Price Of Lightbulbs

So why does the world turn a blind eye to all the trees that are being cut down. It was these trees that converted the CO2 back into oxygen.

Dave

Reply to
Dave
Loading thread data ...

I do work in TV production on the technical side and observe what my colleagues do. And since I share the same space as the LD on location drama would have to be blind not to notice the manual effort which goes into camera adjustments to producing decent pictures. And have also noticed that if by any chance anyone with poor skills tries to do this the results are poor.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

I've never claimed that. As I said you really should learn up about how things are done before pronouncing on them.

You've got that half right anyway.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Why indeed? That's exactly what my graphics designer pal says. And he's very good at his job - judging by the money he makes. But isn't in the least technical so no use really to ask him as to why.

My guess is that a CRT with good phosphors is capable of reproducing any colour or tint faithfully, whereas LCD can't. And under controlled viewing conditions, a CRT produces truer blacks.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

It can be a number of things. The colour gamuts of the screens are different, so its possible that one will be a closer match to that of the printer than the other (usually the CRT, since most but the very latest printer drivers will have been written when that was the de-facto standard people where hoping to match).

The colour temperatures will also be different, although on the better monitors this can be altered.

Some LCDs are not so good with subtle variations in colour, and can can tend to solarise an image a little - leaving flat areas of colour (one reason why TV shops often demo LCDs with highly saturated cartoons rather than more subtle flesh tones) again this can make visual assessment harder.

You can also get the reverse effect where subtle changes are rendered as more visible on a LCD than a CRT. The higher sharpness of the LCD can make things like JPEG artefacts or unsharp mask fringes more noticeable.

The contrast on the LCD is not usually as good - often blacks are not as black, which can make adjusting brightness levels on the image harder.

The viewing angle on a LCD can also change the apparent brightness of the image - so something as simple as moving your head can alter the perceived image (less of a problem with current LCDs than the earlier ones).

Generally the top end kit is easier to work with than the basic, but being a "calibrationist" (i.e. wanting the whole design / print lifecycle to be visually colour matched all the way through) can be very hard to achieve - since just changing from one output device to another will so often change the way an image is perceived. Jumping colour spaces makes it even harder, since the gamuts may not overlap for large parts of their area. (so a colour you can see on your RGB screen, may not even be possible for your CMYK printer)

Note however it is possible to colour correct an image in photoshop just "by the numbers" (you could even do it with a black and white screen). The process involves using the eye dropper tool to read pixel colour values on bits of the image you can make an intelligent guesses at, and then using the curves dialogue to map actual value read to the expected output. For real print work this is often done in CMYK rather than RGB. Once you know what RGB or CMYK values to expect for white, grey, black, and skintone most of the others will fall into place.

Reply to
John Rumm

Often they don't... big forests tend to be closed loop carbon systems. The CO2 consumed is often matching in volume by that generated by the animals they provide habitat for, and the decay of the vegetation. So they can end up making little nett difference. However they do act as big carbon stores. Hence cutting one down and burning it takes lots of carbon out of storage.

Reply to
John Rumm

Oh dear - a can of worms. Because it depends on what areas you're talking about.

Lets start with feature films. I don't work on these so hope this is correct...

The lighting cameraman doesn't actually operate the camera. The cameraman does. The focus puller does the focus - most of the time. The camera team might also have assistants, clapper loader and grips.

On live TV, the cameraman operates the camera on his own including focus. He might well have assistance if it tracks - although not normally one assistant per camera.

On single camera drama shoots which I'm most familiar with the cameraman has an assistant and a grip. The cameraman mostly does his own focusing. There is also a lighting director who lights as necessary and adjusts the exposure, gain black level, colour balance etc etc on takes.

So camera op refers to operator.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

Why, lost your search abilities?

A quick search found the one I was thinking of:

formatting link
if you unscramble their table:

1998 was 0.52 2001 was 0.40 2002 was 0.46 2003 was 0.46 2004 was 0.43 2005 was 0.48 2006 was 0.42 2007 was 0.41

(temperatures over the 1961-1990 average)

If you assume that measurements/predictions more accurate 0.1 deg are a bit pointless anyway, there is not really any warming trend *visible* in the last 8 years. (it may be its still there, but masked by other factors)

Reply to
John Rumm

Probably because its not calibrated.

On our Macs here it took me nearly an hour to set the bloody curves up.

I assume PC's have similar - to get the gamma and white balance and color temperature adjusted to the monitor.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

I wouldn't say that's true from my experience.

However, I have yet to find anyone else who has actually set their LCD monitors up correctly. Most people have them way over contrasted.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Dennis is a prize prat. He is with Drivel the only two regulars in my kill file, simply because he achieves a hugely non random '97% wrong' hit rate on anything he says.

I've only seen a politician do better.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

These days they don't. Long gone are the days where the farmers butchered all the forests resulting in big floods when it rains. The surface run off from farm land is much quicker than from forests, just as it is much quicker from tarmac vs. farmland. Many of the frequent floods we get now wouldn't happened 300 years ago which is why they appear as modern things.

Reply to
dennis

What he means is that I know he talks cr@p and he doesn't like it. Here again TNP shows that he doesn't have a clue what a chaotic system is but is still prepared to tell others they are wrong. I am quite please to be in his kill file, it shows that he can't win a logical argument.

Reply to
dennis

What has this got to do with the argument anyway? The argument incase you have forgotten is about why you need an expensive CRT to do the job, not on what skills are needed. I assume you are running down this course to deflect readers from the argument as you have lost.

I stand by what I said.. you don't need an expensive crt and that you can set them up successfully without. You may lack the skills/knowledge or equipment to do so but that doesn't mean it is untrue, only that you can't do it. I on the other hand probably couldn't get it perfect by looking at a CRT picture as it would then be purely subjective. It is not only the screens that vary but also the person watching incase you forgot that too.

So there it is, we have you, Mr Perfect who decides that what you see is perfect for everyone else and me who would use the right equipment to make sure it is perfect. One takes longer than the other which probably explains why documentaries are usually much better quality than OB. One is a compromise on speed vs. quality and I will leave it for the reader to decide which.

Reply to
dennis

I heard on the radio the other day that oxygen levels are actually rather high.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

In article , dennis@home scribeth thus

In other words you've lost the argument!..

What is it about the British that we love arguing:?..

Is it a national pastime?...

Reply to
tony sayer

Regardless of whatever medium was in use its as funny now as it was then and prolly will be in another 100 years;!...

Reply to
tony sayer

In article , Dave Plowman (News) scribeth thus

Yes don't they!. I'm under some pressure to replace our ageing B&O set which has served very well for some time, but its deep and bulky and there're all grumbling that the pix are the wrong size i.e. not 16:9 but after some hours being amused by the muppets in Curry's and Vomit it was well noticeable that the blacks and whites on the old B&O were noticeably better when we got back!..

Reply to
tony sayer

Means I have the arguments from the horse's mouth rather than guessing like you.

Sigh. The people doing this job still use CRT monitors - despite the obvious cost etc advantages of LCD. Because CRT monitors designed for this purpose are what they require to do the job propery, and LCDs designed for the same use aren't satisfactory. Despite what the makers of such things claim - and extensive testing.

Now that requires some tortuous reasoning - and from the one who first mentioned working for the BBC in an attempt to give some strength to his opinions. Even although you worked in an area which had nothing whatsover to do with this subject. Whereas I do - as does Mr Liquorice.

I'm not claiming to have any special skills as regards vision for TV. It's not my job. I do however believe what the pros in that field tell me

- especially since I can confirm it with my own eyes.

You'd not be any use at this job then - as of course things are subjective. Just look at the different styles used in different programmes.

Which is why generally one person is in charge of the final result of every programme.

Crikey. If you think documentaries are usually better quality than OBs you *really* need your eyes tested. Of course you're probably thinking of wildlife ones. A very different matter from a true documentary. They contain more fiction than Eastenders. ;-)

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

typo 1999 and 2000

Reply to
OG

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.