Slashdot Mirror
The First High-Definition TV, Circa 1958
An anonymous reader sends us to Gizmag for a look at a recent auction of a large collection of antique TVs. The star of the show was the Teleavia type P111, one of the earliest examples of high-definition TV. This rare 1958 console-stand television was designed by Flaminio Bertroni, who was also responsible for the iconic Citroen DS. The TV featured dual resolution capability, with the higher setting offering better resolution than 720p — 819 lines. This early attempt at a high-def standard, originating in France in 1949, didn't catch on in the marketplace.
Way ahead of it's time, as well. What a ride!
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
I'm assuming that, in this case, the resolution is defined either by the maximum resolution of the signal standard it was intended to pick up, or by the quality of the circuitry that handled the signal. Infinite resolution on the tube side isn't going to help you if some other component is letting you down, and analog components definitely have finite ability to transfer signals cleanly(as do digital components, those just take the entire hit up front).
As for the unique bit, probably just the "vintage 1958" bit, and not a whole lot beside that.
Computer displays are the same way. Twelve years ago I had a vertical resolution of 1200px in a 21" monitor. Today on a 24" monitor, that's still the best sold in any store. It's sickening.
TV CRT's don't have an actual horizontal resolution like you are thinking. The set is obviously 4:3 but if they had built a widescreen version it would indeed have higher resolution than 720p. There's nothing surprising about this either. The technology for high-def isn't some new fangled thing.
Just as we say today "wow, they had 737i prototypes in 1958!" one day in the future we will marvel "wow, they had 4096p prototypes all the way back in 2002!"
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
Well, it could have been worse. They could have gone with NTSC.
Sent from my PDP-11
Sure, HDMI is a joke. But there's a deeper issue going on... who hasn't noticed that TV as we've known it is almost dead?
1) I don't bother with rabbit ears.
2) I have a television but it's never on except to play video games.
3) I never turn on a set to see "what's on".
4) When I want to "watch TV", I turn to my Mac Mini, and surf to Hulu, Netflix or sometimes directly to the major networks.
5) I'm oblivious to the network behind most of the shows I watch. I typically go to the networks' sites last, and then only when I have time to kill. Which is rare.
6) I watch the shows I want, when I want, starting from the beginning. If I don't like a show, I switch to another show, which also starts right up, exactly when I want it to. When I stay at a Hotel, I find the "channel surfing" experience annoying since I can't start the shows at the beginning!
I have plenty of money to buy a TV. I just don't care to - Hulu/Netflix/Mac-Mini with a nice screen and Altec Lansing speakers give me a much more satisfactory experience. (seriously, who knew speakers so small could PUMP like that with good fidelity to boot?)
The only thing I really miss is the remote - the Mac Mini remote doesn't work with the browser. Wireless mice are annoying since the pointer tends to bounce around, and the batteries die quickly. But it's a small price to pay...
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Don't be sheepish! When they say "TV" you say: "Why would you want one of those?".
Turn the conversation around, and make them justify spending $XX money without even getting video "on demand".
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Hrm. My 52" Samsung does just fine with these "on demand" tasks, coupled with a PS3 and a spare core on my Q6600. A little pricey, and a lot wasteful, for sure. But then, I'm a lot more comfortable on my couch with a beer and a smoke than in front of my PC when it comes to consuming passive entertainment. And it lets me watch with my friends and family, as well.
To each his own, I guess.
Kid-proof tablet..
And you know what? Most people will still not notice any difference, especially if they have to shell out for HDMI 50.0 monster cable or put up with quantum encryption DRM. Human eye doesn't have a terribly high resolution and frankly sharpness of graphics is behind so many factors that make a movie/TV show worth watching that it will never be a deciding factor. I don't see any difference in enjoyment of watching a dated James Bond movie vs the latest action flick, except the former is usually more witty. I do avoid any media that I can not watch or rip on my laptop or iphone.
7) You are not the average TV consumer