XPost: uk.politics.misc 
 From: pamela.uklegal@gmail.com 
  
 On 17:48  28 Jun 2019, Incubus  wrote: 
  
 > On 2019-06-28, Andy Walker  wrote: 
 >> On 28/06/2019 15:35, Incubus wrote: [Cinemas showing the Coronation:] 
 >>> Live television was the norm until recording became simpler.  Since 
 >>> cinema projection had become mainstream around the 1930s, projecting 
 >>> images posed no difficulty. 
 >> 
 >> Yes, but how did the image get to the cinema?  The TV picture was 
 >> broadcast to your set, but the cinema projectors worked [then and for 
 >> many years afterwards!] by shining a light through a long strip of 
 >> film. 
 > 
 > Couldn't the image straight from a CRT be projected? 
  
 CRT images could be projected after a fashion and some early tv sets even 
 used a form of rear projection, but the problem seems to be the lack of a 
 transducer which could handle the sheer power needed for the projected 
 image and yet still be detailed enough to pick up all the elements of a 
 moving picture. 
  
 >> If there was a mechanism for converting live TV to live film, it 
 >> certainly wasn't in widespread and common use. 
 > 
 > Film needs to be developed and processed and converting a TV image to 
 > film would result in quality degradation.. 
 > 
 >> My guess would be that any film of the Coronation in cinemas would have 
 >> been processed as quickly as possible and distributed the next day, or 
 >> even the next week, to cinemas. 
 > 
 > That's possible but, IIRC, the idea of watching it live in cinemas was 
 > brought up. 
  
 Next day Pathe Newsreels are a different proposition compared to live 
 jumbo screens. 
  
 >>> I think there might have been fewer lines in use back then but since 
 >>> we're talking about an analogue system, I don't think it would have 
 >>> been bad quality even if not up to cinema standards of the time. 
 >> 
 >>  405 lines;  and it really wasn't good quality even on a small TV. 
 >> It was also B&W.  One of the main things that cinema was getting by 
 >> 1953 that gave it an advantage over TV pictures was colour. 
 > 
 > I'd say using larger filmstock would also help, although 16mm film was 
 > still widespread in the 1970s. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)