(Sorry, I can never remember whether it's plumbicon or vidicon that
exhibit these.)
I normally associate these flares (if flare is the right word, as at their best/worst they're black!) with monochrome images, but there's an early colour version in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37WvidrBvOI, from about 5:45 to about 6:20, on Ms. MacLaine's sparkly dress.
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message news:7de4PlPjcikkFwsR@255soft.uk...
(Sorry, I can never remember whether it's plumbicon or vidicon that
exhibit these.)
I normally associate these flares (if flare is the right word, as at
their best/worst they're black!) with monochrome images, but there's
an early colour version in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37WvidrBvOI, from about 5:45 to about
6:20, on Ms. MacLaine's sparkly dress.
Interesting. If you'd not said that it was video, I'd have said that this looks as if it had been shot on film.
It's image orthicons that exhibit flare (white highlights turning black
at the centre, or black patches in sea of white getting a white centre).
Plumbicons show coloured smear on movement of white highlights: candle flames, or reflections of studio lights or sun on windows, shiny
foreheads etc. In bad cases, the image "sticks" on the picture for a few seconds (or more) - especially noticeable on early ENG (electronic news gathering) reports where a photographer facing the camera fires a
flashgun and you get a little purple/magenta rectangle which fades
gradually.
Vidicons are the spawn of the devil (!). They show smear on everything
(not just overexposed highlights) as if several frames had been averaged together. That's why they were only used for security cameras and early domestic video cameras.
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message >news:7de4PlPjcikkFwsR@255soft.uk...
(Sorry, I can never remember whether it's plumbicon or vidicon that >>exhibit these.)
I normally associate these flares (if flare is the right word, as at
their best/worst they're black!) with monochrome images, but there's
an early colour version in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37WvidrBvOI, from about 5:45 to about >>6:20, on Ms. MacLaine's sparkly dress.
Interesting. If you'd not said that it was video, I'd have said that
this looks as if it had been shot on film.
It's image orthicons that exhibit flare (white highlights turning black
at the centre, or black patches in sea of white getting a white
centre).
Plumbicons show coloured smear on movement of white highlights: candle >flames, or reflections of studio lights or sun on windows, shiny
foreheads etc. In bad cases, the image "sticks" on the picture for a
few seconds (or more) - especially noticeable on early ENG (electronic
news gathering) reports where a photographer facing the camera fires a >flashgun and you get a little purple/magenta rectangle which fades
gradually.
Vidicons are the spawn of the devil (!). They show smear on everything
(not just overexposed highlights) as if several frames had been
averaged together. That's why they were only used for security cameras
and early domestic video cameras.
I remember being told - don't think I ever saw it - that there's a bit
of material from one of the Apollo missions on the moon, where the
astronaut accidentally caught a bit of the sun, and you could see a bit
of the tube target burn off and roll away. Don't know what sort of tube
they used there (IIRR much slower frame rate [and lower resolution?],
and sometimes sequential colour).
at the time and all of us engineers realised instantly what had
happened because at the time it was deeply ingrained in us that
pointing cameras at bright lights was the one thing you should never
do with them, though the pundits in the studio waffled on for ages
about some technical problem or other they clearly hadn't a clue
about. They kept speculating that maybe the NASA engineers would be
able to fix the problem, whatever it was, though we knew there was no
chance at all.
In article <u6uese$2qesa$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
Vidicons are the spawn of the devil (!). They show smear on everything
(not just overexposed highlights) as if several frames had been averaged
together. That's why they were only used for security cameras and early
domestic video cameras.
Vidicons were used in broadcast cameras. The Plumbicon (a Phillips trade name) came later.
I suspect the same sort of thing might be happening right now with
most of the coverage of that submarine. I don't waste my time watching
any broadcast stuff now, just the short clips that end up on Youtube,
and there's been nothing yet that tells us anything new. From what
I've seen, the most realistic estimate of the probability of ever
finding out what happened to it looks like absolute zero, but they've
got to fill their screen time with something, so they'll all be hoping
for a miracle, which of course won't happen.
Rod.
On 22/06/2023 20:43, Roderick Stewart wrote:
The company have now announced that it appears to have imploded, as they
I suspect the same sort of thing might be happening right now with
most of the coverage of that submarine. I don't waste my time watching
any broadcast stuff now, just the short clips that end up on Youtube,
and there's been nothing yet that tells us anything new. From what
I've seen, the most realistic estimate of the probability of ever
finding out what happened to it looks like absolute zero, but they've
got to fill their screen time with something, so they'll all be hoping
for a miracle, which of course won't happen.
Rod.
have found debris which could only have been the result of such an event.
On 21/06/2023 16:53, Roderick Stewart wrote:
at the time and all of us engineers realised instantly what had
happened because at the time it was deeply ingrained in us that
pointing cameras at bright lights was the one thing you should never
do with them, though the pundits in the studio waffled on for ages
about some technical problem or other they clearly hadn't a clue
about. They kept speculating that maybe the NASA engineers would be
able to fix the problem, whatever it was, though we knew there was no
chance at all.
Nothing has changed in 50 years then, and funny how the producer didn't
think to seek the opinion of the studio's technical staff !
(Sorry, I can never remember whether it's plumbicon or vidicon that
exhibit these.)
I normally associate these flares (if flare is the right word, as at their best/worst they're black!) with monochrome images, but there's an early colour version in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37WvidrBvOI, from about 5:45 to about 6:20, on Ms. MacLaine's sparkly dress.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
The first banjo solo I played was actually just a series of mistakes. In
fact
it was all the mistakes I knew at the time. - Tim Dowling, RT2015/6/20-26
I know what you mean though, my old Hitachi colour camera did this on
very sparkly bright things like glitter balls and some sea scenes, but
it was more often than not blue or yellow. I don't know what tube it had
in it, it was too early for ccd.
On 23/06/2023 15:54, Brian Gaff wrote:
I know what you mean though, my old Hitachi colour camera did this on
very sparkly bright things like glitter balls and some sea scenes, but it
was more often than not blue or yellow. I don't know what tube it had in
it, it was too early for ccd.
CCD and other solid-state sensors had peculiarities of their own.
Highlights sometimes produced a vertical line across the whole picture, as
if a maxed-out pixel triggered all the others in the same column to
mis-read. I've not seen that for a number of years, either on dedicated camcorders or on mobile phone cameras in video mode, so evidently the technology has improved.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 102:21:07 |
| Calls: | 6,660 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,986 |