>> I'm having a hard time believing that just because somebody is a
>> "professional photographer" they can afford to blow £1k on a monitor.
>
> I'm not even a professional and I spent more than that on a camera or two.

You're obviously drastically richer than almost everybody I've ever met 
in my life then. :-P

> Plus, it's the kind of monitor you'd have hooked up to your printing
> press, not the kind you'd have hooked up to your desktop machine. You
> don't think places like Time Magazine or Cosmopolitan wants to know
> exactly what the cover is going to look like when they ship it off to
> the printer to print ten million copies? That's what color calibration
> is *for* - so everyone sees it the way you do.

I think you'd have to be doing some pretty high-end print work for this 
level of precision to actually matter. Time Magazine probably does it, 
but I doubt my local newspaper does. Given that, it seems that there's 
only going to be 10, maybe 20 customers on the face of the Earth who'd 
want to buy this product. WTF?

> Altho I must admit I never figured out how you could calibrate an
> emissive display with subtractive ink set.

Well, hypothetically you can match them. But sure, I have to wonder how 
close the match would actually look...

> I wonder how long before this sort of thing is available in color eInk?

I wonder how long before colour eInk exists.

Post a reply to this message