Well, well... How times have changed!

I just have a look at monitor prices, and discovered that you can now 
buy a PC monitor for less than £100. And not just one; in fact there are 
*pages* of LCD monitors all under £100. (As to what the image quality is 
like, that's another matter...)

At the other end of the spectrum (you see what I did there?), we have:

http://uk.insight.com/en-gb/apps/productpresentation/index.php?product_id=NMIMQ205MG

Oh man, that's expensive! ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 09/02/2011 02:21 PM, Invisible wrote:

> At the other end of the spectrum (you see what I did there?), we have:
>
> http://uk.insight.com/en-gb/apps/productpresentation/index.php?product_id=NMIMQ205MG
>
> Oh man, that's expensive! ;-)

How about this?

http://uk.insight.com/en-gb/productinfo/monitors/NECMQ02992

Hardware calibratable colour? Ouch...

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
>> Oh man, that's expensive! ;-)

Hopefully you realize that each of these costs probably less than a week's 
salary of the person using it, right? :-)

-- 
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 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Well, well... How times have changed!
>
> I just have a look at monitor prices, and discovered that you can now
> buy a PC monitor for less than £100. And not just one; in fact there are
> *pages* of LCD monitors all under £100. (As to what the image quality is
> like, that's another matter...)
>
> At the other end of the spectrum (you see what I did there?), we have:
>
> http://uk.insight.com/en-gb/apps/productpresentation/index.php?product_id=NMIMQ205MG
>
> Oh man, that's expensive! ;-)

A clever marketer (an oxymoron, I know) would pair it with an EKG monitor... for
the people who have a heart attack when they see the price.

Seriously, does anyone know if the device contains any technology which is
actually required by the device's purpose that justifies the cost rather than
this being a case of "We'll take the money because we can get it from people who
are used to throwing around other people's money" ?

Best Regards,

Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

>> At the other end of the spectrum (you see what I did there?), we have:
>>
>>
http://uk.insight.com/en-gb/apps/productpresentation/index.php?product_id=NMIMQ205MG
>>
>> Oh man, that's expensive! ;-)
>
> A clever marketer (an oxymoron, I know) would pair it with an EKG monitor... for
> the people who have a heart attack when they see the price.

LOL.

> Seriously, does anyone know if the device contains any technology which is
> actually required by the device's purpose that justifies the cost rather than
> this being a case of "We'll take the money because we can get it from people who
> are used to throwing around other people's money" ?

Well, it *does* have a higher resolution than anything else in the 
entire product catalogue...

Post a reply to this message

On 09/02/2011 04:09 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>>> Oh man, that's expensive! ;-)
>
> Hopefully you realize that each of these costs probably less than a
> week's salary of the person using it, right? :-)

...there are people who use colour-calibrated monitors?

Post a reply to this message

On 09/02/2011 4:43 PM, Invisible wrote:
> On 09/02/2011 04:09 PM, Darren New wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>>> Oh man, that's expensive! ;-)
>>
>> Hopefully you realize that each of these costs probably less than a
>> week's salary of the person using it, right? :-)
>
> ....there are people who use colour-calibrated monitors?

No. That's why they sell them :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> ...there are people who use colour-calibrated monitors?

I take it you didn't actually read the description, then.

-- 
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

Mike the Elder wrote:
> Seriously, does anyone know if the device contains any technology which is

Very high resolution, 10-bit grayscale, and (if in the USA) probably a third 
of the cost is insurance for people who sue the maker of the monitor because 
they got breast cancer and the radiologist didn't see it.

-- 
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

On 2/9/2011 6:21 AM, Invisible wrote:
> Well, well... How times have changed!
>
> I just have a look at monitor prices, and discovered that you can now
> buy a PC monitor for less than £100. And not just one; in fact there are
> *pages* of LCD monitors all under £100. (As to what the image quality is
> like, that's another matter...)

Even though you aren't /exactly/ asking for recommendations, I 
nevertheless feel compelled to divulge some info about my current monitor:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/602277-REG/Acer_ET_WH3HP_002_H213H_bmid_21_5_Widescreen.html

It's got a native resolution of 1920x1080, cost me about $155, and 
there's *not*one* pixel out of place. The viewing angle is very 
satisfactory. Games with frame rates relying on vsync are actually very 
smooth. There's no "GameBoy Ghosting" that I have seen. It's humongous 
compared to my last monitor (Sony Multiscan CRT, 1152x1024, $400, 
refurbished, circa 1999). Brand new, this Acer 213H cost me less $, 
out-performs my last video peripheral, and doesn't make me feel like 
I've got photonic daggers penetrating my eyes.

Of course, this is my first LCD monitor, so take everything I say with a 
grain of sodium chloride. But I've seen other comparably-priced LCDs, 
and I must say, this thing is awesome :)

Sam

Post a reply to this message

>> Seriously, does anyone know if the device contains any technology
>> which is
>
> Very high resolution,

It works out lower than a consumer 1920xRGBx1200 monitor, plus you don't 
need to bother with any colour filters which makes things a lot cheaper 
(3 fewer process steps on the panel, plus the backlight can be less 
powerful, so fewer LEDs/smaller CCFL).

> 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.

Post a reply to this message

On 10/02/2011 02:48 AM, stbenge wrote:
> It's got a native resolution of 1920x1080, cost me about $155, and
> there's *not*one* pixel out of place.

To be honest, it's a long time since I've seen an LCD with any dead 
pixels. It used to be quite common, but these days it seems to have been 
nearly eliminated. (Although, the absurdly cheap LCD we got for my 
grandparents has a single green pixel near the edge that's stuck at 100%.)

> The viewing angle is very satisfactory.

Most desktops manage to do this now. Laptops are another matter, but 
desktops are usually quite good now. (As are TVs, BTW.)

> Of course, this is my first LCD monitor, so take everything I say with a
> grain of sodium chloride. But I've seen other comparably-priced LCDs,
> and I must say, this thing is awesome :)

I'm still very happy with the Samsung SyncMaster I got for my mum. Then 
again, at £700, it should be good! (That's, what, 1124 USD at today's 
exchange rate...)

Post a reply to this message

>> ...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.

Post a reply to this message

>> 10-bit grayscale,
>
> Yep, that would need some specialist drivers not used in most consumer
> equipment = expensive!

Using parts that aren't produced in large volumes? Yeah, I'd say that's 
expensive.

> Also it's probably guaranteed to some medical standards which are much
> stricter than consumer grade = very expensive.

Well, if they're going to do things like guarantee no dead pixels, that 
probably reduces panel yield.

But more to the point, I know our lab contains equipment which is 
absurdly expensive for no reason other than the guarantees attached to 
it. For example, you can buy small heating devices for mere pence. But 
our column ovens cost something like £200 each. We have a stirring 
machine which is little more than a spindle and an electric motor, yet 
that costs hundreds too.

Our mass spectrometers cost roughly £250,000 each (i.e., more money than 
the entire company makes in a decade). And yet, they all have stamped 
all over them "not for use in diagnostic procedures". In other words, we 
can use them for gathering statistics, but you're not supposed to use 
them to diagnose a specific person's illness. To do *that*, you would 
presumably need to buy an identical device at 500x the price...

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.

How much do you think the camera equipment costs that a professional 
photographer uses?  Or how much does it cost to fly somewhere and stay 
in a hotel for 2 weeks to cover an event?  A monitor like that is 
insignificant.

> And let's face it, it isn't actually going to help them take better photos.

No, but it will help prepare them accurately for publishing.

Post a reply to this message

> 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.  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.

Post a reply to this message

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] devnull> 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. 

  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

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] devnull>  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.
>
>    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 
enough some consumers will want to buy them.  Eg the EOS 1D is £3500. 
You indicated you might be able to afford £500, so doesn't it seem 
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
> enough some consumers will want to buy them. Eg the EOS 1D is £3500. You
> indicated you might be able to afford £500, so doesn't it seem plausible
> 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 
enough to have a CEO earning enough to afford a £3500 camera!

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
> enough to have a CEO earning enough to afford a £3500 camera!

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

On 11/02/2011 9:20 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> indicated you might be able to afford £500, so doesn't it seem plausible
>> that someone earning 7x what you do might buy one for a hobby?
>
> It's the "somebody earning 7x" that doesn't seem plausible.
>

It is the other way around. It does not seem plausible that someone with 
your job description and skills is earning as little as you do.

> 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.)

I can say, quite categorically, that you have met and had a drink with 
at least three people in that bracket.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> It's the "somebody earning 7x" that doesn't seem plausible.
>
> It is the other way around. It does not seem plausible that someone with
> your job description and skills is earning as little as you do.

Well, yeah, I'm under-paid considering the job I do. But I'm sure 
there's lots of other people who also don't earn much money. What we're 
debating is how many people earn such an insane amount of money that 
thousands of pounds is nothing to them.

> I can say, quite categorically, that you have met and had a drink with
> at least three people in that bracket.

Really? How do you compute that?

Post a reply to this message

> 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.

Didn't you used to hang out with some gamers, surely they'd all spent in 
excess of $1000 on their PCs?  Also nobody at your work who is 
interesting in cars and has spend more than $1000 on a car in one go?  I 
find it hard to believe nobody at your work owns a dSLR, which surely 
cost around $1000 to spend in one go.  Spending that sort of money on a 
hobby is more common than you think.

> 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.

Sure, but then how to mix that with the rest of your page layout?  They 
certainly don't just guess what the final outcome will be and hope it 
comes out looking ok.

> 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",

Did you ever try actually comparing printed colours to your monitor 
using cheap consumer equipment?  I don't think anyone would call that a 
"reasonable" match.  Besides, the artists and designers who choose 
colours get very annoyed when the final product looks a totally 
different shade to what they designed.

> Now there's something I hadn't thought of... For most magazines, exact
> colour probably isn't critical.

I think you'd be surprised what level of work goes into making even a 
low circulation full-colour magazine.  If you've designed a nice bright 
orange and green colour scheme to give a certain impact, you're going to 
be pretty annoyed when the orange comes out brown and doesn't match any 
more, which could have been avoided by buying a $1000 calibrated 
monitor.  Of course for one-offs there are ways around it (eg the 
printer sending you a sample, you tweaking it, repeat a few times) but 
for anyone regularly making such a magazine you *will* have calibrated 
monitors.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/02/2011 10:19 AM, scott wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Didn't you used to hang out with some gamers, surely they'd all spent in
> excess of $1000 on their PCs?

Hmm, plausibly yes. (Especially Wev. Then again, he somehow drives a 
BWM, and he makes it his mission in life to have a better PC than anyone 
else in the group...)

> Also nobody at your work who is
> interesting in cars and has spend more than $1000 on a car in one go?

Cars and houses are probably the only things I can think of that most 
people have and cost significantly more than that, yes.

> I
> find it hard to believe nobody at your work owns a dSLR, which surely
> cost around $1000 to spend in one go. Spending that sort of money on a
> hobby is more common than you think.

No, I'm fairly sure none of the 26 people who work here own a DSLR. 
(Obviously I haven't gone and *asked* them all individually, but nobody 
seems that interested in photography.)

>> 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",
>
> Did you ever try actually comparing printed colours to your monitor
> using cheap consumer equipment? I don't think anyone would call that a
> "reasonable" match.

When I print photos out, it usually looks approximately as poor as it 
did on screen, yes.

> I think you'd be surprised what level of work goes into making even a
> low circulation full-colour magazine.

OK. As I say, I don't work in the print business personally. It just 
surprises me that anyone would shell out such a huge amount of money for 
something unless it was absolutely critical to have it.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/02/2011 10:06 AM, Stephen wrote:

> It is your job. Your employers sound as if they are running the UK side
> of your company like an outsourced third world project.

No no, they run the *entire* company like this.

According to Wolfram, my employer lost almost 1 million USD last 
financial year. Consequently, there is a spending freeze on *everything*.

Then again, even back when we were making a profit, the company attitude 
has always been to avoid investment wherever possible. I guess it's just 
a very short-sighted company.

> It looks like
> your world view is hampered by this. No criticism to you intended.

Perhaps. But I've met plenty of people who *don't* work for this screwy 
company, and most of them aren't exactly loaded either. (With a few 
notable exceptions.)

> The management of the company (Burroughs
> Corporation) knew that using inferior equipment would hamper the
> workforce in producing quality goods.

Hah. Would that more companies thought this way...

Post a reply to this message

> OK. As I say, I don't work in the print business personally. It just
> surprises me that anyone would shell out such a huge amount of money for
> something unless it was absolutely critical to have it.

It surprises me how anyone could think $1000 is a "huge amount of money" 
for a company to spend.

Post a reply to this message

> According to Wolfram, my employer lost almost 1 million USD last
> financial year. Consequently, there is a spending freeze on *everything*.

Don't worry, my employer lost 53 million USD last year :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> No they are listed on consumer sites, because nowadays they're cheap
> enough some consumers will want to buy them.  Eg the EOS 1D is £3500.
> You indicated you might be able to afford £500, so doesn't it seem
> plausible that someone earning 7x what you do might buy one for a hobby?

And you don't even need to go that far. Double your salary, and you've probably
got at least 4x as much disposable income.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/02/2011 10:40 AM, scott wrote:
>> OK. As I say, I don't work in the print business personally. It just
>> surprises me that anyone would shell out such a huge amount of money for
>> something unless it was absolutely critical to have it.
>
> It surprises me how anyone could think $1000 is a "huge amount of money"
> for a company to spend.

Perhaps for Time-Warner it isn't. For my local newspaper that employs 
maybe 20 people, it probably is.

Then again, what do I know?

Post a reply to this message

On 11/02/2011 10:41 AM, Bill Pragnell wrote:

> And you don't even need to go that far. Double your salary, and you've probably
> got at least 4x as much disposable income.

That's an interesting statistic. I like that.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/02/2011 10:10 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> It's the "somebody earning 7x" that doesn't seem plausible.
>>
>> It is the other way around. It does not seem plausible that someone with
>> your job description and skills is earning as little as you do.
>
> Well, yeah, I'm under-paid considering the job I do. But I'm sure
> there's lots of other people who also don't earn much money.

That is true.

> What we're
> debating is how many people earn such an insane amount of money that
> thousands of pounds is nothing to them.

Interesting how you see it. I thought that it was about how a few 
thousand pounds was not out of the price range of someone with a decent job.
The lowest paid "System Admin" job I can see in Jobserve is £250/day the 
average is about £400/day.
http://www.jobserve.com/System-Administrator-Cambridge-Cambridgeshire-Contract-W5515CF963CA2BB2A.jsjob

>
>> I can say, quite categorically, that you have met and had a drink with
>> at least three people in that bracket.
>
> Really? How do you compute that?

I remember meeting you along with Dr John and Steve. I won't speak for 
John but I know his what his job is and can guess what he earns, 
roughly. Steve's workshop had a turnover of 2.5 million pounds per year 
before he died. So even at 4% commission that put him in the six figure 
bracket. As for me, I'm an independent functional consultant for SAP.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> It surprises me how anyone could think $1000 is a "huge amount of money"
>> for a company to spend.
>
> Perhaps for Time-Warner it isn't. For my local newspaper that employs
> maybe 20 people, it probably is.

Do you have any idea how much it costs to employ 20 people?

Post a reply to this message

On 11/02/2011 11:41 AM, scott wrote:
>>> It surprises me how anyone could think $1000 is a "huge amount of money"
>>> for a company to spend.
>>
>> Perhaps for Time-Warner it isn't. For my local newspaper that employs
>> maybe 20 people, it probably is.
>
> Do you have any idea how much it costs to employ 20 people?

Given what it must cost to employ 20 people, and the pitiful amount of 
money the local newspaper presumably makes, I would imagine every last 
penny counts, yes.

Post a reply to this message

On 11/02/2011 10:39 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 11/02/2011 10:06 AM, Stephen wrote:
>
>> It is your job. Your employers sound as if they are running the UK side
>> of your company like an outsourced third world project.
>
> No no, they run the *entire* company like this.
>
> According to Wolfram, my employer lost almost 1 million USD last
> financial year. Consequently, there is a spending freeze on *everything*.
>
> Then again, even back when we were making a profit, the company attitude
> has always been to avoid investment wherever possible. I guess it's just
> a very short-sighted company.
>

Get out before you are a statistic.

>> It looks like
>> your world view is hampered by this. No criticism to you intended.
>
> Perhaps. But I've met plenty of people who *don't* work for this screwy
> company, and most of them aren't exactly loaded either. (With a few
> notable exceptions.)
>

Of course there are lots of poorly paid people. That does not meen that 
you have to be one of them.

>> The management of the company (Burroughs
>> Corporation) knew that using inferior equipment would hamper the
>> workforce in producing quality goods.
>
> Hah. Would that more companies thought this way...

Yes, but they were buggers to work for. If the unions said white the 
management said black.
The toilets had no proper seat but just two crescents of wood to sit on 
so that it was not possible to stay long.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message