Talk:Kinescope

Kinetoscope
The word kinescope should not be confused with the Kinetoscope, Edison's early motion picture viewer. Walloon 23:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

27 mm
Whoever changed "35mm" to "27mm" has some 'splainin to do, as Ricky Ricardo might say. I've changed it back to "35mm". Walloon 01:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"kinoscope"
Yep; there's an article called "kinoscope". I'm assuming this is just a misspelling of kinescope, and it should be merged and redirected here. There's not much content over there, though there are some headings that might benefit this article. And redirecting "kinoscope" to here would help out people like me who dont kno hou to spel two gud.KarlBunker 23:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * At this point the redirect suggested exists.1archie99 (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Film transfers
This may only be a semantic distinction, but "kinescope" generally seems to refer mostly to the practice of preserving live television broadcasts on film; is there a point to using the phrase "tape-to-film transfer" to discuss the ongoing use of similar technology? In particular, the work of the Image Transform organization during the 1970's and 1980's advanced the quality of film transfers through the use proprietary circuitry and methods. In the days before "digital cinema" workflows, early computer animation sequences (e.g., Disney's "Tron") were transferred to film in this way; and Frank Zappa's "200 Motels" feature was imaged for theatrical release from videotape originals. Does this discussion expand the topic inappropriately? Vidwit 17:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Richard27182 (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Visual Aid
Ok, I get it, you stick a camera in front of a tv screen and bam you got it, but all the same I would like to see a picture of a kenescope or a diagram if someone has one. Might help explain some of the questions im left with like how do they acomplish the frame synch or how do they compensate for the curvature of early crts. Thanks. 71.136.15.131 06:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Sandy


 * I have added a link to a photo of a kinescope recorder. — Walloon 07:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Why was 24fps the standard?

 * Some kinescopes filmed the television pictures at the same frame rate of 30 full frames per second, resulting in more faithful picture quality than those that recorded at 24 frames per second.

It would be great if the article could explain why all kinescopes, starting from the first unit produced, weren't rigged to capture at 30 frames per second. There's no technical reason why not, is there? The only reason you'd rig it to capture at 24 fps is if you were depending on showing the film in movie theaters. All playback units could have been run at 30 fps to match. I can't think of any actual reason why they should have compromised the quality by capturing at 24 unless they really thought that showing the film in theaters was important. Tempshill (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, no, all playback units could not have been run at 30 fps to match. Existing telecines and film chains in television operations rooms were designed to run only at 24 fps. They would have to be regeared to run at a different speed. Cheaper to design one camera at the network that did a 60 field to 24 frame transfer, than to replace or regear hundreds of existing telecines at television stations. — Walloon (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Question- i love lucy
Did I Love Lucy use kinescope? or was that one of the newer shows starting to use film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.34.74 (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I Love Lucy was shot on 35mm film with film cameras. — Walloon (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that why "I Love Lucy" reruns look much clearer than other surviving shows from that same era? Blozier2006 (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the kinescope process was not used for this show. I Love Lucy was shot using three 35 mm movie film cameras running simultaneously.  The three negatives were then edited together and a final print was produced for broadcast, similar to a feature film. --Thomprod (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Quality difference
Several paragraphs have been added to the article, in the section "Last years of the kinescopes", touting how good the quality of kinescopes actually was. This sounds like an author's opinion; no sources are cited. In fact, when videotape was introduced in the 1950s, the industry opinion was virtually unanimous that the image quality of videotape was superior to that of kinescopes. I have never heard from anyone in the industry who thought that kinescope quality was equal to videotape quality.

Frederick M. Remley writes in the book Magnetic Recording: The First Hundred Years (1998), p. 128:
 * A processed photographic television recording is usually called a "kinescope recording" or, more familiarly, a "kine." Because of the many variables in the combined electronic/photographic process, the quality of such recordings often leaves much to be desired. Defects often encountered in photographic recording include relatively poor image resolution; a compressed brightness range often limited by kinescope display technology to a brightness ratio of about 40:1; nonlinearity of recordings, as exemplified by lack of gradation in both the near-white and near-black portions of the reproduced pictures; and excessive image noise due to film grain and video processing artifacts. The final signal-to-noise ratio is often less than 40 dB, especially in the case of 16 mm film.

— Walloon (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Worldwide Program Distribution
The reference, in this section of the Kinescope entry, to sending the programs to Australia has an anachronism. The coronation would not have been broadcast on TV, as the first public service happened on 16 September 1956 in Sydney. I suspect a more accurate version would refer to the telerecording being shown as part of Newsreels in cinemas.

The quality issue arising from 405->525->625 line resolution wouldn't arise until four years later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_TV — Preceding comment added by Polpmint (talk • contribs) 01:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Transferring Kinescopes to modern standards...
I don't see any discussion of this on the main article, so I'll ask here... In cases where a kinescope is the only surviving copy of something, what processes would be needed to convert that kinescope to something which can be shown on modern television or else released in current home media formats? Blozier2006 (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2012 (A UTC)
 * A kinescope, being a film recording, can easily be transferred to video and broadcast or duplicated for home media use using the telecine process. This has been done already in many cases for exactly the reason you mention.  As mentioned in the article, the kinescope does not contain all of the quality, resolution or all of the discrete video fields of the original production, and a typical transfer back to video would not restore them. In fact, due to the difference in frame rates and interlacing, the video transfer may introduce even more errors.  But, since the average person interested in viewing an historic television production preserved only on kinescope would not normally have any way of projecting the film in order to view it directly, such video transfers are useful since they may be the only way to view such productions. --Thomprod (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Telecine
You write: The newer telecine has replaced the kinescope in the post-production process. How is it possible? Telecine is the divice for transfer image on film into video. But Kinescope transferring from video to film. May be, you mean Film-recorder? Runner1616 (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Possible antedating
Tonight I saw a brief extract of what purported to be a two-minute segment of the May 1, 1939, BBC-TV broadcast of the original production of Me and My Girl. From the image tone and definition, I would swear it was, indeed, originated on 405-line video, and from the choreography, singing style, and humor, I would swear it was, indeed, from 1939. I’m afraid I have nothing further to offer.64.134.160.63 (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Removal of "fluid" look does not make a great deal of difference????
This article makes the claim that:
 * "The only slight [emphasis added] disadvantage of the system was that it removed the 'fluid' look of interlaced video and 'filmized' the picture, but this would generally not have made a great deal of difference to the viewing audiences."

I do not see any reference for this claim. (I personally find the removal of the "fluid" look of the video to be a major loss, and I'm sure many others do too.)  Unless this claim can be documented by at least one credible reference, I suggest that that statement be removed from the article. Richard27182 (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with you, Richard. --Thomprod (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * After some reflection, I'm starting to think that maybe part of this could (maybe even should) be preserved if all traces of biased point of view and undocumented (unreferenced) claims are removed. Maybe something like this:
 * One side effect of the system was that it removed the "fluid" look of interlaced video and "filmized" the picture.
 * How would you, Thomprod, and other editors feel about that? Richard27182 (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds more neutral to me, but of course even that is uncited and perhaps a cn tag should be added. DES (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If something is controversial, it should be presented in as neutral form as possible and sourced. A cn tag wouldn't be out of place if something not sourced is challenged.--Oakshade (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I want to thank everyone who helped me with their advice, whether on this page or on their own talk page, concerning my proposed edit.     I agree that it would be good to have a reference for the new version.  I looked extensively for an appropriate reference and could not find one; so the only question would be whether or not to apply the  tag.  I'm not really convinced that this is a situation that absolutely requires a reference.  I believe the statement in question would be considered common knowledge among those who know what a kinescope is and have an interest in that topic; but I'll admit that most people would probably not fall into that category.  But another criterion for whether a reference is needed is whether the material is likely to be challenged.  In this particular case, I believe a challenge is extraordinarily unlikely.      I want to actually make the edit when I'm fresh and wide awake, not in the middle of the night. So I won't be making the edit right now, so I will have time to give the matter some more thought.  But at this time I'm leaning toward making the edit without the  tag.  If anyone strongly feels that the  tag is absolutely necessary, they can always add it themselves.  Since I probably won't be doing the actual physical edit for a day or two, please feel free to add new replies. Richard27182 (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Kinescope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150707075015/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC-g-eB6Rjs to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC-g-eB6Rjs

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Kinescopes are widespread today
When movies are shot in HD or 4k and released in cinemas on film, isn't this still a kinescope? Functionally it is identical - a video image is converted to film. It's just more scan lines and better quality. Is there another name for this process? I found Film recorder which seems to be the same thing. Algr (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Addition of the term "kinescope recording" to the article
I did not remove the term "kinescope film" but I added the (technically more correct) term "kinescope recording" (along with a few references to show that that is the appropriate term). If you disagree with this edit, I ask that, rather than immediately reverting it, you please discuss your concerns here on the talk page. Richard27182 (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kinescope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110404045940/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/1994/2/1994_2_52.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/1994/2/1994_2_52.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060612201442/http://televisiontape.tv/ to http://www.televisiontape.tv/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)