January 27, 1953: First Public Broadcast Demonstration of RCA-NTSC Color Television

[Penthode]

I came across the RCA Petition to the FCC on behalf of the NTSC for the color standard. On January 27,1953, over the air tests of what was to become the final NTSC color standard began to test consumer reactions to the compatibility of the system to viewers home receivers and reception in the field to prototype color receivers.

In 1952, after almost a year of testing CPA (Color Phase Alternation), the NTSC, by December 1952 had arrived at the assymmetrical chroma bandwidth solution (I, Q). The concern was a tradeoff between chroma resolution vs quadrature crosstalk. The CPA plan for PAF (Phase Alternate Field) and PAL (Phase Alternate Line) to compensated for the planned vestigial sideband chroma channel could not be made to work without flicker artifacts. We have to appreciate that the 64us glass delay line later used for PAL decoders was not to become available for many years and without it, PAL had to be ruled out. So RCA and the NTSC reached the compromise whereby the I chroma channel would be 1.5MHz wide and the Q 500kHz wide.

According to the petition document, January 1953 was spent by by RCA modifying the broadcast and receiving equipment leading up to the first public over the air testing on January 27, 1953 over RCA-NBC's WNBT-TV channel 4. Interestingly, the live 15minute color broadcasts orginated from Studio 3H from the RCA Building at Rockefeller Center, the first equipted color studio in the world. Studio 3H was also historic as it was from there the first public fully electronic over the air test broadcast occurred on July 7, 1936 (a month before the BBC's first demonstration at Radio Olympia in August 1936). Incidentally Studio 3H is currently the home of the daily live broadcast of MSNBC' "All In with Chris Hayes".

Test broadcasts of what was to become the standard commenced on January 27 with the NTSC voting to accept the standard on February 2, 1953. The RCA-NTSC petition leading to the FCC acceptance on December 17,1953 is attached here.

The petition includes details the two receivers that the RCA used: Prototypes number 3 and 4. Prototype 4 bear a resemblance to Prototype 5 and the CT100. Unfortunately the schematic diagrams published in the on linepetition pdf cannot be clearly discerned.

Here is the link to the 700 page petition document.

https://worldradiohistory.com/BOOKSH...n-FCC-1953.pdf

[etype2]

I’ve read this report, excellent reading for anyone interested in early television. Remember though, Hazeltine, Philco, General Electric, Westinghouse along with more than 45 other contributors developed the final 1953 specifications.

RCA deserves credit as the driver of color television, NBC, ETC., but not the sole inventor.

[Penthode]

Originally Posted by etype2

i’ve read this this report, excellent reading for anyone interested in early television. Remember though, hazeltine, philco, general electric, westinghouse along with more than 45 other contributors developed the final 1953 specifications.

Rca deserves credit as the driver of color television, nbc, etc., but not the sole inventor.

agreed!

[etype2]

So interesting to see the early RCA television receivers and the extent of the field trials with the public. It is amazing to see the quality of the 15GP22 using today’s technology signals. 69 year technology and counting.

[kvflyer]

Originally Posted by etype2

So interesting to see the early RCA television receivers and the extent of the field trials with the public. It is amazing to see the quality of the 15GP22 using today’s technology signals. 69 years and counting.

I will admit to only getting interested in Colour Television in the mid 60s and never knew about the 15GP22. I would love to see one. From pictures that I have seen, they must have been stunning.

[dtvmcdonald]

The most amazing thing about the CT-100 is the optimum viewing distance. I'm
78 years old and have perfect vision except that I can't focus at all. I'm focused precisely at infinity for yellow light. So I own piles and piles of cheap "reading glasses"
all the way from 0.5 to 3.2 diopters. You can't seem to buy 0.5 ones so I made my own from surplus lenses glued in frames. Using 0.5 diopter ones I pretty much good out to 15 feet. I always used optimal ones.

So on several occasions I've watched TV on my set trying different distances
with glasses optimal for that distance. I've used my own test patterns, "Digital Video Essentials" and two versions of the Wizard of Oz on DVD and Blu-Ray, and OTA TV from a convertor box, over a B-T agile modulator on channels 3, 11, and 39. The OTA
TV was mostly baseball and football. I've shown most of my own pattern's results in this forum.

The result is that three to four feet is optimal. At those distances I can still see a bit of the color dots. At six feet they are pretty much gone. Yet I prefer closer, as there
is still more real detail to see.

I simply do not notice the Q channel poor response except in one particular case: Minnesota Vikings games on nice bright green grass fields. The Jets, Ravens, and Eagles for some reason don't seem to be a problem, probably because they are darker even though they are also essentially pure + or - Q. The Vikings are distressingly blurred. Interesting tidbit: you can find RGB values for all NFL team colors via a simple Google search. For that much money changing hands, apparently such things matter a lot!

[Jeffhs]

I don't know for the life of me why everyone says NTSC color television was invented in the year 1953. I don't think so. In the first place, black-and-white TV was not invented until the late 1940s, so why was anyone messing around with color TV in 1953? Very few people even had b&w television in the late '40s, let alone color. Don't forget, NBC invented color TV in the year nineteen fifty six, not nineteen fifty three; remember the NBC peacock, which was shown over the network before every color broadcast? NBC always made an annoucement before every color broadcast it showed: "The following program is brought to you in living color on NBC", with customized versions of the announcement made for cities in which NBC owns stations, such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and the list goes on. NBC sold its O&O station in Cleveland twice, once in 1955 and again ten years later; the station's programming and local station IDs went from bad to worse with each sale, eventually reaching the point where it is now, with the local shows (the few which are left, thank goodness, none of which I watch because they are, IMHO, such nonsense and in many cases trash) becoming almost the worst nonsense ever seen on television, in my opinion, in northeastern Ohio. For example, whose bright (! ! !) idea was it to start showing the Cleveland station's call letters in lower-case letters at the top of the screen, practically unreadable to most people watching the program, especially in this age of HDTV? I don't watch NBC that much except for at most three shows (New Amsterdam, Chicago Med and The Good Doctor, the last on another network), but the station ID shows at the top of my TV screen in lower-case letters for perhaps five seconds and just about drives me up the wall. (This used to annoy heck out of me, but now I simply ignore it.) I couldn't care less about the station's ID, although I realize this must be shown at least once an hour in accordance with FCC regulations, so I tolerate it and enjoy the show.

[dtvmcdonald]

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

In the first place, black-and-white TV was not invented until the late 1940s, ... so why was anyone messing around with color TV in 1953? .... NBC invented color TV in the year nineteen fifty six, not nineteen fifty three; remember the NBC peacock, which was shown over the network before every color broadcast?.

B&W TV, in the form present up until about 2009, was fully formed by 1935.
Regular daily transmission of programs began November 2, 1936, in London, as did sales of TV sets
that are fully watchable on modern programs (suitably format converted.) I own a set actually
sold to a regular (well, OK, filthy rich) customer in 1938 and its completely usable.
Regular TV broadcasting in the USA began in 1939 in NYC and Los Angeles, though with only 441
lines. In spring 1941 the B&W NTSC system was formalized (none of the system changes required
new TV sets, though some channel allocations required retuning by a service person.).

Color TV in the form available until at least 2019 (locally, here in Champaign)
was fully existant by 1951. After that it was only small tweeks. The basic idea of the PAL color
system later chosen in Europe was invented in 1951, by either RCA or Hazeltine (though not the
extremely complex details of the typically baroque German PAL design used in Europe.)

I started regularly watching color TV at my uncle's house in late 1954. See
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/th...nel_5/1838273/
That station was about 1/2 mile from my uncle's house (it required a attenuator on the
feed-in line the signal was so strong.) I own the same model set he had and will probably
watch a football game on it tomorrow.

[init4fun]

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

I don't know for the life of me why everyone says NTSC color television was invented in the year 1953. I don't think so. In the first place, black-and-white TV was not invented until the late 1940s, so why was anyone messing around with color TV in 1953?........

I can't tell if Jeff is off his meds, , , , or perhaps on them, , either way I think something's gone afoul in his tomato...

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by init4fun

I can't tell if Jeff is off his meds, , , , or perhaps on them, , either way I think something's gone afoul in his tomato...

Surprising considering a Web Search is easy.
Thread has me remembering our first color set was a 21CT55 I rescued abandoned at a repair shop as a teen and got working. Bad FBT and other issues. Didn't know it was a rarity until recently, also had a TRK-12 from the original owner. Both long gone along with most of my collection when I enlisted in 1972.

[Jeffhs]

Originally Posted by init4fun

I can't tell if Jeff is off his meds, , , , or perhaps on them, , either way I think something's gone afoul in his tomato...

Excuse me all to pieces, sir, but you do not know me well enough (or at all, which is more accurate; I have never heard of you in my life, and vice-versa, until now) to make a judgement like that. It is snide remarks such as the one you just made which are causing me to consider very seriously leaving VideoKarma. I am not trying to cause trouble or anything like that, here or anywhere else on the Internet. If you do not like my posts for whatever reason, you do not have to read or respond to them, but to say you think I am off my medications (how on earth would you know that, one way or another, since you do not know me) or, worse, to say "something has gone afoul in my tomato" (I don't know what that means, but I am guessing it means you think my head isn't right, which, I assure you, is about as far from the truth as anyone can get; if you knew me at all, you would know that) just because I make a remark or two here you may not agree with is far, far too much and is, in my opinion, very inappropriate for any public forum.

[Electronic M]

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

Excuse me all to pieces, sir, but you do not know me well enough (or at all, which is more accurate; I have never heard of you in my life, and vice-versa, until now) to make a judgement like that. It is snide remarks such as the one you just made which are causing me to consider very seriously leaving VideoKarma. I am not trying to cause trouble or anything like that, here or anywhere else on the Internet. If you do not like my posts for whatever reason, you do not have to read or respond to them, but to say you think I am off my medications (how on earth would you know that, one way or another, since you do not know me) or, worse, to say "something has gone afoul in my tomato" (I don't know what that means, but I am guessing it means you think my head isn't right, which, I assure you, is about as far from the truth as anyone can get; if you knew me at all, you would know that) just because I make a remark or two here you may not agree with is far, far too much and is, in my opinion, very inappropriate for any public forum.

Initforfun has been publicly criticizing your looney posts here for about as long as I have been...If you don't remember him or me replying to you criticizing some of the dumber things you've posted, then you're going more senile than even I was expecting.

If you want to leave, more than one of us would be pleased if you decide to follow through.
Half the time you post I can't tell if you're intentionally trolling us or if you're reading less than a quarter of the comment you're replying to, making dumb to outright insane assumptions, getting facts wrong, then throwing in 3 repetitive off topic paragraphs of ranting about your local broadcasting stations/the signal formats they transmit in.

You're not helpful at best, extremely boringly long winded and off topic on average, and frequently out in left field. To the point a couple years ago I added you to my ignore list so by default I don't see the text of your posts and on the VERY rare occasion I decide that I want to read your drivvel I have to click each post you made to unhide it...Of the 3 people here I dislike you're the only one on that ignore list... You're that bad.
Please leave...It would make Videokarma a much nicer place.

PS initforfun, you said it!

[init4fun]

Originally Posted by Jeffhs

Excuse me all to pieces, sir, but you do not know me well enough (or at all, which is more accurate; I have never heard of you in my life, and vice-versa, until now) to make a judgement like that. It is snide remarks such as the one you just made which are causing me to consider very seriously leaving VideoKarma. I am not trying to cause trouble or anything like that, here or anywhere else on the Internet. If you do not like my posts for whatever reason, you do not have to read or respond to them, but to say you think I am off my medications (how on earth would you know that, one way or another, since you do not know me) or, worse, to say "something has gone afoul in my tomato" (I don't know what that means, but I am guessing it means you think my head isn't right, which, I assure you, is about as far from the truth as anyone can get; if you knew me at all, you would know that) just because I make a remark or two here you may not agree with is far, far too much and is, in my opinion, very inappropriate for any public forum.

Jeff, I'm only gonna say this once and then bow out, because I do not want to further muck up Penthode's thread. When you make absolute statements that are 100% mistaken, it bears correction so that future readers of these posts don't go away with the wrong information. In the first few of your mistaken posts I DID gently set the record straight with no malice or condensation. But, when it came to the point that your gaffs were almost as frequent as your posts, I began to believe that as Tom so rightly said you were purposefully posting bogus information to get a rise out of the fellow posters, the very definition of trolling. Now, please remember, respect can not be demanded, only earned, and if you want to be respected VS ridiculed fact checking your assertions would go a long way toward earning that respect. EM also touched on your continual ranting about the state of broadcasting in your area, beating the same drum in just about every thread you respond to, Jeez dude lighten up and try to embrace the ethos of "When you smile the world smiles with you, when you frown you frown alone.....

[dtvmcdonald]

Duplicate removed

[old_tv_nut]

Originally Posted by dtvmcdonald

The most amazing thing about the CT-100 is the optimum viewing distance. ...
The result is that three to four feet is optimal. At those distances I can still see a bit of the color dots. ...

The specified picture height for a 15GP22 is 8 5/8 = 8.625 inches.
NTSC nominal viewing distance is 5x picture height, = 43.125 in, = 3.59 feet.

The 15GP22 triad spacing is a bit too coarse for full NTSC resolution, so you would expect the dots to be visible at that distance.