Films by television? It'll never catch on.

[Mikey405]

A most enlightening article from November 1936's edition of "Screen Pictorial" magazine.

The images below may be a bit small to read so below is a link to the full sized versions.

http://www.oldtechnology.net/misc/Sc...vember1936.zip

Thanks all.

Kind regards.

From Mike.
PS. And if you're worried about your stature or if you get terrible headaches which stop you from going out or even if your wife or partner is desperate for a new powder-puff to fit her flap-jack then perhaps you may like some of that attached adverts from the same periodical.

[dave walsh]

Hi Mikey. Great but the link was taking me to the list of down loads that don't come out much bigger. You seemed to have posted some fantastic Broadcasting House photos as well that are excellent and a bigger size but I can't find them now It could be me I suppose. My computer skills are not renowned

Dave

Slight correction-I do seem to have the [BH] ones all saved on the top border [somehow] and they are all truly astonishing but no sign of your your original post with those?

[Nuvistor]

Hi Dave,
the link is to a compressed zip file, download and uncompressed it and the 8 files will be available.
Frank
edit, it's quite a large file 22MB

[dave walsh]

Thanks Frank-I'll keep trying. I was just a bit confused because the other [BH photo] thread seemed to go to the list and then opened up, seemingly by itself.
Dave

[Nuvistor]

Originally Posted by dave walsh

and then opened up, seemingly by itself.

Magic these computers

[peter_scott]

A good find!

Thanks for posting,

Peter

[peter_scott]

Curiously the "apparatus which will bring televised films into your home" on the first page doesn't appear to be Baird's telecine. Perhaps just a normal cinema projector??

Peter

[dave walsh]

I've pointed out [in the Bexhill Observer] that the really important date in June [supplanting the Referendum] is the 70th Anniversary of the death of JLB here at Baird Court on June 14th 1946.This was just before he was due to unveil his latest CRT Colour TV system in London!

Dave W

[Brigham]

"The attitude adopted by Mr. Baird was that he had gone beyond the stage of televising films and that, in fact, the tele-cinema was, from the scientific standpoint, a retrograde step."
However:
"Television programmes first sent out will consist chiefly of television proper, which is, of course, the most interesting... ...but, as at present in sound broadcasting gramophone records are occasionally played, so also will television programmes be supplemented by the occasional transmission of tele-talkies."
(Sydney Moseley in 'Television To-day and To-morrow', 1930.)
Unfortunately, as far as drama is concerned, 'television proper' has entirely vanished, leaving only the sterile world of 'made for television' tele-talkies.

[dave walsh]

An interesting observation Brigham and I see what you mean. It not unusual to find a commentator from 80 years ago or so who is dreaming that "in the future" it may not be necessary to travel to the theatre and wouldn't it be wonderful to go there from home [not just see films] by "looking in" live via a large screen? Of course there's no real problem watching a "Tele-Talkie" at home these days either on Terrestial or Internet feeds but as for other experiences?

What has actually happened demonstrates that it's really hard to predict how things will go except that in the end it's down to attitude [or maybe prejudice] and finance. A lot of the people in charge still think the Theatre is just for them as an expensive in house experience. The technology is all there now in bucket loads but there was more live action "Drama"in the sixties on ATV and BBC than there has been since

Living round the corner from Baird's last home and being only 60 miles or so from the Capital drives this point home. Trains were quicker in the 1880's. You CAN go to the Theatre in London in one night, perhaps, but not without stress strain and expense! In that sense we might as well be where you are in lovely Durham. The 1930's Pavillion here in Bexhill shows some of the National Theatre Live events which go out to millions around the World and it's truly a great experience, even the [recorded] Encore showings-especially as we are only five minutes walk away.

However, I think we should all be able to see many more things like that on BBC4 from home-especially as we pay for it [by whatever route]. We had two or three live performances from The Globe in 2002 and Eddie Izzard in A Day In The Death of Joe Egg but it was a false dawn and the curtain soon came down-with very little since and not live!
I think it's a two or three month advance wait to get in the Globe these days. Given that the Theatre overall is generally short of money and TV Production costs are fairly heavy you might imagine that it's a "no brainer". In many respects I suggest that may be the actual truth of it. The best way to evaluate your TV service is on the basis of what you might want to experience but maybe can't manage to get there and I'm talking "properly" live.

One man with a camera and a mobile kit could give us live access these days-to say a 200 seat theatre over a pub. That's real Tele-Vision ie "seeing from afar". Why don't PSB's do it-answers on a post card I suspect John Logie would have something to say!

Dave W

Oh and I'm not a Theatrical Luvvie-honest! I'd be just as happy with watching The Fall or Morrisey live, for example, without having to traipse out to some Stadium!

[dseymo1]

Paradoxically, there's a growing trend for cinemas to present 'real' televised theatre, ballet, opera etc.

[dave walsh]

That's true enough Desy but of course they are not a Public Service and don't come in to our homes like the still much respected BBC. I'm not sure where the paradox ends and the parody begins really
Dave

[Nuvistor]

Hi Dave,
but if they spend the money they have on the type of service you, (and me), would like how will they fund the relality programs, such as "council house crackdown", homes under the hammer" etc etc etc.

I was looking for a grumpy old man smilies but did not see one.

Most TV I would not miss, looking forward to watching the Zoo Quest Attenbourgh program (recorded)but most of this material will be 60 years old and long since payed for.

Apologies it is a bit if a rant.

Frank

[dave walsh]

No Frank.... I do the rants [not really]. It's a good point you make but of course, in the end, it's a matter of balance and the emphasis of a PBS should. overall, tend to be on things that others don't do! The ZOO Quest stuff is very good in colour and I have some admiration for Sir David but it is nice to be in a position where you find yourself running BBC2 almost by accident-it's the same process re deciding how much engagement you are going to have with bringing completely live material to your subscribers or what you keep in the Archives and it boils down to individuals deciding for us.

It's interesting that Baird felt he'd had enough to do with the film [as Brigham/Moseley pointed out] that his mechanical system demanded but maybe [electronically with CRT's] he was even more into immediacy and bringing things directly live to people at home, without the 2 mins or so delay that the film processing in his system introduced! All of this is as e relevant now as then, I suspect!

Dave

[PaulM]

Many thanks for posting this link, Mike, I just wish that I'd found this a number of years ago!

This article is a new name and a new lead in the politics (large and small P) of the events and reasons for the great TV 'systems battle' of late 1936 between Marconi-EMI and Baird Television Ltd (then owned by the Gaumont British Film Co.). There's so much more to the story of this great 'contest' between the two TV systems developed by the companies than people realise. Never mind the 'headline' line counts of 405 versus 240 and jibes about 'mechanical versus electronic' - the real battle was for the new and emerging soul of what television should become and just who would be running it in the UK (the BBC was not an 'automatic' drop-in as is usually painted).

I studied this whole business as a major chunk for my part-time PhD between 2005-11 and I thought that I'd found most of the relevant articles and background, but, of course, you never have . . . This one is lovely and really helps to reinforce one of my arguments that TV did not have to develop as it did and that politics (large and small P varieties) were centre stage. I argue that TV had two possible paths - 'live' wireless with pictures or movie industry films to the home. The former was suited to the Marconi-EMI all-electronic system as it was good at live pictures (so-called 'direct television') and was a perfect foil to the live wireless of the era. That suited the BBC, the GPO and the government as their desire was to extend the BBC's monopoly into 'pictures with wireless'. The 'films to the home' model suited Baird Television Ltd (BTL) because it was (by then) essentially a film company and had a pretty good telecine which worked far better than Marconi-EMI's. The 'establishment' wanted Marconi-EMI to win but it had to give BTL the chance to compete because of public and press perceptions about the company.

Traditionally, this story has been told on TV by the BBC and has followed the corporate line without a word of deeper analysis for fear of upsetting the 'BBC brand' and its privileged place in the establishment. In the last five years I have turned down one BBC documentary and pulled out of another on this topic simply because they were going over the same old ground despite having the evidence in front of them for a much more interesting story with BTL and Marconi-EMI ready to run their own TV services. BTL was in action on this front with their major facility at the Crystal Palace and this must really have horrified the 'establishment'! Just this year I was approached for yet another contribution to one of these 'same old, same old' documentaries about the events of 1936 and despite being produced by the BBC (albeit an independent production company) they appeared to listen. As well as the technology side (which I helped with as well), they were happy to tell something of the real story but they worried how their 'masters' (the BBC) would react. I've done it now and signed on the dotted line. It will be on in November but this is the media and the BBC to boot, so I remain sceptical as to whether we will finally hear something of the real history and motives.

Again, many thanks for posting this article which now sits in my 'post PhD' file as further evidence for my arguments and at some point I will take the lead which this presents and find out if there's anything more to be had. This story is far more complicated than some heroic technological quest (interesting as that side is to me) and my eyes were really opened in my studies to the depths that the BBC and the then government went to extend the BBC monopoly to vision in as quick a time scale as it could to scupper the commercial pressure.

Best wishes,

Paul M

[dave walsh]

That's extremely interesting Paul. The apparent "bias" against JLB by the etablishment or at least an unwillingness to address the issues, has always seemed strange to me even when there was very little evidence around but there are a few people, like yourself, willing to look at it all again these days.

As you imply, the popular perception of the man really does him a bit of an injustice-to say the least! Arguments about whether he really "invented" Television have always seemed like an irrelevant and convenient Red Herring to me. It's what he DID do that counts

Dave W

[Brigham]

The BBC was at odds with Baird long before 1936. Peter Eckersley had dismissed television in the '20s, and when the Postmaster-General was minded to 'give it a whirl', Eckersley replied 'as long as it doesn't interfere with the BBC's principle activity, which is Broadcasting'.
Baird was ready to ask the PMG for a broadcast licence in '29, and again, for high-definition, in '35. In the latter year, he was ready to go 'on air' at a day's notice.
(Admittedly, in '35 it was the Baird company doing the pushing, rather that JLB himself, although we can safely conclude that, in this instance, the two were in agreement).
The notion that television was something 'other than broadcasting' persisted for years in BBC circles. For the '31 Derby, only the vision was provided by Baird. In '32, both sound and (3-zone) vision were supplied to the Metropole Theatre, but only the centre-zone of the picture was used by the BBC, and specific conditions were attached to ensure that the accompanying sound was kept entirely separate from the BBC commentary, to the extent of renting non-BBC lines from the GPO to carry it. Unlike television, sound coverage WAS 'broadcasting', and the BBC were taking no chances.
I would be interested to know when the latest reference to television 'as opposed to Broadcasting' was made, and by whom. Long after the War, I suspect.

[dseymo1]

Let's bear in mind that entertainment was considered only a peripheral application of television (the EMI system, at any rate) when first developed. There was work done on maritime navigation, for instance, based on its ability to see through fog, being sensitive to IR - all before RADAR, of course.

[dave walsh]

Yes a good point. This was before Radar but then Baird's earlier "Noctovision" is often described in a similar way! There have been more recent suggestions that his contribution during WW2 may be undervalued. I have even wondered if it may have contributed to the decline in his health in some way but there's no evidence for that!
Dave

[Okto1984]

This is interesting, thank you for posting it Mike.

I think the author's predictions haven't fared too badly. He's right that television has filled a different need to the cinema, and the cinema certainly hasn't vanished. Even now, you can't watch the new films on TV for some time.

However, the finishing comment that watching TV for a long period would be tiring didn't turn out to be true. That or people are largely ok with being tired.

Anyway, to make a possibly completely mistaken prediction about the future of TV, I don't think we'll see another standard for broadcasting over the air in the UK, the next step will be probably be everything through the internet. We already have HD broadcasts, which I think will be popular for some years yet, but the people who want higher resolution will be the kind of people who are quite happy to plug their TV in to their router to achieve it, so I doubt there will become a big demand for it over the air.