The 1st micro-tv by "Philco"

[Telecolor 3007]

Long before walk-man tv by "Sony", a company named "Philco" made a micro-tv. Where there any good those sets?

[WISCOJIM]

I know of no "micro" TVs that Philco ever made.

Could you give us an example of one they actually produced?

.

[kvflyer]

Sounds like a Philco Safari portable. I have two of them, one is working with absolutely nothing done to it!

Is this what you are referring to?

[WISCOJIM]

The Safari is not a "micro-tv" by size, although it does use a small CRT.

.

[Telecolor 3007]

It was micro compared to other sets back then.
Yes, that is the tv.

[Electronic M]

Reliability was good, performance was good, and the unique magnifying mirror in the back makes the 2" CRT appear the same size as a 17" tube at normal viewing distance....If viewing a letterboxee program today you can get a bigger illusions by sitting further back and letting the mask cutoff the letterbox.

[WISCOJIM]

Originally Posted by Electronic M

Reliability was good, performance was good, and the unique magnifying mirror in the back makes the 3" CRT appear the same size as a 17" tube at normal viewing distance....If viewing a letterboxee program today you can get a bigger illusions by sitting further back and letting the mask cutoff the letterbox.

Tom - I know you know this. It's a 2-inch CRT, the 2EP4.

.

[etype2]

“ the unique magnifying mirror in the back makes the 2" CRT appear the same size as a 17" tube at normal viewing distance...”

I think you meant 7 inches.

”Micro TV” The term was first used by Sony with their introduction of the model Micro TV 5 303 series in 1962.

[Electronic M]

Originally Posted by etype2

“ the unique magnifying mirror in the back makes the 2" CRT appear the same size as a 17" tube at normal viewing distance...”

I think you meant 7 inches.

”Micro TV” The term was first used by Sony with their introduction of the model Micro TV 5 303 series in 1962.

17" was not a typo. It's from a review in one of the period electronics magazines. The screen magnifier makes the apparent image size grow as you walk farther back and at the max distance before the opening clips the top and bottom when watching my working set the image appears the same size to me as a period 17" direct view set does at that distance... Its good enough to be a decent living room set from its era if you like to sit a good ways back from it.

[etype2]

Originally Posted by Electronic M

17" was not a typo. It's from a review in one of the period electronics magazines. The screen magnifier makes the apparent image size grow as you walk farther back and at the max distance before the opening clips the top and bottom when watching my working set the image appears the same size to me as a period 17" direct view set does at that distance... Its good enough to be a decent living room set from its era if you like to sit a good ways back from it.

I have two working Safari’s, tan and black. I know of the magazine you speak of and when I read that article, I tested my sets and no way did I see 17 inches. More like 7 inches max and you have to be in the sweet spot to see the effect. I will say that when I tested, did not have ability to look across my room. I imagine it would be like looking at a projection hologram trying to find the sweet spot.

Edit: The below link shows one of my Safari’s photographed from about 4.5 feet away. For comparison, the color set is a Sony KV4000 with 3.7 inch screen.

https://visions4netjournal.com/wp-co.../IMG_3892.webp

[Electronic M]

Originally Posted by etype2

I have two working Safari’s, tan and black. I know of the magazine you speak of and when I read that article, I tested my sets and no way did I see 17 inches. More like 7 inches max and you have to be in the sweet spot to see the effect. I will say that when I tested, did not have ability to look across my room. I imagine it would be like looking at a projection hologram trying to find the sweet spot.

Edit: The below link shows one of my Safari’s photographed from about 4.5 feet away. For comparison, the color set is a Sony KV4000 with 3.7 inch screen.

https://visions4netjournal.com/wp-co.../IMG_3892.webp

Your observations at 4.5' track with mine. It's from more like 10-17' where you're on the edge of cropping the image where the full magnification effect is realized...It scales fairly linearly down as you get closer.

[etype2]

Originally Posted by Electronic M

Your observations at 4.5' track with mine. It's from more like 10-17' where you're on the edge of cropping the image where the full magnification effect is realized...It scales fairly linearly down as you get closer.

At 4.5 feet away, the parallax is so severe that if you move your head slightly in either direction, the image is lost.

[Electronic M]

Originally Posted by etype2

At 4.5 feet away, the parallax is so severe that if you move your head slightly in either direction, the image is lost.

I can't remember seeing anything like that. Perhaps it's something that is dependent on different vision characteristics of different viewers.