 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/02/2011 09:47 AM, scott wrote:
>> Well, if they're going to do things like guarantee no dead pixels, that
>> probably reduces panel yield.
>
> Also things like the general uniformity of the display - display a black
> image on your PC monitor and turn out all the lights, it's probably not
> very even.
Presumably it's very awkward to make an emissive display really even.
(I thought medical diagnosis is always done with film prints anyway...)
> Also that nothing will go wrong in use. A dark or bright
> smudge on the front polariser is annoying for a PC monitor (you might
> take it back and get it replaced if you noticed it), but on a device
> used for medical diagnosis that absolutely cannot happen. The only way
> to guarantee that is very extensive testing and much tighter quality
> control during production and throughout the whole supply chain.
My LCD has a dead bug inside it, remember?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> My LCD has a dead bug inside it, remember?
"Funny, you're the third person in this morning with a dead bug stuck
inside their chest."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I'm having a hard time believing that just because somebody is a
> "professional photographer" they can afford to blow £1k on a monit
or.
I'm not even a professional and I spent more than that on a camera or two
.
Plus, it's the kind of monitor you'd have hooked up to your printing pres
s,
not the kind you'd have hooked up to your desktop machine. You don't thin
k
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.
(Altho I must admit I never figured out how you could calibrate an emissi
ve
display with subtractive ink set. I wonder how long before this sort of
thing is available in color eInk?)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>>> Seriously, does anyone know if the device contains any technology
>>> which is
>>
>> Very high resolution,
>
> It works out lower than a consumer 1920xRGBx1200 monitor,
Max Resolution - 2560 x 2048
Lower resolution if you count each pixel on an RGB as three addressible
pixels, which I guess is what you're saying.
>> 10-bit grayscale,
>
> Yep, that would need some specialist drivers not used in most consumer
> equipment = expensive!
>
> Also it's probably guaranteed to some medical standards which are much
> stricter than consumer grade = very expensive.
Compliant Standards - TUV, CCC, RoHS, CE MDD
I'm guessing MDD is medical diagnostic device, for example.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> I'm having a hard time believing that just because somebody is a
Better not look at the prices of professional cameras.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/02/2011 4:50 PM, Invisible wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
> 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?
You really need to get out more and expand your reading.
Maybe if you had taken Andrel up on his job offer you would be a person
who could easily afford something in this price bracket.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Feb 2011 09:25:28 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> ...there are people who use colour-calibrated monitors?
>>
>> I take it you didn't actually read the description, then.
>
> I'm having a hard time believing that just because somebody is a
> "professional photographer" they can afford to blow £1k on a monitor.
> And let's face it, it isn't actually going to help them take better
> photos.
Well, consider that when I was working on my first book, I spent about
$12,000 on computer equipment, and that included an (at the time) $700
monitor.
I know people who are professional photographers who would think nothing
of spending that kind of money on kit for their work - be it cameras,
lenses, or monitors.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I think you'd have to be doing some pretty high-end print work for this
> level of precision to actually matter.
Every advertising firm out there thinks this matters. Every person running
any sort of printing press thinks this matters. Anyone designing product
packaging thinks this is important.
And, again, it isn't that expensive. I've seen color laser printers that
cost 20x as much as this sitting in the offices of a 10-person ad firm.
>> I wonder how long before this sort of thing is available in color eInk?
> I wonder how long before colour eInk exists.
It already exists. It's not actually on the consumer market quite yet, but
demo models are floating around.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> I'm having a hard time believing that just because somebody is a
>>> "professional photographer" they can afford to blow £1k on a mon
itor.
>>
>> 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
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B001ENOZY4/ref=dp_olp_new_map?ie
=UTF8&qid=1297361890&sr=1-2&condition=new
I guess nobody actually buys a D90, in spite of being one of the most
popular DSLR cameras for hobbyists out there.
I'm not rich. I'm a DINK.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
