Bell & Howell Apple II update

From: Dan Veeneman <dan_at_ekoan.com>
Date: Thu Jan 24 15:30:11 2002

At 08:40 PM 1/24/02 +0000, you wrote:

> > Monitors of the time, at least of the NTSC-compatible
> > type, were typically equipped with PL-259 connectors
> > on the rear.
>
> Not true, at least in the video industry.

Sorry, to keep the context I should have said "...the broadcast
video industry of the Apple ][ era in North America."

> >By the time consumer video equipment became popular,
> > the PL-259, which was also common in the '70's for other
> > 75-ohm applications e.g. antennas and the like, had been
> > replaced by the 'F' types in video hookups, since those
> > were MUCH cheaper.
>
> The PL-259 was in use primarily for carrying VHF and UHF
> signals, not baseband video.
>
>The PL259/SO259 was originally designed in the 1940's to carry
>the then high resolution 3.5MHz 405 line baseband video signal.

Do you have a reference for this? My radio books from that era
discuss the development of this type of connector in relation to
carrying modulated voice signals.

>They remained as the connector of choice, at least in europe, until
>the 70's when the more compact BNC took over. Patch pannels
>were, and are still, mostly Musa as they are easy to (un)plug
>even when packed closely.

At the time, the broadcast equipment I dealt with in the United States
and Canada were almost exclusively BNC, which is what our products
were designed for. I can't speak for Europe.

I've seen a lot of video gear with a lot of different connectors and I have no
doubt that video monitors of varying vintage can be found with nearly any type
of connector you can imagine. My objection was Dick's blanket assertion
regarding
BNC connectors in the video industry. During the time period in question,
BNC was
the standard for baseband and composite video and PL-259 was almost exclusively
for the carriage of RF in modern, well-funded broadcast video operations.


Cheers,

Dan
Received on Thu Jan 24 2002 - 15:30:11 GMT