karl shah-jenner wrote:
Me:
: > SED monitors will be even better than CRT's when they come out - but they'll still only be fed 8 bit colour from a video card unless it's a Matrox. 10 bit colour is ten bit colour. Irrespective of the gamut, 256 shades V 1024 shades, that's 4 times the gradient
David:: I'm not sure if SED is the name for the thing I'm talking about, but the
: stuff I'm talking about has been out for a while now; you can buy it, if
: you bring a wheelbarrow of money. I don't believe they have any way to
: feed them more than 8 bits, though; digital interface standard, you
: know. Same as the printer drivers that way. But the point is, much
: better gamut and fidelity than CRT monitors.
fair enough, they sound interesting
here's some on SED monitors - they'll be with us soon :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-conduction_electron-emitter_display
"A surface-conduction electron-emitter display (SED) is a flat panel display technology that uses surface conduction electron emitters for every individual display pixel. The surface conduction emitter emits electrons that excite a phosphor coating on the display panel, the same basic concept found in traditional cathode ray tube (CRT) televisions. This means that SEDs use tiny cathode ray tubes behind every single pixel (instead of one tube for the whole display) and can combine the slim form factor of LCDs and plasma displays with the superior viewing angles, contrast, black levels, color definition and pixel response time of CRTs. Canon also claims that SEDs consume less power than LCD displays."
Ah, I remember that now. That's another different interesting future
technology.
Ah, here it is -- NEC MultiSync LCD 2180WG-LED-SV, a particularly
expensive member of their already expensive "Spectravision" series. 107%
of Adobe RGB gamut displayable. Ah; but they mention support for 10-bit
DVI-D input on one of the ports, too, you'll be pleased to hear. (They
think the street price will be $4k for a viewable image size of 21.3",
so this is definitely not a consumer product :-)).
:
: > Sure, for the average user it is considered no big deal.
: >
:
: Those aren't for average users, they're for creeping-wacko high-end
: super-critical users.
like angineaux and taylor-cooke lenses, pro stock film over generic ? ;)
Hmm; Angineaux I think of as more specialized for movie work, though I
know they've made lenses for 35mm still cameras too. I simply don't do
enough large-format to have opinions about Nikon/Fuji/Taylor-Cooke. The
Pro film might be a perfect example, because although I've shot quite a
bit of it, I'm very doubtful if there was actually any point for me.
: > It's a bit like the average music enthusiast doesn't see a difference between records and MP3s - especially when they have a nice thump from their subwoofers and it sounds good in their car (!) An audio perfectionist easily perceives the difference through their high end audio gear.
: >
:
: The audio perfectionist can't tell the difference either, in a
: double-blind study.
I've read those articles too.
yet there are still people who can tell. they may be the exception, but they can tell.
Most of them, I suspect, working as audio producers.
We certainly can't prove that *nobody* can tell, but the consistent
failure of people who *think* they can tell to *actually* tell under
controlled conditions, or their refusal to play, seems very telling to
me. I regard that part of the audio market as a huge scam by the
manufacturers.
Thinking back - teaching people to judge colour casts was always a hit and miss afair, another lecturer also found it hard. Interestingly, we never tested students for colour blindness.. and the other lecturer WAS colour blind. I guess for him any old monitor would have been OK..
I can see how he'd have found teaching color correction to be a bit
difficult!
Me, I'm classically trained orchestral muscian. I can tell. My eyes at 42 yoa are 20/10 lucky me .. and I exhibit no colour blindness.
I have many other faults though ;)
Oh, then that's okay then :-)
: To *me*, the CD sounds much better than any vinyl I've ever heard,
: including virgin vinyl master recordings played through $10k speakers
: with the rest of the system to match. Because it does not hiss and pop
: all the time.
I'm fussy enough to have 4 new studio quality Shure needles which were being tossed from a studio. The records pop from time to time, but the mellow richness of the sound makes it worth while. Generally though as you say, a studio recording, remastered onto CD sounds flawless, it still doesn't sound as good as a live concert to me, even with people sneezing and spit valves being cleared ;)
What you call "mellow richness" I call "muddy", I'm pretty sure. The CD
sounds much more like a live concert to me.
And I'm 53 now; haven't had my hearing tested, but the odds that I have
significant high-frequency loss are VERY high (despite attending very
few rock concerts in my life).
: > Asks: 16 bit RAW, TIF or whatever - how do people manage them when they only see 8 bits?
: >
:
: Well, we don't see in bits. But the main purpose for 16-bit-per-channel
: color is for *original* images; so that, *after manipulation*, there are
: smooth gradients in the final displayable version.
I knmow we are only seeing a fraction of what is there in the image, and effectively it's a shallow representation - to all intents and purposes we're working the math with a very small view of what is there.. but should you be able to see the subtleties of a displayed 10 bits over 8 bits, you'd relish the idea of actually seeing as much of the 16 bits as possible.
excersize - scan an image in 8 bit colour, then scan in 16 bit - drag out the sliders and go peek at what is missing from the 8 bit image.
Will you ever see a difference if you reduce the *final version* to 8
bits? I can invent theoretical images that would show, I think, but
with real-world photographic images?
kinda funny me saying that since I 've been not as critical as some about jpegs ;)
Interesting, that. Jpeg is crackles and pops rather than mellowness, I
think.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
