Richard it would help immeasureably to follow the discussion if you would
separate the various replies in the posts as other list-members do. Otherwise
it appears as an incredible jumble including your reply.
Lawrence
See below, plz.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Duell" <ard(a)p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2002 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Bell & Howell Apple II update
> The discussion was about microcomputers and,
specifically, the video
connector
> on the Apple ][. When the Apple ][ came
out, cable TV was not yet a
common
No it is not. You are darn good at subtly changing the terms of an
argument and thus proving your point to be correct.
That was not my intent at any point since it really doesn't matter whether I
prove my point or not. However, it's possible I misunderstood what the point
was. If that's the case, I certainly apologize. > > This discussion is about
connectors that were used for composite video at > the approximate time of the
Apple ][. Not whether or not the Apple ][ > (itself) ever used that connector. >
That's certainly not disputable. One needs merely to look. I certainly didn't
perceive THAT to be central to the discussion. I certainly inferred from the
reference to the Apple ][ and from allusions to various other related details,
that it was video signal of that era's microcomputers that were at the heart of
the discussion, and not the more general field of television signals. > > Nobody
is disputing that the external video connector on an Apple ][ is > an RCA phono
socket. > There seemed, initially, to be some doubt about whether the BNC's were
used on/with video signal from microcomputers of that time, however. > > >
reality (That changed rapidly in the early '80's, but, in '77-'78, was
not yet >
the case.) Video in this context, did not
include notions like the VCR and >
set-top boxes, nor did it include other sorts of equipment that most folks > >
outside the TV production industry had not even yet seen, simply because it >
>
At the time of the Apple ][, few people owned any video equipment other > than a
TV set. Maybe a VCR, but if so, then it was connected to the TV > set via the
aerial socket (the VCR had an internal modulator). Most home > TVs, at least the
ones sold in the UK, did not have composite video input > sockets, or similar. >
The Honeywell VTR I had back then (1977) used the UHF connectors, IIRC. I never
used it, though I did use the camera that came with it from time to time, though
not for any of the obvious purposes. I doubt I'd even seen a VCR at that time,
and if I did, it was probably a Beta type, normally found in "component"
groups
rather than an integrated VHS unit as we have come to know and love. > > [As an
aside, the first home VCR sold in the UK didn't have a composite > video input
or output either. It had an audio input/output socket (a 5 > pin DIN) and a
video output (separate luma and chroma), also a DIN > socket, for use with a
specially-modified TV. The optional video camera > included a modulator and
connected to the aerial input. ] > > Also at the time of the Apple ][ there were
no special > microcomputer monitors. > Which is exactly the reason folks went
out looking for "something that would work" yet not break the bank. The TV
hardware that sported BNC connectors was generally out of reach for use in the
microcomputer market. Since microcomputer graphics hardware of the time wasn't
able to make full utilization of an NTSC monitor, it made little sense to buy a
monitor for that purpose that was in the "high-end" market, and that's
where the
then somewhat rapidly evolving repertoire using the more modern connection
hardware was to be found. Things are different now, of course. > > So if you
wanted to display the output of an Apple ][ you had 2 main > choices. Either get
an RF modulator, connect it to the header plug inside > the Apple (which carried
power and composite video) and plug the other > end into the aerial socket of a
TV. > What I remember was that the modulator was tuned to channel 3 and, since
that was, then, scarcely used, it could be received by the TV tuner without much
help. I also remember seeing commercial 75-ohm RG-59 (coax) cables that had an
RCA plug at one end and a PL-259 at the other, and, in fact, still have one. > >
The other was to link up a standard composite video (mono, or NTSC > colour)
monitor. One used for CCTV applications, or security, or.... It's > the
connector on those monitors that this discussion seems to be about. > > I will
happily agree that one popular connector on such monitors was the > 'UHF'
(PL259, SO239) connector. But another was most definitely the 75 > ohm BNC. >
I've never seen in the flesh or in catalogs of various sorts, monitors for
low-end (costing as much as or less than an equivalent TV set) video equipment
that had BNC connectors on it. I do recall that some of the "component"
monitors from Hitachi, SONY and others, intended for the high-end NTSC market
had/have BNC's, however. The typical monitor on a microcomputer was of 9" -
12" diagonal, however, and these guys were in the 20"-27" range. No doubt
there
were smaller ones, but for composite displays used on a microcomputer, which I,
oddly enough, concluded was what was being discussed, the connectors were either
the PL/SO-259 type, or the RCA type, to wit, the LEEDEX model I still have in
the original box, albeit well used, from 1978. The remaining models I have
tucked away all have the SO259 on their backs, and none have BNC's. The first
place in a microcomputer video application that I saw with a BNC was on a
Sync-On-Green monitor attached to a CAD system of the early '80's.