Talk:Telechrome

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Telechrome. 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/20100105183213/http://novia.net/~ereitan/Color_Sys_CBS.html to http://novia.net/~ereitan/Color_Sys_CBS.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Lenticular television

On your talk page (moving the topic here) you noted:I

"There are no lenticules (cylindrical lenses) in 3D or 2D Telechrome"

The basis of the 3-gun 3-colour telechrome was a screen with a pattern of prisms on the back. Baird states the concept is to "...use three colour elements by using a screen of transparent plastic material with a series of parallel ridges moulded in the back surface." and this is shown in the Popular Mechanics article.

Perhaps you are confusing the terminology? Lenticular printing, in spite of its name, does not have to use cylindrical lenses. Prisms are used when full separation of the images is desired, as in the case of 3D, but this is still referred to as lenticular. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Alleged "Lenticular" Telechrome

"Perhaps you are confusing the terminology?"

You disappoint me. Pettiness has no place here.

Please look at the lenticule closeup on this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenticular_lens

Note the caption: "A series of CYLINDRICAL lenses molded in a plastic substrate." (My emphasis.) On the Web, I've found plentiful examples of this type of lenticule. I agree that there are other ways of bending images or separating views. That's incidental. The printing industry seems to have settled on the method in the Wikipedia article (and elsewhere on the Web). I worked on display projects with similar tech.

Your "lenticular Telechrome" paragraph contains a sentence that starts this way: "The basic concept is identical to the lenticular printing system used in magazines..." But: Telechrome's serrated ridges simply aren't "identical to the lenticular printing system."

A related point about lenticular prints: Lenticular lenses pull parts of an image *under the lenses* into the viewpoint of each eye. Proposed three-color Telechrome projected two images, one each *atop* the upper and lower serrations. These differences between printing and Telechrome contradict your statement that the two concepts are "identical."

Maury: 'Baird states the concept is to "...use three colour elements by using a screen of transparent plastic material with a series of parallel ridges moulded in the back surface." and this is shown in the Popular Mechanics article.'

1. What is the source of the Baird quotation above? I don't see this quote in the Popular Mechanics article.

2. The article shows the patent drawing with ridges. The article doesn't show...

(A) Eliminating the red (rear) gun.

(B) Rotating the tube.

(C) The effect of viewing a picture with only green and blue illumination.

(D) How rotation can change the operation of the ridges. According to your speculation: When the ridges are horizontal, they allow both eyes to see one image. When the ridges are vertical, they allow each eye to see a different image. This assertion is dubious.

(E) How the Telechrome screen is "identical" to industry-standard lenticular printing. Telechrome has a phosphor-coated screen with images projecting upon it. Lenticular printing uses lenses to project images of a graphic below them. Assuming that the two are in some way "identical" (despite no explanation from Popular Mechanics): This dual-purpose Telechrome target still differs structurally from lenticular printing.

3. Suppose that you could prove item (E). In that case, Baird's invention might be plagiarism, or at least not unique.

The article just isn't a source that supports your point. There should be other sources, particularly original sources. I can't find them. The Telechrome patent is a good place to start. But it doesn't support your supposition, either. You need something that describes and explains the entire process: Eliminate one gun, rotate the tube, serrations become lenticules that erect a 3D image without glasses. Yet my sources indicate that anaglyphic glasses are a requirement for Telechrome 3D. There is no autostereographic 3D Telechrome in any museum. I suggest eliminating the paragraph. Either that, or source it explicitly.ColorWheel (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Missing references

Plastic material, parallel ridges. Previous correspondence includes the quotation below, from Wireless World (excerpt by Maury Markowitz).

"'Baird states the concept is to "...use three colour elements by using a screen of transparent plastic material with a series of parallel ridges moulded in the back surface." and this is shown in the Popular Mechanics article.'"

No mention of 'lenticular.' The argument is that this quote somehow applies to lenticular autostereography. Wrong. Instead, the quote refers exclusively to color separation.

Missing citations. The article still requires references to support alleged lenticular Telechrome autostereography. Neither of the given citations (Wireless World, Popular Mechanics) mentions lenticular autostereography. Ray Herbert explicitly says (p. 26) that Telechrome 3D required glasses.

"The blue-green and orange-red images formed a stereoscopic pair and were viewed through colour spectacles."

Quoting Electronics for October 1944, Russell Burns (p. 380) also mentions the necessity of color glasses with Telechrome 3D.

"The tubes give excellent stereoscopic television images when used with a stereoscopic transmitter, the blue-green and orange-red images forming a stereoscopic pair and being viewed through colour glasses."

The Wikipedia article requires new references to prove the claim of lenticular autostereography.ColorWheel (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Different type of lenticular printing

Maury Markowitz: "Lenticular printing, in spite of its name, does not have to use cylindrical lenses. Prisms are used when full separation of the images is desired, as in the case of 3D, but this is still referred to as lenticular."

That statement requires a reference. ColorWheel (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)