Television digest and FM reports (Jan-Dec 1946)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

tiSRTIS CDDEl’i AUrHOaiTATIVE NEWS SERVICE OF THE VISUAL 3ROADCASTIN© AND FREQUENCY MODULATION ARTS AND INDUSTRY Tmm Tjm bt m Keirris rSHS, i319 Ci!SS£5r;BI AVL a8„ SiSaatOS 6, 8A T£U?2CK 2529 • VOl. 2, K3. 25 June 22, 1946 m BULSS, STMIBABDS CHMISEB: No object ions having been raised from any source, it's now Class A (for former Community) and Class B (for former Metropolitan and Rural ) stations in the FM nomenclature — all as explained fully in Vol. 2, Ko. 22. In formalising the Rules and Engineering Standards amendments in a June 20 order, FCC made a few additional slight changes from the proposed amendments published by us as Supplement No. 37. Accordingly, for your convenience, we are sending you the new amendments herewith in full text — Rules amendments as Supplement No. 39, Standards amendments as Supplement. No. 40. Discard Supplement No. 37 and file these new Supplements with your texts of Rules and Standards, as directed. FI2BT TELECAST SIS SUCCESS: First big league demonstration of today's television , RCA-NBC's special showings of the Louis-Conn fight V/ednesday night, was a tremendous success, should give TV the same popular impetus that Graham McNamee's 1921 broadcast of the Dempsey-Carpentier fight gave AM. When some 800 persons in Washington, mostly VIPIs (Very Important Persons Indeed) , manifest such intense preoccupation with the event itself, take the excellence of the images for granted, evince an eagerness to procure sets of their own, you can be sure that TV has arrived. Now all v/e need are more telecasters (and the event may bring recalcitrants back into the fold) and more receiving sets v;hich, with labor problems about solved and the end of materials shortages in sight, should be coming to market reasonably soon in cities having stations. It may have been a poor fight, but it was a great telecast — its success epitomized by a Washington Post v/riter's ecstatic reaction, "Wonderful stuff, this television. .. .good for a thousand year run." And by such oft-heard coBiments from viev/ers as; "Why pay |100 for a ringside seat, v/hen v/e can see this?" "Where can I get a receiver of my own?" "What's all this talk about holding television back?" The event itself, of course, was a natural for TV. Five cameras. 2 of them Image Orthicons using the new supersensitive tube that is virtually capable of seeing in the dark, all focused on the ring and the crowd for remarkably clear closeups and panoramas. Never v;as Announcer Bob Stanton obtrusive, leaving plenty of silence for the viewers' own voluble comments — always part of the fun of going to a prizefight. Even the Gillette commercials were well done, though the use of still shots, as contrasted with W'altham Watch's animated time sigiial, was not as effective as might be. More than 2 hours of main event and preliminaries held interest throughout. V/ashington' s audience in the Stabler, which saw the telecast off the coaxial (with very little loss of definition and about as well as they would have seen it off the air in Nev; York) was divided into groups of up to 50 in small rooms in which 21 receivers had been installed. Most had the 11x8 inch direct viewing tubes, some v;ere 22x11 inch projection models. There was little to choose between them; for intimate gatherings in the home, the smaller set will be entirely acceptable, should sell well if kept within the §200 range. Pleased as punch was Brig. Gen. David Sarnoff, v/hose faith in TV has been Copyright 1946 by Radio News Bureau