• Ech@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      The bottom blurb does a bit better in terms of explanation, but yeah. I spent a while myself going over it, trying to discern the functions that they were attempting to illustrate. Still not entirely sure on the reproduction part, but it seems to be sort of “printing” the data onto the fresh film?

    • constantokra@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Perhaps confusing for today’s audience. Data was routinely stored on tapes and transmitted over distance. The unfamiliar part for an.audience of the time would have been sending pictures.

      From the explanation, what I gather is that the photo was basically bromen down into points where an average darkness was derived by passing a needle over the photo’s conductive surface and reading the voltage. That voltage was converted into a darkness level and recorded on the tape, which was then transmitted as usual.

      At the other end, a light was shined through the tape, concentrated on a point of the new film, which was moving in exactly the same way as the original had been moving under the needle. Obviously, more holes would amount to more light. It’s basically the same way a CRT television works, only doing it with light manually a single image at a time.

      In effect, they reduced the image from the conaiderable resolution of the original negative to a substantially smaller digital resolution with only a few levels of greyscale, then transmitted that. The fuzzy analog nature of the film used to reconstitute the image probably made that look quite a bit better than you’d expect, but either way that was then converted to a series of black dots using halftone screens for later printing in the newspaper. It’s interesting to me that it wasn’t converted to halftones first. You’d think that would objectively contain less data to transmit, and could be transmitted im black and white rather than greyscale. Perhaps the resolution of the image after being processed that way was technically more or the same amount of information. More likely, I suspect it was fast enough, and the transmitted photo was usable for more than just printing on a low quality news press.

    • cygnus
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Looks to me like they interpolated the analog photo into what are effectively pixels, and then transmitted those as zeros and ones.

    • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      they scanned lines across the image like a tv, using magnetic film with a needle to read light and dark. this was then blown up and turned into basically black and white pixels that were then focused back down to size to draw the image left to right, top to bottom. and yeah, the resolution was quite poor.

  • constantokra@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    Had the two photo machines been directly coupled over the line, the image wouldn’t have had to be digitized at all, and you would expect a considerably higher quality image. But getting the image onto paper tape allowed for the photo processing setups to be in different locations from the transmission gear, and used at diffrent times. The actual transmission of the data could go over the normal infrastructure whenever it was convenient to send it, substantially increasing the throughput of the line.

  • Ech@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    “And it only takes a week and a half, from start to finish!” /s

    Funny to think how archaic this looks by modern standards. One photo taking up a roll bigger than your fist? We’ve come a long way with just a century of progress.