Usenet archives reveal some traffic you authored regarding Newvicon cameras; is there any chance that you have any documentation for the Panasonic PK-957? I would enjoy learning the published specs, especially S/N, dynamic range, horiz. resolution, etc. I just got one from a thrift store, and indeed in provides a nice picture on one of my standard reference monitors (Sony), but takes about fifteen minutes of warmup to get best color purity and saturation. I don't yet have test charts or a light box to do a proper evaluation, but hope to soon.
Has anyone ever retrofitted the newvicon with a saticon in one of these? What is the best horiz. resolution from a single tube newvicon that you have seen? Do you suppose that this one could be coaxed to at least 400 lines?
If by chance you have a manual with schematics (digitized) would you be willing to share? (I have had _bad_ luck with pay sites that purport to have old digitized manuals).
I guess it's likely that I'm the WB you're referring to, but I don't have much recollection of those old cameras, and they were old at the time, when I had some of them.
Several models of the consumer cameras were very similar, or duplicates of other brand name models.. Quasar, RCA, Panasonic. The early consumer video gear didn't produce incredibly good images, but then it was replacing small movie film formats which had their own problems.
The only info that I know of online, would be the cable connector pinouts that are in the SER FAQ. From that era, one problem that lasted for a while, was a thick glue that the manufacturers were using to hold components in place during soldering. When the glue aged, it turned brown and it became conductive, causing all sorts of symptoms and operating problems for repair technicians. There were lots of bulletins circulating in the early 1980s regarding "brown glue" problems.
As far as service literature, Tannenbaum? or other online manual sellers or eBay for paper manuals. I don't think there were many folks involved in scanning those manuals, since scanners hadn't become popular yet.
While there may still be some of the Newvicon or other long image tubes in use for some specific applications, the image devices advanced to very short tubes in ENG electronic news gathering broadcast cameras, and further to CCD technology.
The newer 3 CCD cameras are very versatile compared to the old single long tube units. The SONY DXC units I presently have are incredibly easy to use. Some of the XC series models are extremely compact, and very hi resolution output for scientific or medical imaging. They can be fitted with microscope adapter optics, or a wide variety of CS or C-mount lenses.
For myself, I'd rather have some newer, commercial or broadcast quality technology. There is enough of it available as the 4:3 sreen format is being replaced.
Some vintage stuff is just cool to use if it can be maintained. The machining and metal content of the glass optics was surprisingly very high quality.
Most has been snarfed up in my area by station employees, etc and isn't found at the salvage places. Online used prices are beyond me ;(
My hopes for the optics as well.
I printed out a vectorized version of the EIA 1956 chart (laser printer) and illuminated it with a 75 W tungsten flood at a distance of nineteen inches and focused the PK-957 (Panasonic Omnipro) on it from a distance of five feet just filling the scanned area as viewed on the Sony reference monitor (in underscan mode). The observed horizontal resolution was 300 lines maximum and about 400 vertical lines (perhaps an artifact of scansion for the greater perceived vertical resolution?).
I wonder if I can get any better results by getting Y and C out of the camera before mixing (if I can get a schematic I would try it).
From what little archived information is to be found on the 'net, 300 horiz. lines is good for cameras of this vintage. I recommend the following book in PDF format for an overview of video technology and specifications for gear from the late 1970s to early 1980s:
formatting link
I found it interesting that there were a few two tube color cameras with greater than 500 line resolution and wonder why that system didn't become more popular; I would assume lower cost and simpler optics that three tube systems, and probably improved color registration as well.
Many applications have utilized beam splitters and 3 pickup devices for separate R-G-B (and sync) signals feeding back to the CCU camera control unit, over fairly massive and expensive cables.
The separate color signal systems were used for the tube image pickup device stages, and continued being used with CCD devices. I know less than squat about the digital video equipment in use presently, but I'll take some apart as soon as I get the chance.
I suspect that there have always been higher resolution cameras for special applications such as military/aerospace, but the TV industry didn't have much interest in utilizing higher grade equipment, as the typical TV was only capable of about 300 lines.
As the new era of hi-res digital imaging is becoming widespread in the entertainment industry, I'm not convinced that there are really any advantages as far as video viewing, other than to produce a huge new market for consumers to spend money on. For many decades it's been a highly regarded art form to darken scenes in movies and video, so now there will be countless hours of hi-resolution darkness to watch.
Also common in drama to use 'fog filters' across the camera lens 'to be kinder' to the talent in close ups. And to leave it there to prevent the next shot looking sharper. This was common enough in SD days. And what I've seen of UK HD drama continues. Sport does look good in HD though - Wimbledon especially. All they need to do now is get cameras which can cope with bright sunshine and shade. Because the sun's been shining here for once.
--
*Remember not to forget that which you do not need to know.*
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.