Pre-Jackson Thriller

I spend a good amount of time watch old media. I find it entertaining and enlightening. Entertaining, because storytelling techniques have evolved, and while a situation may resolve in a certain fashion in a modern drama, there's no guarantee that it will turn out the same way in an older show -- different times, different mores.

I've been watching "Thriller," an anthology series hosted by Boris Karloff from 1960-1962 on NBC. A different time, indeed -- anthologies are no longer considered a viable TV genre. Although the series sort of trades on Karloff's reputation as a master of horror (he originate the screen role of Frankenstein's monster), these aren't really horror stories.

But they are indeed thrillers, stories that feature suspense, action, and tension.

When the series premiered, Time said it was an "hour-long bloodmobile." A contemporary viewer might be puzzled by that review. While modern audiences are used to realistic depictions of violent death and bodily trauma, it was far different in the early 1960's. There was a lot of murder and mayhem depicted, but it was all very sanitized (kids might be watching, you know).

"Thriller" may have had more "blood" than other programs, but it was still constrained by the values of the day. When someone got shot, they fell down. There was no indication of the damage the bullet did to the body. But because the program couldn't shock its audiences with graphic violence, it had to do it by other means.

And that's probably what made the Time reviewer so uncomfortable -- and me as well. Because "Thriller's" stories are indeed suspenseful. The central character is thrown into a situation where they don't know what's going on, but need to find out quickly or someone (usually themselves) will die. And because each story was self-contained (unlike drama series today), there was no guarantee the hero would survive. Or any of the supporting characters.

The stories took many twists and turns, often with a strong psychological element. And because most of the gory stuff happened off-screen, the viewer's imagination had to fill in the details (which often makes it more disturbing).

For me, "Thriller" is like watching a well-produced short play. The stories have a different slant than modern TV shows, told in a different way and often resolve in a different way, too. And for the reasons outlined above, they're more engaging, too.

So I'm enjoying this old TV show. For me, it's solid entertainment.

Here's an opening to one of the shows. The violence can't be shown onscreen, so look what they do instead. We meet all the entire cast of characters in a series of quick cuts reacting to the shot, and close in on the most disturbing image of the child with the gun. Who wouldn't want to watch more?

In praise of lesser men and women

I was watching an episode of "Have Gun Will Travel," late 1950's western starring Richard Boone. As with a lot of vintage TV shows and movies, part of the fun is seeing Famous stars back in their salad days as extras or members of the supporting cast.

In this particular episode the guest star was John Abbott, a character actor I had seen many times before. Character actors don't seem to get much attention with the general public. After all, they're never the stars of the show, and often just have a scene or two. And they basically play the same part over and over.

John Abbott was such an actor, usually appearing as an urbane villain or eccentric intellectual, always speaking with a cultured British accent. In the episode "Shot by Request," he plays a scholar who, for self-preservation, learns to handle a gun and ends up earning a reputation as a gunfighter (so this was one of those eccentric intellectual roles).

On a whim, I decided to look him up to see what other films I had seen him in. And what I got was a little surprising. Because this person who I had never really thought much about had a long and distinguished career beyond his typecast roles.

John Abbott (1905-1996) was a well-respected Shakespearean actor before coming to the United States in the 1940's and started working in films. He was as cultured in real life as he appeared on screen -- in addition to working with some of the greatest classical actors of his day (such as Laurence Olivier), Abbott served with the British Embassy in Moscow when the Second World War broke out.

He worked extensively on stage (and was to have originated the lead role in "Harvey"), and actually had a play written in verse for him -- by Tennessee Williams. And he also taught the art of acting to a rising generation of future stars (and character actors). And he also did voice over work, appearing as the wolf in Disney's "The Jungle Book."

It was an impressive career.

And that got me thinking:

John Abbott was but one of many actors who appear fleetingly in films, TV shows and stage dramas that never reach "stardom."

How many others are there whose creative lives were far richer than their stereotyped roles might suggest?

I'll be paying even more attention than ever to those "other" actors!

Going off the grid -- the personal cost

Yesterday I talked about going off the grid. So what does no Internet access mean personally?

Well, to me it means being cut off from friends and family. Sure, I have my cell phone, but it's not the same. The updates I receive from social media sites like Twitter are a passive and simple way to keep in touch without conversation. The Twitter feed gives me brief snapshots of how everyone's going through their day, providing quick insights and -- through links -- interesting and informative information to further explore.

I'm not much of a Facebook person, but there will be posts that will go unanswered for the next few days. Of course, I won't know about them, so it won't be too bad. Sometimes it's good to just step away from the monitor.

Personal e-mails will go unanswered, but that's OK. Professional e-mails get responded to within 24 hours. Personal ones usually aren't that time sensitive anyway.

Our motel room has broadcast TV access only -- no cable. I won't be able to check the BBC like I'm used to for news, nor visit any of the other online news sources that keep me up to date. I'll have to rely on whatever the Fox43 news team chooses to show me, and the Intelligencer Journal decides to print. That's not too bad -- it gives me insight on what folks across the digital divide experience everyday.

And on the plus side, Dad and I will have a lot of quality time without interruption. And that's what I value most about these trips. I've heard family stories I've never heard before, gained some insight into Dad's life, and what events shaped his personality. And we've had a lot of conversations that, quite frankly, don't lend themselves to 140-character posts.

- Ralph

Day 121 of the WJMA Web Watch.

MTV VMA -- DOA?

Is it finally time to retire the Video Music Awards show on MTV? Everything about it seems old, which is the very antithesis of what this lifestyle cable channel is all about.

For those who came in late, MTV started as a cable channel back in 1981. Originally MTV stood for "Music Television" because the channel pretty much played music videos (then a developing artform/marketing tool) 24/7. Over time, the programming changed, to the point where videos seldom make an appearance on the channel.

The original concept of the MTV Video Music Awards was to create a program that was the opposite of the stuffy awards shows like the Oscars and Tonys. And the idea was to showcase music videos -- a format that had no other outlets at the time.

So here we are in 2008. MTV is saluting a format it never airs -- and airs with increasing rarity on MTV2 and VH1. The casual nature of the program where anything could happen has become a tightly controlled reality show where something outrageous MUST happen (like the Madonna/Brittany Spears/Christina Agularia kiss) every time.

But the increasing "outrageousness" of the antics seems to have an air of desperation. Viewership continues to plummet for the program -- a 45% decline over the past two years.

MTV isn't the source for music videos anymore -- YouTube is. Time for MTV to move on -- its audience has.

- Ralph

Day 86 of the WJMA Web Watch.

John Dickson Carr - Man of Media

I started this series about John Dickson Carr by sharing a conversation I had with a colleague. She didn't care much for Carr's "locked room" mysteries -- they're decidedly not au courant.

And it turns out that Carr can't get respect in any media.

In addition to being a prolific author, Carr also wrote a number of radio dramas in the 1940's. Some were adaptations of his short stories, and others original to the media -- and I've been hard pressed to find any recording of them.

In 1956, his series of short stories about Colonel March and Scotland Yard's Department of Queer Complaints (as in "unusual," OK?) became a syndicated TV show starring Boris Karloff. I shared the single episode available at Archiv.org with a friend who's a real video enthusiast. He didn't like it -- he prefers videos he can watch while doing other things. Mysteries that require some concentration aren't for him.

And that's too bad -- because "Colonel March" is a very entertaining show. And a darned good mystery that's true to Carr's love of impossible crimes.

The series makes Colonel March a little less serious than he is in Carr's stories. Here's the opening with an unusually jovial and friendly Boris Karloff.



And while March is an astute detective, he's not quite as suave as he likes to think. Here he tries to engage a gambler in conversation -- twice.



The crime is pure Carr. A young American wiped out at roulette in a French casino, is promised money if he goes to the address he's given. It's a doctor's house at the end of a blind alley. As he approaches, he sees his mysterious benefactor standing at the door. A fountain in the alley momentarily blocks his view (the "Silver Curtain" of the title) as he walks, during which time his mysterious friend is stabbed with a knife. The door is unlocked and opened when the man screams. Two policemen hurry down the alley. And another impossible crime has happened.

No one was behind the American -- the gendarmes who blocked the alley's entrance can attest to that. The door was locked, so the killer couldn't have stood in the doorway (and the woman who opened the door is not the murderer). So how was the man killed? And why?

As a favor to Garon, the inspector in charge of the case, March offers to go undercover to investigate. The results aren't quite as March anticipates.



As with Carr's books, I found the Colonel March program enjoyable, although for slightly different reasons (Karloff's performance slightly against type is really good). All the clues are presented to the viewer, who's challenged to solve the mystery.

So if you're interested in a story that requires a little engagement, Colonel March (in either print or video incarnation) might be your man. He's never let me down.

- Ralph


Day 14 of the WJMA Web Watch.

Sick day (at the movies)

While Ralph was busily posting, I was busily retching.

Yes, I had the dubious pleasure of leaving work early on Tuesday with a stomach ailment that's been making its way around the office. After braving the worst of it for a while at home, I was able to sit in bed with a cup of tea and watch the telly.

I'm not into daytime TV, and there weren't any football games on, so the obvious choice was to watch movies. On a whim, I turned on AMC and didn't turn it off again until when I went to sleep that night.

Why? Check out this lineup: The Quiet Man, The Dirty Dozen, Heartbreak Ridge, Rear Window, and Vertigo (the first half). Good comfortable fits, every one of them. (Now if AMC would quit showing these full-screen and with commercials, but that's another story.)

It was like the old days of watching Saturday Night at the Movies on the networks, and in honor of the occasion, I'll give you my three-word review/synopsis/impressions of each one:

The Quiet Man -- Dragging Maureen O'Hara.

The Dirty Dozen --Kill the krauts.

Heartbreak Ridge --Tough Gunny Clint.

Rear Window --Grace Kelly -- wow.

Vertigo -- Kim Novak -- wow.

Ken

Dueling Classics

As we saw in the last post, Ralph can really dig deep when it comes to finding movies (maybe he'll write about his affection for old serials some time soon). But his post got me thinking about another revisited movie I enjoyed recently.

It's funny how your memory can play tricks on you. I remembered seeing "Bad Day at Black Rock" on TV when I was a youngster, and being impressed by it. But it took a second viewing to really bring home the strength of this movie.

It starts with a great cast. Spencer Tracy leads the way with his Oscar-nominated performance as a one-armed war vet whose appearance sets the town on edge. He's tough and taciturn, but not so tough that you can't detect his character's anxiety as he realizes he's in imminent danger. Ernest Borgnine and Lee Marvin are perfect heavies, and Robert Ryan as the local boss is smooth, yet on edge -- fearing what secrets Tracey's character may reveal. Walter Brennan is capable as always, as a conflicted undertaker who finds the courage to resist the local toughs and speak out in the town of Black Rock's dirty little secret.

The screenwriting is taut, and the cinematography captures the isolation and loneliness of the high-desert setting in glorious Cinemascope color. It's film noir set in the sun-bleached sunshine.

And my memory playing tricks on me? Well, I thought the movie was filmed in black and white, not color. But then again, in the late 1960s, when I first saw this on TV, all we had was a black-and-white set. It goes to show how good performances are the key to a good movie. But if you've got a 16:9 TV be sure to check out this classic in all it's color widescreen goodness.

Ken

HD Radio and QVC -- looked good on paper.

The HD Radio Alliance sponsored a half-hour program on QVC last night. As the Alliance breathlessly announced in their press release:

"QVC provides a unique retail at-home environment that is ideal for helping even more consumers discover the cool new content and crystal clear sound provided by HD Digital Radio," said Peter Ferrara, president and CEO of the HD Digital Radio Alliance. "When QVC shoppers see the wide variety of stylish HD Radio receivers and discover the benefits, they are going to want to experience the digital upgrade immediately."

Interestingly enough, that press release and the new Paragon Media study of HD Radio awareness (41% among radio listeners, of which only 9% understood that it required an HD Radio receiver) arrived in my news aggregator about the same time.

So I decided to watch the QVC special aired last night to see exactly how they would pitch this technology with very little consumer awareness (or interest).

To their credit, neither the QVC pitchman nor the representative for HD Radio ever called the technology "high-definition," or "hi-def." Neither did they describe the secondary channels as "the stations between the stations."

Their three key selling points were:

• Better quality sound
• More programming choices
• No subscription fees

They also kept citing two stats over and over: HD Radio technology is in 85% of the radio markets, and over 1,500 stations now broadcast HD Radio signals.

Sounds like it's everywhere -- unless you know that there are currently over 13,000 stations on air. So it would be more accurate to say that a little over 10% of all stations use HD Radio technology. More accurate, but less compelling.

Better quality sound
I won't argue the better sound argument, although I don't think QVC really made the case. They turned up the radios they demoed and ran the sound through the studio's boom mike. Reproduced on my 15-year-old TV's speakers, it sounded anything but "crystal clear." A better demo would have been to also sample an analog broadcast to get an accurate side-by-side comparison.

More programming choices
I couldn't readily find national stats on this, but I do know that only a fraction of the stations broadcasting in HD is even offering an additional digital-only channel.

Just looking at my own state, Virginia, there are approximately 350 stations on the air. Of that number, 33 broadcast HD Radio signals (I'm not counting the "coming soon" listings). Of those 33, 10 have at least one additional digital-only channel. So about 3% of the stations in Virginia offer "more programming choices" -- and they're all public radio stations. I think folks in the Old Dominion looking for the Christian rock, deep country and other formats talked about by QVC are going to be somewhat disappointed.

No subscription fees
True enough, but I've commented on the irrelevance of this selling point before. It was fun to watch the pitch for the Polk I-Sonic when this oblique reference to satellite radio finally came to the fore. The QVC host, running down the bullet points provided by Polk, mentioned it was "XM-Ready, giving you 150 digital channels."

Oops. That went over like a turd in a swimming pool. The HD Radio rep was quick to point out that you needed to buy extra gear and pay a subscription to get that feature while HD Radio was subscription-free.

It was an interesting half hour.

One final thing I noticed. Usually, there's a countdown in the item info bar. How many have sold, how many are left; that kind of thing. That information was absent. At the end of the half hour, I have no idea how many of the three radios were available, nor how many sold.

And no one called in with a testimonial.

- Ralph

The Trouble with Tribler

Yesterday a fascinating concept was proposed by the founders of Tribler, a P2P site based in the Netherlands. They propose to turn bandwidth use into a form of currency for their participants. Since the network doesn't have centralised servers, it depends on each member to not just suck up bandwidth by downloading, but to contribute to the system by allowing uploads as well.

Under the new system, Tribler subscribers would "spend" credits when they downloaded, and "earn" credits when they uploaded, rewarding good netizen behavior. Dutch TV is taking a hard look at Tribler's proposal, believing it to be the way to distribute television over the Internet without overburdening the system.

Now here's the problem. It's a peer-to-peer network. To Hollywood and American television studios, P2P -- especially BitTorrent -- is the Great Satan. P2P equals file sharing equals lost revenue.

Never mind that the equation is flawed -- look for objections and obstructions to start flying fast and furiously. And don't be surprised if our government isn't called in to act. It was the MPAA, after all, behind America's strong arming of Sweden to raid Pirate Bay's servers. The raid was contrary to Swedish law, took many legitimate businesses offline, cost millions in lost revenues from said businesses, and did absolutely nothing to stop Pirate Bay. But it did damage the relationship between Sweden and America.

EFF's proposal (that I discussed last time) makes even more sense now. If we had an Internet licensing fund that proportionally paid content providers for download traffic, studios would be embracing Tribler (and other P2P sites) rather than trying to quash them. The more a program circulated, the larger the royalty payment -- and the end users get to do what they're going to do anyway.

The trouble with Tribler? Rationally speaking, none. But since when have rational decisions been made in Hollywood?

- Ralph

Local, but not necessarily Yokel

I was looking through the comments fields, and ran across one that I thought needed some clarification.

In my post "Television's White Lies," I expressed the hope that Sarah Honenberger's inteview on WTVR in Richmond would be posted on YouTube. The author left a comment about the post.

YouTube has copyright issues for most television stations, so the video can't be posted there. Should be on the readwhitelies.com website in a week or so. Media coverage for a book is absolutely crucial to spread the word, no matter the size of the publisher. Increasingly authors are having to do their own promotion.

Amen to that -- increasingly creative artists have to do their own promotion, and fortunately the Internet makes it easier to connect with their core audiences, but it's still a labor-intensive process. We'll explore that concept later.

But the comment kind of misses my point. The WTVR program "Virginia This Morning" was locally produced, so the content was under copyright to the station. If it had been a national program, then it would have been the network's call to post it or not. But since the interview was material owned by WTVR, they had the right to post it (or not) as they chose.

And they missed an opportunity by not doing so. As it was, a few thousand saw the interview when it was aired, and that was the end of it. If WTVR had posted the segment to YouTube, then Sarah Honenberger could have linked to it from her site -- and visitors across the country would have seen it, and become aware of WTVR. Fans of Honenberger would have something to link to on their respective blogs and/or sites, and so on.

This raises the profile of the station nationally. Artists, actors, writers and others with a national reputation on publicity tours become interested in the station, as an interview will not only help them locally, but gain them a wider audience through YouTube.

As the stature of the guests rise, so does the audience for "Virginia This Morning." And bigger audience means heftier ad rates.

Now not every segment of "Virginia This Morning" should be posted. The person talking about the local 5k run, for example, wouldn't be a good post. But interviews that would be of interest to people outside the Richmond area would be. And I don't think it would be that difficult to each day look over the scheduled guests for that edition of the show and decide which segments should be posted. An intern could handle the edits, convert the video files and upload the segments. There could even be credits attached that could drive traffic to the WTVR website. And higher web traffic can also mean higher ad revenues.

There are some WTVR posts on YouTube, but it looks like few actually come from the station. Artists aren't the only ones who need to do a little self-promotion. WTVR missed a chance to reach a wider audience. And perhaps a chance to monetize that opportunity.

- Ralph

Television's White Lies

At first blush, this will seem to be a post of only local interest -- but it doesn't have to be.

Sarah Honenberger, the author of "White Lies," will be appearing on WTVR, Channel 6 in Richmond, Virginia. She'll be a guest on "Virginia This Morning," on Monday, January 22. In olden days, only those who actually tuned in at 10 AM would see Honenberger -- a vanishingly small percentage of people. The publicity boost for her book would be welcome, but minimal.

But as anyone who's visited YouTube.com knows, things that happen on local television can now be viewed by anyone in the world. What does that mean for a small publishing house trying to get the word out?

Consider: if WTVR posts the video to thier website, or perhaps allow it to be posted on YouTube, Honenberger could link to it from her site. All of a sudden a five-minute piece that would have vanished into the air becomes something that folks can view again and again, garnering a much larger number of viewers potentially from anywhere in the world. And they can watch it next week, next month or even next year -- whenever they discover and want to know more about "White Lies."

A YouTube posting can be great publicity not only for Honenberger, but for WTVR as well. KZSW, a small local station in Temecula, California is now regularly posting local news segments on YouTube. They understand the potential of this new media stream. Does WTVR?

- Ralph

Does Jessica Simpson speak for you?

In heavy rotation on television now is a DirecTV commercial featuring Jessica Simpson. Reprising her role as Daisy Duke, she touts the benefits of digital broadcast, and the advantages of DirecTV’s high definition signal –- the primary benefit being able to see Ms. Simpson’s body in greater detail.

This post isn’t the discuss the pros and cons of DirecTV, but rather the attitude articulated in Ms. Simpson’s lines.

“DirecTV broadcasts in 1080i. I don’t know what that means, but I totally want it.”

I suspect that sentiment underlies more consumer electronics than anyone’s willing to admit. Do more megapixels make a digital camera better? Is an 80GB iPod better than a 30GB one? Is a 60" flat-panel display better than a 50" one? Is a 100 watt sound system better than a 50 watt one?

The answer to all of these is simply “it depends.” It depends on what your needs are, it depends on what your performance expectations are, and it depends on what aspects of picture taking/music listening/TV viewing/sound reproduction are important to you.

Because in each of the examples above, the best choice is not necessarily the biggest. Do you really know what you want, or are you more like Jessica Simpson? There are plenty of on-line resources to explain the ins and out of consumer electronics features. A little time spent in research can make a big difference when you’re ready to purchase.

Imagine going into a store and saying, “I don’t know what 1080i means, but I totally want it.” You’ll probably be sold something –- and it may actually have a 1080i display. But would you know if it didn’t?

Have a safe and happy holiday!

- Ralph

And if you've inferred that 1080i –- whatever that is -— is the non plus ultra, click here.

Two little words

The shopping frenzy continues to ramp up as Christmas day draws closer. The most recent Target flier has a great gift suggestion, and an example to illustrate the importance of careful consideration before the sale –- even on Christmas Eve!

On sale now is the Memorex flat-screen TV/DVD/VCR combo for $199.88. For a dorm room, or other small spaces (like our front room) it’s a great idea. The price is right, and Memorex is a reputable brand, so I think anyone who purchased this looking for a simply TV combo player would be happy.

Unless, that is, the buyer was confused by the similarity of two little words.

"screen" vs. "panel"

LCD and plasma TVs are known as “flat-panel” displays. Most traditional CRT (cathode ray tube) TVs use curved glass. About the time flat-panel technologies hit the market, higher end CRT sets were being made with flat screens, which helped reduce glare and distracting reflections.

Flat-panel displays are in high demand. CRT sets –- even those with flat-screen displays -– not so much.

Flat-panel is an accurate and commonly accepted term for LCD and plasma displays, and flat-screen is the same for a certain kind of cathode ray tube. And therein lies the potential for confusion.

If you’re not sure of the difference between “flat-panel” and “flat-screen,” there are some other clues you can use to determine what this set actually is. Flat-panel TVs, even small ones, are still relatively expensive, while CRT sets are dirt cheap. The price suggests this might be a CRT set. The full-front shot in Target’s flyer can make this look like a flat-panel TV, but their website image, which is slightly angled, gives you an idea that it’s a tube TV (it’s also why I went with the photo I did for this post).

Even –- or rather especially -– when you’re last-minute shopping, take the time to make sure what you’re purchasing is really what you think it is.

If you want a compact all-in-one video player, then you (or your gift recipient) should be happy with this Memorex TV. If, however, you just rush in and grab this off the shelf, equating “flat-panel” with “flat-screen,” then you may have an unpleasant surprise when you open that box.

- Ralph

The Gift of Magnavox

Let's continue our tour of that big box flyer. On the facing page from the Tivo® and Sony items is a Magnavox 15" LCD TV for the nice price of $249. Stand-alone, or contextural gift?

There was a magic time when any TV would have been a basically stand-alone gift. A television is a self-contained unit, and the only real consideration was the space requirements. Even with more displays being incorporated into home theater systems, a TV (especially a small one like this) is basically a stand-alone gift.

For most folks, this would be great secondary TV. I can see it being used in a den, beach house, dorm room or guest room.

In the olden days, a TV was a TV -- not so much anymore, and it's those fine considerations that may make this contextural for a minority of shoppers. In 2009 broadcasters will switch over to digital broadcasting. The frequencies of all stations will change, as will the aspect ratio of the pictures broadcast. This is part of that HDTV thing we've heard so much about.

Our little Magnavox here has a 4:3 screen aspect ratio, so images broadcast today fit nicely. In 2009, everything will be sent 16:9, or "widescreen." If letterboxing isn't a viewing issue with the recipient, then everything will be fine.

Near the base of the picture in the flyer is the little note "HD Ready." What does that mean? You can take the Magnavox LCD out of the box today, plug it in and it will pull in broadcast TV signals. "HD Ready" means that, in 2009, it will display the new digital signals, but it does not have a built-in tuner to receive them. An outboard HDTV tuner will be necessary.

Now this may not be much of a problem. I suspect most of these little Magnavoxes will spend their operational lives hooked up to cable or a satellite box, so this won't be an issue. If you're thinking of buying it for a weekend home that has neither cable nor satellite service, then you'll probably have to purchase an additional HDTV tuner somewhere down the road.

Still, this is mostly a stand-alone gift.

And finally, running down Ken's shopping rules:
#1 - If they specifically ask for this Magnavox 15" LCD, fine. This is one item that you can reasonably substitute another brand of LCD for, though (I'd make sure its the same screen size, though).
#2 - If you are going to substitute, make it a brand you've heard of. There's a reason why no-name brands are soooo much cheaper -- and your recipient won't want to find out why the hard way.
#3 - For the right person, $249 for a TV isn't a bad price at all.

- Ralph

A forgotten format war

To paraphrase Police Inspector Hans Wilhelm Friederich Kemp in Young Frankenstein, "A format war ist an ugly thing." Best to be on the outside looking in, as Ralph suggests.

Of course, not all of Ralph's examples are really format wars — many are just cases of a new and better technology taking over, like 33-1/3 LP records replacing 78s. There may be some resistance, but the benefits are obvious.

One format war Ralph didn't discuss was the fight between CBS and RCA to develop the first color television system.

In the late 1940s, CBS proposed a "Field Sequential Color System." Simply described, it was a mechanical color system that used spinning red/blue/green color wheels, and was incompatible with existing black and white broadcasts.

RCA had a major stake in television production of existing sets and decided to combat the new system, which would have made their sets obsolete. They developed the "Dot Sequential Color System." While the performance of this system was not as good (initially) as the CBS system, it had the advantage of requiring no moving parts and broadcasts were compatible with existing B/W sets.

RCA used its significant political connections to slow the FCC approval process while they perfected their color system and sold as many TVs as possible. By the time the FCC decided in favor of RCA, it was a moot point — TVs using the current system NTSC standards were becoming ubiquitous in American living rooms, and consumers would have rebelled against having to buy a new TV to take advantage of the new standards. Remember, a simple TV then cost a lot of money in today's dollars.

So, CBS may have been the first to broadcast in color, but it's only a footnote in history now.
--Ken

P.S. If you're interested in the history of television, check out this excellent history: Tube, by David E., and Marshall John Fisher.

A great day in broadcast history

Ken's a big fan of Philo T. Farnsworth, so I'm surprised he didn't chime in with an entry about this. In September, 1927, Farnsworth successfully transmitted a television image. His "Image Dissector" camera became the conceptual foundation for cathode ray TVs, which have remained the standard for television until the advent of flat-screen plasma, LCD and DRT sets.

From the beginning of the TV era (and actually before), the same drama has been played out time and again. Two competing methods of doing things emerge, vying for the public's attention. One eventually wins, and the other is forgotten. Sometimes the better technology wins, sometimes it doesn't. I'm hoping Ken, who knows far more about TV history can fill in the details about the format wars of the 1950's, but just off the top of my head, here's some of the trauma the buying public has lived through over the past century:

Cylinder recordings vs. disc recordings
Player pianos vs. piano recordings
78 rpm discs vs. 33-1/3 LPs
Vinyl records vs. compact discs
Audio compact discs vs. DVD-Audio discs vs. SACDs
Betamax vs. VHS tape
8-track tapes vs. cassette tapes
Compact discs vs. minidisks vs. digital compact cassettes
Compact discs vs. DAT
AM vs. FM
Broadcast television vs. HDTV

Some of these choices were (in retrospect) obvious; some not so much. The important thing to remember as the industry goes around and around about Blue Ray vs. HD-DVD is that we've been here before. In time it will sort itself out. In my opinion, the best place to be in a format war is on the outside looking in.

Oh - and in response to Ken's post from yesterday - according to Philo Farnsworth's wife, Elma:

We were watching... when Neil Armstrong landed on the moon. Phil turned to me and said, "Pem, this has made it all worthwhile." Before then, he wasn't too sure.

- Ralph