TELEVISION
The Colour War
By STUART . HOOD
NErr month in Oslo they are going to dis- cuss colour television systems. They? The CCIR, or International Radio Consultative Conii- mittee, which is an offshoot of the ITU (Inter- national Telecommunications Union), which, in turn, is an agency of the UN, which—1 hope— requires no decoding. It would be nice to think that they may reach agreement on a system of colour television acceptable to all European broadcasting organisations east and west of the Curtain; but past history makes this a fragile hope. There were similar meetings in 1964 and 1965. At neither of them was agreement pos- sible. Were it simply a matter of weighing technical considerations—the quality of the colour, the 'ruggedness' of the signal, the sim- plicity or otherwise of the controls on the set --some rational solution might be found. But the whole matter is bedevilled by political con- siderations and questions of national prestige.
Thus it did not require any great political acumen to forecast that France would not accept the long-established American system (NTSC), but would come up with its own (SECAM). 'Yet the French engineers are really very sensible,' said a highly-placed BBC en- gineer plaintively, being unable to grasp that the force de frappe, the Mystere, the French bomb and SECAM are manifestations of one and the same policy. Nor was it surprising that on this, as on other matters, France and Russia should make common cause. The General's dream of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals could at least perhaps be realised in terms of television links. Predictably, too, the Germans came up with their own version of how to transmit colour and called it PAL.
We inclined at first towards the American system on the very sensible grounds that it had been tried and tested over a long period—since 1953, in fact, when the National Television System Committee recommended its adoption in the States and christened it NTSC. But after prolonged tests of all three systems it became apparent to British television engineers that the German system, which differs only slightly from the American, gave pictures of better quality, particularly in fringe areas where reception is poor. Moreover; there was a good deal of evi- dence that PAL would be easier to install and maintain.
So Britain opted for the German system with one caveat entered by the Postmaster-General when he announced the Government's decision to the House in March. If the Oslo conference were to demonstrate that some other system was generally acceptable—he can only have had the new Russian system, NIB, in mind—then the Government would naturally have to think again. It seems an unlikely contingency. So unless something like a mass conversion of the Slays takes place, the broadcasters of Europe will con- tinue to be split into two camps: the advocates of SECAM—France plus the East European countries plus Greece—and the partisans of PAL —the United Kingdom, the Scandinavians, Ger- many and Austria, Switzerland and Italy—with Holland. Luxembourg, Spain and Yugoslavia sitting on the fence along with a few others. European unity is hard to get.
The likelihood is, therefore, that when 'tint television'—to use the inimitable canting jargon of Variety—comes to this country it will be transmitted by means of PAL. What is more, it will be on 625 lines and use ultra-high fre- quencies—or so one must deduce from the other important statement made in the House by the PMG this March, which was that the Govern- ment' had decided to allow the BBC to start transmissions in colour on BBC-2 late in 1967. This naturally pleased the BBC, which has been stockpiling colour programmes for years now and could, without too much difficulty, provide something like twelve or fifteen hours of colour a week. It delighted the manufacturers, who thrive on obsolescence and would ideally like lines and colour systems to be changed at regular intervals. It did not, however, delight Independent Television, which—in so far as one can attribute collective emotions to a group of companies with divergent interests—felt the de- cision to be grossly unfair.
If colour is to be linked to 625 lines and UHF, the programme contractors of ITV may have a long wait. There is still no word of a decision on a second channel for ITV; there is a lot of woolly talk about a University of the Air and absolutely no guarantee that common sense will triumph. All this adds up to the conclusion that ITV may be restricted for a long time to come to operating—like BBC-1--on 405 lines, on VHF, and in black and white. The pro- gramme contractors are naturally indignant. It is another example, they feel, of ITV being treated as a second-class organisation—the sort of class distinction which is expressed in the fact that the BBC's governors are appointed by the Queen, those of the ITA by the PMG. More important still, the BBC will be given an opera- tional start and a chance to establish a foothold in the international market. (The Montreux Festival, that great fair and mart, will admit colour entries next year.) Yet some of the com- panies are already producing in colour. They have the camera teams, the directors, the light- ing specialists to do the job. When Lew Grade says that ATV could show at least twenty hours of colour a week from September 1966, it may not be just show-business talk. Add to all this the fact that audience research in the States has shown that colour commercials are 69 per cent more effective than black and white and one has some idea of the anguish in the commercial camp.
What programmes would be improved by colour? One of the oldest gags in the business is to reply: The Black and While Minstrel Show.' This is no paradox. The show is well dressed, well lit, well designed and would indeed gain from colour. It is with us again and will certainly be withlis in 1967 when it has its tenth anniversary. Unless, that is, the BBC has got round to questioning the advisability of con- tinuing to mount a coon show—even if it gets
are getting more and more sophisticated.' says its producer. George Inns. Technically perhaps. Not politically.
Previous page
