David: A: 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 :-)). neat! well, pros aren't consumers - they use the best, right (hopes?) Add that one to the list of things to buy ;) The matrox 10 bit DVI output would be a worthy addition to this screen though, so a grand for the card and another 4 grand for the monitor. : > 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. yes. hideously expensive! : I simply don't do : enough large-format to have opinions about Nikon/Fuji/Taylor-Cooke. All made MF lenses too. Not something the average consumer would use, but from pros and high end enthusiasts they were certainly something to aspire to. Not that many pros would ever really *need* such high quality. but then who would ? (genuine querstion) 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. for many there wasn't - it was really a matter of consistency, and a lot of people didn't know what that was all about anyway so they never really got much benefit. Had they known they could have paid lots less and tuned amatuer film into pro film (for their own use of course) : > 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. Pros in their field. But that's my point :) : 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. that's a fair comment. : > 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! hahaha, didn't stop him from trying though :) And there were than a few confused students at the end of that too! : > 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 :-) hehe : > 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. again, it is a personal thing. and I've heard that comment before too : 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). my right ear has lost a bit even though I always wore earplugs when shooting at shows. hmm, I suspect the slide will be rapid soon, but I want to take advantage of what I have while I have it ;) : > I know 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? yes, think of it this way - I have 256 increments of my colour scale. At say the graduation between steps 125 and 132 there's a slow gradation that I *really* need to exhibit more contrast - stretch out those 7 steps a bit to increase the contrast and it's likely banding will result in the 8 bit image. I have 1024 increments and at those same points as in the above image I have 28 steps rather than 7, stretch them out then when the image is reduced to 8 bit, no banding. it's roughly an extra tenth of the total number of steps in the full 0-255 that one has to play with! : Interesting, that. Jpeg is crackles and pops rather than mellowness, I : think. jpeg is closer to the digital mp3 :) High quality jpeg = pretty much the best you'd get out of a printer/monitor anyway, high quality MP3 likewise through the average speaker/amp setup. I was chatiing with a digital music advocate and made the comment that the increments in analogue were infinite - he went ballistic saying anyone who uses the term infinite was a loony. My response was go up half the difference between a C and a D, then go up half the difference again, repeat until you get to the D. it's the old 'frog hops half way to the lilly pad, how long does he take' example.. Sure, digital means you can't get there either as there is a finite number of steps between the two and the final step is not divisible by 2, but you'd get to the digital limitation a lot quicker than you'd get to an analogue limit (never) k
