Bit of a con, really ... ?

[Arfa Daily]

"PeterC" <giraffenos.pam@homecall.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ebydazsh0knu.19x5grve0z9vb$.dlg@40tude.net...

On Fri, 15 May 2009 02:15:08 +0100, Arfa Daily wrote:

This is one of those cases in which the people most-likely to object to
the
advertising are those aware of the ad's meaning, who therefore don't see
it
as a misrepresentation.

Sets that generate the image directly using LEDs or OLEDs are not
perceived
as having fundamental advantages *, so even if the display is
incorrectly
called "LED", rather than "LED backlight", it is not seen as misleading.

Does that make any sense?

I'm not sure that it does, to be honest. I'm aware of the ad's meaning,
and
it was exactly that which made me see it as a misrepresentation.


PS: Samsung's Website calls it an "LED TV" -- as distinct from "LCD
TV" --
which is at least confusing.

No. More than that. It is patently *not* an LED TV. It is an LCD TV.
Nothing
more, nothing less. I don't find that confusing - it is at the very least
misleading.

I saw the ad. on TV last night and, had I seen it /before/ this thread
would have picked up on it, but how many viewers would? Most of us here
know the current state of OLED screens (and I'm waiting 'til they go to
32"+ and are affordable) but joe public will believe even politicians (and
they aren't affordable).

On similar lines is the 'digital' radio that's advertised - has LCD info
but is still analogue reception. IMO that's misleading as well.
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

Most radios that are offered as "digital", are actually DAB types, although
they may well have an analogue receiver inside them as well, for when you
get fed up of listening to Daleks reading the news, or wondering why someone
in the orchestra, is blowing bubbles through a drinking straw, or even why
the whole orchestra keeps stopping momentarily at what you are sure are
inappropriate places ...

As far as OLEDs go, I'm honestly not sure that they will ever get up to
'living room' size. A much better technology which is capable of being
manufactured to large sizes, and which can apparently rival the best CRTs
(as it is in effect a variant of CRT technology, without all the bulk) has
existed for some time now. But it is unfortunately buried in litigation over
ownership or some such, so doesn't look likely to come storming into our
shops anytime soon. Which is a shame, because from what I have read of it,
it would knock all of the current technologies completely into yesterday. If
you want to look into this technology, it's called "SED" or similar slight
variations. I think that the actual name is a little longer than 3 words,
but "Surface Emission Display" is enough to find it on the 'net.

Arfa

 

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article <dB9Pl.64391$_e5.54281@newsfe21.ams2>,
Arfa Daily <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Most radios that are offered as "digital", are actually DAB types,
although they may well have an analogue receiver inside them as well,
for when you get fed up of listening to Daleks reading the news, or
wondering why someone in the orchestra, is blowing bubbles through a
drinking straw, or even why the whole orchestra keeps stopping
momentarily at what you are sure are inappropriate places ...

I have a DAB radio in the car - with the correct aerial - and round London
it performs rather better than FM. So it's not all bad. But any radio
system won't work properly with an inadequate signal. And DAB was
originally designed with mobile reception in mind - although very very few
have DAB car radios.

--
*How do you tell when you run out of invisible ink? *

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

 

[dennis@home]

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gui3pd$rdo$13@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
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.
In this case strangely rarely and uniquely, Dennis is correct. My SLR has
no electronics in the viewfinder. Its all done with mirrors.


And a pentaprism, presumably. ;^)

My cheap e500 has a penta-mirror.
Prisms are too expensive?
Does the same job but has a higher light loss.

 

[dennis@home]

"Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Am3Pl.48314$i%2.23626@newsfe15.ams2...

PS: Samsung's Website calls it an "LED TV" -- as distinct from "LCD
TV" --
which is at least confusing.

No. More than that. It is patently *not* an LED TV. It is an LCD TV.
Nothing more, nothing less. I don't find that confusing - it is at the
very least misleading.



PPS: I've seen it in Fry's, and was not particularly impressed.

I haven't seen one yet, but hope to this coming weekend ...

The PC I am using has an LED backlight display..
it is much brighter for the same power usage as my older screen.
I can't really say what the quality is like as it has a touch screen and
that makes it look a bit grainy.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

I was making the point that Live View is a good way to get accurate
color
balance at the time the photo is taken, especially under light sources
without continuous spectra. The issue is not whether a camera can take
raw
and compressed images at the same time, but whether one /needs/ a
properly
balanced JPG image /right away/. This is impossible with a raw file.

And how would you suggest that someone gets around that problem? It's
not always practical to shoot a white card & create a custom WB at the
time. (And in my case, I can't do it because the light's changing too
fast to get a useful WB from a white card anyway.)

Is deliberately misreading and misunderstanding what people post your
principal hobby?

Nobody else seems to have a problem with my posts.

Maybe the other people understood what I was talking about. Imagine we were
having a similar conversation 20 years ago...

Me: Polaroid prints can be really handy if you need an immediate picture,
such as when you have to meet a newspaper deadline.

You: But you can get better quality by taking the photo on conventional film
and printing it just the way you like.

Me: Yes, but you won't have it ready in time. The Polaroid gives you the
picture immediately.

You: Printing a negative gives you control you don't get from the instant
print.

Me: [bangs head repeatedly against the wall]

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Yes, BUT WHAT IF YOU NEED AN IMMEDIATE IMAGE AND
CAN'T PROCESS THE RAW DATA!!!!!!

THEN I SHOOT RAW+JPEG & USE THE JPEG WITH THE
CRAPPY WB!!11!!!

The white balance needn't be "crappy" if you take a moment to set it with
live view. I've tried it, and it works very well, particularly under
fluorescent light, where a bit of green/magenta correction is needed.

 

[Bob Larter]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I was making the point that Live View is a good way to get accurate
color
balance at the time the photo is taken, especially under light sources
without continuous spectra. The issue is not whether a camera can take
raw
and compressed images at the same time, but whether one /needs/ a
properly
balanced JPG image /right away/. This is impossible with a raw file.

And how would you suggest that someone gets around that problem? It's
not always practical to shoot a white card & create a custom WB at the
time. (And in my case, I can't do it because the light's changing too
fast to get a useful WB from a white card anyway.)

Is deliberately misreading and misunderstanding what people post your
principal hobby?

Nobody else seems to have a problem with my posts.


Maybe the other people understood what I was talking about. Imagine we were
having a similar conversation 20 years ago...

Me: Polaroid prints can be really handy if you need an immediate picture,
such as when you have to meet a newspaper deadline.

You: But you can get better quality by taking the photo on conventional film
and printing it just the way you like.

Me: Yes, but you won't have it ready in time. The Polaroid gives you the
picture immediately.

You: Printing a negative gives you control you don't get from the instant
print.

Me: [bangs head repeatedly against the wall]

What's been confusing me about what you've been saying is that you've
been talking about checking your WB in LiveView. If you're just saying
that you're happy with a JPEG that's using one of the standard WB
settings, then sure, you can use the image right away, & what you're
saying makes sense.
OTOH, I've been talking about a *real* WB, which requires either a
white card shot to set a custom WB, or tweaking the WB of a RAW file on
my PC.
Now if you want *both* options, you shoot RAW+JPEG, which is what I do.

Does that make things a bit clearer?

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

 

[Bob Larter]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

Yes, BUT WHAT IF YOU NEED AN IMMEDIATE IMAGE AND
CAN'T PROCESS THE RAW DATA!!!!!!

THEN I SHOOT RAW+JPEG & USE THE JPEG WITH THE
CRAPPY WB!!11!!!

The white balance needn't be "crappy" if you take a moment to set it with
live view. I've tried it, and it works very well, particularly under
fluorescent light, where a bit of green/magenta correction is needed.

For casual photography sure, but I'm a lot fussier than that.

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

 

[Bob Larter]

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gui2lt$rdo$2@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
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.

It'll certainly tell you if you're using the wrong WB setting, but it's
no substitute for checking the RAW image on a calibrated CRT.

Yes, BUT WHAT IF YOU NEED AN IMMEDIATE IMAGE AND CAN'T PROCESS THE RAW
DATA!!!!!!


I do not understand what an immediate image is. If I want an immediate
image, I use my eyes.

If I want a record, I take a photograph. Which has to be do9wnloaded
ontp a copmputer or printed out to be any use.

So what on earth are you on about?

In all fairness, he could be talking about plugging his camera into a
printer & printing directly to it. I personally don't think that gives
acceptable quality, but there are plenty of people who wouldn't have a
problem with it.

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

 

[Bob Larter]

dennis@home wrote:

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gui3pd$rdo$13@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
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.
In this case strangely rarely and uniquely, Dennis is correct. My SLR
has no electronics in the viewfinder. Its all done with mirrors.


And a pentaprism, presumably. ;^)

My cheap e500 has a penta-mirror.
Prisms are too expensive?
Does the same job but has a higher light loss.

Correct on both counts.

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

 

[Bob Larter]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

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.

That would be technically possible these days, but shooting in
RAW mode, there wouldn't be much use for it.

There would be, if you were shooting film. (See above.)

Sure, but why? It's so easy to do something very similar in PhotoShop.

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

 

[William Sommerwerck]

What's been confusing me about what you've been saying is that you've
been talking about checking your WB in LiveView. If you're just saying
that you're happy with a JPEG that's using one of the standard WB
settings, then sure, you can use the image right away, & what you're
saying makes sense.

Well, I was going more deeply than that. The Live View lets you fine-tune
the white balance fairly quickly.

If you run through the range of "conventional" color-temperature settings
under fluorescent light, * you'll see that it's rare for any of them to
closely approach neutrality. Some degree of green/magenta adjustment is
needed, and it's quickly set in Live View. (It is on my Canon, anyway.)

The issue that neither of us has discussed is whether what we see in Live
View is trustworthy with respect to accurate white balance. You need to
display the images on a calibrated monitor and see whether what /looks/
properly white on the camera's LCD actually is.

* Ordinary fluorescents, not those designed for photographic use, which can
be quite good.

OTOH, I've been talking about a *real* WB, which requires either a
white card shot to set a custom WB, or tweaking the WB of a RAW
file on my PC.

For which the WhiBal card is a good choice. Take a photo with it under the
same lighting, then "eyedropper" a sample of the card into the image you
want to correct.

Google "whibal". The site has a lot of useful information.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gujrvs$s3j$5@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...

William Sommerwerck wrote:

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.

That would be technically possible these days, but shooting in
RAW mode, there wouldn't be much use for it.

There would be, if you were shooting film. (See above.)

Sure, but why? It's so easy to do something very similar in PhotoShop.

But some people prefer silver-based photography. It took me quite a while to
"come over" to digital -- at least for anything "serious". And I still like
Polaroid photography, particularly the peel-apart materials.

 

[Bob Larter]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gujrvs$s3j$5@blackhelicopter.databasix.com...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

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.

That would be technically possible these days, but shooting in
RAW mode, there wouldn't be much use for it.

There would be, if you were shooting film. (See above.)

Sure, but why? It's so easy to do something very similar in PhotoShop.

But some people prefer silver-based photography. It took me quite a while to
"come over" to digital -- at least for anything "serious". And I still like
Polaroid photography, particularly the peel-apart materials.

Obviously that's a matter of personal taste. Neither is right or wrong.

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