From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

I've just watched what I think probably the best quality kinescope
transfer I've come across (from 1964 and 1959 - subject matter may not
be to everyone's taste [don't worry, inoffensive]): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNlZEnzbYaM - but it reminded me of
something I've always wondered: given that it was always monochrome
(AFAIK - is there any colour kinescope?), why didn't they underscan -
with appropriate gain, focus etc. - adjustments, so as to get rid of the
lost corners?
The second half of the clip (earlier date, if I understand the notes
correctly; not _quite_ as good picture quality) mostly _has_ lost the
corner effects, but not entirely - it creeps in about 4:24, just at
bottom left, coming and going for the rest of the clip. there's also an
odd banding effect 4:26-4:32.
(Although the dancing looks French and the hairstyles American, the
uploader assures both performances were in K||ln [Cologne].)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 31/12/2025 14:03, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

I've just watched what I think probably the best quality kinescope
transfer I've come across (from 1964 and 1959 - subject matter may not
be to everyone's taste [don't worry, inoffensive]): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNlZEnzbYaM - but it reminded me of
something I've always wondered: given that it was always monochrome
(AFAIK - is there any colour kinescope?), why didn't they underscan -
with appropriate gain, focus etc. - adjustments, so as to get rid of the
lost corners?

An artistic decision to recreate the nostalgic feeling of old material.
The choreography dates from 1964 and 1959. Probably shot on 16mm film
then printed using a shaped gate.

At least whoever put the clip up cleaned the film before it got scanned
and didn't add the all too common "old film" grot.

The second half of the clip (earlier date, if I understand the notes correctly; not _quite_ as good picture quality) mostly _has_ lost the
corner effects, but not entirely - it creeps in about 4:24, just at
bottom left, coming and going for the rest of the clip. there's also an
odd banding effect 4:26-4:32.

1964 for the first dance and 1959 for the second. The banding may be an
AGC glitch in the scanner?
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 2025/12/31 15:7:29, John Williamson wrote:

On 31/12/2025 14:03, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

I've just watched what I think probably the best quality kinescope
transfer I've come across (from 1964 and 1959 - subject matter may not
be to everyone's taste [don't worry, inoffensive]):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNlZEnzbYaM - but it reminded me of
something I've always wondered: given that it was always monochrome
(AFAIK - is there any colour kinescope?), why didn't they underscan -
with appropriate gain, focus etc. - adjustments, so as to get rid of the
lost corners?

An artistic decision to recreate the nostalgic feeling of old material.
The choreography dates from 1964 and 1959. Probably shot on 16mm film
then printed using a shaped gate.

Ah, you're suggesting it was actually filmed in the first place, i. e.
no kinescope at all. (And then, as you say, trimmed later for "effect".)
That _would_ explain the good quality.

At least whoever put the clip up cleaned the film before it got scanned
and didn't add the all too common "old film" grot.

Oh, indeed. That really irritates, doesn't it!

The second half of the clip (earlier date, if I understand the notes
correctly; not _quite_ as good picture quality) mostly _has_ lost the
corner effects, but not entirely - it creeps in about 4:24, just at
bottom left, coming and going for the rest of the clip. there's also an
odd banding effect 4:26-4:32.

1964 for the first dance and 1959 for the second. The banding may be an
AGC glitch in the scanner?

Could be. I think it was only one angle, so maybe also a camera fault.


So - although it looks like this pair of clips had little to do with
kinescope - my question remains: in the clips that exist that definitely
were kinescoped (e. g. the 195x Carousel and Cinderella), why _did_ they
not underscan to not lose the corners?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Come on, Pooh," and he walked off.
"Where are we going?" said Pooh.
"Nowhere," said Christopher Robin.
So they began going there.
~A.A.Milne
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message news:10j3pb6$2khge$1@dont-email.me...

So - although it looks like this pair of clips had little to do with kinescope - my question remains: in the clips that exist that definitely
were kinescoped (e. g. the 195x Carousel and Cinderella), why _did_ they
not underscan to not lose the corners?

It's a very good question. If the technology of the time had flaws, such as rounded corners on CRTs, the obvious solution is to underscan slightly to
use a flat part of the screen face, and then zoom the camera in slightly, altering horizontal width relative to vertical if necessary so the edges of
the raster exactly touch the edges of the film, maybe even correcting the
old 5:4 aspect ratio to the newer 4:3 which is slightly less square.

The more I read about kinescopes, the more amazed I am that they ever
produced a good picture because of the need to pull down the film in a very short time, and/or boost the brightness of one field to compensate for a shorter exposure time of one field compared with the other (ie ending the exposure before one field had been drawn).

Were there ever colour kinescopes, or was there too much problem with moir|- interference patterns (*) between the shadow mask of the kinescope screen
and the one in each TV set. I suppose by the time colour became available,
VT became the preferred way of preserving live programmes and of selling
them, with standards conversion for NTSC, to overseas TV companies. Were any B&W 625-line programmes preserved on kinescope, or was it only 405 line?

(*) Even the lines of B&W could in theory cause moir|-, though I believe the lines of a kinescope were artificially thickened (the wonderfully-named
"spot wobble") so the two fields overlapped each other slightly, reducing
the visibility of scan lines.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 2026/1/16 13:48:49, NY wrote:

"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message news:10j3pb6$2khge$1@dont-email.me...

So - although it looks like this pair of clips had little to do with
kinescope - my question remains: in the clips that exist that definitely
were kinescoped (e. g. the 195x Carousel and Cinderella), why _did_ they
not underscan to not lose the corners?

It's a very good question. If the technology of the time had flaws, such as rounded corners on CRTs, the obvious solution is to underscan slightly to
use a flat part of the screen face, and then zoom the camera in slightly,

That's exactly what puzzled me.

_Maybe_ it was done sufficiently rarely that the fact that it worked at
all made everyone feel wonderful, and they didn't think it through to
that extent.

altering horizontal width relative to vertical if necessary so the edges of the raster exactly touch the edges of the film, maybe even correcting the
old 5:4 aspect ratio to the newer 4:3 which is slightly less square.

Well, you wouldn't want to "correct" it, unless distortion was
acceptable. (Though considering what happened when widescreen came in,
it was probably _welcomed_.)

The more I read about kinescopes, the more amazed I am that they ever produced a good picture because of the need to pull down the film in a very short time, and/or boost the brightness of one field to compensate for a shorter exposure time of one field compared with the other (ie ending the exposure before one field had been drawn).

I remember a talk (at the Chelmsford Amateur Radio Club some decades
ago) by someone involved with the development of the fast-pull-down
camera, designed exactly for the capture of video material (it could
advance the film in the interval). He brought some sample film (it _was_ dancing from a German source, as it happens!), which did look excellent. Apparently the cameras were _very_ noisy. I felt very sorry for him -
they'd just about got it perfected, when AMPex did his thing.

Were there ever colour kinescopes, or was there too much problem with moir|- interference patterns (*) between the shadow mask of the kinescope screen

I've never seen any ...

and the one in each TV set. I suppose by the time colour became available,

... though there's always the fact that such material didn't have to be
TV transmitted, but could be viewed in cinema type situations ...

VT became the preferred way of preserving live programmes and of selling

... but I think that was indeed the case.

them, with standards conversion for NTSC, to overseas TV companies. Were any B&W 625-line programmes preserved on kinescope, or was it only 405 line?

I'm not actually aware of having seen _any_ kinescope of British
material; the only that I've seen has been from the US, which would of
course have been "525" line (480 isn't it?). I presume the clips that
started this thread were 625, since it was clearly from German TV. The
only film recordings I've seen of 405 are the clips about VERA, which
was I think 405 only, or odd ones from the coronation and similar, which
I think used only an odd or even field, thus reducing the vertical
resolution (anyone?).

(*) Even the lines of B&W could in theory cause moir|-, though I believe the lines of a kinescope were artificially thickened (the wonderfully-named
"spot wobble") so the two fields overlapped each other slightly, reducing
the visibility of scan lines.

Never occurred to me that they might apply to kinescope - seems a very appropriate use; I thought it was only used for fancy receivers.

Come to think of it, ISTR reading that it (spot wobble) caused some
trouble with the subcarrier-recovery that was used to recover some of
the colour on some archive material, particularly some Dad's Army -
which must mean of course that that _was_ film-recorded. (Though as it
was colour it would have indeed been 625. So that answers your question
- yes, some 625 material _was_ filmed, though I don't think the word
kinescope was used much if at all when talking about it. [Unless it was
in the period when they were experimenting with colour on 405, but I
don't think any normal prog.s were made for that, only tests.])
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

This was a man who even sauntered through minefields. But right now he
had the expression of someone caught roasting next door's budgerigar.
- Douglas Adams arr. James Goss, 'Doctor Who and the Krikkitmen', 2018
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 31/12/2025 18:17, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/12/31 15:7:29, John Williamson wrote:

So - although it looks like this pair of clips had little to do with kinescope - my question remains: in the clips that exist that definitely
were kinescoped (e. g. the 195x Carousel and Cinderella), why _did_ they
not underscan to not lose the corners?

It's taken me a while to find, but this demo reel made by Kinescope will
give you an idea of the quality available in the late 1950s. The only non-sharp frame edge is from a 1938 recording, where you can see that a circular CRT was used to show the video to the film camera.

This is why I suggested that the first clip in your OP had been
deliberately framed that way to look old...

https://youtu.be/YNkq9pAU-Cw
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 16/01/2026 21:31, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

I'm not actually aware of having seen _any_ kinescope of British
material; the only that I've seen has been from the US, which would of
course have been "525" line (480 isn't it?). I presume the clips that
started this thread were 625, since it was clearly from German TV. The
only film recordings I've seen of 405 are the clips about VERA, which
was I think 405 only, or odd ones from the coronation and similar, which
I think used only an odd or even field, thus reducing the vertical
resolution (anyone?).

I thought that most of the older TV programmes shown on Talking Pictures
TV are from kinescope film recordings rather than from the original
videotape - if the programme *was* recorded to VT if it was going out live.

Certainly some of them have geometric distortion, shading/flicker,
low/uneven contrast and brightness... and the ultimate giveaway, dirt on
the film!

I've seen some film recordings which were "crossfiring" - each frame of
film consisted of the odd field from one frame and the even field of the next/previous frame, which produces an obnoxious comb effect on fast
movement. I know that effect well. I have an analogue TV digitising card
that I have used for copying VHS (or PAL output of Sky box!) to MPEG.
And it is 50:50 whether it locks up to the correct fields (ie both
fields of the *same* video frame), so I always monitored the first few
seconds of the recording, look for the comb artifacts and start again if
it's got it wrong. It used to happen even with live TV, so it wasn't
just due to poor reproduction of sync pulses on VHS - I tried live TV
because I was curious.

(*) Even the lines of B&W could in theory cause moir|-, though I believe the >> lines of a kinescope were artificially thickened (the wonderfully-named
"spot wobble") so the two fields overlapped each other slightly, reducing
the visibility of scan lines.

Never occurred to me that they might apply to kinescope - seems a very appropriate use; I thought it was only used for fancy receivers.

Come to think of it, ISTR reading that it (spot wobble) caused some
trouble with the subcarrier-recovery that was used to recover some of
the colour on some archive material, particularly some Dad's Army -
which must mean of course that that _was_ film-recorded. (Though as it
was colour it would have indeed been 625. So that answers your question
- yes, some 625 material _was_ filmed, though I don't think the word kinescope was used much if at all when talking about it. [Unless it was
in the period when they were experimenting with colour on 405, but I
don't think any normal prog.s were made for that, only tests.])

I was meaning a colour film recording of a colour TV programme, as
opposed to a B&W film recording (which needs fiendish colour recovery
software to restore the colours from the PAL dot-patterning).

I wonder whether, if development of VT had taken longer, they would have developed multi-monitor kinescopes for making colour film recordings of
colour TV programmes, with separate CRTs for each of R,G and B, to avoid
the need for a shadow mask and any moir|- that this might cause. Purely hypothetical, of course!
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 2026/1/16 22:48:38, NY wrote:
[]

I was meaning a colour film recording of a colour TV programme, as
opposed to a B&W film recording (which needs fiendish colour recovery software to restore the colours from the PAL dot-patterning).

I always admired whoever _thought_ of that!

I wonder whether, if development of VT had taken longer, they would have developed multi-monitor kinescopes for making colour film recordings of colour TV programmes, with separate CRTs for each of R,G and B, to avoid
the need for a shadow mask and any moir|- that this might cause. Purely hypothetical, of course!

Well, I've never heard of it for kinescoping, but separate-CRT systems
were indeed developed; I remember seeing them, I think for large-screen projection systems. (Smaller screens than today's domestic ones: I saw a
50" for only 2xx pounds in ASDA earlier this week!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 2026/1/16 22:45:39, John Williamson wrote:

On 31/12/2025 18:17, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

On 2025/12/31 15:7:29, John Williamson wrote:

So - although it looks like this pair of clips had little to do with
kinescope - my question remains: in the clips that exist that definitely
were kinescoped (e. g. the 195x Carousel and Cinderella), why _did_ they
not underscan to not lose the corners?

It's taken me a while to find, but this demo reel made by Kinescope will give you an idea of the quality available in the late 1950s. The only non-sharp frame edge is from a 1938 recording, where you can see that a circular CRT was used to show the video to the film camera.

This is why I suggested that the first clip in your OP had been
deliberately framed that way to look old...

https://youtu.be/YNkq9pAU-Cw

Thanks, interesting. Yes, virtually none of those examples showed
clipped corners, so I think you are right.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast


John Williamson wrote:

It's taken me a while to find, but this demo reel made by Kinescope
will give you an idea of the quality available in the late 1950s.
The only non-sharp frame edge is from a 1938 recording, where you
can see that a circular CRT was used to show the video to the film
camera.

This is why I suggested that the first clip in your OP had been
deliberately framed that way to look old...

https://youtu.be/YNkq9pAU-Cw

Where did the rounded-off corners come from?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

On 17/01/2026 10:06, Andy Burns wrote:

John Williamson wrote:

It's taken me a while to find, but this demo reel made by Kinescope
will give you an idea of the quality available in the late 1950s.
The only non-sharp frame edge is from a 1938 recording, where you
can see that a circular CRT was used to show the video to the film
camera.

This is why I suggested that the first clip in your OP had been
deliberately framed that way to look old...

https://youtu.be/YNkq9pAU-Cw

Where did the rounded-off corners come from?

If you mean the ones at about the 1:30 mark in that video, CRT tubes in
1938 then were circular, not squared off, so what you are seeing is the
only way they could capture the whole image.

In the OP's video, the first clip was either shot through a vignetting
filter, or something was badly adjusted somewhere in the chain.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.tech.broadcast

John Williamson wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

John Williamson wrote:

https://youtu.be/YNkq9pAU-Cw

Where did the rounded-off corners come from?

If you mean the ones at about the 1:30 mark in that video

No, they're present for the whole video

CRT tubes in
1938 then were circular, not squared off, so what you are seeing is the
only way they could capture the whole image.

What I'm seeing isn't the physical shape of the CRT shape, it's a
digital roundover removing all four corners, only noticeable when they
aren't dark.

[fx:penny-drops]

I was trying to grab a screenshot to show it, but it turns out it's
youtube doing it, but only when not in fullscreen and in theatre mode
(toggle with 'T' key).


--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2