 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/10/2011 10:50 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Well, hypothetically you can match them. But sure, I have to wonder how
> close the match would actually look...
>
CMYK gamut is quite a bit narrower than sRGB (what most monitors are, I
don't know about the high-end monitors, but I imagine they are close to
sRGB, or AdobeRGB) The tricky part is setting up your proofing
environment to match the black and white points accurately.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/11/2011 2:58 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Well, apparently $850 works out to about £500. That I could just about
> afford. Maybe. (At the end of a long list of other stuff I still want to
> buy...)
:D I own a Canon 7D, a 40D, a few lenses. Tam 17-50 f/2.8, Canon 70-200
f/4, Sigma 10-20 (I forget the aperture range on this one, I want to say
f/3.5 5.6, doesn't matter, that isn't relevant when there's so few
designs with such a focal length range, some extender tubes, a few
flashes, a 50mm f/1.8, and some various adapter rings and polarizing
filter.
Actually, If I didn't spend so much on camera gear, I could probably
afford the monitor, but built-in calibration isn't a priority, and I'm
not doing any serious marketing work. Besides, my wife would be out for
blood if I dropped $1500 on a monitor :D
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 14/02/2011 13:12, Invisible a écrit :
>>> Now you're talking. You mean to say that you can make money simply by
>>> owning a share? (As opposed to trading it.)
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Right. So a share has value because you can earn money from it. And the
> value varies according to how profitable the company is because that
> money comes from the company's profits.
Well, the initial value of the share is the portion of the capital it
represents: If the company has a registered capital of 10 Millions, and
the original owner want to put 40% on the market, the initial emission
of the capital stock will be valued for 4 Millions. The number of shares
simply divide that amount.
It is sometimes more efficient to make many share at 4€/$ than just a
few at 4000€/$ : the market is more receptive (the small traders cannot
afford a 4000€/$ one, whereas they can take a lot of 4$/€ ones!)
One second after the delivery of the share to the market, a share is
worth only what other traders are ready to buy it at. They usually
forget the initial price and looks only at the ratio of dividend/price.
Dividend: each year (usually), the benefit from the company get
distributed (re-invested, salary-raise and share holders). The part for
the share holder is the dividend. The dividend may be paid in cash or
with more shares! (company's choice, not share's holder unless company
decides so). Which means that no dividend is bad for the value of the
share...
Let's look at a case: Eurotunnel (tunnel under the channel)...
Introduced at about 8, IIRC, while the tunnel was not yet done.
No dividend before the tunnel could exist, but large promise of benefits
in future (including free pass...).
Price went up to 76 over a few years.
(so, if you had bought at 8 and were selling at 76... yummy! that was
about 900% benefit! Your house of 1 Million became a castle of 10
Millions (with a park!) ! Even with inflation, very yummy...).
Events happened...
Shares get bought back (or forever lost) at 0.02 !
If you bought at 8, from 1 Million only remains 2500.
If you bought at 70 (oh, lucky, get on the wagon now!), from 1 Million
only remains less than 300!
I have the 300, can I get the million please ?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/11/2011 3:14 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> If your local paper has any colour pages then surely they will, the
>> advertisers will demand it to ensure their company colours are correct.
>
> Surely you don't actually need an expensive specially calibrated monitor
> just to ensure that IBM Blue comes out as IBM Blue. Presumably there are
> standardised ways of describing specific print colours, and the
> advertisers will just tell you what colour they want according to some
> such standard.
>
No, they could give you the coordinates in CIE L*a*b, either that or you
take a photospectrometer to a swatch they sent you, which would cost
roughly the same as the monitor with built-in calibration.
> Now there's something I hadn't thought of... For most magazines, exact
> colour probably isn't critical. But how about those huge colour
> photographs that shops sometimes have on their walls? I guess you
> *might* conceivably want precise colour matching for that.
Really, any time you have a photo (or really, anything else) printed
(even, say someone's portrait) you want to use calibrated color. Here's
the deal: When adjusting the color balance and tone density of a photo,
you want to be sure that 1) the picture will appear on paper without
losing any detail in shadows or highlights, 2) [Most critical to have a
calibrated monitor for] the color balance is correct. If you're
adjusting color on an LCD monitor and that monitor has a green cast,
your perception will shift, once you have the picture balanced the way
you think it should be, and you send it to a press or lab for printing,
or e-mail the image to a friend, you'll soon discover that on all of the
other media, even though the picture looks fine on your screen, the
shadows are blocked up, the midtones are too dark, and everything looks
like it was tinted with a bit of pepto-bismol (everything's magenta).
That is why you want a calibrated screen.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/10/2011 10:42 AM, Darren New wrote:
>
> Compliant Standards - TUV, CCC, RoHS, CE MDD
>
> I'm guessing MDD is medical diagnostic device, for example.
>
Not only that, but for use in a medical context, every component in that
device must be certified for medical use. This means extensive testing
and underwriting. Lots of salaries being paid on that one, Medical has
some extremely strict standards for reliability. Ever notice when you
look at datasheets for electronic components, they have a disclaimer on
most that state they are not intended for use in military and medical
applications. Usually mil-spec has extended requirements for stability
at different environmental and voltages, Medical, too. And in some
cases, they'll need even tighter tolerances on output and stability.
Though, you can buy some mil-spec components they are quite a bit more
expensive. Medical-level screening would probably be even more
expensive. People get a little touchy when lives are at stake.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/02/2011 01:51 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> I have the 300, can I get the million please ?
Required XKCD quote: http://xkcd.com/592/
(Check out the alt text.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Yes, this is what happens when a company is "floated",
In the USA, this is called "going public." The private owners (and the
bank) tends to make a whole lot more money than the company is actually
worth at that moment.
--
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:
> Still not really seeing how having a more expensive monitor helps
> here... It's not like the quality of the monitor affects what colour the
> printer prints.
When you're creating the initial image, you need to know what it's going to
look like when it's printed.
Say you're taking pictures of meat to put on packaging. You take the photo,
then you color-balance it until it looks juicy and delicious. [*] Now you
ask your software what colors are in the photo, so you can give those colors
to the printer.
If your monitor makes pink look like orange and orange look like yellow,
then when you tell the printer to print out what you see on the monitor,
you're going to be disappointed.
The monitor doesn't affect what color the printer prints. It affects what
color you think you should be telling the printer to print.
[*] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7BuQFUhsRM#t=18s
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Say you're taking pictures of meat to put on packaging.
Another point that is quite surprising (to me it was at least) is that
pretty much every mass produced food is manufactured or bought to strict
colour standards. The reason being that any "odd" coloured food tends
to get left on the shelf and scrapped, so the big shops demand the
colour is within a certain tolerance. This really is no joke, I met a
colour scientist once who worked in a bread factory, he was having
problems with the crumbs getting into the colour measurement equipment
(costing far more than $1000).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/02/2011 08:52 AM, scott wrote:
>> Say you're taking pictures of meat to put on packaging.
>
> Another point that is quite surprising (to me it was at least) is that
> pretty much every mass produced food is manufactured or bought to strict
> colour standards. The reason being that any "odd" coloured food tends to
> get left on the shelf and scrapped, so the big shops demand the colour
> is within a certain tolerance. This really is no joke, I met a colour
> scientist once who worked in a bread factory, he was having problems
> with the crumbs getting into the colour measurement equipment (costing
> far more than $1000).
What a crumby job that was!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
