Why did others drop out of early color manufacturing?
 

Initially just about everybody was at the starting gate for the beginning of color. Then suddenly just about everybody dropped out execpt RCA? Does anyone have a definitive answer as to why?

Not an expert by any means, but I thought I read once that RCA owned many or most of the patients on color circuits and other manufactures had to pay a royalty to use them. That might have hurt their profit margin to compete... Anyway thats one theory....

Lefty

Even RCA wasn't making money in the early days of color, maybe the low sales and slow takeoff of color was to blame, the first sets were just too expensive and not enough programming. Makes me think of the quickk internet boom and bust which weeded out a lot of companies.

In the case of Zenith, they claim it was because Color TV wasn't "ready" for the Zenith name until 1962. This kinda sounds like hype, but then again, they didn't introduce their first TV set until '49 for the same reason.

I sure wish they had... a mid-50s Zenith color set woulda been awesome (Porthole anybody?). By the time '62 rolled around, they were almost too refined.

It was a combination of small market and RCA stranglehold on patents. RCA was traken to court for requiring other manufacturers to buy a full bundle of patents, while the others wanted to develop their own circuits and pay ony for the essential system patents. RCA was eventually forced to unbundle. If the market had really taken off (which would have required much lower prices), then everyone may have agreed to pay the RCA royalties. As it turned out, the prices of color sets stayed almost constant in dollar number, but decreased in real terms as inflation gradually raised the cost of basics and the salaries that people earned. The turnover in color growth was about 1965, and by then the patent dispute had been settled and other manufacturers were back in the market. 1964 or so was when the first 21-inch sets were advertised for under $500. The '65 models also included the first rectangular sets. These temporarily kept the console pricing up, but smaller rectangular "portables" and table models were introduced at lower prices and the flood gates opened.

Somewhere I saw a great book with photos of early color sets from nearly everybody in the radio/tv business in the early '50s. I'm sure some of those here know the book; some of you guys probably own the very sets pictured! Anyhow, I guess after dumping tons of money into building a limited production (to satisfy orders from big distributors/dealers who wanted sets to display) they all saw the sets just sit on the showroom floor. I've read of NOS CT-100s still being unsold later on in the fifties & finally being sold at a hefty discount. I'm sure the smaller makers had similiar results.

Zenith Color TV
 

Zenith did make a small number of 15" color sets in later 1953 and early 1954. But in their 1953 anual report, they state that they did not feel color TV was mature enough technology for them to take it to maket. They probably made the right decision.

I know Zenith made some early color sets, but I don't think they were sold to the public... Rather "leased" to dealers, then recalled by the company to be scrapped. Kinda like GM and their EV1 electric cars.

Were there any designs besides the one you have posted?

And from a financial standpoint, I agree... Probably the right decision not to mass produce. Then again, I'd imagine their sets to be more robust and therefore reliable, might have helped public acceptance.

Does this means all different brands used RCA chassis.
When did magnavox start producing their own chassis (If they ever did) I can see from some RCA brochures that Magnavox had the same chassis lay-out in the beginning of the 60's

Another thing could have been the bitter animus between Sarnoff & Cdr. Eugene McDonald of Zenith. McDonald was a patrician WASP & Sarnoff was a Russian Jew who was, well, I guess "abrasive" would be about the kindest way to describe him. RCA could afford a lot more technical staff than Zenith could, & I think Sarnoff enjoyed getting the good Commander's goat as often as he could.-Sandy G.

I wonder if RCA's taking full credit for color TV also was a factor. I'm sure Philco, GE, etc were more than happy to see RCA take credit for their efforts..... (not!)

On the programming side - RCA sold studio gear, NBC was RCA. Why bother spending money to go color with your competitior's product to sell your competitior's product?

Color TV Buyers Guide
 

[QUOTE=bgadow]Somewhere I saw a great book with photos of early color sets from nearly everybody in the radio/tv business in the early '50s. I'm sure some of those here know the book; some of you guys probably own the very sets pictured. (QUOTE).

I think this is the book Bryan is refering to:

importD10.jpg
Address:http://community-2.webtv.net/stevete.../importD10.jpg

Among the 1957 color models featured are: RCA, ADMIRAL, EMERSON, GENERAL ELECTRIC, HOFFMAN, MAGNAVOX, MOTOROLA, PHILCO, SYLVANIA. All 21" models. The 22" Westinghouse rectangular (2nd from top) is pictured on the cover but not listed. My opinion on why color tv stumbled in the 50's can be found on my site.

-Steve D.

Interesting question --
In terms of copying - some places copied RCA (after paying for the right, of course), others not. Zenith built their early prototypes in an "Erector Set" sort of frame, then changed out circuits as they developed new ones. They were very fond of the gated-beam tube that they had invented, used it for both color demodulation and the burst gate tube in that chassis. Continued using it for color demodulation for a long time. Admiral, on the other hand, was one of the copiers.

In terms of buying complete chassis or sets from RCA, I don't know if any brands may have done that. Maybe someone else here does. I think it was more common for some manufacturers that copied RCA to then private-label sets for department stores, etc.

Now THAT is one cool looking color tv set!

On the proposition of a 'porthole' color set, I used to wonder if that would have even been possible... did the tubes require that the top and bottom areas be reserved for supporting structures or mounts for the mask? Heh, like converging those suckers wasn't hard enough back then, let's throw in the top and bottom edges! 8: )

Old Tv Nut knows his history. I was told R.C.A. made so many round tubes , that was why it took so long to come up with the rectangular tube in 1965. We could of done it sooner but like you said patents & the fact that R.C.A. thought every body would come up pay $ 1,000 for a color set,made to many round tubes......frenchy, Like the first B & W TV they could make round tubes faster like oscilloscope tubes. So Color same way. They just added the flate top & bottom, well don't know why can anybody help ?

Umm, that's three dead links in this thread now.

OK, I don't get it but when you click this , & remove the - 2 & hit enter you get the picture ? Shows all Color TV for 1957.......Lets try one more time ? http://community-2.webtv.net/stevete.../importD10.jpg

T D Ryan I don't ge this. If you put this up & it says it is a dead link. But if you remove the -2 you get the picture you try it Please. Then when you post you get this & it will not open...

Here it is, I right clicked and saved it:

Don't know what the problem is? I can access the url without any problem. Thanks Chad for posting the thumbnail.

-Steve D.

Thanks Chad for your help & SteveD. for the history. May be the server of the forum or something. chad did you get my email ? Sent you personal on forum & to your Retro Audio Lab....

I have the book shown, but thats not the one I was referring to. I saw it in a bookstore somewhere, it was published in the last decade, I think. Had pages of sets-some may have been of the CBS color-wheel variety. All were small screen from c.1954. I seem to recall sets from companies like Andrea, Stromberg-Carlson, etc. These appeared to be new photos, taken of sets in somebodies collections. I only saw that book once; it was too expensive for me to buy it at that time.

Several factors slowed rectangular color tubes.
1. Availability of blanks from Corning
2. Consistency in corner convergence
3. Shutting down round tube production to make way for rectangular tube capacity
4. Availability of thin CRT guns
5. Availability of yokes, flybacks and other components, in production quantity, to support the new format
6. Reluctance of other manufacturers to commit too soon
7. Heat problems in the thin neck. That's one reason most rectangulat tubes run on lower heater current.
8. Getting the service industry up to speed
9. Why push it prematurely if round tube color sets were selling well? Wait until it's ready. The manufacturers did not want to repeat the first generation mistakes that were still fresh in the serviceman's and customer's minds.
10. Don't forget that most round tube sets looked pretty good 35-45 years ago. They were relatively new, had good bright CRTs and nice pictures. Greed was not the prime factor. It was what the public would accept.

Don

Why no porthole color
 

Cutting off the top and bottom probably made convergence easier, but I think it was mainly that porthole designs were long dead, and black and white sets had already gone from cut-off to rectangular - so going to flat top and bottom was only one stylistic step backwards. The RCA 15 inch tube had an internal bezel defining this shape. Thsi disappeared when tube construction was simplified for the 21-inch, but the external bezel was cutoff the same way.

Old TV Nut, That's was what I had heard as well. What folks don't understand now was the fact that it was true color & most was ready to watch any shape screen in the early day's....

What is the difference in total square inches of viewable screen area between a masked 21 inch round and 23 inch or 25 inch rectangular anyway? Since 25 was the biggest size for a looooong time maybe there wasn't that big of an advantage for rectangulars screen-size wise over roundies anyway - mainly it just got rid of the 'round' part.

---

A round color tube is a "19V" tube, it has a 19 inch diagonal viewable area. (some of the very late model round tubes are labeled with a 19V" designation)
This is theoretically the same viewable area as on say a 19" Zenith solid state Chromacolor set using a 19V" rectangular tube.

The image displayed is closer to a that of a 25" set though due to the carved-off corners.

Ah yes found it:
21 inch rect = 212 sq inches viewable
23 inch rect = appx 250
25 inch = 300
21 inch roundie = 254

So looks like a 21 roundie is equvalent to about a 23 inch rectangular in viewing area, not bad.

Uh, but the "19V" only refers to the diagonal of the viewable phosphor area on the front of the tube. It has nothing whatsoever to do with viewable area of the tube, or, for that matter, the typical image size shown on the screen. These are all entirely different geometric measurements, and it's easy to demonstrate the lack of relationship between them. There seems to be some confusion here in this thread.

For example, in my living room I have an old 21" roundie (19"-viewable) color and a modern 27"-viewable square-cornered rectangular set. The 27" set of course produces a rectangular picture. The roundie has the typical pumpkin-shaped mask of its ken. If I measure the height of the mask on the roundie, I see that the picture it produces is almost exactly 16 inches in height. Now I make the same measurement on the 27" set. It too produces a picture almost exactly 16 inches in height! Since both are NTSC sets, the images they produce (including non-visible areas) will have the same height/width ratio. Therefore, if both TV sets were adjusted so that the raster perfectly fit that 16 inches of visible height, and were tuned to the same program material, objects shown on both sets would appear exactly the same size. It doesn't matter that the "roundie" has a much smaller diagonal than the 27" rectangular set. The face of the 27" set also has a significantly larger viewable area as well. However, the *size* of the images they show is the same. It's just that the roundie cuts off the corners (as well as parts of the sides), so it displays a less *complete* picture, but it's the same *size*.

Here's another quick experiment which demonstrates the opposite comparison. Take a look at the attached picture. Using a paint program, I've drawn two circles of the same size, labeled A and B. Keep in mind that the "diagonal" of a circle is the same as its diameter. On circle A, I've drawn a 4:3 ratio rectangle in which the width fits just a bit outside the circle. On circle B, I've drawn a 4:3 ratio rectangle that fits just inside the circle. Obviously, rectangle A is much larger than rectangle B. If you were to measure the area of the intersections of the circles and rectangles, you'd still find rectangle A to be larger, though not nearly as much larger as the height/width of the rectangles would suggest. So, it's easy to see that a "19V" roundie (when masked to a 'pumpkin' shape) will produce images that are both larger in height/width as well as square area compared with the "19V" rectangular tube, despite the fact that both have the same viewable diagonal dimension.
[NOTES: These are "theoretical" diagrams for illustrative purposes. In reality, most color roundie sets are maksed such that the usable height of the image is maximized a bit (to get a larger image size) at the expense of width-- note that with a 16 inch picture height, the 19:16 resulting image ratio doesn't match the 4:3 ideal. So "roundie" sets usually actually cut off parts of the sides as well as the corners. Also, most 19" rectangular sets are actually rounded-off rectangles and as such have a somewhat larger image size than the CRT face would indicate; i.e. the rectangle would actually extend beyond the circle a bit if I were to really draw it like rectangle B.]

Okay, I think that's enough geometry for today. :)

---

I suspect the almost universal adoption of the pumpkin shape mask in 1949 was an answer to Zenith's porthole design. It's obvious from the visual aid above that the same tube appears much larger with the pumpkin mask (or none) than with a rectangular mask and, of course, size matters. Philco's 7" sets are the only ones I'm aware of that retained the 3:4 rectangular mask in 1949-50.

So a 21 inch roundie is basically the same as watching a 27" tv with a mask put around it that carved off the corners, interesting. Shows that these were actually pretty darn big as far as screen size, especially for those early days. A person's face would appear larger on one of these than the standard rectangular 25" sets that prevaled for so many years after that.

I suspect that they would all produce a picture about the same size as the 27" Whirrled One describes.

The original 25" rectangular tubes from the 60's became "23v" when the viewable area law came about. New 21" roundie tubes became "19v" Still the same tubes. In the 70's they came out with "25v" tubes, and called them 25" sets again. They were the same size as "23v" tubes, but with squarer corners. A modern 27" has even squarer corners than a "25v" from the 70's.

John

Seems akin to HDTV. RCA was the leader, and most people would rather buy an RCA set than anything else. So RCA had the market, and with such a new technology, smaller companies were probably afraid to try. Also the lack of color programming. Now-a-days, good quality HDTV programming is hard to find. Rarely do you see everything at 1080i, as most of the time movies and shows are upscaled to 1080i. It looks like crap to me. The national HDTV PBS feed had beautiful 1080i, and looked amazing. But in my area, this was the only 1080i. Now on the networks they broadcast multiple channels at 480p, including my local PBS, ABC, WB, CBS, and NBC. The best HDTV I've seen is sports events and Discovery HD. Movies still are lacking unless shot with HDTV cameras or it's a 1080i film transfer.

With this said, it's the reason why I have no HDTV set yet, as the average run-of-the-mill computer monitor I can get for $25 is what I use coupled with an HDTV tuner. It's honestly better to buy an HDTV tuner with both off air and a satellite tuner like directv. (Cable tv is crap in my area, so much so that I usually pretend it doesn't exist)

This was probably the case years ago, but HDTV monitors are so simple to design and build that the chinese monkeys in the sweatshops assemble them for a total cost of $5 per set worth of labor. Since now we have cable, satellite, and off air HDTV broadcasts, it's more sensible to make monitors than actual TVs with ATSC tuners. Most people subscribe to cable or satellite HDTV if they do have an HDTV set. The major cities are the only ones with decent 1080i content on the off air networks, and the rest of us are stuck with cable or satellite for HDTV content that warrents an expensive HDTV.

Jonathan

Does anybody have one of those Westinghouse rectanguler color sets from '57? Was it available to consumers?

See ad below:

As seen on the ETF Color TV database, there is 1 surviving 22" rectangular Westinghouse. It lives somewhere in California.

http://www.earlytelevision.org/color_database.html

Yep! I would think all of those would produce essentially the same size picture. Same goes with the 18V, 19V, and 20V progression of rectangular sizes that Andy mentioned. Even 13V rounded-corner rectangles have became 14V square-cornered rectangles. Somewhere in my archive of old Consumer Reports magazines there's a diagram they published that showed the progression (up to that time) of TV picture shapes; I think it accompanied their first review of the then-new 23" B&W consoles in the early '60's. [The 23" B&W rectangular CRTs had less-rounded corners than the 21" rectangulars that they replaced, much like the 25V versus 23V rectangular color tubes. At about the same time, the 17" size common in B&W portables was replaced with the 19" (the 'old' 19" size; this was later replaced with a 'new' 19" (19V) size about the time the "visible area only" rule came into play). ]

BTW, does anyone know when the first TVs with flat screens were introduced..? Zenith had those *gorgeous* 14" FTM (Flat Tension Mask) computer monitors back in the late 80's (those have to be about the *best* fixed-freq 640x480 color VGA monitors ever!), but as far as I know, Zenith never made a TV using those tubes. [It would have made for a hideously expensive 14" color TV at that!] Also, while the face of the tube on those monitors is ruler flat, it looks like the phosphor surface on the inside those monitors isn't quite flat, but just slightly concave (!). The first time I saw one of those back when they came out, I figured it was an optical illusion just becuase I was used to seeing curved-face CRTs, but even today those Zenith FTMs still look slightly concave to me.

Then there's this cute li'l Magnavox (Philips) 14" color TV that I found at a thrift store several months ago. It was made in 1987, and has a square-cornered CRT with a face that is pretty near flat, but not quite. It's much flatter than a typical 27" CRT, but that might be in part just because it's a smaller tube. [This set appears to be a sort of "fashion-design" cube-shaped portable; the cabinet is made of salmon-colored plastic with black trim, has a green LED display for the channel indicator, and has a full-function remote that tucks away into a pop-up storage well on the top of the set. I think it's even cuter than those Zenith 9" cube sets that were available in various colors.]