Monitors slowly evolving

On 11/07/2010 5:27 p.m., LOL! wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:14:37 +1200, wrote:

On 11/07/2010 5:03 p.m., LOL! wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:32:06 +1200, wrote:

Oh - forgot to say this was taken with a P&S. Shutter speed was way too
slow to freeze motion blur.

Oh, I forgot to say, this was also shot with a superzoom compact camera
during sunset.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/...285b02f4_b.jpg

You're pretty lousy at knowing how to use any camera, aren't you. Thanks
for proving that to the whole world.

You got lucky.

Luck has absolutely nothing to do with it. I have about 10,000 more of the
same genre.


I posed my dog for the shot, sitting still, then pressed the shutter
button. By the time the shutter went off, she'd stood up and had
started wagging her tail.
I suppose with your bird shot, it was much the same...

I suppose you are wrong. The one where it was just lifting from the water
wasn't as interesting as this one with the drops of water trailing it in
the air.

Nice technique - so you stuffed the bird, suspended it by wires, and
used clear polyester resin for the "water droplets".

On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:26:49 +1200, Me wrote:

On 11/07/2010 5:27 p.m., LOL! wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:14:37 +1200, wrote:

On 11/07/2010 5:03 p.m., LOL! wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:32:06 +1200, wrote:

Oh - forgot to say this was taken with a P&S. Shutter speed was way too
slow to freeze motion blur.

Oh, I forgot to say, this was also shot with a superzoom compact camera
during sunset.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/...285b02f4_b.jpg

You're pretty lousy at knowing how to use any camera, aren't you. Thanks
for proving that to the whole world.

You got lucky.

Luck has absolutely nothing to do with it. I have about 10,000 more of the
same genre.


I posed my dog for the shot, sitting still, then pressed the shutter
button. By the time the shutter went off, she'd stood up and had
started wagging her tail.
I suppose with your bird shot, it was much the same...

I suppose you are wrong. The one where it was just lifting from the water
wasn't as interesting as this one with the drops of water trailing it in
the air.

Nice technique - so you stuffed the bird, suspended it by wires, and
used clear polyester resin for the "water droplets".

Yes, and emulated the Everglades' swamp-water with resins as well. The
sunlight glinting off the resins and backlighting the subject provided by a
50 kilowatt, liquid-nitrogen cooled, CREE LED lighting system focused
through a bank of cold-mirrors, filters (to emulate setting-sun
temperature), and condenser system so as not to exceed the ~0.5° angular
spread of the setting sun for authentic water-droplet glints. The Mangrove
bank background was painstakingly duplicated in fiberglass, resin cements,
and various forms of cloth to duplicate the leaves and their textures. All
dyed in natural colors using ash-dyes for authenticity.

You forgot to claim it was also taken with a DSLR, just like all the rest
of your fellow useless pretend-photographer trolls around here always claim
every time I post one of my NON-DSLR images.

Let this be a lesson to you, that *ANY* camera in the hands of a skilled
and talented person will surpass anything you will ever be able to
accomplish with even the most expensive camera in the world. What a shame
that you can't even get a decent photograph with a more-than-capable P&S
camera. It speaks tomes about your own inadequacies. If I was that mutt of
yours I'd be looking for new owners at the very next campsite, just out of
embarrassment of having you as my owner.

LOL!

On 11/07/2010 11:53 p.m., LOL! wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:26:49 +1200, wrote:

On 11/07/2010 5:27 p.m., LOL! wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:14:37 +1200, wrote:

On 11/07/2010 5:03 p.m., LOL! wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:32:06 +1200, wrote:

Oh - forgot to say this was taken with a P&S. Shutter speed was way too
slow to freeze motion blur.

Oh, I forgot to say, this was also shot with a superzoom compact camera
during sunset.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/...285b02f4_b.jpg

You're pretty lousy at knowing how to use any camera, aren't you. Thanks
for proving that to the whole world.

You got lucky.

Luck has absolutely nothing to do with it. I have about 10,000 more of the
same genre.


I posed my dog for the shot, sitting still, then pressed the shutter
button. By the time the shutter went off, she'd stood up and had
started wagging her tail.
I suppose with your bird shot, it was much the same...

I suppose you are wrong. The one where it was just lifting from the water
wasn't as interesting as this one with the drops of water trailing it in
the air.

Nice technique - so you stuffed the bird, suspended it by wires, and
used clear polyester resin for the "water droplets".

Yes, and emulated the Everglades' swamp-water with resins as well. The
sunlight glinting off the resins and backlighting the subject provided by a
50 kilowatt, liquid-nitrogen cooled, CREE LED lighting system focused
through a bank of cold-mirrors, filters (to emulate setting-sun
temperature), and condenser system so as not to exceed the ~0.5° angular
spread of the setting sun for authentic water-droplet glints. The Mangrove
bank background was painstakingly duplicated in fiberglass, resin cements,
and various forms of cloth to duplicate the leaves and their textures. All
dyed in natural colors using ash-dyes for authenticity.

If you went to all that trouble, then how come you didn't compose the
shot properly? The bird in the right hand third flying to the right
draws the eye out of the frame. There's also a lot of blown highlights
and lost shadows, though possibly not a problem as at the resolution
posted, it would only be good for a postage stamp sized print.

On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:55:06 +1200, Me wrote:

On 11/07/2010 11:53 p.m., LOL! wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:26:49 +1200, wrote:

On 11/07/2010 5:27 p.m., LOL! wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:14:37 +1200, wrote:

On 11/07/2010 5:03 p.m., LOL! wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:32:06 +1200, wrote:

Oh - forgot to say this was taken with a P&S. Shutter speed was way too
slow to freeze motion blur.

Oh, I forgot to say, this was also shot with a superzoom compact camera
during sunset.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/...285b02f4_b.jpg

You're pretty lousy at knowing how to use any camera, aren't you. Thanks
for proving that to the whole world.

You got lucky.

Luck has absolutely nothing to do with it. I have about 10,000 more of the
same genre.


I posed my dog for the shot, sitting still, then pressed the shutter
button. By the time the shutter went off, she'd stood up and had
started wagging her tail.
I suppose with your bird shot, it was much the same...

I suppose you are wrong. The one where it was just lifting from the water
wasn't as interesting as this one with the drops of water trailing it in
the air.

Nice technique - so you stuffed the bird, suspended it by wires, and
used clear polyester resin for the "water droplets".

Yes, and emulated the Everglades' swamp-water with resins as well. The
sunlight glinting off the resins and backlighting the subject provided by a
50 kilowatt, liquid-nitrogen cooled, CREE LED lighting system focused
through a bank of cold-mirrors, filters (to emulate setting-sun
temperature), and condenser system so as not to exceed the ~0.5° angular
spread of the setting sun for authentic water-droplet glints. The Mangrove
bank background was painstakingly duplicated in fiberglass, resin cements,
and various forms of cloth to duplicate the leaves and their textures. All
dyed in natural colors using ash-dyes for authenticity.

If you went to all that trouble, then how come you didn't compose the
shot properly? The bird in the right hand third flying to the right
draws the eye out of the frame.

Duh, because I wanted to emphasize that it was LEAVING? I'd explain to you
why that was the only possible correct composition for that shot, but I
find it so tedious educating those with sub 80 I.Q.s.

Now if you want, I can easily tear apart the composition in your mutt shot.
That one is chock FULL of composition errors. Showing everyone in the world
.... THAT YOU DON'T KNOW ONE DAMN THING ABOUT COMPOSITION.

LOL!

There's also a lot of blown highlights
and lost shadows,

Not in any portions of the image that matters. There are no lost shadows.
All details of the backlit white bird in the sunlight are fully intact. The
only parts "blown out" are the glints of setting sun on the water (as they
SHOULD BE) and your mental comprehension.

It prints quite nicely at 18" width.

You might want to learn how to calibrate your monitor some day.

though possibly not a problem as at the resolution
posted, it would only be good for a postage stamp sized print.

Now, explain to us again why your mutt shot was so ****ty that it can't
even be displayed on a monitor over 640 pixels wide without showing all
that blur.

No wait, don't bother. We already ascertained the problem in that shot. THE
CRAPSHOOTER HOLDING THE CAMERA CAUSED IT.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

On 12/07/2010 11:20 a.m., LOL! wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:55:06 +1200, wrote:

On 11/07/2010 11:53 p.m., LOL! wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 23:26:49 +1200, wrote:

On 11/07/2010 5:27 p.m., LOL! wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 17:14:37 +1200, wrote:

On 11/07/2010 5:03 p.m., LOL! wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:32:06 +1200, wrote:

Oh - forgot to say this was taken with a P&S. Shutter speed was way too
slow to freeze motion blur.

Oh, I forgot to say, this was also shot with a superzoom compact camera
during sunset.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4081/...285b02f4_b.jpg

You're pretty lousy at knowing how to use any camera, aren't you. Thanks
for proving that to the whole world.

You got lucky.

Luck has absolutely nothing to do with it. I have about 10,000 more of the
same genre.


I posed my dog for the shot, sitting still, then pressed the shutter
button. By the time the shutter went off, she'd stood up and had
started wagging her tail.
I suppose with your bird shot, it was much the same...

I suppose you are wrong. The one where it was just lifting from the water
wasn't as interesting as this one with the drops of water trailing it in
the air.

Nice technique - so you stuffed the bird, suspended it by wires, and
used clear polyester resin for the "water droplets".

Yes, and emulated the Everglades' swamp-water with resins as well. The
sunlight glinting off the resins and backlighting the subject provided by a
50 kilowatt, liquid-nitrogen cooled, CREE LED lighting system focused
through a bank of cold-mirrors, filters (to emulate setting-sun
temperature), and condenser system so as not to exceed the ~0.5° angular
spread of the setting sun for authentic water-droplet glints. The Mangrove
bank background was painstakingly duplicated in fiberglass, resin cements,
and various forms of cloth to duplicate the leaves and their textures. All
dyed in natural colors using ash-dyes for authenticity.

If you went to all that trouble, then how come you didn't compose the
shot properly? The bird in the right hand third flying to the right
draws the eye out of the frame.

Duh, because I wanted to emphasize that it was LEAVING?

I don't blame it.

On 12/07/2010 2:16 p.m., RichA wrote:
On Jul 10, 10:59 pm, wrote:
On 11/07/2010 2:15 p.m., RichA wrote:http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...es/10bit.shtml

Not saying that having 10 bit panels isn't an advance, but one of the
problems with LCDs (vs CRT) is non-linear response on the LCD sub-pixels
to the signal. That can be corrected to some degree by calibration, and
so 10 bits probably with more precision (or can it - when10 bit
internal LUTs are already used in these monitors?), but:
Some of the 8 bit IPS panels available at relatively low cost are pretty
good these days - minimal or no visible banding of (8 bit) gradients.

When my beloved 19" CRT died and I was forced to buy LCD, I was
shocked at the lack of tonality. It sickened me. I wish they still
made CRTs, but economics and weight killed them.
My 21" diamontron CRT didn't die.
To list why I prefer my relatively cheap LCD (US$300 Dell 2209WA IPS panel):
It's larger screen but takes up a fraction of the space.
It's got a crisper, nicer looking image - on text, on images, on video.
It doesn't need regular degaussing, and even then hard to get rid of
colour discrepancy across the screen.
It doesn't need recalibrating every week or so, or when it gets shifted.
It doesn't shimmy on screen when I bump the desk.
I don't have to look at the aperture grille retaining wires across the
screen.
It uses less power.
It can be tilted, height adjusted, or rotated to portrait orientation
easily.
It connects via DVI-D.
Calibrated with a colorimeter, I get average delta E of about 1 or less,
so colour accuracy is plenty good enough for most (even "serious")
photographic uses. Some graphics pros may need more.
Soft-proofing properly, I get excellent screen/print matches - at least
as good as I ever got with the CRT.
I don't need to compromise between moire on patterns, and the softening
effect from enabling moire reduction.
There's no flicker at default refresh rate and resolution - it's far
less tiring when viewed for long periods.
It cost a lot less than the CRT it replaced.

Reasons I preferred my CRT:
nil, zip none.