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.
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.
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.
Calibrating your monitor doesn't mean it renders color correctly. It means that it renders it according to certain standards.
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.
As I pointed out earlier, the LCD is a great way to fine-tune the color balance in real time.
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.
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 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.
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,
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,
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,
In message , Tim S writes
Octarine, of course ...
Finally the penny's dropped.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.