Cilla line structure

[J. P. Gilliver]

Last night's "Cilla at the BBC"
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b067543w/cilla-at-the-bbc)
contained a segment (about 0:16 to 2:53) from the Royal Variety
Programme 1964, in which the line structure was very noticeable; what
would this have been recorded on? (The superimposed text was at higher
resolution.) Other than that, it mostly seems to have been good quality
when well-lit - though quite a lot of noise in black sections. (That
wasn't exclusive to that bit - the bit at say 3:22-3:40, which was
obviously from film, was also noisy in the dark sections.)

(There's also a lovely example of ?icon* flare at 0:44-0:47, and around
it.)

Would 1964 have been system A?

[John Williamson]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Last night's "Cilla at the BBC"
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b067543w/cilla-at-the-bbc)
contained a segment (about 0:16 to 2:53) from the Royal Variety
Programme 1964, in which the line structure was very noticeable; what
would this have been recorded on? (The superimposed text was at higher
resolution.) Other than that, it mostly seems to have been good quality
when well-lit - though quite a lot of noise in black sections. (That
wasn't exclusive to that bit - the bit at say 3:22-3:40, which was
obviously from film, was also noisy in the dark sections.)
(There's also a lovely example of ?icon* flare at 0:44-0:47, and around
it.)

Standard Plumbicon flare. A bright light in shot for too long could
write off the tube, or, as a minimum, need the tube to be "rested" for a
while.

The artifacts you mention look like the result of shooting on a 405 line
camera, then converting to 625 lines.

[Brian Gaff]

I never saw it as I lived through it in reality of course, when I could see,
but there was one piece I do recall recording the audio of where she sung
Your my World at the Albert Hall, which the audio of was very very good.
Unfortunately I did it reel to reel and cannot play it now. If you recall
there were a lot of outside broadcasts in her series, and even back then
some of the pictures were a bit noisy.
There are a couple of bits of either film or other format recordings you
often do see. One is her singing in the USA and doing a curtsy, which ages
it, and that was very jerky in movement, and was probably standards
converted by some rudimentary means, and the one in the Abbey Road Studio
with Burt and George and a large orchestra doing loads of takes of Alfi.
That was a bit juddery too as I recall, and looked a bit like hand held
footage.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Last night's "Cilla at the BBC"
(https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b067543w/cilla-at-the-bbc)
contained a segment (about 0:16 to 2:53) from the Royal Variety
Programme 1964, in which the line structure was very noticeable; what
would this have been recorded on? (The superimposed text was at higher
resolution.) Other than that, it mostly seems to have been good quality
when well-lit - though quite a lot of noise in black sections. (That
wasn't exclusive to that bit - the bit at say 3:22-3:40, which was
obviously from film, was also noisy in the dark sections.)
(There's also a lovely example of ?icon* flare at 0:44-0:47, and around
it.)

Standard Plumbicon flare. A bright light in shot for too long could write
off the tube, or, as a minimum, need the tube to be "rested" for a while.
The artifacts you mention look like the result of shooting on a 405 line
camera, then converting to 625 lines.
--
Tciao for Now!
John.

[The Other John]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
(There's also a lovely example of ?icon* flare at 0:44-0:47, and around
it.)

Image orthicon secondary emission known in the trade as 'throw off'. I
drove IO cameras as a 'racks' (vision control) operator for 5 years. 3"
and 4.5" Pye and Marconi cameras.

[NY]

Post by The Other John

Post by J. P. Gilliver
(There's also a lovely example of ?icon* flare at 0:44-0:47, and around
it.)

Image orthicon secondary emission known in the trade as 'throw off'. I
drove IO cameras as a 'racks' (vision control) operator for 5 years. 3"
and 4.5" Pye and Marconi cameras.

The secondary emission of IOs is instantly recognisable: bright lights (or
reflections of the sun on things) get an dark patch in the centre, and
conversely very dark areas in a "sea" of white get a light patch in the
centre. It's very recognisable in early episodes of Top of the Pops because
that used a lot of low-angle shots which caught some of the studio lights in
shot.

Did any colour cameras use IOs, or did colour always require
vidicon/plumbicon/saticon tubes.

[The Other John]

Post by NY
Did any colour cameras use IOs, or did colour always require
vidicon/plumbicon/saticon tubes.

Early colour cameras used IOs like RCA. They were big and heavy and were
nicknamed 'coffins'!

[charles]

Post by NY

Post by The Other John

Post by J. P. Gilliver
(There's also a lovely example of ?icon* flare at 0:44-0:47, and
around it.)

Image orthicon secondary emission known in the trade as 'throw off'. I
drove IO cameras as a 'racks' (vision control) operator for 5 years.
3" and 4.5" Pye and Marconi cameras.

The secondary emission of IOs is instantly recognisable: bright lights
(or reflections of the sun on things) get an dark patch in the centre,
and conversely very dark areas in a "sea" of white get a light patch in
the centre. It's very recognisable in early episodes of Top of the Pops
because that used a lot of low-angle shots which caught some of the
studio lights in shot.
Did any colour cameras use IOs, or did colour always require
vidicon/plumbicon/saticon tubes.

There was an American advert stuck up in Pres A where the caption was "The
secrets in the big tube". One US make used an IO for luminance and vidicons
for the colors.

[Brian Gaff]

My Hitachi early colour home camera used a vidicon which was striped in some
way, and on bright vertical lines it tended to separate into blue and yellow
vertically. I don't think it was lens problems as it stayed the same over a
certain light level. Even tweaking the colour temperature knob did not
change it.
Its amazing these days just how small cameras have become, though I don't
really use them for much other than the mobile phone to read text.
Back when Colour first was coming to the UK there were a lot of demo films
around, but seldom did the glint of waves or sun through blinds result in
the effect your eye could see. The best demo seen recently was on a Sharp
TV, but I suspect that in most cases the dynamics of the picture was
restricted to make it less of a challenge for the sets display or digital
compression.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by charles

Post by NY

Post by The Other John

Post by J. P. Gilliver
(There's also a lovely example of ?icon* flare at 0:44-0:47, and
around it.)

Image orthicon secondary emission known in the trade as 'throw off'. I
drove IO cameras as a 'racks' (vision control) operator for 5 years.
3" and 4.5" Pye and Marconi cameras.

The secondary emission of IOs is instantly recognisable: bright lights
(or reflections of the sun on things) get an dark patch in the centre,
and conversely very dark areas in a "sea" of white get a light patch in
the centre. It's very recognisable in early episodes of Top of the Pops
because that used a lot of low-angle shots which caught some of the
studio lights in shot.
Did any colour cameras use IOs, or did colour always require
vidicon/plumbicon/saticon tubes.

There was an American advert stuck up in Pres A where the caption was "The
secrets in the big tube". One US make used an IO for luminance and vidicons
for the colors.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[Brian Gaff]

Vidicons tended to smear a lot I found.

Incidentally, one thing I do recall about Cilla was her outrageous clothing.
Often garish, and downright strange. My Mother used to say, that just does
not suit her, and yet, she kept on doing it. I don't know if if it was just
her, or some kind of gimmick.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by NY

Post by The Other John

Post by J. P. Gilliver
(There's also a lovely example of ?icon* flare at 0:44-0:47, and around
it.)

Image orthicon secondary emission known in the trade as 'throw off'. I
drove IO cameras as a 'racks' (vision control) operator for 5 years. 3"
and 4.5" Pye and Marconi cameras.

The secondary emission of IOs is instantly recognisable: bright lights (or
reflections of the sun on things) get an dark patch in the centre, and
conversely very dark areas in a "sea" of white get a light patch in the
centre. It's very recognisable in early episodes of Top of the Pops
because that used a lot of low-angle shots which caught some of the studio
lights in shot.
Did any colour cameras use IOs, or did colour always require
vidicon/plumbicon/saticon tubes.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by NY

Post by The Other John

Post by J. P. Gilliver
(There's also a lovely example of ?icon* flare at 0:44-0:47, and around
it.)

Image orthicon secondary emission known in the trade as 'throw off'. I
drove IO cameras as a 'racks' (vision control) operator for 5 years. 3"
and 4.5" Pye and Marconi cameras.

The secondary emission of IOs is instantly recognisable: bright lights
(or reflections of the sun on things) get an dark patch in the centre,
and conversely very dark areas in a "sea" of white get a light patch in
the centre. It's very recognisable in early episodes of Top of the Pops
because that used a lot of low-angle shots which caught some of the
studio lights in shot.

I remember hearing or reading that the TOTP studio were often given
cameras (or tubes?) nearing the end of their life, as they (that
programme) were liable to damage them anyway, by doing that sort of
thing. Whether there's any truth in that (or where I heard/read it), I
can't say.

Post by NY
Did any colour cameras use IOs, or did colour always require
vidicon/plumbicon/saticon tubes.

Others have said yes; I was going to say no as I'd assume the effect
wasn't completely co-sited (in the picture) between tubes, so I'd assume
if it did occur you'd get a sort of kaleidoscope colour effect around
the effects, which I don't remember seeing.

As to my original query (about the very obvious line structure in the
1964 RVP material near the beginning), and the response from someone
that it looked like 405 standards-converted to 625 - thanks for that
response. I would assume a fairly basic conversion? Perhaps with limited
number of levels too?

[charles]

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by NY

Post by The Other John

Post by J. P. Gilliver
(There's also a lovely example of ?icon* flare at 0:44-0:47, and around
it.)

Image orthicon secondary emission known in the trade as 'throw off'. I
drove IO cameras as a 'racks' (vision control) operator for 5 years. 3"
and 4.5" Pye and Marconi cameras.

The secondary emission of IOs is instantly recognisable: bright lights
(or reflections of the sun on things) get an dark patch in the centre,
and conversely very dark areas in a "sea" of white get a light patch in
the centre. It's very recognisable in early episodes of Top of the Pops
because that used a lot of low-angle shots which caught some of the
studio lights in shot.

I remember hearing or reading that the TOTP studio were often given
cameras (or tubes?) nearing the end of their life, as they (that
programme) were liable to damage them anyway, by doing that sort of
thing. Whether there's any truth in that (or where I heard/read it), I
can't say.

Post by NY
Did any colour cameras use IOs, or did colour always require
vidicon/plumbicon/saticon tubes.

Others have said yes; I was going to say no as I'd assume the effect
wasn't completely co-sited (in the picture) between tubes, so I'd assume
if it did occur you'd get a sort of kaleidoscope colour effect around
the effects, which I don't remember seeing.
As to my original query (about the very obvious line structure in the
1964 RVP material near the beginning), and the response from someone
that it looked like 405 standards-converted to 625 - thanks for that
response. I would assume a fairly basic conversion? Perhaps with limited
number of levels too?

In early 1964 at TVC we had two types of standards converter, both optical.
One used CPS-Emitron cameras, the other a Marconi MkIV IO. However by the
time BBC2 started we also had fully electronic ones, initially a single BBC
RD one, which was supplemented with 4DD ones. All 625<405. Once the DD ones
arrived the RD one was modified to work 405<625.

No limitation of levels anywhere.

[J. P. Gilliver]

[]

Post by charles

Post by J. P. Gilliver
As to my original query (about the very obvious line structure in the
1964 RVP material near the beginning), and the response from someone
that it looked like 405 standards-converted to 625 - thanks for that
response. I would assume a fairly basic conversion? Perhaps with limited
number of levels too?

In early 1964 at TVC we had two types of standards converter, both optical.
One used CPS-Emitron cameras, the other a Marconi MkIV IO. However by the

So basically camera-at-monitor.

Post by charles
time BBC2 started we also had fully electronic ones, initially a single BBC
RD one, which was supplemented with 4DD ones. All 625<405. Once the DD ones
arrived the RD one was modified to work 405<625.
No limitation of levels anywhere.

The RVP material in the Cilla programme made the line structure look
very obvious, and stable, so I presume it wasn't camera/monitor, which I
presume would tend to blur things, and certainly not produce the stepped
appearance of the diagonal lines of the announcer, or of Cilla's
neckline.

[charles]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by charles

Post by J. P. Gilliver
As to my original query (about the very obvious line structure in the
1964 RVP material near the beginning), and the response from someone
that it looked like 405 standards-converted to 625 - thanks for that
response. I would assume a fairly basic conversion? Perhaps with
limited number of levels too?

In early 1964 at TVC we had two types of standards converter, both
optical. One used CPS-Emitron cameras, the other a Marconi MkIV IO.
However by the

So basically camera-at-monitor.

Yes, that was the case until 1964 for same field rates and until 1968 for
50<>60 field rate conversion.

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by charles
time BBC2 started we also had fully electronic ones, initially a single
BBC RD one, which was supplemented with 4DD ones. All 625<405. Once the
DD ones arrived the RD one was modified to work 405<625.
No limitation of levels anywhere.

The RVP material in the Cilla programme made the line structure look
very obvious, and stable, so I presume it wasn't camera/monitor, which I
presume would tend to blur things, and certainly not produce the stepped
appearance of the diagonal lines of the announcer, or of Cilla's
neckline.

[Roderick Stewart]

On Mon, 29 May 2023 21:04:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I remember hearing or reading that the TOTP studio were often given
cameras (or tubes?) nearing the end of their life, as they (that
programme) were liable to damage them anyway, by doing that sort of
thing. Whether there's any truth in that (or where I heard/read it), I
can't say.

Programmes would be booked into whatever studios were available. (TOTP
was usually given TC6 or TC8). The set of cameras belonging to a
particular studio normally stayed there, and I don't recall tubes ever
being changed for any other reason than to replace faulty or blemished
ones. A complete tube swap would be a fairly major undertaking anyway,
requiring a lengthy lineup procedure afterwards.

Rod.

[J. P. Gilliver]

Post by Roderick Stewart
On Mon, 29 May 2023 21:04:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I remember hearing or reading that the TOTP studio were often given
cameras (or tubes?) nearing the end of their life, as they (that
programme) were liable to damage them anyway, by doing that sort of
thing. Whether there's any truth in that (or where I heard/read it), I
can't say.

Programmes would be booked into whatever studios were available. (TOTP
was usually given TC6 or TC8). The set of cameras belonging to a
particular studio normally stayed there, and I don't recall tubes ever
being changed for any other reason than to replace faulty or blemished
ones. A complete tube swap would be a fairly major undertaking anyway,
requiring a lengthy lineup procedure afterwards.
Rod.

Ah, so the rumour of TOTP being where EOL kit was sent was just that, a
rumour.
I _do_ remember TOTP (and similar) doing rather a lot of things that one
would think wouldn't do the cameras/tubes any good, though, such as
getting the lights in picture (causing trails and afterimages) - _did_
they?

[Roderick Stewart]

On Tue, 30 May 2023 14:27:44 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"

Post by J. P. Gilliver

Post by Roderick Stewart
On Mon, 29 May 2023 21:04:16 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I remember hearing or reading that the TOTP studio were often given
cameras (or tubes?) nearing the end of their life, as they (that
programme) were liable to damage them anyway, by doing that sort of
thing. Whether there's any truth in that (or where I heard/read it), I
can't say.

Programmes would be booked into whatever studios were available. (TOTP
was usually given TC6 or TC8). The set of cameras belonging to a
particular studio normally stayed there, and I don't recall tubes ever
being changed for any other reason than to replace faulty or blemished
ones. A complete tube swap would be a fairly major undertaking anyway,
requiring a lengthy lineup procedure afterwards.
Rod.

Ah, so the rumour of TOTP being where EOL kit was sent was just that, a
rumour.
I _do_ remember TOTP (and similar) doing rather a lot of things that one
would think wouldn't do the cameras/tubes any good, though, such as
getting the lights in picture (causing trails and afterimages) - _did_
they?

Oh yes. They loved doing that.

Rod.