Date : Wed, 03 Aug 2011 04:08:24
From : rs423@... (Mick)
Subject: [BeebSoc] Auntie, dear Auntie
Rick Murray wrote:
> On 03/08/2011 01:36, Mick wrote:
>
>>> Give 'em credit, the FCC mandated everything had to support captions,
>>> so you'll find caption-capable NTSC videotapes. That's something we
>>> never sussed.
>> How did you access the subtitles? Surely the picture from a VHS is too
>> unstable?? Are you yanking my chain???
>
> I remember Mullard used to do Teletext (WST) sets in America, but when
I vaguely remember seeing the Mullard factory in Hackbridge (Surrey).
1980? Pretty sure it's long been demolished.
> Closed Caption was mandated as a law, they dropped WST because the two
> systems were similar (hidden in the VBI) but different.
Okay.
>
> My guess is, given that you don't need a lot of data for subtitling,
> that the bitrate was a lot slower, leading to something that *could*
> be read out from a video recording.
It still needs to be stable enough to be read without missing a bit. I
guess you'd need a VERY good machine even with low data requirements.
Have you ever tried going into text while playing a VCR? All you get is
junk although the quality of junk varies from one machine to another.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_captioning
From the above
> For home videotapes, a variation of the Line 21 system is used in PAL
> countries. Teletext captions can't be stored on a standard VHS tape
> (due to limited bandwidth), although they are available on S_VHS
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-VHS> tapes.
So what is the difference between line 21 and teletext that wobbly VHS
can cope with I wonder? This topic has got me thinking of digging out my
teletext adaptor again. I've found a place that has reminded me how to
use ATS.
<http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/themicrouser/issues/05-03/atsrom.htm>
The trouble is the signal here has been terrible since they put a up new
metal roof. Saves wearing the tin foil inside the hat though :-D Here's
hoping the new communal ariel starts working soon.....
>
>
>> But it's all we had. Our BBS did all the work for us.
>
> The only thing I lament about BBSs was the fact it could not
> parallel-task. You could not fire off a download and leave it running
> while you looked at messages or searched for other files.
That's true, but seeing as I used my BBC to communicate with BBSs it
didn't matter much as everything was single task.
>
>> I wonder how many computers are still fidonetting?
>
> I have been led to believe that there is something of a war regarding
> those Mennonites who wrap up their fido packets and push them around
> the Internet....
So long as the data gets from A <> B who cares? Don't answer that. ;-)
>
>
>>> [Amstrad @-mailer, anybody?]
>> Yes, I was given one. Still got it. Had a half hour play.
>
> Doesn't do much out of the box, does it?
Aside from want you to enter your details and register, it did nothing
IIRC. I'm almost tempted to pull it out of the box and attempt to
register just to see if it can. Perhaps Sir AMS has fired the project. I
mean fried ;-)
>
>
>> Is there any way of hacking it?
>
> http://www.cowlark.com/amstrad/
> http://inputplus.co.uk/ralph/emailer/index.html
>
I've bookmarked those pages, thanks. It seems it may have a life in
store for it after all.
>
>
>>> I think in total I watched maybe three episodes? I didn't much like
>>> their accents...
>> Don't visit Liverpool then.
>
> must.. resist.. temptation..
Hehehehe!
>
>
>>> [bonus points if you know why I chose this specific thing]
>> It looks very interesting. No bonus for me though.
>
> What it is:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_5100
> Prices ranged from $11,000 (16k model) to $20,000 (64k).
Eek!
Mick.