Shame that old technology becomes worthless

[old martParticipant @oldmart]

I needed space in a cupboard and have boxed up a load of VHS films for taking to the council recycling next tuesday. Nobody wants them anymore, or the recorders/players. DVD’s are going the same way in the next few years.

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

It worries me that the computer and media industries are trying to kill off DVD’s and CD’s. There is nothing wrong with the technology (well they won’t do ultra high definition films but that does not bother me). It’s a business decision. They are driving us to online services wher you just rent the use of the content not own it. If they decide to drop a film or track that’s tough. If I pay for a film or piece of music I want to watch it when I want and that includes when the internet is down.
It could result  in a modern “dark age” where there is a loss of information.

VHS I don’t miss…

[old martParticipant @oldmart]

I use a 27″ IPS monitor using 2560 x 1440 pixels at arms length with my pc and have a 55″ HD TV with the same pixel density. The difference is that I sit 10 feet at least from the TV. So having the 4K picture is totally wasted and DVD’s look fine on it. All hype for the ignorant who are impressed by the 4K. Trouble is that TV manufacturers are in a constant competition to sell the most advanced products. I should add that having an eye test recently I could read all but the bottom line of the chart.

[VicParticipant @vic]

I still buy 4K Ultra HD films on DVD if the price is right. I’ve even bought DVD’s cheaper on Amazon than they charge for viewing online??? I’m not alone:

https://www.avforums.com/forums/4k-ultra-hd-blu-rays.272/

[Chris CrewParticipant @chriscrew66644]

I am music lover/enthusiast although I concede that there are only two kinds of music in this world, i.e. music you like and music you don’t like, so what I listen to would not be to everyone’s taste. Anyway, I put together a hi-fi set up which, at the time, would have retailed at around £10k; Musical Fidelity integrated amplifier, a Musical Fidelity cd deck and Acoustic Energy Reference 3 speakers with sub-woofer. I have never owned a cassette tape, I migrated directly from vinyl to CD when the technology emerged and had a bookcase full of them taking up room space. I have since disposed of all my CD’s, bought a good quality streamer and now us an online premium music service to stream music from my phone to the hi-fi.

However, just over a year ago I disposed of my old plasma television and replaced it with an LED screen with a matching sound bar and sub-woofer; total cost about £850. The sound bar is Bluetooth enabled and I have found that the sound quality when I ‘bluetooth’ music from my phone to it and its associated sub-woofer is not so very different (to my old ears, at least) than that from my streamed hi-fi, such is the advance in amplification and loudspeaker technology it appears. I am now considering disposing of the hi-fi to release more living space but I don’t suppose it will be worth much these days. I don’t have an Alexa but a friend of mine has and I was amazed at the sound quality that emitted from such a small device when he demonstrated it to me.

The retail hi-fi shops must be another looming casualty of the ‘High Street’ because of this advance in audio technology, although there will probably always be hi-fi enthusiasts. Even ‘cheap things’ these days seem to be of such a high quality. I can’t say I know anything about the technicalities of the new products, I just enjoy the benefits they provide although I do realise that there is a social and political cost to all of this which does concern me but a personal refusal to accept the new realities would be like crying into the Pacific for all the difference it would make.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

They used to sell hifi on high frequency response. Anything above 6khz is list to me, but I do find even a basic soundbar makes tv sound a lot better. I did have a Bose, but it died. If any electronics sizards out there want to pick it up and fix it, it would save me taking it to  the tip. No charge.

[Bo’sunParticipant @bosun58570]

Morning All,

The same situation also applies “wet (traditional)” photography.  Yes, digital photography has a lot to offer, but it’s all too easy to go snap, snap, snap and just pick the best image(s) without much thought to composition, etc.  Not to mention photoshopping.  While dodging & burning has always been around, it was never particularly easy, and also somewhat limited.  Traditional photography forces you to slow down, study and compose your subject before taking the shot.  For some of us, that gives a sense of satisfaction.  While it’s still possible to indulge in traditional photography, it’s getting more difficult due to limited film stock and processing labs.  Unfortunately, home processing is not always an option.

I’ve always hoped that traditional photography would see a resurgence like vinyl records have.

[bernard towersParticipant @bernardtowers37738]

Whilst I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph I cant see the attraction of the second. Having been an amateur photographer for over 60 years I love the ability to test expose certain shots but I still fall short of using things such as Photoshop as I believe the art is in the taking.

[Robert Atkinson 2]

On Robert Atkinson 2 Said:

It worries me that the computer and media industries are trying to kill off DVD’s and CD’s. There is nothing wrong with the technology (well they won’t do ultra high definition films but that does not bother me). It’s a business decision. They are driving us to online services wher you just rent the use of the content not own it. If they decide to drop a film or track that’s tough. If I pay for a film or piece of music I want to watch it when I want and that includes when the internet is down.
It could result  in a modern “dark age” where there is a loss of information.

VHS I don’t miss…

Robert, I would agree its a business decision, but I don’t think the IT & media industries are deliberately trying to kill off DVD’s and CD’s in favour of streaming. I think they are simply reacting to the shifting preferences of the consumer base (see Chris Crew’s post above) and the changing landscape of the media business models.

As volumes drop CD’s and DVD’s become more expensive to make because the fixed costs of mastering the media have to be shared between fewer copies. The other side of the equation is distribution. With CD’s and DVD’s the producer bears the cost of physically distributing the product all the way to the end user (includes shop costs as wholesale discount – or postage).

For a streaming service, the producer carries the distribution cost of the servers and their end of the internet link, but the consumers bear the cost of the “final mile” delivery via their internet subscription. There was some discussion a few years ago about having the major players in content distribution paying ISP’s for carrying their traffic – but I can’t remember it coming to anything.

As a business decision – consumer preference plus cost saving rapidly becomes a no-brainer. On the issue of loosing historical records, I wonder when/if the Legal Deposit rules will get updated to include streaming?

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

I had another example this morning. I got out an older Android tablet to use as an auxillary instrument panel in the car. This works via a bluetooth link to an interface plugged into the OBDII diagnostics port. The trouble started when I tried to load an uptodate app. The tablet won’t open most (if any) website due to “security issues”. Not even the Samsung web store. It a Galaxy Tab2 running Android Jellybean which is the latest veriond that will run on the hardware.
So the tablet is reduced to running existing apps tha don’t require internet access 🙁
I did have a old OBDII app on the device but it doesn’t support the hybrid features of my current vehicle.
The tablet will be relegated to use as a PDF reader for use in the workshop.

[old martParticipant @oldmart]

I took the VHS cassettes down to the local council “recycling” centre and was told to chuck them in the non recyclable waste. They don’t have a plastics skip in Weston Super Mare. Strange because we have to put metals and plastics in a bag for recycling when the bin lorry collects.

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

I have two machines which can read VHS tapes (One can copy to or from a DVD, the other can download to a PC) When they fail, life is going to be tough; home made DVDs seem to corrupt after a couple of years.

When my wife is given VHS tapes to sell for charity, no one will buy them so the cassettes are reduced to component parts. It takes ages to run the tape off into the non recyclable bin, but the remaining plastic and metal parts go for recycling.

Howard

[Bo’sun]

On Bo’sun Said:

…

 

digital photography has a lot to offer, but it’s all too easy to go snap, snap, snap and just pick the best image(s) without much thought to composition, etc. …  Traditional photography forces you to slow down, study and compose your subject before taking the shot.  …

Sorry but I disagree.  Cameras should allow photographers to capture images in the easiest way possible, not hold them back. Not thoughtlessly going snap, snap, snap is a matter of technique and training, and it’s a valid method , much used for ‘in the moment’ photography, where the action is very quick, and there’s no time for composition.

I found composing valuable for product photography, as done when a product will be advertised in a glossy magazine or on a 10m hoarding.  But it fails miserably at weddings because people develop fixed grins, look bored, or move whilst waiting for the photographer to line up his ducks.

War photographers were obliged to carry 3, 4 or more cameras, often fitted with power winders, to overcome film shortcomings, which were legion.   This chap carries 3 ready for action: one with a telescopic lens for distant shots, and two with the same close work lens simply because 36 exposures wasn’t enough.  When the shooting started, he took lots of photos and only sold the best.

Digital cameras outperform film across the board.   Their sensors are faster than firm, and have higher resolution, colour range, and contrast.  Plus, images can be processed in-camera for extra benefit: scene recognition, auto focus, frame stacking, and much else.   Back at base photo-editing software like Darktable, Photoshop, gimp and others, are considerably more powerful than developing with chemicals, and edits can be undone if you mess up.  Almost everything in the image can be tweaked: enlargements, fixing blemishes, correcting lens distortions, correcting white balance and much else.

Smart phone cameras are remarkably good, giving all but the very best film photography a run for it’s money!  Not necessary for smart phone users to understand film speed, exposures, aperture, or shutter speed etc, nor does it help much if you do.  Unless something special is going on,  let the camera sort out the details, whilst the photographer concentrates on the subject.  The camera can store thousands of images, all dirt cheap, so just keep clicking, and select the good ones.  Or record videos.  The average quality of photography is much higher than before, not least because it’s been deskilled.

The downside from a film photographers point of view is having to learn computer skills, which ain’t easy late in life.

Model Engineering is one of the few exceptions where old school skills are still valuable.  Shiny metal objects that move are difficult to photograph well.  A camera on a tripod with controlled lighting, backgrounds and manual settings will do better than snap, snap, snap , provided the photographer knows his stuff.  Nonetheless, many of the pictures on the forum and in the magazine are “good enough” despite being taken without doing anything special.

My uncle was dead against pocket calculators.  Thought civilisation would end unless everyone was good at mental arithmetic.  He bought one when VAT was charged at 17.5%, or ⁷⁄₄₀ …

With few exceptions most old technology becomes worthless because better is available or circumstances have changed.  Sadly many of the skills learned in my youth have become useless.  Being able to do £sd, work a slide-rule, typewrite,  change a car’s points, repair valve TV sets, press Button B, and jump on the back of a bus; all gone!  Gas lighting, trams, Hat Shops, 2LO, constipation remedies, horse transport, Nutty Slack, Telegrams, and dressing for dinner are all before my time!

🙂

Dave

 

 

[Howard Lewis]

On Howard Lewis Said:

I have two machines which can read VHS tapes (One can copy to or from a DVD, the other can download to a PC) When they fail, life is going to be tough; home made DVDs seem to corrupt after a couple of years.

When my wife is given VHS tapes to sell for charity, no one will buy them so the cassettes are reduced to component parts. It takes ages to run the tape off into the non recyclable bin, but the remaining plastic and metal parts go for recycling.

Howard

Whose DVD-Rs are ou using and how are you storing tham. I have decades old DVD-R and DVD-RW disks that still work perfectly. I’ve only had issues when physically damaged.

[Kiwi BlokeParticipant @kiwibloke62605]

Old tech may become functionally worthless (debatable and/or a matter of opinion?), but hang on to it long enough and some sucker enthusiast will pay an inflated price for it…

[Robert Atkinson 2]

On Robert Atkinson 2 Said:

It worries me that the computer and media industries are trying to kill off DVD’s and CD’s. There is nothing wrong with the technology (well they won’t do ultra high definition films but that does not bother me). It’s a business decision. They are driving us to online services wher you just rent the use of the content not own it. If they decide to drop a film or track that’s tough. If I pay for a film or piece of music I want to watch it when I want and that includes when the internet is down.
It could result  in a modern “dark age” where there is a loss of information.

VHS I don’t miss…

Like Robert,  I like something physical for the money I pay out and continue to buy my music on CD most of it these days from a 2nd hand source.

Although I now also rip them on to a storage and playback device I can always connect this device directly to speakers if required or even play the CD if necessary.

This total reliance on the Internet is a risky business as we have all seen recently with banks and manufacturing companies not being able to function when the systems go down.

I also still have my vinyl and a vintage turntable, recently serviced and good for as long as I may need it.

Andy

[Bob WorsleyParticipant @bobworsley31976]

Just scrapped a number of old mechanical calculators. The simple ones went years ago, these were all four function, Madas, Friden, Marchant etc.

Seems a waste to me, but no one wanted the early electronic ones either a year or so ago.

 

[old martParticipant @oldmart]

Old tech does often come back into fashion, the ammount of money being spent on vinyl records and expensive systems to play them just to savour the limited frequency response.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

I’ve always wondered about this business of frequency response for listening to music.

 

Middle A is at 440Hz.

The fourth A above that is at just over 7kHz. I don’t think fundamental musical notes reach that, though the harmonics of many instruments certainly do.

Harmonics would extend above that but are they really discernible? The maximum frequency detectable by the human ear is 20kHz… in theory, in full health.

So does fidelity really matter below 10kHz, but become rather meaningless above?

I ferreted through my text-books… The highest pitches on a bar-chart of typical ranges for high-pitched instruments, are in the “teens”, not easy to estimate on a logarithmic scale, but these are harmonics and none approach 20kHz very closely.

So we want something with a reasonably level frequency response up to 20kHz, but above that is rather pointless because we would never hear it anyway. Even if our own ears can process 20kHz sound.

At the height of the “hi-fi” enthusiasm (well above my pay range!) all manner of wonderful equipment was on sale at wonderful prices, with wonderful specifications. There was a lot of “snake oil” too: I think I once saw an advertisement for amplifiers or loudspeakers, promising a maximum frequency of sixty kiloHertz!

.

As for “old technology”…. what are most of us replicating, some of us using pretty ancient machine-tools, too?

[Bob Worsley]

On Bob Worsley Said:

Just scrapped a number of old mechanical calculators. The simple ones went years ago, these were all four function, Madas, Friden, Marchant etc.

…

 

Oh no! How could you? I like old mechanical calculators – and I’m not alone…

If you have an old, surplus Curta, I’ll gladly take it off your hands, and even pay the carriage to New Zealand! (One has to have hope, sometimes…)

[Halton TankParticipant @haltontank]

Talking about hi-fi systems, back in the early 70s when I was working a trainee tester in an electronics firm, two engineers were talking about their hi-fi set ups another engineer said to me “You and I listen to the music, they listen to noise and distortion !”

Regards Luigi

[Halton Tank]

On Halton Tank Said:

Talking about hi-fi systems, back in the early 70s when I was working a trainee tester in an electronics firm, two engineers were talking about their hi-fi set ups another engineer said to me “You and I listen to the music, they listen to noise and distortion !”

Regards Luigi

That happened to my father when he built a Williamson amplifier driving a Goodman’s 18″ infinite baffle loudspeaker. That pre-dated me, so it was probably in the late 1940s. He also built a television but seldom watched it. He would come into the sitting room, hmm and tut a bit, dive into the back to give something a tweak, then go away to do something interesting and worthwhile.

George

[SillyOldDuffer]

On SillyOldDuffer Said:

On Bo’sun Said:

…

 

digital photography has a lot to offer, but it’s all too easy to go snap, snap, snap and just pick the best image(s) without much thought to composition, etc. …  Traditional photography forces you to slow down, study and compose your subject before taking the shot.  …

Digital cameras outperform film across the board.   Their sensors are faster than firm, and have higher resolution, colour range, and contrast.

Dave

 

From what I read recently this is incorrect. Large format film still has higher resolution than digital cameras commonly available.

Up until a few years ago one of the top landscape photographers still used 5 x 4 film. After processing it was scanned with a high resolution drum scanner then processed in Photoshop.

[bernard towersParticipant @bernardtowers37738]

I think they digitally enhance the perimeters of the pixels making it look like a higher resolution. Where theres a join!!!!!

[Vic]

On Vic Said:

On SillyOldDuffer Said:

On Bo’sun Said:

…

 

digital photography has a lot to offer, but it’s all too easy to go snap, snap, snap and just pick the best image(s) without much thought to composition, etc. …  Traditional photography forces you to slow down, study and compose your subject before taking the shot.  …

Digital cameras outperform film across the board.   Their sensors are faster than firm, and have higher resolution, colour range, and contrast.

Dave

 

From what I read recently this is incorrect. Large format film still has higher resolution than digital cameras commonly available.

…

A clarification then.  If you increase the area of the film, you can put more information on it.  So higher resolution is possible, but large format film cameras aren’t commonly available either!  And expect to pay big money for a very large format film camera.

Comparing like with like, you can get more effective ‘pixels’ on a given sensor area than you can on the same film area.  Bit debatable because the two technologies are different, and both are capable of improvement.  But whilst film is nearly as good as it can be, digital is still improving, and it enables new technologies like compression and stacking that film can’t do at all.   And both have reached the stage where resolution isn’t a problem unless something very special is needed –  a few posts in this thread point out that HDTV need not be improved.  It’s as good as our eyes need!

So far as practical cameras are concerned, digital has taken the lead.  It’s because the cost of high-resolution sensors has dropped as production methods improved.

In general, technology moves forward by building on what went before.  It’s very unusual to find anything that’s inferior to older stuff. Feeling that products were better made in the good old days is quite common, but the view misses the importance of value engineering.  Old kit was heavily made because they didn’t know back then how to make it cheaper, and it was seriously expensive.   Modern stuff may be more lightly built, but it’s affordable.  We are all richer.

Now smart-phones come with cameras that would have cost thousands in the 20th Century, with features that would have been considered magic.  Video phones that were science fiction well into my middle-age are now commonplace.

Sadly, progress makes old technology obsolete…

Dave

 

 

[Author]

Posts