 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks. And this is another beautiful landscape. But the dark shadow
areas are purple, instead of black. At this reduced early evening or
late afternoon brightness, the shadows would be black, I think. But
otherwise: woooww!!! :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sven Littkowski <jam### [at] yahoo com> wrote:
> Thanks. And this is another beautiful landscape. But the dark shadow
> areas are purple, instead of black. At this reduced early evening or
> late afternoon brightness, the shadows would be black, I think. But
> otherwise: woooww!!! :-)
I'm sorry, but beside the top right cloudless part of the sky, there aren't any
purple pixels (less green than blue / red). I searched several minutes with
photoshop.
Most probably it's an optical illusion, because intuitively I thought you were
right.
I admit, the shadows of this test render don't seem to be dark or structured
enough, but this is due to insufficient radiosity settings.
Norbert
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 09.01.2016 um 08:11 schrieb Sven Littkowski:
> Thanks. And this is another beautiful landscape. But the dark shadow
> areas are purple, instead of black. At this reduced early evening or
> late afternoon brightness, the shadows would be black, I think. But
> otherwise: woooww!!! :-)
As long as there's any trace of blue in the sky above, or any visible
clouds, you can expect shadows to be non-black.
As long as there are any illuminated mountain tops nearby, you can
expect shadows to be non-black.
Heck, even on the moon, where the surface has an albedo of no more than
5%, you can expect shadows to be non-black.
Also, make sure that your display is properly calibrated. If it isn't,
judging the appearance of images by such details as brightness of
shadows, overall hue, etc. is moot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes, the fault might be on my side: I am using, unfortunately, one of
these flat-screens. If you watch from a slightly wrong angle, what is
supposed to be dark appears less dark but in a lighter and unrealistic
(in front), and it looks okay. Sorry. I should continue to use my older
large regular monitors... :-)
I mean it, no joke.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 11.01.2016 um 02:47 schrieb Sven Littkowski:
> Yes, the fault might be on my side: I am using, unfortunately, one of
> these flat-screens. If you watch from a slightly wrong angle, what is
> supposed to be dark appears less dark but in a lighter and unrealistic
> (in front), and it looks okay. Sorry. I should continue to use my older
> large regular monitors... :-)
>
> I mean it, no joke.
The problem isn't the flatscreen /per se/; some are good, some aren't.
It depends on the exact variation of the LCD technology involved.
My primary display is pretty good, it's a 24" 16:10 EIZO with inbuilt
calibration and a horrible price tag, which gives a very homogenous
colour representation across the entire screen even when I move my head
around (within reasonable limits). My secondary display, on the other
hand, is rather poor in comparison, being a 24" 16:10 EIZO as well but
with a much more affordable price tag; horizontally the colour
representation is barely uniform when sitting perfectly centered, and
vertically hues differ across the screen no matter where I place my head.
So it's really a matter of getting what you paid for. But yes, in terms
of colour management good old CRT displays still win over most anything
LCD-based. I wouldn't want to burden my desk with two 24" devices of
that type though.
Also, genuine OLEDs (as opposed to LCDs with OLED-based backlights) are
an entirely different matter; I'd expect them to be about on par with
CRTs when it comes to colour stability (in space, that is; they do
degrade over time, probably more so than CRTs, so occasional calibration
would seem mandatory).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Norbert Kern wrote on 01/01/2016 16.13:
> Hi,
>
> finally I completed a new image (for the last TINA CHeP round) -
> http://www.tc-rtc.co.uk/imagenewdisplay/stills/index673.html .
>
> Norbert Kern
>
Magnificent images!
Thank you and a happy good year
;-)
Paolo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yes. And what most people don't know, is that older CRT monitors display
many millions of colors, while LED flatscreens display only several
thousands.
As graphic designer, I still keep my older but better CRTs... :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi(gh)!
On 14.01.2016 07:49, Sven Littkowski wrote:
> Yes. And what most people don't know, is that older CRT monitors display
> many millions of colors, while LED flatscreens display only several
> thousands.
>
> As graphic designer, I still keep my older but better CRTs... :-)
>
As long as you don't have to keep an eye on your electricity bill, they
are fine... but they are also very bulky, especially those 19-, 21- or
23-inch behemoths capable of display really high resolutions!
Currently, I'm on a retrocomputing trip and thus about to build myself a
386, 486 or first generation Pentium computer, as a monitor I would like
to choose a 14- or 15-inch CRT, any larger one would be overkill for
MS-DOS and also not fit into my shelf...
See you in Khyberspace!
Yadgar
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Currently, I'm on a retrocomputing trip and thus about to build myself a
> 386, 486 or first generation Pentium computer, as a monitor I would like
> to choose a 14- or 15-inch CRT, any larger one would be overkill for
> MS-DOS and also not fit into my shelf...
Will you be doing your own mainboard layout? }:->
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hi(gh)!
On 21.02.2016 08:31, clipka wrote:
>
>> Currently, I'm on a retrocomputing trip and thus about to build myself a
>> 386, 486 or first generation Pentium computer, as a monitor I would like
>> to choose a 14- or 15-inch CRT, any larger one would be overkill for
>> MS-DOS and also not fit into my shelf...
>
> Will you be doing your own mainboard layout? }:->
>
No, by "building" I meant "assembling from existing parts", not
"re-designing from scratch" - too bad I'm not a semiconductor company!
But believe it, nowadays those old computers are well-sought vintage
objects! You may find a 386 system announced for a cool 300 euros - very
unlike the 1990s and early 2000s, when you even found them on piles of
bulk trash!
See you in Khyberspace!
Yadgar
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
