Very good link, Chuck,
I cannot agree with him on his reasoning:
"From a purely theoretical standpoint, I leaned toward contrast ratio
rather than color because I shoot mostly nature photography, and there’s
usually a significant range of acceptable color in this genre: Who can
say what /exact/ color that fall foliage, for example, really was? The
area in which color accuracy is most critical (except possibly for some
scientific work) is skin tones. The human visual system very sensitive
to variations in skin tone and people find inaccuracies in this area
particularly annoying. If I were a portrait shooter I might favor IPS."
I don't know the _exact_ color of the foliage in the photograph I
recently posted, at the amount of exactitude Lord Kelvin would have
wished to achieve. But - I have the outdated Velvia 50 as my starting
point. I know the sand is more red than it should in that frame because
I watch at it twice a week under different lighting conditions
(statistics here ... ) since many years ago. But I don't care, since my
goal is to have in the monitor what I see in the trans illuminated
Velvia. Then, I'm trapped in the trans illumination accuracy problem,
but with the help of Carlos I can at least work this around ( ... that's
why I was reading Lord Kelvin words yesterday, and yes there's even more
I don't know that I hadn't realized before. It's never ending, and I
find it funny).
OTOH, last week I walked up to my friends at the Apple Store. Loaded
some of my 16bit .tiff in their best iMac, set white at 6500, gamma at
2.2 just in case, and opened CS3 loaded with my usual color management
settings: Europe Prepress 2. Wow, I'm sure those iMac are not VA, but
the accutance of that monitor scared me. I didn't like it. I loaded
.tiff which I knew I had oversharpened and I swear I could see the 'hard
clip' really hard; I loaded a .tiff I knew I hadn't, but accutance was
still too high. Fortunately, color matched well enough.
So, despite I'd never know the exact mµ of that particular leaf of
autumn foliage or cactus at that very moment, my starting point is the
film I got - not the scene.
Then, I'd choose an IPS type.
But Samsung seems to be VA, that's exactly why the author chose it ... :-(
<http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/panelsearch.htm> didn't work for me either,
but when clicking <http://www.flatpanels.dk/panels.php> you do go
somewhere around .... .
Thank you.
Fernando.
Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Dr. Monitor... not! But I just discovered this page yesterday which
> goes a long way to clearing up some confusion about LCD technology.
> <http://www.robertstech.com/blog/?p=31>
>
> There is a link there to a UK site <tftcentral.co.uk> that allows a
> search on various criteria. It did not work for me (no matches no
> matter what criteria I entered) but I hope that was a temporary thing.
> I plan to revisit some time.
>
> Sorry, I don't have answers to all your questions but I'll be waiting to
> hear them myself.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|