@71shoelover The video technologies that we have nowadays didn't simply appear by magic. In 1972, who could have imagined being able to store high definition video on a memory card the size of a thumbnail? Such a concept was even beyond 1972 science-fiction.
@71shoelover Well, another 40 years of advancement certainly won't bring my old electronics job back. But do I want a return to the old days? By that time, they'd have had to address the sociological turmoil that's brewing away as a consequence of the imbalance in technical progress Vs social progress. This is currently being muted by fiddling the figures. Unfortunately, another 40 years won't bring that rather lovely girl back, either.
@71shoelover I bought my first digital camera in 2002, and that old Nikon 2-megapixel still works fine. Actually, I now use a 1-gig CF1 flash card in that old Nikon camera, which makes it good for about 22 gazillion shots. I've got a 2004 5-megapixel camera that still works fine, a digital camera that doubles as a 720p camcorder, and a 1080p camcorder that doubles as a digital camera. The old 35mm film cameras look like simple kid's toys compared to them.
@clemstevenson I have done some research the EMI-2001 camera in this video had been out for almost 5 Years when this video was made. The BBC got there first EMI-2001 Camera's around early 1968. If I told you the last TV Show that was recorded using an EMI-2001 Camera you would think I was INSANE.Here we go,The last TV show recorded using an EMI-2001 Camera Was in July 1991. (An episode of Eastenders) That is 23 Years service. I also have a 2006 6-Megapixel Nikon camera I love it.
@71shoelover Yes, I've found info on Wikipedia. The 2001 started off under the prototype title of 2000 (first used by the BBC in 1967, and fitted with vidicon tubes). The 2001 included fourth tube, supplying luminance data. It was re-launched as the 2001 in 1968, the fitted with plumbicon tubes. The BBC acquired some old 2001s from ATV when they purchased the Elstree site. Having inherited more 2001s, the BBC were able to keep the old 2001 cameras going until 1991, through cannibalisation.
@71shoelover 6-megapixels is more than adequate. But it gets me when people tell me about their 7-megapixel cameras that only have fixed-focus lenses. This guy was mocking my cameras, because they had auto-focus via telescopic lens tubes. He thought that my cameras were really stupid. But he had 7-megapixels of definition, and a fixed-focus plastic lens? That's like using classic Ilford FP4 film in a box brownie.
@clemstevenson I 100% agree with you ,My 6-Megapixel camera Nikon D40 DSLR camera has changable lens at it will PISS ALL OVER ANY 16-Megapixel point and shoot cameras with fixed-focus lens for image quality. The pictures my Nikon D40 DSLR camera produce are up there with the best.
@71shoelover Very true. I actually don't need more than 3-megapixels tops with a point-and-shoot, although more pixels allow for heavy cropping. I've got one camera that can give me 12-megapixels. That size is a complete waste of memory space. I've got a camcorder that can also produce 14-megapixel stills. No point at all.
@clemstevenson You are 100% correct. My friend has a camera that can produce 18-megaixel stills. No point at all. Total overkill. I will be keeping my 6-megapixel Nikon D40 Camera until it no longer works.
@71shoelover Instead of extra megapixels, it would be better to just to concentrate on the maximisation of sensor speed & quality. In 2011, Hasselblad started shipping a 200 megapixel camera. Yes, 200 megapixel! It's a hellishly expensive camera, and I'd wager that 200 megapixels is better than the fine grain of emulsions used in yesteryear's 120-size roll films.
@clemstevenson Nikon did just that with the D40 DSLR camera. They concentrated on sensor speed and quality rather than just cram the sensor full of pixels. Like Canon the canon 550d
@71shoelover Megapixels become pointless, if the sensor is crap. I, for one, can't print anything larger than A4 on my laser printer. Indeed, I don't think that my laser printer can reproduce anything at such a high resolution. As a matter of fact, I can see the resolution limitations of my laser printer with a magnifying glass.
Yes, this episode is the first included on Network's recent Magpie DVD release...it's also the first to feature Mick Robertson as presenter as one of the original hosts, Tony Bastable, is kicked upstairs...to the director's chair!
Susan Stranks. I definitely remember her. Very posh listening to her now all these years later. Never realised it at the time.
n1a31y161r 4 days ago
That woman is sexy looking.
jaworskij 1 week ago
I want an LDK 13 so bad.
japhyriddle 3 months ago
You simply can't get the high grade coal required to run those cameras nowadays.
clemstevenson 3 months ago 3
@clemstevenson LOL This was a state of the art camera when this was filmed.
71shoelover 1 week ago
@71shoelover The video technologies that we have nowadays didn't simply appear by magic. In 1972, who could have imagined being able to store high definition video on a memory card the size of a thumbnail? Such a concept was even beyond 1972 science-fiction.
clemstevenson 1 week ago
@clemstevenson That is so true. I wonder what the next 40 Years will bring
71shoelover 1 week ago
@71shoelover Well, another 40 years of advancement certainly won't bring my old electronics job back. But do I want a return to the old days? By that time, they'd have had to address the sociological turmoil that's brewing away as a consequence of the imbalance in technical progress Vs social progress. This is currently being muted by fiddling the figures. Unfortunately, another 40 years won't bring that rather lovely girl back, either.
clemstevenson 1 week ago
@71shoelover PS. The other major problem with another 40-years is that I'll be 95, or 96. In October 2052, if I get there, I'll be 96.
clemstevenson 1 week ago
@clemstevenson. LOL I did not like digital cameras when they first went on sale, Now I would not thank you for a 35mm film camera.
71shoelover 1 week ago
@71shoelover I bought my first digital camera in 2002, and that old Nikon 2-megapixel still works fine. Actually, I now use a 1-gig CF1 flash card in that old Nikon camera, which makes it good for about 22 gazillion shots. I've got a 2004 5-megapixel camera that still works fine, a digital camera that doubles as a 720p camcorder, and a 1080p camcorder that doubles as a digital camera. The old 35mm film cameras look like simple kid's toys compared to them.
clemstevenson 1 week ago
@clemstevenson I have done some research the EMI-2001 camera in this video had been out for almost 5 Years when this video was made. The BBC got there first EMI-2001 Camera's around early 1968. If I told you the last TV Show that was recorded using an EMI-2001 Camera you would think I was INSANE.Here we go,The last TV show recorded using an EMI-2001 Camera Was in July 1991. (An episode of Eastenders) That is 23 Years service. I also have a 2006 6-Megapixel Nikon camera I love it.
71shoelover 6 days ago
@71shoelover Yes, I've found info on Wikipedia. The 2001 started off under the prototype title of 2000 (first used by the BBC in 1967, and fitted with vidicon tubes). The 2001 included fourth tube, supplying luminance data. It was re-launched as the 2001 in 1968, the fitted with plumbicon tubes. The BBC acquired some old 2001s from ATV when they purchased the Elstree site. Having inherited more 2001s, the BBC were able to keep the old 2001 cameras going until 1991, through cannibalisation.
clemstevenson 6 days ago
@71shoelover 6-megapixels is more than adequate. But it gets me when people tell me about their 7-megapixel cameras that only have fixed-focus lenses. This guy was mocking my cameras, because they had auto-focus via telescopic lens tubes. He thought that my cameras were really stupid. But he had 7-megapixels of definition, and a fixed-focus plastic lens? That's like using classic Ilford FP4 film in a box brownie.
clemstevenson 6 days ago
@clemstevenson I 100% agree with you ,My 6-Megapixel camera Nikon D40 DSLR camera has changable lens at it will PISS ALL OVER ANY 16-Megapixel point and shoot cameras with fixed-focus lens for image quality. The pictures my Nikon D40 DSLR camera produce are up there with the best.
71shoelover 6 days ago
@71shoelover Very true. I actually don't need more than 3-megapixels tops with a point-and-shoot, although more pixels allow for heavy cropping. I've got one camera that can give me 12-megapixels. That size is a complete waste of memory space. I've got a camcorder that can also produce 14-megapixel stills. No point at all.
clemstevenson 6 days ago
@clemstevenson You are 100% correct. My friend has a camera that can produce 18-megaixel stills. No point at all. Total overkill. I will be keeping my 6-megapixel Nikon D40 Camera until it no longer works.
71shoelover 5 days ago
@71shoelover Instead of extra megapixels, it would be better to just to concentrate on the maximisation of sensor speed & quality. In 2011, Hasselblad started shipping a 200 megapixel camera. Yes, 200 megapixel! It's a hellishly expensive camera, and I'd wager that 200 megapixels is better than the fine grain of emulsions used in yesteryear's 120-size roll films.
clemstevenson 5 days ago
@clemstevenson Nikon did just that with the D40 DSLR camera. They concentrated on sensor speed and quality rather than just cram the sensor full of pixels. Like Canon the canon 550d
71shoelover 5 days ago
@71shoelover Megapixels become pointless, if the sensor is crap. I, for one, can't print anything larger than A4 on my laser printer. Indeed, I don't think that my laser printer can reproduce anything at such a high resolution. As a matter of fact, I can see the resolution limitations of my laser printer with a magnifying glass.
clemstevenson 5 days ago
@clemstevenson Very true. Megapixels are pointless if the sensor is crap.
71shoelover 5 days ago
I'm amazed - I haven't cringed yet. I don't feel patronized. Perfect; I'm learning something from a kids' show that doesn't speak down.
...where have they all gone?
callwithcurrentconti 6 months ago
Interesting how rigs and shoulder supports havent changing in 40 years!
GanEdenAustralia 6 months ago
I wonder. The shoulder camera must be pretty heavy. The box on your back, OMG, i wonder how much that all weighs back then.
BBT609 8 months ago
@BBT609 well it took 4 men to lift an EMI 2001 itself, without the pedestal or the viewfinder attached!
AidanLunn 4 months ago
@AidanLunn Did the shoulder camera weight about 70 or 80 ibs?
BBT609 4 months ago
@BBT609 I've no idea about the shoulder camera. I measure in kilograms, so maybe 20-25kg without the backpack?
So if e say it's 23kg, then it would be 50.6lb (23x2.2 - there are 2.2 pounds to every kilo)
AidanLunn 4 months ago
Heh... would you believe I found a 16BL with two excellent prime lenses (but one blimp short) in a skip a year or so ago... how things change.
toresbe 9 months ago
Yes, this episode is the first included on Network's recent Magpie DVD release...it's also the first to feature Mick Robertson as presenter as one of the original hosts, Tony Bastable, is kicked upstairs...to the director's chair!
BlackersOldBean 11 months ago