Well today- er- yesterday now- was it- the end of 63 years of analog TV. I pushed the plate "OFF" button on the analog transmitter for the last time. It was sort of sad. We got a few calls from neanderthals who still had not gotten a converter even after six months of PSAs about it- but not many- most people watch TV via cable or satellite now anyway and hardly knew the change was happening. But it's still a nostalgic end of a era.
I don't clam to know a lot about it, but isn't digital TV still free, over-the-air TV, so long as you have a digital tuner on your set (or attach the converter box)? I would miss analog more if I couldn't watch TV while camping, etc., but I think access continues so long as your equipment can receive digital signals. Correct?
One thing that does change is the ability to receive weaker/distant TV signals. When I was a kid (before cable TV), I remember adjusting the rabbit ears antenna to try to get as good reception as I could from some semi-distant station (50-60 miles away, that was having some movie fright-fest or something late at night). With digital, that appears to be a thing of the past, as the picture starts dropping out or you can't get the station at all if the signal isn't of sufficient quality. With our cable system continually paring down offerings (or, more likely, moving them to more expensive tiers), it becomes harder to watch some channels. And cable systems seldom carry the "redundant" network-affiliate stations from nearby cities, so it was nice to have the option to disconnect the cable and try to watch those other stations using a standard antenna. (I presume the satellite systems are similar . . especially in terms of not carrying redundant stations).
I'm sure from a techie standpoint, the change is even more nostalgic.
Right on both counts Bob. You can still watch free TV if you have a digital TV or converter, but it requires a stronger more steady signal. Weak and fading analog signals may be annoying- but as long as there is any signal- you can still see/hear something- and can then monkey with the antenna and maybe get it to come in better- but with digital if a signal is not of a certain level you get nothing- you don't even know a signal is there.
Another annoyance is that you can't simply "tune around" and look for stations as with the old sets- you have to use the sets "search routine" where the TV or converter does a band sweep and then records "whats available" in a memory- then you can only choose from this list. But this list may exclude stations that are receivable at certain times (like late at night) or with the antenna turned a certain way.
As with many things about modern technology, it seems people have less control- you can only do things the way the set or gadget wants them done. In the "old days" if I wanted to modify the way something worked I could open it up- and change a resister or capacitor to a different value to effect the change- now a days all the circuitry is sealed up in chips- and there is nothing you can change about the operation of a gadget except what the manufacturer lets you change.
Did you guys do anything on air to mark the occasion at the shut off time?
I like how KTLA in Los Angeles did it, they had the one employee (Stan Chambers) who is still with the station that was also there the day they signed on the make the switch.
One of the Memphis stations showed an engineer hitting a button, but the rest did it without any kind of fanfare.
The studio did a two minute news story at the end of the regular 11-pm newscast. They showed some pre-recorded shots of the old analog and new digital transmitters and hyped about how much better digital is- ya-da-ya- but that was about it. And I suppose it's not really a big deal to them at this point- they made all the changes for digital several years ago so this is really a non-event to them.
After that we ran about 20 minutes of a repeating NAB DTV PSA on the analog channel only- then just before midnight I cut the carrier on the analog- for the last time. Probably the only people who care about this are old TV transmitter engineers and those few dense people who now only see snow on their TV.
Memphis had a bad storm Friday afternoon that left 150,000 people without power. Lucky for me, my power stayed on.
But whenever it would go out, I used to get out my little 2.3 inch battery tv. Unfortunately, it is now trash. I heard a couple of people call a talk show complaining that their battery powered televisions no longer worked and one person called and said they couldn't get their radio that picked up tv sound to work.
So the timing of the analog cutoff was not good here for people in West TN, North MS, and East AR. Our tv stations really do prove how important local tv still is when there is severe weather in the area.
Yes, this is a problem down here in hurricane country too. There are a few battery powered digital TVs but they are rather expensive. I'm sure in time they will be more and cheaper- but they will never be as cheap as analogs because more circuitry is required to decode digital.
But most all the TV stations down here have their audio repeated on one or more local radio stations during weather emergencies so while you may not get to see radar pictures you can get most info by listening to the audio repeated on a radio.
Well $100 is a pretty good deal but I have my doubts how usable a TV is during a bad storm. When hurricane Wilma came through here a few years ago I tried watching a small battery set and found the signal was badly distorted by dopplering from waving wet foliage. I suspect watching with a digital set would be even worse since the decoder would constantly be losing lock- especially on UHF chs.
A few stations here in NYC will be running the analog nite lite for 30 days. WCBS-2 ran the national anthem when they signed off the analog and ran it again when the new digital started. Kind of cool.
What seems to be happening around here is unexpected reception wise. The stations that went to UHF seem to have good coverage while the 3 that stayed on VHF are getting all kind of reception complaints. Go figure.
In metro areas like NYC UHF is better because it bounces around into shadow areas between tall buildings. Out in the burbs- hi-band VHF (chs 7-13) is best because of lower absorption lost. Low band VHF (chs 2-6) stinks for digital- too much spiky noise that confuses digital decoders.
Thanks for the tech answer. All I know is that when WABC was on it's temporary assignment of ch 45 it seemed to work better than it's new assignment of ch 7. I have cable, of course, so it is just academic for me, but I hear lots of old folks in my neighborhood bitching about lost chs. 7, 11 & 13.
"Low band VHF (chs 2-6) stinks for digital- too much spiky noise that confuses digital decoders"
So I wonder how WPVI channel 6 in Philly is making out.
Is the problem with VHF in a big city like New York why the stations used to have UHF translators.
In old NYC TV Guides from the 1970s, they used to list the stations as:
[2]-[53] WCBS-TV (CBS) New York City
[4]-[57] WNBC-TV (NBC) New York City
[5]-[64] WNEW-TV (Ind.) New York City
[7]-[66] WABC-TV (ABC) New York City
[9]-[71] WOR-TV (Ind.) New York City
[11]-[73] WPIX-TV (Ind.) New York City
[13]-[75] WNET (PBS) New York City
New York City stations can also be received on the
UHF channels listed above next to their regular
channel numbers.
Yes- I suspect the UHF translators were added to fill in shadows caused by tall buildings. In most areas VHF is preferred because it carries farther for a given power level but metro areas with many tall buildings UHF works better.
Same thing with two-way radio- the high-way patrol will use low-band VHF to cover wide areas out in the country while for city cops penetration in more important than distant so they use UHF freqs like 800-Mhz because it gets down in between buildings better.
I read this article too. What I understand there in no real UHF available unless 4 stations in nearby cities shuffle. I guess they are stuck with six. Any news from Philly if the new power is really working?
I haven't heard anymore. The northeast area has a problem because there are too many stations close together. And there are fewer channels available now that all channels over 51 have been removed from TV service.
There were stations on in the biggest cities on a experimental basis but officially TV broadcasting didn't begin until 1946 when the NTSC standard was approved. This was when NBC and DuMont began TV- and only to northeast cities. CBS and ABC didn't until 1948. The first big wave of stations went on in '48-49 but even by 1950 only fairly large cities had TV. In NC where I was- there was only 2 TV stations in the entire state until 1953.
I heard that WTTG TV in Washington signed off their analog broadcast with their old DuMont test pattern. Pretty cool. WTTG, WADB and WDTV were the original Du Mont Stations.
I've been reading that there are a lot of unhappy people around the country now- and it's not those who had done nothing for DTV- it's people who thought they were all ready for DTV- but when the big switch came last Friday many of them lost their favorite station.
In most cases this occurred when a VHF station was using a temporary UHF channel (as most were). Many people- including TV store salesmen- believed that all DTV was to be on UHF so when people bought digital TVs and converters they were sold UHF antennas.
So when June 12 came and these stations switched their digital to their old VHF channels many people could no longer see them because their "new digital antenna" only gets UHF stations!
I've seen reprints of many irate letters from angry viewers who say things like "Why did WXXX broadcast on ch-56 and now change to channel 10? Why didn't you just stay on ch-56 where I was getting you fine- go back to where you were!"
And to make matters worse it appears that the FCC has underestimated the power level thats required for DTV to duplicate analog service so now a lot of stations are underpowered and can't reach all their OTA audience.
Looks like all this wasn't thought out too well after all.
This is the same thing that happened in 1949 analog broadcasts, you'd think they would learn their lesson. Power is going to be pumped up and stations are going to have to be reshuffled like they were in 1952.
For example, WCBS here in NYC is now on UHF 33, so is WFSB Hartford, so if you live in, say, New Haven or Fairfield county CT and they pump up the power, guess what is going to happen. One of them is going to have to move up or down the dial.
Well I think WPVI made a mistake staying on Ch.6 in the first place. Most likely it was to save money by not having to replace the antenna but I think Ch.5 & 6 will likely be converted to a radio band so they will eventually have to move anyway. If I was them I'd be applying for one of the abandon Us- looks like 20,26,38 or 44 are available in the Phillie area since the analog shutdown.
But since WWOR is on 38 and WNYW is on 44 in nearby NYC, I think UHF 20 would be the best bet. I used to get their analog signal here in Hoboken fairly clearly, and channel 10 & 29 were like local stations. They are both gone now in the digital age.
I was just noting previous analog channels that have now been vacated due to the analog shut-down.
A lot of factors go in selecting a channel but almost anything would be better than where they are now.
This page had a link that said were the "Best 100 shows" on TV. I decided to click it to see what they had put on the list- as usual with these "best" lists- I didn't much agree with the picks- in fact, many of their selections I never even heard of while others that I think had a huge impact on pop culture like the "Beverly Hillbillies" (Nielsen #1 show in the 1960s) wasn't even mentioned.
What qualifies as best shows depends upon the criteria. Some might say that a little-watched show that was very well done might be much better than a very popular show that is largely fluff. I would incorporate popularity in the criteria, as people want to be entertained and a show that doesn't entertain many people can't be "best" in my eyes.
I would put MASH at the top spot. It was funny, with witty one-liners, yet it could touch you and make you think. It made political statements, but in a way that didn't alienate and allowed one to still see the humor. We came to care about the characters, even the bumbling ones like Frank Burns. That is a lot for a little half-hour comedy.
I would put "All in the Family" up there among the best. Again, with silly humor and exaggerated characters, it made people think about issues like race, gender and generational differences . . . at a time when our country was just starting to grapple with them. It poked fun at the hard-set views of Archie Bunker, yet you felt affection for Archie too. And, for a few years, this program was a national sensation -- you knew most other Americans were sitting around watching too, and would talk about it the next day.
The news magazine, "60 Minutes" started the popularity of a genre, "entertainment news", that survives to this day. The investigative reporting, the personalities, the feeling that you were getting "the real story", all made for riveting TV. As with "All in the Family", the 60 Minutes program was can't-miss-TV for most Americans (what a one-two punch CBS had when the two programs were scheduled one after the other). There have been later versions of the news magazine that have also been very popular (and, in some people's opinion, 60 Minutes has fallen behind some other programs by featuring too many personality profiles and too little investigative reporting), but "60 Minutes" really established this as a dominant news format.
Another program I'd list high: "The Carol Burnette Show". Carol could sing, she could dance, and she had great comedic instincts. She got laughs without vulgarity or trying to put others down (sort of like Red Skelton, in that respect). She had a great ensemble cast, especially Tim Conway and Harvey Korman. Those two obviously enjoyed what they were doing, and you couldn't help but laugh at the silliness. I remember one line from Carol, in a skit based on the movie, "Gone With The Wind." Scarlett descends a winding staircase, dressing in curtains, with the curtain rod attached and across her shoulders. Rhett (Harvey) compliments her on the beautiful attire, and Scarlet responds, "When I saw it in the window, I just had to have it!" Great stuff from a great entertainer.
Another show I really enjoyed (not sure others thought that much of it, but it was a staple at our house) was the NBC program, "Unsolved Mysteries". Whether it was an unsolved murder, a person who vanished or a tale of the supernatural, it was always an interesting hour for our family. My elder son and I used to lie on the floor in front of the TV, with a portable heater nearby to warm us, and we were engrossed in the stories. Years later, Rob would talk of those times.
While I'm on a roll, the Fox program, "America's Most Wanted" combines the interest of real-life crime with the knowledge that some good came out of watching it, as criminals were apprehended and there was the feeling that "one person CAN make a difference."
Note that I wouldn't highly rank some other very popular shows: Three's Company, Cheers, Friends among them. While widely watched, and entertaining, I just don't see them as very significant. I didn't come away from watching them with much more than the feeling that it was an so-so use of time.
I'm impressed that you would even remember the scene, let alone the exact line. Were you even born then, Chris? Or, are you a big Carol Burnette aficionado?
Well I think in the context of the discussion television history- "best" is the wrong criteria. "Most important" or "most influential" or "most significant"- these can be determined objectively by Neilson ratings. But "Best" is subjective- what is "best" to one person may not be "best" to another.
Further more "best" is relative thing- based on the standards of the day. I know it's heresy for me- a nostalgia buff to say this- but I think most shows made in the 1950s were lousy by current days standards. Most '50s sitcoms seem so corny and trite now. Even highly regarded drama shows like "Playhouse 90" or "Four Star Playhouse" look cheap and amateurish by today's standards.
There are only a few shows from the 1950s that really stand up- "I love Lucy", "Burns and Allen", "You Never get Rich"(Sargent Bilko)are funny even today- but for the most part 1950s TV would bore people to death now.
Yeah, but you know something that always disturbed me about that show was all the implied violence. Ralph was always threatening to belt Alice- I know it was just talk- but I think it send the wrong message implying that domestic violence was ok. I'm sure that would not be tolerated in a show made today.
But that was more satire than realistic- but I'm sure you wouldn't see that on today's shows.
In fact it's interesting how things that were taboo on 50s TV- like virtually anything sexual- are common today- but many things that were ok back then are "political incorrect" now.
Just compare 1950's "Father Knows Best" with "Married with Children" or "Family Guy"- which is often in terribly bad taste but one of the funnest shows on TV now- filled with clever satire that goes over many people's head. In that respect it reminds me of "Bullwinkle"- who kids saw as a cartoon and adults (and clever teens like me) saw as political commentary.
I put that in a different category -- a husband spanking his wife. Just as kids need a swat on the behind sometimes, so too does a wife. It helps keep her in line and solidifies the husband's place as the dominant person in the family. A slap to her face would be violence, but a slap to her behind is really just showing that he cares about her and their relationship. Go Ricky!
Bob, I always knew you were a conservative, but now I know you are a bit of a lunatic.
He did not just swat her, it was taking her over his knee. Any man that treats a woman that way is not worthy of a wife..period.
Ricky was hitting Lucy on the area of her body that had the most padding. I would say that was being considerate.
Another scene I liked was from "Victor/Victoria", when James Garner washed Leslie Ann Warren's mouth out with soap. What husband hasn't wanted to do that!
Spanking Lucy's butt is done for comic effect- everyone knows she wasn't being hurt- though I don't think you would see that on TV today- feminists would say its demeaning and everyone would say it's sophomoric and silly- like the Three Stooges' slapstick antics.
But Kramden' threats and gestures is too much like the real thing to be funny IMHO.
Talk about low quality. The make-up, costumes and what passed for special effects back then . . very amatierish and silly by modern standards. Remember the monsters-terrorizing-the-city shows? Godzilla, Creature from the Black Lagoon, etc. Some guy dressed up in a suit stomping through a minature set . . . about as believable as the sports maskots that bounce around on the sidelines now. Then again, fifteen years ago my sons thrilled to the "Power Rangers", whose villains stomped around in costumes about as silly.
Another funny thing was watching the old horror flicks. To see the Mummy dragging one leg like that, or Frankenstein with the robotic walk. I'd think, "They could never catch me, limping along like that!" One exception was "The Incredible Shrinking Man". I grew up fearing spiders, and the scene where the shrunken little man was pursued by the spider, and all he had to fight back with to prevent himself from being eaten was a straight pin. My father creeped up behind me during that fight and grabbed me. I jumped up three feet in the air from a sitting position!
My favorite tv genre is police/crime shows. I think the 3 best were Perry Mason, Hawaii Five-O and The Rockford Files.
I think all those shows hold up well today, although some aspects of Hawaii Five-O might come off as campy to a modern audience.
especially some of the late 60s episodes dealing with drugs/hippies. For pure 60s camp, I like the 1967 Dragnet and The Mod Squad.
Two very well done crime shows that are not seen much anymore that I still enjoy are Cannon and The Streets of San Francisco.
"CSI- Miami" reminds me a lot of "Hawaii Five-O"- with Horatio being a modern day Steve Garrett. But Dragnet seem contrived and corny to me- and towards the end it became so "preachy" with anti-drugs themes and such that it seem more like propaganda than a cop show. I thought Webb's "Adam-12" was a much more realistic cop show. Mason was good but so predictable- you always knew the guilty party was going to break down in court and confess everything in the last two minutes- which probably never happens in real life.
That was another really good show -- the last good TV Western series (much better than Bonanza, in my opinion). Ken Curtis did an awesome job as Deputy Festus . . that severe southern drawl and the funny things he would tell "Matthew." I remember one episode where someone was trying to shoot off festus' earlobes . . . "the hangy down parts" he called them. The image of a grown man ducking around, looking over his shoulder and feeling his ears, as if he might lose those hangy-downs any minute -- hilarious. Seems like someone could have looked to take out some other hangy-downs and been even miore effective!
I also enjoyed the Western TV trilogy series . . Cheyenne, Sugarfoot and Maverick. That was some fun TV.
The idea of the Western is that its real Americana: Rugged individualism, can-do attitude with abilities to match, when "men were men, and women were glad of it", plain-spoken guys who don't mince words and who say what they mean and mean what they say. Cowboys are the traditional version of the modern-day commandos: hyper-masculine, the way every man would like to see himself, not the coffed prissy-man metrosexual of today.
Chris, I realize you haven't walked this earth for very long, but calling traditional masculinity "prehistoric" is obviously a gross exaggeration. The feminizing of the American man is actually a rather recent, and sad-silly, phenomenon.
In fact, even now, there are many parts of U.S. where the definition of "masculine", in the eyes of women as well as men, is a lot closer to the cowboy depiction than the so-called males who sit with Tyra Banks on her "Next Top Model" panel (wasn't it Paula Cole, a self-described Feminist, who sang, "Where Have All The Cowboys Gone?"). Locally, there was a newspaper article regarding definitions of masculinity, and women were often the ones who commented, "Where have all the real men gone?", and "How 'bout a little testosterone guys!"
Despite all the magazine articles that re-name the latest poofy version of what "being a man" is supposed to be, the average American really isn't all that excited about the prospect of men joining women in the fashion-go-round and dieting-go-round, who coordinate accessories with their outfits, who fuss over their hair, who wouldn't tolerate dirt beneath their fingernails. Let's face it: Femininity and Masculinity define each other. When men get too femme and/or women get too butch, something is lost.
The "feminization" of men has been good on many levels.
Men are better husbands, fathers, more patient, more in touch with their feelings and less likely to punch people in the head to settle conflicts.
Men who are distant, macho fathers cause their kids all kind of harm.
As far as fashion goes, who cares? I am not talking about that when I call the cowboy way prehistoric.
But Chris, you would have to admit that it took the macho cowboy type to settle and make America a nation.
Perhaps in today's world, those type of skills are not needed as much, but in the 17 and 1800s you had to be that type of man just to survive and take care of your family.
Yes Bob I agree it was needed then but times change. Cavemen invented language but he now live in houses.
Why are conservatives so afraid to move forward.
for example: My father was the "King of the Castle" type. The family home was definitely "his" -- the rest of us lived under his rules and preferences. He decided when a debate would start and when it was over (though 4 kids going through adolescence can wear down the best of them, and he did mellow as he got older). Admittedly, I was afraid of my father growing up: I didn't want to cross him or disappoint him. I did as I was told and didn't expect much praise for doing my assigned chores. I knew it was mine to do and did it. If my father asked anything of me, I did it. My father's wishes generally prevailed. If we had one working TV, he watched what we wanted and the rest of us waited until he was done with it. When my father's cholesterol was high, we all went on his fish-and-salads diet so that he wouldn't feel deprived. My mother was primary "house slave", cooking and bringing my father anything he wanted, but us kids were also called upon to come to change the TV channel while Dad lied on the couch or to fetch anything he wanted. We mostly did as we were told.
But it wasn't all bad. My father was a good provider, and between him and my mother my siblings and I never wanted for anything. We took a lot of fun vacations, especially to the Florida beaches. My father taught my how to do a lot of things, especially home repairs. He and my mother offered each of us a paid college education. My parents were both there in case any of us needed anything.
And, comparing my father to HIS father, I got a good deal. My paternal grandfather was a skirt-chasing drunk who ran around on my grandmother and beat her until she had the good sense to divorce him. He was cold toward his own children and very tight with money for basic things like groceries. My grandmother had to scrape by trying to figure out how to feed her three children, while my grandfather spent money freely drinking in bars and courting lovers. He was emotionally cold toward most everyone in the family, including my father. My Dad just wanted to have a Father-Son relationship with his father, and he treated my grandfather much better than he deserved -- basically my parents were the only ones who still kept in close touch with him in his elder years..
I'd say the best experience I had with my grandfather was when he invited me to stay with him at his rooming house -- one little 9' x 14' room in a depressed part of town. It was like an adventure, so I agreed. I saw cockroaches there. He took my down the street to some bars (I was about 12, I think) to, as he put it, "show you the other side of life." My grandfather told me, "You are growing up in that sheltered suburb. You don't know what life is really about, how rough it can be. I'll show you, so you will know." He took me in some pretty rough places, filled with skid-row types, alcoholics, prostitutes, the homeless and the penniless. These people scared me, but looking back that was a worthwhile lesson on what to avoid.
Sorry this is going so long, but I just wanted to add that I have not been the "punitive bill-payer" that I once saw my father as. I didn't want to be like that, especially after my divorce and the guilt feelings surrounding that. So, I indulged my sons and didn't brow-beat or try to intimidate them. I didn't force them to do much (had my ex and my mother badgering with with, "Don't make them work. You only see them every other weekend. Make it pleasant for them.") The result? My children don't seem to mind if anything bothers me or if I disagree with their decisions. They don't seem to care that I am toiling hard and need help, but find help hard to get. As a child, I would NEVER have allowed my father to burden alone -- my place was beside him, lightening his load. My sons, by contrast, seem to think all work is their Dad's responsibility, and that their jobs and/or school justify their lack of assistance to me. This past week, I told Joseph, "I wish I had a son like I was a son". He just looked at me and said nothing.
So, long-windedly, I am trying to point up that the traditional male role includes a lot of things, especially being an example and teacher to the child in how he should be and do. Sometimes lessons need to be firm or even harsh, and I wish now that I had been more strict. On that count, I don't know that I have been as successful as my father, or even as his father.
Bob, your family sounds a lot like mine even down to the family vacations. I even had the same type of grandfather who was married several times.
My dad was not one you negotiated with. If he said you couldn't go somewhere or buy something, you did not argue. He had a look he could give that meant the conversation was over. My mom had a little bit more say with him than maybe yours did. I remember when cable tv first came to our neighborhood and my dad said he would NEVER pay for tv and that the 5 channels we received were enough. My mom said we really needed to get cable and he said absolutely not. The next week the cable company was installing cable in our house.
I think most dads were like yours and mine in the 1950s, 60s and early 70s. They were not there to be your "best friend" but to be your father and you respected them. They also put their family first.
Brandon: Yes, it does sound like our families were similar, even down to our mothers. My mother had a way with my father, and she instructed us kids on -- the modern word might be "play" him. Dad would almost always say "No" to requests at first, but then my mother would talk with him and give him time to think about it, and many times the No" became "Alright, but you better . . ", which was a list of cautions and conditions. As I got older, I realized that he had my best interests at heart. He wanted to be in control, but his bark was worse than his bite. I could get a lot more cooperation from him by acknowledging his authority and then working to soften him up rather than being defiant. As I got older, my father and I actually became good friends, spending a lot of time together. He was one of very few people who would bend over backward to see and do things with me when I became an adult (even more so than my mother). We got to a point where we could argue and I wasn't being disrespectful for doing so. I sometimes even pressed the argument with him (imagine that!) My father didn't hold back either -- something I never forgot is the time he told me, "You are the dumbest smart person I've ever known." (Even now, when I ponder decisions, I think, "Was I being stupid/stubborn about this?")
My father once told me, "You don't understand me now, but you will when you get older." And, he was right. Increasingly, I find myself saying things he said, and I think back to an age when I thought, "I will never think like that. I don't understand why he would." But becoming a parent and starting different phases of life brings new vantage points on many things.
Also, in my life I've found that most of the people I became very close friends with started off with me disliking them or feuding with them (Michaela, there's still time!). This was much more likely to result than if we hit it off from the beginning. Ir was like we could clear the air and get things off our chests from the beginning, so there was no hiding of differences. I'd think (as with my father), "That person is so wrong. How can anyone think or act like that?" And then, as I was around them more, I started to see another side of them . . and then come to appreciate aspects of their personality that I initially disliked. I wonder if my father taught me that.
This makes me wonder- whatever happen to westerns? As a kid of the 1950s I was inundated with westerns. They were a staple at local theaters and 1950s television was full of them- in fact, and amazing 75% (15 of the top 20 shows) of the '58-59 season were westerns! I was not as obsessed as some of my peers but even I had a cowboy outfit, a Roy Rogers lunchbox and played "Cowboys and Indians" with the neighborhood kids.
Nor was this just a 1950s thing- westerns were a popular movie genre from the start- the very first movie to tell a story using modern film editing techniques- 1903's "The Great Train Robbery" was a western. And westerns were a staple in books, movies and radio programs throughout the '20, '30s & '40s.
Then suddenly around 1960 westerns began a mass extinction. Only a few classics (Gunsmoke, Bonanza) made it through the '60s and they were gone by the mid-'70s. I don't think there has been a successful TV western since.
I'm sure if you were to ask a kid today if he wanted to play "Cowboys and Indians" he look at you like you were nuts. Don't you think its curious that something that was such a integral part of our culture has virtually disappeared?
I am sure that the Westerns were better than the dopey reality shows of today!
Bonanza was added to NBC's schedule in 1958 because the network wanted a show that would make use of the new technology of color TV>
Yes, my parents had the first color set in the neighborhood and for a time neighbors would come by on sunday nights to watch Bonanza and marvel at the sight of blue sky and green grass on a TV screen. We take that for granted now but it seem magical then. But that set was a real pain- it had it had something like 30 tubes and we were lucky to make it two months without it breaking down. In fact I became good friends with the TV repairman and eventually got a summer job working at his shop which was very good training experience. Who would have believed then that one day TV sets would be so thin and light you hang them on the wall like a picture frame.
My dad relayed the same kind of stories to me about early color. He told me that the old b/w roof antenna had to be changed for a color one and the thing took 3 minutes to warm up!
Wow, times have changed!!
The early color sets had primitive colors. Anything red or orange was like a burnt orange, yellows looked like dirty white, and blues and greens looked like some semblence of the two. The definition and distinction between colors was blocky/blurry. At least that is what I recall -- maybe those old antennas weren't the best?
An older friend loves old black and white movies, but says the blacks and whites displayed on color broadcasts are washed out -- more shades of gray than either black or white -- compared to the old black and white broadcasts. He said you can see the difference if you watch a tape or DVD of an old black and white, versus watching the same program broadcast by a television station.
So much depends on how a set is adjusted. Those early sets were capable of excellent color when adjusted right. In fact, more accurate than later sets because manufactures made changes that to make adjustment of fleshtones less critical- but also less accurate. I was amused that they would called such techniques trade names as "Accu-color" when it was really just the opposite. You could clearly see the difference when a consumer set was next to a studio monitor. There is also inaccuracies in the color palettes of both LCD and plasma TVs because they don't reproduce color exactly the way color TV was set up to work with the CRT color palette but nobody seems to worry about it. People are more concern with brightness than color accuracy. As long as it looks bright and fleshtones look ok they are happy.
Oh yes- the CBS field-sequence system was the official color system for the US between 1950-53 and I'm sure some sets were made although probably not many. It was certainly a poor system and one of many dumb decisions the FCC has made over the years. Fortunately they came to their senses and changed to the RCA multiplex system in 1953. CBS was so bitter about this though they refused to use the RCA system and broadcast color for 12 years.
