Bell & Howell Apple II update

From: Lawrence Walker <lgwalker_at_mts.net>
Date: Mon Jan 28 17:36:22 2002

 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_at_p850ug1.demon.co.uk>
> To: <classiccmp_at_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.
>
>



Reply to:
lgwalker_at_mts.net
Received on Mon Jan 28 2002 - 17:36:22 GMT