Well, I saw one of these LED backlit TV sets from Sammy in a store last
night, and I have to say that I was not particularly impressed with the
picture quality. Comparing to conventionally backlit (CCFL) Sony and
Panasonic offerings in immediate proximity to the Sammy, it was my opinion
that the rendition of skin tones, which we previously agreed was a good test
of a colour display's performance, was actually nothing like as good. Both
the Pan and the Sony had a near identical 'tone' to the skin of a
newsreader's face. On the Sammy, that same face was rather pink and florid
looking. I also did not think that the black level was any better than on
the other two sets, which is a point that they are making a lot of, claiming
that it substantially increases the contrast ratio.

I don't know what 'set-ups' this TV has, in terms of brightness, contrast,
colour saturation, tint/hue, but in my experience, most LCD TVs - which is,
after all, what this is - are set correctly 'out of the box', but I accept
that this particular one that I saw might not be a good example of the
technology.

I forgot to have a look round the back of it to see if there was a rating
plate, but next time I'm in that store, I will try to remember.

In the set's favour, it is very pretty-looking. The slimness of the display
is extremely impressive, and at this point in my evaluation, far outweighs
any display-quality aspects being claimed for it ...

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:

I don't know what 'set-ups' this TV has, in terms of brightness, contrast,
colour saturation, tint/hue, but in my experience, most LCD TVs - which is,
after all, what this is - are set correctly 'out of the box', but I accept
that this particular one that I saw might not be a good example of the
technology.

Based on the assumption that it is a PAL set probably brightness,
contrast, and maybe color saturation. Digital TV sets are not PAL per
se, but they still use the same luminance, color, sync, signals that are
used by PAL (and slightly differently by NTSC).

They are also still 25 or 30 frames per second depending upon whether or
not thay are interlaced as in 1080i or not. An interlaced frame is still
2 fields, at 50 or (almost 60Hz) combined.

The main differences between a digital TV signal and an analog one are that
since each frame is discrete, there really is no need for a syncronization
pulse to define the begining of each frame and more importantly, there is
no color subcarrier.

If you were to look at a digital TV signal decoded as if it were a
stream of pixels, you would see something that looked a lot like an
analog TV signal.

Computer displays, BTW are red-green-blue with seperate horizontal and vertical
sync, which is very different.


Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

I was not impressed with the Samsung "LED" set I saw at Fry's, either. It
looked as if it had been set to "Torch" mode. What it would look like set
for a normal-to-dimly lit room is anyone's guess.

Mr. Mendelson has little understanding of how digital television works.
Rather than refute his points, I will urge him to find a book on the subject
and read it.

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:


Well, I saw one of these LED backlit TV sets from Sammy in a store last
night, and I have to say that I was not particularly impressed with the
picture quality. Comparing to conventionally backlit (CCFL) Sony and
Panasonic offerings in immediate proximity to the Sammy, it was my opinion
that the rendition of skin tones, which we previously agreed was a good test
of a colour display's performance, was actually nothing like as good. Both
the Pan and the Sony had a near identical 'tone' to the skin of a
newsreader's face. On the Sammy, that same face was rather pink and florid
looking. I also did not think that the black level was any better than on
the other two sets, which is a point that they are making a lot of, claiming
that it substantially increases the contrast ratio.

I don't know what 'set-ups' this TV has, in terms of brightness, contrast,
colour saturation, tint/hue, but in my experience, most LCD TVs - which is,
after all, what this is - are set correctly 'out of the box', but I accept
that this particular one that I saw might not be a good example of the
technology.

I forgot to have a look round the back of it to see if there was a rating
plate, but next time I'm in that store, I will try to remember.

In the set's favour, it is very pretty-looking. The slimness of the display
is extremely impressive, and at this point in my evaluation, far outweighs
any display-quality aspects being claimed for it ...

Arfa



Based on the assumption that it is a PAL set probably brightness,
contrast, and maybe color saturation. Digital TV sets are not PAL per
se, but they still use the same luminance, color, sync, signals that are
used by PAL (and slightly differently by NTSC).

They are also still 25 or 30 frames per second depending upon whether or
not thay are interlaced as in 1080i or not. An interlaced frame is still
2 fields, at 50 or (almost 60Hz) combined.

The main differences between a digital TV signal and an analog one are
that
since each frame is discrete, there really is no need for a syncronization
pulse to define the begining of each frame and more importantly, there is
no color subcarrier.

If you were to look at a digital TV signal decoded as if it were a
stream of pixels, you would see something that looked a lot like an
analog TV signal.

Computer displays, BTW are red-green-blue with seperate horizontal and
vertical
sync, which is very different.


Geoff.


Yes Geoff, I'm aware of all that. I work with the technology all the time.
Did you read the original thread from last week ? We were not discussing the
differences between transport and encoding systems, rather the moral - if
not technical - validity of Sammy advertising this new offering of theirs as
a "LED TV", which it isn't. It's an LCD TV with an alternate form of
backlighting (LEDs rather than CCFL).

One of the main selling points that they claim, is that because they can
control the intensity of the backlighting in individual areas, they can
deepen the blacks, effectively improving the contrast ratio. On the example
that I saw last night, I observed no such improvement that was obvious,
compared to the sets around it. The reason that I questioned what controls
for picture setup are available on this particular set, was that given that
the backlighting is formed by RGB LED arrays, not white LEDs, then the
overall colour temperature would in theory be adjustable - sort of a grey
scale adjustment for LCDs, if you like. If this was the case, it might be
accessible to the customer via the standard controls menu, as something like
"tint" or "hue", and the reason that this particular set (they only had the
one on display) did not seem to produce good flesh tones compared to the
sets around it, might be because some sales erk had been playing with the
controls to see if he could 'improve' it ...

Someone - maybe William - commented last week in the original thread, that
they had seen one in Fry's in the U.S., and that they weren't especially
impressed, either.

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:


Well, I saw one of these LED backlit TV sets from Sammy in a store last
night, and I have to say that I was not particularly impressed with the
picture quality. Comparing to conventionally backlit (CCFL) Sony and
Panasonic offerings in immediate proximity to the Sammy, it was my opinion
that the rendition of skin tones, which we previously agreed was a good test
of a colour display's performance, was actually nothing like as good. Both
the Pan and the Sony had a near identical 'tone' to the skin of a
newsreader's face. On the Sammy, that same face was rather pink and florid
looking. I also did not think that the black level was any better than on
the other two sets, which is a point that they are making a lot of, claiming
that it substantially increases the contrast ratio.

I don't know what 'set-ups' this TV has, in terms of brightness, contrast,
colour saturation, tint/hue, but in my experience, most LCD TVs - which is,
after all, what this is - are set correctly 'out of the box', but I accept
that this particular one that I saw might not be a good example of the
technology.

I forgot to have a look round the back of it to see if there was a rating
plate, but next time I'm in that store, I will try to remember.

In the set's favour, it is very pretty-looking. The slimness of the display
is extremely impressive, and at this point in my evaluation, far outweighs
any display-quality aspects being claimed for it ...

Arfa



Based on the assumption that it is a PAL set probably brightness,
contrast, and maybe color saturation. Digital TV sets are not PAL per
se, but they still use the same luminance, color, sync, signals that are
used by PAL (and slightly differently by NTSC).

They are also still 25 or 30 frames per second depending upon whether or
not thay are interlaced as in 1080i or not. An interlaced frame is still
2 fields, at 50 or (almost 60Hz) combined.

The main differences between a digital TV signal and an analog one are
that
since each frame is discrete, there really is no need for a syncronization
pulse to define the begining of each frame and more importantly, there is
no color subcarrier.

If you were to look at a digital TV signal decoded as if it were a
stream of pixels, you would see something that looked a lot like an
analog TV signal.

Computer displays, BTW are red-green-blue with seperate horizontal and
vertical
sync, which is very different.


Geoff.


Yes Geoff, I'm aware of all that. I work with the technology all the time.
Did you read the original thread from last week ? We were not discussing the
differences between transport and encoding systems, rather the moral - if
not technical - validity of Sammy advertising this new offering of theirs as
a "LED TV", which it isn't. It's an LCD TV with an alternate form of
backlighting (LEDs rather than CCFL).

One of the main selling points that they claim, is that because they can
control the intensity of the backlighting in individual areas, they can
deepen the blacks, effectively improving the contrast ratio. On the example
that I saw last night, I observed no such improvement that was obvious,
compared to the sets around it. The reason that I questioned what controls
for picture setup are available on this particular set, was that given that
the backlighting is formed by RGB LED arrays, not white LEDs, then the
overall colour temperature would in theory be adjustable - sort of a grey
scale adjustment for LCDs, if you like. If this was the case, it might be
accessible to the customer via the standard controls menu, as something like
"tint" or "hue", and the reason that this particular set (they only had the
one on display) did not seem to produce good flesh tones compared to the
sets around it, might be because some sales erk had been playing with the
controls to see if he could 'improve' it ...

Someone - maybe William - commented last week in the original thread, that
they had seen one in Fry's in the U.S., and that they weren't especially
impressed, either.

Arfa

surely the flesh tones are entirely down to the colour settings, ie
background, drive, or hue, colour temp etc. Any 3 channel display
except early LCDs can do a palette including all the usual skin tones.


NT

wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:

Well, I saw one of these LED backlit TV sets from Sammy in a store last
night, and I have to say that I was not particularly impressed with the
picture quality. Comparing to conventionally backlit (CCFL) Sony and
Panasonic offerings in immediate proximity to the Sammy, it was my opinion
that the rendition of skin tones, which we previously agreed was a good test
of a colour display's performance, was actually nothing like as good. Both
the Pan and the Sony had a near identical 'tone' to the skin of a
newsreader's face. On the Sammy, that same face was rather pink and florid
looking. I also did not think that the black level was any better than on
the other two sets, which is a point that they are making a lot of, claiming
that it substantially increases the contrast ratio.

I don't know what 'set-ups' this TV has, in terms of brightness, contrast,
colour saturation, tint/hue, but in my experience, most LCD TVs - which is,
after all, what this is - are set correctly 'out of the box', but I accept
that this particular one that I saw might not be a good example of the
technology.

I forgot to have a look round the back of it to see if there was a rating
plate, but next time I'm in that store, I will try to remember.

In the set's favour, it is very pretty-looking. The slimness of the display
is extremely impressive, and at this point in my evaluation, far outweighs
any display-quality aspects being claimed for it ...

Arfa


Based on the assumption that it is a PAL set probably brightness,
contrast, and maybe color saturation. Digital TV sets are not PAL per
se, but they still use the same luminance, color, sync, signals that are
used by PAL (and slightly differently by NTSC).

They are also still 25 or 30 frames per second depending upon whether or
not thay are interlaced as in 1080i or not. An interlaced frame is still
2 fields, at 50 or (almost 60Hz) combined.

The main differences between a digital TV signal and an analog one are
that
since each frame is discrete, there really is no need for a syncronization
pulse to define the begining of each frame and more importantly, there is
no color subcarrier.

If you were to look at a digital TV signal decoded as if it were a
stream of pixels, you would see something that looked a lot like an
analog TV signal.

Computer displays, BTW are red-green-blue with seperate horizontal and
vertical
sync, which is very different.


Geoff.

Yes Geoff, I'm aware of all that. I work with the technology all the time.
Did you read the original thread from last week ? We were not discussing the
differences between transport and encoding systems, rather the moral - if
not technical - validity of Sammy advertising this new offering of theirs as
a "LED TV", which it isn't. It's an LCD TV with an alternate form of
backlighting (LEDs rather than CCFL).

One of the main selling points that they claim, is that because they can
control the intensity of the backlighting in individual areas, they can
deepen the blacks, effectively improving the contrast ratio. On the example
that I saw last night, I observed no such improvement that was obvious,
compared to the sets around it. The reason that I questioned what controls
for picture setup are available on this particular set, was that given that
the backlighting is formed by RGB LED arrays, not white LEDs, then the
overall colour temperature would in theory be adjustable - sort of a grey
scale adjustment for LCDs, if you like. If this was the case, it might be
accessible to the customer via the standard controls menu, as something like
"tint" or "hue", and the reason that this particular set (they only had the
one on display) did not seem to produce good flesh tones compared to the
sets around it, might be because some sales erk had been playing with the
controls to see if he could 'improve' it ...

Someone - maybe William - commented last week in the original thread, that
they had seen one in Fry's in the U.S., and that they weren't especially
impressed, either.

Arfa

surely the flesh tones are entirely down to the colour settings, ie
background, drive, or hue, colour temp etc. Any 3 channel display
except early LCDs can do a palette including all the usual skin tones.

You would think so really, but going back to film photography, there are
reasons why portraits were always shot on e.g. Konica, landscapes on
Agfa or Fuji, , and no one used Kodak at all professionally - Except for
Kodachrome..


NT

wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:


Well, I saw one of these LED backlit TV sets from Sammy in a store last
night, and I have to say that I was not particularly impressed with the
picture quality. Comparing to conventionally backlit (CCFL) Sony and
Panasonic offerings in immediate proximity to the Sammy, it was my
opinion
that the rendition of skin tones, which we previously agreed was a good
test
of a colour display's performance, was actually nothing like as good.
Both
the Pan and the Sony had a near identical 'tone' to the skin of a
newsreader's face. On the Sammy, that same face was rather pink and
florid
looking. I also did not think that the black level was any better than on
the other two sets, which is a point that they are making a lot of,
claiming
that it substantially increases the contrast ratio.

I don't know what 'set-ups' this TV has, in terms of brightness,
contrast,
colour saturation, tint/hue, but in my experience, most LCD TVs - which
is,
after all, what this is - are set correctly 'out of the box', but I
accept
that this particular one that I saw might not be a good example of the
technology.

I forgot to have a look round the back of it to see if there was a rating
plate, but next time I'm in that store, I will try to remember.

In the set's favour, it is very pretty-looking. The slimness of the
display
is extremely impressive, and at this point in my evaluation, far
outweighs
any display-quality aspects being claimed for it ...

Arfa



Based on the assumption that it is a PAL set probably brightness,
contrast, and maybe color saturation. Digital TV sets are not PAL per
se, but they still use the same luminance, color, sync, signals that
are
used by PAL (and slightly differently by NTSC).

They are also still 25 or 30 frames per second depending upon whether
or
not thay are interlaced as in 1080i or not. An interlaced frame is
still
2 fields, at 50 or (almost 60Hz) combined.

The main differences between a digital TV signal and an analog one are
that
since each frame is discrete, there really is no need for a
syncronization
pulse to define the begining of each frame and more importantly, there
is
no color subcarrier.

If you were to look at a digital TV signal decoded as if it were a
stream of pixels, you would see something that looked a lot like an
analog TV signal.

Computer displays, BTW are red-green-blue with seperate horizontal and
vertical
sync, which is very different.


Geoff.


Yes Geoff, I'm aware of all that. I work with the technology all the
time.
Did you read the original thread from last week ? We were not discussing
the
differences between transport and encoding systems, rather the moral - if
not technical - validity of Sammy advertising this new offering of theirs
as
a "LED TV", which it isn't. It's an LCD TV with an alternate form of
backlighting (LEDs rather than CCFL).

One of the main selling points that they claim, is that because they can
control the intensity of the backlighting in individual areas, they can
deepen the blacks, effectively improving the contrast ratio. On the
example
that I saw last night, I observed no such improvement that was obvious,
compared to the sets around it. The reason that I questioned what
controls
for picture setup are available on this particular set, was that given
that
the backlighting is formed by RGB LED arrays, not white LEDs, then the
overall colour temperature would in theory be adjustable - sort of a grey
scale adjustment for LCDs, if you like. If this was the case, it might be
accessible to the customer via the standard controls menu, as something
like
"tint" or "hue", and the reason that this particular set (they only had
the
one on display) did not seem to produce good flesh tones compared to the
sets around it, might be because some sales erk had been playing with the
controls to see if he could 'improve' it ...

Someone - maybe William - commented last week in the original thread,
that
they had seen one in Fry's in the U.S., and that they weren't especially
impressed, either.

Arfa

surely the flesh tones are entirely down to the colour settings, ie
background, drive, or hue, colour temp etc. Any 3 channel display
except early LCDs can do a palette including all the usual skin tones.


NT

The LCD only filters light from the backlight. If you don't have a full
spectrum white in the first place the you can't expect decent colour. White
LEDs aren't quite there yet are they?

Archie

"Archie" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:


Well, I saw one of these LED backlit TV sets from Sammy in a store last
night, and I have to say that I was not particularly impressed with the
picture quality. Comparing to conventionally backlit (CCFL) Sony and
Panasonic offerings in immediate proximity to the Sammy, it was my
opinion
that the rendition of skin tones, which we previously agreed was a good
test
of a colour display's performance, was actually nothing like as good.
Both
the Pan and the Sony had a near identical 'tone' to the skin of a
newsreader's face. On the Sammy, that same face was rather pink and
florid
looking. I also did not think that the black level was any better than
on
the other two sets, which is a point that they are making a lot of,
claiming
that it substantially increases the contrast ratio.

I don't know what 'set-ups' this TV has, in terms of brightness,
contrast,
colour saturation, tint/hue, but in my experience, most LCD TVs - which
is,
after all, what this is - are set correctly 'out of the box', but I
accept


P'raps it needs degausing - or the convergence tweaking!

Ahh - my old Dynatron with 27 pots on a hinged panel to play with.


NT

The LCD only filters light from the backlight. If you don't have a full
spectrum white in the first place the you can't expect decent colour.
White LEDs aren't quite there yet are they?

Archie

You would think so really, but going back to film photography,
there are reasons why portraits were always shot on eg, Konica,
landscapes on Agfa or Fuji, and no one used Kodak at all
professionally -- except for Kodachrome.

No one? Kodak sold -- and still sells -- professional color-negative film
that's often used for wedding photography. In fact, GYF recently introduced
an ultra-fine-grain professional color-negative film. If there weren't a
market for it...

I should tell you that, when I use color-negative film, it's Fuji. Part of
the reason is price, the other is that Costco uses Fuji paper. Fuji on Fuji
produces better results than Kodak on Fuji. (The opposite is also true.)

The LCD only filters light from the backlight. If you don't have a full
spectrum white in the first place the you can't expect decent colour.

Not so. All you have to do is hit the defined points in CIE diagram. The
Pioneer plasma sets hit them dead-on.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:

Well, I saw one of these LED backlit TV sets from Sammy in a store last
night, and I have to say that I was not particularly impressed with the
picture quality. Comparing to conventionally backlit (CCFL) Sony and
Panasonic offerings in immediate proximity to the Sammy, it was my opinion
that the rendition of skin tones, which we previously agreed was a good test
of a colour display's performance, was actually nothing like as good. Both
the Pan and the Sony had a near identical 'tone' to the skin of a
newsreader's face. On the Sammy, that same face was rather pink and florid
looking. I also did not think that the black level was any better than on
the other two sets, which is a point that they are making a lot of, claiming
that it substantially increases the contrast ratio.

I don't know what 'set-ups' this TV has, in terms of brightness, contrast,
colour saturation, tint/hue, but in my experience, most LCD TVs - which is,
after all, what this is - are set correctly 'out of the box', but I accept
that this particular one that I saw might not be a good example of the
technology.

I forgot to have a look round the back of it to see if there was a rating
plate, but next time I'm in that store, I will try to remember.

In the set's favour, it is very pretty-looking. The slimness of the display
is extremely impressive, and at this point in my evaluation, far outweighs
any display-quality aspects being claimed for it ...

Arfa


Based on the assumption that it is a PAL set probably brightness,
contrast, and maybe color saturation. Digital TV sets are not PAL per
se, but they still use the same luminance, color, sync, signals that are
used by PAL (and slightly differently by NTSC).

They are also still 25 or 30 frames per second depending upon whether or
not thay are interlaced as in 1080i or not. An interlaced frame is still
2 fields, at 50 or (almost 60Hz) combined.

The main differences between a digital TV signal and an analog one are
that
since each frame is discrete, there really is no need for a syncronization
pulse to define the begining of each frame and more importantly, there is
no color subcarrier.

If you were to look at a digital TV signal decoded as if it were a
stream of pixels, you would see something that looked a lot like an
analog TV signal.

Computer displays, BTW are red-green-blue with seperate horizontal and
vertical
sync, which is very different.


Geoff.

Yes Geoff, I'm aware of all that. I work with the technology all the time.
Did you read the original thread from last week ? We were not discussing the
differences between transport and encoding systems, rather the moral - if
not technical - validity of Sammy advertising this new offering of theirs as
a "LED TV", which it isn't. It's an LCD TV with an alternate form of
backlighting (LEDs rather than CCFL).

One of the main selling points that they claim, is that because they can
control the intensity of the backlighting in individual areas, they can
deepen the blacks, effectively improving the contrast ratio. On the example
that I saw last night, I observed no such improvement that was obvious,
compared to the sets around it. The reason that I questioned what controls
for picture setup are available on this particular set, was that given that
the backlighting is formed by RGB LED arrays, not white LEDs, then the
overall colour temperature would in theory be adjustable - sort of a grey
scale adjustment for LCDs, if you like. If this was the case, it might be
accessible to the customer via the standard controls menu, as something like
"tint" or "hue", and the reason that this particular set (they only had the
one on display) did not seem to produce good flesh tones compared to the
sets around it, might be because some sales erk had been playing with the
controls to see if he could 'improve' it ...

Someone - maybe William - commented last week in the original thread, that
they had seen one in Fry's in the U.S., and that they weren't especially
impressed, either.

Arfa

surely the flesh tones are entirely down to the colour settings, ie
background, drive, or hue, colour temp etc. Any 3 channel display
except early LCDs can do a palette including all the usual skin tones.

You would think so really, but going back to film photography, there are
reasons why portraits were always shot on e.g. Konica, landscapes on
Agfa or Fuji, , and no one used Kodak at all professionally - Except for
Kodachrome..


NT

Film is a whole nother business. You've got a lot less control over
its 'colour settings' than you have with a display screen, and ditto
re optical linearity. The issues with an LCD screen are quite
different.


NT

William Sommerwerck wrote:
The LCD only filters light from the backlight. If you don't have a full
spectrum white in the first place the you can't expect decent colour.

Not so. All you have to do is hit the defined points in CIE diagram. The
Pioneer plasma sets hit them dead-on.

Indeed. None of the major display techologies deliver full spectrum,
nor do they need to.


NT

John wrote:
"Archie" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:

Well, I saw one of these LED backlit TV sets from Sammy in a store last
night, and I have to say that I was not particularly impressed with the
picture quality. Comparing to conventionally backlit (CCFL) Sony and
Panasonic offerings in immediate proximity to the Sammy, it was my
opinion
that the rendition of skin tones, which we previously agreed was a good
test
of a colour display's performance, was actually nothing like as good.
Both
the Pan and the Sony had a near identical 'tone' to the skin of a
newsreader's face. On the Sammy, that same face was rather pink and
florid
looking. I also did not think that the black level was any better than
on
the other two sets, which is a point that they are making a lot of,
claiming
that it substantially increases the contrast ratio.

I don't know what 'set-ups' this TV has, in terms of brightness,
contrast,
colour saturation, tint/hue, but in my experience, most LCD TVs - which
is,
after all, what this is - are set correctly 'out of the box', but I
accept


P'raps it needs degausing - or the convergence tweaking!

Ahh - my old Dynatron with 27 pots on a hinged panel to play with.

thats one thing I DON'T miss. I thanked god for inline guns.


NT

wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You would think so really, but going back to film photography, there are
reasons why portraits were always shot on e.g. Konica, landscapes on
Agfa or Fuji, , and no one used Kodak at all professionally - Except for
Kodachrome..

NT

Film is a whole nother business. You've got a lot less control over
its 'colour settings' than you have with a display screen, and ditto
re optical linearity. The issues with an LCD screen are quite
different.

well in the sense that they all use combinations of RGB (or CYMK) to
produce a 'full colour spectrum'and none succeed perfectly for all
applications, they are considerably identical, actually.


NT

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You would think so really, but going back to film photography, there are
reasons why portraits were always shot on e.g. Konica, landscapes on
Agfa or Fuji, , and no one used Kodak at all professionally - Except for
Kodachrome..

NT

Film is a whole nother business. You've got a lot less control over
its 'colour settings' than you have with a display screen, and ditto
re optical linearity. The issues with an LCD screen are quite
different.

well in the sense that they all use combinations of RGB (or CYMK) to
produce a 'full colour spectrum'and none succeed perfectly for all
applications, they are considerably identical, actually.

No, they aren't.

Very basically, you have to understand that:

A printed image is sending reflected light to your eye. It can only reflect
some portion of the spectrum of light it has absorbed.

A screen is is sending transmitted light to your eye, which has no
reflective element to speak of.

Put even more simply, a printed image varies dramatically under different
lighting conditions, unlike a screen.

They could hardly be less identical and the analogy with different brands of
film is not applicable at all.

HTH

P'raps it needs degausing - or the convergence tweaking!

Ahh - my old Dynatron with 27 pots on a hinged panel to play with.

thats one thing I DON'T miss. I thanked god for inline guns.


NT

One day we will be like the aliens in the classic Cadburys Smash adverts -
"So you fired electrons at phosphor dots and steered them with coils of
copper wire!!!"

But at least I could understand how it worked (a bit)

Schrodinger's cat wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You would think so really, but going back to film photography, there are
reasons why portraits were always shot on e.g. Konica, landscapes on
Agfa or Fuji, , and no one used Kodak at all professionally - Except for
Kodachrome..

NT

Film is a whole nother business. You've got a lot less control over
its 'colour settings' than you have with a display screen, and ditto
re optical linearity. The issues with an LCD screen are quite
different.

well in the sense that they all use combinations of RGB (or CYMK) to
produce a 'full colour spectrum'and none succeed perfectly for all
applications, they are considerably identical, actually.

No, they aren't.

Very basically, you have to understand that:

A printed image is sending reflected light to your eye. It can only reflect
some portion of the spectrum of light it has absorbed.

A screen is is sending transmitted light to your eye, which has no
reflective element to speak of.

Put even more simply, a printed image varies dramatically under different
lighting conditions, unlike a screen.

They could hardly be less identical and the analogy with different brands of
film is not applicable at all.

HTH

issues very different.

Schrodinger's cat wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

You would think so really, but going back to film photography, there
are
reasons why portraits were always shot on e.g. Konica, landscapes on
Agfa or Fuji, , and no one used Kodak at all professionally - Except
for
Kodachrome..

NT

Film is a whole nother business. You've got a lot less control over
its 'colour settings' than you have with a display screen, and ditto
re optical linearity. The issues with an LCD screen are quite
different.

well in the sense that they all use combinations of RGB (or CYMK) to
produce a 'full colour spectrum'and none succeed perfectly for all
applications, they are considerably identical, actually.

No, they aren't.

Very basically, you have to understand that:

A printed image is sending reflected light to your eye. It can only
reflect some portion of the spectrum of light it has absorbed.

Color transparencies which are used in pro film applications say your
are a liar.

A screen is is sending transmitted light to your eye, which has no
reflective element to speak of.

Put even more simply, a printed image varies dramatically under
different lighting conditions, unlike a screen.

They could hardly be less identical and the analogy with different
brands of film is not applicable at all.

HTH

wrote:
Schrodinger's cat wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You would think so really, but going back to film photography, there are
reasons why portraits were always shot on e.g. Konica, landscapes on
Agfa or Fuji, , and no one used Kodak at all professionally - Except for
Kodachrome..

NT
Film is a whole nother business. You've got a lot less control over
its 'colour settings' than you have with a display screen, and ditto
re optical linearity. The issues with an LCD screen are quite
different.

well in the sense that they all use combinations of RGB (or CYMK) to
produce a 'full colour spectrum'and none succeed perfectly for all
applications, they are considerably identical, actually.

No, they aren't.

Very basically, you have to understand that:

A printed image is sending reflected light to your eye. It can only reflect
some portion of the spectrum of light it has absorbed.

A screen is is sending transmitted light to your eye, which has no
reflective element to speak of.

Put even more simply, a printed image varies dramatically under different
lighting conditions, unlike a screen.

They could hardly be less identical and the analogy with different brands of
film is not applicable at all.

HTH

issues very different.
Proof by assertion.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
A printed image is sending reflected light to your eye. It can only
reflect some portion of the spectrum of light it has absorbed.

Color transparencies which are used in pro film applications say your
are a liar.

The term printing was highjacked by photography and film - doesn't mean
the same as the original use. Which was transferring dyes from an
impression to paper, etc.

--
*Most people have more than the average number of legs*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
wrote:
Schrodinger's cat wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You would think so really, but going back to film photography, there are
reasons why portraits were always shot on e.g. Konica, landscapes on
Agfa or Fuji, , and no one used Kodak at all professionally - Except for
Kodachrome..

NT
Film is a whole nother business. You've got a lot less control over
its 'colour settings' than you have with a display screen, and ditto
re optical linearity. The issues with an LCD screen are quite
different.

well in the sense that they all use combinations of RGB (or CYMK) to
produce a 'full colour spectrum'and none succeed perfectly for all
applications, they are considerably identical, actually.

No, they aren't.

Very basically, you have to understand that:

A printed image is sending reflected light to your eye. It can only reflect
some portion of the spectrum of light it has absorbed.

A screen is is sending transmitted light to your eye, which has no
reflective element to speak of.

Put even more simply, a printed image varies dramatically under different
lighting conditions, unlike a screen.

They could hardly be less identical and the analogy with different brands of
film is not applicable at all.

HTH

issues very different.
Proof by assertion.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could think the same controls
were available to them with a paper/transparency process as with a
computer monitor. I cant think of any possible motivation to prove
whats quite obvious to anyone's that done photographic printing.


NT

The LCD only filters light from the backlight. If you don't have a full
spectrum white in the first place the you can't expect decent colour.
White LEDs aren't quite there yet are they?

Archie


Absolutely true, except that this particular TV doesn't use white LEDs in
its 'revolutionary' backlighting scheme. It uses small RGB arrays, which is
why I was questioning whether there was any control over the individual
elements in each array, such that the colour temperature of the nominally
white light that they produce, could be varied. Which would then, of course,
have a corresponding effect on the displayed colour balance. It just seemed
to me that given they have gone to the trouble of using RGB arrays, rather
than white LEDs, the reason for that might have been to get a full(er)
spectrum white.

Arfa

"John" wrote in message
...



P'raps it needs degausing - or the convergence tweaking!

Ahh - my old Dynatron with 27 pots on a hinged panel to play with.

thats one thing I DON'T miss. I thanked god for inline guns.


NT

One day we will be like the aliens in the classic Cadburys Smash adverts -
"So you fired electrons at phosphor dots and steered them with coils of
copper wire!!!"

But at least I could understand how it worked (a bit)




If they ever resolve the legal battles over SED technology, we'll be firing
electrons at phosphors again (although not steering them with copper) and at
last, we will be able to return to pictures as good as CRTs produced ...
:-)

Arfa

Arfa Daily wrote:

The LCD only filters light from the backlight. If you don't have a full
spectrum white in the first place the you can't expect decent colour.
White LEDs aren't quite there yet are they?

Archie


Absolutely true, except that this particular TV doesn't use white LEDs in
its 'revolutionary' backlighting scheme. It uses small RGB arrays, which is
why I was questioning whether there was any control over the individual
elements in each array, such that the colour temperature of the nominally
white light that they produce, could be varied. Which would then, of course,
have a corresponding effect on the displayed colour balance. It just seemed
to me that given they have gone to the trouble of using RGB arrays, rather
than white LEDs, the reason for that might have been to get a full(er)
spectrum white.

Arfa

colour temp can be controlled using the LEDs or the LCD, I'm not sure
it makes any big difference which one.

RGB LEDs would give the same white as a triphosphor&uv white LED, but
with more colour control. The standard 2 colour white LED would be
useless on a 3 channel display. And fwiw bichromic white LEDs have
huge colour balance variation, way outside of whats acceptable for a
display.


NT

The Holy Quran



Please forgive us for any disturbance, but we have an important
subject to address to you regarding FAITH, and we Don’t intend to
overload your email with unnecessary messages…

Quran Means "Recitation"

The word "Quran" means "that which is recited; or that which is
dictated in memory form." As such, it is not a book, nor is it
something that reaches us only in written form.

The documentation in writting about the Quran has been preserved in
museums thoughout the world, including the Topekopi Palace in
Istanbul, Turkey, the museum in Tashkent, Uzbekistan and also in
England. Keep in mind also, the Quran is only considered "Quran" while
it is in the recitation form, not in the written or the book form. The
word for what is written and held in the hand to be read by the eye is
called "mus-haf" (meaning script or that which is written down).

Only One Version - Arabic

There are no different versions of the Quran in the Arabic language,
only different translations and of course, none of these would be
considered to hold the value and authenticity of the original Arabic
Recitation. The Quran is divided up into 30 equal parts, called
"Juz’" (parts) in the Arabic language. These are learned by Muslims
from their very early beginnings as children.

áóæú ÃóäúÒóáúäóÇ åóÐóÇ ÇáúÞõÑúÂóäó Úóáóì ÌóÈóáò áóÑóÃóíúÊóåõ ÎóÇÔöÚðÇ
ãõÊóÕóÏøöÚðÇ ãöäú ÎóÔúíóÉö Çááøóåö æóÊöáúßó ÇáúÃóãúËóÇáõ äóÖúÑöÈõåóÇ
áöáäøóÇÓö áóÚóáøóåõãú íóÊóÝóßøóÑõæäó (21) åõæó Çááøóåõ ÇáøóÐöí áóÇ
Åöáóåó ÅöáøóÇ åõæó ÚóÇáöãõ ÇáúÛóíúÈö æóÇáÔøóåóÇÏóÉö åõæó ÇáÑøóÍúãóäõ
ÇáÑøóÍöíãõ (22) åõæó Çááøóåõ ÇáøóÐöí áóÇ Åöáóåó ÅöáøóÇ åõæó Çáúãóáößõ
ÇáúÞõÏøõæÓõ ÇáÓøóáóÇãõ ÇáúãõÄúãöäõ Çáúãõåóíúãöäõ ÇáúÚóÒöíÒõ
ÇáúÌóÈøóÇÑõ ÇáúãõÊóßóÈøöÑõ ÓõÈúÍóÇäó Çááøóåö ÚóãøóÇ íõÔúÑößõæäó (23)
åõæó Çááøóåõ ÇáúÎóÇáöÞõ ÇáúÈóÇÑöÆõ ÇáúãõÕóæøöÑõ áóåõ ÇáúÃóÓúãóÇÁõ
ÇáúÍõÓúäóì íõÓóÈøöÍõ áóåõ ãóÇ Ýöí ÇáÓøóãóÇæóÇÊö æóÇáúÃóÑúÖö æóåõæó
ÇáúÚóÒöíÒõ ÇáúÍóßöíãõ (24)

21. If WE had sent down this Qur’an on a mountain, thou wouldst,
certainly, have seen it humbled and rent asunder for fear of ALLAH .
And these are similitudes that WE set forth for mankind that they may
reflect.
22. HE is ALLAH and there is no god beside HIM, the Knower of the
unseen and the seen. HE is the Gracious, the Merciful.
23. HE is ALLAH and there is no god beside HIM, the Sovereign, the
Holy One, the Source of peace, the Bestower of security, the
Protector, the Mighty, the Subduer, the Exalted. Holy is ALLAH, far
above that which they associate with HIM.
24. HE is ALLAH, the creator, the Maker, the Fashioner. HIS are the
most beautiful names. All that is in the heavens and the earth
glorifies HIM, and HE is the Mighty, the Wise.

(Alhashr 21-24)

————————-

For more information about Islam

http://english.islamway.com/

http://www.islamhouse.com/

http://www.discoverislam.com/

http://www.islambasics.com/index.php

http://english.islamway.com/

http://www.islamtoday.net/english/

http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/MainPage/indexe.php

http://www.sultan.org/

http://www.islamonline.net/

Contact Us At





This entry was posted on Friday, February 20th, 2009 at 1:54 pm and is
filed under ÇáÞÑÁÇä ÇáßÑíã. You can follow any responses to this entry
through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from
your own site.
Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

The Holy Quran



Please forgive us for any disturbance, but we have an important
subject to address to you regarding FAITH, and we Don’t intend to
overload your email with unnecessary messages…

Quran Means "Recitation"

The word "Quran" means "that which is recited; or that which is
dictated in memory form." As such, it is not a book, nor is it
something that reaches us only in written form.

The documentation in writting about the Quran has been preserved in
museums thoughout the world, including the Topekopi Palace in
Istanbul, Turkey, the museum in Tashkent, Uzbekistan and also in
England. Keep in mind also, the Quran is only considered "Quran" while
it is in the recitation form, not in the written or the book form. The
word for what is written and held in the hand to be read by the eye is
called "mus-haf" (meaning script or that which is written down).

Only One Version - Arabic

There are no different versions of the Quran in the Arabic language,
only different translations and of course, none of these would be
considered to hold the value and authenticity of the original Arabic
Recitation. The Quran is divided up into 30 equal parts, called
"Juz’" (parts) in the Arabic language. These are learned by Muslims
from their very early beginnings as children.

áóæú ÃóäúÒóáúäóÇ åóÐóÇ ÇáúÞõÑúÂóäó Úóáóì ÌóÈóáò áóÑóÃóíúÊóåõ ÎóÇÔöÚðÇ
ãõÊóÕóÏøöÚðÇ ãöäú ÎóÔúíóÉö Çááøóåö æóÊöáúßó ÇáúÃóãúËóÇáõ äóÖúÑöÈõåóÇ
áöáäøóÇÓö áóÚóáøóåõãú íóÊóÝóßøóÑõæäó (21) åõæó Çááøóåõ ÇáøóÐöí áóÇ
Åöáóåó ÅöáøóÇ åõæó ÚóÇáöãõ ÇáúÛóíúÈö æóÇáÔøóåóÇÏóÉö åõæó ÇáÑøóÍúãóäõ
ÇáÑøóÍöíãõ (22) åõæó Çááøóåõ ÇáøóÐöí áóÇ Åöáóåó ÅöáøóÇ åõæó Çáúãóáößõ
ÇáúÞõÏøõæÓõ ÇáÓøóáóÇãõ ÇáúãõÄúãöäõ Çáúãõåóíúãöäõ ÇáúÚóÒöíÒõ
ÇáúÌóÈøóÇÑõ ÇáúãõÊóßóÈøöÑõ ÓõÈúÍóÇäó Çááøóåö ÚóãøóÇ íõÔúÑößõæäó (23)
åõæó Çááøóåõ ÇáúÎóÇáöÞõ ÇáúÈóÇÑöÆõ ÇáúãõÕóæøöÑõ áóåõ ÇáúÃóÓúãóÇÁõ
ÇáúÍõÓúäóì íõÓóÈøöÍõ áóåõ ãóÇ Ýöí ÇáÓøóãóÇæóÇÊö æóÇáúÃóÑúÖö æóåõæó
ÇáúÚóÒöíÒõ ÇáúÍóßöíãõ (24)

21. If WE had sent down this Qur’an on a mountain, thou wouldst,
certainly, have seen it humbled and rent asunder for fear of ALLAH .
And these are similitudes that WE set forth for mankind that they may
reflect.
22. HE is ALLAH and there is no god beside HIM, the Knower of the
unseen and the seen. HE is the Gracious, the Merciful.
23. HE is ALLAH and there is no god beside HIM, the Sovereign, the
Holy One, the Source of peace, the Bestower of security, the
Protector, the Mighty, the Subduer, the Exalted. Holy is ALLAH, far
above that which they associate with HIM.
24. HE is ALLAH, the creator, the Maker, the Fashioner. HIS are the
most beautiful names. All that is in the heavens and the earth
glorifies HIM, and HE is the Mighty, the Wise.

(Alhashr 21-24)

————————-

For more information about Islam

http://english.islamway.com/

http://www.islamhouse.com/

http://www.discoverislam.com/

http://www.islambasics.com/index.php

http://english.islamway.com/

http://www.islamtoday.net/english/

http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/MainPage/indexe.php

http://www.sultan.org/

http://www.islamonline.net/

Contact Us At





This entry was posted on Friday, February 20th, 2009 at 1:54 pm and is
filed under ÇáÞÑÁÇä ÇáßÑíã. You can follow any responses to this entry
through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from
your own site.
Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

abo mahab wrote:
The Holy Quran

Ah creepy creep trying to suicide bomb the internet again.

The LCD only filters light from the backlight. If you don't have a full
spectrum white in the first place the you can't expect decent colour.
White LEDs aren't quite there yet are they?

Absolutely true, except that this particular TV doesn't use white LEDs in
its 'revolutionary' backlighting scheme. It uses small RGB arrays, which
is
why I was questioning whether there was any control over the individual
elements in each array, such that the colour temperature of the nominally
white light that they produce, could be varied. Which would then, of
course,
have a corresponding effect on the displayed colour balance. It just
seemed
to me that given they have gone to the trouble of using RGB arrays, rather
than white LEDs, the reason for that might have been to get a full(er)
spectrum white.

In a very broad sense, the last thing you want is a "full-spectrum" light.
The standard primaries are diluted with too much white as it is.

abo mahab wrote:
The Holy Quran



Please forgive us for any disturbance, but we have an important
subject to address to you regarding FAITH, and we Don't intend to
overload your email with unnecessary messages...

Quran Means "Recitation"

And '**** off' means go away.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember abo mahab
saying something like:

Please forgive us for any disturbance, but we have an important
subject to address to you regarding FAITH, and we Don?t intend to
overload your email with unnecessary messages?

You intrusive *******.
**** off.
Honestly, do you really think, in what passes for that easily-led brain
of yours, that continual spamming is going to win converts?

wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:

The LCD only filters light from the backlight. If you don't have a full
spectrum white in the first place the you can't expect decent colour.
White LEDs aren't quite there yet are they?

Archie


Absolutely true, except that this particular TV doesn't use white LEDs in
its 'revolutionary' backlighting scheme. It uses small RGB arrays, which
is
why I was questioning whether there was any control over the individual
elements in each array, such that the colour temperature of the nominally
white light that they produce, could be varied. Which would then, of
course,
have a corresponding effect on the displayed colour balance. It just
seemed
to me that given they have gone to the trouble of using RGB arrays,
rather
than white LEDs, the reason for that might have been to get a full(er)
spectrum white.

Arfa

colour temp can be controlled using the LEDs or the LCD, I'm not sure
it makes any big difference which one.

RGB LEDs would give the same white as a triphosphor&uv white LED, but
with more colour control. The standard 2 colour white LED would be
useless on a 3 channel display. And fwiw bichromic white LEDs have
huge colour balance variation, way outside of whats acceptable for a
display.


NT

Which is why, given that they've put these LEDs under at least some kind of
control in order to implement their (claimed) enhanced black reproduction
scheme, that I was questioning whether the scheme maybe allowed for a degree
of user intervention under the guise of "tint" or whatever, and which might
have accounted for why on this particular TV - the only example that I've
seen on and working so far - the flesh tones were so poor compared to Pan
and Sony offerings in the same display stack, showing the same picture. I'm
trying to get a handle on why a company with the products and reputation of
Sammy, are a) using advertising terminology that appears to be questionable
in the context that it appears, and b) producing a set, claiming it to be
the dog's ******** of display technology, which does not appear - to my eye
at least - to be as good as their traditionally CCFL backlit offerings, or
those of other manufacturers.

I saw the latest all singing and dancing LCD HD Pan, just released, in my
friend's shop yesterday. Uses conventional CCFL backlighting. Not as thin as
the Sammy, but getting there. Apart from the usual slight gripes that you
could direct at any LCD panel when examined closely, the picture was quite
stunning, and the colour rendition was as close to 'perfect' as you could
reasonably expect. Certainly, flesh tones *appeared* accurate, but I accept
that is subjective. Anyway, whichever-whatever, more accurate than they
appeared on the LED backlit Sammy ...

Arfa

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
The LCD only filters light from the backlight. If you don't have a full
spectrum white in the first place the you can't expect decent colour.
White LEDs aren't quite there yet are they?

Absolutely true, except that this particular TV doesn't use white LEDs in
its 'revolutionary' backlighting scheme. It uses small RGB arrays, which
is
why I was questioning whether there was any control over the individual
elements in each array, such that the colour temperature of the nominally
white light that they produce, could be varied. Which would then, of
course,
have a corresponding effect on the displayed colour balance. It just
seemed
to me that given they have gone to the trouble of using RGB arrays,
rather
than white LEDs, the reason for that might have been to get a full(er)
spectrum white.

In a very broad sense, the last thing you want is a "full-spectrum" light.
The standard primaries are diluted with too much white as it is.



I guess it comes down to definitions and how 'full spectrum' is perceived.
Rightly or wrongly, I tend to think of it as a spectrum which contains the
same component colours in the same ratios, as natural daylight, but I guess
even that varies depending on filtering effects of cloud cover and haze and
so on. Even so, I'm sure that there must be some definition of 'average
spectrum daylight', and I would expect that any display technology would aim
to reproduce any colour in as closely exact a way as it would appear if
viewed directly under daylight. I'm sure that the LCD 'primary' filters are
probably not linear in their transmission characteristics, but probably
close enough that you could use a backlight which contained a similar
spectrum to daylight, and filters 'tuned' to the RG and B humps. All pure
guesswork of course, as it's not my field ...

Arfa

I guess it comes down to definitions and how 'full spectrum' is perceived.
Rightly or wrongly, I tend to think of it as a spectrum which contains the
same component colours in the same ratios, as natural daylight...

That's a reasonable definition for a video display, but it's not sufficient
for source lighting. It's difficult to make a "full spectrum" fluorescent
lamp, especially one that produces good color rendition for photograpy.


but I guess even that varies depending on filtering effects of cloud
cover and haze and so on. Even so, I'm sure that there must be some
definition of 'average spectrum daylight', and I would expect that any
display technology would aim to reproduce any colour in as closely
exact a way as it would appear if viewed directly under daylight.

The standard is D6500, a 6500K continuous spectrum from a black-body source.
What you suggest is, indeed, the intent.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
I guess it comes down to definitions and how 'full spectrum' is perceived.
Rightly or wrongly, I tend to think of it as a spectrum which contains the
same component colours in the same ratios, as natural daylight...

That's a reasonable definition for a video display, but it's not sufficient
for source lighting. It's difficult to make a "full spectrum" fluorescent
lamp, especially one that produces good color rendition for photograpy.


but I guess even that varies depending on filtering effects of cloud
cover and haze and so on. Even so, I'm sure that there must be some
definition of 'average spectrum daylight', and I would expect that any
display technology would aim to reproduce any colour in as closely
exact a way as it would appear if viewed directly under daylight.

The standard is D6500, a 6500K continuous spectrum from a black-body source.
What you suggest is, indeed, the intent.


TBH I think this is overplaying the significant of daylight. Almost
any monitor is adjustable to suit preferences of anything from 5000K
to 10,000K, and some go lower. None manke any attempt to copy the
colour spectrum of daylight, they merely include the same colour temp
as daylight as one of the options. None of the major display types
have any ability to copy a daylight spectrum, as they're only RGB
displays.


NT

wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
I guess it comes down to definitions and how 'full spectrum' is
perceived.
Rightly or wrongly, I tend to think of it as a spectrum which contains
the
same component colours in the same ratios, as natural daylight...

That's a reasonable definition for a video display, but it's not
sufficient
for source lighting. It's difficult to make a "full spectrum"
fluorescent
lamp, especially one that produces good color rendition for photograpy.


but I guess even that varies depending on filtering effects of cloud
cover and haze and so on. Even so, I'm sure that there must be some
definition of 'average spectrum daylight', and I would expect that any
display technology would aim to reproduce any colour in as closely
exact a way as it would appear if viewed directly under daylight.

The standard is D6500, a 6500K continuous spectrum from a black-body
source.
What you suggest is, indeed, the intent.


TBH I think this is overplaying the significant of daylight. Almost
any monitor is adjustable to suit preferences of anything from 5000K
to 10,000K, and some go lower. None manke any attempt to copy the
colour spectrum of daylight, they merely include the same colour temp
as daylight as one of the options. None of the major display types
have any ability to copy a daylight spectrum, as they're only RGB
displays.

I think you've missed the difference between recreating the original color
(or the illusion of same), and producing a photographically useful
illuminant. These are different.

wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:
I guess it comes down to definitions and how 'full spectrum' is
perceived.
Rightly or wrongly, I tend to think of it as a spectrum which contains
the
same component colours in the same ratios, as natural daylight...

That's a reasonable definition for a video display, but it's not
sufficient
for source lighting. It's difficult to make a "full spectrum" fluorescent
lamp, especially one that produces good color rendition for photograpy.


but I guess even that varies depending on filtering effects of cloud
cover and haze and so on. Even so, I'm sure that there must be some
definition of 'average spectrum daylight', and I would expect that any
display technology would aim to reproduce any colour in as closely
exact a way as it would appear if viewed directly under daylight.

The standard is D6500, a 6500K continuous spectrum from a black-body
source.
What you suggest is, indeed, the intent.


TBH I think this is overplaying the significant of daylight. Almost
any monitor is adjustable to suit preferences of anything from 5000K
to 10,000K, and some go lower. None manke any attempt to copy the
colour spectrum of daylight, they merely include the same colour temp
as daylight as one of the options. None of the major display types
have any ability to copy a daylight spectrum, as they're only RGB
displays.


NT

But take account of the fact that we're talking domestic television sets
here, not computer monitors. For the most part, TV sets do not display the
same type of content as a computer monitor, and do not include user
accessible colour temperature presets or adjustments, which is why I made
the point earlier that in general, LCD TVs are set correctly 'out of the
box'.

As far as overplaying the significance of daylight goes, I'm not sure that I
follow what you mean by that. If I look at my garden, and anything or
anybody in it, the illumination source will be daylight, and the colours
perceived will be directly influenced by that. If I then reproduce that
image on any kind of artificial display, and use a different reference for
the white, then no other colour will be correct either, which was ever the
case when CRTs were set up to give whites which were either too warm or too
cold, even by a fraction. Maybe we're talking at cross purposes here, or I'm
not understanding something properly, but it seems to me that the colour
temperature and CRI of the backlighting on an LCD TV, would be crucially
important to correct reproduction of colours.

All I know is, is that the flesh tones were poor on the example that I saw,
compared to other LCD TVs which were showing the same picture. The
fundamental difference between those sets and the Sammy, was the CCFL vs LED
backlighting, so it seems reasonable to draw from that, the inference that
the backlighting scheme may well be the cause, no ?

Arfa

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Mr. Mendelson has little understanding of how digital television works.
Rather than refute his points, I will urge him to find a book on the subject
and read it.

Actually I do. Why don't you refute my points and that way I can refute yours
instead of this becoming a ****ing contest.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...


But take account of the fact that we're talking domestic television sets
here, not computer monitors. For the most part, TV sets do not display the
same type of content as a computer monitor, and do not include user
accessible colour temperature presets or adjustments, which is why I made
the point earlier that in general, LCD TVs are set correctly 'out of the
box'.

Every lcd TV I have seen has colour temp adjustments.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...


But take account of the fact that we're talking domestic television sets
here, not computer monitors. For the most part, TV sets do not display
the same type of content as a computer monitor, and do not include user
accessible colour temperature presets or adjustments, which is why I made
the point earlier that in general, LCD TVs are set correctly 'out of the
box'.

Every lcd TV I have seen has colour temp adjustments.



What, readily user accessible ?

Arfa