Monitors slowly evolving
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Superzoom P&S's may have long "effective" focal lengths, but....
Next: What is the point of having 16 bit colour if a computer monitor can only display 8 bit colour? How do you edit 16 bit colour when you can only see 8 bit?
From: Me on 11 Jul 2010 18:55 On 11/07/2010 11:53 p.m., LOL! wrote: > On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:26:49 +1200, Me<user(a)domain.invalid> wrote: > >> On 11/07/2010 5:27 p.m., LOL! wrote: >>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:14:37 +1200, Me<user(a)domain.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 11/07/2010 5:03 p.m., LOL! wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:32:06 +1200, Me<user(a)domain.invalid> 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.
From: LOL! on 11 Jul 2010 19:20 On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:55:06 +1200, Me <user(a)domain.invalid> wrote: >On 11/07/2010 11:53 p.m., LOL! wrote: >> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:26:49 +1200, Me<user(a)domain.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 11/07/2010 5:27 p.m., LOL! wrote: >>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:14:37 +1200, Me<user(a)domain.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 11/07/2010 5:03 p.m., LOL! wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:32:06 +1200, Me<user(a)domain.invalid> 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!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: Me on 11 Jul 2010 19:49 On 12/07/2010 11:20 a.m., LOL! wrote: > On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:55:06 +1200, Me<user(a)domain.invalid> wrote: > >> On 11/07/2010 11:53 p.m., LOL! wrote: >>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:26:49 +1200, Me<user(a)domain.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 11/07/2010 5:27 p.m., LOL! wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:14:37 +1200, Me<user(a)domain.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 11/07/2010 5:03 p.m., LOL! wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:32:06 +1200, Me<user(a)domain.invalid> 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 don't blame it.
From: RichA on 11 Jul 2010 22:16 On Jul 10, 10:59 pm, Me <u...(a)domain.invalid> 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. 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.
From: RichA on 11 Jul 2010 22:17
On Jul 11, 7:15 am, "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclay...(a)btinternet.com> wrote: > "RichA" <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:2f86bcbe-1145-4e89-a69a-bb6a5d4f9bf7(a)u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > >http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/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. |