Monitors slowly evolving

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Jul 11, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 11/07/2010 2:15 p.m., RichA wrote:
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/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.
    Eizo used to use Samsung-made VA matrix panels. Nothing inherently
    wrong with them, also used by NEC etc, except that VA panels typically
    show some "black crush" - poor definition of near black levels,
    especially at a very slight angle. The improvement that the LL notes
    "But the most obvious user observation would be that the lower zones of
    the image are depicted far more accurately in both color and gradation"
    is possibly (or even probably) attributable to comparing the new screen,
    (which happens to be 10 bit, but uses an in plane switching "IPS" panel)
    with another older Eizo (or other professional level monitor) which
    probably had a VA panel.
     
    Me, Jul 11, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:59:35 +1200, Me <> wrote:

    >On 11/07/2010 2:15 p.m., RichA wrote:
    >> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/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.
    >Eizo used to use Samsung-made VA matrix panels. Nothing inherently
    >wrong with them, also used by NEC etc, except that VA panels typically
    >show some "black crush" - poor definition of near black levels,
    >especially at a very slight angle. The improvement that the LL notes
    >"But the most obvious user observation would be that the lower zones of
    >the image are depicted far more accurately in both color and gradation"
    >is possibly (or even probably) attributable to comparing the new screen,
    >(which happens to be 10 bit, but uses an in plane switching "IPS" panel)
    >with another older Eizo (or other professional level monitor) which
    >probably had a VA panel.


    10-bit displays, 14-bit camera sensors, 16-32-bit editors ....

    And still I have yet to see even ONE of you put any of it to worthwhile
    use. Color bit-depth is never going to automatically bestow any of you with
    photographic skill and talent, no matter how much you think it might help.
    Just what the world needs is a 32-bit depth image displayed on a 10-bit
    depth monitor of yet another blurry and crappy image of your flea-bag of a
    cat.

    LOL!!
     
    LOL!, Jul 11, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 11/07/2010 3:36 p.m., LOL! wrote:
    > On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:59:35 +1200, Me<> wrote:
    >
    >> On 11/07/2010 2:15 p.m., RichA wrote:
    >>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/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.
    >> Eizo used to use Samsung-made VA matrix panels. Nothing inherently
    >> wrong with them, also used by NEC etc, except that VA panels typically
    >> show some "black crush" - poor definition of near black levels,
    >> especially at a very slight angle. The improvement that the LL notes
    >> "But the most obvious user observation would be that the lower zones of
    >> the image are depicted far more accurately in both color and gradation"
    >> is possibly (or even probably) attributable to comparing the new screen,
    >> (which happens to be 10 bit, but uses an in plane switching "IPS" panel)
    >> with another older Eizo (or other professional level monitor) which
    >> probably had a VA panel.

    >
    > 10-bit displays, 14-bit camera sensors, 16-32-bit editors ....
    >
    > And still I have yet to see even ONE of you put any of it to worthwhile
    > use. Color bit-depth is never going to automatically bestow any of you with
    > photographic skill and talent, no matter how much you think it might help.
    > Just what the world needs is a 32-bit depth image displayed on a 10-bit
    > depth monitor of yet another blurry and crappy image of your flea-bag of a
    > cat.
    >

    I don't have a cat, just a troll-killing mountain dog:
    http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/20221633.jpg
     
    Me, Jul 11, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:53:37 +1200, Me <> wrote:

    >On 11/07/2010 3:36 p.m., LOL! wrote:
    >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:59:35 +1200, Me<> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 11/07/2010 2:15 p.m., RichA wrote:
    >>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/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.
    >>> Eizo used to use Samsung-made VA matrix panels. Nothing inherently
    >>> wrong with them, also used by NEC etc, except that VA panels typically
    >>> show some "black crush" - poor definition of near black levels,
    >>> especially at a very slight angle. The improvement that the LL notes
    >>> "But the most obvious user observation would be that the lower zones of
    >>> the image are depicted far more accurately in both color and gradation"
    >>> is possibly (or even probably) attributable to comparing the new screen,
    >>> (which happens to be 10 bit, but uses an in plane switching "IPS" panel)
    >>> with another older Eizo (or other professional level monitor) which
    >>> probably had a VA panel.

    >>
    >> 10-bit displays, 14-bit camera sensors, 16-32-bit editors ....
    >>
    >> And still I have yet to see even ONE of you put any of it to worthwhile
    >> use. Color bit-depth is never going to automatically bestow any of you with
    >> photographic skill and talent, no matter how much you think it might help.
    >> Just what the world needs is a 32-bit depth image displayed on a 10-bit
    >> depth monitor of yet another blurry and crappy image of your flea-bag of a
    >> cat.
    >>

    >I don't have a cat, just a troll-killing mountain dog:
    >http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/20221633.jpg


    Damn, I should have said "yet another blurry and crappy image of your
    flea-bag of a cat or dog." You definitely got the blurry part down pat.
    Enjoying that shallow DOF are you?

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Jul 11, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 11/07/2010 4:11 p.m., LOL! wrote:
    > On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:53:37 +1200, Me<> wrote:
    >
    >> On 11/07/2010 3:36 p.m., LOL! wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:59:35 +1200, Me<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 11/07/2010 2:15 p.m., RichA wrote:
    >>>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/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.
    >>>> Eizo used to use Samsung-made VA matrix panels. Nothing inherently
    >>>> wrong with them, also used by NEC etc, except that VA panels typically
    >>>> show some "black crush" - poor definition of near black levels,
    >>>> especially at a very slight angle. The improvement that the LL notes
    >>>> "But the most obvious user observation would be that the lower zones of
    >>>> the image are depicted far more accurately in both color and gradation"
    >>>> is possibly (or even probably) attributable to comparing the new screen,
    >>>> (which happens to be 10 bit, but uses an in plane switching "IPS" panel)
    >>>> with another older Eizo (or other professional level monitor) which
    >>>> probably had a VA panel.
    >>>
    >>> 10-bit displays, 14-bit camera sensors, 16-32-bit editors ....
    >>>
    >>> And still I have yet to see even ONE of you put any of it to worthwhile
    >>> use. Color bit-depth is never going to automatically bestow any of you with
    >>> photographic skill and talent, no matter how much you think it might help.
    >>> Just what the world needs is a 32-bit depth image displayed on a 10-bit
    >>> depth monitor of yet another blurry and crappy image of your flea-bag of a
    >>> cat.
    >>>

    >> I don't have a cat, just a troll-killing mountain dog:
    >> http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/20221633.jpg

    >
    > Damn, I should have said "yet another blurry and crappy image of your
    > flea-bag of a cat or dog." You definitely got the blurry part down pat.
    > Enjoying that shallow DOF are you?
    >

    Oh - forgot to say this was taken with a P&S. Shutter speed was way too
    slow to freeze motion blur. The old flea bag gets twitchy when she
    smells a troll.
     
    Me, Jul 11, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:32:06 +1200, Me <> wrote:

    >On 11/07/2010 4:11 p.m., LOL! wrote:
    >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:53:37 +1200, Me<> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 11/07/2010 3:36 p.m., LOL! wrote:
    >>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:59:35 +1200, Me<> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 11/07/2010 2:15 p.m., RichA wrote:
    >>>>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/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.
    >>>>> Eizo used to use Samsung-made VA matrix panels. Nothing inherently
    >>>>> wrong with them, also used by NEC etc, except that VA panels typically
    >>>>> show some "black crush" - poor definition of near black levels,
    >>>>> especially at a very slight angle. The improvement that the LL notes
    >>>>> "But the most obvious user observation would be that the lower zones of
    >>>>> the image are depicted far more accurately in both color and gradation"
    >>>>> is possibly (or even probably) attributable to comparing the new screen,
    >>>>> (which happens to be 10 bit, but uses an in plane switching "IPS" panel)
    >>>>> with another older Eizo (or other professional level monitor) which
    >>>>> probably had a VA panel.
    >>>>
    >>>> 10-bit displays, 14-bit camera sensors, 16-32-bit editors ....
    >>>>
    >>>> And still I have yet to see even ONE of you put any of it to worthwhile
    >>>> use. Color bit-depth is never going to automatically bestow any of you with
    >>>> photographic skill and talent, no matter how much you think it might help.
    >>>> Just what the world needs is a 32-bit depth image displayed on a 10-bit
    >>>> depth monitor of yet another blurry and crappy image of your flea-bag of a
    >>>> cat.
    >>>>
    >>> I don't have a cat, just a troll-killing mountain dog:
    >>> http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/20221633.jpg

    >>
    >> Damn, I should have said "yet another blurry and crappy image of your
    >> flea-bag of a cat or dog." You definitely got the blurry part down pat.
    >> Enjoying that shallow DOF are you?
    >>

    >Oh - forgot to say this was taken with a P&S. Shutter speed was way too
    >slow to freeze motion blur. The old flea bag gets twitchy when she
    >smells a troll.


    In the mountains we call dogs that size, "Bear & Puma Snacks", and in the
    Everglades they are the favored size for "Gator Snacks". It was always so
    funny when some little yappy flea-bag mutt like that would start barking at
    the edge of a canal. Then moments later you hear its distraught owner
    yelling, "Oh NO! My Mr. Bonzo! HELP HELP! THAT GATOR IS SWALLOWING MY POOR
    LITTLE DOGGY, WHOLE!"

    I always wonder if they ever learn anything from it.

    LOL!

    Darwinism in action, I can never get enough of it.

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Jul 11, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    NGBarfart Guest

    In article <>,
    LOL! <> wrote:

    > On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:32:06 +1200, Me <> wrote:
    >
    > >On 11/07/2010 4:11 p.m., LOL! wrote:
    > >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:53:37 +1200, Me<> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> On 11/07/2010 3:36 p.m., LOL! wrote:
    > >>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:59:35 +1200, Me<> wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>> On 11/07/2010 2:15 p.m., RichA wrote:
    > >>>>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/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.
    > >>>>> Eizo used to use Samsung-made VA matrix panels. Nothing inherently
    > >>>>> wrong with them, also used by NEC etc, except that VA panels typically
    > >>>>> show some "black crush" - poor definition of near black levels,
    > >>>>> especially at a very slight angle. The improvement that the LL notes
    > >>>>> "But the most obvious user observation would be that the lower zones of
    > >>>>> the image are depicted far more accurately in both color and gradation"
    > >>>>> is possibly (or even probably) attributable to comparing the new
    > >>>>> screen,
    > >>>>> (which happens to be 10 bit, but uses an in plane switching "IPS"
    > >>>>> panel)
    > >>>>> with another older Eizo (or other professional level monitor) which
    > >>>>> probably had a VA panel.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> 10-bit displays, 14-bit camera sensors, 16-32-bit editors ....
    > >>>>
    > >>>> And still I have yet to see even ONE of you put any of it to worthwhile
    > >>>> use. Color bit-depth is never going to automatically bestow any of you
    > >>>> with
    > >>>> photographic skill and talent, no matter how much you think it might
    > >>>> help.
    > >>>> Just what the world needs is a 32-bit depth image displayed on a 10-bit
    > >>>> depth monitor of yet another blurry and crappy image of your flea-bag of
    > >>>> a
    > >>>> cat.
    > >>>>
    > >>> I don't have a cat, just a troll-killing mountain dog:
    > >>> http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/origin
    > >>> al/20221633.jpg
    > >>
    > >> Damn, I should have said "yet another blurry and crappy image of your
    > >> flea-bag of a cat or dog." You definitely got the blurry part down pat.
    > >> Enjoying that shallow DOF are you?
    > >>

    > >Oh - forgot to say this was taken with a P&S. Shutter speed was way too
    > >slow to freeze motion blur. The old flea bag gets twitchy when she
    > >smells a troll.


    A little blind side petard hoist, nice. :))
    >
    > In the mountains we call dogs that size, "Bear & Puma Snacks", and in the
    > Everglades they are the favored size for "Gator Snacks". It was always so
    > funny when some little yappy flea-bag mutt like that would start barking at
    > the edge of a canal. Then moments later you hear its distraught owner
    > yelling, "Oh NO! My Mr. Bonzo! HELP HELP! THAT GATOR IS SWALLOWING MY POOR
    > LITTLE DOGGY, WHOLE!"


    Mountains! You have mountains in that Minnesota basement?
    >
    > I always wonder if they ever learn anything from it.
    >
    > LOL!
    >
    > Darwinism in action, I can never get enough of it.


    The real demonstration of Darwinism in action, is you not breeding in
    that basement. We can rest easy with the knowledge there will be no
    bouncing baby nym-shifters in our future.

    --
    Just another troll tracker
     
    NGBarfart, Jul 11, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    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/4081/4782164878_56285b02f4_b.jpg

    You're pretty lousy at knowing how to use any camera, aren't you. Thanks
    for proving that to the whole world.

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Jul 11, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    Me Guest

    On 11/07/2010 4:43 p.m., LOL! wrote:
    > On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:32:06 +1200, Me<> wrote:
    >
    >> On 11/07/2010 4:11 p.m., LOL! wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 15:53:37 +1200, Me<> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On 11/07/2010 3:36 p.m., LOL! wrote:
    >>>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 14:59:35 +1200, Me<> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On 11/07/2010 2:15 p.m., RichA wrote:
    >>>>>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/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.
    >>>>>> Eizo used to use Samsung-made VA matrix panels. Nothing inherently
    >>>>>> wrong with them, also used by NEC etc, except that VA panels typically
    >>>>>> show some "black crush" - poor definition of near black levels,
    >>>>>> especially at a very slight angle. The improvement that the LL notes
    >>>>>> "But the most obvious user observation would be that the lower zones of
    >>>>>> the image are depicted far more accurately in both color and gradation"
    >>>>>> is possibly (or even probably) attributable to comparing the new screen,
    >>>>>> (which happens to be 10 bit, but uses an in plane switching "IPS" panel)
    >>>>>> with another older Eizo (or other professional level monitor) which
    >>>>>> probably had a VA panel.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 10-bit displays, 14-bit camera sensors, 16-32-bit editors ....
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And still I have yet to see even ONE of you put any of it to worthwhile
    >>>>> use. Color bit-depth is never going to automatically bestow any of you with
    >>>>> photographic skill and talent, no matter how much you think it might help.
    >>>>> Just what the world needs is a 32-bit depth image displayed on a 10-bit
    >>>>> depth monitor of yet another blurry and crappy image of your flea-bag of a
    >>>>> cat.
    >>>>>
    >>>> I don't have a cat, just a troll-killing mountain dog:
    >>>> http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/20221633.jpg
    >>>
    >>> Damn, I should have said "yet another blurry and crappy image of your
    >>> flea-bag of a cat or dog." You definitely got the blurry part down pat.
    >>> Enjoying that shallow DOF are you?
    >>>

    >> Oh - forgot to say this was taken with a P&S. Shutter speed was way too
    >> slow to freeze motion blur. The old flea bag gets twitchy when she
    >> smells a troll.

    >
    > In the mountains we call dogs that size, "Bear& Puma Snacks", and in the
    > Everglades they are the favored size for "Gator Snacks".


    These mutts were bred as ratters - very effective at it they are too,
    also good at catching rabbits, and despite their small size, hunting
    wild boars (easily trained to grab them by the balls and hold them while
    you stick them). You make the common mistake of confusing all small dogs
    with generally useless lap dogs.
     
    Me, Jul 11, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    Me Guest

    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/4081/4782164878_56285b02f4_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.
    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...
     
    Me, Jul 11, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    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/4081/4782164878_56285b02f4_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.

    I would also suppose you are an untalented and unskilled idiot, but I
    already know you are an untalented and unskilled idiot by your own proof,
    so I won't suppose that.

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Jul 11, 2010
    #12
  13. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 19:15:49 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:
    >
    >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/10bit.shtml



    Monitors slowly evolving?

    No, you missed the point as usual, Rich. What we have here is Michael
    Reichmann *rapidly* evolving into a shill for Eizo monitors!

    Is there *any* item of imaging equipment that Reichmann would refuse
    to shill for on his "Ludicrous Landscape" site?

    No answer sought or needed. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Jul 11, 2010
    #13
  14. RichA

    Me Guest

    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/4081/4782164878_56285b02f4_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".
    >
     
    Me, Jul 11, 2010
    #14
  15. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    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/4081/4782164878_56285b02f4_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.

    You forgot to claim it was also taken with a DSLR, just like all the rest
    of your fellow useless pretend-photographer trolls around here always claim
    every time I post one of my NON-DSLR images.

    Let this be a lesson to you, that *ANY* camera in the hands of a skilled
    and talented person will surpass anything you will ever be able to
    accomplish with even the most expensive camera in the world. What a shame
    that you can't even get a decent photograph with a more-than-capable P&S
    camera. It speaks tomes about your own inadequacies. If I was that mutt of
    yours I'd be looking for new owners at the very next campsite, just out of
    embarrassment of having you as my owner.

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Jul 11, 2010
    #15
  16. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:15:08 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"RichA" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/10bit.shtml
    >>

    >
    >More colours than the human eye can discern?
    >
    >Why pay for that?
    >


    What? You don't know? BECAUSE .... if they have the latest and greatest,
    that which even goes beyond the levels of human perception, this will
    automatically make them into a PRO! Absolutely no different in how they
    select their cameras or image editing software.

    You know, like those audiophiles that insist on having a speaker or
    headphone system that can duplicate ultra-sonic and sub-sonic frequencies.
    They will never hear those frequencies, but damned if they won't claim they
    make a difference to their listening experience.

    Isn't technology wonderful? It can so easily expose the true fool.

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Jul 11, 2010
    #16
  17. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:15:08 +0100, "R. Mark Clayton"
    <> wrote:
    >"RichA" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/10bit.shtml
    >>

    >
    >More colours than the human eye can discern?
    >
    >Why pay for that?



    The article is typical of the nonsense that regularly appears on the
    "Ludicrous Landscape" site.

    Best ignored.
     
    Bruce, Jul 11, 2010
    #17
  18. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:40:55 +0200, Mxsmanic <>
    wrote:
    >RichA writes:
    >> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/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?



    1920 x 1200 is quite popular in large monitors - 22 inch and larger.

    Personally, I would prefer a 16:9 aspect ratio as you can see a full
    3:2 frame with toolboxes to one side or the other. But 1920 x 1200 is
    not too bad.
     
    Bruce, Jul 11, 2010
    #18
  19. RichA

    Me Guest

    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/4081/4782164878_56285b02f4_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. There's also a lot of blown highlights
    and lost shadows, though possibly not a problem as at the resolution
    posted, it would only be good for a postage stamp sized print.
     
    Me, Jul 11, 2010
    #19
  20. RichA

    LOL! Guest

    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/4081/4782164878_56285b02f4_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'd explain to you
    why that was the only possible correct composition for that shot, but I
    find it so tedious educating those with sub 80 I.Q.s.

    Now if you want, I can easily tear apart the composition in your mutt shot.
    That one is chock FULL of composition errors. Showing everyone in the world
    .... THAT YOU DON'T KNOW ONE DAMN THING ABOUT COMPOSITION.

    LOL!

    >There's also a lot of blown highlights
    >and lost shadows,


    Not in any portions of the image that matters. There are no lost shadows.
    All details of the backlit white bird in the sunlight are fully intact. The
    only parts "blown out" are the glints of setting sun on the water (as they
    SHOULD BE) and your mental comprehension.

    It prints quite nicely at 18" width.

    You might want to learn how to calibrate your monitor some day.

    > though possibly not a problem as at the resolution
    >posted, it would only be good for a postage stamp sized print.


    Now, explain to us again why your mutt shot was so shitty that it can't
    even be displayed on a monitor over 640 pixels wide without showing all
    that blur.

    No wait, don't bother. We already ascertained the problem in that shot. THE
    CRAPSHOOTER HOLDING THE CAMERA CAUSED IT.

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
    LOL!, Jul 12, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    3,499
    Moz Champion
    Dec 15, 2004
  2. Mooreslaw

    Loads Slowly

    Mooreslaw, Jan 25, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    962
    Moz Champion
    Jan 28, 2005
  3. Thomas

    PDF close very slowly in Firefox

    Thomas, Feb 21, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,155
    Ron Hunter
    Feb 22, 2005
  4. Martin

    Re: Are LCD Monitors Brigter than CRT Monitors

    Martin, Sep 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    578
    Martin
    Sep 8, 2004
  5. Have A Nice Cup of Tea

    Ballmer says Mi¢ro$oft evolving from software to media company

    Have A Nice Cup of Tea, May 5, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    616
    Jennings
    May 9, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page