HN

Sony Jumbotron Image Control System (1998) [pdf] (pro.sony)
4d ago by xattt 43 points 16 comments
xattt 4d ago
A couple of interesting takeaways:

- Pre-LED Jumbotrons used CRT pixels called "Trinilite" elements. This was a proprietary Sony technology where each sub-pixel or "cell" was a miniaturized CRT assembly. Each resolved one pixel each.

- A "maximum" NTSC configuration consisting of 40 units wide would result in a horizontal resolution of just 640 dots.

- The display needed a calibration using a “Screen Alignment Unit” (the JME-SA200). This unit used a remote modem chain involving a "cellular phone" and "digital data card." This means that Jumbotron techs could dial in over 1998-era mobile networks to geometrically align a stadium-sized wall of vacuum tubes as they sat in the middle of said stadium.

I also found the format of the manual interesting, because it follows the same style of consumer-grade Sony devices from that period.

Nextgrid 1d ago
kotaKat 10h ago
I believe these were supported from 2001-2011, which makes it amusing to think of some guy sitting in Times Square adjusting a Jumbotron and changing the inputs from the sidewalk.
avidiax 1d ago
You can get something very similar in your home today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBd7_uxrq6c
zdimension 1d ago
Off-topic, but this ongoing trend of brands getting TLDs is really starting to infuriate me. It's not what TLDs are for! Sony is a Japanese company, so it should use sony.com or sony.jp.
ralph84 1d ago
There's no inherent reason to restrict the number of TLDs. The best way to combat rent seeking from registries is to allow any organization that has the technical capability to operate a registry.
cwnyth 1d ago
Why do companies and organizations get special treatment over regular people? I think a simpler fix is just to ban any companies that register domains from squatting on them.
toast0 23h ago
Were regular people prohibited from applying for TLDs when applications were open?

Not that I know many people who would have been interested in paying the fees.

ece 20h ago
The bigger problem is the rent seeking some registrars are doing now by increasing prices. Not sure what domain portability might look like (maybe requiring multiple registrars per tld), but something like it would solve this problem.
ErneX 1d ago
That’s not what the ICANN thinks, and this started in 2012:

https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about/program

urbandw311er 23h ago
Any idea why Google and Microsoft and Apple don’t yet have TLDs then?
mohaba 23h ago
ssl-3 22h ago
Also Microsoft:

https://nic.microsoft

NordSteve 20h ago
slater 23h ago
tim-- 19h ago
I think you meant https://nic.apple :)

Worth pointing out that the ICANN agreement for all these new TLDs require a website live on whois.nic.<tld> under Specification 4. eg, Google's TLD delegation agreement (https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/registry-agreements/googl...).

Most TLDs will also put live nic.<tld>, but it's not required.

edit: huh, seems like a lot of TLDs are not following their ICANN agreements.