I saw machines like that at the Museum of the Moving Picture in NYC. But none of them were operational. Immense respect for keeping this one functional.
Такие телевизоры некоторые делают с нуля, например, "Механический телевизор Своими Руками! (Телевизор с диском Нипкова)", а уж привести в рабочее состояние уже готовый аппарат - едва ли представляет какую-то сложность.
One of the best and still laughable. Such an Unworkable, dead-on-arrival idea...pros: monochrome, moving image. Cons: annoying loud hum, incredibly small image size, the obvious, etc..
Much better definition than I expected for a mechanically scanned image! I could actually see the actors' faces! Great work! And we are only seeing half of it... The video doesn't show your camera, transmitter etc.
I read my Grandfathers Post-War "Television Repair manuals" when I was 5 and he showed me how to capture an Analog image on an Oscilloscope. I later read a book titled Fast Forward about the VHS vs Betamax format war. In it was a chapter on how Sony Corp invented Helical Scan, which revolutionized Video tape recording. To be able to see a working Mechanical Television is simply amazing! Thank You for sharing!
Earl Edgar Masterson, of the Radio Corporation of America, patented helical scanning in 1950. Ampex was using helical scanning for videotape recording decades before VHS.
Congratulations on getting this pioneer set to work. Naturally, with so few lines of resolution, the lines are spread wide giving that "Venetian blind" look and the neon bulb image is red. But I can imagine how amazed people were in 1929 when they saw moving pictures transmitted by radio. But it never went much beyond the "techie freak" stage, since the image was so small and crude. When the CRT came in a few years later, that was the end of the line for mechanical TV.
Being an electronic enthusiast back in the late fifties, had I been around in 1929 I would have found this out-of-this-world-amazing . My story; With a Nipkow disc, which I made, and a fluorescent Christmas tree light bulb , I was able to view "music" from my tape recorder. The low notes put a pattern of broad lines, high notes multiple narrow lines. I knew that synchronization of two discs to scan and reproduce a crude picture was too much for me ( I did think about putting two discs on the same axle as has been suggested by others) but I had no photocell. I knew about news papers using short wave to send pictures from foreign lands and that they used an audible signal to send the picture elements. But putting all this into a workable mechanical TV was too much for me. I did it just for fun. I was lucky enough to visit the Early Television Museum in Hilliard OH just northwest of Columbus. Well worth my time. Didn't know others had the same interest as I had. .
I would have never guessed the USA even experimented with mechanical TV. Over in the UK, it was fairly prevalent. I was under the impression US TV broadcasts didn't begin until into the electronic age.... what were those indirect viewing sets called? Vidicon tubes?
I'm 57 and remember the days of black and white tv's, rabbit ear antennas, and 5 channels. I watched programs with worse pictures than that (although larger, of course). And the Little Rascals were pretty good.
Incredible! This technology is so very old and obsolete by almost a hundred years and, yet, I still don't know how it works, nor would I be able to create this contraption on my own. I'll be researching this topic in further detail. Thank you for uploading this video!
Thanks so much for making this video. I never saw one of these particular sets in operation. It fascinating how far back TV goes. Most people think it started in the '50's. When condition are perfect the mechanical picture wasn't too terrible, but the fact is conditions of the transmitted signal were typically not good. They say most saw the images as silhouettes at best.
This reminds me of my first exposure to TV; W9XK, early ‘30s. They used Western equipment. I was so impressed, I made my own receiver out of a big cardboard box. I have a photo of it!
Thank you. According to the Early Television Museum website, the 1929 Western Visionette was available as a kit for $88.25 minus the Kinolamp and cabinet. The cabinet was an extra $20.00. The 1931 Philco Model 90 lowboy console radio was $89.75. The National SW5 Thrillbox Shortwave radio cost $114 in its first year of production in 1931
Making such a wonderful device work again is truly priceless. Great job! Recently, I also became interested in early mechanical television. Learning about different formats I was surprised that this system is not used (partially or completely) by modern NBTV enthusiasts, although it has obvious advantages. Reflecting on any causes, the first thing that came to mind was that the parameters of the standard (45 lines, 15 fps) are not very suitable for any of the sampling rates that are commonly used for digital audio. I wonder how you solved this problem? Thank you!
Thank you. I used a converter box that allowed me to use a DVD player. The AM radio uses a wireless AM transmitter. Back in the 1930s, the video signal would've been transmitted and picked up by the shortwave receiver and the audio, by the AM radio.
Dude!!! That is so cool!!!! I didn’t even know a TV started off with a scanning disk. I still don’t know how this actually works, but imma look into it. Anyway; you got a museum there with that antique TV, and it’s probably worth a good lump sum.
I love how small the screen is compared to the rest of the cabinet, which I’ll assume is due to the components needed (and before technology allowed for miniaturization if parts). Like looking through a periscope!
Something that always helped put into perspective what the 20th century gave us was that the wright brothers first airplane and the Neil Armstrong walking the moon where only 66 years apart we have changed so much in what is a blink of an eye in our history and are very lucky to have the time where in.
It has mains-derived synchronization. As long as the transmitter is fed from the same AC mains as the receiver, then the picture is in step. Two types were marketed; 50-cycles for Los Angeles, and 60-cycles for everywhere else.
it would also be exaggerated to ensure the older system didn't operate at optimum. it was really designed for live pickup only - something we will never see again.
Well that really takes me back. I thought it was about the mid-1930s when I saw my first television. I've seen to remember they had problems synchronizing the spinning discs.
Really interesting seeing this. I had only heard of Baird’s mechanical system in the UK, and didn’t know about other mechanical systems. Looks like the aspect ratio of the image of this set is different from Baird system - Baird chose 3 wide x 7 high, so quite tall and narrow, because that was the best shape to show the human face given Baird’s low resolution. Great to see this video - thank you for posting.
In the US, more lines per frame were used, but much less work went into improving the picture quality. As a result, interest in British tv was a lot more sustained than in the US. Over here basically everyone was in competition. Much work was kept secret, then junked.
This is amazing to me to see. Did an awesome job putting it all together. Honestly like another person said, growing up with not so hot signal or picture really makes you over look things in today's technology. I love hi def and flat screens, but I don't think I'll ever be the, "I need the newest 4k,8k, etc etc." Guy.
Thanks. Took years to make it happen. Amazing this all existed c1929. It was cumbersome for the owner as they needed lots of batteries, a shortwave radio for video, AM for sound, and patience :)
@@sharronneedles6721 please don't just assume "it was primitive so it didn't work." for one thing, it was hardly 1st generation. it had interlaced scanning to cut down on picture flicker. but today, with different scan rates, all you can see is 1/3 to 1/2 the picture at any time. what we're seeing here is a fairly well worked out system that just can't be reproduced to best advantage nowadays, because too much of the technology that made it work has died out.
This is excellent. I would love to at least have a homebrew kit example of mechanical television. It was great watching your Visionette in operation. Gary
I've always wondered what these very early TVs looked like. Up till now I've only read written descriptions of them. Of course what's showing here is a an image of a 35 movie film, which would have been higher resolution than a live broadcast from a studio. That probably improves the picture a lot.
@@phonohound I just realized that even a good-quality 35mm movie image is so compromised by the really crude resolution of the Visionette's tiny screen that the visual gag at 1:48 showing the title of the book where all the jokey answers to the teacher's questions came from is completely lost. On a screen in a theater it would be easy to read, but here it's totally illegible.
That's even more impressive than the flat screen TV of today, although the picture quality is low, the way it displays pictures is quite ahead of it's time.
What to watch in 1929? Chicago had mechanical television station W9XAO, starting in 1929. Across town, W9XAP (forerunner of today’s WMAQ) went on the air in 1930. Both of these stations used the Western Television standard that U.A. Sanabria invented and patented. A viewer could have watched pictures from either station on the Western Television monitor in this UA-cam. These stations were on the medium wave band. At night, their signals propagated over hundreds of miles. Outside of Chicago, though, the viewer would have to manually sync the picture. Despite the experimental nature of these stations, they operated on regular schedules. The Chicago Daily News even published details of the schedules. These stations weren’t the first to go on the air in Chicago. Even earlier, W9XAA, another Sanabria station, transmitted experimental broadcasts from Navy Pier on Lake Michigan. (The transmitter was in one of the towers at the entrance to the pier. The towers are still there today.) The 48-line, sequentially-scanned W9XAA picture wasn’t compatible with the set in this UA-cam. A rival station, W9XR, was also on the air, starting in 1929. It transmitted 24-line, sequential pictures, again incompatible with Western Television equipment. Great Lakes Broadcasting operated W9XR. Stations with sequential pictures had much more flicker than did stations using Sanabria’s interlaced scanning. The “venetian blind” appearance of the pictures wasn’t due to mistuning. Instead, scan lines were visible due to the construction of the scanning discs. Typically, there was an unscanned area between scan lines. Due to the expense of manufactured sets, most sets were homemade. A homemade scanning disc could compensate for the unscanned area by slightly overlapping the scanning holes. The disadvantage of such enlargement was a slight blurring of the image. See my Sanabria television Web page: www.hawestv.com/mtv_chicago/mtv_cgo.htm
The resolution is only 45 lines which is a bit low to play games on. although I did play tetris on my own home build mechanical TV (I had to write my own tetris implementation to work within the constraints)
This might give some of the younger people an idea why we, who grew up with less than standard definition, see the difference but don't really care that much about the difference between 720 & 1080p or 4K. 720 is already about 4X better than what we grew up with. (please don't respond techies, it's an approximation) To look at the image initially is terrible but if you just focus on what is going on on the screen, your mind & eyes grow blind to a lot of the imperfection. Well, I'd say it grows blind to about half of it. If they had let the camera sit still on the image for a good 20 or 30 seconds it might be a better demonstration of what I'm talking about. Your mind will fill in a lot of the information that isn't there. It still looks pretty bad to me but I could still be entertained by a program on this tiny screen.
@Mazxj Stripes Mainly, I'm just saying that the image isn't "unwatchable" as some have suggested. Obviously I'm not just speaking for myself with that comment though. As you'll notice, some people agree with it. I never said 4k isn't great I'm just saying that going from 320x240 or 640x 480 to 720p is enough of an upgrade that I don't yet feel the need to spend any more for 4k. It's even worse with my parents. They're in their late 60s & they claim they don't see a substantial difference. Probably more likely that they just don't care that much. Hell, I still play video games on the pc at around 720p because I get a lot more performance out of the hardware and, as stated before, the increased clarity of going higher just doesn't mean as much to me.
It was always fun calibrating CRT's, because a properly calibrated 480i was essentially HDR at 60. It was sad for the 20 years it took commercial flat panels to catch up. Now even with local dimming & HDR 1000, we're about back at the contrast ratio & halo effect a ViewSonic or Trinitron CRT would have given you.
Blu-ray and 4K TV's can actually make some things worse. In Mission Impossible they didn't actually blow up a then-new-and-expensive tape recorder every episode. They piped smoke in, or set fire to a crude replica made of wooden blocks. On the TV of the time, you couldn't tell, but in HD it's glaringly obvious.
@@benthomson2780 I have had one in my collection for 35 years. It is fascinating to see this particular mechanical tv in operation. My tv was restored many years ago by the very talented Dave Johnson of Chicago, may he rest in peace.
That's a pretty good picture for a mechanical scanning TV set. This system worked best when the subject for transmission was on movie film. Each frame was scanned by a "flying spot scanner", which was sort of the reverse of the Nipkow scanning disk. A bright spot of light was moved across the subject from top to bottom, left to right at high speed.This was synchronized with the spot of light created by the scanning disc at the receiving end. For a live subject, he or she had to sit in an darkened room, with this bright spot flying a across them at high speed. Special green makeup had to be used, and the whole thing was terribly unpleasant. But with film, each frame had already been fixed on the film by standard film processing, so it was Hi Res, unlike the live subject. And with each frame held solidly in the gate of the scanner, the spot could do its thing with perfect frame registration and exposure. In the early BBC tests of John Logie Baird's TV system, they found it best to film the subject with standard sound movie equipment, quickly develop the film and put it in the flying spot scanner. A terribly roundabout way of making TV, and of course, taking away the immediacy of the medium. It could never have been made to work properly. But here in Australia, we honor John Logie Baird as being the "Inventor of TV", and our highest honor for a TV show or personality is the"Logie", a statuette, which some have said "Looks like an alien stealing a TV."
There is a book in library near me that has a lot about Baird and his strange marriage relationship. It also starts out describing how the sending of pictures by wire or radio started with the discovery of how selenium which was used for insulation in undersea transatlantic cables was found to change in its insulating qualities with exposure to light.
@@tooleyheadbang4239 no, that's not very strange. The strange part was how he was ' sharing ' a wife with some other guy. Now that is out of the ordinary.
That is the loudest television I've ever heard in my entire life dear GOD! Wow. There must be all kinds of gears cranking and pistons moving inside that TV.
This is amazing seeing the perfected mechanical aspirations of yesteryear makes me hate the digital world. The only way you could improve on this would be crank operated or spring assisted so no power cord at all. The Swiss pocketwatch of TV sets. Thank you for keeping a working unit and sharing with the world. Your a service to our species.
Phonohound I was wondering if you have ever heard of an acoustic telegraph? I’m not to sure if it’s ever been invented. Would be the way to send a signal through the air as pressure wave (sound) instead of the electrical (radio) waves? Like a beating drum that would vibrate a smaller drum at a distance to commutate the signal?
I really enjoyed looking at this tv 📺 I’m so glad they switched from Mechanical ⚙️ to Electronic because of the picture quality. I don’t think over time Mechanical would of lasted the way Electricity ⚡️ has. 😊
Picture quality to the current TV viewer will look awful, but imagine in the 1920s and early 30s when this came out. You'd be in awe of the fact you can transmit a moving picture wirelessly. You would think this is the greatest thing ever.
You´re a monster in electronics if you mannage to make that working with such clean picture. Would be exciting to watch that equipment working witch an 80s gamings console, would be possible if you make more videos about this tv + new fotage from different devices ?. Episodes of Felix the cat, shorts playing super mario bros on the first nes. Etc. : )
Soo...what was on back then? How frequent were broadcasts? In the UK, the BBC had daily broadcasts in the late 20s labelled in the radio times as "by the baird process" and usually lasted about an hour or so. But that was it.
there were daily broadcasts. there were many radio stations for mechanical TV in in 1929 to early - mid 30s However the decline started in the mid 30s as electronic television was proving to be the better method to show broadcast images
And to think that within 7 years of 1929 the BBC in 1936 began broadcasting daily a fully electonic 405 lines tv service in the UK, initially only in and around London, with a regular line up of programmes, music, dancing, comedy, quizes, drama, cartoons, sports, talks and demonstrations, from both its studies and also outside broadcasts from football and tennis matches, and theatres and circuses etc.
By 1939 the BBC was doing live relays of West End stage shows running for 2-3 hours. Visiting American radio execs were staggered at how far ahead the 'socialistic' public corporation had gotten compared with the FCC-regulated experimental stations back home. The gap baffled them more bc Marconi-EMI in Britain used essentially the same technology as Zworykin had developed for RCA, whose broadcasting arm, NBC, was still giving demos of 'the television of tomorrow' at the 1939 World's Fair. By then Nazi Germany also had a high-definition service up and running, though not for home reception.
@@esmeephillips5888 The engineering section of the BBC were at the forefront of many broadcasting developments so I understand. The BBC tv service was set up to be an ongoing regular service with a programme schedule printed in the television section of the Radio Times and for viewers to watch in the comfort of their own homes on their own sets. It was definitely not an experimental or demonstration service. Sadly WW2 meant the service was suspended for the duration. There were fears of German planes homing in on the broadcast signal in London, but it was more of a case I think that the tv engineers could be better employed in improving radar and other wartime electronic military developments, plus of course it was regarded by some as an unnecessary luxury in wartime.
@@esmeephillips5888 Try watching "The Fools On The Hill", it's a drama documentary showing how the BBC tv service came to be set up. It was made by the BBC to commemorate the 40th (or was it the 50th?, can't remember which!) anniversary of the tv service. It's on UA-cam I think. It is very interesting and shows just how things were back in 1936.
@@trevordance5181 Ian Orr-Ewing, a prewar BBC engineer who later became a politician, said that the British government expedited the growth of the television service so that production lines for receivers could be instantly switched to manufacturing radar sets, if the country needed early warning protection from bomber raids. JL Baird had secretly been involved in radiolocation R & D for national defence since the mid-1920s. He probably did more earlier to bring radar along than Robert Watson-Watt, the purported inventor. In 1939 Baird's TV receivers were regarded as the best on the market. Much of his work and official collusion in the encouragement of television is still a State secret.
@@trevordance5181 I have seen it, but to my mind it follows too slavishly the authorized line about how Marconi-EMI's tech (which was really a US import pretending to be British) was the only possible choice. Typical of BBC smugness about its history. The Baird system had a lot more going for it than was acknowledged, especially after his co-operation with Farnsworth bore fruit. IIRC there was a lot of comic stuff in that play about its glitches but nothing about the rival's, e.g. limited transmitter range, inability to scan film or record transmissions, and the Emitron camera's habit of exploding without warning. Baird was offering a battery of methods, including electronic ones so superior to Marconi-EMI's that in 1943 the Hankey Report recommended reversing the 1936 decision and replacing 405-line b&w with Baird's 1,000-line color and 3D. Unfortunately postwar Britain could not afford it, or its world lead would have been longer yet. In any case it was myopic to dismiss electro-mechanical systems in principle, as the advent of videotape and video disc recording, floppy disks and hard drives would prove. Even the Apollo missions used scanning wheels to broadcast lunar landscapes. The 1936 fixation that only solid-state, no-moving-parts tech was 'modern' was mistaken.
That's an extraordinary set! I don't know how rare these are, but I know that Pre War sets are a really hard find. You should consider donating it to a museum
Not a fan of donating to a museum. Many times they sell their acquisitions anyway. When it's time, I'll sell it to someone who will appreciate this TV as much as me or even more. Thank you
actually no. there was a studio where the entertainer wore a ton of makeup to distinguish their features as the cameras amd lights washed them out. then the picture was transmitted over the air via shortwave amd the sound via AM radio vaves. you need a shortwave receiver and AM radio to see and listen. This is why it is called a television set.
none could be filmed. the video was too fast and too dim for any cine camera. it can't even be recreated today. the trouble of creating a scanner, studio etc. would be way too much for the quality of the image.
Never seen a working Nipkow disc tv before. If memory serves it was invented in Scotland, the first image transmitted was of a static doll/ model of Felix The Cat, and that's all I recall. I do remember the first pubic broadcast was of the 1936 Berlin Olympics but no numbers on how many people in Berlin had televisions. Some interesting reading if you look up the makeup the early television performers had to wear because of the intensity of the lights and how changing the frame rate of the broadcast signal from 30 fps to 29.97 fps facilitated the advent of color tv broadcasting. Also helps if you're a nerd.
First public broadcast in GB was 1929, using the Baird System, and carried by the BBC . From 1929 to 1935, Baird programmes were transmitted regularly, and from 1932 onwards the BBC took over production as well, appointing Eustace Robb as Producer (Television). Robb made and transmitted 1500 half-hour shows between 1932 and closure in 1935.
Stooky Bill Known as 'Stookie Bill' or 'Stooky Bill', this ventriloquist's dummy was used by John Logie Baird (1888-1946) in his experimental television work. The lights for the experiments were so hot Baird couldn't use a human for the tests. In Scots, a Stookie means a plaster cast covering a broken limb. The vent figure's head was made from Plaster, hence "Stookie Bill"
Back in 1929, yes. The shortwave receiver was for pictures and the AM radio was for sound. Fast forward to 2020, there is a converter box connected to a DVD player and an AM transmitter to accomplish the task.
This is insanely good quality footage for having a TV thats 92 years old!
This is awful. Like watching TV through a peephole 😂
@@covid19alpha2variantturboc7 they’re saying that hot good quality the footage is over a 93 year period
wow where can i buy this this looks so much more of a clearer image than my tv!
@@TheTrue22 They sure don't make 'em like they used to !
It’s not though is it ?
I saw machines like that at the Museum of the Moving Picture in NYC. But none of them were operational. Immense respect for keeping this one functional.
thank you so much
Такие телевизоры некоторые делают с нуля, например, "Механический телевизор Своими Руками! (Телевизор с диском Нипкова)", а уж привести в рабочее состояние уже готовый аппарат - едва ли представляет какую-то сложность.
Probably not the real electronics working but rather a replacement LCD behind it.
@@phonohoundcan you make a video of mechanical television picking up modern analog TV
One of the best video of mechanical tv
My great grandparents had one of those mechanical TVs to broadcast in New Hampshire during the 1940s.
Agreed!
This is the First television 1928
thank you for the kind comments
One of the best and still laughable. Such an Unworkable, dead-on-arrival idea...pros: monochrome, moving image. Cons: annoying loud hum, incredibly small image size, the obvious, etc..
Much better definition than I expected for a mechanically scanned image! I could actually see the actors' faces! Great work! And we are only seeing half of it... The video doesn't show your camera, transmitter etc.
Hi. Yes I purposely hid the video and sound source but it is a DVD signal and an AM radio transmitter.
and we are only seeing half the picture because of the frame rate. every other line is blanked out = 22 instead of 45.
the video comes from a DVD player and the audio is from an AM transmitter to the AM Philco Model 90 radio.
I read my Grandfathers Post-War "Television Repair manuals" when I was 5 and he showed me how to capture an Analog image on an Oscilloscope. I later read a book titled Fast Forward about the VHS vs Betamax format war. In it was a chapter on how Sony Corp invented Helical Scan, which revolutionized Video tape recording. To be able to see a working Mechanical Television is simply amazing! Thank You for sharing!
Earl Edgar Masterson, of the Radio Corporation of America, patented helical scanning in 1950. Ampex was using helical scanning for videotape recording decades before VHS.
What a wonderful sight. Unbelievable -- well done!
Glad you enjoyed it
Congratulations on getting this pioneer set to work. Naturally, with so few lines of resolution, the lines are spread wide giving that "Venetian blind" look and the neon bulb image is red. But I can imagine how amazed people were in 1929 when they saw moving pictures transmitted by radio. But it never went much beyond the "techie freak" stage, since the image was so small and crude. When the CRT came in a few years later, that was the end of the line for mechanical TV.
Yes. You are right. I like it because it is a first. It's awesome to see technology evolve over time.
Being an electronic enthusiast back in the late fifties, had I been around in 1929 I would have found this out-of-this-world-amazing . My story; With a Nipkow disc, which I made, and a fluorescent Christmas tree light bulb , I was able to view "music" from my tape recorder. The low notes put a pattern of broad lines, high notes multiple narrow lines. I knew that synchronization of two discs to scan and reproduce a crude picture was too much for me ( I did think about putting two discs on the same axle as has been suggested by others) but I had no photocell. I knew about news papers using short wave to send pictures from foreign lands and that they used an audible signal to send the picture elements. But putting all this into a workable mechanical TV was too much for me. I did it just for fun. I was lucky enough to visit the Early Television Museum in Hilliard OH just northwest of Columbus. Well worth my time. Didn't know others had the same interest as I had. .
I find the technology amazing and how persistence of vision is really what makes a moving image possible
That venetian blind look isn't low resolution, it's due to the camera and TV frame rates being out of sync.
I would have never guessed the USA even experimented with mechanical TV. Over in the UK, it was fairly prevalent. I was under the impression US TV broadcasts didn't begin until into the electronic age.... what were those indirect viewing sets called? Vidicon tubes?
I can only imagine the cost when this was new.
$50
It wasn't that expensive.But it wasn't that usefull either.
TV was just invented at that time so it wouldn’t have costed much.
Imagine can't afford speaker
@@mylzcrooks5487 Yeah $50 bucks which in those days was twice the annual federal budget.
Imagine sitting down on the couch all day watching this on a little dot all day and having the time of your life
This is my favorite mechanical TV demonstration, what a beautiful piece of equipment! Even in 44 lines Miss Crabtree is still beautiful. :p
Thank you. Glad you enjoyed it
You can say that again! I'd take her at Baird's 30 lines vertical!
Like Vampira I used to watch when ten, both were real sweeties!
I'm 57 and remember the days of black and white tv's, rabbit ear antennas, and 5 channels. I watched programs with worse pictures than that (although larger, of course).
And the Little Rascals were pretty good.
I remember watching on a black and white TV, no remote control ND only channels 2-13 and then UHF.
Incredible! This technology is so very old and obsolete by almost a hundred years and, yet, I still don't know how it works, nor would I be able to create this contraption on my own. I'll be researching this topic in further detail. Thank you for uploading this video!
I'm glad you like it.
Thanks so much for making this video. I never saw one of these particular sets in operation. It fascinating how far back TV goes. Most people think it started in the '50's. When condition are perfect the mechanical picture wasn't too terrible, but the fact is conditions of the transmitted signal were typically not good. They say most saw the images as silhouettes at best.
Glad you enjoyed seeing the video.
This reminds me of my first exposure to TV; W9XK, early ‘30s. They used Western equipment. I was so impressed, I made my own receiver out of a big cardboard box. I have a photo of it!
Wow, not many people on YT who are almost 100 years old
@@raouldukestudios Eh?
Such a gorgeous set up,love seeing it running. Thank you for sharing!
You're welcome. Glad you enjoyed seeing it
Nice example of vintage TV. Wow 92 years old but still works. Seems better built than some modern TVs. Definitely was built to last.
Thank you. According to the Early Television Museum website, the 1929 Western Visionette was available as a kit for $88.25 minus the Kinolamp and cabinet. The cabinet was an extra $20.00. The 1931 Philco Model 90 lowboy console radio was $89.75. The National SW5 Thrillbox Shortwave radio cost $114 in its first year of production in 1931
Which is well over $1,300 in today inflation
@@killermon117 yeah, but not so much more expensive than the radio set
I knew tv was worked on as early as ‘29 but I thought it was introduced at the World’s Fair in ‘39?
@@roderickstockdale1678 That was electronic television that was introduced to the masses at the 1939 Worlds Fair.
Flipperhome well, what kind is this?
Making such a wonderful device work again is truly priceless. Great job!
Recently, I also became interested in early mechanical television. Learning about different formats I was surprised that this system is not used (partially or completely) by modern NBTV enthusiasts, although it has obvious advantages.
Reflecting on any causes, the first thing that came to mind was that the parameters of the standard (45 lines, 15 fps) are not very suitable for any of the sampling rates that are commonly used for digital audio.
I wonder how you solved this problem?
Thank you!
Thank you. I used a converter box that allowed me to use a DVD player. The AM radio uses a wireless AM transmitter. Back in the 1930s, the video signal would've been transmitted and picked up by the shortwave receiver and the audio, by the AM radio.
Dude!!! That is so cool!!!! I didn’t even know a TV started off with a scanning disk. I still don’t know how this actually works, but imma look into it. Anyway; you got a museum there with that antique TV, and it’s probably worth a good lump sum.
Thank you. It took many years 5o get everything I needed to make the tv work again. lt is one of a very few in full working order
The cool part is the fact that someone in the world is watching this video using an ultra modern 72'' OLED SmarTV
I love how small the screen is compared to the rest of the cabinet, which I’ll assume is due to the components needed (and before technology allowed for miniaturization if parts). Like looking through a periscope!
Mechanical televisions required a spinning disk, which had a much larger diameter than the display size.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nipkow_disk
It is crazy how this thing was high tech back then.
Now we have phones that can do SO much.
Im 23 and id LOVE to have one of these. This is amazing its still running after all this time. I hope youre doing well.
Thank you for your comment. doing great. glad you enjoyed the video😊
Crazy how much things changed in less than 100 years, and how little they changed in many ways in 500 years before about 1850.
Something that always helped put into perspective what the 20th century gave us was that the wright brothers first airplane and the Neil Armstrong walking the moon where only 66 years apart we have changed so much in what is a blink of an eye in our history and are very lucky to have the time where in.
Wow! Never knew that the first era of Television is in the 1920s...
I think this model of TV is extremely rare to find today...
it is quite rare but among mechanical TV usually this is the model you are most likely to find.
@@phonohound Now you must find an ECHOPHONE Model 41.
This was a great achievement in the 20s great work on keeping it running
Thank you took many years to make it happen
@@phonohound where did you find it
Thank you it wasn't easy.
We've come a long way. Watching this on a doublewide 49" curved Samsung CHG90.
Very neat! I am impressed at the stability of the picture.
It has mains-derived synchronization. As long as the transmitter is fed from the same AC mains as the receiver, then the picture is in step.
Two types were marketed; 50-cycles for Los Angeles, and 60-cycles for everywhere else.
It would be cool to see a side-by-side comparison of this tv and a modern flat screen! The difference in picture resolution would be amazing!
it would also be exaggerated to ensure the older system didn't operate at optimum. it was really designed for live pickup only - something we will never see again.
Well that really takes me back. I thought it was about the mid-1930s when I saw my first television. I've seen to remember they had problems synchronizing the spinning discs.
How old are you, young fella?!
@@lundsweden I'm what they call a "super centenarian". Over a century old!
There is something whimsical about these machines being almost 100 years old.
Really interesting seeing this. I had only heard of Baird’s mechanical system in the UK, and didn’t know about other mechanical systems. Looks like the aspect ratio of the image of this set is different from Baird system - Baird chose 3 wide x 7 high, so quite tall and narrow, because that was the best shape to show the human face given Baird’s low resolution.
Great to see this video - thank you for posting.
you're welcome a d thans for the comnent. glad you enjoyed it
In the US, more lines per frame were used, but much less work went into improving the picture quality. As a result, interest in British tv was a lot more sustained than in the US. Over here basically everyone was in competition. Much work was kept secret, then junked.
This is amazing to me to see. Did an awesome job putting it all together. Honestly like another person said, growing up with not so hot signal or picture really makes you over look things in today's technology. I love hi def and flat screens, but I don't think I'll ever be the, "I need the newest 4k,8k, etc etc." Guy.
Thanks. Took years to make it happen. Amazing this all existed c1929. It was cumbersome for the owner as they needed lots of batteries, a shortwave radio for video, AM for sound, and patience :)
That's crazy, I guess it would be a nice thing for someone super rich to have in the late 1920s.
I am assuming the lines arent as pronounced when actually looking at it and not just seeing footage of it with the weird refresh rate differences.
My Grandma remembered watching Our Gang on WBZ-TV in 1949.
There were not very many lines lol.
No, the lines definitely were define and visible.
@@sharronneedles6721 please don't just assume "it was primitive so it didn't work."
for one thing, it was hardly 1st generation. it had interlaced scanning to cut down on picture flicker. but today, with different scan rates, all you can see is 1/3 to 1/2 the picture at any time.
what we're seeing here is a fairly well worked out system that just can't be reproduced to best advantage nowadays, because too much of the technology that made it work has died out.
Remarkable that this is still in working condition.
Here in Brazil, the first TV station was the extinct Tupi TV, inaugurated in 1950. I have a G&E 1950 working.
Wow! Exotic and erotic and early!
Fascinating piece of history.
You should get some footage of this old girl running some 20’s cartoons, hope she’s still running well
This is excellent. I would love to at least have a homebrew kit example of mechanical television. It was great watching your Visionette in operation. Gary
Thanks Gary. Glad you enjoyed seeing the demo
@@phonohound It's nice to see some of the old technology preserved.
Quality is better than some UA-cam videos
Pretty good warm image from a light bulb, also very sharp.
Absolutely phenomenal! Yeah I agree, best video of a mechanical TV! Beautiful setup!
Thanks Amy!
My grandma was a year old when this TV was released (ironically; it was also the same year when The Great Depression started).
Yes it is estimated Western Television only sold about 200 of these visionettes
I've always wondered what these very early TVs looked like. Up till now I've only read written descriptions of them. Of course what's showing here is a an image of a 35 movie film, which would have been higher resolution than a live broadcast from a studio. That probably improves the picture a lot.
yeah. it helps. back then there was so much radio interference.
@@phonohound I just realized that even a good-quality 35mm movie image is so compromised by the really crude resolution of the Visionette's tiny screen that the visual gag at 1:48 showing the title of the book where all the jokey answers to the teacher's questions came from is completely lost. On a screen in a theater it would be easy to read, but here it's totally illegible.
Incredible! Beautiful device and demo.
Thank you for the compliment
Simply breathtaking !
thank you. appreciate the comment
Nice sound quality.
That's even more impressive than the flat screen TV of today, although the picture quality is low, the way it displays pictures is quite ahead of it's time.
When it came out what would even be watched on it? I can’t imagine TV channels were a big thing in 1929
What to watch in 1929? Chicago had mechanical television station W9XAO, starting in 1929. Across town, W9XAP (forerunner of today’s WMAQ) went on the air in 1930. Both of these stations used the Western Television standard that U.A. Sanabria invented and patented. A viewer could have watched pictures from either station on the Western Television monitor in this UA-cam.
These stations were on the medium wave band. At night, their signals propagated over hundreds of miles. Outside of Chicago, though, the viewer would have to manually sync the picture. Despite the experimental nature of these stations, they operated on regular schedules. The Chicago Daily News even published details of the schedules.
These stations weren’t the first to go on the air in Chicago. Even earlier, W9XAA, another Sanabria station, transmitted experimental broadcasts from Navy Pier on Lake Michigan. (The transmitter was in one of the towers at the entrance to the pier. The towers are still there today.) The 48-line, sequentially-scanned W9XAA picture wasn’t compatible with the set in this UA-cam. A rival station, W9XR, was also on the air, starting in 1929. It transmitted 24-line, sequential pictures, again incompatible with Western Television equipment. Great Lakes Broadcasting operated W9XR. Stations with sequential pictures had much more flicker than did stations using Sanabria’s interlaced scanning.
The “venetian blind” appearance of the pictures wasn’t due to mistuning. Instead, scan lines were visible due to the construction of the scanning discs. Typically, there was an unscanned area between scan lines. Due to the expense of manufactured sets, most sets were homemade. A homemade scanning disc could compensate for the unscanned area by slightly overlapping the scanning holes. The disadvantage of such enlargement was a slight blurring of the image.
See my Sanabria television Web page: www.hawestv.com/mtv_chicago/mtv_cgo.htm
Wow!! Great video. Thanks for sharing.
you're welcome!!
Imagine playing games on this thing
Mattias Antonsson Nilsson Especially Cuphead.
The resolution is only 45 lines which is a bit low to play games on. although I did play tetris on my own home build mechanical TV (I had to write my own tetris implementation to work within the constraints)
I've made a 1440p mechanical television that I play my Xbox One X on. I won't include any links to prove it as I've got better things to do.
smeezekitty that’s actually very cool!
Maybe good enough for playing Pong.
Perfect for retro gaming!
I am proud to seen this.
I really truly love this
glad you like it. early technology is so interesting
Astounding. There are no limits to science.
Well this is the coolest thing I've seen today. I guess I'd better start saving up for one early lol
This might give some of the younger people an idea why we, who grew up with less than standard definition, see the difference but don't really care that much about the difference between 720 & 1080p or 4K. 720 is already about 4X better than what we grew up with. (please don't respond techies, it's an approximation)
To look at the image initially is terrible but if you just focus on what is going on on the screen, your mind & eyes grow blind to a lot of the imperfection. Well, I'd say it grows blind to about half of it. If they had let the camera sit still on the image for a good 20 or 30 seconds it might be a better demonstration of what I'm talking about. Your mind will fill in a lot of the information that isn't there. It still looks pretty bad to me but I could still be entertained by a program on this tiny screen.
TV, maybe. The quality of movies hasn't changed in 100 years
@Mazxj Stripes Mainly, I'm just saying that the image isn't "unwatchable" as some have suggested. Obviously I'm not just speaking for myself with that comment though. As you'll notice, some people agree with it.
I never said 4k isn't great I'm just saying that going from 320x240 or 640x 480 to 720p is enough of an upgrade that I don't yet feel the need to spend any more for 4k. It's even worse with my parents. They're in their late 60s & they claim they don't see a substantial difference. Probably more likely that they just don't care that much.
Hell, I still play video games on the pc at around 720p because I get a lot more performance out of the hardware and, as stated before, the increased clarity of going higher just doesn't mean as much to me.
It was always fun calibrating CRT's, because a properly calibrated 480i was essentially HDR at 60. It was sad for the 20 years it took commercial flat panels to catch up. Now even with local dimming & HDR 1000, we're about back at the contrast ratio & halo effect a ViewSonic or Trinitron CRT would have given you.
Blu-ray and 4K TV's can actually make some things worse. In Mission Impossible they didn't actually blow up a then-new-and-expensive tape recorder every episode. They piped smoke in, or set fire to a crude replica made of wooden blocks. On the TV of the time, you couldn't tell, but in HD it's glaringly obvious.
@@rileyswedelius-smith6360 Yes, movies are still 24FPS on film, just as they have been for a long time.
wow 1080p tv quality! I need this!
Where did you find this beautiful piece of history???
From another collector, but I had to find the other pieces to put it all together. Thanks for asking.
Do you know where I could maybe find one
@@benthomson2780 I have had one in my collection for 35 years. It is fascinating to see this particular mechanical tv in operation. My tv was restored many years ago by the very talented Dave Johnson of Chicago, may he rest in peace.
“Don’t sit so close to the tv, your eyes will go square.”
-Mum
Put it on two times playback speed it will make the image clearer
nobody knows it CAN be any clearer
Wouldn't be suprised if this was someone's last impulse buy during the Roaring 20s
"I just got us a 4 Television!!!"
"A 4k television, you mean?"
"No..."
That's a pretty good picture for a mechanical scanning TV set. This system worked best when the subject for transmission was on movie film. Each frame was scanned by a "flying spot scanner", which was sort of the reverse of the Nipkow scanning disk. A bright spot of light was moved across the subject from top to bottom, left to right at high speed.This was synchronized with the spot of light created by the scanning disc at the receiving end. For a live subject, he or she had to sit in an darkened room, with this bright spot flying a across them at high speed. Special green makeup had to be used, and the whole thing was terribly unpleasant.
But with film, each frame had already been fixed on the film by standard film processing, so it was Hi Res, unlike the live subject. And with each frame held solidly in the gate of the scanner, the spot could do its thing with perfect frame registration and exposure.
In the early BBC tests of John Logie Baird's TV system, they found it best to film the subject with standard sound movie equipment, quickly develop the film and put it in the flying spot scanner. A terribly roundabout way of making TV, and of course, taking away the immediacy of the medium. It could never have been made to work properly. But here in Australia, we honor John Logie Baird as being the "Inventor of TV", and our highest honor for a TV show or personality is the"Logie", a statuette, which some have said "Looks like an alien stealing a TV."
Yes. I guess that would work better. Instead of having to intensely light up the subject, the subject is already emitting light.
There is a book in library near me that has a lot about Baird and his strange marriage relationship.
It also starts out describing how the sending of pictures by wire or radio started with the discovery of how selenium which was used for insulation in undersea transatlantic cables was found to change in its insulating qualities with exposure to light.
@@michaelszczys8316 He married an American, didn't he?
Very strange...
@@tooleyheadbang4239 no, that's not very strange. The strange part was how he was ' sharing ' a wife with some other guy.
Now that is out of the ordinary.
@@michaelszczys8316 Yeah, and especially at the same time! Weeeeee!
A good addition to a steampunk themed living room.
That is the loudest television I've ever heard in my entire life dear GOD! Wow. There must be all kinds of gears cranking and pistons moving inside that TV.
It's the AM radio that produces the sound. The TV itself has no speaker.
@@phonohound Dude I know that I'm just saying the mechanical movements of the TV are loud
I see what you mean. I think it may be the scanning g disc touching something slightly as it is spinning
This is amazing seeing the perfected mechanical aspirations of yesteryear makes me hate the digital world. The only way you could improve on this would be crank operated or spring assisted so no power cord at all. The Swiss pocketwatch of TV sets. Thank you for keeping a working unit and sharing with the world. Your a service to our species.
Thanks James. I'm glad you like it It took me nearly 10 years to get it working.
Phonohound I was wondering if you have ever heard of an acoustic telegraph? I’m not to sure if it’s ever been invented. Would be the way to send a signal through the air as pressure wave (sound) instead of the electrical (radio) waves? Like a beating drum that would vibrate a smaller drum at a distance to commutate the signal?
@@jamesvonblitza7395 I have not. sounds interesting
Raytheon!! The defence contractor made the kino lamp.
yes, and so did eveready.
Raytheon made lots of radio tubes in the 1930's and after.
I would LOVE to have that
my God this is amazing
Thank you. Appreciate it.
I really enjoyed looking at this tv 📺 I’m so glad they switched from Mechanical ⚙️ to Electronic because of the picture quality. I don’t think over time Mechanical would of lasted the way Electricity ⚡️ has. 😊
Thank you Jason.
Would have lasted
@@garyfrancis6193 Yeah maybe 🤔
@@phonohound Your welcome 🤗
Picture quality to the current TV viewer will look awful, but imagine in the 1920s and early 30s when this came out. You'd be in awe of the fact you can transmit a moving picture wirelessly. You would think this is the greatest thing ever.
You´re a monster in electronics if you mannage to make that working with such clean picture. Would be exciting to watch that equipment working witch an 80s gamings console, would be possible if you make more videos about this tv + new fotage from different devices ?. Episodes of Felix the cat, shorts playing super mario bros on the first nes. Etc. : )
yeah would be cool. I should find some Feliz the Cat cartoons. Thanks for the idea
thanks for sharing
you're welcome. Glad you enjoyed it
Soo...what was on back then? How frequent were broadcasts?
In the UK, the BBC had daily broadcasts in the late 20s labelled in the radio times as "by the baird process" and usually lasted about an hour or so. But that was it.
there were daily broadcasts. there were many radio stations for mechanical TV in in 1929 to early - mid 30s However the decline started in the mid 30s as electronic television was proving to be the better method to show broadcast images
“Honey I bought a TV with the last of our life savings”
“YOU IDIOT WE’LL GO BANKRUPT!”
Might as well put my eyeball on the screen lol
This is amazing
Unbelieavable !
Pretty amazing for the time
That TV's got better quality video than my internet
Picture is actually very good for mechanical TV
And to think that within 7 years of 1929 the BBC in 1936 began broadcasting daily a fully electonic 405 lines tv service in the UK, initially only in and around London, with a regular line up of programmes, music, dancing, comedy, quizes, drama, cartoons, sports, talks and demonstrations, from both its studies and also outside broadcasts from football and tennis matches, and theatres and circuses etc.
By 1939 the BBC was doing live relays of West End stage shows running for 2-3 hours. Visiting American radio execs were staggered at how far ahead the 'socialistic' public corporation had gotten compared with the FCC-regulated experimental stations back home.
The gap baffled them more bc Marconi-EMI in Britain used essentially the same technology as Zworykin had developed for RCA, whose broadcasting arm, NBC, was still giving demos of 'the television of tomorrow' at the 1939 World's Fair. By then Nazi Germany also had a high-definition service up and running, though not for home reception.
@@esmeephillips5888 The engineering section of the BBC were at the forefront of many broadcasting developments so I understand.
The BBC tv service was set up to be an ongoing regular service with a programme schedule printed in the television section of the Radio Times and for viewers to watch in the comfort of their own homes on their own sets. It was definitely not an experimental or demonstration service. Sadly WW2 meant the service was suspended for the duration. There were fears of German planes homing in on the broadcast signal in London, but it was more of a case I think that the tv engineers could be better employed in improving radar and other wartime electronic military developments, plus of course it was regarded by some as an unnecessary luxury in wartime.
@@esmeephillips5888 Try watching "The Fools On The Hill", it's a drama documentary showing how the BBC tv service came to be set up. It was made by the BBC to commemorate the 40th (or was it the 50th?, can't remember which!) anniversary of the tv service. It's on UA-cam I think. It is very interesting and shows just how things were back in 1936.
@@trevordance5181 Ian Orr-Ewing, a prewar BBC engineer who later became a politician, said that the British government expedited the growth of the television service so that production lines for receivers could be instantly switched to manufacturing radar sets, if the country needed early warning protection from bomber raids.
JL Baird had secretly been involved in radiolocation R & D for national defence since the mid-1920s. He probably did more earlier to bring radar along than Robert Watson-Watt, the purported inventor. In 1939 Baird's TV receivers were regarded as the best on the market. Much of his work and official collusion in the encouragement of television is still a State secret.
@@trevordance5181 I have seen it, but to my mind it follows too slavishly the authorized line about how Marconi-EMI's tech (which was really a US import pretending to be British) was the only possible choice. Typical of BBC smugness about its history.
The Baird system had a lot more going for it than was acknowledged, especially after his co-operation with Farnsworth bore fruit. IIRC there was a lot of comic stuff in that play about its glitches but nothing about the rival's, e.g. limited transmitter range, inability to scan film or record transmissions, and the Emitron camera's habit of exploding without warning.
Baird was offering a battery of methods, including electronic ones so superior to Marconi-EMI's that in 1943 the Hankey Report recommended reversing the 1936 decision and replacing 405-line b&w with Baird's 1,000-line color and 3D. Unfortunately postwar Britain could not afford it, or its world lead would have been longer yet.
In any case it was myopic to dismiss electro-mechanical systems in principle, as the advent of videotape and video disc recording, floppy disks and hard drives would prove. Even the Apollo missions used scanning wheels to broadcast lunar landscapes. The 1936 fixation that only solid-state, no-moving-parts tech was 'modern' was mistaken.
Amazing stability (sync) even if when NEW let alone nearly a century later! 😲
That's an extraordinary set! I don't know how rare these are, but I know that Pre War sets are a really hard find. You should consider donating it to a museum
Not a fan of donating to a museum. Many times they sell their acquisitions anyway. When it's time, I'll sell it to someone who will appreciate this TV as much as me or even more. Thank you
I bet this would be amazing if you had never seen a TV before.
That is awesome!!!
so glad you like it. thank you
That's what SHE said!
@@phonohound And, as he said to her!
That is so cool, now you got me interested on these old televisions, did these old things use film
actually no. there was a studio where the entertainer wore a ton of makeup to distinguish their features as the cameras amd lights washed them out. then the picture was transmitted over the air via shortwave amd the sound via AM radio vaves. you need a shortwave receiver and AM radio to see and listen. This is why it is called a television set.
@@phonohound interesting, I didn't think there were TV stations out back then in 1929
This is so cool!!
Glad you liked it.
@@phonohound it is so hard to come by good videos of working mechanical TVs. Thank you so much for giving us all the opportunity to watch this.
@@regenceaudio You're welcome. I thought the same thing, which is why I wanted to do it.
I wish we could see some of the shows that were actually broadcast, but I guess that means it'd have to be filmed, which isn't very likely.
none could be filmed. the video was too fast and too dim for any cine camera.
it can't even be recreated today. the trouble of creating a scanner, studio etc. would be way too much for the quality of the image.
Even the smallest smartphone has a bigger screen. That huge box all for only that tiny screen looks ridiculous.
I remember the early gas televisions!
Never seen a working Nipkow disc tv before. If memory serves it was invented in Scotland, the first image transmitted was of a static doll/ model of Felix The Cat, and that's all I recall. I do remember the first pubic broadcast was of the 1936 Berlin Olympics but no numbers on how many people in Berlin had televisions. Some interesting reading if you look up the makeup the early television performers had to wear because of the intensity of the lights and how changing the frame rate of the broadcast signal from 30 fps to 29.97 fps facilitated the advent of color tv broadcasting. Also helps if you're a nerd.
First public broadcast in GB was 1929, using the Baird System, and carried by the BBC .
From 1929 to 1935, Baird programmes were transmitted regularly, and from 1932 onwards the BBC took over production as well, appointing Eustace Robb as Producer (Television).
Robb made and transmitted 1500 half-hour shows between 1932 and closure in 1935.
Stooky Bill
Known as 'Stookie Bill' or 'Stooky Bill', this ventriloquist's dummy was used by John Logie Baird (1888-1946) in his experimental television work. The lights for the experiments were so hot Baird couldn't use a human for the tests.
In Scots, a Stookie means a plaster cast covering a broken limb. The vent figure's head was made from Plaster, hence "Stookie Bill"
For anyone interested, it cost about 2000$ adjusting for inflation from 1929. Honestly not bad!
What a remarkable accomplishment.
Thank you very much.
In order for this set to properly work, do you need two radio receivers? One for the picture and one for the sound?
Back in 1929, yes. The shortwave receiver was for pictures and the AM radio was for sound. Fast forward to 2020, there is a converter box connected to a DVD player and an AM transmitter to accomplish the task.
OMG that riff family guy used
Amazing.
Glad you think so!
increible que aun funcione
I'm interested in the video converter you are using. Any info of where you got it? or how you built it? Thanks..
hi. I'm using the aurora single converter. Not sure if they still make these. Look up aurora and mechanical television on Google.