Slashdot Mirror


Fifty Years of Color Television

peter303 writes "The Houston Chronicle notes that color TVs were first manufactured on March 25, 1954 at a price of $1000 (about $4000 in today's dollars). Some of the older folk here remember the excitement of your first neighbors acquiring one of these in the 1960s and as the TV series one-by-one switched to color. Ironically, for such a high tech nation, there hasn't been a major quality improvement in TV broadcast images for a half-century until the 2006 changeover to HDTV."

17 of 469 comments (clear)

  1. 1669 hours... a perspective by amyhughes · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Adults are projected to watch, on average, 1,669 hours of television in 2004, about 70 days worth, according to census figures.

    1669 hours... a perspective:

    If you are awake 16 hours per day 1669 hours is 104 days, not "just" 70. Apparently, on average, adults watch TV 29% of their waking hours. If you work/commute 45 hours per week, your "free time" is, if you do nothing else, about 9 1/2 hours per day, of which, on average, you watch TV 4 1/2 hours.

    So the average adult uses more than half of their available time watching TV.

    Pretty sad.

    Amy

  2. improvements by wmeyer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Actually, there have been numerous quality improvements, though they have come in the receivers, rather than in the NTSC standard. The standard itself is rather elegant, and apart from the error that resulted in shifting to a non-integer frame rate (and the problems that has created for designers of hardware for decades), it has proved very robust.

    --
    --- Bill
    1. Re:improvements by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Actually, the problem is that the frame rate is not an exact integer multiple of the 60Hz AC power frequency, which is usually the largest source of electrical noise. It's off by a fraction of a percent; that's why you often see a distortion slowly creeping up the screen about once per minute as the frame rate beats against the power line sine wave. If the frame rate were exactly locked to the power line frequency, the distortion wouldn't move, so you wouldn't notice it.

      IIRC, the original B&W broadcast was at 60 frames/second, but there was some technical reason they had to slightly shift it in order to add the color subcarrier. Old B&W TVs were the worst with this noise distortion because they weren't designed to try to prevent it.

      (I think that color TVs only became truly usable in the 80s when they introduced decent automatic color correction. Before that, it seemed you could only watch in one of two colors: purple or green. No matter how much you fiddled with the knobs on old color TVs, it never looked quite right.)

  3. A story... by pcmanjon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My dad recalls (born in 1952) when his neighbors got color TV and he remembers everyone on the street tried to get in the house to watch it.

    He remembers one time when it broke and the whole neighborhood pitched in to fix it...

    1. Re:A story... by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My grandpa worked as an RCA repairman for many years (I've been told stories about how every time a new computer was invented, he had to go to night school to learn how to fix it.)

      Anyway, one day he brought home a box of parts and a picture tube from RCA and built their family a color television. My father remembers how every week neighbors would come over to watch the Wonderful World of Disney because it was one of the few color programs each week.

      My childhood's claim to fame is a 386 Packard Bell and Prodigy.... sigh.

  4. Wide-format, taking long enough! by addie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Last time I was in Britain, I made some comment to a cousin of mine about their wide-format TV and all the shows that are shown in that format. She responded "Yeah, we just go that last year, we're so far behind North America". Boy was she surprised to hear that we're still years away from that change over here!

    And of course the fact that PAL is higher resolution that NTSC, and we realize how little has changed in this past 50 years. Why exactly has it taken North America so long to change to a better format? I'd imagine the HDTV change will happen almost overnight, much like the DVD revolution, but it sure took a while for the quality of TV to step up a notch.

    Now if they could only do something about what's actually ON the tube.... or, um.. the flat panel?

    1. Re:Wide-format, taking long enough! by Zerbey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wide format is slowly coming along, about 40% of the shows I watch are broadcast in widescreen right now. My biggest beef at the moment is the number of broadcasters who slap a watermark right in the middle of the black lines thus confusing my TV so it can't stretch the image properly. Yes, I can use one of the manual presets but then it chops off the edges.

      My Phillips TV does a really good job of automatically stretching the screen when it detects widescreen.

  5. quality hasn't changed since ~1939. by millia · · Score: 5, Interesting

    actually, the quality hasn't changed, back even further than that. since color tv was to be able to be forwards and backwards compatible with black and white, the color signal was hacked into the black and white standard.
    this was not the case in britain, where a new, but incompatible, standard was created, that used bandwidth more effectively, and had better color.
    so hdtv is the first new standard since about 1939. it's about damn time.
    this proves, once again, that standards are a double-edged sword. use and choose carefully...

    --
    stored on computers from birth to the grave
  6. The real improvements... by deman1985 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To say that there have been no major quality improvements in color television isn't entirely correct. The televisions themselves have implemented better and better filtering algorithms and can better lock onto signals than they used to. Color realism has gotten better with newer TV's to project more fleshy tones and more accurate color temperatures.

    Then there have been improvements in the means of broadcasting signals. Cable TV was introduced, and not too long after was followed by satellite reception (with their appropriate receivers), both of which improved the strength of the signal and integrity of the image. In more recent years, digital cable and satellite hit it big, and allow for near-perfect signal quality and picture integrity.

    The only thing that hasn't really changed up to this point has been the resolution, and this has partly been a result of how well the TV market took off after its introduction. It's hard to change a standard once it has been in place and is used by everyone. Optimally, it would be nice if there was a way to allow HDTV signals to continue to be received by regular definition TVs so that broadcasters wouldn't have to maintain separate equipment, but the technology is so much different that it would be impractical. This is why the introduction of HDTV has taken so long.

    1. Re:The real improvements... by ratboy666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Interesting - I just want to expand on your "fleshy" point:

      Modern TVs use a colour gamut designed to improved flesh tones, yet they have a smaller gamut than the original colour specification. In other words, an antique original colour TV is able to represent MORE colours than your current set.. It just won't do hiqh quality pr0n as well.

      As to "near-perfect" signal quality and picture integrity... I would argue that "digital" mpeg encoding reduces quality. The mpeg encode of course relies on "picture integrity" (actually, no, everything is bundled up into 188 byte packets, with the assumption that there will be lossage, and no retransmission).

      As to resolution - 480i has been "good enough". Indeed, DVDs are 480i/p as well. Generally, few complaints.

      1080i (etc.) HD formats. ARE a major step. Roughly, an order of magnitude improvement. But, for many, 480i/p is "good enough" (please note that HD has 6 times the datarate of a current DVD - and DVD *is not* an HDTV format. The only source of HD will be broadcast (possibly cable or sat..). And, you won't actually be able to *record* an HD signal using normal consumer gear).

      And, I find that 480i/p is good enough for me. I do have a largish set, and still don't really have the urge for HDTV. If we had "super-DVD" out there, with 1080i format movies, THEN I would for it. But, I honestly don't care for broadcast formats.

      That's probably just me, though...

      Ratboy.

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
  7. Inflation by Hungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    According to The Inflation Calculator What cost $1000 in 1954 would cost $6468.58 in 2002 and I know teh US hasn't been dropping prices of late.

    --
    Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
  8. Color TV in 1928 by MrIrwin · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Baird system, 3 mechanically spinning (Nipkov) disks with different coulered gelatines.

    BTW, they even did 3D TV around the same period.

    Needless to say few people ever purchased Baird televisors, the picture quality was even worse than NTSC.

    --

    And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)

  9. wow by Jahf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Nothing highlights the amazing cost that has been aquiring HDTV like this.

    $1000 then / $4000 now for the first round of color TVs?

    It was something like $10000-20000 for the first round of HDTVs. In the last year they were just now coming down to the $4000 range, especially if you count the cost of the HDTV tuner as part of the TV cost.

    Today you can get them for sub-$1000 but not with a tuner so far, which puts it at a minimum of $1200 for full HDTV.

    How long did it take before the broadcast networks considered color to be "it"? I know in the early 80's I was still watching on a B&W tv about 1/2 the time. -Good- color quality didn't really happen until the late 80's.

    That is 30 years for a full transition.

    Makes the time it has taken to get HDTV adopted (2 years before it is considered defacto, probably 10 more before you get rid of the majority of old color boxes that are using downscan converters) to be alot less painful than people usually make it sound.

    --
    It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
  10. "In Living Color" by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I am not old enough to remember the 50s, but I can remember catching all the familiar 60s sitcoms and that was the time when they were making the transition to color. Early Gilligan's Island episodes and I Dream of Jeannie episodes were in B&W, as you can verify on Nick at Nite. Yup, it sure was different seeing Jeannie's costume in black & white. And I had no idea Gilligan wore a red shirt in the early episodes.

    Anyway, like all new technology, first they trumpt the technology itself. I remember NBC shows beginning with the colorful peacock logo and the voiceover saying, "The following program is brought to you in living color," a sentiment that today makes you think, "Duh!" but back then meant something new about the tech. That's the typical arc for technology. First they talk about the tech, and then the tech just melts into the background and nobody thinks about how it happens, they just enjoy that it happens.

  11. Re:"Fifty Years of Color Television!!" by BiggyP · · Score: 3, Interesting

    so,if we never got colour television would that have prevented the late 90's slew of home design/decoration/demolition programs, the inventors have a lot to answer for! ;)

  12. Re:YUV color by spaceyhackerlady · · Score: 3, Interesting
    One interesting part of the development of color tv relates to the YUV color space used. This color space calculates color by the difference between two of the channels, the third channel is the detail.

    There are infinitely-many sets of primary colours you could use to represent RGB colour. In an RGB colour space any set of three linearly-independent vectors will do for the primary colours. The YUV model was designed for compatibility (Y = black and white) and realism, since the U and V primaries are closely related to important colours like human skin tones. Can't have people looking like Vulcans, now can we? :-)

    We never had a colour TV when I was growing up. Always black and white. When we moved out to the country colour was irrelevant anyway (snowy pictures look much worse in colour), until we got a satellite system.

    Historical tidbit: the Apollo video from the Moon used a frame-sequential colour system, which was converted once it got back to Earth.

    Technical tidbit: some ham radio folks use a system called Slow Scan TV ( SSTV), which transmits still images over the radio. They usually use a line-sequential colour system, which gives the signals a distinctive waltz-like sound. Your best bet for such signals is around 14230 kHz. People used to use all kinds of weird and wonderful dedicated hardware, but now a computer with a sound card is the usual setup.

    ...laura

  13. Not true. by geekoid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is nothing on TV that makes you not think.
    The Simpsons brought up all kinds of ideas, thoughts, ans stuff to think about. Many people may have chose not to take the opportunity to discuss some issues, but thats not TV's fault.

    I challenge you to pick a TV show that there is no opportunity to think.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect