 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10-2-2011 11:22, Invisible wrote:
> 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...)
well, you though wrong ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/02/2011 06:19 PM, Darren New wrote:
> 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 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
>
>
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.
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...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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
What, you don't know anyone who has spent $1000 on a hobby? I find that
extremely hard to believe.
> 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.
If your local paper has any colour pages then surely they will, the
advertisers will demand it to ensure their company colours are correct.
> 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?
Did you ever actually look in a newsagent, there are hundreds of
full-colour magazines just displayed to the public in a shop, there are
orders of magnitudes more that are not sold in shops. They all will use
colour calibrated displays to ensure they print exactly what they think
they are printing.
You really do seem to have a problem with estimating things like this,
you just need to think for a bit before guessing.
>> 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...
You calibrate subtractive ink sets (and every other reflective product)
under specifically calibrated light, designed to match the expected
viewing conditions. Shops use very specific lighting with an exactly
specified emission spectrum, products are designed and checked according
to the lighting in the shop. That's why often when you pick up an item
of clothing it looks a slightly different colour outside compared to in
the shop.
>> I wonder how long before this sort of thing is available in color eInk?
>
> I wonder how long before colour eInk exists.
I wonder how long it would take to google "color eink"?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/02/2011 05:27 PM, Warp wrote:
> 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.
Presumably such things wouldn't even be listed on a consumer website in
the first place. You would have to contact a photography specialist.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Better not look at the prices of professional cameras.
>
> Presumably such things wouldn't even be listed on a consumer website in
> the first place. You would have to contact a photography specialist.
No they are listed on consumer sites, because nowadays they're cheap
plausible that someone earning 7x what you do might buy one for a hobby?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2011 08:59 AM, scott 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
>
> What, you don't know anyone who has spent $1000 on a hobby? I find that
> extremely hard to believe.
I know a few people who have probably ended up spending something like
that over the course of the ten or twenty years they've been doing a
hobby, sure. But to spend that amount of money on a single purchase... I
don't know too many people who could afford that without taking out a
loan or something.
>> 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.
>
> 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.
>> 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?
>
> Did you ever actually look in a newsagent, there are hundreds of
> full-colour magazines just displayed to the public in a shop, there are
> orders of magnitudes more that are not sold in shops. They all will use
> colour calibrated displays to ensure they print exactly what they think
> they are printing.
I can believe that the likes of the billion-selling top magazines would
go to these lengths. But Linux Format? I rather doubt it. Generally if
an image looks reasonable on a regular screen, it looks reasonable in
print too. Unless it's crucial for your images to look "perfect", I
can't see anybody blowing such a huge amount of money just on a monitor.
> You really do seem to have a problem with estimating things like this,
> you just need to think for a bit before guessing.
Well, I suppose I don't work in professional printing, so I can only
guess. But it does seem rather far-fetched to me.
> You calibrate subtractive ink sets (and every other reflective product)
> under specifically calibrated light, designed to match the expected
> viewing conditions. Shops use very specific lighting with an exactly
> specified emission spectrum, products are designed and checked according
> to the lighting in the shop. That's why often when you pick up an item
> of clothing it looks a slightly different colour outside compared to in
> the shop.
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.
>>> I wonder how long before this sort of thing is available in color eInk?
>>
>> I wonder how long before colour eInk exists.
>
> I wonder how long it would take to google "color eink"?
I presumed this wouldn't produce any remotely useful information.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2011 09:05 AM, scott wrote:
>>> Better not look at the prices of professional cameras.
>>
>> Presumably such things wouldn't even be listed on a consumer website in
>> the first place. You would have to contact a photography specialist.
>
> No they are listed on consumer sites, because nowadays they're cheap
> that someone earning 7x what you do might buy one for a hobby?
It's the "somebody earning 7x" that doesn't seem plausible.
Oh, surely somebody somewhere earns this much. But I don't think I've
met them. (Unless you count the CEO of our company, who I happen to have
met. But very few people are the CEO of a large company.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's the "somebody earning 7x" that doesn't seem plausible.
I knew that was coming next :-)
> Oh, surely somebody somewhere earns this much. But I don't think I've
> met them.
Obviously there's only about 10 companies in the world who are large
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Oh, surely somebody somewhere earns this much. But I don't think I've
>> met them.
>
> Obviously there's only about 10 companies in the world who are large
Well, there are a lot of people in the world. What I meant was that only
a very small percentage of them are CEOs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/02/2011 9:14 AM, Invisible wrote:
> I can believe that the likes of the billion-selling top magazines would
> go to these lengths. But Linux Format? I rather doubt it. Generally if
> an image looks reasonable on a regular screen, it looks reasonable in
> print too. Unless it's crucial for your images to look "perfect", I
> can't see anybody blowing such a huge amount of money just on a monitor.
It is your job. Your employers sound as if they are running the UK side
of your company like an outsourced third world project. It looks like
your world view is hampered by this. No criticism to you intended.
Thirty five years ago I was given a budget of about £80,000 to outfit a
new electronic test lab. (That would be worth between £500,000 and
£786,000 at today's values). The management of the company (Burroughs
Corporation) knew that using inferior equipment would hamper the
workforce in producing quality goods.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
