"Frequency"

[KE5YTV]

The first trailer is out today for the new television series, "Frequency". There is a neat radio in the clip but I don't recognize. Can anyone identify it?

http://tvline.com/2016/05/19/the-cw-fall-tv-trailers-frequency-no-tomorrow-video/

[flintstone mop]

the YL must really be modulating dat ting to get the inards bright white....
The pubes must be conducting heavily

[ND1dubya]

The first trailer is out today for the new television series, "Frequency". There is a neat radio in the clip but I don't recognize. Can anyone identify it?

http://tvline.com/2016/05/19/the-cw-fall-tv-trailers-frequency-no-tomorrow-video/

No idea but it's pretty funny that it's on the CW network   

[N0WEK]

It's a remake of the 2000 movie of the same name with Dennis Quaid and Jim Caviezel... http://former.imdb.com/title/tt0186151/

[W4EWH]

The first trailer is out today for the new television series, "Frequency". There is a neat radio in the clip but I don't recognize [it]. Can anyone identify it?

I don't recognize it. I don't even recognize the beam: it looks like a TV antenna.

However, they could hardly do worse than the movie: IIRC, Dennis Quaid's rig was an SB-301.

Bill, W4EWH

[WD8BIL]

I don't recognize it. I don't even recognize the beam: it looks like a TV antenna.

However, they could hardly do worse than the movie: IIRC, Dennis Quaid's rig was an SB-301.

It's a movie........ for heaven's sake!!

[K9DXL]

At least her radio lights up.  Hard to believe there's a soul/ghost/presence/whatever in a cold  and dark all solid state transceiver.

[KE5YTV]

Julius, We know it's a fantasy TV show but they have come up with a cool looking radio.   

[WD8BIL]

They sure did Mike.

My point is about not being really, exactly accurate!  Who cares that the HW 301 was only a receiver and they passed it off as a transceiver? It was a really good movie!

[WBear2GCR]

Looks to me like a "homebrew".

The dial is reminiscent of maybe an RME or some British/Euro thing.
But the right side is a 3" scope tube... so not a commercial rig.
Also the tubes are looking like EL34s in one shot. No tank circuit shown.

What would be a good PLOT TWIST is if she had to QRO to maintain the connection!!
Continuously! Like to the point where she was putting together 2 x 4-1000 amplifiers on the floor, and becoming weirdly obsessive about getting parts! Now how cool would that be??

You know, driving to the Vortex and scrounging in the corners for some rare tidbit to make the rig work!

The 444 mic shows that's supposed to be a side band rig... ha ha.

Wonder who got paid $$ to be the "technical consultant" on the gear??

I think they just slapped together some cool looking stuff from various sources and "props" inventory... they could have at least made the guy a REAL ham radio operator!!

Also do the HAVE TO FILM IN THE DARK for these shows?? I mean it is cool that the technology now permits this, but seriously...

                         _-_-

[W4EWH]

I don't recognize it. I don't even recognize the beam: it looks like a TV antenna.

However, they could hardly do worse than the movie: IIRC, Dennis Quaid's rig was an SB-301.

It's a movie........ for heaven's sake!!

Yes, it is: and I paid cash money to sit in the seat and to be entertained. I deserved competent set design.

Would anyone put up with a Chevy rolling off the assembly line in a movie about Henry Ford?

Bill W4EWH

[Opcom]

The antennas are not TV antennae, but look like a commercial type. It could be CGI rather than made.

The radio looks like a nice concept of a homebrew. Looks like they used a few large tubes to make them more visible. A couple look like 6336 size, which would not usually be in homebrew ham gear, maybe a cathode modulator but two would be overkill.

The top cover of the set reminds me of the top if a 1970's "am-fm stereo receiver" - this home brewer liked a nice looking wood cabinet.

Next the CRT seems like it works, but the pattern could be cgi as it is not shown clearly with anything but the zero signal trace. The trace also fades up with the dial lamp. Not a bad idea but who would do that? (except maybe myself). - then again that scene was part of the ghostly operation of the set, so anything goes even stripping the cathode.

When modulated in one scene that is shown, the trace is really out of focus but does manage to look like an envelope. The green flicker of it is also seen in another scene, but way too bright for a 3-incher of the length shown.

However, looking at the back side of it, this is a scavenged projection TV CRT and yoke and bell shield assembly, so it is possible that they have a projection CRT in there with a 3" Bezel. If so, wonder who has managed the 20-35KV for that!

Looking at the front panel closely, the set seems to be AM/CW. There is a BFO and a selectivity switch with positions:

NON XTAL
2.0KC
1.5KC
1.0KC
.5KC
.25KC

heavily into CW too!

The frequency dial looks great, but it seems like 'art' to me, notice the scale is nicely done, but it does not mean much.

Finally, what is that logo/badge on the front at the bottom?

All in all it's a beautifully made show piece and many practical things were considered not the least of which is what every radio set should have, a built in scope. The fact that I am usually not impressed by props but yet took the effort to snap the pics and examine the details of this one would attest to the skill of the person or people that made it.

I really like that set and glad they spent the time to make it nice looking. Maybe that badge on the front is the Opcom seal of approval.

[Opcom]

fair use for criticism and sidcussion!

[Opcom]

That last one is the ultimate man cave shot. Note the bright green glow from that CRT

[Opcom]

envelope on CRT in the first one, when he was speaking.

[Steve - K4HX]

Your mistake and you'll be disappointed by most every movie too.

Yes, it is: and I paid cash money to sit in the seat and to be entertained. I deserved competent set design.

[Opcom]

Your mistake and you'll be disappointed by most every movie too.

Yes, it is: and I paid cash money to sit in the seat and to be entertained. I deserved competent set design.

Which is the mistake or mistakes?
1.) paying cash money (assume in a movie theater)
2.) expecting to be entertained based on paying a premium and seeing it on a big screen
3.) assuming that the movie makers also think you deserve good set design

I make mistakes all the time, but for the few big-screen movies for which I'm willing to pay admission, I suspend my disbelief and enjoy the show.
Now, this Frequency series, I have been entertained solely by that radio prop but the rest is up for judgment and I don't have cable TV so it is probably a moot point.

[W3RSW]

LF and MF Loran, actual equipment.?  British looking, USA knobs.

Dial markings match 100kc to say 2500kc's ?  Loran on 160 meters?
What's with the .0001, .0002, markings, etc.  Note the 01, 001, 0001 multipliers on the concentric scales.  These may be rough guides to phase arrival time differences of signals.  If phases are equal then your equidistant from two transmitters.  Say one on each side of a fogged in port, you just sail right down the equal phase slot.

I think I see 2Mc, etc. on the non-illuminated lower, inner circle of dial, second dial function for receive frequency.  

Scope for phase differences originally, even though hacked to show voice modulation amplitude vs. time. ?  Revised pseudo transmitter circuit/function to at least show audio on the scope.

Case, locks, all look like original professional portable equipment, maybe for marine usage.
Panels with flat face locking lugs is a good find if the thing was lashed up.
The CRT appears to work, not photoshopped.  Large tubes to drive sweep, several smaller tubes for Y axis drive, etc.

Nobody'd take the trouble to fake install all those connectors in the rear without them being to an actual power supply, connectors to other equipment if available on board, etc. in a real application. --Fascinating.

Will be in TV program museum some day.  

Here's an updated Loran A version with scope and digital RF freq., etc. readout.
Still pretty antiquated.

and use these charts.


http://www.ebay.com/itm/3-LORAN-A-POSITION-PLOTTING-CHARTS-/322113556416?hash=item4aff76cfc0:g:uYAAAOSwADNXPPQ8

[Steve - K4HX]

All of those! Just about every movie (especially those involving history) gets something wrong. Why would anyone expect anything different? 

Which is the mistake or mistakes?
1.) paying cash money (assume in a movie theater)
2.) expecting to be entertained based on paying a premium and seeing it on a big screen
3.) assuming that the movie makers also think you deserve good set design

[K1ETP]

At least they got the cigar and the cold 807 right. That's my shack on a given Saturday night ( at least back in the 70's when I smoked 'em).

[K1JJ]

Well, one thang's for sure... they want to portray the ham as a JS-artist.  Nice feedlines.... :-)

T

[W4EWH]

Yes, it is: and I paid cash money to sit in the seat and to be entertained. I deserved competent set design.

Your mistake and you'll be disappointed by most every movie too.

I don't feel that expecting professionals to do a good job is a mistake, and I hold moviemakers to a higher standard than I would voluntary moderators: I like to think that I was above average at the work I used to do, and I like to see the work of others who believe in getting every detail right. Even if I'm not an investor in a production, I am a customer, and I'm sure other patrons are entitled to careful fact-checking and proficient set design too.

Although I groaned when I heard Harrison Ford say "It's the ship that made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs", I still enjoyed the first Star Wars movie: the movie wasn't about the adventures of a celestial navigator, after all.

While I might grimace at the sight of a closed shorting bar on a Morse key supposedly being used for sending ("Hell on Wheels"), there is a bigger point to be made: I dislike the dumbing-down of any historical recreation, not only because it cheapens the accuracy of the play, but also because it panders to the notion that we aren't entitled to anything better.

Bill W4EWH

[K1JJ]

Based on this year's election reporting, I don't trust the media anymore.... or hardly at all.  Agendas - it's an orgy of corruption and money.  Mostly gossip reporters trying to outdo each other and don't care who they hurt in the process.

As for accurate depiction in science reporting and movie sets:  When I am well-versed on a subject, I usually see many inaccurate things.  So I just assume when I am ignorant in a field, I'd better not believe all I see and hear from the media, documentaries and movies.

I'll bet many here feel the same way. 

T

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

Yes, it is: and I paid cash money to sit in the seat and to be entertained. I deserved competent set design.

Sadly, movies are seldom written specifically for you, or me, or any one group interested in some tiny aspect of the set design vs the overall experience. Documentaries are another matter, though you're still trusting someone else to do it right.

Would anyone put up with a Chevy rolling off the assembly line in a movie about Henry Ford?

If it's a movie documenting Henry Ford or the Ford automobile, probably not. If it's secondary set-dressing to the actual purpose and plot of the movie, sure. That's how it works.

I've seen this same irrational reaction on some of the email lists I belong to. The milsurplus list comes to mind. Folks quickly forget how few people know, muchless care, what a radio is or what is correct for the period involved. They use a representation of a radio, something that looks the part, in most cases. And 99.99999% of the viewing public never notice or could care less. Translation: it did its job.

Could they do better? Sure, and they have when it's important. The movie 'Windtalkers' is a perfect example. The radio was an important part of the movie; part of the theme, even. But hiring someone for set dressing who is an expert in all aspects, finding the necessary period piece if it's not already in inventory, things like that translate to dollars and time, both of which a producer isn't anxious to waste. To expand on what Buddly said - overall, movies are intended as entertainment for all, not just some.

As to the radio in question, it appears to be a well-designed movie prop made up of different commercially-built units. Panel doesn't physically fit the case (green case black panel, too?), 'scope on the right has much newer knobs than the dakaware-period knobs on the actual radio unit. Numerous other inconsistencies, but it looks a lot better than some movies where speakers with knobs added or test equipment were used and so on.

As for accurate depiction in science reporting and movie sets:  When I am well-versed on a subject, I usually see many inaccurate things.  So I just assume when I am ignorant in a field, I'd better not believe all I see and hear from the media, documentaries and movies.

Absolutely, Tom. If it's coming from the one-eyed idiot tube, best to take it with a grain of salt.
It's entertainment - usually really bad entertainment, especially network news and programming. If you want accuracy, watch something like Empire of the Air by Ken Burns on PBS. If you don't like their slanted news reporting, get the DVD. The stuff on the Discovery and History channels is full of inaccuracies. Even the gov't got in on the act using US Dauntless dive bombers filling in as Jap planes for WWII propaganda clips about Pearl Harbor. At least they had an excuse at that time, an acute shortage of Japanese aerial footage.

[Steve - K4HX]

“I propose that if you want a simple step to a higher form of life, as distant from the animal as you can get, then you may have to denarrate, that is, shut down the television set, minimize time spent reading newspapers, ignore the blogs. Train your reasoning abilities to control your decisions; nudge System 1 (the heuristic or experiential system) out of the important ones. Train yourself to spot the difference between the sensational and the empirical. This insulation from the toxicity of the world will have an additional benefit: it will improve your well-being.”

― Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable