation live in colour in a
cinema (her father worked for J Arthur Rank). How was this done? (1) I >>>> thought TV cameras were monochrome only. (2) I assume there were no TV >>>> screens large enough to use in a cinema (they were about 15 inches at
the time) so was a projector involved? How did the images get to the
cinema at all?
The coronation was black&white on TV - colour TV only started in 1967.
My first job was as a development engineer for ABB Consumer Products.
My mother took me to see the film in colour - certainly not live.
I assume you mean broadcast colour TV. What about this link posted by
Richard Tobin earlier?
https://www.earlytelevision.org/british_experimental.html
Thanks for (re-giving) the link! A couple of questions:
1. I'd love to know the technical details - lines, frame rate, etc.;
there's a brief but tantalising mention in the above about "colour sync >pulses", presumably to keep the colour switching in sync.
2. Why on earth was GOSH chosen as the destination! A lovely thing to
do, of course, but one can't help wondering why. Maybe just geographical
- their "low-power UHF" transmitter presumably couldn't get very far,
and maybe it was the only destination within range.
The BBC (I don't know about ITV) _did_ experiment with colour much
later, but on 405 - using (obviously a special version of!) the NTSC
method, and others. I think it was the fact that 405 was on VHF which >highlighted its shortcomings: phase errors (giving hue errors) are worse
at VHF (and/or when the video bandwidth is so much more a percentage of
the transmitted frequency), and perhaps it would actually not have been
so bad on UHF. (But I'm glad that it directed us to the PAL system
anyway.) I worked with someone (Len Mays) who was to some extent
involved with those tests - as I said, much later than the coronation -
but sadly he's no longer with us, so I can't grill him for details.
Richard's link of course - maybe he could enlighten us further?
In article <b7ue6lpesttu6mbso2hocv7sl5bompjib0@4ax.com>,
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
Richard's link of course - maybe he could enlighten us further?
Sorry, I know no more about it than is on the page.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 45:25:39 |
| Calls: | 1,100 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 275,372 |