In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:

snip

There's no need for a display since it is theoretically possible to get
all visible colours from RGB. Mixing dyes is a different matter.


Theory, remembered from many years ago, suggests that isn't quite true.
I seem to recall my colour TV lecturer at college, spending a whole
session on 'the chromaticity diagram', and then explaining that there
were certain 'non-spectral' colours such as brown, which could not be
created by an additive mix of R,G and B, and any brown that was seen on
the screen was actually some kind of orange or red, which was
*perceived* as brown because of the surrounding colours, and other
visual cues. That might not be exactly it, as this was all learnt
nearly 40 years ago, but something close, I think.

Think that was more to do with the deficiencies of the then tube colour
cameras. Three or four tubes - usually Plumblicons. Which would show
Magenta as bright green, etc. And of course many CRT sets didn't use the
best phosphors - more concerned with how bright they'd go.

As to whether LEDs as backlights do a good job, I'm sure that they must
be at least as good as CCFLs at colour rendering, otherwise, the
manufacturers wouldn't be making such a thing about it.

Heh heh - advertising? I play with LEDs quite a bit, and they are getting
better but still don't give as good a light quality as the best
fluorescents.

Flesh tones
look perfectly fine on digital cameras which use LED backlit displays.

Flesh tones contain a vast range of colour shades even on the one face -
unless it's Des O'Connor's makeup. Wasn't talking about a quick glance.

My whole issue with this, was that the LED 'angle' was being pushed by
wording that *suggested* it was the main display technology rather than
an LCD panel which it actually is, and which the great unwashed are now
familiar with. That seemed to me to be a deliberate attempt to mislead
people into believing that it was something new and revolutionary - as
SED technology will be if it ever gets on the market, or OLED if they
can get it big enough.

Well yes and I agree. They're pushing them on TV too. But I haven't
actually seen one. Perhaps they are as good as claimed. Cynical me doubts
it.

I don't have a problem with them claiming that this backlighting
technique is revolutionary in TV sets - it is - and even claiming a
reduction in power, if that's true, for a leg-up on the eco-bollox
ladder, but I really think that they should be making that distinction,
rather than trying to bamboozle prospective buyers with questionable
use of terminology which punters are likely to have heard of, but won't
actually understand.

On the power consumption issue, I still do not feel that this technology
is likely to consume anything like as much as the 100 or so watts that
CCFL backlighting does. The developments in the light output of
narrow-angle LEDs over the last couple of years is staggering. Some of
the 1 and 3 watt types could literally blind you. I believe that some
cars are now starting to use LED headlamps. It would be interesting to
see how they stack up against the 50 watt consumption of 'standard'
headlamp bulbs.

More to the point to compare with HID in cars?

Thing is for domestic light my preference is halogen, quality wise.
Expensive fluorescent tubes can match that well enough. CFLs not. Nor any
LED I've yet tried.

--
*The severity of the itch is proportional to the reach *

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Arfa Daily wrote:

snip

There's no need for a display since it is theoretically possible to get
all visible colours from RGB. Mixing dyes is a different matter.


Theory, remembered from many years ago, suggests that isn't quite true.
I seem to recall my colour TV lecturer at college, spending a whole
session on 'the chromaticity diagram', and then explaining that there
were certain 'non-spectral' colours such as brown, which could not be
created by an additive mix of R,G and B, and any brown that was seen on
the screen was actually some kind of orange or red, which was
*perceived* as brown because of the surrounding colours, and other
visual cues. That might not be exactly it, as this was all learnt
nearly 40 years ago, but something close, I think.

Think that was more to do with the deficiencies of the then tube colour
cameras. Three or four tubes - usually Plumblicons. Which would show
Magenta as bright green, etc. And of course many CRT sets didn't use the
best phosphors - more concerned with how bright they'd go.



Well no, I don't think it was. Take a look at

http://www.yorku.ca/eye/nonspect.htm

which explains pretty much what I remember. The example of brown is quite a
good one, even with it shown in isolation - i.e. with no surrounding colours
and no visual cues. As an example of that, if it was a picture of a turd,
your brain might very reasonably *expect* it to be brown ...



As to whether LEDs as backlights do a good job, I'm sure that they must
be at least as good as CCFLs at colour rendering, otherwise, the
manufacturers wouldn't be making such a thing about it.

Heh heh - advertising? I play with LEDs quite a bit, and they are getting
better but still don't give as good a light quality as the best
fluorescents.

Flesh tones
look perfectly fine on digital cameras which use LED backlit displays.

Flesh tones contain a vast range of colour shades even on the one face -
unless it's Des O'Connor's makeup. Wasn't talking about a quick glance.


No, I wasn't either. I have two friends who both own top end digital SLRs,
one because he is a professional photographer, and the other because he is a
very keen hobbyist. I have looked at the viewfinder images closely on both
of these cameras, and the rendition of flesh tones in all the varieties is
excellent, and the professional of the two has commented to me how good he
thinks the viewfinder is at colour rendition under all light levels (input
that is, not viewing conditions).

Contrary to what you believe about the phosphors on CRTs, I don't believe
that there has been any significant change in their colour rendition
capabilities since the earliest delta gun tubes in the uk, which I worked
with from about 1970. Even back then, if you put in the time to ensure that
the decoder was correctly adjusted, and the CRT colour balance and tracking
was correctly set, they had the ability to render flesh tones superbly. In
fact this criterion was the main one we used to subjectively evaluate the
performance of a set, and was one of the main reasons for the broadcasters
using a little girl, whose skin was 'natural' and had no makeup, on test
card F. In contrast (no pun intended !) I think that the colour rendition of
most LCD TV sets - particularly in the case of flesh tones, is nothing less
than dreadful. So if LED backlighting improves on this - and the case of the
camera viewfinder images would tend to support this view - then that will be
good.



My whole issue with this, was that the LED 'angle' was being pushed by
wording that *suggested* it was the main display technology rather than
an LCD panel which it actually is, and which the great unwashed are now
familiar with. That seemed to me to be a deliberate attempt to mislead
people into believing that it was something new and revolutionary - as
SED technology will be if it ever gets on the market, or OLED if they
can get it big enough.

Well yes and I agree. They're pushing them on TV too. But I haven't
actually seen one. Perhaps they are as good as claimed. Cynical me doubts
it.

I don't have a problem with them claiming that this backlighting
technique is revolutionary in TV sets - it is - and even claiming a
reduction in power, if that's true, for a leg-up on the eco-bollox
ladder, but I really think that they should be making that distinction,
rather than trying to bamboozle prospective buyers with questionable
use of terminology which punters are likely to have heard of, but won't
actually understand.

On the power consumption issue, I still do not feel that this technology
is likely to consume anything like as much as the 100 or so watts that
CCFL backlighting does. The developments in the light output of
narrow-angle LEDs over the last couple of years is staggering. Some of
the 1 and 3 watt types could literally blind you. I believe that some
cars are now starting to use LED headlamps. It would be interesting to
see how they stack up against the 50 watt consumption of 'standard'
headlamp bulbs.

More to the point to compare with HID in cars?

Why particularly ? I was just trying to draw a comparison as to the relative
efficiencies of a 'standard' 50 watt halogen headlamp bulb, which we all
have a pretty fair idea of the brightness of, and the same thing in a LED
version, which is likely to be at least as bright, if not brighter,
otherwise there would be no point in the manufacturers trying to use them.
If the LED equivalent power consumption was say 10 watts, then we would know
that LED backlighting of LCDs was likely going to be more efficient than
CCFL backlighting, which we already know consumes around 100 watts to light
a 32" screen. If on the other hand the LED equivalent power was 50 or 75
watts, then we would know that it was going to be no better, and possibly
worse.



Thing is for domestic light my preference is halogen, quality wise.
Expensive fluorescent tubes can match that well enough. CFLs not. Nor any
LED I've yet tried.


Agreed all four points

Arfa



--
*The severity of the itch is proportional to the reach *

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

In article , Arfa Daily
wrote:
Contrary to what you believe about the phosphors on CRTs, I don't
believe that there has been any significant change in their colour
rendition capabilities since the earliest delta gun tubes in the uk,
which I worked with from about 1970

Oh, but there was. The original delta gun shadow mask tubes used the
correct NTSC phosphors. Which gave a pretty pure red. The rot really came
in with PIL tubes which used a very 'orange' red phosphor simply because
it allowed a brighter picture. And that had real implications to flesh
tones. Took many years before that was corrected.

--
*We have enough youth, how about a fountain of Smart?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , Arfa Daily
wrote:
Contrary to what you believe about the phosphors on CRTs, I don't
believe that there has been any significant change in their colour
rendition capabilities since the earliest delta gun tubes in the uk,
which I worked with from about 1970

Oh, but there was. The original delta gun shadow mask tubes used the
correct NTSC phosphors. Which gave a pretty pure red. The rot really came
in with PIL tubes which used a very 'orange' red phosphor simply because
it allowed a brighter picture. And that had real implications to flesh
tones. Took many years before that was corrected.

--
*We have enough youth, how about a fountain of Smart?

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

Hmmm. I can't say that I remember slot mask / in line tubes producing any
worse a picture, in terms of colour rendition, than deltas. Certainly, they
were an improvement in convergence and extremity focus - perhaps even
overall 'sharpness'. If the colour / output of the red phosphor did not
match the transmitted weighting factor for that colour, I would have thought
that this would have caused serious problems for rendering whites and greys
correctly, and would have had a significantly pronounced effect on the
ability of the tube to render subtleties such as flesh tones. An 'orangy'
red would have screwed about with the chromaticity diagram, and completely
altered the pallette of colours that the tube *could* produce from just
three primaries. It would be like taking a printer's pantone colour chart,
and redefining all the hues, wouldn't it ?

We had some pretty fussy customers back then with serious pots of money, and
I can't recall any colour accuracy issues ever arising - aside from one
particular customer who used to complain on a weekly basis that colours were
"bleeding through" (convergence issues !) and in the summer that there was
something wrong because the grass in front of the wicket on the cricket, was
yellow ...

Nor can I recall any mention of this either in the trade press, or at our
company's training school, which was recognised as being one of the best
that there was.

Anyway, going back to chromaticity diagrams, did you look at the link to an
explanation of 'non-spectral colours' to see what I was talking about,
outside of any differences which there may or may not have been with the
phosphor colours ?

Arfa

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

No, I wasn't either. I have two friends who both own top end digital SLRs,
one because he is a professional photographer, and the other because he is
a very keen hobbyist. I have looked at the viewfinder images closely on
both of these cameras, and the rendition of flesh tones in all the
varieties is excellent, and the professional of the two has commented to
me how good he thinks the viewfinder is at colour rendition under all
light levels (input that is, not viewing conditions).

Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder, its all
done with mirrors.
There are only a few that use electronic viewfinders and they are low end.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , Arfa Daily
wrote:

Contrary to what you believe about the phosphors on CRTs, I don't
believe that there has been any significant change in their colour
rendition capabilities since the earliest delta gun tubes in the uk,
which I worked with from about 1970

Oh, but there was. The original delta gun shadow mask tubes used the
correct NTSC phosphors. Which gave a pretty pure red. The rot really came
in with PIL tubes which used a very 'orange' red phosphor simply because
it allowed a brighter picture. And that had real implications to flesh
tones. Took many years before that was corrected.

I would almost bet my life that this is absolutely backwards -- it was the
original phosphors that were orangish, improving only with the rare-earth
phosphors of the early '60s. (I remember Sylvania's radio ads.)

In fact, I'm pretty certain that most of what's being posted about color TV
and color analysis/reproduction is utter bilge. But I don't have a
comprehensive understanding of this material (it's not easy), so I'm pretty
much keeping my mouth shut.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...


"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

No, I wasn't either. I have two friends who both own top end digital
SLRs, one because he is a professional photographer, and the other
because he is a very keen hobbyist. I have looked at the viewfinder
images closely on both of these cameras, and the rendition of flesh tones
in all the varieties is excellent, and the professional of the two has
commented to me how good he thinks the viewfinder is at colour rendition
under all light levels (input that is, not viewing conditions).

Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder, its
all done with mirrors.
There are only a few that use electronic viewfinders and they are low end.

I'm pretty sure that one of them told me that his camera was over a grand's
worth, so I wouldn't call that particularly low end, although I am sure
there are others more expensive. If they do not have an LCD panel on them to
at least review the pictures you have taken, without having to plug the
thing into a computer, that rather defeats the object of it being a portable
'digital' camera, doesn't it ? Even the 3 grand offering on this page has a
3" LCD

http://www.calumetphoto.co.uk/Digita...utm_medium=cpc

Perhaps I am not being quite accurate in calling it a "viewfinder". I accept
that the higher end cameras have a proper optical viewfinder operating on
the SLR mirror / prism system, but the LCD panel also serves as a
supplementary viewfinder, as well as a display medium for photos already
taken.

Arfa

Perhaps I am not being quite accurate in calling it a "viewfinder". I
accept
that the higher end cameras have a proper optical viewfinder operating on
the SLR mirror / prism system, but the LCD panel also serves as a
supplementary viewfinder, as well as a display medium for photos already
taken.

Several DSLRs have live LCD viewing, which could be considered a viewfinder,
as it serves the same function. I recently purchased such a camera (though
not for that reason). I haven't checked skin tones, but the color rendition
is not obviously "off".

Perhaps I'll drag out my Macbeth color checker and compare under noon
daylight -- the next time we have any in Seattle.

One of the best uses for the LCD panel is to confirm the camera's
color-temperature setting. It's particularly useful when fine-tuning the
green-magenta axis under fluorescent light.

As I write this, I'm watching CNN on my cheap-but-good 32" Vizio. Most are
perhaps slightly "warmer" than they should be. Not having the original flesh
for comparison, I can't know for sure.

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Oh, but there was. The original delta gun shadow mask tubes used the
correct NTSC phosphors. Which gave a pretty pure red. The rot really
came in with PIL tubes which used a very 'orange' red phosphor simply
because it allowed a brighter picture. And that had real implications
to flesh tones. Took many years before that was corrected.

I would almost bet my life that this is absolutely backwards -- it was
the original phosphors that were orangish, improving only with the
rare-earth phosphors of the early '60s. (I remember Sylvania's radio
ads.)

Colour TV didn't arrive in the UK 'till the late '60s. PIL tubes were some
years after that.

In fact, I'm pretty certain that most of what's being posted about color
TV and color analysis/reproduction is utter bilge. But I don't have a
comprehensive understanding of this material (it's not easy), so I'm
pretty much keeping my mouth shut.

Quite a bit of what I'm saying comes from working in TV production -
although I'm on the sound side. But hear plenty from those who work on the
vision side of things. ;-) And it was certainly the case that Grade 1
picture monitors continued with delta gun tubes long after PIL were
introduced domestically - and stuck with the original NTSC phosphors. As
this was the standard the cameras were 'calibrated' to.

--
*Can fat people go skinny-dipping?

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

On May 13, 12:31*pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message

...

No, I wasn't either. I have two friends who both own top end digital SLRs,
one because he is a professional photographer, and the other because he is
a very keen hobbyist. I have looked at the viewfinder images closely on
both of these cameras, and the rendition of flesh tones in all the
varieties is excellent, and the professional of the two has commented to
me how good he thinks the viewfinder is at colour rendition under all
light levels (input that is, not viewing conditions).

Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder, its all
done with mirrors.

And your posts use smoke and mirrors.

In fact, I'm pretty certain that most of what's being posted about color
TV and color analysis/reproduction is utter bilge. But I don't have a
comprehensive understanding of this material (it's not easy), so I'm
pretty much keeping my mouth shut.

Quite a bit of what I'm saying comes from working in TV production -
although I'm on the sound side. But hear plenty from those who work
on the vision side of things. ;-) And it was certainly the case that Grade
1 picture monitors continued with delta gun tubes long after PIL were
introduced domestically -- and stuck with the original NTSC phosphors.
As this was the standard the cameras were 'calibrated' to.

But there was no "original" NTSC red phosphor -- just a standard for it,
that the original red phosphors didn't meet.

I /remember/ this from 45 years ago. (I read "Radio-Electronics" and
"Electronics World".) The available red phosphor was not very efficient, and
when driven hard, it turned "orangey" at high current levels.

As for any differences between professional and consumer CRTs... It's true
that consumer CRTs were often designed for brightness * (rather than color
accuracy or gamut). About 15 years ago, Mitsubishi brought out a consumer
CRT with "filtered" phosphors that more-closely approached the NTSC standard
** -- at the expense of brightness. The sets using it quickly flopped,
because (at least then) people were more interested in brightness than
clarity.

* The default setting for most LCD and plasma sets is the "burn the viewer's
eyes" mode.

** The closer a primary is toward the edges of the chromaticity diagram, the
more saturated it is (ie, the less its output is diluted with white) -- and
it's therefore less bright.

Arfa Daily wrote:
We had some pretty fussy customers back then with serious pots of money, and
I can't recall any colour accuracy issues ever arising - aside from one
particular customer who used to complain on a weekly basis that colours were
"bleeding through" (convergence issues !) and in the summer that there was
something wrong because the grass in front of the wicket on the cricket, was
yellow ...

LOL. It didn't occur to him that well trampled grass, in summer, is
often yellow?


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

dennis@home wrote:


"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

No, I wasn't either. I have two friends who both own top end digital
SLRs, one because he is a professional photographer, and the other
because he is a very keen hobbyist. I have looked at the viewfinder
images closely on both of these cameras, and the rendition of flesh
tones in all the varieties is excellent, and the professional of the
two has commented to me how good he thinks the viewfinder is at colour
rendition under all light levels (input that is, not viewing conditions).

Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder, its
all done with mirrors.
There are only a few that use electronic viewfinders and they are low end.

Correct. I have two DSLRs, (Canon EOS 10D, & EOS 1Dmk2), & they both use
optical viewfinders. I certainly wouldn't waste my money on DSLRs with
electronic viewfinders.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Arfa Daily wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

No, I wasn't either. I have two friends who both own top end digital
SLRs, one because he is a professional photographer, and the other
because he is a very keen hobbyist. I have looked at the viewfinder
images closely on both of these cameras, and the rendition of flesh tones
in all the varieties is excellent, and the professional of the two has
commented to me how good he thinks the viewfinder is at colour rendition
under all light levels (input that is, not viewing conditions).
Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder, its
all done with mirrors.
There are only a few that use electronic viewfinders and they are low end.

I'm pretty sure that one of them told me that his camera was over a grand's
worth, so I wouldn't call that particularly low end,

Are you kidding? My EOS 1Dmk2 cost $7000AUD. A grand is nothing for a
decent DSLR.

although I am sure
there are others more expensive. If they do not have an LCD panel on them to
at least review the pictures you have taken, without having to plug the
thing into a computer, that rather defeats the object of it being a portable
'digital' camera, doesn't it ?

Sure, but the LCD is to review the shot after you've taken it. You use
the optical viewfinder when you're taking your shot.

Perhaps I am not being quite accurate in calling it a "viewfinder". I accept
that the higher end cameras have a proper optical viewfinder operating on
the SLR mirror / prism system,

Correct.

but the LCD panel also serves as a
supplementary viewfinder, as well as a display medium for photos already
taken.

Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View", where
you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer would use
that in preference to the traditional viewfinder. OTOH, the LCD is
really handy to ensure that the shot turned out the way that you wanted
it to.


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
Quite a bit of what I'm saying comes from working in TV production -
although I'm on the sound side. But hear plenty from those who work on
the vision side of things. ;-) And it was certainly the case that
Grade 1 picture monitors continued with delta gun tubes long after PIL
were introduced domestically -- and stuck with the original NTSC
phosphors. As this was the standard the cameras were 'calibrated' to.

But there was no "original" NTSC red phosphor -- just a standard for it,
that the original red phosphors didn't meet.

The phosphors as used when colour TV arrived in the UK were known as NTSC
standard by the BBC. And were still specified for Grade 1 monitors for
many years afterwards. Indeed probably still are.

--
*Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects *

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

In article ,
Bob Larter wrote:
Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder,
its all done with mirrors. There are only a few that use electronic
viewfinders and they are low end.

Correct. I have two DSLRs, (Canon EOS 10D, & EOS 1Dmk2), & they both use
optical viewfinders. I certainly wouldn't waste my money on DSLRs with
electronic viewfinders.

Don't they have an LCD screen for viewing purposes, though? Not that you
can judge the variety of tones that make up a face on something so small.

--
*Even a blind pig stumbles across an acorn now and again *

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

I have two DSLRs, (Canon EOS 10D, & EOS 1Dmk2), & they both use
optical viewfinders. I certainly wouldn't waste my money on DSLRs with
[only] electronic viewfinders.

Are there any?

Nearly 40 years ago, I imagined a film-based SLR with an electronic
viewfinder that showed how the final image would look, depending on the film
you used, and (with B&W materials) the way you developed and printed.

Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View",
where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer
would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

Quite a bit of what I'm saying comes from working in TV production -
although I'm on the sound side. But hear plenty from those who work
on the vision side of things. ;-) And it was certainly the case that
Grade 1 picture monitors continued with delta gun tubes long after
PIL was introduced domestically -- and stuck with the original NTSC
phosphors. As this was the standard the cameras were 'calibrated' to.

But there was no "original" NTSC red phosphor -- just a standard for it,
that the original red phosphors didn't meet.

The phosphors as used when colour TV arrived in the UK were known
as NTSC standard by the BBC. And were still specified for Grade 1
monitors for many years afterwards. Indeed, probably still are.

Forgive me, but how something is spec'd does not mean that the real-world
implementation -- regardless of its name -- meets the spec.

Of course, color TV was so late arriving in GB, it's likely that only the
improved red phosphors were used.

On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:21:51 +1000 Bob Larter
wrote in Message id: :

Are you kidding? My EOS 1Dmk2 cost $7000AUD. A grand is nothing for a
decent DSLR.

For that kind of money, it better perform like those X-ray glasses you
used to be able to buy in the back of comic books!

The value of an additional LCD view depends entirely on the sort of
photographic work you're doing. For close-up shots of complicated,
highly reflective objects a live view facility with pinpoint focussing
is a real boon - as is the ability to see the image in real time on a
computer screen. It allows for some very specialised techniques,
such as manipulating the depth-of-field by the millimetre.
In fact because of the limitations of DSLR live view at the current
time I'd say it was more of a function of use to the studio
professional than the amateur.

The Canon 5D II (and possibly other cameras) lets you connect to an HD
display so you can get an even bigger live view. I haven't tried this yet.

On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:21:51 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote:

snip
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View", where
you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer would use
that in preference to the traditional viewfinder. OTOH, the LCD is
really handy to ensure that the shot turned out the way that you wanted
it to.

The value of an additional LCD view depends entirely on the sort of
photographic work you're doing. For close-up shots of complicated,
highly reflective objects a live view facility with pinpoint focussing
is a real boon - as is the ability to see the image in real time on a
computer screen. It allows for some very specialised techniques, such
as manipulating the depth-of-field by the millimetre.
In fact because of the limitations of DSLR live view at the current
time I'd say it was more of a function of use to the studio
professional than the amateur.

Regards,


--
Steve ( out in the sticks )
Email: Take time to reply: timefrom_usenet{at}gmx.net

On Wed, 13 May 2009 07:37:12 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

I have two DSLRs, (Canon EOS 10D, & EOS 1Dmk2), & they both use
optical viewfinders. I certainly wouldn't waste my money on DSLRs with
[only] electronic viewfinders.

Are there any?

I looked at a Sony ( I think ) one last year with a particular
project in mind. There were only two things I remember about it - the
LCD view screen flipped out and could be angled, which was handy - and
the image in the viewfinder was bloody awful.

I bought a Canon.

Regards,


--
Steve ( out in the sticks )
Email: Take time to reply: timefrom_usenet{at}gmx.net

On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:39:30 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

The value of an additional LCD view depends entirely on the sort of
photographic work you're doing. For close-up shots of complicated,
highly reflective objects a live view facility with pinpoint focussing
is a real boon - as is the ability to see the image in real time on a
computer screen. It allows for some very specialised techniques,
such as manipulating the depth-of-field by the millimetre.
In fact because of the limitations of DSLR live view at the current
time I'd say it was more of a function of use to the studio
professional than the amateur.

The Canon 5D II (and possibly other cameras) lets you connect to an HD
display so you can get an even bigger live view. I haven't tried this yet.

I think the new 500D and 50D models have this feature too, and it's
something I've got my eye on. I had a look at the specs of the new 5D
a while back and I'm sorely tempted...

Regards,


--
Steve ( out in the sticks )
Email: Take time to reply: timefrom_usenet{at}gmx.net

In article ,
William Sommerwerck wrote:
The phosphors as used when colour TV arrived in the UK were known
as NTSC standard by the BBC. And were still specified for Grade 1
monitors for many years afterwards. Indeed, probably still are.

Forgive me, but how something is spec'd does not mean that the real-world
implementation -- regardless of its name -- meets the spec.

Of course, color TV was so late arriving in GB, it's likely that only the
improved red phosphors were used.

Finally the penny's dropped.

--
*If PROGRESS is for advancement, what does that make CONGRESS mean?

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

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View",
where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer
would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

Just shoot in RAW.
The colour balance is just a filter applied post shot to the RAW data.
You can then adjust it to whatever you want in the viewing conditions you
want when you "develop" your pictures.

"Stephen Howard" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:21:51 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote:

snip
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View", where
you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer would use
that in preference to the traditional viewfinder. OTOH, the LCD is
really handy to ensure that the shot turned out the way that you wanted
it to.

The value of an additional LCD view depends entirely on the sort of
photographic work you're doing. For close-up shots of complicated,
highly reflective objects a live view facility with pinpoint focussing
is a real boon - as is the ability to see the image in real time on a
computer screen. It allows for some very specialised techniques, such
as manipulating the depth-of-field by the millimetre.
In fact because of the limitations of DSLR live view at the current
time I'd say it was more of a function of use to the studio
professional than the amateur.

I have done a few product shots before and the best way to work in the
studio is a laptop and a data cable to the camera.
I find the LCD is virtually redundant for static studio work.
More important is a high speed data link, USB is very slow.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

Just shoot in RAW.
The colour balance is just a filter applied post shot to the RAW data.
You can then adjust it to whatever you want in the viewing conditions you
want when you "develop" your pictures.

True, but what if you want or need to use the JPG immediately?

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

Just shoot in RAW.
The colour balance is just a filter applied post shot to the RAW data.
You can then adjust it to whatever you want in the viewing conditions you
want when you "develop" your pictures.

True, but what if you want or need to use the JPG immediately?

Virtually all cameras that shoot in RAW can also do jpegs simultaneously.
Some (most?) also allow you to "develop" in the camera

In article , William Sommerwerck wrote:
I have two DSLRs, (Canon EOS 10D, & EOS 1Dmk2), & they both use
optical viewfinders. I certainly wouldn't waste my money on DSLRs with
[only] electronic viewfinders.

Are there any?

By definition, no. There's the Panasonic Lumix G1, which is basically
a DSLR with no mirror, pentaprism, or viewfinder, but that makes it
not actually an SLR. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcg1/

But the original claim was that there are few SLRs using electronic
viewfinders and they were all low end. In fact live view is becoming
more common, and the Canon EOS 5D Mark II, while not at the very top
end, is hardly low end either.

"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
Arfa Daily wrote:
We had some pretty fussy customers back then with serious pots of money,
and I can't recall any colour accuracy issues ever arising - aside from
one particular customer who used to complain on a weekly basis that
colours were "bleeding through" (convergence issues !) and in the summer
that there was something wrong because the grass in front of the wicket
on the cricket, was yellow ...

LOL. It didn't occur to him that well trampled grass, in summer, is often
yellow?


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

It was actually Mrs Fussy that always called us. Mr Fussy was an inoffensive
little thing who sat quietly up the corner ... No amount of explanation
would ever convince her that sometimes, grass *is* yellow. There was only
ever one engineer that she would have work on her set as well. I was his
apprentice, so I got to call on her with him. I clearly remember on one
occasion when my mentor was on holiday, the boss decided to send me on a
call to her, figuring that it would be ok, as she already knew me, and knew
that I was Peter's apprentice. When I turned up at her house, she wouldn't
even let me in the door. She told me that she was sure that I was very good,
but that I was not Peter, and he was the only one capable of adjusting her
TV just the way she liked it. The really amusing thing was that Peter never
really actually did anything other than take the back off and make twiddling
motions with his arms, and then ask her if it now looked better. Putting up
a test card showing a perfectly adjusted picture was also a no-no. She would
just trill "I don't care if you think that that silly picture looks right or
not. We don't sit here watching a test card, do we ?"

On one occasion when there was a real fault, and a replacement component had
to be soldered in, she marched into the room and said "Peter ! I do hope
that you're not smoking behind my television !" There are endless stories of
encounters with this customer, whom I swear was a real person,and who
behaved exactly as described.

Ah, happier and gentler times ...

Arfa

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in message
...
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article , Arfa Daily
wrote:

Contrary to what you believe about the phosphors on CRTs, I don't
believe that there has been any significant change in their colour
rendition capabilities since the earliest delta gun tubes in the uk,
which I worked with from about 1970

Oh, but there was. The original delta gun shadow mask tubes used the
correct NTSC phosphors. Which gave a pretty pure red. The rot really came
in with PIL tubes which used a very 'orange' red phosphor simply because
it allowed a brighter picture. And that had real implications to flesh
tones. Took many years before that was corrected.

I would almost bet my life that this is absolutely backwards -- it was the
original phosphors that were orangish, improving only with the rare-earth
phosphors of the early '60s. (I remember Sylvania's radio ads.)

In fact, I'm pretty certain that most of what's being posted about color
TV
and color analysis/reproduction is utter bilge. But I don't have a
comprehensive understanding of this material (it's not easy), so I'm
pretty
much keeping my mouth shut.



What I said about non-spectral colours, and the inability of a tri colour
CRT to genuinely reproduce them, is not bilge though - see the link that I
posted earlier in the thread, refering to this.

Arfa

Man at B&Q wrote:
On May 13, 12:31 pm, "dennis@home"
wrote:
"Arfa Daily" wrote in message

...

No, I wasn't either. I have two friends who both own top end digital SLRs,
one because he is a professional photographer, and the other because he is
a very keen hobbyist. I have looked at the viewfinder images closely on
both of these cameras, and the rendition of flesh tones in all the
varieties is excellent, and the professional of the two has commented to
me how good he thinks the viewfinder is at colour rendition under all
light levels (input that is, not viewing conditions).
Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder, its all
done with mirrors.

And your posts use smoke and mirrors.
In this case strangely rarely and uniquely, Dennis is correct. My SLR
has no electronics in the viewfinder. Its all done with mirrors.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Bob Larter wrote:
Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder,
its all done with mirrors. There are only a few that use electronic
viewfinders and they are low end.

Correct. I have two DSLRs, (Canon EOS 10D, & EOS 1Dmk2), & they both use
optical viewfinders. I certainly wouldn't waste my money on DSLRs with
electronic viewfinders.

Don't they have an LCD screen for viewing purposes, though? Not that you
can judge the variety of tones that make up a face on something so small.

Not really, no.

The LCD on mine is for menu items and occasionally a quick postview of
shots already taken.,

Arfa Daily wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
...

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...

No, I wasn't either. I have two friends who both own top end digital
SLRs, one because he is a professional photographer, and the other
because he is a very keen hobbyist. I have looked at the viewfinder
images closely on both of these cameras, and the rendition of flesh tones
in all the varieties is excellent, and the professional of the two has
commented to me how good he thinks the viewfinder is at colour rendition
under all light levels (input that is, not viewing conditions).
Top level digital SLRs don't use any electronics in the viewfinder, its
all done with mirrors.
There are only a few that use electronic viewfinders and they are low end.

I'm pretty sure that one of them told me that his camera was over a grand's
worth, so I wouldn't call that particularly low end, although I am sure
there are others more expensive. If they do not have an LCD panel on them to
at least review the pictures you have taken, without having to plug the
thing into a computer, that rather defeats the object of it being a portable
'digital' camera, doesn't it ? Even the 3 grand offering on this page has a
3" LCD

http://www.calumetphoto.co.uk/Digita...utm_medium=cpc

Perhaps I am not being quite accurate in calling it a "viewfinder". I accept
that the higher end cameras have a proper optical viewfinder operating on
the SLR mirror / prism system, but the LCD panel also serves as a
supplementary viewfinder, as well as a display medium for photos already
taken.


It does not and cannot, because there is a ****ing great mirror between
the lens and the CCD as well as a closed shutter.

OK?
Arfa

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View",
where you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer
would use that in preference to the traditional viewfinder.

As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.


Why bother?

That's all doable post the event in photoshop.

What you DO need is a histogram display to show you haven't saturated
any of the channels. That you cant 'shop out.

I shoot entirely without more than a quick color temp adjustment, and
often not that.

If I want a crisper image for a product shot, I can do all that in software.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color
balance in real time.

Just shoot in RAW.
The colour balance is just a filter applied post shot to the RAW data.
You can then adjust it to whatever you want in the viewing conditions you
want when you "develop" your pictures.

True, but what if you want or need to use the JPG immediately?

Then you need a video camera ;-)

Stephen Howard wrote:
On Thu, 14 May 2009 00:21:51 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote:

snip
Well, on some newer models you have a feature called "Live View", where
you can use the LCD to focus, etc, but no serious photographer would use
that in preference to the traditional viewfinder. OTOH, the LCD is
really handy to ensure that the shot turned out the way that you wanted
it to.

The value of an additional LCD view depends entirely on the sort of
photographic work you're doing. For close-up shots of complicated,
highly reflective objects a live view facility with pinpoint focussing
is a real boon - as is the ability to see the image in real time on a
computer screen. It allows for some very specialised techniques, such
as manipulating the depth-of-field by the millimetre.

You dont have a depth of field preview on the camera?

In fact because of the limitations of DSLR live view at the current
time I'd say it was more of a function of use to the studio
professional than the amateur.

I wouldn't even say that.

Regards,

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Don't they have an LCD screen for viewing purposes, though? Not that
you can judge the variety of tones that make up a face on something so
small.

Not really, no.

The LCD on mine is for menu items and occasionally a quick postview of
shots already taken.,

That's what I mean. No point in having a digital camera if you can't look
at a pic instantly. Might as well stick to film.

--
*Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film*

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Don't they have an LCD screen for viewing purposes, though? Not that
you can judge the variety of tones that make up a face on something so
small.

Not really, no.

The LCD on mine is for menu items and occasionally a quick postview of
shots already taken.,

That's what I mean. No point in having a digital camera if you can't look
at a pic instantly. Might as well stick to film.

Well I shot 150 pics on Sunday and ddi'nt look at a single one till
Sunday night. What's the point? they were action shots. They either
worked or they didn't.

About 10% were usable.