Not sure is this SSTV

[Harry Dalek]

Came across this not SSTV but SLOW SCAN TV

Screenshot 2024-02-29 193946.png (209.58 KiB) Viewed 4404 times

If there's a will there's a way !

[KeithE4Phx]

This looks like something that was supposed to scan each frame at a slower rate, send it over the cable similar to an SSTV audio signal, and then put back together on film. The film would then be developed, and would have run on a projector and scanned at a normal TV standard.

This is a new one on me, so I have no idea how well, or even if, it worked. It's theoretically possible, but how practical it was, I don't know.

[Steve Anderson]

Is this SSTV? Sort of. The whole idea is to reduce the bandwidth to fit the Transatlantic Cable bandwidth and restore it at the receiving end. How much faster than an aircraft of the time was it? Recall there's two stages of film processing involed and the reduced bandwidth stretches out the 'transmission' time. There were fast film processing arrangements in place at this time, some less than 60 seconds with the film being scanned thile it was still wet or very damp. Messy!

It was a solution until the VTR came along, the BBCs VERA being one, if not THE first. Not long after the Ampex Quadraplex VTR was released using 2" open-reel video tape. No messy chemicals required. But editing the tape was a nightmare compared to film.

Steve A.

[Dave Moll]

How much faster than an aircraft of the time was it? Recall there's two stages of film processing involed and the reduced bandwidth stretches out the 'transmission' time. There were fast film processing arrangements in place at this time, some less than 60 seconds with the film being scanned thile it was still wet or very damp. Messy!

As to the first question, that is entirely dependent on the length of the item - directly proportional to the transmission time for this but has no effect on air freight time.

As to film processing, this presumably only relates to recreation of film at the receiving end, as in both cases it starts as film at the transmitting end.

The article stated that the items sent this way were generally less than half a minute in length, so would take about 50 minutes to cross the Atlantic. Even Concorde (when it was flying) let alone the aircraft of the day, would struggle to compete with that. The approximate break-even point would have come by taking the total shipping time (flight plus getting to and from the plane) and dividing by 100, then subtracting any film processing time at the receiving end.

[Steve Anderson]

One way (very slightly) to reduce the total air-route time would be to process the film on-board the aircraft. But there's still no way this could be faster than the cable.

If you've been to Duxford Airfield near Cambridge in the UK, they have/had one of the prototype Concordes on static display. Still with a large percentage of all the aircraft monitoring equipment in situ. Most of what would have been passenger space is filled with test gear. A simple monochrome film processing arrangement maybe would have just taken up just a few seat-spaces.

I suggest checking that the Concorde is still on display and if you can walk on-board. The last time I was there was in the 90s, things change. Call first, phone numbers on this website...

https://www.iwm.org.uk/visits/iwm-duxford

It's part of the Imperial War Museum, has many civilian and military aircraft on display and occasional air-display events, again check first. If you are a private pilot you can fly in. Your landing fee acts as an admission charge. But, again check first. Likewise the fuel arrangements (if any). The last time I landed at Duxford was June '95, I didn't need fuel on that occasion.

Steve A.