Haunting of the CTC-5

[old_tv_nut]

Late on October 31st, the barely sensible glow of ancient vacuum tubes draws the cold specters of long-forgotten viewers to coalesce around a ghostly image presented in (Un-) Living Color.

HAPPY HALLOWEEN!

[timmy]

Nice

[jr_tech]

Well done.... spooky!

jr

[Yamamaya42]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBS_SXN5b1w

[old_coot88]

'Speshly spooktaklerly spooky spectres.

[Alex KL-1]

Hehe, spooky cool!

[Yamamaya42]

Of course, at some time you will have to tell us how you pulled off this amazingly spooky effect!

[DavGoodlin]

I like the NBC peacock picture, reminds me of a 1959 spoof RCA color tv ad in Mad magazine. I'll save that for a future post of my early color set(s).

[old_tv_nut]

Originally Posted by Yamamaya42

Of course, at some time you will have to tell us how you pulled off this amazingly spooky effect!

The answers to these mysteries are open only the ancient ones steeped in the lore of both NTSC and Photoshop. ;>)

[Hawkwind]

The image on the screen is real, not Photoshopped. Right?

Proof that a 1956 color television set could display a better picture than what was sent to it back then. Right?..

[Yamamaya42]

Originally Posted by Hawkwind

The image on the screen is real, not Photoshopped. Right?

Proof that a 1956 color television set could display a better picture than what was sent to it back then. Right?..

only Jack Skellington knows for sure!

[old_tv_nut]

Originally Posted by Hawkwind

The image on the screen is real, not Photoshopped. Right?

Proof that a 1956 color television set could display a better picture than what was sent to it back then. Right?..

Yes, the image in the screen is real, although it has been adjusted for exposure, contrast, and color balance. Actually, though, it would not look very good close up, being a CTC-5 with its poor resolution. When creating the image to display on the TV, I do compensating things like putting black outlines around the text to make it stand out more.

Also, the over-all picture involves three exposures, one with room lights off to eliminate reflections in the screen, a second one with room lights on and no folding chair, and a third one with room lights on and the folding chair in place, so the chair can be made to look partly transparent and ghostly like the skeletons.

[etype2]

Very cool!

[dtvmcdonald]

Yes, its absolutely true that the picture on an old color TV can look better than on even a CT-100 or 21CT55 back in the day, in the RCA labs in NJ, connected
to an antenna with a really clear view of the Empire State building.

This is because silicon chip cameras are so much better than even the best adjusted image orthicon looking at a daytime scene such as a baseball game.

But other than that, if they had a modern camera, the image on a set, with
all the set's adjustments done correctly (81 for a CT-100), all the adjustments in the transmitter (with a modern camera directed to the transmitter itself) would likely look just as good as what I see on my own set.

On recent dry days, with the line voltage running 117 volts, my CT-100 has been making great picture, with really near perfect convergence, and obly a bit
of purity problem which is visible only on a B&W picture.

The set at the ETF has on occasion been as good for everything except convergence.

But one thing is true of my CT-100: its ATSC ... "Always the Same Color",
not dependant on humidity (which is the source of convergence errors.)

Doug McDonald

[old_tv_nut]

I'm disappointed no one has mentioned the blue banana.
Pay attention, or the ghosts of TV past will haunt you until you do!