Bit of a con, really ... ?

[Bob Larter]

Arfa Daily wrote:

We had some pretty fussy customers back then with serious pots of money, and
I can't recall any colour accuracy issues ever arising - aside from one
particular customer who used to complain on a weekly basis that colours were
"bleeding through" (convergence issues !) and in the summer that there was
something wrong because the grass in front of the wicket on the cricket, was
yellow ...

LOL. It didn't occur to him that well trampled grass, in summer, is
often yellow?


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

dennis@home wrote:

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:dFpOl.123771$A85.94314@newsfe03.ams2...

No, I wasn't either. I have two friends who both own top end digital
SLRs, one because he is a professional photographer, and the other
because he is a very keen hobbyist. I have looked at the viewfinder
images closely on both of these cameras, and the rendition of flesh
tones in all the varieties is excellent, and the professional of the
two has commented to me how good he thinks the viewfinder is at colour
rendition under all light levels (input that is, not viewing conditions).

Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder, its
all done with mirrors.
There are only a few that use electronic viewfinders and they are low end.

Correct. I have two DSLRs, (Canon EOS 10D, & EOS 1Dmk2), & they both use
optical viewfinders. I certainly wouldn't waste my money on DSLRs with
electronic viewfinders.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

Arfa Daily wrote:

"dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote in message
news:gueb38$77d$1@news.datemas.de...

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:dFpOl.123771$A85.94314@newsfe03.ams2...

No, I wasn't either. I have two friends who both own top end digital
SLRs, one because he is a professional photographer, and the other
because he is a very keen hobbyist. I have looked at the viewfinder
images closely on both of these cameras, and the rendition of flesh tones
in all the varieties is excellent, and the professional of the two has
commented to me how good he thinks the viewfinder is at colour rendition
under all light levels (input that is, not viewing conditions).
Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder, its
all done with mirrors.
There are only a few that use electronic viewfinders and they are low end.

I'm pretty sure that one of them told me that his camera was over a grand's
worth, so I wouldn't call that particularly low end,

Are you kidding? My EOS 1Dmk2 cost $7000AUD. A grand is nothing for a
decent DSLR.

although I am sure
there are others more expensive. If they do not have an LCD panel on them to
at least review the pictures you have taken, without having to plug the
thing into a computer, that rather defeats the object of it being a portable
'digital' camera, doesn't it ?

Sure, but the LCD is to review the shot after you've taken it. You use
the optical viewfinder when you're taking your shot.

Perhaps I am not being quite accurate in calling it a "viewfinder". I accept
that the higher end cameras have a proper optical viewfinder operating on
the SLR mirror / prism system,

Correct.

but the LCD panel also serves as a
supplementary viewfinder, as well as a display medium for photos already
taken.

Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View", where
you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer would use
that in preference to the traditional viewfinder. OTOH, the LCD is
really handy to ensure that the shot turned out the way that you wanted
it to.


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

Arfa Daily wrote:

"Meat Plow" <meat@petitmorte.net> wrote in message
news:2q8gov.rv1.19.10@news.alt.net...
On Mon, 11 May 2009 12:12:08 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
arfa.daily@ntlworld.com>wrote:

Just had one of those weekly e-ads from a local department store that we
use
sometimes, trumpeting the latest "Ultraslim LED TV" from Samsung.

Ha! I thought. I haven't heard anything about this. Is it OLED ? At sizes
up
to over 50", that didn't seem likely, so I followed the links to see what
it
was all about.

Seems that these sets still actually have an LCD display panel, but the
*backlighting* is LED ...

OK, so I can see that there are advantages size-wise - these things are
only 32mm thick - and also power consumption savings, as we all know that
flourescent tube backlighting is very inefficient, but is it right to
actually call these "LED TVs" ? Seems like a bit of a deliberately
misleading use of the terminology to me - or is it maybe just me being a
picky grumpy old sod ? d:~)

Arfa


Seeing most people don't know a liquid crystal from a light emitting
diode I'd say the ad is pretty low on the deception meter.

Perhaps, but I think that the current generation might just be rather more
savvy about this sort of thing than you give them credit for ...

You might be surprised. I had a client much younger than myself who was
confused about the difference between a flat screen CRT vs an LCD screen.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <guejka$aq2$1@news.motzarella.org>,
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

Quite a bit of what I'm saying comes from working in TV production -
although I'm on the sound side. But hear plenty from those who work on
the vision side of things. ;-) And it was certainly the case that
Grade 1 picture monitors continued with delta gun tubes long after PIL
were introduced domestically -- and stuck with the original NTSC
phosphors. As this was the standard the cameras were 'calibrated' to.

But there was no "original" NTSC red phosphor -- just a standard for it,
that the original red phosphors didn't meet.

The phosphors as used when colour TV arrived in the UK were known as NTSC
standard by the BBC. And were still specified for Grade 1 monitors for
many years afterwards. Indeed probably still are.

--
*Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <gueklt$aga$4@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>,
Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote:

Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder,
its all done with mirrors. There are only a few that use electronic
viewfinders and they are low end.

Correct. I have two DSLRs, (Canon EOS 10D, & EOS 1Dmk2), & they both use
optical viewfinders. I certainly wouldn't waste my money on DSLRs with
electronic viewfinders.

Don't they have an LCD screen for viewing purposes, though? Not that you
can judge the variety of tones that make up a face on something so small.

--
*Even a blind pig stumbles across an acorn now and again *

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

If I want to know that my screen is rendering colour correctly,
I stick my Colorvision Spyder to it & measure it. That way,
I know for sure.

Calibrating your monitor doesn't mean it renders color correctly. It means
that it renders it according to certain standards.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

I have two DSLRs, (Canon EOS 10D, & EOS 1Dmk2), & they both use
optical viewfinders. I certainly wouldn't waste my money on DSLRs with
[only] electronic viewfinders.

Are there any?

Nearly 40 years ago, I imagined a film-based SLR with an electronic
viewfinder that showed how the final image would look, depending on the film
you used, and (with B&W materials) the way you developed and printed.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View",
where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer
would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Quite a bit of what I'm saying comes from working in TV production -
although I'm on the sound side. But hear plenty from those who work
on the vision side of things. ;-) And it was certainly the case that
Grade 1 picture monitors continued with delta gun tubes long after
PIL was introduced domestically -- and stuck with the original NTSC
phosphors. As this was the standard the cameras were 'calibrated' to.

But there was no "original" NTSC red phosphor -- just a standard for it,
that the original red phosphors didn't meet.

The phosphors as used when colour TV arrived in the UK were known
as NTSC standard by the BBC. And were still specified for Grade 1
monitors for many years afterwards. Indeed, probably still are.

Forgive me, but how something is spec'd does not mean that the real-world
implementation -- regardless of its name -- meets the spec.

Of course, color TV was so late arriving in GB, it's likely that only the
improved red phosphors were used.

 

[JW]

On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:21:51 +1000 Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote in Message id: <guekvj$cpq$1@blackhelicopter.databasix.com>:

Are you kidding? My EOS 1Dmk2 cost $7000AUD. A grand is nothing for a
decent DSLR.

For that kind of money, it better perform like those X-ray glasses you
used to be able to buy in the back of comic books!

 

[William Sommerwerck]

The value of an additional LCD view depends entirely on the sort of
photographic work you're doing. For close-up shots of complicated,
highly reflective objects a live view facility with pinpoint focussing
is a real boon - as is the ability to see the image in real time on a
computer screen. It allows for some very specialised techniques,
such as manipulating the depth-of-field by the millimetre.
In fact because of the limitations of DSLR live view at the current
time I'd say it was more of a function of use to the studio
professional than the amateur.

The Canon 5D II (and possibly other cameras) lets you connect to an HD
display so you can get an even bigger live view. I haven't tried this yet.

 

[Man at B&Q]

On May 13, 12:31 pm, "dennis@home" <den...@killspam.kicks-ass.net>
wrote:

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.da...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:dFpOl.123771$A85.94314@newsfe03.ams2...

No, I wasn't either. I have two friends who both own top end digital SLRs,
one because he is a professional photographer, and the other because he is
a very keen hobbyist. I have looked at the viewfinder images closely on
both of these cameras, and the rendition of flesh tones in all the
varieties is excellent, and the professional of the two has commented to
me how good he thinks the viewfinder is at colour rendition under all
light levels (input that is, not viewing conditions).

Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder, its all
done with mirrors.

And your posts use smoke and mirrors.

 

[Stephen Howard]

On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:21:51 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

<snip>

Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View", where
you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer would use
that in preference to the traditional viewfinder. OTOH, the LCD is
really handy to ensure that the shot turned out the way that you wanted
it to.

The value of an additional LCD view depends entirely on the sort of
photographic work you're doing. For close-up shots of complicated,
highly reflective objects a live view facility with pinpoint focussing
is a real boon - as is the ability to see the image in real time on a
computer screen. It allows for some very specialised techniques, such
as manipulating the depth-of-field by the millimetre.
In fact because of the limitations of DSLR live view at the current
time I'd say it was more of a function of use to the studio
professional than the amateur.

Regards,


--
Steve ( out in the sticks )
Email: Take time to reply: timefrom_usenet{at}gmx.net

 

[Stephen Howard]

On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:37:12 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

I have two DSLRs, (Canon EOS 10D, & EOS 1Dmk2), & they both use
optical viewfinders. I certainly wouldn't waste my money on DSLRs with
[only] electronic viewfinders.

Are there any?

I looked at a Sony ( I think ) one last year with a particular

project in mind. There were only two things I remember about it - the
LCD view screen flipped out and could be angled, which was handy - and
the image in the viewfinder was bloody awful.

I bought a Canon.

Regards,


--
Steve ( out in the sticks )
Email: Take time to reply: timefrom_usenet{at}gmx.net

 

[Stephen Howard]

On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:39:30 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

The value of an additional LCD view depends entirely on the sort of
photographic work you're doing. For close-up shots of complicated,
highly reflective objects a live view facility with pinpoint focussing
is a real boon - as is the ability to see the image in real time on a
computer screen. It allows for some very specialised techniques,
such as manipulating the depth-of-field by the millimetre.
In fact because of the limitations of DSLR live view at the current
time I'd say it was more of a function of use to the studio
professional than the amateur.

The Canon 5D II (and possibly other cameras) lets you connect to an HD
display so you can get an even bigger live view. I haven't tried this yet.

I think the new 500D and 50D models have this feature too, and it's

something I've got my eye on. I had a look at the specs of the new 5D
a while back and I'm sorely tempted...

Regards,


--
Steve ( out in the sticks )
Email: Take time to reply: timefrom_usenet{at}gmx.net

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <guemq7$585$1@news.motzarella.org>,
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:

The phosphors as used when colour TV arrived in the UK were known
as NTSC standard by the BBC. And were still specified for Grade 1
monitors for many years afterwards. Indeed, probably still are.

Forgive me, but how something is spec'd does not mean that the real-world
implementation -- regardless of its name -- meets the spec.

Of course, color TV was so late arriving in GB, it's likely that only the
improved red phosphors were used.

Finally the penny's dropped.

--
*If PROGRESS is for advancement, what does that make CONGRESS mean?

Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

 

[dennis@home]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:guem2g$unc$1@news.motzarella.org...

Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View",
where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer
would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

Just shoot in RAW.
The colour balance is just a filter applied post shot to the RAW data.
You can then adjust it to whatever you want in the viewing conditions you
want when you "develop" your pictures.

 

[dennis@home]

"Stephen Howard" <seesigfor@email.uk> wrote in message
news:disl05lk4p2e4j8sdh53mrvhrvmbn72h5k@4ax.com...

On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:21:51 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com
wrote:

snip
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View", where
you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer would use
that in preference to the traditional viewfinder. OTOH, the LCD is
really handy to ensure that the shot turned out the way that you wanted
it to.

The value of an additional LCD view depends entirely on the sort of
photographic work you're doing. For close-up shots of complicated,
highly reflective objects a live view facility with pinpoint focussing
is a real boon - as is the ability to see the image in real time on a
computer screen. It allows for some very specialised techniques, such
as manipulating the depth-of-field by the millimetre.
In fact because of the limitations of DSLR live view at the current
time I'd say it was more of a function of use to the studio
professional than the amateur.

I have done a few product shots before and the best way to work in the
studio is a laptop and a data cable to the camera.
I find the LCD is virtually redundant for static studio work.
More important is a high speed data link, USB is very slow.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

Just shoot in RAW.
The colour balance is just a filter applied post shot to the RAW data.
You can then adjust it to whatever you want in the viewing conditions you
want when you "develop" your pictures.

True, but what if you want or need to use the JPG immediately?