I'm not sure that it does, to be honest. I'm aware of the ad's meaning, and it was exactly that which made me see it as a misrepresentation.
No. More than that. It is patently *not* an LED TV. It is an LCD TV. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't find that confusing - it is at the very least misleading.
I haven't seen one yet, but hope to this coming weekend ...
The Fry's set appeared to have been set up in Garish mode, which, of course, does nothing to make it look good.
"Frame Interpolate" was on, which I do not like, in any set using it. It makes film look like video, which is Really Weird when watching material you know was sourced from film.
I saw the ad. on TV last night and, had I seen it /before/ this thread would have picked up on it, but how many viewers would? Most of us here know the current state of OLED screens (and I'm waiting 'til they go to
32"+ and are affordable) but joe public will believe even politicians (and they aren't affordable).
On similar lines is the 'digital' radio that's advertised - has LCD info but is still analogue reception. IMO that's misleading as well.
Nobody else seems to have a problem with my posts.
Again, how do you think that LiveView helps you get a properly white-balanced JPEG, in camera? Or do you perhaps consider one of the standard WB settings to be 'properly balanced'? If so, you & I are talking about two different things.
Most radios that are offered as "digital", are actually DAB types, although they may well have an analogue receiver inside them as well, for when you get fed up of listening to Daleks reading the news, or wondering why someone in the orchestra, is blowing bubbles through a drinking straw, or even why the whole orchestra keeps stopping momentarily at what you are sure are inappropriate places ... :-)
As far as OLEDs go, I'm honestly not sure that they will ever get up to 'living room' size. A much better technology which is capable of being manufactured to large sizes, and which can apparently rival the best CRTs (as it is in effect a variant of CRT technology, without all the bulk) has existed for some time now. But it is unfortunately buried in litigation over ownership or some such, so doesn't look likely to come storming into our shops anytime soon. Which is a shame, because from what I have read of it, it would knock all of the current technologies completely into yesterday. If you want to look into this technology, it's called "SED" or similar slight variations. I think that the actual name is a little longer than 3 words, but "Surface Emission Display" is enough to find it on the 'net.
I have a DAB radio in the car - with the correct aerial - and round London it performs rather better than FM. So it's not all bad. But any radio system won't work properly with an inadequate signal. And DAB was originally designed with mobile reception in mind - although very very few have DAB car radios.
The PC I am using has an LED backlight display.. it is much brighter for the same power usage as my older screen. I can't really say what the quality is like as it has a touch screen and that makes it look a bit grainy.
The white balance needn't be "crappy" if you take a moment to set it with live view. I've tried it, and it works very well, particularly under fluorescent light, where a bit of green/magenta correction is needed.
What's been confusing me about what you've been saying is that you've been talking about checking your WB in LiveView. If you're just saying that you're happy with a JPEG that's using one of the standard WB settings, then sure, you can use the image right away, & what you're saying makes sense. OTOH, I've been talking about a *real* WB, which requires either a white card shot to set a custom WB, or tweaking the WB of a RAW file on my PC. Now if you want *both* options, you shoot RAW+JPEG, which is what I do.
In all fairness, he could be talking about plugging his camera into a printer & printing directly to it. I personally don't think that gives acceptable quality, but there are plenty of people who wouldn't have a problem with it.
Well, I was going more deeply than that. The Live View lets you fine-tune the white balance fairly quickly.
If you run through the range of "conventional" color-temperature settings under fluorescent light, * you'll see that it's rare for any of them to closely approach neutrality. Some degree of green/magenta adjustment is needed, and it's quickly set in Live View. (It is on my Canon, anyway.)
The issue that neither of us has discussed is whether what we see in Live View is trustworthy with respect to accurate white balance. You need to display the images on a calibrated monitor and see whether what /looks/ properly white on the camera's LCD actually is.
Ordinary fluorescents, not those designed for photographic use, which can be quite good.
For which the WhiBal card is a good choice. Take a photo with it under the same lighting, then "eyedropper" a sample of the card into the image you want to correct.
Google "whibal". The site has a lot of useful information.
But some people prefer silver-based photography. It took me quite a while to "come over" to digital -- at least for anything "serious". And I still like Polaroid photography, particularly the peel-apart materials.
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.