What do those uniform colors mean, anyway?!

[HGN2001]

Our family was fortunate enough to have a color TV for the premiere of STAR TREK, so we always saw the colors of the uniforms. But most people back then were looking at images like these:

Now these black & white images were taken from color images and had the color removed with computer software. It's not quite the same as a color TV image shown on a black & white TV.

On a black & white TV, colors appeared with different levels of a diagonal cross-hatching effect. Red was affected the most, so Scotty, Uhura, and Rand's uniforms would have that cross-hatch appear stronger than the other uniform colors.

But even looking at these screen shots with colors stripped, one can see a difference in the levels of brightness of the uniforms.

As for why VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA crewmen had red or blue overalls, that's probably all Irwin Allen could scrape up.

 

[J.T.B.]

To be accurate, chambray from a textile POV is a cotton or line fabric where:
a) the weave is simple (warp over waft then under waft then over waft again)* and
b) the warp is dyed and the waft is white.**
I've owned (and still own) chambray shirts that are not blue.

Yes I knew I should have put in some weasel words; sometimes I get tired of using "usually," "generally," "commonly" etc.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I will endeavor to do that, thank you.

Out of curiosity, what's the rationale for that rule? Is it easier on the servers to have fewer posts in the database?



I might have the terms confused. I had thought the chambray was the khaki. My grandfather in WW2 was a Petty Officer -- talked about how when he wore chambray, no one knew if he was an officer or not, and people around him propagated the myth that he was. Colonels stepped aside for him.

Not too many Colonels in the US Navy.

 

[Neopeius]

Not too many Colonels in the US Navy.

That's true, but it was on Guam, and it wasn't just the Navy there in '44.

Our family was fortunate enough to have a color TV for the premiere of STAR TREK, so we always saw the colors of the uniforms. But most people back then were looking at images like these:

But even looking at these screen shots with colors stripped, one can see a difference in the levels of brightness of the uniforms.

Yeah, the value of Brent's blue uniform is definitely different from Sulu's. Thank you!

 

[Neopeius]

Wait. Is she still around?

Yes. Would you like an introduction?

You can find it on the rules for posting found here (link), but the item in question is:

- Post no more than twice in a row. This is so you don't dominate a discussion/thread. Use the quote function if you need to answer multiple posts aimed at you.
​

The multiquote's actually easy to use.

I'm still figuring it out. The problem is you see something you want to reply to before you go on to the next post. So to respond to multiples requires forethought. Also, when someone responds to a multi-quote answer, it's not always clear to which point they are responding.

I knew about the rule, thank you. I was inquiring as to why it exists. Re: dominating a thread, there's no functional difference between five consecutive replies, and five replies within the same post. I should think the rule is more aimed at people who just keep bumping their own thread, to which no one else is replying.

 

[BK613]

Yes I knew I should have put in some weasel words; sometimes I get tired of using "usually," "generally," "commonly" etc.

<------------------------ For some reason, I picked chambray vs denim when a compare and contrast two textiles assignment came up in college Art History. So apologies for my moment of pedantry.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm still figuring it out. The problem is you see something you want to reply to before you go on to the next post. So to respond to multiples requires forethought. Also, when someone responds to a multi-quote answer, it's not always clear to which point they are responding.

I usually just use the edit function to my reply if there is not another reply after that. The person whom I am quoting and replying to still gets the notification and it makes threads easier to read.

 

[BK613]

'm still figuring it out.

Pro tip: Select a portion of a post with the mouse and you can add that portion to your muliti-post selections by clicking the proffered "quote"

I usually just use the edit function to my reply if there is not another reply after that.

Good tip.

 

[Maurice]

Yes. Would you like an introduction?

Is it Susan Sackett? My mind flashed to the Bird's post-Fontana secretary.

I'm still figuring it out. The problem is you see something you want to reply to before you go on to the next post. So to respond to multiples requires forethought.

The way I do it is to highlight the text I wish it respond to, hit reply, write my reply, but not push Post Reply. I then go back to the next message and continue reading. If I see something else to reply to, again highlight +Quote, then scroll back to the reply box and punch Insert Quotes. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Also, when someone responds to a multi-quote answer, it's not always clear to which point they are responding.
If they take the time to edit, it doesn't happen. But a lot of people just fire and forget.

I knew about the rule, thank you. I was inquiring as to why it exists. Re: dominating a thread, there's no functional difference between five consecutive replies, and five replies within the same post. I should think the rule is more aimed at people who just keep bumping their own thread, to which no one else is replying.

Functionally, yeah, maybe no that different. My impression is that seeing a wall of sequential replies from the same person is offputting. Then again, so are really long tl;dr screeds that some people can't seem to help writing (ahem).

 

[scotpens]

. . . The way I do it is to highlight the text I wish it respond to, hit reply, write my reply, but not push Post Reply. I then go back to the next message and continue reading. If I see something else to reply to, again highlight +Quote, then scroll back to the reply box and punch Insert Quotes. Wash, rinse, repeat.

If I'm writing a reply that's more than one or two short sentences, or replying to multiple posts, I just copy-paste everything into WordPad and compose and edit offline. I find it a hell of a lot easier.

 

[Metryq]

On a black & white TV, colors appeared with different levels of a diagonal cross-hatching effect. Red was affected the most, so Scotty, Uhura, and Rand's uniforms would have that cross-hatch appear stronger than the other uniform colors.

Respectfully, no—unless you have any screenshots showing the artifact you are talking about?

The original TV standard in the US (with which I am most familiar) is the same as the later NTSC spec with color added. In fact, US TV ended up with the color system it did for the sake of backwards compatibility. When color rolled around, one proposed system used RGB, like a computer monitor. But that would have been incompatible with all the black & white gear already in use, both home TVs and all the professional gear in studios and broadcast stations.

The competing color system (which won the color war) used a "subcarrier" added into the existing B&W spec, thus being compatible with older gear. Subcarried color had a number of peculiar quirks, like changing the frame rate to a fractional value (from 30 frames-per-second to 29.97 fps; it's technical). Subcarried color also introduced visual artifacts, like "dot crawl." This artifact is most visible between colors opposite each other on the color wheel, such as green and magenta. Also, red makes up the least portion of the signal (and green/luminance the most). So, the red uniforms in Trek would show the most pronounced dot crawl effect at the edges into another color. Perhaps this is the effect @HGN2001 was referring to?

Note that dot crawl did not show up on truly B&W TVs because those circuits simply never saw the subcarrier part of the signal. B&W TVs also have no color mask and other features. However, if you desaturated the color completely on a color TV, you'd still see the dot crawl, despite the "fake" B&W.

 

[J.T.B.]

For some reason, I picked chambray vs denim when a compare and contrast two textiles assignment came up in college Art History. So apologies for my moment of pedantry.

None necessary, when you're right you're right!

Sorry for an OT tangent, but since WW2 and uniforms and chambray and black-and-white was brought up...

Spoiler: OT

When you're used to seeing WW2 photos in b&w it's cool to see what's going on in color. This is from USS Missouri in mid-1944. Later in the war you see the gray uniforms creeping in more and more, and the working clothing with green material that could be used by all the services.

 

[Commishsleer]

I've probably mentioned this before but I was in a shop and there was a Birthday card or something with TOS transporter scene with all the main characters in it. The little girl who was holding it said to her mother I want this Wiggles card for my birthday.
What would the purple shirt represent?

 

[fireproof78]

I've probably mentioned this before but I was in a shop and there was a Birthday card or something with TOS transporter scene with all the main characters in it. The little girl who was holding it said to her mother I want this Wiggles card for my birthday.
What would the purple shirt represent?

Diplomacy or fuel handler.

 

[HGN2001]

Respectfully, no—unless you have any screenshots showing the artifact you are talking about?

The original TV standard in the US (with which I am most familiar) is the same as the later NTSC spec with color added. In fact, US TV ended up with the color system it did for the sake of backwards compatibility. When color rolled around, one proposed system used RGB, like a computer monitor. But that would have been incompatible with all the black & white gear already in use, both home TVs and all the professional gear in studios and broadcast stations.

The competing color system (which won the color war) used a "subcarrier" added into the existing B&W spec, thus being compatible with older gear. Subcarried color had a number of peculiar quirks, like changing the frame rate to a fractional value (from 30 frames-per-second to 29.97 fps; it's technical). Subcarried color also introduced visual artifacts, like "dot crawl." This artifact is most visible between colors opposite each other on the color wheel, such as green and magenta. Also, red makes up the least portion of the signal (and green/luminance the most). So, the red uniforms in Trek would show the most pronounced dot crawl effect at the edges into another color. Perhaps this is the effect @HGN2001 was referring to?

Note that dot crawl did not show up on truly B&W TVs because those circuits simply never saw the subcarrier part of the signal. B&W TVs also have no color mask and other features. However, if you desaturated the color completely on a color TV, you'd still see the dot crawl, despite the "fake" B&W.

OK, call it "dot crawl" if that makes you happy. I know what I witnessed on black & white TVs all those years ago. When 1965 rolled around and some of my favorite shows began colorcasting, I was naturally curious if this would have any artifacts on my black & white TV. I found that if I used the fine tuning control, turning it to the sharpest picture and then a little beyond, a crosshatch pattern appeared. Call it dot crawl. Whatever. But anything that I perceived to be "red" doing this would have the brightest and sharpest pattern. Other end of spectrum colors had a darker and harder to notice cross hatch, but bright red turned almost a bright white, and the cross hatch was most noticeable on the edges, where it met another color.

Unfortunately, I no longer own any black & white TVs, with the possible exception of an old Sony Watchman that only has an analog tuner, so showing a screenshot wouldn't be very easy, if possible at all.

 

[Metryq]

OK, call it "dot crawl" if that makes you happy.

It was not a personal attack. And I'm old enough to remember B&W CRTs, too. I was speaking as a video technician who knows those systems.

However, if it makes you happy, I found the following on-line:

In countries that use a 60 Hz mains power supply, a visual issue called “dot crawl” was identified in black and white TV sets receiving color TV signals when color TV was being introduced. It was discovered that reducing the framerate of the color TV signal by 0.1% to 59.94 FPS significantly reduced the issue. Since then the reduced framerate has stuck, despite there no-longer being a need for it.

Other texts I've read glossed over the issue by saying the introduction of color changed the frame rate to 29.97 frames-per-second (or 59.94 fields-per-second, where a field is half the image, odd or even lines). So that's a new one on me. I had always gotten the impression that the fractional value had something to do with the length of the data stream per second, etc. Anyway, it's just another one of those funky legacy things about American TV that annoyed me when I was doing motion graphics for video. Thank St. Clare that we are finally getting rid of interlacing! (I wonder if her name had anything to do with the etymology of "clairvoyant"?)

(But didn't the slowed framerate annoy the older TVs? Monitors are basically slaves that will eat whatever you give them. So the techs of that time could get away with this "solution." Out of sync studio gear is another matter.)

The only tube-driven TV I remember I was too young to be paying attention to subtleties in the image. And the family had solid state B&W TVs after that, which likely had higher refresh rates and notch filters to minimize the artifact even further. Of those newer sets, I do recall eyeballing them more closely and never noted dot crawl. By the time I was actually servicing monitors, we were well into color territory. And dot crawl was just one of those things. But I do remember B&W TVs having very smooth lines. They were basically slicked up oscilloscopes.

 

[HGN2001]

OK, I think I found an online example of what I'm talking about. This is from a YouTube video where a guy is exhibiting his black & white TV hooked to a VCR. It's likely an analog connection sending the image to the TV via RF channel 3 or 4. It appears that his tuner is slightly detuned so the crosshatch pattern on the car is very noticeable. I'll bet that car is red.

 

[MAGolding]

Black and White would definitely muddle the whole issue -- the albedo of the red shirts is pretty easy to tell from the blue and mustard, but the blue and mustard look alike without color.

Though that would still create a divide between the light uniforms and the dark ones, the light ones being equivalent to officer's chambrai, the dark to enlisted fatigues (recognizing, that obviously some of the darker uniform wearers are officers).

That said, while tvs may have been largely black and white, TV Guide was not. Though Trek doesn't make the cover of TV Guide until April '67...and how many people were like, "Oh! That's what color those uniforms are?!"

But this is all an excellent point. People (including me) jump through elaborate hoops to explain Charlene Masters in blue, or Anne Mulhall in red, but in the end, for most people, these folks were in varying shades of gray.

TV guide did discuss Star Trek in the 1966 fall preview. I think it had a color photo of some of the cast members.

 

[mb22]

TV guide did discuss Star Trek in the 1966 fall preview. I think it had a color photo of some of the cast members.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Neopeius]

Is it Susan Sackett? My mind flashed to the Bird's post-Fontana secretary.

Eileen Salmas.