HOME TELEVISION IS A LONG WAY OFF

New Zealand Listener, Volume 14, Issue 363, 7 June 1946, Page 8

HOME TELEVISION IS A LONG WAY OFF

But Theatres are Preparing for it

| HE LISTENER has fre- | quently been asked when television will come to New Zealand. The answer, according to Commander E. F. McDonald, of Chicago, president of a "radionics" corporation, is that television is not likely to become general anywhere, mainly because of the cost involved. McDonald was interviewed recently for Magazine Digest by Dyson Carter, a writer on scientific subjects. Here is what McDonald says:There is no body with enough money to pay for television in the home, Public opinion surveys have revealed that a good many people plan to buy T-V receiving sets. These sets, if mass produced, would give very, good reception, but the buyer would find little he wanted to receive on it. Television broadcasting began in 1928. In the last 10 years several companies (in the United States) have sold receivers. After the New York World’s Fair a heavy sales campaign was launched; but only about 3,000 sets were sold in the New York area and -about 600 in Los Angeles. Those who ‘tried T-V in their homes became bored after the novelty had worn off, and decided that radio and films gave them better entertainment. _ Radio made greater strides in a year ‘than television in 15 years. And the reason is that it gives the finest quality of music ever produced in the home. Radio audiences soared into millions; stations sprang up everywhere. The best musical and dramatic talent went on the air and news: and information broadcasts became accepted features. Magazine articles have promised us everything that radio now gives us, plus the actual sight of the players on the televisor screen. But the key to the whole television problem lies in the

cost of producing shows. A good average screen production costs about £170,000 and, because of its mass audience, that works out at about sixpence per head. When this is applied to television the money mounts. Even if a movie-type show could be perfectly telecastwhich means months of rehearsal to produce a full-length feature in one uninterrupted session-the cost would be at least £70,000. Such a weekly feature would cost the sponsor about £3,000,000 a year, exclusive of station time. The Human Eye is Fickle According to Commander McDonaid, no television sponsor could afford to pay the price unless he could count on a mass audience. And we cannot get that audience, he argues, because present television programmes are far inferior to tadio or movie shows. You cannot fool the public on what it wants. As they are now, television plays are not acceptable; so we are promised current events and news telecasts. And how often, McDonald asks, would you like to settle down to watch a commentator for 15 minutes, just sitting at a desk reading his notes? Actual tests prove that the effect is one of annoyance. We come up against what some have called the fickleness of the human eye. Tests over the years have proved that our eyes become bored very much more quickly than our ears. A lover of classical music can enjoy a Beethoven concerto or a Tchaikovski symphony over and over again. But only the rare individual wants to see a movie a second time. Seen three or four times, a film drives most people to distraction. What has this to do with television? Television broadcasting of movies is highly advanced. But, to operate economically, a T-V broadcasting system would have to be run at least four hours a day. This would use up all the sound (continued on next page)

(continued from previous page) films ever produced in a very short time. And you would have to watch films you had already seen. Too Much Concentration Of course it would be interesting to see movies in your living-room for a while. But four hours an evening or even one show each night is too much. Tests show that people will not watch movies at home nearly as often or as long as they will lgten to radio. Another very important factor is that watching a T-V screen absorbs all your concentrated attention. Television permits no bridge games, no newspaper or book treading, no housework, no moving about. A T-V set costing £50 represents about 400 movie tickets. You could take your pick of the screen shows once every week for eight years for what the receiver alone would cost you. It is like buying an eight-year pass for a theatre that has not been built. The outlook for home television seems therefore a little bleak; but T-V in theatres is a much more promising development. Three companies are now

working in this field. The scientific problems have been solved in experimental theatres to the point where one can hardly tell whether T-V.or a tegular film is being shown. Telephone wires can carry the programme from a central T-V studio to any number of theatres at once. With proper facilities there could be national distribution with radio networks. This is probably coming, and it is an alluring prospect.