Re: The Technological Ignorance of JOSHUA "I'm a fucking video engineer" HILL (was: Re: Lames, LIES and Videotape)

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 12:04:44 -0500, Sylvia
<sylvia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

'K, Josh, I already proved that you made up yer entire "anti-war
demonstration TV interview" story, but, because you love to brag that
you're smarter and better educated than other peeps, here's the promised
debunking of your "video engineer" knowledge:

Heh. Should be hysterical.


Josh Hill <usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
.
Sylvia wrote:
Josh Hill <usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Sylvia wrote:
.
<...>

Yup. At least as far back as the 1950's.

Sylvia, most field news gathering was done with 16mm until the late
70's/early 80's.

Yer an idiot Josh. You'd have us believe that major broadcast companies
were still relying on 16mm cameras at the same point in time our
technology was advanced enough bring CD players to the consumer market?

LOL. When first introduced, ENG equipment was costly, and transitions
to a new generation of equipment don't occur overnight. Many stations
didn't even have ENG equipment in the mid 70's, when it had become
practical, and a significant number were still using film into the
80's. It was, as I said, the introduction of the Betacam that finally
killed it off.

And, don't think I didn't spot yer TWISTY "most"--you completely
dismissed the possibility of videotape recording being used by remote
news crews.

Excessive literality is a sign of mental retardation, Sylvia.

"Tape pack. Right. 1960's, dunce." -- Joshua P. Hill

Funny thing is that I focused on video because in the situation you
described, a portable battery operated VTR would have been
plausible--but nooooo! You insisted on a silent camera and a corded
microphone.

Huh?

They may have had a truck at this demonstration,

"May have"? TV news crews do not <scamper> about with all their
equipment tucked under their arms.

A truck is hardly necessary for a delayed broadcast single-camera news
shoot, Sylvia. A van will do just fine, even a station wagon.

And, where, in a field, would your
reporter have gotten the external power needed for (at the least) that
microphone you described if not from a remote news truck?

LOL.

Even a three-day-old child knows that condenser microphones don't need
power from a truck, Sylvia. I can just see it -- an itsy bitsy
microphone with a tractor-trailer to power it. Too funny.

<...>
They dragged the cables behind them across Sheep Meadow?

Hello? Josh, that was my point. I was giving you benefit of the doubt
that you meant the cameraman in your story had a VTR/camera rig that did
not require external power. But, noooo! You insist news crews didn't use
portable VTRs to record news in the late 1960's.

WTF are you going on about? Either there was a big truck there and
they were carrying around a camera tethered to it, which seems
unlikely, or they would have used film. What's so hard to understand
about that?

the Ampex VR3000 tape backpack, the VR3000 is an older camera, so my
point still stands: video tape backpacks were used for TV news then.
.
Sylvia, have you ever lifted a VR-3000? I didn't think so.

Golly, Josh! That's amazing! How were you able to guess that I have
never lifted a VTR/camera system that became a dinosaur before the end
of the US's participation in the Vietnam war?

Something to do with the fact that you know less about broadcasting
technology than a catfish does about flight, Sylvia.

They weigh 55 pounds. It's like lifting a suitcase with a rock in it. Add a
three-tube camera, and you're talking traction.

"Traction"? They didn't drag it, Josh. The camera was just another 15
pounds--so what? The Auricon Conversion 16mm sound-on-film camera rigs
(along with requisite equipment) the remote cameramen were used to
hauling were *heavier*.

Mwah. You did a search on Google, eh? Your figure includes a tripod
and lights.

"It was an ancient 16 mm contraption called an Auricon
Conversion. You just about needed a truck to carry all
the heavy cases it required back then.""

-- A cameraman discuses what they used for sound-on-film [1]

They would have used film.

<laughing!>

Because of the *weight*? Josh! The VR-3000 set's a *portable* BACKPACK
VTR/camera combination. Cameramen could and did carry them. Ya know,
Josh, you can't compare other men to yourself. A lot of guys are capable
of carrying that weight and more, and under more trying conditions. That
war you claimed to have been protesting at the time? What do you think
an infantryman's full load weighed in at? Prolly more than now, which
can be up to 72 lbs. [2]

Which is to say that, once again, you have no idea what the ***
you're talking about.

<...>
They could shoot in color with the tape, in case you were wondering.
.
In case I was wondering?

Well, yeah, Josh. You didn't even know about the VTR backpacks:

"Tape pack. Right. 1960's, dunce." -- Joshua P. Hill

"The introduction of the Ampex VR-3000 revolutionizes video
recording -- its briefcase size makes it the first truly portable
VTR. It is used at the '68 Summer Olympics in Mexico City to
follow the world's cross-country runners for the first time ever."

-- Ampex Corporation re: 1968 technology [3]

Of course I knew about them, you idiot: unlike you, I've hefted them.

I'm a fucking video engineer, Sylvia:

An *engineer*?! OMG! Ray Haddad's claimed *he's* one, too!

Gosh, Ray's an engineer? I /wondered/ why we talked about all that
engineering stuff. Gosh. That explains a lot.

"Video engineer"--how impressive soundin'! So, that's what Philosophy
majors do.

Oh, this is good. I was a philosophy major? Is that related to how I
lived in Connecticut?

Heck, I would have thought they'd just end up splicing torn
video tape at a Blockbuster or sumpthin'... oh, wait... is this like a
"sanitation engineer" is an engineer?

Er, no. Though to judge by what's on the air, "sanitation engineer"
might not be such a bad description.

I can tell you more about high band and direct color quad recording
than you'd ever want to know.

Of this I have no doubt. What you know is incorrect, but I'm sure
there's a lot more of it that you'd love to tell us about--no thanks.

Bwah! Thinks trucks need microphones, and she claims to be judging my
engineering knowledge.

Good thing she wasn't on those peer review committees . . .

(Note to Boots: perhaps credentialization isn't such a bad thing after
all.)

Broadcast videotape recording wasn't even introduced until the late
50's.
<...>

Wrong, Mr. "I'm a fucking video engineer", it was not only introduced,
but *used* in the MID-1950's:

" * 1956: Ampex builds a practical videotape recorder for
TV networks, stations.
* 1956: CBS evening news videotaped on West Coast for
3-hour delay rebroadcast. " [3]

<snip Josh's useless description of 1950's equipment>

Oh, for ***'s sake. Can any human being not requiring a respirator
and round the clock nursing care possibly be this stupid?

VTR's couldn't record in color until 1964.

No, Mr. "I'm a fucking video engineer", wrong DECADE.

" * 1958: Videotape delivers color." [3] and:

"The video recording that became know as the Nixon-Khrushchev
'Kitchen Debate' was made at the COLOR television technology
display at The American National Exposition in Moscow." [4]

That debate, Josh, occurred on July 24, 1959.

So what? A demonstration of low-band heterodyne recording in 1959.
Western Electric made 33-1/3 RPM 45/45 vinyl microgroove stereo test
pressings in 1932, as well. By 1958, you could buy one in a store.

They couldn't even do on-machine electronic editing until 1963:

<staring>

Josh, how video was edited before 1963 is irrelevant to the setting of
your Tall Tale: the late 1960's, and, regardless of how they edited it,
broadcast TV *did* use video in the 1950's:

You try editing a news show machine to machine, you ignorant twerp.
See the mention of the CMX below.

* 1956: CBS Evening NEWS videotaped on West Coast for
3-hour delay rebroadcast.
* 1958: Live television drama is replaced by videotaped programs. [4]

old timers tell me

<nodding off while Josh recites irrelevant memory>

The transition to ENG

<aside, in sleep>

The jargon Josh is tossin' out, ENG is merely an acronym for "Electronic
News Gathering".

Gosh, you don't say. I thought it stood for "Egregiously Nefarious
Gorgon."

That is a term coined by CBS in 1971 after years of
needing a standard way to describe:

"Television coverage of news events etc by means of television
cameras (AS OPPOSED TO to film cameras) generally using
equipment sufficiently lightweight to be carried by one or two
operators, the signal being either recorded or transmitted via
a radio link to a base station." [6]
</aside>

became inevitable only after Sony introduced the Betacam.

<stirring>

That doesn't even make sense, Mr. "I'm a fucking video engineer"--Sony
didn't release its Betacam products until Oct 1, 1982.

Right -- at which time ENG became inevitable, meaning that stations
that were still shooting on film switched to ENG.

As I said, the transition wasn't complete until the early 80's.

<yawning>

Yer WRONG again, Mr. "I'm a fucking video engineer". You claim that the
TV Broadcast News industry waited over a quarter century after video was
ready for their use just to *start* to switch from 16mm format to
videotape, but they then completed the entire transition in ONLY three
(3) months: Oct 1, 1982 to Dec 31, 1982 (the end of the "early 80's").

Nowhere did I claim it took three months, you nut. That would be
ridiculous.

And yet, HDTV Magazine's History Department sez the death knell of
"filmed news" rang in 1971:

"In 1971 these developments gave birth to the CBS-developed
Electronic News Gathering system, or ENG, and filmed news
came to an end worldwide. Modern news operations, including
CNN, could not exist without ENG. Filmed news simply could not
support such realtime worldwide news operations." [7]

Yeah, and stations were still using it into the 80's. How difficult is
that?

I followed it as it happened;

"Did you ever hear of us going back to bomb Vietnam in 1974?"

-- Ray Haddad, proven liar Stolen Valor liar & Josh's pal

I'm a video engineer, you see.

"We [...] flew over Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor daily for a few
weeks. We did bomb selected targets." and "I was there."

-- Ray Haddad, proven liar Stolen Valor liar & Josh's pal

Eerie, innit.

No, Mr. "I'm a fucking video engineer", you didn't "folow it"; you must
have nodded off for a couple of decades:

Yeah, guess I missed the part where they needed to power microphones
from trucks.

"The 1960's saw the development of electronic video tape editing
systems, the CMX off-line editing system, miniature video tape
machines, portable cameras, and the hand-hold 'CBS Minicam'
color camera." [7] ( HDTV Magazine)

"Fer gawd's sake, Haddad! If yer gonna lie about this,
at least do some research."

--Miz Sylvia to Ray Haddad

<...>
We're not talking newsreels, here.

No, we're talking teensy-weensy fishies in the big blue sea.

<staring>

Apparently, Mr. "I'm a fucking video engineer", you don't know that the
handheld 16mm camera that you are claiming was used in your Tall Tale
*is* a newsreel camera.

I have no idea what camera they used, you dolt. That was the whole
point -- that our memories are /not/ accurate and that when I
visualized this scene of 40 years ago I backfilled it with equipment
that they would not have used, e.g., a Betacam.

And that they are not capable of recording
sound, unless converted, in which case you'd have needed to add a
soundman and a cable to your story, so that can't be what you meant.

Oh.my.god.

Sylvia, give it up. You're making an utter fool of yourself.

And, Mr. "I'm a fucking video engineer", you don't know that yer story's
type of 16mm cameras can only film for about 2.5 minutes per film
canister, unless converted it to hold a 400' roll, in which case they
are capable of about 12 minutes of filming--SO, they'd have to cart a
hell of a lot more canisters of film or extra cameras, which doesn't fit
your story either, Josh.

Oh, for God's sake.

I must at least offer congratulations at having proven, conclusively,
that nothing was ever shot on film.

And, no, they would not have used film.
.
Jesus, this is getting painful.

Blame yerself for yer own ignorance, Mr. "I'm a fucking video engineer":

"On December 26, 1967, Universal Newsreel is the last
newsreel, with a running time of six minutes. The 1967
Sony Portapak (out-of-studio video camera and recording
system) ushers in the MODERN ERA of VIDEO." [8]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, everything ushers in the modern era of everything.

This isn't your little teevee set, Sylvia. Technological transitions
take years. Film was still being used in the /80's,/ when, as I said,
the introduction of the Betamax killed it off.

My point, which you keep dancing around, is that a news crew would not
have driven their remote unit truck across Sheep Meadow and rushed up a
hill with heavy equipment just so they could "shove" a microphone in
the face of some guy staring at a few people hangin' out in Central
Park.
.
Your point is so patently ridiculous that there's no reason to address
it. However, since you insist, I'll debunk your stupid
misapprehensions point-by-point:

- Of course they would not have driven a truck, if they even had a
truck, across Sheep Meadow.

DUH! *And*, they could not have done what you said without a truck,
therefore, YOU LIED about the whole thing.

You have got to be fucking kidding.

They didn't need a truck -- that's ridiculous.

And even if they had needed a truck, it would have had no bearing
whatsoever on my description of what happened, since I specifically
stated that I /didn't/ remember what equipment they used.

That's why they used 16mm for such things, Sylvia.

Wrong, again, Mr. "I'm a fucking video engineer". They did not walk from
their studio with all that equipment, and you are ignorant of the
capabilities of 16mm cameras back then. Your story requires audio
recording equipment and somewhere to hook it up to for power.

Oh my god oh my god oh my god. Do you really think that a Nagra
required external power? Or perhaps it's the microphone, LOL. Do you
even know what a Nagra is? I can sense someone typing furiously into
Google right now . . .

<snip claims I already debunked>

Are you quite done?

Well, no. Thenk yew for askin'. Earlier you sneered:

"Not only that, it's a special kind of tape that can't
be erased. Maybe you can patent it."

I hadn't even said anything about erasing video tape, but since you
brought it up... that's *another* thing you don't know about videotape,
Mr. "I'm a fucking video engineer":

"The VR-3000 had no erase capability. All recording
had to be done on blank tape." [9]

Neener. Are you gonna claim to be a magician next, or a war hero?

Oh.my.god. You really think that means the tape couldn't be erased,
don't you?

<...>
And, now, Josh offers us EVEN more proof of why we can't trust
anything that he claims, including this story and anything he offers
in support of his dear, dear friend, the lyin' weasel Ray Haddad.
.
Doesn't look good for either of ya, does it?
.
What it looks like, Sylvia, is that you set out to troll and ended up,
as always, on the angled deck with your foot in your mouth.

Only to you, Mr. "I'm a fucking video engineer" who doesn't know beans
about the technology he's been swagggering about--yer gonna have to eat
that angled deck:

LOL.

Why don't you tell us more about that microphone that needs to be
powered by a truck, Sylvia. The engineering community is all ears.


"Sylvia, most field news gathering was done with
16mm until the late 70's/early 80's."

-- JOSHUA "I'm a fucking video engineer" HILL

The truth:

"From the invention of the first practical VIDEOTAPE recorder
by Ampex Corporation in 1956 until approximately 1979
VIRTUALLY ALL BROADCAST TELEVISION was recorded
on a [videotape] format known as Quadraplex or Quad. Of the
TENS of THOUSANDS of recordings that were made during
that period [...]

" [...] most of the reasons relate to the economics of a new
technology and its operation in a business environment. [...]
the DAWN of TELEVISION VIDEO RECORDING from
the 1950s to 1970s." [5]

Good gawd, where'd you get that, the Golden Book of Teevee? It's
manifestly wrong. Among other things, most dramatic series were shot
on 35 mm film, not videotape. And film was still used in news
gathering as late as the 80's.

But, since you want to play the quote game, let's have one from a real
source, shall we?


Snotty Pride. Fall. innit.

"Between the mid-1970s and early 1980s came a local news explosion,
attributable to a synergy of technology and economics. Technology led
as Sony introduced the 3/4" video cassette recorder, a portable
machine capable of recording 20 minutes on a cassette. With it came
simple and reliable editing equipment permitting the rapid assembly of
stories from the field. Ikegami and RCA produced shoulder borne
television cameras to be used with the field recorders. Electronic
News Gathering (ENG) was born, and by 1975 65% of local stations in
the United States were using ENG equipment, though many continued to
use film into the 1980s. The earliest ENG equipment was expensive, so
all but the wealthiest stations adopted it slowly. Field camera and
recorder were later combined into the most popular news gathering tool
of the 1980s and 1990s, the Betacam."

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/N/htmlN/newslocala/newslocala.htm

More than a third of stations not even having ENG equipment in 1975 --
almost a decade after the protest in question -- adoption slow, film
usage continuing until the 80's when the Betacam was introduced.

Gosh, perhaps there's a reason I was snotty and prideful after all.
Like you attacking me at interminable length on the basis of knowledge
you didn't have and evidence that didn't exist. Go hang your beak in
shame.

--
Josh

"Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is
good is not original, and the part that is original is not good."
-- Samuel Johnson
.