«

On 12/07/2010 11:20 a.m., LOL! wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:55:06 +1200, Me<> wrote:
>
>> On 11/07/2010 11:53 p.m., LOL! wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:26:49 +1200, Me<> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/07/2010 5:27 p.m., LOL! wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:14:37 +1200, Me<> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/07/2010 5:03 p.m., LOL! wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:32:06 +1200, Me<> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Oh - forgot to say this was taken with a P&S. Shutter speed was way too
>>>>>>>> slow to freeze motion blur.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, I forgot to say, this was also shot with a superzoom compact camera
>>>>>>> during sunset.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/...285b02f4_b.jpg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're pretty lousy at knowing how to use any camera, aren't you. Thanks
>>>>>>> for proving that to the whole world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You got lucky.
>>>>>
>>>>> Luck has absolutely nothing to do with it. I have about 10,000 more of the
>>>>> same genre.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I posed my dog for the shot, sitting still, then pressed the shutter
>>>>>> button. By the time the shutter went off, she'd stood up and had
>>>>>> started wagging her tail.
>>>>>> I suppose with your bird shot, it was much the same...
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose you are wrong. The one where it was just lifting from the water
>>>>> wasn't as interesting as this one with the drops of water trailing it in
>>>>> the air.
>>>>>
>>>> Nice technique - so you stuffed the bird, suspended it by wires, and
>>>> used clear polyester resin for the "water droplets".
>>>
>>> Yes, and emulated the Everglades' swamp-water with resins as well. The
>>> sunlight glinting off the resins and backlighting the subject provided by a
>>> 50 kilowatt, liquid-nitrogen cooled, CREE LED lighting system focused
>>> through a bank of cold-mirrors, filters (to emulate setting-sun
>>> temperature), and condenser system so as not to exceed the ~0.5° angular
>>> spread of the setting sun for authentic water-droplet glints. The Mangrove
>>> bank background was painstakingly duplicated in fiberglass, resin cements,
>>> and various forms of cloth to duplicate the leaves and their textures. All
>>> dyed in natural colors using ash-dyes for authenticity.
>>>
>> If you went to all that trouble, then how come you didn't compose the
>> shot properly? The bird in the right hand third flying to the right
>> draws the eye out of the frame.
>
> Duh, because I wanted to emphasize that it was LEAVING?
>
I don't blame it.

On Jul 10, 10:59*pm, Me <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> On 11/07/2010 2:15 p.m., RichA wrote:>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...es/10bit.shtml
>
> Not saying that having 10 bit panels isn't an advance, but one of the
> problems with LCDs (vs CRT) is non-linear response on the LCD sub-pixels
> to the signal. *That can be corrected to some degree by calibration, and
> so 10 bits probably with more precision (or can it - when >10 bit
> internal LUTs are already used in these monitors?), but:
> Some of the 8 bit IPS panels available at relatively low cost are pretty
> good these days - minimal or no visible banding of (8 bit) gradients.

When my beloved 19" CRT died and I was forced to buy LCD, I was
shocked at the lack of tonality. It sickened me. I wish they still
made CRTs, but economics and weight killed them.

On Jul 11, 7:15*am, "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclay...@btinternet.com>
wrote:
> "RichA" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2f86bcbe-1145-4e89-a69a-...
>
> >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...es/10bit.shtml
>
> More colours than the human eye can discern?
>
> Why pay for that?

How can you not understand LCD's tonal range is hugely crippled? You
probably believe the LCD hawkers who claim 1 million to 1 contrast
ratios too.

On Jul 11, 3:15*pm, Doug McDonald
<mcdon...@scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote:
> On 7/11/2010 12:40 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> > RichA writes:
>
> >>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...es/10bit.shtml
>
> > I have to wonder why such a bizarre aspect ratio was implemented for this
> > monitor. Is it just for editing movies in Panavision, or what?
>
> Did that idiot simply tru using the monitor on a normal
> computer, not a Mac?
>
> Doug McDonald

Try reading it. He used a Mac.

On 12/07/2010 2:17 p.m., RichA wrote:
> On Jul 11, 7:15 am, "R. Mark Clayton"<nospamclay...@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>> "RichA"<rander3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2f86bcbe-1145-4e89-a69a-...
>>
>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...es/10bit.shtml
>>
>> More colours than the human eye can discern?
>>
>> Why pay for that?
>
> How can you not understand LCD's tonal range is hugely crippled? You
> probably believe the LCD hawkers who claim 1 million to 1 contrast
> ratios too.
Crud. Go buy yourself a decent quality LCD.
High contrast ratios stated are "dynamic" - and the first "feature"
you'd want to turn off (if it was enabled by default) if using a monitor
for photography.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:45:13 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton"
<> wrote:

>Last year I bought an LG M227WD. It cost under £200 and is currently in use
>as a telly in the kitchen, however the image at 1920x1080 when tested as a
>monitor is better than the Iiyamas.


Define "better".

It may be "better" for web browsing, email etc., but inexpensive LCD
monitors just don't cut it for serious post-processing of high quality
images. The very best monitors, from manufacturers such as Apple,
Eizo and LaCie, are only now approaching the quality levels of the
better CRT monitors.

One day, there will be a flat screen LCD (or some other technology)
monitor which will surpass the image quality of the best CRTs, but we
are not there yet. Of course there is no shortage of manufacturers
who claim we are already there, and end users who claim that the cheap
LCD screen they just bought is better than any CRT screen they ever
used - but it was always thus, and these people should be ignored.

In article <>, Bruce
<> wrote:

> It may be "better" for web browsing, email etc., but inexpensive LCD
> monitors just don't cut it for serious post-processing of high quality
> images.

neither do inexpensive crts. you get what you pay for.

> The very best monitors, from manufacturers such as Apple,
> Eizo and LaCie, are only now approaching the quality levels of the
> better CRT monitors.

actually they've surpassed it for years.

> One day, there will be a flat screen LCD (or some other technology)
> monitor which will surpass the image quality of the best CRTs, but we
> are not there yet.

we were there years ago. which crt has a 10 bit lut or an adobe rgb
gamut? lcd displays also don't need a warmup period nor do they fade
after a few years.

> Of course there is no shortage of manufacturers
> who claim we are already there, and end users who claim that the cheap
> LCD screen they just bought is better than any CRT screen they ever
> used - but it was always thus, and these people should be ignored.

only those who claim cheapo lcds are better than crts should be
ignored. quality lcd displays, particularly eizo, are much better than
crts.

On 13/07/2010 4:18 a.m., Bruce wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:45:13 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton"
> <> wrote:
> but inexpensive LCD
> monitors just don't cut it for serious post-processing of high quality
> images. The very best monitors, from manufacturers such as Apple,
> Eizo and LaCie, are only now approaching the quality levels of the
> better CRT monitors.
>
The evolution of LCDs hasn't been generally driven by the needs of
photographers. Better panel technology was available (for photographers
etc), but panel response time was very poor (no good for gamers),
production volume small, and cost subsequently high (Eizo etc). Light
transmission of the better panels is also lower, so for laptops, the
cheaper TN panels are still used to extend battery life (less backlight
power needed)
Sometimes - perhaps "overun" in production for premium monitor makers,
high quality panels found their way in to consumer monitors from Dell
etc - though also sometimes a lottery which panel would arrive.
Things are changing. In my opinion it's still not driven by what
photographers need - it's coming down from large volume TV panel
production (mainly VA and IPS panel), and possibly up from small
touch-screen devices (iPad) which necessitate good viewing angle, with
the bonus that colour reproduction is good (iPad sceen is IPS, and
really not bad).
It's a little crazy IMO that at the moment you can buy an IPS or VA
panel full HDTV of 40 or 42", for similar or less price than a 24-27"
IPS or VA panel computer monitor.

In article <HP->, Rich
<> wrote:

> > It has been inescapable for some years now - CRT's have had their day.
>
> You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. You won't see ANY banding on
> even the cheapest CRT, but you will see it on nearly EVERY LCD except
> units in the high four figure price range. LCD's are going to die before
> they ever get fixed.

pure nonsense.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:49:36 -0500, Rich <> wrote:

>"R. Mark Clayton" <> wrote in
>news::
>
>>
>> "RichA" <> wrote in message
>> news:393a8582-fd3e-41bf-a4c2-.
>> .. On Jul 11, 7:15 am, "R. Mark Clayton"
>> <nospamclay...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> "RichA" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:2f86bcbe-1145-4e89-a69a-.
>>> ..
>>>
>>> >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...es/10bit.shtml
>>>
>>> More colours than the human eye can discern?
>>>
>>> Why pay for that?
>>
>>:How can you not understand LCD's tonal range is hugely crippled?
>>
>> How can increasing the DtoA resolution to ten bits improve the range?
>> Sure a three colour system is always going to struggle to reproduce
>> the full gamut the eye can see (Sharp have a four colour one, but how
>> this helps with a three colour broadcast system and yellow being the
>> centre of the gamut I don't know)
>>
>>: You probably believe the LCD hawkers who claim 1 million to 1
>>: contrast
>> ratios too.
>>
>> No
>>
>>
>> I have two large Iiyama screens. The newer one claims 2048x1536, but
>> can't really do it, but is rock solid at 1600x1200 at 85Hz, the older
>> does 1600x1200 at 60Hz and is a little tired now. I sometimes run the
>> desktop out over both screens.
>>
>> The first cost ~£1k in 1996/7 and the second ~£500 in 2004/5.
>>
>> Last year I bought an LG M227WD. It cost under £200 and is currently
>> in use as a telly in the kitchen, however the image at 1920x1080 when
>> tested as a monitor is better than the Iiyamas.
>>
>> It has been inescapable for some years now - CRT's have had their day.
>>
>>
>
>You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. You won't see ANY banding on
>even the cheapest CRT, but you will see it on nearly EVERY LCD except
>units in the high four figure price range. LCD's are going to die before
>they ever get fixed.

It's really too bad they killed SED.