60 Years of Science - Part 19

This post is the next in a series that dates back several years.  In fact, it's been going on for long enough that several posts ago I decided to upgrade from "50 Years of Science" to "60 Years of Science".  And, if we group them together, this is the nineteenth main entry in the series.  You can go to https://sigma5.blogspot.com/2017/04/50-years-of-science-links.html for a post that contains links to all of the entries in the series.  I will update that post to include a link to this entry as soon as I have posted it.

I take Isaac Asimov's book "The Intelligent Man's guide to the Physical Sciences" as my baseline for the state of science when he wrote the book (1959 - 60).  In this post I will be reviewing two sections.  "Electricity" and "Electrical Gadgets" are both from the chapter titled "The Machines".

In "Electricity" Asimov goes all the way back to the ancient Greeks.  Amber, the material, can attract feathers, threads, bits of fluff, and other light things, if it is rubbed with fur.  The Greek word for amber is "elektron" and that's where we get the name for the subatomic particle.  Many centuries later Gilbert decided to call whatever it was that caused the attraction "electricity".  And he noted that other materials, particularly glass, could be induced to perform the same trick.

In 1733 du Fay discovered that two rods of the same material, when suitably rubbed, would repel each other.  He also noted that two similar rods, when allowed to come in contact with each other, would lose their electrical property.

Franklin was the most famous early investigator of electricity and its properties.  He suggested that it was a fluid.  He opined that "positive" electricity was caused by a material containing a surplus of electricity and that "negative" electricity was cause by a shortage. Electric fluid would then naturally flow from positive to negative.

It turns out that in most circumstances electrical flow is the result of the movement of electrons.  Franklin had nothing concrete to go on so his decision about what was "positive" and what was "negative" was arbitrary.  And, as luck would have it, he got it backwards.  Electrons flow from the negatively charged material to the positively charged material.

But, in the long era of electronic devices based on vacuum tubes, successful designs required that the power supply to provide a positive voltage to the circuit.  It was only with the change to solid state "transistorized" designs that power supply designs were changed to provide a negative voltage to the circuit.  So, for a long time, from a practical perspective Franklin had the right of it.

In 1740 Desaguliers suggested that the pipe through which electrical fluid flowed be called a "conductor".  On the other hand, materials that blocked flow would be called "insulators".  Experimenters of the time found that a modest quantity of electrical fluid could be stored using a suitable device.

A popular early device of the time was the Leyden jar, so called because it was developed in 1745 at the University of Leyden.  This was created by coating the inside of a glass jar (insulator) with metal foil (conductor).  This design is still in use today in the "capacitor", a common electronic component.

Leyden jars could only hold modest amounts of electricity.  (Not surprisingly, modern capacitors do much better.)  But it was enough to allow for experimentation.  It was possible to create sparks and to get them to jump small gaps.  They could also produce a shock in a person or an animal.  It was natural to conjecture that thunder and lightning might be caused by much larger quantities of electricity.  Franklin was famous for coming up with an experimental method for determining if this was correct.

He flew a kite during a thunderstorm.  The silk thread he used as a kite string, when wet, became a poor but adequate conductor.  He attached a key to the string because it was known that sparks liked to jump from sharp points.  The experiment worked.

He managed to shock himself using electricity produced by a thunderstorm without getting killed.  (It was a good thing the silk cord was a poor insulator.)  Others who duplicated Franklin's setup were killed.  But the connection between Leyden jar electricity and thunderstorm electricity was firmly established.  The difference was merely in the matter of the amount, not the kind.

Electricity stored in a Leyden jar is "static" electricity.  It's not flowing.  Things get more interesting when it flows, when it becomes "dynamic" electricity.  In the same way Franklin established the connection between Leyden jar electricity and thunderstorm electricity, Galvani began the exploration of how electricity is used by living creatures.  Famously, he stimulated the muscles in the legs of dead frogs to twitch by applying electricity to them.

He used an improvement on the Leyden jar called the "Voltaic Pile".  Volta stacked discs made of copper then zinc then fabric soaked in brine on top of each other repeatedly.  This could produce much more electricity than the Leyden jar.  And it could produce it continuously for long periods of time.

This "anode", "cathode", and "electrolyte" design is how batteries are made to this day.  As with modern capacitors, modern batteries work much better than Volta's original Pile.  But the primary principal is exactly the same.

As all cell phone owners know, even the best battery runs down eventually.  What was needed was a way to turn mechanical energy into electricity.  Faraday was the first to figure out how to do this.  His "dynamo-electric machine", generally shortened to "dynamo" and often referred to as a "generator" provided a proof of concept.

But it didn't work all that well.  The weak spot was the magnet used.  Wheatstone solved the problem in 1845.  He replaced the permanent magnet of Faraday's original design, with an "electromagnet", a device developed by Henry.

The magnetic field was produced by wrapping many turns of wire around a piece of iron then running electricity through the wire.  Each turn produced only a weak magnet.  But the close proximity of the turns, and their large number, caused them to combine and produce a magnetic field that was much more powerful than the one a permanent magnet could produce.

The combination of a steam engine and a dynamo made it possible to produce large amounts of electricity on demand.  Now, what to do with it?  Henry of electromagnet fame stepped in with one of the first ideas, the telegraph.  "Telegraph" essentially means "writing at a distance".  The electric telegraph was only the latest in a long line of devices used for this purposes.  The original version was perhaps the "signal fire" or maybe "smoke signals".

When Henry's design came along, ships had been communicating across miles of oceans using "signal flags".  One ship could read another ship's "flag hoist" by using a telescope.  Land systems using large arms that could be positioned in various configurations, and other similar systems, could also be read across a distance of miles using a telescope.  These systems were popular during the Napoleonic Wars.

Henry's telegraph design started with the "key", essentially a switch that could be used to turn electricity off and on quickly and easily.  That was connected by a long wire to a "sounder", a device that emitted a loud "click" when the current was turned off or on.  He also developed the "repeater", essentially a sounder connected to a key.  Wires of the time were poor.  So the electrical signal diminished quickly with distance.

At a distance where the electrical signal was weak but still usable the repeater would use the remaining weak signal not to make a click but to operate a key hooked to a new wire that was charged using a new power supply.  The message was thus repeated several times to greatly expand the usable range of the telegraph system without needing to station a human operator every few miles.  This system allowed electric "telegraph lines" to be operated over distances that were long enough to make them useful.

Samuel F. B. Morse added an efficient coding system in 1844, Morse Code.  It used short sequences of dots and dashes to represent common letters like "E", and long sequences for uncommon letters like "Q".  Morse Code provided the last piece necessary to made the whole enterprise feasible. "What hath God wrought" was the inaugural message transmitted via electric telegraph.

Henry was also the first to come up with a design for an electric motor.  It was again more of a proof of concept than a useful device.  But, unlike the steam engine, it could be turned off and on quickly.  More, importantly, now a dynamo could be used to turn power from a steam engine into electricity and an electric motor could used to reverse the process.

Asimov finishes the section by noting that moving electricity around via wires, "transmitting" it from one place to another, was initially very inefficient.  One trick for improving the situation was the introduction of the "transformer".  It can be used to transform the combination of a low voltage and a high current into the combination of a high voltage and a low current.  Generally speaking, low currents result in smaller losses as the electricity moves along the wire.

Transformers only work if the electricity is in the form of "Alternating Current".  With AC, both the voltage and the current alternate up and down quickly.  With "Direct Current", the voltage and current stay relatively constant.  Edison was a proponent of DC.  But he never figured out how to move DC power over significant distances.  Westinghouse championed AC.  The flexibility that AC transformers made possible made it become the standard.

Edison invented and then championed the "Electric Chair" as a "humane method of execution".  It was anything but.  People were supposed to be so horrified by executions using an electric chair powered by AC that they would force AC's abandonment.  Edison kept his role in all this secret.  And the scheme failed.

One reason was that Tesla, originally an Edison employee, defected to Westinghouse after Edison treated him shabbily.  He developed many of the components a full AC system needed.  Following in Tesla's footprints, Steinmetz, an employee of General Electric, developed a complete theory for AC that put it on a firm mathematical basis and allowed others to exploit it more fully.  On to "Electrical Gadgets".

The telegraph was an early electrical gadget.  But it was what we would now call a "text based" method of communication.  In 1876 Bell made it possible to use electricity to transmit the spoken word.  And that meant music and all kinds of other sounds could be transmitted too.  In 1877 Edison followed up with the "phonograph".  That made it possible to record sounds for later playback.

It also made possible the mass duplication and sale of identical "records". This extended to the realm of sound the role that books and newspapers had long played in the text based realm. For the first time, many people could hear the same sounds in many places and at many times.  That had never been possible before.

Berliner took Edison's cylinders, originally made from tin foil, later made from lacquer, and replaced them with the much handier flat disk that we now associate with the "phonograph record".

By 1925, electrical components were being introduced at various stages into a process that had previously been 100% mechanical.  Various inherent limitations meant that  purely mechanical systems were unable to produce a sound much above that of a whisper.

The introduction of electrical components, permitted the sound to be "amplified", made louder.  There was essentially no limit to the amount of amplification possible.  Soon it became possible to use "loud speakers" to transmit the same sounds to a large crowd, say at a baseball park.

The early equipment was limited in both the quantity and the quality of this sound amplification.  But as time went by these limitations diminished.  By the time Asimov wrote his book "hi-fi" (high fidelity) had been introduced.  This produced natural sounding recordings of everything from birdsong to symphony orchestras.  "Stereo", two audio channels instead of one ("monaural"), was introduced just a few years before the book came out.

At the time of the book the best method of sound reproduction available is what we would now call "analog".  A needle in the grove of a record moved up and down as it tracked the varying depth of the groove.  The movement of the needle was amplified using various mechanical tricks to produce the sound that came out of the attached "horn".  Even the best design produced a weak sound because there was little energy to be derived from the needle's movement.

Electricity immensely improved the situation.  The needle could be attached to a device that translated needle movement into a variation in an electrical signal.  Amplification could then boost the power.  This could then be fed into speakers that could translate the now much more powerful electrical signal into a powerful air movement, a loud sound.

With the need to be mechanically connected to a horn removed much more delicate needle movements could be used.  A clever design change allowed one side of the grove be tracked to produce the signal for the "left channel" while the other side of the groove was independently tracked to produce the signal for the "right channel".  Two channels were now available to produce stereo output.  But this technique could only be used to produce two channels.

Sound reproduction has since moved to using "digital" formats.  Various methods can be used to encode and store the long sequence of numbers that represents even a short digital recording.  It can be stored on a CD, something that at first glance appears to be similar to a phonograph record.  But anywhere large amounts of numbers can be stored, and any way that large amounts of numbers can be transmitted, can now be used.

And, if you have enough computing capacity available, any number of "audio channels" can be carried around.  The popular "5.1" format requires six channels of audio data, for instance.  The "5" is for the five high frequency channels and the ".1" is for the sixth, low frequency (base) channel.

Another alternative to the "needle in a groove" method of recording audio was the "tape recorder".  The technology is actually older than the radio.  It was first demonstrated by Poulson in 1898.  But it didn't come into widespread use until after World War II.  A wire, then later a plastic ribbon, was coated with a goo containing particles whose magnetic properties could be manipulated.

A powerful moving magnet could be used to "record" (change the alignment of the poles of the magnetic particles to conform to a specific pattern) a signal then later "play back" (use another, less powerful magnet and some sensitive electronics, to detect and amplify) whatever pattern of sounds you wanted.  Various tape based recording methods persisted for audio until about 1990 and for video for a decade or so longer.

So all this sound business is nice but what about light?  The arc light was the first method used to change electricity into light.  It involved using high voltage electricity to burn carbon rods at high temperature.  It was not practical for most uses.  The first practical light bulb was the one Edison designed in 1879.   It heated a "filament" until it was literally white hot.  Edison was the first to produce a device that was small, cheap, safe, and could be manufactured in large quantities.

His design is for what we now call an "incandescent" device. It is wildly inefficient.  Most of the electrical energy goes into producing useless heat.  A more efficient design is the "fluorescent" tube, which dates from 1936.  It works by smashing high energy electrons into the side of a tube that is coated with a phosphor that lights up under this insult.  Surprisingly, this design is about three times as efficient as the incandescent design.  But it is hard to get the phosphors to glow with the kind of soft, warm, inviting light that incandescent lights put out.

When the book came out incandescent and fluorescent were pretty much the only options for use in most situations.  Since then the LED (Light Emitting Diode) light has become available.  I am not going to go into how they work.  But they do.  And they are capable of producing the warm light that we love in an incandescent.

At the same time they are also about three times efficient as a fluorescent.  And, since they don't get hot, they tend to last forever.  So they cost more to buy in the first place.  But they save money by using far less electricity and because they take a very long time to "burn out".  Fluorescent lights burn out much more quickly.  Incandescent lights burn out even more quickly than fluorescent lights.

So what else?  Photography is "what else".  The first recognizably modern stabs at photography happened in 1839 and were originated by Talbot and, more famously, Daguerre of Daguerreotype fame.  Improvement followed improvement.  Asimov goes through this briefly but I am going to skip it because it's chemistry and we are talking electricity.

In parallel with these developments was an investigation of how to capture motion.  The key insight was made in 1824 by Roget.  He noticed that the eye forms a persistent image, one that persists for a small period of time after the image is removed.  Various people tried to exploit this to produce "moving pictures".  Asimov skips over the famous "trotting horse" demonstration, assembled by Eadweard Muybridge in 1878 to prove a bet, that is widely considered the first moving picture.  Instead, he moves on to Edison.

Edison produced the first successful moving picture camera and projector.  By this time others had produced a type of film that was suitable for use with Edison's equipment.  And significant to our story is the fact that his projector used electricity to produce the light that was "projected" onto a screen where the "movie" could be viewed by an audience.

The first commercial exhibition of a movie was in 1894.  the first full length "motion picture" premiered in 1914.  But what was missing at this time was sound.  Initially, sounds were recorded using standard phonograph record technology.  A synchronization system was supposed to keep the record in sync with the film.  But even though "The Jazz Singer", the first successful "sound movie", used this method in 1927, the system never worked very well.

Advances in electronics, and clever design, soon moved the "sound track" to a band adjacent to the pictures on the same piece of film that held the "moving" pictures.  Advances in chemistry allowed movies to routinely incorporate color by the 1930s.  Eventually the "black and white" movie became uncommon.

And that's where things stood when Asimov wrote his book.  Other than the additions necessary to record then eventually broadcast sound, the movie camera and projector remained unchanged from Edison's original designs.  And the movie was the best technology for producing high quality moving images.

But at about the time that the book came out audio tape recording technology had improved enough to be good enough for use with moving images.  Initially, it was barely good enough to record and play "TV quality" black and white images.  And the equipment and video tape were expensive and difficult to work with.  But technology marched on.

Soon (the early '60s) the technology got good enough to use routinely in professional situations.  Shortly thereafter (the late '60s) it became good enough for routine use in professional situations with color images.

Then a decade or so later, the consumer VCR (Video Cassette Recorder) became cheap enough and easy enough to use that it became a standard staple in many households.  This allowed movies to be transferred to video tape cassettes and sold to consumers.  Some "cult" movies made more money from cassette sales that they did from their theatrical run.

Producers of pornographic movies soon jumped on the bandwagon.  Movie theaters that were willing to show "XXX" movies initially did not exist.  Then they were confined to a few seedy theatres in run down neighborhoods in big cities.  This, and the fact that XXX movies were soon forbidden from advertising in most newspapers, made it impossible to make big money on a pornographic film.

But it turns out that people in large numbers all over the country were willing to buy XXX video cassettes.  Now it became possible to sell millions of dollars worth of cassettes of a particularly popular XXX movie.  This made the producers of "Deep Throat", for instance, into multi-millionaires.

Soon stores renting movies on cassette became popular.  Most people were only interested in viewing a movie once.  So they were very selective when it came to shelling out $80 for a movie.  But a video rental store could rent that same $80 movie out 50 or 75 times at $2 a pop and make a nice profit.  And in the early days pretty much every video rental store had an XXX section in the back.

As with everything else, digital eventually intruded.  Computer, and later home based "Personal Computer" equipment became available at progressively lower and lower prices and higher and higher quality.  Digital CCD (Charged Coupled Device) components became available at a price and quality that made them appropriate for incorporation into a camera.  LED and other "solid state" components became available at a price and quality that made them appropriate for incorporation into a projector.

And, of course, the computer processing, data storage, and data transportation, components also became available at at a suitable price and quality point that allowed everything to be connected together.  The CD with its audio quality that was superior to a phonograph record was the first "digital media" to be successfully introduced.

Laserdisks had far less commercial success in the video realm than CDs did in the audio realm for reasons I am going to skip over.  But they too produced a product that was of higher quality than the competing video cassette.  In spite of the commercial failure they represented, they still managed to pave the way for the highly successful DVD (Digital Video Disk).

And the eventual wide availability of home high speed internet connections made it possible to "stream" a movie rather than buy or rent it.  Internet streaming has almost completely killed the buy/rent options.  And both the picture and sound quality that can be delivered into the home is now much higher than the best that was available when Asimov's book came out, even if you went to a movie theater.

There is much more that could be said about electrical gadgets.  But Asimov stops here so I will too.

The Talk Show in the age of COVID

The "Talk Show" is a long time TV staple.  In its modern form it dates back to Jack Paar's 1957 through 1962 stint as host of "The Tonight Show".  Paar was not the first to host the show.  That honor belongs to Steve Allen.  But in the Allen era the show was more of a variety show.  Allen presided as Master of Ceremonies where he introduced various variety acts a la Vaudeville.

He did introduce many of the components of the modern talk show.  But a large portion of the show during his time at the helm would have looked familiar to a Vaudeville audience.  Paar for the most part dispensed with the Vaudeville elements.  He instead stripped the show down to the essence of what we now recognize as a Talk Show rather than a Variety Show.  Variety acts would sometimes appear on Paar's show.  But this was an occasional rather than a regular occurrence.

So what are the elements of a talk show?  Physically, the show originates in a theater, or in a studio configured to look like a theater.  There is a stage.  There is an audience.  The audience is expected to react like one attending a live theatrical performance.  They clap at the appropriate times.  They laugh at the appropriate times.  Etcetera.

The stage is typically broken into three areas.  There is a performance area where the host performs the "Opening Monologue".  Guests may also perform from here.  For instance, a comic can perform his or her act from there.  A singer can sing from there.  Other guests can engage in other types of performances up to and including reenacting portions of plays, performing elaborate choreographed musical numbers, pretty much anything.  And while this is usually the largest part of the stage it is not the focus of the action for most of the show.

Many talk shows feature a house band.  Paar did.  This is placed onstage in full view of the studio audience.  Home viewers get an occasional peak, enough so that they are regularly reminded of its existence.  But it too is not the primary focus.  The primary focus for most of a typical talk show is talk, the the host interviewing various guests.  Typically the host sits behind a desk.  That's what Paar did.  Guests are arrayed either on a couch or in a series of chairs.  Most of the show consists of the host interacting with one guest at a time.

Talk Shows are TV shows.  Typically, a TV show alternates between show segments and commercial breaks.  These commercial breaks are used to naturally break a talk show into segments.  A five to ten minute segment is presented.  The the show "goes to a commercial break".  Upon return, a new segment, usually featuring a different guest, is introduced.  And the primary method of interaction consists of the host interviewing the guest.

The first segment of the show typically consists of the Opening Monologue.  The host stands in the performance part of the stage and delivers a monologue consisting of topical observations, jokes, and comments/observations.  The show then "goes to break".  After the break we find the host sitting behind a desk and the first guest is introduced.  A guest may perform rather than joining the host.  But most of the time the guest is announced, enters and sits, and the interview is immediately begun.

While this is going on the house band is providing continuity.  It will typically play the theme song to open the show.  Then it will play short "bridge" segments at the beginning and end of commercial breaks.  The house band will often provide accompaniment for musical acts.  Very occasionally it will perform a number of its own as if it was a guest.  And on some shows there is a lot of back and forth between the host, the band leader, and less commonly, other members of the band.

That's the standard talk show format.  There are variations.  Sometimes the show goes "on the road",  or just outside the studio for say a comedic bit.  Or sometimes a guest will perform on a separate outside stage.  But this is an exception rather than the norm.

More commonly, the desk will be replaced by a different seating arrangement, chairs angled to simultaneously face each other and the audience, for instance.  Some shows feature a panel of hosts rather than just the one.  "Fox and Friends" features three cohosts sitting on a couch.

The degree of participation of the house band varies from show to show.  In some shows there is no house band at all.  In other shows the house band is woven tightly into the show.  But what makes the Talk Show a talk show is a heavy reliance on the interview for the bulk of its content.  Guest interviews are the bread and butter of talks shows.  And interviews as a form of entertainment are rare outside of the talk show format.

Finally, talks shows are broadcast "live".  Originally, this was a technological necessity.  When Paar was on the air it was possible to film a show then later air it.  But this was complicated and expensive.  Talk shows are, by design, inexpensive to produce.  By far the simplest and cheapest alternative was to broadcast the show live.

And famously, the Paar show was broadcast live.  Paar actually walked out in the middle of a show one night in a dispute with the network over a censorship issue.  For a couple of minutes the network was forced to broadcast what amounted to an empty stage.  The incident became the stuff of legend.

It was only a few years however, before videotape developed to the point where it became practical to use.  This resulted in shows being broadcast live on the east coast.  A videotape recording was then aired three hours later for use by west coast network affiliates.  This ability was quickly exploited further.

The starting time for Paar's show was originally set at 11:15 PM on the east coast.  It was later shifted to 11:30 PM when the local late night news expanded from 15 minutes to 30.  Later, as a favor to the local stations that aired these shows, the time slot was shifted another 5 minutes to 11:35 PM.

That allowed those stations to air several more local ads and to do so before rates dropped.  Audience size, and therefore ratings, and therefor ad rates, dropped off steeply at that time of night.

Late night talk shows began to be "taped" earlier in the evening, say at 6 PM, or perhaps even a little earlier.  This meant that potential guests did not have to stay up half the night if they wanted to appear on one of these shows.  It also allowed Broadway performers to do a guest segment then also perform on stage on the same night.  Curtain time for Broadway shows is 8 PM.  That's just enough time to record a segment and also get to the theater in time to do the show.

It also allowed late night talk shows to originate on the west coast.  A show could tape between 5 PM and 7 PM on the west coast.  This meant that the show was complete by 10 PM east coast time.  And that was plenty of time to get it on the air at the usual time of 11:35 PM on the east coast.

So talk shows were no longer live.  But it was considered important to retain the spontaneity and sense of immediacy of a "live" performance.  So talk shows stuck with a "near live" process.  And, they proliferated to every part of the day.  "The Today Show", which airs in the morning, and is every bit as old as "The Tonight Show", started out as and still retains a format that is closer to that of a variety show than of a pure talk show.  But from the start it contained many talk show elements.

It didn't take long for true talk shows to invade the space between Today and Tonight.  We soon had morning talk shows, afternoon talk shows, early evening talk shows, and "late night" shows, shows that came on after the 1:00 AM (and later 12:35 AM) time when The Tonight Show wrapped up.  Not even weekends were safe.  The show format is both popular and inexpensive.  That's a formula for widespread success.

I have already noted the influence of technology on the talks how.  I am now going to expand on that theme.  As noted above, videotape made it possible to go from live to "tape delay for the west coast" to recording the show in the evening for broadcast later that night.  I am now going to get into something I call "talking head in a box" capability.  And to do that I am going to start by discussing a technique long used in the movies called a Matte painting.

It solved a problem dating almost to the beginning of movie making.  Say you want to make a "Dracula" movie.  To do this, typically you need a dark and foreboding castle on the top of a hill.  That sort of thing is both hard to come by and very expensive if you can find a way to come by it.

But you need the shot of the old time coach driving up the winding path toward a suitably foreboding castle on a suitably atmospheric hill.  How do you get the shot?  You can get or make an appropriate coach.  And roads that wind up a hill are to be found on pretty much any studio back lot.  So I suppose you could construct a castle on top of the hill.  Since all you need is the exterior it can be constructed far more cheaply than a real castle.

But there are still many technical reasons (the western shooting on the other side of the hill which does not want a castle in the background of their shot, for instance) for not doing this.  Then there is the cost.  Even a slap dash shell of a castle is expensive to construct.  And besides, there is a cheap and convenient solution to your problem.  You an get the desired result by making use of a Matte Painting.

To make a Matte painting you start with a three feet by three feet piece of clear glass.  You leave an irregular opening in the center where the glass remains transparent.  Then you paint a picture around the edges of the center hole.  Specifically, up and to the side you paint a castle.  The artist doing the painting can let his imagination run wild when it cones to atmospheric details. After all, they don't add to the cost.   Then you mount this piece of glass a couple of feet in front of your camera.

You now set the camera up so that it can see a suitable piece of winding road through the hole in the center.  To get the shot all you now have to do is drive the carriage along the road.  This is easy since the road in question is on the studio back lot your are already using for the film.  You just have to make sure you only use the part where the carriage is not behind any of the painting that surrounds the center.

What the camera, and later the audience sees, is a carriage driving up a winding road that ends with an atmospheric castle sitting on top of a hill.  And there are additional benefits.  You can use the Matte painting to subtract things as well as to add them.

Say your piece of road is perfect except for a miner's shack that is needed for another movie.  If you line things up correctly, and plan the Matte Painting correctly, the miner's shack can end up behind some atmospheric trees and other scenery that has been panted around the edge of the painting.  You can even throw in what appears to be a suitably rustic peasant village without having to actually build one.

Needless to say, Matte paintings became very popular very quickly with the movie crowd.  But this is only the simplest, cheapest, and easiest to explain example of a Matte effect.  Let's now move on to something that's a bit more complicated and a bit more expensive.  And here I am going to use a TV show instead of a movie.  It's simply a mater of convenience.  The technique was pioneered in the movies.  But by going with a TV show I can talk about something people are universally familiar with.  The example I am going to use is the "Transporter" effect from the "Star Trek" TV show.

In a typical example of what I am talking about, a shot will at some point feature various characters standing on the Transporter Heads in the Transporter Room of the Enterprise.  Once the Transporter effect starts, they freeze, then magically change into silvery sparkles.  Then they disappear completely.  Cut to the surface of a planet.   At first there is nothing there.  Then one or more outlines appear.  Then the outlines are filled with sparkles, then with the people.  Finally, the people unfreeze and start behaving normally.  This is done using a "Matte Effect" that is similar to the one already discussed.

To get the shot the director starts with the actors in the "Transporter Room" set.  At the appropriate time they first freeze and hold their position for several seconds.  They then walk off so that they are out of frame.  The camera keeps rolling as it photographs a few seconds of empty set.

The reverse happens on the surface of the planet.  Several seconds of empty location are filmed.  Then the actors walk into frame and assume positions similar to the ones they were in for the Transporter Room section of the effect. They then freeze for several seconds as the camera rolls.  Finally, they unfreeze and go on with the scene.  That's what happens in the "live" portion of the process.

The first thing that happens in post production is that the parts were the actor are walking off and on the set are cut out and discarded.  Focusing on the Transporter Room part, because the other part is just the same process in reverse, the shot now goes directly from the frozen actors to an empty set.  It is what is done with the part where the actors are frozen that is the interesting part.

Each frame of this piece of film is printed and blown up.  Then, using black construction paper, someone makes an outline of each actor.  Both parts will be needed.  An outline in black paper of the actor will be needed.  A piece of paper with a hole in the exact shape of the actor will also be needed.

In pre-production a film crew shot film of someone gently pouring out a stream of silvery particles.  Just the stream of silvery particles itself was filmed.  Enough footage was shot so that short parts of it can be used repeatedly without any obvious duplication being apparent.

The stream of silvery particles was filmed against a pitch black background.  That film was also printed and each frame blown up and printed as a single picture.  Eventually, it will be combined with the live elements.  Matte effects are used to pull that combination off.

The cutout with the actor shaped hole is laid over the blow-up of the cascade of silver particles and the result photographed.  The result is an actor-shaped picture of the silvery particles.  The rest of the image is black.

The  actor-shaped cutout is laid on top of the actor in the blow up of a frame of film from the Transporter Room.  A process similar to the one used with the silvery particles picture results in a picture of the Transporter room with the actor replaced by a black outline.

Then a double exposure is made.  Say the frame from the Transporter Room with the actor covered by black paper is photographed first.  Then the same of film is exposed again.  But this time the picture with the actor shaped outline of the falling silvery particles is used.

This combines the two images into a single one.  If it's done right then the black portions of the two pictures do not "bleed through".  One part of the final picture is Transporter Room.  The other part is silvery particles.  Hopefully, no artifact of the combining process remains.

This process is expensive.  It has to be done on a frame by frame basis for each frame of the film that features the "Transporter" effect.  Hopefully, the actors have stayed sufficiently still.  If so, then only one set of cutouts for each actor, assuming there are more than one in the shot, is needed.  Even under the best of circumstances, this is a labor intensive process.  And that makes these "effects" shots expensive.

And that made Star Trek expensive to produce.  The show had a very high production cost but only middling ratings when it originally aired.  NBC cancelled it, not because it was a ratings failure, but because its middling ratings didn't justify the high price NBC would have had to charge to get its money back.  The money went not to the sets, there were incredibly cheezie, and not to actor's salaries, but to the special effects budget.

There is an even more expensive version of the Matte process, one that was used heavily in the original "Star Wars" movie.  It's called a "Travelling Matte".  This is where a separate set of Mattes, the cutouts, has to be made for each frame of film that is part of the effect.  As an example, consider one of the many shots in that movie where space ships are spinning and twisting as they fly about.

They have a slightly different outline in each frame of the shot.  It takes a skilled person to make each of the many cutouts required.  And the right cutouts must be be used when applying the Matte effect to a particular frame.  All this adds substantially to the cost and difficulty involved.

And, if you use Matte effects to combine multiple elements in a frame more and more "bleed through" occurs.  It is pretty much unnoticeable if only one Matte effect is used in a frame.  But when four, five, or even more Matte effects are applied to the same frame the bleed through becomes obvious.  But only if you know where to look.

If you view an early copy "Star Wars", and if you look at the background as multiple space ships are flying by, each on a different course, then this is quite noticeable.  But the action draws our eyes.  So the problem only becomes noticeable on multiple viewings.  And Lucas digitally fixed this and other problems when he "remastered" the movie for later re-release.

But time marches on and technology advances.  When the original "Star Trek" and the original "Star Wars" were created these labor intensive and film based techniques were the best available.  But that eventually changed.  And the original impetus for this was the lowly local TV weather report.  Here it was absolutely necessary to move away from film based techniques.  And the need for a high quality result was mostly missing.  "Good enough for TV" was good enough.

Back then, TV was analog, it depended on continuously varying electronic signals, rather than being digital where only certain specific numerical values are allowed.  And, to be honest, the picture quality was none too good.  TV at the time conformed to what is called the NTSC standard.  A TV image was built up on the screen by drawing a series of horizontal lines across the screen.  The brightness of the line varied with location.

A total of 525 horizontal lines made up a single image.  But a cheat was employed.  On one sweep the odd lines were drawn.  On the next sweep the even lines were drawn.  This process was completed many times per second.  They eye combined both sets of lines to make up a composite picture.

And originally TV was "black and white".  Only various intensities of grey were painted on the screen.  But these limitations were more than offset by the ability to project moving images into the home for the first time.  So TVs were a big success almost from the start.

This presented both a challenge and an opportunity.  Given the technology of the day, it was very difficult to get any kind of picture broadcast to peoples' homes.  As with the early days of the movies, initially people would watch almost anything.  But as time went by, audiences quickly got jaded.

An early staple, one that continues to this day, is the local news.  And a staple of this staple was the weather forecast.  Audiences started out being content with just someone reading the weather forecast out.  Then they wanted maps with descriptions of what the weather would be at various times and in various places.  To liven things a one local station in my city employed cartooning weather men.   They would produce a line drawing featuring characters like "onshore Flo" to liven things up as they described the weather forecast.

Then satellites became capable of transmitting pictures of cloud formations to the ground.  TV viewers immediately demanded that they be incorporated into their local station's TV weather forecast.    And it went on from there.

Viewers demanded progressively more elaborate presentations of information about the weather.  The cartooning guys had stood in front of their easels.  For a while that was enough.  But it was a practical impossibility to blow up the satellite picture and place it on the wall behind the weather man on the schedule and within the budget that was available.

But then some engineers figured out how to do an electronic version of a Matte effect.  They were even able to do the "Traveling Matte" version so that the weather man could walk around and point at things.  This made it possible for the weather man, and increasingly weather woman, to appear to be standing in front of the satellite picture.  The same process could also be used to project an animated forecast map on the wall.  It took only a few years for all TV weather broadcasts to feature this sort of thing.

This early technology frankly didn't work all that well.  But it paved the way for the "green screen" technology that did.  TV switched to color in the mid '60s.  Color TV is a cheat.  Light can be made up of a nearly infinite number of colors.  But our eyes use a cheat.  They have some receptors that are sensitive to a certain shade of red, other receptors that are sensitive to a certain shade of green, and still other receptors that are sensitive to a certain shade of blue.

These three specific colors are the only ones our eyes actually see.  But the brain cleverly combines these three colors to present us with all the others of the rainbow.  Color TV takes advantage of this by also only dealing with three colors.  It then depends on the eye to pass these three colors along to the brain and the brain to cleverly combine them to give the impression that we can see all the other colors too.

A color TV camera first breaks the picture up into three identical copies.  One copy is processed by electronics that are only sensitive to red.  The second copy is processed by electronics that are only sensitive to green.  The third copy similarly only handles blue.  The TV set reverses the process by suitably illuminating red, green, and blue dots on its screen at the proper intensity.  When presented with only these three colors our eyes and our brains do the rest.

The "greenscreen" process takes advantage of the fact that, under the covers, separate red, green, and blue versions of the current image are available.  The three intensities are compared at a single location in the picture.  If that location has a strong green signal but weak to nonexistent red and blue signals, that is taken note of.  This allows a pattern covering the entire picture to be individually created for each frame.

The result is a map consisting of two areas, one is "green land" and the other is everything else.  This map is used to combine input signals from two different cameras.  The "green land" part comes from one camera and the "everything else" part come from the other.  The resulting combination is sent to the output.

In short, this "green land" map is continuously created on the fly.  And, since it is done on the fly for each individual frame, it continuously adjusts to movement or other changes.  And it is all done automatically.  No slow, expensive, labor intensive, hand process is necessary.  The TV station buys a magic "green screen combiner box".  It's expensive but it is a one time cost.  Using it costs essentially nothing.  Just feed it the correct inputs and it does the rest.  And it does it as often as you want.

Signals from two TV cameras are fed to it.  One signal emerges.  The controlling input is expected to be an image suitable for turning into a "green land" map.  The other input can be any standard TV signal.  Once the box has been purchased and installed there is only one other thing that needs to be done.  That is to paint the back wall of the weather set  a specific shade of green.

Green was chosen for technical reasons.  Green paint in the color that matches the color that the green electronics in the TV camera are most sensitive to is easy to come by.  The "discriminator" circuitry need only look for one signal high and the other two low.  This can be done using simple and relatively inexpensive electronics.  Finally, it turns out to be rare for any normal thing to be exactly that shade of green.  So few if any precautions must be taken to have only the green wall trigger the discriminator circuitry.

This setup can be used with lots of things, not just satellite photos and animated weather maps.  And, speaking of satellites, another technological advance was necessary.  In the early days the only way to get a TV signal from here to there was by using a "coaxial cable".  That's because a TV signal taxed the capabilities of electronics of the day.  But then satellites capable of relaying a TV signal became available.  And "transponder time" soon became cheap enough that local TV stations and others could afford to rent a block.

Coaxial cables are inherently point to point.  They go from a specific "here" to a specific "there".  But a satellite transponder can be used to connect any two points in the U. S. that have suitable "dish" antennas.  The cost of  commercial grade satellite antennas dropped relatively quickly to the point where a medium sized local TV station could afford one.  Then they could afford three or four.

We now have all the pieces in place for the "talking head in a box" to become practical.  Talk shows featured guests that were physically present in the studio.  This was necessary in the early days because the technology was literally not available to conduct an interview where the host was here and the guest was there.  Then, it could be done of the distance was short or the budget was very large.  But talk shows don't have large budgets.

But slowly these impediments were stripped away.  In there early days you had to have a full up TV studio on either end.  Or you had to put together an elaborate and expensive "remote" setup.  This allowed the person to not be literally in a studio.  But they had to be at a location that could be wired up to a studio.

Edward R. Murrow did some shows in the early days of television this way.  But it was expensive.  The shows were essentially publicity stunts to make the network look good.  It wasn't practical for day to day use.  And the practice was mostly abandoned when Murrow stopped doing it.

Now fast forward a couple of decades.  Green screen can now be done on a local TV station budget.  Satellite transponders can now be rented in 15 minute increments at a cost that is low enough that local TV stations can afford to broadcast out of town games featuring local sports teams.  Those are the basic pieces.

Take a closet-sized room in a local TV station and paint the walls green.  Then install a low desk and chair so that a person can comfortably sit in front of the green wall.  Now put a TV camera in front of that person.  Now add a TelePrompTer that the person can see but the audience can't.  Add an earpiece the person can use to hear the director and the person they are talking to.  You are now all set.

All you need to add a person to a show is an available "talking head in a box" setup that the person can get to.  Green Screen technology can be used to insert an appropriate background behind them, a satellite transponder can be rented to link their feed to whatever studio is performing "Master Control" for the show.

Many local TV stations installed one or more of these "talking head in a box" setups.  They could easily plug them into in whatever unused space they had.  They were a handy way to meet their own needs.  And they represented a way to bring in some extra revenue.  The fact that they were small and inexpensive made the decision to do so a no brainer.

Local stations could afford to install then rent out these "talking head in a box" setups cheaply so they did.  And that meant that lining up a suitable local station, booking time on a suitable transponder, etc., quickly became both easy and inexpensive for the producer of any show that wanted to do so.   CNN, the first 24 hour news cable channel, went on the air in 1980.  It was one of the first to start taking advantage of this new capability.

Other cable news channels quickly followed suit. And regular news shows soon also fell into line.  They could "follow the news" wherever it was happening.  They could do "on the ground" interviews with reporters, experts, whoever, from wherever the story (or the expert) was.  This capability seemed like a natural for talk shows.  But by this time talk shows were established and set in their ways.  They decided that sticking exclusively to in-studio interviews was a feature, not a bug.  Then COVID-19 struck.

Before getting into that, let me note the impact of one more technological innovation, the internet.  The old coaxial cable that TV started with was expensive and inflexible.  But at the time it was the only technology capable of handling the high data rates that were required.  Then satellite channels became available.  They could handle TV data rates but they too were expensive.

The Internet's origins date back to the '60s.  But the data rates then available were ridiculously slow.  They were suitable for modest amounts of text.  They weren't even fast enough to handle an audio signal well.  But technology marches on.

By about 1990 the Internet, which reached its current form in the late '90s, was able to handle audio reasonably well.  It was soon able to handle the odd still picture.  Then technology advanced some more and it was able to handle first black and white and later TV quality video.  It is now able to easily handle high quality "high def" video.

Computers invaded the home in serious numbers in the '80s.  This greatly expanded the potential market for digital devices.  Soon digital still cameras, then digital video cameras became available.  Again. the early models could only handle low quality images.  But that changed quickly.  I remember a TV show called "Babylon 5".  It used digital equipment to do special effects.

The first season (1993) featured very cheesy special effects.  But every year they got noticeably better.  By the time the last season aired (1998) the special effects were of a very high quality.  Things had advanced so quickly and spectacularly that a movie called "The Matrix", which was released only a year later, featured spectacular special effects.  And the movie relied heavily on "CGI" - Computer Generated Images.

So these are movies with movie budgets, or at least a TV series with a TV series budget.  Technology marched on some more and soon higher and higher quality cameras, etc. became available at price points that consumers in large numbers could afford.  It is now possible to take "HD quality" video on a regular smartphone.  But, as I said, the talk show world ignored all this and kept on doing what had always worked.

Then the COVID lockdown arrived.  It was no longer possible to do a studio based talk show.  But by now there was all this inexpensive and readily available technology laying around.  It was now possible to create a very good looking product with consumer grade technology.  Now more than ever it was possible to produce a TV show without anchoring it in a studio.

The choice was a stark one.  Go dark or start working from home.  And start assembling pieces from all over the place instead of bring all of them to the studio.  So, how did it go?  It's been interesting.

Some shows and some hosts have adapted well.  Some have had less success.  And I am going to focus on shows that have a centrist or leftist slant because those are the shows I am familiar with..  But don't worry if the content of these shows might make you uncomfortable.  I am not going to talk about content.  I am only going to talk about technical issues and about how the look and feel of the show has been affected by the change.  So you can relax.

First, the look and feel.  Let me start with the house band.  Of course, if there was no house band then nothing changes.  "The Daily Show" (Comedy Central - 8 PM - 4 days per week) had no house band so moving out of the studio has made no difference.  The show that does have a house band that has done the best job has been Seth Myers (NBC, 12:35 AM - 4 days per week).

All members of the band play from home.  But their individual performances are seamlessly mixed together before the show airs.  They do multiple numbers per night and the video changes on a nightly basis.  In other words, it is a near-pre-COVID experience.

Somewhere in the middle, is Steven Colbert (CBS, 11:35 PM - 5 days per week).  The house band has recorded the opening number.  The same video of this performance is played every night.  Steven often does a short chat with Jon Batiste, the band leader,  Sometimes Batiste will play (solo) for about a minute but that's it.  Colbert has also done a poor job of adapting his performance.

He does his opening monologue (and the rest of the show) using a single fixed camera.  So neither the camera angle nor what the camera shows varies in the least.  It doesn't vary as the show progresses.  It doesn't vary from show to show.  All we see is the same unvarying shot of him in an office in his house.  His on-site staff consists solely of his wife and adult children, if he can be believed.  And it certainly looks like he is telling the truth.

When it comes to performance, someone who is perhaps on that same level is Jimmy Kimmel (ABC, 11:35 PM - 4 days per week).  He claims to be originating from two locations in his house.  That's an improvement, but not much of one, over what Colbert is doing.  The location he uses for his opening monologue is a living room scene.

He uses what he claims to be a basement scene as backdrop for subsequent segments of his show.  But they may both be green screen backdrops.  Both backgrounds are completely static.  (It is obvious that Colbert is at least using a live location rather than resorting to green screen.)

Kimmel is sitting at a desk for his second location so laying in the rest of the image via green screen would be easy to do. It is less obvious whether or not he is sitting in front of a green screen for the first segment.  But there is nothing I can recall about the scene that rules a green screen out.

Finally, Kimmel has taken two months off.  He now has a series of guest hosts substituting for him.  So far, they have all been standing in front of exactly the same background.  So it is likely a green screen backdrop.

In terms of the single location they have chosen to use, Samantha Bee (TBS - 7:30 PM - once per week) is the clear winner.  She is broadcasting from a patch of woods behind her house.  If nothing else, it's pretty.  And it's outdoorsy, an attribute that should be celebrated at this time.

Seth Meyers has been doing a very good job of taking full advantage of the single location he was using.  His broadcast location has been identified as his attic.  But his opening monologue is cut together from smaller segments.  This has allowed him to indulge in various visual tricks.

A running gag has involved a book called "The Thorn Birds".  The book may appear or disappear.  It may multiply into several copies.  It may clone itself into books with punny variations on the original title.  The number of books may change as the monologue progresses.

Another gag he has made good use of is a small storage closet behind him. He has had his small children pop out of it dressed as bees.  He has had mysterious lights shine out of it and done other gags with it.  He has recently relocated to another location which he describes as the house of his in-laws.

But the one that has done the best Job of using a boring location well is Trevor Noah ("The Daily Show").  He sticks to a single fixed location, described as being part of his apartment.  Like Meyers, his monologue is cut together.  And, while the camera doesn't move during a cut, it will often be repositioned between cuts.  He uses this to great advantage.

The camera may zoom in or out between cuts so that he seems closer or further away.  In one shot he is looking at the camera.  In the next shot he is looking to the left.  In the next, he is looking to the right.  Then it's back to head-on again.  This allows him to frame a simulated dialogue.  In the first shot he introduces it.  In the second he is playing one part.  In the third he is playing another part.  The final shot closes out the bit.  This is very effective.

Sometimes he ducks down and addresses the camera from a different angle.  This allows him to simulate an aside.  The physical setup is a simple as it can get.  But the use he is able to make of it is truly impressive.

Spoiler alert!  Kids are cute and, properly used, make for great TV.   The simplest example of this is Seth Meyers' band.  A couple of his band members have kids.  They show up on an occasional basis.  It is beguiling watching someone play guitar (and not miss note) while sitting in what is obviously a children's play area with a one or more tots playing on the floor in front of them.  Besides the example noted above, Meyers also used his kids and those of a friend in a skit filmed outdoors.

I normally only see the last minute of Jimmy Fallon's show (NBC - 11:35 PM - 4 or 5 (not sure) days per week).  But it has been shot in his kid's attic play room.  His kids have been featured regularly in recent shows.  And there is an exit made from a large diameter pipe.  He (and usually his kids - two very cute little girls) jump into the pipe and slide out of sight to end the show.

BTW, as of July 13, Fallon has returned to his studio. The is no audience.  But the studio stage is large enough for everybody to say well separated.  So they do.  And he is apparently continuing to do interviews remotely.  We'll see how long it takes other shows to follow his lead back into the studio.  I predict it won't take long.

Before moving on, I want to take note of a change in show length that has affected two shows.  Kimmel shortened his show from an hour to a half hour.  Generally, it now consists of a monologue and an interview with one guest.

Noah, on the other hand, has expanded his show from 30 minutes to 45.  He used to do an opening monologue, a bit featuring his regular staff, and an interview.  He has expanded the interview segment.  He will either to an extended interview with one person or two regular length interviews with different people.  The transition has been seamless.

And speaking of interviews, it has been interesting to view them from a technological perspective.  It is possible, some would even say it is easy, to produce a "remote" from home that is of high technical quality using only consumer grade (and relatively inexpensive) equipment.  But the fact that it is possible doesn't mean it will actually happen.

Some interviewees are tech savvy.  Some aren't.  And you can't always guess in advance who is going to fall into which category.  Part of the fun is to match prediction to reality.

There are several consideration that go into getting it right.  The first and most obvious is internet speed.  You'd think famous celebrities, people with lots of money, would always have a fast and solid internet connection.  Some do.  Some don't.  The next leg in the link is Wi-Fi. Again, fast helps.

Most of us now get our Wi-Fi base station from our Internet provider.  And the Internet providers I am familiar with provide a box that is capable of delivering fast Wi-Fi.  But things can still go wrong.  One potential problem is distance.  If your device is too far away it's going to get a crappy signal.  The easy fix her is a booster.  They are cheap and easy to come by.

Another problem is competition.  Wi-Fi uses only a few frequencies.  If you are in a high density urban environment you may be unwittingly competing with neighbors using the same frequency.  Or you may be competing with others in your home.  Your home Wi-Fi has limited bandwidth.  If others on your Wi-Fi are streaming movies it can get all used up.  Both can make a fast internet connection look like a slow one.

Another obvious item of concern is the camera.  I have noted many technological innovations above.  It is obvious that some of the people being interviewed remotely are using old tech.  The biggest give away is the shape of the screen.  When TV went digital, the old NTSC standard morphed into SD - Standard Definition.  SD is designed to deliver a similar picture.  And the most obvious component of this is the "aspect ratio".

NTSC/SD has an aspect ration of 4;3.  That means the ratio of width to height is as four is to three.  It is nearly square.  The aspect ration of HD - High Definition is 16:9.  Here the picture is lots wider than it is high.  The usual trick for broadcasting an SD image over an HD system is to insert vertical bars on each side of the picture.  If the picture originating with the interviewee has a vertical bar at the side I know that person is using an older camera that is only capable of generating an SD picture.

Something that is harder to detect is how sharp the picture is.  I have seen several interviews where the picture has an HD aspect ration but the image is blurry.  I think this is either another example of older or poorer equipment, or there is a problem with slow internet speed somewhere along the line and the picture is being degraded to keep the required bandwidth down.

And, of course, it is annoying when the picture drops, freezes, or jumps around.  The most likely cause of this is Wi-Fi overload caused by either other users in the same household or neighbors who share the same frequency.  But there is another possibility.

Internet connections are often a shared resource.  Some vendors advertise gigabit internet.  This is way more speed than you should need.  (HD should use up about 25 MB of bandwidth, for instance.)  But, while every leg of the connection may run at gigabit or faster, often times many users share the same leg.

If there are enough people sharing and they are all streaming HD movies, they can fill that leg of the pipe up.  And that can reduce your effective speed to well below the advertised one.  Or it can cause data to be dropped.  Video is particularly susceptible to data drops.

There is something else.  And I find it particularly annoying.  In the old analog days the signal for the picture and the signal for the sound were mixed together.  If they made it through at all, they made it through at the same time.  So picture and sound were automatically synchronized.  Lip movement and words spoken stayed synchronized with each other.

With the shift to digital I find that this is often not true any more.  It seems like the signal for the picture and the signal for the sound often travel along different paths.  And that can allow them to get out of sync. In an interview this can sometime se a good thing.  The person will be talking along and be perfectly intelligible while the picture is freezing, jumping around, and doing who knows what.

But what is more likely is that there is a lag between when the lips move and when the sound arrives.  I find that bugs me.  And it may be that the interviewer is in sync while the interviewee is out of sync.  And the situation may change from segment to segment.  Or it may change depending on whether they are featuring the feed starring the interviewer or the feed starring the interviewee.  This seems like a solvable problem.

Like everything else this situation is evolving at warp speed.  People are getting better at this home production business.  Or they are figuring out how to at least partially move back to the studio.

I also suspect lots of people who show up on TV regularly have made substantial upgrades to their at-home setups since COVID upended everything.  No doubt, some of them have even gone so far as to bring in experts to get them properly set up.

And the companies that run the internet backbone have been forced to add capacity.  My understanding is that the COVID era has produced a 30-40% increase in internet traffic.  No matter what happens or does not happen, things will be a lot different a year from now.

In the mean time, besides enjoying whichever talk shows you like to watch, you can now critique how they are doing.  You can not only score them not only on content.  You can also score them on how they are doing when it comes to technical issues, and on look and feel issues.  Feel free to enjoy yourself.