Price Of Lightbulbs

[Huge]

You like to waste your time reading postings based on incorrect assertions? As you wish - it's your time.

[The Natural Philosopher]

I spent a merry ten minutes in one TV shop adjusting the cheap sets to look as good as the expensive ones..

Don't confuse deliberate lack of adjustment with underlying crap technology.

[dennis]

Which argument? As you and Dave have decided to argue about skills rather than crts IMNSHO you have lost and are trying to save face. And I am still correct about not needing a crt to setup a camera.

[dennis]

Try setting the black level in a shop.. they are so brightly lit that even a crt tube reflects enough light that that blacks are not black. People that complain about black levels never appear to know how to set them in the first place IME.

[dennis]

Who said that? I never claimed to work for the BBC. I said I worked with BBC Technology. They are the people that develop technology (like cameras, etc.) not make programmes .

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Whatever.

You worked with them and you think this? It's a very long time since they had anything to do with camera design/technology. They've pretty well always used commercial designs. Although like any large purchaser can have some influence on the spec. But these days just tend to buy off the shelf.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

LCDs simply don't go black in the same way as a CRT does. The gradation within the black tones is different too.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Perhaps you think the pictures you watch at home are untouched by human hand?

You don't need a colour monitor *at all* to initially set up most modern cameras. You only need to be able to read the software menu.

It's *using* that camera under operational conditions where a decent monitor is needed. And that monitor is a CRT one.

[Rob]

I find the blacks on my brother's Sony LCD excellent, whereas my Toshiba's are not so good.

On my computer monitor they're just black - you can't make out the black bezel because the black is so black.

what makes 'different' handling of black 'better' I'm not sure - but I do prefer LCDs over CRT for computers and TV. And I would have thought the CRTs your colleagues use are particularly high spec - most people make and accept compromise.

Rob

[mangled_us]

I don't know the answer to that but things to look at might include checking you have the correct colour profile loaded for the LCD display etc etc. If you have a workflow organised around a particular setup then it will obviously be more accurate than one that is not setup correctly.

Or it is possible that your CRT is a very good one and your LCD is not. But as I said before, if I was playing the odds I would pick an LCD over a CRT every time and my own personal experience suggests I would not be wrong very often (or strictly, from my own experience, at all).

David

[tony sayer]

In article , dennis@home scribeth thus

Just as well then you don't do it;!..

[dennis]

Its different on different CRTs too.

[dennis]

I will tell you what your time spent means.. you are too old and set in your ways. You may as well be a dinosaur. A modern digicam will easily cope with panning between light and dark and will give a broadcast quality picture. If you are doing broadcasts you are living on borrowed time.

I know you don't need a crt to set up a modern camera and the fact that you need one doesn't alter facts.

Also I should point out that the sensors in modern cameras have a dynamic range far bigger than the signal used in your racks. It doesn't make sense to throw that away as you do in your post processing. You need to process it and adjust it in the camera.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

That means those lighting directors etc Mr Liquorice and myself have got our information from are also dinosaurs. And the many I work with range in age from about 30-60.

If you think that you have no perception of what is acceptable in a broadcast environment - as no auto exposure device can know which part of the picture is the important one. Anyone who's ever done any serious photography of any kind would know this. More so for broadcast where the acceptable contrast range is far more restricted than other types of photography.

What a plonker. I'll bet Mr Liquorice has seen such types as you come and go - the ones who think technology can always replace humans. The difference being those of us in broadcasting grab all such technology to help us do our job better. But in certain key areas have proved time and time again it can't replace humans if the same standards are to be maintained.

Try reading earlier posts where the difference between setup and operation was explained. If you're capable of understanding such a thing.

None of that makes any sense. To record the unprocessed output off the image chips would require a *vast* bandwidth - and that would be an insurmountable problem in the real world.

[dennis]

Its not the physical age that makes you a dinosaur.

However it is done. In real cameras. As I said "dinosaur".

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Indeed not. But it's often a term used by those who have no real knowledge of a situation. Which you have amply proved.

[John Rumm]

Many of them forget (or were never taught) that the PAL modulation limits the range of legal (and hence broadcastable) colour values to a much smaller gamut than that which can be produced by the RGB camera or shown by a display device.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I'm also not sure the average punter would want pictures with a high contrast ratio either - given very few watch in ideal conditions. Rather in the same way as they wouldn't appreciate a wide dynamic range with sound.

However, that's not to say that a wide contrast range isn't needed in the image chips and front end of the camera - when shooting such that a bright sky shows, for example, you can set a 'knee' on the gamma and reduce the output of everything above that, leaving faces etc correctly exposed. The older way would have been to whack on lots of light to reduce the contrast. But even the best modern cameras can only cope with so much.

[dennis]

Which you don't need when its digital all the way. After all MPEG doesn't have the concept of PAL or NTSC. Come to think of it I don't think SDI does either.

As I said before, dinosaurs. I wonder if you will be extinct when there are *no* PAL broadcasts after analogue is turned off?

[tony sayer]

In article , dennis@home scribeth thus

Yes it shows sometimes;(...

If you say so Dennis;--!..