Re: How good were 1950's/1960's Band 1 TV receivers?
- From: Roderick Stewart <escapetime@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 11:19:05 +0100
In article <memo.20070730230534.3840W@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Cummins
wrote:
Also, the signal would be far more watchable, since signal errors would
only affect the luminance - making it less defined in shade only, so
intereference would not be so noticeable.
Not sure that I follow that argument. I see someone has already made the
point about ignition sparlkies, but there's also the matter of AGC. With
positive modulation, proper AGC not related to picture content is more
complicated to implement, and in the days of thermionic valves it was
common to economise on components in the interests of costs. Thus, RF AGC
would depend on the average picture brightness, and combined with the
effects of capacitor-coupled video amplifiers, the dynamics of the
pictures displayed in most homes would have been nothing like what was
seen in the studios.
Rod.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: How good were 1950's/1960's Band 1 TV receivers?
- From: Mark Carver
- Re: How good were 1950's/1960's Band 1 TV receivers?
- References:
- Re: How good were 1950's/1960's Band 1 TV receivers?
- From: Mark Carver
- Re: How good were 1950's/1960's Band 1 TV receivers?
- Prev by Date: Re: How good were 1950's/1960's Band 1 TV receivers?
- Next by Date: Re: How good were 1950's/1960's Band 1 TV receivers?
- Previous by thread: Re: How good were 1950's/1960's Band 1 TV receivers?
- Next by thread: Re: How good were 1950's/1960's Band 1 TV receivers?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|