Talk:RCA Photophone

Image copyright problem with File:BlackmailStill.jpg

The image File:BlackmailStill.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Propose merge

New article on Pallophotophone says "(also known as the RCA Photophone)" - so apparently 2 articles on same topic. PamD (talk) 22:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

   Disagree. The Pallophotophone article discusses the original "book film recorder" or "film phonograph" that was developed by Hoxie, et al, over at GE in 1922; and how a modern device was developed to "read" the recording media that the Pallophotophone used.

   The current RCA Photophone article does not discuss any particular machine but rather compares the recording technology used by the original RCA Photophone to that used by one of its competitors, Western Electric. The article describes how Western Electric technology proved to be superior; and later, when GE's RCA sound business unit was discontinued and GE failed to protect the trademark, Western Electric appropriated the "RCA Photophone" trademark.

   So, in a nutshell, the Pallophotophone article discusses a machine and it's modern re-incarnation, so to speak, while the RCA Photophone article discusses two competing technologies and points out the eventual winner (with a great deal of gusto I might add). It probably would not hurt to review the last six or seven sentences in the main section of the RCA Photophone article. They seem repetitive and out of order, like random thoughts with a common aim. JimScott (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Kodak and dual-language or stereo optical tracks.

PeterH5322 has included text to the effect that Kodak were working on dual-languge, rather than stereo, optical tracks. Yet the paper I have, by R.E. Uhlig dated April 1973 and the one I cite in the text refers to stereo and only stereo, there is no mention of dual-language operation. Nor can I find any references anywhere to Kodak being interested in dual-language operation. I'd be interested in seeing any sources that support the notion of Kodak being interested in dual-language optical tracks.

Davidlooser (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Westrex, Litton and the shell game

The article's claim today :

"In the mid-1970s, Westrex Corp. (a wholly owned subsidiary of Litton Industries since 1956...."

is probably not correct. I was unable to check the cited source for that para. However on May 21 1958 the NYTimes said:

"The Western Electric Company and Litton Industries, Inc., announced yesterday completion of preliminary negotiations for the purchase by Litton of the Westrex Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Western Electric."

I was unable today to pin down when it -was- acquired. But Litton Westrex -did- exist by Jan. 1 1961 according to Physics Today. So it -had been- acquired by late 1960.

What exactly eventually happened to Westrex is even more complicated (at some point it wound up in Hong Kong?) ... but then so was Litton's fate. Twang (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)